Word study

I. GIVE RUSSIAN EQUIVALENTS FOR:

The source of frustration; public attitudes and opinions; hardly correlated; liking; a wide variety of conditions; a set of beliefs; to evaluate events; a specific issue; an issue-by-issue basis; amateur philosophers; matters of great urgency; to be better suited for; to run the country.

II. GIVE ENGLISH EQUIVALENTS FOR: Преимущество; слишком часто; обзор; наоборот; чело­ век; прославленный антрополог; в данный момент; миро­ воззрение; любитель-философ; основная часть населения; противоречивый; процент; остальная часть; взрослое на­ селение; проследить неформальные каналы; преданность.

Part II

Political science

III. TRANSLATE THE FOLLOWING SENTENCES, PAY ATTENTION TO THE ITALICIZED WORDS:

1. R eligious affiliation or church attendance did not in­ fluence willingness to support a female political candidate.

2. The questionnaire included scores of items on politi­ cal philosophy, positions on current national issues - the whole range of political concerns of the time. „_

3. For years scholars had not the slightest doubt that only a few people of deficient intellect lacked world views.

4. Hardly being aware of the consequences he took a thoughtless decision.

1. His latest survey was a matter of great urgency.

5. These conditions were better suited for developing countries.

6. A lot of problems dealt with the ecological consequenc­ es, the rest were connected with social aspects of our life.

7. He has been avoided too often because of his specific inclinations.

UNIT XI

I. READ AND TRANSLATE THE TEXT: THE MILITARY AND POLITICS

The development of modern armed forces can be traced back to the period following the Middle Ages when European powers started to develop a standardized form of military organization, usually based on a standing army. During the nineteenth century, the military became a specialized insti­tution with a professional leadership separate from the rest of society. European colonialism, in turn, insured that this military model was adopted all over the world, turning the military into a near-universal component of state organiza­tion. Puerto Rico is sometimes identified as the classic ex­ception to this rule, but its lack of armed forces is only possible because of the security provided by the US military.

372

373

Учебное пособие для философов и политологов

The military is a political institution of a very particu­lar kind. Four factors distinguish the military from other institutions and give it a distinct, and at times overwhelm­ing, advantage over civilian organizations.

First, as an instrument of war, the military enjoys a vir­tual monopoly of weaponry and substantial coercive power. As the military has the capacity to prop up or topple a regime, its loyalty is essential to state survival. Secondly, armed forces are tightly organized and highly disciplined bodies, characte­rized by a hierarchy of ranks and a culture of strict obedience. They are thus an extreme example of bureaucracy in the Weberian sense. This gives the military an unusual degree of organizational effectiveness, although it can also breed inflexibility and discourage initiative and innovation.

Thirdly, the military is invariably characterized by a dis­tinctive culture and set of values that prepare its personnel to fight, kill and possibly die. Sometimes portrayed as implicitly right-wing and deeply authoritarian (by virtue of its tradi­tional emphasis on leadership, duty and honour), military culture can also be grounded in creeds such as revolutionary socialism (as in China) or Islamic fundamentalism (as in Iran). Fourthly, the armed forces are often seen, and generally regard themselves, as being «above» politics, in the sense that, because they guarantee the security and integrity of the state, they are the repository of the national interest. This secures for most militaries a special status and respect, but it may also incline the military to intervene in politics, particularly when, in its view, vital national interests are under threat.

On the other hand, it is a mistake to view the military as a single, cohesive institution with common political fea­tures in all societies. Divisions within the military may stem from various sources. For example, conflicts may de­velop between broadly conservative senior officers, often recruited from elite backgrounds, and more junior officers, who may be either impatient for promotion or more open to progressive or radical ideas.

Part II

Political science

Similarly there is likely to be tension between an officer core that is privileged both socially and professionally, and conscripts or enlisted personnel, who are usually drawn from the working class or peasantry. Rivalry and competition for prestige and scarce resources may also divide the vari­ous services and units within the military, while regional or ethnic divisions can also be significant.

T he character of particular armed forces is shaped by internal and external factors. These include the history and traditions of the military and specific regiments or units, and the nature of the broader political system, the political culture and the values of the regime itself. For example, the political orientation of the People's Liberation Army in China is deeply influenced by the decisive role it played in establishing the communist regime in 1949 and by strict party control at every level of the Chinese military.

In West Germany, the armed forces were subjected to a systematic process of political indoctrination to root out Nazi sympathies and values and to build support for the principles of political democracy. Finally, it is difficult to generalize about the nature and significance of the military because of the very different roles that the military can play in political life. The most important of these are the following:

• an instrument of war

• a guarantee of political order and stability

• an interest group

• an alternative to civilian rule.