Національна стійкість до демократії: український досвід

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

Кафедра наук про здоров'я Ужгородський національний університет Ужгород, Україна

Національна стійкість до демократії: український досвід

Олена Ласлівна Корольчук

Анотація

стійкість нація демократичний

Актуальність та важливість цього питання зумовлені тим, що забезпечення стійкості нації і країни й сучасного розвитку демократичного суспільства вимагає синергетичної діяльності та ефективного діалогу між органами державної влади та громадянами для розуміння проблем і потреб держави та суспільства, особливо у швидко мінливих турбулентних умовах. Мета цієї статті - визначити основні загрози для України та пояснити визначення національної стійкості, розуміючи, що основою взаємозв'язку між національною безпекою та національною стійкістю є сприйняття людьми цих проблем, включаючи їх зв'язок з урядом та адміністративними органами, установами. Провідним підходом до вивчення цього питання був контент-аналіз, що дозволив надати основні відповіді, відповідно до мети - виявити основні загрози та прояснити концепцію національної стійкості; також використовувались статистичні методи - комбіновані методи збору та обробки даних, такі як узагальнення та систематизація, обробка соціологічної інформації, оцінка закономірностей розподілу, графічний метод тощо. Стаття визначає, що основними загрозами для України серед української студентської молоді є внутрішні виклики управління суспільством, зовнішні загрози територіальній цілісності та економічній небезпеці; водночас оновлюється концепція національної стійкості, підкреслюючи найбільш часто використовувані компоненти, такі як здатність націй та країн успішно долати внутрішні та зовнішні загрози, зберігаючи за такої умови патріотичний дух та національну ідентичність, враховуючи високий рівень якості життя у соціально незалежній країні. Ця стаття має практичне значення для переосмислення поняття «національна безпека» та «національна стійкість» відповідно до їх характеристик, приводячи якість результатів цієї концепції до найбільш задовільної як для держави, так і для її громадянина. Отже, розробка необхідних заходів стійкості в Україні може бути спрямована; результати статті можуть бути використані науковцями, практиками, державними службовцями, громадянським суспільством для розробки та впровадження цієї концепції в Україні та стати основою для подальшого вивчення цієї концепції в інших демократичних країнах

Ключові слова: сприйняття загроз, державне управління в Україні, безпека національної оборонної сфери, економічна криза, соціально-політичні процеси

Olena L. Korolchuk

Department of Health Sciences Uzhhorod National University Uzhhorod, Ukraine

National resilience in democracy: ukrainian experience

Abstract

The actuality and importance of this issue are due to the fact that ensuring resilience of the nation and the country and modern development of democratic societies requires synergistic activities and effective dialogue between public authorities and citizens to understand the problems and needs of the state and society, especially under rapidly changing turbulent conditions. The purpose of this article is to identify the main threats to Ukraine and clarify the definition of national resilience, understanding that the basis of the interface between national security and national resilience is the human perception of these problems, including their relationship to the government and administrative institutions. The leading approach to the study of this issue was content analysis, which allowed to provide the main answers, in accordance with the goal - to identify the main threats and clarify the concept of national resilience; statistical methods were also used - combined methods of data collection and processing, such as generalization and systematization, processing of sociological information, assessment of distribution patterns, graphical method, etc. The article reveals that the main threats to Ukraine among the Ukrainian student youth are considered to be the internal challenges of governing society, external threats to territorial integrity and economic danger; at the same time, we update the concept of national resilience, emphasizing the most commonly used components, such as the ability of nations and countries to successfully overcome internal and external threats, while maintaining patriotic spirit and national identity, given the high level in quality of life in a socially independent country. This article has practical value for rethinking the term “national security” and “national resilience”, according to their characteristics, bringing the quality of the results of this concept to the most satisfactory for both the state and its citizen. Thus, the development of necessary measures of resilience in Ukraine can be directed; the results of the article can be used by scientists, practitioners, government officials, civil society for the development and implementation of this concept in Ukraine and be a basis for further study of this concept in other democracies

Keywords: threats perception, public management in Ukraine, national defence sphere safety, crisis economic, socio-political processes

