The problem of the relationship between the individual and the state. Public opinion: current problems of the state and society
Problems that concern not any particular continent or state, but the entire planet, are called global. As civilization develops, it accumulates more and more of them. Today there are eight main problems. Let's consider the global problems of humanity and ways to solve them.
Ecological problem
Today it is considered the main one. For a long time, people have used the resources given to them by nature irrationally, polluted the environment around them, and poisoned the Earth with a variety of waste - from solid to radioactive. The result was not long in coming - according to the majority of competent researchers, environmental problems in the next hundred years will lead to irreversible consequences for the planet, and therefore for humanity.
There are already countries where this issue has reached a very high level, giving rise to the concept of an ecological crisis area. But a threat looms over the whole world: the ozone layer, which protects the planet from radiation, is being destroyed, the earth’s climate is changing - and humans are unable to control these changes.
Even the most developed country cannot solve the problem alone, so states unite to jointly solve important environmental problems. The main solution is considered to be reasonable use of natural resources and reorganization of everyday life and industrial production so that the ecosystem develops naturally.
Rice. 1. The threatening scale of the environmental problem.
Demographic problem
In the 20th century, when the world's population exceeded six billion, everyone had heard of it. However, in the 21st century the vector has shifted. In short, the essence of the problem now is this: there are fewer and fewer people. A competent policy of family planning and improving the living conditions of each individual will help solve this issue.
TOP 4 articleswho are reading along with this
Food problem
This problem is closely related to the demographic one and consists in the fact that more than half of humanity is experiencing acute food shortages. To solve it, we need to more rationally use available resources for food production. Experts see two development paths: intensive, when the biological productivity of existing fields and other lands increases, and extensive, when their number increases.
All global problems of humanity must be solved together, and this is no exception. The food problem arose due to the fact that most people live in unsuitable areas. Combining the efforts of scientists from different countries will significantly speed up the solution process.
Energy and raw materials problem
The uncontrolled use of raw materials has led to the depletion of mineral reserves that have been accumulating for hundreds of millions of years. Very soon, fuel and other resources may disappear altogether, so scientific and technological progress is being introduced at all stages of production.
The problem of peace and disarmament
Some scientists believe that in the very near future it may happen that there will be no need to look for possible ways to solve humanity’s global problems: people are producing such an amount of offensive weapons (including nuclear weapons) that at some point they can destroy themselves. To prevent this from happening, world treaties on arms reduction and demilitarization of economies are being developed.
Human health problem
Humanity continues to suffer from deadly diseases. The progress of science is great, but diseases that cannot be cured still exist. The only solution is to continue scientific research in search of cures.
The problem of using the World Ocean
The depletion of land resources has led to increased interest in the World Ocean - all countries that have access to it use it not only as a biological resource. Both the mining and chemical sectors are actively developing. Which gives rise to two problems at once: pollution and uneven development. But how are these issues resolved? Currently, they are being studied by scientists from all over the world, who are developing principles of rational ocean environmental management.
Rice. 2. Industrial station in the ocean.
The problem of space exploration
To explore outer space, it is important to join forces on a global scale. The latest research is the result of consolidation of work from many countries. This is precisely the basis for solving the problem.
Scientists have already developed a model of the first station for settlers on the Moon, and Elon Musk says that the day is not far off when people will go to explore Mars.
Rice. 3. Layout of the lunar base.
What have we learned?
Humanity has many global problems that can ultimately lead to its death. These problems can only be solved if efforts are consolidated; otherwise, the efforts of one or more countries will be reduced to zero. Thus, civilizational development and the solution of problems of a universal scale are possible only if the survival of man as a species becomes higher than economic and state interests.
Test on the topic
Evaluation of the report
Average rating: 4.7. Total ratings received: 1485.
The development of civilization and democracy opens up great scope for the general social activities of the state. Nowadays, the general social functions of the state (economic, social, maintaining democratic law and order) are becoming a priority. The activities of the state in the spiritual sphere (education, culture, science) are expanding and intensifying.
Particularly relevant today global problems, acutely affecting universal human interests - the protection of nature and the environment throughout the planet, the fight against international crime, terrorism, demographic problems, etc. To solve them, the joint efforts of all states are necessary, and therefore the development of the corresponding functions - ensuring world law and order, international environmental and other safety. In our time, it is impossible to solve them without law and the state. The role of international law is great here.
1. Ecological problem. It appeared as a result of scientific and technological progress. It brings with it not only advantages, but also disadvantages. Essence environmental problem consists in a clearly revealed and deepening contradiction between the productive activity of mankind and the stability of its natural environment. Environmentally aggressive production has become aggressive towards people and their health. International environmental law plays an important role in solving environmental problems of our time, but each state, in turn, develops its own environmental legislation, in interaction with this international environmental law.
Problems: inability to slow down technological progress, pollution. The delicate balance between nature and man has been disrupted. Destruction of natural resources, fresh water, forests, animal species. Declining ozone layer, greenhouse effect, noise problem. Already in the foreseeable future, it is possible to expect warming and melting of glaciers, which will cause millions of people to turn into environmental refugees.
2. Fight against international crime: Recently, international crime has become increasingly widespread. Drug trade and smuggling, terrorism, illegal arms trade - this is a small list of the most dangerous types of international crimes. No state can cope with this problem alone. The need for joint action by states to combat international crime is obvious. Solve the problem of fight against international crime, terrorism without applying standards international criminal law impossible. Different states have different services, but act on the basis of international law. After all, terrorists operate on the territories of different states. Therefore, international law comes to the fore here.
Specific actions of states in this area are the creation of international organizations to combat crimes, for example INTERPOL, and the adoption of laws that tighten responsibility for international crimes.
3. Fight against poverty. Many people are dying of hunger.
4. Population problems./Demographic problems/. In each country it is solved differently. Somewhere there is population growth, somewhere there is a decline. But there is a problem. It is necessary to coordinate efforts in the field of medical care. The population is growing exponentially, and food is growing exponentially. At the same time, the problem is a lack of population in developed countries and an excess of birth rates in Africa and Latin America.
5. Removal of high technologies into the space and space pollution.
6. Problem informational flow.
7. Problem artificial intelligence and mechanical life.
8. Problems genetic engineering have now come to the fore.
9. There is a danger of destruction of human corporeality, due to gigantic loads on the human psyche, stress, contamination with carcinogens, mutants, etc.
Civilization has significantly extended human life, developed medicine, but at the same time eliminated the natural factor of removing carriers of genetic errors from the human race. The solution is sometimes seen in the prospects of genetic engineering, but it carries no less danger.
9. Civil society and the rule of law
The essence of civil society is that it unites and expresses, first of all, the interests of citizens, their aspirations, freedom, requests, needs, and not the will of the ruling elites, authorities, and the state. The latter (the state) is called upon to act only as a servant of society, its trusted representative. The state is for society, not society for the state. At the same time, there should be no antagonism between them.
Civil society- an open, democratic, anti-totalitarian, self-developing society in which the central place is occupied by the person, the citizen, the individual. It is incompatible with a directive-distributive economy, the imposition of forced patterns of life and activity from above. Free individual owners unite to jointly satisfy their interests and serve the common good.
The components of civil society are: 1) personality; 2) family; 3) school; 4) church; 5) property and entrepreneurship; 6) social groups, layers, classes; 7) private life of citizens and its guarantees; 8) institutions of democracy; 9) public associations, political parties and movements; 10) independent justice; 11) system of upbringing and education; 12) free media; 13) non-state socio-economic relations, etc.
Civil society is a special society; it is distinguished by its specific characteristics.
1. In civil society, a variety of forms of ownership are approved: private, state, municipal.
2. In civil society, of course natural rights are recognized and protected person.
3. Civil society affirms political and ideological pluralism. Political pluralism is expressed in the fact that there are two, three and multi-party systems. And the ideological one is that there is no official state ideology. The Constitution says that no ideology can be recognized as official. State.
4. This is an open society, not a closed one.
5. It has free media, newspapers, television and radio channels, etc.
6. In it, the interest of an individual (citizen) stands above the interests of society.
The rule of law is an organization of political power that creates conditions for the most complete provision of the rights and freedoms of man and citizen, as well as for the most consistent binding of state power through law in order to prevent abuse.
Constitutional state exists in civil society. No civil society - no rule of law. No rule of law means no civil society.
The modern understanding of civil society presupposes the presence of a complex of essential signs: According to Reshetov:
1. Separation of powers.
2. Law supremacy. It follows from the supreme legal force of the law. All other legal acts are of a subordinate nature. If the Presidential Decree contradicts the law, it will not be the Decree, but the law that will apply. If the Government Decree contradicts the law, it will not be the Decree, but the law that will apply. This is the rule of law.
