Modern governments: in search of a relevant model of the public administration system

Full Text

Introduction The relevance of the topic of this study is determined by the action of global and local order factors that affect the effectiveness of public administration. First, the change in technological structure, which has caused an increase in the social and cultural diversity of information societies, is complemented today by the consequences of mass migration from poor countries in Africa and Asia, and a sharp escalation in the global confrontation between the West and the countries of the global South and East, which see the architecture of the world order differently. This significantly stimulates the trend of turbulence in global development, cultivates the dynamics of global risks, which are part of the functions of the executive branch. Secondly, in a situation of increasing uncertainty, the most effective tool for minimizing global and local risks is the public administration system, represented by the highest executive authorities and the public administration, which directly and directly performs the function of implementing the goals formulated by the political leadership. For this reason, when analyzing the mechanism of public administration, primary attention is paid to the functioning of executive authorities, the principles of their organization, procedures for making important decisions, ways of their implementation and control over their implementation. Thirdly, the need for practical implementation of public policy objectives increases the role of modern governments in ensuring the effective functioning of the public administration system as a whole and its various levels. In modern conditions, a number of functions that were the key to the operational functioning of the public administration system and its ability to quickly adapt to the changing reality are being transferred from legislative authorities to executive institutions. In these conditions, it becomes extremely important to find optimal modes of interaction between legislative and executive authorities. All these factors determine the theoretical and applied relevance of the analysis of national models of public administration, their ability to be effective in a rapidly CURRENT PROBLEMS OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 147 Mukhaev RT. RUDN Journal of Public Administration. 2025;12(2):145-163 image changing reality, stimulate the search for the optimal configuration of modern government structures and markers of the effectiveness of the institution of public administration. It should be noted that the topic of executive effectiveness is of increased interest among researchers in the context of the increasing turbulence of global development. The key problem that is considered in the works of Russian and foreign authors is the changing role of executive authorities in the modern mechanism of separation of powers [1. P. 184, 2. P. 49, 3. P. 27, 4. P. 31, 5. P. 182, 6. P. 203]. In addition, attempts are being made to identify the correlation of key principles and mechanisms of government functioning during the transition from a bureaucratic management model to a managerial one, designed to respond sensitively to citizens’ requests [6. P. 198, 7. P. 67, 8. P. 213, 9. P. 75, 10. P. 136]. At the same time, in the context of the increasing diversity of society’s demands, a deepening contradiction has become apparent between the expectations of finding the ideal combination of management structures and its ability to be effective [11. P. 374, 12. P. 50, 13. P. 143, 14. P. 91, 15. P. 20]. The purpose of the study - the search for an answer to the main question: What determines the effectiveness of the executive power system, the main purpose of which is to implement public policy: 1) on the structure of modern governments, or 2) on other factors: the current electoral system; the procedure for forming the government and its legal investment; the regime of government interaction with legislative bodies; the party affiliation of representatives of individual and collective executive authorities? Methods The research methodology consists of the provisions and principles of binary comparative analysis developed at the Evanston Seminar at Northwestern University in 1952, convened under the auspices of the Council for Social Science Research [4. P. 48]. It assumes: a) the definition of variables that define the specifics of government models; b) criteria for the relevance of its individual components (structures); c) the establishment of indices of their effectiveness. The government models and practices of the Fifth Republic in France and the Federal Republic of Germany are considered as empirical material. The hypothesis of the study is based on the assumption that the effectiveness of modern governments is conditioned by: 1) the regime of interaction between executive and legislative authorities (regimes of “separation”, “cooperation”, “loneliness”, “merger”); 2) the legal investment of the government (who forms and to whom is it responsible?); 3) the method of formation of the highest authorities; 4) the quality of the elite and qualifications civil servants, their ability and willingness to express the actual needs of citizens. Which of the considered models of executive power meets these criteria to a greater extent? 148 АКТУАЛЬНЫЕ ПРОБЛЕМЫ ГОСУДАРСТВЕННОГО УПРАВЛЕНИЯ Мухаев Р.Т. Вестник РУДН. Серия: Государственное и муниципальное управление. 