The political regime of the state is the method of organizing a system, reflecting the relations of the authorities and representatives of society, social freedom and the peculiarities of legal life in the country.
Basically, these properties are due to certain traditional features, culture, the conditions of the historical formation of the state. It means that it can be said that in any country has its own special and characteristic polytrampa. Nevertheless, more of them in different states can find similar features.
Scientific literary sources describe 2 types of socio-legal devices:
- democratic regimes.
Signs of a democratic society
The main features that are characteristic of democracy are:
- domination of legislative acts;
- power divided into species;
- the existence of these political and social rights of citizens of the state;
- electoral authorities;
- the presence of opposition and pluralistic opinion.
Signs of antidemocratic
The antidemocratic image of the board is divided into totalitarian and authoritarian regimes. The main properties:
- the primacy of the only party organization;
- the supreme position of the unified form of ownership;
- infringement of rights and freedoms in political life;
- repressive and forced methods of exposure;
- infringement of the influence of elected bodies;
- strengthening the executive power;
- prohibition of the existence of opposition party organizations;
- prohibition of polyparteanity and integrity;
- the desire of the state to coordinate all areas of social life and relations between personalities.
- slave-owned;
- feudal;
- bourgeois;
- socialist democracy.
Antidemocratic modes are divided into this policy on:
- totalitarian;
- fascist;
- autocratic.
The latter, in turn, is divided into sole (despotic, tyranny, the sole power regime) and the collective (oligarchy and aristocracy).
Political regimes at the present stage
At the present stage it is believed that democracy is the most advanced regime, in contrast to any anti-democratic. This is not entirely right. Historical facts indicate that totalitarian countries (a certain part) quite perfectly exist and fulfill their functions, for example in the Korean People's Democratic Republic. In addition to this, totalitarianism is largely able to mobilize the entire population of the state with the aim of solving a certain (no less important and difficult) state problem.
For example, the Soviet Union was able to win in hostilities with fascist Germany, although totalitarian Germany at the very beginning of hostilities significantly exceeded its forces on internal military power. In the postwar years, such a socio-legal entry created a record rise in the economy of the USSR. Let even this have been achieved a considerable price. Thus, the totalitarian and is characterized by both positive aspects and negative.
In its characteristic features, authoritarian regime occupies an intermediate position between totalitarianism and democracy. With totalitarianism, his relatives are usually autocratic, not limited to the nature of power, with democracy - the availability of autonomous, non-governmental public areas, especially economics and private life, the preservation of civil society elements. In general, the authoritarian political system is inherent in the following features:
- - Autocratism (self-leveling) or a small number of carriers of power. They may be one person (monarch, tyrant) or group of persons (military junta, oligarchic group, etc.);
- - Unlimited power, its unemplistriccy of citizens. At the same time, power can rule with the help of laws, but it takes them at their discretion;
- - Support (real or potential) for strength. Authoritarian regime may not resort to mass repressions and enjoy popular among the wide layers of the population. However, it has sufficient power so that if necessary, at its discretion, use the power and forced citizens to obedience.
- - Monopolization of power and policies, preventing political opposition and competition. Inherent in this regime, a certain political and institutional monotony is not always the result of legislative prohibitions and counteracting the authorities. Often it is explained by the unpretentiousness of society to the creation of political organizations, the absence of the population of the need for this, as it was, for example, for many centuries in monarchical states. With authoritarianism, the existence of a limited number of parties, trade unions and other organizations is possible, but if they are controlled by the authorities.
Refusal to total control over society, non-interference or limited interference in non-organistics and, above all, in the economy. The government is mainly engaged in their own security, social order, defense, foreign policy, although it can affect the development strategy, to conduct a fairly active social policy, without destroying the mechanisms of market self-regulation.
Recruitment of the political elite by co-optation, appointment from above, not a competitive electoral struggle.
- - In social plan, authoritarianism is trying to become higher class differences, express a nationwide interest, which is accompanied by social demagogue, populism;
- - In foreign policy, aggressive imperial installations are characteristic of it.
All these characteristics are given in the amount of the phenomenon of authoritarianism only if its spiritual and practical rod is present - authority. Under the authority it is understood as the generally accepted informal influence of a separate person or some organization in various spheres of society. In a narrower sense, authority is one of the forms of the implementation of the authorities above right. M. Bebere allocated three types of authority: 1) based on rational knowledge, 2) on tradition, 3) on the Harizme of the Chief. In the first case, the carrier of the authority is a teacher-prophet, in the second - a preacher, in the third - the leader. Without personality such authoritarianism is impossible. She is a sign, symbolizing the unity of the nation, its sovereignty, its great past, present and future.
Considering these signs of authoritarianism, it can be determined as an unlimited power of one person or a group of persons who do not allow political opposition, but the preserving autonomy of personality and society in the unititudic spheres. With an authoritarian political system, only certain, mainly political forms of activity are prohibited, in the rest of the same citizens are usually free. Authoritarianism is fully compatible with respect for all others, except the political, personal rights. At the same time, in the conditions of authoritarianism, citizens do not have any institutional guarantees of their safety and autonomy (independent court, opposition parties, etc.).
significant differences of totalitarianism and authoritarianism:
With authoritarian mode, power does not have totalitarian ambitions; The life of society is not regulated and is not controlled so sophisticated. If a citizen does not go to direct confrontation with power, then for him there is some freedom of behavior. With authoritarianism, citizens are allowed everything except policies. Authoritarianism allows the existence and functioning of a narrow sphere of civil society free from total regulation by the state;
A unique feature of Totalitarianism is the cult of the personality of the leader. The dictator-leader does not depend on the ruling elite, forms it himself, guided by certain principles of personnel policy to avoid conspiracies and palace coups. With authoritarianism, power can be personalized or implemented by a group of persons in which the dictator is "first among equal terms", but it does not have omnipotence nor all. With authoritarian mode, the dictator can be shifted from his post as a result of the struggle for power in the upper echelon of the political elite. With totalitarianism, the leader is absolutely not dependent on it.
Authoritarianism is a limited pluralism regime. Although in a trimmed form, but opposition and dissidentism are allowed in authoritarian states. Totalitarianism does not accept any opposition, strives for its physical destruction;
Authoritarian states do not impose a single ideology and are most often based on the concept of national interest. The dictator does not seek to justify its political solutions to high aspirations to change the world and achieve a "bright future" or paradise on Earth. Traditional authoritarian states in their character "Patennalistic": The king (leader) manages the people as a single family - the power is given to him or from God, or he received it as a savior of the people from any catastrophe (economic crisis, hunger, civil war, intervention, etc.). The authoritarian form of the Board can be called a pragmatic dictatorship, in contrast to the totalitarian ideox of dictatorship.The totalitarian dictatorship can also be called mobilization, it is characterized by the ideological mobilization of the entire population to fulfill the tasks in the name of the highest goal. Totalitarianism requires activity from each member of society, decisively supporting the political regime and its ideology, an explicit demonstration of nationwide love for leadership and hatred for its enemies, he does not tolerate passivity, apathy and indifference. Authoritarianism in this respect is much more liberal.