3. Mutual responsibility the citizen before the state, and the state before the citizen. We've seen some improvement here. There could be no talk of this in the Soviet state. The Soviet state and its party were untouchable. The main state and society must be put first. In a rule-of-law state, the interests of the individual and the state are placed on an equal plane. If the state has not fulfilled its obligations, the citizen can hold it accountable. And citizens do this, appeal to the European Court of Human Rights. There are more applications from our citizens there than from all European countries combined. Because our state is not accustomed to answering for its actions to its citizens.
4. Sometimes referred to as a sign of the rule of law the priority of the rights and freedoms of the citizen in the development of the state.
They say that the rule of law is a theory, an ideal, that in reality there is no such state and could not exist. The ideal and the real state have never coincided, and cannot coincide. Taking these signs, you can see that in the United States there is a separation of powers, this is a reality, there is the rule of law, mutual responsibility. The same in Germany, Sweden, Switzerland. A real legal state is distinguished by such features. We also want to build a rule of law state and that is why we are following the path.
As a rule, it is the political elite of the country that appears in the minds of the population as the initial cause of the unsatisfactory economic situation of the people, as well as the associated series of social problems. This main conclusion can be drawn from the results of a qualitative remote study of the Belarusian Analytical WorkshopPublic opinion of Belarus about the project"Modernization for Belarus".*Often, the problems of the state in people's perceptions turn out to be closely related to their personal problems, so it is not always possible to clearly separate them: the former inevitably follow from the latter (as well as vice versa). Naturally, the difficult financial situation of individuals and their families is most often considered in connection with the economic situation throughout the country (an unprecedented rise in prices in the “crisis” year of 2011, a significant decrease in the purchasing power of the population, devaluation, the problem of housing affordability, etc.) . At the same time, for example, the problem of educating the younger generation turns out to be related to the insufficient (or incorrect) activities of the state in the field of social policy (we are talking about the closure of free clubs for children, the transfer of their work on a commercial basis; the workload of teachers with documentation, which creates serious obstacles to full-fledged work with children; alcoholism among young people is understood as a result of the authorities’ fixation on themselves, as a result of the fact that the state pays little attention to the problems of the population, and is more concerned about replenishing the budget (and therefore, about enriching officials), which is unacceptable for a truly socially oriented state).
Respondent 1 (pensioner) : I believe that if the state is socially oriented, then first of all it should pay attention to the population.
Thus, the main thing should be noted: the private problems of the population, being most often placed in the economic sphere, cannot be considered in isolation from national problems: they are a consequence and continuation of the unfavorable economic situation in the country, which, in turn, is understood as the result of incorrect actions of the authorities (primarily) and, at the same time, as a consequence of the existing mentality of the population.
However, along with this, the causes of some particular problems of the population may naturally lie in the sphere of individual actions, i.e. within the competence of the individual (or family).
: I think that I don’t live very well, but I still support [the activities of the authorities]. I believe that it is not the state’s fault [that I live this way], but my internal problems that I cannot cope with on my own: for example, that my husband started drinking and left the family...
By the way, it is the family that is the level of social interaction at which individual influence can be the only effective and truly necessary, while the solution to national problems is shifted to the bureaucracy (and not so much due to the indifference of the population to the problems of the country, but because lack of real opportunities for individual citizens to influence the overall situation).
Respondent 1 (pensioner) : Our biggest problem is that we cannot restore order in our family. Now, if everyone put things in order in their family, and they could manage it... I am for the fact that everyone should put things in order in their family.
The lack of opportunity for the population to influence the state of affairs in the country can in itself be called a serious national problem - a problem that lies in the sphere of politics. The authoritarian (or even dictatorial) power of the permanent leader is often - directly or indirectly - mentioned as the root cause of all other domestic problems: both political (for example, defective foreign policy) and economic (improper distribution of material resources within the country). In this case, political and economic problems turn out to be closely intertwined and interconnected.
Respondent 3 (teacher) : I have great respect for countries such as the USA and Canada - their Constitution clearly states that no matter how good their head of state is, he can only be the head of state for two terms, and then that’s it. I think it was not for nothing that they looked that way. I don’t know how it is with us. Maybe things are different with us. I think that it is necessary to update... Take the same Germany: there the apparatus is completely updated, no matter how well they do, the apparatus is still updated, and after some time new leadership comes.
Respondent 4 (retired) : A person cannot, even the smartest, the most intellectual, the most developed, the very best person cannot control everything and everyone.
At the same time, it is precisely the tough individual power that can be perceived as a guarantor of stability, order and integrity of the country (in conditions of constant struggle against external encroachments).
Respondent 2 (working pensioner) : Well, this is, as they say, “dictatorial power”... I believe that this is the [correct] initiative of our president, that he can establish strict boundaries for someone. The framework is not for the common people, but at least for his subordinate relatives: so he tells them “do this” and they do it. To do this, you must have the power to subjugate people!.. If our government had not made efforts to preserve our state, we would have been plundered and stolen long ago... and trampled on!
From what has been said, it is important to draw the correct conclusion: in the perception of the population, the problems of the state (political, economic, social) are closely related to personal problems (especially when it comes to the economic side of life), but it would be wrong to talk about the only understanding of the latter as a consequence of the wrong actions of the country’s leadership : in some cases, the actions of the authorities may receive a positive assessment and find their defenders. At the same time, according to the results of the 4 focus groups under consideration, it is clear that most often it is the political elite of the country that appears in the minds of the population as the initial reason for the unsatisfactory economic situation of people.
Next, we list the main points expressed in the focus groups, in the order in which they correspond to the order and structure of the discussions: from current problems of the state and the population, we will move on to a description of the perception of the existing situation in the country and the expectations of the population, ending with a conversation about geopolitical orientations and an assessment of the European Modernization Dialogue initiative - and so on sequentially for each of the four focus groups.
Group 1: pensioners.
Personal dictatorial presidential power and, as a consequence, the defectiveness of the ongoing foreign and domestic policies (rejection of neighbors, ambition, anger), lies from the authorities and the media; lack of fair elections as such; lack of freedom of speech, tightness of the opposition;
The deplorable state of the economy, lack of a positive outlook; low competitiveness of domestic goods; departure of specialists from large state-owned enterprises; weak development of the private sector in the economy and the predominance of state ownership; pursuing a borrowing policy;
Energy dependence;
Lack of initiative of lower-level officials, unwillingness to take responsibility;
Alcoholization of the population.
As already noted, the personal problems of the population are closely intertwined with the national ones:
Alcoholism of loved ones;
The problem of mutual understanding in the family (relationships with children, grandchildren);
Lack of feeling of freedom, tightness, fear;
Economic dependence of the younger generation on the older generation (lack of opportunity to live separately, unresolved housing problem);
Health problems;
Material difficulties.
The current economic situation in the country should be said to have significantly worsened compared to the pre-crisis time, when it was still possible to talk about at least some kind of stability. The advent of 2011, with all its negative phenomena, allows few people to look into the future with optimism; most often, focus group participants talk about expecting a further deterioration of the situation. Along with this, there are also statements that carry a cautious expression of hope for a better future. Although there are obvious optimists - these are those people who tend to approve of the actions of the authorities.
Group 2: student youth.
Current problems of the state:
Lack of freedom of speech; fear, intimidation of the people; conflict between the authorities and the population and the opposition;
The state, in the “person of a specific person,” substitutes the population for the sake of “maintaining power” (example: the incomprehensible situation with the explosion in the subway);
Tolerance, indifference (“abyyakavasts”) of Belarusians;
Economic crisis; discrepancy between high prices and low wages; poor development of economic sectors; the republic's untapped geopolitical position; lack of modernization of factories, unsuccessful search for investors, incorrect distribution of funds (Respondent 5 (student): [We have] an incorrect distribution of funds. It turns out that the authorities are to blame for everything, but the authorities distribute the funds! She collects these funds, maybe takes some half into her own pocket (I don’t even doubt it), and distributes the rest incorrectly. Some kind of modernization needs to be done, something needs to be updated, and investors need to be looked for. What are they doing? And they all go to the collective farm: a chicken, a goat...)
Insufficient assistance to students and young professionals;
Disrespect for old age, low pensions;
Housing problem for young families;
Lack of development of entertainment infrastructure in Minsk ( Respondent 6 (student) : “Minsk is a big village... Nothing interesting is happening here”).
