Democracy and not democracy. Democratic state: concept, principles

Among all existing types of structure of the supreme power of the state, democracy is the only form of government in which powers are assigned to the majority, regardless of its origin and merit.

Today, this is the most widespread and progressive type of political regime in the world, characterized by continuous development and species diversity.

Many works of philosophers and scientists of all times are devoted to this form of government.

Democracy is a system of government in which power is recognized by the people and is exercised on the basis of legally expressed equal rights and freedoms of citizens.

Democracy is inseparable from the concept of the state, as it arose along with it.

* State– a political form of organization of society, implemented in a certain territory.

The history of democracy

Democracy began in 507 BC. e. in Ancient Greece as one of the forms of popular self-government of ancient city-states. Therefore, literally from ancient Greek democracy translated as “power of the people”: from demos - people and kratos - power.

I wonder what demos the Greeks did not call the entire people, but only free citizens endowed with rights, but not classified as aristocrats.

General signs of democracy

The essential features of a democratic system are:

• The people are the source of power.
• The electoral principle is the basis for the formation of state self-government bodies.
• Equality of civil rights, with electoral priority.
• Guiding the majority opinion on controversial issues.

Signs of modern democracies

In the process of historical development, democracy has developed new features, including:

• the primacy of the Constitution;
• separation of powers into legislative, executive and judicial;
• priority of human rights over state rights;
• recognition of the rights of minorities to freely express their opinions;
• constitutional consolidation of the priority of the rights of the majority over the minority, etc.

Principles of democracy

The system-forming provisions of democracy are, of course, reflected in its characteristics. In addition to political freedoms and civil equality, election of government agencies and separation of powers, the following principles should be noted:

• The will of the majority should not infringe on the rights of the minority.
• Pluralism is socio-political diversity that underlies freedom of choice and expression. It assumes plurality political parties and public associations.

Types of democracy

Existing types of democracy speak about the ways in which people can exercise their power:

1. Straight— Citizens themselves, without intermediaries, discuss an issue and put its decision to a vote

1. Plebiscite(considered a type of direct) - Citizens can only vote for or against a decision in the preparation of which they are not involved.

1. Representative— Decisions for citizens are made by their representatives in power, who received popular votes in elections.

Democracy in the modern world

In modern times, democracies are states of representative democracy. In them, the people's will, unlike ancient society, is expressed through elected representatives (deputies) in parliament or local governments.

Representative democracy makes possible the popular government of a large state with a large territory and population.

However, in all forms of modern democracy there are elements of direct democracy, such as referendums, direct presidential elections, and plebiscites.

The people, the generally recognized rights and freedoms of man and citizen. A democratic state is the most important element of democracy civil society based on the freedom of people. The source of power and legitimation of all bodies of this state is the sovereignty of the people.

Sovereignty of the people means that:

• the subject of public power, both state and non-state, is the people as the totality of the entire population of the country;
• the object of the sovereign power of the people can be all those social relations that are of public interest on a national scale. This feature testifies to the completeness of the sovereign power of the people;
• The sovereignty of the power of the people is characterized by supremacy, when the people act as a single whole and are the only bearer of public power and the exponent of supreme power in all its forms and specific manifestations.

Subject of democracy may act:

• separate, their associations;
• government bodies and public organizations;
• the people in general.

In the modern understanding, democracy should be considered not as the power of the people, but as the participation of citizens (people) and their associations in the exercise of power.

The forms of this participation can be different (membership in a party, participation in a demonstration, participation in the elections of the president, governor, deputies, in filing complaints, statements, etc., etc.). If the subject of democracy can be either an individual person or a group of people, as well as the entire people, then the subject of democracy can only be the people as a whole.

The concept of a democratic state is inextricably linked with the concepts of a constitutional and legal state; in a certain sense, we can talk about the synonymy of all three terms. A democratic state cannot help but be both constitutional and legal.

A state can meet the characteristics of a democratic state only in the conditions of an established civil society. This state should not strive for statism, it should strictly adhere to the established limits of interference in economic and spiritual life, which ensure freedom of enterprise and culture. The functions of a democratic state include ensuring the general interests of the people, but with unconditional respect and protection of the rights and freedoms of man and citizen. Such a state is the antipode of a totalitarian state; these two concepts are mutually exclusive.

The most important features of a democratic state are:

1. real representative democracy;
2. ensuring human and civil rights and freedoms.

Principles of a democratic state

The basic principles of a democratic state are:

1. recognition of the people as the source of power, the sovereign in the state;
2. existence of the rule of law;
3. subordination of the minority to the majority when making decisions and implementing them;
4. separation of powers;
5. election and turnover of the main bodies of the state;
6. public control over security forces;
7. political pluralism;
8. publicity.

Principles of a democratic state(in relation to the Russian Federation):

• The principle of respect for human rights, their priority over the rights of the state.
• The principle of the rule of law.
• The principle of democracy.
• The principle of federalism.
• The principle of separation of powers.
• Principles of ideological and political pluralism.
• The principle of diversity of forms of economic activity.

More details

Ensuring human and citizen rights and freedoms a is the most important feature of a democratic state. It is here that the close connection between formally democratic institutions and the political regime is manifested. Only in a democratic regime do rights and freedoms become real, the rule of law is established and the arbitrariness of the state's security forces is eliminated. No lofty goals or democratic declarations can give a state a truly democratic character if the generally recognized rights and freedoms of man and citizen are not ensured. The Constitution of the Russian Federation has enshrined all the rights and freedoms known in world practice, but conditions still need to be created for the implementation of many of them.

A democratic state does not deny coercion, but presupposes its organization in certain forms. This is prompted by the essential duty of the state to protect the rights and freedoms of citizens, eliminating crime and other offenses. Democracy is not permissiveness. However, coercion must have clear limits and be carried out only in accordance with the law. Human rights bodies not only have the right, but also the obligation to use force in certain cases, but always acting only by legal means and on the basis of the law. A democratic state cannot allow the “loosening” of statehood, that is, failure to comply with laws and other legal acts, or ignoring the actions of state authorities. This state is subject to the law and requires law-abiding from all its citizens.

The principle of democracy characterizes the Russian Federation as a democratic state (Article 1 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation). Democracy presupposes that the bearer of sovereignty and the only source of power in the Russian Federation is its multinational people (Article 3 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation).

The principle of federalism is the basis of its state-territorial structure of the Russian Federation. It contributes to the democratization of government. Decentralization of power deprives central authorities states have a monopoly on power, granting individual regions independence in resolving issues of their lives.

The fundamentals of the constitutional system include the basic principles of federalism that determine the state-territorial structure of the Russian Federation. These include:

1. state integrity;
2. equality and self-determination of peoples;
3. unity of the system of state power;
4. delimitation of subjects of jurisdiction and powers between government bodies of the Russian Federation and government bodies of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation;
5. equality of subjects of the Russian Federation in relations with federal government bodies (Article 5 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation).

The principle of separation of powers- acts as a principle of organizing state power in a legal democratic state, as one of the foundations of the constitutional system. It is one of the fundamental principles of the democratic organization of the state, the most important prerequisite for the rule of law and ensuring the free development of man. The unity of the entire system of state power presupposes, on the one hand, its implementation on the basis of division into legislative, executive and judicial, the bearers of which are independent bodies states (Federal Assembly, Government of the Russian Federation, courts of the Russian Federation and similar bodies of the subjects of the federation).

The principle of separation of powers is a prerequisite for the rule of law and ensuring the free development of man. The separation of powers, therefore, is not limited to the distribution of functions and powers between various government bodies, but presupposes mutual balance between them so that none of them can gain dominance over the others and concentrate all power in their own hands. This balance is achieved by a system of “checks and balances”, which is expressed in the powers of government bodies, allowing them to influence each other and cooperate in solving the most important government problems.

Principles of ideological and political pluralism. Ideological pluralism means that ideological diversity is recognized in the Russian Federation; no ideology can be established as state or mandatory (Article 13, Part 1, 2 of the Constitution).

The Russian Federation is proclaimed a secular state (Article 14 of the Constitution). This means that no religion can be established as state or compulsory. The secular nature of the state is also manifested in the fact that religious associations are separated from the state and are equal before the law.

Political pluralism presupposes the presence of various socio-political structures functioning in society, the existence of political diversity, and a multi-party system (Article 13, Parts 3, 4, 5 of the Constitution). The activities of various citizen associations in society influence the political process (formation of government bodies, adoption of government decisions etc.). A multi-party system presupposes the legality of political opposition and promotes the involvement of wider sections of the population in political life. The Constitution only prohibits the creation and activities of such public associations, the goals or actions of which are aimed at violently changing the foundations of the constitutional system and violating the integrity of the Russian Federation, undermining the security of the state, creating armed groups, inciting social, racial, national and religious hatred.

Political pluralism is freedom political opinions and political action. Its manifestation is the activity of independent associations of citizens. Therefore, reliable constitutional and legal protection of political pluralism is a necessary prerequisite not only for the implementation of the principle of democracy, but also for the functioning of the rule of law.

The principle of diversity of forms of economic activity implies that the basis of the Russian economy is a social market economy, which ensures freedom of economic activity, encouragement of competition, diversity and equality of forms of ownership, and their legal protection. In the Russian Federation, private, state, municipal and other forms of property are equally recognized and protected.

• Democracy (ancient Greek δημοκρατία - “power of the people”, from δῆμος - “people” and κράτος - “power”) is a political regime based on the method of collective decision-making with equal influence of participants on the outcome of the process or on its significant stages. Although this method is applicable to any social structure, today its most important application is the state, since it has great power. In this case, the definition of democracy is usually narrowed to one of the following:

  Leaders are appointed by the people they lead through fair and competitive elections.

  The people are the only legitimate source of power

  Society exercises self-government for the common good and satisfaction of common interests

  Popular government requires ensuring a number of rights for every member of society. A number of values ​​are associated with democracy: legality, political and social equality, freedom, the right to self-determination, human rights, etc.

  Since the ideal of democracy is elusive and subject to varying interpretations, many practical models have been proposed. Until the 18th century, the most well-known model was direct democracy, where citizens exercise their right to make political decisions directly, through consensus, or through procedures for the subordination of the minority to the majority. In a representative democracy, citizens exercise the same right through their elected deputies and other officials by delegating to them some of their own rights, while the elected leaders make decisions taking into account the preferences of those led and are responsible to them for their actions.

  One of the main goals of democracy is to limit arbitrariness and abuse of power. This goal has often failed to be achieved where human rights and other democratic values ​​are not generally accepted or effectively protected by legal system. Today, in many countries, democracy is identified with liberal democracy, which, along with fair, periodic and general elections of the highest authority in which candidates freely compete for the votes of the people, includes the rule of law, the separation of powers and constitutional limits on the power of the majority through guarantees certain personal or group freedoms. On the other hand, leftist movements, prominent economists, as well as such representatives of the Western political elite as former US President Barack Obama and IMF Managing Director Christine Lagarde argue that the exercise of the right to make political decisions and the influence of ordinary citizens on the country's policy is impossible without ensuring social rights, equality of opportunity and low levels of socio-economic inequality.

  A number of authoritarian regimes have had external signs democratic rule, but in them only one party had power, and the policies pursued did not depend on the preferences of voters. Over the past quarter of a century, the world has been characterized by a trend towards the spread of democracy. The relatively new problems facing it include separatism, terrorism, population migration, and growing social inequality. International organizations such as the UN, OSCE and EU believe that control over the internal affairs of a state, including issues of democracy and human rights, should be partly within the sphere of influence of the international community.

Greek demos - people, kratos - power) - in the literal sense of the word, democracy, that is, a form of state in which power belongs to the people, exercising their will either directly (direct D.), or through deputies elected by them, forming representative bodies states (representative D.).

Under the conditions of an exploitative class-antagonistic system, democracy, as one of the forms of the exploitative state, cannot be anything other than a specific form of organization political power one or another dominant exploitative minority, its dictatorship. The principle of democracy, formally proclaimed under these conditions, is a hypocritical cover for the dictatorship of the minority, that is, the exploiters.

As a form of state distinct from a monarchy, democracy is known to the first type of state in history—the slave state. The classic example of slave-owning slavery was the ancient direct slaveholding in the Athenian state. In the Athenian Republic, public administration was carried out by popular assemblies, which elected officials and resolved the most important state issues. However, Athenian democracy extended only to the slave-owning minority of the population and consolidated the actual dominance of the top of this population, free citizens, whose number by the time of the highest prosperity of Athens, “... including women and children, consisted of approximately 90,000 souls along with 365,000 slaves of both gender and 45,000 non-full-fledged residents - foreigners and freedmen" (Engels F., The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State, 1950, p. 123). Slaves in a slave-owning society were not considered people at all; for slave owners they were only instruments of production, things.

