Political status of a person: Citizenship and Political Rights | CSCE

Citizenship and Political Rights | CSCE

Political rights refer to an individual’s ability to participate in the civil and political life of the society and state without fear of discrimination or repression, and is tied closely to citizenship status. Such rights include not only the right to vote in an election, but also the rights to join a political party; run for office; and participate freely in political rallies, events, or protests.

Sort by
NewestOldest

Category

Article

Briefing

Hearing

Helsinki Commission

In the News

Map

Press Release

Publication

Speech

Statement

Twitter

Country

Afghanistan

Albania

Algeria

Andorra

Armenia

Australia

Austria

Azerbaijan

Belarus

Belgium

Bosnia and Herzegovina

Bulgaria

Canada

Croatia

Cyprus

Czech Republic

Denmark

Egypt

Estonia

Finland

France

Georgia

Germany

Greece

Holy See

Hungary

Iceland

Ireland

Israel

Italy

Japan

Jordan

Kazakhstan

Kyrgyzstan

Latvia

Liechtenstein

Lithuania

Luxembourg

Malta

Moldova

Monaco

Mongolia

Montenegro

Morocco

Netherlands

North Macedonia

Norway

Participating States

Partners for Cooperation

Poland

Portugal

Republic of Korea

Romania

Russian Federation

San Marino

Serbia

Slovak Republic

Slovenia

Spain

Sweden

Switzerland

Tajikistan

Thailand

Tunisia

Turkey

Turkmenistan

Ukraine

United Kingdom

United States of America

Uzbekistan

Issue

Anti-Semitism

Citizenship and Political Rights

Confidence and Security Building Measures

Conflict Prevention/Rehabilitation

Corruption

Economic Cooperation and Trade

Elections

Energy and Environment

Freedom of Association and Assembly

Freedom of Movement

Freedom of Speech and Expression

Freedom of Thought, Conscience, Religion, or Belief

Freedom of the Media

Gender Equality

Genocide, Crimes against Humanity, and War Crimes

Good Governance and the Rule of Law

Helsinki Commission

Human Trafficking

International Law

International Organizations

International Parental Child Abduction

Internet Freedom

Migration, Refugees, and Displaced Persons

Military Aspects of Security

Minority Rights

OSCE Asian Partners

OSCE Institutions, Structures, and Meetings

OSCE Mediterranean Partners

Property Claims

Racism

Roma

Territorial Integrity

Terrorism

Tolerance and Non-Discrimination

Torture

Date

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

1997

1996

1995

1994

1993

1992

1991

1990

1989

1988

1987

1986

1985

1983

1982

1981

1979

1978

• toggle-list
• toggle-grid

Filter Topics

Open
Close

• in the news

  The OSCE: A Bulwark Against Authoritarianism

  Thursday, August 13, 2020

  As we mark the 45th anniversary of the 1975 signing of the Helsinki Final Act, the founding document of today’s Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), the ideals of democracy that had been advanced by that pact—freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and civil liberties—are under threat. In 1975, Soviet totalitarianism was the great threat to human rights and fundamental freedoms; today, authoritarianism poses a growing threat to human dignity and rights in the region.
  
  Authoritarianism is a fact of life in much of Eurasia, a reflection of the actual worldwide tension between countries defending universal human rights obligations and countries attempting to undermine trust in democratic institutions and promote an authoritarian model. This is true not only in repressive nations like Russia; even among some U.S. partner countries, there are warning signs. Some nations have also taken it upon themselves to block vital leadership roles in international institutions during a global pandemic unlike anything we have seen in a century.
  
  The ultimate outcome of this conflict is up to us. Liberty and human rights will prevail, but only if freedom-loving people everywhere join together to defend and preserve human rights and fundamental freedoms for all.
  
  Many international institutions dedicated to freedom and human rights were founded with U. S. support in the wake of World War II, in which more than a million U.S. citizens were either killed or wounded and trillions of dollars spent on the effort to defeat fascism. Democratic ideals are ingrained in the founding charters that established those organizations. For nearly 75 years, such institutions have consistently served as a bulwark against totalitarianism, communism, terrorism, and other forms of tyranny; limited conflict among nations; helped raise millions out of poverty; and spread democratic values throughout the world.
  
  The OSCE grew out of the Helsinki Final Act, a 1975 political agreement among the United States, Canada, the Soviet Union, and other European nations. Signed by both democratic and communist regimes, the Final Act acknowledged openly that respect for human rights within states is crucial to security among states, and that human rights concerns could legitimately be raised among signatories.
  
  Today, the OSCE is the world’s largest regional security organization, encompassing 57 countries in Europe, as well as the United States and Canada.   It includes Russia, Ukraine, and many other successors of the former Soviet Union, reaching as far east as Central Asia and Mongolia, and north beyond the Arctic Circle. The phrase “Vancouver to Vladivostok” accurately describes the organization’s reach. With its “comprehensive concept of security,” the OSCE addresses military security, economic and environmental cooperation, and human rights and takes steps to prevent, manage, and resolve conflict within and among its members.
  
