Study the text and answer the questions: Donetsk People's Republic

МИНИСТЕРСТВО ОБРАЗОВАНИЯ И НАУКИ ДНР

ДОНЕЦКИЙ НАЦИОНАЛЬНЫЙ УНИВЕРСИТЕТ

 

INSIGHTS OF POLITICAL SCIENCE

Учебное пособие

Утверждено на заседании кафедры

английского языка для

естественнонаучных и гуманитарных

специальностей.

Протокол №

 

 

ДОНЕЦК

ДонНУ

 

 

Insights of political science. Специальные тексты и задания к ним для аудиторной и самостоятельной работы по английскому языку для студентов исторического факультета специальности «Политология» (Составители: Киселева Е.В., Зорина А.И., Туболева А.А., Чернова М.М.)

Пособие предназначается для студентов 1—4 курсов исторического факультета специальности «Политология», а также для лиц, специализирующихся на проблемах политологии и начинающих читать оригинальные тексты по политологии.

Целью данного пособия является развитие навыков поискового и просмотрового чтения и перевода оригинальных материалов по политологии, перефразирования и написания реферированного изложения текстов и других навыков.

Пособие может быть использовано для развития и совершенствования навыков владения всеми видами речевой деятельности на английском языке в ходе аудиторной и самостоятельной работы студентов исторического факультета.

Составители:

Е.В.Киселева

А. И. Зорина

А.А. Туболева

М.М.Чернова

Study the text and answer the questions: Donetsk People's Republic

1.1. 1.1. Study the topical vocabulary:

Convocation (n)	собрание, созыв
Elections (n)	выборы
Proclamation (n)	провозглашение
Integration (n)	целостность, единство
Referenda(-um) (n)	референдум
Industrial areas	промышленные районы
Upheaval (n)	переворот
Grassroots protest	народный протест
Responsibility (n)	ответственность
Pave the way	прокладывать путь
Declare (v)	заявлять, объявлять
Joint efforts	совместные усилия
Voluntary (adj)	добровольный
Social movement	общественное движение
Upon the expiry	по истечении (срока)
Plenary session	пленарное заседание
Chairman (n)	председатель

1.2. Read and translate the text:

The flag of the Donetsk People's Republic

The flag of the Donetsk People's Republic is based on the flag of Donetsk–Krivoy Rog Soviet Republic. The black is commonly thought to represent the Black Sea or the coal industry in the Donbass region. The red is thought to represent freedom and the blue is thought to represent water. The flag also features the coat of arms of the republic in the centre. The flag features the words " Donetsk People's Republic " in Russian. The previous flag of the Donetsk People Republic was identical to the flag of the Donetsk Republic but did not feature the words " Donetsk Republic ".

The anthem of the Donetsk People's Republic

Vstavay, Donbass! is the anthem of the Donetsk People's Republic. It was written by a band, Den' Triffinov, and subsequently adopted by the People's Rada of the Donetsk People's Republic in 2014.

 

Show you know: what happened on this day?

February 12, 1918____________________________________________________

April 7, 2014________________________________________________________

November 3, 2014___________________________________________________

March1994_________________________________________________________

November 28, 2014_______________________________________________

 

The end of the 1980s________________________________________________

May 11, 2014______________________________________________________

 

 

2. Study the text and answer the questions:

DEFINING POLITICS

 

The word ‘politics’ is derived from polis (Greek), literally meaning city-state. (Ancient Greek society was divided into a collection of independent city-states, each of which possessed its own system of government). The modern form of this definition is therefore ‘what concerns the state’. To study politics is in essence to study government, or more broadly, the exercise of authority.

Politics is what takes place within a polity, a system of social organizations centered upon the machinery of government.

Politics is therefore practiced in cabinet rooms, legislative chambers, government departments and the like and it is engaged in by a limited and specific group of people. Businesses, schools and other educational institutions, community groups, families and so on are in this sense ‘nonpolitical’ because they are not engaged in ‘running the country’.

The definition can be narrowed still further. This is evident in the tendency to treat politics as equivalent of party politics. In other words, the realm of ‘the political’ is restricted to those state actors who are consciously motivated by organizations such as a political party.

The link between politics and the affairs of the state also helps to explain why negative images have so often been attached to politics. This is because in the popular mind, politics is closely associated with the activities of politicians. But brutally, the politicians are often seen as power-seeking hypocrites who conceal personal ambitions behind the rhetoric of public service and ideological conviction. This rejection of the personnel and machinery of conventional political life is clearly evident in the use of derogatory phrases such as ‘office politics’ and ‘politicking’. But without some kind of mechanism for allocating authoritative values, society would simply disintegrate into a civil war of each against all. The task is therefore not to abolish politicians and to bring politics to an end, but rather to ensure that politics is conducted within a framework of checks and constraints that ensure that government power is not abused.

Thus, politics is the activity through which people make, preserve and amend the general rules under which they live.

Politics is also an academic subject; it is clearly concerned with the study of this activity.

Politics is also linked to the phenomena of conflict and cooperation (the existence of rival opinions, different wants, competing needs and opposing interests guarantees disagreement about the rules under which people live). This is why the heart of politics is often portrayed as a process of conflict resolution, in which rival views or competing interests are reconciled with one another.