Authoritarian regimes can be (although not necessarily) repressive. At the same time, in some states, systematic violence (Frankishmanism of the initial period, Guatemalan dictatorship can be practiced. But in authoritarian states, repression is not massachable as in totalitarianism. The army can play with an authoritarian mode an independent role and even overthrow the dictator. With totalitarianism, the army is completely subordinate to the leader. Finally, authoritarian regime retains some elements of democratism, the totalitarian excludes any democratic manifestations.
Authoritarian regime - a state-political structure, the basis of which is a strong personal power - monarchy, dictatorship. Authoritarian regime arises, as a rule, when the need for the need to solve the problems of modernizing the economy, accelerate the pace of development of the country. The layer of old socio-economic institutions entails the polarization of forces, a long political crisis. Certain with these problems is not always possible by democratic means.
Political rights and freedoms of citizens and socio-political organizations during authoritarian mode are narrowed, the opposition is prohibited. The political behavior of citizens and political organizations is strictly regulated. The election of state bodies is limited. Parliament turns into a decorative institution, and sometimes liquidated at all. The government focuses in the hands of the head of state to whom the government is subject to. This regime has no mechanism for the continuity of power, it is transmitted by a bureaucratic way, often with the use of armed forces and violence.
Authoritarianism usually carries in itself the possibility of evolution towards democratism. At the same time, the well-known autonomy of civil society remains, some of its spheres remain free from total regulation. Stabilization of economic and social development reduces polarization in society, contributes to the formation of a center for political forces, which creates prerequisites for the transition of authoritarian authorities to democratic structures.
The main varieties of modern authoritarian regimes are the oligarchic and constitutional authoritarian. In the conditions of the oligarchic regime, multiparties are formally allowed, but they actually act only the batch of the dominant class. The election of the Parliament is preserved, but various limitations lead to the fact that only representatives of the ruling elite can be elected. In principle, even the separation of the authorities is recognized, but in fact, the primary role in political life belongs not to legislative, but the executive.
Constitutional authoritarian regime is distinguished by a little of the oligarchic. The constitution may include norms (or individual laws) on the prohibition of all political parties except the ruling. Sometimes restrictions are established for other parties or measures are taken to curb the occurrence of democratic parties. Parliament is formed on a corporate basis, a significant part of its members is appointed, and not elected, the executive power is undisguised, the key posts are held by the president
Civil society.
Civil society - The level of development of society, which is characterized by unconditional observance of human rights, the implementation of duties, responsibility of members of society for his fate. Civil society is a system of incortive social relations and institutions, which gives a person to implement his civil rights and expressing a variety of needs, interests and values \u200b\u200bof members of society.
The elements and values \u200b\u200bof civil society have developed in Europe already in the XVIII century. For the first time, " civil society"And" state"I tried to delimit the English philosopher J. Lokk (1632-1704). In his opinion, the state could only claim the amount of authority that was authorized by the public contract between citizens. His ideas were continued in the contractual concept of J.-G. Rousseau. In the future, the concept of "civil society" was developed in the works of Gegel and K. Marx. According to the expression of K. Marx, civil society is a "authentic source and theater of the whole story."
In modern conditions, civil society acts as a diversity of unrepossible relations between free and equal individuals in the conditions of the market and democratic legal statehood. In civil society, in contrast to state structures, not vertical (hierarchical), but horizontal connections - the relationship between competition and solidarity between legally free and equal partners.
The basis of the process of the formation of civil society is the priority of the rights of the individual as an independent entity. Autonomy of society - an important element of civil society, meaning independence from the state of various public areas and associations (economics, trade unions, press, science, associations of citizens and individual professions, religious associations). The role of the state in relation to these public agents should be reduced to establishing the most common framework in the form of a law regulating the rules that everyone should follow in order not to endange the right and freedom of other citizens.
Signs of civil law
Civil society is closely in contact and interact with the legal state for which the following features are characteristic:
the rule of law in all spheres of society:
separation of authorities to legislative, executive and judicial;
mutual responsibility of the person and the state;
reality of the rights and freedoms of a citizen, their legal and social security;
political and ideological pluralism, which consists in the free functioning of various parties, organizations, associations operating under the Constitution;
availability of various ideological concepts, trends, views;
the legality and law enforcement in society.
The legal state is a state that serves the needs of civil society and the legal economy, the appointment of which is to ensure freedom and well-being.
It should be noted that civil society acts as a necessary element of the modernization of Russian society. Over the years of reforming in Russia, significant shifts occurred towards the formation of civil society. So, we succeed in creating an economic foundation based on the diversity of ownership forms and a socially oriented market economy, real political pluralism, to approve the freedom of speech. However, this is not enough.
According to experts, for the successful construction of civil society in Russia, it is necessary: \u200b\u200b1) the institutionalization of the Russian society; 2) the guidance of elementary order in society: 3) the formation of a holistic system of democratic legal norms capable of regulating the most important areas of social life.
The structure of the civil society covers:
Non-state socio-economic relations and institutions (property, labor, entrepreneurship);
A combination of manufacturers independent from the state (private firms, etc.);
Public associations and organizations;
Political parties and movements;
The sphere of upbringing and non-state education;
System of non-governmental media;
Church and others.
Civil society is manifested in social, economic, political, spiritual and information systems. In this sense:
The social system is a complex of objectively formed communities of people (family, public organizations, layers, classes, nations, etc.) and relationships between them;
The economic system is a complex of economic relations in which people enter the process of implementing property relations, production, distribution, exchange and consumption of the total social product;
The political system is a complex of certain stakeholders (local governments, political parties, socio-political movements, other public associations) and relations between them;
The spiritual system is a complex of relevant cultural and educational, scientific and religious institutions, within and with the help of which spiritual relations are being implemented;
The information system is a complex of structures related to the circulation of information in this society (first of all non-state media).
Authoritarianism is usually characterized as a type of mode that occupies an intermediate position between totalitarianism and democracy. However, this characteristic does not indicate the essential signs of the phenomenon as a whole, even if it is clearly identified in it the features of totalitarianism and democracy.
Essentially significant in determining authoritarianism is the nature of the relationship of power and society. These relationships were built more on coercion than in conviction, although regime liberalizes social life, and no more clearly developed governing ideology. Authoritarian regime admits limited and controlled pluralism in political thinking, opinions and actions, reveals with the presence of the opposition.
