Process-oriented interactions of democracy in Ukraine
Study of political regimes, understanding of democratization processes. The difference between the positive inevitability of liberal democracy in transitology and the positive variety of forms of relations. Peculiarities of the hybrid political regime.
| Рубрика | Политология |
| Вид | статья |
| Язык | английский |
| Дата добавления | 02.10.2022 |
| Размер файла | 812,5 K |
Отправить свою хорошую работу в базу знаний просто. Используйте форму, расположенную ниже
Студенты, аспиранты, молодые ученые, использующие базу знаний в своей учебе и работе, будут вам очень благодарны.
Whereas a major number of Ukrainians, especially those living in Central and South-Eastern Ukraine, had more or less pro-Russian attitudes or were indifferent to geopolitics by 2014, population's position towards the big neighbour became rather negative after the events of 2014. This led both to a further decline in the influence of pro-Russian political parties and ideas, especially in western Ukraine, and to a widespread perception of Russia as a «threatening other.»
Nevertheless, as regards decision-making bodies, rather than society, there are still a large number of players to be found whose interests are still linked to the country's northern neighbour, thus, re-imposing to the issue of maneuvering among concerned parties.
The study shows that the West support as such serves like a catalyst, guarantor, and `observer' of democratization processes. The role of the EU is fundamental, as the crisis in Ukraine began with the EU's failure to convince Yanukovych to sign an association agreement. By the way, Lithuania was holding the presidency if the EU Council at that time. There are arguments as to whether the fate of Ukraine's orientation towards the EU is becoming similar to the fate of same orientation of Turkey?
The EU's association criteria and, in the case of European integration -- the Copenhagen criteria, clearly set targets that both create a seemingly positive environment for democratization and hamper democratization. The general situation, however, remains in the state of hybrid governance. The orientation towards the West, the strong North Atlanticist (USA, Turkey) support is one of the major determinants for the institutionalisation of democracy in Ukraine. The EU's and IMF's financial support (not necessarily political support) in exchange for reforms is forcing the government to make changes, since any `overtures' with the aggressor country will result in the loss of voters. This can be observed from the public opinion polls mentioned above, exit polls, and the final elections at various levels.
Ukraine: the case of which hybrid political regime? (just temporary -- transitional or long-term pro-democratic?) The EIU classified the political regime in Ukraine of 2019 as hybrid, not even «flawed democracy.» At the same time, according to the Freedom House Index (FHI), Ukraine consistently remains a partly free country. Together, on the basis of FHI data (Figure 1), Ukraine is also positioned as having a hybrid political regime. Despite positive developments in both the judiciary and the executive or legislative authorities, this rating has not changed since the events of Euromaidan in 2014.
Thus, not to get lost in this complex maze of D-D processes in Ukraine, we should use the analytical tool of a hybrid political regime. However, it is not enough to state that the democratization process in Ukraine continues in a hybrid political regime -- it is necessary to name the specific characteristics of this regime and, perhaps, at least immediate future thereof.
Hybridity of political regime itself is the result of relatively long-term development. The hybrid regime itself and its stability / effectiveness in the Ukrainian «young democracy» may be implied in so far as the country's society is ready for this. In principle, this form of governance is not bad or good. It is one of the outcomes of the processes inspired by the globalisation and geopolitical situation of a certain period of time and, in this case, of the present time.
A specific combination of formal and informal institutions (including competitive elections, but also the lack of the rule of law or the prevalence of informal politics in the political process) has proved to be quite a strong political construct in Ukraine. This hybrid regime was developed during the governance of L. Kuchma; it survived the Orange Revolution and the Euromaidan. The elite rather want to support dysfunctional institutions as the latter maintain and even increase the resources of the elite. As long as hybridisation, rather than democratization or authoritarianisation, prevails in the dynamics of the Ukrainian political regime, this hybridity will remain the state so wanted by the elite (Smirnova, 2017, p. 70).