2025. Т. 12. № 2. С. 145-163 image Results In many ways, the effectiveness of the national governments of Germany and France depends on the variables that determine the principles of organization and the way the executive system functions. The following variables should be noted among them. Firstly, the form of government as a way of forming and structuring executive authorities. According to the form of government, government bodies can be: 1) real or ceremonial (depending on the method of formation and the scope of powers); 2) individual or collective (depending on the methods of decisionmaking). As republics, the executive authorities in France and Germany have real powers, but with different amounts. According to the form of government, France is a kind of presidentialparliamentary republic, which was created during the crisis of 1958 with an emphasis on the dominance of presidential power in it. The regime of the Fifth Republic organically combines the strength and effectiveness of presidential power (an element of the presidential system) with the control of the National Assembly over the government (a sign of a parliamentary republic). The dominance of the executive branch in the structure of public administration over the legislative branch is achieved by the establishment of a strong and independent head of State (President), who appoints the Government with the consent of Parliament. At the same time, executive power is divided between the President and the Prime Minister, depending on the balance of political forces in Parliament. Following the principle of bicephaly (bicephality), the President heads the Council of Ministers, and the Prime Minister heads the Cabinet of Ministers. According to the form of government, Germany is a traditional parliamentary republic, where the party (or coalition of parties) that wins the elections forms the government, and its leader becomes the federal chancellor with broad powers as opposed to the representative (ceremonial) functions of the federal President. The Chancellor forms the Cabinet based on the parliamentary majority. Secondly, the type of party system, the fact is that the methods of forming a government depend on the results of parliamentary elections and the balance of political forces in the legislative assembly, which are determined by party systems. In two-party systems, the majority party wins the majority of seats in the legislative assembly and independently forms a cabinet from among its members, which implements its policy based on the parliamentary majority. In a multiparty system, no party can win a majority of seats in parliament, which forces them to form a coalition government. The regime of the Fifth Republic in France is based on the principle of an integral multiparty system, characterized by the absence of a stable parliamentary majority on which the Government could rely. If the President’s party does not form a parliamentary majority, a regime of “separate government” ensues, when the head of state cannot independently pursue his course and turns into a “lame duck”. Only by relying on the parliamentary majority does the President have the opportunity to carry out reforms, and his government can be effective. CURRENT PROBLEMS OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 149 Mukhaev RT. RUDN Journal of Public Administration. 2025;12(2):145-163 image The Bonn Republic model is based on the principle of proportional representation of parties in government bodies. Germany has a “two-half” party system, in which neither the left party (SPD) nor the right party (CDU/CSU) can independently win elections and form a one-party ruling cabinet. Therefore, in order to form a constitutional majority in parliament, they are forced to block with some third party. Thirdly, the type of electoral system (majoritarian, proportional, mixed) that determines the formation of the parliament and influences the selection of government members in the republics is extremely important for a minority party system, the viability of which depends on the ability of parties to form coalitions. Due to the absence of parties with a majority vocation in France and Germany, the legislation grants privileges to those parties that enter into pre-election agreements. It is obvious that the term of work of parliamentary governments based on a combination of a multiparty system with an electoral system of proportional representation is short, because in a crisis situation their cabinets are unstable due to the lack of mutual guarantees from different parties. France has a two-round majority electoral system, which contributes to the political polarization of society and the formation of two large party coalitions: the center-right and the center-left. The German electoral system is a mixed electoral system in which 50% of the Bundestag is formed in single-member constituencies based on a majority system of a simple majority, and the other 50% of deputies are based on a proportional system. Fourth, the elite recruitment system, which defines the rules for nominating candidates for political positions. The methods of selecting candidates for powerful political positions significantly affect the structure of the government. In the Fifth Republic and the Federal Republic of Germany, the guild system of elite selection is used through parties operating on the political scene. Thus, the President of France is elected according to the two-round majority system. As the official