Authoritarian regime - the state-political structure of the Company, in which political power is carried out by a specific person (class, party, elite group, etc.) with minimal participation of the people. Authoritarianism is inherent in power and politics, but the foundation and degree of it are different. As defining, natural, inborn qualities of the political leader ("authoritarian", powerful person) can act; reasonable, rational, justified by the situation (the need for a special kind, for example, the state of war, public crisis, etc.); Social (the emergence of social or national conflicts), etc., right up to irrational when authoritarianism passes into its extreme form - totalitarianism, despotism, creating a particularly cruel, repressive regime. Authoritarian is any imposition of the will of the authorities to society, and not accepted voluntarily and conscious obedience. Objective bases Authoritarianism can be associated with the active conversion activity of power. The less such grounds and inexpressive power, the apparently subjective, personal foundations of authoritarianism.
In the very general form, the appearance of a hard political rule system was entrenched for authoritarianism, which constantly using forced and power methods for regulating the main social processes. By virtue of this, the most important political institutions in society are disciplinary structures of the state: its power bodies (army, police, special services), as well as the corresponding means of ensuring political stability (prisons, concentration camps, preventive detentions, group and mass repressions, hard control mechanisms for the behavior of citizens). With this style of dominance, the opposition is excluded not only from the field of decision-making, but also from political life as a whole. Elections or other procedures aimed at identifying public opinion, aspirations and queries of citizens are either missing or used purely formally.
By blocking communication with the masses, authoritarianism (with the exception of its charismatic forms of the Board) loses the possibility of using population support to strengthen the ruling regime. However, power not based on understanding the requests of broad social circles, as a rule, turns out to be unable to create political orders that would express public queries. Focusing on public policy only on the narrow interests of the ruling layer, authoritarian uses in relations with the population methods of patronization and control over its initiatives. Therefore, authoritarian power is capable of providing only forced legitimacy. But so limited in its capabilities of public support narrows for the capabilities of political maneuver, flexible and operational management in the context of complex political crises and conflicts.
Sustainable ignoring public opinion, the formation of state policy without the involvement of the public in most cases make an authoritarian government unable to create any major incentives for social initiatives of the population. True, due to forced mobilization, individual regimes can in short historical periods can cause a high civil activity of the population. However, in most cases, authoritarianism destroys the public initiative as a source of economic growth and inevitably leads to a fall in the effectiveness of the Board, low economic performance of power.
The narrowness of the social support of the authorities that makes a bet on coercion and isolation of public opinion from the authorities of the authorities, and in the practical inaction of ideological tools. Instead of systematic use of ideological doctrines capable of stimulating public opinion, to ensure the interested participation of citizens in political and social life, authoritatively ruling elites mainly use mechanisms aimed at the concentration of their powers and intra elite coordination of interest in making decisions. By virtue of this, the main methods of coordination of interests in the development of state policies are backlant transactions, bribery, celders and other shadow management technologies.
An additional source of conservation of this type of government is the use of certain features of mass consciousness, mentality of citizens, religious and cultural and regional traditions, which generally indicate a sufficiently sustainable civil passivity of the population. It is a massive civil passivity that serves as the source and prerequisite for the tolerance of the majority of the population to the ruling group, the condition for maintaining its political sustainability.
However, the systematic use of rigid political management methods, the support of the authorities for mass passivity does not exclude certain activity of citizens and the conservation of their associations of some freedom of social action. The family, the church, certain social and ethnic groups, as well as some public movements (trade unions) have their own (let their modest) prerogatives and the possibility of influencing the power and manifestation of activity. But these social sources of the political system acting under the tight control of the authorities are not able to generate any powerful party movements, cause a massive political protest. In such levels of government, there is rather potential than the real opposition to the public system. The activities of opposition groups and associations more limits the power in establishing full and absolute control over society, rather than trying to really correct the goals and objectives of the political course of the government.
The management of various spheres of society in authoritarianism is not so totally, there is no strictly organized control over the social and economic infrastructures of civil society, on production, trade unions, educational institutions, mass organizations, media. Autocrat does not require a demonstration of loyalty by the population, as with totalitarianism, it is sufficiently lacking an open political confrontation. However, the regime is mercilened with the manifestations of real political competition for power, to the actual participation of the population in decision-making on the most important issues of society's life, so authoritarianism suppresses the main civil rights.
In order to maintain an unlimited power in his hands, authoritarian regime produces the circulation of elites not by competition in elections, but to the co-optation (volitional administration) to the leading structures. Due to the fact that the transfer of power in such modes does not occur through the procedures of replacement procedures, but forcibly, these regimes are not legitimate. However, even though they do not rely on the support of the people, it does not prevent them from exist for a long time and sufficiently successfully solve strategic tasks.
In general, the most characteristic features of authoritarian modes are the following:
Concentration of power in the hands of one person or group. The carrier of power can be a charismatic leader, monarch or military junta. As with totalitarianism, society is alienated from power, there is no mechanism for its continuity. The elite is formed by appointing from above;
The rights and freedoms of citizens are limited mainly in the political sphere. Laws predominantly on the state side, and not a person;
The company dominates the official ideology, but there is tolerance with respect to other ideological flows, loyal to the ruling regime;
Politics is monopolized by power. The activities of political parties and opposition are prohibited or limited. Trade unions controlled power;
State control does not apply to non-political spheres - economics, culture, religion, private life;
The extensive state sector is rigidly regulated by the state. As a rule, it functions as part of a market economy and is quite walking with private entrepreneurship. The economy can be both highly efficient and ineffective;
Censorship over the media, which is allowed to criticize individual deficiencies of state policy while maintaining loyalty with respect to the system;
Power relies on force sufficient to force the population for obedience if necessary. Mass repressions, as with totalitarianism, are not conducted;
With positive results of activity, the regime can be supported by the majority of society. The minority is fighting for the transition to democracy. Civil society can exist, but depends on the state;
The regime is characteristic of unitary forms of the state with a rigid centralization of power. Rights of national minorities are limited.
Our century did not become an epoch of the complete celebration of democracy. Still more than half of the world's population lives in the conditions of authoritarian or totalitarian dictators. The latter becomes less and less, the practically remaining dictatorial regimes relate to authoritarian and exist in the "Third World" countries.
After 1945, dozens of countries freed themselves from European colonialism, and their leaders were full of optimistic plans for rapid economic development and social progress. Some observers believed that other metropolises would have to learn something from their former colonies. But the second half of the twentieth century. Wrapped rather than the tragedy than the triumph of the liberated countries. Only many of them managed to achieve political democracy and economic prosperity. Over the past thirty years, dozens of third-world countries experienced endless series of coups and revolutions that sometimes can hardly distinguish each other. One authoritarianism was replaced by another, as it was, for example, in Iran, when in 1979, Homeney's power was approved instead of the Shah regime. In the "Third World" dictatorships dominate and often find support for most people there. This is facilitated by some features of the development of Eastern societies.
