Substantiated in the article is the thesis of the quantitative and qualitative expansion of the "liberal inclination" in the party-political field of Western democracies. This expansion is based, on one hand, on the development of liberalism as such; on the other hand, on the adoption of the liberal creed by social democratic and conservative organizations. Under these circumstances, the process of "humanization" of liberalism is gaining momentum, while at the same time liberalism is shifting to the individual-group, "solidarity" dimension. A quickly developing synthesis of party and group principles results in the hybridization" of liberalism, which substantially increases its social and political weight and significance. Opposed to the "solidarity" trend, a rapid intensification of ultra-conservative anarcho-individualism is taking place. Both these extremes, as well as the political space between them, represent fundamentally different trends in mass perceptions, and their study of becomes increasingly important both for politics and for political science. In the struggle against the ultra-right fundamentalism the impact of different kinds of organizations and communities is increasing; the leading role among these is played by the international liberal think tank "Policy Network".

Considered in the article are the topical tendencies in the evolution of the model of parties-politics relations - tendencies preconditioned by the crisis of the mainstream parties. The author turns to the analysis of the "hybrid parties", whose appearance, in his opinion, is symbolical in the context of the said tendencies; he turns also to the concept of "new populism" as applied to researching anti-mainstream parties. The conclusion of the article contains judgments on possible directions of further development of the model of parties-politics relations.

The author analyses particularly important, topical and at the same time dramatically "tangled" national question in Russia. It is the politically determinative correlation of federal and national dispositions in its state system that constitutes the key object of the author's attention. Their combination, in the author's opinion, to a large extent predetermines specific character of the Russian federalism. The author considers the broad problematic field of mutual relations between the Russians and the non-Russian nations in Russia, as well as the variety of concrete connotation of "nationalism" in Russia's politics. He accentuates the threat of accumulation of misbalances in affairs of the state regulation of the federal and of the inter-national relations. The article covers also the idea of "new federalism" able to open the way for removal of irregularities in the relations between the Russian nation and the other nations of the Russian Federation.

Предлагаемая публикация представляет материалы научно-практической конференции на тему: “Глобальный кризис и его последствия: обострение этносоциокультурных противоречий”, проходившей весной 2013 г. в ИМЭМО РАН под председательством зам. директора ИМЭМО, д.э.н. Е.Ш. Гонтмахера и зав. Центром сравнительных социально-экономических и социально-политических исследований, д.и.н. Н.В. Загладина. Целью конференции было обсуждение влияния глобального кризиса 2008–2009 гг. на состояние внутристрановых противоречий в современном мире. В конференции приняли участие ученые, сотрудники ИМЭМО д.филос.н. В.И. Пантин, в.н.с., зам. гл.редактора журнала “Полис” В.В. Лапкин, д.и.н. В.П. Перегудов, д.п.н. И.С. Семененко, д.и.н. К.Г. Холодковский, д.э.н. В.Л. Шейнис, д.э.н. И.П. Цапенко, д.и.н. Г.И. Вайнштейн, к.и.н. М.А. Володина, к.и.н. Д.В. Гудименко, к.и.н. В.В. Комаровский, к.п.н. И.Л. Прохоренко, к.э.н. Е.С. Садовая, к.п.н. А.А. Преображенская, к.п.н.А.Н. Смирнов, к.и.н. М.Г. Хохлова, м.н.с. М.В. Фомин.

The Round Table on the problems of the development of the civil society in Russia took place in the end of 2011. Well-known Russian political scientists, historians, and philosophers took part in the discussion.

Among new approaches to rethinking the nature of relations between society and state institutions the concept of monitoring democracy is of prior importance: it does not limit itself to the political space, but penetrates into different spheres of social life. The author analyzes the monitoring democracy concept and pays special attention to its practical outcomes. An important part of the article is dedicated to the analysis of contradictory, but mostly positive trends that permit to assert the implementation of some traits of monitoring democracy in contemporary social and political life in Russia. A full-fledged implementation of this model could lead to qualitative changes in the overall relations between state and society.