  The OSCE also supports the democratic development of nations that gained or regained independence in the post-Cold War period and are still finding their footing, often torn between corruption and the promise of a democratic future. Thirteen OSCE field missions operate in member countries seeking assistance in developing their democratic institutions. The OSCE recognizes and supports the important role played by civil society and the media in holding governments to account for blatant human rights violations and abuses of power.
  
  Unprecedented Gap in OSCE Leadership
  
  OSCE institutions—including its assembly of national legislators—foster an essential defense against the spread of authoritarianism. However, despite its comprehensive vision, we are now faced with an unprecedented gap in leadership at the OSCE due to the block on the extension of mandates for four senior leaders, including the Secretary General.
  
  Each week, the OSCE Permanent Council—comprising ambassadors to the OSCE from each participating State—meets in Vienna, Austria. In this forum, the United States seeks to shine a light on contraventions of States’ OSCE tenets and violations of international law.
  
  The OSCE independent institutions, like the field missions, carry those messages forward.  In addition to the organization’s other work defending human rights and fundamental freedoms, its Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) manages the OSCE’s election observation missions, internationally recognized as the “gold standard” for their methodology. Other independent offices lead the OSCE’s work on Freedom of the Media and rights of national minorities.
  
  Unfortunately, in July, these vital institutions were deprived of strong and consistent leadership by countries—including Azerbaijan, Tajikistan, and Turkey—that seem intent on attempting to weaken the OSCE’s ability to hold countries accountable for their actions and undermining the principles of the Helsinki Final Act.
  
  The executive and legislative branches of the U.S. government are partners in bringing American leadership to support the OSCE’s work. Several times each year,  members of Congress—including lawmakers serving on the U.S. Helsinki Commission, which monitors implementation of the Helsinki Accords  —gather at meetings of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, where they secure political commitments and build mutually beneficial relationships among legislators from the OSCE’s participating States to help push back against anti-democratic actions by national governments.
  
  Unfortunately, several OSCE participating States—countries that have repeatedly committed to upholding the principles and values enshrined in the Helsinki Final Act— are exhibiting a troubling slide toward authoritarianism. The United States and our democratic allies have criticized efforts to restrict and persecute journalists, human rights defenders, civil society, members of the political opposition, and members of ethnic and religious minorities. We also have jointly criticized efforts to stifle media freedom and limit political pluralism in Russia, Belarus, Azerbaijan, Tajikistan, and Turkmenistan, as well as raised concerns about media consolidation in Hungary, and limitations on freedom of speech and freedom of the press elsewhere.
  
  Russia’s Destabilizing Actions
  
  No OSCE participating State bears more responsibility for fomenting mistrust, insecurity, corruption, and human rights violations and abuses in this region than the Russian Federation. Russia’s destabilizing actions contravene all 10 Helsinki Final Act principles, ranging from respect for human rights to the prohibition of military incursions into neighboring countries. Russia continues its aggressive actions in Ukraine, including its purported annexation of Crimea. The proxy forces Russia arms, trains, leads, and fights alongside in eastern Ukraine make it dangerous for the unarmed OSCE Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine to fulfill its Permanent Council-approved mandate to monitor the conflict.
  
  Russia uses its resources—economic, political, informational, and military—to defeat freedom and democracy. Russia does not rely on military force alone to threaten democratic governance; it also uses hybrid tactics daily, ranging from cyber intrusions to influence campaigns — aimed at undermining democratic elections.
  
  We hope that someday, authoritarian countries like Russia will start behaving again according to the rules of international law. Unfortunately, these countries currently reject the values of democracy, liberty, and human rights. The authoritarian regimes view democracy as an existential threat—hence the actions some of them have taken to restrict the OSCE’s ability to do its work.  The struggle today is between those who believe authoritarianism is the right way forward and those of us who still believe that Thomas Jefferson was right in his declaration that the desire for freedom exists within the heart of every human being.
  
  In a hyper-connected modern world in which disinformation becomes an ever more powerful weapon and the divisions within free societies are exploited by malign actors, U.S. membership in organizations like the OSCE emphasizes clearly, openly, and emphatically that America will not cede the field to the authoritarian regimes. We will not allow them to be the ones to dictate what is truth and what is fiction.
  
  Human Rights and Ideals Just as Valid in 2020
  
  Through the OSCE, the United States directly confronts the deceit of Russia and other authoritarian powers. By raising our voices, through our participation and leadership, we reassure our friends that the United States stands with them and supports our shared values against the growing tide of autocracy. By raising our voices, we remind allies and adversaries alike that the United States remains engaged and committed to what is fair, what is right, and what is true.
  