These include, firstly, the specific role of the community. The political and cultural experience of Asia, Africa and to a lesser extent of Latin America is not permeated by the idea of \u200b\u200bindependent value of human life, does not contain ideas about the positive meaning of individuality. A person thinks as part of a whole, as a member of a certain society, whose norms should be obeyed in thoughts, and in behavior, that is, collective brought over personal. The role of various kinds of leaders, which take the right to interpret the norms and embody in their face the unity of the community, the clan, etc.
Here such relations are dominant when the head of the community "takes on" its members, and for this they are obliged to "serve" to him faith and true. In such societies, the guidelines of political behavior are not the worldview, but the behavior of community managers, clan, etc. In most countries of the Third World "political opponents and are divided mainly on the basis of clanness.
Secondly, the state has a significant weight in the third world, since civil society has not yet been developed. There is no powerful average layer capable of becoming a support of democracy and strong civil authorities. The role of the executive authority, which is the consolidating power of society, is increasing, since it is divided by numerous religious, ethnic, estate and other partitions and no political force in it can become Gegemon. With this situation, only the state can mobilize all means for modernization and accelerated development.
These moments create prerequisites for authoritarian power. Almost all attempts by the participation of the countries of the Third World, for example, African countries, to democracy by copying the constitutions and political systems of the metropolis countries turned out to be unsuccessful. The defined "democracies" established there were not the result of a long and persistent struggle of the masses themselves for their rights, as it was in Europe.
In the late 50s and early 60s, authoritarian regimes, first of all, military dictatorships found their supporters not only in developing countries, but also among some representatives of the West academic community. A number of political scientists and politicians believed that these regimes are the most appropriate type of power for countries that make the transition from traditional to industrial society. The hopes were entrusted to the fact that the army as the most organized strength will be able to carry out all the necessary transformations "from above" that it is able to withstand corrupt elements in the state apparatus and is a symbol of national unity, since it is recruited from various social layers, nationalities and regions. Some observers from the United States and Western Europe assumed that with the help of military, Western economic and political principles in the liberated countries can be easier.
The reality turned out to be different. In most African and Asian countries in the premium of military authoritarian dictators, the army found an excessive tendency to bureaucratis and organizational routine. Among the military flourished corruption and coumen. Military spending increased sharply due to the equal reduction in funds for the necessary reforms. The military most often turned out to be unable to create such political institutions, in the activities of which representatives of various political trends and forces could participate. On the contrary, they sought to put all the spheres of public life under their own control. In most cases, faith in the ability of the army to become a unifying center of different social groups is not confirmed.
The army could not resist the ethnic and confessional split, tribal disagreements and separatist movement. In many "Third World" armies there are several different groups that organize conspiracies and counterplings. This often leads to protracted bloody conflicts (Pakistan, Chal, Uganda, etc.).
Regimes with frequent military coups were called Pretorian, by analogy with ancient Rome, where the Pretorian Guard often built the applicant to her or overthrow it if he did not suit her by his rule. Therefore, for most modern "emperors and saviors of the Fatherland", the army support remains the main source of maintaining power and the subject of major concerns.
Modern authoritarianism has various forms and is largely different from past variants. For example, in Latin America in the XX - early twentieth century. The authoritarian leaders were the Caudile-impostable hosts of individual territories, which often had their own armed detachments. It was possible with a weak national government, which Caudillo did not obey, and often they were clouded to hand. Later, authoritarian leaders became owners of the advantage of national, and not local authorities used by their goals.
However, there is a completely legal issue: if the authoritarian regime violates the Constitution and human rights, then how does it achieve mass support and justify his existence in the eyes of fellow citizens? After all, the terror is not always used everywhere and not always for this, more often, perhaps the authoritarian system is trying in a word or somehow otherwise, but to convince, and not to force the force to believe in the correctness of its methods and measures. Since the references to the law and the tradition sometimes look blasphemously, the post-hour dictators, as a rule, motivate their actions that pursue the politics "harsh need to clean up", "national interests", etc. The charismatic element has always been the main factor in the desire to justify the dictatorship.
The dictator helps, and its certain popularity in the folk masses, therefore the dictators themselves, and their associates try to convince public opinion in the fact that their interests coincide with the interests of the broad masses and that they act on behalf of the healthy forces of society. Often, the socio-political ambitions of the leader, and sometimes his sincere confidence in their strength and correct cause it to appeal to public opinion and for the sake of this, pay special attention to creating their own positive image (image) in the eyes of fellow citizens.
Very often, authoritarianism justifies its policies to the ministry of the national idea than attracts a lot of supporters. Such a reception is best triggered when everyone becomes clear that neither almost continuous sessions of the parliament and party clubs, nor the packages of the laws taken, do not move the work forward. If the power is powerless and full apathy reigns in its corridors, if the system is ineffective and causes annoyance of citizens, the danger of dictatorship increases many times. The dictator comes to power under the slogans for the oblivion of party strings in the name of the highest house in front of the homeland.
In the second half of the twentieth century. Dictators seek to acquire a certain ideological coloring.
Like totalitarianism, Western researchers distinguish the authoritarianism of the left and right sense, although this difference is manifested less clearly. Left authoritarian dictators are based on various versions of socialism (Arab, African, etc.).
These include many former and current regimes, such as the dictator J. Nierrer in Tasania, H. Assad in Syria and many others. They arose in the 60-70s, when the attractiveness of socialism in the world was pretty high, since the Soviet system then showed high rates of development and generously helped his followers in the liberated countries.
The leaders of the liberated states sought to adopt the general scheme: one party, the leadership of all political organizations from a single center, state ownership in the economy, available to the wide masses of the propaganda population, etc. The Great Impression was made on them a quick industrialization of the USSR using the command methods of manual and lifting it Military power. In addition, socialism, whose values \u200b\u200bof these leaders strongly rejected.
Many left dictatorships, such as in Vietnam, have been established in developing countries, taking their own guidance to the national liberation movement. However, even sometimes uncritical perceived experience of the USSR, these countries essentially remained loyal to their centuries-old traditions: often behind the humanism of words hid and hid the struggle for power or tribal antagonism, the opposition clans are announced by the "hostile regime" and the struggle begins against them. That is the negative, which carried the copied political system, was repeatedly increased in the authoritarian regimes of the left sense: the cult of the leader, bloated bureaucratic apparatus, the administrative and command style of the leadership of the country's life, the practice of permanent jerks ahead, etc.
These and many other factors determined the emergence of social groups with different economic, political, etc. Interests. Such pluralism of interests required the reform of political and economic systems. It has started transformations.
