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 youth.

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, rather than formally provided opportunities to influence the formation of the ruling forces in society through voting. It is preceded by participation in the discussion of election programs of political parties, candidates for deputies to federal authorities and local authorities, and direct participation in elections.
• 2. Representative participation of youth in Russian authorities and in local self-government. It finds practical expression in the realization of the group interests of young people with the help of its representatives in government.

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 government 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 moments are in no way consistent with the proclaimed course towards the democratization of society and slowly but surely lead to the revival of totalitarianism in the country, the strengthening of the arbitrariness of the administration at enterprises and educational institutions, and to a further even greater restriction of 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 in the circle of 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 youth associations of various orientations, including political ones, especially this trend has become dominant in the Russian Federation over the past decade.

Today in Russia there are many different political youth and children's associations, most of which are supported by the state youth policy. The system of support for children's and youth organizations, which operates in some cities, territories and regions of Russia, includes a set of measures, namely the provision of regular subsidies and the financing of targeted programs to address the social problems of the country's young generation.

It should also be noted that the activity of charitable foundations has become a special direction in the youth movement. Currently, there are about 10 of them, we list some of them: "Youth for Russia", "Participation", "Power", "Youth Chooses the Future", "Russian Care", funds to support young entrepreneurs, assist young deputies and some others.

However, despite state support, these movements do not yet have a significant impact on young people in general and their political life. Most youth associations avoid setting political goals and a clear definition of 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 updating the political structure of society. In conditions of social stability, it acts as a determining factor in the socialization of the younger generations. As a rule, in crisis situations, interest in young people from political parties increases. This trend also takes place in Russian society. However, such interest in Russia is frankly opportunistic and is limited only to pre-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" and other youth organizations have either completely disappeared or cease their activity with varying degrees of activity.

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, in other forms of social protest within the framework of existing legislation.

Of course, such forms 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 constructively respond to their social, economic, political needs and demands. The effectiveness of such forms of political action depends on the level of democracy in 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 the confrontation can also be developed, moreover, in illegitimate forms of social exclusion of various groups, the disintegration of society. There are many examples in the history of mankind when young people, used by opposing forces, took extremely extremist positions in conflict situations.

Of course, the considered forms of political participation of youth, in addition to those indicated, have regional specifics.

So, the features of the younger generation listed above as a subject of political relations are significantly concretized in the context of the 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, there is a common need for the political integration of young people in order to stabilize the situation in Russian society.

YOUTH PARTICIPATION IN THE SOCIAL AND POLITICAL LIFE OF THE STATE

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

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon

In the context of the socio-political development of the state, the question of the active participation of young people in the socio-political life of the country is becoming more and more on the agenda. Mastering the total social experience, the younger generation always brings something new. However, not all changes contribute to social development, and 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 on the basis of socio-psychological, age, 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. Young people 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 an increased sense of purpose, the ability to assimilate large amounts of information, originality and critical thinking. However, these advantages give rise to certain problems of the implementation and existence of young people in society. So critical thinking is often directed not to the search for truth, but to the categorical rejection of already existing norms and dogmas that guide other members of society. Today's youth are also characterized by new negative qualities that were absent from their predecessors, in particular, detachment from the outside world, unwillingness to work, increased negativism. However, one cannot deny the fact that the younger generation is a strategic resource for changes in Kazakhstan. Therefore, the formation of a successful society depends on what kind of civic position the youth of our country chooses.

The problem of the low percentage of youth participation in social and political activities today lies in the fact that neither the state nor the adult part of society adequately demonstrates a 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 state decisions, in the joint formation of socially significant social actions and sharing responsibility for their results. This leads to growing apathy among young people, they do not seek to participate in politics, they do not believe in the possibility of fair elections, they do not consider the current government to be their power. But one of the most pressing problems in the formation of the civic consciousness of young people is the lack of a legal and human rights culture of young people. It is on the level of legal awareness of young people that the future management of society and the state depends.

Now most people are not aware of their rights, do not notice infringements on them, easily infringe on the rights of other fellow citizens. The 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 mind, each of which has its own defenders who are ready to fight for it up to victorious end and sincerely convinced that it is this idea that is the main one for creating the “best of possible social worlds”, i.e. that “real” society, to which mankind unconsciously aspired from its very inception.

