THEORY AND METHODOLOGY OF POLITICAL SCIENCE
The first part of the article presents achievements in the many years work of the Department of Comparative Political Studies of FCTAS RAS on the development of national institutional political science relating to the workout of the conceptual and categorical apparatus adequate to the Russian realities. The author outlines specially created ideal typical constructs “political field”, “field of domination”, “politics of modern type”, “political/emancipatory power”, “domination as a form of non-political power”. Their theoretical and methodological justification is given, their analytical potential for studying the unfinished institutionalization of the political order in Russia and identifying the resources of transformative politics is revealed.
In the second part of the article, the cross-cutting theme is the possibility of expanding the horizon for research on political-power relations through the optics of the concepts on domination, which is interpreted as a social pathology in modern democracies. It specifies the political-philosophical and theoretical foundations for the present-day scientific discourse and conceptions of domination, the criteria of conceptual differentiation between the two forms of power, the experience in the concepts operationalization. In the final empirical part of the study, based on the analysis of primary data from five waves of the all-Russian surveys, the analytical tool kit of dominance concepts is proved to be productive for studying the nature of Russia’s institutional environment. The article also proves a correlation between processes of proliferation of the domination social relations and deformation of political field, decrease of resources of society and potential of political innovations in Russia.
Having become a popular term at the turn of the 20th and 21st centuries, populism at the same time, for a number of reasons, remains one of the most difficult socio-political phenomena to study. Skepticism in the scientific community regarding the phenomenon was so great that well-known political scientists questioned the appropriateness of its use or even suggested abandoning it. The article analyzes the path that political science has followed in the study of populism. The author considers the points of view of political scientists from different countries, summarizes their findings and concludes that by now the academic community has managed to find the key features that make it possible to form the framework of populism as a scientifically researchable phenomenon. However, it seems hardly possible to speak of a universal concept of such a deep and multisided phenomenon. Therethrough, the question of which party can be classified as populist remains equally debatable.
The claim that populism is an ideology seems, in our opinion, not entirely rational. That term is used to denote a set of certain ideas, for example, liberalism or conservatism, whereas populism, on the contrary, does not have specific ideas, representing the style of behavior described above within the framework of the party-political system.
COUNTRIES AND REGIONS OF THE WORLD: DEVELOPMENT DYNAMICS AND MODELS OF COOPERATION
The article considers both the internal political situation and the interests of other countries in Kazakhstan. The author expresses an opinion that after the January events of 2022, the current president of Kazakhstan began to get rid of the political influence of the first president of the republic. Now all the power in the country is concentrated in the hands of President Tokayev. But with the new government, the political course of Kazakhstan has also changed, which is characterized by a cooling of relations with Russia.
The author also notes that Kazakhstan is an object of special interest for four civilizations at once: Russian, Western (USA), Middle Eastern (Turkey), Eastern (China). If Russia and China want to see Kazakhstan as a stable, independent and developing partner, then the United States considers Kazakhstan as a means to achieve its geopolitical goals, which in the future may well become a victim of American “democracy” in the fight against Russia. Turkey, on the other hand, seeks to unite the Turkic states under its leadership, therefore, considers Kazakhstan as a means to increase its geopolitical capabilities.
In conclusion, the assumption is made that in case of further cooling of relations with Russia, there is a danger of Kazakhstan becoming a satellite of the United States, the consequence of that may be the loss of its state sovereignty.