The purpose of the article is to characterize current status of state control (supervision) in higher education in accordance with the implementation of the regulatory guillotine measures. The results of the research led the authors to the following conclusions. First of all, foreign expertise results in understanding the necessity of lobbying by non-governmental organizations. Otherwise, state regulators will operate precisely in their interests. Secondly, current administrative regulation of higher education is based on an inefficient monitoring system with redundant permissions of the Federal Service for Supervision in Education and Science (Rosobrnadzor). Thirdly, there is no reason to believe that the implementation the regulatory guillotine model can change the situation efficiently. It is more probable that the reduction of the intensity of control will lead to a net rise of latent offenses for educational institutions’ management. To eliminate these problems, the authors suggest implementing of monitoring system for the activities of higher educational establishment as well as for regulator’s actions with a monetization of these relations.

The purpose of the article is to identify the features of the social position of groups represented by political parties by analyzing their views on the historical past of Russia. The methodology of the work is based on the position formulated by K. Mannheim, according to which ideology is not only a cover or justification by certain social groups for their momentary interests (private ideology), but also a reflection of the social position that they occupy, i.e. a certain social position corresponds to certain points of view and a type of thinking (total ideology). Based on the results of the analysis carried out in the work, the following conclusions were drawn. The attitude towards history on the part of the parties is conditioned by the social position of its representatives. Thus, the ideologists of ‘United Russia’, with the help of an appeal to history, substantiate the naturalness and inviolability of the established order, as well as ideologically amortize deep social differentiation. In turn, the parties of the legal opposition (CPRF and LDPR), in the course of interpreting history, focus on the struggle of elite groups and the positive aspects of competition. The absence of significant historical periods in the ‘Yabloko’ party, with which it would claim to be associated, speaks of the modesty of the party’s social and political base. In general, the political parties of Russia demonstrate, to one degree or another, successful adaptation to the prevailing socio-political conditions, which they are not going to change.

No abstract

No abstract

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 4.0 Unported License, permitting all non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.