Liberal democratic political system. About democracy and liberalism

Liberal democracy is a form of socio-political system - based on a representative one, in which the will of the majority and the ability of elected representatives to exercise power are limited in the name of protecting the rights of the minority and the freedoms of individual citizens. Liberal democracy aims to ensure that every citizen has the rights to due process, private property, privacy, freedom of assembly, and freedom of religion. These liberal rights are enshrined in higher laws (such as other forms of statutory law, or in precedent decisions rendered by the supreme courts), which, in turn, empower various government and public bodies to enforce these rights.

A characteristic element of liberal democracy is open society characterized by the coexistence and competition of the widest range of socio-political views. Thanks to periodic elections, each of the groups holding different views has a chance to gain power. In practice, fringe viewpoints rarely play a significant role in the democratic process because the public views them as a threat to liberal democracy itself. However, the model open society makes it difficult for the ruling elite to maintain power, guarantees the possibility of a bloodless change of power and creates incentives for the government to respond flexibly to the needs of society.

In a liberal democracy, the political elite in power not obliged share all aspects of the ideology (for example, she may advocate ). However, she obliged obey the principle mentioned above. Term liberal in this case it is understood in the same way as in the era of bourgeois revolutions of the end: providing every person with protection from arbitrariness on the part of those in power.

Structure of the socio-political structure

Politic system

The democratic nature of the state structure is enshrined in the fundamental laws and supreme precedent decisions, which constitute. The main purpose of the constitution is to limit the power of officials and law enforcement agencies, as well as the will of the majority. This is achieved with the help of a number of tools, the main of which are independent justice (by branch and at the territorial level) and a system of “checks and balances”, which ensures the accountability of some branches of government to others. Only such actions of government officials are lawful if they are carried out in accordance with the law published in writing and in due order.

Although liberal democracies include elements of direct democracy (), the vast majority of supreme government decisions are made by the government. The policy of this government should depend only on representatives legislative branch and the head of the executive branch, which are established as a result of periodic elections. The subordination of the government to any unelected forces is not permitted. In the interval between elections, the government must operate in a mode of openness and transparency, and facts of corruption must be immediately made public.

One of the main provisions of liberal democracy is universal suffrage, which gives every adult citizen of the country equal right voting, regardless of financial status or . The exercise of this right is usually associated with a certain registration procedure at the place of residence. Election results are determined only by those citizens who actually voted, but often turnout must exceed a certain threshold to be considered valid.

The most important task of electoral democracy is to ensure that elected representatives are accountable to. Therefore, referendums must be free, fair and honest. They must be preceded by free and fair expression of different political views, combined with equality of opportunity for electoral campaigns. In practice, the political is determined by the presence of several (at least two) who have significant power. The most important necessary condition for this pluralism is . The choices of the people must be free from the dominant influence of armies, foreign powers, totalitarian parties, religious hierarchies, economic oligarchies and any other powerful groups. Cultural, ethnic, religious and other minorities should have an acceptable level of opportunity to participate in decision-making, which is usually achieved by granting them partial self-government.

Rights and freedoms

The most frequently cited criteria for liberal democracy take the form of civil rights and liberties. Most of these freedoms were borrowed from various movements, but acquired functional significance.

• Right to life and personal dignity
• freedom of speech
• Freedom of funds mass media and access to alternative sources of information
• Freedom of religion and public expression of religious views
• The right to associate in political, professional and other organizations
• Freedom of assembly and open public debate
• Academic freedom
• Independent justice
• Equality before the law
• The right to due process of law under conditions
• Privacy and the right to personal secrets
• The right to own property and private enterprise
• Freedom of movement and choice of place of work
• Right to education
• The right to free work and freedom from excessive economic exploitation
• Equality of opportunity

Some of these freedoms are limited to a certain extent. However, all restrictions must meet three conditions: they must be strictly in accordance with the law, pursue a righteous purpose, and must be necessary and adequate to achieve that purpose. Laws imposing restrictions should strive to be unambiguous and not allow for different interpretations. Legitimate objectives include the protection of reputation, personal dignity, national security, public order, copyright, health and morals. Many restrictions are forced so that the rights of some citizens do not diminish the freedom of others.

It deserves special attention that people who fundamentally disagree with the doctrine of liberal democracy (including for cultural or religious reasons) have the same rights and freedoms as others. This follows from the concept of an open society, according to which the political system should be capable of self-change and evolution. Only those who call for violence are deprived of their rights. Understanding the importance of this provision is relatively new in liberal democracy, and a number of its supporters still consider legal restrictions on the propaganda of any ideologies hostile to this regime to be legitimate.

Conditions

According to popular belief, a number of conditions must be met for liberal democracy to emerge. Such conditions include a developed justice system, legislative protection of private property, and the presence of a broad and strong civil society.

Experience shows that free elections by themselves rarely ensure liberal democracy, and in practice often lead to “flawed” democracies, in which either some citizens are deprived of the right to vote, or elected representatives do not determine all government policy, or the executive branch subordinates the legislative and judicial, or the justice system is unable to ensure compliance with the principles laid down in the constitution. The latter is the most common problem.

Level material well-being in a country is also unlikely to be a condition for a country's transition from an authoritarian regime to a liberal democracy, although research shows that this level plays a significant role in ensuring its sustainability.

Story

The turning point was Alexis de Tocqueville's Democracy in America (1835), in which he showed the possibility of a society where individual freedom and private property coexisted with democracy. According to Tocqueville, the key to the success of such a model, called “ liberal democracy”, is an opportunity, and the most serious threat to it is the sluggish government intervention in the economy and its violation of civil liberties.

After the revolution of 1848 and coup d'etat(in 1851) liberals increasingly began to recognize the need for democracy. Events have shown that without the participation of the broad masses in the social contract, the liberal regime turns out to be unstable, and the full implementation of ideas remains. At the same time, movements began to gain strength that denied the possibility of a fair society built on private property and free society. From their point of view, full-fledged democracy, in which all citizens have equal access to all democratic institutions (elections, justice, etc.), could only be realized within the framework. However, having become convinced of the growth in the size of the middle class, the majority of Social Democrats abandoned, decided to participate in the democratic process and seek legislative reforms with the aim of moving towards socialism.

Liberal democracy in the world

A number of organizations and political scientists maintain ratings of the level of liberal democracy in countries around the world. Among these ratings, the most famous are Polity Data Set(English) and Freedom in the World. Most experts believe that the countries of the European Community, Japan, USA, Canada, Australia, South Africa, New Zealand and India are liberal democracies. A number of African countries and former USSR call themselves democracies, although in fact the ruling elites have a strong influence on the outcome of elections.

Types of liberal democracies

The presence of liberal democracy is largely determined by the principles actually implemented and the compliance of the regime with the above criteria. For example, it is formally a monarchy, but is actually governed by a democratically elected parliament. In Great Britain, formally the highest power is vested in the hereditary monarch, but in fact such power is vested in the people, through their elected representatives. The monarchy in these countries is largely symbolic.