Introduction

Modern characteristics of risks, challenges and threats (hereinafter - stressors) variability, unpredictability, combination, hybridity, complexity and ambiguity of their consequences have made the issues of prevention, control, increased preparedness to meet them and eliminate the consequences of their occurrence extremely relevant for countries, so for their population. Increasingly, the number and significance of the impact of stressors already exceeds the adaptive capacity of countries and nations, so the development of resilience is among the most important tasks of scientists and managers in the world. It is time to realize that the world has changed, the situation has changed, both globally and locally - humanity has reached a new level of development, where we will have to live in new conditions and circumstances, to play by new rules. The world has changed - we can fight it, deny it or wait for the return of the “status quo”, but it is better for us to be “ready to live with a lower level of security, without ceasing to fight for the necessary level of freedom” [1]. Modern crisis economic and socio-political processes in Ukraine have revealed acute problems in the development of our society, which have resulted from both general globalization challenges and special national contradictions. The shortcomings related to the actual lack of a social development strategy in the context of maintaining stability, ensuring stability and balance have become clearer [2].

Factors of instability and inhibition of progressive development that complicate management processes in Ukraine include: unsatisfactory level of management efficiency of socio-economic and security processes; inconsistency in making and inefficiency in the implementation of management decisions; low level of public trust in public authorities and state institutions and organizations; complication of people's living conditions, impoverishment of the population and growth of social imbalances, etc. The situation is aggravated by the fighting in the east of the country, the Joint Forces operation; growth of forced migration; destruction of infrastructure and territories; formation of separatist sentiments”, etc. [3], intensified aggression in society and deterioration of the social climate, suffering of mental health, socialization disorders, etc.

Thus, since the occupation of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, the coming of military and the beginning of undeclared hostilities on the part of the Russian Federation, Ukraine has received one of the world's most important stressors - war and terrorism, disturbing the peace, threatening the state and democracy. Therefore, the issue of formation and development of national resilience is important and relevant for the country and the nation. The basis for the formation of an effective strategy for sustainable development of Ukraine as a European, democratic, independent state in modern conditions of turbulence and uncertainty should be a single general concept of development of the country and nation, the basic principles and purpose of which will be included in all policies. In Ukraine today, the expediency of introducing the term “resilience” is still controversial, as domestic scholars consider using the concepts of “national stability”, “national security”. We are convinced that the use of resilience is an extremely important issue for the Ukrainian scientific community to address today.

In the domestic scientific space M.M. Bilynska and O.L. Korolchuk [4; 5] first proposed to define national resilience as the ability of the social system to build a normal, full life in difficult conditions, the ability of society to withstand challenges and crises in various spheres of public life by making changes and adapting without harm. for the basic values of society and institutions. At the same time, they note that “national resilience” is also an element of society's ability to strengthen national security, and cannot be limited by military, economic or medical-psychological aspects”. We add and emphasize that resilience is equal to the preserved ability to move forward, to develop productively under any conditions and influences.

Thus, the aim of this article is the same - “to bridge the macro-level conceptualization of “national resilience” and micro-level perceptions of individuals” [6]. We explore citizen's national resilience percetion in war and terror- experienced Ukrainian democracy, suggesting a revisioned definition of national resilience in Ukraine. To this end, we first present a comprehensive review of the definitions of the concept “resilience” at both the individual and the national levels in Ukraine. Second, we describe our analysis which examines the perceptions and self-definitions of national resilience national resilience among Ukrainian youth. Also, we explore citizen's threat perception and define three main threats for Ukraine and Ukrainians. Finally, we discuss our results and suggest theoretical and practical implications as well as acknowledge limitations of the current research.

Materials and methods

In order to study the meaning of the national resilience for Ukrainian democracy and to establish a prototype of national perception, we have gathered an understanding of this among Ukrainian students - how they think of national resilience using quality methods. Participants were recruited from the classical civil and military National universities. Permission to conduct research involving humans and their data were received, reviewed and approved by the Ethics Committee of the National Academy of public administration under the President of Ukraine. The use of open questions allowed us to establish a conceptual definition of national resilience both among civilian and military groups of student youth. It should be noted that this is the first time we have conducted such a study on the territory of modern Ukraine. The sample consisted of three hundred and ninety-six respondents and included women (45.4%) and men (54.6%). Among the respondents, almost thirty-seven percent (36.9%) have a military specialization and, along with sixty-three percent of students (63.1%) receive other civilian professions. Most students of civilian universities study including such areas as “Finance, banking and insurance”, “legal” and “pedagogical” direction. The average age of respondents was 22 years. Although our data may differ from the characteristics of the entire population, they characterize the opinion of the student youth in Ukraine. The study was conducted during 2017-2018. Two versions of the questionnaires were developed - paper and electronic, which included a list of closed and open questions. For this publication, we used the important results, of the answers to two questionnaires.

