The main purpose of the existence of liberal democracy is. Liberal democratic political system

Liberal democracy is a form of socio-political system - based on a representative one, in which the will of the majority and the ability of elected representatives to exercise power are limited in the name of protecting the rights of the minority and the freedoms of individual citizens. Liberal democracy aims to ensure that every citizen has the rights to due process, private property, privacy, freedom of assembly, and freedom of religion. These liberal rights are enshrined in higher laws (such as other forms of statutory law, or in precedent decisions rendered by the supreme courts), which, in turn, empower various government and public bodies to enforce these rights.

A characteristic element of liberal democracy is open society characterized by the coexistence and competition of the widest range of socio-political views. Thanks to periodic elections, each of the groups holding different views has a chance to gain power. In practice, fringe viewpoints rarely play a significant role in the democratic process because the public views them as a threat to liberal democracy itself. However, the open society model makes it difficult for the ruling elite to maintain power, guarantees the possibility of a bloodless change of power and creates incentives for the government to respond flexibly to the needs of society.

In a liberal democracy, the political elite in power not obliged share all aspects of the ideology (for example, she may advocate ). However, she obliged obey the principle mentioned above. Term liberal in this case it is understood in the same way as in the era of bourgeois revolutions of the end: providing every person with protection from arbitrariness on the part of those in power.

Structure of the socio-political structure

Politic system

The democratic nature of the state structure is enshrined in the fundamental laws and supreme precedent decisions, which constitute. The main purpose of the constitution is to limit the power of officials and law enforcement agencies, as well as the will of the majority. This is achieved with the help of a number of tools, the main of which are independent justice (by branch and at the territorial level) and a system of “checks and balances”, which ensures the accountability of some branches of government to others. Only such actions of government officials are lawful if they are carried out in accordance with the law published in writing and in due order.

Although liberal democracies include elements of direct democracy (), the vast majority of supreme government decisions are made by the government. The policy of this government should depend only on representatives legislative branch and the head of the executive branch, which are established as a result of periodic elections. The subordination of the government to any unelected forces is not permitted. In the interval between elections, the government must operate in a mode of openness and transparency, and facts of corruption must be immediately made public.

One of the main provisions of liberal democracy is universal suffrage, which gives every adult citizen of the country an equal right to vote, regardless of financial status or income. The exercise of this right is usually associated with a certain registration procedure at the place of residence. Election results are determined only by those citizens who actually voted, but often turnout must exceed a certain threshold to be considered valid.

The most important task of electoral democracy is to ensure that elected representatives are accountable to. Therefore, referendums must be free, fair and honest. They must be preceded by free and fair expression of different political views, combined with equality of opportunity for election campaigns. In practice, the political is determined by the presence of several (at least two) who have significant power. The most important necessary condition for this pluralism is . The choices of the people must be free from the dominant influence of armies, foreign powers, totalitarian parties, religious hierarchies, economic oligarchies and any other powerful groups. Cultural, ethnic, religious and other minorities should have an acceptable level of opportunity to participate in decision-making, which is usually achieved by granting them partial self-government.

Rights and freedoms

The most frequently cited criteria for liberal democracy take the form of civil rights and liberties. Most of these freedoms were borrowed from various movements, but acquired functional significance.

• Right to life and personal dignity
• freedom of speech
• Freedom of the media and access to alternative sources of information
• Freedom of religion and public expression of religious views
• The right to associate in political, professional and other organizations
• Freedom of assembly and open public debate
• Academic freedom
• Independent justice
• Equality before the law
• The right to due process of law under conditions
• Privacy and the right to personal secrets
• The right to own property and private enterprise
• Freedom of movement and choice of place of work
• Right to education
• The right to free work and freedom from excessive economic exploitation
• Equality of opportunity

Some of these freedoms are limited to a certain extent. However, all restrictions must meet three conditions: they must be strictly in accordance with the law, pursue a righteous purpose, and must be necessary and adequate to achieve that purpose. Laws imposing restrictions should strive to be unambiguous and not allow for different interpretations. Legitimate objectives include the protection of reputation, personal dignity, national security, public order, copyright, health and morals. Many restrictions are forced so that the rights of some citizens do not diminish the freedom of others.

It deserves special attention that people who fundamentally disagree with the doctrine of liberal democracy (including for cultural or religious reasons) have the same rights and freedoms as others. This follows from the concept of an open society, according to which the political system should be capable of self-change and evolution. Only those who call for violence are deprived of their rights. Understanding the importance of this provision is relatively new in liberal democracy, and a number of its supporters still consider legal restrictions on the propaganda of any ideologies hostile to this regime to be legitimate.

Conditions

According to popular belief, a number of conditions must be met for liberal democracy to emerge. Such conditions include a developed justice system, legislative protection of private property, and the presence of a broad and strong civil society.

Experience shows that free elections by themselves rarely ensure liberal democracy, and in practice often lead to “flawed” democracies, in which either some citizens are deprived of the right to vote, or elected representatives do not determine all government policy, or the executive branch subordinates the legislative and judicial, or the justice system is unable to ensure compliance with the principles laid down in the constitution. The latter is the most common problem.

The level of material well-being in a country is also unlikely to be a condition for a country's transition from an authoritarian regime to a liberal democracy, although research shows that this level plays a significant role in ensuring its sustainability.

Story

The turning point was Alexis de Tocqueville's Democracy in America (1835), in which he showed the possibility of a society where individual freedom and private property coexisted with democracy. According to Tocqueville, the key to the success of such a model, called “ liberal democracy ”, is an opportunity, and the most serious threat to it is the sluggish government intervention in the economy and its violation of civil liberties.

After the revolution of 1848 and the coup d'etat (in 1851), liberals increasingly began to recognize the need for democracy. Events have shown that without the participation of the broad masses in the social contract, the liberal regime turns out to be unstable, and the full implementation of ideas remains. At the same time, movements began to gain strength that denied the possibility of a fair society built on private property and free society. From their point of view, full-fledged democracy, in which all citizens have equal access to all democratic institutions (elections, justice, etc.), could only be realized within the framework. However, having become convinced of the growth in the size of the middle class, the majority of Social Democrats abandoned, decided to participate in the democratic process and seek legislative reforms with the aim of moving towards socialism.

Liberal democracy in the world

A number of organizations and political scientists maintain ratings of the level of liberal democracy in countries around the world. Among these ratings, the most famous are Polity Data Set(English) and Freedom in the World. Most experts believe that the countries of the European Community, Japan, USA, Canada, Australia, South Africa, New Zealand and India are liberal democracies. A number of countries in Africa and the former USSR call themselves democracies, although in fact the ruling elites have a strong influence on the outcome of elections.

Types of liberal democracies

The presence of liberal democracy is largely determined by the principles actually implemented and the compliance of the regime with the above criteria. For example, it is formally a monarchy, but is actually governed by a democratically elected parliament. In Great Britain, formally the highest power is vested in the hereditary monarch, but in fact such power is vested in the people, through their elected representatives. The monarchy in these countries is largely symbolic.

There are many electoral systems for forming parliament, the most common of which are the majoritarian system and the proportional system. Under the majoritarian system, the territory is divided into districts, in each of which the mandate goes to the candidate who receives the majority of votes. Under a proportional system, seats in parliament are distributed in proportion to the number of votes cast for parties. In some countries, part of the parliament is formed according to one system, and part according to another.

Countries also differ in the way they form the executive and legislative branches. In presidential republics, these branches are formed separately, which ensures a high degree of separation by function. In parliamentary republics, the executive branch is formed by the parliament and is partially dependent on it, which ensures a more even distribution of power between the branches.

The Scandinavian countries, being liberal democracies, are also... This is due to the high level of social protection of the population, equality in living standards, free secondary education and healthcare, a significant public sector in the economy and high taxes. At the same time, in these countries the state does not interfere in pricing (even in the public sector, with the exception of monopolies), banks are private, and there are no obstacles to trade, including international trade; effective laws and transparent governments reliably protect the civil rights of people and the property of entrepreneurs.

Liberal democracy in Russia

Liberal democracy has never been realized in Russia. According to the Freedom in the World rating, the USSR in 1990-1991. and Russia in 1992-2004. were considered partially free countries, but since 2005 Russia has been included in the list of unfree countries.

In Russia itself, part of the population mistakenly associates the doctrine of liberal democracy with an ultranationalist party. Democracy is generally supported, but most people place social rights above liberal ones.

Critical analysis

Advantages

First of all, liberal democracy is based on the rule of law and the equality of all before it. Therefore, it is in democracy that the highest level of law and order is ensured.

Further, liberal democracy ensures that government is accountable to the nation. If the people are dissatisfied with the government's policies (due to corruption or excessive bureaucracy, attempts to circumvent laws, errors in economic policy, etc.), then the opposition has a high chance of winning in the next elections. After she came to power, the most reliable way to hold on is to avoid the mistakes of predecessors (dismiss corrupt or ineffective officials, comply with laws, attract competent economists, etc.) Thus, liberal democracy ennobles the desire for power and forces the government to work for the good of the nation. This provides relatively low level corruption - which, under an authoritarian regime, can only be achieved at the cost of an extremely tough dictatorship.

Since politically important decisions are made by elected representatives - professionals who are members of the political elites, - this frees people from the need to spend time studying and discussing many government issues. At the same time, a number of countries (Switzerland, Uruguay) and regions (California) actively use elements of direct democracy: and.

