Authoritarian regime

Authoritarianism is usually characterized as a type of regime that is intermediate between totalitarianism and democracy. However, such a description does not indicate the essential features of the phenomenon as a whole, even if the features of totalitarianism and democracy are clearly distinguished in it.

Essentially significant in defining authoritarianism is the nature of the relationship between power and society. These relations are built more on coercion than on persuasion, although the regime is liberalizing public life, and there is no longer a clearly developed guiding ideology. The authoritarian regime allows for limited and controlled pluralism in political thinking, opinions and actions, and tolerates the presence of opposition.

An authoritarian regime is a state-political structure of a society in which political power is exercised by a specific person (class, party, elite group, etc.) with minimal participation of the people. Authoritarianism is inherent in power and politics, but its grounds and degree are different. Natural, innate qualities of a political leader ("authoritarian", domineering personality) can act as determinants; reasonable, rational, justified by the situation (a need of a special kind, for example, a state of war, social crisis, etc.); social (the emergence of social or national conflicts), etc., up to irrational, when authoritarianism passes into its extreme form - totalitarianism, despotism, the creation of a particularly cruel, repressive regime. Any imposition of the will of power on society is authoritarian, and not voluntarily and consciously accepted obedience. Objective grounds Authoritarianism can be associated with the active transformative activities of the authorities. The fewer such grounds and the more inactive the authorities are, the more obvious are the subjective, personal foundations of authoritarianism.

Currently, authoritarian political orders have been established in many modern countries of the world. Moreover, many scientists, both in the past and in the present, have very positively assessed and are evaluating this type of organization of power.

Historically, authoritarianism existed in different forms in different eras and in different countries (for example, ancient Greek and Oriental despotisms and tyrannies - Persia, Sparta, many other feudal absolutist regimes, etc.). His theory was first developed by the ultraconservative and reactionary theorists of the early 19th century. as a response to the French Revolution and the socialist movements by J. de Maistre and L. de Bonald. With the development of industrial society, the idea of \u200b\u200bauthoritarianism began to take on the shades of a constructive political ideology. The counterrevolutionary (in J. de Maistre's) idea of \u200b\u200border has lost its monarchical orientation, the concept of absolutist authoritarianism has disappeared: the absolute power of the king, independent of people, is the cause of politics; its ministers (apparatus of power) are means; a society of subjects who obey is a consequence (L. de Bonald).

In the 19th century, authoritarianism became a permanent and important trend in German political thought and was supplemented by the ideas of national and state unity, which it is intended to realize. By the end of the century, authoritarianism came to be seen as a means of powerful national and social mobilization and management from above of the state-building process (G. Traitschke). The Spaniard D. Cortez saw in an authoritarian political order that ensures the sanctity of obedience, a condition for the cohesion of the nation, state and society. O. Spengler also believed that, unlike liberalism, which generates anarchy, authoritarianism fosters discipline and establishes the necessary hierarchy in society. Many scientists and politicians consider this type of government (as, for example, I. Ilyin, in the form of an "authoritarian-educating dictatorship") as the most optimal form of political support for the transition of backward countries to modern democracy.

In the first half of the twentieth century, the authoritarian doctrine of the extreme right French ideologist and politician S. Morras is indicative, for whom industrialization, the penetration of the state into society, and high mobilization of the people as a means of implementing politics are objective and inevitable conditions of authoritarianism. The authoritarianism of the 20th century in such interpretations began increasingly to assume a nationalist anti-democratic character, associated with the struggle against internal and external enemies. Fascism has brought the theory and practice of authoritarianism to extreme totalitarian forms.

In the post-war period, new ideas about elite and technocratic authoritarianism have appeared, in which the role of authoritarian rule is assigned to the top administration of the state, which has high professional competence superior to other levels of the political system. Authoritarianism ultimately became a form of solving political problems (reforms, transformations, restructuring) from above, by the forces of power, and in this sense it turned out to be very vulnerable and dependent on the attitude of society to the actions of the authoritarian government, before the choice: to democratize the regime and get the support of the people, or tighten up the policy and move to coercion and dictatorship. A more widespread variant of authoritarianism is a regime of slow development, established hierarchical relations, repressive control, and economic stagnation.

In its most general form, authoritarianism has entrenched the image of a system of tough political rule, constantly using coercive and coercive methods to regulate basic social processes. Because of this, the most important political institutions in society are the disciplinary structures of the state: its law enforcement agencies (army, police, special services), as well as the corresponding means of ensuring political stability (prisons, concentration camps, preventive detention, group and mass repressions, mechanisms of strict control for the behavior of citizens). With this style of ruling, the opposition is excluded not only from the sphere of decision-making, but also from political life in general. Elections or other procedures aimed at revealing public opinion, aspirations and requests of citizens are either absent or are used purely formally.

By blocking ties with the masses, authoritarianism (except for its charismatic forms of government) loses the ability to use popular support to strengthen the ruling regime. However, a government that does not rely on an understanding of the needs of broad social circles, as a rule, turns out to be unable to create political orders that would express public needs. Focusing only on the narrow interests of the ruling stratum in pursuing state policy, authoritarianism uses methods of patronage and control over its initiatives in relations with the population. Therefore, an authoritarian government can only provide coercive legitimacy. But public support, so limited in its capabilities, limits the regime's opportunities for political maneuver, flexible and efficient management in the face of complex political crises and conflicts.

Stable disregard of public opinion, the formation of state policy without involving the public in most cases makes the authoritarian government incapable of creating any serious incentives for the social initiative of the population. True, due to forced mobilization, certain regimes (for example, Pinochet in Chile in the 70s) can, in short historical periods, give rise to high civic activity of the population. However, in most cases, authoritarianism destroys the initiative of the public as a source of economic growth and inevitably leads to a drop in the effectiveness of government, low economic performance of the authorities.

The narrowness of the social support of power, which relies on coercion and isolation of public opinion from the centers of power, is also manifested in the practical inaction of ideological tools. Instead of the systematic use of ideological doctrines that can stimulate public opinion and ensure the interested participation of citizens in political and social life, the authoritarian ruling elites mainly use mechanisms aimed at concentrating their powers and intra-elite coordination of interests when making decisions. Because of this, behind-the-scenes deals, bribery, secret conspiracy and other technologies of shadow government become the main ways of harmonizing interests in the development of state policy.

An additional source of preservation of this type of government is the use by the authorities of certain features of mass consciousness, the mentality of citizens, religious and cultural-regional traditions, which, in general, indicate a fairly stable civil passivity of the population. It is mass civic passivity that serves as a source and prerequisite for the tolerance of the majority of the population towards the ruling group, a condition for maintaining its political stability.

However, the systematic use of tough methods of political governance, the government's reliance on mass passivity does not exclude a certain activity of citizens and the preservation of some freedom of social action by their associations. The family, church, certain social and ethnic groups, as well as some social movements (trade unions) have their (albeit modest) prerogatives and opportunities to influence power and manifestations of activity. But even these social sources of the political system, acting under the strict control of the authorities, are not able to give rise to any powerful party movements, to cause a massive political protest. In such systems of government, there is potential rather than real opposition to the state system. The activities of opposition groups and associations more restrict the authorities in establishing full and absolute control over society, rather than trying to really adjust the goals and objectives of the government's political course.

The main features of authoritarian regimes

1. The essence of an authoritarian regime and its main features

The importance of analyzing authoritarian regimes is due to the fact that most of humanity is still content with this type of political system. Why is the world of authoritarianism so attractive? What are its prospects and foundations of stability? What distinguishes and what unites different types of authoritarian political systems?

