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/

Introduction

1. From the history of democracy

3. The essence of democracy

4. General features of democracy

Conclusion

List of sources used

Introduction

Since the time of the famous French historian, sociologist and political figure Alexis de Tocqueville, the idea has been repeatedly expressed in political literature that the development of state forms will inevitably and naturally lead human society to democracy. Later, a number of influential political scientists, like Tocqueville, contributed to the establishment of this idea in the public consciousness. The opinions of many of them seemed all the more significant because they did not at all stem from the fact of ardent admiration for the democratic idea. Democracy seemed to them a natural and inevitable state that would immediately occur regardless of the assistance or opposition of individuals or groups of people.

Democracy (from Greek Demokratia - power of the people) - form of government

state, characterized by the participation of citizens in governance, their equality before the law, and the provision of political rights and freedoms to individuals. The form of implementation of democracy is most often a republic or a parliamentary monarchy with the division and interaction of powers, with a developed system of popular representation.

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

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

Throughout history, the best minds of humanity turned to the idea of democracy, based on the principles of freedom and equality, enriching and developing this concept: Pericles (Ancient Greece), B. Spinoza (Netherlands, 17th century), J.-J. Rousseau (France, 19th century), T. Jefferson (USA, 18th century), I. Franko (Ukraine, late 19th century - early 20th century), A. Sakharov (Russia, 20th century), etc. Each historical era introduced its own characteristics into the concept of democracy and placed its emphasis on their significance.

1. From the history of democracy

The evils of despotic power, built on the principle of a military-bureaucratic hierarchy, have long been revealed to people. The best minds were looking for ways to organize power in the state so that it would depend on the people and serve them.

Democracy first took hold in ancient Athens in the 5th century BC. Periclean Athens, named after its illustrious leader, served as an example for other cities of ancient Greece.

Citizens of the ancient Greek city-states considered human freedom, the inalienable rights that belonged to him from birth, to be the basis. This freedom was guaranteed by private ownership of property, including land. Therefore, a free market developed in Greece, which provided its inhabitants with a higher standard of living than that of neighboring peoples.

The way of life and democratic traditions in the ancient Greek city-states allowed such a number of people to take initiative, which was simply unthinkable in the contemporary eastern despotisms. Feeling free, knowing their rights and opportunities, the Greeks believed in their strength and knew that they could improve their lives with their work.

Citizens felt free because they could directly influence the domestic and foreign policies of their city-state. After all, all important issues of the life of the city and its relationships with its neighbors were decided by a meeting of citizens. It passed laws and elected senior officials.

Since citizens participated in such meetings personally and not through their representatives, democracy was immediate, direct. In our time, direct democracy also takes place, for example, in the form of the expression of the will of citizens in a referendum.

To carry out decisions made by the general meeting of citizens, officials were appointed who were responsible for collecting taxes or commanding troops. They were not elected, but determined by lot. The Athenians believed that any citizen was capable of holding public office.

But at the same time, only a fifth of the residents had the rights of a citizen. Women, freedmen and immigrants did not have these rights, although they were personally free and owned land.

The disadvantage of ancient Greek democracies was that an assembly with a simple majority could decide almost any issue without any legal restrictions. There was no constitution, no set of laws, trials were decided by juries (consisting of 501 citizens), with a majority vote deciding whether a person was guilty or not. Democracy in Athens, not bound by the law, sometimes led to paradoxical results - democratic Athens sentenced the philosopher Socrates to death for criticizing them.

Another classic example of democracy is the republic of Ancient Rome. With the expulsion of King Tarquin the Proud from the city in 510 BC. A republic was established in Rome. Since then, Rome and its provinces have been governed by elected and annually replaced consuls, praetors, aediles, tribunes and quaestors. The People's Assembly was convened to pass laws. The laws and decisions submitted to it were previously discussed by the Senate, consisting of 300 senators. Unlike the ancient Greek city-states, ancient Rome had a representative democracy, in which citizens elect people to government to represent their interests.

