1.1 Еhe concept of comparative politics
Comparative politics today is one of the leading branches of political science. Comparative politics as an integral part of political science as well as philosophy, sociology, history takes an important place in the system of modern education.
At the same time, it would be nice to examine the logic of the research process in contemporary Comparative politics:
The need of scientist in keen understanding of political phenomena and processes.
The choice of countries for comparison.
Each country has its own political environment. It depends on many factors: geography, economics, religion, communication, education, history, ideology, political institutions.
The choice of comparison objects.
It can be:
- the state;
- political parties;
- interest groups;
- social movements;
- electoral systems:
- political conflicts.
Defining the purpose of comparison to identify the causes of the similarities differences in political processes and institutions of different countries.
The choice of techniques and methods of investigation
Sidney Verba sees the research process is to move from description to the more important theoretical issues, from a single case to comparison of many cases.
There are three methods of analysis:
1) description;
2) examination;
3) comparison.
Comparative analysis allows comparativist to more visually present all aspects of political life, to understand why certain events are happen, why people behave in one way or another in certain political situations.
As a result of comparisons are possible: classification of phenomena, forecasting the political processes, identification of laws, the emergence of new political concepts.
In the most general meaning, сcomparative politics can be examined as one of the methods, which is expressed in the comparative approach to different political events.
Comparative politics (comparative comparativistics, comparative political research) - empirical discipline within political science, carrying out the systematic comparisons of various phenomena in the world of politics to identify and explain the similarities and differences between them, what is necessary to check the existing and construction of new theories.
Comparative politics is a discipline determined by the method (the systematic comparison), but not by the subject, as comparative research cover different areas of politics: from the political behavior of certain social groups to the political institutions, from the political systems of states to the political system of the world as seen in the present time, and existed in other historical periods.
From this perspective, it becomes clear the specifics of сcomparative politics. On the one hand, it examines all that is within the sphere of political science from the states and their systems to small groups of citizens, and even the individual roles that people perform in politics. On the other hand, the main tool of the study of the discipline politics is a comparison that is not the exclusive privilege of сcomparative politics, because the comparison - this is the usual way of thinking. Therefore, "properly the сcomparative politics got its name from the method, but not from the subject. On this basis, many deny the existence in the сcomparative politics the subject's own specificity, and accordingly, its theory, saying that сcomparative politics is the whole political science, which uses the comparative method".
With all the complexities of defining the role and place of comparative politics in political science it may be affirmed that it acts as an intermediary between the theoretical (political theory) and descriptive disciplines, meticulously collecting a particular invoice (political sociology, political psychology, political anthropology to the extent that they do not intrude into the sphere theory or experiment comparative research).
The specifics of each branch of scientific knowledge it is determined by such parameters as object, subject and method. The object of science is an integral phenomenon or process, which it aims to explore; the subject is the specific characteristics, properties and qualities of the object, on which is directed the cognitive activity. The method is a set of tools, techniques and procedures by which the subject of cognition is carried out.
The object of сcomparative politics coincides with the object of political science as a whole : this is the world of politics – both internal and external - in all its diversity and richness of the demonstrations (from certain leaders to international organizations).
The subjects of сcomparative politics are:
- laws;
- conception;
- hypotheses;
- development models as theoretical generalizations
The subject of сcomparative politics forms a unity of two components: first, a methodology, theory and methods of scientific comparison, in the political sphere and, secondly, it is the ratio of general, special and individual, tested by the methods of systematic comparison on politics levels - the level of the nation-state, supranational and sub national.
Methods of political comparative are a collection of various heuristic standards, rules, tools, techniques, and procedures to identify causal relationships, regularities and trends of the world of politics development through heteromorphy systematic comparisons.
The main method of сcomparative politics is comparative analysis.
As the most important area of political science сcomparative politics analyzes and compares the following major political categories:
– political life;
– political processes;
– political relations;
– political systems;
– political institutions;
– political regimes;
– political power;
– political parties;
– political movements;
– political activity, etc.