1. What are the modern definition and the origin of the word ‘politics’?

2. Who are the main actors of politics?

3. Can you explain the case negative images have always been attached to politics?

4. What is the main subject of academic study of politics?

5. What is the heart of politics?

 

2.1. Memorize the vocabulary from the following text:

to define — определять; очерчивать границы, формы

politics — политика, политические события, политическая жизнь

polity(ies) — полития/политии (государственное устройство, система правления).

to possess — владеть, обладать;

to concern — касаться, иметь отношение к ч-л

to legislate — издавать законы

to restrict — ограничивать, сдерживать

to link — соединять, связывать;

to attach — присоединять, связывать

to seek (sought, sought) — стремиться; искать, разыскивать

to conceal smth — скрывать, прятать

to derogate — умалять достоинство, унижать.

to abolish — отменить, упразднить.

to allocate — распределять, назначать.

to reconcile — примирять, улаживать спор

 

2.2. Give Russian equivalents to the following word combinations. Combine your own sentence using any of the phrases below:

The exercise of authority; in cabinet rooms; legislative chambers; government departments and the like; images attached to politics; power-seeking hypocrites; rhetoric of public service and ideological conviction; allocating authoritative values; to abolish politicians; within a framework of checks and constraints; an academic subject; rival opinions or competing interests.

 

2.3. Study and fix in your dictionary different meanings for the following phrases. Key-words: ‘public’, ‘popular’, ‘community’, ‘communal’.

 

Public opinion

spending

bodies

image

officer

career

relations

facilities

administration

popular consent

idea

politician

elections

support

mandate

preferences

image

mobilisation

revolution

community local

business

scientific

communal interests

way of life

 

 

2.1. Study the text and answer the questions:

Different views of politics

Politics as the art of government. ‘Politics is not a science...but an art’. Chancellor Bismarck is reputed to have told the German Reichstag. The art Bismarck had in mind was the art of government, the exercise of control within society through the making and enforcement of collective decisions. This is perhaps the classical definition of politics, developed from the original meaning of the term in Ancient Greece.

Politics as public affairs. The second and broader conception of politics moves it beyond the narrow realm of government to what is thought of as ‘public life’ or ‘public affairs’. On the basis of ‘public/private’ division, politics is restricted to the activities of the state itself and the responsibilities which are properly exercised by public bodies (the apparatus of government, the courts, the police, the army, the society-security system and so forth).

Politics as compromise and consensus. The third conception of politics relates not so much to the arena within which politics is conducted as to the way in which decisions are made. Specifically, politics is seen as a particular means of resolving conflict that is by compromise, conciliation and negotiation, rather than through force and naked power. This is what is implied when politics is portrayed as the art of the possible’. Such a definition is inherent in the everyday use of the term. For instance, the description of a solution to a problem as a ‘political’ solution implies peaceful debate and arbitration, as opposed to what is often called a ‘military’ solution.

Politics as power. The fourth definition of politics is both the broadest and the most radical. This view sees politics at work in all social activities and in every corner of human existence. At its broadest, politics concerns the production, distribution and use of resources in the course of social existence, but the essential ingredient is the existence of scarcity. The simple fact that, while human needs and desires are infinite, the resources available to satisfy them are always limited, politics can therefore be seen as a struggle over scarce resources, and power can be seen as the means through which this struggle is conducted.

2.2. Memorize the vocabulary from the following text:

- to repute — считать, полагать

- to enforce — принуждать, заставлять, навязывать, проводить в жизнь

- to conciliate — примирять

- to negotiate — вести переговоры

- to oppose — противиться, возражать

- to relate — быть связанным, иметь отношения, касаться чего-либо

- inherent in smth — быть присушим чему-либо

- scarcity — недостаточность, дефицит; scarce а — недостаточный.

- to imply - (об)означать, подразумевать, намекать

- specific — особый, конкретный, специфический

2.3. Answer the following questions:

- Through which means is the art of government exercised?

- What do public bodies include?

- What are the ways of resolving conflicts?

- What is your interpretation of ‘the art of the possible’?

- Where do ‘politics and power’ work?

- What is the essential ingredient of politics as power?

 

2.4. Translate from English into Russian:

Through the making and enforcement of collective decisions; public affairs; beyond the narrow realm of government; the society — security system; consensus; a particular means of resolving conflict; naked power; ‘the art of the possible’; peaceful debate and arbitration; in all social activities and in every corner of human existence.

2.5. Translate into Russian in writing:

1. Chancellor Bismarck is reputed to have told the German Reichstag: ‘Politics is not a science but an art’.

2. Aristotle was known to call politics ‘the master science’.

3. Public bodies are believed to be funded at the public expense, out of taxation.

4. The famous aphorism ‘power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely’ seems to belong to Lord Acton (1834-1902).

5. Aristotle was reported to believe that polity is the rule by the many in the interests of all.

6. Moscow is likely to become one of the world’s largest cities.

7. The adjective ‘Machiavellian’

8. happens to mean ‘cunning and duplicitous’ (хитрый и двуличный).

9. Power is known to be the ability to achieve the desired outcome.

10. Politics is said to be portrayed as ‘the art of the possible’.

2.6. Propose English equivalents for the following phrases:

Осуществление контроля в обществе; нести ответственность за...; аппарат правительства; суды; означать, подразумевать; проводить политику; вести борьбу; это определение политики самое широкое и радикальное; политика в действии; в самом широком смысле политика имеет отношение к распределению и использованию природных ресурсов; удовлетворять чьи-либо потребности.