Depression acquired its most deceitful forms in an exploitative society during the period when the feudal social and state system was replaced by a bourgeois social and state system as a result of the victory of the bourgeois revolution. political system. The development of the capitalist structure formed in the depths of feudal society required the abolition of serfdom and feudal privileges, the equalization of citizens before the law. The bourgeoisie proclaimed its state as an instrument of the “national” will, expressed in laws adopted by parliament, but in reality it is an instrument of the bourgeoisie’s domination over the majority of the population. Compared to the absolutist-serf state, bourgeois democracy, which finds its organizational expression in the formal dominance of the constitutional-parliamentary system, the proclamation of elementary freedoms and rights of citizens, and the equality of citizens before the law, was undoubtedly a significant step forward in the development of mankind. "Bourgeois republic, parliament, universal suffrage- all this from the point of view of the global development of society represents enormous progress” (V.I. Lenin, Soch., vol. 29, p. 449). However, freedom proclaimed by the bourgeoisie for everyone, declaring the rights and freedoms of citizens regardless of their class status, actually meant and means freedom only for the exploitative minority of capitalist society. Under the capitalist system, the exploited majority of the people in fact cannot take advantage of democratic rights and freedoms, which are therefore only formal, pseudo-democratic rights and freedoms. Moreover, the bourgeoisie, even in those cases when it proclaims democratic principles in its constitutions, usually makes such reservations and restrictions that democratic “rights” and “freedoms” turn out to be completely mutilated. For example, constitutions proclaim equality of voting rights for all citizens and immediately contain restrictions on these rights by residence, educational and property qualifications. They proclaim equal rights of citizens and immediately make a reservation that they do not apply in whole or in part to women or to individual nationalities. The bourgeoisie widely resorted to this method of mutilating the democratic rights and freedoms formally granted to everyone immediately after coming to power. Bourgeois democracy is inevitably, therefore, hypocritical and fictitious. Bourgeois democracy, like the entire superstructure of bourgeois society as a whole, is called upon to consolidate and protect the economic basis of the capitalist system - private ownership of the means and instruments of production, ensuring the dominance of the exploiters over the exploited, their privileged position. Lenin, in his lecture “On the State,” emphasized with all his might that “... any state in which there is private ownership of land and the means of production, where capital dominates, no matter how democratic it may be, is a capitalist state.” , it is a machine in the hands of the capitalists to keep the working class and the poor peasantry in subjection. But universal suffrage, the Constituent Assembly, and parliament are only a form, a kind of promissory note that does not change the essence of the matter at all” (V.I. Lenin, Soch., vol. 29, p. 448). “Capital, once it exists, dominates the entire society, and no democratic republic, no suffrage changes the essence of the matter” (ibid., p. 449).

In the era of imperialism, due to the growth of the forces of the working class, the bourgeoisie can no longer govern using the previous methods of bourgeois-parliamentary pseudo-democracy; it turns sharply from bourgeois democracy to reaction. By adapting the state and law to the requirements of the basic economic law of modern capitalism, the imperialist bourgeoisie abolishes or grossly violates those laws previously issued by the bourgeois state that proclaimed elementary democratic rights and freedoms; establishes new, truly draconian laws that make life unbearable for all progressive-minded people; moves to methods of terrorist reprisal against progressive organizations, to rampant lawlessness and tyranny, to the fascisation of the entire bourgeois state (see Fascism).

“Previously,” J.V. Stalin said at the 19th Party Congress, “the bourgeoisie allowed itself to be liberal, defended bourgeois-democratic freedoms and thereby created popularity among the people. Now there is no trace left of liberalism. There is no more so-called “personal freedom” - individual rights are now recognized only for those who have capital, and all other citizens are considered raw human material, suitable only for exploitation. The principle of equality of people and nations has been trampled, it has been replaced by the principle of full rights for the exploiting minority and the lack of rights of the exploited majority of citizens. The banner of bourgeois-democratic freedoms has been thrown overboard" ("Speech at the 19th Party Congress", 1952, p. 12). Using the example of the modern USA, which stands at the head of the imperialist and anti-democratic camp, one can trace the process of transition of the imperialist bourgeoisie. from bourgeois D. to reaction along all lines.

Genuine democracy, genuine democracy becomes possible only as a result of the overthrow of the rule of the exploiting classes and the establishment of a state of the socialist type. This was demonstrated with utmost clarity by the experience of the USSR and people's democracies.

The replacement of bourgeois democracy with socialist democracy (see) is “... a gigantic, world-historical expansion of democracy, its transformation from a lie into truth, the liberation of humanity from the shackles of capital, which distorts and curtails everything, even the most “democratic” and republican, bourgeois democracy" (Lenin V.I., Soch., vol. 28, p. 348).

The victory of the USSR over Nazi Germany demonstrated the advantage of socialist democracy over the deceitful bourgeois democracy.

The Soviet socialist system, the Soviet socialist democracy withstood the difficult trials of the war with honor and emerged from it even stronger and indestructible. The forces of genuine socialist democracy are growing and strengthening every day.

Excellent definition

Incomplete definition ↓

The concept of democracy, the emergence and forms of democracy

Information about the concept of democracy, the emergence and forms of democracy, the development and principles of democracy

The term “democracy” comes from the Greek word demokratia, which in turn consisted of two words: demos - people and kratos - power, rule.

The term “democracy” is used in several meanings:

1. A form of government in which political decisions are made directly by all citizens without exception, acting in accordance with the rules of majority rule, is called direct democracy or participatory democracy.

2. A form of government in which citizens exercise their right to make decisions not personally, but through their representatives, elected by them and responsible to them, is called representative or pluralistic democracy.

3. A form of government in which the power of the majority is exercised within the framework of constitutional restrictions aimed at guaranteeing the minority the conditions for the exercise of certain individual or collective rights, such as freedom of speech, religion, etc., is called liberal or constitutional democracy.

4. A form of government in which any political or social system, whether truly democratic or not, aims to minimize social and economic differences, especially those caused by the unequal distribution of private property, is called social democracy, the extreme expression of which is socialist democracy.

Democracy (from the Greek Demokratia - power of the people) is a form of government, characterized by the participation of citizens in government, their equality before the law, and the provision of political rights and freedoms to individuals. The form of implementation of democracy is most often a republic or a parliamentary monarchy with the division and interaction of powers, with a developed system of popular representation.

The concept of democracy was originally put forward by ancient Greek thinkers. In the classification of states proposed by Aristotle, it expressed “the rule of all,” in contrast to aristocracy (the rule of the chosen) and monarchy (the rule of one). Pythagoras accused the democrats. He called democracy one of the “scourges that threaten humanity.” The ancient Greek playwright Arisphanes treated democracy with undisguised contempt.

Pericles wrote: “Our political system is such that it does not imitate foreign laws; rather, we ourselves serve as an example for others. And our system is called democracy because it is consistent not with the minority, but with the interests of the majority; according to the laws, in private disputes everyone enjoys the same rights; It also does not happen that a person capable of bringing benefit to the state is deprived of the opportunity to do so, not enjoying sufficient respect due to poverty. We live as free citizens both in public life and in mutual relations, because we do not express distrust of each other in everyday affairs, do not be indignant against the other if he likes to do something in his own way... We are especially afraid of illegality in public affairs, we obey the persons standing in given time in power, and laws, especially those created in the interests of the offended. We use wealth more as a condition for work than as an object for boasting; As for poverty, the consciousness of it is shameful for a person; it is more shameful not to make efforts to get out of it.”

Throughout history, the best minds of humanity turned to the idea of ​​democracy, based on the principles of freedom and equality, enriching and developing this concept: Pericles (Ancient Greece),

B. Spinoza (Netherlands, 17th century),

J.-J. Rousseau (France, 18th century),

T. Jefferson (USA, XVIII century),

I. Franko (Ukraine, late XIX - early XX centuries),

A. Sakharov (Russia, XX century), etc.

Each historical era introduced its own characteristics into the concept of democracy and placed its own emphasis on their significance.

Definition of democracy

What is “democracy”?

When ancient thinkers, especially such “pillars” as Plato and Aristotle, answered this question, they had in mind, first of all, democracy as a form of government. They distinguished forms of government depending on whether one, a few or the whole people ruled and established three main states: monarchy, aristocracy and democracy. However, both Plato and Aristotle associated each form of government with a certain form of social life, with some deeper conditions of social development.

European humanism introduced significant “complications” into the “simplicity” of Greek definitions. Ancient world knew only direct democracy, in which the people (slaves, of course, were not considered the people) themselves rule the state through a general people's assembly. The concept of democracy coincided here with the concept of democratic forms of government, with the concept of direct “rule of people”. Although Rousseau also reproduced this Greek usage, it was he who created the theoretical basis for the broader understanding of democracy that has become established in our time. He admitted that various forms of state power - democratic, aristocratic, and monarchical - could be compatible with the supremacy of the people. In doing so, he opened the way for a new understanding of democracy as forms of state, in which the supreme power belongs to the people, and the forms of government can be different. Rousseau himself considered democracy possible only in the form of direct “government of the people,” connecting legislation with execution. Those forms of state in which the people retain only the supreme legislative power, and transfer execution to the monarch or a limited circle of persons, he recognized as legitimate from the point of view of “popular sovereignty,” but did not call them democratic.

Later, the concept of democracy was extended to all forms of state in which the people have supremacy in establishing power and control over it. At the same time, it was assumed that the people could exercise their supreme power both directly and through representatives. In accordance with this, democracy is defined primarily as a form of state in which supremacy belongs to the general will of the people. This is self-government of the people, without their distinction between “black and white,” “proletarians and bourgeoisie,” i.e. the entire mass of the people in aggregate. Consequently, any class domination, any artificial elevation of one person over another, no matter what kind of people they may be, is equally contrary to the democratic idea. Thus, the class democratic theory adopted by the Bolsheviks was a contradiction in itself.

In this sense, modern political thought has arrived at a much more complex idea of ​​democracy than that found in antiquity. But in another respect, it not only confirmed, but also consolidated the Greek understanding of the essence of democracy. Having put forward the ideal of the rule of law as a general ideal of state development, we often consider democracy as one of the forms of the rule of law. And since the idea of ​​a rule of law state is inextricably linked with the idea of ​​not only the foundations of power, but also the rights of citizens, the rights of freedom, the ancient definition of democracy as a form of free life is here organically connected with the very essence of democracy as a form of a rule of law state.

From this point of view, democracy means the possible complete freedom of the individual, freedom of his searches, freedom of competition of opinions and systems. If Plato saw the essence of democracy in the fact that every person here has the opportunity to live in accordance with his desires, then this definition fits perfectly with the modern understanding of democracy. And now the idea of ​​democracy corresponds to the possible full and free manifestation of human individuality, openness to any directions and manifestations of creativity, etc. And although in practice democracy is the rule of the majority, but, as Roosevelt aptly said, “the best evidence of the love of freedom is the position in which the minority is placed. Each person should have the same opportunity as others to express their essence.”

Many scholars call democracy free government. This once again shows to what extent the concept of freedom is inextricably combined with the idea of ​​a democratic form of the state and, it would seem, exhausts it.

However, if we did not mention the inherent desire for equality in democracy, we might lose sight of one of the most important features of the democratic idea. De Tocqueville noted that democracy strives more for equality than for freedom: “people want equality in freedom, and if they cannot get it, they want it also in slavery.”

From a moral and political point of view, there is the greatest correlation between equality and freedom. We demand freedom for a person, first of all, for the full and unhindered manifestation of his personality, and since the latter is an integral “attribute” everyone human being, then we demand equality in relation to all people. Democracy aims to ensure not only freedom, but also equality. In this desire for universal equality, the democratic idea is manifested no less than in the desire for universal liberation. Rousseau's thesis about the general will of the people as the basis of the state in democratic theory is inextricably linked with the principles of equality and freedom and cannot in any way be separated from them. The participation of the entire people, the totality of its capable elements, in the formation of the “general will” follows both from the idea of ​​equality and from the idea of ​​freedom.

Democratic regimes can be characterized by the following features: recognition of the people as the source of power; election of the main government bodies and officials, their subordination to voters; subordination of state bodies formed by appointment to elected institutions and responsibility to them; recognition of the actual equality of citizens; proclamation of fundamental democratic rights and freedoms; the legal existence of pluralism in society; government system based on the principle of “separation of powers”; equality of all citizens before the law.

Based on the above basic principles of a democratic regime, it is necessary to dwell in more detail on its characteristic features.

1. A democratic regime expresses the interests of classes and groups of the population that are successfully developing in a highly developed market economy. Social base, one way or another interested in a democratic regime, is always wider than in an authoritarian one. At the same time, the so-called ruling elite in a democratic society, in whose hands the levers of government are concentrated, may be very small. At the same time, pluralism of forms of ownership is the economic basis of political pluralism and the democratic regime itself. Political pluralism implies that life in a democratic society is built on the basis of competition and mutual influence of various political forces operating within the framework of laws.

The signs of political pluralism are: the presence of a multi-party system, within which each political party has equal rights and does not have legislative advantages over opponents; regular free elections that ensure the legitimization of power and allow voters to make their verdict; recognition of the rights of the political opposition to freely express their views and beliefs through the media.

2. In a democratic regime, along with pluralism, liberalism comes to the fore, which provides for the expansion of the rights and freedoms of citizens.

Liberalism involves ensuring democratic freedoms and individual rights, limiting the intervention of the state and society in the activities of private individuals and sovereign entities. It places human rights and freedoms above national, class and religious interests, and is focused on preserving the mechanism of the market economy, a multi-party system, a limited regulatory role of the state, moderate social reformism, ensuring international security and the development of integration processes.

3. The functioning of the political system under a democratic regime of government is built on the basis of the separation of powers - legislative, executive and judicial. These authorities seem to balance each other, and none of them can usurp power in the state.

Democratic system public administration provides for the formation of the main bodies of the state through free elections - parliament, head of state, local governments, autonomous entities, subjects of the federation.

Taken together, the separation of powers, the system of checks and balances, federal, party, public and information structures in conditions of openness can, through the mechanisms of state power, contribute to the conduct, within the framework of constitutional legality, of a peaceful constructive dialogue of various political forces, the creation political stability in society.

4. A democratic regime is characterized by a very broad constitutional and other legislative consolidation and the implementation in practice of a fairly extensive list of economic, social, political, spiritual, personal rights and freedoms of citizens. An important role in this is played by constitutional legality, represented by the institution of constitutional supervision, which in modern conditions cannot ignore public opinion and the interests of broad sections of the population.

5. In any, even the most liberal society, there are law enforcement agencies - the army, internal affairs agencies, police, intelligence, counterintelligence, state security agencies. The presence and powers of this extensive and diverse apparatus of coercion and violence are enshrined in constitutions and special laws. In cases where it is necessary to suppress mass protests, many countries have laws on states of emergency, curfews, and presidential rule, which lead to temporary restrictions on the rights and freedoms of citizens.

6. A democratic regime can function successfully only if there is a certain level of political culture. This means that all citizens comply with the same norms (legal, constitutional) for all, taking into account certain traditions inherent in a given country. The nature of power, its forms, attitude towards ordinary citizens, methods of violence and suppression used in emergency situations largely depend on the level and type of political culture. The structure of political culture includes cognitive, moral-evaluative and behavioral elements. For example, the behavioral element of political culture in a democratic regime presupposes the conscious participation of citizens in the political life of the country: when discussing draft state documents and acts; during referendums and plebiscites; in elections of legislative, executive and judicial powers; in the work of various state and public bodies and a number of other social and political campaigns.

