home › Chassis › First democracy. Direct and representative democracy is: briefly and clearly about the form and features

First democracy. Direct and representative democracy is: briefly and clearly about the form and features

Democracy is generally impossible to define - everything is so confusing here. The very belief in the good of a democratic system cannot be considered a delusion. The last is the blind faith in democracy as the only possible form of social organization; this does not take into account the different meanings of this word, but there are at least six of them: democracy as a social structure, a certain type of this structure, a free device, a legal system, social democracy, and, finally, the dictatorship of the party.

1. So, democracy, first and foremost, is a social structure in which the people rule, choosing their own rulers, or power. If so, the expression "people's democracy" sounds very strange, because it is the same as "people's democracy", i.e. "butter oil". "Democracy" comes from the Greek demos - people and kratein - to rule.

2. Democracy is often understood not as democracy in general, but as a specific type, form of democratic organization. There are many forms of democracy. One of them is direct democracy, which existed before in some Swiss cantons, when the whole people gathered at the so-called Landesgemeinde (general land meetings) and solved the most important state problems; To some extent, direct democracy also exists in the Swiss Confederation. Another form of democracy is parliamentary democracy, when the people elect their representatives (parliamentarians). She can also take various forms: for example, there is a presidential democracy (the people elect a president, to whom the ministers are accountable) and party democracy (the ministers are accountable to the Sejm). It is sometimes argued that some form of democracy is the only "true" one. This is an obvious superstition.

3. From democracy as a system, one should distinguish a free social system, i.e. one in which, for example, freedom of the press, assembly, etc. flourishes. In a democratic system, such freedoms are limited (for example, during a war), and on the contrary, in a non-democratic system, people sometimes enjoy many freedoms.

4. Sometimes democracy means legality, although legality is something else. A legal system is one in which the law is respected. In many states with a democratic system, the law is not respected, and vice versa, there are states that are not democratic, but legal. A well-known anecdote from the time of Frederick the Great draws a picture of the state of the latter type, in whose state there was no smell of democracy. Royal officials took away his mill from the miller. Melnik declared that he would reach Berlin, because, he said, "there are still judges in Berlin." This means that this miller believed in the legal nature of his undemocratic state.

5. One should also not confuse a democratic system, relatively free and legal, with the so-called "social democracy". The latter is a society in which there are no psychological barriers between different social strata. The fact that social democracy and a democratic system are different things is evidenced by the existence of countries with a democratic system, in which, however, such partitions are too large, and vice versa, there are countries with a non-democratic system, in which people belonging to different social strata, in no way not separated from each other. Such social democracy often exists even in countries ruled by a tyrant who seeks to turn all his citizens into slaves.

6. Finally, the dictatorship of the party is called democracy, for example, Marxist-Leninists are used to this; similar terminology is used by tyrants in backward countries, where there is often only one party. To call such a system a democracy is a gross mistake, because there is no democracy in any of the above meanings: both in the meaning of a democratic system, and freedom, etc.

Along with the confusion about democracy and claims that there is a single "true" democracy, there is another very common misconception. Some people are convinced that democracy or one of the forms of democracy that has justified itself in a given country or in a given region should be introduced all over the world - in China, and in Ethiopia, and in Brazil. However, out of 160 states existing in the world, only 21 states have a democratic structure. This superstition is one of the worst and most shameful signs of inertia.

D. as a form of state-political. The device arose along with the emergence of the state-va, which replaced the primitive communal tribal and tribal self-government. Unlike other forms of state device, under D. the power of the majority, the equality of citizens, the rule of law are officially recognized, the election of the main is carried out. state bodies, etc. Distinguish directly. and present. D. In the first case, the main. decisions are made directly by the voters (e.g., at people's meetings, through referendums), in the second

elected institutions (e.g. parliaments). But in the conditions of an exploitative society, a democratic

forms and institutions inevitably remain limited and formal, and through D. as a form of state, the domination of that class is carried out, in the hands of which are the means of production and political. power. The most developed historical type D. in an exploitative society is bourgeois. D. - is a form of dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.

Truly scientific. D.'s understanding was first developed by the classics of Marxism-Leninism. Analyzing the essence of bourgeois. D., Marxism-Leninism, first of all, reveals its class content, emphasizing that no matter how developed the democratic. institutions and citizens. rights, as long as there is private ownership of the means of production and the exploitation of labor, while political. power is in the hands of the bourgeoisie, D. is inevitably limited and hypocritical. It is limited because it does not cover the most important thing - the conditions of people's material life, where flagrant inequality and exploitation of some social classes and groups by others continues to exist; hypocritical because it retains all the contradictions between the proclaimed slogans and reality.

