Historical assessment of the democratic political regime

In the modern world, the democratic foundations of public administration are recognized and ensured to varying degrees in all developed and developing countries. At the same time, the political regime in question should not be idealized, recognizing it as an unconditional good, as indicated, among other things, by ambiguous historical assessments of democracy.

In particular, it is known that the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle, in whose works much attention was paid to the study of forms of government and the search for the most optimal of them, depending on the characteristics of the government system, classified democracy as a “bad” form of government, drawing attention to the fact that absolute power people, regardless of property status, education of citizens, etc. (the power of the “rabble”) does not meet the needs of the progressive effective development of the state, since, ultimately, the corresponding power is used primarily in personal rather than public interests.

In the Middle Ages and Modern times, attitudes towards democracy gradually changed, including in connection with the increase in literacy of the population and the improvement of the political culture of citizens, and, gradually, democracy ceased to be considered a “bad” form of government, while representatives of various political trends remained ambiguous towards it Sciences.

In addition, even among major statesmen, democracy was not always recognized as an absolute good.

Example 1

For example, the statement of a British statesman and political figure of the 20th century is widely known. Winston Churchill, who called democracy the “worst” form of government, to the exclusion of all other forms developed by mankind.

In other words, the attitude towards democracy can be characterized as ambiguous, but nevertheless, according to W. Churchill, world political science has not come up with anything better.

In this regard, it seems appropriate to consider the positive and negative aspects of a democratic political regime, based on the content of which it is possible to form a holistic view and develop one’s own attitude towards the form of state organization in question.

General characteristics of the positive and negative aspects of democracy

Moving on to consider the issue of the pros and cons of a democratic political regime, first of all, you should pay attention to the fact that, regardless of the features that will be described below, true democracy helps to maintain political stability while minimizing the use of coercive mechanisms on the part of the state. In many respects, this becomes possible due to the fact that in democratic conditions there is a stable, transparent feedback between government decisions and the population of the country, reflecting criticism or support of relevant decisions from citizens.

An analysis of the specialized literature allows us to conclude that among the positive aspects of democratic government are:

• Recognition at the highest legislative level and real guarantee of natural, inalienable rights and freedoms of the individual;
• Ensuring the formal equality of citizens, that is, the equality of their position before the law and the court, regardless of property and social status;
• Providing opportunities and real support for the active participation of the country's population in its political life;
• Gradual formation of effective mechanisms of public control and self-government;
• Reasonable limitation of state power necessary to prevent its absoluteness;
• The existence of conditions for the constant renewal of power structures, the rejection of the unreasonable use of violence on their part as a way of resolving political issues;
• A clear distribution of functions between government bodies, in the context of a functioning system of separation of powers, which presupposes effective mechanisms of checks and balances, to prevent the concentration of all government power in one hand.

Note 1

At the same time, it is noted that even a fully formed democratic regime is distinguished by the presence of a number of negative features, including the actual lack of real equality of opportunity for political parties and citizens, despite their legal proclamation; the dependence of decisions made on lobbying on the part of large industrialists, the persistence of a corruption component, and often also the weakness of the mechanisms of public control over the nomination of candidates to government bodies.

Pros and cons of different forms of democracy

The positive and negative aspects of democracy in general were discussed above, regardless of what specific form we are talking about. At the same time, the literature emphasizes that direct and representative democracies, as the main types of the political regime under consideration, are also distinguished by the presence of strengths and weaknesses.

For example, among the disadvantages of direct democracy, it is customary to name the difficulty of making coordinated decisions in large social groups, often also the lack of competence and excessive emotionality of the population in the process of making politically significant decisions, and the associated high susceptibility of public consciousness to manipulation by professional politicians .

In turn, the strengths of direct democracy are the direct participation of the people in the development and adoption of important decisions, providing the opportunity to improve the political culture of citizens, etc.

In turn, the negative aspects of representative democracy can be called:

• Separation of government bodies and their specific representatives from voters;
• Expanding opportunities for influence by powerful pressure groups;
• Weakening of genuine democratic control;

The advantages of representative democracy are:

• High competence of persons making government decisions;
• Increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of political activities, etc.

Developed countries consider themselves democratic. It is customary to identify welfare and economic achievements with it. During election debates, politicians from the stands use it as a tool to attract votes. Is democracy as good as journalists describe it?

general description

Every citizen participates in government decision-making. The people are the main source of power, and deputies represent their interests.