The greatest contribution of the Romans to the development of democracy was Roman law. In 450-451, the first set of laws in the history of Rome was adopted - the Twelve Tables. They contained the basic rules by which transactions were to be made, disputes to be resolved, and penalties for criminal offenses to be established. The texts of these laws were cast in bronze and hung in the form of tables in the central square of Rome - the Forum.

In European countries, as feudal relations withered away and the free market became established, medieval feudal law was replaced by classical Roman law. Today, its norms are, to one degree or another, included in the national legal systems of all developed countries of the world.

In Russia, the Novgorod and Pskov republics established themselves in the 12th-14th centuries. The entire adult population of cities and free peasants of the surrounding villages could participate in their public meetings (veche). The Veche elected and dismissed the highest officials of the republic, approved new laws and repealed old ones, declared war and made peace, determined the amount of taxes and even considered the most important criminal cases. However, the main body in these republics was the Council of Gentlemen, which previously considered all cases brought up at the assembly.

2. The concept of a democratic political regime

The concept of a democratic political regime includes not only the state regime, but also such political subjects of society as the activities of political and public organizations, the political worldview as a reflection in the minds of citizens of the very content of democracy.

The ideological basis of the democratic regime consists of numerous and constantly updated theories of democracy, to the development of which not only modern political democrats, but also their predecessors contributed. As a result, a democratic type of social system was formed and found expression in constitutions. It differs from authoritarian and totalitarian political regimes by the following formal legal principles:

power belongs to the people, the people are the source of power, their will is ultimately decisive;

equality of all before the law: legal equality, vesting with the same legally enshrined socio-political rights and freedoms, including the equal right to participate in the management of society and the state;

recognition of the subordination of the minority to the majority while respecting the interests and opinions of the minority;

the right to diversity of political associations and political programs, etc. The democratic regime allows for diversity of thought and multi-party system, the possibility of legal activities of opposition parties, trade unions and other mass public organizations. Through mass organizations, the population seeks to take advantage of opportunities to participate in the political process and put pressure on the government to meet their demands.

The above characteristics of the democratic regime and its principles look very attractive. However, we should not forget that it is of a collective general nature and includes the most significant features of this regime, which are not necessarily all together inherent in specific regimes of certain states.

In the meantime, political scientists do not have sufficient grounds to consider the past and present political regimes in one or another state to be truly democratic, and not an attractive utopia. The Constitution of 1936 in the Soviet Union abundantly declared all kinds of rights and freedoms of citizens, which in no way softened the political regime of Stalinism.

The political regimes of developed Western countries suffer from this contradiction. The social nature of the bourgeois state was not directly reflected in their constitutions. In the preambles to the constitutions of the USA (1787), Japan (1947), France (1958), Spain (1978) and other countries, state power is portrayed as the spokesman for the interests and benefits of all the people of their country. But in the life of these powers earlier and in our time, democracy appears more as a normative ideal than as a reality.

World political science has not yet given a comprehensive definition of the essence of a democratic political regime as a multifaceted phenomenon of social existence. Since the times of Ancient Greece, the concept of a democratic regime is most often interpreted as a form of state opposite to authoritarianism in any of its manifestations. Meanwhile, the state regime of power is a narrower concept, which includes only the methods of exercising political power by the state apparatus.

3. The essence of democracy

Today in political science there are several main approaches to determining the essence of democracy:

The first approach is etymological, i.e. examining the origins and original meaning of the term "democracy". Literally, “democracy” is translated from Greek into Russian as “democracy”, or, according to what was done in the 19th century. American President A. Lincoln deciphered it as “government of the people, elected by the people and for the people.” That is, in other words, according to this approach, democracy is a form of social structure based on the equal participation of members of society in management with decision-making by the majority.