Constitutional protection against the dictatorship of the majority is an essential advantage of this regime and distinguishes it from other types of democracy. In fact, every person, according to some characteristics, belongs to a certain minority, therefore, in conditions of complete subordination to the will of the majority, civil rights are suppressed. In a liberal democracy, this has the opposite effect, since it forces the current majority to view itself as a temporary coalition and therefore pay attention to the point of view of the current minority.

Thanks to the ability of minorities to influence decision-making, liberal democracy provides protection of private property for the wealthy, social protection for the poor, and the smoothing out of cultural, ethnic and religious conflicts. The most democratic countries in the world have the lowest levels of terrorism. This effect may even extend beyond the region: statistics show that since the late 1980s, when many countries in Eastern Europe took the path of liberal democracy, the total number of military conflicts, ethnic wars, revolutions, etc. in the world has sharply decreased (English) .

The ability to change a government or its policies peacefully and without violence contributes to stability and certainty in society. This is also facilitated by the fact that democracy forces the government to work openly, communicate its strategic goals and report on ongoing measures to achieve them. Freedom of speech also allows authorities to be better informed about the real state of affairs in the state.

The consequence of liberal democracy is the accumulation of human capital, low inflation, less political and economic instability and relatively low government intervention in the activities of entrepreneurs. A number of researchers believe that these circumstances (especially economic freedom) contribute to economic recovery and an increase in the level of well-being of the entire population, expressed in GDP per capita. At the same time, despite high rates of economic growth, several liberal democratic countries are still relatively poor (India, Costa Rica, Estonia), while a number of authoritarian regimes, on the contrary, are thriving (Brunei).

Research also shows that liberal democracies are more effective at managing available resources when they are limited than authoritarian regimes. Thus, liberal democracies are characterized by higher life expectancy and lower infant and maternal mortality, regardless of the level of GDP, income inequality or the size of the public sector.

Flaws

Liberal democracy is a type of representative democracy, which has attracted criticism from supporters of direct democracy. They argue that in a representative democracy, the power of the majority is expressed too rarely - at the time of elections and referendums. Real power is concentrated in the hands of a very small group of representatives. From this point of view, liberal democracy is closer to , while the development of technology, the growth of people’s education and the increase in their involvement in the life of society create the preconditions for the transfer of increasing powers of power into the hands of the people directly.

Marxists and anarchists completely deny that liberal democracy is democracy, calling it a “plutocracy.” They argue that in any bourgeois democracy, real power is concentrated in the hands of those who control financial flows. Only very wealthy citizens can afford to campaign politically and spread their platform through the media, so only the elite or those who make deals with the elite can be elected. Such a system legitimizes inequality and facilitates economic exploitation. In addition, critics continue, it creates the illusion of justice, so that the discontent of the masses does not lead to riots. At the same time, “stuffing” certain information can cause a predictable reaction, which leads to manipulation of the consciousness of the masses by the financial oligarchy. Supporters of liberal democracy consider this argument to be devoid of evidence, for example, the media rarely voice radical points of view because it is not interesting to the general public, and not because of censorship. However, they agree that campaign finance is an essential element in the electoral system and that in some cases it should be public. For the same reason, many countries have public media that pursue a policy of pluralism.

In an effort to maintain power, elected representatives are primarily concerned with measures that will allow them to maintain a positive image in the eyes of voters in the next elections. Therefore, they give preference to decisions that will bring political dividends in the coming months and years, to the detriment of unpopular decisions, the effect of which will appear only in a few years. However, doubts have been expressed whether this is really a disadvantage, since long-term forecasts are extremely difficult for society, and therefore an emphasis on short-term goals may be more effective.

On the other hand, to strengthen their voice, individual voters may support special lobbying groups. Such groups are able to obtain government subsidies and achieve solutions that serve their narrow interests, but do not serve the interests of society as a whole.

Having examined the main parameters and principles of the liberal-democratic political system, let us move on to the analysis of the main regimes of this system. As stated earlier, the classification of liberal democratic regimes is based on the nature of the separation of powers, the configuration of state institutions, their functions, etc. On this basis, parliamentary, presidential, and mixed presidential-parliamentary regimes are distinguished. Let us analyze from this position the role played by the head of state and the head of government.

Under a parliamentary regime, the head of state is essentially the titular ceremonial head of the country, who symbolizes the sovereignty and greatness of the state. It is worth noting that he occupies first place in the hierarchy of ceremonial, honorary ranks and implements a number of special tasks in the field of foreign and domestic policy. It is worth noting that he may bear the official title of king or queen in constitutional monarchies(Sweden, Norway, Great Britain, Belgium, Denmark, Holland, Spain, etc.) or the president in a presidential or parliamentary republic (USA, France, Germany, Italy, etc.) The limitations and weakness of the real prerogatives of the head of state in a parliamentary form of government will remain, in particular, in the fact that in most cases he is elected not through universal direct voting, but by specially authorized bodies, for example, parliament.

Thus, the President of the Federal Republic of Germany is elected by a special assembly, one half of which is formed from deputies of the Bundestag, and the other from representatives of state parliaments. In constitutional monarchies, the head of state - the monarch - receives power by inheritance.

Parliament plays a central role in states with a parliamentary regime. It is worth noting that it occupies a privileged position in relation to other government bodies. The prototype of parliament as a body of class representation arose back in the 13th century. in England. But parliament as an independent branch - legislative and representative - of state power acquired real significance after the socio-political revolutions of the 17th-19th centuries. Nowadays, parliament and parliamentarism have become integral structural and functional elements of the political system of the liberal democratic type. In different countries, to designate legislative and representative authorities, they use different names. "Parliament" as a proper name is used in Great Britain, Italy, Japan, Canada, Belgium, India and other countries. In the USA and Latin American countries it is called congress, in Sweden - the Riksdag, in Finland - the Sejm, in Russia - the Federal Assembly, etc.

In states with a federal form of government, parliaments are traditionally built according to a bicameral system (USA, Canada, Germany, Australia, Russia, etc.) - In this case, the lower houses in bicameral parliaments and unicameral parliaments are formed on the basis of direct elections. The upper chambers in different countries are formed in different ways: in the USA, Italy and some other countries through direct elections; in Germany, India, Russia through indirect elections. In a number of countries (Great Britain, Canada), certain members of parliament occupy seats by inheritance or appointment.

It should not be forgotten that the independence of members of parliament is important. Parliament was originally created as not only a counterweight to the government, but also an instrument for representing citizens. The very fact that members of parliament are elected gives them a significant degree of independence vis-à-vis the government, either when nominating candidates for elections or when recalling or dismissing them, except in cases where the government has the right to dissolve parliament and call new elections. To become a deputy and retain this position, a member of parliament only needs to ensure the trust and support of voters in his constituency.

In this context, it is particularly important that members of parliament are elected by direct universal suffrage and act as exponents of popular sovereignty. Their independence is expressed, in particular, in the fact that they are subject to parliamentary immunity, that is, within the limits of their activities they enjoy the status of immunity. If a deputy commits criminal offenses, in order to bring him to criminal responsibility, a special decision of parliament is required, depriving him of immunity.

To organize its activities, parliament elects officials (chairman, speaker, their deputies, secretaries, etc.) and creates a number of bodies, in particular various committees and commissions, which, as a rule, are made up of members of all parties represented in parliament in proportion to their numbers.

The functions of parliament include the development and adoption of laws, adoption of the state budget, ratification of international treaties, election of constitutional oversight bodies, etc. In countries where the government is responsible to parliament, the latter forms the government and controls its activities.

If the head of state is purely a ceremonial leader, then the head of government is the main active political leader of the country. In different countries he is called differently: prime minister, prime minister, chancellor, chairman of the council of ministers. He plays a major role in policy formation and government leadership. And the government itself is formed by the party that has a majority in parliament and is responsible to it. The head of government is also appointed, at least formally, by parliament.
It is worth noting that the main task of parliament is to form a government. It is during parliamentary elections that it becomes clear which party or coalition of parties will form the government.

The Federal Republic of Germany provides a typical example of a parliamentary regime. Here, all legislative power is transferred to the legislative assembly, or parliament, the Bundestag. The rights of the president as head of state have been significantly curtailed and essentially reduced to representative functions. The Bundestag not only forms the government, but also elects the head of government - the chancellor. Moreover, the faction of the majority party plays an active role in the work of the government and in its adoption of responsible decisions. The government is formed from a number of parliamentary deputies representing party factions of the parliamentary majority. Non-party specialists are traditionally not invited to join cabinets.

The executive branch has a strong position in the parliamentary form of government in Great Britain. Here, the party that wins the parliamentary elections becomes the ruling party and forms the government, and the second forms the “official opposition of Her Majesty (the Queen),” expecting victory in the next elections. The prime minister, elected by the majority party in parliament, has fairly broad powers. The government has the right to carry out large-scale changes, for example, the nationalization of a number of leading sectors of the economy (under the Labor government) or the denationalization and re-privatization of certain industries (under the Conservative government of M. Thatcher)

Often in parliamentary republics the highest legislative body can be dissolved early for one reason or another. If so, early elections are called. It is important to note here that in a parliamentary regime, the government is not always formed by the party that receives the largest number of votes. Thus, in Germany, Austria, Ireland, Norway, Sweden, the government has more than once been headed by a party that took second place in terms of the number of votes won in the elections, but entered into a coalition with some small party. Moreover, such a victory could cause instability in the government and its dependence on fluctuations in the positions of small parties included in the coalition. Thus, the transition in 1972 from the social liberal government coalition of eight deputies to the opposition camp created a kind of stalemate in the German Bundestag, which led to the dissolution of parliament and the holding of early parliamentary elections. In 1982, the exit of a small faction of the Liberal Democratic Party from the government coalition provided the opportunity to create a center-right bloc led by the CDU/CSU and led to early parliamentary elections in 1983.

