ТЕОРИЯ КАК ПРЕДПОСЫЛКА УСОВЕРШЕНСТВОВАНИЯ ИДЕОЛОГИИ ГОСУДАРСТВЕННОГО СТРОИТЕЛЬСТВА | Опубликовать статью ВАК, elibrary (НЭБ)

Краснокутский А. В.

Доцент, Кандидат философских наук, Запорожский национальный университет

ТЕОРИЯ КАК ПРЕДПОСЫЛКА УСОВЕРШЕНСТВОВАНИЯ ИДЕОЛОГИИ ГОСУДАРСТВЕННОГО СТРОИТЕЛЬСТВА

Аннотация

В статье рассматривается теория как предпосылка усовершенствования идеологии государственного строительства в обществе на этапе его трансформации (современном украинском обществе). Практическая значимость полученных результатов заключается в возможности их использования при разработке развёрнутой карты теории государственного строительства, которая может быть «загружена» в практическое сознание общества, усвоена его кругами и тем самым преобразована в обновлённую государственно-созидающую идеологию, направленную на создание качественно нового государства, что усовершенствует общественно-политическую жизнь, государственно-властную практику.

Ключевые слова: теория государственного строительства, идеология государственного строительства, создание качественно нового государства.

Krasnokutskiy A. V.

Assistant Professor, Candidate of Philosophical Sciences, Zaporizhzhya National University

THE THEORY AS A PREREQUISITE TO IMPROVE OF THE IDEOLOGY OF STATE-BUILDING

Abstract

The article discusses the theory as a prerequisite to improve of the ideology of state-building in society during its transformation (in modern Ukrainian society). The practical significance of the results is the ability to use them in the development of the theory of state-building, which can be «loaded» into the practical consciousness of society, adopted by its community and thereby transformed into an updated state-building ideology aimed at the creation of a qualitatively new state, which will improve social and political life and state-government practices.

Keywords: theory of state-building, ideology of state-building, creation of a qualitatively new state.

The first unit of the determinants of the optimization of the ideology of state in modern Ukrainian society can be called «theoretical» as it contains specific determinants related to the development of the expanded theory that is needed to improve the current state-building ideology. This unit is a system that unites under its «umbrella» those factors that are directly related to the development of all the theoretical aspects of state-building, the whole gamma and completeness of the necessary theory as the highest form of scientific knowledge. It is integrating both the theory of the society, and the theory of the state, and of course, the theory of the state building. Taking into account that the latter is conceptualized as a process of our activities of the creation of a new state, and the state itself – as a political form of society, it is correctly to speak of the need for the creation of a single original format metatheory – the theory of society and the state and the state-building, which would occupy the central place in the conceptual dimensions of the designated unit. It is clear that the latter, together with the corresponding metatheory should be considered as primary, basic, fundamental construct of an appropriate system being its foundation, as it is maximally synchronized with high nature of the researched ideology as a special kind of theory-based practical consciousness, corresponding to its spiritual frequencies naturally combining with the structural lines of state-building of the ideological world.

Embracing a conceptual view of the relevant block design it should be noted that during the last two decades some solid steps towards developing of theoretical foundation outlines of state-building, creating outlines of the theory of society, state and state-building were made. It is appropriate to recall the theoretical exploration achievements of V. Andrushchenko, V. Bekh, V. Voronkova, L. Hubersky, V. Kremen, V. Kudin, M. Myhalchenko, A. Skrypniuk, V. Tsvetkov, Yu. Shemshuchenko and, of course, of many other representatives of the national philosophical and scientific thought and other social scientists and statesmen. It should also be noted, in particular, theoretical results of the respected author team, in the broad-based community of which there are V. Geyts, A. Onishchenko, M. Popovic and dozens of other researchers that were presented to the NAS of Ukraine in the relevant national reports on the key problems of socio-economic, socio-political and cultural progress of modern Ukraine [1; 2]. The first report «Social and Economic Situation in Ukraine: Consequences for People and the State», on the one hand makes the complex analysis of the conditions and determinants of economic, social, political, legal and humanitarian development of Ukraine in the light of the threats and risks associated with including crisis processes in the modern world, and on the other hand it proposes vision of the strategy, ways and mechanisms to overcome the systematic crisis and lead the country to the dynamic growth targets. Its ideological successor is – the second national report «New Course: Reforms in Ukraine, 2010-2015» the aim of which was to outline the conceptual vision of a radically new course of implementation in Ukraine of urgent modernized transformations, concrete tasks and mechanisms for their implementation formed by the domestic academic science. This report is actually a strategic and at the same time practical document aimed at the future. However, it would be a significant exaggeration to believe that today we have before us a detailed map of the theory of state-building as the highest form of scientific knowledge, logically structured systems enabling coherent synthetic representation of patterns and significant relationships of the specifically defined area of reality, let alone a single metatheory – the theory of society, state and state-building. In support of this we give a number of critical points.