7. Depending on who - the people or their representatives - directly exercises the power functions of a democratic regime, two forms of democracy are distinguished - direct (immediate) and representative (participatory democracy). Direct democracy includes political regimes in ancient Novgorod and a number of city-states in modern Western Europe. They are characterized by direct participation in making important government decisions. In a representative democracy, broad sections of the population elect their representatives to government bodies, participate in referendums, conferences, meetings, etc.

History of democracy

Democracy has a long history and can be seen as a result of the development of Western civilization, especially the Greek and Roman heritage on the one hand, and the Judeo-Christian tradition on the other.

Direct democracy is one of the most obvious forms of organizing political society. It can be found in primitive societies of the period of the tribal system. In the Western political tradition, the emergence of the idea of ​​democracy is associated with the city-states of Ancient Greece.

Plato and Aristotle, in their research to create a systematic theory of politics, characterized democracy as one of the five or six main types of government.

Greek history in its heyday can be seen as a history of struggle between democratic and oligarchic states, the most prominent representatives of which were Athens and Sparta. Ancient Greek democracy was in many ways very different from modern democracy. It was, first of all, a system of direct rule, in which the entire people, or rather the body of free citizens, was, as it were, a collective legislator and in which the system of representation was unknown. This situation became possible due to the limited size of the ancient Greek state, which covered the city and the surrounding rural area with a population of, as a rule, no more than 10 thousand citizens.

In ancient democratic city-states, every citizen was given the right to participate in decisions affecting his life and activities. A significant part of citizens during their lives in one way or another occupied one of the many elected posts that existed in the city-state. There was no separation between the legislative and executive powers - both branches were concentrated in the hands of active citizens. Political life was characterized by significant activity of citizens who were keenly interested in all sides and aspects of the governance process. Direct democracy of this kind was assessed by many modern thinkers as perfect shape. Referendum and civil initiative, preserved in the Constitutions of a number of countries (Switzerland), can be considered as elements of direct democracy, inherited by representative democracy from the past.

Another important difference between ancient and modern democracy is the treatment of equality. Ancient democracy was not only compatible with slavery, but also assumed it as a condition for liberation from physical work of free citizens who devoted themselves to solving public problems. Modern democracies do not recognize in the political sphere differences and privileges based on social origin, class, race and role.

A distinction is made between democratic theory and democratic institutions. Since antiquity, democracy has undergone significant changes. In the Middle Ages, partly as a result of the rediscovery of Aristotle, interest in questions concerning the principles of the most perfect forms of government according to the ideas of that period increased. It has been argued that only a form of government that serves the common good and is based on the consent of all members of the community can be perfect. But at the same time, in the Middle Ages, most thinkers concerned with the problem of achieving the unity of society did not consider monarchy as the best form suitable for ensuring this unity. However, in modern times, in the context of the formation of ideas of individual freedom, civil society, popular sovereignty, national state, etc., instead of feudal charters and liberties, legislative mechanisms arise to limit the individual power of monarchs. Thus, in the 16th century in Great Britain, during the struggle between Parliament and the crown, the “Petition of Rights” (1628) was adopted,

“Habeas corpus act” (1679),

“Bill of Rights” (1689),

in which written legal guarantees were recorded, establishing more or less precisely defined limits of power. This trend was further developed in the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution.

in the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen” of the Great French Revolution of the late 18th century.

Of fundamental importance for the formation and establishment of democracy was the idea that arose in modern times about the innate, inalienable rights of every person to life, freedom and private property. The inextricable interconnection of this triad is expressed in the belief that private property is the basis of individual freedom, which in turn is considered as a necessary condition for the self-realization of an individual, the fulfillment of the main purpose of his life. Undoubtedly, a necessary condition for democracy in any of its forms is political freedom. But it cannot be properly implemented where there is no real choice in the social and economic spheres, where social inequality is great. Freedom as an ideal in a democracy always correlates with the principle of justice. Where social inequality contributes to undermining the principle of justice, one or another system of redistribution of material wealth is necessary. As world experience shows, the market system and free competition provide the best conditions and opportunities for increasing productivity and stimulating individual initiative. But at the same time, the unfortunate and unprivileged should also enjoy material benefits, they should not remain on the margins of public life. From this point of view, the contradiction between the demands of social justice and the imperatives of economic efficiency remains, as it were, an insoluble dilemma of modern industrial society. But, nevertheless, as capitalism developed at the end of the 19th and 20th centuries, the principles of free market individualism were significantly modified, and the role of the state in the life of society increased. The Keynesian system, built on the postulate of the ideological, political and socio-economic insufficiency of individualism, free competition, free market, etc., and the need to strengthen the role of the state in the most important areas life of society.

The state was recognized as a regulator of economic and social processes. In contrast to the concept of the “night watchman” state, the concept of the welfare state was put forward. It is based on the idea of ​​the need and possibility of overcoming social conflicts by creating, through government intervention, tolerable living conditions for all segments of society through the implementation of social assistance programs for low-income and disadvantaged categories of the population, taking measures aimed at solving the problems of unemployment, health care, etc. Supporters The ideas of the welfare state are based on the fact that the market itself is not capable of ensuring such a distribution of material goods that would guarantee the low-income segments of the population the necessary minimum of goods and services. Moreover, they view political power as important element adjustments to the social costs of the market. They postulate the equal importance of the economic and social spheres and the need for an organic connection of free market relations with the social policy of the state, a combination of market principles with social principles, humanization of the market through the development and implementation by the state of a system of social policy aimed at guaranteeing the minimum standard of living unprivileged sections of the population. Main goal supporters of the welfare state saw and see in achieving a synthesis of economic freedom, social security and justice.

In other words, in a welfare state, political rights are complemented by social rights, providing for the provision of all members of society with the minimum material benefits accepted in it. The principle is introduced social responsibility both private corporations and the state. Social programs become an integral part of the rule of law, which takes the form of a welfare state. On this basis, the functions of the state are expanded, largely complementing, and in some cases replacing the functions of civil society institutions. The changing boundaries and interpretations of the welfare state are determined not simply by the decisions of political leaders, but by fundamental structural changes in modern industrial society. It should therefore be seen as a central building block of modern democracy.

Universal properties of democracy

The specificity and uniqueness of the democratic structure of power are expressed in the presence of universal methods and mechanisms for organizing the political order. In particular, such a political system assumes:

Ensuring the equal right of all citizens to participate in the management of the affairs of society and the state;

Systematic election of the main government bodies;

The presence of mechanisms to ensure the relative advantage of the majority and respect for the rights of the minority;

Absolute priority of legal methods of administration and change of power (constitutionalism);

The professional nature of elite governance;

Public control over the adoption of major political decisions;

Ideal pluralism and competition of opinions.

The operation of such universal methods of forming power presupposes the endowment of managers and governed with special powers and powers, the most important of which are associated with the operation of the mechanisms of direct, plebiscitary and representative democracy.

Thus, direct democracy involves the direct participation of citizens in the process of preparing, discussing, making and implementing decisions. Basically, such forms of participation are used when citizens do not require any special training. For example, such forms of participation in government are widespread when resolving issues of local importance, problems arising within the framework of self-government, and resolving local conflicts.

Close in importance to this form of power is plebiscitary democracy, which also presupposes the open expression of the will of the population, but is associated only with a certain phase of the preparation of decisions, for example, approval (support) or denial of a draft law or a specific decision made by the leaders of the state or a group of citizens. At the same time, the voting results do not always have binding, legal consequences for decision-making structures, i.e., they can only be taken into account by the ruling circles, but by no means predetermine their actions.

Representative democracy is a more complex form of political participation by citizens. It involves the indirect inclusion of citizens in the decision-making process through their representatives elected by them to legislative or executive authorities, or various intermediary structures (parties, trade unions, movements). These mechanisms essentially constitute the structure of democratic government. However, the main problem of representative democracy is related to ensuring the representativeness of political choice, that is, creating conditions under which the choice of certain individuals would correspond to the moods and interests of the population. (5, 275).

Greece

Our current concept of “country,” implying a certain locality on the territory of which its entire population lives in a single state governed by a single government, is not applicable to ancient Greece. On the contrary, it was a conglomeration of several hundred independent towns surrounded by farmland. Unlike the so-called nation states - the USA, France, Japan and other countries, which for the most part form the structure of the modern world, the sovereign states located on the territory of Greece were city-states. The most famous of them, both in classical and later times, was Athens. In 507 BC. e. its citizens applied a system of “popular governments” that lasted for almost two centuries, until Athens was conquered by the more powerful Macedonia, which bordered it in the north (after 321 BC, the Athenian government was freed from control for several generations her power, and then the city was conquered again - this time by the Romans).

It was the Greeks (most likely the Athenians) who introduced the term “democracy” into use. Apparently, the term democracy, which had a connotation of malevolence, was used by aristocrats as an emotionally charged epithet and expressed contempt for the commoners who managed to push the aristocrats out of government. In any event, the Athenians and other Greek tribes applied the concept of demokratia to the system of government in Athens and many other city-states.

Among all the Greek democracies, the Athenian democracy was the most significant, both then and now the most famous, it had a great influence on political philosophy and subsequently was often considered as a perfect example of citizen participation in government, that is, in other words, it was an example of representative democracy.

The system of power in Athens was a complex structure - the central place in it was given to the so-called assembly, in the work of which all citizens had to take part. The assembly elected several main officials, such as military leaders. But the main way of selecting citizens to perform other public duties was by lot, and all citizens with voting rights had an equal chance of being elected to a particular post. According to some estimates, the average citizen, at least once in his life, had the opportunity to receive by lot highest position in the state.

Although at times Greek cities united to form a prototype of a representative government that directed the activities of various confederations, leagues, and unions that were created primarily to organize collective defense, little is known about these representative systems. They literally left no trace in the history of democratic ideas and procedures and did not influence the formation of later forms of representative democracy, just as the Athenian system of appointing citizens to certain positions by lot was not used later as an alternative to elections.

Thus, the political institutions of Greek democracy, which were an innovation for their time, went unnoticed during the development of the modern representative system.

Around the same time that the system of “popular governments” arose in Greece, the same system of government appeared on the Apennine Peninsula, in Rome. However, the citizens of Rome preferred to call it a republic (in Latin res means “deed”, “thing”, and publicus - “common”), i.e. in a broad sense - something belonging to the people.

At first, the right to participate in governing the republic belonged only to patricians or aristocrats. However, in the course of the development of society and after a fierce struggle, the common people (in Rome they were called plebs) achieved the same right for themselves. As in Athens, the right to participate was granted only to men, and this restriction remained in all subsequent types of democracies and republics until the 20th century.

Originating at first in a city of rather modest size, the Roman Republic, through annexations and conquests, spread far beyond its borders and as a result began to rule all of Italy and other countries. Moreover, the republic often granted the highly valued Roman citizenship to the peoples of the countries it conquered, and they thus became not just subjects, but Roman citizens, fully endowed with the corresponding rights and privileges.

No matter how wise and generous this gift was, it had a very serious flaw: Rome could never fully bring its institutions of democracy into line with the ever-increasing number of its citizens and with the factor of their geographical distance from the center of the republic. From a modern point of view, it seems more than absurd that the meetings in which Roman citizens were ordered to participate took place, as before, in Rome itself - in the same, now destroyed Forum, where tourists are taken today. However, the majority of Roman citizens living throughout the widely spread territory of the republic were not able to attend these public assemblies, because Rome was too far away and travel there became possible at best at the cost of exorbitant effort and expense. As a consequence, an ever-increasing, and finally overwhelming number of citizens were practically deprived of the opportunity to participate in public assemblies, the venue of which remained the center of the Roman state.

Although the Romans proved themselves to be creative and practical people, the elective nature of filling important government positions did not lead to a solution that seemed quite obvious and was to create an effective system of representative government based on the activities of democratically elected representatives of the people.

Although the Roman Republic lasted much longer than the Athenian democracy and than any modern democracy, however, starting around 130 BC. e. it was undermined by civil strife, war, militarization, corruption and the decline of the inflexible civic spirit that the Romans had once prided themselves on. The establishment of the dictatorship of Julius Caesar put an end to true democratic procedures - almost nothing remained of them. And after the assassination of Caesar in 44 BC. e. The republic, which was once ruled by citizens, turned into an empire, submissive to the will of its ruler.

With the fall of the republic in Rome “ people's governments” have completely disappeared in Southern Europe. Democracy, except for the fact that it remained the political system of a few tribes scattered throughout Italy, was forgotten for almost a thousand years. (4, 17).

Middle Ages

The fall of the Western Roman Empire under the onslaught of the barbarians, who were culturally immeasurably inferior, put an end to the entire era of ancient civilization. For more than a thousand years, Europe plunged into the Middle Ages. It would seem that the catastrophe and the deepest historical regression are obvious. Break of continuity.

By the way, the term “Middle Ages” itself belongs to the Italian humanists of the 15th–16th centuries, who considered and assessed this era precisely as intermediate between two great European civilizations - ancient and modern, which began with the Renaissance.

The political and legal achievements and finds of antiquity, as well as the spiritual values ​​of the ancient world as a whole, were lost. In this respect, European civilization turned out to be thrown back far back, and the new peoples who entered the historical arena had to complete their round of development from tribal organizations and primitive proto-states to centralized nation-states and absolute monarchies on the threshold of the Modern Age.

The collapse of the ancient world was a regularity of the historical process and in this sense does not need either condemnation or approval, but only a statement. And the ancient civilization itself of the era of decline and collapse was already infinitely far from its own democratic institutions and discoveries. Not because of the onslaught of barbarians, but because of the contradictions of its own development.

Of course, we can only talk about medieval democracy with a large degree of conditionality; we will not find any serious progress in the formation of democratic institutions, but this does not mean that nothing from the experience of the Middle Ages was subsequently in demand.