Today, the initiative of youth arises by decision of administrative structures, which displaces the creative potential of young people beyond the limits of youth organizations and political parties. Despite the fact that as part of the implementation of today's state youth policy, work is underway to develop a full-fledged personality of the younger generation, organize leisure activities, sports and health education, etc., the situation of most of Kazakhstan's youth can be characterized as isolated. The interests of young people are not sufficiently represented in youth policy, since youth policy is built mainly 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 obtaining 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 vast majority of young people today do not find employment within the framework of 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 the 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 programs of political parties, they 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 work with youth at the level of public associations, political parties, the state, but also to work with youth media. The need for the formation and development of a professional culture of journalists working in the youth media, the organization of this kind of specialization at the faculties of journalism and advanced training for practitioners is obvious.

Information policy should be changed in two directions: firstly, work with opinion leaders among the youth, 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 use the experience of European countries. It is advisable to form a nationwide 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.
In conditions of rather high popularity among the population of the print media, it seems appropriate to use the resources of the 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 give youth parliaments (governments) a real opportunity to make political decisions on issues related to youth. But the main thing that the state needs to realize is that young people are the main partner and resource of the state. The state, for a long time, treated it as that part of society that only needs 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 his problems with the help of the resources available to him. This often leads to the fact that successful, thinking young people, by the time they grow up professionally (25-30 years old), do not consider themselves bound to their country by certain obligations. 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 only consider as our own what we took part in creating.”

Traditional forms of youth participation are increasingly at odds 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 are spending more and more time on the Internet. Virtual communication of young people is becoming even more intense than communication in real life. The structures of power and public organizations involved in work 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 the 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 to expand their opportunities to participate in various spheres of life at the local and regional level. This applies to such issues as access to information, participation in decision-making, seeking support for the implementation of their own projects and initiatives, access to the services of youth NGOs, social services and other structures. Solving the problem of updating the channels of youth participation 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 technologies by youth organizations to involve young people in their programs and the creation of a system for monitoring the level of youth participation in public life based on information technologies. Youth policy today can be effective only if it supports the individual development of a young person, and does not seek to shape his personality according to patterns, standards, prescriptions. It facilitates, provides information and resources for a person’s choice, and not just disciplines him; stimulates the initiatives of young people and their organizations, and does not impose their own solutions. That is why modern youth policy should be flexible and combine a centralized state component and a decentralized public one.

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

Projecting the world experience on the domestic practice of implementing youth policy, we can single out the following key areas of work on the development of youth participation:

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

Thus, the legal self-determination of young people is one of the important problems that exist today. Its solution is impossible without solving the problems of the whole society. The results of all today's reforms, the emergence of a new legal culture, and hence the further historical path of our society, significantly depend on the definition of the role of young people in society, their place, moods, attitudes. Today we are constantly confronted 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, knows its 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, legal education youth.

List of used literature:

1. file:///Users/viktoriabelavskaa/Desktop/%20%D0%BE%D0%BE%D0%BD.pdf
2. 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 and early 1990s was the institution of elections, freed from the exclusively ritual function that it previously had. Most researchers agree that elections in democracies 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 consideration. This was most clearly reflected formally, for example, in the electoral system.” 1 . Nevertheless, sociological measurements of public opinion record the distrust of Russians in the current electoral system. In their minds, the “presumption of guilt” of the authorities, who always receive favorable results of the popular vote, is fixed in their minds. Thus, according to a poll by the Public Opinion Foundation (FOM) - July 2005 - more than half of Russians (55%) believe that the election results do not reflect the opinion of the people. And only less than a third (31%) hold the opposite position.

The significance of elections for the political socialization of young people is determined by their normative qualities such 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 alignment of forces and balance of diverse interests, calculate the pros and cons of a particular solution. However, these positive (functional) consequences of the involvement of young people 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 minds of young people, the formation of the conviction that power is formed by no means not in elections, but in bureaucratic offices or in squares. Most likely, these dysfunctions are a direct consequence of the real electoral practice in Russia and, to a large extent, the institutional foundations of elections.

The study of the electoral behavior and electoral consciousness of young people is of particular importance due to the fact that in any society, young people perform the function of translating values ​​and practices and actually determine the degree of identity of society at different stages of its development.