But such an approach to understanding the nature of democracy clarifies little, because Even in the Greek language itself, the word “demos” that constitutes its root simultaneously means people, crowd, mob and all people in general. The true meaning of the concept "democracy" again eludes us.

In addition, it remains unclear how exactly the people exercise their power under democracy? What conditions should be created for this? Should there be any restrictions on the power of the people?

The second approach - normative - consists in understanding democracy as a certain ideal of social order, based on the principles of freedom, equality and fraternity put forward by the Great French Revolution.

The immediately obvious weakness of this approach is that it does not take into account the isolation of any ideal from the real life of society (in reality, even formal freedom and equality are often unattainable, and brotherhood is not a political category at all), the contradictions that exist between the very principles of freedom , equality and fraternity (as historical experience shows, freedom quickly nullifies equality, and equality - freedom).

The third approach - socio-political - interprets democracy as a mass social movement for the implementation of democratic goals and ideals. According to experts in political history, it arose in modern times in European countries under the banner of the struggle against absolutism for the rights of the third estate, survived several waves and continues to operate to this day.

The weakness of this approach to understanding the nature of democracy lies in the fact that the connection between mass aspirations for democracy, mass movements under democratic slogans and the real achievement of democracy remains unclear. As historical experience shows, mass movements under democratic slogans (for example, the labor movement of the early twentieth century in Russia under the leadership of the RSDLP) can also lead to totalitarianism.

The fourth approach - the so-called "civil theory of democracy" (Russian political scientist V. Makhnach and others) - considers it not just as the power of the majority (crowd), but rather as the power of conscious, active, civilized and politically cultured citizens. The main problem with democracy understood in this way is that such citizens, as a rule, constitute a minority of society.

The fifth approach - negative - considers democracy literally as the power of the mob and the crowd, the power of people with base inclinations that trample all social foundations (this is, for example, how democracy was understood by its ancient critics - Plato, Aristotle, Thucydides, and this is how some modern right-wingers and conservatives interpret it) .

The weakness of this approach is its obvious one-sidedness, since in no social phenomenon, especially such a complex and multifaceted one, one can see only negative aspects.

The sixth approach - empirical (empirics - direct sensory perception of events and phenomena of the surrounding world) - calls for moving away from considering ideal and non-existent models of democracy, and considering it as it really is.

From the perspective of this approach, democracy is presented as a form of government based on free and fair competition of politicians in the struggle for power with the addition of some more features - government accountability to parliament, the rule of law, openness of society, respect for private property and the rights of citizens, etc.

The weakness of this understanding of democracy is manifested in the fact that, despite the abstract nature of ideal models of democracy, a certain ideal is still needed in order to be guided by it in real political life and improve reality.

4. General features of democracy

The usefulness of this approach lies in the fact that it highlights some of the most general features of democracy as a real phenomenon. From the point of view of the famous American political scientist R. Dahl, modern developed democracy is based on seven main institutions:

1) The sovereignty of the people and the election of senior officials - i.e. the people, as the highest source of power, choose political leaders and can periodically replace them;

2) Free and fair elections - i.e. elections with real competition and equal chances for candidates, without any compulsion of voters to vote;

4) The right to run for elected office, which should also be enjoyed by virtually all capable adult citizens;

5) Freedom of speech - i.e. citizens must have the right to freely express their opinions on the widest range of political and socially significant issues, to criticize political power, its policies and the dominant ideology;

6) Alternative information - i.e. in a democratic state, in addition to the official ones, there should be alternative sources of information that citizens could regularly access;

7) Independence of organizations - citizens must have the right, in order to protect their interests, to create associations independent of the state - associations, political parties, pressure groups, etc.

5. Principles of democratic government

The fundamental principle of democratic government is the participation of citizens in the formation of government bodies, the exercise of power, the adoption and implementation of government decisions. However, already in modern times, different approaches to the interpretation of this principle have emerged. The theory of direct democracy, one of the authors of which was J. J. Rousseau, understands this participation as direct rule by the people. According to Rousseau, the people themselves are capable of expressing their united will; The general will of the people, expressed in assemblies, is the basis for government action and the making of laws.