The above listed political categories are considered in close cooperation of the political power with the society, it means, in the socio-political context of proven by the political life and experience of the development of the various countries of the world community purposely to ascertain their general and specific areas of social and political development and to find the effective forms of political systems and solutions of political problems.
According to Philippe Schmitter, сcomparative politics as a sub discipline is today at a crossroads, and a trend that it chooses in the future with respect to its ontology and epistemology, will be determined by whether it will remain, as before, the main source of critical innovation for the entire discipline.
1.2 Specificity and bounds comparative politics
An attempt to determine the specificity and to outline the boundaries of сcomparative politics were undertaken many times, but has not yet managed to come to a common denominator.
This is explained largely by the fact that the comparative political studies, by the breadth of subject coverage and variety of methodological approaches, occupy a special place in modern political science. Their subject area includes all forms of political activity: both state and non-state, both institutional and extra-institutional. The most important condition for saving subdisciplinatory specifics of сcomparative politics is an organic combination of the comparative method with a variety of objects of research.
Suffice conditionally is possible to separate three main approaches to solving the problems and specifics of сcomparative politics boundaries.
In accordance with witty remark known American political scientist S.M. Lipset, “If you know one country, you don’t know any country” most often comparative research is defined as the study, which uses comparative data - on two or more cross-national / cross-regional political systems. This approach emphasizes the specificity of the data used, their cross societal character. The basic unit of analysis is considered to be a nation-state (“case”). Thus, G. Almond, G. Powell, K. Strom and R. Dalton - known authors of textbook “Comparative Politics Today: A World View” (M., 2002) – determined the сcomparative politics as “... the study of political systems in which we are trying to understand these systems as not isolated cases, but through generalization and comparison.”
However, despite the high popularity of this definition, it is quite narrow, as it excludes from among of comparative “comparatively oriented study of individual cases” (one country / region), such as "Democracy in America" by A. de Tocqueville or “First new nation” S.M. Lipset, who nevertheless considered as classical in сcomparative politics. As noted by the American political scientist comparatives D. Apter, one of the incentives for a “relatively oriented research of isolated cases” is that they give new nourishment for comparative theories that quickly become obsolete and / or becoming commonplace.
It is important to note that along with the nation-state the basic unit of comparative political analysis today is political region. Thus regional “slice” has an important advantage, because it seriously increases the number of studied cases.
At the same time, some scientists determine the specificity of comparative political studies, emphasizing their multilevel character (S. Rokkan, A. Przeworski and others). According to their approach work comparativists is conducted simultaneously on two levels – macro-social (i.e. the political system as a whole) and intersystem. The study which takes into account only the similarities and differences in the macro-level, is not in the full sense comparative, even if it involves the analysis of sets of intersystem characteristics. For example, if the macro-social data (e.g. the level of national income per capita) are used to explain the variations of the dependent variable, which is a set of intrasystem characteristics (e.g., the level of democracy stability), that work may not be fully comparative. However, few of the works, traditionally considered as comparative, satisfy the requirements of the definition, i.e., definition of Przeworski.
Supporters of the third approach sees the specifics of comparative studies in the specific purposes for which are used cross-national units of analysis. A distinctive feature of сcomparative politics in this case is the usage of the properties of the identified macro-social units to make judgments of explanatory nature, which is closely related to the two goals of comparative studies - the explanation and interpretation of macro-social similarities and differences (Ch. Regin and others.). British researcher P. Mayor sees the specifics of сcomparative politics namely in combination of the content of the goals and the method. In turn, A. J. Apter emphasizes that comparative politics can be seen as the empirical side of political philosophy and political theory.
Thus, in general terms we can say that comparativists political scientists are primarily interested in the similarities and differences between the cross-national and cross-regional units. This knowledge allows to understand, explain and interpret the various historical outcomes and political processes, and to determine their significance for the political institutional arrangements. For most comparativists is important to interpret the specific experience and political development of both individual countries and groups of countries. So, J.B. Mannheim and R.K. Rich believe that comparative analysis allows to generalize over the sometimes narrow scope of a separate culture, as well as to check certain system properties. In other words, the subjects of interest of comparativists are cases, as such, a variety of historical experience, not just the identification of relationships between variables that characterize by large groups of cases. There is a tendency to use cross-national units of analysis as elements of an explanation for the interpretation (forecast) of the possible historical outcomes.