It is difficult to discuss the “Middle Ages as a whole” from a strictly scientific point of view - after all, it is a thousand years old. This era was neither united nor static. On the contrary, there was an active accumulation of those ideas, contradictions, relationships, class conflicts, mini-revolutions, etc., which ultimately led to the New Age and without which modern civilization could not have taken place.

In the history of the European Middle Ages, science identifies several successive forms of government, unknown to antiquity. Their evolution is not at all the subject of our attention. We are interested in those institutions that have become some step in the development of forms of state democratic organization. However, it is still necessary to say a few words about this evolution and the general features of the entire medieval civilization.

Until about the middle of the 9th century, the formation and establishment of early feudal monarchies took place in Europe, in which the emerging class of feudal landowners rallied around royal power with the support of the church and communal peasants. A striking example is the history of the Frankish state.

The development and strengthening of land ownership of the feudal class and the emergence of serfdom among peasants led to sharp political decentralization and feudal fragmentation. Europe of the 9th–13th centuries was a conglomerate of mini-states - estates and possessions. Relations between landowners were built on the basis of a system of customs and contracts; a multi-level feudal hierarchy of relations between overlords, lords and vassals developed. The medieval state of this era took the form of a seigneurial monarchy.

In the 13th–15th centuries, the final formation of feudal estates with their divergent interests took place, and conditions and a need for some consolidation of states on a national basis arose. In the fight against feudal freemen and anarchy, royal power began to rely on the estates and develop mechanisms for resolving conflicts not through war, but through a compromise of interests. The formation of class-representative monarchies took place.

Finally, at the end of the Middle Ages, in the 16th–17th centuries, the old forms of government no longer met the needs of established nation states and explosive economic growth. The objective need to strengthen centralized power led to a sharp strengthening of the role of the monarch and the state apparatus - the bureaucracy, the police. Power was finally divorced from society, and the estate-representative monarchy was replaced by an absolute monarchy. The collapse of absolutism marked the end of the Middle Ages and the beginning of the New Age.

Behind this entire historical sequence there was a struggle between classes and a struggle within the feudal class itself. This is one of the internal conflicts of the era, but not the only one.

First of all, we note that the European Middle Ages cannot be understood in any of its facets without understanding the role that Christianity played in this era. We are talking not only about the unconditional hegemony of the church in the spiritual life of medieval society - from philosophy and astronomy to everyday rituals and diet. No! In the 11th–12th centuries, the church transformed into a powerful political organization and really laid claim to leadership of the entire Christian world. Moreover, the power of the Pope was extraterritorial; in the 13th century, all of Europe essentially turned into a theocratic monarchy: even the enthronement of monarchs was carried out by an act of the Pope, and he could excommunicate any monarch. The entire history of the Middle Ages represents a symbiosis and at the same time a conflict between the church and royal power, which sometimes took the form of bloody wars.

The great Russian jurist G.F. Shershenevich wrote interestingly about this: “The worldview of the Middle Ages is characterized by the desire for liberation from earthly bonds, the transfer of one’s ideals into the afterlife. However, in this pursuit of spiritual freedom, man, unbeknownst to himself, found himself completely bound by the earthly chains of the church and lost the very treasure for which he neglected everything else. He could not believe as he wanted, but had to believe as he was forced to believe. The Church takes possession of a person with the help of the state, which it turns into a means for asserting its power. The state and the church merge into one, the rules of law coincide with the religious canons...”

Finally, another fault line and conflict, important and characteristic of the mature Middle Ages, is the confrontation between the city and the power of the feudal lords. In terms of all the features of economic existence, the concentration of education and culture, the guild organization of the population who fought and achieved personal independence from the feudal lord, medieval cities played the role of the “fermentation wort” of the era. These were islands of limited but obvious freedom in the unfree feudal organization of Europe.

Some of these cities traced their history back to ancient times, and although there is no reason to talk about the preservation of ancient traditions in medieval cities, nevertheless, it was in the cities that the intellectual and economic potential accumulated that broke the Middle Ages from the inside. The origins of the Renaissance are in urban culture, which acted as a conductor of the values ​​of ancient democracy.

The history of medieval cities itself is extremely dramatic and interesting - it is the history of the struggle for self-government and independence. And some cities achieved them. The Western European Middle Ages as a whole do not know republican forms of government, but in some cities of Italy republics were established. Such are Venice, Genoa, Padua, brilliant Florence. It seemed that the resurrection of the ancient city-state was taking place, but these were already different cities and other states of a different era. And the further development of democracy did not go along the lines of city-states.

The main thing that the Middle Ages brought in the field of democratic institutions was the estate-representative organization of power. Its role should not be exaggerated, but it should not be understated either.

In France, such a body was the Estates General, first convened by King Philip IV the Fair in 1302. The highest clergy and the largest feudal lords were invited to participate in the Estates General in person; over time, the practice of electing to the States representatives from the small and middle nobility, churches, conventions of monasteries and cities (two or three deputies each) became established.

It is not so important that the powers of the Estates General were generally not very significant and almost all issues - from the regularity of convening to the agenda - were determined by the king, who could find out the opinion of deputies on bills, or might not find out. But only in the Estates General did the king receive permission to introduce new taxes, only there could he turn to the estates for help, etc.

Even more interesting and, most importantly, more important in its consequences was the introduction of class representation in medieval England. This mini-revolution dates back to the 13th century.

At that time in England there was a fairly significant and rapidly growing layer of personally free peasants, urban artisans, whose interests in terms of opposing the arbitrariness of the central royal power mostly coincided with the interests of small feudal lords and knighthood. Their role and influence increased, but this was not reflected in any state legal forms. At the beginning of the century, the confrontation with royal power escalated sharply, the movement was led by large barons, and in 1215 King John the Landless was forced to compromise and signed the Magna Carta - the first document of the unwritten English constitution.

At its core, the Charter is an agreement that consolidates a compromise between royal power and the opposition. Of course, the large feudal lords received the greatest benefit from this agreement, but not only them - something also went to the knighthood, and to the cities, to which ancient liberties and customs were assigned, and to the merchants, who received freedom of movement and trade without illegal duties.

Many articles of the Charter were devoted to justice, prohibiting arrest and imprisonment, dispossession and outlawry except by the lawful judgment of peers and the law of the land.

Soon after the signing of the Charter, the king refused to comply with it, but then it was confirmed again and again and continued to operate. The Charter did not create representative institutions, but it was an important step along the way.

By the end of the same 13th century, it became obvious to the royal authorities that a political compromise with the main classes - feudal lords and townspeople, the interconnection of political and economic interests. This could be ensured by class representation, and in 1295 the British Parliament was created. Initially, it included large secular and ecclesiastical feudal lords, invited personally, and two representatives from each of the 37 counties and each of the cities.

Until the middle of the 14th century, the estates sat together, later large feudal lords formed a separate chamber - the House of Lords, and representatives of knighthood, cities and ordinary clergy formed the House of Commons.

The powers of parliament changed and developed, and gradually three most important functions were assigned to it: to participate in the publication of laws, regulate taxes and control the actions of senior government officials, even acting, if necessary, as a special judicial body. At the end of the 14th century, the parliamentary procedure of impeachment took shape - the House of Commons bringing before the House of Lords accusations of abuse of power by royal officials.

In the 13th century, under the king, the closest circle of advisers was formed, concentrating in their hands the executive and judiciary, - The Royal Council, which usually included the chancellor, judges, ministerials (ministers) and treasurer. The prototype of a government separated from parliament can be seen quite clearly in this construction.

However, enough descriptions: our tasks do not include a detailed presentation of the system of power either in England or anywhere else - we are primarily interested in “typical portraits” of new democratic institutions. What new did the bodies of class representation bring?

Firstly, these were bodies of compromise, inter-estate agreements, and coordination of interests. Of course, they arose and acted in conditions of fierce struggle, but they did not provide the opportunity to overcome the conflict by force by suppressing one of the participants, but rather through a political solution mediated by treaties through specially created institutions. In terms of resolution methods political contradictions, this is the essence and meaning of democracy, its spirit.

Secondly, as we have already mentioned, the most important drawback and manifestation of the underdevelopment of ancient democracy was that it was a form of direct democracy. Antiquity did not know representative democracy. The institutions of class representation, born in the Middle Ages, were created on completely different principles - the principles of representation from the main groups of the population (classes). There was a transition from direct to representative democracy. The new emerging civilization was no longer built on polis statehood, but on the immeasurably more complex basis of vast national states, the management of which required different forms and methods.

Of course, this was a medieval democracy, and one can only talk about its representative character conditionally. And medieval democracy cannot be called democracy in the literal sense - democracy by the people, since in reality it did not express the interests of the majority of the population and did not ensure its power. All this is true, and yet European parliaments, as one of the foundations of democracy, grew not from the Athenian people's assembly, but from class representation.

Later, throughout Western Europe, estate-representative monarchies were replaced by absolute ones, which reflected the logic of economic and social development, requiring strict centralization of power and the elimination of feudal barriers, but this in no way erases the importance of the very principle of representative democracy, born in the Middle Ages.

There are ideas without which it is impossible to understand institutions that arose much later than these very ideas. We will not speak of “Catholic political scientists,” since very little of their legacy survived into subsequent skeptical centuries. There is, however, a name that cannot be ignored. We are talking about Marsilius of Padua (c.1275 – c.1343). His enormous work, The Defender of Peace, anticipated many of the ideas underlying later ideologies and institutions. In the era of undivided hegemony of the church, Marsilius insisted on the separation of church and state and its subordination to state secular power. His ideas about the origin of the state are very reminiscent of Aristotle, but Marsilius goes much further.

Marsilius considered the people to be the real source of power. Not all, of course, but the best, to which he included priests, military men and officials who cared not about their own welfare, but about the common good, which is how Marsilius distinguished them from traders, farmers and artisans concerned with mercantile interests.

So, it is not the monarch, but the people, according to Marsilius, who are the bearer of sovereignty (supreme power) and the supreme legislator. Marsilius also proposed a mechanism for implementing this sovereignty - through the most worthy people elected by the people. Moreover, the laws issued are equally binding both for the people and for those who issue them.

Based on the experience of Italian medieval city-republics, Marsilius considered the election of officials of all ranks, including monarchs, to be an extremely important principle, since he believed that the election better institute succession to the throne.

Marsilius clearly separated the legislative and executive powers, giving an undeniable advantage to the first, which should determine the conditions for the activities of the executive power. And let the specific form of the state be any, as long as it contributes to the implementation of the will of the people-legislator.

Many of Marsilius’ ideas were developed several centuries later and formed the basis for ideas about democracy.

The core of the Renaissance, which arose in the northern Italian city-republics, was the establishment of humanistic culture and anti-scholastic thinking, secularization (liberation from the influence of religion) of public consciousness and public institutions. Qualitatively new social and philosophical views emerged: self-worth, autonomy and freedom of the individual, respect for one’s dignity, the right to decide one’s own destiny. These ideas were incompatible with the class organization of society and the class predetermination of individual status - the cornerstones of the Middle Ages. Personal valor, talent, activity, service to the common good were put in first place. Accordingly, the principles of republican government and equality of citizens began to be affirmed in political science views; The idea of ​​a social contract received new development.

The Reformation began as a religious movement (primarily in Germany and Switzerland) against the exorbitant claims of the Roman papal curia. But objectively, it was also an anti-feudal, anti-class movement that contributed to the establishment of a new bourgeois system.

As already mentioned, neither the Renaissance nor the Reformation created fundamentally new democratic institutions. Moreover, sometimes the establishment of “reformist” statehood led to increased total oppression, general surveillance, pious denunciation and violent religious intolerance, as, for example, in the Geneva Consistory, which in 1541–1564 was actually led by one of the ideologists of the Reformation, John Calvin. But this does not negate the main thing - the orientation of the Reformation was anti-feudal.

At the same time, at the end of the Middle Ages, in the work of the great French political thinker Jean Bodin (1530-1596) “Six Books on the Republic,” the theory of state sovereignty, which “lies in the totality of free and rational beings that make up the people,” was developed in detail. Intellectually, Boden already belonged to the New Age, and it was in the New Age that many ideas born more than two thousand years ago found embodiment.

Basic theories of democracy

The search for a better political system was carried out by thinkers from different nations of the world, who over the course of two and a half millennia created many theories of democracy. Each era, each state brought novelty and originality to the interpretation of democracy. And today there is a new vision of the content of democracy. Let's look at the most basic and modern theories democracy: proletarian (socialist), pluralistic, participatory, corporate, elitist.

Proletarian (socialist) theory of democracy

Proletarian (socialist) theory was based on the Marxist class approach. It originated in the 19th century. as the antithesis of bourgeois (liberal) democracy, which put civil freedom in the foreground, i.e. complete independence of the individual’s personal life from political power, from the state, which is designed only to guarantee and ensure individual freedom.

According to the proletarian theory (K. Marx, F. Engels, V.I. Lenin), democracy and freedom are provided only for the “working masses,” primarily for the proletariat.

The focus is on political freedom, and there is no talk of civil freedom. The dictatorship of one class - the proletariat - in relation to another - the bourgeoisie, an alliance of the working class and the peasantry, directed against the overthrown exploiting classes, was proclaimed.

Attention was focused on the leadership role of the working class. Proletarian theory ignored the general civil consensus and developed class confrontation.

The complete denial of private property, and, consequently, any personal autonomy, the replacement of the people by the working class in proletarian theory was developed in the program documents of the CPSU. They focused on the leading role of the Communist Party as the vanguard of the working class, leading the process of transition to full democracy - communist self-government. The fundamental principle of separation of powers, without which democracy is impossible, was denied. The principle of economic, ideological and political pluralism was abandoned. The “Marxist-Leninist” party was viewed as a state structure, and not as a social organization. In reality, the advertised “socialist democracy” allowed democracy only within narrow limits, which were determined by the highest party and state leadership, which concentrated all real power in its hands.