The theory of representative democracy denies the presence in society of a single will of the people as the basis for the activities of government. The existence of a unified will of the people, according to the supporters of this theory, is impossible simply because people in their actions proceed from the principle of personal rather than social benefit. In this regard, society is considered as a set of social groups striving to realize their interests. These groups elect their representatives to government bodies. The principle of participation of all citizens in the formation of government bodies and the implementation of its decisions in this concept fades into the background, and the principle of responsible and competent government comes to the fore. The source of power is the people, who express their will not directly, but indirectly through their representatives, delegating their powers to them for a certain period of time. In this case, on the one hand, management is carried out by specially trained people, and on the other hand, their activities can be effective, since they rely on the support of the majority of the population.

6. Basic principles of a democratic regime

Based on the analysis of the basic concepts of democracy and the practice of functioning of democratic states, the following basic principles of a democratic regime can be identified:

Recognition of the people as the source of power, the sovereign in the state. Popular sovereignty is expressed in the fact that the people own the constituent, constitutional power in the state, that they elect their representatives and can periodically replace them, and in a number of countries they also have the right to directly participate in the development and adoption of laws through popular initiatives and referendums.

Participation of citizens in the formation of government bodies, making political decisions and exercising control over government bodies. The ideal form of participation would be direct democracy: the establishment of a mechanism of power where the will of citizens and the state will would be identical. The entire people would directly participate in making the most important political decisions and exercising power. Representative bodies should be kept to a minimum and be completely under the control of citizens. However, the full implementation of the ideals of direct democracy in practice turns out to be impossible. In modern democratic countries, the principle of citizen participation is implemented through the principle of their representation. The source of power is citizens who express their will in elections, electing their representatives, delegating their powers to them for a certain period of time. These powers are determined by the Constitution and legislation. The Constitution and legislation establish a list of powers that citizens delegate to their elected representatives and determine the extent of responsibility for the decisions they make. Within the limits of their powers, authorities act independently.

The bearers of representative power are the national parliament, as well as other legislative bodies both at the center and locally, as well as elected representatives of the executive and judicial powers. They express the interests of various classes, social strata, political groups and other institutions of civil society. Representative bodies of power, based on the majority principle determined during elections, form non-elected executive bodies. The main feature of all elected and appointed authorities should be competence and responsibility.

The priority of human and civil rights and freedoms over the rights of the state. State authorities are called upon to protect human rights and freedoms that an individual acquires by virtue of birth, as well as civil rights and political freedoms, including the right to life, liberty and security of the person, to equality before the law, to citizenship and participation in the government of one’s country , ownership of property, non-interference in personal and family life, etc.

Citizens have a large volume of rights and freedoms, which are not only proclaimed, but also legally assigned to them. In democratic states the legal principle “everything that is not prohibited is permitted” applies.

Political equality of all citizens. This principle means that every citizen has the right to be elected to bodies

authorities and take part in elections in the electoral process, unless there are restrictions for this established by the court. No one should have a political advantage.

Free expression of the will of the people in elections, election of government bodies. The free expression of the people is considered a key condition for a democratic regime. It presupposes the possibility of free and fair elections, excluding any coercion and violence. All persons controlling power structures must be elected on the basis of procedures established by law and periodically re-elected after strictly established periods. Voters must have the right and opportunity to recall their representatives.

The rule of law in all spheres of society. A democratic state is a rule of law state. A legal state, in the interests of guaranteeing the rights of individual citizens, must limit itself to a certain set of permanent norms and rules. Law has priority over the state. In a rule-of-law state, both the forms and mechanisms of state activity and the limits of freedom of citizens guaranteed by law are clearly and precisely defined.

A clear separation of powers into legislative, executive and judicial. Each of them is independent, independent, performs its own functions, which are institutionally dispersed. The judiciary has the power to overturn both legislative and executive decisions.