Under a presidential regime, a typical example of which is the form of government in the United States, the president will be both the head of state and government. By the way, this form provides for the direct election of the head of the executive branch by all citizens in general elections. After winning the elections, the president, at his discretion, forms a government or cabinet of ministers. True, candidates for a number of key positions must be approved by the legislative assembly. Here, the responsibility of the government, which plays the role of a kind of “personal headquarters” of the president, takes a back seat compared to the loyalty of its members to the president.

Under the American presidential form of government, elections to Congress are also characterized by certain features. According to the US Constitution, Congress consists of two houses: the upper - the Senate and the lower - the House of Representatives. Senators are elected for six years from the states as a whole, and members of the House of Representatives are elected for two years mainly from the so-called congressional districts, and in some cases from the states as a whole. From each state, regardless of population, two senators are elected, who are considered as representatives of the states as territorial-administrative units. The House of Representatives consists of congressmen elected by the residents of the states. Their number is determined depending on the population of these states. Since 1912, the total number of members of the House of Representatives has been 435 people.

The presidential regime, especially in the United States, is characterized by the so-called phenomenon of separate voting and “separate government.” The essence of the first is essentially that significant contingents of voters, voting for the candidate of “their” party for the post of president of the country, according to the list of candidates for the legislative assembly, can support representatives of the competing party -

In the United States, Republican presidential candidates often won by attracting Democratic Party supporters to their side and vice versa. It is this circumstance that explains the phenomenon of separate government. Quite often, the White House in Don't forget that Washington is headed by a representative of one party, while in one or both houses of Congress the majority belongs to the rival party. For example, between 1945 and 1976, for 14 of the 30 years, control of the executive and legislative branches of government was divided between the two parties. This, naturally, creates certain problems for the president when solving certain key problems of domestic and foreign policy.

The nature of the differences in the procedures for forming governments by the winning parties can be visualized by comparing these procedures in the classical presidential system of the United States and the classical parliamentary system of Great Britain. Under a parliamentary system, each party faction in parliament acts as a single team, all members of which adhere to more or less strict discipline. Since in elections voters mostly vote for the party list, and not for a specific candidate, a deputy who speaks against the party line risks being expelled from the party. Here the majority party controls both the legislative and executive powers. Thus, in Great Britain, all post-war governments, with the exception of one, relied on a single-party majority in parliament.

In the USA, the government is formed by the head of state - the president - through extra-parliamentary means. The relationship between the president as the head of state and at the same time the head of government with his party is of a different nature than in countries with a parliamentary system. In the American political system there are no such institutions of European parliamentarism as the dissolution of parliament by the head of state and the responsibility of the government to parliament. In Great Britain, for example, the prime minister, having received a mandate from the electorate and concentrated in their hands the functions of leading the party and the cabinet, rules through parliament. It is worth noting that he, as well as the cabinet he heads, is responsible to parliament. In the event of a vote of no confidence or any other emergency, the prime minister has the right to dissolve parliament and call new elections. In the United States, the president exercises real control over the federal administration. It is worth noting that he will not be a party leader in the European sense of the word. In fact, power functions are distributed between the president and the Congress, within the Congress - between the chambers, and within the chambers - between dozens of standing committees that have significant independence.

Unlike the British Prime Minister, the American President rules not through Congress, but with Congress. Although the president is formally considered the head of the party, he will not be legally so. Party activists and voters who supported its candidate expect the president to implement the program with which he came to power. It is worth saying that for this purpose the president must create a cabinet of ministers who accept his program and are able to implement it. It is worth noting that he must also staff the White House to help achieve this goal. The key role in the implementation of the program with which the president came to power, naturally, is played by himself. It is worth noting that he can give some of its positions greater, and others -. lower priority. It is worth noting that he can also leave a lasting imprint on the decision-making process through appointments to various regulatory commissions and other institutions, based on the positions of the appointees regarding certain social and economic issues.

Any difference of opinion is not a difference of principle. Although we differ in name, we are adherents of the same principle. We are all Republicans, we are all Federalists.

But since presidential nominations are entirely partisan, as a party candidate, the president must establish and maintain good relationships with party leaders, make promises, and appeal to party members to secure their votes to secure support for his candidacy. After being elected, many presidents' interest and attention to the party wanes, and they begin to address the electorate as a whole.

Some authors also highlight the “ultra-presidential” form of government, where the greatest independence of the president from the supreme legislative assembly has been achieved. Let us note that this form of government is essentially rooted in the very method of electing the president by universal direct suffrage. This puts it in a position independent of parliament, since parliament is, in principle, deprived of the opportunity to have any influence on the outcome of the elections. Moreover, in a number of countries the president, having the right of veto, has the ability to control the activities of parliament. It should be added that, according to the constitution of some countries, for example France, a number of African and Latin American countries, the president has the right to take legislative initiatives on issues affecting the most important areas public life.

It is significant that in the 70s and 80s, in the context of the steady strengthening of real prerogatives in the hands of the executive branch, many analysts, not without reason, sounded the alarm about the emerging authoritarian tendencies in a number of industrialized countries. Thus, the famous American historian and political scientist A.M. Schlesinger Jr. narrated a voluminous work under the eloquent title “The Imperial Presidency,” which indicated that the President of the United States, in terms of the volume of real power concentrated in his hands, far surpassed many monarchs and emperors of the past. M. Duverger, using similar arguments, characterized the regime established by Charles de Gaulle in France as a republican monarchy.

In a parliamentary-presidential or presidential-parliamentary regime, the executive branch is characterized by a kind of dualism, that is, leading executive functions will be the prerogative of both the president and the cabinet of ministers, responsible to parliament. Consequently, the head of state - the president and the head of government - the prime minister act in two persons. Both the president and parliament are elected by direct universal suffrage. The president has significant influence on the formation of the government and appointments to key positions. The government depends on the president, but at the same time is responsible to parliament. A typical example would be the regime in France. Here the president, on whom the government depends, develops a strategy for the socio-economic and political development of the country. A conflict is possible between the heads of state and government, as, for example, in France in the mid-80s - early 90s, when the Elysee Palace was occupied by a representative of the socialist party, and the post of prime minister was occupied by a representative of the center-right forces.

In Russia, the established regime can be called mixed presidential-parliamentary. In our country, as in France, the head of state is the president and the head of government is the prime minister. The President will be the guarantor of maintaining the unity of the state. It is worth noting that he determines the strategic directions of the country's development and is endowed with broad powers in the implementation of these directions. Although the government is responsible to the president, parliament has a certain influence on its formation, in particular, parliamentary consent is required for the appointment of the chairman of the government, and parliament decides on the issue of confidence in the government. But the operational activities of the latter are taken out of the control of the Federal Assembly.

Let us note that the question of which of the three main regimes is most suitable for Russia is by no means simple and remains the subject of heated debate and debate. Both presidential and parliamentary regimes have both positive and negative sides. In countries that experienced totalitarianism or regimes close to it (Germany, Italy, Spain, Japan), parliamentary regimes were established (albeit in the last two in the form of a constitutional monarchy). It was the parliamentary institutions here that in many ways made it possible to get rid of and overcome the basic attributes, values ​​and attitudes anti-democracy. But in Russia, without a strong center that binds all the regions of the country into a single whole, parliamentarism in its pure form is fraught with unpredictable consequences. It is possible that for Russia, taking into account its centuries-old traditions, gravitating towards authoritarianism, greatness, personification of politics, etc., the best regime would be presidential. Let us note that especially since, it seems, in light of the transformations that have taken place in the country in recent years, the prospects of sliding towards dictatorship in any form are not as significant as some publicists portray. It is worth saying that for this there are no longer sufficient mechanisms, structures, socio-psychological, ideological, political and other prerequisites. But nevertheless, taking into account Russian traditions, we must very carefully assess the suitability of this regime for Russia.

In other words, a parliamentary regime in a transition period can encourage instability and slow down stabilization processes, while a purely presidential regime under a certain set of circumstances is fraught with a slide into one form or another of authoritarianism. A mixed regime, combining the institutions of parliamentarism and presidential rule, is capable of ensuring the stabilization and consolidation of a huge country around the center, taking into account the interests of various socio-political forces, peoples, regions and republics.

Questions and tasks for self-test

2. What are the essential, system-forming features of democracy?

3. Name the main definitions and models of democracy.

4. Name the most important constitutional principles of democracy.

5. What is a constitution, what is its place, role and functions in political democracy?

6. What are the constitutional principles of political structure?

7. What is the rule of law?

8. Name the basic principles of the rule of law.

9. What kind of liberal democratic regimes exist?

10. Give a general description of each of these modes.

Liberal democracy is a model of socio-political organization of a rule of law state, the basis of which is a power that expresses the will of the majority, but at the same time protects the freedom and rights of a separate minority of citizens.

This type of government has the goal of ensuring that every individual citizen of his country has the rights to private property, freedom of speech, compliance with legal processes, protection of personal space, life, and freedom of religion. All these rights are spelled out in a legislative document such as the Constitution, or other form of legal formation adopted by decision Supreme Court, endowed with such powers that can ensure the fulfillment of the rights of citizens.

Democracy concept

The modern name of this political movement comes from the Greek words demos- "society" and kratos- “rule”, “power”, which formed the word democracy, meaning "power of the people."