Socialist democracy:

I. The concept of the leadership of the CPSU, according to which the political structure of the USSR and the communist countries - satellites of the USSR is a model of genuine democracy, qualitatively expanding the participation of the people in managing the affairs of society in comparison with the “formal”, “limited”, bourgeois democracy in capitalist countries.

The ideologists of the CPSU argued that the establishment of public ownership of all means of production under socialism makes it possible to put not only the state, but also the economy and culture under the control of the people. It was declared that under socialist democracy, along with the traditional institutions of representative democracy, forms of direct democracy are also developing (activities public organizations, a system of popular control, nationwide discussion of draft major laws, referendums, etc.), and the rights and freedoms of citizens are not only proclaimed (as in capitalist countries), but also guaranteed.

Particular emphasis is placed on the fact that socialist democracy includes not only traditional political rights and freedoms, but also socio-economic rights (the right to work, education, housing, healthcare). The basic principles of socialist democracy were enshrined in the USSR Constitutions of 1936 and 1977. The creator of the concept of socialist democracy is actually J.V. Stalin; it was based on V.I. Lenin’s teaching about the dictatorship of the proletariat in the form of modern government as the maximum of democracy for workers and peasants. The basic postulates of the concept of socialist democracy (“socialist democracy”) were formulated by Stalin in the report “On the Draft Constitution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics” at the Extraordinary VIII All-Union Congress of Soviets on November 25, 1936. The Soviet leader argued that bourgeois democracy does not care about the possibilities of exercising the rights of citizens formally enshrined in constitutions, while Soviet democracy, thanks to public ownership of all means of production, provides the material means for their implementation. Stalin denied the existence of political equality in capitalist countries on the grounds that there could be no real equality between the exploiter and the exploited; at the same time, he stated, the elimination of exploitation in the USSR actually ensures equality of citizens' rights.

According to Stalin, democracy in capitalist countries is democracy “for the propertied minority,” “democracy in the USSR... is democracy for the working people, that is, democracy for everyone,” and “the Constitution of the USSR is the only completely democratic constitution in the world.” These principles were proclaimed by the leadership of the CPSU in the post-Stalin era. However, it should be noted that Stalin considered the dictatorship of the proletariat (proletarian democracy) as the highest form of democracy; in the CPSU Program adopted under N.S. Khrushchev in 1961, it was indicated that the dictatorship of the proletariat had fulfilled its historical mission, proletarian democracy had turned into a nationwide socialist democracy. In reality, the modern regime was totalitarian in nature, and the doctrine and institutions of social democracy were used to disguise the monopoly on power of the party bureaucracy. Uncontested elections in the USSR and other communist countries had the character of a farce and were used as a tool for mass legitimization of the regime, the councils were actually a powerless appendage of the party - the state, constitutional rights and freedoms remained only on paper and were constantly violated in practice, there was no equality of citizens before the law and the court. Only socio-economic rights were relatively real.

II. The form of political organization of a socialist society as conceived by theorists of the left non-communist forces of the West (social democrats and neo-Marxists), as well as some communists in the communist parties of Western and Eastern Europe. According to the concept of socialist democracy, democracy in a socialist society should extend not only to the sphere of politics (as in bourgeois democracy), but also to the economy, work, and culture. This will be possible through the establishment of public ownership of all or most of the means of production, which will overcome the limitations of democracy associated with private property and abuse of power by owners. Socialist democracy is not a negation of bourgeois democracy, but its expansion and spread to all spheres of human activity, which will provide people with qualitatively greater freedom than that provided by bourgeois democracy under capitalism.

Supporters of this concept criticized “real socialism” in the USSR and other communist countries, pointing out their lack of democracy and the totalitarian nature of their political systems. According to supporters of socialist democracy, modern society will become truly socialist only after it is supplemented with democracy, that is, first of all, after the elimination of the monopoly on power of the Communist Party and the establishment of political and ideological pluralism.

Thus, the auto-Marxist O. Bauer wrote in 1936 that the contradiction between the democratic socialism of the West and the revolutionary socialism of the East “will be eliminated on the day when the modern dictatorship takes the path of its decisive transformation into socialist democracy.” This transformation, according to Bauer, proposed the democratization of the modern state and economy, the establishment of workers' control over the bureaucracy, its income and privileges. Social-democratic leaders and ideologists recognized the transformation of modern totalitarianism into a system of socialist democracy later. This concept of socialist democracy was adopted by reformist communists (in modern terminology, “right-wing revisionists”) in Eastern Europe after Stalin's death in 1953 and the revelation of his crimes in 1956. In 1968, it was actively used by supporters of democratic socialism in Czechoslovakia. Thus, the famous figure of the “Prague Spring,” the philosopher I. Svitak, considered it necessary to replace the totalitarian dictatorship with socialist democracy without abandoning socialist gains, especially public ownership of the means of production. Czechoslovak reformists believed that the dictatorship of the proletariat, which is not democracy, but inevitable at the first stage of the construction of socialism, in Czechoslovakia fulfilled its historical task, therefore the transition to the second stage of socialism - popular democracy or socialist democracy - became relevant (the difference between this concept and the official Soviet interpretation is obvious , which actually equated social democracy with the dictatorship of the proletariat). Socialist democracy, according to M. Jodl, M. Kusa, I. Svitak and other reformers, presupposed political and ideological pluralism, the right to opposition, and the separation of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia from the state. Concepts of socialist democracy close to these ideas in the West were developed by communist theorists E. Fischer (expelled from the Austrian Communist Party in 1969) and R. Garaudy (expelled from the French Communist Party in 1970), later - Eurocommunists. (1, 332).

The theory of "pluralistic democracy"

The theory of "pluralistic democracy" was most influential in the 60-70s. XX century (R. Allen, R. Dahl, M. Duverger, R. Dahrendorf, D. Riesman), although the term “pluralism” was introduced into political circulation in 1915 by the English socialist G. Laski. According to this theory, classes have disappeared in modern bourgeois society.

Modern bourgeois society consists of different interacting “strata” - layers. They arise as a result of a commonality of certain interests (professional, age, material, spiritual, religious, etc.). Since these interests are not antagonistic, the relations between the strata are devoid of antagonism.

For all its harmony, the theory of “pluralistic democracy” has internal contradictions and weaknesses. First of all, it is unrealistic to unite the entire population into “pressure groups” and to ensure that they have equal influence. Although it is declared desirable to attract as many citizens as possible into “pressure groups,” most of them are doomed to passivity in the political process.

In the late 70s - 80s. XX century, due to the decline in popularity of the theory of “pluralistic democracy,” some of its former supporters (G. Parsons, R. Dahl) switched to the position of the theory of elite democracy.

Democracies, which are characteristic of most Western European countries, proceed from the fact that the main subjects of politics are not individuals or people, but various groups of people. At the same time, it is believed that only with the help of a group does an individual have the opportunity to politically express and protect his interests. And it is in the group, as well as in the process of intergroup relations, that interests and motives are formed political activity individual. The people are viewed as a complex, internally contradictory entity, and therefore they cannot act as the main subject of politics. In pluralistic democracies, the focus is on creating a mechanism for political interaction that allows all citizens to openly express and defend their interests. The dominant role in this mechanism is assigned to independent groups of political influence. There are many groups operating here - parties, public associations and movements - seeking to participate in the exercise of power or influence the activities of the ruling group. Great importance is also attached to ensuring a balance of interests of various social groups, creating counterbalances to the usurpation of power by the most powerful social groups or the majority of citizens.

The theory of elite democracy

The theory of elite democracy arose in the 70-80s. XX century based on combining elements of the theory of elites and the theory of “pluralistic democracy” (S. Keller, O. Stammer, D. Risman).

The early theory of elites (“elite” - the best, selected, chosen), was developed by V. Pareto, G. Mosca, R. Michels (late 19th - early 20th centuries). Its main position is that there are two classes in power: the ruling (elite) and the ruled (the people, the working people). Having nothing in common with democratic theories, the early theory of elites denied the ability of the masses to govern. The exception is G. Mosca's assumption about the renewal of the elite at the expense of those most capable of governing from among the active lower strata of society. But this does not at all indicate the democratic position of the theory of early elitism. Its ideologists were convinced that the ruling class concentrated the leadership of the country's political life in its own hands, and the intervention of unenlightened people in politics could only destabilize or destroy the existing socio-political structures.

Before the Second World War, the center of elitism propaganda was in Europe, the USA was its “periphery” (the works of Mosca, Pareto, Michels began to be translated there only in the 30s of the 20th century). After the war, this center moved to the USA. Several elite schools were formed. If we compare American and Western European theories of elites, we find that the former is more empirical, dominated by interpretations of the elite in terms of power structure and socio-political influences. The second is characterized by a “value” interpretation of the elite.

Thus, the theory of elite democracy is based on an understanding of democracy as the free competition of candidates for votes, as a form of government by elites more or less controlled by the people, especially during elections. The essence of the concept of elite democracy lies in the idea of ​​pluralism of elites, “growing up” on the basis of the interaction of social groups. The idea of ​​pluralism of elites is opposed to the idea of ​​power in the hands of one elite.

Participatory democracy theory

The theory of participatory democracy (participatory democracy) (J. Wolf, K. McPherson, J. Mansbridge) is based on the reformist concepts of neoliberals and social democrats. In general, while remaining committed to the institutions and values ​​of the liberal democratic model of society, supporters of the theory of participatory democracy have a negative attitude towards the theories of pluralistic and elitist democracy. They set themselves the task of achieving more effective freedom and equality than is in reality and than is recorded in other liberal democratic concepts. Rejecting views about the inability of the masses to take constructive political action, supporters of participatory democracy are actively searching for channels for effectively involving citizens in the process of making political decisions. To stimulate the political activity of the lower strata of society, it is proposed to raise their general educational level and familiarize them with the basics of political culture.

Proponents of the theory of participatory democracy believe that it is possible to avoid the election of tyrannical rule through legal means due to the incompetence of the majority of the people. To do this, it is not necessary to exclude the masses from the political process.

Participatory democracy is a mixed form - a combination of direct and representative democracy - organized as a "pyramid system" with direct democracy at the base and delegate democracy at each subsequent level from the base.

Thus, the theory of participatory democracy justifies the need for broad direct participation of citizens both in making vital decisions and in their preparation and implementation, i.e. throughout the political process.

The theory of corporate democracy

The theory of corporate democracy is one of the common ones. It arose simultaneously with the emergence of business and working class organizations that defended the interests not of individual entrepreneurs or workers, but of the corporate interests of all members of the relevant organizations. Democracy is presented as an institutional mechanism for developing policies and government decisions with the help of representatives of the country's political elite and leaders of a limited number of workers' organizations, i.e. business and trade union elites.

This theory views democracy as the consensual, non-competitive rule of corporate leaders, employees and entrepreneurs, as well as parties. At the same time, corporations have the right to represent all workers in a particular industry. The state, in their interpretation, acts as an arbiter. The theory of corporate democracy has points of contact with the theory of “pluralistic democracy”. Both recognize the existence of a center of power outside government bodies. However, if the first argues that competing “pressure groups” influence the development of public policy, then corporatists proceed from the fact that only a limited number of groups - non-competing, hierarchically organized, under state control - can influence the formation and implementation of policy. Proponents of this theory replace elite competition with consensus decision-making methods.

The theory of corporate democracy has found practical application in the regulation of social relations (payment and labor protection, social security, etc.). However, its provisions cannot be extended to all state activities, since they infringe on the rights of the individual in favor of large corporations and the bureaucracy.

It is believed that the corporate theory is closer to the theory of elite democracy and can be considered as its variety.

Lliberal or Hindu democracies

They proceed from the priority of individual rights over the rights of the state. Therefore, they pay primary attention to the creation of institutional, legal and other guarantees for individual freedom, preventing any suppression of the individual by power. To this end, liberal democracies strive to create mechanisms that ensure individual rights by limiting the power of the majority. The scope of the state’s activities here comes down mainly to protecting public order, ensuring security and legal protection of the rights of citizens. In this form of democracy, great importance is attached to the separation of powers, improving the mechanisms of their mutual containment and balancing in order to prevent abuse of power and create conditions for the manifestation of individual autonomy.

It should be noted that liberal democracies are actually a very rare phenomenon. For example, the United States of America gravitates towards this form of democracy. However, even here, attempts to implement it in a “pure” form constantly encounter the need to overcome contradictions between individual, group and general interests. The modern state is called upon to act not only as a guarantor of individual rights and freedoms, but also to regulate economic and social processes in order to harmonize the interests of various social groups.

Collectivistdemocracy

They are also known as People's democracies, on the contrary, they proceed from the fact that it is the people as a whole, and not individual individuals or groups of people, who have the indivisible and inalienable right to establish laws and determine the activities of the government. Collectivist democracies, one way or another, recognize the priority of the people or a large group identified with them. social subject(eg working class, indigenous ethnic community) in expressing the general will and exercising power. Such democracies actually proceed from the homogeneity of the people as a social subject, the infallibility of their will, and therefore they absolutize the principle of subordination of the minority to the majority, and also deny individual autonomy. Attempts to implement collectivist democracy in a “pure” form led in fact to rule in the name of the “people” by a narrow group of people, to the suppression of political rights and civil liberties, and to brutal repression against other dissent. The experience of their implementation in a number of countries shows that the power of the people cannot be real without the simultaneous recognition and institutional and legal consolidation of the individual as the most important subject of politics.

Direct or plebiscitarydemocracy

They proceed from the fact that the people themselves should make the most important political decisions, and representative bodies of government should be reduced to a minimum and made completely controlled by citizens. With the development of direct democracy in a country, as is the case, for example, in Switzerland, the range of issues resolved directly by citizens is constantly expanding. This includes the adoption of the most important legislative acts, the choice of political decisions of a strategic nature, and the adoption of decisions of local importance. It is not difficult to see that plebiscitary democracy makes it possible to develop the political activity of citizens, ensure strong legitimacy of power, and exercise effective control over the activities of state institutions and officials.

Prepresentative, or representative democracies

They, on the contrary, proceed from the fact that the will of the people can be expressed not only directly by them during voting, but also by their representatives in government bodies.