However, it turned out that it was impossible to replace the former model of another offered by the West. The insufficient level of socio-economic development and the inclusion of a person in a certain traditional community is limited to the formation of an individual principle and cause it to trust the authority of a certain leader. And although the leaders of countries experienced by the reform band, talk about reorientation of their policies and something there really changes, however, a number of examples indicate that the essence of authoritarian regimes remains the same: there is no legal changeability of leaders, one party is dominated from vertically -Erchical structure, which affects the principles of formation of all other structures in the state, many democratic norms are still declared, but are not implemented in practice, etc.
The Arab Monarchies of the Middle East (Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and some others) include the right authoritarian regimes, a number of Asian states (Singapore, Indonesia, etc.), former Latin American countries during the rule of Hunt, individual African states.
The classic example of military authoritarianism, which existed in the 60-80 years in Latin America junta. Commissioning to power, they sought to exclude all the possibility of political radicalism and revolution, hoping to provide themselves with the support of most people not only by direct suppression of dissent, but also at the expense of "promotion" - the formation of effective economic policy, the development of the domestic industry, creating jobs and T . P.
Such a policy does not always mean the transition to economic liberalism, since any military mode is trying to choose its way to implement the goals. For example, the degree of state intervention in the economy and the participation of foreign capital was different: state planning was carried out in Brazil, a large public sector of the economy was created in Argentina, and Pinoches, on the contrary, privatized the similar sector existed there before him.
Also, when the classification of authoritarian modes can be divided into the following three groups: single-party systems, military regimes and personal power regimes. The main criterion of such separation of modes is the ruling group, its main characteristics and ways of interaction with society. In all three cases, there is, by definition of Huntington, a sustainable desire to minimize the competition of elites and mass political participation. The only exception in this series is the South African regime of apartheid, which represented a racial oligarchy and excluding more than 70% of the population from participation in politics, practicing quite wide competition in the framework of the White Community. To these three groups of authoritarian regimes, another - bureaucratic oligarchic regimes can be added. Power in these modes is carried out by a group of persons who often represent the interests of various social layers, however, in formulation and decision-making, the main and unconditional role belongs to the state bureaucracy here.
Single-party systems. The term "single-partyness" can be used, as J. Sartori noted, in three cases. First, in relation to the situation, when one party is monopolized by political power, not allowing the existence of any other parties and political organizations. Secondly, when one party acts as a hegemonist, and everyone else, existing, do not have chances to compete with it on an equal basis. Thirdly, a dominant situation is possible. parties, when the same party constantly gets the vast majority of votes in parliament. In this situation, the party not only exist as legitimate, but also, despite their insufficient effectiveness, have equal starting conditions in political struggle. The third sample goes beyond the scope of authoritarian policy, because there is a free and fair competition - the main condition for democratic systems. These three samples of one-party relationship may well move in each other: the hegemonic party has chances to evolve into the dominant, and the dominant is to degenerate into the hegemonist and even monopolistic.
In most cases, single-party systems are either established as a result of the revolution, or are imposed on the outside. So it was, for example, with countries in Eastern Europe, in which one-party systems have become the post-war result of the exploration of the USSR. Here, in addition to countries with the communist regime of the Board, Taiwan and Mexico can be attributed. In such systems, the party monopolizes and concentrates power in his hands, legitimizes its board with appropriate ideology, and access to power itself is directly associated with belonging to the party organization. This kind of system often achieves a very high level of institutionalization, sometimes (USSR, Germany) close to the totalitarian organization of political power.
Single-party systems can differ significantly from each other. This is quite explained, because the differences may concern the degree of centralization of power, the possibilities of ideological mobilization, the relationship between the party - the state and party-societies, etc. Several simplifying, such differences can be reduced to two main groups.
1. To what extent successfully the party overcomes competition from other applicants for political power. Among these applicants should be the leaders endowed with charismatic qualities; traditional actors (first of all, church and monarchy); bureaucratic actors (officials); parliamentary actors (national assemblies and parliaments, local authorities); military; Separate socio-economic groups (peasants, workers, managers, entrepreneurs, technocrats and intellectuals).
2. To what extent of the party successfully manages to isolate the main social layers from free participation in politics and mobilize these layers to support their own power.
Based on these two signs, M. Khagopian delimited the following four types of single-party modes: 1) dominant-mobilization; 2) subordinate mobilization; 3) dominant-pluralistic; 4) subordinate-pluralistic (dominant-mobilization modes very close to totalitarian modes and are actually closed with them. Competition among the elites is minimized here, and the mobilization of society reaches a very significant scale. The opposite of these modes are subject to pluralistic single-party systems that are not valid to significantly limit intolelic competition, nor attract the main layers of society to support their reign. Soviet society in the late 30s and at the turn of the 70s - 80s can serve as a successful illustration of the evolution of the regime from the dominant-mobilization into the subordinate-pluralistic. In the interval between these poles there are subordinate-mobilization and dominant-pluralistic modes. An example of the second may be the Brezhnev regime in the first stage of its functioning, when the parties, mainly managed to maintain control over other elite groups, but the society could less and less be activated with the help of once trouble-free ideological formulations. As for subordinate mobilization regimes, the Bolshevik regime at the initial stages of its stabilization, apparently, can be considered as one of the examples of this kind of regimens. The distinguishes between the Lenin and Stalinist party concepts did not affect the massive sections of Russian society supporting the emerging Bolshevik regime.
Military regimes. Unlike single-party, military regimes most often arise as a result of government coups against civilian management. In political science, the name of these regimes as "Pretorian" also enjoys fame. The tasks of the Pretorian Guard, existing under the emperors in the last days of the Roman Empire, was the security of their safety. However, the strategic position of Pretorians often led them to actions, which are directly opposed to the expected - the murders of the emperor and selling his position to the one who offered the greatest price.
In this regard, the term "Pretorian society" is often used in political science, meaning that in society a very high probability of military coups as a means of resolving accumulated political contradictions. Allocate four main characteristics of Pretorian society:
1) a serious disadvantage of consensus against basic functions and methods of government. In other words, there are no rules among political actors in society.
2) The struggle for power and wealth takes particularly sharp and coarse forms.
3) Supported minorities face the huge bearing layers of society almost the same as described at Marx when the final stage of capitalism is characteristic.
4) There is a low level of institutionalization of political and administrative bodies, because the level of legitimacy of power is extremely low, and the level of instability is very high. Public morality decline, corruption and sales lead to discredit political life and its subsequent interruption. The military arises a strong temptation to intervene, guided by either the desire to put an end to the weak and corrupt civil regime, or to get greater compared to the existing share in the management of society and the distribution of public wealth. The emerging military regime most often carries out the power on the institutional foundation that has given him inheritance, managing either collegially (as a junta), or by periodically transferring the chief government post in the circle of the highest general ranks.
