In a broad sense, democracy is understood not just as the organization of political government, but as a form of organization of a society with a certain worldview. This form corresponds to their institutions of power. The theoretical substantiation of the fundamental understanding of this method of government was first laid by J.J. Rousseau.
The basis of the values of modern democracy is concentrated in the formula "Every person is born free, all people are equal in rights." The principles of democracy begin with the main value - freedom. It is regarded as the basis of any society of this type. As the main value of the regime, freedom does not prescribe specific behavior, does not impose the content of people's activities, but opens up opportunities for them to choose them at their own discretion.
All rights and freedoms are divided into such groups as economic, elementary, civil, cultural, political and social rights.
The principles of democracy are impossible without such a value as the principle of equality of people. This principle does not mean the identity of all people, but their equality in rights and duties in the Christian sense. Everyone has the right to happiness, freedom, life. This regime seeks to provide people with all opportunities for regardless of social, racial, religious and other differences. The protection of the rights of all people is ensured by the law, as well as by the civil society organization itself. The more developed a civil society is, the more developed the principles of democracy are in it.
The basic principles of this type of political regime include the principle of pluralism. Since freedom is proclaimed the main value, society must also ensure the obligatory nature of its protection. From this follows the ideological, religious, ideological, economic and Western regimes. Pluralism is understood as a variety of forms of ownership, ideological currents, public interests, etc. She herself grew out of the ideology of liberalism.
Based on all these values, the modern principles of democracy imply a prerequisite for government - by the majority while protecting the rights of the minority. In the conditions of the existence of a variety of opinions, it is rather difficult to make decisions that satisfy everyone. Therefore, the logical solution to this problem is the adoption of decisions by the principle of the majority. Power is given to the circle of persons for whom the majority of voters vote in elections.
However, these basic principles of democracy do not lead to ignoring the interests of the minority and do not prohibit them from defending their positions and beliefs. Therefore, the regime recognizes the right of the opposition to exist, as well as the possibility of its coming to power in the next elections. The guarantee of the rights of the opposition is another important rule on which all the principles and norms of democracy are based.
The basis of the political structure of the state in this context is the functioning of certain institutions. These include elected officials, fair and free elections, the universal right to apply for various positions in government, freedom of speech, the existence of a large number, and the freedom of self-organization of citizens.
Understanding and interpretation are quite diverse, as evidenced by a large number of theories (existing concepts are divided into collectivist and representative). For a deep understanding of this concept, it is necessary to consider democracy in the interpretation of various scientific concepts. Based on certain criteria, these theories can be compared and draw their own conclusions.
1.1. 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 power decisions. However, already in modern times, various approaches to the interpretation of this principle were formed. The theory of direct democracy, one of the authors of which was J. J. Rousseau, understands this participation as the direct rule of the people. According to Rousseau, the people themselves are capable of expressing their unified will; the general will of the people, expressed at the meetings, is the basis for the activities of the government and the drafting of laws.
Based on the analysis of the basic concepts of democracy and the practice of the functioning of democratic states, we can distinguish the following main democratic principles:
Recognition of the people as a source of power, a sovereign in the state. People's sovereignty is expressed in the fact that it is the people who have the constituent, constitutional power in the state, that they choose 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, immediate democracy: the establishment of such a mechanism of power, where the will of citizens and the will of the state would be identical. All the people would directly participate in the adoption of the most important political decisions, the exercise of 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 direct democracy in practice is not possible. In modern democratic countries, the principle of citizen participation is realized through the principle of their representation. The source of power is citizens who express their will in elections by 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 the powers that citizens delegate to their elected representatives and determine the degree of responsibility for their decisions. Within the scope of their powers, the authorities act independently.
The holders of representative power are the national parliament, as well as other legislative bodies both in the center and in the regions, as well as elected representatives of the executive and judiciary. They express the interests of various classes, social strata, political groups and other institutions of civil society. Representative bodies of power, on the basis of the majority principle, determined during elections, form non-elected bodies of executive power. The main feature of all elected and appointed authorities should be competence and responsibility.
The priority of the rights and freedoms of man and citizen over the rights of the state. State authorities are called upon to protect human rights and freedoms that an individual acquires by 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 , to own property, to non-interference with personal and family life etc.
Citizens have a large amount 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 forbidden is allowed” operates.
Political equality of all citizens. This principle means that every citizen has the right to be elected to government bodies and take part in elections in the electoral process, if there are no restrictions for this established by the court. Nobody should have a political advantage.
The free expression of the will of the people in elections, the election of state authorities. The free will of the people is seen as a key condition for a democratic regime. It presupposes the possibility of free and fair elections, excluding any coercion and violence. All persons in control of power structures must be elected on the basis of procedures established by law and periodically re-elected at strictly established periods. Voters should have the right and opportunity to recall their representatives.
Rule of law in all areas of society. A democratic state is a state of law. The rule of law state in the interests of guaranteeing the rights of individual citizens should limit itself to a certain set of permanent norms and rules. The law has priority over the state. In a state governed by the rule of law, 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 division of powers into legislative, executive and judicial. Each of them is independent, independent, performs its functions, which are institutionally dispersed. The judiciary has the power to overturn both decisions of the legislative and executive branches.
Institutions and organizations of civil societies have been formed and operate freely, without state intervention. Civil self-government is developed. A large aspect of social interests is satisfied on the basis of the action of voluntary public organizations. Everyday life, family, 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. Under a democratic regime, a multi-party system operates, in which one party can legally replace another in power as a result of elections. All political parties should be placed in equal legal conditions in their struggle for votes and for their representation in state authorities. The struggle between the parties must be carried out within the framework of the law, meet certain legal norms. In accordance with the results of the elections, the political parties that received the majority of the votes of the electorate receive the right to form bodies of power and status. ruling party. Those who lose the election receive the status of an opposition party. Opposition parties should enjoy the same political rights and freedoms as the ruling party in power.
Political pluralism is complemented by ideological pluralism. There is no one official ideology in the society. Many ideological currents oppose each other and freely compete in the struggle for influence and 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 beliefs that have been removed from government control.
The police, special services and the army are important parts of the state apparatus and perform the functions of ensuring the internal and external security of the state and society. Their actions are regulated and limited by the operation of the law. The main functions of maintaining law and order belong not to the army and special 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 a compromise and consensus prevail. The use of means of mass violence and terror against the population by the authorities is excluded.
