Examples of youth participation in politics. Youth participation in the Russian political process: modern theory and practice

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 participation in 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 support system 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 solve social problems of 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 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. The Union “Young Republicans”, the Russian Communist Youth Union, the youth organization “Unity” operate with varying degrees of activity, 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 young people, used by opposing forces, took extremely extremist positions in conflict situations.

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.

PARTICIPATION OF YOUTH IN THE SOCIAL AND POLITICAL LIFE OF THE STATE

“Youth must be given the opportunity to actively participate in decision-making at local, national and global levels.”

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon

In the context of the socio-political development of the state, the issue of the active participation of young people in the socio-political life of the country is increasingly on the agenda. Mastering the cumulative social experience, the younger generation always brings something new. However, not all changes contribute to social development, but only those that are aimed at the progressive renewal of society and have the property of irreversibility give the social process the character of development.

Youth is a large socio-demographic group that unites individuals based on socio-psychological, age, and economic characteristics. From a psychological point of view, youth is a period of formation of self-awareness, a stable system of values, as well as social status. Youth represent the most valuable and at the same time the most problematic part of society. The value of the younger generation lies in the fact that, as a rule, its representatives have increased determination, the ability to assimilate large amounts of information, originality and critical thinking. However, these advantages give rise to certain problems in the realization and existence of young people in society. Thus, critical thinking is often aimed not at the search for truth, but at the categorical rejection of already existing norms and dogmas that guide other members of society. Modern youth are also characterized by new negative qualities that were absent in their predecessors, in particular, detachment from the world around them, reluctance to work, and increased negativism. However, one cannot deny the fact that the younger generation is a strategic resource for change in Kazakhstan. Therefore, the formation of a successful society depends on what civic position the youth of our country choose.

The problem of the low percentage of youth participation in socio-political activities today is that neither the state nor the adult part of society adequately demonstrate practical readiness to share with young people a commensurate part of the resource they control. There are no effective mechanisms for involving young people in the process of developing government decisions, in the joint formation of socially significant social actions and sharing responsibility for their results. This leads to increasing apathy among young people; they do not want to participate in politics, do not believe in the possibility of fair elections, and do not consider the current government to be their authority. But one of the most pressing problems in the development of civic consciousness among young people is the lack of a legal and human rights culture among young people. The future management of society and the state depends on the level of legal awareness of young people.

Nowadays, most people are not aware of their rights, do not notice attacks on them, and easily infringe on the rights of other fellow citizens. Real society moves and changes, while maintaining, as a rule, its stability, due to the fact that very different value ideas roam, collide, interact and fight in the public consciousness, each of which has its own defenders, ready to fight for it until a victorious end and sincerely convinced that this particular idea is the main one for creating the “best possible social world,” that is, that “real” society to which humanity has unconsciously strived since its very inception.

Today, youth initiative arises by decision of administrative structures, which displaces the creative potential of youth beyond the boundaries of youth organizations and political parties. Despite the fact that, as part of the implementation of today's state youth policy, work is being done to develop the full-fledged personality of the younger generation, organize leisure time, sports and health education, etc., the situation of the majority of Kazakhstani youth can be described as isolated. The interests of young people are not sufficiently represented in youth policy, since youth policy is built primarily in relation to young people participating in the work of public organizations, that is, a smaller part of it. The priority position of large youth organizations in matters of receiving state support hinders the development of initiatives of small groups representing the varied interests of the young population.

Youth public organizations cover only a small part of young people. The overwhelming majority of young people today do not find employment within existing youth public organizations and associations. The policy of supporting exclusively large and medium-sized youth associations leaves most of the youth behind. In addition, most public associations, due to their organizational and financial weakness, cannot adequately protect the interests of young people and organize effective work among youth. Young people's awareness of the activities of youth and children's public associations remains extremely low. Most young people are not familiar with the programmatic guidelines of political parties and are poorly informed about the work of candidates, which largely explains the low level of youth participation in parliamentary elections. The real educational impact on a young person today is exerted by the information environment, which sometimes demonstrates cultural patterns and examples of behavior that are incompatible with the concept of social responsibility. Thus, today it is necessary to pay close attention not only to working with young people at the level of public associations, political parties, and the state, but also to working with youth media. The need to form and develop the professional culture of journalists working in youth media, the organization of this type of specialization at the faculties of journalism and advanced training for practitioners is obvious.