The electoral behavior of young people is participation in elections and referenda at various levels. Its measurement is made, 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 youth electoral participation reflects the low reflectivity (reflexivity in general can be defined as the ability for critical self-assessment, as well as for critical reflection on one’s own experience) of the public consciousness of young people and disbelief in the importance of political institutions for real life practices.

The most obvious and indicative 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 said that elections are needed 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, said that they wanted to participate in solving social 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 nationwide 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 a lower level 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, in the sample as a whole, 67% participated in them. Only 42% of the population aged 18-35 participated in the 2003 parliamentary elections. Among young people, the lowest proportion of those who a week before the vote finally established their position (62%) and the highest of those who are not sure whether they will go to the polls or not (26%) 2 .

According to a nationwide survey conducted by the FOM in February 2004, in the age group of 18-35 years old, 48% said that they always come to the polling stations, and 10% said that they never go. For age groups 36-54 and older than 55 years, the corresponding figures were 64 and 8%; 85 and 4% 3 . The demonstrated trend suggests that the declared electoral activity of young people themselves, that is, 18-29-year-olds, is even lower than in the first age group. At the same time, it should be borne in mind that this is most likely the so-called normative electoral activity, which differs significantly from the real one (in the direction of overestimation).

Even lower rates of electoral activity of young people 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 declared their participation in the elections during it. In the age group of 40-60 years, there were 48% of such people. To the question “Did you have to participate in public and political life in the last year or two? And if so, in what form? almost every second young Russian polled (49%) gave a negative answer. Among the older generation of such respondents turned out to be - 37% 4 .

According to the cross-country project of the Vienna Institute for Social Research, young people in Europe as a whole are characterized by a low level of electoral activity. Electoral participation is highest in Italy and lowest in the UK 5 .

The real electoral participation of young people in the Belgorod region, recorded according to the Electoral 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 in the subsequent 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

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

annotation

The article analyzes domestic and foreign studies of the features of content characteristics and determinants of the political participation of modern Russian youth. The model of the study of the political participation of the youth of the modern Russian province is substantiated.

Keywords: 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 the 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 in modern Russian youth a focus on completely opposite political values. Thus, according to a series of qualitative studies conducted by the Kryshtanovskaya Laboratory, the most common ideology among Russian urban youth is liberal democratic views. O.V. Sorokin, on the contrary, believes that “despite the continuing pluralism of political orientations among the youth, there is a vector of unification of young people based on the idea of ​​the revival of Russia, as well as on national-patriotic ideas. At the same time, the risk of a surge of nationalist manifestations in its environment remains. A.V. Selezneva points to the relevance of both the older age groups and the “Putin generation” of the so-called “security values”, i.e. materialistic values, manifested in the political sphere by the orientation towards "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 involvement in politics, nationalism, extremism, readiness to use force and harsh means of eliminating the 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 us to assume the reality of the return of Russian society to an authoritarian direction even in the event of a complete change of generations in power structures. Thus, depending on the researcher's attitude, almost the entire possible range of ideological preferences is considered as the "core" of the system of political values ​​of modern Russian youth.

The contradictory nature of the political values ​​of today's youth naturally manifests itself in the multidirectional nature 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, inconsistency of value orientations and political attitudes of modern youth, increased anomy and destructiveness in society. According to the author, the political behavior of Russian youth contains attitudes towards political pluralism, but is authoritarian in terms of 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 result, the political consciousness of young people, in principle, is characterized by heterogeneity, marginality, lability and extremeness. The formation of specific features of the political consciousness of modern Russian youth in the context of the transformation of Russian society, especially in the situation of uncertainty of the 1990s, is connected, according to the author, with the destruction of traditional value-normative structures of mass consciousness, which manifested itself in a total decline in trust, growth of social -political alienation, the decline of socio-political interests and the growth of nihilism. As a result of the influence of these general and specific factors, the most characteristic for modern Russian youth are opposing attitudes 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 as a whole is also expressed in the differences in individual substantive characteristics of the political participation of modern Russian youth: its activity, institutionalization and conventionality. The activity of civil 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 various types of civil organizations. According to the survey results of the Zircon research group, the overall political and social activity of Russian youth is low, a significant part of them (from 46 to 62%) do 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 part of young people openly reject this kind of ritual participation, associating it with formal politics and preferring to stay away 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 as a whole is interested in politics and is ready to actively participate in the political life of the country. However, they also state 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 the youth: a low level of political culture and political and legal literacy; loss of confidence in state bodies and the electoral process; the opinion that there is no dialogue between civil society and the government, the idea of ​​citizens as the “opposition” to state power; lack of effectively functioning socio-political "elevators"; low standard of living of youth. However, most political scientists who analyze this problem, as the main factor in reducing the level of political participation, call it "over-organization", coercion, mobilization character.

