The political regime as a set of means and methods of exercising state power. The totality of techniques, methods and ways of exercising state power is
A complex concept that expresses modern ideas about the basic principles of the relationship of power, constitutional and legal norms with the realities of political life is the political regime. The political regime is a set of means and methods for implementing state power.
There are the following basic conditions that make it possible to evaluate a particular political regime as democratic.
1. Presence of competitive elections held regularly and having a mechanism of fair competition of political forces in the struggle for power enshrined in legislation. Through participation in elections, citizens delegate their will. basis political participation is interest. Legitimacy is rational-legal in nature.
2. Government is born from elections, changes during elections; the alignment of political forces and interests in the government depends only on the elections.
3. The rights of individuals and minorities are protected by law. Only a combination of majority government and minority rights is the condition for real democracy.
In practice, there may be political regimes that meet one or two of these conditions, but they cannot be considered fully democratic.
The main types of democratic regimes can be considered:
1) a regime of presidential type;
2) regime of parliamentary type;
3) mixed mode.
Parliamentary democracy is characterized by the following features.
1. The Cabinet of Ministers has power only at the expense of the parliamentary majority.
2. The most important procedure in the process of approving the government formed following the results of elections is the vote of confidence. This procedure reflects the level of support for the executive branch of the legislature.
It is the interaction of the government and parliament that is the main characteristic of a democratic political regime of the parliamentary type. In political practice, there are several types of interaction between the government and parliament. One of them (the one-party majority system) has existed in England for about 300 years. It is characterized by the factual control of the party that won the elections over the parliament through the largest faction.
Another type of parliamentary democracy is the coalition system, in which the parliamentary majority is formed on the basis of the union of its factions by two or more parties. There are stable coalitions, in which the unification of parties is long-term, strong and persists even if parties go into opposition (for example, Germany: a coalition of Christian Democrats and the Christian Social Union), and unstable ones, in which associations are fragile, temporary, often break up what causes parliamentary crises (for example, Italy).
It should be noted that the parliamentary form of a democratic political regime is the most ancient way of implementing democracy. For a long time, such methods of organizing power experienced significant difficulties due to the legislatively defined unity of command. As one of the forms of overcoming these difficulties in the XVIII century. there was an attempt to combine parliamentarism with the monarchy, which was realized in the idea constitutional monarchy.
Another such attempt was the creation of a presidential-type democratic political regime that arose in the United States at the turn of the 18th and 19th centuries. In a presidential democracy, the president is not subordinate to parliament, is elected separately and forms a relatively independent vertical of power. Fundamentally new in the presidency was the fact that in parallel there is a ruler elected by the people, and a parliament that mutually complement and control each other. In addition, the figure of the president gives additional, charismatic foundations to the democratic regime.
The main problem of presidential democracies in the process of their functioning and development is the relationship between the legislative and presidential powers. World political practice has developed three main strategies for such interaction.
1. A system of checks and balances, the essence of which is the most equal distribution of powers and rights between the branches of government. Such a system has received the greatest development in the United States, where practically neither the Congress nor the president can independently make a single significant political decision.
2. The system of presidential dominance that developed in France in the late 1950s. XX century. Under this system, the president, by law, has significantly greater powers in making power decisions than legislators. It is he who is the guarantor of democracy, stability and order in accordance with the constitution.
3. The system of rivalry and struggle between the legislative and executive branches. Such a system is most often found in young democracies, where the issue of choosing a generally recognized type of interaction between the branches of government has not yet been fully resolved. It is characterized by a possible periodic increase in conflict between legislators and the president. Russia after 1991 can serve as an example of this type of presidential democracy.
In some cases, in order to avoid conflict, legislators and the president, mutually compromising, delimit their powers. On this basis, regimes of a mixed, parliamentary-presidential type arise. Their structure reflects, on the one hand, the mutual desire to avoid conflicts between the branches of government, and, on the other hand, insufficient maturity and stability to develop a stable system of checks and balances.
Non-democratic political regimes, with all the difference in the forms of organization of power, the tasks and ambitions put forward by it, the “hardness” or “softness” of the actions of the authorities, have one common feature - these are autocratic dictatorships, where the entire range of power decisions is ultimately carried out either by the sole ruler or by a privileged group oligarchs.
1. The bearer of power is one person or a narrow group of people. A monarch, a dictator, a military junta can act as carriers of authoritarian power.
2. Power is unlimited, it is not controlled by citizens. It can be absolutely despotic, lawless, although it can also be based on laws. But she adopts these laws herself to assert her own domination.
3. Power is based on forceful methods of domination. It can be mass repressions and reliance on fear, or maybe demonstrative justice of the “good lord”. However, at any time, any disobedience can be suppressed by force on the basis of a simple order.
4. Power is monopolized, there are no legal channels for opposition activity. Political parties can exist legally only under the condition of complete subordination of the authorities as organizations serving its interests.
5. The formation of the political elite occurs by appointment from above on the basis of either a successful career in the administrative or military field, or favoritism.
Authoritarian political regimes are very diverse. They can be classified according to several criteria at the same time. Allocate traditionalist authoritarian regimes. These are, as a rule, monarchies that exist as an element of a traditional society. Such monarchies are very archaic, but also extremely stable. Their main political and social base is in the peculiarities of beliefs, traditions, way of life. In some cases, such regimes are able to take on certain external features of modern civilization, but even after experiencing a significant outside influence, they continue to retain their deep traditional character.
The overwhelming majority of authoritarian regimes are generated by instability, instability of democracy. There is even a certain scheme for their establishment. In a situation where political rivalry is ready to spill out onto the streets, provoke riots or civil war, there are authority figures (most often among the military) who, relying on armed force, carry out a coup d'état, dissolve parliament, cancel the constitution, and either begin to rule in mode state of emergency or adopt a constitution legalizing dictatorship. Until very recently, such regimes were quite widespread in developing countries.
A totalitarian regime is a political regime that has the following main features.
1. Power belongs to a mass political party armed with an ideological doctrine that formulates a whole range of tasks that can be solved only if the whole society voluntarily and enthusiastically accepts this ideology.
2. The party in power is organized in a non-democratic way, is openly leader-like in nature, being rather not even a political party, but an organization of revolutionaries or some kind of knightly order - “the order of swordsmen”, in Stalin's words.
3. The ideology of the ruling party has a monopoly, dominant character, it is proclaimed "the only true", "scientific", etc. With the help of the practical implementation of ideological principles, it is supposed to manage all aspects of society, the economy, science, culture, and the private life of a person.