Information policy needs to be changed in two directions: firstly, work with opinion leaders among young people, try to actively involve them in the work of the third sector; secondly, in parallel it is necessary to organize media education for children, adolescents and their parents. Here you can take advantage of the experience of European countries. It is advisable to create a national youth media infrastructure, including public television (the content of which would be determined not by the commercial interests of the owners, but by users, including young people) and a powerful youth Internet portal.
Given the relatively high popularity of print media among the population, it seems appropriate to use the resources of print media, which should more actively cover youth issues. It is necessary to create opportunities for the participation of youth organizations in monitoring the quality of the electoral process, as well as the activities of political parties. It is important to provide youth parliaments (governments) with a real opportunity to make political decisions on issues affecting youth. But the main thing that the state needs to realize is that youth are the main partner and resource of the state. For a long time, the state treated it as that part of society that only needed to be educated, guided and protected. Now there is an understanding that young people are a full-fledged subject of legal relations. In the meantime, unfortunately, the young man is on his own, and the state is on its own; everyone solves their problems with the help of the resources available to them. This often leads to the fact that successful, thinking young people by the time they reach professional adulthood (25-30 years old) do not consider themselves bound by any obligations to their country. And the main reason is the fact that they were not allowed to make significant public and state decisions. One of them said very well: “We consider as ours only what we took part in creating.”

Traditional forms of youth participation are increasingly in conflict with the new realities of the information society. Young people are mobile, they quickly master new information technologies and use them in their lives. Young people spend more and more of their time on the Internet. Virtual communication among young people is becoming even more intense than communication in real life. Government structures and public organizations involved in working with youth have not yet given an adequate response to these changes. The Internet resources they create cannot be compared in terms of the number of visits with chats and forums popular among young people. At the same time, the efficiency and relevance of these resources is extremely low. As a result, the most important channel of interaction with the youth audience is not used. The problem concerns not only government authorities, but also youth organizations, youth centers and other structures designed to ensure the development of youth participation. The lack of channels for direct information interaction with young people sharply reduces the possibility of their inclusion in various forms of social activity. Young people objectively need expanded opportunities to participate in various spheres of life at the local and regional level. This concerns issues such as access to information, participation in decision-making, seeking support for the implementation of one’s own projects and initiatives, access to the services of youth NGOs, social services and other structures. Solving the problem of updating youth participation channels will be an important step forward in the formation of an active generation of citizens of modern Kazakhstan. We are talking about the development of “electronic participation” (e-participation) of youth, including the use of information technology by youth organizations to involve youth in their programs and the creation of a system for monitoring the level of youth participation in public life based on information technology. Youth policy today can only be effective if it supports the individual development of a young person, and does not seek to shape his personality according to templates, standards, and regulations. It facilitates, provides information and resources for a person’s choice, and does not just discipline him; stimulates the initiatives of young people and their organizations, rather than imposing their own solutions. That is why modern youth policy must be flexible and combine a centralized state component and a decentralized public one.

Conclusion: The authorities constantly express concern about what is happening to our children and youth. But concern is not politics. How can legislators really help ensure that the younger generation is more actively involved in the life of the country and feels responsible for its destiny?

Having projected world experience onto the domestic practice of implementing youth policy, we can highlight the following key areas of work to develop youth participation:

Youth information. It is necessary not only to provide young people with information about opportunities for participation in society, but also to establish constant information interaction between young people and youth policy structures. For young people, this will, among other things, create an opportunity to influence decisions made via the Internet.
Development of programs and projects that are managed by youth themselves. It must be recognized that most projects and programs that are implemented within the framework of youth policy are developed on the initiative of adults and provide only a limited role for youth, if not even addressed to young people as recipients of services. It is obvious that the role of youth in project management should become a key criterion when deciding on its financial support from funds allocated for the implementation of youth programs.
Development of youth representation. Through forms of representation at different levels, young people should be given the opportunity to influence decision-making that affects their lives. Attention to the opinions of young people and taking into account their suggestions should become normal practice for all structures working with youth.