2.7. Translate from Russian into English:

 

1. Оказывается, что политика — это постоянная борьба.

2. Кажется, что вторая концепция термина «политика» пол­ностью не исключает содержание первой.

3. Говорят, что Бисмарк сравнивал политику с искусством.

4. Такое отношение к внутренней политике заставляет нас сделать собственные выводы.

5. Мы наблюдали, как политики подписывают этот документ.

6. Оратор дал нам понять, что природные ресурсы страны ог­раничены.

 

2.8. Suggest English equivalents:

1. разногласия

2. противоречие

3. Древняя Греция

4. принципы

5. основываться

6. научная дисциплина

7. развитие

8. отказ, неприятие

9. важность политических ценностей

10. универсальные ценности

11. средство

12. школы анализа

 

3.1. Study the text and answer the questions:

WHAT IS POLITICAL IDEOLOGY?

Ideology is one of the most controversial concepts encountered in political analysis. Although the term now tends to be used in a neutral sense, to refer to a developed social philosophy or ‘world view’, it had in the past heavily negative or pejorative connotations. During its sometimes tortuous career, the concept of ideology has commonly been used as a political weapon to condemn or criticize rival creeds or doctrines.

The term ‘ideology’ was coined in 1796 by the French philosopher Destutt de Tracy (1754—1836). He used it to refer to a new ‘science of ideas’ (literally an ideology) that set out to uncover the origins of conscious thought and ideas.

From a social-scientific viewpoint, an ideology is a more or less coherent set of ideas that provides a basis for organized political action, whether this is intended to preserve, modify or overthrow the existing system of power relationships.

All ideologies therefore

offer an account of the existing order, usually in the form of a ‘world view’,

provide a model of a desired future, a vision of the Good Society and

outline how political change can and should be brought about. Ideologies are not, however, hermetically sealed systems of thought; rather, they are fluid sets of ideas which overlap with one another at a number of points. At a ‘fundamental’ level, ideologies resemble political philosophies; at an ‘operative’ level, they take the form of broad political movements.

 

VOCABULARY:

1. to condemn v — осудить, вынести приговор

2. to rival v — соперничать

3. to provide v - обеспечивать, предлагать, предусматривать, принимать меры (for)

4. to overthrow v — свергать, побеждать, расстраивать планы

5. to resemble v — походить на что-либо, быть похожим

6. to deny v - отрицать, отказываться

7. to insist v (on, upon) — настаивать

8. to apply v — обращаться к кому-либо— to

9. to reject v — отвергать, отклонять, не принимать

10. to account v - считать за, рассматривать как; phr — to account him a politician — считать его политиком; to account for — быть причиной, объяснять; an account n — рассмотре­ние, анализ, отчет; объяснение; phr — to take account of - принимать в расчет, учитывать; to give an account of something — давать отчет в чем-либо; on account of — no причине; on no account — ни в коем случае; to take into account — принять во внимание; accountable a - ответст­венный (за что-либо — for; перед кем-либо — to);

 

Liberalism and conservatism

Any account of political ideologies must start with liberalism. This is because liberalism is, in effect, the ideology of the industrialized West, and is sometimes portrayed as a meta — ideology that is capable of embracing a broad range of rival values and beliefs. Although liberalism did not emerge as a developed political creed until the early nineteenth century, distinctively liberal theories and principles had gradually been developed during the previous 300 years.

The central theme of classical liberalism is a commitment to an extreme form of individualism. The state is regarded as a ‘necessary evil’. It is ‘necessary’ in that, at the very least, it establishes order and security. However, it is ‘evil’ in that it imposes a collective will upon society, thus limiting the freedom and responsibilities of the individual. In the form of economic liberalism, this position is underpinned by a deep faith in the mechanisms of the free market and the belief that the economy works best when left alone by government.

Modem liberalism is characterized by a more sympathetic attitude towards state intervention. Modem liberals abandoned their belief in laissez-faire capitalism, largely as a result of J.M. Keynes insight that growth and prosperity could only be maintained through a system of managed or regulated capitalism, with key economic responsibilities being placed in the hands of the state.

Neoliberalism is an updated version of classical political economy. The central pillars of neoliberalism are the market and the individual. The principal neoliberal goal is to ‘roll back the frontiers of the state, in the belief that unregulated market capitalism will deliver efficiency, growth and widespread prosperity. In this view, the ‘dead hand’ of the state saps initiative and discourages enterprise; government, however well intentioned, invariably has a damaging effect upon human affaire. This is reflected in the liberal New Right’s concern with the politics of ownership, and its preference for private enterprise over state enterprise or nationalization.

The nanny state is seen to breed a culture of dependency and to undermine freedom, which is understood as freedom of choice in the market place. Instead, faith is placed in self-help, individual responsibility and entrepreneurial ism.

Conservative ideas and doctrines first emerged in the late eighteenth century and early nineteenth century as a reaction against growing pace of economic and political change.