1.3 The role and place of Comparative politics in the system of political sciences
Comparative politics is one of the most developed sectors in the world political science. This is primarily explained due to the fact that сcomparative politics occupies a key position in political science, provides its integrity and efficient operation.
To understand the place of сcomparative politics in the system of political subjects it should be noted that in the social sciences in general and in political science in particular have identified two large areas of scientific knowledge. One covers the theoretical or nomothetic (law-making) knowledge, and the other is related to the description and interpretation of the observed texture. This division carried out in the late XIX century German philosopher Wilhelm Windelband, who contrasted the science of the laws or nomothetic science, especially natural science of the events, or ideographic. At the same time with Windelband another German scientist Wilhelm Dilthey, shared science on explaining and understanding. He wrote that “the nature we explain, mental life we comprehend”.
The political theory gravitates toward the nomothetic knowledge. Ideographic knowledge are formed of disciplines in which are collected and compiled data on specific policy areas of the world - political psychology, political anthropology, political sociology, political history, and the other - to the extent that they do not intrude into the sphere of theory, experiment or comparative studies. Comparative politics is a kind of intermediate zone. It serves as an intermediary between the disciplines of political science, as she has to learn all that is within the scope of political science – from the entire politic to individual roles. It links two main types of scientific disciplines, occupying all the space of political science: nomothetic, i.e. connected with the development of general laws (political theory, political philosophy), and descriptive or ideographic, i.e., containing a particular texture (political sociology, political psychology, political anthropology, political history). The core disciplines are characterized by contemplation and, responsible of its nature, intelligent design in the form of logical, mathematical, semiotic and other models. Halo disciplines are characterized by description of the facts, the establishment of databases, the primary analysis. This does not mean that the ideographic discipline does not go beyond data collection – it's about the fact that in the framework of them is carried out conceptualization - understanding within a particular subject area. Intermediary disciplines are characterized by experience and testing in the broadest sense of the word, for example in the form of experiments, tests or comparisons. This is empirical discipline in the narrow sense of the word.
The task of theorists is to achieve the most complete, meaningful theory. The task of ideographers is in the opposite, in fact, that their descriptions were most exhaustive volume. The empirical discipline by the subject is differing both from the theoretical and from the descriptive disciplines. The subject of the empirical sciences cannot be universal and potentially complete. It is limited by the applicability of the method. It is possible to say that in the empirical disciplines, including comparative method narrows the subject. Thus, the method as it were included in the subject. As the result there is a specific (not at the same time universal and not unique) subject formed by its systematic development of this method. Ideographic disciplines provide near range theory (let's call them complex), i.e. actual algorithms (maximum-methods) of unique description of the directly present thing or small working hypotheses, born in abundance in everyday research practice. Nomothetic disciplines are extended-range theories (commonly are called overall), holistic representation of a universal subject, i.e., it is nothing but as a comprehensive look at the main conceptual framework of social behavior. Accordingly, the intermediate is the empirics, in the strict sense, or experience of relating a universal vision of reality with its unique description with the help of specially produced methodological tools.
Thus, the comparison mediates the connection between the theoretical constructs of high degree of abstraction and empirical diversity, making it possible to the theoretically understand the empirical data through the creation of original roadmaps for research, out of which the latter risk being the little use data warehouses. This determines the kind of niche of Comparative politics as a mid-level theory, mediating the theory of high-level of abstraction and empirical data. Proven by comparing the causal relationships between groups of variables allow projecting these connections on the future state of the studied phenomena and processeses.