Accordingly, the political participation of Russian youth is defined mainly as institutionalized or mobilized. According to G.A. Kaznacheeva, the activity of state structures aimed at supporting the youth movement and creating conditions for its development is 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 coerciveness and manipulativeness of political socialization inevitably simplifies the goals and meaning of the youth political movement, negatively affecting not only the participation of young people 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 peculiar technocratic approach to the younger generation developed mainly as an object of socialization, ideological influence, education, 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 state bodies, its actual influence on politics remained disproportionately small. Strictly limited by institutional forms, the political activity of young people was more of a ritual nature and often did not reflect their real group interests and capabilities. The sincere desire of young people and even youth organizations to change something, encountering insurmountable obstacles from the well-functioning bureaucratic system, was replaced by disappointment. More often than not, this ended with the rejection of the struggle and the adoption of the ideology of conformism.

According to O.G. Shchenina, in modern Russia "there is a trend towards curtailing the real participation of young people in politics, in managing the affairs of the state and society" . In the current socio-political conditions, the so-called "systemic" political participation naturally becomes the main channel for the implementation of the political activity of young people. In this regard, many researchers believe that the increase in the political participation of young people noted by some authors, which is 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 an imitation, being essentially a "quasi-participation" due to pragmatic, i.e. selfish, career and similar motives. However, the idea that such narrowly pragmatic motives of political participation dominate among modern Russian youth is to a certain extent refuted by the results of sociological studies: for example, according to the Zircon group, the three leading motivators of youth participation in public 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, while “base” pragmatic motives, on the contrary, occupy the very last places: the way of earning money - 9%, coercion - 3%, and the way to "break out into people" - 2% of respondents. This allows us to state the value heterogeneity of such a social community as “modern Russian youth”, which determines the differences in the direction and nature of its political participation.

In the O.V. Sorokin's direction of the political participation of young people is determined by the predominant influence of "goal-oriented", i.e. institutional or "self-regulatory" mechanisms, manifested in the form of youth self-organization. In his opinion, “the result of the influence of goal-oriented regulation of power structures is a predominantly authoritarian type of orientation, with a characteristic dominant of individualism and at the same time with 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 the activation of self-regulatory mechanisms of political participation. In general, all of the above suggests a certain cyclicity in the predominance of institutionalized or independent forms of political participation of young people in modern Russian society and, in particular, the recent increase in its 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 foregoing is of particular importance, taking into account the experience of "color revolutions" in the countries of the near abroad, in which young people took an active part. Modern Western researchers in this context note that the "awakening" of Russian youth can be worn as a form of "political co-optation", i.e. sanctioned incorporation into an already existing political system, and radicalism. In this regard, the authors of the UN report cite data on the increased political activity of young people oriented towards opposition parties. At the same time, according to the conclusions of the Zircon research group, “against the background of the stability of the indicators of the protest activity of Russian youth in general, there are some phenomena that give grounds for the hypothesis of the formation of hotbeds of youth radicalism. The main motivating factor of youth radicalism is poverty and the absence of any prospects for the future. Thus, the nature of the political participation of Russian youth, currently predominantly conventional, may be subject to a dangerous change in the foreseeable future. It is no coincidence that in recent years a significant number of works have appeared that are 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 the study of the value system of young people and support for the formation of its 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, are in some cases 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 social and 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 to absenteeism. I.F. Pecherkina, who analyzed the features of the political participation of the youth of the Tyumen region, also comes to the conclusion that the youth of the region demonstrate social alienation, apathy, 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, it is characterized by an “extremely high” level of protest readiness. I.F. Pecherkina connects this with unfulfilled expectations, the absence of any prospects, "the accumulated hatred of the social lower classes", "a reaction to an atmosphere of stagnation", the development of the Internet's communication capabilities, which allows dissatisfied people 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 the youth. 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 features of the political participation of modern Russian youth, demonstrating the actual absence of unified approaches and, accordingly, the inconsistency of assessments, indicates the relevance of studying the phenomenon under consideration in unity and a causal relationship with value preferences. As rightly pointed out by S.A. Pakhomenko, “along with the great successes of domestic scientists in the field of studying the features of the political behavior of modern Russian youth, it should be noted that the range of transformation of the political behavior of young people is insufficiently illuminated and studied, the subjective foundations of political behavior are poorly identified, and the correlations between the individualization of values ​​and individual political behavior are not analyzed” . We add that this problem is especially significant in solving the problem of building an adequate, operationalizable and applicable in practice predictive model of the political participation of the youth of the Russian province.

