The development of the political system of Russia and Argentina in the 30-40s of the twentieth century

Ivanchenko Mariya Alexandrovna Lecturer, English Department No1, MGIMO 76 Vernadsky Ave., Moscow, 119454, Russia maria_i1@mail.ru

The development of the political system of Russia and Argentina in the 30-40s of the twentieth century

The article is devoted to the features of the development of the political system of Russia and Argentina in the 30-40s of the twentieth century. A special emphasis is placed on the formation of state policy and key aspects of the creation of political institutions during the reign of Stalin in Russia in the context of the development of communist ideology and socialist construction. It is also indicated that the liberal system established by the Constitution of 1853 in Argentina has shown its inability to cope with the political, social, economic and ideological challenges and transformations of Argentina after the falsification of elections in 1930.

Keywords: political system, Russia, Argentina, ideology.

The article is devoted to the consideration of the peculiarities of the development of the political system of Russia and Argentina in the 30-40s of the twentieth century. A separate emphasis is placed on the formation of state policy and key aspects of the creation of political institutions during the reign of Stalin in Russia in the context of the development of communist ideology and socialist construction. It is also indicated that the liberal system established by the Constitution of 1853 in Argentina has shown its inability to cope with the political, social, economic and ideological challenges and transformation of Argentina.

Keywords: political system, Russia, Argentina, ideology.

Relevance. The political system of a society currently undergoing transformational changes is at the modernization stage of development, which brings it to the status of an object of research and professional interest of political scientists, lawyers, philosophers, sociologists, historians and specialists in the field of other humanities.

As a result of these shifts, one of the pressing problems that political science is currently dealing with is the development of clear ideas about the consequences of institutional changes. The issues of the development of democracy, democratic transits, transformations of political systems have become one of the main directions of political science in recent decades. The task of finding out the sources of changes in political institutions and predicting their consequences became especially acute at the beginning of the twentieth century, when a number of countries in Africa, Latin America and Eastern Europe began to move away from the authoritarian way of government and embarked on the path of democratic development. In this regard, the problem of developing the optimal type of institutional structure that could provide democratic governance to new states has become relevant to political scientists.

In this context, the experience of the rather difficult development of the political system of Argentina and Russia in the 30-40s of the twentieth century is of considerable interest, since these two countries faced similar problems of state structure, especially in the field of economics and politics. And, despite the fact that the paths that Russia and Argentina had to overcome in the twentieth century are very different, there are several factors that indicate in favor of the expediency of considering them through the prism of comparativism.

Firstly, it is the leading role of the state in all transformational processes. Secondly, it is such a phenomenon as "life in the past", where, as many believe, both real and imaginary national achievements are concentrated. Thirdly, there are tendencies towards state intervention and isolationism. Fourth, the authoritarianism of the current government and unpopularity among the population. Fifthly, both countries implemented industrialization, which was delayed and, in fact, only strengthened natural monopolies that were convenient and safe for the authorities. Sixth, the dominance of the state apparatus and the concentration of a small self-reproducing elite in key leadership positions.

Special attention should be paid to the fact that the choice for a comparative analysis of Russia and Argentina is also due to the fact that the governments of the countries acting in the historical period under review promoted assertive and disciplined nationalism, encouraged the cult of personality, called for economic self-sufficiency in the Nazi style and "corporatism", the mandatory elements of which are strong government, organized labor and industrial conglomerates that jointly guide and manage economic growth. Within the framework of such principles and ideological attitudes, the state owned and managed not only natural monopolies, such as water and electricity, but also everything that looked big and strategic - steel, chemical, automotive, machine-building plants, coal enterprises, mines, agriculture, etc.

It should also be noted that both Russia and Argentina had competitive relations with the United States. In such circumstances, the Soviet Government benefited from two political problems in the Latin American region: capitalist exploitation and foreign domination. The communist regime of Argentina, supported by the Soviet Union, tried to mobilize industrial and agricultural workers against the "exploitation" imposed by the "ruling classes", as well as to gain support against the "foreign domination", which the United States was regarded as.

At the same time, it should be noted that modern philosophical and legal science, having accumulated a serious body of research in the field of the theory of political transformation and modernization of various countries of the world, as well as having achieved some success in understanding certain applied problems of state management in the development of fundamental and relevant moments of political modernization, formulates a number of unresolved fundamental issues, the emergence of which is a natural stage the development of almost any country developing in the direction of civilizational transformations. In this context, the transformation of political institutions in transitional societies, which found its manifestation at the beginning of the twentieth century, predetermined the need to revise theories about the development of the state and society, and on the other hand, gave a chance to better understand the nature of political and social processes taking place in modern countries.

Taking into account the above, the study of transformations and transformations of political systems in Russia and Argentina at the beginning of the twentieth century from the point of view of identifying similar and distinctive features seems to be an important scientific and practical task, which determines the choice of the topic of this article.