Thus, the legal self-determination of young people is one of the important problems existing today. It is impossible to solve it without solving the problems of the whole society. The results of all today's reforms, the emergence of a new legal culture, and therefore the further historical path of our society, significantly depend on the definition of the role of youth in society, their place, moods, and attitudes. Today we are constantly faced with the legal illiteracy of the population. There is an urgent need to eliminate it. Moreover, this process must begin with young people. If in a few years we want to get a generation that is fluent in legal issues, who knows their duties and rights, how to implement and protect them, if we really want to build a rule-of-law state in Kazakhstan, then we need to pay more attention to youth policy and legal education youth.

List of used literature:

file:///Users/viktoriabelavskaa/Desktop/%20%D0%BE%D0%BE%D0%BD.pdf
http://utopiya.spb.ru/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2779:2011-11-08-15-20-08&catid=110:2011-11-04-20-11-23&Itemid=206

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 the 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 share of those who have finally confirmed their position a week before the vote is the lowest (62%) and the share of those who are not sure whether they will go to the polls or not (26%) is the highest (26%). 2 .

According to a nationwide survey conducted by the FOM in February 2004, in the age group 18-35 years old, 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, in European countries, young people in general have a low level of 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 .

Pfetzer S.A.

Head of the Department of Social and Educational Work, Kemerovo State University

ON THE PROBLEM OF RESEARCHING THE POLITICAL PARTICIPATION OF YOUTH OF THE MODERN RUSSIAN PROVINCE

Annotation

The article analyzes domestic and foreign studies of the substantive characteristics and determinants of political participation of modern Russian youth. A model for studying the political participation of youth in a modern Russian province is substantiated.

Key words: political values, political behavior, political participation, youth.

Pfettser S. A.

The head of department on social and educational work of the Kemerovo state university

TO THE PROBLEM OF RESEARCH OF POLITICAL PARTICIPATION OF YOUTH OF THE MODERN RUSSIAN PROVINCE

Abstract

In article domestic and foreign researches of features of substantial characteristics and a determinant of political participation of modern Russian youth are analyzed. The model of research of political participation of youth of the modern Russian province locates.

Keywords: political values, political behavior, political participation, youth.

The youth of Russia, as a large social community, is very heterogeneous in socio-economic, cultural and value terms, which also determines the heterogeneity of the system of its political orientations. It is no coincidence that different authors often find that modern Russian youth are directed towards completely opposite political values. Thus, according to a series of qualitative studies conducted by the Kryshtanovskaya Laboratory, the most widespread ideology among Russian urban youth is liberal democratic views. O.V. Sorokin, on the contrary, believes that “despite the persisting pluralism of political orientations among young people, the vector of youth unification based on the idea of the revival of Russia, as well as on national-patriotic ideas, can be traced. At the same time, the risk of a surge of nationalist manifestations among her remains.” A.V. Selezneva points out the relevance both for older age groups and for the “Putin generation” of the so-called “security values”, i.e. materialistic values, manifested in the political sphere with an orientation toward “the absence of war,” “a stable economy,” “the fight against crime,” “order in the country,” etc. . E.A. Samsonova analyzes the expression in the system of political values of young people of such bipolar components as “individual” - “collective” (freedom, competitiveness, enterprise, selfishness, independence); “material” – “spiritual” (material well-being, economic pragmatism, cynicism, corruption of state and law enforcement authorities); “authoritarian” – “democratic” (aggressive types of inclusion in politics, nationalism, extremism, readiness to use force and harsh means to eliminate opposition). At the same time, integrating young people and older generations, in her opinion, is the “archetype of authoritarianism” that is equally significant for them, ensuring the continuity of socio-political values and allowing one to assume the reality of Russian society returning to an authoritarian channel even in the event of a complete change of generations in the power structures. Thus, depending on the researcher’s position as the “core” of the system of political values of modern Russian youth, almost the entire possible range of ideological preferences is considered.

