Affiliation:
1. Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow, Russia
Abstract
Considering the relationship between state and society as the main area of thematic division of power “over” and “for”, the author shows the grounds that reveal that political domination is a certain form and stage of the historical evolution of political power, reflecting (in contrast to the democratic version of its development) the gradual usurpation by the ruling circles of their institutional (general civil) powers, truncation of citizens' rights and reduction of opportunities for their participation in government decision-making. In this context, the author, considering internal elite conflicts as the main source of such an evolution of power relations, draws attention to the so-called “winning” coalition of the ruling class, which concentrated in its hands the main instruments of control over government decision-making and the distribution of key public goods and resources. At the same time, a complex set of functions and tasks for developing public policy goals, identifying privileged groups and maintaining social stability predetermines the identification of internal groupings of this elite stratum, allowing it to manage and construct social relations in accordance with the stated political course and its hidden intentions. In this context, the article identifies seven main segments of this ruling group, performing various tasks in the field of competition with rival groups of the ruling class and in the field of relations with society and structures of the civil sector. In this regard, the corresponding contradictions between individual segments of the “winning” coalition are identified, as well as the technologies and mechanisms characteristic of these elite groups that contribute to the fulfillment of their role and support the format of political dominance.
Publisher
Non Profit Partnership Polis (Political Studies)
Reference54 articles.
1. Allison, G.T. (1968). Conceptual models and the Cuban missile crisis: rational policy, organization process, and bureaucratic politics. Santa Monica: Harvard University Press; Rand Corporation.
2. Collins, R. (2011). Explaining the anti-Soviet revolution by state breakdown theory and geopolitical theory. International Politics, 48(4), 575-590. https://doi.org/10.1057/ip.2011.15
3. Druckman, J.N. (2008). Dynamic approaches to studying parliamentary coalitions. Political Research Quarterly, 61(3), 479-483. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912908321745
4. Goldstone, J.A. (2016). Revolution and rebellion in the early modern world: population change and state breakdown in England, France, Turkey, and China,1600-1850; 25th Anniversary Edition. London; New York: Routledge.
5. Goldstone, J.A., Grinin, L., & Korotayev, A. (2022). The phenomenon and theories of revolution. In J.A. Goldstone, L. Grinin, & A. Korotayev (Ed.), Handbook of Revolutions in the 21st Century. The New Waves of Revolutions, and the Causes and Effects of Disruptive Political Change (pp. 37-68). Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-86468-2_2