In Ukraine, democracy failed to consolidate since the end of the Cold War. The «trap» between democracy and autocracy is the case of the «gray area,» i.e., such a situation or processes are expected to last only for a while and to end eventually with the consolidation of either democracy or autocracy. However, there are those who believe that hybrid political regimes are neither accidental nor short-time, but rather a new form of stable political regime. V. Laurenas associates the perspective of hybrid political regimes with the principal circumstances for the development of today's societies. «Social hybrids actually emerge in two principal circumstances: (1) Change is always a shorter or longer co-existence of past (existing) and new forms of life; (2) In order to temporalise this coexistence, given that the accel-erative societies «have no time» at all, a holistic change is being pursued. The proponents of such change, however, Indeed, tools to prevent and deal with the consequences of terrorism and epidemics alone leave democracy with the perspective of its procedural dimension, if the latter fail to limit a shift in conventional political participation towards protest, quite often, unconventional political participation. Thus, an inevitable count of population communication and mobility severely hinders the spread of democratic principles and implies mostly undemocratic or truly illiberal measures of the guardianship regime.
Meanwhile, T Kuzio (2005), who is representing a popular concept of hybrid political regimes as an unviable and, therefore, short-term link between the democratic and authoritarian rule, argues that there are the six following features of a hybrid regime in Ukraine, which are specifically attributed to both the years under Kuchma and to the little changed current reality:
* citizens of the state are not completely represented or their opinion (especially at the local government level) is partially ignored;
* low political activity, with the exception of participation in elections as an attribute of delegated democracy;
* frequent breaches of the rule of law or manipulation;
* election results do not seem legitimate in the eyes of citizens;
* low trust in state authorities;
* poor results in terms of state performance.
According to the EIU, in 2020, improving results of political pluralism were observed in Ukraine as one of the countries having a hybrid political regime. In 2019, the elections pointed to the higher standards of the electorate, greater fairness and transparency. In these terms, despite the fact that the country's political spectrum (pro-Western political wing, oligarchs, and pro-Russian political forces) remains largely unchanged and periodic elections at all levels of government prevent major emergencies of authoritarianism, the degree of hybridity in Ukraine itself can be concluded to have the preconditions for strengthening.
It should be emphasised once again that the hybridity of the Ukrainian political regime is the outcome of the resulting political, socio-economic, and geopolitical environment. Attempts to change the country's institutional system have been repeated multiple times, in particular, for the purposes of expanding the President's powers. The country has a parliamentary-presidential form of government. Attempts to establish a presidential form of government are associated with the monopolisation of power. Each time Viktor Yanukovych or, even earlier, Leonid Kuchma attempted to expand their powers, the parliament and population kept preventing it from happening. In 2018, Yulia Tymoshenko presented an idea of a parliamentary system with a strong prime minister which still stays an unfeasible project. This constitutes a difficult task due to competing elite groups and a lack of support from the society. While Ukraine's current model of governance is far from perfect, Ukrainians tend to have a divided executive authority that prevents the concentration of power. A form of governance in Ukraine changed six times (in 1991, 1995, 1996, 2004, 2010 and 2014), though, according to the surveyed experts, the regime changed only once. That means, there has been a transition from an authoritarian regime to a hybrid one, in which the political evolution of the country is taking place now.
The cases of other countries, Hungary and Poland, suggest that the so-called `gray area' between democracy and autocracy is expanding. In this context, EU membership does not deny the hybridity of the political regimes of Hungary and Poland, especially given that the EU itself has a democratic deficit. On the contrary, the survival of Hungary and Poland in the EU means not only the stability of a hybrid political regime, but also the entrenchment and legitimacy of it (Bozoki, Hegedus, 2018). So, with the increasing expansion of hybrid political regimes, they can be defined as a separate form which, in one case or another, given the economic, social, and political situation in a country, may be even more logical and effective than a «pure» democracy which fails to consolidate.
Conclusion
The processes of hybridization of post-democracy and political regime have not spared Ukraine. They used to be and still are influenced by certain consequences of post-communist (post-Soviet) transformation. More generally, post-democracy is a reaction to the disruption of democratization and the emergence of dedemocratization processes in the circumstances of democratic challenges. More specifically, the processes of democratization and de-democratization in Ukraine, like in other Eastern European countries with a similar historical background, run deeper, i. e., they stem from the post-communist (post-Soviet) environment.