There are many electoral systems for forming parliament, the most common of which are the majoritarian system and the proportional system. Under the majoritarian system, the territory is divided into districts, in each of which the mandate goes to the candidate who receives the majority of votes. Under a proportional system, seats in parliament are distributed in proportion to the number of votes cast for parties. In some countries, part of the parliament is formed according to one system, and part according to another.

Countries also differ in the way they form the executive and legislative branches. In presidential republics, these branches are formed separately, which ensures high degree their division by function. In parliamentary republics, the executive branch is formed by the parliament and is partially dependent on it, which ensures a more even distribution of power between the branches.

The Scandinavian countries, being liberal democracies, are also... It's connected with high level social protection of the population, equality in living standards, free secondary education and healthcare, a significant public sector in the economy and high taxes. At the same time, in these countries the state does not interfere in pricing (even in the public sector, with the exception of monopolies), banks are private, and there are no obstacles to trade, including international trade; effective laws and transparent governments reliably protect civil rights people and property of entrepreneurs.

Liberal democracy in Russia

Liberal democracy has never been realized in Russia. According to the Freedom in the World rating, the USSR in 1990-1991. and Russia in 1992-2004. were considered partially free countries, but since 2005 Russia has been included in the list of unfree countries.

In Russia itself, part of the population mistakenly associates the doctrine of liberal democracy with an ultranationalist party. Democracy is generally supported, but most people say social rights higher than liberal ones.

Critical analysis

Advantages

First of all, liberal democracy is based on the rule of law and the equality of all before it. Therefore, it is in democracy that the highest level of law and order is ensured.

Further, liberal democracy ensures that government is accountable to the nation. If the people are dissatisfied with government policies (due to corruption or excessive bureaucracy, attempts to circumvent laws, mistakes in economic policy etc.), then in the next elections the opposition has a high chance of winning. After she comes to power, the most reliable way to stay on is to avoid the mistakes of her predecessors (dismiss corrupt or ineffective officials, obey the laws, attract competent economists, etc.) Thus, liberal democracy ennobles the desire for power and forces the government to work for the good of the nation . This ensures a relatively low level of corruption, which in an authoritarian regime can only be achieved at the cost of an extremely tough dictatorship.

Since politically important decisions are made by elected representatives - professionals who are members of political elites - this frees the people from the need to spend time studying and discussing many government issues. At the same time, a number of countries (Switzerland, Uruguay) and regions (California) actively use elements of direct democracy: and.

Constitutional protection against the dictatorship of the majority is an essential advantage of this regime and distinguishes it from other types of democracy. In fact, every person, according to some characteristics, belongs to a certain minority, therefore, in conditions of complete subordination to the will of the majority, civil rights are suppressed. In a liberal democracy, this has the opposite effect, since it forces the current majority to view itself as a temporary coalition and therefore pay attention to the point of view of the current minority.

By allowing minorities to influence decision-making, liberal democracy provides protection of private property for the wealthy, social protection for the poor, and the smoothing out of cultural, ethnic and religious conflicts. The most democratic countries in the world are characterized by the most low level terrorism (English). This effect may even extend beyond the region: statistics show that since the late 1980s, when many countries in Eastern Europe embarked on the path of liberal democracy, the total number of military conflicts, ethnic wars, revolutions, etc. in the world decreased sharply (English).

The ability to change a government or its policies peacefully and without violence contributes to stability and certainty in society. This is also facilitated by the fact that democracy forces the government to work openly, communicate its strategic goals and report on ongoing measures to achieve them. Freedom of speech also allows authorities to be better informed about the real state of affairs in the state.

The consequence of liberal democracy is the accumulation human capital, low inflation, less political and economic instability and relatively low government intervention in the activities of entrepreneurs. A number of researchers believe that these circumstances (especially economic freedom) contribute to economic recovery and an increase in the level of well-being of the entire population, expressed in GDP per capita. At the same time, despite high rates of economic growth, several liberal democratic countries are still relatively poor (India, Costa Rica, Estonia), while a number of authoritarian regimes, on the contrary, are thriving (Brunei).

Research also shows that liberal democracies are more effective at managing available resources when they are limited than authoritarian regimes. Thus, liberal democracies are characterized by higher life expectancy and lower infant and maternal mortality, regardless of the level of GDP, income inequality or the size of the public sector.

Flaws

Liberal democracy is a type of representative democracy, which has attracted criticism from supporters of direct democracy. They argue that in a representative democracy, the power of the majority is expressed too rarely - at the time of elections and referendums. Real power is concentrated in the hands of a very small group of representatives. From this point of view, liberal democracy is closer to , while the development of technology, the growth of people’s education and the increase in their involvement in the life of society create the preconditions for the transfer of increasing powers of power into the hands of the people directly.

Marxists and anarchists completely deny that liberal democracy is democracy, calling it a “plutocracy.” They argue that in any bourgeois democracy, real power is concentrated in the hands of those who control financial flows. Only very wealthy citizens can afford to campaign politically and spread their platform through the media, so only the elite or those who make deals with the elite can be elected. Such a system legitimizes inequality and facilitates economic exploitation. In addition, critics continue, it creates the illusion of justice, so that the discontent of the masses does not lead to riots. At the same time, “stuffing” certain information can cause a predictable reaction, which leads to manipulation of the consciousness of the masses by the financial oligarchy. Supporters of liberal democracy consider this argument to be devoid of evidence, for example, the media rarely voice radical points of view because it is not interesting to the general public, and not because of censorship. However, they agree that campaign finance is an essential element in the electoral system and that in some cases it should be public. For the same reason, many countries have public media pursuing a policy of pluralism.

In an effort to maintain power, elected representatives are primarily concerned with measures that will allow them to maintain a positive image in the eyes of voters in the next elections. Therefore, they give preference to decisions that will bring political dividends in the coming months and years, to the detriment of unpopular decisions, the effect of which will appear only in a few years. However, doubts have been expressed whether this is really a disadvantage, since long-term forecasts are extremely difficult for society, and therefore an emphasis on short-term goals may be more effective.

On the other hand, to strengthen their voice, individual voters may support special lobbying groups. Such groups are able to receive government subsidies and seek solutions that serve their narrow interests, but do not serve the interests of society as a whole.

Liberal democracy (polyarchy) is a form of socio-political structure - a legal state based on representative democracy, in which the will of the majority and the ability of elected representatives to exercise power are limited in the name of protecting the rights of the minority and the freedoms of individual citizens. Liberal democracy aims to provide every citizen with equal rights to due process, private property, privacy, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom of religion. These liberal rights are enshrined in higher laws (such as a constitution or statute, or in precedent decisions made by the highest courts), which, in turn, empower various government and public bodies to ensure these rights.

The peculiarity of liberal democracy is that it is characterized by the development of private entrepreneurship, restrictions on state intervention in privacy human, the formation of civil society.