Main features:

1. Freedom of speech and self-determination.
2. Personal human rights.
3. Social equality.

Democracy arose in Ancient Greece, and changed forms over the centuries. Until the 18th century, the government of the state was carried out by people's assemblies, where the minority was subject to the decisions of the majority. Then this method lost its relevance. Delegation emerged, in which people entrusted leadership to monarchs chosen by open vote. This approach has been preserved to this day.

The goal of democracy is limiting the arbitrariness of managers. The antithesis is a dictatorship, a political system where power belongs to one party and the opinions of others are not taken into account.

Today, the number of functioning democratic institutions is the largest in history, but they remain the subject of debate among political scientists.

Advantages

• Human rights. Freedom of speech is a great achievement in recent years. The Constitution protects the interests of all segments of society, assigning to each citizen a number of rights, including: the right to life, inviolability of home, inadmissibility of violence, self-determination and others. No one will force you to act against your will. The document consists of 137 provisions.
• Change of government. Democracy is a tool to combat corruption and abuse of power. It is difficult to imagine that the current president of a secular state would transfer powers by inheritance, ignoring the election procedure. Any citizen has the right to nominate himself to participate in a transparent electoral process. The change of ruler occurs according to democratic tradition, without bloody revolutions or civil clashes.
• Availability of information. Lack of censorship in news and objective coverage of reality. Implementation of a code of ethics for journalists. Unfortunately, most publishing houses are owned by private owners and show reality taking into account their interests.
• Independent courts. They operate on the principle of separation of powers. In case of violation of justice, a citizen has the right to go to court, which will make a decision based on the articles of the Constitution. The accused are provided with state protection. Third-party interference in justice is excluded.
• Market economy. It is based on free enterprise and diversity of ownership. When choosing a manufacturer and a buyer, a citizen proceeds from personal preferences. The monopoly of the state is limited. Fair competition is the main feature of democratic relationships.
• Human intellectual growth and the right to education. Everyone has the freedom to choose a profession. The distribution of positions based on family ties disappears, and a career ladder is open to talented people.
• Strengthening peace. Democratic countries are not at odds with each other. Conflicts are usually started by authoritarian regimes seeking to shift the anger of the people from internal problems to an external threat. Developed governments prefer to trade and develop. Hot spots on the map appear in states where dictatorship has been established.

Flaws

• Utopian idea. No model of democracy will create a mechanism of democracy. The bulk of the population is a kind of amorphous mass. Decisions are always made by individuals. Thanks to specific geniuses, scientific and technological progress is achieved.
• Election of an incompetent government. The strength of democracy is also its weakness. It has been scientifically proven that most people, due to their brain's thinking abilities, cannot analyze the real situation in the country. For this reason, in elections, it is not the smart candidates who win, but those with the best oratory skills. Populism has become the main tool for gaining votes.
• The power of instincts. Most do not promote unique development ideas. First of all, people care about their personal well-being. The demand for bread and circuses will not lead to the development of art and science. Society is only capable of banal decisions.
• The danger of a dictatorship. Such rulers come to power hiding behind the mask of democracy. They promise freedom to everyone, and then pursue a policy of satisfying the interests of only one party. Corruption and impunity among officials are beginning to flourish in these countries.
• Leads to the decline of civilization. Democratic values ​​limit the use of tough crime control tools. Protecting citizens' freedoms leads to terrorist attacks, illegal migration and the growth of separatism. A striking example in history was the fall of Ancient Rome, when power passed from the elite to the plebeians. This led to the collapse of an empire that had existed for several centuries.

Is democracy possible in the modern world?

Gradually, the ideas of equality and freedom are losing their undeniable significance. In Western countries, democracy has become electoral. Conversation in public is not allowed on any topic. For example, if you speak negatively about African migrants in some European countries, you can lose your job or receive a significant fine. In Russia, this manifests itself when criticizing the authorities, when people were prosecuted for publishing photographs on the Internet.

When describing the advantages and disadvantages, democracy in its original form is implied. Of course, democratic features have shaped a civilized society. However, in real life, such values ​​are impossible to fully implement.

In modern political thought, there are two approaches to justifying democracy as the best system of government: value-based and rational-utilitarian. Values justification consider democracy as a value in itself, as a political system that to the greatest extent embodies the most important humanistic values: freedom, equality, justice, etc. Within the value approach, the following arguments in favor of democracy are usually given.

1. Democracy guarantees citizens fundamental political rights and freedoms that a non-democratic system cannot provide: the right to political participation, to express one’s views on political issues, including the right to criticize the government, the right to consider alternative options, the right to free expression in elections and a fair count of votes, etc.

