Youth political participation. On the problem of studying the political participation of young people in the modern Russian province
In Kyrgyzstan, the place of youth in the political process is still not entirely clear. Here we can distinguish two interpenetrating and complementary trends: on the one hand, a claim to traditionalism, and on the other, attempts at modernization political system.
According to the first, the status of young people is determined by authoritative subjects or groups who make decisions. This vector is focused on reproducing previously proven successful schemes and templates. Young people are practically squeezed out of the decision-making process. At the same time, we can observe the growing influence of religious values.
The second vector provides more opportunities for young people in the decision-making process. Modernism involves changing the principles and values of a political construct through the most optimal and rationally designed schemes. If the existing traditions of our society are focused more on the first vector, then the legal framework, which is based on a person who has the competencies and rights to participate in social transformations, gives potential opportunity youth to take part in the political life of the country, which reflects the specifics of the second. Both emerging trends or vectors create contradictions within the political system of Kyrgyzstan.
Another specific feature is the heterogeneity of these two vectors, due to the representation different groups and views, the role of women in the political process and the place of religious institutions in them. The first group includes emerging groups consisting of religiously oriented youth, or youth insisting on returning or, according to at least, focus on the norms and traditions of both the ancient and recent past. The second group includes small liberal political communities, consisting mainly of young people who have absorbed the values of Western civilization.
Modernist groups are focused on building a legal political space based on human rights, the ideas of liberalism, feminism and individualism. In the realities of Kyrgyzstan, the two above vectors do not have clearly defined boundaries and are closely intertwined with each other, creating a system of checks and balances in solving complex problems of society. Despite the fact that traditionalism prevails over modernism, the latter creates some competition with the former, due to which the development of political Kyrgyzstan as a whole occurs.
In terms of population composition, our country can be classified as a fairly young state. The number of youth is approximately 1.7 million. This is about 31 percent of the total population. Of these, 2/3 live in rural areas. The laws of the Kyrgyz Republic give young people the right to stand for election to the Jogorku Kenesh from the age of 21; the Law “On the Election of the President and Deputies of the Jogorku Kenesh” determines the quota for young candidates under the age of 35. However, the Constitution defines the age of youth from 14 to 28 years.
The youth of Kyrgyzstan are showing interest in participating in political processes. However, existing barriers and poor prospects for obtaining immediate tangible results hinder its activity. But young people as a whole have not yet formed a clear idea of what kind of state they want to live in.
Young people are quite active in election processes. The total number of voters is 2,914,586 people. Of these, young people make up about half of the voters. According to the National Institute for Strategic Studies, approximately 79% of young people submitted biometric data in order to participate in the presidential election. It can be assumed that the motives for taking part in elections correspond to the two vectors indicated above.
On the one hand, young people are guided by the opinions of authoritative or influential persons when participating in election processes. It is this part that is the resource that is used by political forces to achieve their goals. On the other hand, realizing oneself as a subject political activity, young people try to make their own decisions in election processes.
Both the first and second groups of people often become objects of manipulation by political forces. The reasons for this situation are the political and legal illiteracy of young people, insufficient awareness of political programs or their lack of understanding. As a result, only a very small part of young people participate in elections, realizing their political will and following it.
A political culture that would allow the existing institutions to launch democratic processes has not developed. In this regard, we can talk about some immaturity of a democratic state, since political choice is not carried out on rational grounds. It would be more correct to say that there is no choice as such.
The participation of women in electoral processes is of great interest. There are a number of prominent figures who are active in the civil and business sectors. However, when entering the political space, many barriers arise that prevent them from moving up the career ladder. The participation of women in electoral processes, their independence and preparedness in decision-making is an indicator of the development of the rule of law, its focus on reflecting the problems of different sectors of society.
Modern youth have an interest in various spheres of the country's political life. According to official data for 2015, the number of young deputies in local councils is 694 people. In the civil service in 2015, there were approximately 15% of the total number of civil servants. The representation of young people in municipal service is steadily increasing: from 14% in 2012 to 22% in 2014.
The lowest representation is observed in Batken, Jalal-Abad, Talas, Osh and Chui regions. The largest is in the Issyk-Kul and Naryn regions.
At the same time, the representation of girls of the corresponding age in judicial, legislative and executive bodies at the state and local levels is extremely small or non-existent. It is noted that the institution of quotas for women has a number of weaknesses. Based on the available data, we can conclude that the low participation of young people in political processes is explained by the conservatism of state and local authorities, the low motivation of young people and low wages.
The system of relationships that has developed here reduces to a minimum the participation of young people in state, municipal and local activities. All this is reflected in the turnover of young personnel, which, of course, management is not interested in when accepting young people public service or work in local government.
The influence of young people in political parties is minimized and practically not noticeable. In 2016, there were only 2 candidates under the age of 28 in the Jogorku Kenesh. To date, not a single influential political party has been created by young people, much less run by them. Internal party decision-making is most often kept to a minimum. This is also due to the fact that young people in political parties are not able to exert financial influence on the development of the party and are incompetent in resolving issues on the designated agenda.
Political leaders view youth as a tool for achieving political goals. This is often due to the fact that young people do not have a clear understanding of the political process. Therefore, the youth wings of the parties play a more decorative role, without expressing their own interests. There are practically no active leaders of the youth wings of parties. Basically, as various studies show, young people there are represented by university or lyceum students.
Parties usually carry out two areas of work with youth or one of them: creating controlled youth wings and conducting mass events(for example, various short-term training platforms, flash mobs, mass meetings, and so on). Actually, there is no personnel training for young people.
The leadership of political parties is not interested in systematically training young potential, since this requires quite large financial resources. Political parties, as a rule, are either semi-active or dormant before elections. However, the factor of youth influence on political parties cannot be completely excluded. Certain business circles, which include young people, promote their interests through parties. However, this impact is minimal.
There is also youth participation in political processes through non-formal education. These groups, provided their leadership is successful and active, can influence the activation of young people. It is important to note an important detail here: if during and after the events of 2005 the most active were youth groups with a modernist bent (“Birge”, “KelKel”, etc.), then after the April and June events of 2010, movements with traditional orientation (“Aikol Ala-Too”, “Kyrk Choro”, “Kalys”, etc.).
Another characteristic feature of the 2005 and 2010 wave movements is the higher participation of young girls in the first case and the lowest in the second. As a rule, such groups are not stable and become more active during periods of social, political or economic instability that periodically arise in Kyrgyzstan. Partially, they degenerate into political parties or their members themselves join party life.
Although the opposite process also occurs when the framework of political parties becomes too narrow for youth activists, or if they do not take part in the political decision-making process. The instability of these groups is also caused by the lack of sufficient sources of funding, clear and consistent political programs, as well as an unstable set of values shared by the members of these communities.
Today we can observe the growth of religious potential in informal political movements. In the future, this may lead to the emergence of strong youth organizations with a pronounced religious overtones, which may be based on an appropriate program of action, where they will already claim full participation in political life. At least at the local level and at most at the state level.
In conclusion, we can say that the youth of Kyrgyzstan do not have a clear political position. There is an uncertain political self-identification among young people. Although international organizations provide support in the development of the political and legal culture of young people, education in these areas remains at a low level. The political parties themselves, with some exceptions, do not have a clear political ideology. The position of young women in the political process is reduced to a minimum, young women are excluded from the decision-making process.