Revealing the essence of bourgeois. D. as a form of class domination of the capitalists, Marxism-Leninism singles out Ch. a feature that distinguishes it from other forms of exploitative states: in the bourgeois-democratic. In the republic, the power of capital is exercised not directly, but indirectly. The existence of a universal electorate. law, parliament and government responsible to it, jury trials, the system of local self-government, the officially proclaimed inviolability of the person and home, freedom of the press and assembly - all this creates the appearance of "the autocracy of the people." In fact, for the democratic. the shell hides the power of big capital.

But the limited class character of the bourgeois. D. does not mean that its institutions cannot be used by the working class. Democratic principles, rights, institutions - the result of the struggle of the people. wt. No matter how limited and formal they may be under capitalism, the working class uses them to protect their economic interests. and political interests, for self-organization and education of the working masses. Although under democratic In a republic, the state remains a machine for the oppression of one class by another, an instrument of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, that does not mean that. that the form of oppression is indifferent to the working class. The more rights and freedoms the proletariat wins, the more better conditions for its organization in the revolution. party, to promote the ideas of scientific. communism and the inclusion of broad people. masses in the struggle against the power of capital, the wider the opportunity to use democratic. capitalist institutions. states, to have their own press, to seek the election of their representatives to local governments, to send deputies to parliament. Therefore, the working class is fighting for the preservation and development of D. In the conditions of modern. revolutionary During the period of transition from capitalism to socialism, the struggle for democracy becomes an integral part of the struggle for socialism.

Burzh. D. is a huge progress compared to the state-political. middle-century organization. society. But it was and remains a form of class domination by the bourgeoisie, which was not fully understood by K. Kautsky and other leaders of the 2nd International, who defended the idea of the so-called. pure D. and who believed that on the basis of such D., irrespective of its class content, the proletariat is able to solve the revolutions facing it. tasks. But history has refuted these notions. If the use of workers democratic. rights and institutions really threatens to affect the DOS. economical interests and politics. the power of the bourgeoisie, the last

renounces the legitimacy she has created, rudely tramples on D. and resorts to direct violence.

With the advent of the Soviet state-va appeared a new historical. type D. - socialist D. Socialism for the first time returns to the concept of D. its true meaning, fills democracy, principles with real content. But this happens but as a result of only one revolution. the transfer of power to the working class and its allies. Formation and development of the socialist. D. long enough. process. Main socialist principles. democracy were formulated by K. Marx and F. Engels and entered the theory of scientific. communism as part of the doctrine of the socialist. state-ve. V. I. Lenin not only comprehensively developed this doctrine, but also directly supervised the construction of the socialist. D. The principles of D. of a new type have become a reality in many ways. countries. Socialist D. has become an established phenomenon. The development of the socialist D. found a detailed embodiment in the Constitution of the USSR.

For the socialist D. are characterized by a trace. peculiarities. Being qualitatively new in its class content political. phenomenon, it inherits all the best of democratic. gains of the working people, adapts them to new conditions, substantially renews and enriches them.

Along with creative using the legacy of the past, socialism creates completely new, previously unknown principles and forms of democracy. The possibilities for this are inherent in the very nature of socialism. building. So, domination of societies. ownership of the means of production means that the object of democratic. management and control become the economy and culture, to-rye in the conditions of modern. state-monopoly capitalism is only partially regulated by the bourgeoisie. state-tion.

The fundamental feature of the socialist D. also consists in the fact that it is constantly developing and improving. With the construction of a developed socialist. society and as we advance further towards communism, new means and methods of participation of the working people in the affairs of society are born. The steady growth of societies. wealth expands social rights working people, and the development of culture, ideological and morals. consciousness of the people creates the prerequisites for the ever wider use of political. freedom.

Democracy in politics the system of socialism is provided by a combination of methods will present. and directly. D. In the USSR, the principle of Nar. representation is embodied in the Councils of the people. deputies, to-rye constitute from top to bottom a single system of authorities that manages the affairs of the state. Methods directly. D. are used under socialism on a scale that was unthinkable in the past. This is universal. discussion of drafts of the most important laws, the activities of party, trade union, Komsomol, and other societies. org-tions, Nar system. control, farms. cooperatives, creative unions, various societies (by profession, by interests, by place of residence, by departmental affiliation, etc.), through which citizens are widely involved in solving political., Production. and household issues.

The guiding force of these org-tsy socialist. society is communist. the consignment. The leadership of society by the communist. party provides ch. condition of true democracy state. power - the conformity of its policy to the interests of the whole people. In the conditions of a developed socialist Society in the USSR has developed a socio-political. and ideological unity of the whole people. The identity of the fundamental interests of owls. people does not deny, however, diversity is specific. interests of various social, nat., age, prof. and other population groups. Acting as a spokesman for the common interests of all owls. people, the party at the same time takes into account and agrees on the specific. interests of various groups of the population, ensures their satisfaction in line with a single policy. Party leadership also guarantees other fundamentally important conditions for the democracy of the state. power - the correspondence of its policy to the interests of the progressive development of society. By building its activities on the basis of Marxist-Leninist theory, the CPSU achieves not only the max. satisfaction of the material and spiritual needs of workers, but also a constant movement towards the goals indicated by scientific. communism.