The subject of the study is the features and distinctive features of the development of the political system of Russia and Argentina in the 30-40s of the twentieth century

The object of the study is the socio-economic and political structures functioning in Russia and Argentina in the 30-40s of the twentieth century.

Analysis of publications on the research topic. The processes of formation and development of political systems in different countries of the world are considered in their works by Simon Hix, F. Chris Garcia, Fulvio Attin?, David E Wilkins, Nikonenko S.A., Penkov V.F., Gorodkov A.V.

Transformational political shifts and forms of their development in modern scientific thought have been studied by such scientists as Lukman Thaib, R.E. Dennett, Rami Zeedan, Shefali Roy, Shiryaeva S.V., Rozanova E.V., Kharlamov P.V.

Grishkovets A.N., Dolgopolova T.A., Krause S.V., Larionov V.N., Pushkarev E.A., Vorontsov S.A., Kerimov O.Yu. devoted their works to a detailed consideration of the issues of transformation and development of the political system of Russia through the prism of the revolutions and wars that took place.

The peculiarities of the functioning of political institutions in Latin American countries in various historical periods can be found in the publications of Caba-Perez, C.; Lopez-Hernandez, A.M.; Ortiz-Rodriguez, D.; Ernesto Calvo, Otchesky N.V., Maximova E.N., Osmolovets S.S., Kazakova V.P.

Unresolved issues. At the same time, despite the large amount of scientific research in this area, the focus is still on the issues of the essence and content, forms and specifics of the internal structure of the process of socio-political modernization of states. Special attention should be paid to the process of formation of the political and legal foundations of the functioning of the political system in Russia and Argentina, the key aspects of ensuring the activities, interaction and counterbalance of various branches of government.

The author examines in detail such aspects of the topic as the centralization of state control levers in Russia and the implementation of the communist revolution with the coming to power of V.I. Stalin, the features of building a command economy, the essence and methods of implementing party-state control. Also, a separate emphasis is placed on the prerequisites and factors that contributed to the emergence of "peronism" in Argentina, the features of the country's political system are described in detail.

The main attention is paid to the political-ideological, administrative-territorial and economic foundations of the development of Russia and Argentina in the 30-40s of the twentieth century.

Thus, taking into account the above, the purpose of the article is to study in detail the features of the development of the political system of Russia and Argentina in the 30-40s of the twentieth century.

Results. In the middle of 1923 Stalin became the main actor of the Kremlin, and not just the general secretary of the Central Committee of the RCP (b) and, accordingly, the de facto leader of Russia ^[1]. This time can be considered the beginning of the Stalinist era in the implementation of the communist revolution and a new stage in the development of the country's political system, which, it should be noted, was a logical continuation of Lenin's efforts to build such a management mechanism, which by its nature was hostile to any form of participation of the people in politics.

This tradition of rigid centralization, when decision-making is concentrated at the highest party levels, reached new proportions under Joseph Stalin. As many archival documents show, the contribution "from below" to the development of public policies and strategies was small. The party elite determined the goals of the country's development and the means to achieve them in almost complete isolation from the people. Within the framework of the current political system, the assertion has been firmly established that the interests of the individual should be sacrificed to the interests of the state, which fulfills a sacred social task. Stalin's "revolution from above" sought to build socialism through forced collectivization and industrialization - programs that entailed enormous human suffering and loss of life ^[2].

In the early years of his rule, Stalin replaced Lenin's system of government with a new policy of a highly centralized command economy, which is controlled by the state and whose goal is to build an industrial country. In the development of the Russian political system during the period under review, various political initiatives can be distinguished, such as the revolution from above, collectivization and industrialization (1927-1932), the Great Terror (1932-1938), the Second World War (1939-1945).

The political system of Russia in the 30-40s of the twentieth century was built and implemented through the Soviet authorities, which adopted laws previously agreed upon in the Politburo of the Central Committee of the CPSU (b). And in the conditions of the active construction of the communist regime, the party leadership increasingly began to publish regulations equated to the laws, which were to be guided by all authorities. One of the first was the resolution of the Central Committee of the CPSU (b) "On the main results and the next tasks in the field of contracting grain crops" ^[3]. According to this document, the relations between the city and the countryside were transferred to a completely different economic basis - communist. In this resolution, contracting was considered as "a means of organizing a planned product exchange between the city and the countryside."

The Soviet Constitution of 1936 was democratic, but only on paper. The symbiosis of the Communist party dictatorship with the power of the Soviet authorities made it possible to build a state in arbitrary forms. The visible structures did not matter much, since behind them was hidden the dictatorship of a rigidly centralized party, not reflected in the Constitution. This feature made it possible to build a national Soviet statehood without jeopardizing the centralized nature of the country's development, which was recreated anew after the collapse of the Russian Empire.