From the listed problems classified as national, personal problems of this population group can easily be derived.
Compared to 2011, an improvement in the economic situation in the country cannot be stated by the participants in this focus group. The only thing we can talk about is the stabilization of the situation, the cessation of the downward slide, albeit temporary (in the near future, a repetition of the events of 2011 cannot be ruled out, since neither then nor now the corresponding conclusions were made, and the authorities’ policy remained the former – aimed at obtaining and “eating” loans).
Respondent 7 (student) : Well, now there is some kind of help from Russia, but then the money will run out anyway. There will be a repeat [of the events of 2011], it seems to me.
Respondent 8 (student) : Anything can happen... But if, in principle, no changes have occurred, and the same policy continues, then there will probably be [another] crisis...
Group 3: mixed (young professionals, employees of private and public enterprises).
Current problems of the state:
Permanence of the political regime;
Mutual disrespect between the president and the people (and the emergence of aggression as a consequence of this);
Poor relations with the West; lack of consistency in laws, in foreign and domestic policies;
Economic crisis, discrepancy between low wages and high prices; unsatisfactory investment climate; “predatory” loans for the population;
Unprofitable production in the public sector (“overstaffing” and, as a result, low wages), outdated equipment; low quality of domestic products; lack of workers in the construction industry;
The relevance of import substitution;
Underdevelopment of the private sector;
The housing problem for young families (and the decline in the birth rate as a consequence of its unresolved nature);
Some public problems lead to personal ones: low incomes, an unresolved housing problem. The problem of raising children can also be mentioned here.
Speaking about the assessment of the current economic situation, it should be noted that, according to the focus group participants, there is no significant improvement.
Respondent 9 (young specialist) : The situation has not changed at all [now], only dollars have appeared on sale. In my opinion, the level of salaries, the cost of food and things remained the same. The only thing is, maybe the technology has become cheaper now...
At the same time, it is noted that economically there is no faith in a better future, there is no stability (except for the “stability of the crisis”), so many are leaving Belarus to work - and this is likely to continue.
Respondent 10 (engineering engineers) : If this continues, I myself will run away in all 4 directions.
Given the uncertainty of the situation, expectations are generally pessimistic.
Vladimir, 31 years old, energy engineer: The fact that there is some kind of stability now, I see that it will end in a couple of months... Some crises happen every two years. I think this will continue.
Respondent 11 (service industry worker) : It seems to me that this is the calm before the storm. Something might happen again.
Group 4: public sector workers.
Current problems of the state:
Insufficient funding from the public sector;
Lack of stability and confidence in the future;
Low economic growth rates; the discrepancy between low incomes and high prices; “eating away” loans; improper distribution of funds;
The problem of poor quality food;
High incidence among children;
The need to develop the private sector while simultaneously limiting state ownership;
Outdated equipment;
Poor relations with Europe;
Lack of freedom of speech and democracy;
Extremely low standard of living in villages;
Housing problem for young families; the problem of supporting young families in general;
The problem of providing imported medicines (specifically a medical problem);
Lack of real support for culture from the state (the subject “world artistic culture” has been removed from secondary schools, hours in the subject “music” have been reduced, there is a shortage in music schools, etc.):
Respondent 12 (teacher) : This is not the first year that a nation has been created that does not need culture at all. Although it’s great to show off, in my opinion: everything seems to be fine with us, but in reality everything with us is very sad, very sad...
Excessive formalization of work in the public sector (constant work with documentation)
The personal problems of the population are primarily related to the difficult economic situation.
As in other groups, the deterioration of the situation in the country due to the economic crisis is clearly noted here. The temporary stabilization of the situation does not cause optimism; there is no faith in a better future (and a possible deterioration of the situation may be associated with the stage that will begin immediately after the parliamentary elections). We can only say that people try to adapt to an unfavorable situation, but the expectation of the future is associated with the expectation that the situation will worsen.
Respondent 13 (doctor) : No [improvement]. There is no certainty. And there is no stability.
Respondent 14 (teacher) : What remains? Nothing else…
Respondent 13 (doctor) : There is no optimism at all.
To be continued
------*In July-August 2012, the Belarusian Analytical Workshop conducted a qualitative remote study using the method of group focused interviews (focus groups) - 8 in total. The average duration of one discussion is 100 minutes. The opinions and judgments of various population groups about the socio-economic and political situation in the Republic of Belarus, the geo-political orientations of the residents were studied and summarized, and the attitude of the population to the European Dialogue on Modernization initiative was assessed. The results of the analysis are presented in the form of a report, the structure of which corresponds to the order of focus groups and their internal structure.
Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below
Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.
Posted on http://www.allbest.ru/
Posted on http://www.allbest.ru/
Non-state autonomous non-profit educational organization of higher professional education
"ST. PETERSBURG INSTITUTE
HUMANITIES EDUCATION"
(SPbIGO)
Facultyjurisprudence
Departmenttheory and history of law and state
Course work
Bydiscipline "Ttheories of state and law»
Subject:
“The problem of the relationship between the state and the individual and society»
Performed: 1st year student
full-time education
Popova Daria Dmitrievna
Checked:
Ger Oleg Evgenievich
St. Petersburg 2014
Introduction
1.Basic concepts: State, individual, society
1.1 The concept of the state, its characteristics
1.2 The concept of society, its brief description
1.3 The concept of personality, its characteristics
2. The problem of relations between the state and society
3. Three concepts of the relationship between the state and the individual in the context of human rights problems
4.Civil society and the rule of law: ways of formation
Conclusion
Bibliography
Introduction
This topic has been relevant for a long period of time. The problem of the relationship between the state and the individual and society as a whole has existed since the times when only the first states appeared. The state is the only legitimate public institution designed to regulate social relations. Over the entire period of existence of this independent centralized socio-political organization, many changes have occurred in its structure; the state is developing and progressing together with the development of society and the individual. These phenomena are inextricably linked with each other, and it is difficult to imagine the existence of one without the other, just as it is impossible for each of the phenomena to exist outside of time and space.
The issue of the relationship between the state and the individual and society is considered by various disciplines, in particular, philosophy, political science, psychology, and therefore this topic can be considered from different angles and draw your own conclusions.
The purpose and objectives of this work are: research of the topic, analysis of found works and studies from other sources on this issue.
The main objectives of the course work were:
1) Selection of materials;
2) Finding the problem;
3) Finding ways to solve problems in a given topic;
4) Conclusions and expression of one’s own position on the issue under study.
In this work, the following research methods are used: method of analysis, deduction, induction, synthesis.
1. Basic concepts: State, personality, society
1 . 1 The concept of the state, its characteristics. Origin
I would like to start this research work with the basics, that is, with definitions and general characteristics.
The term " state"is usually used in a broad and narrow sense. In a broad sense, the state is identified with society, with a specific country. In a narrow sense, the state is understood as one of the institutions of the political system that has supreme power in society.
The state can be defined as a social organization that has ultimate power over all people living within the boundaries of a certain territory, and has as its main goal the solution of common problems and the provision of the common good while maintaining, above all, order.
State power is sovereign, i.e. supreme, in relation to all organizations and individuals within the country, as well as independent, independent in relation to other states. The state is the official representative of the entire society, all its members, called citizens.
General characteristics of the state:
1) The presence of a certain territory - the jurisdiction of the state (the right to hold court and resolve legal issues) is determined by its territorial borders. Within these boundaries, the power of the state extends to all members of society
2) Sovereignty - the state is completely independent in internal affairs and in the conduct of foreign policy;
3) Variety of resources used - the state accumulates the main power resources to exercise its powers;
4) Striving to represent the interests of the entire society -- the state acts on behalf of the whole society, and not individuals or social groups;
5) Monopoly on legitimate violence - the state has the right to use force to enforce laws and punish their violators;
6) The right to collect taxes - the state establishes and collects various taxes and fees from the population, which are used to finance government bodies and solve various management problems;
7) The public nature of power - the state ensures the protection of public interests, not private ones. When implementing public policy, there are usually no personal relationships between the authorities and citizens;
8) The presence of symbols - the state has its own signs of statehood - a flag, coat of arms, anthem, special symbols and attributes.
The state is initially a purely functional institution, which, unlike society as an end-to-end system, is created for some reason, for some purpose.
The main functions of the state can be divided into external and internal. Let's take a closer look at each of them.
· Ensuring national security;
· Upholding state and national interests in the international sphere;
· Development of mutually beneficial cooperation;
· Participation in solving global problems;
Internal:
· Political (ensuring conditions for the activities of other political institutions, order in society);
· Economic (regulation of economic relations and structural changes in the economy, including nationalization, privatization;
· Social (programs for the development of education, healthcare, social security and cultural support);
· Ideological (education of members of society, formation of civic and patriotic values through education and the media).