In this approach, democracy is understood as representative government that is competent and responsible to the people. The participation of citizens in political decision-making is not generally rejected, but it is limited to a very narrow range of issues. A fairly precise definition of the essence of representative democracy was given by the German political scientist R. Dahrendorf. “Democracy,” he believes, “is not “rule of the people,” this simply does not happen in the world. Democracy is a government elected by the people, and if necessary, removed by the people; besides, democracy is government with its own course.” In this form of democracy, relations between the people and their representatives are built on the basis of trust and control in the form of periodically held elections, constitutional restrictions on the competencies of government bodies and officials with their complete independence within the limits of the law. (6, 124).

Primitivedemocracy

Democratic forms of organization are rooted in a deep, even pre-state past - in the tribal system. They arise along with the appearance of man himself. Some ethnographers argue that democracy is one of the most important factors in anthropogenesis, the emergence of the entire human race, since it stimulated the development of equal communication between people, their self-awareness and free thinking, individual responsibility and personal dignity. As ethnographic research shows, non-democratic forms of organization, based on strict hierarchy and subordination, rigid individual consolidation of managerial and executive roles along the lines of an anthill or a swarm of bees, led the development of our ancestors to a dead end.

All peoples have gone through generic forms of democracy. Their typical example is the organization of management among the American Indians - the Iroquois. All adult men and women of this clan had an equal right to vote in the selection and removal of their highest leaders - the elder (sachem) and the chief (military leader). The highest authority the clan was a council - a meeting of all its adult representatives. He elected and dismissed sachems and leaders, resolved issues of war and peace, and the acceptance of outsiders into his clan.

The clan acted as a democratic unit of a more complex organization - a union of phratries - a brotherhood of several clans that were especially close to each other in territory, communication, family and other ties, which, while maintaining autonomy, had a common council as the highest authority. Several phratries made up a tribe. It was led by a tribal council, consisting of sachems and military leaders of all clans. Meetings of this council were held openly, with the participation of any members of the tribe, who, however, did not have the right to vote. Decisions at such councils were usually made according to the principle of unanimity.

Some, and then most, tribes had supreme leaders chosen from sachems or military leaders. Their powers were limited. Some of the tribes entered into alliances, which were led by alliance councils consisting of sachems and leaders.

Similar forms of democracy existed among the ancient Greeks, Germans and other peoples. Everywhere, tribal democracy was based on consanguinity, common property, low density and relative smallness of the population, and primitive production. She did not know a clear division of managerial and executive division of labor, and did not have a special apparatus of management and coercion. The functions of government were limited. The main sphere of relations between people was regulated by customs and taboos. The power of the councils and leaders (elders) rested on the moral authority and support of their fellow tribesmen. It was a rather primitive, pre-state democracy, or community self-government.

With the development of production and social division of labor, population growth, the emergence of private property and deepening social inequality, primitive democracy was undermined and gave way to authoritarian (monarchical, aristocratic, oligarchic or tyrannical) forms of government. However, even in authoritarian states for many centuries, and in individual countries Some traditional democratic forms of organization, especially communal self-government, have survived to this day. The traditions of primitive democracy had a great influence on the emergence of democratic states in Ancient Greece and Rome. .

Antiquedemocracy

One of the forms of political organization of the ancient state (polis). The nature and essential features of ancient democracy are most accurately revealed through its definition as a polis democracy. The ancient polis represented the unity of political, civil and religious communities; there was no separation of state and church, state and civil society, political and military organizations, or the rights and responsibilities of a citizen. The existence of the community was based on collective ownership of land. Only full citizens had access to land property. Equality of political rights was in the ancient polis a necessary condition for equality of economic rights (from the history of Ancient Rome it is known that the economic meaning of the struggle of the plebeians for equal political rights with the patricians in the tsarist period and during the early republic was to obtain the right to occupy the lands of the “public field”, which used only by patricians - full citizens). Political and economic rights, in turn, were granted only to those who formed the city militia and were part of the military organization of the policy. The unity of the rights (privileges) and duties of a citizen - warrior-owner predetermined the absence of soil for the emergence of the idea of ​​​​political representation - ancient democracy could only be direct democracy. The interdependence of political and economic rights dictated the limits of expanding the circle of full-fledged citizens - polis democracy at all stages of its history remained a minority democracy. Thus, in Athens there was no practice of granting civil rights to allies, and in Rome, residents of the provinces who served in the allied forces began to receive citizenship rights on any large scale only during the period of the empire. The main institution of ancient democracy was the People's Assembly, in which all full-fledged citizens took part: in Athens, which gave history the most perfect example of polis democracy, People's Assemblies were convened regularly, every 10 days. All issues related to internal and foreign policy city-state: it elected senior officials, determined the order of spending the city treasury, declared war and determined the conditions for concluding peace. Affairs of current management, or, in terms of modern principles state organization, the functions of the executive power, belonged to officials elected by the People's Assembly: in Athens it was the council of 500, in Rome - magistrates (consuls, tribunes of the people, praetors, censors, quaestors, aediles; in emergency circumstances, in the event external danger or a real threat of civil war, the People's Assembly handed power to the dictator for a limited period, no more than six months). Another important institution of ancient democracy, which distinguished its most developed forms, was the People's Court. According to Aristotle, who studied history and comparative advantage political structure contemporary Greek city-states, the establishment of the People's Court meant a decisive step towards the establishment of democracy in Athens: “When the People's Court became stronger, the state system turned into the current democracy.” In Athens during the era of Pericles, during the “golden age” Athenian democracy(5th century BC) 6 thousand judges were annually elected to the People's Court, of which 5 thousand formed 10 sections of dicasteries that tried cases in open court sessions. According to their own social foundations ancient democracy was a democracy of medium and small landowners. Relative economic equality served as a guarantee of freedom and real equality of political rights; it protected democracy from degeneration into extreme forms, into ochlocracy, and from the establishment of an oligarchy followed by dictatorship. During the period of formation of modern democracy, historians, philosophers, and jurists often turn to the institutions and norms of ancient democracy. .

Ochlocracy

When assessed according to its first, most important principle - the sovereignty of the people - democracy is classified according to how the people are understood and how sovereignty is exercised by them. Such a seemingly obvious and simple concept as “the people” has been interpreted in far from the same way in the history of political thought. In contrast to the modern understanding as (in relation to democracy - the adult) the entire population of the country, until approximately the middle of the 19th century, demos, the people were identified either with free adult men (as was the case in ancient democracy), or with owners possessing real estate or other significant values , or only with men.

Limiting the people to certain class or demographic boundaries gives grounds to characterize states that subject certain groups of the population to political discrimination and, in particular, do not provide them with voting rights, as socially limited democracies and to distinguish them from universal democracies - states with equal political rights for the entire adult population.

Until the beginning of the twentieth century, none of the previously existing democracies provided the entire adult population of the country with equal political rights. These were predominantly class-based and patriarchal (male-only) democracies. In the history of political thought, the prevailing interpretation of the people was the common people, the poor lower strata, the rabble, who make up the majority of the population. This understanding of demos can be found in Aristotle, who considered democracy to be an incorrect form of state and interpreted it as the power of the demos, the mob, incapable of management, balanced, rational decisions that take into account the common good. In modern political theory, this type of government is reflected in the concept of “ochlocracy,” which translated from Greek means “the power of the mob.”

So, depending on the understanding of the composition of the people, its power can be universal or socially (class, ethnic, demographic, etc.) limited democracy, as well as ochlocracy.

Plebiscitarydemocracy(from lat. plebs - common people and scitum - decision; plebiscitum - decision of the people; plebiscite - popular vote).

In the history of socio-political thought, the concept of plebiscitary democracy is firmly associated with the name of M. Weber, although with some assumptions the features of plebiscitary democracy can be found in political history ancient Greek city-states. The meaning of the concept of plebiscitary democracy in his theoretical research is revealed by the logic of the theory of bureaucracy. For Weber, the internal interrelation between the processes of the increasing role of bureaucracy and the spread of the institutions of modern democracy, the principles of freedom, equality and representative government was obvious. The people, the voters included in the routine of regular democratic elections, are not able to independently put a limit to the uncontrolled power of the bureaucracy. There is a need for a break, giving the system a new quality, an end to the “arbitrariness of political cliques,” which, according to Weber, is only possible with the arrival of a charismatic leader, whom the people, through a plebiscite, endow with the broadest powers, including the suspension of legislative acts and the dissolution of parliament.

Thus, in Weber’s concept, plebiscitary democracy is one of the main, and in certain conditions, the only instrument of democratization, a means to solve by authoritarian methods those problems that “formal” democracy is powerless to face, a transitional stage to the democratic principle of legitimacy through charismatic domination. However, the practice of modern authoritarianism and totalitarianism refuted Weber’s conviction in the temporary, transitional nature of the stage of charismatic leadership, the natural evolution of authoritarian institutions in democracy, and the inevitability of strengthening the role of the representative branch of government. In the hands of leaders of an authoritarian and totalitarian bent, a plebiscite can become a means of strengthening the system of personal power, eliminating political rivals and suppressing the opposition, a method of solving problems facing the regime, bypassing parliament, political parties and other democratic institutions.

Proceduraldemocracy

A complex of political technology that ensures the existence and development of democratic institutions, the electoral process (standardization, electoral laws, documentation rules, etc.), procedural rules for the work of state and other institutions, norms and conditions for their interaction, regulations for production procedures - meetings, reports, requests, relationships between and within institutions. Procedural democracy is an organizational form of democracy. In the absence or shortcomings of the substantive foundations of the democratic process, procedural democracy turns out to be its main disciplinary basis, performing the functions of a code of conduct for citizens of a democratic society.

Dparticipatory democracy

The concept of democracy, developed in the 20th century (L. Strauss, E. Voegelin, etc.) suggests that for the successful functioning of the political system it is necessary that an increasingly large and most of society actively participated in all spheres of its political life. The degree of participatory democracy determines a country's political culture.

Psigns of democracy

The word "democracy" is used in different meaning:

As a form of state;

As a political regime;

As a principle of organization and activity of government bodies and public organizations.

When they say about a state that it is democratic, they mean the presence of all these meanings. Democracy as a form of state is possible in countries with a democratic regime, and therefore, with a democratic principle of organization and activity of all subjects of the political system of society (state bodies, government organizations, public associations, labor collectives), which are also subjects of democracy. Of course, the subjects of democracy are, first of all, the citizen and the people.

Democracy has never existed anywhere without a state.

In reality, democracy is a form (variety) of a state characterized by at least the following features:

1) recognition of the people as the supreme source of power;

2) election of the main bodies of the state;

3) equality of citizens and, above all, equality of their voting rights;

4) subordination of the minority to the majority when making decisions.

Any democratic state is built on the basis of these general characteristics, but the degree of development of democracy may vary. Democratization of society is a long-term, ongoing process that requires not only domestic, but also international guarantees.

Modern democratic states (and it is prestigious to be a democratic state) are complemented by a number of other features and principles, for example:

1) respect for human rights, their priority over the rights of the state;

2) constitutional limitation of the power of the majority over the minority;

3) respect for the rights of minorities to their own opinion and free expression;

4) the rule of law;

5) separation of powers, etc.

Based on the modern filling of democracy with qualitative additional content, we can define democracy as a model, an ideal to which civilized states strive.

Democracy - political organization the power of the people, which ensures: equal participation of everyone in the management of state and public affairs; election of the main bodies of the state and legality in the functioning of all subjects of the political system of society; ensuring human and minority rights and freedoms in accordance with international standards.

Signs of democracy.

1. Democracy has a state character:

a) is expressed in the delegation by the people of their powers to government bodies. The people participate in the management of affairs in society and the state, both directly (self-government) and through representative bodies. He cannot exercise the power that belongs to him and delegates part of his powers to state bodies;

b) is ensured by the election of state bodies, i.e. a democratic procedure for organizing state bodies as a result of competitive, free and fair elections;

c) manifests itself in the ability of state power to influence the behavior and activities of people, to subordinate them to itself in order to manage public affairs.

2. Democracy is political in nature: it provides for political diversity. Democracy, as well as a market economy, is impossible without the existence of competition, i.e. without opposition and a pluralistic political system. This is reflected in the fact that democracy is the principle of activity of political parties in the struggle for possession of state power. In democracy, the diversity of political opinions is taken into account - party and other, ideological approaches to solving social and state tasks. Democracy excludes state censorship and ideological dictatorship.

The legislation of developed Western countries enshrines a number of principles that should guarantee political pluralism:

2) equality in elections;

4) direct elections, etc.

3. Democracy provides for the declaration, guarantee and actual implementation of the rights of citizens - economic, political, civil, social, cultural, as well as their responsibilities in accordance with international standards enshrined in the Charter of Human Rights (Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966 and International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights 1966, etc.). the procedure for application has been established international standards about human rights.

4. Democracy provides for legality as a regime of social and political life. The regime of socio-political life is expressed in the requirements for the entire society - for all subjects of the political system (they are also the subjects of democracy) and, above all, for government bodies - to be established and function on the basis of strict and unwavering implementation of legal norms. Each state body, each official must have as many powers as necessary to create conditions for the implementation of human rights, their protection and defense.

5. Democracy presupposes mutual responsibility of the state and citizen, which is expressed in the requirement to refrain from committing actions that violate their mutual rights and obligations. The arbiter in possible conflicts between the state and the citizen is an independent and democratic court.

Functions and principles of democracy

The functions of democracy are the main directions of its impact on social relations, the purpose of which is to increase the socio-political activity of citizens in the management of society and the state.

Since democracy is not a static, but a dynamic state of society, its functions have changed, enriched, and deepened in different historical periods.