Each questionnaire included two open-ended questions: 1. “In your opinion, what are the three biggest threats to modern Ukraine?” and 2. “In your opinion, what is the national resilience definition in Ukraine?”. The procedure for analyzing both questions was to select the most common answers, group similar statements ranking and form the results of the study - the formulation of answers to achieve the goal of the study. Also, combined data collection methods were used: computerized online interview CAWI (Computer Assisted Web Interviewing), developed using the functionality of the GoogleSurvey platform, and PAPI method (Pen-and-Paper Personal Interview) using a paper interview form. Data array processing was performed in the software environment IBM SPSS 18 (license code d91d9caec9c8f306c0fa).

The method of content analysis was used to analyze the results and summarize the answers of respondents to achieve the goal - to identify the main threats and clarify the concept of national resilience. The analysis of the first question allowed us to rank and identify the priority of threats that modern student youth in Ukraine feels for their country. Using methods of statistical processing of information, we grouped the responses, as a result of which we formed five main groups of threats, to which we attributed the most frequently used responses of respondents. While the analyzed information on the second question allowed to study the mood of the respondent students and to establish a prototype of national resilience - how it is felt, perceived by young people today. Combinations of statistical methods were also used, such as generalization and systematization of data, processing of sociological information (coding, logical control), estimation of regularities of data distribution, nonparametric methods of research of interrelation, graphic method.

Results

The analysis of the results of the survey of student youth in Ukraine on their understanding of the main threats in the presence of which modern Ukraine lives and operates showed: studying the threats prescribed by respondents, we obtained a list of 331 positions, which are divided into 5 groups - presented in Table 1.

Table 1. Distribution of respondents' answers to the question “What, in your opinion, are the three biggest threats to modern Ukraine?” by gender and specialization of study, %

According to the data obtained, the vast majority of respondents believe that the main challenges facing modern Ukraine are:

Internal challenges of governing a society: corruption and bribery in the highest echelons of power, incompetence and inaction of politicians, lawlessness and impunity - as a norm, the threat of civil war, as well as public indifference (lack of patriotism, mentality) and loss of Ukrainian culture, spiritual decline - 42.5%;

External threats to territorial integrity: military aggression by the Russian Federation, the threat of terrorism, the presence of illegal weapons “on-hand” - 26.2%;

Economic danger: unemployment, economic imbalance, threat of default, devaluation of the hryvnia, financial dependence on other countries, including the presence of external debt - 17.4%.

In addition, as the threats to the country are also considered: (4) slowdown in socio-humanitarian development of society associated with poverty (starvation), depopulation, labor migration, the development of incurable diseases and the spread of bad habits, poor quality of medical and educational services, social support, as well as (5) deterioration of the environmental situation - these factors were noted by 13.9% and 4.0% of respondents, respectively. Some (16.5%) of respondents could not identify any threat to the country.

Among the selected groups of factors that form the main threats to modern Ukraine, it should be noted that the largest percentage of respondents are concerned about military aggression by the Russian Federation - about a quarter of all respondents. At the same time, every fifth man (20.8%) and those in the military (21.3%) consider the spread of corruption and bribery the greatest threat to Ukraine. The economic crisis is a high threat among women and civil servants (16-17%) (Table 1). The analysis also showed that there is some differentiation in the distribution of responses among men and women, as presented in (Fig. 1).

Figure 1. Distribution of respondents' answers by sex to the main threats to modern Ukraine, in % among those who decided to answer

Source: Calculated by the author according to the survey data

As we can see from Figure 1, the three main threats to modern Ukraine are the same for both women and men. However, the distribution of respondents is different. Thus, 49.1% of surveyed men consider the internal challenges of society to be the most important threat. The corresponding share among women is 15 percentage points lower and is at 34.1%. At the same time, 47.1% of women consider external threats to territorial integrity and economic danger to be critical, while the corresponding percentage of support among men is 40.8%. Note that the similarity coefficient of gender distribution structures is 86.9%. 98.6% of young people receiving military education are men. Therefore, it is obvious that the distribution of answers of respondents by specialization of education, repeats the trends of distribution of answers by gender (Fig. 2).

Figure 2. Distribution of respondents' answers to the main threats to modern Ukraine depending on the specialization of education, in % among those who decided to answer

Source: Calculated by the author according to the survey data

Thus, among the military, one in two sees danger in the internal challenges of governing the state, and one in four - external threats to the territorial integrity of the country. On the other hand, among the representatives of civil specialization, the positions are supported by 34.7% and 27.2%, respectively. At the same time, every fifth civilian (20.6%) considers the economic danger to be one of the most important threats, while among the military the corresponding percentage is 12.7%. The coefficient of similarity of distribution structures by specialization of education is 80.8%.

