That is, it is said that attention is paid to a certain aspect of a very complex process.

The search for answers to the meaning and interpretation of the concept of "political leadership" based on the study of the phenomenon of leadership as such in a particular group of people, led to the involvement in political science concepts from other human sciences, mainly psychology and management, social management. Such interdisciplinary influence, no doubt, enriches both the theory of political science and the practice of ideas of political psychology. But it does not free researchers from the need to adapt such concepts to the political context. Otherwise, any meaning of "mutual borrowing" is lost.

It is known that scientific concepts reflect the most essential properties of objects and phenomena, general connections and relationships. They must be clearly defined, correlated with each other and linked to https://123helpme.me/write-my-lab-report/ laws. However, in cases where concepts in different sciences (eg, psychology, philosophy, political science, etc.) often coincide in appearance, ie expressed by the same words ("leadership" "leadership" "leader" "leader"), a situation when, being borrowed from one scientific (methodological) context, it loses its original meaning and becomes inconsistent with the new context.

We must agree with the view that the humanitarian object, in contrast to the mathematical, not only exists before the process of thinking about it, but also constantly reproduced and transformed in the process. This is what its status "smaller" is based on — more correctly say, dynamic accuracy, which varies from one reflection to another "[1].

The definitions of concepts in the sciences related to politics, taken separately from each other, are both relatively independent and interdependent. However, being interpreted outside of their primary contexts, they may lose their original meaning. Used by researchers in their combination, these concepts create the effect of multiple amplification in various variations and manifestations of the leading modal types of political consciousness — mass, group, individual.

Regarding the enrichment of scientific ideas about the nature, nature and content of political leadership, we can state a contradictory situation. Some researchers claim: "Regarding the definition of the phenomenon of political leadership among scientists there are no special differences" [2]. However, it is known that an excess of understanding can play a questionable service of "information pleonasm" which paralyzes the will to preserve significance — when "everything is clear, it is not clear why to continue dealing with all this" [3].

Another point of view is that leadership is a complex and multifaceted phenomenon. The presence of numerous approaches to defining this concept and its nature (as a kind of power, managerial status associated with decision-making, as a result of which it is possible to influence the behavior of others), leads to the conclusion that the nature of political leadership is quite complex and unambiguous interpretation. "Along with this there is a recognition that leadership seems to include the presence of" leadership "[4].

Situations where there are differences in the semantic interpretation of the concept of "political leadership" occur quite often. In most of the publications developed by the author, one can observe a combination of the concepts of "political leadership" and "political leader" identification of the concepts of "leadership" and "leadership".

It should be recognized that this state necessitates the clarification of the use and content of these concepts in political science, namely: what are the essence and functions of political leadership and political leadership; what are their political, social, psychological roots; how the place of leadership differs from the leadership in the political system of society, what is the manifestation of the peculiarities of their interaction with other social and political institutions; in which cases they cause distortions of social life, and in which, on the contrary, they act as a way to overcome them.

The purpose of this investigation is to consider the concepts of "political leadership" and "political leadership", "political leader" and "political leader" interpretation of the content and practice of dissemination in scientific use, finding a methodological basis for their further development …

The author of the famous book "Political Leadership. The Path to Universal Analysis" J. Blondel notes that "the difficulties here are partly due to the fact that the scope of the concept, which gradually developed in English, pushed into the background other words that describe other forms management and leadership "[5]. The following are examples of possible synonyms from the French language: "chef", "decideur", "guide", "dirigeant" are considered unsuccessful. Not surprisingly, even in France, where English words are used reluctantly, the word "leader" is firmly entrenched in the political literature "[5, p. 17].

To separate the concept of "leadership" in politics from a purely formal position, as these two concepts partially overlap, but do not completely coincide, J. Blondel proposes the term "real" leadership. With its help, he seeks to draw a clear line between the situation and behavior in the political sphere in order to adequately understand the nature of political and other forms of leadership. This is especially important for filling the content of the concepts under consideration. During their formation, the cooperation of political science with such sciences as philosophy, history, psychology, anthropology, management, etc. is observed.