Principles of a democratic system

Principles of liberal democracy:

1. The main principle is to ensure the rights and freedoms of citizens.
2. Government is ensured by accepting the will of the people as determined by voting. The side with the most votes wins.
3. All rights expressed by the minority are respected and guaranteed.
4. Organizing the competitiveness of various areas of management, because democracy is not a means of power, but a means of limiting the ruling parties with other power organizations.
5. Participation in voting is mandatory, but you can abstain.
6. Civil society restrains the activities of state power through the self-organization of citizens.

Signs of a democratic state structure

The following are the signs of democracy in the state:

1. Fair and free elections are an important political tool for electing new government representatives or maintaining the current one.
2. Citizens take an active part in both political life state and public.
3. Providing legal protection to every citizen.
4. The supreme power extends to all in equal parts.

All this is at the same time the principles of liberal democracy.

Formation of liberal democracy

When did such a trend begin to form? The history of liberal democracy goes back many years of formation and long history. This type of government is the fundamental principle of the development of the Western civilized world, especially the Roman and Greek heritage on the one hand, and also the Judeo-Christian heritage on the other.

In Europe, the development of this type of power began in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Previously, most of the already formed states adhered to the monarchy, because it was believed that humanity is prone to evil, violence, destruction, and therefore it needs a strong leader who can keep the people under control. People were assured that the government was chosen by God, and those who were against the head were equated with blasphemers.

Thus, a new branch of thought began to emerge, which assumed that human relationships are built on faith, truth, freedom, equality, the basis of which is liberalization. The new direction was built on the principles of equality, and the election of the highest authority by God or belonging to noble blood had no privilege. The ruling power is obliged to be in the service of the people, but not vice versa, and the law is absolutely equal for everyone. The liberalist trend has entered the masses in Europe, but the formation of liberal democracy has not yet been completed.

Liberal democracy theory

The division of democracy into types depends on how the population takes part in the organization of the state, as well as who governs the country and how. The theory of democracy divides it into types:

1. Direct democracy. It implies the direct participation of citizens in the social structure of the state: raising an issue, discussing, making decisions. This ancient species was key in ancient times. Direct democracy is inherent in small communities, towns, and settlements. But only when these same issues do not require the participation of specialists in a particular field. Today, this type can be observed against the background of the structure of local government. Its prevalence is directly dependent on the decentralization of issues raised, decisions taken, from transferring the right to receive them to small groups.
2. Plebiscitary democracy. It, like the direct one, implies the right to express the will of people, but is different from the first. The people have the right only to accept or reject any decision, which, as a rule, is put forward by the head of government. That is, the power of people is limited, the population cannot pass relevant laws.
3. Representative democracy. Such democracy is carried out through the acceptance by the people of the head of the government body and its representatives, who undertake to consider and accept the interests of citizens. But the people have nothing to do with solving more important problems that require the participation of a qualified specialist, especially when the participation of the population in the life of the country is difficult due to the large territory inhabited.
4. Liberal democracy. Power is the people who express their needs through a qualified representative of the ruling power, who is elected to exercise his powers for a certain period of time. He enjoys the support of the majority of the people, and the people trust him, taking advantage of the constitutional provisions.

These are the main types of democracy.

Countries with liberal democracies

The countries of the European Union, USA, Japan, Canada, South Africa, Australia, India, New Zealand are countries with a liberal democratic system. This opinion is shared by most experts. At the same time, some countries in Africa and the former Soviet Union consider themselves democracies, although facts have long been revealed that ruling structures have a direct influence on the outcome of elections.

Resolving disagreements between the government and the people

The authorities are not able to support every citizen, so it is quite expected that disagreements arise between them. To resolve such disputes, such a concept as the judiciary arose. In fact, it is authorized to resolve any conflicts that may arise both between citizens and the authorities, and within the population as a whole.

The main difference between liberal democracy and classical

Classical liberal democracy is based on Anglo-Saxon practices. However, they were not the founders. Other European countries made a great contribution to the development of this model of government.

Principles of classical liberal democracy:

1. Independence of the people. All power in the state belongs to the people: constituent and constitutional. People choose a performer and remove him.
2. The majority resolves issues. To implement this provision, a special process is required, which is regulated by electoral law.
3. All citizens definitely have equal voting rights.
   The election of the supreme chairman is the responsibility of the population, as well as his overthrow, control and supervision of public activities.
4. Power sharing.

Principles of modern liberal democracy:

1. The main value is the freedoms and rights of the population.
2. Democracy is rule by the head of society from the people and for the people. Representative democracy is modern look liberal democracy, the essence of which is built on the competitiveness of political forces and the forces of voters.
3. Problems and wishes are carried out by the vote of the majority, while the rights of the minority are not violated and supported.
4. Democracy is a way of limiting government and other power structures. Creating a concept of power sharing through organizing the work of competitive parties.
5. Reaching agreements through decision making. Citizens cannot vote against - they can vote for or abstain.
6. The development of self-government contributes to the development of democratic liberal principles.

The virtues of liberal democracy

The advantages of liberal democracy are:

1. Liberal democracy is built on the Constitution and universal equality before the law. Therefore, the highest level of law and order in society is achieved through democratic views.
2. The accountability of government bodies to the people is fully ensured. If the population is not satisfied with the political governance, then in the subsequent elections the opposing party has a great chance of winning them. Avoiding past mistakes of the new government is a great way to stay on top. This ensures a low level of corruption.
3. Important political issues are resolved by a qualified specialist, which saves the people from unnecessary problems.
4. The absence of dictatorship is also an advantage.
5. People are provided with protection of private property, racial and religious affiliation, and protection of the poor. At the same time, the level of terrorism is quite low in countries with such a political system.

Non-interference of the government in the activities of entrepreneurs, low inflation, a stable political and economic situation are a consequence of the democratic liberal system.

Flaws

Representatives of direct democracy are confident that in a representative democracy the power of the majority of the population is exercised very rarely - exclusively through elections and referendums. The actual power is in the hands of a separate group of board representatives. This may mean that liberal democracy refers to an oligarchy, while the development of technological processes, the growth of education of citizens and their involvement in the public life of the state provide the conditions for the transfer of ruling powers directly into the hands of the people.

Marxists and anarchists believe that real power lies in the hands of those who have control over financial processes. Only those who have the majority of finances are able to be at the top of the socio-political system, introducing their importance and qualifications to the masses through the media. They believe that money decides everything, and therefore it becomes easier to manipulate the population, the level of corruption increases, and inequality becomes institutionalized.

The realization of long-term prospects in society is very difficult, and therefore short-term prospects are both an advantage and more effective means.

To maintain the weight of their vote, some voters support certain social groups engaged in advocacy. They receive government benefits and win decisions that are in their best interests, but not in the best interests of the citizenry as a whole.

Critics say elected officials often change laws unnecessarily. This makes it difficult for citizens to comply with laws and creates conditions for abuse of power by law enforcement agencies and bodies serving the people. Problems in legislation also entail slowdown and massiveness of the bureaucratic system.

Liberal democracy in Russia

The establishment of this form of government took place with particular difficulties. Then, when liberal democracy already dominated in Europe and America, at the beginning of the twentieth century in Russia the remnants of the feudal system remained in the form of an absolute monarchy. This contributed to the start of the revolutionary movement that seized power in the 1917 Revolution. For the next 70 years, a communist system was established in the country. Civil society was stunted despite development economic activity, the independence of powers, because of this, the freedoms that have been in force in the territories of other countries for a long time were not introduced.

Liberal-democratic changes in Russia occurred only in the 90s, when a political regime was established that brought about global changes: it was allowed to privatize housing that previously belonged to the state, a multi-party system was established in the government, etc. At the same time, the creation of numerous cells of owners, which could have become the basis of liberal democracy in Russia, was not organized, but on the contrary, contributed to the creation of a narrow circle of rich people who were able to establish control over the main wealth of the state.

At the beginning of the twenty-first century, the country's leadership reduced the role of oligarchs in the country's economy and politics by returning part of their property to the state, especially in the industrial area. Thus, the further path of development of society remains open today.

Liberal democracy (polyarchy) is a form of socio-political structure - a legal state based on representative democracy, in which the will of the majority and the ability of elected representatives to exercise power are limited in the name of protecting the rights of the minority and the freedoms of individual citizens. Liberal democracy aims to provide every citizen with equal rights to due process, private property, privacy, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom of religion. These liberal rights are enshrined in higher laws (constitution or statute), which, in turn, empower various state and public bodies to ensure these rights.

A characteristic element of liberal democracy is an open society, characterized by tolerance, pluralism, coexistence and competition of the widest range of socio-political views. Through periodic elections, each of the groups holding different views has a chance to gain power. In practice, extremist or fringe viewpoints rarely play a significant role in the democratic process because the public views them as a threat to liberal democracy itself. However, the open society model makes it difficult for the ruling elite to maintain power, guarantees the possibility of a bloodless change of power and creates incentives for the government to respond flexibly to the needs of society.

In a liberal democracy, the political group in power does not have to share all aspects of the ideology of liberalism (it may advocate democratic socialism). However, it is obliged to obey the above-mentioned principle of the rule of law. The term liberal in this case is understood in the same way as in the era of bourgeois revolutions of the late 18th century: providing every person with protection from arbitrariness on the part of the authorities and law enforcement agencies.