1.4 Main problems of Comparative politics
That, what is at the everyday level, is natural and neat during the primary socialization, it becomes very problematic as soon as we enter the area of systematic comparison in order to obtain sufficient results. Many of those who are getting acquainted with an in the beginning, because the compliance requires not only considerable knowledge but practical skills. However, without compliance with these requirements the correct comparison is not possible. Basic canons of political comparativistics are formed as approaches to the resolution of a number of its internal contradictions, which are usually identified as an important methodology and methodical problems of Comparative politics
The problem of compatibility
The starting point of any comparison – both everyday and scientific – is a contradictory characterization of matched phenomena and processes they need to be different, but it certainly have something in common, a common denominator - otherwise the comparison will not be possible. In other words, an essential condition for an adequate comparison is the presence of elements of similarity: compared objects must belong to the same kind (class, type) of phenomena, but at that they should be different from each other, belong to different subclasses (subclasses, subtypes), i.e. in accordance with the logic of the general, special and individual events must be something common, but be different in a particular or single. One of the founders of the new Comparative politics, Roy Macridis, wrote: “The comparison includes abstraction: specific situations and processes, as such, cannot be compared with each other. It follows that, to compare it means to highlight the specific types and concepts, and this is done by the distortion of the unique and specific“.
Thus, the requirement of comparability means that, firstly, the compared objects must belong to the same kind (class, type), but differ as a special or single, and, secondly, for the comparison should be used adequate epistemological tools. The latter includes used concepts, methods and ways of learning (theoretical and empirical, speculative or experimental), logic thinking.
The essence of the problem of comparability is quite simple. When studying two or more objects, the question always arises whether they are comparable. The condition for the possibility of comparison is both similarity and difference. It’s all about the measure that makes it possible to evaluate the possibility of comparison. The problem of comparability is important in several respects. If the relationship between dependent and independent variables is investigated, then it is necessary to choose for comparison such countries that would be similar in most parameters. It operates Mill’s logic, especially his canon of the only difference. In this case, as a rule, countries are selected on the basis of economic, cultural, historical, etc. proximity. But you can use the most different countries, if in some respects, which are interesting for the researcher, they are similar. Often comparability is achieved by comparing not the countries as a whole, but their individual regions. The level of comparability also increases in the study of one country or a historically close region in the diachronic plan. The researcher can increase the degree of comparability by searching for homogeneous structural contexts of the studied dependence, rather than comparing its content. The problem of comparability is often solved at the expense of the general conceptual scheme of society or its political system, applicable to various cultural and historical environments. In this respect, structural functionalism and system analysis played an outstanding role. Particular importance in this connection was attached to the concept of Merton's functional necessity. The problem of comparability can also be posited in the sense that the general concepts and hypotheses used in comparison are distorted in different cultural, historical and political contexts. Here the problem of comparability grows into an equivalence problem, on the one hand, and universality, on the other.
The problem of the initial conceptualization
This is about the basic concepts attracted to compare adequately reflect the essence of the studied phenomenon. Threats of adequate conceptualization can come from several sources. There are possible distortions at the primary stage of conceptualization. In those cases where in the scientific discourse were formed corresponding terms with clearly defined content and volume, this problem is not as acute as in the situation, when for the characteristics of the object – in the absence of generally accepted term – has to borrow the concept of everyday language and vocabulary of other branches of knowledge. In this case, the frequent inconsistencies (or partial compliance) between the essence of the phenomenon under study and the content used for its characteristics of lexical construct. The latter may be narrower or wider than the content of the object, it may have a different quality compared to the defined object. A variety of inconsistencies in political comparativistics thank the efforts of Sartori G. received definition of concept tension in his famous article, “Concept Misformation in Comparative Politics” (1970).
The problem of equivalence
One of the most important methodological issues is an abidance by requirements of phenomena comparability formed in various social and cultural contexts and, accordingly, having different names in different national contexts. This problem is often defined as the term problem of displacement of concepts and theories. Using the concepts in a different relative to the starting time, spatial, political, cultural or social environment is fraught with significant distortion of their content. Often based on an incorrect interpretation of the concepts can distort the idea of how and what should be compared. This is the case of many of the concepts of political science, but particularly such broad terms as democracy, rule, etc. It turns out that a valid comparison of the same phenomenon in different contexts, involves the use of different names. This problem of no identicalness identity and equivalence: phenomena cannot be identical, but in this case be equivalent.