One of the fundamental principles of D. is equality. Under capitalism, the implementation of this principle was limited only by the formal equality of citizens before the law. Transfer of production funds to societies. property caused a radical upheaval in the entire system of societies. relations. The conditions for the exploitation of man by man were eliminated, and thus the only reliable and real foundation for equality was created. Political equality of socialist citizens. society is clearly manifested in the fact that all citizens can participate in the affairs of the state, regardless of race and nationality. affiliation, gender, religion, education, residence, social origin, property. position and past activities. Enormous progress has also been made in overcoming various kinds social inequality, affirmation of the equality of nations, equality of men and women.

Socialist D. creates conditions for the freedom of the individual. Socialist constitutions. countries, other laws, along with broad socio-economic. rights proclaimed freedom of speech, press, assembly, freedom of conscience, inviolability of the home, privacy of correspondence, and other civil. freedom. Moreover, these integral elements of D. are not simply declared, but actually guaranteed by the transfer of the means of production, of all societies, into the hands of the people. wealth, the very way of life under socialism. In the socialist countries, the rights and freedoms of citizens are inseparable from their duties.

Socialist Democracy under communism will develop into a system of social communist self-government, which, however, does not mean the abolition of democratic. principles and institutions. On the contrary, in the communist society, they must be further developed, and only the state will die out as an instrument of political. authorities and that form of D., which is associated with it.

Great Definition

Incomplete definition ↓

DEMOCRACY

D. and state are not identities. concepts. State-va can be undemocratic and anti-democratic. Such, for example, are despotism. monarchies in the era of slavery, absolute monarchies during the decay of feudalism, fascist and semi-fascist states in the era of the general crisis of capitalism. D. is a kind of state-va (bourgeois-democratic. republic, people-democratic. republic, Soviet republic), which is characterized by official. recognition of the principle of subordination of the minority to the majority (see V. I. Lenin, ibid., vol. 25, p. 428). But D. cannot be understood in isolation from the essence and role of the state, it should not be identified with the subordination of the minority to the majority. Recognition by the state of the principle of subordination of the minority to the majority has an unequal meaning in antagonistic. social-economic formations and in the period of transition from capitalism to socialism. The will of the majority can act. state will only when determined. conditions associated with the nature of ownership of the means of production, with the class composition of society. For this, it is necessary that the tools and means of production were not in the hands of an insignificant minority of members of society, but in the hands of the majority or the entire people. In the antagonistic class formations - slave, feudal and capitalist - dominated by private ownership of tools and means of production. This determines the nature of societies. and Mrs. building and serving Ch. the cause of the domination of the exploiting minority and the subjugation of the majority to it. The experience of history shows that the people cannot rule if their economy is or non-economic by coercion, or at the same time by both methods, they are forced to work for the exploitative.

Socialist the revolution that won in the USSR, and then in a number of other countries, turned the main. tools and means of production in society. own. Thanks to this, true democracy became possible. D. depends on the forms of ownership, on industries. relationships and, in turn, influence them. “Any democracy, like any political democracy in general (inevitable until the destruction of classes is completed, until a classless society is created), ultimately serves production and is ultimately determined by the production relations of a given society” (V.I. Lenin, ibid., vol. 32, p. 60).

For valid. domination of the will of the majority it is necessary that the class that actually implements the state. leadership of society, alone (or together with his allies) made up the majority of the country's population. This condition notes in the capitalist. society, as it did not exist in the eras preceding capitalism. This condition arises in the era of the dictatorship of the proletariat. For valid. identification and implementation of the will of the majority, it is necessary that the state proclaim and guarantee the rights and freedoms of citizens, ensuring the implementation of this will in legislation, administration, and in other forms of manifestation of the state. authorities. This condition is not found in any of the class-antagonistic institutions. society. It is evident under the conditions of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Burzh. state-in recognizes the principle of subordination of the minority to the majority and establishes certain political. (parliaments, local governments, etc.) and legal. institutions (political freedoms of citizens, equality of citizens under the law and before the law, etc.) in order to give their class will the appearance of a vsenar. the will or the will of the majority of the people. Any statements bourgeois. ideologues about abstract freedom and equality without regard to the nature of production. relations, the class composition of the population and the real correlation of forces in the class struggle are a deception of the working people. Burzh. state-in the formal recognition of universal freedom and equality covers factual. unfreedom and economic inequality of the vast majority of members of the capitalist. society and the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.