The most frequently cited criteria for liberal democracy take the form of civil rights and liberties. Most of these freedoms were borrowed from various movements of liberalism, but acquired functional significance. Right to life and personal dignity, Freedom of speech, Freedom of the media and access to alternative sources of information, Freedom of religion and public expression of religious views, Right to associate in political, professional and other organizations, Freedom of assembly and open public debate, Equality before law, Privacy and the right to personal secrets, Right to education

A totalitarian political system is characterized by comprehensive control of power structures over all aspects of society. If under the conditions of an authoritarian political system the state does not interfere in the private lives of citizens, then for a totalitarian political system there is no such sphere where power does not penetrate. Its distinctive features are:

a) maximum infringement of the rights and freedoms of citizens;

b) formation of power at all levels through appointment from above;

c) abolition of the principle of separation of powers;

d) the presence of only one ruling party headed by a leader;

e) one official ideological doctrine;

f) permanent and total violence.

In a totalitarian system, omnipotent power acts as the main guarantor of ideological control over the population. The party-state organization of society serves as the foundation of the entire social and economic organization, which is characterized by a rigid hierarchical structure.

The core of a totalitarian political system is an extremely centralized political movement for a new order, led by a party of a new, totalitarian type. This party merges with the state and concentrates real power in society. Any opposition and the creation of any organization without the sanction of the authorities is prohibited.

At the same time, a totalitarian political system, as a rule, proclaims “democracy of the highest type”, claims to be a “real” expression of the will of the people, using for this the appearance of democratic elections to all government bodies, “democraticism” in the preparation and adoption of important political decisions, their nationwide support. With the help of pseudo-democratic institutions of power, high formal mobilization and participation of citizens in political life is ensured (for example, as a rule, 99.98% of all voters in the country took part in elections to the Supreme Soviet of the USSR). However, in reality, citizens did not have the opportunity to influence not only decision-making, but also political life in society in general.

The most important subjective prerequisite for totalitarianism is the psychological dissatisfaction of certain sections of the population with the destruction of traditional ties and values. Free market competition under the conditions of capitalism, it gave rise to the individual’s feeling of powerlessness in front of the surrounding hostile world and, as a consequence, his desire to regain confidence, to fully identify himself with a class, nation or state led by a leader. Sensitivity to totalitarian ideology and the system itself increases sharply during periods of acute socio-economic crises, accompanied by the impoverishment of large masses of people.

At the same time, it should be noted that political systems of the totalitarian type have a fairly high ability to mobilize resources and concentrate efforts to achieve certain socially significant goals, for example, ensuring industrialization, military construction or space exploration. They are very effective in times of war. However, the main thing for a totalitarian political system is the destruction of the motivational side human activity, and therefore this type inevitably gives rise to social stagnation and regression.

An authoritarian political system, in its characteristic features, occupies an intermediate position between democracy and totalitarianism. What it has in common with totalitarianism is usually the autocratic nature of power, not limited by laws, and with democracy - the presence of autonomous public spheres not regulated by the state, especially the economy and private life, and the preservation of elements of civil society. Being ruthless towards its opponents, an authoritarian system can be neutral towards activities that do not threaten its rule.

Authoritarian systems are established when: a powerful “authoritarian” personality appears; the current situation requires (war, general crisis, etc.); deep social conflict(national, religious, ethnic, etc.).

a) centralization of power, autocracy or a small number of power holders, they can be one person (monarch, tyrant) or a group of people) military junta, oligarchic group);

b) unlimited power, its uncontrollability by citizens, a peremptory command method of leadership, while the government can rule with the help of laws, but it adopts them at its own discretion;

c) elimination or significant limitation of the democratic rights and freedoms of citizens, preventing real political opposition and competition. It is possible that there may be a limited number of political parties, trade unions and other organizations “loyal” to the existing regime and only if they are controlled by the authorities;

d) non-interference or limitation of interference in non-political spheres and, above all, in the economy. The authorities are primarily concerned with ensuring their own security, public order, defense, foreign policy. However, the economy develops according to the laws and mechanisms of market self-regulation;

e) the formation of power at all levels occurs not through elections, but through appointment from above.

Thus, the main distinctive feature An authoritarian political system is the unlimited power of a person or group of persons, not allowing political opposition, but preserving the autonomy of the individual and society in all non-political spheres. However, with all this, it would be unfair to give only a negative assessment of authoritarian political systems. Authoritarianism was a form of organization of power adequate to pre-industrial society. Similar political systems still operate in a number of countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America, and their existence is justified by the need for national liberation and revival. Authoritarian power has a relatively high ability to ensure public order and concentrate efforts and resources on solving vital problems.

In the second half of the 20th century, interest in authoritarianism and authoritarian political systems increased significantly. The authoritarian systems that were formed at that time in a number of geographically different countries (Chile, South Korea, China, Vietnam) in practice showed their economic and social efficiency, proved the ability to combine strong power with a freely developing economy, and rapid growth in the material standard of living of the majority of citizens.

An authoritarian system has a relatively high ability to ensure political stability and social order, mobilize public resources to solve certain problems, and overcome the resistance of political opponents. All this makes it a fairly effective means of carrying out radical social reforms.

At the same time, under the conditions of an authoritarian political system, the complete dependence of politics on the state or a group of senior leaders remains, and citizens lack the opportunity to influence the policies of the authorities and the political expression of public interests.

Characterizing political systems, highlighting its types according to the sign political regime, it should be borne in mind that there are no “pure” political systems, ideal ones. Often, an authoritarian political system contains features of totalitarianism, while a democratic one is more an ideal than a reality. In reality, democracy has never been “a government of the people, by the people, for the people” (Lincoln).

82. Definition of political conflict - its sources.

A political conflict is a state of political relations in which their participants are fighting for values ​​and a certain status, power and its resources, a struggle in which the opponents’ goals are to neutralize, cause damage or destroy the opponent. The essence of the conflict is the discrepancy between what is and what should be according to the views of the groups and individuals involved in the conflict, who subjectively perceive their place in society and their relationship to other people, social groups and institutions.

The founders of the theory of political conflict are considered to be K. Marx (1818-1883) and A. Tocqueville (1805-1859), a French sociologist, statesman - Minister of Foreign Affairs of France in 1849. Their theory was based on the idea of ​​the inevitability of solidarity within social unions and conflicts between them. According to Marx, these groups were classes; according to Tocqueville, they were local communities and voluntary associations.

K. Marx absolutized the role of political conflict, considering it the core of the entire political process

A. Tocqueville was the first to put forward the idea that democracy involves a balance between the forces of conflict and consensus. He feared the disappearance of political conflicts due to the emergence of one center of power - a state that would have no competing groups.

In modern political science literature, the concept of political conflict means the struggle for: a) influence in the system of political relations; b) access to making generally significant decisions; c) the monopoly of their interests and recognition of them as socially necessary - in a word, for everything that constitutes power and political domination.

The content of a political conflict is political struggle - the opposition of political subjects, when each of them strives for a goal that contradicts the goal of the other. Typically, political struggle arises when the existence or operation of political power is desirable for some social actors and undesirable for others; the goals of participants in political actions are incompatible or in a combination of these cases.

The object and subject of political conflict are: state power, its possession; arrangement of government institutions; political status of social groups; values ​​and symbols that are the basis of political power, and here we are not talking about material objects, but about human individuals, groups, organizations - bearers of power.

Political conflicts, like all social ones, have objective and subjective sides. The objective side is the contradiction between political society as a single organism, as an integral system and the inequality of individuals and groups included in it, expressed in the hierarchy of political statuses. This is the source and basis of political conflict.

The subjective side of a political conflict is manifested: a) in the subjects’ awareness of an objective contradiction; b) in the formation of the organization of the conflicting parties, because the subject of a political conflict is formed in the process of political activity, when he acquires and takes a certain position; c) in ideological motivation, because political struggle is in many ways a struggle of words and concepts, but not from the everyday vocabulary, but from the baggage of political ideologies.

Political struggle is characterized by certain general patterns.

Political struggle is always a struggle for common goals and interests of certain large social groups. Moreover, it is a struggle to ensure that these goals and interests are recognized as common, at least by the majority of society. Hence, each subject of a political conflict strives to present its goals as common to mass groups, to find support from these groups, and to turn the struggle into a public, mass one. This pattern is manifested primarily in the election campaign. Any party fighting for votes presents itself as a spokesman and defender of the interests of a wide spectrum of society.

2 The basis of a political conflict of any level and depth is the desire for the subject of the conflict to justify its legitimacy and to refute the legitimacy of the opposing subject. We are talking about the legitimacy of power, its goals, and the decisions it makes.

A political conflict, if it escalates, spreads to the social sphere, the economy, the media as a weapon of this struggle and the entire socio-psychological atmosphere of society. And this is natural, because in politics the interests and values ​​of the whole, the system, society, and the main groups of the population are expressed in a generalized form.

Large masses of people are involved in a political conflict, and here the mass is not a disorderly crowd of people, but a certain community united in the political struggle by a single attitude, a certain common ideology, faith (religious, national, revolutionary, etc.), finally, with interest

Ministry of Education and Science Russian Federation

Federal State Budgetary Educational Institution of Higher Professional Education

"East Siberian State University of Technology and Management"

Institute of Economics and Law

Faculty of Law

Department "Theory and history of state and law. Constitutional law"

Course work

on the topic: Types of democratic regimes

Ulan-Ude, 2014

Introduction

Chapter 1. Democratic regime: concept, types, theories

1 Mechanism for the formation of a democratic regime

2 Concept, signs of a democratic regime

Chapter 2. Features of certain types of democratic regimes

1 Liberal Democratic regime

2 Social democratic regime

Conclusion

List of information sources used

Introduction

Relevance of the research topic. Among the significant issues of modern theory and practice of political processes, one of the priority places is given to the problem of a democratic regime. Therefore, the study of socio-political factors in the emergence of the main historical stages and the identification of patterns in the process of a democratic regime now has not only important scientific and theoretical, but also significant practical significance. From a wide range of political problems actively discussed in the scientific literature, from our point of view, it is necessary, first of all, to study topics that are of interest from the point of view of their theoretical and methodological significance.