The term "authoritarianism", despite its prevalence, is not strictly defined. To a certain extent, the world of authoritarianism is much richer and more diverse than the world of democracy. This is evidenced by the experience of history and modernity. For if democratic systems, with all the differences among them, are united among themselves by the existence of a procedure for competitive elections, then authoritarian regimes cannot boast of anything that would unite them in principle. According to S. Huntington's fair observation, the only thing that unites them is the absence of an election procedure inherent in democracies. Otherwise, they have little in common with each other. Nevertheless, the selection of authoritarian regimes seems to us methodologically important, because it allows us to draw a clear line between democracies and non-democracies, to separate from each other two fundamentally different political universes. Very often authoritarian regimes are defined as rule by force. The rationale behind this rule is to concentrate power in the hands of one or more leaders, without prioritizing public consensus on the legitimacy of their power. Therefore, in its pure form, authoritarianism can almost always be identified with the use of instruments of coercion and violence. The army, police, prisons and concentration camps serve as daily "arguments" for the regime in proving both the firmness of its foundations and the validity of its claims to power. At the same time, it would be an exaggeration to say that all authoritarian regimes meet this definition. In reality, such regimes quite often seek to use additional means of stabilization, relying, whenever possible, on the tradition and charisma of the leader. Moreover, historical experience convinces us that the values \u200b\u200bof traditions, religious and cultural-regional, are quite strong in conditions of authoritarianism. Spain under Franco, Portugal under Salazar, Argentina under Peron can serve as convincing evidence of this. In this sense, authoritarianism should be distinguished from totalitarianism, which is, as it were, a continuation of the tendencies existing under the conditions of an authoritarian regime - such a continuation that gives rise to a completely new quality, a new kind of political regime with its own specific characteristics, institutions, principles of stabilization and the exercise of power. Compared to totalitarian rule, authoritarianism is not free to exercise its power. The society retains institutions that pose a real threat to the regime: family, clan, church, social class, urban and rural culture, social movements and associations. In other words, society retains a rather powerful potential for the formation and activity of opposition political groups. Therefore, opposition to authoritarianism, as a rule, exists, although it differs significantly from oppositions in a democracy. What distinguishes oppositions under conditions of authoritarianism and democracy is their level of tolerance towards the ruling political group. The regime's intolerance necessarily generates an adequate reaction from the opposition - its main goal and the meaning of its activity is to remove the regime from the political scene. Naturally, the means chosen for this are far from always legal and often come into conflict with what is officially recognized.

A joke often used in comparative political science is a good illustration of the differences between the three regimes - democracy, authoritarianism and totalitarianism. According to this joke, which, of course, contains a great deal of justice, the political systems of Great Britain, Spain and the Soviet Union in the 50s differed in the following way. In Great Britain everything that was not forbidden was allowed (the principle of the rule of law), in Spain everything that was not specifically allowed was forbidden, and in the Soviet Union everything was forbidden, including what was officially considered allowed. If we consider Great Britain, Spain and the USSR, respectively, as examples of a democratic, authoritarian and totalitarian political system, then we are faced with a rather capacious comparison of the main features of the three types of regimes.

R. Makridis did a great job on such comparison and details. He traced how and through what mechanisms various regimes exercise their power in society (see diagram 1) Mucridis R.C. Modern Political Regimes. Pallerns and Institutions. Boston, Toronto, 1986. P. 15.

Mechanisms for exercising power		Totalitarian	Democracy
1. Restrictions on the activities of the ruling structures			Yes - a lot
2. Responsibility of the ruling structures		Weak (watered, party)	Significant
3. Organization of the structure of government: the state bureaucracy / military individual leader		Party controlled Yes (collective manual)	State and government agencies Subordinated
4. Penetration of political bodies into the structures of society			Limited
5. Mobilizing support			Various
6. Official ideology
	Weak / no	One batch	Lots of
8. Police, force, intimidation
9. The rights of the individual (protection) in form in essence			Yes, mostly

Thus, we can single out the following characteristics that are universal for authoritarianism. All authoritarian regimes are distinguished by:

the desire to exclude political opposition (if any) from the process of articulating political positions and making decisions;

the desire to use force in resolving conflict situations and the lack of democratic mechanisms to control the exercise of power;

the desire to control all potentially oppositional public institutions - family, traditions, interest groups, mass media and communications, etc .;

the relatively weak rootedness of power in society and the resulting desire and, at the same time, the inability of the regime to subordinate society to all-encompassing control;

permanent, but most often not very effective searches by the regime for new sources of power (tradition and charisma of the leader) and a new ideology capable of uniting the elite and society;

the relative closeness of the ruling elite, which is combined with the presence of disagreements within it and groups fighting for power.

All of the above was vividly reflected in the definition of authoritarianism given by X. Linz. According to this definition, authoritarian systems are "political systems that are characterized by limited, although not initiated from above, political pluralism, the absence of a developed and leading ideology in the presence, however, of a certain type of mentality, the absence of a broad and intense political mobilization, excluding certain periods of development. - systems in which a leader or a narrow group exercises power within vaguely defined but completely predictable boundaries. "

Democracy and totalitarianism

Recently, they have spoken with a fair amount of skepticism about the essence of Russian democracy. First, it is unconstructive to consider modern Russia a democratic state ...

Information war as a targeted information impact of information systems

Information war is a term that has two meanings: 1) Impact on the civilian population and / or military personnel of another state through the dissemination of certain information ...

Public opinion

One can agree with Mussolini that totalitarianism originated at the beginning of the 20th century. Its main feature: the ruling elite controls not only the political sphere, but all the main areas of life: economic, cultural, informational, family ...

Political and legal systems in history, their formation, development and functioning

Many political scientists, reflecting on the issues of the emergence and existence of authoritarianism, highlight the origins of this phenomenon, some reasons that do not clearly cause the establishment of an authoritarian regime, but internal, persisting preconditions ...

Political Thought in the Middle Ages

In the 16th - 17th centuries, significant shifts took place in the economic and socio-political life of Western European countries, which are characterized by the process of initial capital accumulation, the decomposition of feudal relations ...

Political regime

The establishment of democracy and democratic social order is now, in fact, the universal slogan of political parties and movements of any type ...

Political regime

One of the first (in the 30s of the last century) to introduce the term "totalitarianism" into scientific circulation was the German philosopher and political scientist K. Schmitt, and already before the start of World War II, a symposium was held in the United States that examined the phenomenon of a totalitarian state ...

Political regime

The name "totalitarianism" comes from the Latin totalis - all, complete, whole. A totalitarian regime is characterized by the fact that all power is concentrated in the hands of one group (usually a party) ...

Political consciousness

The management of various spheres of society under authoritarianism is not so total, there is no strictly organized control over the social and economic infrastructure of civil society, over production, trade unions ...

The role and place of political parties in the conditions of functioning of authoritarian political regimes on the example of the modern Russian party system

In the second chapter, it is necessary to identify the essence of authoritarianism, define the political regime of modern Russia and answer the question of what functions are performed by political parties under authoritarianism. It's necessary...

Comparison of neoconservatism and neoliberalism

The essence of political regimes

The most accepted classification of regimes is their division into democratic, authoritarian and totalitarian. Following partly tradition, and partly the educational goals of this work, we will also build our presentation ...

Functions and mechanisms of exercising political power

Essence and distinctive features of political authoritarianism. Varieties of authoritarian regimes
Strengths and weaknesses of authoritarianism. Reforming opportunities of modern authoritarian regimes
The current Russian political regime is often described as a transition from authoritarianism to democracy. Indicate the specific manifestations of the features of authoritarian and democratic regimes in the functioning of the modern Russian political system

List of references

1. The essence and distinctive features of political authoritarianism. Varieties of authoritarian regimes

An authoritarian regime is a regime that restricts democracy and establishes the power of one person or group of persons (dictatorship). Such a regime significantly limits the powers of representative institutions, ignores the principle of separation of powers, infringes upon civil and political rights, and illegally appropriates or seizes power.

In its most general form, authoritarianism has entrenched the appearance of a system of rigid political rule, which constantly uses coercive and coercive methods to regulate the main social processes. Because of this the most important political institutions in society are disciplinary structure of the state: his law enforcement agencies (army, police, special services). With this style of ruling, the opposition is excluded not only from the sphere of decision-making, but also from political life in general. Elections or other procedures aimed at revealing public opinion, citizens' requests are either absent or are used purely formally.