The term identity is the absolute sameness or equality of the two events (meanings). The problem becomes clear as soon as we try to find the identical indicators. Two phenomena are identical, if they are identical in all qualities.
The concept of equivalence means that two (or more) events are of equal value, importance, benefits, results. Despite the epistemic genesis of the term indicates the similarity, reduction of similarity to one (or more) of a certain quality is important.
Any comparative study begins with the realization that similar phenomena are not identical. The question is whether we can reduce the difference to the internal divergences, not significant in terms of the research objectives. The correct comparison requires finding the different equivalent concepts to match the similar objects.
The equivalence problem manifests itself in various forms of comparative studies. It inevitably arises in a cross-national study, especially in the case of consideration of substantially different cultures – for example, when comparing models of voting behavior in the North Europe countries and Central Africa. Even within a single country difference of subcultures can be substantial. For example, in conditions of large ethnocultural diversity in Russia differences between subcultures in subjects quite revealing.
The equivalence problem has two operations - the conceptual and an operational. At the conceptual level, the question is whether the used concept is meaningful in other context.
The operational aspect of the equivalence problem concerns the empirical measurement: even if the used concept is adequately interpreted, but in different ways operationalizes for various cases, an incorrect result is inevitable.
This problem is particularly important when conducting comparative studies using interview methods, questionnaires, expert analysis. In this case, it is an equivalence of concepts and procedures used in the study. In this regard, it is important to achieve conceptual equivalence, the correspondence between the meaning of the concept in different cultures; equivalence of measuring technology, the difference or similarity of measuring indicators and indices; the equivalence of the situation, when it comes to interviews, questionnaires; linguistic equivalence affecting the lexical and grammatical meanings of concepts; equivalence of the sample of respondents. To solve the problem of equivalence, a multiple procedure for the reverse translation of concepts is used, preliminary sounding. It is believed that equivalence can be observed if one pays attention to the equivalence of ideas, rather than words, and if the concept is more closely related to real rather than normative political life.
The problem of operationalization
Operationalization involves the conversion of general concepts and abstract categories in single, empirically measurable characteristics (indicators). Without empirical interpretation of general concepts cannot be an empirical study. This procedure is a complex operation, which is closely connected with the development of the conceptual scheme of research and the creation of preconditions for hypothesizing.
The essence of operationalization of any concept lays in its empirical interpretation, i.e., finding such specifications of concepts that express the essential characteristics of the object, the available empirical measurement methods. Measurable signs of an object are called empirical indicators. Operationalization concepts (for example, political attitudes of certain socio-political community) means the building a system of empirical indicators, the registration of which will allow to judge on the content of moods, their character, vector and dynamics of change and other parameters. Registration of indicators may be based on different methods, techniques and procedures, but with mandatory compliance with the general rule – the extraction units of analysis.
The problem “few cases - a lot of variables”
If before listed problems are common to other areas of social knowledge (for example, to sociology), then the problem is specific to political science, and it is considered to be the dominant dilemma of political comparative. The essence of the dilemma is identified by the fact that the number of studied objects in comparative politics, as a rule, less statistically significant values (the state, parties, leaders), while the number of their characteristics (content, structure, function and others) is prominent. It is defined by the specificity of the political sphere, the main structural objects which are the macro-social objects – the state, social communities, individual leaders, the number of which, as a rule, is digits or dozens of rarely – hundreds, which is considerably less than statistically significant values. At that, importance of context is substantial, which increases the number of parameters. In a situation where the number of variables significantly exceeds the number of casuses, the identification of causal relationships is difficult. The contrast of a significant number of variables and a limited number of casuses problematizes the possibility of using statistical methods, reduces the reliability and validity of the obtained outputs on material of the analysis and encourages comparativists to look for ways to solve this dilemma.
Galton problem
This problem got its name by the name of the President of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain Francis Galton. In 1889, Galton formulated important thesis for the development of anthropological and ethnographic research about the significant influence of external factors on the formation of tribal culture and whole races and the need to distinguish the influence between endogenous and exogenous factors on the culture of the people. This thesis outlined the methodological problem of diffusion separation of causality in social systems.