2. Democracy provides citizens a wider range of personal rights and freedoms than any other political system, for example, the right to personal integrity, to protection of honor and dignity, to a fair, independent and public trial, free expression, freedom of movement, etc.

3. Only democratic rule provides the individual with the maximum opportunity to realize freedom of self-determination, that is, to live according to the laws that a person chooses for himself through a complex process of coordinating his interests with the interests of other people.

4. Democracy provides the greatest opportunity for moral responsibility, to carefully examine all decision options, their consequences, and make choices in accordance with moral principles.

5. Democracy promotes personality socialization to a greater extent than any other form of social organization, for example, it provides conditions under which such human properties and qualities as honesty, decency, responsibility, independence, citizenship, tolerance, a tendency to dialogue and compromise, etc. d.

6. Only democracy can provide relatively high level of political equality, for example, equality of voting rights, equality of rights to create parties and other independent associations, to participate in them, to information, etc., without which the implementation of the entire complex of human rights and freedoms is impossible.

7. The above advantages give reason to believe that a democratic regime is more fair and has greater respect for fundamental human interests than a non-democratic one.

The value approach is criticized primarily for its appeal to a democratically minded person who truly strives for freedom and political equality. However, in the modern world, many people, if not the majority, give preference not to freedom (which is often perceived by them even as an anti-value), but to material well-being, security, and order. Therefore, they invest a non-political, social meaning in the most revered values ​​of equality and justice, linking them with ensuring equality of life opportunities or retribution according to deserts, to which real democracy has a very weak relationship. All this calls into question the value proposition of the argument for democracy.

Rational-utilitarian an approach does not deny a certain significance of the value justifications of democracy, but at the same time relegates them to the background. This approach treats democracy primarily as the most rational, useful for citizens, a way of organizing the political system that allows them to articulate and harmoniously combine their interests. The most consistent rational-utilitarian group of arguments is expressed in system justifications democracy. Their essence boils down to the following.

1. Democracy promotes prevent the rule of dictators, curb power, guarantee the protection of citizens from government arbitrariness. The problem of how to avoid dictatorial rule remains one of the most fundamental in politics. Throughout history, there have been many recorded cases of cruel and immoral leadership. The number of victims of despotism is comparable in scale to the victims of epidemics, famine and wars. So, in the period from 1900 to 1987. about 170 million people were killed for political reasons unrelated to the war. At the same time, totalitarian states killed about 140 million people. In countries with authoritarian regimes, about 30 million people were killed. In democracies, about 2 million people died during this period, primarily as a result of military strikes on civilian targets.

2. Spread of democracy promotes peace because democracies don't fight each other. Between 1945 and 1989 There have been 34 international armed conflicts, but not a single one that has arisen between democratic countries. This is also true for the previous period. American scientist R. J. Rummel studied 353 pairs of warring parties from 1816 to 1991. A democratic state fought a non-democratic state on 155 occasions. A dictatorial state has fought against a dictatorial state on 198 occasions. Rummel did not find a single example of a democratic state going to war with another democratic state.

3. Democracy provides higher level of economic development and higher rates of economic growth. For example, it is statistically indisputable relationship between democracy and economic development. In 1994, of the 25 countries classified by the World Bank as highly developed (based on GDP per capita), 22, that is, 88%, were stable democracies (with the exception of Singapore, which, although it had advanced significantly along the path of democratization , but Kuwait and the UAE cannot be classified as stable democracies). Conversely, among the 51 least economically developed, poorest countries, according to the World Bank classification, 49, that is, approximately 96%, belonged to non-democratic, authoritarian regimes, and only two countries (India and Sri Lanka) had experience of democratic development, and it was significantly burdened by inter-ethnic and inter-religious clashes, determined by the rigidity of social stratification, restrictions on political participation, terrorism and other authoritarian tendencies. Finally, among the 57 countries classified by the World Bank as moderately economically developed, with average income, 23 could be classified as stable democracies, another 25 as non-democratic regimes, and 9 as countries making the transition from non-democracy to democracy.

The topic could still be somewhat controversial relationships economic growth And level of democratic freedom. There is also a correlation here, but not so direct. Indeed, there are many examples of countries that suppress political freedoms achieving high rates of economic growth. However, they achieve this mainly in the short term, sometimes in the medium term, but never– in the long term. Moreover, as they develop economically, they inevitably develop democratic institutions. This happens, for example, in the rapidly developing countries of Southeast Asia (South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Thailand, the Philippines, Malaysia).