The functions of democracy can be divided into two groups:

1. revealing connections with social relations;

2. expressing the internal functions of the state;

Some of the most common functions of democracy include the following:

1. Organizational-political - organization of political power on a democratic basis. It includes the subfunction of self-organization of the people (self-government) as a source of state power and is expressed in the presence of organizational ties between the subjects of democracy: state bodies, government organizations, public associations, labor collectives;

2. Regulatory-compromise - ensuring pluralism in the activities of democratic subjects within a civilized framework of cooperation and compromise, concentration and consolidation of various political forces around the interests of civil society and the state. The legal means of ensuring this function is the regulation of the legal statuses of subjects of democracy;

3. Socially stimulating - ensuring optimal government service to society, stimulating, taking into account and using public opinion and citizen activity (consultative referendums, orders, letters, statements, etc.) in the development and adoption of government decisions;

4. Constituent - the formation of state authorities and local governments through democratic means (competition, elections);

5. Control - ensuring the activities of state bodies within their competence in accordance with the requirements of regulatory legal acts; control and accountability of all parts of the state apparatus (for example, control of representative bodies over executive bodies, reporting of the latter to the former);

6. Security - ensuring by state bodies the security, honor and dignity of every person, protection and protection of the rights and freedoms of the individual, minorities, forms of ownership, prevention and suppression of offenses.

The last three functions of democracy express the internal functions of the state.

The principles of democracy are indisputable initial requirements that are presented to all participants in political activity, i.e. to subjects of democracy.

Recognition by the international community of the basic principles of democracy is explained by the desire to strengthen international anti-totalitarian politics.

The basic principles of democracy are:

1) political freedom - freedom to choose a social system and form of government, the right of the people to determine and change the constitutional system, ensuring the protection of human rights. Freedom has a primary purpose - on its basis equality and inequality can arise, but it presupposes equality;

2) equality of citizens - means the equality of everyone before the law, equal responsibility for the offense committed, the right to equal protection before the court. Compliance with equality is guaranteed: there can be no privileges or restrictions based on race, skin color, political, religious and other beliefs, gender, ethnic and social origin, property status, place of residence, language and other characteristics. The most important aspect of equality is the equality of rights and freedoms of men and women, who have the same opportunities for their implementation;

3) election of state bodies and constant contact of the population with them - involves the formation of government bodies and local self-government through the expression of the people's will, ensures their turnover, accountability and mutual control, and the equal opportunity for everyone to exercise their electoral rights. In a democratic state, the same people should not continuously hold positions in government bodies for a long time: this causes distrust among citizens and leads to the loss of legitimacy of these bodies;

4) separation of powers - means interdependence and mutual limitation of different branches of power: legislative, executive, judicial, which serves as an obstacle to the transformation of power into a means of suppressing freedom and equality;

5) making decisions according to the will of the majority with mandatory respect for the rights of the minority - means a combination of the will of the majority with guarantees of the rights of an individual who is in a minority - ethnic, religious, political; absence of discrimination, suppression of the rights of individuals who are not in the majority in decision-making;

6) pluralism - means a variety of social phenomena, expands the circle of political choice, implies not only a pluralism of opinions, but also political pluralism - a plurality of parties, public associations, etc. with various programs and statutes operating within the framework of the constitution. Democracy is possible when it is based on the principle of pluralism, but not all pluralism is necessarily democratic. Only in conjunction with other principles does pluralism acquire universal significance for modern democracy.

Forms and institutions of democracy

The functions of democracy are realized through its forms and institutions.

The form of democracy is its outer expression.

There are many forms of democracy, but the main ones are the following:

1. The participation of the people in the management of state and public affairs (democracy) is carried out in two forms - direct and indirect:

Direct - representative democracy - a form of democracy in which power is exercised through identifying the will of representatives of the people in elected bodies (parliaments, local governments).

Indirect - direct democracy - a form of democracy in which power is exercised through the direct determination of the will of the people or certain social groups (referendum, elections).

2. Formation and functioning of a system of state bodies based on the democratic principles of legality, transparency, election, turnover, division of competence, which prevent abuse of official position and public authority;

3. Legal (primarily constitutional) consolidation of the system of rights, freedoms and duties of man and citizen, their protection and protection in accordance with international standards.

Types of democracy are classified according to spheres of public life: economic; social; political; cultural-spiritual, etc.

The forms of democracy are manifested in its institutions (referendum, public opinion, commissions, etc.).

Institutions of democracy are legitimate and legal elements of the political system of society that directly create democratic regime in the state through the implementation of the principles of democracy in them.

A prerequisite for the legitimacy of the institution of democracy is its organizational design for public recognition; a prerequisite for legality is its legal formalization, legitimation.

According to their original purpose in solving problems of politics, power and management, institutions of democracy are distinguished:

1) Structural - sessions of parliaments, deputy commissions, people's controllers, etc.

2) Functional - parliamentary requests, orders from voters, public opinion, etc.

According to the legal significance of the decisions made, democratic institutions are distinguished:

1) Imperative - have final, generally binding significance for government bodies, officials, citizens: constitutional and legislative referendum; elections; instructions from voters, etc.

2) Advisory - have an advisory, advisory value for government bodies, officials, citizens: referendum is advisory; nationwide discussion of bills; rallies; survey, etc.

In the system of institutions of direct democracy, the most important place belongs to elections.

Elections are a form of direct participation of citizens in government through the formation of supreme representative bodies, local government bodies, and their personnel.

Citizens of a democratic state have the right to freely elect and be elected to government bodies and local self-government bodies. A citizen can express his will freely while maintaining equality. Voter freedom is realized through secret voting and requires the establishment of guarantees against pressure on him.

A special institution of democracy is a referendum as one of the ways of democratic management of public affairs.

A referendum (Latin - something that must be communicated) is a way of solving cardinal problems of national and local importance by voting (adopting a constitution, other important laws or making changes to them, as well as other decisions on important issues). A referendum is one of the important institutions of direct democracy, held with the aim of ensuring democracy - the direct participation of citizens in the management of the state and local affairs.

Referendums on the subject of holding are divided into:

Advisory - conducted with the aim of identifying public opinion on a fundamental issue of public life.

In Switzerland, in addition to the referendum, the institutions of direct democracy are the people's council and the people's legislative initiative. In the United States, a referendum is used on the same basis as a legislative initiative. In France, three years after the first referendum in 1789, plebiscites began to be practiced - popular polls that are considered synonymous with referendums.

Democracy and self-government

Self-government of the people is a type of social management that is based on self-organization, self-regulation and initiative of participants in social relations.

Self-organization is the independent implementation of organizational actions.

Self-regulation is the independent establishment of norms and rules of behavior.

Amateur activity is independent activity in making decisions and implementing them. With self-government, the object and subject of management coincide, that is, people manage their own affairs, make joint decisions and act together to implement the decisions made. In conditions of self-government, its participants recognize the power of only their own association over themselves.

So, the signs of self-government:

1) this is a type of social management;

2) power belongs to the entire team;

3) power is exercised by the collective directly or through elected bodies;

4) the subject and object of management are united and coincide;

5) self-regulation occurs through commonly accepted social norms;

6) common affairs are conducted jointly, decisions are made together;

7) the interests of the community are defended and protected on the basis of initiative.

Self-government as one of the forms of organization of human society is based on the principles of freedom, equality and direct participation

(direct expression of will) in management.

The term "self-government" is usually used to refer to several levels of association of people:

1. to the whole society: public self-government;

2. to individual territories: regional and local self-government;

3. to production management: production self-government

(for example, self-government of educational institutions);

4. to the management of public associations, etc. What is the relationship between democracy and self-government? Can they be identified?

It is impossible to equate democracy with self-government, since self-government is a more comprehensive concept and a more long-term phenomenon than democracy: it precedes it and outlives it.

Self-government developed during the period of the tribal system. In the conditions of a primitive clan, public power was exercised by the population itself through a general meeting of members of the clan. Here management and self-government actually coincided, since all members of the clan took part in managing its affairs.

With the emergence of the state, self-government was replaced by management: the state apparatus concentrated power in its hands, using it to manage the affairs of society. Self-government has not disappeared. It acquired local character. It “went” into certain structures and spheres of life (far from the center) - peasant communities, workers' artels. In the Middle Ages, it manifested itself in self-government of cities (Magdeburg law), in Cossack associations (for example, in Ukraine), in modern times - in zemstvo self-government, autonomy of universities (for example, in pre-revolutionary Russia).

But democracy and self-government cannot be opposed, since democracy presupposes self-government, while self-government can exist without democracy as a form of political power of the people.

In the early stages of social development, self-government systems often came into conflict with a non-democratic form of state (for example, the Zaporozhye Sich in Ukraine with the monarchical form of government in Russia). As democracy develops - since the emergence of bourgeois states, which proclaimed the people to be the source of power - self-government finds in democracy the guarantor of its effectiveness.

Considering self-government and democracy, we can identify common features:

They are built on the same principles of freedom, equality, publicity;

They are forms of exercising power;

Implemented directly and through elected bodies;

Can be carried out using a common regulatory framework.

Public administration and self-government are not alternatives. Within the framework of democracy, they operate in parallel on the basis of interaction and mutual complementarity. Democracy is a condition for the development of self-government.

Self-government is the core of democracy. Elements of self-government are used in the exercise of political power. At moments of participation in solving public affairs, self-government systems acquire a political character, which is determined by the specific measure of this participation.

Self-government in the sphere of production is manifested in the economies of many countries where there is a self-government sector, which includes enterprises bought out and managed by labor collectives. Here, industrial democracy is expressed in the participation of workers in the management of enterprises together with the administration. Cooperatives, individual and family enterprises operate on a self-governing basis.

A special type of self-government is local self-government

Democracy as a universal human value

Despite the fact that at all times democracy has been understood and interpreted differently, one thing is certain: it, as a political and legal value, has become an integral element of the consciousness of people all over the world. But there is practically no final stage of democracy that would satisfy everyone. Experiencing restrictions, a person comes into conflict with the state when he does not find in the laws that justice “which is the basis of his existence, when the inequality of natural abilities and merits is not taken into account, when there is no recognition depending on political maturity, skill, experience etc. The will to justice (and its importance is great for democracy) is never completely satisfied, and democracy (not formal) cannot be fully and completely achieved in any state. One must constantly become involved in democracy, awaken one’s will, express views, be politically active, i.e. become more mature for democratic activities.

Democracy is a good thing only when it corresponds to the culture and mentality of the people.

Let's consider the basic values ​​of democracy as a socio-political phenomenon.

1) Intrinsic value is revealed through its social purpose - to serve the benefit of the individual, society, and state:

1. establish a correspondence between the formally proclaimed and actually operating principles of freedom, equality, justice, and actually implement them in personal public and state life;

2. combine government and social principles in the system of democracy as a form of state;

3. create an atmosphere of harmony of interests of the individual and the state, consensus and compromise between all subjects of democracy.

In democracy, society realizes the benefits of social partnership and solidarity, civil peace and harmony.

2) Instrumental value - through its functional purpose - to serve as a tool in the hands of a person for solving public and state affairs:

1. take part in the formation of state bodies and local government bodies;

2. self-organize into parties, trade unions, movements, etc.;

3. protect society and the state from illegal actions, no matter where they come from;

4. exercise control over the activities of elected authorities and other subjects of the political system of society.

The instrumental value of democracy is realized through its functions and functional institutions.

3) Personal value - revealed through recognition of individual rights:

1. their formal consolidation;

2. real provision through the creation of general social (material, political, spiritual and cultural) and special social (legal) guarantees;

3. the operation of an effective mechanism for their protection;

4. establishing responsibility for failure to fulfill duties, since democracy is not a means to achieve ambitious personal goals by diminishing the rights, freedoms and legitimate interests of another person or any subject of democracy

For those peoples who are ready to recognize the autonomy of the individual and his responsibility, democracy creates the best opportunities for the realization of humanistic values: freedom, equality, justice, social creativity.

Democracy: hopes and disappointments

Since the time of the famous French historian, sociologist and political figure Alexis de Tocqueville, the idea has been repeatedly expressed in political literature that development state forms will inevitably and naturally lead human society to democracy. Later, a number of influential political scientists, like Tocqueville, contributed to the establishment of this idea in the public consciousness. The opinions of many of them seemed all the more significant because they did not at all stem from the fact of ardent admiration for the democratic idea. Democracy seemed to them a natural and inevitable state that would immediately occur regardless of the assistance or opposition of individuals or groups of people. English thought carefully tried to shake this point of view, as one of those “amateurish” generalizations emanating from France. Nevertheless, this “French” opinion also spread to England, finding a number of firm followers there.

Since democracy (even “relative” democracy) has become a practical reality in most countries, at the same time it has become the subject of fierce criticism. And if previously the most characteristic generalization of political science was the idea of ​​the coming triumph of democracy, now many consider such a generalization to be a statement about, paradoxically, the uncertainty of its future, about possible ways of its development and improvement. While they were waiting for democracy, they said about it that it would certainly come, but when it came, they said about it that it might disappear. Previously, it was often considered the highest and final form, ensuring a confident and prosperous existence. Now they clearly feel that, far from creating a solid foundation for a balanced life, it arouses the spirit of quest more than any other form. In countries that have experienced this form in practice, it has long ceased to be a subject of fear, but it has also ceased to be a subject of worship. Its opponents understand that it is still possible to exist with it, its supporters agree that it has too many shortcomings to extol it beyond measure.

Democracy has become perhaps the most commonly used word in the political lexicon in Russia today.

To those who start from the internal form of the word, its etymology, the essence of democracy may seem self-evident - democracy or rule by the people. This self-evidence can be shaken if we think about some questions. What power is meant? What is meant by people? Who controls whom under democracy? Is the whole people able to act as a ruler? The questions are not easy. It is clear that the concepts of people, power and government require clarification before we can meaningfully talk about democracy.

So, isn’t democracy the rule of the people? Indeed, democracy. However, people and power had as many meanings for the ancient Hellenes as they do for us. In Greek, “demos” is the people, crowd, mob, people (in the era of the heyday of the polis, it is an assembly of full citizens, and in Attica, the main division of citizens, or dems), and “kratos” is strength, power, power, rule and even a victory. It is not surprising that the ancient Greeks and their outstanding politicians, rhetoricians and philosophers differed in their interpretation of the meaning of the word “democracy” no less, perhaps, than our contemporaries. This word could mean the triumph of the rebellious mob, the domination of the lower strata of the population, and the participation of all citizens in the affairs of the polis, i.e. in politics, and the decisive role of the people's assembly, and the system of government by persons authorized to do so through formal procedures for the representation of demes.