The contradictory political values of today's youth are naturally manifested in the diversity of their political behavior. In this regard, S.A. Pakhomenko characterizes the political behavior of young people as contradictory and irrational, which, in his opinion, is associated with ambivalence, contradictory value orientations and political attitudes of modern youth, increasing anomy and destructiveness in society. According to the author, the political behavior of Russian youth contains attitudes towards political pluralism, but is authoritarian in the forms of political interaction. According to the results of his research, such political behavior is characterized by spontaneity of political choice and instability of political preferences, a combination of “passivity, political alienation and patient-submissive political behavior of young people with bursts of irrational, protest and even extremist political behavior.”

O.V. Sorokin explains such inconsistency primarily by the universal distinctive features of youth - the transitional nature of the period of youth, the intermediate nature of its social position, the incomplete independence of youth as a subject of social relations, the incompleteness of the process of forming social maturity, etc. As a consequence, the political consciousness of young people is, in principle, characterized by heterogeneity, marginality, lability and extremeness. The formation of specific features of the political consciousness of modern Russian youth in the conditions of transformation of Russian society, especially in the situation of uncertainty of the 1990s, is associated, according to the author, with the destruction of traditional value-normative structures of mass consciousness, which manifested itself in a total drop in trust, growth in social -political alienation, a decrease in socio-political interests and the growth of nihilism. As a result of the influence of these general and specific factors, the most characteristic of modern Russian youth are the opposite orientations towards stability and risk, as well as polar traditional collectivist-paternalistic and modern liberal-individualist orientations, the combination of which determines the peculiarities of the political behavior of today's youth.

The duality of political behavior in general is expressed in the differences in certain substantive characteristics of the political participation of modern Russian youth: its activity, institutionalization and conventionality. The activity of civic and political participation of young people in most cases is assessed as low. Thus, according to various sociological studies, only 7-10% of Russian youth are involved in the activities of certain civil organizations of various types. According to the results of surveys by the Zircon research group, the overall political and social activity of Russian youth is low, a significant part of it (from 46 to 62%) does not take any part in public and political life at all. The authors of the UN report explain this by the lack of any real opportunity for Russian youth to participate in decision-making processes. Therefore, its political participation is limited, as a rule, to the requirements of maintaining the “procedural minimum” of democracy. At the same time, a significant portion of young people openly reject this ritual type of participation, associating it with formal politics and preferring to remain aloof from it. On the other hand, the same report also notes signs of an emerging political “awakening” of youth. A rather optimistic assessment of the level of political participation of modern Russian youth is given by E.P. Savrutskaya and S.V. Ustinkin: according to the results of their research, the younger generation is generally interested in politics and is ready to actively participate in the political life of the country. However, they also note a noticeable decrease in the interest of young people in political life over the past five years - from 41 to 35% of those who expressed such interest.

K.A. Katusheva points to a number of reasons for the growth of absenteeism among young people: a low level of political culture and political and legal literacy; loss of trust in government agencies and the electoral process; the opinion that there is no dialogue between civil society and the government, the idea of citizens as “opposition” to state power; lack of effectively functioning socio-political “elevators”; low standard of living for young people. However, most political scientists analyzing this problem cite its “overorganization,” coercion, and mobilization nature as the main factor in reducing the level of political participation.

Accordingly, the political participation of Russian youth is defined primarily as institutionalized or mobilized. According to G.A. Kaznacheeva, the activities of government agencies aimed at supporting the youth movement and creating conditions for its development are nothing more than the institutionalization of the participation of the younger generation in political processes. Considering the prospects for the institutionalization of the political participation of Russian youth, the author comes to the conclusion that the coercion and manipulative nature of political socialization inevitably simplifies the goals and meaning of the youth political movement, negatively affecting not only the participation of youth in political processes, but also the formation of a democratic political system in Russia. The predominance of institutionalized, mobilized activity of Russian youth over autonomous youth dates back to the Soviet period, “when, under the conditions of the administrative-command system, a unique technocratic approach to the younger generation 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 a 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.”