Diffusion (Latin diffusion – extension, spreading, dispersion, interaction) is the penetration of one substance to another at they contact.
Diffusion is an obvious fact of political and social life; it may significantly complicate the study of causality during the comparative analysis.
Particular relevance the diffusion problem got in the large-scale processes of globalization of culture, economy, politics and management. In fact, globalization is a new version of “Galton problem”, but in the modern conditions of highly integrated processes is not always easy to identify the influence of diffusion.
In a comparative political study, the unit of analysis is usually the national political system, state, country. They are considered as independent units of research. However, in the context of the globalization of economic and political processes, intensive interaction between countries, the question often arises as to the importance of internal and external factors and conditions. The need to take into account the external effects appears in a comparative study. Actually the problem is how to do it. The problem is named after the president of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain Galton, who in 1889, during the discussion of the methodology of cross-cultural analysis proposed by Taylor, suggested a significant impact on the culture of the external factor. “It is extremely desirable,” he said “to provide complete information on the extent to which the customs of the tribes and races being compared are independent. It might be that some tribes came from a common source, so they would be duplicate copies of the same original. It is certain that with such a study all observations should have been, carefully speaking, “weighed”, speaking statistically. A useful idea would be the distribution of various customs and their relative predominance in the world, which could be represented on the map, showing by the shadows and the color of the area of their geographical distribution” (cited in: Hendrix, 1997, p. 309).
Disputes over the problem of the independence of the cultural objects being studied continue today, and they led to a discussion of two kinds of historical interrelations: the diffusion between societies and the common sources of their origin. In ethnographic studies, this problem was tried to challenge, or responded to it with special sampling techniques or by including historical relationships in the study as a controlled variable. In the 1970s, the “Galton problem” migrated to comparative political science. As Henry Teun writes, “towards the end of the sixties, which was recognized by scientists a few years later, development became global and crossed the borders of a single country. The dispute arises about actual state sovereignty and the international system as the main condition for countries pursuing their special interests” (Teun, 1990, p. 52).
An attempt to remove the “Galton problem” was carried out by a number of researchers who focused on strengthening control over external variables, offering two strategies for comparative research: comparing the most similar systems and comparing the most diverse systems. In both cases, the influence of external conditions was viewed as overcome, since the comparison relied on control over the external context.
By comparison similar systems the common geographic, cultural, historical, economic, etc. conditions provided an opportunity to believe that countries are homogeneous in a number of parameters and to check the investigated relationship (for example, between party systems and electoral systems), focusing only on internal conditions. By comparison the most contrasting countries the influence of external factors is controlled by the explicit opposition of external conditions.
The validity problem
Validity (English validity, from the Latin validus – strong, healthy, worthy) – justification, reliability and conclusiveness of a statement, the results of research; the suitability of the use of methods and procedures in the specific conditions. Validity is considered a fundamental concept of the experimental sciences (psychology, statistics, etc.).
In the political and comparative studies are two types of validity. The first type is internal validity, characterized by the ratio of dependent and independent variables. External validity describes the possibility of extrapolation (distribution) of identified relationship between the variables at a wide range of phenomena.
The relationship of the two types of validity (internal and external) is another issue of political comparativistics because in politics proof of causality for one segment of the policy does not automatically mean the possibility of generalization of the conclusions reached to a wider set of phenomena.
Threat to validity may arise also from an incorrect interpretation of the obtained data. The risk of inadequate interpretation is character to political comparativistics, but also to other branches of knowledge, using quantitative research methods (e.g. sociology).
1.5 Political comparativistics in the context of politics professionalization process
The situation of political knowledge is paradoxically: existing as a specialized and systematic by content, it is not always the property of those who are in need. Moreover, its value is often underestimated – not only by ordinary citizens.
