Category "electoral culture"

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

Department of Sociology and Political Science of the

Yaroslav Mudryi National Law University

Category “electoral culture”

Polishchuk Igor Oleksiiovych, Doctor of Political Science, Professor

Sakhan Olena Mykolaivna, PhD (Sociology), Associate Professor

The article reveals the content of the category “electoral culture ” and the subordination between this concept and the category “political culture ”. The authors describe the discrepancies between “electoral culture “culture of political elections ”, “culture of voters ”, “culture of electoral process ”. Electoral culture is an important part ofpolitical culture that separates it with the passing of time, when political elections as a procedure gain the necessary weight. It is noted that during the conduct of election campaigns the meaningfield of political culture is narrowed to its effective fragment - electoral culture. The article reveals the influence of electoral culture on the national political process. Authors define electoral culture as a set of typical, relatively consistent knowledge, representations, guides, beliefs, values, symbols, orientations, skills and patterns of behavior manifested in the electoral process and transmitted from generation to generation of a particular nation, having significant transformational potential and appearing in the activities of electoral subjects and in the functioning of democratic institutions.

Keywords: electoral culture, political culture, political elections, historical tradition, political process, democratization.

Поліщук Ігор Олексійович, доктор політичних наук, професор, професор кафедри соціології та політології Національного юридичного університету імені Ярослава Мудрого, м. Харків, Україна

Сахань Олена Миколаївна, кандидат соціологічних наук, доцент, доцент кафедри соціології та політології Національного юридичного університету імені Ярослава Мудрого, м. Харків, Україна

Категорія «електоральна культура»

Постановка проблеми. Напередодні початку чергового виборчого циклу в Україні об'єктивно здійснюється актуалізація всього комплексу проблем, пов'язаних із політичними виборами. Серед іншого висувається проблема електоральної культури, яка має гострий характер у перехідних суспільствах, де форми реальної політичної участі є надзвичайно обмеженими та нерозвиненими. Українське суспільство перебуває на етапі трансформації політичного режиму, в якому виборча конкуренція відіграє ключову роль, що є певною фіксацією зміну політичній практиці. Саме зміни в електоральній культурі перехідного суспільства дозволяють з 'ясувати, наскільки вона просунулася на шляху реальної, а не декларованої, демократизації.

Аналіз останніх досліджень і публікацій. Останнім часом спостерігається значне підвищення інтересу вчених до вивчення виборчої культури. Більше того ця категорія досліджується в контексті стратегічного (В. Бокоч, Д. Гаврилюк, А. Сушко), а в тактичному (В. Антемюк, В. Бунь, В. Корнієнко, Т. Максімішина). Це не є прямим свідченням продовження процесу демократизації в Україні, оскільки актуалізація окремих наукових понять зазвичай обумовлена потребами розвитку конкретного суспільства.

Мета статті - розкрити основний зміст категорії «електоральна культура» і дати йому визначення.

Виклад основних положень. У статті розкривається зміст категорії «електоральна культура», субординація між цим поняттям і категорією «політична культура». Автори передають розбіжності між такими поняттями, як «електоральна культура»: «культура політичних виборів», «культура виборців», «культура виборчого процесу». Електоральна культура є важливою частиною політичної культури, яка час від часу відтіняє її, коли політичні вибори як процедура набувають необхідної ваги. Відзначається, що під час проведення виборчих кампаній відбувається звуження сенсу політичної культури до її ефективного фрагмента - електоральної культури. Виявлено вплив електоральної культури на національний політичний процес. Ефективний механізм політичної традиції розкриває та актуалізує ті моделі політичної поведінки, які найбільш тісно відповідають поточним потребам існування нації. Політична традиція є ефективним інструментом політичної соціалізації та складовою історичної пам 'яті народів. Традиційно, як правило, передаються символічні атрибути політики (прапор, герб, гімн) і навіть певні складові масових політичних настроїв. (Наприклад, в Англії переважають консервативні традиції, у Франції - революційні, в Росії - авторитарні). Політичні практики, що формуються в тому чи іншому політичному режимі, визначають специфіку політичного вибору громадян. Домінантні засоби реалізації політики визначають характер політичного процесу прийняття рішень населенням, результатом якого є відмова від усіх інших варіантів і перевага лише одного із запропонованих рішень.