Content analysis of the given definitions of national resilience allows us to draw such conclusions that the youth understands national resilience, as the ability of the nation (people, citizens) to maintain balance - to experience troubles (both internal and external) and to accept and resist crises, adapt to new, changed conditions, remaining calm (stable, enduring) and, most importantly, patriotic (united, acting side by side, preserving their own idea and freedom), with faith in a better future. Furthermore, it can be concluded that the crisis conditions (as the most commonly used words in the definitions by Ukrainian youth) include war, occupation of Ukrainian territories and external military aggression by the Russian Federation and imperfection of power and governance (crises in various spheres, corruption, inaction).

In summary, we emphasize that analyzing the answers of the respondents, it can be noted that most of the answers link national resilience with the ability of the country, nation, people to cope with any problems. Also, we should emphasize that the living and working conditions of every Ukrainian are important for the formation of national resilience. The shortest answer was “side-by-side struggle” and “confidence in the future”. Among the longest - “This is when a nation can and is able to adapt to radical changes in any area of life, and that stimulates it to develop new skills to solve new problems that the nation has not faced before. In order for a nation to be stress-resistant, it must know that its state can provide support in any situation, there must be a national spirit so that people can be united to overcome everything together”.

As was expected, the respondents included psychological and political components in the definitions, as well as the psychological component, individual resilience, which is the most commonly used element in defining national resilience. Trust in state institutions as those that should provide certain conditions, resolve internal issues, inspire patriotism and optimism, encourage unity - have become important components that are often used in the definitions of respondents.

Let us assume that the definition of national resilience should include: - the ability of the nation and the country to successfully combat internal and external threats (crises, war, failure of government and administration, economic, humanitarian and other spheres) while maintaining the patriotic spirit and national identity, as well as providing the state with a high level and quality of life of its people (opportunities to develop and be healthy) and maintaining its own social basis and independence intact.

Discussion

The Concept of Resilience

Since the beginning of the XXI century, humanity has been analyzing the stressors associated with modernity, hybridity, war and terrorism, learning to anticipate, prevent and combat their consequences. At the same time, the concept of resilience began to be studied in the context of the ability to resist and develop under the influence of such a severe stressor as terrorism. The destructiveness of terrorism worldwide has yet to obliterate people's motivation to survive and to thrive. Individuals, as well as communities, are characterized by the ability to overcome adversity, often referred to as resilience [7-9].

In this article we will not study the nature and formation of the term resilience, understanding its controversy and lack of uniform interpretation, even today, we will limit ourselves to the general understanding that resilience is the ability of a person or social system to build a normal, full life in difficult, stressful conditions. [7; 10-13]. This term requires study, scientific substantiation; - is a consequence of successful individual self-regulation and the ability to function effectively during traumatic events [14; 15], and the ability to restore internal balance, or stable functioning after injury, misfortune or failure. There are a number of features designed to help people overcome adversity [16], and a positive trajectory of adjustment after stress [17], which creates the conditions for successful adaptation and continued effective operation. In other words, after the impact of a traumatic event, the resident person quickly recovers, or does not develop psychological or psychosomatic disorders [7; 18; 19].

The above definitions allow us to summarize that resilience is both the result of appropriate correction after the onset of stressors, and the process that occurs during the appearance and influence of the stressor, and/or after its action. We agree with the authors that the consideration and examination of such a process should include the study at the national level of perceptions of the affected population of socio-psychological aspects that may lead to the ability of the population to mitigate the consequences of such disasters [6]. It is worth noting that conceptually, we consider resilience to be broader than resilience, risk and threat, because it means resistance - the ability to protect integrity under conditions of strong stressors or their combined effects, and, importantly, the ability to continue quality life under new, stressful conditions and continue to evolve.

In this article we rising up a question of the national resilience nature, and how it is perceived within democracies, as was done by our colleagues from Israel - their theoretical substantiation and the conducted research formed the basis of our research in Ukraine. We do not intend to question the nature of national resilience, but we want to describe its perception in the conditions of modern Ukrainian democracy in order to highlight certain recommendations for Ukraine.