Oddly enough, the term “democracy” is one of the most controversial and uncertain concepts in modern political theory.

As the famous Austrian statesman Hans Kelsen argued, criticizing Bolshevism, in the 19th and 20th centuries the word “democracy” became the dominant slogan everywhere and it is not surprising if it, like any such slogan, lost its definite and solid content. Following the demands of fashion, it began to be considered necessary to use it on all possible occasions and for all possible purposes, so that it began to cover the most diverse and often completely contradictory concepts.

Ideal and real democracy

The first heralds of the democratic idea based their preaching on purely religious inspiration. For many of them, democracy was a kind of religion. Traces of such political idolatry are often found in our days: due to the inability or unwillingness to make responsible political decisions, all hopes are pinned on democracy as an “omnipotent and all-healing” force, and all one’s energy and enthusiasm are devoted to it. And what are the statements about democracy as the highest and final form in which political development reaches its extreme?!

Modern political theory questions such views, as naive and superficial opinions, and contrasts them with a number of observations and conclusions that remove the aura of the miraculous, supernatural from democracy and introduce it to the number of natural political phenomena, presenting it as an element “equal in rights” to all other political forms . The extreme difficulty of implementing the democratic idea and the greatest ease of its distortion are especially emphasized. Many great thinkers have found that democracy can be realized only under special, specific conditions. Moreover, the majority definitely believed that if democracy is understood in all its rigor, then true democracy has never existed and never will exist.

Such judgments of such authoritative scientists as Rousseau, Bryce, Prévost-Paradol, Scherer, Gearnshaw and others fully confirm and clearly emphasize the conclusions about democracy that both historical experience and political science lead to. Naive assumptions that as soon as the old order is “overthrown” and “universal freedom” is proclaimed, universal suffrage, popular self-government and democracy will be realized by themselves do not stand up to criticism. In fact, the idea that with the destruction of old foundations true freedom immediately comes does not belong to democratic, but to anarchist theory. At its essence, democracy is self-government of the people, but in order for this self-government not to be an empty fiction, it is necessary for the people to develop their own forms of organization. “The people must be mature enough to govern themselves, understanding their rights and respecting others, aware of their responsibilities and capable of self-restraint. Such a height of political consciousness is never given immediately; it is acquired through long and harsh life experience. And the more complex and higher the tasks that are set for the state, the more this requires the political maturity of the people, the assistance of the best aspects of human nature and the tension of all moral forces.”

Kelsen, like many other eminent scholars, while agreeing with the observation that in democracy, as in all other political systems, it is not the masses that are decisive, but the leaders, at the same time defends the superiority of democracy from the point of view of what is happening here the highest quality selection of leaders. Perhaps in many cases this is indeed the case, i.e. democracy practically allows for a combination with aristocracy, but all this, by definition, is in conflict with the purity of the democratic idea. Recognizing the need for an aristocratic core for viable democracies is tantamount to agreeing with Rousseau’s assertion that “true democracy is more suitable for gods than for people.”

It should be recognized that the conclusion drawn is easily disputed by the remark about the fundamental impossibility of implementing in its pure form any of the known political systems. Analyzing the weaknesses of democracy, it can be noted that these same or some other shortcomings are, to one degree or another, characteristic of other forms. Human nature, defects of mind and character, weakness of will remain the same in all systems. However, it is precisely this conclusion that introduces democracy into a number of other forms, freeing it from the aura of perfection and completeness that its first heralds sought to give it.

Democracy has advantages and disadvantages, strengths and weaknesses.

In contrast to reckless political optimism, which manifested itself especially clearly, for example, in the USSR in the second half of the 80s, when it seemed that democracy was something higher and final, that one had only to achieve it and everything else would follow, it should be recognized that democracy is not a path, but a “crossroads”, not an achieved goal, but only an “intermediate point”. This is “the edge of a forest with paths diverging to who knows where.” “We hope that the straight path has not yet been lost; but at the same time we see that the cross paths that lead astray are fraught with great temptations.”

With its vast possibilities and prospects, democracy seems to have raised expectations that it is unable to satisfy. And with her spirit of tolerance and acceptance of all opinions, she opened up space also for trends seeking to destroy her. She cannot be different, because this is her nature, her advantage. But with this she could satisfy only some, but not all. People always have a need to continue to improve ad infinitum the illusory absolute ideal, and no political system can satisfy them. Therefore, the question of whether democracy can be replaced by other forms has a clear answer: it happened before, is happening now and, in principle, can happen in the future.

Democracy is always a “crossroads”, since it is a system of freedom, a system of relativism, for which there is nothing absolute. Democracy is an empty space (“edge”) in which a wide variety of political aspirations (“paths”) can develop. The manifested dissatisfaction with democracy can, in principle, be interpreted as people’s fatigue with uncertainty, the desire to choose a specific alluring path, a “path” of development. However, it is difficult to give a definite answer to the question “will we eventually return to the edge again?” On this moment we are most inclined to agree with famous saying Churchill: “democracy is a bad form of government, but humanity has not yet come up with anything better.”

Modern democracy

The gradual establishment of modern democracy and the increase in its influence on various aspects of life have led to the fact that in our time the concept of democracy has expanded and began to include not only the characteristics of the form of political government (from its universality to the parameters of citizen participation in self-government), but also ideological and, more broadly, , ideological approaches to relationships between people, as well as moral and even philosophical premises of human existence in modern conditions. This has led political science to distinguish democracy in the broad or ideal sense from its strictly political, predominantly institutional basis. Most consistently, perhaps, such a distinction is made by R. Dahl, who uses the word democracy in the first sense and proposed using the word to denote institutional decisions polyarchy. It literally translates as “multiple power, rule of many” and for the ancient Hellenes it rather had a negative connotation associated with confusion and lack of coordination in government. In the context of modernity, this word, on the contrary, emphasizes political pluralism and the ability of the institutions of modern democracy to ensure interaction and coordination of interests without losing their independence and fundamental equality.

It turns out that the fundamental problem of democracy, like any other political-ideological system, is how it is combined with human nature, whether it comes from the real, sometimes painful inconsistency of the modern personality, the limitations of its resources, from our prejudices and painful complexes , or is guided by a certain utopian ideal of man. It is still often argued that democracy in general, including modern democracy, is not only normative, but also based on uncompromising demands for the goodness and perfection of people.

“Democracy is based on an optimistic premise about the natural goodness and goodness of human nature. The spiritual father of democracy was J.-J. Rousseau, and his optimistic ideas about human nature were passed on to democratic ideologists. Democracy does not want to know the radical evil of human nature. It is as if provides that the will of the people can be directed towards evil, that the majority can stand for untruth and lies, and truth and truth can remain the property of a small minority. In a democracy there are no guarantees that the will of the people will be directed towards good, that the will of the people will desire freedom. and will not wish to destroy all freedom without a trace."

N. A. Berdyaev,"New Middle Ages"

“The philosophers of the school of J.-J. Rousseau have done a lot of evil to humanity. This philosophy has captured the minds, and yet it is all built on one false idea of ​​​​the perfection of human nature, and of the complete ability of everyone to comprehend and implement those principles of social order that This philosophy preached. On the same false basis stands the currently dominant doctrine of the perfections of democracy and democratic government. These perfections presuppose the perfect ability of the masses to comprehend the subtle features of political teaching, clearly and separately inherent in the consciousness of its preachers. This clarity is accessible only to a few minds that make up it. the aristocracy of the intelligentsia; and the mass, as always and everywhere, consisted and consists of a crowd of “vulgus”, and its ideas will necessarily be “vulgar”.

K.P. Pobedonostsev,"The Great Lie of Our Time"

There is only a grain of truth in such statements. A democratic worldview really excludes ideas about the unconditional sinfulness and evil of human nature, because in this case the justification of authoritarian coercion and discipline of flawed, evil and unreasonable people is inevitable. This coercion, as the same K.P. Pobedonostsev logically concluded, cannot be subject to human discussion, much less condemnation, for “there is no power unless it is from God.” It is quite clear that the search for the source of power in the People or in the Demos as a corps of citizens requires a different, generally positive attitude towards their capabilities. However, only extreme and dogmatic versions of the original democracy could assume the unconditional goodness of popular government (“the people are always right”) or the rationality of self-government of virtuous citizens (“do to everyone what you would like for yourself”). Modern democracy is based on ideas about the uncertain and developing, and thereby diverse, nature of man. Because of this, everyone can, firstly, find and use what will be useful to them (trustee and then legalistic democracy according to D. Held), and secondly, use the potential of democracy to acquire new abilities, develop their personality and this measure - the improvement of human nature in general (developing, and then pluralistic democracy).

The ideas inherent in modern democracy about the diversity and variability of human nature, about the need for constant critical discussion and revision of not only political courses, but also the criteria for their determination, set a very high level of requirements both for the Demos as a whole and for each of its constituent citizens. In systems that were not modern or only partially modernized, individuals were guaranteed the ability to rely on stable, familiar, and often straightforward roles and patterns of political behavior. Democratization gave rise to a phenomenon that Erich Fromm aptly called “flight from freedom.” Its essence lies in the fact that, by breaking traditional structures, including corporate ones, sharply increasing the pace of horizontal and vertical movements, “atomizing” society, democratization deprives people of their usual system of orientation, psychological and organizational “supports” and “frameworks” of behavior individual. The removal of all kinds of class and other restrictions that firmly directed human life under previous conditions made man free - in the modern sense. At the same time, the burden of responsibility for decisions concerning his own fate, as well as the entire polity, fell on him. The combined effect of these factors led to the fact that a lonely, confused and disoriented person was unable to bear the “burden of freedom.” It seems to him that it is possible to regain the former self-confidence and sense of stability only by sacrificing freedom in exchange for the feeling of certainty that arises in a rigid totalitarian system, shifting full responsibility for decision-making to the leader or regime. The destruction of traditional myths, their replacement with a rationalistic worldview, and focus on personal benefit acutely raise the question of the meaning of human existence. Under these conditions, a significant part of the masses, predisposed to authoritarian submission or simply too weak to take responsibility for their fate, seeks a way out in the “harsh comfort of a totalitarian dictatorship” and seeks to associate themselves with authoritarian-totalitarian ideologies and movements. They impart to the confused individual an illusory sense of self-worth, and the adoration of the leader, the “dissolution” of the fugitive from freedom in the mythical fusion of the Leader and the People turns into a kind of symbolic involvement in power.

Democracy, therefore, is not a static state, but a process that constantly develops and expands the principles of a democratic structure, the breadth of coverage of problems and spaces. And yet, what is the role and prospects of democratic statehood today, on the threshold of the new millennium? What is this, an experiment unprecedented in its scale or the norm? These questions continue to generate heated debate. It seems that today there are two main approaches to this problem.

From the point of view of the first group of specialists, although we seem to be witnessing today the triumphal march of democracy around the world, it is still primarily a product of the Western type of development and culture. And this calls into question its long-term stability in other parts of the world.

Another point of view views democracy as the goal of history and calls the transition to a democratic type of government a genuine world revolution. Using historical and anthropological argumentation, supporters of this approach prove that democracy is the only form of human coexistence that is peculiar to man. Therefore, the evolutionary development of the human race ultimately leads to the triumph of democracy as another stage of a “breakthrough” into civilization.

In any case, the principle of democratic legitimation has now become almost universally accepted, effectively removing all other types of legitimacy from the agenda. But this does not mean the simultaneous disappearance of other forms of domination. In particular, it seems that the strengthening of the influence of another principle in last decades, namely: the principle of legitimacy of Islamic theocracy. Islam is the only religion that has been able to establish theocratic rule. Of course, today Islam has not yet acquired universal significance, but its passionarity and aggressiveness, combined with demographic and social factors, opens up very impressive potential.

However, it seems that in modern conditions the very principle of democratic legitimation acquires almost magical power. Why does he still manage to maintain his position, despite sociocultural, traditionalist, religious and innovative “challenges”? The fact is that the democratic principle of legitimation in functional terms easily responds to the rapid social changes inherent in the modern type of civilizational development. No other principle of legitimation creates such possibilities.

Sources

Brief philosophical dictionary– “Democracy” – pp. 130-132 – V. Viktorova.

Skakun O.F. – Theory of state and law: Textbook. Kharkov: Consum; University of Internal Affairs, 2000. – 704 p.

Alexis de Tocqueville. Democracy in America. M., “Progress - Litera”, 1994.

Novgorodtsev P.I. About the social ideal. M., “Science”, 1991.

Novgorodtsev P.I. Essays. M., "Raritet", 1995.

Bryce D. Modern democracies. M., “Progress”, 1992.

Kelsen H. On the essence and significance of democracy. M., "Prospekt", 1996.

Edited by G. Yu. Semigin “ Political Encyclopedia“Volume I Moscow 1999 ed. "Thought".

V. P. Pugachev, A. I. Solovyov “Introduction to political science, Moscow 1996.” ed. "Aspect Press".

K. S. Gadzhiev “Introduction to Political Theory” Moscow 2000 ed. "Logos".

R. Dahl “On Democracy” Moscow 2000 ed. "Aspect Press".

A. I. Solovyov “Political Science” Moscow 2000 ed. "Aspect Press".

V. A. Melnik “Political Science” Minsk 1996 ed. "Graduate School".

Alexis de Tocqueville. Democracy in America. M., “Progress - Litera”, 1994.

Novgorodtsev P.I. About the social ideal. M., “Science”, 1991.

Novgorodtsev P.I. Essays. M., “Rarity”, 1995.

Bryce D. Modern democracies. M., “Progress”, 1992.

Kelsen H. On the essence and significance of democracy. M., “Prospekt”, 1996.

Ilyin M., Melville L., Fedorov Y. Democracy and democratization \\ Polis. 1996.No.5.

Alekseeva T. Democracy as an idea and process \\ Questions of philosophy. 1996..№6.

Tsygankov A. Political regime \\ Spzh.1996.No.1.