head of Government, he appoints the Prime Minister and other cabinet members, taking into account the balance of power in the National Assembly. The legitimacy of the German Federal President is low, as he is elected by a special board (the Federal Assembly) consisting of members of the Bundestag and delegates from the land parliaments. The head of the German Government, the Federal Chancellor, is elected by the Bundestag on the proposal of the Federal President, and federal ministers, members of the government, are appointed and dismissed by the Federal President on the proposal of the Federal Chancellor. The guild’s recruitment system is opposed by the entrepreneur’s selection system, which focuses on the personal qualities of the job seeker (USA). Fifth, the political culture of society, which is an important integral variable influencing the formation and implementation of a political course. French political culture is divided, it includes monarchical and republican values, democratic and authoritarian cultural codes that cannot find consensus. Despite ideological pluralism, German political culture is based on a constitutional consensus based on the goals of ensuring the safety and well-being of German citizens, including residents of the GDR, which became part of Germany on October 3, 1990. 150 АКТУАЛЬНЫЕ ПРОБЛЕМЫ ГОСУДАРСТВЕННОГО УПРАВЛЕНИЯ Мухаев Р.Т. Вестник РУДН. Серия: Государственное и муниципальное управление. 2025. Т. 12. № 2. С. 145-163 image A comparison of the national models of functioning of the governments of France and Germany is possible on the basis of a number of markers (indicators) that allow verifying their effectiveness using indexes. The first indicator of comparison that affects the effectiveness of government is legal investiture, which is the order in which governments are formed and the forms of their political responsibility. The selection of members of the executive bodies (the Council of Ministers in France and the Federal Government in Germany) is based on their party affiliation, which determines the choice of a political course and ways to implement public policy. The “bicephaly” (dual power) of the executive branch in France (where the head of government is the President and the Prime Minister directs his activities) stipulates that the formation of the government belongs to the category of governmental powers of the President and is carried out by him personally. According to Article 8 of the Constitution of the French Republic, “The President of the Republic appoints the Prime Minister. He/she shall terminate his/her duties upon the latter’s submission of a letter of resignation from the Government. On the recommendation of the Prime Minister, the President appoints other members of the Government and terminates their powers”1. The President has the right to form the Council of Ministers alone, independently selecting candidates for leading positions (including the post of Prime Minister), but in practice this mechanism involves a double investment: the composition and program of the government are coordinated by the President with the Parliament - the National Assembly. This feature puts the government in double subordination - both from the President and from Parliament. In Germany, the legal investiture of the government is carried out differently. The President of Germany does not play a significant role in the formation of the Federal Government, since this function is assigned to the Chancellor. As head of the cabinet, the Federal Chancellor is elected by the members of the Bundestag on the proposal of the Federal President, but in the future he gets the opportunity to pursue an independent policy. According to Article 65 of the Basic Law of the Federal Republic of Germany: “The Federal Chancellor determines the main policy directions and is responsible for this. Within these main areas, each Federal Minister independently and under his own responsibility conducts the affairs of his industry. The Federal Government decides on differences of opinion between Federal Ministers. The Federal Chancellor conducts government affairs in accordance with regulations adopted by the Federal Government and approved by the Federal President”2. Federal ministers are appointed and dismissed by the Federal President on the recommendation of the Chancellor. Nevertheless, political practice shows that a special role in government belongs not to the President, but to the Chancellor, image 1 The Constitution of France. Constitutions of foreign states. Moscow: BECK Publishing House; 2023:108. (In Russ.). 2 The Basic Law of the Federal Republic of Germany. Constitutions of foreign states. Moscow: BECK Publishing House; 2023:179. (In Russ.). CURRENT PROBLEMS OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 151 Mukhaev RT. RUDN Journal of Public Administration. 