The Role of the Stressors

The modern world is full of stressors that affect people, nations and countries every day. These include man-made disasters, natural disasters, as manifestations of incessant climate change, economic failures, social crises, wars, cyberattacks, terrorism. The losses from the action of such stressors are enormous - material, financial, infrastructural, etc., and, especially, the most important resource, the most powerful potential of countries, nations - people - suffers from blows. At the same time, the number of cases is constantly growing, they become more powerful, combining and changing, have a complex and unpredictable impact, causing turbulence in the living conditions of countries and nations. In the sociological and psychological literature, the concepts of danger associated with the concept of anxiety and fear, which is due to the natural course of life: for example, to distinguish between threat and danger is very difficult, because man in today's world is constantly in danger because there is no confidence, and social stability has been replaced by constant uncertainty, under which stressors are extremely common.

U. Beck emphasized that modern society carries many risks and dangers of a global nature, from which neither the poor nor the rich are insured [20]. Analyzing the works of the classics of sociology on the topic of security / danger T Shypunova [21] considers two types of danger: 1) threat as a danger (risk) to the body, life, well-being and freedom (ontological threat - insecurity); 2)

danger in the perception and assessment of these threats as epistemological uncertainty (uncertainty). Another classic of sociology, dealing with issues of risk, danger and safety is N. Luhmann. He emphasized that modern societies are societies of predominant risk, due to their complexity and opacity, uncertainty and uncertainty, covering almost all spheres of life [22].

The source of the dangers that undermine the stability and stability of modern society, create a danger to human existence are various processes of both social and natural nature, and therefore they are divided into the following types: natural (earthquakes, floods, hurricanes, tsunami, etc.); environmental (environmental pollution, global warming); epidemiological (various epidemics, the spread of which in the context of globalization is a serious threat to public health - for example, previously unknown to mankind epidemics, bird flu, swine flu, COVID infections, etc.); man-made (catastrophes, explosions, fires, etc.); social (wars, terrorist attacks, various social conflicts caused by tensions in the field of interethnic, socio-political, religious relations, as well as related to the growth of social stratification, poverty, crime, deviance in society, etc.); socio- psychological threats associated with various mental disorders, decreased social and mental well-being of the population, increasing aggression, cruelty, indifference, social apathy in society, etc. [23].

It is well known that the feeling of danger by its psychological nature is closely related to the feeling of anxiety - such an emotional state that arises in situations of uncertainty and danger, characterized by the expectation of undesirable developments. The problem of feeling safe / dangerous is also social, as the main reasons for its occurrence are often social factors. Using a sociological approach, social risk factors include: the political and economic situation in the country; level of social stratification; social contradictions (employment, unemployment); demographic factors (including migration); crime rate and law enforcement activities; condition of roads and infrastructure; level of education and medical care; the level of spiritual and cultural life of the population. Sources of potential dangers and their affecting factors for humans - phenomena, processes, objects, properties that can, under certain conditions, harm human health or life or systems that ensure its vital functions. Everyone intuitively senses danger and understands its significance in their own way. According to UN experts, most people associate the feeling of danger with everyday problems and worries, and do not base it on fears of global catastrophes or international conflicts.

The feeling of danger also has a deeply individual tone, which mainly depends on: a) the level of social and spiritual development of the individual; b) situations and social order that positively or negatively affect the worldview of the citizen [24]. In identifying hazards, it is necessary to proceed from the principle of “everything affects everything”, i.e. the source of danger can be all living and non-living, and all living and non-living things can also be subject to danger. Sources (carriers) of dangers are [24] 1) natural processes and phenomena; 2) elements of the technogenic environment; 3) human actions that lead to threat of danger.

Dangers are characterized by constant existence in space and time; implementation in the form of flows of energy, matter and information; do not act selectively, and when they arise, affect the entire material environment. The reasons why some objects do not suffer from certain dangers, or some suffer more and others less, are called the properties of the objects themselves. The list of possible dangers in the literature includes more than 150 items and is not considered complete. It is important to develop measures to prevent and overcome the negative consequences, so there is a need to identify, analyze both the actual stressors, hazards and sources that cause them, and clarifying factors that directly affect the person.

Sources of man-made hazards are called objects of material and cultural environment related to human impact; social - low spiritual and cultural level, which is often associated with unsatisfactory financial condition, poor living conditions and activities (strikes, uprisings, revolutions, conflict situations on ethnic, ethnic, religious grounds, etc.); sources of political dangers - conflicts at the international and interstate levels, spiritual oppression, political terrorism, ideological conflicts, wars, etc. Still, it should be borne in mind that most modern sources of danger are of a combined nature, such as: natural and manmade - smog, acid rain, dust storms, deserts and frost; natural and social - drug addiction, epidemics of infectious diseases, etc.; socio-technogenic - occupational injuries and morbidity, mental disorders and diseases caused by the impact on consciousness and subconscious (media and / or special technical means, drugs, etc.). In addition, a significant factor is the hybridization of modern stressors and hazards.