The bourgeoisie subdivides the rights of the individual into the rights of man and citizen. The individual considered in connection with the so-called. civil society, calls a person, and the same individual living and acting in a political. sphere, calls a citizen. This division of the rights of the individual is caused by antagonistic. the nature of the capitalist society and the nature of the bourgeoisie. state-va, which represents and protects the interests of not society as a whole, but only selfish. interests of a minority of its members - the bourgeoisie. Modern bourgeois political figures and theorists speak hypocritically about the sacredness and inviolability of human rights and freedoms. It is deliberately hushed up that the purpose of the capitalist. production is not the satisfaction of the material and cultural needs of man, but the extraction of capitalist. arrived. The widely organized campaign against the rights and freedoms won by the working people over many years is being left in the shadows. The term "D." imperialists denote the domination of imperialism in the international. arena directed against peoples who are truly free or are liberated from social and colonial slavery.

Burzh. D. in different countries and in different historical. stages has a different degree of development. Free competition usually corresponds to D. in political. the life of society, and the capitalist. monopolies - to the political. reactions on all lines. During the period of monopoly capitalism sharpens class contradictions (see Imperialism). The working class unites all democratic forces, to-rye opposed anti-democratic. tendencies of capitalism. "The curtailed democracy and the limited social security that the workers have under capitalism have been achieved and maintained as a result of many years of sharp battles" (Foster W., The superiority of world socialism over world capitalism, see "To Help Political Self-Education", 1958, No. 8, p. 66). The bourgeoisie, seeing for itself a danger in the development of delusions, is trying to nullify it by planting and using factual. minority privileges, and above all such as wealth, bourgeois. education, connections, as well as a direct rejection of the D. The working class cannot be indifferent to the forms of rule of the bourgeoisie. The struggle for the establishment, preservation, and expansion of democracy in the capitalist countries has a tremendous impact on the progress and outcome of the entire class struggle of the working masses. The outcome of the struggle in modern era depends on the balance of class forces in the capitalist. countries, on a cut of creatures. influence is exerted by the growth of the power of the world socialist. systems and the rise of national-free. movement.

Burzh. D., being a great historian. progress compared to the feud. state-tion, is nevertheless "a paradise for the rich, a trap and deceit for the exploited, for the poor" (V. I. Lenin, Soch., 4th ed., vol. 28, p. 222). The socialist revolution radically changes the class essence and content of democracy and shifts the center of gravity from the formal recognition of rights and freedoms to the factual one. their feasibility (guarantees of D.) and extends democracy not only to the field of political. life, but also on all other spheres of society. life. Under capitalism, D. is carried out exclusively in the political. region and is reduced mainly to the democracy of elections to parliaments and local governments. Socialist the revolution establishes the equality of all workers, destroys, nat. and racial oppression, proclaims the right to and rest, freedom of conscience in the sense of freedom of religion and anti-religion. propaganda, creates conditions for the free activity of numerous. societies. org-tions of workers - parties, trade unions and other voluntary societies. All this signifies an unprecedented expansion of D. for the working people. Under the dictatorship of the proletariat, democratic rights and freedoms are real and guaranteed. The content of the socialist D. is characterized by the constant and decisive participation of the broadest masses of the country's population in the political. life, in the management of the state-tion, the equality of citizens and their real opportunity to enjoy democratic. rights and freedoms: freedom of speech, press, rallies and meetings, marches and demonstrations, active and passive elect. law, regardless of gender, nat. and racial identity.

Organization and activities of the socialist. state-va, communist. the parties and other associations of workers that are part of the system of the dictatorship of the proletariat are based on the principles of democratic centralism.

The working class can exercise its dictatorship only on the basis of the democratic will present. institutions of the new superior type. The classics of Marxism gave a deep insight into those. institutions which were created by the Paris Commune of 1871. a kind of parliamentarians, "must work themselves, carry out their own laws, themselves check what happens in life, they themselves answer directly to their voters" (ibid., vol. 25, p. 396).

A necessary sign and obligatory. condition of the socialist D. in the transitional period from capitalism to socialism is the suppression of the resistance of the exploiters, the degree and form of which are different in different countries and at different stages of their development and depend on Ch. arr. from the strength of the resistance of the overthrown classes. Hence the variety of methods of suppression. Moreover, none of them can be absolute. In the USSR, during the period of transition to socialism, the exploiters lost their electorate. rights. With the creation of the socialist societies. building the Owls. state-in passed to the universal electorate. law. Lenin foresaw that in the future socialist. revolutions will not necessarily apply the deprivation of the bourgeoisie political. rights. In the People's Republic of China and other countries. Democracy managed without depriving the bourgeoisie of its electors. rights, except for that part of it, which provided armed resistance to the new government.

Socialist man. society is full in farms. the life of society. He has in the field of production and distribution of wealth DOS. rights: the right to work, rest, security in old age, in case of illness and disability, the right to personal property, the right to inherit it. Socialist state-in, attaching great importance to these socio-economic. rights, in no way diminishes the role and importance of the freedoms of citizens in other spheres of life. Burzh. and right-wing socialist the authors contrast the socio-economic. the rights and material security of citizens of the socialist. state of their political. freedom. Many of them consider the United States, England and some other capitalist. country's standard political. D. For example, G. Stassen in the book. "Man was born to be free" (N. Stassen, Man was meant to be free, 1951) depicts the US and England as political bastions. freedom of citizens. However, speaking of freedom of speech, press, personality, bourgeois. politicians and scientists are silent about such freedoms as the freedom of the people from exploitation, the freedom of workers from the economic. crises, unemployment and poverty. There are no such freedoms in capitalism. countries. These freedoms are characteristic of the socialist. society.