Literature

1. Kaznacheeva, G.A. Student Youth in the Political Process of Modern Russia: Trends and Priorities of Political Participation [Text]: author. dis. … cand. polit. Sciences / G.A. Treasurer. - Eagle, 2004. - 27 p.
2. Katushev, K.A. Trends in political participation of youth in Russia: political absenteeism, autonomous and mobilized participation [Electronic resource] / K.A. Katushev // Electronic scientific journal "GosReg". – 2012. No. 1. // URL: http:// gosreg.amchs.ru/ pdffiles/1number/ articles/ Katusheva_article.pdf
3. The mentality of Russian youth: political guidelines and idols [Electronic resource] // Internet magazine "Gefter" //URL: http://gefter.ru/archive/8369
4. Youth in Russia. 2010. Literature review. UN Report [Text] / ed. I. Ohana. – M.: FSGS, 2011. – 96 p.
5. Pakhomenko, S.A. Transformation of the political behavior of Russian youth in the context of the crisis of socio-cultural identity [Text] / S.A. Pakhomenko. - abstract. diss. … Ph.D. - Rostov-on-Don, 2007. - 26 p.
6. Pecherkina, I.F. Socio-political activity of youth and problems of the formation of civil society [Text] / I.F. Pecherkina // Collection of materials of the VIII All-Russian scientific and practical conference on the program "Socio-cultural evolution of Russia and its regions". - Ufa, Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Belarus, Gilem, 2012. - S. 379-384.
7. Romanova, E.V. Formation of models of political behavior of youth (based on sociological research in the Altai Territory) [Text] / E.V. Romanova // Proceedings of the Altai State University. - 2012. No. 4-1 (76) - S. 254.260.
8. Savrutskaya, E.P. Analysis of the dynamics of the qualitative characteristics of the value consciousness of young people in Russia [Text] / E.P. Savrutskaya, S.V. Ustinkin // Power. - 2011. No. 10. - S. 92-96.
9. Samsonova, E.A. Political values ​​of Russian youth in the context of socio-political transformations of the 1990s: author. dis. … cand. polit. Sciences [Text] / Samsonova E.A. - Saratov, 2008. - 23 p.
10. Selezneva, A.V. Political and psychological analysis of the political values ​​of modern Russian citizens: generational cross-section [Text] / A.V. Selezneva // Bulletin of the Tomsk State University. - 2011. No. 3. - P. 22-33.
11. Sorokin, O.V. Formation of the political consciousness of young people in the context of the transformation of modern Russian society (sociocultural aspect): author. dis. … cand. social n. [Text] / O.V. Sorokin - M., 2008. - 31 p.
12. Socio-political activity of youth (some results of a sociological study for the meeting of the seminar "Politia" on May 25, 2006) [Electr. resource] // ZIRCON Research Group. URL: http://www.zircon.ru/upload/iblock/f5e/060525.pdf (date of access: 04/25/2013).
13. Toshchenko, Zh.T. Political sociology [Text] / Zh.T. Toshchenko. – M.: Yurayt Publishing House, 2012. – 623 p.
14. Shchenina, O.G. Forms of youth participation in the political process of modern Russia: diss ... cand. polit. Sciences [Text] / - M., 2005. - 165 p.
15. Yanitsky, M.S. Value determination of attitude to power [Text] / M.S. Yanitsky, O.A. Brown // Bulletin of the 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 in different ways.