Some authors understand a liberal regime (they also call it liberal-democratic) to mean methods and means of exercising state power that are based on a system of the most democratic and humanistic principles. That is, the liberal regime in this case is thought of as a regime of a higher order than the democratic one, as a regime that grows out of the democratic regime itself.

A semi-democratic regime arises as a result of the elimination of totalitarian and authoritarian regimes, administrative-command and bureaucratic methods of managing society. Currently, liberal, semi-democratic regimes have developed in the post-socialist countries of Eastern Europe, in a number of CIS countries (including Russia), in Egypt, Sri Lanka, Nicaragua and many other countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America after the collapse of totalitarian and authoritarian regimes. modes.

A characteristic element of liberal democracy is an “open society”, characterized by tolerance, pluralism, coexistence and competition of the widest range of socio-political views. Through periodic elections, each of the groups holding different views has a chance to gain power. In practice, viewpoints rarely play a significant role in the democratic process. However, the open society model makes it difficult for the ruling elite to circulate power, guarantees the possibility of a bloodless change of power, and creates incentives for the government to continuously respond to public demands.

In a liberal democracy, the political group in power does not have to subscribe to all aspects of the ideology of liberalism (for example, it may advocate democratic socialism). However, it is obliged to obey the above-mentioned principle of the rule of law. The term liberal in this case is understood in the same way as in the era of bourgeois revolutions of the late 18th century: providing every person with protection from arbitrariness on the part of the authorities and law enforcement agencies.

Liberal state - legal regime- this is the form, method and procedure for the exercise of state power in the conditions of a modern rule of law state and civil society. Such a regime presupposes the official recognition and practical implementation of basic innate and inalienable human rights and freedoms, and a wide range of civil rights, the rule of law, and the separation of powers (legislative, executive and judicial). The establishment of constitutionalism, parliamentarism, ideological and political diversity, multi-party system, the exercise of the sovereign power of the people in the legal forms of referendum and free elections, the independent and effective functioning of civil society institutions, forms and mechanisms of public control over the activities of state power.

A liberal state-legal regime includes all aspects of democracy that are valuable, from the point of view of civil society and the rule of law, and, above all, the idea of ​​people's sovereignty in its legal (and state-legal) understanding and application. Therefore, bearing in mind specifically legal democracy (democracy in legal form), a liberal regime can be characterized as a liberal-democratic regime.

The philosophical essence of the concepts of democracy and liberalism, the inadequacy of these ideas, generated by subjective ideas, giving rise to terrifying collisions in the history of peoples, the way to solve social problems.

I hope that the article will not be a red rag for liberals and democrats who are faithful to the Idea, but will serve as a reason for rethinking many interesting social problems.

Currently, there are many people in the world who are far from science. philosophical concepts, each of which claims to have a correct understanding of what society needs and what should be the basis of relationships. Of these, the two most popular today stand out: democracy and liberalism.

Democracyin the very general view postulates the power of the people. It remains to determine what is considered a people: whether everyone or only the dominant ethnic group (and immigrants, migrant workers, slaves and tourists are not considered) or only those who share the dominant religion of this ethnic group. Usually, the elderly and young children who have lost their minds are not taken into account ( At what age are we considered adults?)? But stupid and asocial people, far from any kind of government, and even criminals are considered quite a people who have the right to vote. As will become clear later, practically implemented democracies made one or another selectivity the main thing in determining who and how can be governed. But each society has its own characteristics and therefore it is not possible to apply a certain general template of democracy to everyone.

Liberalismin its most general form, it postulates the primacy of individual freedom. But there are definitely other individuals who will be harmed by this freedom. And there are limits to the extent to which one can allow oneself freedom, so that complete disunity of society does not arise, worse than any anarchy. It will become clear below how important these boundary conditions are and what they lead to in different cases.

Philosophy has never led to practical knowledge adequate to reality. The ancient Greek philosophy of the Olympian gods was then taken much more seriously than the philosophy of democracy. Power was considered the implementation of the will of the gods, there was a whole system of attitudes and ethics that took into account ideas about the gods of Olympus (and not only) so that entire groups of people found themselves in preference to one or another patron god. This religious philosophy and ethics was practically embodied in life, and in contrast to the futuristic ideas of democracy and liberalism.

As a result, none of these philosophical concepts turned out to be adequate to reality: in attempts of any kind of practical implementation, they clearly show their inferiority and unacceptability, their inability to solve social problems. It is similar to how in 5000 years of the history of mystical philosophy, not one of their mystical ideas has led to any practically useful result to the extent of taking them seriously.

The idea of ​​democracy is no less ancient, and its first incarnation in Athens dates back half a century BC. But so far it has not given the promised fruits of the desired prosperity of society and is always accompanied by a variety of inhumane phenomena, which will be shown below using examples of implementation.

This happens because philosophical ideas- subjective models of personal ideas are always and literally in everything inadequate to reality, especially concrete, not fictitious reality, and require verification to correct errors. But such verification most often rejects most ideas from the subjectively produced ones, unless they are very well and carefully based on already reliably identified patterns of the real world.

To produce an idea effective management society, it is necessary to very well develop 1) an adequate reality of the current state of society with all its inherent cause-and-effect relationships, i.e. create a working, reality-tested model of society. In addition, it is equally necessary to 2) build a reliable model of personality that interacts with other personalities. Only after this will it become clear which path to follow in developing the most optimal management model. Neither the first nor the second exists today even in the outlines of a generally accepted theory. This already suggests that any philosophical (i.e., pre-scientific) concepts of managing society have no chance of being correct in any way.

When a famous politician (de mortuis aut bene, aut nihil) tells the people: “Take as much democracy as you can swallow,” what is this if not an anarchist call? And this is exactly what was proposed in Russia. We know the consequences.

But the worst thing about modern democracy is the absence of any moral and ethical standards. As, for example, we are told from the West: “You don’t have rights for gays, which means you are an undemocratic country.”

...How can one give the right, say, to a person who claims to communicate with aliens, to be given the opportunity to vote in elections, to drive a car, a tractor, an airplane?

Only one country has arrogated to itself the right (in a democratic way, of course) to decide who has democracy and who does not have enough of it.

Democracy is now very selective. It comes to where there are geopolitical interests of the main democrats (rather, democrats) of the planet. Take, for example, unfortunate Libya. What were they told? That the government is a tyrant, that there are no cultures, but we will give you (videos with Sasha Grey, right?), that you generally live below the poverty line, although such a social system as it was under Gaddafi, God forbid everyone.

And it's the same in Iraq. There is a tyrant in power, there is no culture, there is no beer either (but there is oil), but you will have all this. After 13 years, beer has not appeared (Islam, after all), but there are terrorist attacks at least once a week in full force. Even though Saddam had his cockroaches, he kept order, but what else does the country need? Gay pride parades and films with Schwartz?