Ефект цього двоступеневого механізму особливо чітко виявляється у виборчому виборі громадячу трансформаційних суспільствах, де якість політичного продукту та навички його правильного вибору є недостатніми. Неусталеність нових політичних практик і фрагментація старих практику перехідному, гібридному режимі призводять до виникнення типової ситуації, коли виборці не мають однозначно більш привабливого варіанта вибору і змушені голосувати за «менш зле». За режиму консолідованої демократії ця ситуація є набагато менш імовірною, оскільки пропозиція на виборчому ринку є більш різноманітною і більш якісною, тому голосування здійснюється за «краще». Значення електоральної культури значно збільшується в політичних режимах, які характеризуються певним рівнем демократії, тобто там, де вибори не є формальною, а реальною процедурою, заснованою на конкуренції. Зміна влади на всіх рівнях відбувається тут через спеціально організовані механізми масового висловлення волі, яка базується головним чином на електоральній культурі. Одним із вирішальних факторів електоральної культури є виборча система, яка визначена в національному виборчому законодавстві, оскільки саме виборча система створює правила гри у виборчому процесі. Автори визначають електоральну культуру як сукупність типових виборчих процесів, відносно стійкі знання, уявлення, переконання, цінності, символи, орієнтації, навички, моделі поведінки, які виявляються у виборчому процесі та передаються з покоління в покоління конкретної нації, але мають значний трансформаційний потенціал і проявляються у діяльності суб 'єктів виборчого процесу та функціонуванні органів державної влади.

Робиться висновок, що електоральна культура є концентрованим виявом політичної культури та має вирішальний вплив на політичний процес трансформаційного (постсоціалістичного) суспільства. Перспективи подальших досліджень пов 'язані з вивченням електоральної культури різних суспільств у динаміці їх розвитку.

Ключові слова: електоральна культура, політична культура, політичні вибори, історична традиція, політичний процес, демократизація.

Полищук Игорь Алексеевич, доктор политических наук, профессор, профессор кафедры социологии и политологии Национального юридического университета имени Ярослава Мудрого, г. Харьков, Украина

Сахань Елена Николаевна, кандидат социологических наук, доцент, доцент кафедры социологии и политологии Национального юридического университета имени Ярослава Мудрого, г. Харьков, Украина

Категория «электоральная культура»

В статье раскрываются содержательные пласты категории «электоральная культура», субординация между этим понятием и категорией «политическая культура». Авторы передают разногласия между такими понятиями, как «электоральная культура»: «культура политических выборов», «культура избирателен», «культура избирательного процесса». Электоральная культура является важной частью политической культуры, выделяется из нее с течением времени, когда политические выборы, как процедура, приобретают необходимый вес. Отмечается, что во время проведения избирательных кампаний актуализируется сужение смыслового поля политической культуры к ее действенному фрагменту - электоральной культуры. Раскрывается влияние электоральной культуры на национальный политический процесс. Авторы определяют электоральную культуру как совокупность типичных, относительно устойчивых знаний, представлений, установок, убеждений, ценностей, символов, ориентаций, навыков, образцов поведения, которые проявляются в избирательном процессе и транслируются от поколения в поколение определенной нации, но имеют существенный трансформационный потенциал и проступают в деятельности субъектов электорального процесса и в функционировании демократических институтов.

Ключевые слова: электоральная культура, политическая культура, политические выборы, историческая традиция, политический процесс, демократизация.

Introduction

Problem description. On the eve of a regular electoral cycle in Ukraine, the actualization of the entire complex of problems associated with political elections is being objectively carried out. Among others, the problem of electoral culture, which is exacerbated in transitive societies, where the forms of real political participation are extremely limited and undeveloped, is put forward to the fore. The conceptualization of electoral culture as the basic category of political science is determined by its increasing role in the processes of democratization of transition societies. This necessitates a fundamental study and thorough analysis of the electoral culture in the context of identifying the underlying factors that cause social transformations. It is the electoral culture that acts as one of the dominant factors that influences the course of the electoral process in Ukraine, which determines the peculiarity of the state-building processes in general.

In the outlined context, there is an urgent need to study the specifics of electoral culture in the post-socialist space, to which Ukraine belongs. If in countries with developed liberal democracy elections are only a form of civil activity, in transitional society, as practice shows, this is almost the only “public affair” that gives an idea of the political culture of an individual or society as a whole. Traditionally, other indicators of the person's involvement in the political process remain the fate of a few, that is, the elite. Political elections in modem Ukraine are in fact an indicative form of mass participation in politics, therefore the political culture of transition society is often reduced to a narrower sphere - the electoral culture.

Ukrainian society is at the stage of political and regime transformation, with electoral competitions playing a key role of anchors for changes in the prevailing political practices. It is the changes in the electoral culture of a transitive society that allows us to ascertain how much it has advanced on the path of real (instead of fictional) democratization. According to A. I. Sushko, recently in Ukraine, a number of legislative acts aimed at involving citizens in different forms of decision-making have been adopted, efforts are being made to create a system of democratic institutions. On this basis, the process of reforming the system of public administration has been initiated. This wifi change the tendency to reduce the proportion of citizens who are subjective involvement in social and political life [8, p. 163].