According to O.G. Shchenina, in modern Russia “there is a tendency to curtail the real participation of young people in politics, in managing the affairs of the state and society.” In the current socio-political conditions, the main channel for the political activity of young people naturally becomes the so-called “systemic” political participation. In this regard, many researchers believe that the increase in the political participation of young people noted by some authors, manifested mainly by an increase in the number of pro-government youth political organizations and the entry of young people into the “party of power,” is in fact in the nature of imitation, being essentially “quasi-participation” due to pragmatic, i.e. selfish, career and similar motives. However, the idea that such narrowly pragmatic motives for political participation dominate among modern Russian youth is to a certain extent refuted by the results of sociological research: thus, according to the Zircon group, the three leading motivators for youth participation in social and political life are interest in politics (36%), desire change life for the better (32%) and the desire to help people (18%), i.e. quite idealistic, “noble” motives, and “base” pragmatic motives, on the contrary, occupy the very last places: a way to earn extra money – 9%, coercion – 3%, and a way to “get out among people” – 2% of respondents. This allows us to state the value heterogeneity of such a social community as “modern Russian youth”, which also determines the differences in the direction and nature of its political participation.

In the O.V. model Sorokin, the direction of youth political participation is determined by the predominant influence of “goal-oriented”, i.e. institutional or “self-regulatory” mechanisms, manifested in the form of self-organization of youth. In his opinion, “the consequence of the influence of goal-oriented regulation of power structures is a predominantly authoritarian type of orientation, with a characteristic dominant individualism and, at the same time, a declarative national-patriotic connotation. In turn, the self-regulatory mechanism is a prerequisite for the formation of predominantly democratic orientations with moderate liberal tendencies.” At the same time, according to the results of his research, there is currently a certain dysfunction of institutional forms of regulation and activation of self-regulatory mechanisms of political participation. In general, all of the above allows us to assume a certain cyclical nature in the predominance of institutionalized or independent forms of political participation of young people in modern Russian society and, in particular, the recent growth of their non-institutionalized activity.

The possibility of such a trend determines the importance of assessing the level of conventionality of the current and expected future political participation of young people. The above takes on special significance taking into account the experience of “color revolutions” in neighboring countries, in which young people took an active part. Modern Western researchers in this context note that the “awakening” of Russian youth can be a form of “political co-optation”, i.e. sanctioned inclusion in an already existing political system, and radicalism. In this regard, the authors of the UN report provide data on the increased political activity of young people focused on opposition parties. At the same time, according to the conclusions of the Zircon research group, “against the background of the stability of indicators of protest activity of Russian youth in general, some phenomena are observed that give grounds for the hypothesis about the formation of hotbeds of youth radicalism. The main motivating factor for youth radicalism is poverty and the lack of any prospects for the future.” Thus, the nature of the political participation of Russian youth, currently predominantly conventional, may undergo a dangerous change in the foreseeable future. It is no coincidence that in recent years a significant number of works have appeared directly devoted to youth extremism and its prevention. Since the political participation of young people is determined by their value preferences, an important place in the prevention of extremism should be occupied by studying the value system of young people and supporting the development of their pro-social orientation.

The noted trends in the nature and dynamics of the political participation of young people, characteristic of modern Russia as a whole, in a number of cases are even more noticeable in the Russian provinces, in particular among the youth of the Siberian region. So, E.V. Romanova notes the low degree of involvement of the youth of the Altai Territory in socio-political life, which, in her opinion, is associated with a low degree of trust in many political institutions and is manifested by a predisposition to suggestive, conformal or affective political participation or absenteeism. I.F. Pecherkina, who analyzed the characteristics of the political participation of youth in the Tyumen region, also comes to the conclusion that the youth of the region demonstrate social alienation, apathy, and distrust of the institutions of society. At the same time, according to the results of her research, the involvement of young people in socially approved forms of socio-political activity is “extremely low” and, at the same time, they are characterized by an “extremely high” level of protest readiness. I.F. Pecherkina connects this with unfulfilled expectations, the lack of any prospects, “the accumulated hatred of the social lower classes,” “a reaction to the atmosphere of stagnation,” and the development of communication capabilities of the Internet, allowing the dissatisfied to unite. As the author concludes, the “street” activity of young people is clearly growing, which creates favorable conditions for the further spread of radical and extremist sentiments among young people. Thus, the thesis that is widespread today about the accumulation of greater protest potential in the Russian “outback”, apparently, can be considered true in relation to young people.