4 A totalitarian economy is based either on the complete nationalization of all economic life, or on regular, sanctioned intervention in economic life on an ideological basis.
5. Systematic terrorist police control is carried out over all spheres of society, including the personal life of a person.
The totalitarian regime is based on a developed system of social control and coercion. hallmark totalitarian despotism is its mass character, when through the encouragement of denunciation, the search for enemies, not only the supreme power, but also the masses become the initiators of repression. At the same time, totalitarianism, unlike authoritarianism, is based not only on a system of prohibitions, but also on a system of prescriptions: people are not only told how they should not act, but they are also prescribed how they must act.
Similar information.
Traditionally, the domestic theory of state and law distinguishes three main, interconnected blocks in the form of the state: the form of government, the form of the national-state and administrative-territorial structure, and the political regime.
If the form of government answers the question of who and how rules, exercises state power in society, how state-power structures are arranged, organized and operate in it, then the form of national-state and administrative-territorial structure reveals ways to unite the population in a certain territory , the connection of this population through various territorial and political entities with the state as a whole.
The political regime characterizes “how, in what way state power is exercised in a particular society, with the help of what techniques and methods the state fulfills its social purpose: ensures economic life, public order, protection of citizens, solves other socio-social, national, class tasks.
The term "political regime" appeared in the 1970s. In the legal literature there is no single approach to understanding this category. According to the definition of the legal dictionary, the political regime is a system of techniques, methods, forms and ways of implementing political power.
To determine the political regime, let us turn to the main studies on the theory of state and law.
Is not it. Spiridonov notes: “The political regime is a characteristic not only (and maybe even not so much!) of the state, but of the whole political system: relations between people about state power and the relationship of people with state power, which form the content of the political regime, unfold precisely in the sphere of the political system. Since the latter is one of the levels of civil society, the deep socio-economic and cultural foundations of this society determine the nature of the state not directly, but imprinted in the features of the political regime as the content of the political system.
Korelsky V.M. emphasizes, "the political regime is the methods of exercising political power, the final political state in society, which develops as a result of the interaction and confrontation of various political forces, the functioning of all political institutions and is characterized by democracy or anti-democratism."
Marchenko M.N. defines "the political (state) regime as a way of interconnecting the state with the population of the country, expressed in the general nature of the methods used by it to manage society."
In the literature, the concepts of “political regime” and “state regime” (state-legal regime) are often identified. Some researchers even talk about replacing the terms "state" with a "political" regime.
According to one point of view, the concepts of "political regime" and "state regime" can be regarded as equivalent, according to another, the concept of "political regime" is broader, since it includes methods and techniques for exercising political power not only on the part of the state, but also from political parties and movements, public associations, organizations, etc.
Based on the analysis of modern definitions of the political regime, the following distinguishing features can be distinguished.
First, it is not enough to associate the regime only with the form of government. Solving the problems of social and political stabilization, it contributes to the organization of much larger, macro-social processes. In this respect, the regime is close in content to the political system, revealing its dynamic aspect.
Any regime in its activities seeks to rely on the existing system of economic interests and cultural values, and its actions will certainly respond within this system, strengthening or weakening the existing ties and relations in it.
In this sense, any regime is doomed to solve the problems of relations between the state and civil society. After all, it is in the structures of civil society that relations between the government and the opposition are rooted, which are key in characterizing the type and characteristics of the regime.
Secondly, it is obvious that the regime provides not only dynamism, but also a certain stabilization of the political system, bringing its elements, structural characteristics into an orderly interaction, ensuring their coherence and coordination. And this task is also successfully solved by him only if the political and legal mechanisms are created taking into account the structure and features of the development of social structures.
The problem lies not only in prescribing this or that formula of legitimacy to society, but also in identifying the socio-historical prerequisites for its transplantation. Any regime in this sense can be seen as some way of resolving or articulating the conflict between society and government.
Thirdly, the regime is undoubtedly a set of power structures that allow ruling class exercise the powers assigned to it. In some cases, there may be an institution of a multi-party system and developed structures of civil society, in others, political decisions are made and implemented by the regime based on fundamentally different structures and mechanisms, without any coordination with public interests.
Fourthly, any mode in its activity refers to certain methods of achieving goals. Regimes can differ significantly from each other, depending on what methods (violent or non-violent) they use to achieve their goals. It is important not to confuse the methods of exercising power with the actual power structures.
Evidence that these are not the same thing is, for example, the rich experience of the functioning of authoritarian regimes. Possessing often similar repressive structures of political power, authoritarian regimes do not always resort to frontal violence in achieving their goals. Where the use of persuasion rather than coercion is more effective, an inherently repressive regime may, contrary to expectations, be able to display uncharacteristic flexibility and compromise.
Thus, the methods of exercising power and power structures can vary significantly.
Therefore, it should be emphasized that the regime has not only specific structures of power (the political system also has them), but also special methods for its implementation.
Finally, fifthly, the regime, in comparison with the system, has its own temporal characteristics.
Summarizing what has been said, we can formulate the following definition. The political regime is “a set of certain power structures that function within the general (structural and temporal) framework of the political system of society and pursue the goal of stabilizing it, relying in this on the established (or emerging) social interests and using specific methods.”
The form of the political regime is a set of techniques, methods and methods of exercising political power by the state in the country.
The concept and elements of the form of the state
State Shape Category Show Features internal organization state, the procedure for the formation and structure of public authorities, the specifics of their territorial isolation, the nature of relationships with each other and the population, as well as the methods that they use to carry out organizing and management activities.
Scientific research various aspects of the form of the state is important theoretical and practical significance. It contributes to the establishment of natural and random in the development of the state, the generalization and use of the best experience in state building. Confirmation is the modern state building in the Russian Federation. The slightest mistakes and miscalculations in resolving these vital issues are fraught with acute political conflicts, heavy moral and material losses, and sometimes even human casualties. Here it is necessary to refer to the accumulated international experience, avoiding templates and stereotypes.
The form of the state is the totality of its external signs showing:
· The order of formation and organization supreme bodies states;
· Territorial structure of the state;
· Techniques and methods of exercising state power (political regime).
A more complete picture of the form of a particular state is given by an analysis of its three components - the form of government, the state structure, the form of the political regime.
The form of government is the organization of the supreme state power in the country: the structure of the highest bodies of state power and administration, the procedure for their formation and the principles of activity, the distribution of competence between them and the principles of relationships with each other.