  Together, our U.S. Mission to the OSCE and the U.S. Helsinki Commission remind allies and adversaries alike that America will not ignore regimes that are actively hostile to our values and see our liberty as an existential threat. We will always prioritize respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, defend the principles of liberty, and encourage tolerance within societies, because such efforts are vital to the promotion of democracy and to U.S. national security. We reject the authoritarian notion that our fundamental freedoms are a weakness. They are our greatest strength.
  
  The United States and other like-minded countries use the power of the OSCE to show that human rights and ideals are just as valid in 2020 as they were in 1975, when the Helsinki Accords were signed. These rights not only ensure the physical, economic, and mental wellbeing of all our populations, they make the countries’ governments stronger by building legitimacy in the eyes of their citizens.
  
  America’s unwavering support of these values through multilateral organizations like the OSCE remains vital. As noted in the Trump administration’s U.S. National Security Strategy, “Authoritarian actors have long recognized the power of multilateral bodies and have used them to advance their interests and limit the freedom of their own citizens.  If the United States cedes leadership of these bodies to adversaries, opportunities to shape developments that are positive for the United States will be lost.”
  
  The OSCE deserves to be recognized by the people of both the United States and our allies and partners as a valuable tool in the fight against autocracy. We must not abandon it by leaving its most important institutions without leadership beyond its 45th anniversary. Instead, through our efforts, and those of our allies and partners in the OSCE, we must continue to defend liberty and human rights in our region and provide a beacon of hope for citizens everywhere who aspire to a free and democratic future.

• article

  Reflecting on Chechnya

  Friday, March 13, 2020

  By Mia Speier,
  Max Kampelman Fellow
  
  On December 11, 1994, Russian forces advanced into Chechnya, a republic in the North Caucasus near Georgia and Azerbaijan, to stop an attempt at secession. A Chechen separatist movement started to gain momentum following the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Russians refused to allow any chance at separation. This marked the start of the First Chechen War, a conflict that erupted after decades of hostilities between the former Soviet government and the Chechen forces. The war dragged on for nearly two years, destroying the capital city of Grozny and killing tens of thousands of people—mostly civilians.
  
  The conflict, which started as an internal national movement, was complicated by flows of foreign money and foreign fighters. Militant Islamists joined the fight against Russia during the latter half of the war as part of a declared global jihad. Officials in Russia feared a repetition of the violence that occurred during the Soviet war in Afghanistan nearly a decade prior.
  
  Though Russia withdrew from Chechnya for a short time after the first war, the Second Chechen War broke out in 1999. This second war began after Putin blamed Chechen secessionists for bombings that killed Russian civilians, although there was no evidence of Chechen involvement in the bombings. Russian forces were sent into the republic again, and the Russian government succeeded in putting Chechnya under its control. Since then, the region has been a republic of Russia and is governed by Putin-appointed president Ramzan Kadyrov.
  
  Amid the conflict, however, the international community took steps to confront Russian aggression and violence in the region. On March 13, 1997, the U.S. Helsinki Commission convened a hearing called “The Future of Chechnya,” to discuss the efforts of Chechen citizens to free themselves from Russia’s painful yoke and fight back against Moscow’s defiance of international principles and the rule of law.
  
  The Helsinki Commission hearing focused on the 1994 Organization for Security and Cooperation Budapest Document that requires all participating States, including Russia, to ensure that their armed forces are commanded in a way that is consistent with international law. At the time of the hearing, an estimated 30,000 to 80,000 people had died in the territory, and tens of thousands of citizens had been displaced. The violence against and displacement of citizens in Chechnya was a clear violation of the Budapest Document.
  
  Then-Chairman Rep. Alfonse M. D’Amato chaired the hearing and noted that though many people were paying attention to the ongoing conflict in Bosnia at the time, it was important to also pay attention to the conflict in Chechnya and, more specifically, to think about the role of the OSCE in the region.
  
  “The world watched, horrified, as the Russian military used massive firepower against the Chechen guerrillas,” D’Amato said. “While the international community recognizes the principles of territorial integrity, there can be no doubt that in its effort to keep the Chechens in the Russian Federation, the Russian Government violated recognized international principles. ”
  
  Since 1997, the Helsinki Commission has held several other public events related to human rights abuses, arbitrary arrests, abductions, and disappearances and the plight of Chechen refugees. In 2003, the commission penned a letter to then-Secretary of State Colin Powell urging the U.S. delegation at the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in Geneva to express concern over reported rights violations in Chechnya.
  
  Though it has been nearly 30 years since the First Chechen War, the situation in Chechnya remains bleak. In 2017, Congress passed a bipartisan resolution condemning widespread anti-LGBT persecution and violence in Chechnya after it was revealed that state law enforcement officials beat, imprisoned, and murdered hundreds of men perceived to be gay or bisexual.
  