The article retraces the close interconnection that exists between the Russians' civil and political identity. on the one hand. and the level of consolidation of the Russian state - on the other. Among the factors having the definitive influence on the state of the identity and on the character of the Russian statehood. special attention is given to the specific features of the existing power relations. As the author aspires to demonstrate (and to prove). it is just the hierarchical character of these relations and their undemocratic essence that are the main factor of the growth of those risks and dangers which threaten the efficiency and integrity of the Russian state.

Analyzed in the article are similarities and distinctions between the former Soviet and today's Russian political systems, as well as the state of modern Russian politics and the prospects of its further evolution. The author makes the main accent in his study on juxtaposing the two main models of political relations in the USSR and in Russia, which, from his point of view, are pluralism and corporatism. In his conclusions the author suggests that. as distinct from the Soviet corporate-pluralistic model of the 1970s to the 1980s. today's Russian model has a very substantial potential of development in the direction of new corporatism and of political pluralism of full value.

On the basis of the diary of A.S. Chernyayev (a considerable figure in Soviet and Russian politics. who. in particular. worked for many years as M.S. Gorbachev's assistant). S.P. Peregudov analyzes the most significant prerequisites of the perestroika and of the "new thinking" policy, which was in the long run followed by the downfall of the Soviet Union.

It is the changes of Russia's political system at the new stage of its development, that are considered in the article. What is analyzed in detail, are, in particular, liberal-pluralistic innovations in the power party, aimed at increasing its influence in society and at acquiring qualities of the "dominant" party. Further, the thesis is argumented that notwithstanding the deep crisis of the opposition and its disruption, the issue of forming an opposition capable of functioning not only remains in the order of the day, but is becoming ever more topical. On the solution of this question, stresses the author, the vector of Russia's sociopolitical development in the nearest future will depend. To a perspective of authoritarian "party-state" he contraposes the alternative of "constructive convergence", e.g. of combining traditional Russian social-paternalistic with Western liberal-market elements.

The author shares his reflections on the Reprort of the Institute of the Social Projections. compiled by a team of leading Russian political scientists. He particularly emphasizes the pluralism of their assessments and opinions, which substantially raises the academic significance of their investigations. Basing on a range of report's ideas. the author formulates his own vision of the processes taking place in the political system of the country.

The author turns to the concept of "convergence", which was topical in the 60s to 70s of the 20th century, interpreting from this angle the processes of modern Russian development. As convergence de facto he understands the coexistence in modern Russia of two heterogeneous subsystems: the state-bureaucratic one and the free-market one, which in the aggregate make up the unique system of social relations in modern Russia, system that has no analogues. The author analyzes the character of mutual relations, the conditions and mechanisms of the coexistence and of the coordinated functioning of these two subsystems, as well as the structure of the actors and of the "political powers" of each of the subsystems.

8 декабря 2005 г. в помещении Института государства и права РАН состоялся научный семинар, посвященный истории, современным проблемам и перспективам развития отечественной политологии. В дискуссии приняли участие: д.филос.н., проф. Т.А.Алексеева (МГИМО(У) МИД РФ); д.филос.н., проф. Ф.М.Бурлацкий (ИГП РАН); Д.М.Воробьев (журнал “Полис”); д.и.н., проф. А.А.Галкин (Институт социологии РАН); к.и.н. В.К.Егоров (Научно-организационное управление РАН); д.полит.н., проф. М.В.Ильин (МГИМО(У) МИД РФ); к.и.н. И.Б.Левин (ИМЭМО РАН); д.полит.н., проф. .И.Никитин (МГИМО(У) МИД РФ); д.и.н. С.П.Перегудов (ИМЭМО РАН); д.ю.н. В.А.Туманов (ИГП РАН); д.и.н. К.Г.Холодковский (ИМЭМО РАН) и др. Заседание вел вице-президент МАПН, к.ю.н. В.В.Смирнов. В этом номере мы знакомим читателей с сокращенной версией стенограммы семинара. В полном виде стенограмма будет опубликована в сборнике “50 лет российской политической науке”.