The state, as F. Engels wrote, is “invented” by people. People cannot sleep in a society in which this institution does not exist, and cannot wake up in a system of public administration that has come from nowhere. With the emergence of the state, society and the state begin to exist in inextricable unity.
The state, the individual and society are constantly changing and developing organisms, as a result of which the nature of their relationships also undergoes constant changes.
The state appears at a certain stage of development of society as a political organization, as an institution of power and management of society.
There are many concepts of the emergence of the state, several of which we will now consider for a deeper understanding of the essence of this organization.
· Theological theory of the origin of the state
It became widespread in the 13th century thanks to the work of Thomas Aquinas. According to this theory, in its essence the state is the result of the manifestation of both divine will and human will. State power, by the way it is acquired and used, can be ungodly and tyrannical; in this case, it is allowed by God. The advantages of this theory are that it explains the ideal of state power, which aligns its decisions with the highest religious principles, which imposes special responsibility on it and raises its authority in the eyes of society, contributes to the establishment of social order and spirituality. Theological theory is universal in nature, since it contains not only an anthropological, but also a metaphysical dimension in explaining the origin of the state.
· Paternalistic theory
From the word pater - father. In this theory, there is a direct relationship between the state and the family. For example, Confucius, interpreting the emperor as the “son of Heaven” and the executor of the will of Heaven, at the same time likened the power of the emperor to the power of the head of the family, and the state to a large family. Governance of the state, in his opinion, should be built like governance of a family - based on the norms of virtue, the care of elders for the younger, filial devotion and respect of the younger towards the elder. Also, paternalistic views were reflected in Russian political history, a traditional component of which was the belief of broad sections of the population in the “Tsar-Father” and in all authorities as “their own father.” The advantages of this theory lie in the formation of respect for government power. The disadvantages are the denial of the specifics of the state and state power, their qualitative difference from the family and paternal power.
The most famous representatives of the patriarchal theory of the origin of the state include Aristotle, Filmer, N.K. Mikhailovsky and others. They substantiated the fact that people are collective beings, striving for mutual communication, leading to the emergence of a family. Subsequent development and expansion of the family as a result of the unification of people and an increase in the number of these families ultimately leads to the formation of a state.
· Organic concepts of the origin of the state
Ш The theory of Auguste Comte.
According to Comte, society (and, consequently, the state) is an organic whole, the structure, functioning and evolution of which is studied by sociology. In this case, sociology is based on the laws of biology, the operation of which in society undergoes a certain modification due to the unique interaction of individuals and the impact of previous generations on subsequent ones. The main task of sociology as a positive science, which replaced previous theological and metaphysical views, is to substantiate the ways and means of harmonizing society, establishing the organic connection between “order” and “progress”.
Sh Theory of Herbert Spencer.
Spencer interprets the state as a part of nature, which develops like an animal embryo, and in the entire history of human civilization, the natural animal principle dominates over the social (and political) principle. Like an animal organism, a social organism grows and develops through the integration of its component parts, the complication of its structure, the differentiation of functions, etc. At the same time, in social life, as in nature, the most adapted organism survives. In the spirit of the law of evolution, Spencer interprets the pre-state state of society, the emergence and functioning of political organization and political power in a military-type society and the gradual transition to an industrial-type society, state and law. Moreover, in contrast to the overwhelming majority of adherents of the organic approach, Spencer developed liberal-individualist political views and saw the goal of the social organism not in absorbing its members, but in serving them.
Ш Theory of legal positivism
This theory is based on the proclamation of law as the result of an imperious command, an order of the sovereign to the subject. The state is positioned as the sovereign. Legal regulation within the framework of this theory should be carried out in accordance with the historical patterns of functioning of a politically organized society. Legal regulation is based on legalism - law in the objective sense as a system of generally binding legal norms. Regulation can be positive and negative: positive involves the regulation of social relations with the help of legal norms, objectified in official sources, and negative legal regulation represents the silence of the legislator and the permission of subjects to act at their own discretion. Proponents of the theory of legal positivism - G. Kelsen, D. Austin, S. Amos, G.F. Shershenevich, S.A. Drobyshevsky
· Treaty concepts of state origins
These concepts are based on natural law ideas about the contractual origin of the state. According to Epicurus, “justice, which comes from nature, is an agreement about the useful - with the goal of not harming each other and not suffering harm.” Consequently, the state arose as a result of a social contract on the rules of cohabitation, according to which people transfer part of their rights inherent in them from birth to the state as a body representing their common interests, and the state, in turn, undertakes to ensure human rights. The advantages of these concepts are that they have a deep democratic content, justifying the natural rights of the people to form state power, as well as to overthrow it. The disadvantages are that objective external factors influencing states (socio-economic, military-political) are ignored.
· Violent concepts of the origin of the state
These concepts are based on ideas about the emergence of the state as a result of violence (internal or external), for example, through the conquest of weak and defenseless tribes by stronger and more organized ones, that is, the state is not the result of internal development, but a force imposed from the outside, an apparatus of coercion. The advantages of these concepts are that elements of violence were indeed inherent in the process of the emergence of some states. The disadvantages are that in addition to military-political factors, there are also socio-economic factors in the region.
· Marxist concept of the origin of the state
According to this concept, the state is the result of changes in socio-economic relations, the mode of production, the result of the emergence of classes and the intensification of the struggle between them. It acts as a means of oppressing people, maintaining the dominance of one class over others. However, with the destruction of classes, the state also withers away. The advantages of this concept are that it is based on the socio-economic factor of society, the disadvantages are the underestimation of national, religious, psychological, military-political, and other reasons that influence the process of the origin of statehood. Theory of state and law: a textbook / Vlasova T V.V., Duel V.M., Zanina M.A. - Electron: text data http://www.iprbookshop.ru/5768.(04/27/14, 14:19)
1.2 The concept of society, its brief description
Moving on to the meaning of the term “ society“We should also note the close connection with such an institution as the state.
Society is a group of people created through purposeful and intelligently organized joint activity, and the members of such a group are not united by such a deep principle as in the case of a genuine community. Society rests on convention, agreement, and the same orientation of interests. The individuality of an individual changes much less under the influence of his inclusion in society than depending on his inclusion in the community. Society is often understood as the sphere that lies between the individual and the state.
Development of scientific ideas about society.
The study of society is carried out by a special group of scientific disciplines, which are called social (humanitarian) sciences. Among the social sciences, the leading one is sociology (literally “social science”). Only it considers society as a single integral system. Other social sciences (ethics, political science, economics, history, religious studies, etc.) study individual aspects of social life without claiming to have holistic knowledge.
Thinkers in ancient societies typically viewed human life as part of a universal order, a “cosmos.” In relation to the “structure of the world,” the word “cosmos” was first used by Heraclitus. The universalistic ideas of the ancients about society reflected the idea of the unity of man and nature. This idea has become an integral feature of Eastern religions and teachings (Confucianism, Buddhism, Hinduism), which retain their influence in the East to this day.
In parallel with the development of naturalistic concepts, anthropological ones began to develop, emphasizing not the unity of man and nature, but the fundamental differences between them.
For a long time in social thought, society was considered from a political science point of view, i.e. identified with the state. Thus, Plato characterized, first of all, through the political functions of the state (protecting the population from external enemies, maintaining order within the country). Following Plato, Aristotle developed state-political ideas about society, interpreted as relations of domination and subordination. However, he also highlighted purely social (not political) connections between people, considering, for example, friendship and mutual support of free, equal individuals. Aristotle emphasized the priority of individual interests and believed that “what should require relative, not absolute unity of both family and state”, that “every person is his own friend most of all and should love himself most of all” (“Ethics”). If from Plato there comes a tendency to consider society as an integral organism, then from Aristotle - as a collection of relatively independent individuals
The social thought of modern times in the interpretation of society proceeded from the concept of the “state of nature” and the social contract (T. Hobbes, J. Locke, J.-J. Rousseau). Referring to “natural laws,” thinkers of modern times gave them, however, a completely social character. For example, the statement about the initial “war of all against all,” which is being replaced by a social contract, absolutizes the spirit of individualism of the new time. According to the point of view of these thinkers, society is based on rational contractual principles, formal legal concepts, and mutual utility. Thus, the anthropological interpretation of society triumphed over the naturalistic one, and the individualistic one over the collectivist (organistic) one. Encyclopedia around the world http://krugosvet.ru/ (27.04.14, 16:20)
Signs of society:
1) A set of individuals gifted with will and consciousness.