  In June 2018, then-Chairman (and current Co-Chairman) Sen. Roger Wicker and Sen. Benjamin Cardin penned a letter to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo urging the United State to invoke the OSCE’s Moscow Mechanism in response to escalating human rights abuses in Chechnya. The Moscow Mechanism allows for the establishment of a short-term fact-finding mission to address a specific human rights concern in the OSCE region.
  
  In November 2018, the 16 of the 57 OSCE participating States invoked the Moscow Mechanism to investigate the alleged disappearances, killings, and torture taking place in Chechnya—all of which were concerns raised at a Helsinki Commission hearing just months prior.  Though Russia failed to cooperate with the fact-finding mission, the resulting report concluded that the evidence clearly confirmed the allegations of very serious human rights violations and abuses in the Chechen Republic of the Russian Federation.
  
  Today, multiple reports of journalists and bloggers in Chechnya being beaten or murdered calls for even more concern for individual freedom and civil liberties in the region. In early February, Yelena Milashina, a prominent Russian journalist and lawyer who exposed the cruelty against gay Chechen men, was beaten in Grozny. Imran Aliev, an outspoken Chechen blogger who criticized President Ramzan Kadyrov, was found murdered in France earlier this year.
  
  Aliev’s death is one of many deaths and disappearances in recent years of Chechen dissidents throughout Europe, sparking heightened fears of Chechen death squads hunting down those seeking asylum outside of the republic.

• article

  Election Observation 101

  Friday, January 24, 2020

  On January 22, 2020, Helsinki Commissioner Rep. Mark Veasey (TX-33) moderated a roundtable at the Texas A&M School of Law titled “Election Observation 101: Strengthening Democracies Old and New in the 21st Century.”  Rep. Veasey—who also is a co-chair of the Congressional Voting Rights Caucus and a former member of the Elections Committee in the Texas House of Representatives—and expert panelists discussed the importance of election observation missions across the OSCE region.
  
  Rep. Veasey was joined at the roundtable by veteran election observer Lindsay Lloyd, director of the human freedom initiative at the George W. Bush Institute; Amanda Schnetzer, chief operating officer of Pointe Bello; and Helsinki Commission Chief of Staff Alex T. Johnson. 
  
  Law school dean Robert Ahdieh offered a warm welcome and reflected on his fondest memories of the Helsinki Commission as a young man living in Moscow, Russia. Rep. Veasey then set the stage with the 30-year celebration of the 1990 Copenhagen Document which established the international standards for “free and fair elections”, while Mr. Lloyd explained the dynamics of how teams are assembled. Mr. Johnson further clarified the role of observers as strict watchers or objective examiners, and never interventionists, and Ms. Schnetzer shared how her experience observing elections in Tunisia forever shaped her passion for civic engagement and democratic values. 
  
  “[In 2011], the people of Tunisia were voting. .. To see the looks on the faces of women, grandparents coming to poles for the first time, casting a vote, and bringing a grandchild in tow, to say ‘I have waited all my life to do this’ was simply inspirational,” Ms. Schnetzer said. “I saw the stark comparison in the United States because few get excited on the first day they get to vote… I wish that we could find a way to positively spark that enthusiasm here [in the U.S.].”
  
  Looking ahead to the U.S. elections in November 2020, all panelists agreed that more could be done to inform the American public about foreign observers and the benefits of international election observation.
  
  Election observers from both the OSCE Office of Democratic Institutions and Human Rights and the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly are expected to be invited by the United States Government to observe the 2020 elections. The OSCE was first invited to observe U.S. elections by the Bush Administration in 2002 and has been invited to observe every midterm and general election since (2004, 2006, 2008, 2010, 2012, 2014, 2016, and 2018) by the administration in office.
  
  However, the decentralized nature of the U.S. electoral system means some states prohibit or greatly restrict foreign observers. A few states explicitly permit foreign observation, or at least a sufficiently public observation to include those from other countries.

Pages

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• 8
• 9
• …
• next ›
• last »

political status definition | English definition dictionary

  
      adj  

1    of or relating to the state, government, the body politic, public administration, policy-making, etc.  

a    of, involved in, or relating to government policy-making as distinguished from administration or law  

b    of or relating to the civil aspects of government as distinguished from the military  

3    of, dealing with, or relating to politics  
a political person     

4    of, characteristic of, or relating to the parties and the partisan aspects of politics  

5    organized or ordered with respect to government  
a political unit     
♦
  politically      adv  

political economy  
      n      the former name for     →
  economics     →
  1  

political prisoner  
      n   someone imprisoned for holding, expressing, or acting in accord with particular political beliefs  

political science  
      n   (esp. as an academic subject) the study of the state, government, and politics: one of the social sciences  
♦
  political scientist      n  

English Collins Dictionary – English Definition & Thesaurus &nbsp

See also:

political economy, political prisoner, political science, political commissar

Collaborative Dictionary     English Definition

To add entries to your own vocabulary, become a member of Reverso community or login if you are already a member.
It’s easy and only takes a few seconds:

Or sign up in the traditional way

Political status | it’s… What is political status?

InterpretationTranslation

Political status

Political status

(lat. status – state, position) – a set of rights, freedoms and duties of a person, political institutions that fix their political position in society and the state, legally fixed. The Constitution of Russia (Chapter 2) “Rights and freedoms of man and citizen” reveals the fundamental principles of the status of a person, including political status.

Fundamental human rights and freedoms are inalienable and belong to everyone from birth. The exercise of the rights and freedoms of one person and citizen must not violate the rights and freedoms of other persons. The rights and freedoms of man and citizen are directly applicable. Everyone is equal before the law and the courts. Everyone has the right to freedom, personal inviolability. The inviolability of your home, etc.

Everyone has the right to association, including the right to form trade unions to protect their interests, freedom of activity of public associations is guaranteed. Citizens have the right to assemble peacefully, without weapons. To hold meetings, rallies and demonstrations, marches and picketing, apply personally, as well as send individual and collective appeals to state bodies of local self-government. Citizens have equal access to public service.

The legal, political and other status of a person and citizen is guaranteed and protected by the state. Thus, everyone has the right to compensation by the state for damage caused by illegal actions (or inaction) of public authorities or their officials.

The status of a person is associated with his duties, but not every right is accompanied by a corresponding duty. If rights are opportunities for choosing the behavior of a political person, then duties are a necessary due measure of the behavior of subjects, which implies some alienation of individual duties from rights, the complexity of their implementation, and less legal protection. Thus, the Constitution of the Russian Federation establishes the obligation to comply with the constitutional laws of the Russian Federation, pay taxes and fees, preserve nature and the environment, take care of natural resources, receive basic general education for children, take care of the preservation of historical and cultural heritage, protect historical and cultural monuments, protect fatherland. There are much more rights, but this does not fix the fact of the significance shift towards rights. Rights and obligations constitute a generally significant system in which both sides, its components, are important.

Shpak V.Yu.

Political science. Dictionary. – M: RGU.
V.N. Konovalov.
2010.

Political science. Dictionary. – RGU.
V.N. Konovalov.
2010.

Need to do research?

• Media
• Political stereotypes

Useful

Political and legal status of the individual. What is the political status of a person. See what “Status political” is in other dictionaries

In politics, like in any other kind of activity, a subject (the one who acts) and an object (what/whom the actions are aimed at) are singled out.

Regarding policy object
, then usually political activity is aimed at solving economic, social, cultural, national, demographic, youth, environmental issues. In this regard, they distinguish economic, social and other policies.

Politicians
there may be active participants in the political process – from an individual to large social communities. Individuals, political elites, political organizations – parties, public organizations, mass movements, the state, social groups – nations, classes, strata, etc. are recognized as the main subjects of politics.

Man
plays a leading role in the political process, since politics is made primarily by specific people. It is they who enter into political relations, create doctrines and theories, determine the strategy of activity, establish norms and obey them. Any person living in society is somehow connected with politics, even if he considers himself apolitical. In particular, he either obeys the decisions of the authorities, or comes into conflict with the authorities.

The connection between the individual and the state is fixed at the institute citizenship.
Acquiring the status of a citizen, a person receives certain political rights and freedoms. In particular, a citizen can participate in the management of state affairs – to elect, be elected, participate in referendums, etc. In a democratic state, a citizen can also exercise his right to unite in various organizations – public organizations, socio-political movements and political parties, he can defend his rights at demonstrations, rallies, processions, and pickets.

Can also influence government decisions, for example by sending personal and collective appeals to government agencies.

In order for a person to really participate in the affairs of government, a combination of objective and subjective conditions is necessary that determine the individual’s chances of success in realizing his political goals. To objective conditions
include guarantees in the state of political rights and freedoms; the absence or presence of discrimination on racial, national, sexual and other grounds; equal access to posts and positions. If political rights are not guaranteed, and bureaucratic and police barriers are erected in the way of the free expression of the will of citizens, a person will not be able to really participate in the affairs of government.

To subjective conditions
should include the personal characteristics of a person (abilities, knowledge, experience, beliefs, motivation), as well as his activity in defending his political interests and needs. According to the degree of political activity, several types of personality are distinguished:

• absenteeists
  (from Latin absens – absent) – evade political activity: participation in elections, actions, signing petitions, etc.;
• passive participants
  – comply with the laws, from time to time participate in elections, but do not show political initiative;
• active members –
  give a lot of time
• participation in actions, party and public work;
• semi-professional politicians –
  are engaged in politics “part-time”, for example, the director of the plant, being at the same time a member of parliament, is engaged in politics during the parliamentary session;
• professional politicians
  – perceive politics as their main job, earn a living from politics.

This classification shows that at the subjective level, the main obstacle to the participation of citizens in public life is absenteeism –
avoidance of political activity. As a rule, absenteeism arises as a result of a person’s conviction that he cannot change anything in the policy of the state and that his voice and activity are useless and meaningless. Refusal to take political action can be an expression of protest if, for example, a person believes that the authorities do not allow worthy candidates to run for elections, or an expression of a different tendency: a person avoids political action, because everything suits him and he does not see the need to change anything .

The political possibilities of a person are multiplied when they are supported by organizations and large social groups: states, peoples. Such the most authoritative member of an organization, group, community is called a leader.

(lat. status
– state, position) – a set of rights, freedoms and duties of a person, political institutions that fix their political position in society and the state, legally enshrined. The Constitution of Russia (Chapter 2) “Rights and freedoms of man and citizen” reveals the fundamental principles of the status of a person, including political status.

Fundamental human rights and freedoms are inalienable and belong to everyone from birth. The exercise of the rights and freedoms of one person and citizen must not violate the rights and freedoms of other persons.
The rights and freedoms of man and citizen are directly applicable. Everyone is equal before the law and the courts. Everyone has the right to freedom, personal inviolability. The inviolability of your home, etc.

Everyone has the right to association, including the right to form trade unions to protect their interests, freedom of activity of public associations is guaranteed. Citizens have the right to assemble peacefully, without weapons. To hold meetings, rallies and demonstrations, marches and picketing, apply personally, as well as send individual and collective appeals to state bodies of local self-government. Citizens have equal access to public service.

The legal, political and other status of a person and citizen is guaranteed and protected by the state. Thus, everyone has the right to compensation by the state for damage caused by illegal actions (or inaction) of public authorities or their officials.

The status of a person is associated with his duties, but not every right is accompanied by a corresponding duty. If rights are opportunities for choosing the behavior of a political person, then duties are a necessary due measure of the behavior of subjects, which implies some alienation of individual duties from rights, the complexity of their implementation, and less legal protection. Thus, the Constitution of the Russian Federation establishes the obligation to comply with the constitutional laws of the Russian Federation, pay taxes and fees, preserve nature and the environment, take care of natural resources, receive basic general education for children, take care of the preservation of historical and cultural heritage, protect historical and cultural monuments, protect fatherland. There are much more rights, but this does not fix the fact of the significance shift towards rights. Rights and obligations constitute a generally significant system in which both sides, its components, are important.

Shpak V.Yu.

Political science. Dictionary. – M: RGU
.
V.N. Konovalov
.
2010
.

Political science. Dictionary. – RSU
.
V.N. Konovalov
.
2010
.

See what “political status” is in other dictionaries:

A political prisoner is a person in custody or serving a sentence of imprisonment, as well as sent for compulsory treatment in a psychiatric hospital, in whose case there is a clear political component … Wikipedia

A political prisoner is a person detained, in pre-trial detention centers or in prison, as well as sent for compulsory treatment, in whose case there is a clear political component, for example, opposition … … Wikipedia

Tent camp and rally of supporters of the anti-crisis coalition in Kyiv on Independence Square . .. Wikipedia

The political crisis in Ukraine in the autumn and winter of 2004 was caused by numerous factors, which primarily include: The clash of economic interests of large financial and economic groups in traditional Ukrainian … … Wikipedia

A tent city and a rally of supporters of the anti-crisis coalition in Kyiv on Independence Square Political regions of Ukraine The political crisis in Ukraine in 2007 is an internal political crisis caused by a long struggle for power between … … Wikipedia

This term has other meanings, see Political Crisis in Ukraine. The political crisis in Ukraine in 2007 is an internal political crisis (from October 2006 to December 2007), caused by the fact that Prime Minister Yanukovych … … Wikipedia

This article or section has a list of sources or external links, but the sources of individual statements remain unclear due to the lack of footnotes … Wikipedia

Contents Contents 1 Preamble 2 . .. Wikipedia

Contents 1 The birth of political realism in the United States 2 Modernization of political realism in Russia … Wikipedia

Books

• Civil servant. Status, profession, vocation. Educational and methodological complex, Okhotsky E.V.. 702 pages. The proposed scientific and methodological complex is designed for master’s students, students of advanced training courses for management personnel, students of MPI and MBI courses, graduate students and …

Subject: The political status of an individual.

The political status of a person – they call the position of a person in the
political system of society, the totality of his political rights and
duties, the ability to influence the political life of the country.

For the political status of an individual, not only the socio-political reality in which he is included is important, but also those
political functions that he does not perform:

An ordinary member of society who does not have any influence on politics,
not interested in it and influenced almost exclusively by the policy object
.

A person who is a member of a public organization or movement, indirectly
involved in political activities, if this follows from his role
as an ordinary member of a political organization.

A citizen who is a member of an elected body or is an active member of a
political organization, purposefully included in the political life of the society
, but only to the extent that it affects
the inner life of this political organization or body.

A professional politician for whom political activity
is not only the main occupation and source of existence, but also
the meaning of life.

A political leader – a person capable of changing the course of political events
and the direction of political processes

0056 people. The process of assimilation by an individual of socio-political knowledge, norms,
values ​​and skills of activity, as a result of which he assumes a certain political role
, is called the political
socialization of individuals. Several stages can be identified in this process
:

Childhood and early adolescence, when the child forms his
initial political views and patterns of political behavior.

The period of study in high school and university, when 9 is formed0056 the information side and worldviews, one of the existing systems
of political norms and values ​​is transformed into the inner world of
personality.

The beginning of an active social activity of the individual, his inclusion in the work
of state bodies and public organizations, when a person
turns into a citizen, the formation of a full-fledged subject
of politics.

The whole subsequent life of a person, when he constantly improves and
develops his political culture.

The result of political socialization is the acceptance and fulfillment of
by a person of any political role. There is also another periodization
of the process of political socialization of the individual: in accordance with the degree of independence
of political participation, primary and secondary
socialization are distinguished. The first characterizes the process of practical education of
children and youth, and the second falls on adulthood and manifests itself
in the active interaction of the individual with the political system, based on
previously received value attitudes and orientations.

Political socialization takes place in the process of social
relations, by means of state institutions, public organizations,
the media, political self-education.

Types of participation of the individual in politics:

Unconscious

Semi-conscious

Political
personality status

Political
status

personalities
–

position
person in
the political system of society
the totality of his political
rights and obligations, opportunities
influence the political
the life of the country.

All
citizens of democratic
states have a range of
political rights and freedoms:

law
to elect and be elected

by freedom
words, seals, collections
and rallies, unions

right
direct personal and collective
appeals (petitions) to authorities
power

accept
participation in management
state affairs
both directly and through
two representatives.

He
is an active subject
political process.

But
to determine the political
personal status is important not only
social and political reality,
in which it is included, but
and political
functions, ro

Whether

.

P
lytic
roles
personalities
– political functions, normative
approved images of the political
behavior expected of everyone who
occupies this
position in the political system.

Her
political roles
mi
roles can be:

Private
a member of society who does not provide any
influence on
politics, not interested
in it and being almost exclusively
policy object;

people,
in public
organizations or in motion,
indirectly included in
political activity, if
stems from his role as a private
a member of a political organization;

citizens,
elected
body or being
an active member of a political organization,
purposefully on
voluntarily included in the political
social life, only
to the extent that it reflects
on the inner life of this political
organizations.

professional
politics, for
whose political activities
is not only the main
occupation and livelihood,
but also makes sense
life;

political
leader, person
capable of changing political
events and focus
political process

But
personality is not born with previously learned
political experience,
they are acquired throughout
human life.

Political
socialization

personality – the process of development by the individual
socio-political
knowledge, norms of values
and activity skills
as a result of which he takes
certain political
role

Stages
political socialization:

1st
stage


–
childhood and early adolescence, when
child shapes
their initial political
views and patterns of political
behavior;

2nd
stage


–
period of high school education,
when is formed
informational
structure of existing
political systems
norms and values ​​are transformed into
the inner world of the individual;

3rd

stage


– start
active social
activities of the individual, inclusion
him into the work of state
authorities and public
organizations when transformation occurs
man into a citizen
becoming a full-fledged object
politicians;

4th
stage


–
all subsequent life
of a person when he constantly improves
and develop political
culture.

B
accordance
with a degree of independence
political participation allocate
primary and
secondary
new
socialization
.

1)First
characterizes
political education process
children and youth.

2)Second
falls into adulthood
and manifests itself in active interaction
personality with political
system based on received
earlier value attitudes and orientations.

Political
socialization is happening
as objectively,
inclusion of a person in social
relationship, and purposefully
state
institutions (including schools),
public organizations,
mass media.
And the man himself can
actively participate in political
socialization (political
self-education).

Types
participation of the individual
in
policy:

1)


unconscious

(human behavior in a crowd)

2)


semiconscious

(political
conformism) – understanding the meaning
its role with unconditional
obedience to the requirements of
social environment as something
given, indisputable, even
in cases of discrepancies in
opinions with her.

3)


with

conscious
participation
in
according to your conscience
and will, the ability to change
their role and position

2 var.
The political status of the individual

Personality
is the primary subject of politics.
As a political entity, she
characterized by the possibility and degree
influence on political processes in
society, and especially on the political
power.

Status-
set of rights and obligations
determining the legal status
person, government agency or
international organization. Political
personality status is largely determined
general constitutional status of citizens
states that are endowed
political rights to
participate in government
in various forms. First of all, this
the right to elect and be elected to the bodies
government and local authorities
self-government. This right to participate in
political parties, movements,
associations, the right to be a state
employee (employee of the state
apparatus), the right to be appointed to
position of a judge, prosecutor, etc. One
of the main criteria of real formation
personality as a subject of political
relations is political
activity is a measure of political
activity of political subjects,
indicator of politicized personality
and society.

In political science
distinguish the following main types
personality:

apolitical
personality-alienated from the political
process and negatively related to
their participation in politics;

passive
personality – with an insignificant interest in
politics, participating in it only
episodic or limited
insufficiently competent criticism
political realities;

member citizen
public organization, member
social movement, partly
included in the sphere of political
practices;

member citizen
political organization, purposefully
and voluntarily included in the political
activity;

socio-political
doer;

professional
politician for whom political
activity is the main
sole or main occupation;

political
leader – the leader of the highest instance,
the highest political level.

At
formal equality of political
status of all citizens of the state
real political status depends
on the degree of participation, involvement
personality in political activity.
The degree of this participation is determined
the level of its political development,
degree of political socialization*.
At the same time, social development
political socialization of the individual in
largely determined by their involvement
into political practice.

Result
actions of these processes and factors
a certain level
political development of the individual. His
criteria are, in particular:

availability
systems of political values;

relative
stability of political motives;

ability
set realistic political goals and
seek their implementation.

* Political
socialization – the process of assimilation
certain knowledge, values ​​and norms,
allowing the individual to become full
participant in political relations.

Personal political status

– they call the position of a person in the political system of society, the totality of his political rights and obligations, the ability to influence the political life of the country.

Status – a set of rights and obligations that determine the legal status of a person, state body or international organization. The political status of an individual is largely determined by the general constitutional status of citizens of the state, who are endowed with political rights that allow them to participate in government in various forms.

Political rights and individual freedoms

:

1. The right to elect and be elected to public authorities and local governments.

2. The right to participate in political parties, movements, associations.

3. The right to be a civil servant (an employee of the state apparatus), the right to be appointed to the position of judge, prosecutor, etc.

4. Hold rallies, street processions, demonstrations, picketing, subject to prior notice to the authorities.

5. Send personal and collective appeals (petitions) to state bodies and officials.

The purpose of legislative restrictions on human rights and freedoms can be only one – to ensure the rights and freedoms of others and to meet the requirements of morality, public order and general welfare in a democratic society.

One of the main criteria for the real formation of a person as a subject of political relations is political activity – a measure of the political activity of political subjects, an indicator of the politicization of the individual and society.

Political culture

is the experience of political activity passed down from generation to generation, which combines knowledge, beliefs and behavior patterns of a person and social groups.

The following factors influence the formation of political culture:

1. The civilizational factor of historical development.

2. National historical factor.

3. Socio-economic factor.

Functions of political culture:

1. Cognitive. Formation of knowledge, beliefs and views necessary for participation in the political life of the country among citizens.

2. Integrative. Achievement on the basis of generally accepted political and cultural values ​​of public consent within the existing political system.

3. Communicative. Establishing various kinds of connections between the participants in the political process on the basis of common values ​​for them, as well as the transfer of political experience from generation to generation.

4. Normative and regulatory. Formation of political qualities, political socialization of the individual.

Typology of political cultures

S. Verba and G. Almond:

1. Patriarchal political culture
. It is characterized by a complete lack of interest among community members in political institutions, global political processes. The carriers of this type of political culture are focused on local problems, indifferent to the policies, attitudes and norms of the central authorities.

2. Submissive political culture

. It differs in the orientation of subjects to the political system, the activities of the central authorities. The bearers of a subject culture have their own idea of ​​politics, but do not take an active part in it, expecting either benefits or orders from the authorities.

3. Civic political culture

. Inherent in modern developed democratic states. The carriers of this culture are not only focused on the political system, but also strive to be active participants in the political process. They obey the orders of the authorities, but at the same time influence the decision-making of state bodies.

Political socialization

– the process of assimilation by a person of socio-political knowledge, norms, values ​​and activity skills that are preferable for the existing political system. Political socialization is necessary for the successful and sustainable functioning of the political system. As a result of political socialization, a person assumes a certain political role.

Political role

is the normatively approved pattern of political behavior expected of everyone in this position.

Types of political roles

:

1. An ordinary member of society who has no influence on politics, is not interested in it and is almost exclusively an object of politics.

2. A person who is a member of a public organization or movement, indirectly involved in political activities.

3. A citizen who is a member of an elected body or is an active member of a political organization, purposefully and voluntarily included in the political life of society, but only to the extent that it is reflected in the internal life of this political organization or body.

4. A professional politician for whom political activity is not only the main occupation and source of existence, but also constitutes the meaning of life.

5. A political leader is a person capable of changing the course of political events and the direction of political processes.

Information note

:

1. This must be remembered
: political status of the individual, political rights and freedoms of the individual, political culture, typology of political cultures, political socialization, political role, types of political roles.