An analysis of existing literature in social science and historical experience show that the democratic regime has its own rather long history. Naturally, the emergence of a democratic regime occurs simultaneously with the emergence of the state in society. It is characteristic that in order to establish a political regime, first of all, strong economic, socio-political and spiritual-ideological factors are necessary, which were considered by researchers in historical, psychological, philosophical and legal aspects, as well as from a political point of view; They are the subject of lively discussions even today. At the same time, based on an analysis of the literature, it can be argued that there is still no consensus on the issue of the concept of a democratic regime.

Currently, a democratic regime is considered as a type of political regime. A democratic regime is a regime based on recognition of the principle of equality and freedom of all people, the participation of the people in government.

The purpose of this course work is a detailed disclosure of the concept of “democratic regime”, the study of the essence, features and types of a democratic regime in modern society.

The implementation of the above goals involves the implementation of a number of tasks:

study the mechanism of formation of a democratic regime;

reveal the concept of a democratic regime;

consider the signs of a democratic regime;

study the types of democratic regime.

The object of the study is social relations that develop under a democratic regime.

The subject of the study is the concept, essence, characteristics and types of democratic regimes.

Methodological basis research is carried out by the general scientific dialectical method of cognition and the particular scientific ones arising from it: the comparative method; study of the regulatory framework; study of monographic publications and articles; analytical method.

When performing this work, educational and scientific sources were studied, as well as regulatory and legal material was analyzed.

The work consists of an introduction, two chapters, a conclusion and a list of used sources of information.

Chapter 1. Democratic regime: concept, types, theories

.1 Mechanism for the formation of a democratic regime

The formation of a democratic political regime is carried out with the help of appropriate political, economic, social, cultural, religious, foreign policy and other conditions.

The political conditions of a developed civil society include the stability of political power, the existence and functioning of political parties and movements as powerful levers to influence socio-political and social processes, and political pluralism.

Economic conditions include a high level of industrial and economic development, a high degree of urbanization, the development of mass communications, a competitive market economy, pluralism of forms of ownership.

Political conditions provide direct military, political, economic, cultural and informational impact; the influence of the example of democratic states; stable friendly relations with other states, absence of military threat.

The cultural conditions for literacy of the population are its education, in general, civil political culture and democratic traditions.

The substantiation of assumptions and mechanisms for building a democratic regime determines the conditions for the transition to such a method of organizing public power in the country based on extremely complex problems of political theory. In the modern political situation, their decision is largely related to an understanding of the specifics of developing countries that have adopted this type of government as the so-called “third wave” of democracy. However, these issues have other, more general points of contact.

Currently, there have been two main approaches in science, which in turn establish the conditions for the formation of democratic systems and regimes. Thus, supporters of the structural direction are based on the fact that a democratic regime is formed under the dominant influence of macro factors, which include economic and social structures, legal orders in general traditions, customs, etc. For example, Marxists were the main factor in the formation of political orders, considered in property relations, qualitative changes that occurred in production, distribution, exchange and consumption in society. According to this approach, a democratic regime must be prepared, connected with the socio-economic development of society, and serve as a political construction of the main processes that occur in the social sphere.

Adherents of the procedural approach who oppose such ideas, although they believe that “the prerequisites for the implementation of a democratic regime should not be ignored,” nevertheless believe that the main conditions for the transition to democracy and the character of its ruling elites, their political values ​​and ideals are the most important technology. In this sense, according to, for example, A. Przeworski, F. Schmitter, D. Linz and others, the democratic regime serves as a kind of “political project” that is already being implemented in the modern conditions of the country. The degree of internal readiness of the country for a democratic political order is considered as a factor that can either accelerate or slow down the formation of this kind of system of power.

Classic example procedures of a democratic regime can serve as the formation of appropriate orders in post-war Germany, when, despite some adherence to the same values ​​of the population, the new leadership of the country has the right to consciously establish the necessary structures and mechanisms of power, establish an appropriate constitutional and legal order, consolidate democratic relations between member states and society.

Judging by the current practice today, we can say that the specific prerequisites for a democratic regime are a relatively stable political high level of economic development of the country, the existence of market relations and an industrial economy, urbanization, development mass communications, assistance is embodied by the democracies of foreign countries.

The last two to three decades have revealed another powerful factor of democratization, namely the demonstration effect of Western democracies, economic and social progress not only evoke respect from many peoples, but is also perceived in many countries as a direct result of the democratic type of political regime.

The ideological basis of the democratic regime consists of numerous and constantly updated theories of the democratic regime, the development of which has contributed to modern political democracy. As a result, a social order is formed and finds expression in constitutions of a democratic type. It differs from authoritarian and totalitarian political regimes by the following formal legal principles:

power belongs to the people, the people are the source of power, they are ultimately decisive;

equality before the law: legal equality, empowerment of the same, institutions of social and political rights and freedoms, including the equal right to participate in the management of society and the state;

recognition by the majority of the rule, with respect for the interests and opinions of the minority;

the right to diversity of political associations and political programs and others.

1.2 Concept, signs of a democratic regime

power democracy pluralism totalitarian

The concept of a democratic political regime includes not only the state regime, but also such political forces of society as the activities of political and public organizations, political worldview, as reflected in the consciousness of citizens of the very content of democracy.

A democratic regime is a political regime based on the recognition of the people as the source of power, their right to participate in managing the affairs of society and empowering citizens, having a fairly wide range of rights and freedoms. The democratic regime is based on the principles of democracy, freedom and equality of citizens. In the context of this regime, the people exercise power directly through representative bodies formed by public authorities.

Main features of a democratic regime:

Decisions made by the majority in the interests of the minority;

There is a rule of law and civil society;

State bodies and local governments are elected and are responsible to voters;

Security forces (military, police) are under civilian control;

Methods of persuasion and compromise are widely used;

There is political pluralism, including a multi-party system, legal political opposition;

Publicity spreads, there is no censorship;

In fact, the principle of separation of powers is being implemented.

The experience of developed countries shows the effectiveness of the democratic form of government, which, despite national identity, is nevertheless characterized by recognized standards that correspond to democracy. Demands for democracy do not arise spontaneously as a result of the rational choice of the people and the elite.

However, the path leading to building a democratic state is long and unpredictable. Democracy by itself cannot feed people, provide a decent standard of living, or solve most socio-economic problems that are most sensitive to people. This can create only the necessary political institutions, and the practice of which may be the least painful way for society to solve accumulated problems in the interests of broad social strata.

A democratic regime can be characterized by the following features.

Sovereignty of the people. Recognition of this principle means that the people are the source of power, that they choose their representatives of power and periodically replace them.

Periodic electoral bodies provide a clear mechanism for the legal succession of power. State power is born from fair and democratic elections, and not through military coups and conspiracies.

Power is elected for a specific and limited period.

Universal, equal and secret suffrage. Elections presuppose the real competitiveness of various candidates, alternative choices, and the implementation of the principle: one citizen - one vote.

A constitution that establishes the primacy of individual rights over the state, and also provides citizens with an approved mechanism for resolving disputes between the individual and the state.

The principle of separation of powers (legislative, executive and judicial) in building the state apparatus.

Availability of a developed system of representation (parliamentary).

Guarantee of basic human rights. Three groups of rights have been identified that are associated with the growth of citizenship: civil (equality of all citizens before the law, freedom of speech, religion, freedom to change place of residence); political (the right to vote and be elected, freedom to vote, the right to organize); social (the human right to a minimum level of well-being, the right to ensure living conditions and social security guarantees). Social rights are implemented by the state through social programs. Individual and group freedoms are protected by an independent, impartial judiciary. Given the prospects for the development of democracy, a number of authors point to updates in the future, requiring guarantees of equality in the environmental sphere.

Political pluralism (from the Latin pluralie - multiple), allowing legal action not only for political and social movements that support government policies, but also for opposition parties and organizations.

Freedom of expression of political opinions (ideological pluralism) and freedom of associations, movements, supplemented by many different sources of information, independent media.

Democratic decision-making procedure: elections, referendums, parliamentary votes and other decisions made by the majority, while respecting the rights of the minority to dissent. The minority (opposition) has the right to criticize the ruling government and promote alternative programs. Resolving conflicts peacefully.

A characteristic feature of all modern democratic regimes is pluralism (from the Latin pluralis - multiple), which means the recognition in socio-political life of many different interconnected and at the same time autonomous, social, political groups, parties, organizations, ideas and attitudes of which are in constant comparison, competition, competition. Pluralism as a principle of political democracy is the antipode of monopolism in any of its forms.

The essential features of political pluralism include:

multiplicity of subjects and policies in the field of competition, separation of powers;

Elimination of the monopoly on political power of any one party;

multi-party political system;

variety of channels for expressing interests, free access for everyone;

free struggle of political forces of opposing elites, the possibility of change;

Alternative political views within the law.