2025;12(2):145-163 image who is the official and de facto head of Government and is responsible for the work of the Government. To ensure the stable position of the cabinet, Germany uses the procedure of a constructive vote of no confidence in the federal Chancellor: he can only be removed if a new chancellor is appointed, who is supported by a majority of Bundestag deputies. Thus, there are differences in the mechanisms of legal investiture of the governments of France and Germany, demonstrating the specifics of the presidential-parliamentary and parliamentary forms of the republics. The second indicator of comparison is government accountability. The French government is characterized by a dual investment, i.e. it is responsible to both the President and Parliament. This places a special burden on government structures, since the direction of government activities, the ratio of real powers between the President and the Prime Minister in this area, and their influence on the implementation of public policy depend on the party affiliation of senior officials. The Government’s activities will be effective if the President’s party has a parliamentary majority in the National Assembly. Otherwise, the president can paralyze the government’s activities by exercising his constitutional powers, and the Prime Minister has the right not to countersign acts that relate to the joint powers of the president and the government (for example, acts that relate to the management of foreign policy, which will negatively affect public policy). This circumstance is responsible for the unstable position of the Council of Ministers in the “separate government” regime. At the same time, the Federal Government of Germany is accountable only to the Parliament and is responsible to it in the person of the Federal Chancellor. The accountability mechanisms of the German government vary, including: the issue of the federal Chancellor’s self-confidence; as well as a constructive vote of no confidence put forward by the Bundestag, which, with the proper support of parliamentarians, entails the possibility of the resignation of the Chancellor and the entire government. The third comparative indicator is the structure of the Government. In France, the structure of a government body is represented by the Council of Ministers and the Council of the Cabinet. The Council of Ministers meets under the chairmanship of the President and includes the Prime Minister (who directs the day-to-day activities of the collegial body), as well as a number of members subordinate to a certain hierarchical order - government ministers (who direct key areas of public policy), ordinary ministers (who direct other areas of government), ministers-delegates (assistant ministers) and State Secretaries (they run institutions that do not apply for ministerial status). The Cabinet Council (which does not include power ministers) meets under the leadership of the Prime Minister, who relies on the support of the parliamentary majority. The structure of the Federal Government of Germany is practically similar to that of France and is represented by the Federal Chancellor, as well as a number of federal ministers representing the main directions of state policy implementation. It should be noted that the German government includes fewer members (the federal Chancellor and fifteen federal ministers) than the French Council of Ministers, which 152 АКТУАЛЬНЫЕ ПРОБЛЕМЫ ГОСУДАРСТВЕННОГО УПРАВЛЕНИЯ Мухаев Р.Т. Вестник РУДН. Серия: Государственное и муниципальное управление. 2025. Т. 12. № 2. С. 145-163 image may consist of more than fifty members of various statuses. However, this fact is not a significant structural difference. The subordination of the French government to both the President and the Prime Minister is an expression of the bicephaly of the executive branch (i.e., double subordination) and is determined by who owns the parliamentary majority - the President or the Prime Minister. A separate element of the French government is the Cabinet Council, a government meeting chaired by the Prime Minister, whose power, in this case, is based on a parliamentary majority in the National Assembly. The structure of the government bodies of the Fifth Republic in France and Germany differs markedly (Fig. 1). Thus, the key difference between the governments of the French Republic and Germany is not so much in the different number of cabinet members, but mainly in the mode of interaction between the chambers of Parliament and the government, determined by the party affiliation of the President or the Chancellor and the deputies of the legislative Assembly. The comparison markers are closely dependent on the indices (indicators), which clearly demonstrate the effectiveness of the Governments of the French Republic and the Federal Republic of Germany. There are various integral indicators that assess the government’s implementation of public policy in a particular area3. Structure of the French Government Structure of the German Government image The Council of Ministers image Federal Government The President of the Republic Federal Chancellor Prime Minister Federal Ministers Ministers of State Ministers Delegate Ministers Secretaries of State Fig. 1. The structure of the governments of France and Germany Source: made by R.T. Mukhaev according to the data4, 5 with the use of MS Word. image 3 It should be noted that the indexes are set by experts who are influenced by various factors (including ideological, political, financial) from the interested groups. For this reason, indexes do not always reflect the real situation, but nevertheless they are operated by scientists, decision-making centers, and the media. 4 The Constitution of France. Constitutions of foreign countries. Moscow: BECK Publishing House; 2023:108. (In Russ.). 5 Basic Law of the Federal Republic of Germany. Constitutions of foreign countries. Moscow: BECK Publishing House; 2023:179. (In Russ.). CURRENT PROBLEMS OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 153 Mukhaev RT. RUDN Journal of Public Administration. 