Democracy in modern world took on terrifying features. The tyranny of one country, with a jackal pack of hangers-on, dictating its will to those who are not allies. This is the destruction of the cultures and traditions of those who, not being their litter, want to live according to their own values. Of course, let men use Max Factor, marry each other (like women), raise their adopted children in their sodomist values, and also give away all their mineral resources, and territories to boot, for eternal use. After all, this is true democracy, right?..

Atilio Boron The truth about capitalist democracy

Now that more than a quarter of a century has passed since the beginning of the process of re-democratization of Latin America, the time has come to assess its defects and unfulfilled promises. Do capitalist democracies deserve the respect so often expressed to them? In these pages we are going to look at what democracy means and then, based on some reflections on the limits of democratization in a capitalist society, continue to explore the effectiveness of "real democracies"
Let me start with Lincoln's formula - democracy as the power of the people, by the will of the people, for the people. Today these sound like the words of an unbroken radical, especially in light of the political and ideological involution brought about by the rise of neoliberalism as the official ideology of global capitalism.
... It seemed possible for Schumpeter to decide “democratically,” using his own example, whether Christians should be persecuted, witches sentenced to be burned, or Jews exterminated.
... If democracy is so reasonable and elementary, then why did its establishment and effective implementation cause such difficulties? Why were some organizational formats, such as the capitalist company or joint stock company, adopted without significant resistance after the establishment of the capitalist mode of production, while attempts to establish a “democratic form of government” in states led to wars, civil conflicts, revolutions, counter-revolutions and ongoing mass murders?
... What do political scientists mean when they use the word “democracy”? Democracy, which is based on slavery, as in Ancient Greece? Or that democracy that flourished in cities surrounded by the desert of feudal serfdom, and in which artisans and workers (popolo minuto) struggled to be more than a maneuvering mass under the rule of the oligarchic patriciate of Florence and Venice? Or perhaps the European democracies before the First World War, in which even men did not have voting rights, let alone women? Or so called. "Keynesian democracies" after World War II, characterized by what T. H. Marshall meant by social citizenship?

...After decades of dictatorial regimes accompanied by bloodshed, the social struggle of the masses has returned Latin America back (or in some cases for the first time) to the first and simplest level of democratic development.
...capitalist society has everywhere proven its limitations and instability for building a strong democratic order.

American democracy and genocide in the Philippines

The US government with enviable regularity condemns the actions and teaches the most various countries democratic way of life, but to achieve the goal he uses absolutely any means, including punitive operations and massacres. A clear example of this is the enslavement of the Filipino people during the aggressive colonial war of 1899-1902.

The United States of America decided to use the liberation war for its own purposes, which, during the uprising in April 1898, attacked Spain with the aim of seizing its colonies of Cuba, Puerto Rico and the Philippines. The Americans themselves admit that they needed “foreign resources.” Senator Albert Beveridge substantiated the claims in his speech: “Europe is producing more and more goods and will soon supply almost all its needs itself, receiving the lion's share of raw materials from its colonies. Where can we sell our surplus production? Geography provides the answer to this question. Our natural consumer is China... And the Philippines will serve as our stronghold at the gates of the East... Wars will now be fought primarily over sales markets. And the dominant position in the world will be occupied by the power that subjugates Pacific Ocean. Thanks to the Philippines, the American Republic became and will forever remain such a power... God made it his chosen people Americans."

“Samosa, of course, is a scoundrel, but he is our scoundrel,” said President Lyndon Johnson about Nicaraguan dictator Anastasio Somoza Garcia. And the United States had quite a lot of such “scoundrels.” Against this background, all statements that Russia supports dictators in Syria, Libya, North Korea and other countries look at the very least hypocritical. In this article we will talk about several of the most cannibalistic regimes of the 20th century, which received military, financial and political support from the United States.

Michael Mann: "Origins social power"(in 4 volumes, Cambridge, 1986–2012)

I am pleased to present to the attention of the Russian reader my book “The Dark Side of Democracy”, which I hope will shed light on a very dark topic. Initially, I didn’t even think about dedicating a separate book to her. I realized the need for this in the process of writing another work, “Fascists,” which tells how the fascist movements gained strength in the period between the two world wars.

The Nazis were not the only ones responsible for the bloody ethnic cleansing of the Modern Age, nor was their example the most typical (since the Jews did not pose a threat to German society and did not demand the founding of their own state, unlike some other peoples). I began researching other examples of bloody purges; the result of this was the book you are holding in your hands.
... The word “democracy” we know comes from Greek word demos, but by “democracy” they also understood the power of the people in a different meaning - ethnicity, ethnic group. Thus, the power of the people can also mean the power of a particular ethnic, linguistic or religious group over other groups. This book describes many movements that claim that their ethnic (religious, linguistic) group is the “true” people of the country, and that they themselves embody the “spirit” of the people.

These three examples highlight the dangers of democratization in divided nations. Once two hostile communities declare the creation of their own states, democratization becomes a threat to their politicized ethnic, religious or linguistic differences that have a regional basis.
... The most popular alternative to blaming an entire ethnic group is blaming elites, especially government elites. It is argued that evil deeds occur when people are controlled by evil, manipulative leaders. It is believed that democracy and the people strive for peace, while leaders and elites pose a greater danger. Civil society theory argues that democracy, peace, and tolerance flourish when people are embedded in a dense network of social relationships provided by voluntary institutions that protect them from manipulation by state elites (Putnam, 1993, 2000). This approach is naive. Radical ethnonationalists often succeed precisely because their social networks within civil society are denser and more easily mobilized than those of their more moderate rivals. This was true of the Nazis (see my book The Fascists, Chapter 4, and also Hagtvet, 1980; Koshar, 1986); as we will see below, this is also true of Serbian, Croatian and Hutu nationalists. Civil society can be evil.
... Democratic peace theory also argues that states based on popular representation are peaceful, rarely wage war, and almost never fight with each other (Doyle, 1983; see Barkawi & Laffey, 2001 for a critique). The roots of this theory lie in the liberal idea that if the people are given the opportunity to freely express their will, it will be the will for peace. As Rummel (1994: 1, 12-27; 1998: 1) writes, the more authoritarian a state is, the more likely it is to kill its own or other people’s citizens. “Power kills; absolute power kills absolutely,” he repeats like a mantra. This is certainly true, but we are talking about tautologies and. Regimes that kill a significant number of their citizens cannot be considered democratic, since they grossly violate the component of democracy that relates to civil liberties. However, Rummel believes that social peace is guaranteed by the electoral component of democracy; he believes that purge regimes come to power through authoritarian means rather than through free elections.

But the number of exceptions to this rule is alarming. Since the 17th century, European settlers were more likely to commit genocide if they lived under a constitutional government than under an authoritarian regime. Perhaps settler democracies are more correctly described as ethnocracies, that is, democracies for one ethnic group - this is how Yiftachel (1999) characterizes current situation in Israel.