2) General interest, which has a permanent and objective nature. The organization of society depends on the harmonious combination of the general and individual interests of its members.
3) Interaction and cooperation based on common interests. There must be an interest in each other, making it possible to realize the interests of everyone.
4) Regulation of public interests through mandatory rules of conduct.
5) The presence of an organized force (authority) capable of providing society with internal order and external security.
Based on the most important features of society, we can give the following definition to this concept: society is a historically established and self-reproducing community of people living in a given territory, possessing autonomy and resistance to self-regulation based on biological, economic and cultural reproduction.
The concept of “society” should be distinguished from the concepts of “state” (an institution for managing social processes that arose historically later than society) and “country” (a territorial-political entity formed on the basis of society and the state)
1.3 Concept of personality. INrelationship between the individual and society
A person as a subject of social relations, a bearer of socially significant qualities is a person.
As follows from the works of I.S. Kona, the concept of personality denotes the human individual as a member of society and generalizes the socially significant features integrated into it.
M. Weber sees in the role of the subject of social life (personality) only individual individuals who act meaningfully. And such social totalities as “classes”, “society”, “state”, in his opinion, are entirely abstract and cannot be subject to social analysis.
In the concept of “personality,” a system of socially significant human qualities comes to the fore. In a person’s connections with society, his social essence is formed and manifested. That is, we can argue about the indisputable connection between the individual and society, on the one hand.
On the other hand, a feature of personality is its isolation. Awareness of one's isolation allows an individual to be free from arbitrary transient social institutions, the dictates of power, and not to lose self-control in conditions of social destabilization and totalitarian repression.
However, the individual and society are interdependent. Personality is formed and can develop only in society, in a team. In turn, the development of the individual turns out to be a factor influencing the development of the team and society. The development of the individual and society in the process of their interaction is a general pattern that manifests itself in a specific form in various socio-economic formations.
The relationship between society and the individual manifests itself, first of all, along the lines of the correlation of their interests (economic, socio-political and spiritual) and through their mutual influence, the development of collectivism, and self-affirmation, individualization of the individual. Both types of relationships are mediated by the collective, or in a class society by the class.
According to the theory of K. Marx, the subjects of social development are social formations of several levels: humanity, classes, nations, state, family and individual. The movement of society is carried out as a result of the actions of all these subjects. However, they are by no means equivalent and the strength of their impact varies depending on historical conditions. In different eras, the decisive subject is the one who is the main driving force of a given historical period.
However, it must be borne in mind that in Marx’s concept, all subjects of social development act in accordance with the objective laws of social development. They can neither change these laws nor repeal them. Their subjective activity either helps these laws to act freely and thereby accelerates social development, or prevents them from acting and then slows down the historical process. http://www.portalprava.ru “Society: concept, signs.” (04/27/14, 17:20)
Now that we know enough about each object of our study, we can move on to the main problem of our work.
2.Problemmutualrelations between state and society
In this chapter we should consider the problem of relationships and influence of the state and society on each other. There are some general laws that follow from the very nature of both unions and which determine their relationships.
Firstly, the close connection of both unions leads to the fact that the principles that dominate in one are reflected by the force of things on the other. Meanwhile, society is incomparably more stable than the state. Private life, embracing a person completely, determines all his habits, morals, concepts, and mode of action. It is much more difficult to shake all this than to change the political order, which, forming the top of the social edifice, cannot be rebuilt without shaking its foundations. This stability of the civil system constitutes a general historical phenomenon. We have seen that the tribal order, destroyed in the political sphere, stubbornly persists in the civil sphere and from there affects the state. The same phenomenon is represented by the class order. It goes with different modifications from the Roman Empire, through the Middle Ages to modern times. During this period, the political system passed through the most opposite forms, from complete despotism to complete decomposition of the state. In the same way, the general civil order created by the French Revolution remains unshakable among all the political upheavals through which France has passed, from Napoleonic despotism to the present republican rule. This stability of civil life results in its lasting influence on the state. We can express this relationship in the form of a general law by saying that every civil order strives to create a corresponding political order.
Secondly, the influence of society is expressed mainly in the desire of the ruling classes to gain predominant importance in the state. The interaction of individual forces inevitably leads, as we have seen, to inequality of states. The consequence of this inequality is the division of society into classes, higher and lower. The former, taking advantage of their predominant position in society, naturally strive to occupy the same position in the state, and this desire, generally speaking, meets the essential needs of the latter, for the state, as said, draws all its strength and resources from society, and the upper classes are the most prosperous and educated: they, therefore, are the main figures in the political field: they are most capable of serving state goals and giving direction to state life.
However, this natural desire takes on a different character, depending on the properties and position of the ruling classes themselves. Of essential importance here is the legal form by which civil class relations are determined. The legal order either fixes natural divisions or makes them fluid. In this regard, the different orders mentioned above lead to different consequences. In the clan order, with the inseparability of the civil and political spheres, the clan aristocracy receives natural predominance. The invasion of democratic elements represents the process of gradual disintegration of the tribal system. This is precisely the history of the ancient classical states. The same phenomenon is represented by the class order. Here the place of the clan aristocracy, based on natural relations, is taken by the class aristocracy, based on an occupation that gives a primary position in society to the classes devoting themselves to public affairs. In its extreme development, this order leads to the disintegration of the state itself, which breaks up into groups of interconnected private forces. The restoration of state unity leads here, too, to the rise of subordinate elements, that is, to the process of equalization of classes, the result of which is a general civil system. The latter, being based on the principles of freedom and equality, does not allow the legal dominance of the upper classes, but leaves them only the natural influence resulting from the interaction of free forces. Here divisions are fluid and these principles are transferred to state life. The political order corresponding to the general civil order is an order based on political freedom. This is an inevitable historical law; where this correspondence does not exist, discord is felt in society, which has the consequence of relaxation of the political body. And since in the civil order freedom is established, equal for everyone, then in the political order there is a desire to establish equal political rights for all citizens. Hence the unstoppable development of democracy in all European states based on a general civil order. However, this development meets resistance in the very requirements of the state. The presentation of general state law shows that freedom is an essential element of the state itself; therefore, its development in the civil sphere entails its development in the political sphere. But we have also seen that in political law the beginning of freedom is limited to the beginning of ability. A citizen vested with political rights is not only a free person: he performs certain functions of the state body, and this requires ability. Meanwhile, democracy is the negation of the beginning of ability. Not only does it give everyone the same rights, but by entrusting supreme power to the majority, that is, the masses of the people, it thereby places it in the hands of the least educated, therefore least capable part of society. Hence, sooner or later, the need for government principles to react against the improper predominance of certain social elements.
The guarantee for the inevitable onset of this reaction is that the state, thirdly, not only submits to the influence of society, but also makes up for the shortcomings of the latter. The state and society represent two opposing forms of community life: in one, unity reigns, in the other, diversity and plurality. Both elements are equally necessary; each of them has its own area in which its characteristic principle is predominant. But one principle is not able to replace the other; Only through their mutual replenishment can harmony in social life be achieved. Therefore, where social forces turn out to be insufficient or act in a one-sided direction, they must be replenished by the activities of the state independent of them. In the political field especially, unity of purpose and direction is required; Therefore, the influence of society in this area depends on its ability to act in this sense. This ability is obviously the less, the less unity in the society itself, or the less social forces are able to act in harmony. This is where the replenishing activity of the state is needed. Hence the general law that determines the interaction of both unions is that the less unity in society, the greater the unity in the state, that is, the more independent and concentrated state power should be. This law was formulated by Hippolyte Passy.
Present-day Social Democracy, with its widespread organization, with its hatred of the upper classes, with its desire to destroy the entire existing social system, inevitably leads to dictatorship. Carrying within itself an ideal that suppresses all civil freedom, it no less threatens political freedom. Representative government can only be maintained as long as this party is weak and unable to firmly influence public administration. But her strength is obviously growing, and this must inevitably lead to the deepest upheavals. If she manages to gain a momentary advantage anywhere, she can only hold on with the help of the most terrible terror. From my side. protecting society from the destruction that threatens it will require an unlimited dictatorship. In any case, with the internal struggle of classes animated by mutual hatred, only a government independent of society can protect public order and maintain the unity necessary in the state.
Such power serves, fourthly, as the main factor in the state’s influence on the social system. The state not only compensates for the latter’s shortcomings, but it itself transforms this system in accordance with its requirements. And for this it must be armed with power independent of social forces and bearing within itself the highest idea of the state. The less the structure of society is consistent with this idea, the stronger the need for power independent of it.