2025;12(2):145-163 image The main one is the GRICS (Governance Research Indicator Country Snapshot) index, which measures the effectiveness of public administration based on a comparison of different countries. This index includes six higher ranked indicators: 1) the right to vote and accountability; 2) Political Stability and Absence of Violence; 3) Government Effectiveness; 4) Regulatory Quality; 5) Rule of Law; 6) control of corruption (Control of Corruption). These indicators are calculated by experts based on the analysis of more than a hundred variables. The most relevant and integral indicator of the success of practical government policy is the Government Effectiveness index, which reflects the quality of public services, the quality of bureaucracy, the competence of civil servants, the level of independence of the civil service from political pressure, and the level of trust in government policies. According to the World Bank, these figures for France and Germany were approximately equally high in 2020: 86.5 and 88.8, respectively6. Graphically, the indicators of the GRICS index in the 10-year range look as follows (Fig. 2). Country Year Percentile Rank (0 to 100) France 2010 2015 2020 Germany 2010 2015 2020 image Fig. 2. Government effectiveness index Source: made by R.T. Mukhaev according to the data7 with the use of MS Excel. The second group of markers of the GRICS index is represented by indicators that determine the right to vote and accountability (Voice and Accountability). Indicators in this category assess the degree of citizen participation in government elections, as well as the degree of media independence. For France and Germany in 2020, they were 82.6 and 94.2, respectively8. Graphically, the dynamics of these indicators is shown in Fig. 3. image 6 Governance Research Indicator Country Snapshot. Worldwide Governance Indicators. URL: http:// info.world bank.org/ governance/wgi/Home/Reports (accessed: 15.03.2024). 7 Ibid. 8 Ibid. 154 АКТУАЛЬНЫЕ ПРОБЛЕМЫ ГОСУДАРСТВЕННОГО УПРАВЛЕНИЯ Мухаев Р.Т. Вестник РУДН. Серия: Государственное и муниципальное управление. 2025. Т. 12. № 2. С. 145-163 image Country Year Percentile Rank (0 to 100) France 2010 2015 2020 Germany 2010 2015 2020 image Fig. 3. Voice and accountability Source: made by R.T. Mukhaev according to the data9 with the use of MS Excel. The indicator of Political Stability and Absence of Violence defines “the probability of destabilization of the government and forced resignation as a result of the use of violence”. It shows how unexpected fluctuations in the relations between government and society within the framework of various political processes can affect the stable state of executive authorities. The indicators within this marker are 56.6 and 68.8, respectively10. A graphical representation of these indicators and their dynamics is shown in Fig. 4. Country Year Percentile Rank (0 to 100) France 2010 2015 2020 Germany 2010 2015 2020 image Fig. 4. Political stability and absence of violence index Source: made by R.T. Mukhaev according to the data11 with the use MS Excel. image 9 Governance Research Indicator Country Snapshot. Worldwide Governance Indicators. URL: http:// info.world bank.org/ governance/wgi/Home/Reports (accessed: 15.03.2024). 10 Ibid. 11 Ibid. CURRENT PROBLEMS OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 155 Mukhaev RT. RUDN Journal of Public Administration. 2025;12(2):145-163 image The following two indicators, Regulatory Quality and Rule of Law, measure interdependent parameters: the possibility of implementing government policies that contradict legislation and the level of citizens’ trust in the country’s legal system. In the first case, the research data are 85.5 and 93.2, and in the second - 87.9 and 91.3, respectively12. A graphical representation of these indices is shown in Fig. 5 and 6. Country Year Percentile Rank (0 to 100) France 2010 2015 2020 Germany 2010 2015 2020 image Fig. 5. Regulatory quality index Source: made by R.T. Mukhaev according to the data13 with the use of MS Excel. Country Year Percentile Rank (0 to 100) France 2010 2015 2020 Germany 2010 2015 2020 image Fig. 6. Rule of law index Source: made by R.T. Mukhaev according according to the data14 with the use of MS Excel. Within the framework of the Governance Research Indicator Country Snapshot index, the last indicator is the parameter - Control of Corruption, which is closely related to government activities. This index reflects the impact of corruption on business development, the extent of political and administrative corruption, and the degree of elite involvement in corruption. These figures image 12 Governance Research Indicator Country Snapshot. Worldwide Governance Indicators. URL: http:// info.world bank.org/governance/wgi/Home/Reports (accessed: 15.10.2024). 13 Ibid. 14 Ibid. 156 АКТУАЛЬНЫЕ ПРОБЛЕМЫ ГОСУДАРСТВЕННОГО УПРАВЛЕНИЯ Мухаев Р.Т. Вестник РУДН. Серия: Государственное и муниципальное управление. 