Our review of studies of the characteristics of the political participation of modern Russian youth, demonstrating the virtual absence of unified approaches and, accordingly, the inconsistency of assessments, indicates the relevance of studying the phenomenon under consideration in unity and a cause-and-effect relationship with value preferences. As S.A. rightly points out. Pakhomenko, “along with the great successes of domestic scientists in the field of studying the characteristics of the political behavior of modern Russian youth, it should be noted that there is insufficient coverage and study of the range of transformation of the political behavior of youth, the subjective foundations of political behavior have been poorly identified, and the correlations between the individualization of values and individual political behavior have not been analyzed.” Let us add that this problem is especially significant when solving the problem of constructing an adequate, operationalizable and practically applicable predictive model of the political participation of young people in the Russian province.

Literature

Kaznacheeva, G.A. Student youth in the political process of modern Russia: trends and priorities of political participation [Text]: abstract. dis. ...cand. watered Sciences / G.A. Treasurer. – Orel, 2004. – 27 p.
Katusheva, K.A. Trends in the political participation of youth in Russia: political absenteeism, autonomous and mobilized participation [Electronic resource] / K.A. Katusheva // Electronic scientific journal “GosReg”. – 2012. No. 1. // URL: http:// gosreg.amchs.ru/ pdffiles/1number/ articles/ Katusheva_article.pdf
The mentality of Russian youth: political guidelines and idols [Electronic resource] // Internet magazine “Gefter” //URL: http://gefter.ru/archive/8369
Youth in Russia. 2010. Literature review. UN report [Text] / ed. Ya Ohana. – M.: FSGS, 2011. – 96 p.
Pakhomenko, S.A. Transformation of the political behavior of Russian youth in the context of a crisis of sociocultural identity [Text] / S.A. Pakhomenko. – author's abstract diss. ... Ph.D. – Rostov-on-Don, 2007. – 26 p.
Pecherkina, I.F. Socio-political activity of youth and problems of formation of civil society [Text] / I.F. Pecherkina // Collection of materials of the VIII All-Russian scientific and practical conference on the program “Sociocultural evolution of Russia and its regions”. – Ufa, Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Belarus, Gilem, 2012. – P. 379-384.
Romanova, E.V. Formation of models of political behavior of young people (based on sociological research in the Altai Territory) [Text] / E.V. Romanova // News of Altai State University. – 2012. No. 4-1(76) – P. 254.260.
Savrutskaya, E.P. Analysis of the dynamics of qualitative characteristics of the value consciousness of Russian youth [Text] / E.P. Savrutskaya, S.V. Ustinkin // Power. – 2011. No. 10. – P. 92-96.
Samsonova, E.A. Political values of Russian youth in the context of socio-political transformations of the 1990s: abstract. dis. ...cand. watered Sciences [Text] / Samsonova E.A. – Saratov, 2008. – 23 p.
Selezneva, A.V. Political-psychological analysis of the political values of modern Russian citizens: generational cross-section [Text]/ A.V. Selezneva // Bulletin of Tomsk State University. – 2011. No. 3. – P. 22-33.
Sorokin, O.V. Formation of political consciousness of young people in the conditions of transformation of modern Russian society (sociocultural aspect): abstract of thesis. dis. ...cand. social n. [Text] / O.V. Sorokin - M., 2008. - 31 p.
Socio-political activity of youth (some results of sociological research for the meeting of the seminar “Polity” on May 25, 2006) [Electr. resource] // ZIRCON Research Group. URL: http://www.zircon.ru/upload/iblock/f5e/060525.pdf (access date: 04/25/2013).
Toshchenko, Zh.T. Political sociology [Text] / Zh.T. Toshchenko. – M.: Yurayt Publishing House, 2012. – 623 p.
Shchenina, O.G. Forms of youth participation in the political process of modern Russia: diss... cand. watered Sciences [Text] / – M., 2005. – 165 p.
Yanitsky, M.S. Value determination of attitude towards power [Text] / M.S. Yanitsky, O.A. Brown // Bulletin of Kemerovo State University No. 1 (29), 2007. – P. 143-150.