We live in a world of major geopolitical shifts and life-changing technological innovations ... From the rise of nationalism, to increased demands for privacy, following widespread data leaks; from balancing growing human needs with planetary and environmental limits, to the impacts of sophisticated automation on people's lives... to take responsible action that brings about a stable, sustainable and peaceful world [25]. It should be emphasized that humanity today daily fights and confronts the growing number and variety of natural and anthropogenic man-made stressors and catastrophes and the spread of deadly viruses and bacteria; global economic, social, political crises; the inability of international organizations to ensure global peace, and so on. A clear characteristic of modern risks and threats is variability, compatibility and uncertainty, which can ever worsen current trends [26] and provoke unknown consequences. In recent decades, the issue of ensuring resilience to the challenges of national security in a democracy, such as terrorism and political violence, has become important in the world [6]. According to US State Department experts, global terrorism is intentional, politically motivated violence perpetrated by substate groups or illegal agents involved in hostilities to influence the relevant audience [27]. Terrorism is defined as:

“any type of political violence that does not have adequate moral and legal justification, regardless of who resorts it - a revolutionary group or government” and as “political extremism involving violence against innocent individuals” [28];

or through the prism of rationalism and consistency, as a “intimidating, clearly calculated attempt to use violence to achieve certain goals” [29];

“as a danger to the social and political stability of States, a threat to the global development of democratic structures, and an assault on the safety and individual freedoms of citizens, and called on all States to adopt appropriate measures to tackle terrorism and its social, political and economic causes” [30];

“as a threat to democracy, human rights and society” [30];

characterized as one that “leads to the destruction of the civilian population and the corresponding conquest of territories” [31];

the modern feature of the terrorist threat in the context of globalization is considered to be that “their result is the growth of violence in the world and the spread of the idea of violence and violence in society” [32].

We agree that terrorism damages the most valuable potential and resource of the world - people: “the very feeling of danger creates new challenges in the functioning of all spheres of public life” [33], “terrorism is so strongly linked to the truth. It appeals to our emotions, to our feelings, instead of rational thinking” [1]. Terrorism does more than kill the innocent: It undermines democratic governments, even in mature democracies like those in the United States and much of Europe. The fear terrorism generates can distort public debates, discredit moderates, empower political extremes, and polarize societies. An array of actors, including governments, international institutions, and civil society can decrease the scale and scope of terrorist violence and mitigate its most dangerous political effects [34]. Finally, political leaders should emphasize societal resilience in order to decrease the psychological impact of terrorism.

The unprecedented nature of stressors and the unprecedented nature of their combined effects, the turbulence they encourage to develop, have brought the issue of resilience as a concept that explains the issues of individual and national stability, stability and security in general. At present, there is still no single interpretation of the essence of the term “resilience” and “national resilience”, which is due to: 1) relatively short study time; 2) study in different branches of science and in different vectors, respectively, distinguishing different subjects and objects of research, etc. But it is clear that the national resilience, in association with national security and stability of development, necessarily depends on the level of resilience of its population - individual resilience. The feeling of insecurity and closeness to military events, terrorism traumatizes society, and interpretations of terrorist acts change the perception of the world by man, the perception of threats. Psychologically resilient individuals usually perceive the world in a meaningfully predictable, controlled environment.

Studies conducted in Israel [9; 35; 36] and in South Africa [37] showed that people who are exposed to severe psychological stress, in response to traumatic events, tend to see the world more threatening, unpredictable and dangerous, those who have not been traumatized, individual interpretation of reality, will see the world more positive Thus, we agree that in democracies, where issues of national security and national resilience are closely interlinked, psychological and political perceptions play an important role in absorbing stress and quickly returning to the “norm” of external threats. threats will be personal relationships (such as optimism) and political relationships (e.g., patriotism and trust in government institutions) [6].

Individual and societal level after the influence of stressors, which help management to address issues of national security and resilience. At the human level, optimistic characteristics indicate faster and more effective adaptation to changing conditions, the ability to cope with threats, perceiving less dangerous). This is due to the fact that optimism reflects the reassurance of thoughts, the ability to expect and seek new ideas and solutions, etc., and in the face of constant real threats and influence of terror, optimism is seen as an individual socio-cognitive attitude to the world - optimists are better adapted to stress conditions, showing greater resilience.