Characteristic features of a democratic regime:

Sovereignty of the people: it is the people who choose their representatives and the authorities can periodically replace them. Elections must be fair and competitive, and must be held regularly. By "competitive" means the presence of various groups or individuals free to stand for election. Elections will not be competitive if some groups (or individuals) are able to participate while others are not. Elections are considered fair if there is no fraud and there is a special fair play mechanism. Elections are unfair if the bureaucracy belongs to one party, even if that party tolerates other parties during elections. Using a monopoly on the media, the party in power can influence public opinion to such an extent that elections can no longer be called fair.

Periodic election of the main bodies of the state. Government is born from elections for a certain, limited period of time. To develop democracy, it is not enough to hold regular elections; it must be based on an elected government. In Latin America, for example, elections are held frequently, but many Latin American countries are not democracies, and the most common way to compensate a president is through a military coup rather than an election. Thus, a necessary condition for a democratic state is that persons exercising supreme power are elected, and are elected for a certain, limited period of time; a change of government must be the result of elections, and not at the request of the whole.

Democracy protects the rights of individuals and minorities. The opinion of the majority is expressed by democratic elections, it is only necessary condition democracy, however, is not insufficient. Only the combination of majority rule and the protection of minority rights constitutes one of the basic principles of a democratic state. When discriminatory measures are used by a minority, an undemocratic regime becomes, regardless of the frequency and fairness of elections and replacements, a legally elected government.

Equality of rights of citizens to participate in government: freedom to create political parties and other associations to express their will, freedom of expression, the right to information and to participate in competition for leadership positions in the state.

The above description of the democratic regime and its principles seems very attractive. However, we should not forget that this is the collective nature of the synthesis, which includes the most significant features of this regime, which is not necessarily inherent in specific regimes of certain states.

An important feature of a democratic regime is political pluralism, which presupposes the possibility of forming a two-party or multi-party system, competition of political parties and their influence on people, the existence of legitimate political opposition, both in parliament and outside it.

According to A. Leypyartu, democratic regimes can be described in terms of the degree of multi-party government (the minimum number of parts that make up the ruling coalition of a parliamentary majority). Based on this criterion, a majority will be considered a regime in which parties replace each other, and the ruling party is formed according to the principles of the majority. On the other hand, the consensus of a democratic regime, as a ruling coalition, is formed on the basis of proportional representation of the parties. Examples of majoritarian and consensual democracy are Great Britain, respectively the USA (Westminster model) and the Scandinavian countries.

Experts identify three features of consensus democracy, compared to the majority: 1) low level of opposition to existing state rules and methods of conflict resolution; 2) low level of conflict on existing government policies; 3) a high degree of consistency in the implementation of government policy. According to Leipjärt, regimes can vary depending on the level of centralization of state power - for federal and unitary states. Thus, in democratic institutions there may be different ways of organizing work.

A democratic regime is characterized by the high importance of the implementation of human rights. These include norms, rules and principles of relations between the state and citizens.

World political science has not yet given an exhaustive definition of the essence of a democratic regime as a multifaceted phenomenon of social life. The concept of a democratic regime since the times of Ancient Greece is often considered as a form of state, opposite authoritarianism in all its manifestations. Meanwhile, the state regime of power is a narrower concept that includes only the methods of political power of the state apparatus.

Signs of a democratic regime:

Regular participation of the people in the development and implementation of state power through referendum and free elections.

Decisions are made taking into account the interests of the minority.

Inviolability of private property.

Freedom of the media.

We solemnly proclaim and actually enjoy rights and freedoms.

Legitimacy of power.

The structure of the armed forces, police, and security agencies are under the control of society, are used only for their intended purpose, and their activities are regulated by laws.

Persuasion, negotiations, compromises, narrowed methods of violence, coercion, and suppression dominate.

The existence of civil society with its developed structure.

Actual implementation of the principle of the rule of law.

The principle “everything is permitted that is not prohibited by law.”

Political pluralism, including multi-party competition of political parties, the existence of a legitimate political opposition, both in parliament and outside it.

Freedom of religion.

The principle of separation of powers.

A democratic regime is characterized by economic, political and ideological diversity (pluralism); monopolization in any of these areas is not allowed.

A democratic regime indicates a set of techniques and means of exercising state power. They are very different and specify the main indicators of the form of government and structure in a particular country. General indicators of a democratic regime are:

a) the degree of protection and guarantees of the rights and freedoms of citizens (political and ideological choice, economic freedom) and the degree of consideration of the interests of various social groups (including minorities), etc.;

b) ways to legitimize state power;

c) the relationship between legal and non-legal methods of exercising power functions;

d) methods, intensity and legal validity of the use of law enforcement agencies and other power resources;

d) a mechanism of ideological pressure.

Studying the prerequisites for democratization of society is a very important issue. Why, given equal starting opportunities, do some countries successfully follow the path of democratization, while in others all attempts to establish democracy end in complete failure? Many scientists have tried to find an answer to this question, but it still remains unresolved.

The prerequisites for a democratic regime include:

modernization, industrialization, urbanization, level of education, elements of capitalism and welfare;

the corresponding nature of the class structure of society;

democratic political culture, as well as a developed civil society;

the presence of certain institutional forms, among the particularly significant institutional factors are electoral systems, majoritarian or proportional representation, form of government - parliamentary or presidential, strong political parties and an established party system;

a single state, established borders, no ethnic or regional conflicts;

external factors: peaceful international situation, growing interdependence of all countries and peoples of the world.

Chapter 2. Features of certain types of democratic regimes

.1 Liberal democratic regime

A liberal democratic regime is a kind of democratic type of government, in which democratic ways, forms and methods of implementing state power receive relatively incomplete, limited and inconsistent application.

On the one hand, this regime is associated with a fairly high level of political freedom of the individual; and on the other hand, real objective and subjective conditions in countries significantly limit the ability to use democratic means and methods of state and political management. This ensures that the liberal democratic regime should be classified as a democratic state type of ruling power and at the same time a special type of democratic regime differs from actually democratic or developed democracies.

The liberal state-political regime is the embodiment of the socio-political principles and ideals of liberalism (from the Latin liberalis - free) - one of the most important and widespread ideological and socio-political trends, which finally formed into a special, independent direction in the 30-40s. XIX century, although the ideological origins of liberalism go back to the 17th-18th centuries. (J. Locke, C. Montesquieu, J.J. Rousseau, T. Jefferson, B. Franklin, I. Bentham, etc.). Historically, classical liberalism developed in the struggle against feudal enslavement of the individual, against class privileges, hereditary state power, etc., for freedom and equality of citizens, equal opportunities for everyone, democratic forms socio-political life.

Liberal democratic regimes exist in many countries. Its significance is such that some scientists believe that the liberal democratic regime is not in fact the implementation of a regime for the exercise of power, but, on the contrary, is a condition for the existence of civilization itself at a certain stage of its development, even the final result, which ends the entire evolution of a political organization, most effective form of such an organization. But it is difficult to agree with the last statement; at present, the evolution of political regimes is even in such forms as the liberal-democratic regime of power.

New trends in the development of civilization, the desire of man to escape from the environment, nuclear and other disasters give rise to new forms of exercise of state power, the role of the UN increases, international rapid reaction forces appear, but at the same time, contradictions between human rights and nations, peoples, etc. Further.

In the theory of the state, liberal are those political methods and methods of exercising power that are based on a system of the most democratic and humanistic principles.

These principles are primarily characterized by the relations of the economic sector between the individual and the state. In a liberal democratic regime, a person has property, rights and freedoms, economic independence, and on this basis they become politically independent. In relation to the individual and state priority are reserved for interests, rights, personal freedoms and others.

The liberal democratic regime supports the values ​​of individualism, contrasting it with the collectivist principles of organizing political and economic life, which, according to some scientists, ultimately leads to totalitarian forms of government.

The liberal democratic regime primarily determines the needs of the commodity-money organization of a market economy. The market requires equal, free, independent partners.

A liberal state proclaims the formal equality of all citizens. In a liberal society there should be freedom of speech, opinions, property rights, taking into account the space for private initiative. Human rights and freedoms are not only enshrined in the constitution, but also become possible in practice.

Thus, the economic basis of liberalism is private property. The state frees producers from its tutelage and does not interfere in the economic life of people, but establishes a general framework for free competition between producers and the conditions of economic life. He also acts as an arbitrator and resolution of their disputes.

At later stages of liberalism, legitimate government intervention in economic and social processes acquires a socially oriented character, which is associated with many factors: the need to rationally distribute economic resources to solve environmental problems, to participate in international division labor, prevention of international conflicts, etc.

The liberal democratic regime allows for the existence of an opposition; moreover, from the point of view of liberalism, the state takes all measures for the existence of an opposition representing the interests of a minority, creating special procedures to address these interests.

Pluralism and multi-party system are primarily necessary attributes liberal society. In addition, under a liberal democratic regime there are many associations, corporations, non-governmental organizations, sections, clubs that unite people of mutual interest. There are organizations that allow citizens to express their political, professional, religious, social, social, personal, local, national interests and needs. These associations are the basis of civil society and do not leave citizens face to face with the state, which, as a rule, tends to impose its decisions and even abuse its capabilities.

When liberalism shapes elections, their outcome depends not only on the opinion of the people, but also on the financial capabilities of certain parties necessary for election campaigns.

The implementation of public administration is based on the principle of separation of powers. A system of "checks and balances" reduces opportunities for abuse of power. Government decisions are usually made in legal form.

Public administration uses decentralization of power: the central government takes upon itself to resolve only those issues that local authorities cannot resolve.

Of course, one should not apologize the liberal-democratic regime, because it also has its own problems, the main of which are social protection individual categories citizens, stratification of society, actual unequal starting opportunities, etc.