Informal political organizations are most likely to become active in moments of social, economic or political instability, as well as during election periods. It is legislation that is the potential resource through which young people can increase their role in the decision-making process. Now we can state that, in general, the place of youth in the political process is becoming more defined, unfortunately, with less certain prospects for its influence on the decision-making process.
Photo: Topnews.kg
Currently, youth are an important socio-political force, both within the state and beyond, which can be explained by the increase in the political activity of youth in the context of democratization and globalization of the world, and the interest of the political elite in interacting with youth to implement and support their activities. Activity can manifest itself in both positive and negative forms. But in order for it to be only positive, it is necessary to institutionalize this phenomenon.
Today, the definition of “youth” is much broader. It represents not only a socio-age group of the population (from 15 to 30 years), but also a group of the population that has an intellectual, progressive and innovative resource. Youth is the social and political force that, in many respects, should determine the future development of society and the state as a whole.
The problem of youth participation in the social and political life of the country occupies one of the central places, both in the West and in the East. More and more research is being observed on the problem of social political socialization this population group, its patriotic and civic education. However, little attention is paid to such an institution as the youth parliament, which is one of the most important institutions of civil society, an effective form of interaction between youth and the state and an agent of socio-political socialization of youth.
In conditions of democratization, interaction and cooperation between youth and the state is necessary. It is important that the younger generation interacts with the state in carrying out reforms, which can only be successful with the active participation of young citizens themselves. It is important that young people take part in solving pressing problems that exist in modern society and the world. Behind Lately A new generation has grown up that has a completely different view of the social and political processes taking place in society. Therefore, it is necessary to find channels of interaction for such a large social group both youth and states.
One of these channels is youth parliamentarism, which can help explain to young people the socio-political realities of modern society, build an active civic position, support the initiative of young citizens in the process of making political, economic, socially significant decisions and monitor their implementation. Also, youth parliamentary structures are the channels through which young people can participate in the political processes of the state, in any form of activity in order to build a better society. They give to the young and active members this category of the population has equal opportunities to participate in the public and political life of the state, regardless of gender, national and religious affiliation, social status, etc. Interaction between youth organizations and associations and the state is an integral part of youth policy.
It is worth noting that the degree of government intervention in youth policy varies from country to country. For example, in the Arab countries of the Middle East, youth policy is one of the key socio-political forces and is the most important mechanism in the struggle of the religious and political elite over the current situation in the region. In China, youth policy is entirely under the control of the ruling party. In Russia, the state, on the one hand, provides political support to the largest youth associations, and on the other hand, does not interfere with the formation of new associations that do not contradict the cultural and moral values of society.
The main goal of youth parliaments is to attract young citizens to active participation in the life of society and the state as a whole, the formation of a legal, civil, political and patriotic culture among young people, the development and implementation of effective youth policy. Youth parliamentary structures play a mediating role between society and authorities state power. Through such organizations, young people will be able to send clear impulses to power by expressing their interests and making their needs known.
It is worth highlighting the main areas of activity of youth parliaments:
1. “Representation of youth interests in government bodies.” All youth parliaments consolidate and express the interests of this category of the population, increase the opportunity for young citizens to participate in the life of society and the state. Which, of course, contributes to the successful achievement of the country’s social, economic and political goals, increasing civic activity and political and legal culture of young people.
2. “Participation in rule-making activities, primarily in the field of state youth policy.” The independent participation of young people in the formation of the legislative framework that directly concerns them will help increase trust between young people and the state, and they will also be able to influence the determination of the main directions of the state’s youth policy.
3. “Training of young personnel.” This direction makes it possible to find active young leaders who will be able to prove themselves in managerial and social political sphere, acquiring theoretical and practical skills at the same time.
4. “Carrying out socially significant events.” Youth parliaments take an active part in the implementation of socially significant actions, events and government programs. Youth organizations, student associations, etc. are also involved in performing this function, which contributes to the consolidation of youth as a social group and society as a whole.
5. "Educational activities." This direction makes it possible to provide knowledge and improve the political, legal and social culture of young people, contributes to the formation of a clear civic position of young citizens, etc.
For the successful implementation of these areas, constant interaction between young citizens and the state is necessary. The state must provide them with the opportunity to influence certain decisions made. It is necessary to create conditions for the self-realization of young people in modern society. Youth parliaments, in turn, should help the state in implementing certain functions assigned to them, showing civic activity. Youth participation in such organizations will encourage young people to realize their interests and civil rights.
The following factors undertaken by the state will contribute to the development of youth parliamentarism:
1. Development of a legislative framework that will streamline the activities, official status and membership of youth parliaments. First of all, the state needs to create decent conditions for the formation, functioning and development of youth parliaments;
2. State support for such organizations to carry out more effective youth policy and solve critical problems within the state and beyond;
3. The state should help finance programs and publish necessary materials, books, provision of premises, provision of necessary equipment, etc.;
4. The state must provide training for young and active people, provide them with the opportunity to apply their accumulated theoretical knowledge in practice, etc. It is necessary to carry out activities to train young people in the basics of management and socio-political activities;
5. Through the media, inform society about the activities of such organizations, thereby helping to attract active young citizens to youth parliaments, increase the effectiveness of youth policy, etc.
All this will undoubtedly contribute to the development of youth parliamentarism, attract young people to participate in the processes of making important government decisions, and improve their civic and patriotic culture. Of course, the initiative to create youth parliaments should come from young citizens, and the state, in turn, should only support and help young people express their interests and declare their needs.
Today it works successfully, which connects its activities with the need to create conditions for the inclusion of youth in the political, social, economic and cultural life society. Provides support in the formation of an active civic position among young citizens living in the CIS.
This is a fairly positive project, as it allows ambitious young people to express themselves and apply their accumulated theoretical knowledge in practice. In this project, young citizens will be able to express their interests and protect them at the state level by submitting their requests to the parliaments of the CIS countries. Any young citizen can upload their bill for further discussion by members of parliament. In the course of joint work, young people will be able to independently determine their present and future, which depends on them. Young people themselves must decide how to develop youth policy. This organization acts as a mechanism for enhancing the civic culture of youth. Thus, the Eurasian Youth Parliament represents one of the most important channels of political communication between youth and the state.
According to the author, this organization is a new effective subject of socio-political socialization of young people, which contributes to the political adaptation of youth. Helps young people take part in the life of civil society and in the life of the state. Today, it should be noted that the initiative to create youth parliaments is supported by both young people and government bodies.
The Middle East Youth Parliament has been established in Turkey to discuss the problems of the Middle East region, to create a trusting and tolerant atmosphere among young citizens of the Arab world. A Youth Parliament was created in Georgia with the goal of “identifying talented young people as future parliamentarians, deputies, and ministers.” The youth parliaments of Kyrgyzstan, Armenia, Belarus, etc. are actively functioning. Youth parliaments are present in many countries of the Eurasian continent.
From this we can conclude that in the modern world, youth parliamentarism has already begun to develop quite successfully, is gradually receiving support from society and the state, and has prospects for development.
According to the author, youth parliamentary structures should be created under the legislative branch of government. To ensure that no public organizations are able to use these structures solely for their own interests. And also young citizens will be able to participate directly in the development of legislative and regulatory acts relating to the sphere of youth policy of the state, and cooperate with relevant people and government bodies. They will be able to independently make political decisions and bear responsibility for them.