Form of government characterizes the order of formation and organization of the highest bodies of state power, their relationship with each other and the population, that is, this category shows who and how rules in the state. Depending on the features of the form of government, states are divided into monarchical and republican.
The form of government is the administrative-territorial and national structure of the state, revealing the nature of the relationship between its constituent parts, between central and local authorities.
Form of government reflects the territorial structure of the state, the relationship between the state as a whole and its constituent territorial units. According to the form of the device, all states are divided into simple (unitary) and complex (federal and confederal).
The form of the political regime is a set of techniques, methods and methods of exercising political power by the state in the country.
Depending on the features of the set of means and methods of state power, there are democratic and authoritarian political regimes.
In legal literature, as a rule, not a state, but a political regime is singled out as an element of the form of the state. However, according to M.N. Marchenko, the category of the political regime characterizes not the state, but the political system as a whole, since it develops as a result of the functioning of both the state and political parties, public organizations, political movements, local governments, that is, all subjects of the political system, using a rich palette of means of government. The state, for the implementation of its organizing activities, uses a more limited and specific set of means of managerial influence, the main of which is law.
Theoretical science singles out and explores general patterns of emergence and development various social phenomena and processes. She appeals to their recurring, most typical properties and forms of manifestation. Real life is more complex and diverse. Specific state-legal phenomena serve as an external expression not only of the regular, but also of the accidental, not only of the progressive, but also of the regressive. Their essence is predetermined by the peculiarities of the functioning of these phenomena in time and space.
Factors affecting the features of the form of a particular state:
1. Essential features of a particular form of state cannot be understood and explained apart from the nature of those production relations that have developed at a given stage of economic development. Thus, the republic of a slave-owning society has more related properties with the slave-owning monarchy than with the republic of the period of capitalism, since both the republic and the monarchy under the slave-owning system are only various forms manifestations of the economic and political power of slave owners, different tools for achieving common tasks and goals.
However, the economic structure of society, determining the entire superstructure as a whole, characterizes the form of the state only in the end, refracting through its essence and content.
2. The form of the state depends from the specific historical conditions of its emergence and development, the essence, the historical type of the state, has a decisive influence on it. So, the feudal type of the state corresponded, as a rule, to the monarchical form of government, and to the bourgeois - the republican. The form of the state largely depends on the balance of political forces in the country, especially during its emergence. Early bourgeois revolutions(for example, in England) led to a compromise between the bourgeoisie and the feudal lords, which resulted in a constitutional monarchy. The constitution is the demand of the young bourgeoisie, the monarchy is a concession to the feudal lords.
3. The form of the state is influenced National composition, historical traditions(monarchist traditions in Great Britain and Japan can serve as an example), territorial dimensions of the country, and to a certain extent, albeit indirectly, even its features geographical location , and other factors. States that are small in territory are usually unitary. “The multinational composition of the population,” wrote I. A. Ilyin, “makes its own demands on the state form. It can become a factor of disintegration and lead to disastrous civil wars.” Events in Yugoslavia a difficult situation in the former republics of the USSR, interethnic strife confirms the words of I. A. Ilyin, who believed that each people should be characterized by “its own, special, individual form and constitution, corresponding to it and only to it. There are no identical peoples, and there should not be identical forms and constitutions. Blindly borrowing and imitation is ridiculous, dangerous and can be fatal.”
4. When analyzing the form of states, one should also take into account influence international relations . With the current diversity of economic, political, cultural and other dependencies between countries, even economically powerful states cannot fully develop in international isolation. In this regard, there is a well-known adaptation of the state apparatus, during which the less developed economically and politically countries use the experience of state-legal construction of more developed states and create bodies of the same functional orientation.
Form of government
This category shows how the highest bodies are formed, what they are, on what basis the form of government interacts, it also indicates whether the population participates in the formation of the highest bodies of the state, that is, they are formed in a democratic or non-democratic way. For example, the highest organs of the state are formed in a non-democratic way under a hereditary monarchy.
Thus, the form of government reveals the method of organizing the supreme state power, the procedure for the formation of its bodies, their interaction with each other and with the population, the degree of participation of the population in their formation.
Exist two main forms of government monarchy and republic. Their supreme bodies differ from each other both in the order of formation, and in composition, and in competence.
Monarchy (gr. Monarchiu - autocracy) - a form of government where the highest state power belongs to the sole head of state - the monarch (king, tsar, emperor, shah, etc.), who occupies the throne by inheritance and is not responsible to the population.
There are two types of monarchies: absolute (unlimited) and limited.
Absolute monarchy - it is a form of government in which the power of the monarch is not limited by the constitution.
Signs:
– the supreme power belongs entirely and indivisibly to the king (king or sheikh): he issues laws; appoints officials without any participation of the people in legislation and control over administration;
- the monarch directs the executive authorities;
- supervises justice;
- there is no legal responsibility of the monarch as head of state.
At unlimited (absolute) the will of the monarch is the source of law and law; according to the Military Regulations of Peter I, the sovereign is “an autocratic monarch who should not give an answer to anyone in the world about his affairs.” Absolute monarchy is characteristic of the last stage in the development of the feudal state, when, after the final overcoming of feudal fragmentation, the process of formation of centralized states is completed. At present, some monarchies of the Middle East are considered absolute - Saudi Arabia, Oman, Bahrain, Qatar, United United Arab Emirates.
At limited In a monarchy, the highest state power is dispersed between the monarch and another body or bodies. The limited ones include a class-representative monarchy (the presence of class institutions under a monarchy - Zemsky Sobors, Cortes, States General) and the modern constitutional monarchy (Great Britain, Sweden), in which the power of the monarch is limited by the constitution, parliament, government and an independent court.
To species constitutional Monarchies include:
| dualistic or dualistic | parliamentary |
| It arises in transitional periods, when the class of feudal lords is no longer able to reign supreme, and the bourgeoisie is not yet able to take full power. | Purely bourgeois form of government. Its presence is due to a historical confluence of circumstances (the strength of traditions, features of political confrontation various forces etc.) |
| Signs: | Signs: |
| 1. The presence of a bicameral structure. The lower chamber is formed by election, representing the interests of the bourgeoisie. The upper chamber is formed by the appointment of representatives of the feudal lords by the monarch. | 1. Presence of a parliament. |
| 2. The government is subordinate to the monarch. He appoints, removes and dismisses members of the government at his own discretion. | 2. The monarch only formally approves the composition of the government formed by the leader of the party that won the parliamentary elections. |
| 3. The monarch has the right to veto laws passed by Parliament. | 3. Neither the parliament nor the government is responsible to the monarch. |
| 4. The monarch owns not only the fullness of the executive power, but also a significant part of the legislative power. This is expressed in the right to impose an absolute veto on laws passed by Parliament. At the same time, the monarch has an unlimited right to issue decrees that replace laws, or have even greater normative force in comparison with them (Jordan, Morocco). | 4. The monarch "reigns, but does not rule." |
There are elective monarchies (Malaysia, where the head of state - the monarch - is elected for 5 years by the sultans of the states of this state). In the UAE there is a kind of "collective monarchy" (Council of 7 emirs).
