Introduction. Development priorities of modern Russia include the search for effective mechanisms to provide for cooperation between the authorities and society. This is necessary for several reasons: firstly, citizens should be permitted to participate in taking decisions which are both vital for themselves and for society as a whole; secondly, in the process of effective cooperation between the management system and society the possibility of abuse of power is minimized; thirdly, as a result of this cooperation, it is possible to encourage new civilian traditions and values that are in scarce in the sociopolitical life.

This search is about the development and strengthening of forms and technologies of civic participation. One of them is civilian control that represents the practice of evaluation of management decisions and actions, independently from power, in terms of their compliance with the values and the public interest, implemented by individual citizens, their associations and networking communities. Civilian control contributes to the transition from the subject-object to the subject-subject relationship between the authorities and the population, providing a “feedback”, laying the new foundations of social justice and political stability.

Considering the importance of the system of civilian control over the performance of authorities, V.P. Babintsev and V.M. Zakharov emphasize: “civilian control is a way of the external regulatory of the management process, especially in cases where the internal regulation failed” [2].

The main content. The phenomenon of civil control in its qualitative peculiarity can be realized only if there is a civil society and, accordingly, if its subjects (based on the so-called “middle class”) have civil disposition. This concept can be defined as a complex of mental units of four types:

1) frames (cognitive attitudes) – concepts, images, which form cognitive structures as frameworks to comprehend experiences, put new and unknown on already known;

2) characters (value systems) – shrines, values, principles, precepts, i.e. anything that creates desires, motivations, interests, shame, fears, etc.; 3) identities (existential attitudes) – situational and permanent identities, taken positions and roles;

4) stereotypes of practices and strategies (behavioral attitudes) – the ability and willingness to routine actions (practices) and complex purposeful activities (strategies). In this case, what we are most interested in is not a physical, but mostly mental quality of individuals and groups that make up the population (as a combination of passive and divided inhabitant), and local social networking communities (as a community of viable and solidarity citizens [8].

Dispositions represent conditions and preconditions for implementation of subjective practices (perception, understanding, thinking, communication, action), and “systematically determine” direct social interactions. However, in order to implement these practices, social phenomena must be internalized, effectively learned, assigned and even incorporated by the agents that actively “construct” their perception, expression and evaluation of social reality, their communication, etc. [11].

Thus, civilian control, in the traditional sense of the term, is a way of development of the management area by the individual with rational thinking and feeling free and at the same time responsible, in which management realities correlate with civil disposition of the individual.

There is another difference of civilian control that is related to the specific requirements for its organization. We believe that these requirements are:

– sociality. The use of technologies of civilian control aim at solving specific social problems, at monitoring compliance with the legitimate rights and freedoms of citizens, at balance between the interests of different social groups;

– targeting. The use of a technology of civilian control should be due to the clearly defined goals and objectives, as well as to a clear understanding of how various structures’ results are addressed;

– publicity. Leadership development, methodology and results of civilian control should be open, transparent, public; the relevant information should be brought to the attention of authorities and administration, as well as there should be ensured its availability to all interested citizens;

– voluntariness. In this case we should take into account the fact that any coercion to civilian control is contrary to its nature and meaningless;

– institutionalization. Civilian control can be realized only if it comes from an institutionalized civil subject.

Civilian control as a kind of social practice is always specific, influenced by existing conditions, public interest and social code of conduct formed throughout history. With the latter factor it is impossible to understand the evolution of ideas and practices of civilian control extrapolated to Russian conditions. This factor is a major difference of Russia from the countries of European civilization, and the essence of this difference can be reduced to three main positions. Firstly, in Russia, in fact, the practices of individual civic engagement and civil control were never developed. Secondly, cases where society tried to have a controlling impact on the power (in so doing mainly on the local authorities), are associated with collective forms of this activity, either the peasant community in pre-revolutionary Russia or working collectives of the Soviet era. Elements of civilian control (it is clear that it was absent as a system phenomenon in Russia) were understood and allowed only in the context of relying on “other people”, as a result of the collective interactions and of collective citizen action. Thirdly, (this is crucial) the controlling impact in most cases was based on the appeal to the values of justice and not to the act, which is not typical of Western culture.  