The emerging state naturally relies on the strongest elements, subordinating the rest to them, and thereby trying to strengthen the social bond. The same phenomenon is repeated where the state is inclined to decline and feels powerless to protect the collapsing order. In any case, it serves as a sign of the weakness of the state body. On the contrary, when this organism has become stronger, the second task emerges with particular force. The state, in its idea, is the representative of all interests and all elements of society. It should not tolerate some being sacrificed to others. As the bearer of a higher idea, it is the protector of the weak. The more independent state power is from social elements, the more powerful this calling is. Hence the phenomenon repeated in history that monarchical power enters into an alliance with the lower classes against the aristocracy.
This task also determines the role of the state in the development of successive social orders. In the name of state requirements, one civil system is transferred to another.
In the generic order, as we have seen, alien elements find no place for themselves; they are like an external appendage. But if they remain free, then they are part of the state, and therefore must enjoy protection and join political rights. This is required by justice, the highest body of which is the state; This is required by the very benefit of the state, which finds a source of strength and support in excluded elements. The stronger these elements are, the more insistent their demands become. Hence the gradual process of decomposition of the tribal order through the entry of alien elements into it. With the expansion of the state, this process takes on ever greater proportions.
But with the disintegration of the clan order, the social unity based on it is also lost. A power independent of social forces is established, which, in turn, influences society and tries to replace the connection that has disappeared in it with another. Under the influence of state demands, fragmented interests are grouped into separate alliances. The clan order is gradually replaced by class order.
While the state is weak, it relies on the ruling elements and subordinates the rest to them. As quickly as it has become stronger and developed its own organism, the reverse process of unfastening and equalization occurs. Again, in the name of higher state requirements, the class order is transferred to the general civil order. And in this movement the main figure is a government independent of social forces. Even where the government, having forgotten its calling, continues to rely on an outdated order and a new order is established by the pressure of humiliated elements, its establishment still requires despotic power. The French Revolution provided a living example of this. The old monarchy fell along with the class order on which it relied. The third estate appeared on the scene, which, not only in numbers, but also in education and wealth, stood incomparably above the rest, and yet enjoyed much fewer rights. In the name of state ideas developed by the philosophy of the 18th century, it presented its demands and overthrew the resistant remnants of the former civil order. But all that came out of this destruction was chaos. The despotism of Napoleon was required to establish a new order.
With the establishment of a general civil system, the idea of the state, as well as the idea of society, reaches its highest development. Two unions are formed, each in the fullness of its definitions, governed by those principles that flow from their very nature, and being in constant interaction. All elements that make up society, subject to a law equal for all that protects their freedom, receive full scope for their activities and occupy the place that belongs to them according to their natural properties. Through the free interaction of various interests, their connection is established, and the state protects the required unity. state civil society
The goal of the state is to implement ideal principles, the consciousness of which requires higher development, and this belongs to the wealthy classes, who are always and everywhere bearers of higher education. In contrast to quantity, they represent quality. Without renouncing itself, the state cannot sacrifice quality to quantity. One of the most important tasks of politics is to attract the best, that is, the most educated, forces of the country to political activity. But this goal is not achieved when these forces become completely dependent on the uneducated masses.
By its very idea, the state is called upon to maintain a balance between various social elements and bring them to a higher agreement. And to do this, it must arrange its own organism so that quantity in it is balanced by quality. This goal is not achieved by the principles of freedom and equality that dominate the general civil order; transferred to the political sphere, they give a complete advantage to the majority, that is, to pure numbers.
The state must contain an element independent of society. This element, representing the pure unity of the state, is given by the monarchical principle, which thus has its legitimate calling not only in the historical past, but also in the ideal future. At the first stages of political development, it creates state unity and arranges a political body independent of the private interests of clans or classes; at the highest levels, when the unity has been strengthened and the organism has received full development, its highest calling is to hold the scales between them in living communication with social elements and bring them to a harmonious agreement, which constitutes the ultimate goal of human improvement. Chicherin B. N. Course of state science. Volumes I-III. - Moscow, printing house of the partnership I. N. Kushnerev and Co., 1894 “The attitude of society to the state”
There is another major problem in the state-society relationship. The point is that in the process of mutual development there is an alienation of the state from society. Having society as its maternal substrate, having arisen on its basis, the state begins to play a special role in it, gradually alienating itself from it, acquiring its own existence and development trends. From the point of view of Marxism, the “bourgeois state” represents the power of the exploitative minority. Supporters of this trend believe that the creation of a state established on socialist principles will eliminate the social foundations of alienation. Although it is especially noted that alienation cannot be completely eliminated. From this it is concluded that the problem of alienation can only be resolved with the withering away of the state itself - under the conditions of the created stateless communist governance. At this moment, society, according to Engels, “will send the entire state machine to where it will then have a real place: to the museum of antiquities, next to the spinning wheel and the bronze ax.” Engels, F. Decree. Op. - pp. 193-194.
There are also alternative views on the problem of alienation to the Marxist one. These include anarchism with its rejection of the state as such, and various liberal theories, according to which a modern state, built on the principles of democracy, broad exercise of individual rights and freedoms and possessing a strong civil society, generally objectively perceives and expresses the interests of the social majority, due to which the problem of alienation of the state from society is overcome and loses its former severity.
The history of relations between the state and society can be represented as a search for optimal forms of mutual correspondence. In this context, the entire history of mankind can actually be presented not only as a person’s desire to improve himself and the surrounding social environment - the human community, but also as constant attempts to find a more effective form of organizing his life - a more perfect form of state. Currently, in the context of the globalization of the world and the global financial crisis, there is a search for new forms of organization of the human community in the form of interstate and supranational institutions. Moreover, it is important to note that the search for new forms of organization of social life, regardless of whether we are talking about a state or suprastate form, throughout the entire history of human civilization did not occur spontaneously, but in close interaction with the process of development of their social content, that is, with taking into account the nature and level of development of society. Engels, F. Decree. Op. - pp. 194-195.
3. Three concepts of the relationship between the state and the individual in the context of human rights problems
The relationship between man and the state as the most important social institution has always been the focus of world political and legal thought from the very moment of its inception. Moreover, the content, forms and nature of these relationships to a certain extent provide the basis for assessing the state of ensuring and guaranteeing human rights and freedoms in a particular society, a particular state. Therefore, an analysis of the methodological foundations for understanding these components, the entire complex of relationships between the state and the individual that have developed to date, is of exceptionally great importance for more informed discussions about human rights and to avoid the templates that are so often encountered today when discussing this issue. Unfortunately, the use of these templates, which takes on the character of cloning, is now occurring too often, which cannot but be alarming. Most seminars, meetings, conferences, scientific and educational publications discuss human rights issues based on one main thesis: human rights, like himself, are the highest value that the state (team, community, society) tries to ignore or infringe upon. However, every template that is beneficial for the time being begins to become obsolete and cause ever-increasing harm.
An analysis of existing conceptual approaches to understanding the relationship between the state and an individual from the standpoint of the interpretation of understanding and recognition of freedom in relation to oneself and a partner allows, in the most general terms, to identify two main ones, which have become widespread both in the philosophical and theoretical aspect and in practical terms. We are talking about statist and liberal approaches, which proceed from directly opposite methodological premises in establishing the primacy and secondary nature of interests and expressions of will in relation to each other of the state and the individual.
However, there is another approach, attention to which, in our opinion, despite seemingly all its obviousness, does not receive its scientific and especially practical development in the conditions of Russian reality. We are talking about the concept of the optimal relationship between state and personal (individual) principles, or, in other words, the doctrine of optimum.
Statist doctrine (from state to person)
The main provisions of the modern statist doctrine, which is based on the priority of the state principle in relation to the personal (individual) principle, are associated mainly with the Marxist doctrine of the state and can be reduced to the following.
The main driving force of society is the struggle of classes. This struggle must end with the victory of the proletariat and the establishment of a new social system - socialism and, ultimately, communism. This will be impossible to achieve without the destruction of the state itself, which is a weapon of violence against people. However, such destruction is impossible artificially. The state will die away gradually until classes disappear. Therefore, the new socialist (proletarian) state, emerging after the proletarian revolution, must solve this problem of gradually eliminating class differences. Based on this global task, a new type of state is considered as the most important factor in socialist transformations, to which everyone and everything in society must be subordinated. The state is primary in society, everything else is secondary, derivative. A person is an object of state influence.