These days, the word “democracy” has gained unprecedented popularity. We are told about it from blue screens, on the radio, and, perhaps, it is impossible to find a single issue of a printed publication where this word has not appeared at least once. Moreover, in an exclusively positive sense. One gets the impression that democracy is the same indisputable and universally recognized good as oxygen, water and world peace.

For example, American Republican politician John McCain promises to forcefully introduce democracy in Russia, China and other countries. And our prominent Russian politicians, imitating their Western colleagues, promise, with the help of democracy, to build a bright future in our country, ensuring the prosperity of everyone and everything.
... There is a fairly widespread belief that there was democracy in Ancient Rome and Ancient Greece. But we can safely say that not only in these ancient states, but throughout its entire history, human history has not known a single state where the principle of democracy and democracy was actually implemented. When citing such examples, we should not forget that in these “democratic” states it was not the people who had the right to vote, but the so-called “citizens” - an elite stratum that made up an insignificant percentage of the bulk of the entire population, and the same slaves, like women, did not have the right to participate in elections.

As for Russia, it is generally accepted that democracy existed in Ancient Novgorod, but in Novgorod, too, for the most part only boyars voted, in other words, decisions were made by those few who had the right to vote.

In this regard, the question arises, “what kind of democracy are we talking about?” Where is the ideal to which the Americans and others like them are calling us? Where is this democracy?
...Manipulation of mass consciousness, as well as the work of various political strategists, is carried out according to certain scenarios, using the developments of social psychology, which, if desired, is easy to read about on the Internet. These technologies have long been thoroughly studied.
The voter is manipulated with the help of modern political technologies, and the voter does not know for whom he is casting his vote.

And it has long been no secret that not a single candidate has ever stood in an election “without a penny in his pocket.” It is clear to everyone that behind each chosen candidate, be it a presidential candidate or a parliamentary candidate, there are certain structures that generously sponsor the election campaign, thereby ensuring the candidate’s loyalty in the future.

In other words, sponsors provide financial support for the election campaign of a candidate they are interested in, from which, with the help of the media, they create a beautiful image-picture using a certain technology. And it is for her that the electorate subsequently votes.
It turns out that so-called “democracy” is used by very specific people, structures, business communities, political associations, world structures, but certainly not by the people. The same people, by the way, are the main “PR managers” of democracy, with the help of which they do their business, decide their political issues and satisfy their power ambitions. For these people, democracy is a brand that they impose on others in order to be able to receive various kinds of dividends.

And is it possible to talk about democratic elections while there are all sorts of political technologies comparable to the promotion of low-quality goods on the market through aggressive advertising and the creation of false brands?
... A striking example of these shows is the US presidential election. It was quite funny to see

Americans literally crying with happiness after learning about the victory of “their” black guy Barack. At all, American model elections, which supposedly show a model of democracy, can be more likely to be imagined as a game of betting on a hippodrome, where all the spectators root for their “horse” and cry with happiness when he comes to the finish line first. It is impossible not to note the spectacle of American campaigns, in which a lot of money is invested. But, alas, this is just a show and a farce.
...A few simple analogies that clearly illustrate the absurdity of “democratic” elections: tell me, who would want to go on a sea cruise on a ship where the captain was elected from among the sailors by the passengers by voting on the basis of personal sympathies or attractive appearance? It is clear that no one would ever board such a ship.

About liberalism, practical results

The book by Anthony Arblaster, lecturer in politics at the University of Sheffield, is recommended to readers as the first major English study of liberalism in historical and critical-analytical terms. The pathos of the book lies in exposing the myth of liberalism as a “soft ideology.”
The first part (“Analysis of Liberalism”) is devoted to the philosophy and ethics of liberalism, the second (“Evolution of Liberalism”) to its history, the third (“The Fall of Liberalism”) to the current situation.
... preliminary clarification of the content of the term: what is it - an ideology, movement, party, politics, culture? As a specific organized political tendency, liberalism practically does not exist.
... For millions of people, liberalism is synonymous with hypocrisy or naivety, pharisaism or frivolity. “The word ‘liberal’ has become a dirty word, and before deciding whether this is fair, we must understand why this happened” (p. 4). In the West itself, the crisis has displaced liberal values ​​and led many liberals to accept harsh domestic policy. Nevertheless, it is premature to write epitaphs for liberalism. The very strength of the aggressive reaction to liberalism speaks volumes about his life: dead doctrines do not provoke such rage.

Liberalism exists not as an organized political force: it is no longer needed, because at the political level its goals (in the West, at least) have already been achieved, but as an ethos, as a diffuse, often half-conscious and even more influential ideology. “The liberal worldview, the liberal worldview, and not the traditional conservative or revolutionary socialist one, dominates today in the West. But it is hidden under layers of various social, political or economic formulations... we have all, without realizing it, been breathing the air of liberalism for four centuries” (p. 6).
...The absence of an open and consistent program in modern liberalism is not, as liberals themselves believe, proof of their free thinking, but only reflects the depth and universality of liberal attitudes, that is, the strength of their ideology. But this strength has a weakness on the other side: having seeped into all ideologies, dissolved in everything, liberalism stands on the verge of life and death: it lives at such a depth into which the fresh air of open polemics does not penetrate. But liberalism does not have to die completely; It is in the interests of humanity to preserve some of its elements, and this requires its analytical dissection.
...Individualism can be considered the metaphysical and ontological core of liberalism, provided that it is grounded in the bourgeois individualist concept of man. The ontological dimension of liberal individualism is revealed in the perception of man as more real than society, its structures and institutions.
...the author formulates first a serious contradiction of the philosophy of liberalism is the uncritical unconditional acceptance of needs, strange for critical, doubting, skeptical thought. Liberalism does not ask why certain needs are formed and ignores the problem of socialization of the individual. Instead of a real changing person, educated, exposed to fashion, dependent on culture and history, taught and promoted, he sees the bearer of eternal and unchanging desires. Liberalism blindly believes that real human needs and those about which a person wants and has the opportunity to speak openly are one and the same, especially since a person always knows what he needs. “The Father of Liberalism,” John Stuart Mill, formulated the axiom: “Man knows what he needs better than any government” (quoted from: p. 30).
... second the knot of contradictions of the liberal worldview - respect for a person as a self-sufficient individual, as a goal, and not someone else's means, cannot be ontologically combined with the egoism of needs, the use of people as instruments for their satisfaction. Individualism, making a choice in favor their needs, as in Nietzsche and Stirner, ceases to be liberal.
... The values ​​traditionally associated with liberalism have today become simply mandatory for every decent political movement. The liberal nature of these values ​​is determined solely by their specific gravity in the general value structure and their place in the hierarchy.

Freedom is not a liberal, but a universal value, but in the liberal code it prevails over all others: “Freedom,” wrote Lord Acton (following Tocqueville), “is not a means to achieve a higher political goal: it itself is the highest political goal” (quote from: p. 58). The liberal content of the concept of “freedom” is determined by the answer to three questions: freedom from what, why, for whom?