The concept of “justice” is one of the most difficult to define in sociology. The difficulty is that it covers both the abstract moral idea and real attitude which plays a crucial role in managing people, and determines what is right or wrong. An abstract idea was born in the spiritual and religious moral sphere, and is also implemented in the same sphere, but it sheds light on the everyday material life of society, where it becomes a factor of social integration, without which it is impossible to ensure its survival. Depending on the socioeconomic structure, on the balance of power of classes and political factions, on the political culture of the elite, on its political experience and will, the concepts of social justice, different in a very wide range, can dominate in the state [10].

However, this does not mean that any concept of justice is acceptable. Preferred is the concept that provides a consensus of various sectors of the population. In general, it does not raise serious objections, and even more outrage of any influential groups, as well as the dissemination of envy among the population. The society (the state), where the general sense of justice is transgressing, where relationships are defined only by benefit (utility), is doomed to degradation, revolutions, civil war, and in many cases to a complete breakdown and death [10].

It is our understanding that justice is a fundamental principle of society, based on tradition and plays a role of a central integrating element for society. Its essence is to establish proportionality between the act and reward, in conformity with the values and meanings accepted in society.

In the history of Russia, it is one of the most significant motivators to intrinsically civil actions. Turning to the Weber typology of social behavior [3], it can be argued that attempts to control the power in the Russian conditions almost always had been value-oriented, and not objective-oriented.

It is justice that in modern social and cultural environment can act as a national idea, which consolidates the society, and which has been discussed for a long time. According to M.K. Gorshkov and N.E. Tikhonova: “…the great Russian dream can be expressed in one word – and it will be the word «justice»” [4].

Social justice is a value, i.e. a reality of social and individual life. Values are sociocultural meanings, whose learning and adoption by individuals ensures not only the maintenance and reproduction of certain social relations, but also their development.

The influence of values on the dissemination of practices and the nature of civilian control is determined by several factors:

firstly, values form the general atmosphere of civic engagement and social networking, or, on the contrary, introduce barriers for them. The development of the situation in the first scenario is the most likely if citizen values are society-oriented. The second option is associated with the dominance of the values, closing social action subjects in a relatively narrow range of individual problems;

secondly, the values define relationship between potential agents of civilian control, as well as between them and the power. Coherence of the values, which control and are controlled, on the one hand, provides a high level of understanding between them and productivity of the cooperation; on the other hand, it reduces the level of criticality;

thirdly, the values form the basis for determining the extent of satisfaction of the municipalities inhabitants with living conditions.

Social justice as a value includes a gnoseological, regulatory, measurement and ideal components. Being at the most critical crossover point between individual and public interests, it is a historically and culturally acceptable measure of equality and liberty of individuals. Moreover, social justice as a value in modern Russian society has a rather high consolidation potential [6]. Consolidation, in this case, means the attitude of public consciousness, which is based on the recognition that social groups and individuals, despite their inherent differences, potentially compatible, capable of cooperation, especially when it comes to maintaining the system. 

As G.A. Kovrigina emphasizes rightly: “...social consolidation is one of the prerequisites for the emergence and existence of any society. Strictly speaking, other factors, such as adaptation to environment, economic practices, relations between people and authorities, internal and external security, etc. – in its ultimate effectiveness are also associated with the degree of consolidation of communities and society as a whole” [7]. In so doing, justice, as well as sensitivity to brethren, tribesmen and fellow countrymen is a key to successful social reproduction of society in all its key areas.

Analyzing the phenomenon of social justice we should take into account the ambiguity of its interpretation by the expert community and by the population. As the co-Chairman of the national strategy Council Josef Diskin points out: “social justice is a basic value of Russian society. Over the past few years it escalated and has become more relevant, and over the past two years citizens evaluate the situation with new standards, with a new view of it. The situation has become simply disastrous because no view of social justice is articulated. Experts don't hold discussions about it”[1].

In our view, the definition of the notion “social justice” is inextricably linked to the analysis of the opposite term – social injustice.

Analyzing the empirical studies of recent years, it should be noted that the views of the population on social injustice often reflect the general tendency of the socioeconomic polarization of modern Russian society. In this regard, very illustrative are the results of a study conducted by the experts of the Swiss financial conglomerate Credit Suisse, so, according to the report for 2015, Russia is a country with the world's highest property inequality. According to Rosstat (the Federal State Statistics Service of the Russian Federation), in September 2016, “a decline in the income of population has been continuing for 22 months in a row. The last time a comparable failure of incomes was recorded by Rosstat in December 2008, when they declined immediately by 10.70 % over the previous year”[2].