Analysis of up-to-date research

The problem is based on the results of scientific research in various spheres of social and political knowledge. For this work, the concepts devoted to revealing the specifics of the course of the electoral process in the context of the democratization of a transitional society (V. Helman, V. Yeliezarov, J. MacAlister, M. Popesku, H. Tok, D. Farrell, R. Rose, N. Мато and others).

The definition of theoretical and methodological principles of electoral research has been greatly influenced by the works devoted to the analysis of political culture (G. Almond, S. Verba, R. Inghelhart, L. Pye, R. Tucker, J. Habermas, S. Huntington and others). Of great value for the study of electoral processes are concepts devoted to the explication of various aspects of the issues of electoral behavior and electoral culture (F. Hohel, I. Homerov, E. Downs, O. Zubchenko, B. Idrisov, P. Lazarsfeld, S. Lipset, G. Pocheptsov and others).

The works of Ukrainian scholars that highlight a wide range of issues of the current democratization processes in Ukraine (V. Bakirov, Yu. Barabash, V. Burdiak, A. Hetman, I. Kresina, М. Mykhalchenko, М. Primush, N. Rotar, V. Fisanov, V. Tatsiy and others) are of great importance for defining the strategies of the study of electoral practices.

Election technologies in the electoral process of transitive societies are studied by N. Arzhanov, O. Balakirieva, A. Balashova, S. Balikov, B. Bakhtieiev, A. Bidenko, O. Valevskyi, M. Varii, O. Vynnykov, V. Halynovskyi, S. Halushko, V. Holovchenko, H. Hrachov, V. Hrechaninov, A. Dzhabasov, T. Dzhyha, V. Dubytska, D. Dutsyk, I. Zhdanov, P. Zhuk, O. Zaiama, A. Zinchenko, F. Iliasov, O. Kordun, N. Kostenko, P. Kraliuk, Yu. Krasnokutska, M. Kuzmienkova, O. Kulieshova, R. Pavlenko, A. Kuptsov, A. Kurtov, Z. Karpenko, L. Leontieva, V. Lysenko, O. Lytvynenko, N. Lihachova, V. Lisnichyi, Yu. Litvinova, V. Luhovska, A. Maksymov, R. Marutian, O. Mekh, O. Nazarenko, G. Napolitan, D. Narizhnyi, A. Novokreshchenov, L. Novokhatko, V. Parsiak, O. Petrov, M. Pobokin, Yu. Surmin, M. Tararukhina, L. Chornyi and Yu. Yanovska.

Various factors influencing the electoral process in post-socialist societies are analyzed by M. Avksentiev, L. Amdzhadin, T. Andrushchenko, O. Baranovskyi, I. Vilenta, O. Hriaznova, O. Derhachov, L. O. Kochubei, N. Likarchuk, S. Novykov, V. Petrenko, Yu. Pryvalov, R. Starovoitenko and others.

The evolution of the electoral system in Ukraine is studied by H. Havrylov, N. Gaieva, V. Honcharuk, T. Demko, Yu. Klyuchkovskyi, O. Mazur, H. Malkina, O. Petryshyn, I. Shkurat and others.

Recently, researchers of the electoral process are paying more attention to the regional specificity of voting, initiating a regional approach (V. Kolosov, R. Turovskyi, N. Petrov, V. Lisnichyi). The effects of electoral systems, which are analyzed in the framework of an institutional approach (works by M. Duverger, R. Taagheperi, M. Shugart, V. Lysenko, H. Holosova) continue to be in the center of attention of researchers. T. Colton proposed a comprehensive version of the various factors in the electoral process, proposing a synthetic approach.

The cognitive approach, which is followed by N. Biriukov, D. Nort, V. Sergeiev, becomes more and more popular. According to this approach, in order to understand the logic of voter behavior, it is necessary to recreate their cognitive guidelines. In the study of electoral behavior, the cognitive approach is used in the reconstruction of those periods of party leaders' activities related to elections.

The interesting innovative approach proposed by M. Black, G. Lacoff and M. Johnson is an analysis of the metaphors of elections, which are regarded as «a system of generally recognized associations», a kind of concentrated ontology. The metaphor implicitly contains the concepts and categories through which the individual interprets a particular phenomenon. In this case, the metaphor can highlight some of the properties of the phenomenon and overshadow the others. So the choice of metaphor (often at the subconscious level) determines the understanding of the subject of what is happening, and this, in turn, determines the logic of his behavior.

In the national social sciences one of the first works devoted to electoral problems was the popularly published V. Bebik”s edition “How to become popular, win the elections and to stay on political Olympus: Social psychology and technology of political struggle”. The value of this work is that the author pays considerable attention to the peculiarities of national mentality and the political (in fact, electoral) culture of Ukrainian voters.