In every state-organized society, there is one or another involvement of citizens in politics. However, the very idea of the need for people to participate in political life is understood by scientists differently.

Thus, many followers of Marxist and a number of other traditions in political thought insist on the need for almost one hundred percent participation of citizens in political life. At all times, politics has had a huge impact on the lives of people, nations and states, since it is rooted in the very nature of man as a social being, capable of fully living and developing only in society, in interaction with other people.

Participation in the management of many people expands the intellectual potential for decision-making, being an integral property not only of a political community, but also of any managed (or self-governing) community of people and serves as one of the means of expressing and achieving their interests. In a state-organized society, the involvement of citizens in the process of decision-making and management is to one degree or another politicized in the social, economic and cultural spheres.

Often the concept of “political participation” is considered as one of the main elements that make up the content of the category “political behavior” (along with political immobility and inaction).

An integrated approach to the development of the theory of political participation is demonstrated in the monograph by D. Goncharov and I. Goptareva. In particular, they argue that the institution of political participation is an extremely complex socio-cultural phenomenon that requires the creation of a comprehensive theory covering many aspects of the socio-political dynamics of modern society.

Political participation as an element of political behavior was interpreted in the works of A.I. Kovler, I.A. Markelova, V.V. Smirnov, which were based on a critical analysis of historical, political science, social and philosophical theories of Western Europe and America.

Political participation is the actions through which ordinary members of society influence or attempt to influence the functioning of the political system, the formation of political institutions and the process of making political decisions.

According to generally accepted opinion, the key factor influencing the nature and direction of political participation is the level of political culture of a society. Political culture itself is not just the values common in society, but also the impact they have on socio-political processes. At the same time, it is important to take into account the impact of other elements of political culture, such as attitudes, norms, etc. In addition, political culture has a multicomponent nature; the following elements can be distinguished in its structure: cognitive, normative-evaluative, emotional-psychological and attitudinal-behavioral. Youth political culture is an integral part of the political culture of society. Youth in society had and still has a key place. This is an age group that over time occupies leading positions in economics and politics, social and spiritual spheres of society.

The attitude towards youth has always been relevant for the state and society, since it is important for the state how young people perceive the life of a given society and the functioning of a given state, what new things the young generation brings to the social development and activities of the country. The social development of society depends on the position of the younger generation, what its appearance is, and the moral health of the young determines the fate and future of the people. The degree of youth participation in politics, and in particular in election campaigns in Russia, has been studied since 1996. The first most objective studies were carried out in 2002 by order of the Central Election Commission of the Russian Federation and by the Federal State Statistics Service in 2004-2005.

At the beginning of the 21st century. The study of youth problems in various processes of modernization of society has noticeably intensified. However, it seems to us that a holistic understanding of youth society as an actor in modernization processes and political participation has essentially never happened.

One of the most pressing problems of modern Russian society is the low social and political activity of Russian youth. At the same time, for the further development of democracy and civil society in Russia, it is necessary that all segments of the population take an active part in the life of our country. That is why it is currently relevant to study the issues of electoral activity of young people and the factors that increase it.

Young people soberly assess the attitude of the authorities and society towards themselves as indifferent or frankly consumerist. According to A.I. Solovyov, today the ways to solve youth problems lie in improving the system of state youth policy, as well as in solving fundamental issues of the development of Russian society.

We can also observe a change in the Russian political process in the South of Russia. The current situation of youth in the Stavropol Territory is characterized both by parameters common to the North Caucasus and the Russian Federation as a whole, and by specific trends. In accordance with the data of the draft Strategy for the Development of Youth Policy in the Stavropol Territory until 2020, most of the region’s youth live in cities (432.2 thousand people or 58.6%). In addition, the share of young people in the total population of the region is gradually decreasing.

Today there is no strict political division among Russian youth, and apoliticality is an essential feature characterizing the younger generation. Having lost faith in all power structures, most young people are indifferent to any form of socio-political activity. Young people are fragmented not only by age, but also by social groups, which differ greatly in their interests.

Even in the Soviet period, the democratic attitudes of young people were one of the products of socio-political modernization. Today, the real involvement of young people in political processes must be ensured by a consistent state policy of liberating the creative potential of the individual.

