5. Положение о Революционном Военном Совете Российской Советской Федеративной Социалистической Республики (РВС РСФСР) // Бумбараш - Молодой коммунист. 1997. № 4(44). С. 3-4.
6. Приказ № 1 Реввоенсовета РСФСР // Бумбараш - Молодой коммунист. 1997. № 4 (44). С. 3-4.
7. Стогов И. Революция сейчас. - М.: АСТ, 2003. 362 с.
8. Суслонов П.Е. Методологические основания и проблемы исследования политического экстремизма // Исторические, философские, политические и юридические науки. Вопросы теории и практики. 2013. №12 (38): в 3-х ч. Ч. 1. С. 176-180.
modern challenges and reform of the national youth policy
Kirichek A.I.
School of Economics and Management Far Eastern Federal University, Vladivostok, Russia
современные вызовы и реформа государственной молодежной политики
киричек А.и.
Школа экономики и менеджмента Дальневосточного федерального университета, Владивосток, Россия
The article attempts to scientifically substantiate the need for a comprehensive implementation of the state youth policy and enhancing its effectiveness by systematisation the state priorities and actions whose primary purpose is proclaimed the creation of conditions and opportunities for successful socialisation and effective self-realization of young people, the development of its capacity in the public interest and recognition of the exceptional role youth as a strategic resource for the development of the state and society as a whole. The main conclusions of the study are based on the need to increase the responsibility of the authorities to improve their cooperation based on the principles of cooperation and partnership with organisations and individuals in the field of protection of the rights and legitimate interests of young people, promoting their independence and creative politics. Scientific novelty of the research lies in the author first proposed requirements to develop a new strategic approach to national youth policy.
Keywords: youth; political activity; political participation; youth policy; youth organisation; parliamentarism; politicisa-tion; society, state, government.
В статье предпринята попытка научно обосновать потребность в комплексной реализации государственной молодежной политики и усилении ее эффективности путем систематизации государственных приоритетов и мер, основной целью которых провозглашается создание условий и возможностей для успешной социализации и эффективной самореализации молодежи, развития ее потен-
циала в интересах общества и признании исключительной роли молодежи как стратегического ресурса для развития государства и общества в целом. Основные выводы исследования базируются на необходимости повышения ответственности органов власти в целях повышения их сотрудничества на основе принципов сотрудничества и партнерства с организациями и частными лицами в области защиты прав и законных интересов молодых людей, поощрении их самостоятельности и творческой политической деятельности. Научная новизна исследования заключается в впервые предложенных автором требованиях к разработке нового стратегического подхода к национальной молодежной политике.
ключевые слова: молодежь; политическая деятельность; политическое участие; молодежная политика; парламентаризм; молодежные структуры; политизация; общество; государство; правительство.
According to the several studies [1, 8, 11], there are three main reasons why it is so difficult to develop successful policies directed at young people. First, a successful youth policy requires working across many sectors to develop one coherent, holistic and inter-sectoral strategy, with clear priorities and measures for concrete action. However, youth policy today too often stands alone and is not integrated into the overall national development policy. Second, youth policy fails because young people have not had a voice in the design and implementation of the policies that affect them. And finally, success in youth policy is supported by the fact of existing a few successful examples of best practice.
In line with the argument that a youth policy needs to perceive young people as a resource, it should include provisions for how young people, on a continuous basis, will be involved in both developing the youth policy and implementing it [1].
Non-governmental youth organisations should play an important role in any youth participation model or mechanism, and should have strong recognition and support from the government. As civil society organisations they involve a lot of young people. Therefore, they have a democratic right to be heard on issues that are of concern to young people. Most countries in Europe have a national youth council, which is an umbrella organisation for the non-governmental youth organisations in the country [2]. These councils should play a privileged role as a government partner in the development of youth policy. Involving non-governmental youth organisations in youth policy development and implementation has indeed become a strong European standard, and is expected to take place at any level of government.
A youth policy should give clear recognition of the non-governmental youth sector, and include measures that encourage more young people to become involved in non-governmental youth organisations, as a way of fostering citizenship and taking active responsibility for shaping the society.
However, there are also many young people who are not members of youth organisations, and a government youth policy should also give them the opportunity to be consulted on issues that have an impact on them - in particular at important stages of redirecting a country's approach to youth policy, such as when a government is developing a new national youth strategy. In such cases, the government should organise comprehensive open consultations with young
people, typically at the local level, throughout the country. Such consultations can be organised with the assistance of local government, through the school system or together with non-governmental youth organisations [2].
Governments have a wide range of responsibilities that should be addressed in a national youth policy. In every European country, education is considered to be a major policy sector; health and employment are equally strong policy areas for any government. What is particularly significant for youth policy is that it should include a coherent and integrated strategy for how a government will view these different policy sectors in relation to each other [3]. There are many policy areas that are seen as belonging to different sectors, but will nevertheless have a strong impact on each other and should therefore be coordinated. For example, the level and quality of education (one sector) has a direct impact on whether or not young people will get a decent job (a different sector) after graduation, and may also affect young people's awareness of health-related issues (a third sector) [4].
There is a range of different areas that are important components of youth policy, which crisscross traditional policy-sectors. The relationship between education, employment and health is just one. Another example is the comprehensive issue of lifelong learning, which comprises formal education, non-formal learning and vocational skills: we do know that involvement in youth organisations or working as a volunteer tutor or youth leader in a youth club provides a young person with valuable life skills that cannot be taught through the formal education system [5]. Yet another example is that young people's opportunities to participate in sports and otherwise have a rich and quality free time - for example through participating in non-
governmental youth organisations - is known to have an impact on the number of young people who turn to illegal drugs or alcohol, or who may even become offenders.
The need to find ways of coordinating policies in different sectors leads us to speak of youth policy as a cross-sectoral policy. By an integrated policy, we mean that a government's actions and measures in these different areas must be coordinated into one comprehensive strategy addressing youth - although the responsibilities for implementing the different parts of the strategy will remain in the relevant ministries or government bodies [3].
Youth policy differs from other public policies in the way that it touches upon many policy areas. It is therefore essential to find ways of involving different ministries and government agencies in the youth strategy development process. Ministries to be involved in such an inter-ministerial co-operation will depend on the national context, but will typically include at least the ministries responsible for health, employment, education and culture.
Ensuring a successful inter-ministerial co-operation is difficult and has proved challenging in many countries. It can be hard to develop a strong ownership for the same strategy across several different government institutions, as they will all want to be the lead agency in the process and often have different working cultures, competing interests and so on. However, many European countries have youth policies which include mechanisms for ensuring good inter-ministerial co-operation. This can be a committee of state secretaries, or a wor king group of senior government officials. Ensuring a well-functioning inter-ministerial cooperation during the national youth strategy
development process is as important as during the policy implementation stage.
Non-governmental youth organisations (NGYOs) have been given an important and, in the eyes of some, privileged role when it comes to being promoted as government partners on issues relating to young people. Taking into account that many young people are not involved in youth organisations, why are they seen as so important?
Everyone recognises that at the level of central government, it is not feasible, or indeed possible, to include all young people in making government decisions
Для дальнейшего прочтения статьи необходимо приобрести полный текст. Статьи высылаются в формате PDF на указанную при оплате почту. Время доставки составляет менее 10 минут. Стоимость одной статьи — 150 рублей.