We cannot say that the democratization and de-democratization processes in Ukraine are categorically denying each other; on the other hand, we lack arguments that the relationship between democratization and de-democratization is purposefully constructed and maintained in pursuance of better political governance in Ukraine. Opinions of the interviewed experts also distributed equally in favour of the relationship between D&D and D-D processes. The situation is rather similar to what is called the «gray area.» The above situation is validated by the first part of our hypotheses that the processes of democratization and de-democratization in Ukraine interact not only as the ones denying or eliminating each other, but also as complementing and restraining those extremes that hinder political stability and good governance. Ukraine is forced to limit the institutionalisation of a «full democracy» regime not only by its geopolitical situation and military conflict situation, but by other internal factors, too, first and foremost, by the potential and efforts of pro-Russian forces, which in many cases are pro-Soviet allies.
Therefore, our second hypothesis, i.e., the relationship between democratization and de-democratization processes in Ukraine is subject to both internal and external geopolitical situation and has features of a hybrid political regime, is as well validated in the first part only, while the second part needs to be revised. The revision should be as follows: the current hybrid political regime in Ukraine is not appropriate in view of the prospects for the country's faster development. Though Ukraine has a case of a hybrid political regime that is not appropriate for faster development of the state and society, an experience of Ukraine's separate neighbours, EU members, demonstrates that a historically contextual, appropriate case of a hybrid political regime is possible in the region provided that the actual political process and its effectiveness are not assessed solely by criteria of democracy, in particular, liberal democracy, the principles of democratic and undemocratic political governance are effectively applied, and a general pro-democratic orientation is respected.
So, the relationship between democratization and de-democratization processes in Ukraine is controversial and difficult to predict. The critical question remains: will a hybrid political regime enhance democratization processes or induce an authoritarian transition and undemocratic trends? The hybrid political regime in Ukraine is fragile due to the substantial and indivisible effect of internal and external determinants for both democratization and de-democratization processes, which are in a state of mutual struggle rather than restriction of extremes of each other that hinder political stability and good governance. The Ukrainian hybrid political regime is still far from the best form of governance; yet, as proponents of democratic values and principles, we need to build the relationship between democratization and de-democratization processes that would imply a pro-democratic development of a hybrid political regime in Ukraine. A political regime remains pro-democratic where, as C. Tilly argues, there is «integration of interpersonal trust networks into public politics,» «insulation of public politics from categorical inequality,» and «reduction of autonomous coercive power centers, with the consequences of increasing influence of ordinary people over public politics and rising control of public politics over state performance.» In such an environment, a political regime -- a state-citizen relationship -- becomes stable: the state and citizens consult, there is an increase in breadth, equality, protection of mutual binding, and the state-citizen trust networks.
References
1. Bozoki, A. & Hegedus, D. (2018) An externally constrained hybrid regime: Hungary in the European Union. Democratization, 25:7, 1173-1189, DOI:
10.1080/13510347.2018.1455664
2. Brzezinski, Zb. (1994). Same Roots Nourish Russia and Ukraine. New York Times. June 28, 1994, Section A, Page 16
3. Carroll, O. (2018). The return of the godfather: How Putin's best friend in Ukraine is staging an improbable comeback. Source: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/ putin-russia-godfather-viktor-medvedchuk-us-sanctions-ukraine-politics-a8515456.html
4. Cassani, A. (2014). Hybrid what? Partial consensus and persistent divergences in the analysis of hybrid regimes. International Political Science Review, 35 (5): 542-558. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192512113495756
5. Collier, D., & Levitsky, S. (1997). Democracy with Adjectives: Conceptual Innovation in Comparative Research. World Politics,49 (3), 430-451. Retrieved March 23, 2020, from www.jstor.org/stable/25054009
6. Colton, T. (2018) Regimeness, Hybridity, and Russian System Building as an Educative Project. Comparative Politics, 50(3): 455-473. Doi:10.2307/26532696
7. Crouch, C. (2004). Post-Democracy. Cambridge, Malden: Polity Press.
8. Crouch, C. (2011). Colin Crouch „Post-Democracy» -- Interview.
9. Dahl, R. (1989) Democracy and its critics. New Haven and London: Yele University Press, 1989.
10. Democracy Index 2019. A year of democratic setbacks and popular protest. The Economist Intelligence Unit. Source: http://www.eiu.com/Handlers/Whitepaper Han- dler.ashx?fi= Democracy-Index-2019.pdf&mode=wp&campaignid=democracyindex2019