The author believes that it is necessary to hold elections to the youth parliament according to the mechanism of elections to representative bodies of power. Young people themselves must elect young parliamentarians who will be responsible for youth policy to society. And in order to prepare active young citizens for political activity, it is necessary to create youth political schools in higher educational institutions, with the help of which they can be taught political and parliamentary culture, involved in political life, instill in young citizens independence in solving problems, etc.
Thus, to summarize all of the above, it must be said that youth parliamentarism is necessary in modern society. Through it, young citizens will be able to express their civic position, independently solve the problems of the present that concern them and build the future. They will be able to develop, make and implement decisions in the field of youth policy of the state. Youth parliamentarism promotes the unity of young people, which, in turn, plays a positive role in reducing tensions and conflicts in society. The political participation of youth through youth parliaments forms a civic culture among young people, which contributes to the development of the state as a whole.
Topic 13. Youth: forms of political participation
1. Features of youth as a subject of political relations
The participation of young people in the political life of society has a number of features. They are associated with the essential characteristics of this socio-demographic group, with the specific place that young people occupy in public life.
As a result of the change of generations, there is not only a process of simple reproduction, continuity of social, including socio-political, relations, but also expanded experience thanks to the innovative potential of youth, as well as the transfer of accumulated, updated social experience to future generations. The development of both the youngest generation and society as a whole depends on how effective this process is.
By implementing your main social functions(reproductive, innovative, translational), young people acquire social maturity and go through the stage of formation as a subject of social relations. Such a manifestation of the social quality of young people is associated with the specifics of their social status and is determined by the laws of the socialization process in specific social conditions. This objectively leaves an imprint on the forms and degree of youth participation in political life and determines itpeculiaritiesas a subject of political relations.
The first feature is associated with the incompleteness of the formation of one’s own subjectivity in socio-political relations. Youth is not a person who has become, but a subject of social, including political, relations that is becoming. Hence the famous age restrictions its political rights, enshrined in law. The specific scope of these restrictions depends on the level of democratization and the degree of stability of society.
At the same time, there are frequent manifestations of discrimination against young people on the basis of age in violation of existing legislation. Political and social rights young citizens, there are facts of alienation of various groups of youth from social and political institutions, and the possibilities for realizing the group and political interests of young people are limited. Age, therefore, plays the role of a significant stratification basis and is an important factor in the participation of young people in the socio-political life of society. Age discrimination does not manifest itself equally in different countries of the world, as well as within one country, due to historical and sociocultural traditions, as well as due to the regional characteristics of state youth policy.
The second feature of young people as a subject of political relations is determined by the specifics of their social status.It is characterized by the instability and mobility of young people’s positions in the social structure, their relatively low social status, and limited social connections. This puts young people at a disadvantage with economically and socially more advanced groups. This creates a favorable environment for the emergence various kinds social conflicts, often acquiring political overtones.
In an unstable, and even more so, a crisis society, instability as an immanent characteristic of the social status of young people is intensified as a result of social stratification in its composition, contributing to the growth of tension and political confrontation. This feature is more noticeable regionally due to significant differences in the socio-economic situation of the subjects of the Federation.
And finally, the third feature is related to the specifics of youth consciousness(lability, transgressiveness, extremeness), determined both by age and the position of young people as a social group.
Labilityconsciousness is manifested in insufficient firmness of life attitudes, uncertainty of social orientations, since social positions have not acquired a stable form, and the process of forming one’s own moral beliefs (imperatives), which form the core of consciousness, has not yet been completed. In the absence of a formed social position, the direction of political sentiment often becomes spontaneous and depends on the influence of external factors, and often simply by chance.
Transgressiveness- this is the ability of consciousness to overcome barriers (symbolic boundaries, taboos, stereotypes) between existing and new space, to transfer patterns of the future into one’s life. It is implemented in individual and groupdesignsocial reality at the micro and macro level: from one’s own biography to the image of society as a whole. In the process of social construction of reality, young people, as a rule, focus on reference groups that are distinguished by higher status and prestige, more successful in the modern world (idols, examples of well-off, beautiful life). These patterns are fixed in the role structures of young people in the form of expectations and aspirations. But not everyone succeeds in satisfying these claims. If the gap between the aspirations of the individual and the possibilities of satisfying them increases, then political attitudes take on an extreme form.
Underextremenessyouth consciousness understand various manifestations of maximalism in consciousness and extremes in behavior at the group and individual personal levels.
The consciousness of young people is easily influenced by various factors: economic, social, political. Under their influence, young people become aware of their own position in society and consolidate group interests. Then the youth becomes a political force.
However, by manipulating the unformed consciousness of young people, especially with the help of the media, it is possible to achieve asocial results, turning young people either into aggressive or into a faceless, politically indifferent mass. Young people become the most attractive targets for satisfying selfish political interests where there are more opportunities for speculation on the specific needs of young people.
Thus,the participation of young people in the political life of society is a special form of consolidation of their group interests, reflecting the conscious characteristics of their own social status, role and place in society and the method of their implementation.
The considered features of youth as an emerging subject of political relations are characteristic not only of Russian society. The essential characteristics of youth are inherent in any society, although they can manifest themselves in different forms. Thus, the legislation of different countries provides for unequal lower age limits for the full participation of young people in political life. The forms of discrimination against young people in the political sphere also differ. National-ethnic, religious and other sociocultural factors have a significant influence on the consciousness of young people. And finally, essential characteristics manifest themselves differently in conditions of social stability, instability and crisis.
2. Characteristics of the political consciousness of youth
The political consciousness of young people reflects their group political interests. At the empirical level, they find expression in the political orientations and views of young people, in their attitude to the existing structures and institutions of power, to political parties and social movements. Conscious political interests serve to develop a generational youth ideology and determine the direction of the everyday practical political activities of young people.
Formation of political consciousness - difficult process, accompanied by contradictions in the development of Russian society during the second half of the 20th and beginning of the XXI V. In relation to young people during this period, the authorities showed a kind of youth-phobia and political distrust. They flirted with her, but political management tried to stay away. As a result, under the conditions of the administrative-command system, a unique technocratic approach to the younger generation has developed, primarily as an object of socialization, ideological influence, education, and a passive executor of ready-made decisions.
Such an approach could not but affect political activity and the real participation of young people in political life. Despite the formal observance of the representation of this part of society in elected government bodies, its actual influence on politics remained disproportionately small. The political activity of young people, strictly limited by institutional forms, was more of a ritual nature and often did not reflect their real group interests and capabilities. The sincere desire of young people and even youth organizations to change something, encountering insurmountable obstacles from the well-functioning bureaucratic system, gave way to disappointment. Most often, this ended with a refusal to fight and the adoption of the ideology of conformism.
The massive alienation of young people from the exercise of power functions deformed their consciousness, giving rise to disappointment among some and dissatisfaction with the political system among others. It is no coincidence that young people in the late 1980s and early 1990s. took the side of the forces aimed at destroying the system that was hindering the movement of Russian society along the path of democratic transformation. However, very soon the surge of political activity gave way to indifference, apathy, and political nihilism.
Such a situation not only deprived young people of certainty in reflecting what was happening and made their future unpredictable, but also undermined the emerging democratic values in their minds and the attitude towards participation in political life. It was during this period that an increase in distrust of the current political authorities and a complete or partial alienation of young people from political life was noted among young people. This experience is transmitted to future generations. The parents of modern youth today are young people from the mid- and late 1990s. Therefore, in many ways, similar sentiments are reproduced in the current socio-political conditions.