Civil society institutions and organizations have formed and operate freely, without government interference, and civil self-government has been developed. A large aspect of social interests is satisfied through the actions of voluntary public organizations. Everyday life, family, and leisure are not controlled by the state.

Political pluralism, multi-party system. Representation and protection of a wide range of social interests in a democratic regime is carried out through a variety of political parties. In a democratic regime, there is a multi-party system in which one party can legally replace another in power through elections. All political parties must be placed on equal legal conditions in their struggle for votes and for their representation in government bodies. The struggle between parties must be carried out within the framework of the law and meet certain legal standards. In accordance with the election results, the political parties that receive the majority of votes receive the right to form government bodies and the status of the ruling party. The losers of the elections receive the status of an opposition party. Opposition parties must enjoy the same political rights and freedoms as the ruling party in power.

Political pluralism is complemented by ideological pluralism. There is no single official ideology in society. Many ideological currents oppose each other and freely compete in the struggle for influence and the minds of people.

Freedom of speech, which provides the opportunity to express one’s opinion, including criticism of the government, ruling regimes, and the dominant ideology. There are alternative and often competing sources of information and belief outside government control.

The police, intelligence services and army are important parts of the state apparatus that perform the functions of ensuring the internal and external security of the state and society. Their actions are regulated and limited by law. The main functions of maintaining law and order belong not to the army and intelligence services, but to the police and courts.

Power in the state is based more on persuasion than on coercion. When making political decisions, procedures for finding compromise and consensus prevail. The use of means of mass violence and terror against the population by the authorities is excluded.

7. State system in democracy

Parliament

Elected, president, heads of administrations, local governments - an important feature of democracy. But its core is rightfully considered to be parliament, which represents the entire people and acts in their interests.

The dictionary defines parliament as a group of citizens elected by the people who have the power to make laws. However, other government bodies and officials can also issue normative acts that are binding on all citizens and organizations: the president has the right to sign decrees, the government has the right to adopt resolutions.

Why do laws passed by parliament have supreme power in democracies? Because the defining feature of parliament is representation, that is, direct connection with the people. The English philosopher John Stuart Mill wrote in the middle of the last century that the legislature in a representative democracy acts as the eyes, ears and voice of the people.

Lawmaking is the most important, but far from the only function of parliament. He is also required to supervise and control the government and discuss any government decisions about which the people may have doubts. Representing the interests of taxpayers, parliament must not only approve the budget, but also control how and on what the government, ministries and departments spend taxpayers' money. Members of parliament are equal to each other, although some of them occupy the chairs of the speaker, his deputies, and chairmen of committees, but each of the deputies has only one vote when passing laws. If in the executive system decisions are made by the head of the appropriate level, then in parliament they are made collectively. This is the peculiarity of parliament.

System of “checks and balances”

Power corrupts people. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. That is why, back in the Middle Ages, the idea arose to divide the powers of power so that no one could usurp all the power. They reasoned like this: since a person is weak, since, having acquired power, he can use it for personal purposes, then it is necessary to restrain his possible inclinations, balance them with the interests of other people working in other government bodies. Therefore, the separation of powers is interpreted as a system of “checks and balances.”

Power in democratic states is divided in such a way that one branch of government - the parliament - passes laws and controls budget expenditures, and the other branch of government - the president or government - governs the country according to these laws. Disputes between authorities, between citizens and the state are resolved by the third branch of government - the court, responsible only before the law; and finally, newspapers, radio and television, telling citizens about the mistakes and abuses of the three branches of government, help cleanse them of criminals. It is no coincidence that the media are sometimes called the “fourth estate.”

It is useful to share power not only “along”, but also “across” - between the Federation and its subjects (republics, territories, regions). The President of Russia should have some powers, and the regional governor others, so that they solve different problems.

