Benefits of liberal democracy. What is liberal democracy

Liberal democracy is a model of the socio-political organization of a rule of law state, the basis of which is such a power that expresses the will of the majority, but at the same time protects the freedom and rights of a separate minority of citizens.

This type of power aims to provide each individual citizen of his country with the right to private property, freedom of speech, compliance with legal processes, protection of personal space, life, freedom of religion. All of these rights are written into a piece of legislation such as the Constitution, or some other form of legal formation issued by a decision of the Supreme Court, endowed with such powers as may ensure the exercise of the rights of citizens.

Concept of democracy

The modern name of this political direction comes from the Greek words demos- "society" and Kratos- "rule", "power", which formed the word democratia meaning "power of the people".

Principles of a democratic system

Principles of liberal democracy:

1. The main principle is to ensure the rights and freedoms of citizens.
2. The board is ensured by the adoption of the will of the people, ascertained in the course of voting. The party with the most votes wins.
3. All rights expressed by the minority are respected and guaranteed.
4. Organization of the competitiveness of various areas of government, because democracy is not a means of ruling, but a means of limiting the ruling parties with other power organizations.
5. Voting is mandatory, but you can abstain.
6. Civil society restrains the activity of state power through the self-organization of citizens.

Signs of a democratic state structure

There are such signs of democracy in the state:

1. Fair and free elections are an important political tool for electing new representatives of power, or maintaining the current one.
2. Citizens take an active part both in the political life of the state and in the public life.
3. Ensuring legal protection for every citizen.
4. The supreme power extends to all in equal parts.

All this is at the same time the principles of liberal democracy.

Formation of liberal democracy

When did this trend start to form? The history of liberal democracy has many years of formation and a long history. This type of government is the fundamental principle of the development of the Western civilized world, especially the Roman and Greek heritage, on the one hand, as well as the Judeo-Christian heritage, on the other.

In Europe, the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries began the development of this type of power. Previously, most of the already formed states adhered to the monarchy, because it was believed that humanity is prone to evil, violence, destruction, so it needs a strong leader who can keep the people in a tight grip. People were assured that the government was elected by God, and those who were against the head were equated with blasphemers.

Thus, a new branch of thought began to emerge, which assumed that human relationships are built on faith, truth, freedom, equality, the basis of which is liberalization. The new direction was built on the principles of equality, and the election of the highest authority by God or belonging to noble blood does not have any privilege. The ruling power must be in the service of the people, but not vice versa, and the law is absolutely equal for everyone. The liberalist direction has entered the masses in Europe, but the formation of liberal democracy has not yet been completed.

Theory of liberal democracy

The division of democracy into types depends on how the population takes part in the organization of the state, as well as on who and how governs the country. The theory of democracy divides it into types:

1. Direct Democracy. It implies the direct participation of citizens in social order states: raising the issue, discussion, decision-making. This ancient species was the key in ancient times. Direct democracy is inherent in small communities, towns, settlements. But only when these same issues do not require the participation of specialists in a particular field. Today, this view can be observed against the backdrop of the structure of local government. Its prevalence is directly dependent on the decentralization of issues raised, decisions taken, from transferring the right to receive them to small teams.
2. Plebiscitary Democracy. It, like the direct one, implies the right to the will of people, but it is different from the first one. The people have the right only to accept or reject any decision, which, as a rule, is put forward by the head of power. That is, the power of people is limited, the population cannot adopt appropriate laws.
3. representative democracy. Such democracy is carried out through the adoption by the people of the head of the authority, its representatives, who undertake to consider and accept the interests of citizens. But the people have nothing to do with solving more important problems that require the participation of a qualified specialist, especially when the participation of the population in the life of the camp is difficult due to the large area of ​​\u200b\u200bhabitat.
4. liberal democracy. Power is the people who express their needs through a qualified representative of the dominant power, who is elected to fulfill his powers for a certain period. He enjoys the support of the majority of the people, and the people trust him, using the constitutional provisions.