Liberalism defines freedom negatively (see Hobbes “the absence of external restrictions” (quoted from: p. 56), from J. Berlin: “I am free to the extent that they do not interfere with my activities” (quoted from: p. 57) ), ignoring linguistic dilution freedom to do something and the strength (ability) to do something. And although most liberal philosophers admit that freedom without force is inactive, the meaning of freedom remains precisely in the absence of external prohibitions.
...The most vulnerable aspect of the liberal concept of freedom turned out to be its identification with other human values. As Iris Murdoch writes, “we all live according to Mill: freedom equals happiness, equals personality, but in reality we do not live like that” (quoted in: p. 65).
...The liberal value of tolerance, which directly follows from the attitude towards individual freedom, is one of the most difficult to realize. Mill also emphasized the difference between toleration of opinions and tolerance of deeds; the latter in liberal ideology and politics is sharply limited by a system of repression against dissidents.
... Freedom, privacy and tolerance appear in liberalism as ideal values, the implementation of which requires auxiliary values: laws and constitutions. These values ​​determine the main political requirement of liberalism - control over the implementation of laws. Moreover, the object of control is - in complete contradiction with the ontology of liberalism - “fictitious” structures: the state is responsible to the nation, laws must serve the people, the constitution must be determined and controlled by society.

The main legal idea of ​​liberalism - the idea of ​​legality, the subordination of all state bodies to the law - raises a critical question about the sources of the law: after all, if there is no natural, divine, or moral norm, the law can only be a product of egoistic will and subjective opinion, as well as its interpretation and application.

Social theories can be divided into two classes, depending on whether they propose radical or, on the contrary, gradual methods of social transformation. On the other hand, such theories can be divided into those that give priority to collective values ​​over individual ones, and those that place individual values ​​above collective ones. Combining these two divisions, we get four main types of modern social theories: socialism, anarchism, conservatism and liberalism.

The main value and goal of liberalism is the realization of individual freedom. Other values ​​- democracy, the rule of law, morality, etc. - are only means to achieve this freedom. The main method of liberalism is not so much creativity and the creation of new things, but rather the elimination of everything that threatens individual freedom or interferes with its development.
... Liberalism is an individualistic system, since the individual person comes to the fore, and the value of social groups or institutions is measured solely by the extent to which they protect the rights and interests of the individual and whether they contribute to the implementation of the goals of individual subjects.
... One of the main problems of liberalism is the relationship between man and government, combining the idea of ​​equality and personal autonomy with the need for political power. If the individual is free and not obliged to submit to any personal despotic power, then to what power is he subject? Liberalism's answer to this is that the individual must obey only the law which is properly established and designed to govern men and restrain their impulses. As Voltaire aphoristically put it, “freedom consists in being independent of everything except the law.” ... But on the other hand, the law is a product of a strong-willed decision and often an expression of group, subjective interests. In the first case, obedience to the law is based on the conviction of its justice and its usefulness for social life. Under the second interpretation, obedience to the law is formal in nature and is explained by the fact that it is introduced by the authorities and has coercive force. The divergence between the two possible understandings of the law was one of the reasons for the crisis of liberalism at the beginning of this century, when, under the influence of positivism and socialism, the second interpretation of the law began to dominate.
... Liberalism's decisive rejection of the revolutionary path of transforming society echoes the idea of ​​social engineering by K. Popper. Social engineering is a gradual, sequential or stage-by-stage transformation of society, with particular caution regarding the possible social consequences of the changes. Popper contrasts this method of transforming society with utopian engineering, to which Plato and Marx clearly gravitated and the essence of which is a radical and large-scale transformation of society but a single, pre-developed plan designed to create a perfect society. ... Popper's position at this point is clearly inconsistent. Social engineering is clearly unsuitable for realizing an ideal society. Moreover, to everyone who insists on a global reorganization of society, gradualism in its transformation will seem simply harmful. If you need to pull out a diseased tooth, then biting off a piece of it, even the most unusable one, means causing unnecessary pain to the patient. Popper seems to forget that almost all those who believed in building an ideal society were convinced that its establishment should happen in the near future, and demanded that we begin not with partial reforms, but with deep social revolution. We may also recall that the bourgeois revolutions in these countries opened the way for the very method of stage-by-stage social engineering in Western European countries.

Classics about liberalism

The word liberalism has long lost all charm, although it comes from the beautiful word freedom. Freedom cannot captivate the masses. The masses do not trust freedom and do not know how to connect it with their vital interests. Truly, there is something aristocratic rather than democratic in freedom. This is a value dearer to the human minority than to the human majority, addressed primarily to the individual, to individuality. Liberalism has never triumphed in revolutions. He did not triumph not only in social, but also in political revolutions, because in all revolutions the masses rose up. The mass always has the pathos of equality, not freedom. And great revolutions have always been driven by the principle of equality, not freedom. The liberal spirit is not essentially a revolutionary spirit. Liberalism is the mood and worldview of cultural strata of society. There is no stormy element in it, no fire that ignites the heart; there is moderation and too much formality in it. The truth of liberalism is a formal truth. She says nothing positive or negative about the content of life; she would like to guarantee the individual any content of life. The liberal idea does not have the ability to turn into a semblance of religion and does not evoke feelings of a religious nature. This is the weakness of the liberal idea, but this is also its good side. Democratic, socialist, anarchist ideas claim to provide content human life; they easily turn into false religions and evoke attitudes of a religious nature. But this is where the lie of these ideas is rooted, for they have no spiritual content and there is nothing worthy of a religiously pathetic attitude. Attaching religious feelings to unworthy objects is a great lie and temptation. And we must admit that liberalism does not encourage this. The democratic idea is even more formal than the liberal idea, but it has the ability to present itself as the content of human life, as a special type of human life. And therefore, a poisonous temptation is hidden in it.

Fedor Mikhailovich Dostoevsky

Our Russian liberal is first and foremost a lackey and is only looking to clean someone's boots.

My liberal has gone so far as to deny Russia itself, that is, he hates and beats his mother. Every unfortunate and unfortunate Russian fact arouses laughter and almost delight in him. He hates folk customs, Russian history, everything. If there is an excuse for him, is it that he does not understand what he is doing, and mistakes his hatred of Russia for the most fruitful liberalism...
Lev Nikolaevich Tolstoy

The Liberal Party said that everything was bad in Russia, and indeed, Stepan Arkadyevich had a lot of debts, but there was a decided lack of money. The Liberal Party said that marriage was an outdated institution and that it was necessary to rebuild it, and indeed, family life brought little pleasure to Stepan Arkadyevich and forced him to lie and pretend, which was so contrary to his nature. The liberal party said, or, better, implied, that religion is only a bridle for the barbaric part of the population, and indeed, Stepan Arkadyevich could not endure even a short prayer service without pain in his legs and could not understand why all these terrible and pompous words about that world, when living in this would be very fun.
Anton Pavlovich Chekhov

I don’t believe in our intelligentsia, hypocritical, false, hysterical, ill-mannered, deceitful, I don’t even believe when it suffers and complains, because its oppressors come from its own depths.
Moderate liberalism: a dog needs freedom, but still it needs to be kept on a chain.