A huge number of practical examples of Military Board in Latin America, Africa, Greece, Turkey, Pakistan, South Korea and other countries, on the one hand, has already made it possible to create a sufficiently developed theory of relationship between military and civilians. The most important components of this theory are the classification of military coups (reformist, consolidating, conservative, veto-coup) and caused their reasons, analysis of the features of the mentality and ethical values \u200b\u200bof military (nationalism, collectivism, negative attitude to politics, internal discipline, puritan lifestyle, etc. .), The attitude of the military to modernization and their potential in its implementation.
Private power regimes. For this category also hides a fairly wide variety of samples of political power. Their general characteristic is that the main source of authority is the individual leader and that power and access to power depend on access to the leader, proximity to it, depending on it. Often, personal power modes are degenerated into the fact that M. Weber defined as Sultinistisis regimes, with characteristic corruption, patronage and nepotism relationships. Portugal at Salazar, Spain with Franco, Philippines during Marcos, India with Indira Gandhi, Romania with Ceausescise are more or less convincing examples of personal power modes.
In addition, there are a number of mixed modes that can evolve into personal power regime, originally with other sources of authority and power. The coup in Chile, implemented by the military group, subsequently led to the establishment of the regime of the personal power of General A. Pinochet, both due to his personal qualities and the duration of his stay in office. The obvious and suggestion example is Stalin's mode, which has passed the most different stages of evolution, based initially to populist slogans, then to the well-established party car and, finally, is increasingly more and more - on the Harizm "Chief".
Bureaucratic oligarchic regimes. These regimes are often viewed with the question of military regimes. It is quite legitimate, because the military, having come to power, use the state apparatus inherited by them and political institutions. Nevertheless, there may be differences in leadership structures as to those who are military or government officials - have an initiative and the last word in the adoption of vitality political decisions. These differences make it possible to allocate bureaucratic-oligarchic modes into a separate group.
In the bureaucratic-oligarchic regimes, formal powers are most often belonging to the parliamentary authorities, but in practice and party, and the parliament factions are too weak to compete with a powerful corporate block forces. This unit may be representatives of the official structures of the Board (President, Head of Government, Parliament Speaker, etc.); Powerful groups of interests representing, for example, large financial capital; Heads of power departments and other forces concluded a temporary alliance and establish corporate political game rules to provide relative stability in society and achieve mutually beneficial goals. As a rule, this kind of regimes is very unstable and installed in an intermediate state of the state, when the previous source of authority (general elections) weakens, loses the power of the hoop fastening society, and the newly able to come to replace the method of public integration does not occur. The authorities are afraid of general elections, ideological motivation does not have any prospects in mobilizing public support, therefore the regime is held in power, using a bribery of potentially powerful rivals and gradually discovering access to power.
The most important characteristic of bureaucratic-oligarchic regimes - corporatism, i.e. The formation and relatively successful functioning of a special type of structures connecting society with the state bypassing political parties and legislative authorities. Officially presenting private interests before the state, such structures are formally subordinated to the state and cut off all legitimate channels of access to the state for other members of society and public organizations. Distinctive features of the corporatism are: a) the special role of the state in establishing and maintaining a special socio-economic order is mainly significantly different from the principles of a market economy; b) varying degrees of restrictions imposed on the functioning of liberal-democratic institutions and their role in making political decisions; c) the economy is mainly functioning in support for private ownership of the means of production and hired labor; d) Manufacturers' organizations receive a special interim status between the state and public actors, performing not only the functions of the representation of interests, but also regulating on behalf of the state. To one degree or another, these characteristics of the corporatism are manifested in all bureaucratic-oligarchic modes.
The state in conditions of bureaucratic authoritarianism defends the interests of the block consisting of three main driving forces, which is primarily a national bourgeoisie, which controls the largest and most dynamic national companies. Then, international capital, which is closely associated with national capital and is largely the driving capital of the economic development of the dinner country. Such interaction of national and international capital has led, in particular, to the formation of an additional number of subsidiaries of multinational corporations. High degree of instability, sharp political conflicts, "Communist threat", periodically emerging economic crises prompted this block to rely on one more crucial force that can prevent possible social disintegration - to the army.
Defending the interests of this block of forces, the state is endowed with a number of close fascist characteristics - a high degree of authoritarianism and bureaucracy, as well as active interference in the course of economic processes. This role of the state is strengthened by the more clearly, the more precisely the need to protect the interests of national capital from the increased valuables of the international capital. The state more and more acts as the cartridge of the National Bourgeoisie. Such a sample existed in a number of Latin America countries, while he did not develop and found his claims to participate in political activities, the very popular sector, whose growth was carefully controlled by the state, until the interests of the national bourgeoisie were diversified, which could no longer be resolved in the framework of the authoritarian regime.
Also to the above classification of authoritarian modes, you can add the following varieties.
Populist regime is, as follows from his name (in Latin Populus - people), the product of awakening most people to self-political life. However, it does not give the masses of real ability to influence the political process. They are given the wrong role of "extras", approving and practically supporting the actions of the government, which allegedly pursues the only goal - national benefit. To support this illusion, populist regimes are widely resorted to social demagogue, to designate which in the modern political lexicon and uses the word "populism". In fact, however, populist regimes more often take into account the interests of economically privileged groups of the population, and their real support is bureaucracy.
Populist regimes are based on one (the only legal or dominant over the rest) party, proclaiming its main goal of national development. The phraseology used by such modes is usually nationalistic, this nation is depicted as involved in a mortal fighting with hostile forces - transnational corporations, conservatives, communists, or generally seating with mutual politicians. Although theoretically, all citizens have civil rights, in fact, this is not so much of the diverse ways to prevent the open struggle for leadership: citizens are given freedom of selection of candidates, but not parties: or not all parties are allowed to participate in elections: or voting results are simply fastened .
The world's oldest populist regime until the very last time (when the so-called "Mexicochka" began) existed in Mexico where the institutional and revolutionary party (IRP) was permanently in power since 1921. The opposition was legally legally, but hopefully to be one day in power She had little: according to the Election Act, the party, which enlisted the support of the relative majority of voters received the vast majority of places in Congress. And the relative majority of IRP votes have always received, because for seven or ten years has grown up with the state apparatus and, not less important, all society permed with its organizational structure. Once radical, with time IRP moved to quite moderate positions: she is no longer fighting with the church or capitalism. We must admit. That Mexico under the rule of the IRP failed to avoid troubles typical of authoritarian and bureaucratic regimes: acute inequality, corruption and repressive trends, as well as stagnation in the economy. "Mexicochka" in many ways contributed to the democratization of the country. However, as evidenced by the recent peasant uprising in the south of Mexico, the decades of authoritarian and bureaucratic authorities do not pass without a trace.