2025. Т. 12. № 2. С. 145-163 image in France and Germany are quite high: 84.6 and 95.1 (out of 100), which allows them to be among the least corrupt countries15. A graphical representation of these indexes is shown in Fig. 7. Country Year Percentile Rank (0 to 100) France 2010 2015 2020 Germany 2010 2015 2020 image Fig. 7. Control of corruption index Source: made by R.T. Mukhaev according to the data16 with the use of MS Excel. Interpretation of the research results An analysis of the activities of the governments of the Fifth Republic in France and Germany using the Governance Research Indicator Country Snapshot index showed several differences in the functioning of governments in the parliamentary and presidential-parliamentary models. The most noticeable differences were found in the indicators of Voice and Accountability (82.6 and 94.2) and Political Stability and Absence of Violence (56.6 and 68.8), as well as Regulatory Quality (85.5 and 93.2) and Control of Corruption (84.6 and 95.1). In all cases, higher results are demonstrated by the Federal Republic of Germany, whose government is included in the system of interaction of state authorities of the classical parliamentary republic. The regime of cooperation between Parliament and the Government, which underlies the activities of the Chancellor’s office, shows greater effectiveness compared to the French presidential-parliamentary model. This circumstance underlines the importance of the parliamentary investiture of the Government, i.e. the presence of a parliamentary majority, which the Cabinet relies on to pursue a political course and the ability to make quick decisions in conditions of permanent crises. On the other hand, a mixed parliamentary-presidential model is effective if the President’s party has a majority in parliament, otherwise he turns into image 15 Governance Research Indicator Country Snapshot. Worldwide Governance Indicators. URL: http:// info.world bank.org/governance/wgi/Home/Reports (accessed: 15.10.2024). 16 Ibid. CURRENT PROBLEMS OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 157 Mukhaev RT. RUDN Journal of Public Administration. 2025;12(2):145-163 image a “lame duck”. The French model is effective only in the context of a regime of cooperation between parliament and the President (i.e., the majority of his party in the National Assembly). The regime of “separate government”, when the President and the Prime Minister belong to different parties, is extremely ineffective in conditions of turbulence, requiring rapid response to multiple challenges and threats. Despite the favorable values of the Governance Research Indicator Country Snapshot index in France and Germany, modern reality suggests a crisis of public administration in these countries, the blame for which lies with the political elite of these countries, which has become hostage to the hegemonic interests of the United States. The manifestations of this systemic crisis are: a) the collapse of the national economy, when, under pressure from rising commodity prices, companies leave the national market for countries with more attractive tax conditions; b) the decline in the standard of living of the majority of the population; c) rising prices for essential products and services; d) the migration crisis, for which significant funds are allocated, and the consequences of which negatively affect public sentiment, giving rise to increased aggressiveness, crime, and violence of migrants against indigenous people. All this is happening against the background of the exorbitant expenditures of the political elite of these countries on financial and military assistance to Ukraine in the hope that it will inflict a strategic defeat on Russia. An analysis of the factors of government effectiveness suggests that the structure of government does not significantly affect the degree of effectiveness of public policy implementation. Another circumstance is much more important: is the political course of the country consistent with the national interests of society? In the case of Germany and France, it is obvious that the national interests of these states have been sacrificed to the globalist elites led by the United States. In this regard, it can be concluded that the effectiveness of the functioning of modern governments in the process of implementing the political course of the state is determined not so much by their internal structure as by the willingness and ability of national elites to defend the national interests of the country. The results of the comparative study showed that up to 2019, the German government model demonstrated high performance in all parameters of the GRICS index. They testified to the effectiveness, stability and functional balance of the public administration system of the parliamentary republic. However, as a result of the ineffective policy of the German government led by O. Scholz, starting in 2020, the German economy, once the “locomotive” of the European Union, is experiencing a deep crisis. Contradictions within the ruling coalition of the SPD, the FDP and the Greens have escalated, which collapsed in the fall of 2024, and the country found itself on the verge of early elections caused by the discontent of the broad masses with the policies of the left coalition. On December 17, 2024, the government of O. Scholz in the 158 АКТУАЛЬНЫЕ ПРОБЛЕМЫ ГОСУДАРСТВЕННОГО УПРАВЛЕНИЯ Мухаев Р.Т. Вестник РУДН. Серия: Государственное и муниципальное управление. 