It is quite clear that the analysis of the principles (basic provisions) of democracy in various concepts cannot be unambiguous. In the theories of collectivist (identitarian) democracy, the content of the principles is determined directly by the content of the concept of "democracy". The ideal of democracy is the full exercise of the power of the people themselves, the embodiment of their united will in the policy of the state. On the contrary, in the theories of competitive democracy, all ideas about it come from English individualism (Hayek). The ideal of democracy is the free competition of political forces with uncertain results. Genuine democracy is such an arrangement of socio-political relations in which the government is elected by the people and, if necessary, is eliminated by the will of the people, without violence. From the point of view of the competitive (individualistic) concept, the ideal of democracy means the triumph of the principle of equilibrium of the free wills of citizens, individuals as the basis of democracy. And yet, recognizing, at least formally, democracy as the power of the people, chosen by the people and for the people, both theories single out a number of interrelated initial provisions, without which there can be no democracy in any sense of it. These provisions are the principles. In Western literature, they are referred to by some authors as "fundamental laws of democracy."
In itself, the recognition of general principles as elements of democracy, its ideal does not mean that it is fully realized in political reality. Only agreement between democratic institutions and actions creates real democracy.
Principles of democracy represent abstract rules in relation to any community of people, to a person in general as a member of a political union and civil society. Democratic principles are components of democracy as a universal value. Naturally, their specific application means application to a specific society, to specific people. At this point, the analysis of democracy switches to questions of methods (technologies) of organizing the political-state sphere. But to reduce the whole problem to the technology of organizing political relations would be one-sided, since democracy, as already noted, characterizes and negative side public relations.
Principles of democracy universal for open, civilized societies. In the sense that together, in their organic interconnection, they form the basis for the self-determination of people, each person and citizen, the development of his socio-political activity; principles form the foundation for resolving conflicts between the interests of community members, harmonizing private and group interests with common interests.
The principles underlying modern democracies were born and shaped in the bosom of the historical development of political communities; with the development of human organizations, they were enriched and concretized. What are these principles?
Following the traditional understanding of democracy as democracy, let's start the analysis with its fundamental idea - the sovereignty of the people. This idea was formed in the era of bourgeois revolutions. Its essence is in recognizing the people as the source of the highest political power in society and its (the people's) independence from any individual and group subjects.
political relations. The supremacy of power of the people and its independence includes the union in the sovereignty of the rights and freedom of the people to independently decide the issues of their lives. The concept of the sovereignty of the people as a source of political power is associated with the destruction of the sovereignty of the ruler-monarch in the era of revolution3.
The real content of the principle of the sovereignty of the people lies in the realization by the people of their political function as a source of power:
The people have the founding and constitutional power in the state;
The people elect their representatives and may replace them periodically;
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 the basis of which it stands - what is the essence of the legitimacy of this power.
In world political practice, the idea of popular sovereignty was perceived and implemented in different ways. It would be an idealization to claim that this principle is fully embodied in real life even developed countries. Thus, the US Constitution, adopted in 1787, established a property qualification that disenfranchised poor whites. Half of the adult population was denied the right to vote because they were women. American Indians and Negroes were also disenfranchised. These and other bans were lifted much later. In particular, women received full rights only at the beginning of the 20th century. Incidentally, the US Constitution, Parenti writes, has never been put to popular vote.
The idea of democracy did not appeal to the "founding fathers" of the United States. “The people are unstable and changeable, correct judgments and decisions are rarely available to them,” wrote A. Hamilton5. The opinion of A. Hamilton was fully confirmed by the Jacobin stockers, who during the Great French Revolution sat on the back benches of the Convention and, without raising their eyes from knitting stockings, in a friendly voice sent all the enemies of the revolution to the guillotine.
The principle of democracy was sharply criticized by N. Berdyaev. Denying democracy for the masses, proclaimed in October 1917 by the Bolsheviks, he argued: “People's power is human power. Human power knows no boundaries and encroaches on freedom and human rights.” “A sovereign people can take from a person whatever it wants, whatever it finds necessary for its own good. The autocracy of the people is the most terrible autocracy, for in it man depends on an unenlightened quantity.
A negative attitude towards the idea of the people as a sovereign of political power is contained in the book by K. Popper "The Open Society and Its Enemies". In reality, the people rule nowhere, argued the English philosopher. They choose the parties that govern. Popper's criticism of the sovereignty of the people is based on a number of arguments. The sovereignty of the people does not protect society from arbitrariness, Popper believes. No person, no group, no class can be recognized as sovereign, that is, to exercise power as they please. Popper rejects any concept of democracy that ascribes to someone the infallibility of "the voice of the people". And in this he is right. Democracy, according to Popper, means that citizens should be able to influence politics whenever they wish, that politicians should consider themselves as servants of the people, that the laws of government should reflect the values, wishes and preferences of the majority7. One cannot but agree with this statement. The philosopher also believes that there is a real possibility of uncontrolled sovereignty, justified by certain legal norms, which is used by certain forces on behalf of the people against part of it. The lack of control over the sovereignty of the people in power, the absoluteness of such sovereignty leads to tyranny. Such a possibility is not in the realm of fantasy, Popper notes. She has come true many times. The author concludes: “All sovereignties are paradoxical”8.
Of course, one cannot agree with Berdyaev and Popper on everything. There is no democracy without the sovereignty of the people. At the same time, they turned out to be right in many respects, which was confirmed by the dramatic history of state socialism and the so-called “war of sovereignties”, which contributed to the collapse of the USSR. The implementation of the principle of the sovereignty of the people, proclaimed by the Great October Revolution, unfortunately, did not take place. The party-state authoritarian regime has become a dictatorship of the minority against the majority. In addition, the ruling bureaucracy promoted a simplified interpretation of the very principle of democracy in the sense of a utopian call for the total participation of all in government. At the same time, the natural contradiction between society and the state, between the masses and the ruling party, or rather, the ruling elite, was deliberately ignored. Contradictions between various parts of the people, including those related to socio-ethnic differences, were denied.
There are real restrictions and obstacles to the implementation of the principle of people's sovereignty in modern developed democratic countries. The most important factor in the implementation of democracy is the awareness of the masses on political issues and problems in public life in general. And this means dependence on the media, on the level of education of certain segments of the population. The role of such a factor as has not diminished at all. material well-being, economic factor. Moreover, as M. Rocard notes, the main element among the attributes of sovereignty is the power of money. The Russians, after many decades of non-existence of this attribute, were able in recent campaigns to feel its influence on the real embodiment of their political rights and freedoms. It seems that the manifestation of the power of money in politics did not arouse enthusiasm among the majority of fellow citizens, but, on the contrary, affected a sharp decrease in their electoral activity.
The question of direct democracy is directly connected with the principle of democracy. Direct democracy is a form of organization and management of public life in which the people or their representatives are directly involved in the implementation of state power functions. Thus, the unified will of the people, as Rousseau believed, here completely coincides with the will of the state. Direct democracy is historically the first form of democracy in Europe and Russia. Such were Athenian democracy and popular self-government in ancient Novgorod.