By 1938, Stalin had subordinated all aspects of the life of Soviet society to strict party-state control, not tolerating even the slightest manifestation of local initiative, not to mention political unorthodoxy. The Stalinist leadership felt particularly threatened by the intelligentsia, whose creative efforts were suppressed by the strictest censorship; religious groups that were persecuted and driven underground; and non-Russian nationalities, many of whom were massively deported to Siberia because the party leadership had doubts about their loyalty.

As for the political system of Argentina during the 30-40s of the twentieth century, in recent years an increasing number of researchers have been reviewing this one of the most controversial periods in the history of Argentina: the sixteen years between the military coup in September 1930 and the election of Juan Peron as president in 1946. These years have traditionally been interpreted as a transitional period, a "prelude" to the emergence of "peronism", characterized by the decline of the liberal republic of the XIX century in the conditions of political and ideological crisis, economic and social transformations ^[4].

Recognizing some of these features, new research highlights the blurring of the political and ideological boundaries of the main political and social actors of Argentina of that period. For example, they show that the Radical and Socialist parties, as well as conservative groups united in the ruling Concordancia coalition, were deeply divided and far from ideological homogeneity, and different positions on issues of state economic intervention, free trade and industrialization generated both sharp intra-party disagreements and inter-party coincidences ^[5].

In general, researchers believe that in the 30-40s of the twentieth century. The country's political system was characterized by constant persecution of political opposition parties and widespread corruption in the government.

Unfortunately, Argentina has not been able to consolidate the political transition to a democratic regime with an appropriate system of checks and balances. From 1930 to 1940, Argentina moved away from open legitimate elections. Political tensions between the current radical party and the displaced conservative elite, combined with the effects of the Great Depression, led to a military coup and election fraud that returned the Conservatives to power.

Despite the high assessment of their economic policy during the Great Depression, electoral fraud committed by conservatives, as well as the silence of the Supreme Court, undermined the authority of this party among the people. Such actions have paved the way for the populist policies and institutional reforms of Juan Peron. The neutral position of the Supreme Court, according to many scientists, leveled the nascent foundations of a democratic political system that could lead to the creation of a civilized state.

At the same time, it is noteworthy that after the election, the "peronists" impeached four of the five judges of the Supreme Court on the basis of their behavior in the 1930s, as well as for obstructing the will of populists. From Peron to the present day, the result of the existence of the established political system has been political and economic instability. Both military and democratic governments interfered in the work of the judicial system. An indicator of the lack of separation of powers is the high level of staff turnover in the Supreme Court as a result of impeachment and forced resignation.

These facts are historically significant from the point of view of the development and determination of a promising vector for improving the country's political system. The author supports the point of view that it was the erosion of the nascent belief system involving fair elections and the potential role of the Supreme Court as a powerful veto tool on the expropriation of legislative or executive power, as well as the inability to strengthen this system during the 1930s, that led to Peron's initial populist appeal.

The conservative regimes of the 1930s and 40s in Argentina stopped the momentum of political and social reforms initiated by radical governments. Their inability to underpin a relatively healthy economic structure with social and political mechanisms that ensure growing security and political participation for the rural and urban masses has contributed to the creation of revolutionary opportunities. In this context, we consider the statement of C?sar Rodr?guez-Garavito to be fair, who noted that the conservatives won the battle by fraud, but lost the war by abandoning the rule of law ^[6].

The main conclusions of the study are the following.

The political system of Russia and Argentina in the 30-40s of the twentieth century had fairly simple and politically ineffective authoritarian regimes. To rule the country, they used coercion, violence. Stalinism was characterized by the institution of a huge party-state bureaucracy, a command economy, a cult of personality around the supreme leader, who initiated and controlled repression.

In Argentina, legislatures and parties were banned, the government did not recognize the opposition and had no contacts with it, which is very similar in Russia, which was dominated by one – the Communist Party and ideology. Also, the rejection of state-corporatist strategies was characteristic of both countries. The authorities have deactivated the political participation of citizens by all means.

The novelty of the research lies in the analysis based on the principles of historicism and comparativism of similar and distinctive features of the development of the political systems of Russia and Argentina in the 30-40s of the twentieth century, which as a result made it possible to more clearly formulate the features of building power relations in the countries under consideration.

References:

1. Sultanov S.A. Genesis of the Soviet political system // Qazaqtan?. 2020. No. 5 (5). pp. 68-73.

2. Livshin A.Ya. The Communist Party in the system of power in the USSR // Contours of global transformations: politics, economics, law. 2018. Vol. 11. No. 3. pp. 13-35.

3.     Stalin's World: Dictating the Soviet Order / Sarah Davies and James Harris. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2014. 340 p.

4.     Polity: demystifying democracy in Latin America and beyond / Joe Foweraker. Boulder, Colorado: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2018. 224 p.

5. Corporatism and national development in Latin America / Howard J. Wiarda: Routledge, 2019. 400 p.

6. Law and society in Latin America: a new map / edited by C?sar Rodr?guez-Garavito. Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon; New York: Routledge, 2015. 293 p.