Socialist D., which is a world-historical. progress compared to the bourgeois. state-vom and bourgeois. D., represents the full power and full rights of the working people, headed by the working class. She is different. peacefulness. It opposes the imperialist wars, regards them as the gravest crime. “An imperialist war,” wrote V.I. Lenin, “is a triple, one might say, democracy (a - every war replaces “rights” with violence; b - there is a denial of democracy in general; c - an imperialist war completely equates republics with monarchies), but the awakening and growth of the socialist uprising against imperialism are inextricably linked with the growth of democratic resistance and indignation" (Soch., 4th ed., vol. 23, p. 13).

Burzh. D., firstly, does not exclude the international. capitalist policy. monopolies, for which the "cold war" is characteristic, preparation for a world war, military. adventures, unprecedented national-colonial oppression, strangulation and robbery of weak countries by the "advanced" capitalist. powers; secondly, capitalist is used. monopolies against the working masses fighting for Under the protection of D. bourgeois. states carry out legislative, administrative, police and judicial measures directed against the peace movement, progressive organizations that expose preparations for a new world war and advocate the prohibition of atomic and hydrogen weapons. People's struggle the masses for democracy, rights and freedoms is inextricably intertwined with the struggle for peace.

Socialist Democracy passes in its development a period of transition from capitalism to socialism, a period of socialism and a gradual transition from socialism to communism. The regularity of its development is the expansion and strengthening, the growth of material opportunities and guarantees of democracy and those freedoms and rights, to-rye stem from the power of the people.

The 21st Congress of the CPSU (1959) noted that the period of the full-scale construction of communism in the USSR was characterized by the all-out deployment of socialism. D., involving the broadest sections of the population in all societies. affairs, increasing the role of societies. org-tions in all areas of states., farms. and cultural life of the country, the gradual transfer of societies. org-tions of a number of state. functions, strengthening democratic guarantees. freedoms and human rights.

Marxism-Leninism proceeds from the fact that D. as a political. the institution will wither away under communism with the same inevitability as the state, "the functions of public administration will lose their political character and turn into direct public administration of the affairs of society" (Khrushchev N. S., On the control figures for development National economy USSR for 1959-1965, 1959, p. 119), but the principles of D. will not disappear, but will be transformed. Execution of societies. functions that will be preserved under communism (planned and organized distribution of labor, regulation of working hours, etc.) will be carried out on the basis of self-government of the working masses. In societies. In organizations of working people, full D. will be the main beginning of their independent activity. Lenin wrote that in the communist society will be "really complete democracy, which is becoming a habit and therefore dying out ... Complete democracy equals no democracy. This is not, but the truth!" ("Marxism about the State", 1958, p. 55).

Lit.: Marx K., Criticism of the Gotha program, M., 1953; Engels F., The origin of the family, private property and the state, M., 1953; Lenin, V.I., State and Revolution, Soch., 4th ed., vol. 25; his own, Theses and report on bourgeois democracy and the dictatorship of the proletariat on March 4 [at the First Congress of the Communist International on March 2–6, 1919], ibid., vol. 28; his own, the Proletarian Revolution and the renegade Kautsky, ibid.; his, Speech on deceiving the people with the slogans of freedom and equality on May 19 [at the First All-Russian Congress on Out-of-School Education on May 6–19, 1919], ibid., vol. 29; his, Marxism about the State, M., 1958; Khrushchev N. S., On the control figures for the development of the national economy of the USSR for 1959–1965. Report at the Extraordinary XXI Congress of the CPSU on January 27, 1959, M., 1959; Declaration of the Meeting of representatives of the communist and workers' parties of the socialist countries, held in Moscow on November 14-16, 1957, M., 1957; Mao Tse-tung, On the Dictatorship of People's Democracy, 1949; On People's Democracy in the Countries of Europe. Sat. articles, M., 1956; Peskov E. B. and Shabad V. A., Socialist democracy and its "critics", M., 1957; Shkadarevich I. I., Democracy of millions, M., 1958; Kadlecová E., Socialisticke vlastenectví, 1957; Bystrina I., Lidova demokracie, Praha, 1957; Flegle A., Geschichte der Democratie, Bd l - Altertums, Nürnberg, 1880; Glover T. R., Democracy in the Ancient World, Camb., 1927; Сroiset A., Les démocracy antiques, P., 1909; Lesku W. E. H., Democracy and Liberty, v. 1–2, L., 1908; Ruggiero G. de, Storia del liberalismo europeo, Bari, 1925; Borgeaud S., The rise oi Modern Democracy in Old and New England, L., 1894; Hattersley, Alan F., A short History of Democracy, Camb., 1930, containing bibliography; Allen J. W., A history of Political Thought in the Sixteenth Century, L., 1928; Figgis J. N., Studies of Political Thought from Gerson to Grotius, 2 ed., L.–Edin., 1916; Gooch G. P., English Democratic Ideas in the Seventeenth century, 2 ed., Camb., 1927.