Democracy is a class phenomenon. Not everyone is included in democratic processes (the bourgeoisie is excluded). Rights and freedoms relate only to the victorious class - the proletariat. There is no talk about the universality of rights and freedoms. The power of the proletariat, and thereby its rights and freedoms, can only be ensured by violence against those who do not recognize this (the “enemies of the people”). “Pure democracy,” that is, democracy for everyone, does not and can never exist, these are all bourgeois inventions” (V.I. Lenin).
Marxism sees the emancipation of the individual, who can live under communism, in overcoming individualism, in the dissolution of the individual in the state, and individual interests in class (state) ones. The driving force of society is not the interests of the individual, but class interests. Therefore, “civil society” is the enemy of communism, the enemy of the proletarian, socialist state, because in civil society the individual feels himself to be an individual, an independent force opposed to the state. Personality in Marxism is a “generic personality,” that is, not individuality, but something blurred and included in a class relationship. Hence the rejection of the concept of a “rule of law state,” which cannot but recognize the importance of an individual person, an individual person in himself.
The attitude towards private property in Marxism is sharply negative. Private property is the main evil for society, the state and the individual. It is here that the main danger lies, therefore its destruction is the main task after the victory of the proletarian revolution. Approval and protection of state property is the goal of the new state.
Such an almost purely totalitarian characterization of the primacy of the state over the individual, of course, does not evoke positive emotions, especially since, as history (and not only Russia) testifies, there are more than enough facts of this kind. At the same time, it is often asserted that the founders of Marxism (and then their many followers, the brightest of whom is V.I. Lenin), considered the individual person as a cog in the state machine, and did not see the individual’s individuality (humanity, personal beginning). Without setting in this case the goal of entering into polemics on this issue, we will only note that, firstly, an objective reading of the legacy of K. Marx and F. Engels is still, apparently, still ahead, and, secondly, not It should be forgotten that the real embodiment of any social theory, no matter how great and “humane” it may seem, always differs from its theoretical positions.
Liberal doctrine (from person to state)
The liberal doctrine of the relationship between the state and man, being very heterogeneous in its content and the nature of the ideas and provisions included in it, is far from homogeneous; in its classical version it was developed and developed in the works of Hugo Grotius, Charles Montesquieu, John Locke, Benedict Spinoza and many others thinkers - representatives of the natural law school of legal understanding. The modern interpretation of Western-style liberalism, while possessing originality due to the current level of civilizational development of mankind, is still not fundamentally different from the classical approach. But still, the main thing in it, which constitutes the actual liberal core of the doctrine, is the idea of individual freedom, its autonomy in relation to the state, the opportunity to enjoy the inalienable rights to life, property, freedom of self-determination, etc. Indeed, having arisen in the bosom of natural law views, in Subsequently, the liberal doctrine was gradually adopted by representatives of legal positivism. This, in particular, is expressed in the fact that natural human rights, and thereby a certain priority of individual freedom over the state, are embodied in legal documents - from the US Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The main provisions of the doctrine in question are as follows.
For a person, an individual, the main thing is freedom. It is freedom that is both a person’s habitat and the most important life value for him. In the sphere of freedom, a person chooses the vector of his life, realizes his interests and passions. If previously a person acted in relation to the state as its subject, then the recognition of freedom presupposes a break with such an attitude. It is freedom that transforms a subject into a citizen, who now has completely new principles of relationship with the state. The individual (citizen) now has equal rights with the state.
Personal freedom is organically connected with equality and inseparable from it. Freedom and equality are necessary conditions for all people to have inalienable, inalienable rights.
Human rights are a system of benefits and conditions, without which the normal functioning of a person, his individual development, his free choice and self-determination becomes simply impossible.
The desire for personal autonomy and freedom of self-determination in the sphere of civil society led to the raising of the problem of the purpose of the state and the boundaries of its activities. The state is now declared as an instrument for ensuring the “common good”, a defender of human rights and freedoms from any encroachment from anyone, including the state itself. At the same time, the question of limiting the power of the state (the activities of the state), which is capable of exceeding its powers in ensuring the protection of rights and freedoms, and thereby interfering at its discretion in this area, is acutely raised.
Of course, the liberal doctrine is not limited to the presented provisions. But, in any case, the quintessence of the liberal worldview is the postulate about man as the highest value. At the same time, it clearly follows that everything else, including the state, are only instruments, means of protecting and defending that very highest value. At the same time, liberals, as a rule, do not ask the question of what kind of person, what kind of personality are we talking about in a particular case. For an orthodox liberal, a person as such is valuable in itself, i.e. as an abstract, whose rights, freedoms, interests, in any case, are primary in relation to the social, collective, state. The state, from the point of view of liberal human rights activists, always strives to infringe, limit human rights and freedoms, and bring them into line with its own - state - interests. In this sense, a person always needs to be on guard in relation to the state; the state for a person is an enemy that seeks to defeat and suppress him.
But is this really so, and is this how it should be? Let's try to answer this question by turning to the approach that, in our opinion, it is advisable to call the doctrine of optimum. Modern liberalism: Rawls, Berlin, Dvorkin and others. M.: House of Intellect. books, 1998. Alekseev S.S. Rising in the right. Searches and solutions. M.: NORM, 2001; Nersesyants V.S. Philosophy of law: Textbook for universities. M.: Publishing house. group INFRA-M - NORM, 1997.
Doctrine of Optimum (man for the state and state for the person)
There are no special studies devoted to the formation of systemic components of such a doctrine. Here, as we have already noted, they usually get by with either characterizing the first two concepts, or limit themselves to pointing out the need to weaken their radical provisions. One could appeal to the concept of the rule of law, which, it would seem, has all the necessary elements to soften the extremes of statist and liberal doctrines, however, even here everything is far from being so simple, if we bear in mind the existing, sometimes sharply different, models and types legal statehood. Without going into all this extremely complex and extensive issues, we will try to outline the main parameters of our vision of the doctrine of the optimal relationship between the state and the individual.
...Similar documents
Definition of the principles of the rule of law. Designation of the degree of state participation in the public life of citizens. Features and legal basis of the relationship between the individual, society and the state. The relationship between civil society and the rule of law.
course work, added 08/04/2014
Development of the concept and structure of civil society, development of the concept and characteristics of the rule of law. A right-wing state is a sovereign state that concentrates in itself the sovereignty of the people, nations and nationalities inhabiting the country.
abstract, added 12/25/2003
Civil society: content, structure, features. Specifics of the formation of civil society in Russia. Constitutional state. The concept of the rule of law. The main features of a rule of law state.
course work, added 04/08/2006
Concepts and stages of development of civil society. Interaction between the state and civil society. The concept of the rule of law. The principle of separation of powers in a rule of law state. Problems of formation of the rule of law in the Republic of Belarus.
thesis, added 11/19/2015
Definition of the state in science, its characteristics and elements. The emergence of the state from the point of view of Marxist theory. Review of theories of the origin of the state, its functions and internal functions. Signs of civil society. Philosophical postulates.
presentation, added 11/20/2014
The idea of the rule of law, its concept and history of formation. The relationship between the concepts of “rule of law” and “civil society”. Formation of the rule of law in the Russian Federation: concept, main features, problems and development prospects.
course work, added 02/18/2010
The contribution of John Locke, I. Kant and Charles Louis de Montesquieu to the development of the theory of the rule of law. The concept and main features of the rule of law, the prerequisites for its formation. Ideal model of the state. The essence and functions of civil society.
presentation, added 09/16/2012
The concept of society, its development as the fundamental basis for the functioning of state legal institutions. Civil society under the rule of law. Features of the process of formation of the rule of law, achieving the priority of law over power.
course work, added 11/10/2014
Development of the doctrine of civil society. Civil society: structure, characteristics, modern understanding. The relationship between the rule of law and civil society. Civil society is a companion to the rule of law.
course work, added 10/13/2004
The concept and essence of civil society, its fundamental principles. The role of the state: mechanisms that unite the political and non-political in society. The main aspects of the idea of the rule of law, its general features. Relations between state and law.
The “supreme” function of the state.
As already noted, when determining the function of the state, it is necessary to start from its social purpose, that is, by asking the question: why do people need a state. If we follow this scheme for clarifying the functions of the state, then we will inevitably come to the conclusion that the main supreme function of the state, in the terminology of S. Montesquieu, is the protection of human rights and freedoms. Hence the main problem is to correctly determine the relationship between the state and the individual. All other functions of the state (economic, defense, environmental, etc.) must also be subordinated and commensurate with the needs of optimal performance of the supreme function. Therefore, the main attention, when determining the function of the state, should be paid to the problem of optimizing the interaction between the state and the individual.