In a historical context, we can talk about the existence of:
– ancient eastern monarchy Babylon, India, Ancient Egypt;
– Roman centralized monarchy- Rome in the 1st - 3rd centuries. BC.
– Medieval early feudal monarchy - Old Russian state, Merovingian monarchy;
– Estate-representative monarchy - The Zemsky Sobor in Russia, the Parliament in England, the Cortes in Spain;
- absolute monarchy - France under Louis XIY, Russia under Peter I, modern Saudi Arabia;
– modern constitutional monarchy UK, Denmark, Japan.
Republic (lat. Respublika - common cause, state) is a form of government in which the highest state power belongs to elected bodies elected for a certain period and responsible to the voters.
A republic is a form of government in which state power is delegated by the people to a collegiate (senate, parliament, people's assembly, etc.) or a sole authority elected for a fixed term.
The democratic way of formation of supreme bodies of the state is inherent in the republic; in developed countries, the relationship between the highest bodies is based on the principle of separation of powers, they have a connection with the voters and are responsible to them.
Signs of the republic:
1) electivity and turnover of representative power;
2) the collegial nature of government, which allows not only to ensure the control of various branches of power, their mutual restraint from possible arbitrariness, but also to more effectively and responsibly solve their specialized tasks for each of them;
3) legislated accountability and responsibility (political and legal) of the authorities for the results of their activities.
AT modern world The republic became the most common form of statehood. It is represented two of its main varieties - parliamentary and presidential republics. Main difference between them lies in the features of the political responsibility of governments (council, cabinet of ministers). They differ mainly in which of the organs of supreme power - the parliament or the president - forms the government and directs its work, and to whom - the parliament or the president - the government is responsible.
| Parliamentary (parliamentary) | presidential |
| Signs: | Signs: |
| 1. The supremacy of parliament. | 1. The President is both the head of state and the head of the executive branch. Elected not by parliament, but by popular vote or electoral vote. |
| 2. The government is formed by the leader of the party that won the parliamentary elections. The president, not being the leader of the party, is deprived of the opportunity to direct his activities. | 2. The President, at his own discretion, appoints, removes and dismisses members of the government. |
| 3. Parliament is endowed not only with legislative powers, but also with the right to demand the resignation of the government. Parliament may pass a vote of no confidence in the government as a whole or in one of its members. Then they retire. That is, Members of the Government are responsible to Parliament for their activities. | 3. The government is responsible only to the president, the parliament cannot express a vote of no confidence in the government. Parliament does not have the right to dismiss them either personally or by the whole cabinet. |
| 4. The prime minister leads the government (he may be called differently). | 4. The President has the right to veto laws passed by Parliament, but does not have the right to dissolve Parliament. |
| 5. The government is in power as long as it enjoys the support of the majority of parliamentarians. | 5. The President is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces of the state. The President is the head of state and represents the country in the international arena. |
| 6. The President of the Republic is only the head of state, not the head of government. | 6. Relations between the president and parliament are built on a system of checks and balances (USA, Syria, Zimbabwe). |
Recent decades have shown that the classical forms of parliamentary and presidential republics do not always contribute to the coherence and interaction of the highest bodies of the state, which leads to a decrease in the controllability of the state, to a crisis in the entire political system. So, if in a parliamentary republic the parliament consists of numerous opposing factions, then the country is doomed to frequent government crises and resignations. The presidential republic tends towards authoritarianism. To eliminate these and some other negative manifestations, mixed , "hybrid" forms of modern statehood. This is expressed in the fact that, on the basis of the democratization of political regimes, the differences between the monarchy and the republic are practically lost. Indeed, at present there are such monarchies where the head of state (individual or even collegiate) does not inherit the throne, but is re-elected after a certain period of time (United Arab Emirates, Malaysia). At the same time, in some modern republics under totalitarian regimes, a monarchical sign is manifested - an irremovable head of state.
The practice of state building has become quite widespread and recognized, when, on the basis of a decrease in the role of the president in a presidential republic and an increase in his role in a parliamentary republic, semi-presidential, semi-parliamentary republics. In addition to the presidential republic, the president has the right to dissolve parliament, and the parliament has the right to vote no confidence in the government. These countries include: Austria, Ireland, Portugal, Finland, Poland, France.
The Constitution of the Russian Federation, by establishing a mixed form of government, is designed to ensure the stability and efficiency of the government due to its control over the parliament with a complicated procedure for declaring a vote of no confidence and the president with his leading role in the structure of government.
In a number of Latin American countries there are super-presidential republics(with extensive powers of heads of state).
Socialist statehood in its essence can exist only in the form of a republic. First socialist republic as a form of state arose in 1871 in Paris and lasted only 72 days. However, this did not prevent the Paris Commune from becoming the prototype of future proletarian states, whose founders, analyzing the mistakes and achievements of the Communards, tried to build a state of workers.
The Soviet Socialist Republic as a state form of democracy arose in Russia at the turn of the century. For the first time to
management of society and the state were allowed to broad sections of the population. However, the totalitarian regime of the Communist Party, which did not allow dissent, using harsh methods of managing society, eventually led Russia to an economic and political crisis, discredited the very idea of socialism.
People's Democratic Republic as a form of socialist state arose in a number of European countries and South-East Asia in the late 40s - early 50s (Hungary, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, China, Vietnam, etc.). In these countries, as well as in Soviet Russia Despite the formal recognition of political pluralism, the monopoly rule of the communist parties was established as the leading and guiding forces, carrying out the dogmatic policy of Marxist-Leninist state building.
A complex concept that expresses modern ideas about the basic principles of the relationship of power, constitutional and legal norms with the realities of political life is the political regime. The political regime is a set of means and methods for exercising state power.
There are the following basic conditions that make it possible to evaluate a particular political regime as democratic.