2025. Т. 12. № 2. С. 145-163 image Bundestag passed a vote of no confidence and resigned. The built system of state institutions of the “Bonn model”, based on the consensus of political forces, began to fall apart due to the fault of political elites who could not cope with the challenges of the time and betrayed the national interests of the Germans in favor of the interests of the United States. As a result of the parliamentary elections on February 23, 2025, the CDU/CSU bloc of right-wing parties won (28.6%). But it is more noteworthy that the second place was taken by the farright Alternative for Germany (AFD) party, which won in five lands of the former GDR, advocating dialogue with Russia. The French model of public administration is also experiencing a deep crisis. It has not been possible to solve the strategic task of turning the amorphous French society into a cohesive nation, set by E. Macron in his first term of office (2017-2022). Just as E. Macron’s dream of “becoming president of all French people” turned out to be unfeasible, which cannot be made a reality with a trust rating of 31%17. The crisis of the French model was caused by a number of reasons. Firstly, the deliberate policy of the United States to weaken the European economy. Secondly, by the blunders of the political class led by E. Macron, who was captured by the false ambitions of the European elite, who dreamed of inflicting a strategic defeat on Russia in the conflict with Ukraine. Thirdly, the huge benefits for migrants and financial assistance to Ukraine have led to the fact that France’s public debt has exceeded the astronomical amount of 3 trillion euros. The result of these factors was the defeat of the centrist coalition “Together for the Republic” by E. Macron in the early parliamentary elections on June 30 and July 7, 2024, which won only 168 seats out of 577 in the National Assembly. The election was won by the coalition of leftist parties, the New Popular Front (NFP), led by J.L. Melenchon, which won 182 seats in the National Assembly. Nevertheless, Emmanuel Macron exercised his constitutional right to form a government and sworn in a cabinet led by globalist and leftist Michel Barnier, which became a minority government that did not rely on the support of the National Assembly. As a result, he resigned three months later. He was replaced on December 16 by a government led by Francois Bayrou, a proponent of inclusive values and minority rights. The secret of the previous effectiveness of the public administration system of Germany and France is quite simple: it was based on the protection of national interests and cheap energy resources from Russia, which ensured a high standard of living for the population. In conditions of turbulence and without cheap resources, the French and German models of public administration proved unable to mitigate the risks of economic and political instability and integrate society around an attractive image of the future shared by the broad masses of ordinary citizens, image 17 Macron ranked 44th in popularity among French politicians. Regnum. 18.09.2024. URL: https:// regnum.ru/news/3916782 (accessed: 10.15.24) (In Russ.). CURRENT PROBLEMS OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 159 Mukhaev RT. RUDN Journal of Public Administration. 2025;12(2):145-163 image rather than a narrow circle of elites. And the neoliberal agenda of promoting the values of the LGBT18 has completed this decline. Peculiarities of the Russian contemporary public administration system The neoliberal agenda and the green postulates promoted by the governments of France and Germany have led to antagonism between society and government. In contrast, the mobility and effectiveness of the Russian public administration system in the face of Western sanctions is due to the ability of the sovereign democracy model led by President Vladimir Putin. Putin wants to unite the state and society around the goals of achieving all forms of sovereignty, focusing on the realization of national interests, as opposed to the interests of globalist elites, who once set the vector and images of world development. Awareness of national interests, the unity of society and government in Russia occurs in the extreme conditions of military confrontation with the West, when the fate of the Fatherland is being decided. This was a turning point in the history of a country that is gradually finding its future. As practice has shown, the Russian model of public administration, focused on the realization of national interests, proved to be more viable than Western neoliberal democracies, due to the high confidence of the population in the authorities and the ability of the latter to integrate and generate the energy of the masses, the patriotism of citizens for the benefit of society and the creation of the future. The system of public administration based on the “regime of solitude”, in which the President of Russia is removed from the system of separation of powers and forms an independent branch, has significant mobilization potential. By providing strategic leadership to the Government, the President coordinates and ensures closer cooperation between the Cabinet and Parliament. The State Duma of the Russian Federation acts as an institution of representation of interests, where different parties broadcast the requests of their voters. The government in Russia, formed by the President, is not a party government and is designed to reflect the interests of the whole society and implement the course of the head of state. In extreme conditions, the model of vertical sovereign democracy led by President Vladimir Putin, unencumbered by ideological squabbles of party groups, built on the values of patriotism and service to the Fatherland, was able to effectively cope with external and internal challenges. However, the integrity and unity of society cannot be strategically based on an external threat and methods of mobilization. A society can develop dynamically and be internally cohesive if it relies on an attractive image of the future, which will become the inner core of a new democratic Russia. Shaping image 18 The activities of the “International LGBT Social Movement” are recognized as extremist and prohibited in the Russian Federation. 