The cult of the personalities of the founding leaders, such as Keniat in Keny, is quite characteristic of populist regimes. Nierrer in Tanzania. County in Zambia When the leader dies, his charisma (this introduced M. Weber is used in political science to display exceptional, superhuman qualities attributed to the political power carrier) it is difficult to transfer to the party or other institutions of power, and this is one of the main difficulties of the regime. Another major challenge comes from the military. Mexico avoided this threat only because the military elite of the country since 1921 was politicized and closely related to political leadership. However, in countries in Africa, many populist regimes were forced to coexist with professional armies, the foundations of which were launched by colonizers. Often, such coexistence ended poorly for civilian politicians. The Quad Nkruma mode in Ghana was considered extremely stable.
Populist regimes resort to different measures to neutralize the danger from the military: bribe (providing military extremely high salaries, privileges, etc.): Army's politicization (by creating polytorgans): creating parallel armed forces in the form of folk militia or special parts subordinates directly "Chief" but none of these measures guarantees the survival of the regime.
Egalitarian authoritarian regime: closed, with a monolithic elite. The French word Egalite means "equality", and the term derived from it. Egalitarism has long been applied to the characteristics of ideologies. striving for overcoming economic inequality. The most influential of them already in the XIX in became communism (in the wording. Suggested by outstanding German scientists and somewhat less successful politicians Karl Marks and Friedrich Engels), in 1917, which had reached the provisions of the official ideology of Soviet Russia, and then a number of other countries. That is why the modes of this type are often called communist or communist party in reality, however, neither the commitment of the political leadership of a certain ideology, nor the fact of finding the Communist Party in power yet create configurations of institutions and standards that determines the specifics of the regime: about their "loyalty to the ideas of Marxism Leninism "declared (not without reason counting on Soviet assistance) many leaders of authoritarian and bureaucratic regimes of the Third World, and the Republic of San Marino, where the Communists were the leading force of the ruling coalition for many years, remained liberal democracy. The term "egalitarian authoritarian regime" proposed by J.Bladdem. Maybe also not too successful, but he, at least. Allows us to focus on more significant characteristics.
Like a populist, egalitarian authoritarian regime arises in the conditions of political awakening of the masses. However, if the first, acting on behalf of the people, actually makes it come to terms with the situation of things, then the second, relying on the activity of the masses, and in fact it changes its radically. The most important sign of the egalitarian authoritarian regime is the breaking of property relations, often leading to the complete elimination of the landowner and private-winged critting. Economic life is under the control of the state, which means that the rules of the elite also becomes an economically privileged class. Thus, the egalitarian authoritarian regime reproduces the phenomenon of "Power-Property". The monolith of the elite is manifested in smoothing the differences between the administrative and political elites. The official in the conditions of the egalitarian authoritarian regime cannot even be out of a purely theoretical point of view. Organizational frameworks allowing monolithic angry ("nomenclature") to control society, provides a party. Its guidance is enshrined by institutional or even constitutionally, as it took place in the USSR. Hence the closed nature of the mode.
The political activity of the masses is an essential prerequisite for the emergence of the egalitarian-authoritarian regime, for otherwise he could not break the resistance of the "old" economic elites. However, and further persists for the participation of the masses in politics. Having mediating this characteristic of the egalitarian authoritarian regime. Political science proceeds from such obvious facts as a high degree of politicization of all social life, periodic intensive political and propaganda campaigns, providing citizens with the ability to elect and be elected to various positions. The Communist Party itself can be considered as an important mechanism for inclusion in political life. Most of these regimes also have also mass organizations like folk fronts, to this day existing in the PRC, DPRK. Vietnam and Laos, or Revolution Protection Committees (Cuba). In many countries was allowed and even encouraged
The activities of "Democratic Parties", who recognized the leadership role of the Communists. It is important, however, to emphasize that participation in the conditions of the egalitarian authoritarian regime is adjustable (sometimes a clear term "Dirizhism" is clearly used). The means of political mobilization of the masses was the communist ideology, which already in the 60s broke up into several local varieties, reflecting the cultural features of individual countries (Majse-Dunidey in China, "Juche ideas" in North Korea).
Authoritarian and inegalitarian regime: closed, with differentiated elite. Unlike communist ideology with its emphasis on social justice, the rhetoric of authoritarian inelegalitarian regimes is built on the idea of \u200b\u200binequality. Hence the term used in the classification of J. Blonde (prefix "In", in fact, here and then "not"). Authoritarian-but-inegalitarian regimes do not seek to completely transform property relations and. Encouraging sometimes to conflicts with those or other economically privileged layers, generally take them under their protection. The awakened political activity of the masses is sent "on another address", which allows the secured classes to negotiate
The longest of this type of this type has existed in Italy, where the fascist party came to power in 1922 and lost it for more than twenty years later, after the country's catastrophic defeat in World War II, the leader of the Italian fascists, Benito Mussolini, began his career as a member of the Socialist Party, began his career as a member of the Socialist Party, And belonged to its left wing. In the future, however, he began to promote the idea that the oppression of the Italian workers by the Italian capitalists is inferior to the importance of exploitation that the "nation-proletark" is generally exposed to foreign powers. This simple postulate turned out to be quite attractive for some part of economically unprivileged groups of the population and allowed to create a massive movement, leading Mussolini to power.
Authoritarian regime can be viewed as a kind of compromise between totalitarian and democratic political regimes. It (authoritarian regime), on the one hand, softer, liberal than totalitarianism, but on the other - tougher, antislodium than democratic.
Authoritarian regime - the state-political structure of the Company in which political power is carried out by a specific person (class, party, luxury group, etc.) with minimal participation of the people. The main trait of this regime is authoritarianism as a method of mutual and management, as a kind of public relations (for example, Spain of the period of the Board of Franco, Chile at the time of Pinochet's power).
in the center and on the ground there is a concentration of power in the hands of one or more closely interrelated bodies with the simultaneous alienation of the people from the real levers of state power;
the principle of separation of the authorities to the legislative, executive and judicial (often president, executive and administrative bodies subordinate to themselves all other bodies are endowed with legislative and judicial authority);
the role of representative bodies is limited, although they can exist;
the court acts, in essence, the subsidiary body, together with which the extrajudicial bodies can be used;
suspended or reduced to no scope of the principles of the election of state bodies and officials, accountability and control of their population;
command, administrative, at the same time there is no terror as methods of public administration;
limited censorship is maintained, "semi-bypass";
there is a partial pluralism;
the rights and freedoms of a person and citizen are mainly proclaimed, but are really not ensured in their entirety;
power structures to society are almost uncontrolled and sometimes used in purely political purposes, etc.
The despotic regime is absolutely arbitrary, unlimited power based on municipality.
The tyrannic regime is based on the sole principle, the usurpation of the power of the Tiran and the cruel methods of its implementation. However, in contrast to the despoty, the Tiran's power is sometimes established by violent, and often displaced legitimate power with the help of a state coup.