The division of power into branches and into central and regional authorities, as well as local governments, contributes to the establishment of legality in society. The separation of powers forces each of them to act strictly according to the laws. In addition, the separation of powers allows you to maximize the best aspects of each.

The executive power is built on unity of command. She copes better with management and implements decisions already made well. But this government is much worse at finding better solutions. For officials are often concerned not only with the interests of the case, but also with the opportunity to curry favor. They are not so much looking for how to do better as they are trying to guess what their superiors want.

The third power - the court - has its own advantages. He resolves conflicts or conducts criminal cases in such a way that the plaintiff and the defendant, the prosecutor and the defense attorney are forced to compete, proving to the court that they are right. Moreover, the court is obliged to strictly follow the law and in its decisions does not have the right to replace parliament or the government.

There are parliamentary and presidential democracies. In a parliamentary democracy, the separation of powers is not as pronounced as in a presidential democracy, and parliament has broader rights. Citizens elect deputies during elections, and the leader of the party that achieves a majority is tasked with forming a government. The minority goes into opposition.

The classic country of parliamentary democracy is Great Britain. In it, the Conservative and Labor parties compete for the right to form a government. In Germany, Austria and Italy, a larger number of parties are competing for votes. Moreover, one party rarely achieves an absolute majority in elections (more than 51 percent of the vote), so several parties are forced to agree on the formation of a coalition government. Such governments are unstable. This is why, for example, in Italy, government crises often arise.

In a presidential democracy, the president, elected by the people, is also the head of government. An example of a presidential republic is the USA. The President there is independent of Congress, although he acts strictly within the framework of the laws adopted by Congress. He, of course, must get the approval of his political plans from the deputies, but he can achieve this even if his party is in the minority in Congress, since in a presidential republic the attitude of the deputies to specific economic problems is more important than their party affiliation.

Conclusion

To summarize, it should be said that democracy can be viewed in various aspects:

In the institutional aspect, to characterize a political regime, which is distinguished by a certain set of political and legal characteristics: in particular, the presence of civil society, the principle of separation of powers, the election of representative authorities on an alternative basis, etc.;

In the procedural aspect, the term “democracy” is used to characterize the life of a community (both at the national and local levels), including political parties and organizations, where the principle of subordination of the minority to the will of the majority prevails, its members are endowed with equal rights and responsibilities and equal access to discussion and decision-making is declared for them;

In the cultural aspect, democracy is associated with a certain culture of society (including political culture), based on the principles of individual autonomy, tolerance and civic responsibility;

In the value aspect, along with the political-institutional, procedural and cultural aspect, the concept of “democracy” also indicates a certain political and social value that is inextricably linked with the principles of freedom, human rights and the creation of maximum conditions for the self-development of the individual.

The interpretation of democracy as a political and social value, in our opinion, is synthesizing in relation to the previous aspects of the consideration of democracy.

Although ultimately, in the course of the development of democracy and the deepening of the process of democratization, the difference between these aspects gradually narrows, nevertheless, it is the discrepancy between the institutional and procedural spheres with the culture of society or the prevailing political values in it that determines both periodic crises in developed democracies and the inconsistency and the contradictory nature of democratization in transitional societies.

Likewise, many of the existing models of democracy emphasize either different of the above aspects of democracy or different values (for example, the value of political competition and J. Schumpeter or the value of freedom by F. Hayek).

It is unlikely that there will be another political concept in Russia that would be as mythologized as democracy. Only for some it is behind the intellectual dream of boundless rights and freedoms of the people, while for others it is a virus of permissiveness imported from the West, the chaos of privatization and the collapse of traditional foundations. Both are myths, all the more dangerous because both the idealization of democracy and the neglect of it indicate ignorance of the essence of the phenomenon, the theory and practice of the functioning of the democratic principle in the system of modern statehood.