A great contribution to the study, first of all, of the image of politicians in the electoral process, electoral technologies and other issues related to the culture of political elections, is made by G. Pocheptsov. Among his many works in the context of our topic, we highlight the following: “Profession imagemaker”, “Imageology: theory and practice”, “Psychological warfare”, “Information wars”, “Communicative technologies of the twentieth century”, “Public relations, or How to successfully manage public opinion”, “Propaganda and counter-propaganda”, “Information policy”, etc. Using a large factual material, based on the rich experience of Western democracies, Professor G. Pocheptsov makes theoretical generalizations and offers ideas for modernizing image strategies and optimizing the overall strategies of election campaigns.

Gradually, the electoral process is at the center of attention of Ukrainian and Russian political scientists. Some scholars have proposed a purely universalist approach (technology) to the study of the electoral process in the post-Soviet space, without questioning the western theories and technologies on the electoral practices of the former Soviet republics. A similar approach is found in the works of Russian scientists O. Kudinov “Fundamentals of Organizing and Conducting Election Campaigns in the Regions of Russia. Theories, methods, technologies, practice”, by S. Lysovskyi and V. Yevstafiev “Election technologies: history, theory, practice”, M. Hryshyn's “Fundamentals of Electoral Campaigns”, T. Greenberg”s “Political Technologies: PR and Advertising”.

A certain theoretical breakthrough from the unconditional “technology” to the mandatory consideration of the national political and cultural factor in the electoral campaigns of transitional societies is carried out in the works of such Russian scientists as A. Kovler “Election technologies: Russian and foreign experience”, S. Kara-Murza “Manipulation Consciousness”, E. Makarevych, O. Karpukhin “Games of the Intellectuals, or Social Control of the Masses”, M. Kosheliuk “The Technology of Political Elections”.

The above-mentioned works allows us to conclude that, in essence, the main method in modern studies of electoral processes is the critical multiplicity, the essence of which is to thoroughly analyze the various factors and separate stages of the process of electing political power. In this case, in almost all cases empirical and normative tools are used.

At the same time, the studies devoted to the electoral process pay insufficient attention to political and cultural factors that have a significant impact on the specifics of electoral processes, in particular, in transitional societies.

Recently there has been a significant increase in the interest of scholars in the study of electoral culture. Moreover, this category is investigated in the context of strategic (V. Bokoch, D. Gavryliuk, A. Sushko), and in tactical (V. Antemiuk, V. Bun, V. Kornienko, T. Maksimishina). This is not a direct indication of the continuation of the democratization process in Ukraine, as the actualization of certain scientific concepts, as a rule, is due to the application needs of the development of a particular society.

The purpose of the article is to reveal the main content of the category “electoral culture” and give it a definition. The task of the article is to systematize and generalize scientific ideas about the category “electoral culture”.

Presenting main material

Recently, democratization has become a leading trend in the world and domestic political process. The emergence of new democracies in Central and Eastern Europe in the post-Soviet space is the best evidence of this. In this context, election campaigns in Ukraine and other post-socialist societies are not just important political events. They have become epoch-making milestones in political history, which determine the further development of all political life. In order to verify the correctness of this statement, it's worth remembering the presidential election campaigns of 2004, 2010 and 2014 and the 2006, 2007, 2012, and 2014 parliamentary campaigns in Ukraine. Of course, the electoral cycle of 2019, 2020 will have a fatal significance for the further development of Ukraine. The main question is whether our country will preserve independence and a European vector of development?

The universal value of democracy as a universal form of legitimizing political power is compared with the invention of the wheel or with the discovery of the New World. Formerly in world history, for the most part, we find examples of the rule of a few - oligarchs, aristocrats, tyrants, monarchs, then with the approval of a democratic style of government (direct, and subsequently representative democracy), a large number of people join the leadership of society.

The emergence on the map of the world of new democratic states makes more attention to the study of the electoral process as a fundamental political process of the present, which largely determines the development of global political reality. The transformation of society from authoritarianism to democracy is always linked to passing through new democratic electoral technologies. But a serious study of these technologies is impossible without considering the conceptual approaches to the definition of the concept of “electoral culture” and its constituent factors. After all, only passing through the repeatedly repeated electoral process allows a transitive society to realize itself as a true democracy.

Today”s scientific circles use different phrases to refer to the phenomenon of “electoral culture”: “culture of political elections”, “culture of voters”, “culture of the electoral process”, etc. All these shades of the category “electoral culture” have their content specifics. For example, the “culture of the electoral process” envisages a broad interpretation, coverage of all participants in the process (including not only citizens voting, but also active subjects of the electoral process: parties, blocs, their leaders, observers, members of election commissions, etc.). The notion of “electoral culture” confines itself to limiting the range of its carriers to only voters who vote. The notion of “culture of political elections” in its content seems to be the identical notion of “culture of the electoral process”. However, if one thinks about the true nature of these categories, then their fundamental identity becomes apparent, since in the final result all participants in the electoral process act as voters and are carriers of a certain electoral culture. For example, presidential candidates also come to polling stations and vote, it's easy to guess who. The voting act brings together other members of the electoral campaign. Therefore, it will be quite justified to use the named concepts - phrases as synonyms.