It is useful to trace the development of views on the relationship between politics and public administration for further consideration. In the United States, for example, the separation of managerial functions from what was considered a distortion of policy, Wilson put it: "… management is outside the realm of politics itself. Administrative issues are not political. Although policy sets tasks for government, it can not allow them to interfere in their activities. "

In contrast to the "old" public administration, American authors David L. Weimer and Aiden R. Weining emphasize that the "new" public administration abandoned the idea that management should be separated from politics. "The new government aims not only to implement legislative orders as efficiently and economically as possible, but also to influence the selection and implementation of policies that will generally improve the quality of life for all" [6]. At the same time, we emphasize that the authors proclaim this problem here as well — the usual lack of a clear boundary between politics and management (contrary to Wilson’s views), ie the separation of management science from the art of politics.

The transfer of the achievements of social psychology to the field of political science creates certain contradictions. For example, leadership style is derived from leader style. Within a small group, such an approach may make sense. However, political leadership is associated with large groups of people in society and is not a closed but an open process. Leadership is defined as the interaction of the leader and his followers, which narrows the field of research, because in the process of political leadership not only followers but also political opponents, whose attitude can not be left out of the analysis of political leadership.

That is, it is said that attention is paid to a certain aspect of a very complex process. For the most part, this is a problem of the interaction of the subjects of the political process in joint activities in the political sphere of society; the effectiveness of the results of this activity; leadership is seen as one of the mechanisms of integration of group activities, regulation of human relations as the art of establishing consensus of individuals, social groups, political institutions, society as a whole; leadership is considered a consequence of willpower, a manifestation of human "creative instinct"; as a phenomenon of power, a way of organization based on the ability to unite citizens in joint activities; identify political leadership and political leadership in general.

A peculiar evolution of views on leadership accompanied the process of development of domestic social science. Prolonged ideological control in this area (until the 1960s) took the problem of political leadership beyond scientific consideration. In the conditions of the Soviet social system the problem of political and legal, administrative aspects of public life was practically not divorced. Equality of citizens before the law was replaced by equality of the same citizens before the arbitrariness of political power. (The process of formation and evolution of this phenomenon has been studied and revealed on the basis of documents, in particular, by Professor Yu. Shapoval and others).

The clear boundaries of democratic and bureaucratic principles of governance were blurred, which on the surface of social life manifested itself as a kind of symbiosis of democratic and bureaucratic institutions (for example, elections as a form of appointment). As a result of long-term practice of methods of party "management" of public institutions, the bureaucracy successfully mimicked democracy.

Giving priority to administrative levers, which are not able to effectively influence the increasingly complex processes of public life, resulted in the fact that the concept of "political leadership" has acquired universal significance, which has absorbed all other possible meanings. The impoverished terminological apparatus of social science testifies to the one-sidedness, bias in the elaboration (or impossibility or unwillingness of such elaboration under certain political circumstances) of this problem.

The need for more effective "management of the socialist production collective" [8] necessitated the study of the phenomenon of leadership. In the 1960s, B. Parigin and other researchers studied leadership and leadership as two similar in purpose functions, but different in socio-psychological mechanisms and content of the phenomenon (N. Zhebrova, 1968; B. Parigin, 1970; L) Umansky, 1970, I. Volkov, 1970, G. Ashin, 1971, etc.). Putting this principle in the basis of research on the impact and relationship of leadership and leadership, the researchers thus clarified the semantic aspect of these concepts.

As a result of social psychologists studying the relationships of people in small groups, the semantic field of the concept of "leadership" has expanded significantly. Thus, "leadership — is the process of social organization and management of communication and activities of group members, which is carried out by the leader as a mediator of social control and power on the basis of legal relations.