Autocracy (autocracy, autocracy, that is, unlimited power of one person) does not require a demonstration of loyalty on the part of the population, as under totalitarianism, the absence of open political confrontation is enough for it. However, the regime is merciless to manifestations of real political competition for power, to the actual participation of the population in decision-making on the most important issues of social life. Authoritarianism suppresses basic civil rights.

in the center and in the localities there is a concentration of power in the hands of one or several closely interconnected bodies, while the people are alienated from the real levers of state power;
the principle of separation of powers into legislative, executive and judicial is ignored (often the president and executive and administrative bodies subordinate all other bodies to themselves, are endowed with legislative and judicial powers);
the role of representative authorities is limited, although they may exist;
the court acts, in fact, as a subsidiary body, together with which extrajudicial bodies can be used;
the scope of the principles of election of state bodies and officials, accountability and control of their population has been narrowed or reduced to naught;
command, administrative methods dominate as methods of state administration, at the same time there is no terror, mass repressions, tough violent methods of exercising political power are practically not used;
partial censorship persists, there is a kind of "semi-publicity";
the official ideology dominates in the society, but tolerance towards other ideological currents, loyal to the ruling regime, is manifested;
the rights and freedoms of citizens are limited mainly in the political sphere. Laws are predominantly on the side of the state, not the individual;
politics is monopolized by power. The activities of political parties and opposition are prohibited or limited. Trade unions are controlled by the authorities.

At the same time, the absence of any feature does not remove the stigma of authoritarianism from the regime, just as it is impossible to judge the authoritarian nature of the regime by one feature. For this reason, the question of the political regime in the country is often controversial.

The most undesirable form of manifestation of authoritarianism is totalitarian regime... The main characteristics of a totalitarian regime are: control of the state over all areas of public life (unjustified interference in the economy), complete subordination of a person to political power and the dominant ideology, militarization, the assertion of totalitarian "legality", etc.

Hence the main the difference between an authoritarian regime and a totalitarian: The authoritarian regime extends its principles only to the sphere of the state apparatus (officials, the army and the police) and in parallel to this, civil society continues to exist, which this state apparatus controls. You can also see a significant difference between them in the nature of the relationship of power with society and the individual. If under authoritarianism these relations are differentiated and based on “limited pluralism,” then totalitarianism generally rejects pluralism and the diversity of social interests. Moreover, totalitarianism seeks to eliminate not only social, but also ideological pluralism and dissent.

Totalitarianism Is the dictatorship of the state, and authoritarianism - the dictatorship of the individual or group. Under authoritarianism, the role of the leader is high, but unlike totalitarianism, the leader is usually not charismatic.

Compared to totalitarian rule, authoritarianism is not free to exercise its power. Institutions remain in society that pose a real threat to the regime: family, clan, church, social class, urban and rural culture, social movements and associations. In other words, society retains a rather powerful potential for the formation and activity of opposition political groups.

Military dictatorshipsassuming reliance on the army. In the context of an undeveloped civil society and weak democratic traditions, the military is the most organized force with the resources to seize power (usually through a coup d'etat).
Theocratic - based on the clergy and religion.
Oligarchic - power belongs to certain corporate clans.
Leader (a regime of personal power), based on the authority of a strong leader. The regime itself can have the support of the people. A sense of an external threat to the country may become the basis for the emergence of such regimes. The leaders themselves often use nationalist slogans, ideas of independence or a "modernization breakthrough" (a quick solution to the problems of economic backwardness and poverty) to consolidate the population around their own power.
Mixedcombining elements of different modes.

But under any form of authoritarianism, state power is not really formed or controlled by the people. Despite the fact that there may be representative bodies, in reality they do not play any role in the life of society. Parliament churns out decisions developed by the ruling elite, headed by a leader or a group of individuals (junta, oligarchy).

Often, authoritarian regimes in a relatively "soft" form are carried out to carry out reforms, strengthen the state, its integrity, unity, oppose separatism, and economic collapse. In an authoritarian state, government is, as a rule, centralized.

2. Strengths and weaknesses of authoritarianism. Reform opportunities of modern authoritarian regimes.

To one of weaknesses can be attributed complete dependence of politics on the position of the head of state or a group of top leaders. Several parties can also participate in political life, however, all these parties must be guided by the line developed by the ruling party, otherwise they are prohibited and dispersed.

The authoritarian regime is merciless to manifestations of real political competition for power, to the actual participation of the population in decision-making on the most important issues of social life, therefore, authoritarianism suppresses basic civil rights.

In addition, the decisions of the central government, which often do not take into account the economic, national, geographic, household, religious and other characteristics of certain groups of the population, are not voluntarily executed. If people deviate from the "general line", coercion is applied. A person in an authoritarian state cannot actually enjoy freedoms, even if they are proclaimed formally, since there is no mechanism for their implementation, guarantees are fictitious. Society is also deprived of guarantees of its security in its relationship with the authorities, since the authorities do not restrain themselves in using coercion.

Hence the lack of opportunities for citizens to prevent political adventures or arbitrariness, the limited institutions of articulation, the political expression of public interests.

Due to the persistent disregard of public opinion, the formation of state policy without involving the public, in most cases they make the authoritarian government incapable of creating any serious incentives for the social initiative of the population.

Authoritarian regimes should not be seen as a tool for expressing minority interests. Modern authoritarian regimes use a fairly wide palette of resources, and not only means of coercion and political repression. Their feature is a noticeable reduction in the proportion of methods of ideological processing and political coercion.

Authoritarianism uses economic incentives more often: creating opportunities for the growth of well-being for wide layers of society, conducting an effective social policy. The practical effectiveness of a number of authoritarian regimes (for example, in South Korea, Singapore, Taiwan) allowed them not only to solve the problems of technological modernization, to significantly improve the living standards of the population, but also to attract wide layers of society to their side.

Hence follows strengths of authoritarianism , which are especially noticeable in extreme situations. Authoritarian power has a relatively high ability to ensure political stability and public order, to mobilize public resources for solving certain problems, and to overcome the resistance of political opponents. All this makes it a fairly effective means of carrying out radical social reforms.

But, in comparing the effectiveness of the implementation of socio - economic reforms by an authoritarian regime or a democratic one, it seems to me, it is also worth considering the main features of both regimes.

Any authoritarianism is internally contradictory, difficult to predict and potentially unstable. As a rule, the conditions allowing him to stay in power are not so much political as social and economic. Politically, authoritarianism often lacks either a stable source of power or reliable support in the form of a mass movement. Moreover, authoritarianism often takes root and exists in a segmented society in which none of the competing political groups has a chance to seriously shake the chances of the ruling elite.

However, it cannot be said unequivocally that a democratic regime is better and under it it is easier and easier to carry out socio - economic reforms, because democracy tends to stabilize only in relatively favorable socio-economic conditions, stable growth of gross domestic product and incomes of the population. Democracy has its own contradictions, which are inherent in the very nature of public power - the real inequality of people and their abilities, the advantages of the statuses of the institutions of power over the status of the individual, etc.

Designed to embody the priority of public interests over private ones, democratic power is at the same time filled with the activity of numerous groups, often acting in a directly opposite direction and subordinating it (power) mechanisms to their own designs and needs. In this way, democracyseeking a balance of political relations, fraught with a twofold danger: it can either become an exclusive form of preference for private, corporate interests (elites, bureaucracy, individual groups of citizens) over public ones, or it can slip into such forms of government that consign any private interests to oblivion.

The positive experience of transforming a number of backward countries, which managed to quickly and relatively painlessly turn into prosperous, open and stable societies, confirms the effectiveness of using authoritarian methods to carry out a number of reforms. We are talking about the prosperous and fast-growing economies of East Asia (Taiwan, South Korea, Singapore), the Persian Gulf (Saudi Arabia, Oman, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, UAE) and South America (Chile); this also includes the development of countries such as the PRC, Uganda, Thailand, Malaysia, etc.