A. Denisov. Moscow.

Philosophical Encyclopedia. In 5 volumes - M .: Soviet Encyclopedia. Edited by F. V. Konstantinov. 1960-1970 .

DEMOCRACY

DEMOCRACY (from Greek δημοκρατία - democracy) is a form of government in which the majority of the population is ruled in the interests of the majority and with the help of the majority. For the first time, a democratic state system was implemented in Ancient Greece in Athens under Solon (7th century BC) and developed by Cleisthenes (. 6th century BC) in his “representative government” - the Council of Five Hundred. “Democracy” itself began to be used to refer to the form of government that existed in Athens later, from about the middle. 5th c. Initially, "isonomia" (Ισονομία - equality of all before the law) and related "isegory" (?σηγορία - the right for all citizens to speak in the people's assembly and cast a vote), "isocracy" (?σοκρατία - autonomy) were used initially. Ancient authors (Plato, Aristotle, Herodotus) considered this form of government as a polis device, in which only free citizens-natives have completeness and equality of rights. Meteki (semi-citizen settlers) were significantly limited in their rights, and slaves had no rights at all.

The democratic freedoms of modern times are much broader than the freedoms of the ancient republic based on slavery, since they become a formal right of everyone, and not the privilege of a few. The special development of the rule of law of all citizens, state and public organizations received in the concept of democracy A. de Tocqueville, the most influential in modern socio-political studies. Tocqueville understood by "democracy" not only a certain form of organization of society. In his opinion, this is also a process taking place in society. Tocqueville was the first to warn of the danger of combining formal equality and absolute power - "democratic despotism".

The philosophical basis of democracy is the ratio of freedom and equality as socio-political values, the real embodiment of which takes place in the respective state institutions Democracy - direct or representative. The latter is now the most common in the form of a legal state with its supreme power, which, however, does not extend to the inseparable and inalienable rights of the individual. The guarantee of individual rights in such a state is the separation of powers - legislative, executive and judicial, the decentralization of power in the socio-economic and cultural spheres(the theory of “institutional infrastructure” of the authorities). At the same time, democratic associations - civil and political - take upon themselves the protection of the rights of citizens. They become intermediaries between the central government and various sectors of society, representing the interests of the latter, defending the inalienable right of citizens to independence and free initiative, which is subordinate to the law. Freedom of the press and trial by jury also serve to realize human rights in society.

According to the theorists of democracy of the 20th century. (for example, to I. Schumpeter and W. Rostow), liberal such as respect for the individual and the equality of all people, freedom of speech and press, freedom of conscience, etc., the best way ensured precisely by increasing the participation of the masses in political life. R. Dahl and C. Lindblom, with the help of “polyarchy”, conduct a more realistic analysis of existing democratic systems, leaving aside abstract democratic ideals. The real embodiment of democracy is significantly hampered by the progressive modern society the concentration of economic power in the hands of the “ruling elite”, which creates oligarchic power and politics, often turning from democracy into kleptocracy.

Lit.: Dahl R. Introduction to the theory of democracy. M., 1991; Leipmrt A. Democracy in multicomponent societies. M 1997; Novgorodtsev P. I. The crisis of modern legal consciousness. M., 1909; political science: new directions. M., 1999; Tocqueville A. De. Democracy in America. M 1992; Schumpeter I. Capitalism, socialism and democracy. M 1995; Halt P. R. Governing the Economy: The Politics of Stale Intervention in Britain and France. Cambr., 1986: Huffman G. State, Power and Democracy. Brighton, 1988; f/ordlmser E. n the Autonomy of the Democratic State. Cambr., 1981. A comprehensive encyclopedia of aphorisms

It seems logical to talk about in which state we could be most free. It is now believed that democracy is the ideal of a free state, where citizens have the right to choose their own future. However, democracy was not always considered an ideal (well, or at least good) political system. The democratic system, especially the modern one, has shortcomings, which in in a certain sense make it a source of unfreedom.

Parthenon, Athens / Forwardcom, Bigstockphoto.com

ancient democracy

As I have already noted, in Greek cities, as in all such small state formations, the social structure was often either democratic or strongly dependent on popular opinion. Nevertheless, the notion was widely held that democracy was perhaps the worst type of government.

This is due to several reasons. First of all, representatives of the intellectual elite a society that, of course, was formed thanks to the availability of money and time for training, that is, it was also the political, military and economic elite at the same time. Second, the age-old problem with majority-voted democracy is that the majority can ignore and suppress the opinions of the minority. Accordingly, the uneducated masses of the population could suppress the educated minority. Finally, the uneducated population often succumbed to the influence of demagogues who promised well-being for everyone, but did not necessarily fulfill their promises.