Nikolay Semyonovich Leskov

“If you are not with us, then you are a scoundrel!” According to the author of the article “To Study or Not to Study,” this is the slogan of today’s Russian liberals.

our liberals are ordering Russian society to immediately renounce everything that it believed in and that has grown into its nature. Reject authorities, do not strive for any ideals, do not have any religion (except for the notebooks of Feuerbach and Buchner), do not be embarrassed by any moral obligations, laugh at marriage, at sympathies, at spiritual purity, otherwise you are a “scoundrel”! If you are offended that they call you a scoundrel, well, in addition, you are also a “stupid fool and a trashy vulgar.”
Boris Nikolaevich Chicherin
The Russian liberal theoretically does not recognize any power. He wants to obey only the law that pleases him. The most necessary activity of the state seems to him to be oppression. He... sees a police official or a soldier on the street, and indignation boils within him. The Russian liberal leaves with a few big words: freedom, glasnost, public opinion..., merging with the people, etc., to which he knows no boundaries and which therefore remain commonplaces, devoid of any significant content. That is why the most elementary concepts - obedience to the law, the need for police, the need for officials - seem to him to be the product of outrageous despotism...

Scientific approach

The idea of ​​democratic governance is a type of principle of decentralized, distributed governance and is opposed to centralized governance or authoritarian government.

Even at its very core, it would be wrong to believe that a complex system of interaction in society can be built only on the basis of authoritarian or only on the basis of distributed control.

Extrapolating principles of individual and socialadaptive oh, you can come to models of the correct structure of society .

Conclusions in a popular presentation

Liberalism and democracy are philosophical abstract formations and they do not exist in nature, but they are called certain embodiments of political views. And what becomes important is not what these theories ideally embodied, but what was named by them, often simply because there is no more suitable name: you decided to politicize your activity, you are thinking about what to call it. Fascism, communism, anarchism have compromised themselves and are considered evil, but for now democracy and liberalism are in fashion.

Previously, there was no popular word liberal and the cattle called themselves anarchists, they even made Makhnovist heroics out of it. And today Zhirinovsky is a democratic liberal, although he is absolutely not what Navalny or anyone else who calls himself a liberal is. The name becomes so conventional that it practically does not express anything, and only real deeds mean.

There is not and never has been in nature anything that could be clearly verified as democracy and liberalism, and one should not fall under the spell of the ideality of the image, but should look at the real manifestations of those who hang an opportunistic sign on themselves.

Only through the development of a common culture is it possible to achieve those idyllic values ​​that liberals and democrats dream of.

Democratic and liberal (liberal-democratic) regimes are two varieties of the general democratic way of implementing state power, the antipode of which is the non-democratic or anti-democratic way in its two main varieties - authoritarian and totalitarian regimes. In most textbooks on constitutional law, only three types of state or political regimes are usually distinguished - democratic, authoritarian and totalitarian. In others, the liberal regime is specifically highlighted, which seems more correct and consistent. If we limit ourselves to only the most general division of these regimes, then, as already mentioned, they can be divided simply into democratic and non-democratic. But since the latter are differentiated into authoritarian and totalitarian, expressing varying degrees of their undemocratic nature, then, while remaining consistent, it is necessary to subdivide the democratic type of state power according to the degree of democracy into actually democratic and liberal, or liberal-democratic.

It is quite natural that, in fact, consistently democratic and liberal-democratic, liberal state-political regimes have a lot in common in the main and fundamental things, which allows them to belong to the same democratic type of state power. At the same time, there are significant species differences between them that require their scientific differentiation. Since the liberal regime in this regard acts as a kind of democratic type of state-political rule, it can be called liberal-democratic.

A democratic state-political regime is characterized by a commitment not only to truly democratic goals and values, but also to a fairly complete and consistent use of appropriate methods and methods for achieving them in the process of exercising state power. As historical and modern experience shows, the most adequate basis for the establishment of such regimes is a socially oriented economy, the achievement of a relatively high general standard of living of the population, civil society, the implementation of the principles of social justice and social harmony, etc. It is no coincidence that such regimes are firmly established and successful operate today in industrialized countries, while even in those developing countries Those who have chosen a generally democratic path of development, the application of the principles, forms and methods of democracy turns out to be objectively limited by the low level of economic development, poverty of the bulk of the population, acute social conflicts, and the extremely low general and especially political and legal culture of citizens. This, of course, does not mean that among developing countries there are not and cannot be countries with democratic regimes. But even when this occurs, we can actually talk most often about a liberal, liberal-democratic variety of such a regime and only in some cases about the formation of a democratic regime proper. And in most post-socialist countries what is happening today is precisely the process of establishing truly and consistently democratic state-political regimes.

Generally speaking, a democratic state-political regime is characterized by a number of common essential features despite the variety of specific forms of its manifestation. The most important of them are as follows.

• 1. Recognition and guaranteed implementation of democracy, the sovereignty of the people as the fundamental basis of the entire state and political system of the country.
• 2. Legislative consolidation and guaranteed implementation of the basic generally recognized rights and freedoms of man and citizen, ensuring genuine and high freedom, autonomy and active initiative of citizens.
• 3. The connection of state power with law and law, the subordination of its bodies to them, i.e. the legal nature of this power.
• 4. Separation and equality of branches of government - legislative, executive and judicial, the use of a system of various checks and balances in the process of their interaction. These branches of government are both independent of each other and interconnected.
• 5. Political pluralism, ensuring, in particular, a multi-party system.
• 6. Political pluralism and multi-party system, presupposing freedom of organization and activity of the opposition, periodic legal and legitimate change at the helm of state power of representatives of various parties and movements, unhindered expression of the opinion of opposition forces on issues of government policy and public administration, respect for it and taking it into account when adoption by state authorities of political and management decisions etc.
• 7. Political pluralism and multi-party system, organically connected with the need to ensure ideological freedom and ideological diversity, including freedom of agitation and propaganda, openness, independence of the media, etc.
• 8. Wide real participation of citizens in the exercise of government power, i.e. application of the principle of participation as a way to implement feedback from the state to the population.
• 9. Decentralization of state power and the development of local self-government, allowing for vertical division of power and preventing the monopolization of this power at the top to the detriment of the middle and lower echelons of the state system.
• 10. Extremely narrow, strictly limited by law, use of violent methods and means of exercising state power.

A liberal, or liberal-democratic regime is a type of democratic type of state rule, in which democratic methods, forms and methods of exercising state power receive relatively incomplete, limited and inconsistent application. On the one hand, such a regime is associated with a fairly high level of political freedom of the individual; and on the other hand, the real objective and subjective conditions of the respective countries significantly limit the possibilities of using democratic means and methods of state-political government. This stipulates that the liberal state-political regime should be classified as a democratic type of government and at the same time identified within its framework as a special type of democratic regime, different from actually democratic or developed democratic regimes.