The authoritarian regimes of these countries were able to transform to one degree or another in democracies faster, more successfully, and, by all indications, more irreversible than democratically oriented developing or post-communist countries.

These countries demonstrate the transition to democracy through authoritarianism and the institutionalization of authoritarian forms of democracy. Embarking on the path of market-oriented modernization, these countries first strengthened political control (since a characteristic feature of the economic policy of authoritarian regimes is its orientation towards budget expenditures, in which the possibility of theft of funds, corruption on the part of political elites is greatest), that, ultimately led to the creation of the basic elements of democracy, for example, the middle wealthy strata, openness to the outside world, integration into the world economy. In other words, these political regimes first established dictatorial systems and then (or simultaneously) pursued an aggressive policy of state intervention in the market economy, while simultaneously stimulating the latter.

By now, there are examples of "bad" democracies that have led to disaster (Weimar Germany, post-colonial India, Gorbachev's USSR, attempts at democratization in Nigeria, Sudan, etc.), and "good" authoritarianisms (Singapore, Taiwan, South Korea, Uganda, Indonesia), which led to democracy (to one degree or another).

Considering the above, I can conclude that neither of the two political regimes can be called unequivocally the only correct one in the field of reforms. It is also necessary to take into account the historical background of this or that country, how the development took place. Blindly applying one mode or another may not always lead to success. It seems to me that the most suitable political regime can be called an authoritarian-democratic one. Because for successful development it is necessary to combine the main advantages of the two regimes.

It is necessary to have a decisive role of the state, which regulates economic development, the creation of an optimistic ideology of reforms that take into account common values \u200b\u200band stereotypes when people trust the decision of the state, and the most important factor is the personality of a leader who would embody the idea of \u200b\u200bloyalty, integrity and decency.

the economic growth;
social goods;
political stability;
positive international participation;
legal protection.

3. The current Russian political regime is often described as a transition from authoritarianism to democracy. Indicate the specific manifestations of the features of authoritarian and democratic regimes in the functioning of the modern Russian political system

It has become a commonplace for politicians and political scientists to assert that modern Russia is in a transitional period.

The modern Russian political system is determined by the Constitution. Despite the presence in it of provisions that give the right to characterize it as democratic, in reality, the political system of Russia largely does not meet the generally accepted criteria of democracy, the most important of which are the representativeness of the government, its responsibility to society, and the presence of effective public control over the government. The redistribution of powers is clearly biased towards the executive branch, and especially the president. The real levers of influence on his policies from other branches of government are seriously limited.

Within the framework of the Russian political system, both democratic and non-democratic methods of exercising power coexist, which makes it possible to speak of the duality of the modern political regime.

A feature of the modern development of Russia is the emergence of a regime for which the interests of the state and society do not coincide. This means that the public authority at this stage does not have an effective political structure. Such a regime is called by political scientists hybrid or transitional. Possessing signs of democracy, it is not yet democratic.

On the one hand, a decisive step on the road to democracy is the transition to an elective system of forming power. Free alternative elections retain the potential to transform Russian democracy from regime to real. Votes are the most important resource of the regime system. In today's Russia, no politician can build or conquer power without using votes as a resource. If the political potential of an authoritarian resource existed, it would undoubtedly be used.

At the same time, modern political practice creates institutions that are formally democratic, but do not bear responsibility to society. So, political parties, basically, they carry out ties with the elite and mobilize ideological and political resources for the inter-elite struggle. The economy in Russia is developing according to market laws in the absence of an efficiently functioning market system, so entrepreneurs tend to use existing laws to gain independence from the bureaucracy in order to protect their personal and property rights.

At the same time institutions of democracy(parliament, courts, local government) retain the ability to function independently and are the foundation for the transition to a democratic regime.

Among the main features of the authoritarian regime in the modern Russian political system are the following: a sharp weakening of the political influence of regional elites and big business; establishment of direct or indirect state control over the country's main television channels; the constantly growing use of the "administrative resource" in elections at the regional and federal levels.

The following fact can be cited as a vivid example of the manifestation of authoritarianism. Having received a constitutional majority in the State Duma, the political party "United Russia", which declared its full support for the policy of the incumbent president, has unlimited opportunities to implement political and economic reforms, change the political system of society, which was demonstrated at the end of 2004 by the adoption of a federal law , changing the procedure for electing the heads of the executive power of the subjects of the federation. The increase in the passing barrier for political parties from five to seven percent is also difficult to call a democratic measure.

The desire of the current regime in Russia to manage political contacts with business, to solo in the party and media markets, to control civil structures, etc. indicates that he is trying to substitute his own activity for the activity of all his political partners. As a result, the quite natural process of politicization of public administration is transformed into a process of policy management with the accompanying interception of representative functions from the population and business, disregard for the opinions of civil partners, and inhibition of the political activity of society.

There is a known case when V.V. Putin demonstrated decisiveness in neutralizing the influence on the government of those oligarchs who financed and controlled the media, unleashing a PR campaign against the president. These events have raised concerns about the situation of independent media outlets in Russia.

On the other hand, in modern Russia, the characteristic features of democracy are more and more clearly manifested: the foundations of legal statehood are being built and the foundations of civil society are being created; power at the federal and local levels is elected and replaceable; mechanisms of direct democracy (referendums) operate, there is a system of separation of powers in the state; fundamental human rights are guaranteed, the political opposition, including the "irreconcilable" one, is actually acting; formally, the judiciary is independent from the executive authorities; there is no leading ideology; a free and competitive market is emerging in the economy with a variety of forms of ownership; there are independent media and communications.

Since 2006, the Public Chamber began to work, one of the most important tasks of which is to conduct an examination of the most significant draft laws in order to fulfill the interests of society.

But it is worth remembering other important components in modern Russia. As a result of the ongoing reforms in the country, a huge gap has formed between the rich and the poor, which, in the absence of a stabilizing "middle class", leads to an increase in authoritarian sentiments. According to government data, in 2004 the difference in incomes between the richest 10% and the poorest 10% in Russia was 14.1 times, in 2005 - 14.8 times. Those. there is not a reduction, but an increase in the gap, which becomes dangerous. In developed countries, the gap is 4-7 times. The problem of democracy is not particularly relevant in a poor country, where people think more about survival than respecting human rights. People who are accustomed to receiving everything they need from the state do not know what to do with the freedom that the right-wing parties promise them.

Freedom, not supported by the material component, which the welfare state must provide, is a burden for a person. In order to live well in freedom, it is necessary to show initiative, raise the professional level, not rely on the help of the state, but, if possible, solve life problems yourself. This requires the psychological readiness of the individual, as well as assistance from the state, which, with the help of legal norms, must ensure the realization of the freedom of the citizen in the political, economic, social, cultural and other spheres. Political institutions and bureaucracy, which in Russian conditions is the main obstacle to the establishment of democratic freedoms, should work in a corresponding way.

To strengthen democratic tendencies in Russia, it is necessary to carry out reforms that have a positive result for the majority of people: reforms of the administrative and state apparatus, creation of conditions for the effective functioning of small and medium-sized businesses, pension reform, reform of local self-government, reform of health care and education.

Considering all of the above, we can conclude that an authoritarian regime is needed now in modern Russia, since it contributes to the creation of the necessary material and spiritual prerequisites for a future democratic regime.