The dynamics of socio-political attitudes, reflecting the views and sentiments widespread among young people, can be judged on the basis of sociological research data.
These data contain in an extremely emotional form: firstly, the recognition by the majority of respondents of the indifference on the part of the authorities to the needs of young people; secondly, the assertion that as a result of the current policy, young people are deprived of prospects in life, individualism dominates in their relationships, money becomes the main value, and moral criteria lose their meaning; thirdly, the lack of hope among young people for the possibility of political influence on the ongoing processes. Meanwhile, since 2002, there has been a tendency to reduce the proportion of young people who negatively assess their relations with the authorities. The percentage of young people who see an opportunity to influence the actions of the authorities has increased noticeably. However, the level of political nihilism among young people remains high, undermining their faith in own strength as a participant in collective forms of political life, which leads to distrust of political parties, public organizations, isolation within microgroup relations.
An analysis of the self-identification of the modern generation of Russian youth from different levels of social communities shows that the majority (more than 2/3) of young people are dominated by a micro-group orientation (family, social groups). At the same time, if in 1990 political parties and movements occupied fifth place in the structure of self-identification of young people, then in 2007 they were one of the last.
In macrogroup orientations, the most stable stereotype of youth self-awareness is identification with their generation.However, the deterioration of their financial situation and deprivation of social status are not fully comprehended by young people. Therefore, the process of consolidation of group interests has not been completed. However, as research shows, young people are gradually becoming aware of their role in modern society. Thus, 69% of young people expressed the opinion in a maximalist form that “the future belongs to the youth and they themselves must restore order in the country.”
Young people today are the least politically integrated part of society, and their political consciousness presents a rather motley picture, containing the entire spectrum of political interests. The ambiguity of the political views of young people was manifested, on the one hand, in the dominant orientation, shared by the absolute majority (90.4%), towards a strong leader capable of defending the interests of the country, as well as towards a powerful state supported strong army and the security service (87.7%), and on the other hand, on traditional democratic principles (84.3%). Thus,The political consciousness of Russian youth reflects the complex process of both the reproduction of traditional ideas and the formation of new, modern ones.Moreover, the spread of these interests among various social strata of young people is not so great as to indicate the presence of a serious political confrontation among young people (Table 1).
Table 1
Changing the direction of political orientations of young people, 1999-2007
| Orientations | 1999 | 2007 | ||
| TO* | R** | TO | R | |
| State | 6,1 | 1/2 | 6,1 | 1 |
| Traditional democratic | 6,1 | 1/2 | 6,0 | 2 |
| Liberal Democratic | 5,6 | 3 | 5,4 | 4/5 |
*K is the weighted average coefficient on a seven-point scale. **R - rank. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Analysis of these data allows us to identify the following trends.
Firstly, the political consciousness of modern youth is dominated by statist and traditional democratic orientations. Secondly, there is reason to talk about the strengthening of communist orientations, which have swapped places with liberal democratic values. This trend manifested not so much the desire of young people to return to the Soviet past, but rather to justice and order, undermined in their minds by liberal democrats. Thirdly, national-patriotic, nationalist and radical-democratic orientations retained and even increased their previous ranking.
This process clearly demonstrates the formation of young people’s ideas about a new type of socio-political order. The formed orientation composition testifies to the self-regulation of the political consciousness of young people in accordance with the formula “order as a condition of freedom” as opposed to another composition corresponding to the formula “freedom in the name of order.” As you can see, the Russian mentality has placed emphasis differently than expected during the liberal-democratic reforms of the 1990s, which placed freedom, which was not ensured by security, stability and order, at the forefront.
An important component of the political consciousness of young people is the attitude of young people to the government institutions and public organizations operating in the country. This can be judged by the extent to which boys and girls trust various state and public structures (Table 2).
table 2
Changes in young people’s attitudes towards government institutions, government and public structures, % of the number of respondents
|
Institutions of power, state and public organizations |
Degree of trust | |||||
| 2002 | 2007 | |||||
| I trust | I do not trust | D - N* | I trust | I do not trust | D - N | |
| To the President of the Russian Federation (V.V. Putin) | 57,2 | 20,1 | +37,1 | 62,1 | 12,9 | +49,2 |
| To the Government of the Russian Federation | 24,9 | 48,4 | -23,5 | 28,7 | 34,9 | -6,2 |
| State Duma | 15,8 | 55,7 | -39,9 | 18,7 | 43,3 | -24,6 |
| Heads of regions | 22,0 | 50,3 | -28,3 | 23,3 | 37,9 | -14,6 |
| Police | 20,1 | 63,3 | -43,2 | 20,5 | 49,5 | -29,0 |
| to the court | 30,4 | 48,4 | -18,0 | 33,6 | 34,4 | -0,8 |
| Prosecutor's office | 28,6 | 47,1 | -18,5 | 30,3 | 33,3 | -3,5 |
| Army | 34,4 | 45,2 | -10,8 | 31,8 | 37,0 | -5,2 |
| To trade unions | 22,0 | 46,2 | -24,2 | 17,2 | 36,8 | -19,6 |
| Churches | 48,1 | 25,7 | +22,4 | 46,2 | 18,6 | +27,6 |
| Political parties | 8,2 | 69,7 | -61,5 | 7 | 53,1 | -46,1 |
| mass media | 30,5 | 46,1 | -15,6 | 31,7 | 33,4 | -1,7 |
| For business managers | 24,2 | 44,4 | -20,2 | 18,9 | 36,3 | -18,0 |
| Average values | -18,8 | -7,1 | ||||
* - D - N - the difference between the meanings “trust” and “don’t trust”.
As can be seen from this table, there is a growing trend in young people’s trust in state and public institutions, which is confirmed by a positive trend in changes in the average values of the absolute difference between trust and distrust (from -37.3 in 1999 to -7.1% in 2007). Obvious positive dynamics relations with federal authorities - the President, the Government, law enforcement agencies. Positive changes are noted in the level of trust in the church, the media and regional authorities.
According to a 2009 study, 71.3% of young people expressed confidence in President A.D. Medvedev. Young people, to a greater extent than in previous years, also connect their ideas about the stability and well-being of the country with the activities of the Church as a civil institution for the spiritual consolidation of society, law enforcement agencies as guarantors of law and order, the media as an institution, ensuring freedom of expression of public opinion (Gorshkov, Shcheregi).
However, one cannot help but see that, except for the President of the Russian Federation and the Church, trends in the level of trust (the difference between trust and distrust) in all other institutions remain negative. Every tenth young person (9.3%) expressed complete distrust of all political institutions without exception, which confirms the conclusion about the prevalence of political nihilism among young people. Reflecting the depressive state of youth consciousness, nihilism is no less dangerous in its extreme manifestations than radicalism. Under certain conditions, just like radicalism in self-regulatory strategies, it can develop into extremist manifestations.
The ramification of political orientations reveals two probable paths in the self-regulation of relations between youth and society. The first is related to strengthening these relationships. Judging by the fact that assessments of trust in the court (-0.8%), the media (-1.7%), and the prosecutor's office (-3.5%) are approaching positive values, the strengthening of relations will proceed in a legal direction. The second way, on the contrary, can promote confrontation in the relations of young people with government institutions. This is indicated by the persisting high negative values of attitudes towards political parties (-46.1%), the police (-29%), and the State Duma (-24.6%). In this regard, it is important to pay attention to the trends that can be traced in the attitude of young people to such fundamental concepts as citizenship, patriotism, and duty - important components of their political consciousness (Table 3).
Table 3
Identification of youth in the field of civil relations
| What is the concept of “citizenship” associated with? | TO* | Rank |
| belonging to the state | 5,09 | 1 |
| duty, obligation | 4,87 | 2 |
| national dignity | 4,84 | 3 |
| constitutional rights | 4,69 | 4 |
| safety, security | 4,52 | 5 |
| patriotism | 4,37 | 6 |
Citizenship for modern youth is identified primarily with formal affiliation with the state, with a kind of membership in it. At the same time, feelings of civic responsibility (duty, obligation) and pride, national dignity of a citizen of his country occupy high (second and third) positions in the structure of its identifications, i.e. youth identities corresponding modern ideas, as if alternating with traditional ones. This can be seen even more clearly in the distribution of answers to the question: “What does it mean to you to be a citizen of Russia?”
The first two places are occupied by typically modern identifications (the country where the respondent lives and the small homeland). Traditional identifications are associated with love for the Motherland, with readiness to defend it and with involvement in its history, which occupy the third, fourth and fifth positions, respectively.
Thus, the legacy that young people inherited from the Soviet past includes statist orientations that are firmly rooted in the historical consciousness of Russians. Guarantees are expected from the state - employment, social protection, meeting minimal needs, taking responsibility for the fate of people. IN modern conditions expectations conflict with the state’s reluctance to implement them. This attitude is caused by young people’s distrust of government agencies and the growing orientation toward Western models of government. But this only strengthens the existing contradiction with the liberal traditions of Western societies, which do not at all imply state paternalism in relation to youth. As a result, in the political consciousness of a significant part of Russian youth amazingly are combined, on the one hand, low level trust in government agencies and at the same time expectation of help from the state, on the other. This situation, intertwining with new modern ideas, sociocultural patterns and lifestyles introduced from outside, constructs bizarre value-normative configurations, so-called cultural hybrids, often combining very contradictory values.
A similar picture is demonstrated by the complex and contradictory process of crystallization of a new type of consciousness. What is happening is not a simple replacement of some orientations by others, but their recomposition, redistribution into new “hybrid” forms.
Controversies accompanying this process, often acquire an acute character, expressed in ex-tremist manifestations, risking escalating into a direct conflict with society. Youth extremism is a special social phenomenon caused by the socio-psychological characteristics of youth and its interaction with society. The main essential properties of the extremity of youth consciousness include extreme manifestations of fanaticism and nihilism. Ex-tremism manifests itself in the form of individual and group sentiments that encourage young people to be maximalist in their choice of behavior patterns. As research shows, the level of extremity of consciousness varies in different spheres of young people’s life. Its share with a high degree of extremeness ranges from 5-11% in political life, study, work, leisure and up to 40% in relation to representatives of other nationalities. Compared to 2002, the proportion of young people with a high degree of extreme behavior has increased in all areas by 1.3-2 times.
Research confirms the existence of a relationship between various forms of political, religious, national-ethnic, and everyday extremism of young people. However, the political component in similar manifestations extremism by young people is not fully comprehended and is realized more often spontaneously, on an emotional level or under the influence external forces. This feature not only does not reduce, but, on the contrary, increases the social danger of political extremism among young people, given its weak predictability, and therefore the limited possibilities of prevention.
What arefactors,determining the state and direction of changes in the political consciousness of young people?
1. Financial situation.The decline in living standards has an impact on the political orientations of young people and their attitude towards power structures. A comparative analysis showed that trust in the President and the Government of the Russian Federation among low-income segments of youth is 3-5 times lower than among high-income segments. Economic instability and social uncertainty also affect the attitude of young people towards their country. A comparison of answers to the question: “Are you proud of your country?”, received in the year following the default in 1999 and in the relatively prosperous year of 2007, revealed the following trend. They answered positively (said “yes” and “rather yes”) - 68.1 and 75.4%, respectively. Three quarters (78%) of young people with low incomes believe that a radical change in the political system of Russian society is necessary.
2. Future-oriented.Most young people grew up in new socio-economic conditions. Their interests and values are increasingly at odds with their parents. Young people are not burdened with the burden of the past and are distinguished by their desire to determine their current values and make a choice of behavioral models that meet the requirements not so much of today as of tomorrow. An appeal to the past, an attempt to reach the hearts of modern boys and girls, using the values of older generations, does not meet their understanding. On the contrary, the call to the future is very popular among young people. At the same time, every second person sees it as the result of a special path of development for Russia, and every fifth person is a supporter of Western models of society.
3. The nature of intergenerational relations.The process of impoverishment of the population, although it did not bypass the youth, is psychologically easier for young people due to their age and material support from their parents. Almost three-quarters of young people are, to one degree or another, economically dependent on the parent generation, which significantly smoothes out the severity of their financial situation. Therefore, both class-based agitation and rabid anti-communism have an ambiguous influence on young people. For these reasons, the attempt to use intergenerational conflict for political purposes did not have any effect.
4. The influence of the reference group.A significant part of young people, especially in large cities, managed to adapt to new conditions, and although numerically small (about 5% of youth), a rapidly growing, economically advanced group was formed, a reference group for the younger generation as a whole. Looking at their successful peers, many hope for their own success. This explains the futility of currently discrediting the “new Russians” in the eyes of young people and the popularity among them of those leaders who advocate the development of all forms of private entrepreneurship, especially small business.
5. Own experience of market relations.Unlike their fathers and grandfathers, young people could only judge from hearsay the realities of their country’s past, but they often have more direct experience of market relations in modern life. Hence the high motivational dependence of young people on the degree of involvement in entrepreneurial activity. The group of young entrepreneurs stands out noticeably among other categories of youth both in their assessments of power structures and in their political orientations.
6. Media influence.Although 34.4% of young people expressed distrust of the media, their influence on young people remains high, and often decisive. Considering the political bias of television, radio and most newspapers, and the absence of a pluralistic youth press, young people receive very one-sided, often distorted information, and become victims of manipulation of their consciousness.
7. Regional factors.The characteristics of political consciousness, including that of young people, vary greatly by region. This is due to differences in living conditions, with the social composition of the population, with established traditions, with the activity of certain political forces. Often decisive influence is influenced by the ethno-national factor. As a rule, those political leaders and parties who base their policies on the desire to solve specific regional problems achieve the greatest success.
3. Youth movements in the power structure
The position of youth in political life is characterized by the degree of inclusion of young people in power structures at various levels and self-identification with them as a subject of power relations, as well as the breadth of opportunities for their participation in various forms of political activity, including spontaneous expression of will their political rights and freedoms. There is a difference between formal and real involvement in political life. The possibility of realizing his political interests ultimately depends on how consciously a young person is included in a particular power structure and what his position is in it, whether he is able to influence politics.
The status of young people in the political life of society cannot be judged solely on the basis of the formal inclusion of young people in power structures. To do this, it is important to assess the level of their self-identification with these structures, as well as the degree of their activity in various forms political activity. A high level of self-identification presupposes a self-perception of one’s involvement in making management decisions, identifying oneself as a subject of power relations and indicates a high degree of integration of young people into the political life of society.
Modern society is characterized by a variety of forms of youth participation in political life. Understood as the involvement in one form or another of a person or social group in political power relations, in the process of decision-making and management, political participation is an important component of the political life of society. It can serve as a means of achieving a certain goal, satisfying the need for self-expression and self-affirmation, and realizing a sense of citizenship. Participation can be direct (immediate) and indirect (representative), professional and non-professional, spontaneous and organized, etc.
In the recent past, our country professed the idea of so-called 100% political activity of young people. At the same time, only those forms of activity were recognized that demonstrated the solidarity of young people with the official ideology. Any others were considered antisocial and suppressed. Such “universal participation” only in officially approved forms testified to the bureaucratization of political life and caused enormous harm to young people, the consequences of which are still felt today.
In the political life of modern Russian society, which is experiencing a systemic crisis, the following stand out:formspolitical participation of youth.
1. Participation in voting. Political status youth is determined by real, and not formally provided, opportunities to influence the balance of political forces in society through participation in voting. It is preceded by participation in the discussion of the election programs of political parties, candidates for deputies to federal and local authorities, as well as direct participation in elections. However, young people are not actively using their political potential. Many young people during the State Duma elections (2007) did not take advantage of their right to vote, demonstrating political nihilism and thereby providing an opportunity for interested forces to manipulate their votes. Only 47% of young people aged 18-30 took part in the elections, which is significantly lower than the electoral activity of the older generation. The majority of votes from young voters was received by " United Russia"(68.6%), the next three places in terms of the number of votes given for them were taken by the LDPR (12.1%), "A Just Russia" (6.2%), the Communist Party of the Russian Federation (5.3%) (Gorshkov, Sheregi , 2010).
Young people demonstrated more active participation (59.2%) in the elections of the President of the Russian Federation (2008). Having cast their votes for D. A. Medvedev, 76.9% of young voters voted for the continuation of V. V. Putin’s political course. Thus, the youth expressed their approval of the policies pursued in the country and hope for the further strengthening of power.
2. Representative participation of youth in government bodies Russian Federation and in local government.It finds practical expression in the implementation of the group interests of young people through their representatives in government bodies. According to the State Statistics Committee, at all levels of representative government of the Russian Federation in 1990-1991. youth aged 21-29 years made up 13.3% of those elected to these bodies, including 0.4% in the Supreme Council of the Russian Federation; in the Supreme Councils of the republics - 2.8%; in city councils - 10.2%; in district city councils - 11.7%; in rural settlement Councils - 14.9%.
Over the years of reforms, the representative participation of young people has decreased significantly. The lack of representative forms of youth participation in government cannot be compensated by the creation in the mid-1990s. youth parliamentary structures. They are consultative and advisory public groups under the legislative and executive authorities, operating today in approximately 1/3 of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation. However, they do not have a noticeable impact on the implementation of state youth policy.
The change in youth representation was especially noticeable at the level of educational and work teams. If in 1990 40.7% of young people were elected to various kinds of representative bodies in their collectives (councils of labor collectives, party, trade union and Komsomol bodies), then already in 1992 their number was halved. In 2002, according to sociological research, 11.5% of young people participated in the activities of various representative bodies, including 6.4% at the level of the primary educational (labor) collective; at the level of educational institution, institution, enterprise, company - 4.4%; at the level of district, village, city, region - 0.7%. At the same time, half of the young people, judging by the research results, are included in these bodies formally and, even at the level of primary labor (educational) collectives, did not have any influence on decision-making. The activities of young deputies who do not have management experience, established connections with the apparatus of local authorities, with the leadership of ministries and enterprises, and with banking structures often turn out to be ineffective.
Particularly perverse forms of discrimination against the fundamental interests and rights of young people are observed in the private sector. Any forms of representative democracy, protection of the rights of workers, and especially youth, are completely absent here. Two thirds of young people constantly or often face injustice on the part of their employer.
All this is in no way consistent with the proclaimed course towards democratization of society and leads to the revival of totalitarianism in the country, increased arbitrariness of the administration in enterprises and educational institutions, and further restriction of the rights of young people.
3. Creation of youth organizations and movements.Young people spend a certain part of their political life among their peers, so their desire to unite in organizations is understandable. The heterogeneity of the political consciousness of young Russians, the diversity of political orientations and interests contribute to the emergence of a large number of youth associations of various orientations, including political ones.
In 2007, there were 58 youth and children's public associations enjoying state support, of which: 14 children's, 44 youth, including 28 all-Russian, 28 interregional, 2 international. The bulk of these organizations and their territorial branches are concentrated in large cities. Their numbers range from several hundred to tens of thousands of people. The largest is the Russian Youth Union, which unites 220 thousand individual members and has territorial organizations in 70 constituent entities of the Russian Federation. With the adoption of Federal Law No. 98-FZ of June 28, 1995 “On state support for youth and children's public associations,” the legal basis for the participation of young people in them was significantly strengthened. In 2001, the all-Russian association “Union of Youth Organizations” was created, designed to consolidate the activities of youth associations and movements.
An analysis of trends in the development of the youth movement in the regions indicates a variety of conditions for it in various constituent entities of the Russian Federation. Somewhat greater opportunities exist in regions where state support for youth and children's associations is actually implemented. By decision of a number of regional and municipal government bodies, children's and youth associations were provided tax benefits. Support for children's and youth organizations, operating in some cities, territories and regions, includes the provision of regular subsidies and financing of targeted programs to solve social problems of youth.
However, despite government support, these organizations have not yet had a noticeable influence on young people and their political life. Most of them avoid setting political goals and clearly defining political orientations, although they, one way or another, act as interest groups. In many of them there are only a few dozen people, engaged in ordinary business under the guise of youth organizations.
Along with organizations supported by the state, there are more than 100 different youth associations and movements. The activities of many of them, although political, are largely declarative in nature. According to the goals and nature of activities recorded in their programs, these movements are divided into national-patriotic (7.2%), opposition (27.5%), nationalist (11.7%), protest (10.6%) , pro-Kremlin (25.7%), human rights (8.3%) as well as environmental, sports fans, etc. (9%).
Being a form of self-organization, youth movements are considered in modern society as a manifestation of the social, including political, subjectivity of young people. The degree of formation of Russian youth as a subject of the political life of society can be judged by the motives for their participation in various movements. The results of the study show that there are three groups of motives. Firstly, expressive, spontaneously arising motives that are not related to the ideological orientation of the movements (here is the desire to “hang out,” romance, and the opportunity to earn money). Secondly, instrumental motives, some of which are associated with the ideological orientation of movements (these are opportunities for self-realization, the desire to participate in specific causes, involvement in a political career). Thirdly, the ideological motives themselves, presented both in general form(ideological affinity, struggle for justice), and in a more specific way (support for a political course, protest against the existing order, fight against dissent, against people of other faiths, with representatives of other nationalities).
About half (48.5%) of the motives reflect an ideological orientation in one form or another (the second and third types of motivation). This indicates that the self-organization of youth is quite conscious. Most young people are involved in this process in pursuit of specific goals, and every second person uses this form of self-organization to realize ideological motives.
The direction of ideological motivation is significantly differentiated by type of movement. Participants in national-patriotic (33.4%), nationalist (23.9%) and opposition (22.2%) movements are most guided by ideological motives corresponding to the third type of motivation. At the same time, it is important to reveal the specific content of the ideological orientation of the motives. It reflects the fundamental social and group interests of young people - social (sense of justice), national, patriotic, religious and political. Summing up the answers on a 7-point scale (based on weighted average coefficients), the overall picture of the ideological orientation of the motives for youth participation in social movements looks like this: in first place - social, sense of justice (K = 5.14), then in descending order of ranking positions follow - national (3.63), patriotic (3.33), religious (2.82), political (2.68) motives. Thus, the leading ideological motive, significantly ahead of all others, is the desire for social justice, reflecting the traditional nature of the values of Russians. The fact that political motives are relegated to last place indicates the weak expression of the political interests of young people, which prevents them from turning into an active political force.
4. Participation in the activities of political parties.This form of political participation of young people is directly aimed at the reproduction and renewal of the political structure of society. In conditions of social stability, it is an important factor in the political socialization of younger generations. IN crisis situations As a rule, interest in young people on the part of political parties is increasing. This trend also occurs in Russian society. However, such interest in Russia is frankly opportunistic and limited only to election campaigns.
Most parties and political blocs, even during the election period, did not have substantiated youth policy programs, and young candidates for deputies made up an insignificant share of them. At the same time, there is little interest among young people themselves in participating in political parties. Less than 2% of young people are interested in their politics.
Currently, only certain political parties have youth organizations registered with the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation. The youth wing of the United Russia party is the Young Guard. A similar function in the Communist Party of the Russian Federation is performed by the “Union of Communist Youth”, in the LDPR - by the “LDPR Youth Center”. They have their own youth organizations and other parties. As a rule, these are small organizations from several dozen to 1-2 thousand or more people who share the programs of parties, participate in their political actions and other party events. Their activities are especially intensified during election campaigns. Performing predominantly narrow party functions, the political influence of these organizations on broad layers of young people is very limited.
5. Participation in actions of spontaneous expression of one’s political morals and freedoms.It is expressed in the participation of young people in strikes, in acts of civil disobedience, rallies, demonstrations and other forms of social protest within the framework of existing legislation. Of course, such forms cannot be called the norm of political life. They are resorted to, as a rule, by people driven to despair by the inability or unwillingness of the authorities to respond constructively to their social, economic, and political demands. The effectiveness of such forms of political action depends on the level of democracy of society and on the degree of solidarity of population groups fighting for their rights.
Most acute form confrontation is a political conflict that can be resolved along the lines of compromise - consensus - cooperation - integration, or can develop in the direction of intensifying confrontation, and in illegitimate forms, social exclusion of various groups, disintegration of society. History knows many examples when young people, used by opposing forces, took extreme and extremist positions in conflict situations.
Data from sociological research indicate an escalation of social tension among Russian youth. Assessing the current socio-political situation in Russia, 23,7% young people experience high levels of anxiety, 13,7% — fear,19,5% — indignation and anger (data 2007 G.). 18.8% of young people associate feelings of anxiety and fear with the crime situation, 22% — with terrorism, 10,3% — with manifestations of nationalism and religious fanaticism. 22% of young people feel hatred and hostility towards the rich, oligarchs, 41% towards officials, bureaucrats, 34,9% — regarding migrants. It is no coincidence that 28.1% of young people expressed their readiness to take part in mass protests if the socio-economic situation in the country worsens.
The number of extremist-minded youth is growing. Conscious readiness to commit extremist acts for ideological reasons 12,4% young people manifested themselves in the form of participation in rallies and demonstrations not permitted by the authorities and 8,7% — in extremely extremist forms of protest (3.6% - through participation in the seizure of buildings, blocking vehicles, and 5.1% expressed their readiness to take up arms if peaceful methods of struggle do not produce results). The number of this group is veryhigh,especially taking into account the undecided reserve, equal to 25.7% - those who found it difficult to answer.
Mass protests by young people are of particular public concern. The organizing role in them is played by youth movements, each of which contains extremist-minded young people. According to a 2007 study, every fifth supporter of national-patriotic and opposition movements does not exclude the possibility of participating in protests. The level of readiness for extremist actions in nationalist movements is significantly higher. Among their participants, 36.2% are ready for severe manifestations of extremism. The possibility of participating in unauthorized demonstrations, seizing public buildings and blocking highways, as well as the readiness to take up arms, was not excluded by every second (48.2%) member of the protest movements. Participants in pro-Kremlin movements also demonstrate a high readiness for illegal protest actions (21.1%), and every tenth (13.8%) does not see any obstacles to expressing extremism in more severe forms.
Of course, the considered forms of political participation of young people have their own regional specifics.
So, the above-mentioned features of youth as a subject of political relations are significantly concretized in the conditions of crisis in Russian society. Political consciousness and forms of youth participation in the political life of individual regions have their own specifics. At the same time, what is common is the urgent need for the political integration of young people in order to stabilize Russian society.
Gorshkov, M. K.Youth of Russia: a sociological portrait / M.K. Gorshkov, F.E. Sheregi. - M., 2010.
Zubok, Yu. A.Youth movements as a form of self-organization of youth / Yu. A. Zubok, V. I. Chuprov // Russia in the conditions of the global crisis. Social and socio-political situation in Russia in 2008. - M., 2009.
Ilyinsky, I. M.Youth of the planet / I. M. Ilyinsky. - M., 1999.
Kovaleva, A. I.Sociology of youth. Theoretical questions / A. I. Kovaleva, V. A. Lukov. - M., 1999.
Lisovsky, V. T.Sociology of youth / V. T. Lisovsky. - St. Petersburg, 2001.
Political activity of youth: results of sociological research: monograph / ed. V. I. Dobrenkova, N. L. Smakotina. - M., 2009.
Political sociology: textbook / ed. Zh.T. Toshchenko. M.: Yurayt Publishing House, 2012. P.409-435.
Chuprov, V. I.Youth: self-regulation as an anti-crisis strategy / V. I. Chuprov // Social policy and sociology. — 2009. - No. 2. Forward
This section will highlight the forms of political participation of young people.
In the political life of modern Russian society, the following forms of political participation of young people are distinguished.
- 1. Participation in voting. The political status of young people is determined by real, and not formally provided, opportunities to influence the formation of ruling forces in society through voting. It is preceded by participation in the discussion of the election programs of political parties, candidates for deputies in federal and local authorities, and direct participation in elections.
- 2. Representative participation of young people in Russian authorities and local self-government. It finds practical expression in the implementation of the group interests of young people with the help of its representatives in government bodies.
In the last decade, there has been a significant decrease in the participation of young people in managing the affairs of society at all levels, which is a consequence of changes in the structure of public administration. The old forms of representative governance and self-government have lost their power, and the new ones do not provide for mechanisms for representing and coordinating the interests of various groups of the younger generation.
All these points are in no way consistent with the proclaimed course towards democratization of society and slowly but surely lead to the revival of totalitarianism in the country, increased arbitrariness of the administration at enterprises and educational institutions, and to further even greater restrictions on the rights of young people.
3. Creation of youth organizations, movements and participation in them. The desire of young people to unite in organizations is quite understandable, because young people spend a certain part of their political life among their peers. The modern heterogeneity of the political consciousness of young people, the diversity of political orientations and interests are reflected in the emergence of a large number of diverse youth associations, including political ones, especially this trend has become prevalent in the Russian Federation over the last decade.
Today in Russia there are many different political youth and children's associations, most of which are supported by state youth policy. The system of support for children's and youth organizations, operating in some cities, territories and regions of Russia, includes a set of measures, namely the provision of regular subsidies and financing of targeted programs to decide social problems the country's younger generation.