From the very outset, divisions in conservative thought were apparent. In continental Europe, a form of conservatism emerged that was characterized by the attitude rejecting out of hand any idea of reform. A more flexible, more cautious, and ultimately more successful form of conservatism developed in the UK and the USA that was characterized by belief in ‘change in order to conserve’. This stance enabled conservatives to embrace the cause of social reform under the paternalistic banner of ‘One Nation’.

The New Right represents a departure in conservative thought that amounts to a kind of counter-revolution against both the postwar drift towards state intervention and spread of liberal or progressive social values. However, the New Right does not so much constitute a coherent and systematic philosophy as an attempt to marry two distinct traditions usually termed ‘neoliberalism’ and ‘neo-conservatism’.

Neo-conservatism reasserts nineteenth-century conservative social principles. The conservative New Right wishes, above all, to restore authority and return to traditional values, notably those linked to the family, religion and the nation. Authority is seen as guaranteeing social stability, while shared values and common culture are believed to generate social cohesion and make civilized existence possible. The enemies of neo-conservatism are therefore permissiveness, the cult of the self. Another aspect of neo-conservatism is the tendency to view the emergence of multicultural and multireligious societies with concern, on the basis that they are conflict-ridden and inherently unstable. It is skeptical about both immigration and the growing influence of supranational bodies such as the United Nations and the European Union.

VOCABULARY:

 

1. to commit v — поручать, вверять, совершать: ошибку (а mistake), преступление (crime); заключить в тюрьму, пере­дать суду; to commit oneself - принимать на себя обязатель­ства; commitment п — обязательство; приверженность; committed а — взявший на себя обязательство; заключенный под стражу.

2. to guarantee v — гарантировать, ручаться, обеспечивать, страховать (against); a guarantee п — гарантия, ручательство, залог; a guarantor п — гарант.

3. to abandon v - оставлять, покидать (a city), отказываться от, бросить (привычку — a habit); to abandon oneself to — преда­ваться чему-либо; to abandon oneself to an idea - склоняться к мысли; abandonment n — оставление, отказ от, заброшен­ность; abandoned а — заброшенный, запущенный.

4. to assert v — утверждать, заявлять, отстаивать; to assert oneself — отстаивать свои права; assertion п — утверждение, заявление, phr — a mere assertion — голословное утвержде­ние; assertive а — утвердительный, настойчивый

5. to accumulate v — накапливать, скапливаться; accumulation n — накопление, скопление; accumulative a — накопивший­ся; accumulator n — собиратель.

6. to promote v — помогать, способствовать, продвигать (по службе, на рынке); promotion п - содействие, продвижение по службе; promoted а — получивший повышение.

 

5.2. Translate from English into Russian:

Liberalism emerged as a developed political creed; this position is underpinned by a deep faith in the mechanisms of the free market; the economy works best when left alone by government; an updated version; the neoliberal goal is to «roll back the frontiers of the state»; to deliver efficiency, growth and widespread prosperity; to sap initiative; such divisions were apparent; to embrace the cause of social reform; a departure in conservative thought; to constitute a coherent and systematic philosophy; to generate social cohesion; conflict-ridden and inherently unstable.

5.3. Translate from Russian into English:

Объять широкий спектр противоположных ценностей и убе­ждений; приверженность крайней форме индивидуализма; навя­зать обществу коллективную волю; вмешательство государства; фундаментальные (основополагающие блоки); порождать иждивенчество; более осторожная и гибкая форма консерватизма; под патерналистским знаменем; соединить две различные тенденции; недоверчиво (пессимистически) относиться к ч-л.

 

5.4. Fill in the blanks with either ‘economic’ or ‘economical’:

1. The... and political change was symbolized by the French revolution.

2. An... creed developed that condemned all forms of government intervention.

3. A form of social liberalism emerged which looked more favorably on the state’s... intervention.

4. Economy must be...

5. We believe that economy works best when the approach to spending is most...

6. Conservative ideas rose as a reaction against the growing pace of... and political change.

 

5.5. Translate into English, using topical vocabulary:

1. Обеспечивая социальную справедливость, находящаяся у власти партия завоевывает еще большую популярность.

2. Являясь гарантом Конституции страны, президент должен обеспечивать соблюдение прав национальных меньшинств.

3. Оратор, выступавший за гарантии личных свобод, отражал точку зрения большинства своей партии.

4. Последние шаги, способствующие сохранению экономиче­ского роста и благополучия государства, встречают все большее одобрение народа.

 

6.1. Read and prepare the summary of the following text:

THE END OF IDEOLOGY?

Much of the debate about ideology in the late twentieth century was focused on predictions of its demise, or at least of its fading relevance. This has come to be known as the ‘end of ideology’ debate. It was initiated in the 1950s, stimulated by the collapse of fascism at the end of the Second World War and the decline of communism in the developed West. In ‘The End of Ideology? On the Exhaustion of Political Ideas in the 1950s’ (1960), the US sociologist Daniel Bell declared that the stock of political ideas had been exhausted. In his view, ethical and ideological questions had become irrelevant because in most western societies parties competed for power simply by promising higher levels of economic growth and material affluence. In short, economics had triumphed over politics. However, the process to which Bell drew attention was not so much.m end of ideology as the emergence of a broad ideological consensus amongst major parties that Jed to the suspension of ideological debate.!1ie ideology that prevailed in the 1950s and 1960s was a form of welfare capitalism, which in the UK and elsewhere took the form of a Keynesian-welfarist consensus.