The culture of political elections is an integral part of the general political culture. Particularly clear the significance of this element of political culture can be observed on the example of transitive societies, where the actual participation of the population in the political process is actually limited to the electoral procedure. In the conditions of non-working of other forms of political participation in transitional societies, it is the electoral culture that is a clear indicator of political and cultural transformations. However, more and more political scientists pay attention to the latest features of the political process in developed democracies, which consists in the fact that it proceeds mainly on the electoral and parliamentary scenes, in the activities of political parties and public associations. At the same time, as J. Habermas notes, the role of indifferent spectator, which is only indirectly included in political communications, remains practically the public. The latter are replaced by “demonstrative and manipulative publicity” of organizations acting through the public”s head [9, p. 190-197]. As V. Bokoch notes, “the political person” actually turns into a limited political right “person voting” (electoral). Incidentally, the latest features of the political process in developed democracies are characterized by the fact that it occurs mainly on the electoral and parliamentary scenes, and, to a lesser extent, is realized in the political and social life of parties and public organizations. This confirms the need to increase the role of electoral culture not only for countries with a transitional type of society, but also for countries with a regime of consolidated democracy [2, p. 121].

Culture usually has a well-established national content, which is not limited to a linguistic factor at all. This observation can be applied in a certain sense to two close neighboring peoples: Ukrainian and Russian, most of whose representatives speaks one language, but have large differences in national political culture, which is reflected in the nature of political processes in Russia and Ukraine. If authoritarianization of political life takes place in Russia, then democratization in Ukraine is taking place, which is fully in line with the political and cultural guidelines of the two peoples. In this context, one should recall the interesting opinion of N. Berdyaev, who noted that “the peoples that are related and close are less able to understand each other and repel more from each other than the distant and the alien. A kind of language sounds unpleasant and seems to spoil your own language. In family life one can observe this repulsion of the loved ones and the inability to understand each other. Aliens have many apologies, but they do not want to forgive their loved ones... And nobody seems so strange and incomprehensible as their own, close” [1, p. 160].

The problem of determining the key descriptive category that would allow the most adequate reflection of the essence of the process of political and social transformations in transitive societies is the most important. “Electoral behavior” is the resulting manifestation of the political decision of voters. This category is suitable for describing the current, conditional voting processes. While it is necessary to determine a more profound level of the electoral process”s mental processes, which will allow to establish the system layer of its political definition. Appears to the notion of “political culture”. But the great content of content and ideological orientation of this concept, which has more than 300 definitions since its introduction into scientific circulation, makes its use problematic for transitive societies.

First, the cognitive level, that is, the level of cognition of politics is in crisis because of the abandonment of outdated policy practices and the sluggish and painful birth of new practices. Secondly, the emotional level is determined in advance, because the experience of the socio-economic and spiritual crisis is always accompanied by negative emotions, with the prevailing latent (and sometimes legal) protest against the power of the “reformers”. Thirdly, the assessment aspect is also set in advance, since citizens who are deprived of new ideological landmarks reproduce marginal assessments of politics and politicians. As for A. Kardinef's and S. Weif's active approach, it is still more problematic. However, it would be wrong to oppose the two identified categories. It is necessary to determine the subordination between them.

Electoral culture is an important part of political culture that separates it with the passing of time, when political elections as a procedure gain the necessary weight.

The core of political culture arises at the time of the formation of the first state formations of one or another nation. In those ancient times, the ethnic substrate (the tribes that serve as the basis for the formation of the ethnic group) receive the first experience of more or less orderly politics. In the proto-ethnic environment there are certain socio-political relations that form typical political knowledge, initial ideas about ways to solve political affairs that affect all members of the tribe. Gradually, regular forms of political participation, initial political orientations, and stereotypes of political behavior are becoming established. Semi-mythological symbols of state order arise, and a common attitude towards political institutions and informal leaders is formed. It is the historical core, sometimes called the “national archetype” or “internal image”, which serves as the system-forming beginning of national political culture, since it absorbs the means of political selforganization of a pro-national community.

Then, as a result of the first experience of sovereign nation-building, the primary foundations of the national political tradition are formed, which serves as the main means of broadcasting the characteristics of the original political and cultural core to future generations of a certain people. Due to the national political tradition, the inheritance of the national archetype from generation to generation of a certain people occurs. Due to tradition, the political mentality of each individual nation is formed, which determines the valuable legitimization of the corresponding political behavior. The political tradition is manifested in the stereotypes of perception of political life, in the usual models of political behavior, in the typical forms of the functioning of political, state institutions.