11. Democracy Index 2020. In sickness and in health? A report by The Economist Intelligence Unit.
12. Diamond, L. (2002) Thinking About Hybrid Regimes. Journal of Democracy, 13 (2): 21-35.
13. Diamond, L. (2015) Facing Up to the Democratic Recession. Journal of Democracy. Volume: 26,Issue 1, 141-155.
14. Diamond, L., Plattner, M. (1996). The global resurgence of democracy. Journal od Democracy (pp. 3-25). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
15. Fedorenko, K., Rybiy, O., & Umland, A. (2016). The Ukrainian party system before and after the 2013-2014 Euromaidan. Europe-Asia Studies, 68(4): 609-630.
16. Fishman R. A. (1990). Rethinking State and Regime: Sounthern Europe's Transition to Democracy. World Politics, 42: 422-440.
17. Fragile States Index, Ukraine. 2020. Source: https://ffagilestatesindex.org/country-data/
18. Jarabik, B., De Waal, T. (2018). `Ukraine reform monitor: March 2018.' Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Source: https://carnegieendowment.org/2018/03/27/ ukraine-reform-monitor-march-2018-pub-75909.
19. Karl, T. L. (1995) The hybrid regimes of Central America. Journal of Democracy, 6 (3): 72-86.
20. Krupavicius, A., Lukosaitis, A. (2004). Lietuvos politine sistema: sqranga ir raida. Kaunas: Poligrafija ir informatika.
21. Kuzio, T. (1998) Ukraine: Nation and State Building. London: Routledge.
22. Kuzio, T. (2005) Regime type and politics in Ukraine under Kuchma. Communist and Post-Communist Studies. Volume 38. Issue 2. Pages 167-190. Source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.postcomstud. 2005.03.007.
23. Laurenas V. (2017). Spartejancios visuomenes politinis rezimas. Klaipeda: Klaipedos universitetas.
24. Laurenas V. (2018) Which Post-Democracy (in lithuanian). In: Gerove ir saugumas XXI amziuje: postdemokratijos kontekstai / Welfare and Security in 21st Century: Contexts of the Post-democracy. Scientific redactors S. Siliauskas, K. Serpetis. Klaipeda: Klaipeda University Press. 2018: 13-80.
25. Levitsky, S., Ziblatt D. (2018) How Democracies Die. New York: Crown Publishing Group.
26. Lindegaard, L., & Webster, N. (2018). Decentralisation in Ukraine: Supporting Political Stability by Strengthening Local Government. Danish Institute for International Studies. Doi:10.2307/resrep21435
27. Linz, J. J. (1973). Totalitarian and Authoritarian Regimes. Lynne Rienner Publishers. 2000.
28. Lotiuk, K. (2021). C. Tilly'io demokratizacijos ir dedemokratizacijos procesp kon- cepcijos veiksmingumas postdemokratijos kontekste. Regional Formation and Development Studies. 33(1): 62-76. doi:10.15181/rfds.v33i1.2199
29. Miller, C. R. (2020) Living under Post-Democracy. Citizenship in Fleetingly Democratic Times. Routledge. DOI: 10.4324/9780429317446
30. Mufti, M. (2018) What Do We Know about Hybrid Regimes after Two Decades of Scholarship? Politics and Governance, 6 (2): 112-119. DOI: 10.17645/pag.v6i2.1400
31. Nations in Transit (2021). Freedom House. Source: https://freedomhouse.org/countfy/ukraine/nations-transit/2021
32. Peters, B. G. & Pierre, J. (2020) A typology of populism: understanding the different forms of populism and their implications, Democratization, 27, 6: 928-946, DOI: 10.1080/13510347.2020.1751615
33. Polokhalo, V. (1997). he Political Analysis of Postcommunism: Understanding Postcommunist Ukraine. November 1. Р 160--161.
34. Ranciere, J. 2007. On the Shores of Politics. Trans. L. Heron. London, N: Verso. 2007. (1992, Original).
35. Sartori, G. (1997) Comparative Constitutional Engineering: An Inquiry into Structures, Incentives and Outcomes. Macmillan Press Limited, 2nd edition.
36. Serpetis, K.(2009) Simulation as a higher stage of postdemocracy (in lithuanian). In- ter-studia humanitatis. 2009, 9: 24-46.
37. Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FnTOiso08HM
38. Statkus, N. (2003). Etniskumas ir nacionalizmas: istorinis ir teorinis aspektai. 2003.
39. Stone, R. N. (2021). Ukraine Civil Society Assessment. University of Chicago. Source: https://www.norc.org/Research/Projects/Pages/ukraine-civil-society-assessment.aspx
40. Tilly C. (2003). Inequality, Democratization, and De-Democratization. Sociological Theory, 21(1):37-43. doi:10.1111/1467-9558.00174
41. Tilly, C. (2007) Democracy. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.
42. Transparency International. 2017. Nearly six in ten americans believe the US became more corrupt in 2017. Source: https://www.transparency.org/en/press/nearly-six-in-ten- americans-believe-the-us-became-more-corrupt-in-2017
43. Transparency International. 2020. Corruption and discrimination: two sides of the same coin? Source: https://www.transparency.org/en/blog/corruption-and-discrimination-two- sides-of-the-same
44. Ukraine Country Report 2020. Bartelsmann Stiftung. Source: https://www.bti- project.org/en/reports/country-report-UKR.html
45. von Beyme, K. (2013) Von der Postdemokratie zur Neodemokratie. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.
46. von Beyme, K. (2018) Rechtspopulismus. Ein Element der Neodemokratie? Wiesbaden: Springer VS.
47. Yazici, E. (2019). Nationalism and Human Rights. Political Research Quarterly, 72 (1): 147-161. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912918781187
48. Лебедюк, B. (2018) Регіональні особливості динаміки розвитку політичних партій у Pівненській області. Політичні партії і вибори: українські та світові практики. Випуск 2. Львів ЛНУ імені Івана Франка.
49. Рівень підтримки громадянами вступу України до ЄС та НАТО (січень 2020 р. соціологія). Разумков Центр (2020). Source: http://razumkov.org.ua/napriamky/ sotsiologichni- doslidzhennia/riven-pidtrymky-gromadianamy-vstupu-ukrainy-do-yes-ta-nato-sichen-2020r
50. Барометр свободи слова. Source: https://imi.org.ua/monitorings/barometr-svobody- slova
51. Смірнова, B. O. (2017). Гібридний режим в Україні як наслідок відсутності вольових зусиль у вищих ешелонах влади. Science and Education a New Dimension. Humanities and Social Sciences, V(20), I.: 120 p.
52. Касьянов, Г. (2018). Past Continuous: історична політика 1980-2000. Київ: Лаурус.
53. Мацієвський, Ю. (2016). У пастці гібридності: зигзаги трансформацій політичного режиму в Україні (1991-2014). Чернівці Книги -- XXI. P 461.
54. Рівень підтримки громадянами вступу України до ЄС та НАТО (січень 2020р. соціологія). Разумков Центр. Source: http://razumkov.org.ua/napriamky/sotsiologichni- doslidzhennia/riven-pidtrymky-gromadianamy-vstupu-ukrainy-do-yes-ta-nato-sichen-2020r
55. Українці залучені до громадської діяльності, але уникають активної участі. Фонд Демократичні Ініціативи імєні Ілька Кучеріва. Saltinis internete: https://dif.org.ua/article/ukraintsi-zalucheni-do-gromadskoi-diyalnosti-ale-unikayut-aktivnoi-uchasti
Размещено на Allbest.ru
...Подобные документы
The classical definition of democracy. Typical theoretical models of democracy. The political content of democracy. Doctrine of liberal and pluralistic democracy. Concept of corporate political science and other varieties of proletarian democracy.
реферат [37,3 K], добавлен 13.05.2011The definition of democracy as an ideal model of social structure. Definition of common features of modern democracy as a constitutional order and political regime of the system. Characterization of direct, plebiscite and representative democracy species.
презентация [1,8 M], добавлен 02.05.2014Functions of democracy as forms of political organization. Its differences from dictatorship and stages of historical development. Signs and methods of stabilizing of civil society. Essence of social order and duty, examples of public establishments.
контрольная работа [24,4 K], добавлен 11.08.2011Democracy as theoretical number of important qualities, that are important for human development. The general protection of property and the almost complete absence of taxes. Main details of enjoying full democracy. Analyzing democracy in reality.