In addition, it is also worth noting that democracies can be slow to make decisions due to the fact that they require discussion in which a large number of people participate in order to function. And this discussion distracts people from other activities. That is why democracies were usually slave-owning communities in which non-political activities were shifted to slaves.

In this regard, philosophers in their theories preferred aristocratic or monarchical structures, because then the rulers would be well educated, noble and educated and would know how best to manage society. However, the consequences of corrupting the rulers in this case will be more dangerous. Therefore, it was believed that democracy is the worst type of government, since, for the reasons listed above, democratic societies are not capable of great good, but at the same time, their advantage is their inability to do great evil.

And this prejudice against democracy persisted for a very long time. for a long time, until, firstly, the intellectual, political, economic and military elites were finally divided, secondly, the idea of the equality of all people arose, and, thirdly, the people began to be perceived as a source of power. Together, these three changes led to a radical transformation in the perception of democracy, making it a desirable form of government. After all, if power comes from the people, then it is logical that the people should rule the state.

Matt Briney / Unsplash.com

modern democracy

However, modern democracy is very different from ancient democracy. Its main difference is that in Greek policies democracy was direct: everyone who had the right to vote gathered in the square and participated in the discussion and voting. Modern democracy is representative, mediated. The Greeks would rather call such a device an aristocracy, even though the people seem to have influence on power, and any citizen can technically become one of the rulers.

However, the fact that we can do it according to the law does not mean at all that we can really do it, because our possibilities are determined not only by the law, but also by the means available to us. Election to parliament requires a lot of effort, time and money, which most people cannot afford. In addition, it usually also requires certain legal, sociological and political science knowledge, which many people also cannot afford to acquire. Finally, a political career also requires connections.

Therefore, the phenomenon has now become widespread, when the political elite of the country is made up of graduates of one university or even one faculty, because it is there that rich and influential people are concentrated, who, while receiving education, also acquire useful connections. And usually these graduates are children from wealthy families whose parents studied in the same place and also participated in political life. This is due to the fact that only members of these families can afford a good enough education to enter these faculties, and have enough money to pay for education there.

This is exacerbated by the fact that the economic elite also remains relatively unchanged. For example, a recent study in Florence showed that the richest families in the city in the 21st century are the same families that were the richest five hundred years ago.

That is, thanks to the merging of political and economic elites, as well as due to the political system itself, a closed aristocratic circle is formed, whose members participate in government. People from this circle are divided into parties, depending on political preferences, but at the same time remain friends. Ideology cannot separate them, since their own position does not depend on the policy pursued by them. Voters, on the other hand, are given a choice that is actually illusory, since we do not choose for ourselves political elite, and choose only what part of the existing elite will have more power in the near future.

Therefore, in essence, these parties are not much different from each other. Their real task is not to carry out social transformations, but to maintain the status quo. Any overly radical proposals can cause either popular anger or the anger of lobbyists. Parties strive to form programs that would satisfy the largest part of the population.

Here again one of the original problems of democracy arises - the dictatorship of the majority. Drawing up their programs with an eye on the desires of the majority, parties are created almost identical and emasculated, with very minor changes that appeal to one or another part of the population. So, in fact, the majority, or rather, majority-oriented democracy, itself hinders social transformations in modern democratic communities. Since any unusual, innovative ideas are perceived with caution by the people, politicians usually do not even dare to express them, as this can lead to defeat in the elections.

Alexandru Nika / Bigstockphoto.com

All of the above does not mean that democracy in itself is bad. Rather, it is far from perfect. However, it can be improved. And for this it is necessary to overcome the problems I have noted: the representativeness of democracy, which leads to the removal of the people from government and the concentration of power in the hands of a narrow stratum of society, and the dictatorship of the majority, which, on the one hand, prevents significant social changes, and on the other hand, suppresses the will of minorities. To do this, a democratic system needs such mechanisms to involve people in political activity that would allow them to participate in it regardless of origin, education, social status and past merit or sins and reach any level in the hierarchy of power.

If you find an error, please highlight a piece of text and click Ctrl+Enter.

Instruction

Democracy can be direct or indirect. In the first case, the government of the state is carried out directly by its citizens. In the second, the country is ruled by deputies, to whom the population delegates these powers. In this case, the government is in the name of the people.

Democracy has its defining features. Basic characteristic feature democratic system is the freedom of man, which is elevated to the rank of law. That is, the effect of any normative act and document adopted by public authorities should not restrict this freedom, infringe on it.

Democracy implies that power should not be concentrated in one hand. Therefore, the power has different levels - regional and local. It is they who carry out direct interaction with the population and are called upon to take into account its wishes and aspirations in their activities, to be guided by them. Any citizen living in this territory has the right to interact directly with government officials.