Those who allow themselves to be carried away by the literal translation of this ancient Greek word as “power of the people” will be unpleasantly surprised to discover that in ancient times democracy meant, first of all, a mechanism, a procedure for delegating one’s rights, and not at all boundless democracy - and, moreover, in conditions of slavery...

List of sources used

1. Azarkin P.N., Levchenko V.N., Martyshkin O.V. History of political doctrines. M., 1994.

2. Aristotle. Athenian polity. Ml., 1936.

3. Rousseau J. - J. Treatise. M., 1969

4. Dahrendorf R. The road to freedom. // Questions of Philosophy 1990 No. 9

5. Alexis de Tocqueville. Democracy in America. - M.: Progress-Litera, 1994.

6. Bryce D. Modern democracies. - M.: Progress, 2002.

7. Gadzhiev K.S. Introduction to Political Science. - M., 1997.

8. Kelsen H. On the essence and significance of democracy. - M.: Prospect", 1999.

9. Burenko V.I. Cheat sheet on political science: textbook. - M.: Publishing house "Exam", 2010.

10. Kamenskaya E. N. Political Science: Textbook. - M.: Publishing and trading corporation "Dashkov and K", 2010.

Posted on Allbest.ru

...

1.2 Basic principles of democracy

Despite all the differences in the understanding and interpretation of democracy, there are a number of principles (fundamental provisions) without which democracy in any understanding cannot exist.

The principles of democracy are abstract rules in relation to any community of people, to a person in general as a member of a political union and civil society.

Sovereignty of the people. This idea was formed in the era of bourgeois revolutions. Its essence is the recognition of the people as the source of supreme political power in society. The supremacy of the power of the people and their independence includes the combination in sovereignty of the rights and freedom of the people to independently decide the issues of their lives.

The principle of popular sovereignty lies in the implementation by the people of their political function as a source of power:

The people have constituent and constitutional power in the state;

The people elect their representatives and may periodically replace them;

The people have the right to directly participate in the development and adoption of laws through popular initiatives and referendums;

Recognition by the people of power and the values on which it stands - this is the essence of the legitimacy of this power.

The attitude towards this principle is ambiguous. A skillful politician, influencing the masses, can use democracy for his own purposes. An example is Hitler's rise to power through five referendums. A. Hamilton wrote: “The people are unstable and changeable, correct judgments and decisions are rarely available to them.” In addition, the power of the people as a whole, that is, the power of the crowd, leads to the fact that in this mass they forget about a specific person. This was noted by N. Berdyaev: “Democracy can also deprive a person of his inalienable rights, like autocracy.”

From all of the above, we can conclude that the principle of popular sovereignty, under certain conditions, can turn into its opposite - a tool of authoritarianism, its justification.

The principle of subordination of the minority to the majority. Since a solution acceptable to everyone cannot be found due to conflicting interests, the will of the majority is rightly recognized as the basis for its adoption.

The majority principle is recognized by everyone: liberals, conservatives, communists, socialists. However, in different movements it has different interpretations. However, in any interpretation, the majority principle is one of the cornerstones of modern democracy.

However, the majority principle is also implemented in practice and does not fully correspond to the theory. In systems where certain economically powerful classes dominate, the democratic majority of these classes is essentially a minority compared to the entire popular masses, a significant part of which is not included in the rules of the political game. Only in those systems where no social group is excluded from socio-political activity can the majority principle be adequately implemented

The majority principle also has another side - the right of the minority to oppose and express its interests. The problem is that the majority can infringe on the interests of the minority. Hence the need to supplement the majority principle with a corresponding guarantee of minority rights, or at least take them into account in the political and legal process. In particular, “the right of every citizen to criticize the authorities and any of their representatives is recognized, including in the form of going to court regarding their illegal (seemingly so) actions.” Democracy is the rule of the majority respecting the rights of the minority.

The principle of representation. The representative form of exercising political power and government has a number of advantages over the direct rule of the people, i.e. direct democracy. It narrows the possibilities of establishing totalitarianism as the dictatorship of the majority; ensures the competence and responsibility of subjects directly exercising power and control; is a system-forming link in the political organization of society.