We should note an obvious fact that today, as well as over the years of its independence, we actually do not have a single institution, either at national level or beyond it, under the patronage and in the name of which the systematic laborious development of all aspects of the theoretical foundations of state-building would be conducted and a large-scale creation theory of society, state and state-building would be made and that this theory would set the tone, and at the same time promote a general line of this development and this creation. And this is the first. Obviously, this institution by the natural logic of things would have to be, above all, the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine as the highest state scientific institution of the country, which, indeed, by virtue of its status may play the first violin in the generation and realization of the indicated line and run full theoretical investigations of the state building content and direction. However this unfortunately did not happen, because of different reasons and circumstances about which we sometimes could only guess being sincerely surprised with helplessness and irresponsibility of national scientific public, whose members were often themselves at the helm of the state ruling. Those rare occasions when the NAS initiates the state-building search, like the above named collective works – national reports are a pleasant exception that proves the general rule and the moment mentioned by us. We have to admit that most modern Ukrainian researchers when starting to work, individually or collectively, on one or other theoretical issues of creation and transformation of the state body, or boldly encroaching on the «holy of holies» – grasp the nature of the theoretical dimension of society, state and state-building, often act on their own initiative, relying mainly on themselves, their own strength and understanding.

At the same time it is impossible not to notice the eye cutting conceptual fuzziness, vagueness of the theoretical foundation of state-building, as well as the set of theories of society, the state and the state-building, the lack, at least, of a common format unifying different theoretical and research positions. This creates significant obstacles on the way to the establishment and strengthening of the metatheory necessary to the state-building ideology. And this is the second thing. This situation is a logical continuation of the first moment which we had mentioned. In addition, we must take into account weakness of interdisciplinary foundation of various research projects, studies, affecting directly or indirectly the state issues, the insufficient level of philosophical, scientific culture of individual authors, who work with a certain range of questions going into theoretical depth of a social body, state-building and diverse perspectives of its development and reconstruction and the limitations of their professional competence, which prevent them from understanding of the nature of certain issues.

The indicated moment can be added to one more very important statement from the point of view of intensification of metatheoretical search of a necessary metatheory-namely the uncertainty of a conceptual model of the society, including the modern Ukrainian one. And this is the third thing. In the bosom of home social and philosophical thought the first more or less common outlines of this model are being tested now and the author’s position on the issue is being agreed. Thus, V. Andruschenko speaks of an organized society as a model of transition from totalitarianism to democracy capable of solving the problem of organization and social self-organization in the period of radical transformation in Ukraine at the turn of the century. Based on a thorough comprehending of the concept of «social body», V. Bekh produces interesting thoughts on self-regulation of the social organism of the country. While agreeing in general with his colleagues, V. Voronkova speaks of «self-governing society» as a new social phenomenon, as well as of the formation and development of innovative paradigms of modern Ukrainian society, on the one hand, and the formation of the noospheric concept of modern society in the context of globalization, on the other hand.

Fourth, the vast majority of local researchers who approach to the theoretical development of the process of creating a qualitatively new state structure and certain aspects of it, or try to build a theoretical scheme of society, state and state-building, with admirable tenacity and for a long time don’t pay their attention to considering such extremely important issues as laws and regularities which subordinate to themselves the development of extremely complex phenomena of social reality: society, state, state-building as a process of its creation and subsequent transformation and improvement. Without their solutions there is nothing to hope for the emergence of an extensive full-valued theory of state formation and, consequently, a single metatheory that interests us.

Fifth, there is a lack on the domestic field of modern theoretical developments appealing to the masses of people of social and political idea as the state-political system to which the citizens of the country would strive in their thinking and practical deeds. As it turns out, these developments are absent today, unfortunately, either with theorists or practitioners of politics. thus, some representatives of the political science (A. Wysotskiy), exploring in their modern development the basic problems of legitimization and modernization of political power in modern Ukraine, indicate on the territory of the latter extreme weakness and the lack of social solidarity and the attractive model of a common future. As a rule, we will not meet such a social and political ideal today either on the pages of serious monographs, scientific and popular literature, newspapers, magazines, or on the pages of various national reports of respected scientific institutions. «Now the search of the ideal by theorists of the parties and movements that grow like mushrooms after a heavy rain, either is concentrated on a quest to restore, revive the past, removed from the modern time by more or less thicker or thinner walled years, or even is taken out beyond the actual process of historical development of Ukraine. The ideal, so to say, is searched around somewhere on the side. We can confidently assert that the first and second of these paths have no prospects» [3, 318]. We are solidary in mind, that only the scientific research, based on the objective analysis of the historical development of Ukrainian society can be perspective. Besides, this research must take into consideration the past experience and the present state of things and it must be aimed at the achievement of a better future. In other words, the attractive social and political ideal of Ukraine should be found on the ways of its social progress. By this we mean a comprehensive and harmonious development of the society, its economy and culture, improvement of welfare of people and prosperity of their spiritual life; the increase of the level of freedom of every citizen in the development of their social importance, that is valuable abilities necessary to the society.

A positive solution of all above mentioned «Gordian knots», all of the problematic issues will make it possible to revive the theoretical foundation of national state-building and optimize the emergence of metatheory which is necessary for the improvement of the exiting state-building ideology.