Peculiarities of the decision-making in the political systems of East and West.

In modern conditions of formation of a multipolar world can be observed how the different countries in the international arena having varying degrees of subjectivity, seek to actively participate in the development of recommendations on resolving existing crises and pursue an independent foreign policy, drawing on its own resources and national interests. This is a completely natural way leads to the complication of the system of international relations and extremely impedes the process of making adequate decisions of its leading actors. Special difficulty is the fact that modern "world powers" have fundamentally different socio-economic structure and even belong to different civilizations. Because of this distinction, signifying a mismatch of systems of values, principles of economic management, a different attitude to the role of social institutions and key elements of the political system, the state is rather difficult to conduct a constructive dialogue.

Besides, this addition is absolutely obvious socio-political differrences one of the problems of modern interstate relations is the lack accurate and objective information about the situation in different regions of the planet of those responsible for making important decisions. Despite the fact that of XXI century used to call the century of digital technologies and the almost total information, in fact, it turns out that the currently existing system of political figures and relevant qualitative information, to put it mildly, are not perfect. This once again reinforces the already high distrust of, political parties and government leaders together and creates the basis for various abuses. After the US invasion of Iraq virtually the whole world was able to verify that the information provided to the President of the United States Central Intelligence Agency and State Department, in fact it may be totally misleading - because information about the presence of weapons of mass in Iraq have not been confirmed yet. In other words, the decision to hold in a foreign country-scale military operation was made statesmen of the United States on the basis of incomplete and largely unreliable data. Analyzing the reasons for this failure, the researchers D. Mitchell and T.J. Massoud was called as the errors of George Bush-junior lack of discussion of this decision, the selective attitude to the Intelligence and poorly organized plan.

Meanwhile, back in the middle of the last century in this regard it was formulated the so-called "McNamara`s Law", named after the US Secretary of Defense, and read in the following way: "it is impossible to predict with a high degree of certainty what the results of the use of military force because of the risk of accidental, incorrect calculation, incorrect perception and carelessness ". Confirmation of this view can be found in the English officer, "The Center for Philosophy of Natural and Social Sciences" K. Williams, who after studying the documents the Imperial War Museum and the National Archives of the United Kingdom concluded that even in the years of the First World War "intelligence reports are often based on irrational ideas, input politicians astray ". Curiously enough, since then the situation has not undergone radical changes since the receipt of information, the assessment of its reliability, interpretation and formulation of recommendations to the government in many countries are still under the responsibility of the intelligence agencies, whose efficiency in the end of XX - beginning of XXI century is no longer time reasonably questioned.

In this regard, it is worth recalling the conclusions of the former deputy executive secretary of the Council on Foreign Relations at the Foreign Affairs Committee of the State Duma of the Russian Federation AV Lavrenteva outlined in the book "Civilian control over the armed forces and intelligence agencies in the US (according to American sources)." In this book the author based on the analysis of foreign materials, came to the conclusion that in the period from 1947 to 1974, the US Congress designed to monitor the legality of intelligence and counterintelligence officers, in fact, they condone illegal actions. Thus, the special services were able to operate outside the law, carrying out operations that are not always consistent with the political course of government. The existence of this problem in the United States compels to pay attenion to other countries.

In an attempt to find any constructive way out of the current situation in most developed countries have formulated multi-stage scheme of responsible political decisions, taking into account the unfair officials, limited resources, lack of information and the need to respond quickly to crisis situations. This was to rid the state mechanism against excessive subjectivity of some politicians who are ready to plunge their country into an armed conflict, pursuing the "mythical" goals and following domestic stereotypes.