The advantage of direct democracy lies mainly in the fact that it ensures the most complete participation of the members of a given community in the management of their social life; eliminates or at least minimizes the alienation of the people from the institutions of power, strengthens the legitimacy of the latter, and finally blocks the way for the bureaucratization of government. There are, however, significant disadvantages of direct democracy: these are its low efficiency and insufficient competence of the decisions made, which is explained by the lack of sufficient knowledge among the masses about the subject of political decisions, the inevitability of lengthy discussions during collective discussion draft decisions, as well as a reduction in personal responsibility for the consequences of public decisions.
Thus, a very important theoretical conclusion follows from what has been said. The principle of popular sovereignty is, of course, the core of democracy. However, one should not underestimate its limitations and the possibility of transforming under certain conditions into its opposite - a tool of authoritarianism, its justification. Such a transformation is largely, if not entirely, determined by political technology. Some procedures provide real democracy, while others are used to cover formal democracy, or rather, quasi-democracy, a real dictatorship.
The principle of people's sovereignty is organically linked and implemented through the principles of "majority" and "representation".
The idea of "majority" in social management has its roots in ancient times, which was even reflected in the religious myth. The Gospel of Luke describes the trial of Jesus. Pilate, having called together the chief priests, the rulers, and the people, said to them: “You have brought this man to me as a corrupter of the people; and so I investigated in your presence and did not find this Man guilty of anything ... But they shouted: crucify, crucify him! ... He said to them for the third time: What evil has He done? I did not find anything worthy of death in him ... But they continued with a great cry to demand that he be crucified; and overcame the cry of them and the chief priests... And Pilate decided to be at their request.”9
The principle of "majority" is recognized by everyone: liberals, conservatives, communists, socialists. V. I. Lenin, following F. Engels, wrote: “Democracy is a state recognizing the subordination of the minority to the majority”10. One of the modern American sociologists, W. Rostow, believes that the meaning of democracy is that it is statehood, carried out on the basis of the consent of the governed and representing the rule of the majority11. Many other foreign theorists and politicians put the principle of "majority" in the first place when characterizing modern democracy. At the same time, this principle in the history of political thought is associated with opposite interpretations of democracy.
Rousseauist and then Marxist theories interpret the principle of "majority" in the sense of expressing the single, indivisible will of the people-sovereign, the will of the "collective whole". The general will is always right. The people are never mistaken about their interests. He just doesn't know how to express them. The interests of individual citizens cannot conflict with the interests of the whole people. Such a premise excludes the question of recognizing the right of a minority to defend its interests, and, consequently, the right to the existence of the opposition. Most likely, this understanding of democracy gave grounds to I. Kant to consider it “inevitable despotism”, since “it establishes such an executive power in which everyone decides about one thing and in any case against one (who, therefore, disagrees) ...”12 .
The liberal interpretation of the "majority" principle is just the opposite. According to Bentham, the general interest and the general will are the sum of private interests and wills. “Should a smaller number have an advantage over a larger one?” - puts the question Bentham, assuming a negative answer. Can the interest of some prevail over the interest of all? Again, no. The purpose of the state: happiness for the largest number of people. Hence, according to Bentham, the abstract beginning of the "omnipotent majority" as the basis of the state system.
There are other justifications for the "majority" principle. In the theory of competitive democracy, it is explained approximately as follows: since it is impossible to find an absolutely fair, acceptable solution for everyone (due to conflicting interests), the will of the majority is rightly recognized as the basis for decision-making. However, there must be guarantees against the mistakes of the majority and protection of the rights of the minority.
The principle of "majority" in any interpretation is one of the cornerstones of modern democracy. Thanks to this principle, democracy overturned the seemingly natural order - the operation in society of the "law of the strongest", the eternal domination of the minority over the majority. The democratic principle of the "majority" has entered into practice, notes the French political scientist P. Sherel, as the most economical way to resolve all conflicts in society related to the struggle for power. This principle contributes to the strengthening of human communities by achieving a minimum agreement between their parts13.
Democracy, understood as the rule of the majority, is opposed to elitism (the rule of a privileged group of people), totalitarianism (the rule of a dictator), ethnocracy (the dictatorship of a handful of nationalists), as well as any other form of authoritarian rule by a minority. On the other hand, it is incompatible with ochlocracy and has nothing in common with the tyranny of the masses over the individual, over the personality. Provided, of course, if the principle of "majority" is not interpreted as the only criterion of the democratic ideal and the reality of democracy is not measured only by the quantitative side. It was precisely this one-sidedness, which manifested itself already in the first years after the Great October Revolution in Russia, that N. Berdyaev opposed. In the work "Philosophy of Inequality", written in 1918, he sharply criticized the Bolsheviks for introducing democracy (note: not for the negation of democracy), reduced to the domination of a simple quantity - the majority, the mass over the individual. “In the abstract idea of democracy there is the greatest contempt for the qualities of a person and a people ... You want to give truth and truth to the decision of the majority of votes and carry it through universal suffrage ... But can truth have anything to do with the criteria of majority and quantity? and truth?”14.
The philosopher was wrong in speaking out against democracy. However, he turned out to be right in preventing the danger of reducing democracy only to the rule of the majority, which subsequently opened the way for the manipulation of the masses by the ruling state-party elite. This danger has not been completely eliminated even today.
N. Berdyaev's criticism of the one-sided understanding of democracy only as the domination of the majority is consonant with the remarks of the English philosopher K. Popper: “Democracy cannot be reduced to the power of the majority ... After all, the majority can rule by tyrannical methods. In a democracy, the power of the ruling forces must be limited”15. There is legal protection for the minority here.
The principle of "majority" in the theory of democracy, and in political practice, cannot be considered only in the abstract. It is understood and implemented, firstly, always within the framework of a specific system of political relations. In various systems of social democratic relations, the majority is not always recognized as a real most of population of the country, but only that part of it, which is recognized as citizens, endowed with the right to take part in politics, to participate in the election of authorities. In systems dominated by separate economically strong classes, the democratic majority of these classes is in fact a minority in comparison with the entire mass of the people, a significant part of which is not included in the rules of the political game. Only in those systems where not a single social group is excluded from social and political activity can the principle of "majority" be implemented adequately. It can, because in this situation everything will depend on the technology for determining the majority, on the established criteria for recognizing the legitimacy of the decisions taken by the majority. For example, in one case, a quarter of the electoral corps of the entire electorate is recognized as the majority for the election of those in power, in another - half, etc. Secondly, the principle of "majority" requires a certain limitation, bearing in mind all sorts of consequences of its one-sided interpretation and application . The problem is that the majority can infringe on the interests of the minority. On many basic issues of public life, as historical experience shows, it is impossible to win only by a majority of votes. Groups that find themselves in the minority will sooner or later defend their infringed interests, which will become a constant factor in violating the stability of the political and social system. Hence the need to supplement the principle of "majority" with an appropriate guarantee of the rights of the minority, or at least take them into account in the political and legal process. The French political scientist M. Duverger fixes this requirement in his definition of democracy. Democracy is the rule of the majority, respecting the rights of the minority. Hence also the question of including in the concept of democracy, along with the principle of "majority", the principle of "consensus" (agreement). The ideal of modern democracy is consensus democracy. Like any ideal, it rather resembles the horizon to which the traveler strives, never reaching it.