A more recent contribution to this debate was made by Francis Fukuyama (his essay ‘The End of History?’, 1989). Fukuyama did not suggest that political ideology had become irrelevant, but rather that a single ideology, liberal democracy, had triumphed over all its rivals, and that this triumph was final. This essay was written against the background of the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe, which Fukuyama interpreted as indicating the demise of Marxism-Leninism as an ideology of world-historical importance. An alternative way of interpreting these developments, however, is offered by postmodernism, which suggests that the major ideologies, or ‘grand narratives’, were essentially products of a period of modernization that has now passed. On the other hand, the very assertion of an end of ideology, an end of history, or an end of modernity can be seen as ideological in itself. Rather than heralding the final demise of ideology, such assertions may merely demonstrate that ideological debate is alive and well, and that the evolution of ideology is a continuing and perhaps unending process.

 

6.2. Answer the following questions:

• What is political ideology?

• What are the characteristic themes, theories and principles of each of the major ideologies?

• How have the major ideologies changed over time?

• Has ideology come to an end? Could ideology come to an end?

 

7.1. Read and translate the text:

The Two Term Limit

Initially, the presidential term was four years. In December 2008, a constitutional amendment was passed to extend it to six years to take effect after the next presidential election. Calling the election is the responsibility of the Federation Council.

President Putin stepped down when his term expired in April 2008. In December 2007, upon his recommendation, the VIII Congress of the United Russia Party had nominated First Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev as its candidate for president. Putin had said that if Medvedev became president, he would be ready to serve as prime minister, without any change in the powers of either office. Putin's decision satisfied the formal requirement of Russia's constitution that no president may serve more than two consecutive terms and provided him with a continued role at the very top of the political system. As predicted by pre-election surveys the Medvedev-Putin "tandem" won by a landslide-see final result.

Electing a President

The winning candidate requires an absolute majority of the total vote. If no candidate secures this majority in the first-round ballot, then a second-round run off election must be held three weeks later in which the only contestants are the two front-running candidates in the first round. In 1996 Boris Yeltsin won barely a third of the vote in the first round; in 2000 and 2004 Vladimir Putin won an absolute majority in the first round (previous results), and Dmitry Medvedev did the same in 2008. Before the 2008 election, the ballot option of voting "against all" was abolished; in 2004 this protest vote was 3.4 percent of the total.

The previous minimum turnout of 50 percent of the registered electorate was also abolished. In the three previous presidential elections, the turnout had ranged between 69.7 percent in the 1996 first round and 64.3 percent in 2004. In 2008, it was again 69.7%.

The inauguration day of the new president was 7 May 2008.

Comprehension check

A.

1. What is the difference between ‘government’ and a ‘political system ’?

2. What is ‘political’ in a political system?

3. Through which means can a regime be changed?

B.

1. Name two reasons for classifying political systems.

2. All systems of classification have their drawbacks. Name three of them given in the text.

3. Give an example of different interpretations of the same thing in different contexts in the text.

C.

1. The regime classification industry has been in a limbo lately. Find facts accounting for it,

2. Give your set of priorities of the parameters listed in the text for classification of a system.

9.3. Terminology: Match the notions with the definitions:

Notion

1. Government

2. A political system or regime

3. Absolutism

4. Totalitarianism

5. Liberal democracy

Definition

A) An all-encompassing system of political rule that is typically established by ideological manipulation and open terror and brutality.

B) A form of democratic rule that balances the principle of limited government against the ideal of popular consent.

C) Institutional processes through which collective and usually j, binding decisions are made.

D) A network of relationships through which government generates policies in response to demands or support from general public.

E) Theory or practice of absolute government that cannot be constrained by a body external to itself.

 

СИСТЕМА ПРАВЛЕНИЯ

В самом широком смысле править означает управлять (или осуществлять контроль над) другими людьми. Систему правления, таким образом, можно рассматривать как механизм, при помощи которого поддерживается установленный порядок, при этом его главными характеристиками являются способность принимать коллективные решения и возможность претворять их в жизнь. Поэтому ту или иную форму правления можно найти практически во всех общественных институтах: семье, школе, бизнесе, профсоюзах и т.п.

Однако система правления чаще понимается как термин, относящийся к официальным и институциональным процессам, которые происходят на государственном уровне для поддержания общественного порядка и облегчения коллективных действий. Поэтому стержневые функции правления включают в себя:

• разработку и принятие законов (законодательная);

• претворение их в жизнь (исполнительная);

• интерпретация законов (применение в судебной практике).

В некоторых случаях политическая исполнительная власть рассматривается как «Правительство», что эквивалентно «Администрации» в президентских системах.

 

10.1. Study the text and the vocabulary:

 

REGIMES OF THE MODERN WORLD

Pre-reading activity: Learn the topical vocabulary and word combinations:

VOCABULARY:

1. to distinguish, v — отличать, различать; distinguishing, a - отличительный, distinguished, a — выдающийся, distinguishable, a — различимый, отличимый.

2. to advocate, v — отстаивать, поддерживать; an advocate, n — защитник, адвокат; Lord Advocate — генеральный прокурор.

3. to tolerate, v — терпеть, переносить; tolerance, n — терпимость; tolerable, a — терпимый, сносный, tolerant, a — терпимый к чему-либо.