It should also be noted that the activities of charitable foundations have become a special direction in the youth movement. Currently, there are about 10 of them, let’s list some of them: “Youth for Russia”, “Participation”, “Power”, “Youth choose the future”, “Russian Care”, funds for supporting young entrepreneurs, promoting young deputies and some others.
However, despite government support, these movements have not yet had a significant impact on young people in general and their political life. Most of youth associations avoid setting political goals and clearly defining political orientations, although they, one way or another, act as interest groups.
4. Participation in the activities of political parties. This form of youth participation in politics is aimed at reproducing and renewing the political structure of society. In conditions of social stability, it acts as a determining factor in the socialization of younger generations. As a rule, in crisis situations, interest in young people on the part of political parties increases. This trend also occurs in Russian society. However, such interest in Russia is frankly opportunistic and limited only to election campaigns.
Today, only some political parties have youth organizations registered with the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation. WITH to varying degrees The Union “Young Republicans”, the Russian Communist Youth Union, the youth organization “Unity”, and other youth organizations have either completely disappeared or are ceasing their active activities.
5. Participation in actions of spontaneous expression of will and protection of political rights and freedoms. It was expressed in the participation of young people in strikes, in acts of civil disobedience, in rallies, in demonstrations, and in other forms of social protest within the framework of existing legislation.
Such forms, of course, cannot be called the norm of political life. As a rule, they are resorted to by people driven to despair by the inability or unwillingness of the authorities to respond constructively to their social, economic, political needs and demands. The effectiveness of such forms of political action depends on the level of democracy of society and on the degree of solidarity of citizens fighting for their rights.
Political conflict is the most acute form of confrontation. It can be resolved along the lines of compromise - consensus - cooperation - integration. The direction of intensifying confrontation may also develop, moreover, in illegitimate forms of social exclusion of various groups, disintegration of society. In the history of mankind, many examples can be given when youth, used by opposing forces, occupied conflict situations extremely extremist positions.
Of course, the considered forms of political participation of young people, in addition to those indicated, have regional specifics.
So, the above-listed features of the younger generation as a subject of political relations are significantly concretized in the conditions of crisis in Russian society. Political consciousness and forms of youth participation in the political life of individual subjects of the Russian Federation have their own specifics. At the same time, what is common is the urgent need for the political integration of young people in order to stabilize the situation in Russian society.
One of the most significant innovations introduced into political practice during the reform of the country’s political system in the late 1980s – early 1990s was the institution of elections, freed from the exclusively ritual function that it previously had. Most researchers agree that in democracies elections are the institutional framework of the political system. “Positively defined power is the institutionalization of the expectation that, within certain limits, the demands of society will be given serious attention. This was most clearly formally reflected, for example, in the election system.” 1 . Nevertheless, sociological measurements of public opinion record Russians’ distrust of the current electoral system. In their minds there is a “presumption of guilt” of the authorities, who always receive favorable results from the popular vote. Thus, according to a survey by the Public Opinion Foundation (FOM) - July 2005 - over half of Russians (55%) believe that the election results do not reflect the opinions of the people. And only less than a third (31%) take the opposite position.
The significance of elections for the political socialization of young people is determined by such normative qualities as alternativeness, freedom and competitiveness. These characteristics of elections, in principle, should contribute to the formation of such qualities of a “political individual” as the ability to make a choice and bear responsibility for it, analyze the balance of power and balance of diverse interests, calculate the pros and cons of a particular decision. However, these positive (functional) consequences of youth involvement in the activities of electoral institutions are often not realized, and we observe only a number of dysfunctions - disappointment in elections and legal forms of political competition in general, the legitimation of violence in the youth consciousness, the formation of the belief that power is not formed not in elections, but in bureaucratic offices or in public squares. Most likely, these dysfunctions are a direct consequence of actual electoral practice in Russia and, to a large extent, of the institutional foundations of elections.
The study of the electoral behavior and electoral consciousness of young people acquires particular significance due to the fact that in any society young people perform the function of transmitting values and practices and actually determine the degree of identity of the society at different stages of its development.
The electoral behavior of young people consists of participation in elections and referendums at various levels. Its measurement is carried out, first of all, according to the criteria of intensity, regularity, awareness, etc.
The electoral consciousness of young people, in turn, can be defined as a set of values, attitudes and norms that determine the electoral behavior of young people.
The nature of the electoral participation of young people reflects the low reflexivity (reflexivity in general can be defined as the ability for critical self-assessment, as well as for critical understanding of one’s own experience) of the social consciousness of young people and a lack of faith in the significance of political institutions for real life practices.
The most obvious and revealing indicator of political activity or passivity of the population is participation in elections. In the public consciousness of young people, the normative value of elections is somewhat higher than that of other generations.
According to the study “Youth and Elections Today: Prospects, Expectations (Electoral Activity of Youth in the Belgorod Region)”, conducted in 2006, 75.32% of respondents were in favor of the need for elections in Russia (“yes” and “rather yes than not"). 14.45% of respondents said that elections are not needed 1 . 60.87% of young people are going to participate in the elections. But only 25.16%, when asked about the motives for such participation, stated that they wanted to participate in solving public problems in this way. For the rest, participation in elections is, at best, a civic duty (41.98%) or following the requirements of the law (14.29%) 2 . According to the results of a survey conducted by the Public Opinion Foundation on a national sample in December 2005, of the two proposed alternatives: “Elections are needed” and “Elections are not needed,” 61% of respondents chose the first and 23% - the second. In 2002, this ratio was 73% and 14% 1 .
However, the normative value of elections is combined with lower levels of declared and actual electoral participation. According to FOM, 57% of respondents aged 18-35 took part in the 2004 presidential elections. At the same time, 67% of the sample as a whole participated in them. Only 42% of the population aged 18-35 participated in the 2003 parliamentary elections. Among young people, the lowest share is of those who have finally confirmed their position a week before the vote (62%) and the highest of those who are not sure whether they will go to the polls or not (26%) 2 .
According to a nationwide survey conducted by the FOM in February 2004, in age group Among those aged 18-35, 48% said that they always come to polling stations, and 10% said that they never go. For age groups 36-54 and over 55 years old, the corresponding figures were 64 and 8%; 85 and 4% 3. The demonstrated trend suggests that the declared electoral activity of the youth itself, that is, 18-29 year olds, is even lower than in the first age group. It should be borne in mind that this is most likely the so-called normative electoral activity, which differs significantly from the real one (towards overestimation).
Even lower rates of youth electoral activity were recorded by a study by the Institute of Sociology of the Russian Academy of Sciences in the age category of 18-26 years. 36% of young respondents announced their participation in the elections. In the age group 40-60 years old there were 48%. To the question “Have you had to participate in public and political life over the past year or two? And if so, in what form?” Almost every second young Russian surveyed (49%) gave a negative answer. Among the older generation, such respondents were 37% 4 .
According to the cross-country project of the Vienna Institute for Social Research, young people in European countries are generally different low level electoral activity. The highest level of participation in elections is observed in Italy, and the lowest in the UK 5 .
The actual electoral participation of young people in the Belgorod region, recorded according to the data of the Election Commission of the Belgorod region, has a fairly high level. If at the elections of the Belgorod Regional Duma in October 1997 an extremely low turnout of young voters was recorded - about 30%, then subsequently the activity of young voters was significantly higher (Table 5) 1 .