Thirdly, the scope of application of the "majority" principle is not unlimited. Undoubtedly, N. Berdyaev was right when he rejected the possibility of asserting the truth by a quantitative majority. The history of knowledge, and indeed of politics, tells a different story: the truth is discovered by a minority, and most often by loners. Nevertheless, it becomes a social fact if it is recognized by a significant part of society and is confirmed by practice. Not all issues are resolved by a quantitative majority in the sphere of management. Do not, say, in the economy the interests that require implementation sometimes differ so much that there is no need to talk about their application? In such cases, methods of administration (command) are justified, of course, within the framework of democratically established norms. The economist Hayek rightly remarks that only general rules can be established by a majority of votes in the management of the economy16.
Understanding the essence of democracy as democracy, recognizing the people as the source of supreme power in society, directly leads the analysis to the principle of representation. When we say that democracy is the rule of the people, this does not mean that in modern society it is possible for each member of society to directly participate in the adoption of all political and social decisions, as if political positions of power could be filled by everyone in the order of priority, as the utopian socialists thought. Direct democracy extends to a very limited range of decisions made through the direct participation of all or the majority. The primitive interpretation of democracy in the sense of universal political participation in government today is not taken seriously by anyone. Historically, it has taken human communities a long way to understand the need for representative institutions as democratic. The discovery of the principle of representation was important step towards the progress of the political leadership and its organization. The essence of the discovery was that it became possible to express many wills in one will of a representative institution or one person.
One of the “founding fathers” of the United States, D. Madison, wrote: “... We owe Europe the discovery of the remarkable principle of representation ... when, through a simple transfer of powers, the will of the largest political body can be concentrated in one institution, and its power can be used for any necessary for the public good purpose." D. Madison argued that America can "claim the honor of discovering the foundations" of public education, where this principle is practically implemented17.
The principle of "representation" means that the interests and will of the people of a given community are aggregated and articulated by representative political institutions. The people delegate their power to representatives nominated by elections, under their own responsibility these representatives formulate and implement.
The representative form of exercising political power and government has a number of advantages over the direct rule of the people, that is, direct democracy. It narrows the possibilities of asserting totalitarianism as a 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. The principle of representation presupposes certain rules between the people and its representatives: trust, responsibility and competence of empowered institutions and persons, their own initiative in the exercise of their powers; constitutional limitation of power; control over the activities of representatives of the people by the people themselves.
The principle of representation forms the core of liberal, pluralistic and other theories of democracy. It is also recognized by modern collectivist concepts.
One of the theorists of liberalism, D.S. Mil, in his work “Reflections on Governmental Government” wrote: “Representative government means that the whole people or a significant part of it enjoys, through periodically elected deputies, the supreme controlling power in its entirety ...” eighteen.
The representative form of democracy is the main form in our time. Representation, powers, formation of intermediate power structures, constitutionality, political parties, elections - these are the elements of modern representative democracy. They are most fully embodied in parliamentarism as its varieties. "The press, parties and parliament - including the government responsible to the parliament - these three "p" are the main organs of modern democracy." So wrote K. Kautsky19.
Political theory fixes along with strengths the principle of representation is its limitations. It manifests itself in the following moments. Representative government implies a significant degree of probability that the interests and will of the people will be distorted by the 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 very existence, of course, is that the system of representation allows the majority of citizens to show political initiative only once every few years (during elections). Therefore, it was rejected by Rousseau and a few socialists.
The negatives and limitations of the principle of representation are generated by the essence of the very process of delegation of power as political activity. Delegation is the transfer by the community (the electorate, part of it) to a trusted body or an individual (its representative) of the right to speak and act on its behalf, to represent, to protect its interests, to express its imperious will. This process is complex and controversial. Its analysis is given by the French political scientist P. Bourdieu in the book "Sociology of Practice" (M., 1993).
Delegation, according to P. Bourdieu, is an act by which a group organizes itself as an organized subject of political relations. It acquires a set of elements of an organized political community or institution: apparatus, material means of activity, symbols, rules of the game. Any group or community exists as a political entity when it has its own representative body. Delegation is the act of creating a body for articulating and aggregating the interests of a group (community) into politics19a.
Delegation is a designation by a group (community) of itself as an organized whole and as a political subject. Due to the fact that there is an organ representing this troupe, the latter becomes identified in the social and political environment. Only as an organized whole, represented in society by a certain political body (subject), this group is able to act politically.
There is another side of delegation - its opposite, in comparison with the above-mentioned consequences for the political behavior of the group. First, delegation can lead to infringement of the rights of the group (community). The very fact of speaking and acting on behalf of someone turns into the fact of speaking and acting instead of someone. "I" power, "I" "popularly elected" and do what I think is right. "Whomever I want, I will punish, and whom I will reward." Something like this can think democratically elected authoritarian leader of the state. Thus, the authorized person (organ) turns into the owner. M. Bakunin was right when he warned that governmental despotism “is never so terrible and so strong as when it relies on the imaginary representation of an imaginary popular will ... Especially terrible is the despotism of an intelligent and therefore privileged minority, supposedly better understanding real interests of the people than the people themselves.
A trustee, taking upon himself the expression and realization of impersonal interests, makes them an instrument for protecting personal and group interests. This is the line of conduct of the political official-bureaucrat.
Secondly, delegation creates an opportunity to monopolize the right to truth, to truth, to collective authority, which, according to Bourdieu, already underlies symbolic coercion: you are a member of this community - obey its representative, follow his judgments and assessments.
Thirdly, delegation is a source of alienation of the masses from power and political fetishism. Alienation is formed on the basis of the fact that a trusted subject of power, having received authority from many citizens, is transformed into some independent force, external to each of those who trusted. This subject is now perceived as the self-cause causa sui of its power. After all, a group (community) that delegated its powers to a given authoritative subject would not exist in an organized form as a whole if it were not represented by its principal. Individuals are constituted into a political community, while losing control of the community within which they are constituted. By joining the community, transferring their powers to represent their interests, citizens lose control over how adequately their interests are represented.
Despite these negative (in relation to democracy) moments, the representative system is undoubtedly one of the fundamental elements of democracy as democracy, since it is a way of exercising the will and rule of the people. Its limitations are outweighed by its strengths.