These are the main types of democracy.

Countries with liberal democracies

European Union countries, USA, Japan, Canada, South Africa, Australia, India, New Zealand are liberal democracies. This opinion is shared by most experts. At the same time, some countries in Africa and the former Soviet Union consider themselves democracies, although the facts have long been revealed that the ruling structures have a direct influence on the outcome of elections.

Resolving disagreements between government and people

The authorities are not able to support every citizen, so it is quite expected that disagreements arise between them. To resolve such disputes, such a thing as the judiciary arose. In fact, it is authorized to resolve any conflicts that may arise both between citizens and the government, and within the population as a whole.

The main difference between liberal democracy and classical

classical liberal democracy based on Anglo-Saxon practices. However, they were not the founders. Other countries of Europe made a great contribution to the formation of this model of government.

Principles of classical liberal democracy:

1. The independence of the people. All power in the state belongs to the people: constituent and constitutional. People choose a performer and remove him.
2. Most resolve issues. To implement this provision, a special process is required, which is regulated by the electoral law.
3. All citizens definitely have equal voting rights.
   The election of the head chairman is the duty of the population, as well as its overthrow, control and supervision of public activities.
4. Separation of power.

Principles of modern liberal democracy:

1. The main value is the freedoms and rights of the population.
2. Democracy is rule by the head of society from the people and for the people. Representative democracy is modern look liberal democracy, the essence of which is built on the competitiveness of political forces and the forces of voters.
3. Problems and wishes are fulfilled by the vote of the majority, while not violating, supporting the rights of the minority.
4. Democracy is a way of limiting government and other power structures. Creation of the concept of power sharing by organizing the work of competitive parties.
5. Reaching agreements through decision making. Citizens cannot vote against - they can vote for or abstain.
6. The development of self-government contributes to the development of democratic liberal principles.

Advantages of liberal democracy

The advantages of a liberal democracy are:

1. Liberal democracy is built on the Constitution and universal equality before the law. Therefore, the highest level of law and order in society is achieved through democratic views.
2. The accountability of state authorities to the people is fully ensured. If the population is not satisfied with the political management, then the opposing party has a high chance of winning in subsequent elections. Avoiding the past mistakes of the new government is a great way to stay on top. Thus, a low level of corruption is ensured.
3. Important political issues are resolved by a qualified specialist, which saves the people from unnecessary problems.
4. The absence of a dictatorship is also an advantage.
5. People are provided with the protection of private property, racial, religious affiliation, protection of the poor. At the same time, the level of terrorism is quite low in countries with such a political system.

Non-interference of the government in the activities of entrepreneurs, low inflation rate, stable political and economic situation are the result of a democratic liberal system.

Flaws

Representatives of direct democracy are sure that in a representative democracy the power of the majority of the population is exercised very rarely - only in elections, referendums. The real power is in the hands of a separate group of representatives of the board. This may mean that liberal democracy belongs to the oligarchy, while the development technological processes, the growth of education of citizens and their involvement in the public life of the state provide conditions for the transfer of ruling powers directly into the hands of the people.

Marxists and anarchists believe that the real power is in the hands of those who have control over financial processes. Only those who have the most finances are able to be at the top of the socio-political order, through the means mass media introducing its importance and qualifications to the masses. They believe that money is everything, and therefore it becomes easier to manipulate the population, the level of corruption is growing, and inequality is becoming institutionalized.

Realizing long-term perspectives in society is very difficult, and therefore short-term perspectives are both an advantage and a more effective means.

To maintain the weight of the vote, some voters support certain social groups engaged in advocacy. They receive state benefits and win solutions that are in their best interest but not in the best interests of the citizens as a whole.

Critics believe that elected officials often change laws unnecessarily. This contributes to the difficulty of observance of laws by citizens, creates conditions for abuse of position by law enforcement agencies and public service agencies. Problems in the legislation also entail the inhibition and massiveness of the bureaucratic system.