статья [15,8 K], добавлен 02.10.2009Study of legal nature of the two-party system of Great Britain. Description of political activity of conservative party of England. Setting of social and economic policies of political parties. Value of party constitution and activity of labour party.
курсовая работа [136,8 K], добавлен 01.06.2014Thus democracy and modernism are closely intertwined, each providing a driving force. Darwinism, Freudianism, Leninism and Marxism combined to throw doubt on traditional Western mores, culture and standards of behavior. Rights Without Responsibility.
статья [20,3 K], добавлен 25.11.2011Referendum - a popular vote in any country of the world, which resolved important matters of public life. Usually in a referendum submitted questions, the answers to which are the words "yes" or "no". Especially, forms, procedure of referendums.
презентация [1,2 M], добавлен 25.11.2014The term "political system". The theory of social system. Classification of social system. Organizational and institutional subsystem. Sociology of political systems. The creators of the theory of political systems. Cultural and ideological subsystem.
реферат [18,8 K], добавлен 29.04.2016Leading role Society Gard Kresevo (USC) in organizing social and political life of the Poland. The Polish People's Movement of Vilna Earth. The influence of the Polish Central Electoral Committee. The merger of the TNG "Emancipation" and PNC "Revival".
реферат [18,3 K], добавлен 02.10.2009Basis of government and law in the United States of America. The Bill of Rights. The American system of Government. Legislative branch, executive branch, judicial branch. Political Parties and Elections. Freedom of speech, of religion, and of the press.
презентация [5,5 M], добавлен 21.11.2012Presidential candidates. Learning the information of the Electoral College, to understanding the process by which the President is officially elected. The formal ceremony of presidential inauguration, including the information about its time, place.
курсовая работа [34,7 K], добавлен 09.04.2011Barack Hussein Obama and Dmitry Medvedev: childhood years and family, work in politics before the presidential election and political views, the election, the campaign and presidency. The role, significance of these presidents of their countries history.
курсовая работа [62,3 K], добавлен 02.12.2015Thrее basic Marxist criteria. Rеlаting tо thе fоrmеr USSR. Nоtеs tо rеstоrе thе socialist prоjеct. Оrigins оf thе Intеrnаtiоnаl Sоciаlists. Thе stаtе cаpitаlist thеоry. Stаtе capitalism аnd thе fаll оf thе burеаucrаcy. Lоcаl prаcticе аnd pеrspеctivеs.
реферат [84,6 K], добавлен 20.06.2010The rivalry between Islam and Chistianity, between Al-Andalus and the Christian kingdoms, between the Christian and Ottoman empires triggered conflicts of interests and ideologies. The cultural explanation of political situations in the Muslim world.
реферат [52,8 K], добавлен 25.06.2010The situation of women affected by armed conflict and political violence. The complexity of the human rights in them. Influence of gender element in the destruction of the family and society as a result of hostilities. Analysis of the Rwandan Genocide.
реферат [10,9 K], добавлен 03.09.2015Analysis of Rousseau's social contract theory and examples of its connection with the real world. Structure of society. Principles of having an efficient governmental system. Theory of separation of powers. The importance of censorship and religion.
статья [13,1 K], добавлен 30.11.2014Анализ структур, проблем и тенденций развития технологий Public Relations в системе государственной службы (на примере Управления пресс-службы и информации Президента). Ее основные задачи и функции. Предложения по улучшению функционирования пресс-службы.
курсовая работа [316,8 K], добавлен 15.02.2016Методологический аспект исследования особенностей политического пиара в избирательных кампаниях. История возникновения Public Relations. Сущность понятия "выборы". Украинский электорат и его этнонациональные особенности как объект избирательного PR.
курсовая работа [59,1 K], добавлен 12.08.2010Сравнительный метод в политической науке. Определение степени зависимости результатов политики от лидеров. Виды сравнительных исследований: "Case-study", бинарное, региональное, глобальное и кросс-темпоральные сравнения. Виды и уровни переменных.
реферат [26,0 K], добавлен 22.12.2009Методологические основы процедуры формирования образа политического деятеля. Особенности работы специалиста по политическому Public Relations в многонациональном регионе. Выделение универсальных и отличительных черт имиджа политического деятеля.
дипломная работа [900,3 K], добавлен 03.05.2011