The mechanism for implementing the principle of representation, the process of delegation of power are elections, or rather, the electoral system. The latter is so important for the exercise of democracy that often democracy in general is reduced to the election of those who are entrusted with the direct rule and management of public affairs. Elections of power subjects constitute the procedure of democracy, but one that goes directly into its content ensures the existence of democracy. Both pluses and minuses, positive and negative aspects of the representative system, the process of delegation are realized primarily through the technology of elections.
It is difficult to name at the present time any country where the ruling circles would not practice elections, would not thereby seek to assert their legitimacy through them. However, not all such countries can be classified as democratic. And those, where the traditions of democracy span centuries, are not always the ideal of democratic elections. The American political scientist M. Parenti writes: “The whole irony lies in the fact (he means the USA - D-3.) that it is the institution, supposedly intended to register the will of the majority, that serves to legitimize the rule of a privileged minority and often ignores the interests of the most needy”21 . But don't the last elections in Russia, in which candidates who received less than a quarter of the votes, prove the truth of Parenty's conclusion in relation to our political reality?
Elections are also paradoxical in that they do not in all cases ensure the selection of the best, although by design they should be. After all, citizens can only choose candidates proposed by a powerful minority that controls the nomination of candidates in democratic countries. In particular, elections in Western countries, and now in Russia, often take the form of bloc clashes. And the reason is not only this. Recall that democracy is a competition with uncertain results. The winner is not necessarily the best. A. Tocqueville noticed this paradox of democracy. He wrote: "Many people in Europe believe, or say they believe, that one of the main advantages of universal suffrage is the ability to bring into government people who are worthy of the people's confidence." “As for me, I must say that what I have seen in America allows me to judge that this is not at all the case ... I made a discovery that struck me: how many worthy people are among those who are ruled, and how few of them are among those who governs"1'-. A. Tocqueville's discovery has long ceased to be a discovery. This is the reality of today, including in Russia. The discrepancy between the merits of the winner in the elections and the power delegated to him is a source of social contradictions and instability.
According to many politicians and theorists, democracy, like no other form of government, needs great leaders, skillful and far-sighted leadership. However, the electoral system as an element of democracy does not guarantee their selection. This is the contradiction of democracy. Does it have a solution? The search for new modifications of democracy is going on, including in the direction of this contradiction. In the previous lecture, Sartori's idea of "selective polyarchy" was discussed as a mechanism for selection "on the basis of merit."
The principle of representation, the electoral system through which it is implemented, embodies the spirit and essence of democracy only when the equality of citizens in relation to their participation in the political process is recognized and implemented. Democracy is, after all, a system that ensures the participation of all citizens in political decision-making. In a word, equality of the right to participate in the management of the state and society is one of the principles of democracy. Its content is a set of rights that provide everyone with the opportunity to elect, be elected to power and management structures, participate together with others in monitoring the activities of those in power, remove them, if necessary, by voting, etc. Of course, this equality is formal, not guaranteeing real participation for everyone. This is provided by social status, which already goes beyond the limits of political democracy. It is quite natural that in the same CIIIA large entrepreneurs have a monopoly on occupying the highest posts in the state (Parenti). The radical democrats promise to bring Russia up to the same level of civilization.
Political equality is real if it is based on a sufficient social base for all segments of the population. In the absence of real social conditions that allow for democratic equality, formal rights are of little value to the millions of ordinary people who will have neither the time nor the means to exercise their rights. A. France noted: the law in its "royal objectivity" and impartiality equally forbids both the poor and the rich to steal bread and beg in the street. In this case, he becomes like a farce, divorced from life.
Equality as a value of democracy and its principle cannot be seen in the sense that everyone has the same qualities necessary for political activity or participation. If a fool and a wise man enjoy the same voting rights, then nevertheless their chances of getting into, say, the political elite are unequal. Although life is not without exceptions. Montesquieu warned that democracy must avoid two extremes: "... the spirit of inequality, leading to the rule of one person, and the spirit of extreme equality, leading to the despotism of one person" -3 Democracy is unthinkable without freedom. The principle of freedom is the soul of democracy, including the premise of equality as its element. In the political context, freedom means, first of all, personal freedom, as well as freedom for social groups from domination over them 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. Boundless freedom from power is a danger to the community. The problem of limiting freedom is also a problem of democracy. Boundless freedom is a sign of anarchism, not democracy. The world-famous publicist-satirist, he is also a political scientist S. Parkinson notes: a car is “a symbol of unbridled individualism; but how many deaths he brings! Personal freedom is inseparable from danger. Group freedom is also an essential element of democracy. But it also has its downside: it gives rise to a monopoly that threatens the freedom of the individual. Defending the latter, democratic societies abolish many monopolies: in the economy, politics, education, religion, etc.
Freedom is realized through human rights. The concept of "human rights" means a set of legal norms of the relationship of free individuals among themselves, as well as with the state and society as a whole, providing the opportunity to act according to one's choice and receive certain benefits for life. According to A. Tocqueville, rights are nothing but virtues transferred to political life. It is the concept of rights that allows people to determine “what is permissiveness and arbitrariness, and what is normal relations, order. It helps to be independent without arrogance and to obey without humiliation. Democracy brings the concept of political rights to the consciousness of every citizen. This, emphasized A. Tocqueville, is one of its main advantages25.
The rights that provide the possibility of choice in human behavior and activities constitute freedoms. And the norms associated with the possibility of having some kind of benefits constitute rights in the proper sense of the word.
The rights and freedoms of a person characterize the properties of the definition of a person as a social and political subject, inherent due to his social nature. Since each member of society was born in society, lives in it, he has rights and freedoms, regardless of power, without which he, as a social subject, and even more so a political one, cannot exist. This group of rights and freedoms is classified as natural, innate, and therefore not alienable. But this definition cannot be understood in a simplified way: in the sense that a person acquires inalienable rights and freedoms “by virtue of birth”. In fact, by virtue of birth, he acquires one thing - life, as a way of existence of the organism. A person is born as a biological being with specific genetic inclinations for “homo sapiens”. He becomes a social subject, a personality, in society and through society. Natural rights and freedoms arise in society, political - in the political community, and they are realized or not realized through public relations. Turning to the concept of the Enlighteners of the XVIII century. about natural rights, they cannot be reproduced uncritically, without taking into account the achievements of social science over the next two centuries. The Declaration of Independence, written by the great American humanist Jefferson, has long become a classic document. It is in it that inalienable human rights are proclaimed: "... all people are created and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, including the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"... However, not everyone today perceives as true the words about the "creator » man as a kind of creator and his rights and freedoms.