In this regard, interesting research was conducted by a team of scientists from Israel and America, which inspired us to apply the same in Ukraine. The research is based on the understanding that national resilience is provided mainly by national security and resilience of people, respectively, is also determined by the feeling of stressors and the perception and attitude of the population to government, government agencies and more. As a result, the authors proved that the basis of perception of the definition of national resilience is also provided by the political and psychological characteristics of citizens such as threat perception, optimism, patriotism and trust in government agencies. The result of this study was the reconceptualization of the term “national resilience”, which we repeated in Ukraine.

The Concept of National Resilience

The most modern theories aimed at solving problems of prevention and overcoming stressors, catastrophes are looking for mechanisms that will be able to ensure the stability of life processes of countries and people in crisis - to overcome difficulties, change, continue to develop. It is not just about adaptation, but about innovation, creativity and real change of imperatives and patterns to provide the ability, opportunities, resources to tackle the big challenges of our time. Therefore, national resilience issues are becoming increasingly important. This, again, emphasizes and emphasizes the importance of research on the development of national resilience in the world and in Ukraine in particular. Adequate counteraction to modern hybrid threats can be ensured only if cooperation between state institutions, civil society organizations, business, media, IT sector and all other stakeholders is established, as complex stressors need a public response. Therefore, in order to apply a set of measures to make a public response, it is necessary to create a scientifically sound concept and strategy that can cope with this task.

Today, even in Ukraine, anthropogenic crises, such as terrorism, wars, which spread human suffering and turn people's lives upside down, have become more frequent. “This is, above all, a human crisis that calls for solidarity. The creativity of the response must match the unique nature of the crisis - and the magnitude of the response must match its scale” [38]. There are already good developments in the initial stages of national resilience development in the world - concepts have been formulated, sets of policies, practices and decisions affecting its formation have been developed and implemented at various levels, applied on a special basis (state security, prevention and reduction of natural disasters, etc.) with a mandatory set of specific data, information support, coordination and cooperation of organizations, territories, authorities. national resilience was defined as the resilient ability of a community to resist and recover from adversity (economic stresses, pandemics, cataclysms), as a paradigm shift in emergency preparedness... which emphasizes strengths, not just a description of vulnerabilities / weaknesses [3; 39; 40].

Modern complex and traumatic living conditions of the world, which are stimulators of activity and relevance of the formation and improvement of HP, are in a wide range from natural (floods, hurricanes, earthquakes, forest fires, etc.) to anthropogenic (wars, disasters, cyber and terrorist attacks). hybrid effects, etc.). The catastrophic events of September 11, 2001, combined with the chronic threat of terrorism and the widening threat of war (such as the threats from North Korea and Iraq), dramatically changed Americans' attitudes toward perceptions, threats, and invulnerability - more often than not, the impact of terrorist attacks known as collective trauma [41-44]. This determines the importance of the term “resilience” not only in the psychological literature, but also in modern political discourse [45]. Since the events of 2014, the Revolution of Dignity, the annexation of Crimea and the military intervention of the Russian Federation on the territory of Ukraine, the country and its citizens have also changed their attitudes to the processes of ensuring the national resilience.

The five main components of national resilience include: physical and psychological health, social and economic justice and well-being, effective communication with risks, integration of organizations (governmental and nongovernmental), and social connectedness [39]. F.H. Norris and the author define national resilience as a set of network adaptive opportunities for economic development, information and communications, community competence and social capital [17]. I Nuvayhid, H. Zurayuk, R. Yamoce, C. Kortas [40] believe that national resilience is a process rather than a result in which collective identity, prior experience with an adverse event, and established social support networks contribute to increasing national resilience over time. In addition, community cohesion, social solidarity and associated political leadership affect the quality of national resilience after a negative event [39].

The concept of national resilience has emerged in the literature as a recognition that the power of a nation should be valued - as military and political-psychological potential [46; 47]; as a process of adaptation and “absorption” of stressors or changes caused by an external threat; as the ability of society to withstand stressors and crises in various fields, by making changes and adaptations without compromising the core values of society and institutions [48]. The level of national resilience is seen in two different ways: 1) as the ability of society to meet challenges with its intact values and institutions [47], 2) as adjustments and adaptations that help “close the gap” between current tensions and community needs; its capabilities [49; 50]. In addition, at the national level, under new behavioral patterns, emerge, 3) as a response to the threat, new political and social relations that can characterize the country's ability to overcome crises and conflicts [13; 51]. Such relationships are considered measurable indicators of patriotism, optimism, social integration and political trust [6]. These four indicators are a practical dimension of the national resilience formed in terms of social capital. We support the idea that national resilience should also be measured in terms of political and psychological attitudes, as this affects the strength of democracy and trust.