An effective mechanism of political tradition reveals and actualizes those models of political behavior that are most in line with the current needs of the nation's existence. Political tradition is an effective instrument of political socialization and a component of the historical memory of peoples. Traditionally, as a rule, symbolic policy attributes (flag, coat of arms, anthem) and even certain components of mass political sentiment are transmitted. (For example, prevailing conservative traditions in England, revolutionary traditions in France, authoritarian traditions in Russia). During the historical period, the national political tradition under the influence of internal and external conditions in some way changed, since there are more and more challenges. Particularly brightly, the «modernization» components of the tradition (layering) are manifested in moments of its interruption, when, say, national statehood loses its sovereignty and falls under the protectorate of foreign state entities, which impose their political orders on the colonial territories. In the political culture of the subordinate nation there are unnatural layers for it, which are conditioned by the formation of new socio-political relations initiated by the metropolis. Certain elements of the national tradition are inferior to new values and standards of behavior, but the core of tradition does not disappear, it updates its own external and internal periphery. Even under the conditions of a deep crisis, when some changes in the internal structure of the political and cultural core appear, the most important reinforcement elements of national identity, the “inner image” are preserved, otherwise the cultural system may cease to exist, which will cause the collapse of the social system as a whole.

For centuries, a phenomenon of historical political culture emerges that embraces not only its own political tradition of the national community, but also those layers (foreign elements) brought by the state, which establishes its protectorate over a weaker national statehood. It is important to emphasize that foreign layers in the historical political culture can have a rather great influence on its development, and not only with a very negative meaning. The interruption of the national political tradition significantly weakens the scale of its action and localizes the sphere of influence to the narrow layer of the intellectual elite. But this does not mean a complete loss of national political tradition. It is preserved in the way of life, historical memory and historical sources, customary law, works of political and legal thought, national symbols, etc. That is, it is hardly possible to completely destroy the national political tradition. It can be highly localized, deprived of presence in the mass political consciousness of the people, but because of this, nullifying can not be.

As a result of the complex process of historical evolution, as a result of the influence of the national political tradition and colonial layers, the historical political culture serves as the basis for the phenomenon of contemporary political culture. The meaningful complexity of this phenomenon is that it organically combines the historical and modern components, the proportion of which depends on the rootedness of the political consciousness of the people of their own national political tradition. If this tradition is interrupted, then the historical component is considerably inferior to the influence of modem, and vice versa: the continuity and power of tradition predetermine the significant influence of the historical component of political culture. On this basis, it can be emphasized that modern political culture is the process of production and reproduction of its constituent components in different generations of a certain nation, on the basis of which a specific system of political relations arises in the national space. Political culture serves as a means of recreating the political life of society, the worldview, orientations, patterns of behavior of individuals and groups, as well as the forms of functioning of political institutions, which are manifested in the direct activity of the subjects of the political process. Political culture receives systemic character at the national level, as it is part of a complex adaptation mechanism of a certain people to the conditions of their own life.

Thus, political culture, in its system-forming quality, is a matrix, that is, a set of basic norms and values that are rooted in a particular national community and which ensure the political unity of society. Within the framework of political culture, everything typical of the political process of each society manifests itself, which, in spite of any historical conflicts, maintains the meaningful core of the political life of each individual nation. At the same time, political culture is a rather dynamic system that responds sensitively to transformations in the realities of the world, adapting, for example, to a scientific, technical, industrial or information revolution. A characteristic feature of political culture is that it represents not politics or political process in their real embodiment, but is a complex of representations of a certain national or social community about politics and laws and the rules for its functioning. The perception or rejection by the overwhelming majority of the population of the form of political action or measures of the government, other bodies of state administration, political forces is largely due to the basic characteristics of political culture.

As you can see, political culture is a rather complex and ambitious concept. We distinguish the following components of political culture: the culture of political consciousness (theoretical and everyday levels), the culture of the functioning of political institutions and electoral culture. They are directly dependent on the political regime as a set of means for policy implementation and the way in which the political system exists. Moreover, the dependence of the political regime on political culture is mutually exclusive. On the one hand, the political regime defines the basic format of socio-political relations in society, that is, it directly influences the political culture of one or another society. On the other hand, political culture as a result of historical evolution creates the basis of relations in the politics, which entails the functioning of a certain political regime. Although, of course, the political regime serves as the foundation for the deployment of all political processes in society, because it is due to him that the characteristic type of political relations is formed. Modern political culture receives its meaningful source just from the political regime (see the picture 1).