4. to challenge sth, v — бросить вызов; a challenge, n — проблема, задача, вызов; a challenger, n — претендент, challenging, a — трудный, но интересный.

5. to survive, v — выжить, пережить; survival, n — выживание, survivor, n — уцелевший.

6. to emerge, v — возникнуть, появиться; emergence, n - возникновение; emergency, n — крайняя необходимость, чрезвычайное положение; emergent, а — возникающий; emergency powers — чрезвычайные полномочия.

7. to suspend, v — временно прекращать, отстранять, to suspend a meeting - прерывать собрание, to suspend a worker — временно отстранить от работы; suspense — напряженность, приостановление; to keep sb in suspense — держать в неизвестности/напряженности; suspenseful — захватывающий; to repress — подавлять, угнетать; repression — подавление, репрессия; repressive — репрессивный; culture — культура, традиция, история.

WORDS AND WORD COMBINATIONS:

to acknowledge sth — признать что-либо

to hold multiparty elections — провести многопартийные выборы

to stem from something — происходить от (из) чего-либо

to take account of sth — принять в расчет что-то

tend to do sth — тенденция, как правило (часто) делать ч-л

to place emphasis on — делать акцент на...

to embody sth — воплотить

to assume forms— приобрести формы

a number of — ряд, количество

to gain pre-eminence in — получить превосходство

to biase in favour of — склоняться к ч-л, отдавать предпочтение ч-л.

 

SKIM reading: Look through the text to find out if the following are the topical sentences for the first (A) part of the text? If not, which are?

· Western polyarchies are broadly equivalent to regimes as ‘liberal democracies’ or even simply ‘democracies’.

· Some of western polyarchies are biased in favour of centralisation; majority rule and others tend towards fragmentation and pluralism.

·

Work in pairs: Single out the topical sentences in parts ‘B’ and ‘C’ of the text.

REGIMES OF THE MODERN WORLD

A. Western polyarchies.

Western polyarchies are broadly equivalent to regimes categorized as liberal democracies’ or even simply “democracies”. Their heartlands are therefore North America, Western Europe and Australasia, although states ranging from India and Japan to the ‘new’ South Africa all exhibit strongly polyarchical features.

The term ‘polyarchy’ is preferable to liberal ‘democracy’ for two reasons. First, liberal democracy is sometimes treated as a political ideal. Secondly, the use of ‘polyarchy’ acknowledges that these regimes fall short, in important ways, of the goal of democracy.

All states that hold multiparty elections have polyarchical features. Nevertheless, western polyarchies have a more distinctive and particular character. They are marked not only by representative democracy and a capitalist economic organization, but also by a widespread acceptance of liberal individualism.

Western polyarchies are not all alike, however. Some of them are biased in favour of centralisation and majority rule, and others tend towards fragmentation and pluralism. A system of consociational democracy is particularly appropriate to societies that are divided by deep religious, ideological, regional, cultural or other differences. Consensual or pluralistic tendencies are often associated with the following features:

• Coalition government

• A separation of powers between the executive and the assembly

• An effective bicameral system

• A multiparty system

• Proportional representation

• Federalism or devolution

• A codified constitution and a bill of rights

B. Postcommunist regimes.

The collapse of communism in the eastern European revolutions of 1989 – 1991 undoubtedly unleashed a process of democratisation that drew heavily on the western liberal model. The central features of this process were the adoption of multiparty elections and the introduction of market-based economic reforms. In that sense, it can be argued that most (some would say all) former communist regimes are undergoing a transition that will eventually make them indistinguishable from western polyarchies. Nevertheless, for the time being at least, there are reasons for treating these systems as distinct. In the first place, the heritage of their communist past cannot be discarded overnight, especially when, as in Russia, the communist system had endured for over 70 years. Secondly, the process of transition itself has unleashed forces and generated problems quite different from those that confront western polyarchies. One feature of Postcommunist regimes is the need to deal with the politico-cultural consequences of communist rule. A second set of problems stem from the process of economic transition. The ‘shock therapy’ transition from central planning to laisse2-faire capitalism, advocated by the International Monetary Fund, unleashed deep insecurity because of the growth of unemployment and inflation, and it significantly increased social inequality. Important differences between Postcommunist states can also be identified. The most crucial of these is that between the more industrially advanced and westernized countries of 'central’ Europe and the more backward ‘eastern’ states. In the former group, market reform has proceeded swiftly and relatively smoothly; in the latter, it has either been grudging and incomplete or it has given rise to deep political tensions.

C. East Asian Regimes.

The rise of East Asia in the late twentieth century may ultimately prove to be a more important world-historical event than the collapse of communism. Certainly, the balance of the world’s economy has shifted markedly from the West to the East in this period. However, the notion that there is a distinctively East Asian political form is a less familiar one. The widespread assumption has been that modernization means westernisation. Translated into political terms, this means that industrial capitalism is always accompanied by liberal democracy. However, this interpretation fails to take account of the degree to which polyarchial institutions operate differently in an Asian eon text from the way they do in a western one. Most importantly, it ignores the difference between cultures influenced by Confucian ideas and values and ones shaped by liberal individualism.