1. Presence of competitive elections held regularly and having a mechanism of fair competition of political forces in the struggle for power enshrined in legislation. Through participation in elections, citizens delegate their will. Interest is the basis of political participation. Legitimacy is rational-legal in nature.
2. Government is born from elections, changes during elections; the alignment of political forces and interests in the government depends only on the elections.
3. The rights of individuals and minorities are protected by law. Only a combination of majority government and minority rights is the condition for real democracy.
In practice, there may be political regimes that meet one or two of these conditions, but they cannot be considered fully democratic.
The main types of democratic regimes can be considered:
1) a regime of presidential type;
2) regime of parliamentary type;
3) mixed mode.
Parliamentary democracy is characterized by the following features.
1. The Cabinet of Ministers has power only at the expense of the parliamentary majority.
2. The most important procedure in the process of approving the government formed following the results of elections is the vote of confidence. This procedure reflects the level of support for the executive branch of the legislature.
It is the interaction of the government and parliament that is the main characteristic of a democratic political regime of the parliamentary type. In political practice, there are several types of interaction between the government and parliament. One of them (the one-party majority system) has existed in England for about 300 years. It is characterized by the factual control of the party that won the elections over the parliament through the largest faction.
Another type of parliamentary democracy is the coalition system, in which the parliamentary majority is formed on the basis of the union of its factions by two or more parties. There are stable coalitions, in which the unification of parties is long-term, strong and persists even if parties go into opposition (for example, Germany: a coalition of Christian Democrats and the Christian Social Union), and unstable ones, in which associations are fragile, temporary, often break up what causes parliamentary crises (for example, Italy).
It should be noted that the parliamentary form of a democratic political regime is the most ancient way of implementing democracy. For a long time, such methods of organizing power experienced significant difficulties due to the legislatively defined unity of command. As one of the forms of overcoming these difficulties in the XVIII century. there was an attempt to combine parliamentarism with the monarchy, which was realized in the idea of a constitutional monarchy.
Another such attempt was the creation of a presidential-type democratic political regime that arose in the United States at the turn of the 18th and 19th centuries. In a presidential democracy, the president is not subordinate to parliament, is elected separately and forms a relatively independent vertical of power. Fundamentally new in the presidency was the fact that in parallel there is a ruler elected by the people, and a parliament that mutually complement and control each other. In addition, the figure of the president gives additional, charismatic foundations to the democratic regime.
The main problem of presidential democracies in the process of their functioning and development is the relationship between the legislative and presidential powers. World political practice has developed three main strategies for such interaction.
1. A system of checks and balances, the essence of which is the most equal distribution of powers and rights between the branches of government. Such a system has received the greatest development in the United States, where practically neither the Congress nor the president can independently make a single significant political decision.
2. The system of presidential dominance that developed in France in the late 1950s. XX century. Under this system, the president, by law, has significantly greater powers in making power decisions than legislators. It is he who is the guarantor of democracy, stability and order in accordance with the constitution.
3. The system of rivalry and struggle between the legislative and executive branches. Such a system is most often found in young democracies, where the issue of choosing a generally recognized type of interaction between the branches of government has not yet been fully resolved. It is characterized by a possible periodic increase in conflict between legislators and the president. Russia after 1991 can serve as an example of this type of presidential democracy.
In some cases, in order to avoid conflict, legislators and the president, mutually compromising, delimit their powers. On this basis, regimes of a mixed, parliamentary-presidential type arise. Their structure reflects, on the one hand, the mutual desire to avoid conflicts between the branches of government, and, on the other hand, insufficient maturity and stability to develop a stable system of checks and balances.
Non-democratic political regimes, with all the difference in the forms of organization of power, the tasks and ambitions put forward by it, the “hardness” or “softness” of the actions of the authorities, have one common feature - these are autocratic dictatorships, where the entire range of power decisions is ultimately carried out either by the sole ruler or by a privileged group oligarchs.
1. The bearer of power is one person or a narrow group of people. A monarch, a dictator, a military junta can act as carriers of authoritarian power.
2. Power is unlimited, it is not controlled by citizens. It can be absolutely despotic, lawless, although it can also be based on laws. But she adopts these laws herself to assert her own domination.
3. Power is based on forceful methods of domination. It can be mass repressions and reliance on fear, or maybe demonstrative justice of the “good lord”. However, at any time, any disobedience can be suppressed by force on the basis of a simple order.
4. Power is monopolized, there are no legal channels for opposition activity. Political parties can exist legally only under the condition of complete subordination of the authorities as organizations serving its interests.
5. The formation of the political elite occurs by appointment from above on the basis of either a successful career in the administrative or military field, or favoritism.
Authoritarian political regimes are very diverse. They can be classified according to several criteria at the same time. Allocate traditionalist authoritarian regimes. These are, as a rule, monarchies that exist as an element of a traditional society. Such monarchies are very archaic, but also extremely stable. Their main political and social base is in the peculiarities of beliefs, traditions, way of life. In some cases, such regimes are able to take on certain external features of modern civilization, but even after experiencing a significant outside influence, they continue to retain their deep traditional character.
The overwhelming majority of authoritarian regimes are generated by instability, instability of democracy. There is even a certain scheme for their establishment. In a situation where political rivalry is ready to spill out onto the streets, provoke riots or civil war, there are authority figures (most often among the military) who, relying on armed force, carry out a coup d'état, dissolve parliament, cancel the constitution, and either begin to rule in state of emergency, or adopt a constitution legalizing dictatorship. Until very recently, such regimes were quite widespread in developing countries.
A totalitarian regime is a political regime that has the following main features.
1. Power belongs to a mass political party armed with an ideological doctrine that formulates a whole range of tasks that can be solved only if the whole society voluntarily and enthusiastically accepts this ideology.
2. The party in power is organized in a non-democratic way, is openly leader-like in nature, being rather not even a political party, but an organization of revolutionaries or some kind of knightly order - “the order of swordsmen”, in Stalin's words.
3. The ideology of the ruling party has a monopoly, dominant character, it is proclaimed "the only true", "scientific", etc. With the help of the practical implementation of ideological principles, it is supposed to manage all aspects of society, the economy, science, culture, and the private life of a person.
4 A totalitarian economy is based either on the complete nationalization of all economic life, or on regular, sanctioned intervention in economic life on an ideological basis.
5. Systematic terrorist police control is carried out over all spheres of society, including the personal life of a person.