The most effective use of this regime becomes possible only in a society with a high level of economic and social development. The population must have a sufficiently high political, intellectual and moral culture.

The liberal democratic regime is based on the ideas and practice of democracy, the system of separation of powers, the protection of individual rights and freedoms, in which the judiciary plays an important role. This generates respect for the court, the Constitution, and the rights and freedoms of others. The principles of autonomy and self-regulation permeate many aspects of society.

For the liberal democratic regime there is another type of democracy. This is a humanistic regime, which, while retaining all the meaning of a liberal democratic regime, continues and strengthens the trend by eliminating its shortcomings. True, the humanistic regime, overcoming contradictions and failures, is just emerging in some countries, serving as the ideal goal of the political development of a modern state.

Its legal form is not at all focused on the individual, on dividends, and on ensuring the health, safety, well-being, specific social protection, support for a specific family and the personal life of each member of society.

Man is an end, not a means, that is main principle humanistic regime. The state does not create state dependence on social security, and creates all conditions for normal creative work every member of society. High social and legal protection, the importance of organizing the life of every person are obligations in the practical activities of all government bodies.

Humanity has been searching for the most perfect forms for thousands of years. government organization society. These forms change with the development of society. The form of government, the state apparatus, the political regime are those specific areas where the search is most intensive.

Modern democracy is the representation of interests, not classes. All citizens in a democratic state, as participants, are equal before the state, that is, equality before the law and equality of political rights and freedoms. Modern Democratic state- a rule of law state and in practice the separation of the three branches of government is carried out, and real mechanisms are created to protect the rights and freedoms of citizens.

The liberal democratic regime supports the values ​​of individualism, contrasting it with collectivist principles in the organization of political and economic life, which, according to some scientists, can ultimately lead to totalitarian forms of government.

Under liberalism, the state formed through elections comes not only from the opinions of the people, but also from the financial capabilities of certain parties necessary for election campaigns.

The implementation of management is based on the principle of separation of powers. Checks and balances reduce the potential for abuse of power. Government decisions are usually made in legal form.

The use of a liberal democratic regime is most effective only in a society with a high level of economic and social development.

However, it should be noted that a liberal democratic regime can only exist on a democratic basis, and is created from a proper democratic regime.

2.2 Social democratic regime

A social-democratic regime arises when Western states reassess the values ​​of liberal democracy. It was approved after the Second World War and means that the state, without rejecting liberal values, at the same time acquires a socially oriented character. This state is intended to influence the distribution of material goods, directed in the interests of the entire society and the principles of social justice.

Social democratic regime - left-wing political parties, their programs are focused on socialism, but also on electoral and parliamentary means without unrest and violent revolution.

Social democratic parties view the welfare state as a step towards their main goal - democratic socialism. State power, they say, is intended to prepare the conditions for the transition to a social-democratic regime, in which democratic methods of governance will be applied in all spheres of public life. Social politics is not a service or favor from the state, and its direct responsibilities arising from social rights are provided to citizens. Theorists of a social-democratic regime develop legal ideas of a social state, responsible to its citizens, and assign a wide range of tasks to it, before adoption social relations social justice.

An intermediate position between the positions of neoliberals and social democrats are the concepts put forward by the ideologists of the middle classes and democratically minded intelligentsia. The ideology of these layers is the theory of the welfare state. It arose in the 50s during a period of economic growth in Western Europe and the United States.

One of the founders of the theory was the Swedish economist and politician Karl Gunnar Myrdal (1898-1987) (Author of the book “Beyond the Welfare State”).

The basis of his concept is the assertion that universal prosperity was achieved in the industrialized countries of the West. Other countries sooner or later take the same path of economic and social development. The essence of the theory of public welfare, as formulated by Myrdal, is “a world without revolution - a revolution in a capitalist state actually carries out a coordinated state policy, and, moreover, with such efficiency that it gradually led to the development of the country’s economy in accordance with the interests of the majority of citizens. In accordance with his concept, we present a number of general features."

Rich Western countries have a mixed economy, that is, market relations combined with government planning. Friedrich von Hayek objects, and his follower Myrdal argued that planning in modern capitalist society is caused by objective reasons, primarily the formation of monopolies. The industrialized countries of the West, he wrote, are “infinitely far from the liberal democratic model.” Government intervention is necessary to maintain balance and stable economic growth. Planning is intended to regulate the activities of large economic associations and, therefore, does not affect individual freedom.

The welfare state is characterized by a trend towards democratization of the country's political life. Universal suffrage and the growth of public welfare, as Myrdal argued, make it possible to move to a state of decentralization and transfer of functions that are traditionally carried out by the state, local authorities and public associations of citizens. Unlike the states of the last century, modern Western democracy includes all layers of society and participates in the distribution of social benefits. The political process in the most developed welfare states (Myrdal includes Sweden and the UK) is brought under "expanding popular control."

Taking into account the above facts, the liberal democratic regime includes a type of democratic regime characterized by a set of methods and means of exercising power based on democratic and humanistic principles, recognition of individualism and private property highest values political and economic life.

Conclusion

The ideological basis of the democratic regime consists of numerous and constantly updated theories of the democratic regime, the development of which has contributed to modern political democracy. As a result, a social order is formed and finds expression in constitutions of a democratic type.

A democratic regime is a political regime based on the recognition of the people as the source of power, their right to participate in managing the affairs of society and empowering citizens, having a fairly wide range of rights and freedoms.

A characteristic feature of all modern democratic regimes is pluralism (from the Latin pluralis - multiple), which means the recognition in socio-political life of many different interconnected and at the same time autonomous, social, political groups, parties, organizations, ideas and attitudes of which are in constant comparison, competition, competition.

An analysis of the effective establishment of democratic regimes shows that democratic political institutions become truly effective only after a long process of evolution and adaptation to the conditions and traditions of society, as evidenced by the experience of democratic formation in Western countries. Consequently, modern sophistication in the development of democratic political institutions in Russia and in other countries, the question of the compatibility of democracy and its institutions with national traditions and norms, as well as the fact that they can be effective, but gradually adapting to political reality, cannot be explained.

Liberal democratic regimes exist in many countries. Its significance is such that some scientists believe that the liberal-democratic regime is in fact not the implementation of a regime for the exercise of power, but, on the contrary, a condition for the existence of civilization itself at a certain stage of its development, even the final result, which ends the entire evolution of a political organization, most effective form of such an organization.

A social-democratic regime arises when Western states reassess the values ​​of liberal democracy. It was approved after the Second World War and means that the state, without rejecting liberal values, at the same time acquires a socially oriented character.

A democratic regime recognizes diversity of opinion and a multi-party system, the possibility of legal activities of opposition parties, trade unions and other mass organizations. Through mass organizations, the population tries to take advantage of participation in the political process and put pressure on the government to meet their demands.

List of information sources used

Abdullaev, M.I. Theory of state and law / - M.: Publishing House Pravo, 2010. -464 p.

2. Baranov N.A. "The evolution of modern Russian democracy: trends and prospects." - St. Petersburg, 2008. -276 p.

Vedenina N.A. Modern political liberalism and the problem of social justice: Dis. ...cand. ist. Sci. M., 2003.- 253 p.

Vlasenko N.A. Theory of Government and Rights: tutorial(2nd edition, revised, expanded and corrected). - M.: Prospekt, 2011. - 84 p.

Power in the transition from totalitarianism to democracy. Free thought. // Kozhukhov A.P. - No. 8. - 2008. - P. 152.

Dimov V. Fair liberalism. The path to a comfortable state. M., 2007.- 425 p.

Kashkin S.Yu. Political regime in the modern world: concept, essence, development trends. -2010. - 185 p.

Kudryavtsev, Yu. A. Political regimes: Classification criteria and main types / Yu.A. Kudryavtsev.//Jurisprudence. -2011. - No. 1 (240). - P. 205

Kryzhantovskaya T.I. Representative and direct democracy of a developed socialist society: Author's abstract. dis. ...cand. legal Sci. M., 2011. -S. 17.

Lijphart A. Democracy in multi-component societies. Comparative study. - M., 1997.- 310 p.

Nersesyants B.S. Theory of state and law: A short training course. - M., 2001. - 245 p.

Novgorodtsev P.I. About the social ideal. M., "Science", 1991. - 582 p.

Politics and law - "Democracy" A.F. Nikitin, 2012.- P. 12

Theory of State and Law / Edited by A.S. Pigolkina, Yu.A. Dmitrieva / [Text]. - M.: Higher Education, 2007. -216 p.

15.Theory of State and Law: Textbook / Ed. O.V. Martyshina. M.: NORM, 2009.- 420 p.

16. Tkachenko S.V. Liberalism as the state ideology of Russia // Law and State: Theory and Practice. 2010. N 1.-S. 32.

17. Farberov N.P. Marxist-Leninist concept of socialist democracy // Problems of the theory of the socialist state and law. M., 1977.- P. 22.

Huntington S. The future of the democratic process: from expansion to consolidation // World economy And international relationships. 1995. No. 6.- P. 45.

Tsygankov P.A., Tsygankov A.P. Between Westernism and nationalism: Russian liberalism and international relations // Questions of Philosophy. 2012. N 1.-S. 32.

20. Tsygankov V. Modern political regimes: structure, typology, dynamics. M., 1995.- 100 p.

Chirkin V.E. Theoretical problems of the political regime in countries of socialist orientation // State and law in developing countries. M., 1976.- P. 7