Political practices that are formed in a particular political regime determine the specifics of the political choice of citizens. Dominant methods of policy determine the nature of the adoption of a political decision by the population, the result of which is the waiver of all its other options and the benefits of only one of the proposed solutions.

The action of this two-stage mechanism is particularly clearly evident in the electoral choice of citizens in transformational societies, where the quality of a political product and the skills of its right choice are insufficient. The insignificance of new political practices and the fragmentation of old practices in the transitive, hybrid regime leads to the emergence of a typical situation where voters do not have an unambiguously more attractive voting option and they are forced to cast their vote on the “less evil” principle. Under the regime of consolidated democracy, this situation is much less likely, because the supply in the electoral market is more diverse and more qualitative, therefore, they vote for “the best”.

Pict.l. The influence of electoral culture on flic political process

category electoral culture

In a totalitarian or authoritarian regime, they vote for “who needs power”, because, as a rule, elections are a non-alternative, formal and, in many ways, coercive procedure. Therefore, it is no coincidence that the level of political competence (and even the level of education) of the electorate is absolutely unequal in autocratic regimes and consolidated democracy regimes. This is natural, because the complexity of tasks for voters is fundamentally different. If in despotic forms of government it is important to demonstrate loyalty to the authorities and to mechanically (ritually) support it by voting at quasi-ranks, then in the polyarchies voters are solving a rather difficult task: in the competitive election, among many alternative politicians, choose those who will defend their interests. To do this, you must clearly understand your political interests and have relevant knowledge about political forces and their programs in order to make informed electoral choices through their analysis or position of authoritative person (group of people).

In transitional societies, a component of political culture, such as electoral culture, becomes of paramount importance. The fact is that the “dead” or ritual participation in the policy of the overwhelming majority of the population in the authoritarian and totalitarian regimes is inertia inherited by them at the beginning of the transition to democracy. Citizens in transitive societies lose a “mechanical”, unconscious participation in the political process, but do not yet acquire a new, informed participation. They are only learning to master new political practices and relationships. Where in the transitional societies we can observe the real participation of citizens in politics? Mainly in the electoral process. It is precisely in a competitive election that real learning of citizens” participation in “living” politics takes place.

As V. Bun notes, under the electoral culture, researchers understand the experience, knowledge, norms, skills of people, social communities, political institutions associated with participation in elections to government [3, p. 55].

It is the electoral process in the conditions of conducting free, transparent, honest, competitive elections, which determines the political development of transitive regimes. The people as the only source of power, voting for representatives of certain political forces, determine the personal composition of the political elite and prefer a certain program of development of society. The election is the only possible and only recognized procedure in the civilized world for legitimizing state power and is a universal criterion for determining progress in the development of one or another political system. On the contrary, according to D. Gavryliuk, absenteeism acts as a phenomenon of electoral culture in the context of the need for the democratization of Ukrainian society [4, p. 5].

It is quite rightly emphasized V. Korniienko and V. Antemiuk: “The population in the election time receives a much larger array of political information that translates citizens into another psychological state, forcing them to focus most of the attention on political events, by essentially changing the relationship between the classical components of political identification patriarchal, subadan and activist. Thus, there is every reason to believe that during the election period, political culture is predominantly electoral, more active and `politicized'” [5, p. 6].

Qualitative characteristics of the electoral culture determine the peculiarities of the electoral process and, in general, the political process in one or another society. Electoral culture, which acts as a concerted expression of political culture, sometimes has a decisive influence on the political process of the transformational (postsocialist) society. This is due to the mobilization specificity and the great importance of the results of the electoral process for the vector of society's development. For example, if after the results of a political election win revanchist, undemocratic forces, then this leads to an authoritarian reverse in the development of society. If the election results establish a balance between reformist politicians and conservative politicians, then society is doomed to stumble in place in its development, losing time to make the necessary social changes.

In scientific circulation today, various phrases are used to refer to the phenomenon of “electoral culture”: “culture of political elections”, “culture of voters”, “culture of the electoral process”, etc. All these shades of the category “electoral culture” have their content specifics. For example, the “culture of the electoral process” envisages a broad interpretation, coverage of all participants in the process (including not only citizens voting, but also active subjects of the electoral process: parties, blocs, their leaders, observers, members of election commissions, etc.).

The notion of “electoral culture” confines itself to limiting the range of its carriers to only voters who vote. The notion of “culture of political elections” in its content is identical to the term “culture of the electoral process”. Therefore, it is entirely justified to use the named concepts - phrases as synonyms.

Let's take into account the conceptual layers of the electoral culture (see the picture 2).