Of course, because of differences in culture, mentality, your country of the foundations, principles and guidelines of foreign policy in different countries developed algorithms for decision making could not differ. It is easy to understand that in countries with monarchical form of government decision-making process and the number involved in this procedure, the parties will be less than the national states. Similarly, in countries with a democratic political regime, a clear separation of powers and a working system of "checks and balances" to make important social and political decisions much more complicated than in the authoritarian and totalitarian. The concentration of power, at least in theory improves responsiveness to problems, but "faster" is not the same as "effective." History knows many examples when leaders hastily taken decisions to turn around negative consequences they lead countries. However, this does not negate the fact that states with different socio-economic and political structure of both the "first" and to the "third" world, can create effective mechanisms to overcome the crisis. So each of the created systems has its pros and cons, which need to thoroughly understand.

A key role in the study of the principles of decision-making in the countries of East and West is the theory of Karl Eisenhardt outlined in the article "The rapid adoption of strategic decisions in a rapidly changing environment". Although this work is still at the end of the 1980s, it remains valid until now and is one of the most quoted in modern research literature on this topic. The meaning of the ideas of the author is that the key parameter effective development strategy for any organization with a complex structure is an important decision-making efficiency. In turn, accelerate this process can be quite a limited number of ways, in cluding: the use of relevant information, determination of the spectrum of alternatives, making the union, two-stage discussion, consensus on common issues. This approach is valuable because it is equally applicable, not only to corporate entities, but also to public education. Almost every country wishing to respond rapidly to emerging threats in one way or another have to implement at least one of these 5 strategies. This choice is largely determined by not only the features of the socio-political and economic life, and cultural conditions and traditions.

Let`s get down to current facts.

* * *

In the countries of Western civilization, which often include Russia, today established a rather complicated procedure for responsible decision-making in domestic and foreign policy. From the official point of view of the basis of this process is a democratic procedure, suggesting the presence of pluralism, an open discussion, the prevalence of the views of the majority over the minority, a tolerant attitude to the opponent, and his point of view, uncompromising adherence to legislative approval procedures. Nevertheless, the majority of professional researchers explicitly states that "the problem of voting is a sharp increase in the time to make a decision as compared to the authoritarian style," so it is "often leads to decisions intermediate-compensatory nature" that will not fit for action For example, in force majeure circumstances.1. For example, to create a common European legal norms takes much more time than the adoption of British law or the Italian Parliament.

At the same time such a procedure should be characterized by high levels of conflict, that is, using economic terminology, to create a kind of transaction expences. Most clearly in Europe these problems are seen in the work of the OSCE - this structure for the recognition of the modern analyst is unable to respond quickly to crises, as adopted in its procedures to accommodate the interests of almost all the member countries. It has no mechanism to attract and unequivocal anti-crisis measures to the armed forces of the United Nations or NATO, and its own military resources are simply not available.

Criticism of democratic procedures in decision-making in the European political thought has been going on for several centuries, so at this point in the European Union and the United States, they are excluded from many sectors of government activity. However, in every state, this process had its own specific features.

One of the pioneers in the creation of innovative decision support systems have been the United States. At the end of the Vietnam War, the political leadership of the country has been forced to admit that government decisions were often due not to the objective needs of the army and the state, but purely bureaucratic reasons. One of the challenges was to fine-tune the solution to the officials of each emerging issue for some, who met earlier pattern - because of that ignored the potential uniqueness of the event, which was absolutely unacceptable foreign policy. After all, the same measures that bring results in Europe, may lead to a catastrophe in Asia, etc.

In an effort to get independent, "fresh perspective" on this or that problem, American leaders began to use the services of a specially created "think tanks" are actively included in the decision-making process of the 1960s. Today, these organizations have received such broad impact that "with the arrival of a new president, many political and expert positions in the government are held by representatives of universities and leading analytical centers. After the expiration of the contract or change of administration, they are returned to the research work". In this way, "think tanks", inter alia, enable the integration of scientific knowledge into practice political relations. It is characteristic that not all of these institutions come into ofitsialnodelovye relations with government institutions - some of them, on the contrary, in principle refuse such cooperation to preserve the independence and opportunity to present their own version of events without regard to the official ideology of the White House. They exist by private corporations, which, in turn, actively use the obtained scientific achievements in the process of lobbying for various initiatives.

Date: 2016-01-03; view: 717