In the Constitution Russian Federation, Articles 20-64 list the rights and freedoms of the individual, called inalienable and "belonging to everyone from birth." It is enough to think about the nature of each of the rights in order to understand the incorrectness of such a definition. Is it, say, given from birth to everyone the right to "participate in the management of the affairs of the state" or "to elect and be elected to bodies of state power", etc.?
Political rights and freedoms are the norms that determine the position of a person in a political society. The right to vote, freedom of speech, freedom to receive information, the right to hold any public office, create parties and other public associations and participate in their activities, etc. - all of them constitute the political and legal field of behavior and activity of the individual. Modern terms: "fundamental" rights, "inalienable", "natural" - most likely do not mean a given from birth, but the value characteristics of rights and freedoms according to the ranks of their significance in modern society.
Human rights and freedoms, as the most important element of democracy, form an integral system from which not a single link can be removed without destroying it. The rights of the individual are divided into negative, protecting the freedom of the individual and including the obligations of society, the state not to commit negative actions and restrictions in relation to the individual, and positive, meaning the obligations of the state, society to provide a person with certain benefits (the right to work, to education, to rest, etc.). . P.). In addition, rights and freedoms are divided into civil (personal), political (associated with the possibility of participating in politics), economic, social, cultural and others, due to the respective types of democracy.
The modern political and legal concept of human rights and freedoms is enshrined in UN documents. In 1948 the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted. Article 1 states: "... all human beings are born free and equal in dignity"; “every person,” Article 2 states, “should have all the rights and all the freedoms proclaimed in the Declaration; without any distinction." The Declaration reveals civil and political rights and freedoms: 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, to own property. Negative freedoms are listed: from arbitrary arrest, detention or exile, slavery or servitude, torture and ill-treatment. Among the positive ones are freedom of movement, conscience, peaceful demonstrations, etc. The Declaration contains economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to free choice of work, a standard of living necessary to maintain health and well-being, etc.
The Universal Declaration is part of the international bill of human rights. In addition to its UN, the Declaration of the Rights of the Child, the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and Discrimination, the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment were adopted. All this testifies to the existence of an international democratic process. He could not but reflect on political life our country. Back in the days of the USSR, the highest body of state power adopted the Declaration on the Rights and Freedoms of Man, corresponding to the international Declaration. The new Constitution of Russia fixes numerous rights and freedoms stipulated by the documents of the world community. Now it's up to the little things: the practical implementation of the norms proclaimed by the state.
The problem of human rights and freedoms has a number of aspects that require theoretical understanding. The main thing is the contradiction associated with the rupture of rights and obligations and vice versa; it is the need to harmonize rights, freedoms and responsibilities, the principles of equality and freedom. Thus, freedom and equality as principles of political democracy are of a correlative character; they are mutually contradictory. The rule of law in a democratic state determines the relativity, the formality of the principles of freedom and equality (the latter are established in relation to the accepted norms, the law). Everyone acts within the established rules. Freedom consists in the fact that a person can do everything that does not contradict the law. The Brazilian Constitution, for example, defines freedom as follows: "No one is obliged to do or stop doing anything except in accordance with the law." This means that freedom in this interpretation implies at the same time its limitation by law, by the equality of people before it. The movement of society along the path of democracy is a process in which the problem of finding the necessary measure of the combination of freedom and equality is solved, whenever the contradiction between them does not cause socio-political confrontation.
The level of implementation of human rights and freedoms depends on the specific state of political culture in a given society, on the ability of people to use them. Once again, A. Tocqueville was right when he wrote: “One can say without exaggeration: the art of living free can work miracles, but at the same time, there is nothing more difficult than learning to live free”26. If Russians are taught by the ruling circles to live freely the way it is currently being done: by spreading religious obscurantism and the psychology of profit by any means, by imposing patterns of behavior from someone else's shoulder, then it is not difficult to predict the consequences. They will be sad for Russian democracy.
Since democracy implies a free choice for an individual or groups of opportunities and forms of behavior and activities, thoughts and actions, since it is natural for democracy to compete for subjects in the field of struggle for roles and statuses in the system of power, pluralism is its indispensable principle. Pluralism is a characteristic feature of all modern democratic regimes. The concept of pluralism (from Latin pluralis - plural) means the recognition in the socio-political life of many different interdependent and at the same time autonomous social and political groups, parties, organizations, whose ideas and attitudes are in constant comparison, competition, competition.
Pluralism as a principle of political democracy is the antipode of monopoly in any of its forms. The following essential features of political pluralism can be identified:
a) the diversity of social and political interests of political subjects, their inconsistency - the source of pluralism;
b) the diversity of centers of power (its decentralization), plurality, autonomy, free competition of political subjects, the system of "checks and balances", separation of powers;
c) exclusion of a monopoly on political power of any one party or other power group or one leader, a multi-party or two-party system;
d) variety of channels for articulating interests, free access to them for everyone: publicity, freedom of information;
e) free struggle of political forces, competitiveness of elites, the possibility of their change;
f) the unity of pluralism and civic integration, the alternativeness of political views and actions within the framework of generally recognized values and legality.
Pluralism is formed in the conditions of the diversity of social groups and strata, intersecting contradictions between them. The split of society into polar, antagonistic social groups is determined not by pluralism and democracy associated with it, but by certain models of authoritarianism.
Forms of political pluralism are diverse. This includes a multi-party system, and the distribution of power among various autonomous centers, and the presence of authoritative, rather than formal, local self-government, and the functioning of the "fourth power" - a truly independent press. Each of these forms of organizing the political life of a modern democratic society is an embodiment in one sense or another of the principle of pluralism.
In our country, for many years, political pluralism has existed in a truncated form, or in a hidden and deformed form. The variety of subjects of power was formally proclaimed (various classes, Soviets, party, trade unions, Komsomol, labor collectives); there were various channels of articulation of interests; the role of criticism was constantly emphasized; freedom of conscience and religion was recognized. These elements of political life, which undoubtedly were signs of pluralism, were enshrined in the Constitution. Nevertheless, real full-fledged pluralism was suppressed by the monopoly position of the party apparatus and the dominant authoritarian-bureaucratic system of power. In a hidden form, implicitly, pluralism still existed. It manifested itself in the informal opposition of the masses to the bureaucratic party-state apparatus, in the actual regional party multi-authority, as well as in the diversity of political views and positions that existed in society and in the ruling party itself. Deformed pluralism resulted in the late 1980s. into ideological, moral, and socio-political chaos, from which a real full-fledged political pluralism began to be born. However, the birth was delayed, and the fetus is not what was expected. It seems again that pluralism is not held in high esteem by the current ruling circles in Russia.
The described principles of democracy are the basis on which the very building of democracy is built. And it is made up of institutions, legal framework, practical models of behavior and activities, political culture of democracy.