Military regime is based on the power of the military elite, it is established, as a rule, as a result of a military coup against the board of civilians. Military regimes carry out power or collegially (as a junta), or at the head of the state is one of the highest military ranks. The army turns into a dominant socio-political force, implements both the internal and external functions of the state. Under the conditions of military regime, an extensive military-political apparatus is created, which includes in addition to the army and the police a large number of other bodies, including unconstitutional nature, for political control over the population, public associations, for the ideological processing of citizens, the fight against anti-government movements, etc. P. Constitution and other legislative acts are canceled, which are replaced by acts of the military authorities.
Authoritarian regimes differ from totalitarian in the following parameters: 1) If universal control is established at totalitarianism, then authoritarianism implies the presence of social life spheres inaccessible to state control; 2) If a systematic terror is carried out with totalitarism in relation to opponents, then in an authoritarian society, the tactics of "selective" terror, aimed at preventing the occurrence of the opposition.
Totalitarianism: Basic features and types
The term "totalitarianism" (from Latin Totus - all, whole, full) was introduced into the political turnover by the ideologist of the Italian fascism J. Gentile at the beginning of the XX century. In 1925, this concept was first sounded in the Italian parliament. He was used by the leader of the Italian fascism B. Mussolini. From this time, the formation of a totalitarian structure in Italy begins.
In each of the countries in which the political totalitarian regime developed and developed, he had its own specifics. At the same time, there are general traits that are inherent in all forms of totalitarianism and reflect its essence. Totalitarian regime is characterized by absolute state control over all regions of public life, complete submission of a person of political power and the dominant ideology.
The main characteristics of the totalitarian political regime are the following:
the state is committed to global domination over all spheres of public life, to comprehensive power;
society is almost completely alienated from political power, but it is not aware of this, because in political consciousness, an idea of \u200b\u200bthe "unity", the "merger" of the authorities and the people is formed;
monopoly state control over the economy, media, culture, religion, etc., up to personal life, to the motives of the actions of people;
state power is formed by the bureaucratic way, by the channels closed from the Society, is surrounded by the "halo of the milestone" and is not available for control by the people;
the dominant management method is violence, coercion, terror;
the domination of one party, the actual splicing of her professional apparatus with the state, the prohibition of opposition-minded forces; human rights and freedoms and citizen are declarative, formal nature, there are no clear guarantees of their implementation;
actually eliminates pluralism; Centralization of state power led by a dictator and his environment; The uncontrolcity of the repressive state bodies from the Company, etc.
A special type of totalitarian regime is the fascist regime, which can be viewed as a kind of radical totalitarianism. For the first time, fascist organizations, Italy and Germany have emerged. Fascism in Italy was established in 1922 for Italian fascism, the desire for the revival of the Great Roman Empire was characteristic. Fascism in Germany established himself in 1933, the purpose of which was the domination of the Aryan race, the highest nation was proclaimed German.
The totalitarian political regime of fascist type is characterized by militant antidemocratism, racism and chauvinism. Fascism was based on the need for a strong, merciless power, which keeps on the universal domination of an authoritarian party, on the cult of the leader.
Polit Mode Sovar Ros Gos-Va
The political situation in Russia is unstable, social tensions in society remains. In other words, the conditions for a stable political regime in the country are not yet. Since the political situation in the country is changeable, mobile, then the political regime can develop one of several options.
In recent years, the political reformators of the first wave reformers have been a political orientation (bourgeois-democratic) political regime. Its social support usually serves as an extensive middle class, which in Russia is still in its infancy, and therefore the chances of this regime seems to be a bit. In any case, the results of the parliamentary elections 1993 and 1995. It was shown that such right-threat groups, as the "democratic choice of Russia" and "Economic Freedom Party", do not enjoy the support of the wide segments of the population.
A social democratic version of the political regime of the Scandinavian sample is very promising in our country. The political sphere is characterized by broad political democracy, democratic and legal methods of power, moderate reforms and the evolutionary path of development of society. In socio-economic terms, this is a multi-way economy, a progressive encouragement of small and medium-sized businesses, progressive taxation that prevents sharp social stratification, very attractive social programs, a socially oriented market.
Prerequisites for the transition to the social democratic regime are the collective community traditions of Russia, the commitment of the broad mastered masses ideals of social justice, high adaptation of the economy to state-legal regulation. This mode could have a solid social base. At the same time, social democratic parties and movements in Russia are clearly scattered, they do not have clear and understandable people of programs that unite ideas and concepts, so their capabilities are weakly implemented.
Based on the interaction of social democratic and national-patriotic movements, mixed political regimes may occur. Their social base can be not only the broad layers of the population, but also servicemen, entrepreneurs. However, the desire of National Patriots (in case of coming to power) to solve complex problems with simple ways (for example, attempts to revive the administrative-territorial state structure) can accelerate the process of disconnecting many national-state formations from Russia, which will lead to the inevitable decay.
Not excluded in Russia and tough dictatorship of mafia-criminal capital. This is, of course, one of the worst options.
Which of the named options for political regimes will become a reality in the Russian state, the time and degree of wisdom of Russians will show.
Based on these signs of one or another mode, it can be stated that modern political reality in Russia is more associated with an authoritarian and bureaucratic regime, although characterized by certain external, formal attributes of democracy.
Of course, it would be incorrect to deny the achievements of the reforms carried out primarily associated with a number of such democratic conquests as the election of the President, State Duma and regional legislative bodies, the referendum, freedom of speech, the expansion of individual political rights for citizens, approval of the ideas of parliamentarism and political pluralism, the presence of multiparty, political opposition, specific separation of the authorities, the Institute of Impiciment, etc.
However, it is necessary to remember that all these democratic institutions and norms are largely a formal nature and the very fact of their existence has not yet indicted about this democracy. It is important that they work for society, for the interests of most citizens, and did not serve as a screen of democracy, her beautiful packaging. With the help of elections, as is well known, A. Hitler came to power, but this does not mean that in Germany 30s. Democracy won. The election of the President of the Russian Federation of 1996 is also a very demonstrative political action when there were elections, but there was no choice. Everyone knows the cases of powerful media pressure, managers of enterprises, institutions and organizations by voters, etc.
Very specific multiparty. Many parties and movements are largely in the virtual, not a real world (for example, "Social Democrats", "Women of Russia", "for civil dignity", etc.). Sides the public association represents only the leaders themselves and a small group of persons.
In today's Russia there is a parliament - the Federal Assembly. At the same time, the authority of his chambers (State Duma of the Russian Federation and the Council of the Federation) is very limited and do not allow fully influence on the political situation. In particular, at the current Parliament under the Constitution, the control functions are clearly understated.
Similarly, you can qualify the situation about the Institute of Impiciment established in the Constitution of the Russian Federation. It is actually impossible to implement it - too much on its way of legislative and bureaucratic obstacles.
As for publicity, her apogee was the end of the 80s - the beginning of the 90s. Now the media was under the control of oligarchs, in other words - "cash bags".