In our opinion, the most rated form of political participation is elections. However, participation in youth organizations at various levels represents a form of active participation in the political process that can not only unite young people, but also include them in a kind of “role-playing political games.” Thus, in 2009, the Stavropol Youth Affairs Department held a presentation of the “Student City Administration” project at the Coordination Council under the head of the city administration. There are other examples of “parliamentary” activity of young people - elections of Presidents of municipal educational institutions in Stavropol. The youth parliament can also be considered one of the possible forms of attracting young people to participate in the management of state affairs, through the formation of which young residents prove that they are ready to participate in building the state. Today, the youth parliamentary movement has proven its worth and necessity. Youth parliaments in the regions carry the powerful innovative potential of promising young leaders, new methods of working with youth and forms of interaction with them by the state and society.

The transition of young people from mobilizational political participation to individual choice indicates the modernization of consciousness. The formation of a “systemic” nature of the political participation of youth in party structures contributed to the effective use of the youth electorate through the inclusion of youth representatives in party lists. The most extensive is the list of United Russia. But the highest representation of youth was in the LDPR (10.8%). If we generally characterize the participation of young people in political processes in the Stavropol Territory, then we can safely say that only a part of young people show interest in politics and are focused on cooperation with the authorities, and not on conflicts or opposition. All youth within the framework of the analyzed problems can be divided into two groups. One of them is that the majority of young people are indifferent to politics and do not engage in it. The values of this part of young people are of a consumer nature and are focused on social participation outside of politics. The second part, smaller in scale, is actively involved in politics, perceiving political activity as an opportunity to make a career.

Thus, youth are not so much an age group as a special socio-psychological and creative category of people. The importance of youth society in the political processes of Russia cannot be underestimated. Young people, being the subject of political and social relations, are an active part of society and can influence the course of implementation of a political decision. In general, the younger generation is satisfied with the opportunities to express their political views that actually exist in the country.

Today, young people themselves are beginning to realize the importance of using political levers for the benefit of the people and the development of society. Young people are now entering politics themselves, and this process is already global in nature. According to L.A. Rakhimova, youth should be not only an object of integration processes, but also a subject capable of accelerating or slowing down the integration of society or changing the direction of this process. Moreover, youth are transformers of social culture and organization of society, i.e. predetermines social progress. In other words, youth carry a colossally powerful innovative potential, which is the source of current and especially future changes in social life. The increasing role of youth in the life of society is a natural trend that is more pronounced at the present stage of modernization.

Despite the existing opinion about the “decline in the intellectual and moral level of young people, their lack of spirituality,” we note that young people today are a driving force that must realize their potential themselves and that can do a lot for themselves and for their country. The future of the entire society will be realized only through the activities of those who make up the youth today, and, understanding this, political leaders talk about the need to support the activity of young people, including in the political sphere. Thus, all the transformations that are being carried out in our country are largely aimed at young people. In our opinion, this approach seems appropriate, because the results of the measures taken will be important and noticeable for the entire society.

Postgraduate student 2 years of study at the Department of Political Science and Sociology

FSBEI HPE "Stavropol State University"

Kovler A.I. Electoral rights of Russian citizens: legal norms and political practice (problems of implementing the electoral rights of citizens). - M.: IRIS, 2006. - P. 57; Labunsky A.L. Forms of citizen participation in decision-making at the regional and local levels in modern Russia: Abstract of thesis. dis... cand. watered Sciences - Yaroslavl, 2008. – P.152.

Azhaev V.S., Ananyev E.V., Gadzhiev K.S. Political culture, theory and national models / Rep. Ed. Gadzhiev M.: Interprax, 1994.

Soloviev A.I. Political culture: Problem field of metatheory // Bulletin of Moscow University. Series 12, No. 2.3, 1995. – P. 25.43

Budilova E., Gordon L. and Terekhin A. (1996) “Electorates of leading parties and movements in the 1995 elections (Multivariate statistical analysis), Economic and social changes: Monitoring of public opinion, Newsletter. Interdisciplinary. academic Center for Social Sciences. Intercenter VTsIOM. M., JSC "Aspect Press", No. 2.