The totalitarian regime is based on a developed system of social control and coercion. A distinctive feature of totalitarian despotism is its mass character, when through the encouragement of denunciation, the search for enemies, not only the supreme power, but also the masses become the initiators of repression. At the same time, totalitarianism, unlike authoritarianism, is based not only on a system of prohibitions, but also on a system of prescriptions: people are not only told how they should not act, but they are also prescribed how they must act.
The characteristic of any political system of the country is inextricably linked with the methods of exercising state power. The political system of the state is combined with such a concept as a political regime. The political regime is a functional side of the political system of society, it is a set of ways and methods of exercising power in a certain territory.
The political regime is determined by the methods of formation of government bodies, the methods of distribution and division of state power in the country, the forms of control by society over all branches of government, the real measure of the rights and freedoms of the population, the methods of resolving social conflicts etc. Depending on the above elements of the exercise of power, several main types of political power are subdivided: authoritarian, totalitarian and democratic. Each of them is characterized by a number of features, due to which there is a division into types.
The term "political regime" appears in scientific circulation in the 60s. XX century, the category of "political regime", according to some scholars; due to its synthetic nature, it should have been considered as a synonym for the form of the state. According to others, the political regime in general should be excluded from the composition of the form of the state, since the functioning of the state is characterized not by the political, but by the state regime. The discussions of that period gave rise to broad and narrow approaches to understanding the political (state) regime.
A broad approach refers the political regime to the phenomena of political life and to the political system of society as a whole. Narrow - makes it the property of only public life and the state, since it specifies other elements of the form of the state: the form of government and the form of government, as well as the forms and methods for the implementation by the state of its functions.
The political regime presupposes and necessarily requires broad and narrow approaches, because this corresponds to the modern understanding of the political processes taking place in society in two main areas: state and socio-political, as well as the nature of the political system, which includes the state and non-state, socio-political organizations .
All components of the political system: political parties, public organizations, labor collectives (as well as “extra-systemic” objects: the church, mass movements, etc.) are significantly influenced by the state, its essence, the nature of functions, forms and methods of activity, etc. At the same time, there is also an inverse relationship, since the state to a large extent perceives the impact of the socio-political "environment". This influence extends to the form of the state, in particular to the political regime.
Thus, to characterize the form of the state, the political regime is important both in the narrow sense of the word (a set of methods and methods of state leadership), and in its broadest sense (the level of guarantee of democratic rights and political freedoms of the individual, the degree of compliance of official constitutional and legal forms with political realities, the nature of the attitude of power structures to legal framework state and public life).
In addition to belonging to one type or another, as well as the presence of certain forms of government and state structure, states differ from each other in their regimes.
The state regime is understood as a set of methods and ways of exercising state power 1 used by the ruling groups, classes or strata of society.
Like other components of the form of the state, the state regime has a direct connection with power. However, unlike them, it is not directly associated either with the order of formation of higher and local bodies of state power or the organization of supreme power in the state, as is the case with the form of government, or with the internal structure of the state, administrative-territorial and national-state organization. power as it manifests itself in the form of government. The state regime acts as a real manifestation of organizationally formalized power, as a process of its functioning.
State power is a concentrated expression of the will and strength, the power of the state, embodied in state bodies and institutions. It provides stability and order in society, protects its citizens from internal and external encroachments by using various methods, including government coercion and military force.
The arsenal of methods for implementing state power is quite diverse. AT modern conditions the role of methods of moral and especially material incentives has significantly increased, using which state bodies influence the interests of people and thereby subordinate them to their imperious will. The general, traditional methods of exercising state power undoubtedly include persuasion and coercion. These methods, combined in different ways, accompany state power throughout its entire historical path. State coercion is recognized as legal, the type and measure of which are strictly defined by legal norms and which is applied in procedural forms (clear procedures). The legitimacy, validity and fairness of state legal coercion is controllable, it can be appealed to an independent court. The level of legal “saturation” of state coercion is due to the extent to which it: “a) is subject to the general principles of a given legal system, b) is, on its grounds, unified, universal throughout the country, c) is normatively regulated in terms of content, limits and conditions of application d) operates through the mechanism of rights and obligations, e) is equipped with advanced procedural forms” 1 . Forms of state legal coercion are quite diverse. These are preventive measures - checking documents in order to prevent offenses, stopping or restricting the movement of vehicles, pedestrians in case of accidents and natural disasters and etc.; legal suppression - administrative detention, drive, search, etc., protection measures - restoration of honor and good name and other types of restoration of violated rights.
In the scientific literature, there are several definitions of the state regime and ideas about it. Some of them are slightly different from each other. Others make very significant adjustments to the traditionally established view of him. The state regime is the most important component of the political regime that exists in society. The political regime is a broader concept, since it includes not only the methods of state power, but also the characteristic methods of activity of non-state political organizations (parties, movements, clubs, unions). State regime is the most dynamic integral part a form of the state that is sensitive to all the most important processes and changes taking place in the surrounding economic and socio-political environment, in the balance of social and class forces. The state regime largely individualizes the form of the state. It acts as the most important component of the political regime, embracing not only the state, but also all other elements of the political system of society.
Various factors can testify to the nature of the regime that exists in a given country. However, the most important of them are the following: methods and procedures for the formation of public authorities, administration and justice; the procedure for the distribution of competences between various state bodies and the nature
their relationship; the degree of reality of the rights and freedoms of citizens; the role of law in the life of society and in solving state affairs; place and role in the state mechanism of the army, police, counterintelligence, intelligence and other similar
them structures; degree of real participation of citizens and
their associations in state and socio-political life, in government; the main ways to resolve social and political conflicts that arise in society, etc.
The state regime takes shape and develops under the influence of a number of objective and subjective factors - economic, political, social and others: the nature of the economy (centralized, planned, decentralized, market, etc.); level of development of society; the level of its general, political and legal culture; type and form of the state; correlation in society of social class forces; historical, on national, cultural and other traditions; typical and other features of the political elite in power. These and other similar factors belong to the category of objective factors. Subjective factors also play an important role in the formation and maintenance of a certain state regime. One of the most important among them is that which is usually called the spirit and will of the nation or people.
Being an integral part of the form of the state, the state regime has never been identified with the political regime. The state regime has always been and remains the most important component of the political regime, covering not only the state, but also all other elements of the political system of society. The political regime, as a phenomenon and concept more general and more capacious than the state regime, includes not only methods and ways of exercising state power, but also techniques, ways of implementing the power prerogatives of non-state socio-political organizations - constituent parts political system of society.