Political theory records, along with the strengths of the principle of representation, its limitations. It manifests itself in the following moments. Representative government involves a significant degree of likelihood of distortion of the interests and will of the people by relevant institutions; limits the scope of participation for the majority of the population in political decision-making; creates conditions for the usurpation of power by the bureaucracy and others.

The principle of equal rights of citizens to participate in government and society. Its content is a set of rights that provide everyone with the opportunity to vote, to be elected to the structures of power and management, to participate together with others in monitoring the activities of those in power, to remove them if necessary by voting, etc. Political equality is real if it is based on a social base sufficient for all segments of the population. In the absence of real social conditions that make democratic equality possible, formal rights are worth little to the millions of ordinary people who will have neither the time nor the means to exercise their rights.

The principle of election of the main bodies of the state. Only a state in which persons exercising supreme power are elected, and elected for a certain, limited period, can be considered democratic. The problem is the technology for implementing this principle. There are frequent cases of fraud and falsification of voting results. Moreover, democratic elections are often contests with unpredictable results.

The principle of freedom. In a political context, freedom means primarily personal freedom, as well as freedom for social groups from domination by any political forces. This is a real opportunity to choose the political self-determination of an individual or group, their active participation in the management of public affairs. Of course, democracy is not the freedom of an individual or other subject from power in general. The problem of restricting freedom is also a problem of democracy.

The stated principles of democracy are universal; its very building is built on their basis.

Types of socio-political movements of the New Age

Democratic regime: principles and practice

Democracy is a rather complex, developing phenomenon. Its essential side remains unchanged, it is constantly enriched with new elements, acquiring new properties, qualities...

Democracy as a form of organization of state power

Democracy is one of the main forms of political self-organization of society. A complex of institutions and organizations, the structure and functioning of which are based on liberal democratic ideological and value postulates...

Electoral systems in foreign countries

The most important principles of electoral law in foreign countries are the principles of universality, equality, direct and secret voting, usually declared by constitutions and other normative acts (laws, codes, etc.)...

Conservatism as an ideological and political movement

If we try to isolate the key position of the ideology of social conservatism, which underlies all its other postulates, then its essence can be expressed as follows: understanding of society as a spiritual reality...

Basic Concepts of Democracy

Participatory democracy

Modern democracy is decisively different from classical democracy, although it is connected with it as, indeed, with classical monarchy, and with aristocracy, and with timocracy, and with other private forms of government...

Political thought of the West in the twentieth century

Genetically, liberalism was the first to emerge in the history of modern Western civilization. Liberalism is a complex, multifaceted phenomenon. This is a type of worldview, a certain way of thinking, a political doctrine, and a specific political practice...

The idea of human freedom in society, his right and opportunity to determine his own life goals and choose areas of activity, his personal responsibility for its results, for his well-being and social position...

Political thought of New and Contemporary times

Conservatism in the usual sense is the desire to preserve old positions and orders. Conservatism defends such values and principles as the right to social inequality, civil and human dignity, pluralism...

Political regimes. Basic principles and guidelines of democracy

Modern political democracy is a regime in which the people have the opportunity to realize their will directly or through their representatives, and the authorities are responsible to citizens for their actions...

Modern theories of democracy

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

Modern theories of democracy: value-based, pluralistic

In political science, when studying this phenomenon, they first of all proceed from the definition of democracy as a form of government, which is determined based on either the sources of government power or the goals that the government serves...

Modern liberalism, its forms

Liberalism (fr. libéralisme) is a philosophical and economic theory, as well as a political ideology, which is based on the proposition that a person is free to dispose of himself and his property. Liberalism has its roots in humanism...

Fill in the missing positions with the main principles of democracy. Signs and principles of democracy. Functions and principles of social market economy

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Similar documents

1.2 Basic principles of democracy