List of references

V. Chervonyuk, I. Kalinsky, G. Ivanets. Encyclopedic Dictionary "Constitutional Law of Russia", 2002.
Gutorov V.A. Contemporary Russian ideology as a system and political reality. Methodological aspects // Polis. 2001. No. 3.
Printed materials of the international scientific and practical conference. - Omsk: Publishing house OmGPU, 2001.
Smolin O.N. Political process in modern Russia: textbook. allowance. M., 2006.
Soloviev A.I. Political Science: Political Theory, Political Technologies :. A textbook for university students. - M .: Aspect Press, 2000.
The theory of politics / Ed. B.A. Isaeva. - SPb .: Peter, 2007.
Tsygankov A.P. Modern political regimes: structure, typology, dynamics. - M .: Firma "Interprax", 1996.
Shestov N.I. The idea of \u200b\u200bthe country's unity and the reform of the Russian political system // Polis. 2004. No. 6.
Yakovlev A.N. Reformation in Russia // Social Sciences and Modernity. 2005. No. 2. C.11.
the Internet

1) autocracy (autocracy or a small number of power holders). They can be one person (monarch, president, military dictator) or a group of individuals (military junta, oligarchic group);

2) unlimited power, its lack of control over citizens. In this case, the government can rule with the help of laws, but it accepts them individually at its discretion;

3) reliance on strength. The government has sufficient power resources to suppress the opposition, if necessary;

4) monopolization of power and politics, prevention of real political opposition and competition. However, authoritarianism, in contrast to totalitarianism, allows the existence of a limited number of parties, trade unions and other organizations, but only if they are under the control of the authorities. Often the absence of opposition under authoritarianism is caused not by the opposition of the authorities, but by the unwillingness of society to create political organizations, the lack of the population's need for political self-organization;

5) refusal of total control over society, non-interference or limited interference in non-political spheres, primarily in the economy. The attention of the state includes issues of ensuring state security, public order, defense, foreign policy, although it can also influence the strategy of economic development, pursue an active social policy, without destroying the mechanisms of market self-regulation;

6) recruiting the political elite through co-optation, appointment from above, and not by competing in elections.

CONCLUSION

Based on the above, totalitarian systems can be viewed as systems of an authoritarian type. However, the totalitarian logic of social life implies more than a simple abolition of political competition. If authoritarianism only limits political pluralism, then totalitarian systems strive to abolish all pluralism in the structure of society, to establish a single, “totalitarian” model of social interaction.

Over the past 20 years, a lot of non-democratic - totalitarian and authoritarian - regimes have disintegrated or transformed into democratic republics or states on a democratic basis. The general disadvantage of non-democratic political systems is that they were not controlled by the people, which means that the nature of their relationship with citizens depended primarily on the will of the rulers. In past centuries, the possibility of arbitrariness on the part of authoritarian rulers was significantly restrained by the traditions of government, the relatively high education and upbringing of monarchs and aristocracy, their self-control based on religious and moral codes, as well as the opinion of the church and the threat of popular uprisings. In the modern era, these factors have either disappeared altogether, or their effect has greatly weakened. Therefore, only a democratic form of government can reliably curb power, guarantee the protection of citizens from state arbitrariness. For those peoples who are ready for individual freedom and responsibility, limiting their own selfishness, respecting the law and human rights, democracy really creates the best opportunities for individual and social development, the realization of humanistic values: freedom, equality, justice, social creativity.

List of used literature

2. Aron R. Democracy and totalitarianism. M., 1993.

3. Power in the transition from totalitarianism to democracy. // Free thought. - 1993 - № 8.

4.Gadzhiev K.S. Political Science: Textbook. - M., 1995.

5. Theory of law and state: Textbook // ed. V.V. Lazareva - M., 2001

An authoritarian regime is a state-political structure of a society in which political power is exercised by a specific person (class, party, elite group, etc.) with minimal participation of the people. Authoritarianism is inherent in power and politics, but its grounds and degree are different. The natural, innate qualities of a political leader ("authoritarian", imperious personality) can act as determinants; reasonable, rational, justified by the situation (a need of a special kind, for example, a state of war, social crisis, etc.); social (the emergence of social or national conflicts), etc., up to irrational, when authoritarianism passes into its extreme form - totalitarianism, despotism, the creation of a particularly cruel, repressive regime. Any imposition of the will of power on society is authoritarian, and not voluntarily and consciously accepted obedience. Objective foundations Authoritarianism can be associated with the active transformative activities of the authorities. The fewer such grounds and the more inactive the authorities are, the more obvious are the subjective, personal foundations of authoritarianism.

Stable disregard for public opinion, the formation of state policy without involving the public in most cases makes the authoritarian government incapable of creating any serious incentives for the social initiative of the population. True, due to forced mobilization, certain regimes can, in short historical periods, give rise to high civil activity of the population. However, in most cases, authoritarianism destroys the initiative of the public as a source of economic growth and inevitably leads to a drop in the effectiveness of government, low economic performance of the authorities.

The leadership of various spheres of society under authoritarianism is not so total, there is no strictly organized control over the social and economic infrastructures of civil society, over production, trade unions, educational institutions, mass organizations, and the media. Autocracy does not require a demonstration of loyalty on the part of the population, as under totalitarianism; the absence of open political confrontation is enough for it. However, the regime is merciless to manifestations of real political competition for power, to the actual participation of the population in decision-making on the most important issues of the life of society, therefore, authoritarianism suppresses basic civil rights.

In order to preserve unlimited power in its hands, the authoritarian regime circulates the elites not by competing in elections, but by co-opting (voluntary introduction) of them into the governing structures. Due to the fact that the process of transferring power in such regimes occurs not through the procedures for replacing leaders established by law, but by force, these regimes are not legitimate. However, even though they do not rely on the support of the people, this does not prevent them from existing for a long time and sufficiently successfully solving strategic tasks.

In general terms, the most characteristic features of authoritarian regimes are as follows:

Concentration of power in the hands of one person or group. The bearer of power can be a charismatic leader, a monarch, or a military junta. As in the case of totalitarianism, society is alienated from power, there is no mechanism for its succession. The elite is formed by appointment from above;

Citizens' rights and freedoms are mainly limited in the political sphere. Laws are predominantly on the side of the state, not the individual;

The society is dominated by the official ideology, but there is tolerance towards other ideological currents loyal to the ruling regime;

Politics is monopolized by power. The activities of political parties and opposition are prohibited or restricted. Trade unions are controlled by the authorities;

State control does not apply to non-political spheres - economy, culture, religion, private life;

The vast public sector is heavily regulated by the state. As a rule, it functions within the framework of a market economy and gets along well with private entrepreneurship. The economy can be both highly efficient and ineffective;

Censorship is carried out over the media, which is allowed to criticize certain shortcomings of state policy while maintaining loyalty to the system;

Power relies on force sufficient to, if necessary, compel the population to obey. Mass repressions, as under totalitarianism, are not carried out;

With positive results of activity, the regime can be supported by the majority of society. A minority is fighting for the transition to democracy. Civil society can exist, but it depends on the state;

The regime is characterized by unitary forms of the state with a rigid centralization of power. The rights of national minorities are limited.

Our century has not become an era of complete triumph of democracy. More than half of the world's population still lives under authoritarian or totalitarian dictatorships. The latter are becoming less and less, practically the remaining dictatorial regimes are authoritarian and exist in the countries of the "third world".

After 1945, dozens of countries liberated 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 from their former colonies. But the second half of the twentieth century. turned into a tragedy rather than a triumph of the liberated countries. Only many of them have achieved political democracy and economic prosperity. Over the past thirty years, dozens of Third World countries have experienced endless series of coups and revolutions, which are sometimes difficult to distinguish from each other. One authoritarianism was replaced by another, as was the case, for example, in Iran, when in 1979 the power of Khomeini was established instead of the Shah's regime. In the third world countries, dictatorships dominate and often find support there among the majority of the population. This is facilitated by some features of the development of Eastern societies.

These include, first, the specific role of the community. The political and cultural experience of the countries of Asia, Africa and, to a lesser extent, Latin America is not permeated with the idea of \u200b\u200bthe independent value of human life, does not contain the idea of \u200b\u200bthe positive meaning of individuality. A person is thought of as a part of the whole, as a member of a certain society, the norms of which he must obey both in thoughts and in behavior, that is, the collective prevails over the personal. The role of all sorts of leaders is also great, who take on the right to interpret norms and embody in their person the unity of the community, clan, etc.

Here, the prevailing relationship is when the head of the community "takes care" of its members, and for this they are obliged to "serve" him with faith and truth. In such societies, the guidelines for political behavior are not the worldview, but the behavior of the leaders of the community, clan, etc. In most of the Third World countries, political opponents are divided mainly on the basis of clannishness.