The completeness of interaction between citizens and authorities is not limited by either religious or ideological views, or national identity. A democratic society and state assumes that all its members and citizens are equal. In such a country and society, everyone is given freedom of speech and the opportunity to create and participate in any religious, public or political organizations.

The people have the right to express their opinion through referendums and to freely choose the authorities and the head of state. This is not only right, but civic duty. The participation of the population, which is a conglomeration of people with different religious views and different mentalities, in the elections allows all groups of the population to realize their opportunity to govern the country. This makes it possible to take into account the opinions and needs of all citizens.

Democracy is that variant of the state structure, in which it is possible to reach a consensus between all layers and public associations representing the state.

Totalitarianism and its signs

Totalitarian democracy is one of the forms of totalitarianism, but at the same time, outwardly, it retains the signs of a democratic system: the replacement of the head of state, the election of government bodies, universal suffrage, etc.

Totalitarianism is such a system of government, which involves the establishment of total control over all aspects of society in general and each person in particular. At the same time, the state forcibly regulates the life of all members of society, completely depriving them of the right to independence not only in actions, but also in thoughts.

The main features of totalitarianism: the existence of a single state ideology, which must be supported by all the inhabitants of the country; strict censorship; state control over mass media; relations in the country are based on the following position: “only what is recognized by the authorities is allowed, everything else is prohibited”; police control over the entire society is carried out in order to identify dissidents; bureaucracy in all spheres of life.

Under totalitarianism, the border between the state and society is actually erased, since everything is controlled and strictly regulated. The scope of a person's personal life is very limited.

Totalitarian democracy in history

The reasons for the formation of totalitarian democracy are still debatable. Such systems are formed, as a rule, after a sharp establishment of democracy in countries with an authoritarian or totalitarian regime: a political coup, a revolution, etc. Usually, in these cases, the population is still not politically competent enough, which is often abused by people who have come to power. Despite the fact that the authorities are elected by popular vote, the results of these elections are always predictable in advance. Moreover, such stability for the most part is not ensured by direct fraud. Administrative resource, control of the media, public organizations, economy and investment - these are the tools that the ruling elite uses in such a system as a totalitarian democracy.

A striking example of such a political system in history is the state structure of the USSR. Despite the proclamation of the constitution and the declaration of universal equality, in fact the country was led by the highest ranks of the Communist Party. The political system in the Soviet Union is analyzed in detail in the book of the famous French humanist philosopher Raymond Aron "Democracy and Totalitarianism".

The term "democracy" appeared in ancient Greece and literally means "power of the people". Democracy (demos - people, kratos - power; Greek) is democracy or the rule of the people.

In many ways the Greeks state system owe their own wisdom. If modern rulers were as wise and patriotic as the rulers and commanders of ancient Athens or Sparta, ready at any moment to sacrifice themselves for the well-being of the state (like the Spartan king Leonidas in the war with the Persians), then I am more than sure we would live no worse than the Greeks.

In the ancient world, in general, the leading role in the life of any respectable citizen was played by patriotism and a sober mind, which were replaced two and a half millennia later by the thirst for money-grubbing and the priority of profitable personal acquaintances.

Yes, of course, many Greeks used high connections to build their careers (this cannot be taken away from a person), but I am sure that for the most part it looked completely different.

The essence of the system of voting for people's deputies or voting has not changed much, except for the fact that sometimes the ancient Greeks determined the winner by the noise of the crowd welcoming the one who came to the platform. Now this method is widely used in numerous quiz shows. The rulers were mostly from aristocratic circles, but the ruler could well come from the people.

Elections were held every year. So no one could firmly gain a foothold in power, and the people could legally change the ruler they did not like, which is so lacking in modern Russia. Even when

the ruler managed to win the trust of the population through numerous victories on the battlefields or by the rule itself, he was threatened

exile, no matter how ridiculous it may sound. The Greeks valued their democracy too much and at times were too suspicious.

It is unlikely that we will be able to fully understand what ancient Greek democracy was based on. Bowing to the wisdom of ancestors, one cannot but repeat in the sense that an ideal state can only be one in which the one in power is in power, for whom the well-being of the people who entrusted him with power means much more than their own. This is the love for the Motherland, which many of us lack, especially at this time, and which our chosen ones at the helm of power lack so much.

Geoeconomic and geostrategic ideas
Savitsky's economic ideas can be divided into two main areas: firstly, this is the rationale for the public-private system of the economy and, secondly, the need for economic autarky in Russia. Development and formation of the Russian econ...

Concepts of civil society
The main provisions of the modern concept of civil society. Provisions that characterize the relationship between the parties to the process of formation of civil society in modern society (structural aspect). 1. Current state and development of social...

Non-democratic political regimes: totalitarianism and authoritarianism. The concept of a political regime
The functional and dynamic aspects of the political system are revealed in the political regime. In the very general plan, it is a technology for the formation and exercise of political power in the country. Political regime is a broader...

Popular in category: