Non-institutional politics and social movements as its actors

Rybakov Anrei Vyacheslavovich Doctor of Politics Professor, Department of Philosophy, Moscow Aviation Institute (National Research University) 125993, Russia, g. Moscow, shosse Volokolamskoe, 4, of. GUK, komn.516 rybackov@rambler.ru Other publications by this author

Introduction. The statement that non-institutional politics, in a sense informal, or, in other words, non-traditional, has acquired an almost equal status with institutionalized politics in modern political systems, especially democratic ones, seems obvious on the one hand, but on the other hand, the increasing importance of this type of politics makes it necessary to analyze it more deeply. to effectively justify such a position. We can preliminarily divide the reasons for this state of affairs into two groups of factors: one are those that can currently be described as classic reasons for the development of non–institutional politics, the other are new factors. The first ones include:

- the crisis of modern democracy, which is manifested, among other things, in the aspect of our interest - the weakening of citizens' interest in participating in elections;

- the disappearance or at least weakening of the traditional axis of social conflict between labor and capital in favor of the cultural dimension, which largely eliminated class differences, as well as changed the traditional relations between political parties and their class base and predetermined countless conflicts of different origins and in different segments of the social structure;

- As a result, there is a growing importance of protest politics, which mobilizes and activates various parts of society to act together and influence the decision-making process.;

- the increasing role of social movements, which have consistently expanded their sphere of influence since the 1960s and often use protest as a way of self-expression.

- Social protest movements have "crossed" national borders, they are unfolding all over the world in countries with different political and cultural traditions. The interpenetration of slogans and demands transforms a social protest into a transnational one. ^{[1, c.24]}

In turn, the more modern reasons for increasing the importance of non-institutional politics include the development of mass media, especially new media, which create strong networks of relationships between participants in non-institutional politics, uniting around issues that interest them. This facilitates their mobilization and effectiveness of actions, which, in turn, encourages the following types of non-traditional political actions:

– Governments are pursuing poll-based policies that strengthen various social groups, especially protest groups, in the belief that protest can be an effective form of influence on those in power.;

– theoretical debates about the development of forms of political system alternative to representative democracy, primarily deliberative democracy, which, combined with the practice of various grassroots initiatives, creates a political landscape in which non-institutional politics is gaining more legitimacy.;

– legal and institutional solutions that support the involvement of citizens in the decision-making process in the form of participation in consultations or even directly in the decision-making process, which is a tangible manifestation of this kind of policy and the attitude towards it as an equal traditional policy.;

– Globalization, which is also one of the causes of the crisis of democracy, has launched a process of global mobilization against the negative consequences that it brings, but above all, it has brought the protest to the international level.

The "narrowing of the distance" between anti-globalization groups representing different countries, mainly due to new media, and the creation of a pool of common problems for various anti-globalization groups, contributed to the strengthening of non-institutional policies at the global level. In other words, the common experience of global struggle has become one of the main reasons for the legitimization of non-institutional politics.

The article will analyze the role of social movements and their actions in the form of protest in the process of developing non-institutional policies. Protest is one of the reasons for the increasing importance of non-institutional politics. This is the central analytical category around which a theoretical justification should be built for the fact that today non-institutional politics has become part of the so-called traditional politics. The accepted thesis defines the structure of this article, which will first address the issues of defining non-institutional politics, then the historical conditions for the growth of the importance of non-institutional politics in the context of politicization of social movements, then issues related to the crisis of modern democracy, as well as empirical examples confirming these theses. The basis for this will be the analysis of selected theoretical directions contained in the theory of social movements and fundamental problems of modern democracy.

Non-institutional politics.Trying to determine which views, behaviors, and actions fall within the framework of so-called non-institutional politics is not an easy task. The boundary between both types of activity (institutional and non-institutional) is unclear. Non-institutional political participation, realized through social movements and activism, does not necessarily mean complete detachment from institutional politics. It is quite possible to combine political activity and presence in social movements with other political interests realized within the framework of participation in institutional (mainstream) politics. ^{[2, c.122]} The behavioral patterns that are considered to be manifestations of non-institutional politics are diverse. Charles Tilly conceptualizes this type of activity and actions under the name "repertoire of contention", which are located outside legitimate political institutions and create separate sets of procedures for making certain demands ^[3]. In fact, the concept of a "repertoire of disagreements" is an element of a broader theory of social movements and refers to the type of tools and actions related to protest that social movements or related organizations use. These include, but are not limited to: strikes, rallies, demonstrations, mass riots, boycotts, petitions, and currently developing communications on social media on the Internet. These activities are also divided into various typologies, including traditional, modern, and digital. Another typological proposal concerns the degree of their radicalism and points to four thresholds of this extremism [4. p. 65], namely: the first threshold, at which there is a transition from conventional methods of conducting politics to non-traditional ones (petitions, demonstrations, happenings), the second threshold means a change in methods of direct action in such a direction that allows unambiguously classifying them as unconventional but legal actions (for example, boycotting), reaching the third threshold means overcoming the barrier of legality. Although such actions violate the law, they are not a form of violence. Finally, the fourth threshold is not only unconventionality and violation of the law, but also violent acts. Another division is proposed by Sidney Tarrow, Charles Tilly, and Doug McAdam, who divide forms of protest into the analytical categories of pent-up discord and transgressive discord, which means that in the former case, these actions are rooted in traditional politics and implemented in accordance with the law and accepted customs. In the second case, they may go beyond the scope of this type of policy, be innovative, and sometimes violate the law ^{[3, p. 5]}. Finally, more modern approaches classify non-institutional activism as follows: communicative (using new media), individualized (carried out individually), and collective (carried out jointly by various social groups in groups). ^{[6, p. 87]}

Attempts to organize non-institutional political activism have a common denominator. In addition to the clearly political nature of these actions, they are closely related to the phenomenon of protest, which in this case creates a broader conceptual category that unites various manifestations of the protest repertoire. Sokolov A.V. and Palagicheva A.V. analyze the various positions that have developed in Russian science regarding the definition of protest. Thus, protest can be a form of collective action aimed at changing the socio-political reality. Accordingly, there is reason to interpret the protest as a form of feedback from the state and society. The conflict between them can both destroy stability and contribute to its formation by achieving a new balance of interests (Nikovskaya L.I.). In this regard, protest can be interpreted as one of the forms of public challenge, manifested in the form of collective resistance of citizens to decisions and actions of the authorities by opposing their implementation or making demands for their cancellation or Savenkov R.V.). ^{[7, p. 299]} A definition of protest that meets the condition of a political nature was also proposed by Jerry D. Rose. "Protest is a collective behavior using non—traditional means of expression, in which protesters try to realize their demands by directing their activities towards the legitimate authorities." ^{[8, p. 74]}

The issue of understanding protest as a collective action should be clarified. For Rose, the actions of individuals, if they are not supported by others, are not protests in the sense of collective action, but this does not mean that they do not meet the characteristics of non-institutional political activity. In other words, non-institutional activism, as already mentioned, can take both an individual and a collective form. What makes a protest a political action is, first of all, the demands put forward by the protesters, since they relate to the established social order (formed by law and established by government) and acquire a political dimension. Therefore, the content of the demands determines the political nature of the social protest. Secondly, the addressee of the protesters' demands, albeit not explicitly, is understood broadly as the political authority directly or indirectly responsible for the causes of the protest. Protest is characterized by the ability to mobilize public opinion through unconventional forms of action and pressure on decision makers. This is also consistent with the conclusion made by the famous German researcher Klaus Offe in relation to Western societies, according to which, on the one hand, government policy gets a more visible and more direct impact on citizens, and on the other hand, it is citizens who try to get a more direct and direct influence on other citizens, comprehensive control. control of political elites by means contrary to the institutional order of the state. ^{[9, p. 817]}

To summarize, Offe's ideas, formulated in the mid-1980s, described a certain stage in the process of activating citizens who were involved in the activities of new social movements. This process began in the 1960s, and its effects were noticeable in the following eighties. By itself, this fact did not solve anything, more important were the changes that led to the development of that type of collective activity, which is known as new social movements. Therefore, let's pay attention to the processes by which the role of non-institutional politics has been constantly growing since the 1960s.

The 20th century as a century of social movements. The two processes represent a breakthrough in terms of increasing the legitimacy of non-institutional politics. First, it is the development of new social movements along with changes in the economic, social and political contexts that contributed to their emergence. The second is the deepening crisis of democracy, and, accordingly, it is necessary to reformulate and adapt the forms of democracy to modern requirements dictated by the growing influence of society, on the one hand, and the ongoing process of globalization, on the other. All other reasons for this situation are only the result of two main factors. In this section, we will focus on the first of these processes.

First, let's look at the emergence of new social movements. We are not talking about specific examples of these formations, but about the conditions that led to their creation. As Offe points out, the emergence of new social movements was the result of profound changes affecting modern society in the economic, structural and political spheres, which together can be described as a civilizational breakthrough associated with modernization processes. There has been a collapse of the economic, political and social order based on the liberal democratic consensus of the welfare State. It emphasized prosperity, economic, social, and military security, as well as the equitable distribution of wealth. Through collective bargaining as a way to resolve social and political conflicts, income was distributed among classes and social categories. The role of intermediaries was played by political parties acting on behalf of their class base. It is important to note that the main social conflict unfolded between labor and capital, and the parties to this conflict were represented by the working class, which rallied around trade unions, on the one hand, and the state and employers, on the other.

From the point of view of the above considerations, the most important consequence of the collapse of the old paradigm was the emergence of a new division into the private sphere and the sphere of institutionalized and non-institutionalized politics. The role of the State has been redefined, and it has also begun to claim a presence in the private sphere. Building a state of prosperity and social security has led to a kind of political inclusivity, exemplified by political parties that include new issues in their sphere of interest and elevate them to the rank of political problems. Paradoxically, in response to the growing politicization of new spheres of life and the expansion of political parties competing for social support, the private sphere is being politicized, not on the terms of the state, but according to the concepts of new social movements.

Movements are trying to politicize civil society institutions in ways that are not limited by channels of influence on bureaucratic and representative political institutions, thereby wanting to recreate a civil society independent of government regulation, control and interference. In order to become independent of the state, civil society, especially its institutions of labor, production, distribution, family relations, relations with nature - its standards of rationality and progress, must be politicized. Non-institutionalized forms of civil society "are characterized by a high degree of adaptability, flexibility, and the ability to respond quickly to changing circumstances. Despite their unofficial status and limited resources, they can play an important role in creating public opinion, expressing civic positions, and influencing decisions of public authorities and their policies in the field of social partnership. A non-institutionalized civil society can act as a subject of social partnership, since solving the problems it poses requires, as a rule, the participation of public authorities." [10 c.147]

As part of the ongoing modernization, other important changes have taken place in the political activities of new social movements. Firstly, the role of the working class was weakened due to changes within the capitalist system, its decentralization and technological development. Secondly, women have entered the labor market on a scale never seen before. While the first trend affected the organizational dimension of protest activity, the second had implications for the content of the demands, which clearly extended to the issue of women's rights. Thirdly, and most importantly, a specific cultural turn has taken place, exemplified by a new, specific understanding of the common good. This means, on the one hand, the fact that the political game, which used to be universal (satisfying the needs of some social categories deprived other categories of such an opportunity), has turned into a multidisciplinary, factorial game in which achieving goals benefits all members of society. On the other hand, the goals of the new social movements have taken on a new form. Now they were no longer related to the material, but to the post-material sphere, which was the result of a change of values between generations, which transformed politics and cultural norms in the most developed societies. Pavlova T.V. notes that "... the basis of the identity of the new actors is not class, socio–economic or professional status, as it was in the industrial era, but common ideals and values ^{[11, p.116]}

It is worth adding that an example of these processes was the social protests that swept the most developed societies in the world from the mid-1960s to about the mid-1970s (Australia, Brazil, Great Britain, Belgium, Denmark, Italy, Spain, Mexico, the Netherlands, the USA, Germany, France, Sweden, Uruguay). The direct reasons for these collective actions were diverse: opposition to a traditionalist society, rejection of the Vietnam War and the arms race, the need for democratization, challenging authoritarian rule, the rapid development of universities and, consequently, an increase in the number of students. The dominant feature of these events was that the main organizer (although not the only one) were students. Sometimes these protests are called student protests. Nevertheless, other social categories were increasingly involved in protest activities (for example, pacifist movements in many countries of the world, the labor movement in France, and the civil rights movement in the United States). This particular protest activity was recognized by Sidney Tarrow, one of three modern protest cycles (along with the "Spring of the Nations" and the protests of the late 1980s and early 1990s in Central and Eastern Europe). The significance of the protests of the 1960s is reflected, first of all, in the consequences they brought. Criticism of consumerism, mass society, capitalism, imperialism, and traditional customs has left a significant mark on Western societies. This led to the democratization and development of civil rights, the weakening of traditional customs, the sexual revolution, the abandonment of collectivism in favor of individual rights, as well as increased environmental awareness and greater equality of rights between women and men. Thanks to these protests, feminist, environmental, and pacifist movements gained momentum and in the following decades became a permanent element of the social and political landscape around the world, especially in the West. At the same time, Henkin S.M. notes: "Mass protest movements of a new generation ... challenging traditional politics and traditional actors, in practice they implement a different policy and introduce other forms of participation in it. They often seize the initiative from traditional parties and trade unions. However, they cannot replace and oust the latter from big politics. It seems that there is a long period of coexistence and competition between social movements of the new generation and traditional organizations ahead, during which both will face the need to find adequate answers to the challenges of an ever-changing reality." ^{[12, pp.131-132]}

To summarize, there are several effects of the emergence of new social movements. Firstly, there has been a significant expansion of the range of issues that have received political status and were previously outside politics (for example, environmental issues, customs, and family relations). The process of expanding this range of issues has gained momentum thanks to the activities of new social movements and continues to this day. Secondly, the field of discussion has expanded, which increasingly fuels human activism and corresponds to the growth of subjectivity of various communities and groups. The development of new communication technologies in subsequent years has only intensified this process, expanding access to knowledge and information and contributing to an increase in social and political awareness and, as a result, the politicization of civil society. Thirdly, significant political forces (new social movements and their supporters) have emerged, which have gained the opportunity to exert constant pressure on the government or, more broadly, the political system based on public distrust of the government and the state. This phenomenon may seem negative in its essence, because trust is not only the basis for the effective functioning of political and social systems, but is actually the driving force behind the constant presence of social movements in the field of non-institutionalized politics. They are a counterbalance and complement to representative democracy, creating – as Pierre Rosanvallon called it – a democracy of organized distrust, that is, a counterdemocracy ^[13]. Fourthly, there has been a specific regrouping of forces in the sphere of political activity. On the one hand, there is a marked departure from traditional politics in Western societies, which is reflected not only in growing disapproval of traditional politics and politicians, but also in a decrease in turnout. On the other hand, this does not mean social apathy. As Ronald Inglehart noted, "despite the stagnant voter turnout (largely caused by a weakening of loyalty to political parties), Western societies have not become apathetic; on the contrary, over the past two decades they have become much more active in protests challenging the elite." ^{[14, p. 296]}. These patterns, which were noticed by researchers back in the 1970s, have become more pronounced today, partly due to the development of the information society and the concomitant increase in the importance of new media. Indeed, broader and deeper economic, social and political processes have created the basis for the development of new social movements.

The political nature of these movements is expressed in different ways, but its main manifestation is protest, which focuses on the political. First of all, new social movements should be viewed as opponents of modernity, critics of negative aspects of civilization, and political actors who question the existing world order.

The crisis and weaknesses of democracy and non-institutional politics. The growing role of non-institutional politics is largely determined by the crisis of representative democracy as a form of government. What is meant here is not criticism of the so-called liberal democracy, because this topic of discussion is of a special nature and is largely ideologically tinged, but the actual weakening of democratic political systems, which is manifested in a decrease in voter turnout, lack of transparency in decision-making, and the weakening of democratic institutions and freedom. Also important is the increasing role of digital media, which, on the one hand, contribute to mobilization, but on the other, pose a threat of mass manipulation, at least in relation to the less educated part, the so–called public opinion, which makes it less sovereign and more frivolous in decision-making.

However, the relationship between the State and social movements is changing. These relations go back to the period of the formation of nation-states, and nowadays globalization is the most important factor influencing them. The emergence of the nation-state led to the concentration of political power and shifted the addressee of protest activity to the national level. This allowed the protests to break out of the backwater, defined by the framework of the power of the seigneur, the local ruler, and turned the protests into actions characteristic of the national arena. A similar shift in protest activity has occurred due to the deepening of globalization, which has brought protest to a transnational level. Moreover, we will support Pugachev V.P., who notes: "The institutional structure of the new global government is characterized by flexibility, greater decentralization than national governments, the development of network structures, the blurring of decision-making centers and, as a result, its dissimilarity from existing national-state power structures, which gives reason to call it hidden, shadow, secret, etc. ^{[15, p.14-15]}

All these factors, that is, the crisis of democracy, the development of the nation-state and globalization, determine the development and stimulation of the policy of disagreement, which is currently the most obvious manifestation of non-institutional politics.

Moreover, it should be noted that more specific processes related to the democratic political system and the strengthening of the nation-State have played a significant role in the development of a policy of challenge, that is, non-institutional politics. These include: the traditionally understood decentralization of power, the functional separation of powers, and the amount of power held by the State. The combined effect of these factors on social movements increases the number of opportunities and the power of pressure from below on the state. This state of affairs allows for a relatively broad front of civic engagement, provides opportunities and encourages participation in decision-making processes, and creates a favorable climate for the creation of collaborative governance mechanisms. As a result, this not only leads to an increase in the importance of non-institutional politics, but also represents a corrective mechanism for the natural weaknesses of the democratic system. In addition, this gives rise, based on the observed practice of actions, to formulate "programs for the restoration" of the democratic system, the manifestation of which, among other things, is the concept of deliberative democracy, an expanded democracy in which social movements occupy a leading position. Let's pay attention to the role of social movements in correcting the shortcomings of the democratic system.

Let's start with the statement that democracy is the most convenient environment for political opportunities for social movements and, more broadly, protest activities. Its characteristics include features that further facilitate collective mobilization. Based on the considerations of democratic theorists, the list of features that distinguish democracy includes: free elections, the elective nature of public offices, universal right to participate in elections, the right of political leaders to compete for the support of the demos and the existence of institutions that make government policy dependent on the will of citizens, freedom of expression of citizens, the availability of competitive sources of information, the right to association, the availability of democratic procedures (effective participation in debates along with the right publicly present their preferences, equality of votes, the need for distinction - every citizen has the opportunity to determine and evaluate which solution is best for them, control of voting, etc. [16 p. 6-24]

This common set of features of democracy, or polyarchy, as Dahl called it, highlights the issue of public debate in the context of social movements. The formulation of one's preferences, the accompanying freedom of speech and access to the media are the essence of the activities of these movements. Creating an arena for public debate and participating in it creates opportunities to influence public consciousness and is the main means of communication between movements and society. In this way, they also form the agendas, determining which issues should be discussed and then processed in the decision-making process.

The role of social movements for democracy becomes even clearer if we look at the weaknesses of this system of governance. For example, the position that demos occupies today. This issue seems to have been resolved historically, and in democratic systems, the vast majority of adult citizens have gained the right to belong to a demos. Nevertheless, two questions seem particularly relevant in this context. First, it is the limited participation of the majority in the decision-making process, which comes down to respecting the voice of the minority. The second is the issue of the division of power in a democracy into real and nominal power. The first belongs to the ruling elite, the second belongs to the people. In the theory of democracy, this issue was one of the main areas of discussion. V. Pareto, G. Mosca, R. Michels and J. Schumpeter noted that the real rule of the people is impossible, because we are always ruled by the elite. Today, social movements are dealing with both of these issues. In the first case, they often mobilize this minority and defend its interests. Regarding the nominal exercise of power by the people, social movements, through their participation in the decision-making process, minimize the real power of the elites to the same extent that they maximize the participation of the people in the exercise of power. They force the ruling elites to pay attention to the voice of public opinion and, as a result, share real power with it. In this sense, social movements operating in the field of non-institutional politics correct the weakness of representative democracy described here.

As for the widespread civic apathy today, it seems obvious only at first glance. The opposite activism, which is desirable and practiced by social movements, can be seen as an attempt to overcome the lack of civic engagement. In fact, this thesis is valid under certain conditions. Activism alone does not bring democracy closer, and sometimes it can mean the rule of incompetent masses who easily succumb to authoritarian tendencies or simple misinformation and lack of knowledge due to the opportunities offered by modern digital media. Moreover, as practice shows, excessive activity can provoke a backlash from the ruling elites, who, fearing for their own position, will be ready to restrict democratic rights. Therefore, democracy is supported not by any kind of activism and mobilization, but only by conscious actions based on the knowledge and competence of citizens. On the one hand, the role of good education for a democratic system is being actualized, and on the other, the activities of social movements, which often play the role of an element that carries awareness and knowledge. Their participants usually make up the part of society that is involved in public affairs at an above-average level.

In the context of the role of social movements for democracy, more general conclusions can be formulated. Socio-cultural movements, focusing on activism, self-government and human subjectivity, become natural allies not only of democratic values, but, above all, of empirical democracy. It can be said that they provide a good opportunity to practice and develop the civic qualities desired in a democracy. Moreover, social movements have proved to be the organizations that effectively address the shortcomings of modern democracy in the era of globalization. The transfer of decisions on many issues to the global level has reduced the transparency of the decision-making process and forced society to ask questions about the legitimacy of such actions and formulate conclusions that would indicate a lack of democratic procedures in many areas of decision-making. The resulting fields of distrust and lack of legitimacy have been filled to some extent by the activity of social movements that are also trying to offer a new, better version of democracy. This last statement gives social movements a certain role in the third democratic transformation (the first transformation in Ancient Greece, the second is associated with the emergence of the nation-state and representative democracy), associated with the departure from the dominant role of the nation-state in favor of some, as yet undefined forms. The contribution of social movements, characterized here in the form of civic mobilization, competence and knowledge, intellectual activism, the promotion of modified democratic procedures and an emphasis on maximum direct citizen participation in decision-making processes, can become the basis for a new, qualitatively better than the representative version of democracy in the global era, the format of the dormitory. Moreover, "... an indicator of the growth of the effectiveness of participation is a broader, more inclusive and more prompt participation of citizens in making managerial decisions." ^{[17, p.9]} V.Z. Kopaliani offers his vision of the development of social movements": "... as party democracy is depleted, social movements face their own dilemma. Social movements can keep their distance from politics and manage the cost of political influence and the realization of desired results, as in the case of the "yellow vests" movement. Another way for them to develop is to create civic platforms, new parties and common initiatives in order to contribute to the organization of new forms of democratic governance." ^{[18, p.116]}

At the same time, we must realize that not all social movements have a positive attitude towards democracy, that there are some among them whose activity may pose a threat to this system, and the values they promote contradict democratic values. Nevertheless, the dominant feature of modern social movements is their pro-democratic nature and creative attitude towards the democratic political system. In this sense, they represent a kind of vanguard or, in other words, an announcement of the changes that await modern democracies. And changes are overdue, there should be no "sacred cows", and the most dangerous thing that can happen to us after the "best" part of humanity is to turn democracy (technology) into an idol, worship it, make human sacrifices to it and force others to worship it." ^[19]

Conclusion. The thesis formulated above about blurring the boundaries between conventional and non-institutional policies and the penetration of the latter into traditionally defined policies seems to be correct. This is largely due to the role that social movements play in the public sphere today. The arguments in favor of this thesis can be found in two main trends: the first, let's call it systemic, concerns the transformations that have influenced politics, institutionalized within democratic systems over the past half century; the second, joint, refers to the multidimensional development of social movements. Both cover a wide range of factors that interact in the process of developing a non-institutional policy and, as a result, increase its rank and level of legitimacy.

The systemic trend refers to the role played by changes in political, economic, and social systems since the 1960s. The consequences of these changes, which significantly influenced the increasing importance of non-institutional politics, included: a change in the social structure and the concomitant weakening of the traditional social conflict between capital and labor, and, consequently, its shift towards cultural, weakening the positions of traditional social classes, especially the working class. Thus, the main social victims of globalization and the industrial and technological order based on the use of the latest information technologies have become industrial workers ^{[20, p. 87]}; the growing decentralization of capitalism and the development of globalization; the denial of the method of wealth distribution characteristic of the welfare state; the cultural turn in society, expressed in the change of materialistic orientation to the post-materialistic; political participation in solving problems of the public and private spheres; the crisis of democracy caused by globalization; decentralization of power with its functional dispersion and reduction of the amount of power remaining in the hands of the state.

It can be said that systemic factors formed the basis for the development of social movements, especially new ones, and stimulated grassroots social pressure to participate in decision-making processes. Against this background, it is possible to formulate the causes and factors of the development of non-institutional politics. We should note the following: the institutional and organizational development of social movements, especially new ones; the general growth of social consciousness and social subjectivity; the development of new media; which have made politics dependent on polls and formulated attractive concepts of improved democracy, where social activism plays an important role in decision-making processes.

Of course, the list of factors presented here that are more or less responsible for the expansion of non-institutional politics in modern democratic systems is not exhaustive. The activity of social movements remains a subject of interest to researchers. However, it seems that today this interest should be directed towards the implementation of new, improved concepts for strengthening democracy, which focus in a special way on social movements and have empirical value in the context of the crisis of democracy. It is this line of research that will best allow us to understand and shape the future of political democracy.