The concept of personality to a greater extent, apparently, relates to the subject of philosophy. Personality is an individual person as a subject of social life, communication and activity.
In order to correctly understand the problem of the relationship between the state and the individual in modern conditions and to consolidate these relationships in laws at the level of the requirements of a rule-of-law state, it is necessary to comprehensively understand some concepts closely related to the category of “personality”. Among them are such concepts interconnected with the concept of “personality” as: “man”, “individual”, “I”, “individuality”, “human rights”, “civilian rights”.
Human - This is a biosocial concept. In the concept of “man”, the emphasis is on the difference between man and other living beings. Therefore, they say that man is the highest level of living organisms. It differs from other living organisms in that it is capable of producing tools and using them. Hence, man is not only a biological being, but also a subject of socio-historical activity and culture. In short, a person is a rational biological being. As for personality, personality is a person as a subject of social relations and conscious activity. In the concept of “personality,” the emphasis is on the role of a person in human society, among people. Personality is formed through its contribution to the development of human society.
Individual - a single representative of the human race with all the signs and attributes of a person.
Individuality - a set of traits that distinguish a given individual from all others. In totalitarian states, individual personality traits are leveled under the pretext of public interests. A special doctrine appears called “individualism”, which is used to whip up public opinion against the manifestation of individual personality traits. In contrast to individualism, the doctrine of collectivism, that is, of joint social life, is being developed. Individualism is opposed to collectivism, although there is no group without personality either.
Modern jurisprudence deals mainly with the concept of “civilian rights”, “human rights”. Thus, the Constitution of the Russian Federation speaks about personality only in Article 21. It says here that “the dignity of the individual is protected by the state.” But such protection in real life is carried out through the institutions of human rights and civil rights. If we talk about the legal status of an individual, then it consists of: human rights; citizen's rights; rights of stateless persons; rights of foreigners; refugee rights, etc. However, despite this ramification of the legal status of the individual in specific jurisprudence, in the theory of jurisprudence it is possible and necessary to talk about the relationship between the individual and the state. Such a paired consideration (state and individual) allows us to better understand the role and place of both the state and the individual, and correctly emphasize issues related to the activities of the state. In addition, it should be said that the problem of the relationship between the state and the individual has a long history and has always been important for characterizing the democratic nature of the state.
In historical terms, the role of man, the individual in society began to be consciously comprehended during the Renaissance. It was at this time that the doctrine of the natural rights of people appeared, elevating the role of the individual. This doctrine declared the basis of interaction between the state and the individual to be the role and desire of the individual. Personality is the basis of statehood and power; the state is created by an association of individuals to manage the affairs of individuals. The individual does not cede his rights to the state, since they are natural, but only transfers (delegates) to the state certain powers to manage the affairs of united people. This teaching was intended not only to free oneself from the divine origin of the state, but also contributed to the improvement of statehood.
The doctrine of the natural right of people to create a state was not destined to flourish for long. Real states did not really take people and their associations into account. As a rule, states rose above the individual, above the interests of peoples. Against the background of these realities, a historical school appeared, which began to explain everything by spontaneous historical development. In essence, this school takes shape in the process of social development, and the individual does not matter at all. The result of this teaching was that the state is everything, and the individual is nothing.
Of course, the two noted views on the interaction between the state and the individual were extremes. Therefore, in subsequent centuries, socio-political thought mainly tried to remove the contradictions between the state and the individual and reconcile their interests. In this regard, state scientists and legal scholars have become increasingly interested in problems associated with such concepts as “individual freedom” and “individual responsibilities.” It should be noted that the concepts of “individual freedom” and “individual responsibilities” in historical terms emerged precisely in the process of resolving the problem of interaction between the state and the individual.
The ancients understood freedom as the possibility of collective, but direct exercise of supreme power, public discussion of issues of war and peace, voting of laws, passing sentences, checking the reports and actions of senior statesmen, and bringing them to justice. In essence, it was collective freedom, the direct participation of people united in one community in the exercise of power. Despite some appeal, such freedom was not civil freedom. Moreover, private civil actions were very strictly controlled; the authorities could invade the most intimate relationships of people. Therefore, as civilization developed, people began to demand civil, that is, personal freedom in relation to the authorities, that is, the state.
Today, the very concept of “freedom” is used to a greater extent as a legal concept. It is known that the legal concept is mainly aimed at indicating how things should be according to the law. But this is by no means a fiction, not a paper formality, but a legal reaction to reality, to the behavior of people in the process of public life. Legal concepts are formed as a result of a comprehensive understanding of the world of human interests and actions. Human interests that usually develop in life in jurisprudence are formed as subjective rights of an individual. The subjective right of an individual is a measure of his possible behavior. Knowing about the completeness of subjective rights, a person learns that he can do, commit, etc. The wider the legal possibilities, the wider the freedom of the individual. Real freedom today is not conceivable except through legal rights, through legal institutions. Therefore, in modern conditions, the problem of individual freedom arises in terms of interaction between the state and the individual.
Talking about personal freedom today means finding out the limits of state intervention in human affairs. At a certain stage of historical development, it began to be believed that the state is an intermediary between a person and his freedom. Therefore, the entire history of mankind can be considered as the struggle of people for freedom. Personal freedom depends on the nature of the state, on the regime that the state establishes.
Of course, there is no absolute personal freedom. Unlimited freedom of people in society can only lead to chaos and arbitrariness. Therefore, today in optimally democratic states the boundaries of individual freedom are determined by legitimate laws. In a legal sense, personal freedom is a normatively enshrined ability of an individual to perform actions and actions at his own discretion, without violating the freedom of others. Legal restrictions on the freedom of actions of people in society are an objective necessity.
The state must determine the boundaries of its intervention in the sphere of individual life. Moreover, these boundaries are determined in the interests of the people themselves, so that a person does not suffer from the freedom of another person. Today, from the point of view of the theory of statehood, individual freedom comes down not so much to direct participation in government, but to a sense of independence. Therefore, a person today, first of all, wants him to obey only legitimate laws and no one else, to be able to freely choose his place of residence, type of work, dispose of his property, and be protected from any kind of arbitrariness and violence.
This turn in the mood of the individual is explained not only by the fact that today states are mostly large, and the voice of one in deciding state affairs essentially remains unnoticeable, but also by the fact that the very ideas about the state are changing. Under the influence of the intensification of international relations and the familiarization of people with universal human values, those states that care more about their citizens and respect and protect human rights come to the fore. In the second half of the twentieth century, a powerful international movement for human rights emerged, which has an important educational value for those states that do not or do not take into account the interests of their citizens.
In the problem of the state and the individual in modern conditions, it is very important to understand the mutual responsibility of the state and the individual. Not only the individual is responsible for his actions, but also the state for the fact that it cannot ensure the safety of the individual and the safety of his property. The protection of life, the safety of people's property, and their freedom is the most important area of activity of the state. Therefore, in the relationship between the state and the individual, the interests of the individual must be primary and starting. The state is for the people, and not vice versa. This is an axiom of civilized statehood. However, emphasizing the primacy of individual rights and freedoms, of course, one must keep in mind that we are talking specifically about the interests of the individual from the position of universal human ideas about them, and not about the whims of everyone. The state, while protecting actions and forms of human activity that do not contradict the law, at the same time builds its policy in the field of personal freedoms based on universal human ideas about rights and freedoms. Possible contradictions between the state and its citizens must be resolved on the basis of legitimate law, by appropriate impartial judicial bodies.
I would like to emphasize one more point. When discussing the responsibilities of a person and an individual, it should be borne in mind that a person has responsibilities to society. This provision is not always correctly understood, and a person's duties are often interpreted as his duties to the state. By taking this path, the state begins to dominate the individual, and from here begins to rise above society as a whole. Meanwhile, in a democratic society, a person has responsibilities to society, and his rights and freedoms can be limited solely for the purpose of ensuring due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and meeting the fair requirements of morality, public order, that is, in the interests of general welfare. In addition, all restrictions on human rights and freedoms for these purposes must be clearly provided for in laws. The state is obliged to monitor compliance with these restrictions on behalf of and in the interests of society. This also includes the case when the state obliges people by law to protect nature, state property, etc. Here the state, in order to ensure human freedom, must act by other methods, for example, use prohibitions. And in fact, people cannot be obligated to protect nature or state property at all. Apparently, this is why these articles of the law, as a rule, remain unimplemented in practice. It would be better to use reasonable prohibitions in this area to prevent people from violating, for example, environmental requirements.