The liberal state-political regime is the embodiment of the socio-political principles and ideals of liberalism (from the Latin liberalis - free) - one of the most important and widespread ideological and socio-political trends, which finally developed into a special, independent direction in the 30-40s. XIX century, although the ideological origins of liberalism go back to the 17th-18th centuries. (J. Locke, C. Montesquieu, J.J. Rousseau, T. Jefferson, B. Franklin, I. Bentham, etc.). Historically, classical liberalism developed in the struggle against feudal enslavement of the individual, against class privileges, hereditary state power, etc., for freedom and equality of citizens, equal opportunities for everyone, democratic forms of socio-political life.

For liberalism the characters are: recognition of the self-worth of the individual and the original equality of all people; individualism, humanism and cosmopolitanism; defending the inalienable rights, freedoms and responsibilities of citizens, primarily the rights to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness; support for the principles of democracy, constitutionalism, separation of powers, parliamentarism, law and order; understanding of the state as a body based on agreement and consensus with members of society, limited to the goals of protecting the original rights of man, not interfering in his private life, supporting the principles of a market economy, freedom of enterprise and competition with minimal government intervention in the economy. Classical liberalism, which became widespread and seriously influential in the second half of the 19th - first half of the 20th centuries, especially in connection with the creation and activities of liberal parties and the rise of many of them to power, has today undergone significant evolution and renewal. In particular, modern liberalism or neoliberalism is distinguished by a greater perception of the ideas of pluralistic democracy and diversity of forms of ownership, expansion and strengthening of the role of the state in public life, social state, social justice, etc.

If in the past, especially in the 19th century, the liberal regime was characteristic of industrially developed countries, which were then experiencing the process of becoming a true democracy, then in the modern world such regimes are especially characteristic of post-colonial and post-socialist countries, moving from anti-democratic colonial or totalitarian regimes to developed democratic ones. rule (India, Egypt, Turkey, the Philippines, Sri Lanka, etc.), which have seriously advanced along the path of democratization of political life, but are still far from reaching the level of developed democracies, as well as in some post-socialist countries of Europe.

Liberal Democratic regime: Liberal democratic regimes exist in many countries. Its significance is such that some scientists believe: the liberal regime is not actually a regime for the exercise of power, but a condition for the existence of civilization itself at a certain stage of its development, even the final result, which ends the entire evolution of the political organization of society, most effective form such an organization. But it is difficult to agree with the last statement, since at present time is running the evolution of political regimes and even such a form as the liberal democratic regime. New trends in the development of civilization, the desire of man to escape from environmental, nuclear and other disasters give rise to new forms of defining state power (the role of the UN is increasing, international forces quick response, contradictions between human rights and nations and peoples are growing).

In the theory of state and law, political methods and methods of exercising power that are based on a system of the most democratic and humanistic principles are also called liberal.

These principles characterize the economic sphere of relations between the individual and the state. Under a liberal regime in this area, a person has property, rights and freedoms, is economically independent and on this basis becomes politically independent. In relation to the individual and the state, priority remains with the individual.

Liberal regime: The liberal regime is determined, first of all, by the needs of the commodity-money, market organization of the economy. The market requires equal, free, independent partners. A liberal state proclaims the formal equality of all citizens. In a liberal society, freedom of speech, opinions, forms of ownership is proclaimed, and space is given to private initiative. Individual rights and freedoms are not only enshrined in the constitution, but also become enforceable in practice.

Under liberalism government is formed through elections, the outcome of which depends not only on the opinion of the people, but also on the financial capabilities of certain parties necessary to conduct election campaigns. Public administration is carried out on the basis of the principle of separation of powers. A system of “checks and balances” helps reduce opportunities for abuse of power. Government decisions are made by majority vote.

Decentralization is used in public administration: the central government takes upon itself to resolve only those issues that the local government cannot resolve.

Along with other regimes, the liberal regime has its own problems, the main ones being the social protection of certain categories of citizens, the stratification of society, and the actual inequality of starting opportunities. The most effective use of this regime becomes possible only in a society characterized by a high level of economic and social development. The population must have a sufficiently high political, intellectual and moral consciousness, and legal culture. A liberal regime can only exist on a democratic basis; it grows out of the democratic regime itself.

Democratic regime: A democratic regime (Greek democratia - democracy) is one of the varieties of a liberal regime based on recognition of the principle of equality and freedom of all people, the participation of the people in government. Providing its citizens with broad rights and freedoms, a democratic state is not limited only to their proclamation, i.e. formal equality of legal opportunity. It provides them with a socio-economic basis and establishes constitutional guarantees of these rights and freedoms. As a result, broad rights and freedoms become real, and not just formal.

In a democratic state, the people are the source of power. And this becomes not just a declaration, but a factual state of affairs. Representative bodies and officials in a democracy are usually elected, but political views and professionalism vary. Professionalization of power - hallmark state in which there is a democratic political regime. The activities of people's representatives should also be based on moral principles and humanism.

A democratic society is characterized by the development of associative ties at all levels of public life. In democracy, there are many institutions and political pluralism: parties, trade unions, popular movements, mass associations, associations, unions, circles, sections, societies, clubs unite people according to different interests and inclinations.

Referendums, plebiscites, popular initiatives, discussions, demonstrations, rallies, and meetings are becoming necessary attributes of public life. Citizens' associations participate in the management of state affairs. Along with executive branch A parallel system of direct representation is being created locally. Public bodies participate in the development of decisions, advice, recommendations, and also exercise control over the executive branch. Thus, the participation of the people in managing the affairs of society becomes truly massive and goes along two lines: the election of professional managers and direct participation in solving public affairs (self-government, self-regulation), as well as control over the executive branch.

Governance in a democratic state is carried out according to the will of the majority, but taking into account the interests of the minority. Therefore, decisions are made both by voting and using the method of agreement when making decisions.

The system of division of powers between central and local authorities occupies an important place in a democratic regime. The central state power takes upon itself only those issues on the solution of which the existence of society as a whole, its viability depends: ecology, division of labor in the world community, conflict prevention, etc. Other issues are resolved decentralized. As a result of this, the issue of concentration, monopolization of power and the need to neutralize it is removed.

Of course, a democratic regime also has its problems: excessive social stratification of society, at times a kind of dictatorship of democracy (authoritarian rule of the majority), and in some historical conditions this regime leads to a weakening of power, disruptions of order, even a slide into anarchy, and sometimes creates conditions for the existence of destructive , extremist, separatist forces. But still, the social value of a democratic regime is much higher than some of its negative specific historical forms.

It should also be borne in mind that a democratic regime often appears in those states where the social struggle reaches a high intensity and the ruling elite, the ruling strata of society are forced to make concessions to the people, other social forces, and agree to compromises in the organization and exercise of state power.

A democratic regime exists in many countries, for example in the USA, Great Britain, France, Germany, Japan, and in many European countries.