Legal science knows several options for classifying state regimes. Sometimes the classification is “tied”, for example, to different types states and rights and, accordingly," in each type, they distinguish "their" regimes. Thus, under the slave-owning system, despotic, theocratic-monarchist, aristocratic, (oligarchic) regimes and the regime of slave-owning democracy are singled out. Under the feudal system - absolutist, feudal-democratic (for the nobility), clerical-feudal (in theocratic monarchies), militaristic-police and the regime of "enlightened" absolutism, Under capitalism - bourgeois-democratic (constitutional), Bonapartist, military-police and fascist modes. Under socialism, only the "consistently democratic" state regime stood out apologetically.
Many researchers, without "tying" state regimes to individual types of state and law, give only their general classification. At the same time, such types and subtypes of state regimes are distinguished as totalitarian, rigidly authoritarian, authoritarian-democratic, democratic-authoritarian, expanded-democratic and anarcho-democratic 2 .
A certain continuity and the presence of some fundamentally unchanged content characteristics make it possible to reduce the entire variety of political regimes to two large varieties: democratic and anti-democratic political regimes.
Democracy, i.e. democracy, is the core of any democratic political regimes. The term "democracy" refers to the form of the state in the event that the legislative power in it is represented by a collegial body elected by the people, if the wide socio-economic and political rights of citizens enshrined in legislation are exercised, regardless of their gender, race, nationality, property status, educational level and religion. A democratic political regime may provide for the direct participation of the population in solving state issues (direct, or immediate, democracy) or participation in political decision-making through elected representative bodies (parliamentary, or representative, democracy).
Anti-democratic political regimes are also diverse, but their content is largely the same, it is opposite to the above features of a democracy regime, namely: the dominance of one political party or movement; one, "official" ideology; one form of ownership; minimization or elimination of any political rights and freedoms; a sharp stratification of the population according to class, caste, confessional and other characteristics; the low economic standard of living of the main sections of the people; emphasis on punitive measures and coercion, aggressiveness in foreign policy.
Thus, summarizing the above, we can give the following definition. The political regime is the methods of exercising political power, the final political state in society, which develops as a result of the interaction and confrontation of various political forces, the functioning of all political institutions and is characterized by democracy or anti-democratism. The political regime, first of all, depends on what methods the political power is exercised in the state. In each country, the political regime is determined by the correlation, the alignment of political forces.
2. TYPOLOGY OF POLITICAL REGIMES
There are many types of political regimes, since many factors influence one or another type of political regime: the essence and form of the state, the nature of legislation, the actual powers of state bodies and the legal forms of their activities, the balance of socio-political forces, the level and standards of life and the state of the economy , forms of class struggle or class cooperation. The historical traditions of the country have a significant influence on the type of political regime, and in more broad sense- a kind of socio-political "atmosphere" that sometimes develops contrary to the wishes of the ruling stratum in the state or contrary to directive forecasts. The type of political regime can be influenced by international environment. At different historical stages, various political regimes are formed, they are not the same in specific states of the same time.
One of the criteria for determining the type of political regime is the legal form of application of certain methods of state power.
The study of the methods and methods by which the state manages the people living on its territory, i.e., the political regime, also becomes objectively necessary to comprehend the form (structure) of the state.
The theory of the state, depending on certain criteria, identifies the types of political regimes that have been used in the centuries-old history of statehood. These types represent a wide range between authoritarian and democratic, extreme poles on the whole scale of political methods of power.
An authoritarian regime can exist in different forms. But under any form of authoritarianism, state power is not really formed and is not controlled by the people. Despite the fact that there may be representative bodies, in reality they do not play any role in the life of society. Parliament churns out decisions worked out by the ruling elite headed by a leader or a group of persons (junta, oligarchy).
In reality, life in the country is directed by the ruling elite, which does not limit itself by law, especially in terms of privileges and benefits. In its midst, an even narrower circle of people stands out, a small group of top officials exercising political leadership. When the leadership of the state is formed as a result of a military or coup d'état, an authoritarian regime is established by a clique or junta. This is a military dictatorship. Within the ruling clique, a leader emerges. His influence is very significant. However, he is not inclined to make decisions alone. Recommendations, consideration of opinions, discussion of this or that issue with the whole team becomes necessary for him. The leader is usually a strong, sometimes charismatic personality. And although public opinion does not deify the leader, does not call him a leader, the less it is guided by this strong personality.
Under a regime of military dictatorship, as a rule, military men come to power in the course of a coup d'état - representatives of army groups, various tribal, national structures.
Often, authoritarian regimes in a relatively "soft" form are carried out to carry out reforms, strengthen the state, its integrity, unity, oppose separatism, and economic collapse. In an authoritarian state, administration is carried out, as a rule, centrally.
Opposition under authoritarianism is not allowed. Several parties can also participate in political life, but all these parties must be guided by the line worked out by the party, otherwise they are banned and dispersed.
The despotic regime (from the Greek "despotia" - unlimited power) was characteristic of monarchical form government, namely for an absolutist monarchy, when unlimited power was concentrated in the hands of one person, emotionally designated by the subjects as a despot, tyrant, etc. Despotism as a special form of state was identified by ancient Greek philosophers (in particular, Plato). This regime was characterized by extreme arbitrariness in administration (power was sometimes painfully power-hungry), complete lack of rights and submission to the despot on the part of his subjects, and the absence of legal and moral principles in administration. For many states of the Asian mode of production, with their public, state property, forced labor, cruel regulation of labor, distribution of its results, aggressive imperial tendencies, the despotic regime became a typical form of exercising power. A despotic state is dominated by a punitive, criminal, tough tax policy towards the people.
Under despotism, any independence, discontent, indignation, and even disagreement of those subject are brutally suppressed.
Very close to despotic, in fact being its variety, tyrannical regime. It also originated in antiquity, in some of the island Greek city-states.
The tyrannical regime is also based on one-man rule. However, unlike despotism, the power of a tyrant is sometimes established by force, by conquest, often by the removal of legitimate power through a coup d'état. It is also devoid of legal and moral principles, built on arbitrariness, sometimes terror and genocide. It should be noted that the concept of "tyranny" has an emotional and political-legal assessment. When we are talking about tyranny as a political regime, it is precisely the assessment of those cruel ways in which the tyrant exercises state power that is used. In this sense, the power of a tyrant is usually cruel. In an effort to nip resistance in the bud, the tyrannical regime carries out executions not only for expressed disobedience, but often for detected intent to do so. In addition, the power grabber makes extensive use of preventive coercion in order to sow fear among the population. Taking possession of the territory and population of another country is usually associated not only with physical and moral violence against people, but also over those customs that exist among the people. The tyrannical regime could be observed in the policies Ancient Greece, in some medieval city-states.
