МОЛОДЕЖНЫЙ ПРОТЕСТ: РИСКИ, ПЕРСПЕКТИВЫ, ПОСЛЕДСТВИЯ

Abstract

The article is devoted to the possibilities and directions of youth participation in politics. The text criticizes the approach when an engagement in an opposition's protest considered as a destructive phenomenon at all. An author used conception of agonistic democracy by Chantal Mouffe to show the importance of the different ways of including youth people in politics throughout the different ideological pole. The article provides examples of protest behaviour of youth people who caused a resonance in the media. The main question raised by the author are there enough legal channels in modern Russian society for citizens to be involved in politics and to order to avoid the radicalization of public sentiment? In addition, an attempt is being made to highlight the problem of the special distinction between the “young people” category when analyzing protest actions. The phrase “Protest students” is often used in the context of the failure of the protest itself to show that its members were victims of alien influence, and in the administrative legislation of the Russian Federation appeared the wording “engaging minors” in participation in unauthorized actions. The author uses the approach of T. R. Garr, trying the importance of having social elevators and ways to influence the political system to avoid rising protest sentiment. The author refers to a some surveys conducted by the Center for Economic and Political Reforms, the Levada Center, the State Institute of Management. According to these surveys, young people in Russia have little involvement in politics and little interest in political processes. According to a survey by the Levada Center “Planning Horizon of the Future”, the majority of Russians do not plan their future, due to the unstable social situation, that is shown grows up the deprivation level. Based on the analysis of a number of reports of the DIA-info portal, which check detentions during public events. The author concludes that in recent years participation in public events has become much more difficult, starting from coordinating an application for a public event, ending with an increase in fines for participating in an unauthorized action. In addition, tightened control over statements on the Internet. Finally, the author concludes that modern youth may not have enough channels for constructive dialogue with the government, which contributes to its radicalization. To solve this problem, the author suggests that it is necessary to increase the involvement of young people in politics, and not to rely on repressive and prohibitive measures.