Secondly, "in the third world" the state has a significant weight, since civil society is not yet developed. There is no powerful middle stratum capable of becoming the backbone of democracy and a strong civilian power. The role of the executive branch, which is the consolidating force of society, is growing, since it is divided by numerous religious, ethnic, class and other partitions and no political force in it can become a hegemon. In this state of affairs, only the state can mobilize all funds for modernization and accelerated development.

These moments create the preconditions for an authoritarian government. Almost all attempts to familiarize third world countries, such as African countries, with democracy by copying the constitutions and political systems of the metropolitan countries have failed. The fragile "democracies" established there were not the result of a long and stubborn struggle of the masses themselves for their rights, as was the case in Europe.

In the late 50s and early 60s, authoritarian regimes, primarily military dictatorships, found their supporters not only in developing countries, but also among some representatives of the Western academic community. A number of political scientists and politicians believed that these regimes are the most appropriate type of government for countries making the transition from a traditional to an industrial society. Hopes were pinned on the fact that the army, as the most organized force, will be able to carry out all the necessary transformations "from above", that it is able to resist the corrupt elements in the state apparatus and is a symbol of national unity, since it is recruited from various social strata, nationalities and regions. Some observers from the United States and Western Europe suggested that with the help of the military, Western economic and political principles could be most easily implemented in the liberated countries.

The reality turned out to be different. In most African and Asian countries, under the rule of military authoritarian dictatorships, the army has shown an excessive tendency towards bureaucracy and organizational routine. Corruption and nepotism flourished among the military. Military spending has risen sharply due to an equally sharp cut in funds for 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 place all spheres of public life under their own control. In most cases, the belief in the army's ability to become a unifying center of different social groups was not confirmed either.

The armies were unable to resist ethnic and confessional divisions, tribal divisions and the separatist movement. In many Third World armies, there are several different conspiracies and counter-conspiracies. This often leads to protracted bloody conflicts (Pakistan, Chal, Uganda, etc.).

Regimes with frequent military coups were called praetorian by analogy with ancient Rome, where the praetorian guard often enthroned a pretender they liked or overthrew him if he did not suit her with his rule. Therefore, for the majority of modern "emperors and saviors of the fatherland", support for the army remains the main source of maintaining power and the subject of main concerns.

Modern authoritarianism takes many forms and differs in many ways from past versions. For example, in Latin America in the twentieth - early twentieth century. the authoritarian leaders were the caudilno-self-styled masters of certain territories, who often had their own armed detachments. This was possible with a weak national government, to which the caudillos did not obey, and often took control of it. Later, authoritarian leaders became the owners of predominantly national rather than local power, using the army for their own purposes.

However, a completely legitimate question arises: if an authoritarian regime violates the constitution and human rights, then how does it achieve mass support and justify its existence in the eyes of fellow citizens? After all, terror is not used everywhere and not always for this, more often, perhaps, the authoritarian system tries by word or in some other way, but to convince, and not force to believe in the correctness of its methods and measures. Since references to law and tradition sometimes look blasphemous, dictators, as a rule, motivate their actions, their policies, "by the dire need to establish order," "national interests," etc. The charismatic element has always been the main factor in the desire to justify the dictatorship.

The dictator is helped, and his certain popularity among the masses, therefore, the dictators themselves and their associates are trying to convince public opinion 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 his strength and righteousness, make him appeal to public opinion and, for this, pay special attention to creating his own positive image (image) in the eyes of fellow citizens.

Very often, authoritarianism justifies its policy by serving the national idea, which attracts a lot of supporters. Such a technique works best when it becomes clear to everyone that neither the practically continuous meetings of parliament and party clubs, nor the packages of laws adopted, not a step forward the matter. If the government is powerless and complete apathy reigns in its corridors, if the system is ineffective and irritates citizens, then the danger of dictatorship increases many times over. The dictator comes to power under the slogan of oblivion of party strife in the name of a higher house before the Motherland.

In the second half of the twentieth century. dictators strive to acquire a certain ideological coloring.

Like totalitarianism, Western scholars distinguish between left and right authoritarianism, although this distinction is less clear here. Left-wing authoritarian dictatorships are based on different versions of socialism (Arab, African, etc.).

These include many previous and current regimes, such as, for example, the dictator J. Nyerere in Tazania, H. Assad in Syria and many others. They arose in the 60s and 70s, when the attractiveness of socialism in the world was quite high, since the Soviet system then demonstrated high rates of development and generously helped its followers in the liberated countries.

The leaders of the liberated states tried to adopt the general scheme: one party, leadership of all political organizations from a single center, state property in the economy, propaganda accessible to the broad masses of the population, etc. They were greatly impressed by the rapid industrialization of the USSR with the help of command methods of leadership and its rise military power. And socialism, the values \u200b\u200bof which these leaders vehemently rejected.

Many left-wing dictatorships, such as in Vietnam, have established themselves in developing countries, taking the leadership of the national liberation movement into their own hands. However, even sometimes uncritically perceiving the experience of the USSR, these countries essentially remained faithful to their centuries-old traditions: often a struggle for power or tribal antagonisms was hidden behind the humanism of words, opposition clans were declared to be a "hostile regime" and a struggle began against them. The negative that the copied political system carried in itself was amplified many times over in authoritarian regimes of the left: the cult of the leader, the bloated bureaucratic apparatus, the administrative-command style of managing the life of the country, the practice of constant leaps forward, etc.

These and many other factors determined the emergence of social groups with different economic, political, etc. interests. Such a pluralism of interests required the reform of the political and economic systems. The time for transformation has begun.

However, it soon became clear that it was impossible to simply replace the old model with another proposed by the West. An insufficiently high level of socio-economic development and a person's involvement in a certain traditional community restrict the formation of an individual principle and force him to trust the authority of a certain leader. And although the leaders of countries experiencing a period of reform talk about a reorientation of their policies and something is really changing there, nevertheless, a number of examples indicate that the essence of authoritarian regimes remains the same: there is no legal change of leaders, one party dominates with a vertical - a hierarchical structure, which affects the principles of the formation of all other structures in the state, many democratic norms are still declared, but not implemented in practice, etc.

Right-wing authoritarian regimes include the Arab monarchies of the Middle East (Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and some others), a number of Asian states (Singapore, Indonesia, etc.), former Latin American countries during the period of junta domination, and individual African states.

A classic example of military authoritarianism that existed in Latin America in the 1960s and 1980s was the junta. When they came to power, they sought to exclude any possibility of political radicalism and revolution, hoping to secure the support of the majority of the population not only through direct suppression of dissent, but also through "propaganda by deed" - the formation of an effective economic policy, the development of domestic industry, the creation of jobs, etc. . P.

Such a policy does not always mean a transition to economic liberalism, since any military regime tries to choose its own way of implementing its goals. For example, the degree of government intervention in the economy and the participation of foreign capital were different: in Brazil, state planning was carried out, in Argentina a large public sector of the economy was created, in Chile, on the contrary, Pinochet privatized a similar sector that existed there before him.

Also, when classifying authoritarian regimes, they can be divided into the following three groups: one-party systems, military regimes and regimes of personal power. The main criterion for such a division of regimes is the ruling group, its main characteristics and ways of interacting with society. In all three cases, there is, according to Huntington's definition, a sustained drive to minimize elite competition and massive political participation. The only exception in this row is the South African apartheid regime, which was a racial oligarchy and excluded more than 70% of the population from participation in politics, while simultaneously practicing rather broad competition within the white community. To these three groups of authoritarian regimes one more can be added - bureaucratic-oligarchic regimes. Power in these regimes is exercised by a group of individuals who often represent the interests of various social strata, but the state bureaucracy plays the main and unconditional role in the formulation and adoption of decisions.