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, peoples and states, since it is rooted in the very nature of man as a social being, able to fully live and develop 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 of not only political, but also any controlled (or self-governed) community of people and serves as one of the means of expressing and achieving their interests. In the conditions of a state-organized society, the involvement of citizens in the decision-making and management process is politicized to one degree or another 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 the historical, political science, socio-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 the generally accepted opinion, the key factor influencing the nature and direction of political participation is the level of political culture of the society. The very same political culture 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 multi-component nature, the following elements can be distinguished in its structure: cognitive, normative-evaluative, emotional-psychological and attitude-behavioural. Youth political culture is an integral part of the political culture of society. Youth in society belonged and still has a key place. This is an age group that over time occupies a leading position in the economy 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 this society and the functioning of this state, what the younger generation brings to the social development and activities of the country. The social development of society depends on what are the positions of the younger generation, what is its appearance, and the moral health of the young determines the fate, the 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 XXI century. the study of youth problems in various processes of modernization of society has noticeably intensified. However, a holistic understanding of the youth society as an actor of modernization processes and political participation, as it seems to us, has not actually happened.

One of the most urgent 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 the electoral activity of young people and the factors of its increase.

Young people soberly assess the attitude of the authorities and society towards themselves as indifferent or frankly consumeristic. According to A.I. Solovyov, today the ways of solving the problems of youth 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 the change in the Russian political process in the South of Russia. The current situation of the youth of the Stavropol Territory is characterized by both parameters common to the North Caucasus and the Russian Federation as a whole, and 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 proportion of young people in the total population of the region is gradually decreasing.

Today, there is no rigid political division among Russian youth, and apoliticality is an essential feature that characterizes the younger generation. Having lost faith in all power structures, the majority of young people are indifferent to any form of socio-political activity. Young people are fragmented not only by age, but also by social groups that 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 should be ensured by the consistent policy of the state to liberate the creative potential of the individual.

In our opinion, the most rated form of political participation is elections. However, participation in youth organizations of various levels is a form of active participation in the political process, which can not only unite young people, but also include them in a kind of “role-playing political games”. So, in 2009, the Stavropol Youth Affairs Department presented the project “Student Administration of the City” at the Coordinating Council under the head of the city administration. There are other examples of "parliamentary" activity of the young - the election of Presidents of municipal educational institutions in Stavropol. The youth parliament can also be attributed to 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 proved its viability and necessity. Youth parliaments in the regions carry a powerful innovative potential of promising young leaders, new methods of working with youth and forms of interaction between the state and society with them.

The transition of young people from mobilization political participation to individual choice testifies to the modernization of consciousness. The formation of a "systemic" nature of the political participation of young people 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 young people turned out to be in the Liberal Democratic Party (10.8%). If, in general, we characterize the participation of young people in political processes in the Stavropol Territory, then we can safely say that only part of the youth shows interest in politics and is focused on cooperation with the authorities, and not on conflicts or opposition. All young people within the framework of the analyzed problems can be divided into two groups. One of them is the bulk of young people who are indifferent to politics and do not engage in it. The values ​​of this part of the youth are of a consumer nature and are oriented towards 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, young people are not so much an age category as a special socio-psychological and creative category of people. The importance of youth society in the political processes in Russia cannot be underestimated. Youth, being the subject of political and social relations, is 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 really 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 is a transformer of social culture and organization of society, i.e. determines social progress. In other words, young people carry a colossally powerful innovative potential, which is the source of current and especially future changes in public life. The growing role of young people in the life of society is a natural trend, which is more evident at the present stage of modernization.

Despite the existing opinion about the "decrease in the intellectual and moral level of young people, their lack of spirituality," we note that today's youth is a driving force that must realize its own potential and that can do quite a lot both for themselves and for their country. The future of the whole society will be realized only through the activities of those who today make up the youth, and, realizing this, political leaders talk about the need to support the activity of youth, including in the political sphere. Thus, all the transformations that are being carried out in our country are largely focused on young people. In our opinion, this approach seems appropriate, because the results of the measures taken will be important and visible to the whole society.

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

FSBEI HPE "Stavropol State University"

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

Azhaev V.S., Ananiev E.V., Gadzhiev K.S. Political culture, theory and national models / Otv. Ed.Gadzhiev M.: Interpraks, 1994.

Solovyov A.I. Political culture: a problematic 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 Elections of 1995 (Multivariate Statistical Analysis), Economic and Social Change: Public Opinion Monitoring, Newsletter. Interdisciplin. academician Center for Social Sciences. Intercenter VTsIOM. M., JSC "Aspect Press", No. 2.