160 АКТУАЛЬНЫЕ ПРОБЛЕМЫ ГОСУДАРСТВЕННОГО УПРАВЛЕНИЯ Мухаев Р.Т. Вестник РУДН. Серия: Государственное и муниципальное управление. 2025. Т. 12. № 2. С. 145-163 image this image of the future is a strategically important goal of the nationally oriented political elite. Its contours are defined in two Decrees of President Vladimir Putin. The traditional values formulated in the Decree of the President of the Russian Federation dated 09.11.2022 No. 809 became the value and ideological guidelines of the national model of Russian democracy “On the approval of the Foundations of state policy for the preservation and strengthening of traditional Russian spiritual and moral values”. Traditional values “include life, dignity, human rights and freedoms, patriotism, citizenship, service to the Fatherland and responsibility for its fate, high moral ideals, a strong family, creative work, the priority of the spiritual over the material, humanism, mercy, justice, collectivism, mutual assistance and mutual respect, historical memory and continuity of generations, unity of the peoples of Russia”19. Acting on their basis, the Russian political system is called upon to realize the national goals of modern development, which are stated in Decree of the President of the Russian Federation dated 05/07/2024 No. 309 “On the national Development Goals of the Russian Federation for the period up to 2030 and for the future up to 2036”. Among them: a) preservation of the population, health promotion and improvement of people’s well-being, family support; b) realizing the potential of each person, developing their talents, and nurturing a patriotic and socially responsible personality; c) a comfortable and safe living environment; 1. environmental well-being; e) sustainable and dynamic economy; f) technological leadership; g) digital transformation of public and municipal administration, economy and social sphere20. Their achievement will make it possible to overcome the identity crisis of a divided society, the origins of which lie in the 80s and 90s of the twentieth century, and to restore Russia’s former greatness as a world center creating a new just world order in which most countries of the Global South and East can live. Conclusion A comparative analysis of the government systems of France (presidentialparliamentary model) and Germany (parliamentary model) revealed that their effectiveness in conditions of turbulence depends not so much on the internal structure as on key parameters and variables: the regime of interaction between the executive and legislative authorities, the legal investiture of the government (the order of formation and accountability), the stability of the parliamentary majority and the ability of elites to defend national interests. The German parliamentary model has historically demonstrated higher performance in the GRICS indices (accountability, stability, control of corruption) due to a consensual regime of cooperation with parliament. However, both models are facing a deep crisis caused by the strategic mistakes of the political elites: sacrificing national interests to the geopolitical ambitions of the United States, neoliberal agenda, economic weakening due to sanctions against Russia, increased budget spending on military, Ukraine and external migrants. This led to the collapse of the ruling coalitions, falling living standards, rising debt, and antagonism between society and government, confirming the thesis that the effectiveness of a government is determined not by its structure, but by the conformity of the political course with national interests and the ability of the elites to protect them. In contrast to the crisis of Western models, the Russian system of public administration (the “vertical of sovereign democracy” headed by the President) has proven its mobilization potential and resilience in the face of Western sanctions and its own reforms. Its power is based on: 1. the “loneliness regime” of the President, which provides strategic leadership and coordination of the branches of government; 2. the unity of society and government around the protection of national interests and sovereignty; 3. orientation towards traditional values (patriotism, family, historical continuity) and 4. the ability to mobilize resources in extreme conditions. The strategic basis for the long-term sustainability and cohesion of Russian society should be not only a response to external threats, but also a positive image of the future, formulated in national development goals. Achieving the goals set in the field of demography, technological leadership, human well-being and digital transformation will help overcome the identity crisis, strengthen sovereignty and position Russia as the center of a new just world order attractive to the countries of the Global South and East.

About the authors

Rashid T. Mukhaev

Plekhanov Russian University of Economics

Author for correspondence.
Email: Muhaev_r@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-5607-8323
SPIN-code: 5429-0650

Doctor of Political Science, Professor, Head of the Department of Political Analysis and Socio-Psychological Processes, Higher School of Social and Humanitarian Sciences

36 Stremyanny lane, Moscow, 115054, Russian Federation

References

Supplementary files