One-party systems. The term "one-party system" can be used, as noted by J. Sartori, in three cases. First, in relation to a situation where one party monopolizes political power, preventing the existence of any other parties and political organizations. Secondly, when one party acts as hegemonic, and all the rest, existing, have no chance to compete with it on an equal basis. Third, a dominant situation is possible. parties, when the same party constantly receives an overwhelming majority of votes in parliament. In this situation, the parties not only exist as legitimate, but, despite their insufficient effectiveness, have equal starting conditions in the political struggle. The third model goes beyond the framework of authoritarian politics, because it contains free and fair competition - the main condition for democratic systems. These three models of one-party system may well merge into each other: a hegemonic party has a chance to evolve into a dominant one, and a dominant one - to degenerate into a hegemonic and even monopoly.

In most cases, one-party systems are either established through revolutions or imposed from outside. This was the case, for example, with the countries of Eastern Europe, in which one-party systems were the post-war result of implanting the experience of the USSR. Here, in addition to countries with a communist regime, Taiwan and Mexico can be attributed. In such systems, the party monopolizes and concentrates power in its hands, legitimizes its rule with the help of an appropriate ideology, and access to power itself is directly linked to membership in a party organization. Systems of this kind often reach a very high level of institutionalization, sometimes (USSR, Germany) coming close to the totalitarian organization of political power.

One-party systems can differ significantly from each other. This is quite understandable, because the differences may relate to the degree of centralization of power, the possibilities of ideological mobilization, the relationship between the party - state and party - society, etc. Simplifying somewhat, such differences can be reduced to two main groups.

1. To what extent does a party successfully overcome competition from other contenders for political power? Among these aspirants, we should single out the leaders endowed with charismatic qualities; traditional actors (primarily the church and the monarchy); bureaucratic actors (bureaucracy); parliamentary actors (national assemblies and parliaments, local governments); the military; separate socio-economic groups (peasants, workers, managers, entrepreneurs, technocrats and intellectuals).

2. To what extent the party successfully manages to isolate the main social strata from free participation in politics and to mobilize these strata to support their own power.

Based on these two features, M. Hagopian distinguished the following four types of one-party regimes: 1) dominant-mobilization; 2) subordinate mobilization; 3) dominant-pluralistic; 4) subordinate-pluralistic (Dominant-mobilization regimes are very close to totalitarian regimes and actually merge with them. Competition among the elites is minimized here, and the mobilization of society reaches a very significant scale. The opposite of these regimes are subordinate pluralistic one-party systems that are unable to significantly restrict intra-elite competition, nor to attract the main strata of society to support their rule. Soviet society at the end of the 30s and at the turn of the 70s - 80s can serve as a good illustration of the evolution of a regime from a dominant mobilization regime to a subordinate pluralistic one. In the interval between these poles there is a subordinate mobilization and dominant-pluralistic modes. An example of the latter would be the Brezhnev regime in the first stage of its functioning, when the party, in the main, managed to maintain control over other elite groups, but the society was less and less able to be activated with the help of the once-failing ideological formulations. As for the subordinate mobilization regimes, the Bolshevik regime at the initial stages of its stabilization, apparently, can be considered as one of the examples of such regimes. The differences that existed between Lenin's and Stalin's concepts of the party did not in any way affect the mass strata of Russian society supporting the emerging Bolshevik regime.

Military regimes. In contrast to one-party regimes, military regimes most often arise from coups d'états against civilians in control. In political science, the name of these regimes as "praetorian" is also known. The tasks of the Praetorian Guard, which existed under the emperors in the last days of the Roman Empire, were to protect their safety. However, the strategic position of the Praetorians often led them to actions directly opposite to those expected - the assassination of the emperor and the sale of his office to the one who offered the highest price.

In this regard, political science often uses the term "praetorian society" meaning that in society there is a very high probability of military coups as a means of resolving the accumulated political contradictions. There are four main characteristics of "praetorian society":

1) Serious lack of consensus on the main functions and methods of government. In other words, there are no rules of the game among political actors in society.

2) The struggle for power and wealth takes on especially sharp and rough forms.

3) Super-rich minorities face huge impoverished strata of society in much the same way as Marx described when he described the final stage of capitalism.

4) There is a low level of institutionalization of political and administrative bodies, because the level of legitimacy of the authorities is extremely low, and the level of instability is very high. The decline of public morality, corruption and corruption lead to discrediting of political life and its subsequent interruption. There is a strong temptation for the military to intervene, guided by either the desire to end a weak and corrupt civil regime, or the desire to get more than the available share in the management of society and the distribution of social wealth. The emerging military regime most often exercises power on an institutional basis inherited by it, governing either collegially (like a junta), or periodically transferring the main government post to the circle of senior generals.

A huge number of practical examples of military rule 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 the relationship between military and civilians. The most important components of this theory are the classification of military coups (reformist, consolidating, conservative, veto-coups) and the causes that caused them, an analysis of the peculiarities of the mentality and ethical values \u200b\u200bof the military (nationalism, collectivism, negative attitudes towards politics, internal discipline, a puritanical way of life, etc. .), the attitude of the military to modernization and their potential in its implementation.

Personal power regimes. This category also hides a fairly wide variety of models for exercising political power. Their common 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, closeness to him, and dependence on him. Regimes of personal power often degenerate into what M. Weber defined as sultanist regimes, with their characteristic corruption, relations of patronage and nepotism. Portugal under Salazar, Spain under Franco, the Philippines under Marcos, India under Indira Gandhi, Romania under Ceausescu are more or less convincing examples of regimes of personal power.

In addition, there are a number of mixed regimes that can evolve into a regime of personal power, initially with other sources of authority and the exercise of power. The coup in Chile, carried out by a group of military personnel, subsequently led to the establishment of the personal power regime of General A. Pinochet, both due to his personal qualities and the length of his tenure. An obvious and suggestive example is Stalin's regime, which went through the most varied stages of evolution, relying initially on populist slogans, then on a well-oiled party machine, and, finally, more and more, on the charisma of the "leader."

Bureaucratic-oligarchic regimes. These regimes are often considered in conjunction with the issue of military regimes. This is quite legitimate, because the military, having come to power, use the state apparatus and political institutions they inherited. However, there can be differences in leadership structures as to whether it is military or government officials who have the initiative and the last word in life-changing political decisions. These differences make it possible to single out the bureaucratic-oligarchic regimes into a separate group.

In bureaucratic-oligarchic regimes, formal powers are most often vested in parliamentary bodies, but in practice both parties and parliamentary factions are too weak to compete with a powerful corporate bloc of forces. This block can be composed of representatives of official government structures (President, Head of Government, Speaker of Parliament, etc.); powerful interest groups representing, for example, large financial capital; leaders of law enforcement agencies and other forces who conclude a temporary alliance and establish corporate rules of the political game to ensure relative stability in society and the achievement of mutually beneficial goals. As a rule, such regimes are very unstable and are established in an intermediate state for society, when the former source of authority (general elections) weakens, loses the strength of the hoop that holds society together, and a new one that can replace it with the method of social integration does not arise. Those in power are afraid of general elections, ideological motivation does not have any prospects in mobilizing public support, so the regime remains in power, using bribery of potentially powerful rivals and gradually opening access to power for them.

The most important characteristic of bureaucratic-oligarchic regimes is corporatism, i.e. the formation and relatively successful functioning of a special type of structures linking society with the state, bypassing political parties and legislative bodies of power. Officially representing private interests to the state, such structures are formally subordinate 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 corporatism are: a) the special role of the state in the establishment and maintenance of a special socio-economic order, basically, 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 political decision-making; c) the economy basically functions in reliance on private ownership of the means of production and hired labor; d) producer organizations receive a special intermediate status between the state and public actors, performing not only the functions of representing interests, but also regulating on behalf of the state. To one degree or another, these characteristics of corporatism are manifested in all bureaucratic-oligarchic regimes.

Under the conditions of bureaucratic authoritarianism, the state defends the interests of a bloc consisting of three main driving forces. This is, first of all, the national bourgeoisie, which controls the largest and most dynamic national companies. Then, international capital, which is closely related to national capital and in many ways constitutes the driving force behind the economic development of the country. This interaction of national and international capital led, in particular, to the formation of an additional number of subsidiaries of multinational corporations. A high degree of instability, acute political conflicts, the "communist threat", and periodically emerging economic crises prompted this bloc to rely on another major force capable of preventing possible social disintegration - the army.