The humanism and socio-economic efficiency of a democratic system are explained by its four additional advantages.

4. Characteristic of modern democracy political and ideological pluralism, multiple centers of power and influence provides a variety of social and spiritual alternatives, which thereby expands the range of political choices and increases the likelihood of finding optimal ways for the development of society.

5. Driven by Democracy political participation ensures the articulation of the views and positions of representatives of the most diverse groups of society, which facilitates the most complete consideration and coordination of their interests and allows one to avoid political mistakes even at the stage of preparing political decisions.

6. Availability political opposition makes it possible to comprehensively analyze draft political decisions, find their weaknesses and propose alternatives.

7. Periodic competitive change of parliament and government promotes timely correction of mistakes and flexible adjustment of the political course in accordance with the changing situation.

Of course, democracy, like any other political system, is not free from serious shortcomings , which in fact are a continuation of its advantages. People usually pay attention to the following weaknesses of democracy.

1. Threat destabilization of the political system, arising from the very principle of election.

2. Political competition can backfire conflict potential, confrontation, open clashes and, consequently, destabilization of the situation in society.

3. Danger tyranny of the majority, confident in his “rightness” and suppressing the will of those who remained in the minority.

4. Possible lack of professionalism of officials elected by an incompetent majority.

However, such shortcomings are typical for those, as a rule, young, democratic countries that lack the necessary prerequisites for democracy or at least democracy still not consolidated(see Topic 8 for more details). In this case, they can play the role of additional factors due to which democracies turn out to be ineffective and fail. In countries with established, consolidated democracies, these disadvantages are potential threats that are largely mitigated by the advantages of the democratic system.

The main real shortcoming of all modern democracies is slow speed of political decision-making. The democratic procedure requires endless coordination and agreements between various political subjects. All this requires time and other resources. This is the weakness and at the same time the strength and vitality of democracy. The high cost of a political decision is the flip side of such advantages of democracy as minimizing the risk of error in decision making.

In turn, the common disadvantage of all non-democratic political systems is that the political course is developed by one person or a very limited circle of persons who are not under the control of citizens. This makes it possible to establish a fairly fast and efficient decision-making process, but at the same time sharply increases the likelihood that many of these decisions will be erroneous, economically and socially ineffective.

Thus, the fewer political subjects involved in the preparation, discussion and adoption of a decision, the lower the cost of the decision and the higher the risk of error; and vice versa, the more political subjects are involved in the decision-making process, the higher its cost and the lower the risk of error (see Fig. 5). Institutions provide a certain balance between the cost of decisions and the risk of errors representative democracy: parliament, local legislatures, parliamentary factions and various channels for the representation of interest groups in government structures.

So, no, even the most developed democratic system is not without certain shortcomings. However, democracy is the most effective and humane system of government yet known. W. Churchill once said about democracy that it is “a terrible form of government, but the rest are even worse.” In any case, the damage caused by democracy to the fundamental rights and interests of citizens is significantly less than the damage caused by any non-democratic regime.