East Asian regimes tend to have similar characteristics. First, they.ire orientated more around economic goals than political ones. Secondly, there is broad support for ‘strong’ government. Powerful ’ruling’ parties tend to be tolerated, and there is general respect for the state. Although, with low taxes, and relatively low public spending (usually below 30 per cent of GDP/gross domestic product/), there is little room for the western model of the welfare state, there is nevertheless general acceptance that the state as a ‘father figure’ should guide the decisions of private as well as public bodies, and draw up strategies for national development. This characteristic is accompanied, thirdly, by a general disposition to respect leader, because of the Confucian stress on loyalty, discipline and duty. Finally, great emphasis is placed on community and social cohesion, embodied in the central role accorded to the family. The resulting emphasis on what the Japanese call ‘group think’ restricts the scope for the assimilation of ideas such as individualism and human rights, at least as these are understood in the West.

D. Islamic regimes.

The rise of Islam as a political force has had a profound effect on politics in North Africa, the Middle East, and parts of Asia. In some cases, militant Islamic groups have challenged existing regimes, often articulating the interests of an urban poor. Islam is not, however, and never has been, simply a religion. Rather, it is a complete way of life, defining correct moral, political and economic behaviour for individuals and nations alike. Political Islam aims at the construction of a theocracy in which political and other affairs are structured according to ‘higher’ religious principles. Nevertheless, political Islam has assumed clearly contrasting forms, ranging from fundamentalist to pluralist extremes.

E. Military regimes.

Whereas most regimes are shaped by a combination of political, economic, cultural and ideological factors, some survive through the exercise, above all, of military power and systematic repression. In this sense, military regimes belong to a broader category of authoritarianism. Military authoritarianism has been most common in Latin America, the Middle East, Africa and South East Asia, but it also emerged in the post-war period in Spain, Portugal and Greece. The key feature of a military regime is that the leading posts in the government are filled on the basis of the person’s position within the military chain of command. Normal political and constitutional arrangements are usually suspended, and institutions, through which opposition can be expressed, such as elected assemblies and a free press, are either weakened or abolished.

Although all forms of military rule are deeply repressive, this classification encompasses a number of regime types. In some military regimes, the armed forces assume direct control of government. The classical form of this is the military junta, most commonly found in Latin America. This operates as a form of collective military

Government cantered on a command council of officers who usually present the three armed services: the army, navy and air force. The second form of military regime is a military-backed personalized dictatorship. In these cases, a single individual gains pre-eminence within the junta or regime. In the final form of military regime, the loyalty of the armed forces is the decisive factor, but the military leaders content themselves with ‘pulling the strings’ behind the scenes.

AFTER-READING activity: Read the text in more depth to do the ‘After-reading exercises’.

Comprehension check A.

1. Why is the term «polyarchy» preferable to liberal ‘democracy’?

2. What is the distinctive feature of western polyarchies?

3. What societies is a system of consociational democracy particularly appropriate for?

4. What features are consensual or pluralistic tendencies associated with?

5. The collapse of communism unleashed a process of democratization. Name the central features of this process.

6. Some argue that former communist regimes will become indistinguishable from western polyarchies. List the counterarguments given in the text.

7. Comment on the role of the International Monetary Fund in the process.

8. Identify important differences between post-communist states.

9. The widespread assumption has been that modernization means westernization. Translate it into political terms and give all «pros» and «cons» mentioned in the text.

10. What is the aim of political Islam with its particular features?

11. What are the key features and forms of military regimes?

10.3. Terminology:

CLASSICAL TYPOLOGIES

 

Without doubt, the most influential system of classification was that devised by Aristotle in the fourth century BCE, which was based on his analysis of the 158 Greek city states then in existence. This system dominated thinking on the subject for roughly the next 2500 years. Aristotle held that governments could be categorized on the basis of two questions: «who rules?» and «who benefits from rule?». Government, he believed, could be placed in the hands of a single individual, a small group, or the many. In each case, however, government could be conducted either in the selfish interests of the rulers or for the benefit of the entire community.

Aristotle’s purpose was to evaluate forms of government on normative grounds in the hope of identifying the ‘ideal’ constitution. In his view, tyranny, oligarchy and democracy were all debased or perverted forms of rule in which a single person, a small group and the masses, respectively, governed in their own interests and therefore at the expense of others.

In contrast, monarchy, aristocracy and polity were to be preferred, because in these forms of government the individual, small group and the masses, respectively, governed in the interests of all. Aristotle declared tyranny to be the worst of all possible constitutions, as it reduced citizens to the status of slaves. Monarchy and aristocracy were, on the other hand, impractical, because they were based on a God-like willingness to place the good of the community before the rulers’ own interests. Polity (rule by the many in the interests of all) was accepted as the most practicable of constitutions. Nevertheless, in a tradition that endured through to the twentieth century, Aristotle criticized popular rule on the grounds that the masses would resent the wealth of the few, and too easily fall under the sway of a demagogue. He therefore advocated a ‘mixed’ constitution that combined elements of both democracy and oligarchy, and left the government in the hands of the ‘middle classes’, those who were neither rich nor poor.

The Aristotelian system was later developed by thinkers such as Thomas Hobbes and Jean Bodin (1530—96). Their particular concern was with the principle of sovereignty viewed as the basis for all stable political regimes. Sovereignty was taken to mean the ‘most high and perpetual’ power, a power which alone could guarantee orderly rule.