The report of the Institute of Sociology of the Russian Academy of Sciences (RAN) stresses: “social inequalities that existed in Russia today seem to be unfair to all segments of the population regardless of the dynamics of their personal well-being. Such inequalities as excessive income differentiation and inequality in the distribution of private property make a particular painful impression”[3].

At the same time, sociologists note that Russian society is facing a fairly balanced and calm attitude to the inequality caused by merits of a person, his/her achievements and work. The surveys of the Institute of Sociology of RAN conducted in recent years (2011-2016) show that people of different incomes permit inequalities on fair, under their estimates, grounds of difference in talents and efforts, of more effective work. The population also agrees that the differences in income are fair, if people have equal opportunities to earn money[4].

Thus, it can be assumed that citizens associate social justice primarily with the ability to access social resources in proportion with their knowledge and merits.

Referring to the studies of the Institute of Integrated Strategic Research of RAN and the Institute of Sociology of RAN (including the research of 2012 “What Russians dream of: ideal and reality”), we note that justice today still occupies an important place in the dreams of people about the future of the country. In choosing options for slogans that would best express the personal dream of Russians about their future, the greatest number of supporters got the option associated with a fairly arranged society – social justice, equal rights for all, strong state care about its citizens. This response was supported by almost half of the population (45 %), while the remaining options significantly lagged behind: the slogans about democracy and freedom of expression of the personality, return of Russia's great power status and provision of social stability was supported by 27 % of the population for each of them, and the rest got less than one fifth of all the votes[5].

The key elements of the idea of “fair society” from the point of view of Russians are equality of opportunity for all, the active role of the state in the system of social welfare that supports the citizens caught in a difficult situation, income differentiation reflecting the education, qualifications and performance of each individual, but located within reasonable limits – such views are typical of most Russians, regardless of their own situation and the dynamics of their personal well-being that again shows the already established in society and sustainable over time normative-value system, in which justice is one of the most significant motivators to civil actions.

Let's turn to the study “Technology of civilian control in the practice of local self-government: essence, implementation mechanisms, social investigation” conducted by us in 2013 (N=1300), to the question “Why civilian control in Russia is necessary?”. As main reasons the respondents named ownership of local self-government bodies by state authorities (22.44%), prevalence of corrupt relations (44.68 %), abuse of powers committed by the local officials in favor of their interests (46.42 %), simulation in local self-government bodies – officials work just for show (39.85 %). In the structure of those reasons, the perception that civilian control should restore the principle of justice discredited by corruption practices and officialism is clearly visible [5].

At the same time, the majority of respondents who express dissatisfaction with the many injustices do not express real willingness to contribute to overcoming them. In general, the mobilizing potential of justice is very modest in contrast to the query to social justice. V.V. Petukhov stresses: “seeking justice in modern Russia practically does not involve solidarity, willing to fight for the justice” [9]. A.L. Andreev notes that modern society is characterized by “low potential of subsidiarity, underdeveloped sense of community with people living in the same area, in the same locality, unwillingness to collective action for the protection of their group interests” [1]. One is thus put into a situation of contradiction whereby on the value level remain knowledge and attitudes how is having to be and what should be done, but on the day-to-day level these attitudes are not implemented by citizens in the real-life practice. Citizens primarily remain only spectators to reality, and the idea of civilian control requires active participation in it.

Conclusions. In general, a fairly significant divergence between the normative significance of the values of Justice in the minds of the population and the satisfaction of its implementation in practice can be identified, there is a semantic-value contradiction between the importance of justice and uncertainty about the reality of its accomplishment. High importance of justice solely as a terminal, and nor as an instrumental value does not allow most citizens to formulate a rational responsibility requirement for authorities.

The article was implemented with the financial support of the Russian Foundation for Basic Research. Grant "Diagnostics of the consolidation potential of the value of justice in the implementation of civil control in the practice of local self-government" No. 17-33-01031

Conflict of Interests: the authors have no conflict of interest to declare.

Информация о конфликте интересов: авторы не имеют конфликта интересов для декларации.