Everyone knows the term “democracy,” which translated from Greek means “power of the people.” It is under this political regime that it is believed that power should not be seized by force, and it is not given by God, but belongs exclusively to the people. It is known that democracy has its origins in Ancient Greece, Ancient Rome, as well as in medieval city-states. However, only in 1776, for the first time in the history of mankind, the idea of ​​democracy was realized on the scale of an entire country, which was called the USA. Democracy is characterized by such features as: proclamation and full recognition of human rights and freedoms; decision-making by majority; election of bodies of state power and administration, officials to their voters; transparency in the activities of the state. However, depending on the degree of participation of the people in governance, democracy is divided into: direct and representative. Direct democracy is a form of political organization of society in which the main decisions are put forward, accepted, and executed directly by citizens “1, 430”. I would like to note that this form of organization of social life ensures effective control over political institutions and officials, prevents abuse of power “2, 87”, and does not allow the ruling side to be separated from the people. It is also impossible not to notice that with direct democracy, the political activity of the population increases, opportunities arise for the free expression of the will of the people, and self-realization and self-affirmation of the individual as part of the political system occurs. Yes, I completely agree that direct democracy is a form of government in which the civic position of all members of society grows, where the voice of each citizen will not only be heard, but taken into account and will have its own weight in decision-making. But I cannot reveal some of the negative aspects of this form. Firstly, it is very difficult to attract the majority of citizens to actively participate in the political life of the country without coercion, since many citizens do not want to voluntarily engage in politics. I would also like to note that the opinion of the majority is easily influenced, and this can often result in power falling into the hands of demagogues rather than true leaders. It can also be said that a wide range of opinions prevents the selection of a single solution. Representative democracy is a political form of organizing people's lives in which the people are the source of power, but the state is governed by representative bodies that were elected by the citizens of the country. Considering the positive aspects of this form of democracy, it is necessary to say about the professionalism of the authorities, that representative democracy, when discussing a particular issue in parliament, makes it possible to achieve a balance of interests, in contrast to direct democracy, where decisions are made by a simple majority. It is believed that in representative democracy political stability, the “3, 122” order, is guaranteed. But I can’t help but notice some negative sides. First of all, with this form, the people are actually deprived of true power, with the exception of the time when elections to government bodies take place. Also, with this kind of democracy, deputies and officials become alienated from the people, and this, in turn, leads to the bureaucratization of power. Representative democracy seems to have its own common sense. But if we consider society as a whole, we understand that in this form of democracy people are deprived of real power and the ability to influence it. A complex hierarchical system of government deprives the common people of power. And then what kind of democracy are we talking about? Of course, if we start from an “ideal” democracy, even a representative one, then we understand that a person has the right to vote in elections and referendums; theoretically, he is capable of influencing the political life of the country. But often the ideal is far from reality. Then in this case I have to say that this kind of democracy is a beautiful fairy tale for the citizens of the country, under which the highest officials hide, guided not by the interests of their homeland, their people, but by some personal desires and goals. To summarize, I want to say that democracy is an example of a political regime where the interests, views and positions of all citizens of the country are respected. However, there is nothing ideal in the world, and democracy as a whole cannot be attributed to some kind of perfect model, especially considering the negative aspects presented in the article. The system of human society is too complex and multifaceted, and the opinions of different people will never coincide. Therefore, in my opinion, a political regime such as democracy has its own common sense, and it is necessary to combat the shortcomings by providing comfortable living conditions in the country.

1.3 ABOUT THE PROS AND DISADVANTAGES OF DEMOCRACY

I would like to consider all the positive and negative features of democracy using the example of its two main varieties: direct and representative.

Direct democracy:

Disadvantages: this includes such things as the difficulty of making coordinated decisions due to the wide range of opinions; lack of competence; emotional imbalance of the people; a high degree of manipulation of public opinion during public debates by professional politicians; the high cost and complexity of holding referendums; low level of civic engagement; evasion of voters from voting (absenteeism).

Pros: these include the truth and expansion of the political horizons of citizens.

Representative democracy:

Cons: separation of deputies from the people; possibility of corruption; priority influence on decision-making by powerful pressure groups; detachment of ordinary deputies from decision-making; weakening of democratic control from below.

Pros: the incompetence of the average person is replaced by the professionalism of deputies, and they can also use experts to evaluate these decisions; there is an opportunity to achieve a balance of interests.

As we see, in direct and representative democracy, negative traits surpass positive ones and dominate them. This only means that at present there is no absolutely ideal and fully thought-out model that would suit everyone. It is necessary to work and improve government systems and political regimes.

But, in my opinion, democracy is still the most necessary and necessary political regime not only for our country, but for the whole world.

Thanks to it, freedom of speech, freedom of choice, equal rights of all candidates seeking to become representatives of the authorities are ensured, free criticism of the authorities is allowed, including on central television channels, the law applies to everyone, from the authorities to ordinary citizens. The most important thing is to adhere to these criteria and laws correctly, honestly and correctly. Be able to observe, control and improve them for the benefit of the people.

Basic models of democracy

As Bernard Crick put it, “in the lexicon of public policy, democracy is perhaps the safest word.” A term that can mean anything ultimately means nothing. Among the meanings...

Basic models of democracy

There are three main forms of democracy: direct (major decisions are made directly by all citizens at meetings or through referendums)...

Basic models of democracy

democracy power of the people Despite the variety of definitions of the concept of “democracy”, in fact there are several competing models (or theories) of democracy, each of which offers its own version of democracy...

Participatory democracy

The term “democracy” is one of the most common in political science and legal literature in Belarus and other countries. There is hardly any other constitutional and legal concept besides “democracy”...

Political regimes

The concept of “model of democracy” is more complex. It has earned wide recognition thanks to the work of David Heald. As Heald notes, the model of democracy is “a theoretical construct...

Political regimes

Modern theories of democracy

The term "democracy" comes from the Greek word "demos", meaning "people". In democratic countries, it is the people who have sovereign power over the legislator and the government. Despite...