Political science is rather later formation, while its subject – politics and governance – include from several thousand up to several centuries. However, today not only ordinary citizens, but even high-ranking managers often do not have the necessary for the implementation of the qualified political participation of profile training. Meanwhile, all the citizens in one way or another are politicians – or profession (professional politicians, who, according to the known definition of M. Weber, live “for politics” and “at the expense of politics”), or the politicians “on the occasion” (political participation of which is episodic), or politicians “part-time” (engaged in the policy if necessary, which, however, does not make politics on their core competence) and therefore need the skills of political expertise, though in varying degrees. And if professional politicians require political knowledge constantly, the “part-time politicians” and “politicians on the occasion” – indirectly: they evaluate the activity of politicians and conducted by them political courses, express their preferences, and support and thereby legitimize this or that politics, which supposes the need of enlightened judgments about politics. Particular importance the ability of political competence has during election campaigns, when citizens decide in favor of one candidate or another. Adequate assessment of political decisions taken by managers involves not taking on faith the decisions and judgments of politicians, but the capacity for development of expert studies, though not a professional, but of sufficient level of self-understanding. In this case the competent comparison is an essential component of expert skills : without a certain percentage of comparative competence, sometimes quite high, it is difficult to do.
Political professionalization is a multifaceted phenomenon, difficult to interpret due to the multicomponent nature of the political class, including functionally distinct categories of persons who must comply with variety professional standards.
Professionalization defines the rules, rights and access algorithms, helps unity of individuals to groups of individuals and the allocation of a group from large society.
The result of the professionalization was the formation of the political class – a community of people working professionally in the field of politics. Significant internal functional and social differentiation of the political class determines the diversity of the composition and specificity of the professionalization of members to the political class categories. This multicomponent formation, including the highest level of the executive, legislative and judicial powers; participating in the politics influential business; few in the modern society, members of the aristocracy; high-level experts; influential members of the media sphere. The core of the political class is the political elite – a community of persons making strategic decisions. As a “satellite”, which are located on the surrounding orbits of core, there are the different categories of the political class, professionally working in the sphere of politics, but did not make strategic decisions: administrative bureaucracy of average level - central, regional and local; political experts; political consultants; political technologists; party functionaries; professional lobbyists; the highest echelon of pressure groups; political journalists. The dominance of one or another category is determined by the political configuration of the state (the form of government, political system, political regime), the historical traditions of political development. Knowledge of the composition of the political class is informative: it can give a lot to understand the essence of the political regime. At that, the boundaries of political class are blurry, and the sides between his individual categories are extremely mobile. The community of the political class and the political elite is determined by their location in the area of politics; as a criterion for distinguishing between them serve their functions in decision-making process: the political elite is the direct subject of decision-making, while the task of political class is to support this process. It is obvious that the knowledge and skills in the field of political comparativistics is really necessary.
It is obvious that for the full functioning of the political sphere in professional format, it is necessary to have certain prerequisites. J. Borchert suggested that as the structural conditions of political professionalization can be the following.
Reliable sources of income (parliamentary salary, a position in the party apparatus, lobbying, etc.). These sources must provide an adequate standard of living, in order to make a political career attractive in comparison with other possibilities. Because of the fact that politics can offer noneconomic amenities (proximity to power, the possibility of expressing the ideological preferences, access to the media), these additional possibilities can partially compensate the advantage of other areas with higher income.
The reality of chances to have a permanent job in the sphere of politics. Minimizing the dangers of risk of career end – through either a reliable re-election, or occupation the other attractive position in the political sphere, or a combination of both mechanisms of the maintenance of career (positions in the parliament, the executive, the party apparatus, groups of interests on the local, regional, national and supranational levels).
The presence of the political positions hierarchies and the possibility of career progression - or as part of the institute (the party, parliamentary committee), or through inter-institutional vertical mobility (including positions in the executive branch, the parliament, the party apparatus, interest groups, on the local, regional, national and supranational levels ).
In modern conditions of political comparisons are widely and constantly used by citizens, involved in politics, and representatives of political professions. However, the use of comparison is not the same. Various scientific and political challenges require their degree of accuracy and reliability.
Control questions
Questions for self-testing