So, one should try to briefly describe the fundamental principles of democracy, the primary of which, as the etymology of the word democracy (Greek demos - people, kratia - power) indicates, is the principle of sovereignty of the people. God's will replaced as the source of political order by the voice of the people (vox populi, vox Dei). Democracy found its eloquent defender in the person of Jean-Jacques Rousseau and his concept of a democratic republic: “It is this public entity, created by the unification of all, that previously received the name civitas, now bears the name of a republic, or political body, which its members call the state, when it is passive, sovereign when it is active |...| The members themselves as a whole receive the name of the people, and as individuals they are called citizens, as participants in the supreme power, and subjects, as those who obey state laws ”(J. J. Rousseau“ The Social Contract ”). Democracy can only be accepted under the strict rule of law. The people, of course, do not rule in the old fashioned way, based on customs, they delegate their representatives to govern, and all matters are decided according to the will of the majority, decisions are made as a result of the support of the majority, still limited by the rights of the minority: “|...| although the will of the majority must prevail in all cases, this will, in order to be valid, must be reasonable; a minority has equal rights (rights), which must also be protected by laws (laws) and any violation of them is oppression,” proclaims Thomas Jefferson in his inaugural speech in 1801. Said assembly of citizens becomes a people, provided that the principle of equality is established . The people enter the historical stage under universal slogans, and equality belongs to the ideas that form democracy. The love of equality is the main passion, “stormy, insatiable, steady and invincible,” recalls Tocqueville. This passion will not influence customs and political institutions so much if democracy grows in freedom. “Since no one will be different from their loved ones, no one will be able to exercise tyrannical power. People will be completely free because everyone will be completely equal, and will be completely equal because they will be completely free. It is to this ideal that democratic communities strive” (A. de Tocqueville “On Democracy in America”). This sparked a debate of more than twenty years on whether equality means equality of opportunity or equality of opportunity. In order to acquire civil rights, a people must retain a set of civil and political rights, since it has - as proclaimed by the Declaration of Independence - the inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. James Madison speaks in the same vein. "Who is the best guardian of the freedom of the people?" The Republican's answer is: "It's the people themselves." The agreement (social contract) assumes that the people agree on the rules of the emerging society and the tasks of the state. From universal rights are derived limitations or powers of government. The state, as a trustee of the power delegated to it, is an invention of modern times. Regarding this opinion, one should agree with Rousseau. “The idea of representation is modern, it comes from the feudal rulers, those unrighteous and absurd rulers who humiliate the human race and dishonor man. In ancient republics and even in monarchies, the people never had representatives, they did not know this expression. The state and the government are instruments created by people for their own purposes, and representatives are attorneys for the powers and functions delegated to them. In the conditions of freedom, people who are limited in the performance of precisely these powers and functions become representatives of the people. The condition for freedom is the participation of citizens. The principle that people "have the right to settle their affairs, which is ethically appropriate and politically reasonable" - the words of Abraham Lincoln from his "Speech in Bloomington" September 26, 1854. After all, government is the essence of the people and for the people. Free choice is exercised only when there are moral and rational possibilities for this. They can also be provided by enlightenment and civic education, and, above all, freedom of speech and opinion. Free choice is also possible in a socially organized environment in which we are dealing with alternative political options (elections). The phenomenon of "factionalism" can be transferred to the conditions of democratic politics, where individual groups have representation in proportion to their importance and strength. And so the next question arises: “What political mechanisms lead to the resolution of disputes and conflicts?” LeEkit's modern theory of democracy is based on the principle of representation. The final decisions that settle the conflict are made through elections by the voters. What is required is the principle proposed by Jeremy Bentham "one person, one vote". Democracy means that the liberal criterion of merit, according to wealth and talent, is replaced by the rule of accessibility for everyone in public offices and posts. In an ideal democracy, “everyone should take part in such a decision” (A.D. Lindsay, “The Essences of Democracy”). The way of governance in a democracy is also characteristic. In view of the conflicting goals and interests, it is natural to take precedence of procedures, impartial hearing of the parties and reflection before making a decision. "Question. What is a democratic government? Answer. One in which everyone can do what he likes, as far as it does not violate the rights of others, the principle of which is the sovereignty of the people, or, in other words, which is the creation and organ of the whole people, the executor of his will. Democratic government has no other rights than laws, and laws are not the will of one or a privileged few, but the will of all, or at least the majority of citizens. Public opinion calls for positions of famous and enlightened people |...|,” writes Jan Nepomucen Janowski in the Short Political Catechism in 1834. Moderation and adaptation are the position of a democrat. The norm of moderation and the art of compromise are the essence of democracy, while political decisions are presented to society in accordance with the principle of openness of public life. Decisions are public and subject to voting, and this is where the dynamism of democracy is manifested: in its openness to change and thus the internal link between democracy and modernization. The foundations of political power and the limitations of its decisions, the boundaries of its powers, as well as obligations, regulate the natural rights and principles of the social contract given earlier, as well as the constitution and the rule of law. There is a procedure for deterrence, protest and rejection of decisions that violate these powers. Only in a democracy is the right to civil disobedience possible. And finally, the last ideal of democracy, leading to democratic faith in people and progress. “A society governed in this way carries out special missions in a harmonious pursuit of a common, common goal. In striving for this goal, there is only one way: constant and at the same time, in the sense of physical, mental and moral, self-improvement,” the democrats proclaim in the “Manifesto of the Democratic Polish Association” (1836). 5.3.
The classic definition of democracy belongs to the American President A. Lincoln: "Democracy is the power of the people, elected by the people and for the people." The etymology of this word - democracy - also defines a number of initial interconnected principles, without which there can be no democracy in any sense of it (some authors call them "fundamental laws of democracy").
The core of democracy, its fundamental idea is the sovereignty of the people.
The concept of democracy as the power of a sovereign people includes:
- 1) the people are the sole and highest source of power in the country;
- 2) state power can only be considered legitimate when its formation and existence is supported by the people in accordance with the rule of law through the free expression of the will of voters in free elections;
- 3) the people have the unconditional right to independently decide their own destiny, and on the most important issues for the fate of the country and the people, the government, as a rule, must necessarily rely on the explicit approval of the people;
- 4) the people themselves choose their representatives, have leverage of real influence on their activities, as well as specific mechanisms for monitoring the activities of the state and adjusting its activities in the period between elections;
- 5) during the election period and in accordance with the rule of law, the people have an unconditional right and a real mechanism for the change of power, as well as a structural change in the nature of state power;
- 6) in the event of a clear abuse of power by the trust of the people, the development of power from an instrument for realizing the interests of the people into an instrument of tyranny over the people, the people have the unconditional right to prematurely remove such a government from power.