Tyranny, like despotism, is based on arbitrariness. However, if in despotism arbitrariness and autocracy fall first of all on the heads of the highest officials, then in tyranny every person is subject to them. Laws do not work, because the tyrannical power in the majority does not seek to create them.
Another type of authoritarian regime is a totalitarian regime. The totalitarian regime is, as a rule, a product of the 20th century; these are fascist states, socialist states of the periods of the “cult of personality”. The totalitarian regime is characterized, as a rule, by the presence of one official ideology, which is formed and set by the socio-political movement, political party, ruling elite, political leader, "the leader of the people", in most cases charismatic. The totalitarian regime allows only one ruling party, and all others, even pre-existing parties, seek to disperse, prohibit or destroy. The ruling party is declared the leading force of society, its attitudes are regarded as sacred dogmas. Competing ideas about the social reorganization of society are declared anti-people, aimed at undermining the foundations of society, at inciting social hostility. The ruling party seizes the reins of state administration: there is a merging of the party and state apparatuses.
The totalitarian regime will widely and constantly use terror against the population. Physical violence acts as the main condition for strengthening and exercising power. Under totalitarianism, complete control is established over all spheres of society. Militarization is also one of the main characteristics of a totalitarian regime. Totalitarianism also has social forces that support it. These are the underprivileged sections of society, social structures infected with egalitarian ideology, social dependency, ideas of "equality in poverty". The totalitarian state is based on archaic, communal forms of agriculture and everyday life. Paternalistic ideas about the state also feed the structures that support it.
A variety of totalitarianism are regimes where the "cult of personality" is carried out, the cult of the leader - infallible, wise, caring. In fact, it turns out that this is just a form of government in which the power-hungry, sometimes pathological ambitions of certain political leaders are realized.
The state under totalitarianism, as it were, takes care of every member of society. Under the totalitarian regime, the population develops the ideology and practice of social dependency. A totalitarian regime arises in crisis situations - post-war, during a civil war, when tough measures are needed to restore the economy, restore order, eliminate strife in society, and ensure stability.
Totalitarianism has certain advantages in governing the state due to the rapid adoption of the necessary laws, simplified procedures. But its final forms, as history testifies, present a sad spectacle of impasse, decline, decay.
One of the extreme forms of totalitarianism is the fascist regime, which is primarily characterized by a nationalist ideology, ideas about the superiority of one nation over others (the dominant nation, master race, etc.), and extreme aggressiveness.
Fascism, as a rule, is based on nationalistic, racist demagogy, which is elevated to the rank of official ideology. The goal of the fascist state is declared to be the protection of the national community, the solution of geopolitical, social tasks, protecting the purity of the race. The main premise of the fascist ideology is this: people are by no means equal before the law, power, court, their rights and obligations depend on what nationality, race they belong to. At the same time, one nation, a race is declared to be the highest, main, leading in the state, in the world community, and therefore worthy of better living conditions. At present, fascism in its classical form does not exist anywhere. However, bursts of fascist ideology can be seen in many countries. Fascist ideologists, with the support of the chauvinistic, lumpenized strata of the population, are actively fighting to take control of the state apparatus, or at least to participate in its work.
The authoritarian regime in its varieties is opposed by the democratic regime. Properly democratic regime (“democracy” from ancient Greek “demos” and “kratos” - democracy) is one of the varieties of the regime based on the recognition of the principle of equality and freedom of all people, the participation of the people in government. Giving its citizens wide rights and freedoms, a democratic state is not limited only to their proclamation, i.e. formal equality of legal opportunities. It provides them with a socio-economic basis and establishes constitutional guarantees for these rights and freedoms. As a result, broad rights and freedoms become real, and not just formal.
In a democratic state, the people are the source of power. Representative bodies and officials in a democratic state are usually elected, but the criteria for election vary. The criterion for the election of a person to a representative body is his political views, professionalism. The professionalization of power is a hallmark of a state in which there is a democratic political regime. The activities of people's representatives should also be based on moral principles, humanism. A democratic society is characterized by the development of associative ties at all levels of public life. Management in a democratic state is carried out according to the will of the majority, but taking into account the interests of the minority. Therefore, decision-making is carried out both by voting and by using the method of coordination when making decisions. Regulatory regulation acquires a qualitatively new character.
Of course, the democratic regime also has its own problems: excessive social stratification of society, at times a kind of dictatorship of democracy (authoritarian domination of the majority), and in some historical conditions this regime leads to a weakening of power, violations of order, even sliding into anarchy, ochlocracy, sometimes creates conditions for the existence of destructive, extremist, separatist forces. But still, the social value of a democratic regime is much higher than some of its negative concrete historical forms.
The democratic regime also knows various forms, primarily the most modern - the liberal-democratic regime.
The liberal-democratic regime exists in many countries. In the theory of the state, liberal methods are those political methods and methods of exercising power that are based on a system of the most democratic and humanistic principles. These principles primarily characterize the economic sphere of relations between the individual and the state. Under a liberal regime in this area, a person has property, rights and freedoms, is economically independent and on this basis becomes politically independent. In the relationship between the individual and the state, priority is reserved for the interests, rights, freedoms of the individual, etc.
Thus, the economic basis of liberalism is private property. The state releases producers from its guardianship and does not interfere in the economic life of people, but only establishes the general framework for free competition between producers, the conditions for economic life. It also acts as an arbitrator in resolving disputes between them. In the later stages of liberalism, legitimate government intervention in economic and social processes acquires a socially oriented character, which is determined by many factors: the need to rationally allocate economic resources, solve environmental problems, participate in the global division of labor, prevent international conflicts etc.
The liberal-democratic regime is based on the ideas and practice of democracy, the system of separation of powers, the protection of the rights and freedoms of the individual, in which the judiciary plays an important role. At the same time, respect for the court, the Constitution, the rights and freedoms of other individuals is formed. The principles of self-government and self-regulation permeate many spheres of society.
Adjacent to the liberal-democratic regime is another kind of democracy. This is a humanistic regime that, while maintaining all the values of the liberal democratic regime, continues and strengthens its tendencies, eliminating its shortcomings. True, the humanistic regime, overcoming contradictions, failures, is only taking shape in some countries, acting as an ideal, the goal of a politically developed modern state.