Defending the interests of this bloc of forces, the state is endowed with a number of characteristics similar to the fascist - 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 the more clearly, the more obvious it becomes the need to protect the interests of national capital from the increased claims of international capital. The state is increasingly acting as the patron of the national bourgeoisie. Such a model existed in a number of Latin American countries until it developed and revealed its claims to participation in political activity that very popular sector, the growth of which was carefully controlled by the state, until the interests of the national bourgeoisie diversified, which could no longer be resolved within the framework of an authoritarian regime.

The following varieties can also be added to the above classification of authoritarian regimes.

The populist regime is, as its name implies (in Latin, populus - people), the product of the awakening of the majority of the people to an independent political life. However, it does not give the masses real opportunities to influence the political process. They are given the unenviable role of "extras," approving and practically supporting the actions of the government, which supposedly pursues the sole goal of the people's good. To maintain this illusion, populist regimes widely resort to social demagoguery, which is used in the modern political vocabulary by the word "populism". In reality, however, populist regimes are more likely to take into account the interests of the economically privileged sections of the population, and their real support is the bureaucracy.

Populist regimes are based on one (the only legal or dominant over the rest) party, which proclaims national development as its main goal. The phraseology used by such regimes is usually nationalistic in nature, this nation is portrayed as engaged in a mortal battle with hostile forces - transnational corporations, conservatives, communists, or in general, sowing confusion among politicians. Although theoretically all citizens have civil rights, in fact, this is far from the case there are multiple ways to prevent an open struggle for leadership: citizens are given the freedom to choose candidates, but not parties: either not all parties are allowed to participate in elections: or the voting results are simply rigged ...

The oldest populist regime in the world until very recently (when the so-called "mexistroika" began) existed in Mexico where the Institutional Revolutionary Party (IRP) has been in power since 1921. The opposition acted legally, but hopes to one day be in power it had little: under the electoral law, a party that won the support of a relative majority of the electorate won the vast majority of seats in Congress. And the IRP has always received a relative majority of votes, for in seven to ten years it has grown together with the state apparatus and, no less important, permeated the entire society with its organizational structure. Once radical, over time, the IWP moved to a rather moderate position: it no longer fights either the church or capitalism. I must admit. that Mexico under the rule of the IRP failed to avoid the troubles typical of authoritarian-bureaucratic regimes: acute inequality, corruption and repressive tendencies, as well as economic stagnation. "Meksistroyka" contributed greatly to the democratization of the country. However, as evidenced by the recent peasant uprising in southern Mexico, decades of authoritarian-bureaucratic rule do not pass without a trace.

Quite characteristic of populist regimes is the cult of the personalities of “founding leaders” such as Kenyatta in Kenya. Nyerere in Tanzania. Kaunda in Zambia When a leader dies, his charisma (this term introduced by M. Weber is used in political science to reflect the exceptional, superhuman qualities attributed to the bearer of political power) can be 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 escaped this threat only because the country's military elite has been politicized since 1921 and closely associated with the political leadership. However, in African countries, many populist regimes were forced to coexist with professional armies, the foundations of which were laid by the colonialists. Often this coexistence ended badly for civilian politicians. Kwame Nkrumah's regime in Ghana was considered extremely stable.

Populist regimes resort to various measures to neutralize the danger posed by the military: bribery (by providing the military with extremely high salaries, privileges, etc.): politicizing the army (by creating political agencies): creating parallel armed forces in the form of a people's militia or special units subordinate directly "Leader" But none of these measures guarantee the survival of the regime.

Egalitarian-authoritarian regime: closed, with a monolithic elite. The French word egalite means "equality", and the term egalitarianism, derived from it, has long been used to characterize ideologies. striving to overcome economic inequality. The most influential of them already in the 19th century was communism (in the formulation proposed by prominent German scientists and somewhat less successful politicians Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels), which in 1917 reached the position of the official ideology of Soviet Russia, and then a number of other countries. That is why regimes of this type are often called communist or communist party. In reality, however, neither the adherence of the political leadership to a certain ideology, nor the fact that the communist party is in power yet creates a configuration of institutions and norms that determines the specifics of the regime: about its "loyalty to the ideas of Marxism. Leninism "was declared (not without reason relying on Soviet help) many leaders of the authoritarian-bureaucratic regimes of the" third world ", and the Republic of San Marino, where the communists for many years were the leading force of the ruling coalitions, remained a liberal democracy. The term "egalitarian-authoritarian regime" proposed by J. Blondel. maybe not too lucky either, but at least he is. allows us to focus on more essential characteristics.

Like the populist, the egalitarian-authoritarian regime emerges in the context of the political awakening of the masses. However, if the first, acting on behalf of the people, actually makes them come to terms with the state of affairs, then the second, relying on the activity of the masses, and in fact radically changes it. The most important sign of an egalitarian-authoritarian regime is the breakdown of property relations, which often leads to the complete elimination of landowning and private enterprise anger. Economic life is brought under the control of the state, which means that the ruling elite also becomes an economically privileged class. Thus, the egalitarian-authoritarian regime reproduces the phenomenon of "power-property". The monolithic nature of the elite is also manifested in the smoothing out of the distinction between the administrative and political elites. An official in an egalitarian-authoritarian regime cannot even from a purely theoretical point of view be outside politics. The organizational framework that allows the monolithic angry ("nomenclature") to exercise control over society is provided by the party. Its leading role is consolidated institutionally or even constitutionally, as was the case in the USSR. Hence the closed nature of the regime.

The political activity of the masses is the most important prerequisite for the emergence of an egalitarian-authoritarian regime, because otherwise it would not be able to break the resistance of the "old" economic elites. However, in the future, there will be opportunities for the participation of the masses in politics. Highlighting this characteristic of an egalitarian-authoritarian regime. political science proceeds from such obvious facts as a high degree of politicization of all public life, periodic intensive political and propaganda campaigns, and the provision of citizens with the opportunity to elect and be elected to various positions. The Communist Party itself can be seen as an important mechanism for inclusion in political life. Most of these regimes also had mass organizations such as the popular fronts, which still exist in the PRC and the DPRK. Vietnam and Laos, or Committees for the Defense of the Revolution (Cuba). In many countries, it was allowed and even encouraged

Activities of "democratic parties" that recognized the leadership role of the communists. It is important, however, to emphasize that participation in an egalitarian-authoritarian regime is regulated (sometimes the etymologically clear term "dirigism" is used). The means of political mobilization of the masses was the communist ideology, which already in the 60s split into several local varieties, reflecting the cultural characteristics of individual countries (Mao Dunidei in China, "Juche ideas" in North Korea).

Authoritarian-inegalitarian regime: closed, with a differentiated elite. In contrast to the communist ideology, with its emphasis on social justice, the rhetoric of authoritarian-inegalitarian regimes is based on the idea of \u200b\u200binequality. Hence the term used in the classification of J. Blondel (the prefix "in", in fact, here means "not"). Authoritarian-inegalitarian regimes do not strive for a complete transformation of property relations and. sometimes entering into conflicts with certain economically privileged strata, on the whole, they are more likely to take them under their protection. The awakened political activity of the masses is directed "to a different address", which allows the wealthy classes to lead a relatively comfortable existence

The regime of this type existed for the longest time in Italy, where the fascist party came to power in 1922 and lost it more than twenty years later, after the catastrophic defeat of the country in the Second World War. The leader of the Italian fascists, Benito Mussolini, began his career as a member of the Socialist Party. and belonged to her left wing. Later, however, he began to propagate the idea that the oppression of the Italian workers by the Italian capitalists is inferior in importance to the exploitation to which the "proletarian nation" as a whole is subjected by foreign powers. This simple postulate turned out to be quite attractive for some part of the economically unprivileged strata of the population and made it possible to create a mass movement that brought Mussolini to power.