The second most important characteristic of democracy is that the epicenter of such a structure of society and such a way of organizing power is the personality of a person, which is recognized as the highest value in the country. It means:
- * society and the people as a whole are considered not as a kind of monolithic formation expressing an equally monolithic single will, but as a sum of independent individuals, reflecting the sum of the private interests of individuals;
- * the unconditional priority of the interests of the individual is recognized, i.e. the priority of the sum of private interests of individual independent individuals over the interests of the state;
- * it is recognized that every person from birth is endowed with a certain amount of rights and freedoms, and above all - the sum of the so-called natural and therefore inalienable rights and freedoms, among which the main ones are:
- - the right to live;
- - the right to personal freedom, independence and inviolability;
- - the right to private property.
This triad of natural rights determines the foundations of a person's existence in society, providing, among other things, the right to respect for the dignity of the individual and the right to live one's life in conditions worthy of a person; the unconditional right to live in one's own country, on one's own land, in one's own home; finally, the right that a person could create his own family and be able to raise his children himself. Since the source of these natural and inalienable rights and freedoms is not society, not the state, and not even the family of each individual, but the very nature of man, these rights not only cannot be called into question, limited or withdrawn from an individual, but in fact they are withdrawn from management of society and the state. In addition, a person in a democratic society has numerous other rights and freedoms (political, civil, economic, social, etc.), many of which actually acquire the status of inalienable.
The concept of human right means a set of legal norms of the relationship of free individuals among themselves, as well as with the state and society as a whole, providing the opportunity to act according to one's choice and receive certain benefits for life.
The rights that provide the possibility of choice in human behavior and activities constitute freedoms. Human rights and freedoms, as the most important element of democracy, form an integral system, from which not a single link can be removed so as not to destroy it.
The rights of the individual are divided into negative, protecting the freedom of the individual and including the obligations of society, the state not to commit actions negative in relation to the individual (arbitrary arrest, torture, ill-treatment, etc.) and positive, meaning the obligations of the state, society to provide certain benefits to the individual (the right to labor, education, recreation, etc.). In addition, rights and freedoms are divided into civil (personal), political (associated with the possibility of participating in politics), economic, social, cultural, etc.
The modern political and legal concept of human rights and freedoms is enshrined in UN documents. One of the fundamental documents of this kind is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in 1948 (at one time not signed by the USSR and recognized by it during the presidency of M. Gorbachev). The Declaration reveals civil and political rights and freedoms, lists negative and positive freedoms (including freedom of movement, conscience, demonstrations, etc.), reveals the content of economic, political and cultural rights, including the right to a standard of living necessary to maintain well-being and health and much more. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is part of an international instrument of rights. In addition to its UN, a number of other Declarations and Conventions have been adopted aimed at protecting human rights and dignity.
The third characteristic feature of all modern democratic regimes is pluralism (from Latin pluralis - multiple), which means the recognition in socio-political life of many different interconnected and at the same time autonomous, social, political groups, parties, organizations, ideas and attitudes of which are in constant comparison, competition, competition. Pluralism as a principle of political democracy is the antipode of monopoly in any of its forms. Significant features of political pluralism include:
- - plurality and competitiveness of political subjects, separation of powers;
- - exclusion of the monopoly on the political power of any one party;
- - multi-party political system;
- - variety of channels for expressing interests, free access to them for everyone;
- - free struggle of political forces, competitiveness of elites, the possibility of their change;
- - alternative political views within the framework of legality.
In our country, as in all countries that were part of the USSR, in the process of democratization of society, after gaining independence, real political pluralism began to develop. However, this process is taking place in very difficult conditions throughout the post-Soviet space, where the traditions of the totalitarian system are still very tenacious.
The three main essential principles of democracy discussed above largely determine its fourth feature- the legal nature and method of arrangement and organization of society and power. This means that all activities of the authorities are strictly regulated by law. At the same time, law is understood not only and not so much as a set of legislative acts, which in this case acts as formally constituted norms of law, but as a sum of provisions that are well understood by every person, which are based on:
- - respect for the individual and recognition of his natural rights, freedoms and legitimate interests;
- - traditional ideas about goodness and justice, about morality and virtue, as well as about the reasonable, natural order and course of things, which allows you to organize the structure of society and the state in such a way, in such a way to build a model of the relationship between the individual, government and various social groups, that each of of these components has the opportunity to do their own thing, not interfere with each other in mutual dynamic development, prosperity and well-being.
The legal nature of a democratic regime means the unconditional legal equality of people before the law, which means the existence of the same rights and the same duties and responsibilities of citizens, regardless of gender and age; belonging to a particular social, national, racial, ethnic, linguistic, religious, professional group; regardless of social status or origin, position held, religion (or lack thereof), ideological convictions, party membership (or lack thereof), level of education, the presence of merits to society and the state or lack thereof.
One of the elements of modern democracy is the principle of the majority, which has changed the seemingly eternal order in society - the rule of the minority over the majority. The principle of the majority in real political practice should not be formally applied and measured only by the quantitative side (the reduction of democracy only to the rule of the majority subsequently opened the way in the USSR for the manipulation of the masses by the ruling state-party elite, the possibility of which was noted by the Russian philosopher N. Berdyaev in the first years after the "Great October Revolution" - such a danger has not been eliminated even today). The English philosopher K. Popper also sees danger in reducing democracy to the power of the majority. After all, the majority can rule by tyrannical methods, he warns, and therefore, in a democracy, the power of the ruling forces must be limited.
The problem of infringement by the majority of the interests of the minority, which can be considered a constant factor in the violation of the stability of the political and social system, necessitated the addition of the principle of the majority with a guarantee of the rights of the minority. The French political scientist M. Duverger fixes this requirement in his definition of democracy as the power of the majority, respecting the right of the minority. In developed democratic states, there is legal protection of the minority - economic, political, ideological, ethnic, religious, etc. This is manifested, in particular, in the legislative consolidation of the rights of the opposition ("Shadow Cabinet", leadership of parliamentary committees, etc.).
These are the main essential characteristics of democracy, its basic principles. However, it is clear that these principles of democracy cannot be implemented “on their own”, they can only be realized through the activities of people based on certain economic, social, political and legal “supporting structures” of democracy. Such pillars in the economic sphere are the private property of citizens, the property that creates real economic foundations for the independence of the individual from the authorities and from various social, political, religious and similar groups and interests.
The main political stabilizers and pillars of democracy are: firstly, a multi-party system based on the principles of ideological and political pluralism; secondly, the principle of the division of state power into three of its independent branches, implemented in practice, with the parallel creation of a system of balance of power, checks and balances for each of them, thirdly, a system of free elections that guarantees society the possibility of free political will and the formation of public authorities .
The legal guarantees of democracy are ensured by the existence of a system of legal laws based on the fundamentally democratic constitution of the country, which cannot be changed depending on the political situation, as well as by a system of independent justice.