Pluralism is the term that Christians Wolf introduced in the era of German enlightenment in the 18th century.
However, in Russia it became popular in the “perestroika” times in the mid-80s. The idea of political and ideological pluralism against the backdrop of the 70-year rule of the CPSU was truly revolutionary. In particular, for Russia of that period. In the countries of Western Europe, the political system was based on it. What were the prerequisites for the emergence of pluralistic thinking?
Pluralism and its formation in Russia
What is the manifestation of ideological and political party pluralism? In a society where there is no totalitarian regime, control and a system of punishments for dissent, it is inevitable, like a change of seasons.
In Russia, political and ideological pluralism was born rapidly, over 4-5 years, which, on the scale of history, is cosmic speed. In 1985, the first cells, communities, and organizations were organized. In 1989, they were already registered and received official status. 30 years have passed since then. Again, this is not a deadline for history. Therefore, pluralism in Russia is a young, flexible and developing phenomenon.
Ideological and political pluralism implies equality
It is both a prerequisite and a necessary condition for democracy. The presence of a multi-party system, where all its participants have the right to freedom of thought, speech, propaganda (in a good sense) of their ideas and values, is a portrait of a modern democratic society. A multi-party system is a natural state that any state in which there are no violent restrictions, penalties for dissent and centralization of power will aspire and come.
In other words, in order for a person to make a choice, he needs to be given this choice. Parliament should not consist of one party, the presence of the opposition is necessary. Nothing prevents political parties from joining in coalitions in the presence of common ground, while disagreeing on other issues.
The procedure for registering new political movements should be simple, understandable, and the set of criteria unified.
Political pluralism does not exist on its own, only in conjunction with a market economy and competition. The church in a pluralistic state is usually separated from it.
Ideological pluralism. A sign of a healthy society
Ideological diversity and political pluralism are two sides of the same coin.
The Constitution of the Russian Federation says that "no ideology can be established as state or mandatory." The direct consequence of this is tolerance. No individual or group of people shall be subjected to persecution or persecution for political, ideological, religious or other convictions, if such are not contrary to the law. In general, it is worth emphasizing that pluralism is not anarchy. However, often this is how he is falsely interpreted. To paraphrase, we can say: that which is not prohibited is permitted. Propaganda, for example, of Nazism in Europe is prohibited by law. Therefore, such an ideology has no right to exist. The diversity of views and worldviews gives impetus to civilization. Of course, pure ideological and political pluralism is utopia. Conflicts are inevitable when different religions, customs and beliefs clash. A sign of a healthy society is to be able to resolve these conflicts peacefully, to recognize the very fact of the existence of polar ideologies.
The dark side of pluralism
In the modern world, where borders are a conditional thing, the existence of different cultures, nations, religions and political movements in one arena is inevitable. We emphasize once again: diversity and tolerance are a sign of progress, high development and moral health of a nation. Returning to the beginning of the article, let us recall that the term "pluralism" (though more philosophically) arose in the Enlightenment, when Western European society was in its prime. But any philosophical concept is dogmatic. There is no black and white, as there is no ideal social idea. Are there Pitfalls in Pluralism? Of course. The mistake of communism (the thing is completely opposite to the phenomenon under consideration) was that the public was placed above the personal. The state was considered as a self-sufficient organism, ignoring, in fact, the people who were its foundation. Pluralism goes backwards: from the particular to the general, putting man at the forefront and respect for his upbringing, thoughts, and beliefs. But, oddly enough, this is where the problem lies. The plaque of civilization on humanity is subtle. As soon as cataclysms, economic downturns and other crises happen, the primitive law “everyone is for himself” comes into force, and there’s no need to speak about tolerance. The same people who have learned to respect and accept each other become ideological enemies. The struggle for power and the assertion of their idea as the only right ignited more wars than a banal thirst for profit.