The authors of the work “What does national resilience mean in a democracy? Evidence from the United States and Israel” highlighting the importance of applying the political and psychological component of national resilience in research strategy. Based on this, we support their position that national resilience is the ability of society or citizens to withstand stressors and crises in any area of society and the state by making changes and adaptations without damaging their own core values and institutions [52]. The United States and Israel are two Western democracies that have been under threat of terrorism for decades. Today, Ukraine is also in a number of countries where terrorist attacks and military events disrupt the daily life of society. These threats are too influential in terms of behavioral consequences, which can increase the ability of democratic societies to resist stressors.

It is important to emphasize that, without a doubt, political relations also have an impact on communities and the country's ability to cope with threats and endure hardships. For example, when assessing the response to a potential terrorist attack or initiating an operation against terrorists, public perception must be taken into account, as it allows decision-makers to assess the population's ability to tolerate a new round of violence. Such public perception is trust in government [6]. For example, the influence of terror has led to higher levels of patriotism among Americans [17]. Such high levels of patriotism and love for the country among citizens reflect a willingness to sacrifice for the sake of the country, to live under rocket fire, as the experience of Israel has shown [41-44], and available support for military responses to terror. Such data on the assessment of psychological and political consequences show the level of adaptability to new threatening situations of citizens in democratic societies. Such adaptation - behavioral and cognitive characteristics - is the basis of resilience. Based on a study of the perception of national resilience in a democracy among Israeli and American students [41-44; 53; 54], we conducted successful research and received results among the student youth of Ukraine. The comparison of the United States with Israel was due to two factors: 1 - both countries are Western democracies, 2 - both are under constant threat of terrorist attacks, which inevitably affects the political and psychological perceptions of the national resilience and security.

Today in Ukraine there is no common vision and coordination strategy for shaping and ensuring national resilience; this problem is only included in the list of important political decisions and trends in the future development of public administration. It is important today for Ukraine to form, develop and implement full-scale measures for the development of national resilience, applying its paradigm as a strategic imperative for the development of public administration. This requires basic research in this direction [3].

Thus, national resilience is: 1. - an indicator of society's ability to withstand stressors, threats, while maintaining integrity - intact values and institutions; 2. - progress, moving forward, through overcoming stressors, threats and their consequences, continuing productive life in new conditions and the development of society based on behavioral adaptation in changed, new conditions. National resilience is more broadly defined as a response to threats to social development through the formation of new political and social relations that characterize the country's ability to overcome crises and conflicts. The concept of national resilience should be extended to include political and psychological components. In a democratic society, aspects such as trust in government and public institutions, patriotism and tolerance play an important role in political participation and social capital, which in turn leads to higher levels of national resilience [4].

Conclusions

Definitions of the term national resilience include military and political, economic and environmental, etc. aspects based on the main macro-level factors. We propose to integrate them with factors at the micro-level, in particular, including psychological and political ideas - people's perception of the definition of this term in Ukraine. Such a combination will provide an important component - real public participation, which is a key element of democratic societies, in defining the concept of national resilience for Ukraine and will add activity to the establishment of a constructive dialogue among government, administration and society.

It was found that it is important for Ukrainian student youth to ensure national resilience. The analysis also showed that young people consider issues of internal order, the efficiency of government and administration - corruption, inaction and impunity, as well as indifference, lack of patriotism the most threatening. Issues of national security and protection from external threats (war, terrorism, etc.) play an important role. Then there are the dangers of the economic crisis, socio-humanitarian development of society. It is proved that the national resilience is a dynamic process, not a static phenomenon, should be constantly checked and updated, synchronized to the realities of the life of the country and nation. It is important to note that such a study helps to evaluate the ability of democratic societies (including Ukraine) to set realistic goals for success in recovering from the impact of hazards through the action of stressors and crises. Issues of governing and control, terrorism, and military action are not the only threats of the modern democratic world, but, unfortunately, are strong stressors for Ukrainian realities. For example, our analysis showed that after internal problems related to the governing of the state, the largest threats people think of are external threats, including war and terrorism. The next place is occupied by problems of the economic crisis and the slowdown in social development.