These ideas were later revised by early liberals such as John Locke and Montesquieu, who championed the cause of constitutional government. In his epic The Spirit of the Laws ([1734] 1949), Montesquieu attempted to develop a ‘scientific’ study of human society, designed to uncover the constitutional circumstances that would best protect individual liberty. A severe critic of absolutism and an admirer of the English parliamentary tradition, he proposed a system of checks and balances in the form of a ‘separation of powers’ between the executive, legislative and judicial institutions. This principle was incorporated into the US constitution (1787), and it later came to be seen as one of the defining features of liberal democratic government.

The «classical» classification of regimes, stemming from the writings of Aristotle, was rendered increasingly redundant by the development of modem constitutional systems from the late eighteenth century onwards. In their different ways, the Constitutional republicanism established in the USA following the American war of Independence of 1775—1783, the democratic radicalism unleashed in France by the 1789 French Revolution, and the form of parliamentary government that gradually emerged in the UK created political realities that were substantially more complex than early thinkers had envisaged. Traditional systems of classification were therefore displaced by a growing emphasis on the constitutional and institutional features of political rule. In many ways, this was built on Montesquieu’s work in that particular attention was paid to the relationships between the various branches of government. Thus monarchies were distinguished from republics, parliamentary systems were distinguished from presidential ones, and unitary systems were distinguished from federal ones.

 

10.17. Comment on:

«That government is best which governs not at all» (Henry David Thoreau: Civil disobedience,1849)

What do you think?

What is the difference between governments, political systems and regimes?

What is the purpose of classifying systems of government?

On what basis have, and should, regimes be classified?

What are the major regimes of the modem world?

Has western liberal democracy triumphed worldwide?

10.19. Translate from English into Russian:

SUMMARY

• Government is any mechanism through which ordered rule is maintained, its general feature being its ability to make collective decisions and enforce them. A political system, or regime, however, encompasses not only the mechanisms of government and institutions of the state, but also the structures and processes through which these interact with the larger society.

• The classification of political systems serves two purposes. First, it aids understanding by making comparison possible and helping to highlight similarities and differences between otherwise shapeless collections of facts. Secondly, it helps us to evaluate the effectiveness or success of different political systems.

• The collapse of communism and advance of democratization has made it much more difficult to identify the political contours of the modern world, making conventional systems of classification redundant. It is nevertheless still possible to distinguish between regimes on the basis of how their political, economic and cultural characteristics interlock in practice, even though all systems of classification are provisional.

• There is evidence that regime types have become both more complex and more diverse. The principle regime types found in the modern world are western polyarchies, post-communist regimes. East Asian regimes, Islamic regimes and military regimes.

10.20. Questions for discussion:

1. To what extent have post-communist regimes discarded their communist past?

2. Why have liberal-democratic structures proved to be so effective and successful?

3. How democratic are Western polyarchies?

4. Do Confucianism and Islam constitute viable alternatives to western liberalism as a basis for a modem regime?

 

DEFINING DEMOCRACY

1. In the dictionary definition, democracy «is government by the people in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system». In the phrase of Abraham Lincoln, democracy is a government «of the people, by the people and for the people».

2. Democracies fall into two basic categories, direct and representative. In a direct democracy, all citizens, without the intermediary of elected or appointed officials, can participate in making public decisions. Such a system is clearly only practical with relatively small numbers of people - in a community organization or tribal council, for example, or the local unit of a labor union, where members can meet in a single room to discuss issues and arrive at decisions by consensus or majority vote. Ancient, the world's first democracy, managed to practice direct democracy with an assembly that may have numbered as many as 5.000 to 6.000 persons - perhaps the maximum number that can physically gather in one place and practice direct democracy.

3. Modern society, with its size and complexity, offers few opportunities for direct democracy.

4. Today, the most common form of democracy, whether for a town of 50,000 or nations of 50 million, is repre­sentative, democracy, in which citizens elect officials to make political decisions, formulate laws and administer programs for the public good. In the name of the people, such officials can deliberate on complex public issues in thoughtful and systematic manner that requires an investment of time and energy which is often impractical for the vast majority of private citizens.

5. How such officials are elected can vary enormously. On the national level, for example, legislators can be chosen from districts that each elect a single representative. Alternatively, under a system of proportional representation, each political party is represented in the legislature according to its percentage of the total vote nationwide. Provincial and local elections can mirror these national models, or choose their representatives more informally through group consensus instead of elections. Whatever the method used, public officials in representative democracy hold office in the name of the people and remain accountable to the people for their actions.

6. Majority Rule and Minority Rights. All democracies are systems in which citizens freely make political decisions by majority rule. But rule by the majority is not necessarily democratic: no one, for example, would call a system fair or just that permitted 51 percent of the population to oppress the remaining 49 percent in the name of the majority. In a democratic society, majority rule must be coupled with guarantees of individual human rights that, in turn, serve to protect the rights of minorities – whether ethnic, religious or political.

7. Democratic Society. Democracy is more than a set of constitutional rules and procedures that determine how a government functions. In a democracy, government is only one element coexisting in a social fabric of many and varied institutions, political parties, organizations and associations. This diversity is called pluralism, and it assumes that the many organized groups and institutions in a democratic society do not depend upon