Liberal Democracy in Russia

Establishing this form state structure passed with great difficulty. Then, when liberal democracy already dominated Europe and America, at the beginning of the twentieth century, the remnants of the feudal system in the form of an absolute monarchy remained in Russia. This contributed to the start of the revolutionary movement, which seized power during the Revolution of 1917. For the next 70 years, a communist system was established in the country. Civil society was inhibited, despite the development economic activity, the independence of the powers, because of this, the freedoms operating in the territories of other countries for a long time were not implemented.

Liberal-democratic changes in Russia took place only in the 90s, when such a political regime, which carried out global changes: it was allowed to privatize housing previously owned by the state, a multiparty system was established in the government, etc. At the same time, the creation of numerous cells of owners that could become the basis of liberal democracy in Russia was not organized, but, on the contrary, contributed to the a circle of rich people who were able to establish control over the main wealth of the state.

At the beginning of the twenty-first century, the country's leadership reduced the role of the oligarchs in the economy and politics of the country by returning part of their property to the state, especially in the industrial direction. Thus, the further path of development of society today remains open.

General characteristics of liberal democracy

AT political science liberal democracy is one of the most common models of the democratic structure of the state. This is largely due to the correspondence of the direction under consideration to classical democratic ideals. Turning to the consideration of the essential features and characteristics of liberal democracy, it seems necessary to give one of the definitions of the corresponding category:

Definition 1

Liberal democracy is a model of state organization built on the basis of representative democracy, in which the will of the social majority and the powers of state authorities are limited in such a way as to ensure the protection of the rights and legitimate interests of each member of society.

At the same time, one of key features liberal democracy is that in its conditions the main goal of the state is proclaimed the equal provision of every citizen with inalienable rights and freedoms, among which can be named:

• Private property;
• Privacy, freedom of movement;
• Freedom of thought and speech, religion, freedom of assembly, etc.

At the same time, in connection with giving the corresponding benefits the status of absolute values ​​in a liberal democracy, their legal consolidation is ensured at the highest legislative level, primarily in the Constitution of the state, and is continued in the law enforcement activities of public authorities.

In addition, the literature notes that liberal democracy is characterized by the model of the so-called "open society", that is, a society in which a wide variety of socio-political views (political pluralism and pluralism of opinions) coexist on a competitive basis.

In particular, the corresponding feature may be reflected in the fact that in a liberal democracy the political force in power does not necessarily share and support all the values ​​and ideals of classical liberalism, gravitating, for example, towards democratic socialism. However, despite the place of the views of the respective party or public association in the political spectrum, it must necessarily share the ideas of the rule of law in a liberal democratic state.

In this regard, it seems reasonable to point out that, in relation to the characterization of the political regime, “liberalism” is understood not in the sense of the economic component of the corresponding term, but in the sense of the comprehensive protection of each member of society from arbitrariness on the part of state authorities and their officials.

The history of the formation and development of the ideas of liberal democracy

For long period historical development, until the middle of the 19th century, the ideas of democracy and liberalism were in a certain contradiction, since classical liberalism assumed that the basis of the state was an individual owner, for whom ensuring his economic rights is much more important than, for example, the need for survival, or various kinds, social benefits .

At the same time, as you know, the Democrats argued the need to participate in the formation of power and the adoption of socially significant decisions of the majority of the population, including representatives of the poor class, since, according to the Democrats, the deprivation of such electoral and political rights in its content is one of the forms of enslavement of citizens. Liberals, in turn, defended the point of view that the power of the poor is a real threat to private property and guarantees of individual freedom.

The turning point in the relevant discussion, which predetermined the possibility of the emergence of liberal democracy as a model of state structure, was the period of the middle of the 19th century, when a number of researchers, led by the French politician Alexis de Tocqueville consistently substantiated the point of view that there is a real possibility of the existence of a society in which personal freedom and private property not only coexist with democratic ideals, but are also in harmonious unity, complementing each other.

Remark 1

The key idea and condition for the viability of liberal democracy, according to A. de Tocqueville, is the equality of opportunities for citizens in the state, including in the economic and political spheres.

Conditions for the formation and establishment of liberal democracy in the state

Despite the sufficient prevalence of liberal-democratic ideas in political science and the programs of political parties, the question of what is the list of conditions necessary and sufficient for the emergence, formation and final approval of the liberal-democratic structure of the state is still quite acute.

So, in accordance with one of the points of view, the minimum scope of the relevant conditions is represented by:

• Developed justice system in the country;
• Legislative proclamation and protection of private property;
• The presence of a broad middle class as the basis of any democracy;
• A strong civil society, consisting of politically active members of society.

However, not all scientists, sharing the need to provide appropriate conditions, agree with the opinion that they are sufficient to establish liberal democracy, giving examples of situations in which, despite their existence, “defective” democracies are formed.

In this regard, it should be emphasized that another condition for liberal democracy should be recognized as the existence of a long historical process of the formation of democratic traditions, customs and institutions, as well as the involvement of legal procedures and the general population to resolve conflicts.

Liberal democracy is a form political structure which has two fundamental properties. The government is "liberal" in terms of the core values ​​that underlie a given political system, and "democratic" in terms of shaping its political structure.

The core values ​​associated with the liberal democratic political system stem from traditional liberal notions of limiting power and are designed to ensure a wide range of civil and human rights. The above can be guaranteed by such instruments as the constitution, the bill of rights, the principle of separation of powers, the system of checks and balances, and most importantly, the principle of the rule of law.

The functioning of a democratic political system reflects the will of the people (or at least the majority). Public consent within the liberal democratic political system is ensured through representation: liberal democracy (sometimes also defined as representative) involves the adoption of political decisions by a small group of people on behalf of all citizens of the country.

Those who assume such duties and responsibilities act with the consent of the citizens and govern in their name. Meanwhile, the right to make decisions is conditional on the presence of public support, and it can be denied in the absence of approval of the actions of the authorities by the population to which the authorities are accountable. In this case, citizens deprive their chosen ones of the right to exercise power and transfer them into the hands of other persons.

Thus, elections, during which the will of the population is manifested in relation to the actions and personal composition of state government bodies, is a fundamental function of liberal democracy. The electoral system gives the right to vote to all adult citizens of the country, regular elections are held and open rivalry between political parties claiming power is ensured.

Liberal Democratic politic system primarily associated with first world countries with a capitalist economic system.

The decline of communist ideology in the late XX - early XXI centuries. Left and right radical forces.

According to the Italian researcher N. Bobbio, no doctrine and no movement can be right and left at the same time; exhaustive in the sense that, at least in the accepted meaning of this pair, a doctrine or movement can only be either right or left"

The rigid division of ideologies and their carriers (parties, movements) into two camps on the basis of similar characteristics leads to the leveling of deeper differences that do not lie on the surface and are hidden from analysis. Ignoring the historical context can lead not only to terminological confusion, but also to incorrect conclusions about the relativity of “leftism” or “rightism” of a particular political movement or party, since in different historical conditions, right and left often change places at the poles of the continuum. Therefore, operating on a “left-right” continuum, it is necessary to consider certain forces that are in the process of interaction at the poles of the political axis historically (i.e., consider this position of political forces on the axes as a special case of the general historical process).

In our case, this means that the contradiction between the left and right forces at one stage or another of historical development is “removed” through deep social changes in society, which leads to the transfer of this contradiction to a qualitatively new stage interactions.

At this stage, not only the social base of the poles of contradiction changes, but certain ideological constructs designed to reflect the social position of the left and right.

The left came to be seen as champions of social change (in broad sense: both reforms and revolutions) and democracy, while the rightists were associated with the reaction of the subjects of the traditional society going down in history. The leftists, as carriers of the new "zeitgeist", through revolutionary changes set the structure and content of the political system, the main element of which was the National Assembly. The right, in order not to be thrown out of the political process, had to join in this system on equal terms, which was for them already a certain concession to the left democrats.

How historical phenomenon The "left-right" continuum had a certain logic and direction of development.

Over time, qualitative changes take place on the flags of the continuum, both in the social base of the opposing camps and in ideology. The socialists took "on the shield" the values ​​of equality (primarily economic equality) and solidarity. The social base of the left is gradually changing: a rather numerous proletariat is already becoming its core. But at the same time, the big and middle bourgeoisie are becoming the social support of right-wing parties and movements, where these classes are actually consolidated with various elements of the progressive aristocracy, which has assimilated the basic economic and political provisions of liberalism: “in the first half of the 20th century, in each of the camps there were already five six currents: anarchism, communism, left socialism, social reformism, non-socialist radicalism (left liberalism), social Christianity - in the left; reactionary and moderate conservatism, right-wing liberalism, Christian democracy, nationalism, and finally fascism on the right” [The internal differentiation of the flanks of the continuum led to a more complex system of ideologies that was no longer limited to the choice of “either-or”, thereby creating an opportunity for search for a compromise between the left and right camps. In such a situation, the flanks themselves became a kind of continuum, the poles of which determined either the degree of moderation and willingness to compromise, or the degree of radicalism, mainly understood as the impossibility of sacrificing the basic ideological principles and interests of the representatives of their social base.

The expanding space of dialogue, and sometimes even cooperation, between the most moderate representatives of the “left-right” continuum has formed the sphere of the political “center”, as a field of pragmatic politics: “the centrist aims to make the extremes, the poles in our life reconcilable, he a mechanism for such reconciliation, complementarity of the parties. If class-antagonistic thinking puts the class interest before the public one, and the public one before the universal one, then the centrist reverses it.

Thus, the "left-right" continuum in the political and ideological space of Western Europe is already becoming a three-member structure, where the poles of the political spectrum, one way or another, are forced to shift towards each other, forming a space for political dialogue - the center. Since the 70s of the last century European parties face problems of an entirely new significance. Previously, for party structures to be most successful in the political process, it was enough to be able to identify themselves ideologically by referring themselves either to the left or to the right pole of the political spectrum. This was possible, since the boundaries of the social base of the parties were quite clear and static. Under the new conditions, parties actually lose their traditional means of control over their voters, as the boundaries between potential groups of the electorate are blurred, and the social groups themselves become objects not so much of party ideology as of other agents of political socialization: public organizations, trade unions, various informal associations, mass media, various subcultures, etc.

The individual, as a potential object of party indoctrination, acquires a certain negative freedom in relation to traditional ties with social environment or a large reference group in politics - a political party.

The English sociologist Z. Bauman, analyzing the latest trends in Western society, comes to the conclusion that a person has completely lost the ability to control social development and thus took its spontaneity and uncontrollability for granted and fell into the most significant uncertainty in history. According to Bauman, this led to “a paralysis of political will; to the loss of faith that something significant can be achieved collectively, and solidarity actions can make decisive changes in the state of human affairs. colonized by "private"; “public interest” degrades to a curiosity about the private life of “public figures”, and “public problems”, which cannot be subjected to such reduction, cease to be understandable at all” for the individual.

It is natural that in such a society, not only the role of parties as agents of political socialization, offering ready-made rules, is changing. political participation, but also party ideologies presenting finished projects permissions social problems which have already become unperceivable for the individual. Modern tendencies socio-political development have led to the fact that the leading European parties, both left and right, are forced within the framework of European party systems, in essence, being in power, or directly influencing the course of the political process, to pursue the same policy. Within the framework of this policy, the doctrinal differences of the parties come down only to maintaining a balance between social justice, mainly understood as the expansion of budgetary spending on the social sphere, and economic growth.

In this regard, the question arises of the adequacy of the applicability of the "left-right" continuum as a tool for the analysis and classification of party ideologies and types of political practice, as well as a way of self-identification of the European parties themselves. Obviously, in the context of de-ideologization of politics at the level of party programs, which are more focused on a pragmatic approach to the exercise of power, the "left-right" continuum, as a tool with a rigidly set coordinate system, cannot fully reflect the entire range of party doctrines and related him types of party politics. This, in turn, causes the need to supplement the two-dimensional dimension of the continuum with new coordinates. Within the framework of this scheme, parties that are supporters of "freedom" in the political and ideological sphere are differentiated according to the criterion of "equality-inequality" into the left or right center. At the same time, advocates of "authoritarianism" in the exercise of power are classified as left and right radicals.

At the same time, many radical leftists, ideologically, can be great champions of freedom, but at the same time, in terms of exercising power, they can be quite authoritarian. So the right can be quite radical in its ideological attitudes, but at the same time adhere to non-authoritarian methods of exercising power (Le Pen's National Front) and recognize democratic norms and procedures. Given this, we can conclude that the very categories of "freedom" and "authoritarianism" are poorly correlated with each other. The category of “equality”, as Kholodkovsky correctly notes, referring to S. Olla: “can no longer be considered an essential criterion for distinguishing between left and right, because today it is not so much abstract equality that is being debated, but the relationship between equality of rights and equality of opportunities, and even left prefer the term "justice" to him

inadequacy in the application of the classical model "left-center-right" in the conditions of "socialized capitalism" and globalization, the author proposes to classify parties and political movements into two large camps: the systemic camp and the anti-systemic camp.

The systemic camp includes both the left and the right, that is, these are the political forces that are ready, with certain reservations, to recognize existing system"socialized capitalism", which had developed by the 90s of the XX century, and perceive the modern type of globalization as an objective, natural process. According to the author, this camp includes: “parties of a liberal-conservative persuasion, together with purely clerical parties leaving the political arena, and the Social Democrats with the reforming communists gravitating towards them, and most of the ecological camp, which found itself in the coalition governments of a number of states. At the same time, within the framework of the systemic camp, the researcher identifies two poles: the first pole - economic systemists - these are those right-wing parties and movements that uphold the values ​​of the market and the primacy economic growth over social redistribution, but already in a global aspect (here the author includes liberals, conservatives, demochristians); the second pole is the left wing of the systemic camp, or socio-ecosystemists, “who defend within the framework of new system priorities of socio-ecological development” this group can be attributed to various social democratic, socialist and environmental parties in Europe, such as the SPD, the PDS (Party of Democratic Socialism) in Germany, the FSP in France, the Bloc of the Left Democrats in Italy, the Greek PASOK, etc.

The anti-system camp looks more colorful. In ideological terms, its representatives at the level of political parties and movements act from anti-globalist positions. Its right wing is formed by representatives of nationalist parties who negatively assess the socio-economic problems within their states caused by the processes of globalization. First of all, these are issues of illegal emigration, national and confessional tolerance in an increasingly internationalized community of European states. This pole can be attributed to the "National Front" in France. The left wing of the anti-systemic camp consists, first of all, of Trotskyist parties and movements that stand on the principles of internationalism and the struggle against "imperialism" and "global capital".

This classification scheme proposed by Schweitzer also suffers from a number of shortcomings. First, it is limited in its application. Obviously, this typology of parties does not fit into the left-wing organizations of Central and Eastern Europe (Socialist Party of Serbia; Communist Party of the Czech Republic and Moravia), which until recently were ruling in their countries, but now are actually “stuck” in the process of evolution from communist orthodoxy to the model Western European social democracy. The consequence of this problem is ideological eclecticism, sometimes expressed in the form of nationalistic, conservative elements of the doctrines of these parties, which is not typical for representatives of the left forces.

But, nevertheless, the “left-right” binary opposition in the form of a struggle of opposites is actively used both in theory and in practice, since politics itself is conducive to this: “political opposition is the most intense, the most extreme opposition, and any a concrete opposition is a political opposition.” That is why the political interaction of the left and right is still a tool political classification parties and movements, despite their internal changes in the course of the historical process.

Diversity of civil society organizations.

Many scholars of the new democratic regimes that have emerged in the last fifteen years have emphasized the importance of a strong and vibrant civil society for the strengthening of democracy. Speaking about the former communist countries, both scientists and adherents of democracy express regret that in them the tradition of social activity did not develop or was interrupted, because of which passive moods became widespread; when solving any problems, citizens rely only on the state. Those who worry about the weakness of civil society in developing or post-communist countries usually look to advanced Western democracies, and above all the United States, as a role model. However, there is compelling evidence that the vitality of American civil society has declined markedly over the past few decades.

Since the publication of Alexis Tocqueville's book On Democracy in America, the United States has become a major focus of research examining the links between democracy and civil society. This is largely due to the fact that any new trends in American life are perceived as harbingers of social renewal, but mainly due to the prevailing belief that the level of development of civil society in America is traditionally unusually high (as we will see below, such a reputation is quite justified) .

Tocqueville, who visited the United States in the 1930s, was most struck by the tendency of Americans to unite in civil associations, which he saw as the main reason for the unprecedented success of this country in creating a functioning democracy. All the Americans he met, regardless of their "age, social status and character," were members of various associations. Further, Tocqueville notes: “And not only in trade and industry - almost the entire adult population is their member - but also in a thousand others - religious and moral, serious and trifling, open to everyone and very closed, infinitely huge and very tiny ... Nothing, in my opinion, deserves more attention than the intellectual and moral associations in America."

Recently, American sociologists of the neo-Tauquilian school have collected a large amount of empirical evidence that the state of society and the functioning of public institutions (and not only in America) really depend to a large extent on the norms and structures of citizen participation in public life. Researchers have found that interventions aimed at reducing urban poverty, reducing unemployment, combating crime and drug abuse, promoting education and health care bring the best results where they exist. public organizations and civil society institutions. Similarly, analyzes of the economic performance of various ethnic groups in the US have shown that economic success depends on the presence of social ties within the group. These data are in full agreement with the results of studies conducted under various background conditions, which convincingly proved that in the fight against unemployment and many other economic problems social structures play a decisive role.

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

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

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

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

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

AT public administration decentralization is used: the central government assumes the solution of only those issues that the local government cannot solve.

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

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

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

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

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

Management in a democratic state is carried out according to the will of the majority, but taking into account the interests of the minority. Therefore, decision-making is carried out both by voting and by using the method of coordination when making decisions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The structure of the socio-political device

Politic system

The democratic nature of the state system is enshrined in the fundamental laws and supreme precedent decisions that constitute. The main purpose of the constitution is to limit the power of officials and law enforcement agencies, as well as the will of the majority. This is achieved through a number of tools, the main of which are independent justice (by branches and by territorial level) and a system of "checks and balances", which ensures accountability of some branches of government to others. Lawful are only such actions of representatives of the authorities, which are carried out in accordance with the law published in writing and in due order.

Although liberal democracies include elements of direct democracy (), the vast majority of supreme state decisions are made by the government. The policy of this government should depend only on representatives legislature and heads of the executive branch, who are appointed as a result of periodic elections. Subordination of the government to any unelected forces is not allowed. In the interval between elections, the government should work in an open and transparent mode, the facts of corruption should immediately be made public.

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

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

Rights and freedoms

The most commonly cited criteria for liberal democracy are in the form of civil rights and liberties. Most of these freedoms were borrowed from various currents, however, they acquired a functional meaning.

• Right to life and personal dignity
• freedom of speech
• Freedom of the media and access to alternative sources information
• Freedom of religion and public expression of religious views
• The right to associate in political, professional and other organizations
• Freedom of assembly and open public discussion
• academic freedom
• Independent Justice
• Equality before the law
• The right to due process of law in the conditions
• Privacy and the right to privacy
• The right to own property and private enterprise
• Freedom of movement and choice of place of work
• Right to education
• The right to free labor and freedom from excessive economic exploitation
• Equality of Opportunity

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

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

Terms

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

As experience shows, free elections by themselves rarely provide liberal democracy, and in practice often lead to "defective" democracies, in which either a part of the citizens are disenfranchised, or elected representatives do not determine all government policy, or the executive branch subjugates the legislative and the judiciary or the justice system is not capable of enforcing the principles laid down in the constitution. The latter is the most common problem.

The level of material well-being in a country is also hardly a condition for a country's transition from an authoritarian regime to a liberal democracy, although studies show that this level plays a significant role in ensuring its sustainability.

Story

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

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

Liberal democracy in the world

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

Types of liberal democracies

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

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

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

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

Liberal Democracy in Russia

In Russia, liberal democracy has never been realized. According to the "Freedom in the World" rating, the USSR in 1990-1991. and Russia in 1992-2004. were considered partially free countries, but since 2005 Russia has been included in the list of not free countries.

In Russia itself, part of the population erroneously associates the doctrine of liberal democracy with an ultranationalist party. Democracy is generally supported, however, the majority puts social rights above liberal ones.

Critical analysis

Advantages

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

Further, liberal democracy ensures that governments are held accountable to the nation. In the event that the people are dissatisfied with the policies of the government (due to corruption or excessive bureaucracy, attempts to circumvent the laws, errors in economic policy etc.), then the opposition has a high chance of winning in the next election. After she came to power, the most reliable way to hold on is to avoid the mistakes of predecessors (fire corrupt or inefficient officials, obey the law, attract competent economists, etc.) In this way, liberal democracy ennobles the desire for power and forces the government to work for the good of the nation. This ensures a relatively low level of corruption - which, under an authoritarian regime, can only be achieved at the cost of an extremely rigid dictatorship.

Because politically important decisions are made by elected representatives—professionals in political elites—it frees people from having to spend time studying and discussing a multitude of government issues. At the same time, a number of countries (Switzerland, Uruguay) and regions (California) actively use elements of direct democracy: and .

The constitutional protection from the dictatorship of the majority is an essential advantage of this regime and distinguishes it from other varieties of democracy. In fact, every person, for some reason, belongs to a certain minority, therefore, in conditions of full submission to the will of the majority, civil rights are suppressed. In a liberal democracy, however, this has the opposite effect, as it forces the current majority to view itself as a temporary coalition and therefore pay attention to the point of view of the current minority.

Due to the fact that the minority is able to influence the decision-making process, liberal democracy provides protection for private property for the wealthy, social protection for the poor, as well as smoothing cultural, ethnic and religious conflicts. The world's most democratic countries have the lowest levels of terrorism. This effect, possibly spreading even beyond the region: statistics show that since the late 1980s, when in Eastern Europe many countries have embarked on the path of liberal democracy, the total number of military conflicts, ethnic wars, revolutions, etc. in the world has sharply decreased (eng.) .

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

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

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

Flaws

Liberal democracy is a type of representative democracy, which is criticized by adherents of direct democracy. They argue that in a representative democracy, majority rule is expressed too rarely - at the time of elections and referendums. Real power is concentrated in the hands of a very small group of representatives. From this point of view, liberal democracy is closer to, while the development of technology, the growth of people's education and their increased involvement in society create the prerequisites for transferring more and more power to the people directly.

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

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

On the other hand, in order to strengthen the weight of their vote, individual voters may support special groups engaged in lobbying. Such groups are able to receive government subsidies and achieve solutions that serve their narrow interests, but at the same time do not meet the interests of society as a whole.