It should be emphasized that the proportion of electoral culture is greatly increased in political regimes, which are marked by a certain level of democracy, that is, where elections are not formal but a real procedure based on competition. The change of power at all levels occurs here through specially organized mechanisms for mass expression of will, which is based mainly on electoral culture. One of the decisive factors in the electoral culture is the electoral system, which is defined in the national electoral legislation, because it is the electoral system that creates rules of the game in the electoral process. According to T. Maksimishyna, the strategy of electoral campaigns in consolidated democracies, in particular the United States, is aimed at overcoming absenteeism and mobilizing its potential supporters at polling stations and voting for pro-government forces. Similar measures can be taken by the political opposition, which, in the usual time between elections, assembles people to rallies, activating their political guidelines [6, p.78].

Summarizing the foregoing, it should be noted that electoral culture is a collection of typical, relatively consistent knowledge, ideas, guides, beliefs, values, symbols, orientations, skills, patterns of behavior that manifest themselves in the electoral process and are transmitted from generation to generation of a particular nation, but they have a significant transformational potential and appear in the activities of the subjects of the electoral process and in the functioning of democratic institutions [7, p. 72].

Conclusions and perspectives offurther research

Electoral culture is a key descriptive category that allows the most adequate reflection of the essence of the process of political and social transformations in transitive societies. In the hybrid political regime, there is an instability of new political practices and fragmentary practices of old practices. This leads to the emergence of a typical situation when voters do not find a voting option attractive to them and they are forced to cast their vote “for less evil”.

Pict. 2. Conceptual layers of electoral culture

Under the regime of consolidated democracy, this situation is much less likely, as the supply in the electoral market is more diverse and more qualitative, so voters vote for “the best”. In transitional societies, a component of political culture, such as electoral culture, becomes of paramount importance. The fact is that the “dead” or ritual participation in the policy of the overwhelming majority of the population in the authoritarian and totalitarian regimes is inertia inherited by them at the beginning of the transition to democracy. Citizens in transitive societies lose a “mechanical”, unconscious participation in the political process, but do not yet acquire a new, informed participation. They are only learning to master new political practices and relationships. This is mainly manifested in the electoral process. Electoral culture is a concerted expression of political culture and has a decisive influence on the political process of the transformational (postsocialist) society. Prospects for further research are connected with the study of the electoral.

References

1. Berdyaev, N. А. (1990). Sud'ba Rossii. Moskva: Izd-vo MGU [in Russian],

2. Bokoch, V. (2013). Elektoralna kulturata elektoralnyy politychnyy marketynh. Osvita rehionu - Education in the region, 1, 121-125 [in Ukrainian],

3. Bun, V. (2007) Elektoralna kultura yak faktor elektoral 'noyi povedinky. Menedzhment za umov transformatsiynykh innovatsiy. vyklyky, reformy, dosyahnennya: materialy mizhnarodnoyi naukovoyi konferentsiyi, 10-12 travnya 2007 r. - Management in the conditions of transformational innovations: challenges, reforms, achievement. Proceedings of the International Scientific Conference. Part 1 / red. V. F. Zhyvodyor, M. V. Zhuk, I. A. Medvyedyev, I. O. Zakharova.Sumy: SOIPPO, 55-57 [in Ukrainian],

4. Gavryliuk, D. Y. (2015). Absenteyizm yak fenomen elektoralnoyi kultury v konteksti demokratyzatsiyi ukrayinskoho suspilstva. Extended abstract of candidate s thesis. Kyiv [in Ukrainian].

5. Komiyenko, V. O., Antemyuk, V. D. (2010). Polityko-partiinyi imidzh yak chynnyk elektoralnoi kultury ukrainskoho suspilstva. Politolohichnyy visnyk: - Political Science Bulletin, 46, 301-309 [in Ukrainian].

6. Maksimishyna, T. M. (2013). Elektoralnakulturayak obyekt zastosuvannyavyborchykh tekhnolohiy. Suchasne suspilstvo - Modern Society, 2, 68-79 [in Ukrainian],

7. Polishchuk, I. O. (2005). Ponyattya «elektoralna kultura». Problemy formuvannya elektoralnoyi kultury naselennya: zb. nauk. st. (za materialamy XVII Khark. politol. chytan). Kharkiv, 71-72 [in Ukrainian],

8. Sushko, A. I. (2014). Elektoralna kultura v umovakh formuvannya hromadyanskoho suspilstva. Pravove zhyttya suchasnoyi Ukrayiny: materialy Mizhnar nauk. konf prof -vykl. ta aspirant, skladu I vidp. za vyp. V. M. Dromin; NU OYuA, Pivd. rehion. tsentrNAPrN Ukrayiny. Odesa: Feniks. Vol. 2,163-164 [in Ukrainian],

9. Khabermas, J. (1995). Demokratyya. Razum. Nravstvennost. Moskva: Progress [in Russian].

Размещено на Allbest.ru