Liberal Democrats. Liberal democracy: definition, characteristics, advantages and disadvantages

General characteristics of liberal democracy

In political science, liberal democracy is one of the most common models of the democratic structure of the state. This is largely due to the compliance of the direction under consideration with classical democratic ideals. Moving on to consider the essential features and characteristics of liberal democracy, it seems necessary to provide one of the definitions of the corresponding category:

Definition 1

Liberal democracy is a model of state organization built on the basis of representative democracy, in which the will of the social majority and the powers of government bodies are limited in such a way as to ensure the protection of the rights and legitimate interests of each member of society.

At the same time, one of the key features of liberal democracy is that in its conditions the main goal of the state is declared to be equal provision of inalienable rights and freedoms to every citizen, which may include:

• Private property;
• Privacy, freedom of movement;
• Freedom of thought and speech, religion, freedom of assembly, etc.

At the same time, in connection with the fact that in a liberal democracy the corresponding benefits are given the status of absolute values, their legal consolidation is ensured at the highest legislative level, primarily in the Constitution of the state, and is continued in the law enforcement activities of public authorities.

In addition, the literature notes that liberal democracy is characterized by the model of the so-called “open society,” that is, a society in which a wide variety of socio-political views (political pluralism and pluralism of opinions) coexist on a competitive basis.

In particular, the corresponding feature may be reflected in the fact that in a liberal democracy, the political force in power does not necessarily share and support all the values ​​and ideals of classical liberalism, gravitating, for example, towards democratic socialism. However, despite the place of the views of the corresponding party or public association in the political spectrum, it must necessarily share the ideas of the rule of law in a liberal democratic state.

In this regard, it seems reasonable to hold the view that in relation to the characteristics of a political regime, “liberalism” is understood not in the sense of the economic component of the corresponding term, but in the sense of comprehensive protection of each member of society from arbitrariness on the part of government bodies and their officials.

History of the formation and development of the ideas of liberal democracy

Over a long period of historical development, until the middle of the 19th century, the ideas of democracy and liberalism were in a certain contradiction with each other, since classical liberalism assumed as the basis of the state the individual owner, for whom ensuring his economic rights is much more important than, for example, the need for survival, or various kinds of social benefits.

At the same time, as is known, democrats argued for the need for the majority of the population, including representatives of the poor class, to participate in the formation of power and the adoption of socially significant decisions, since, according to democrats, the deprivation of such electoral and political rights in its content is a form of enslavement of citizens. Liberals, in turn, defended the view that the power of the have-nots represented a real threat to private property and guarantees of individual freedom.

The turning point in the corresponding discussion, which predetermined the possibility of the emergence of liberal democracy as a model of government, was the period of the mid-19th century, when a number of researchers, led by the French politician Alexis de Tocqueville, consistently substantiated the point of view that there is a real possibility of the existence of a society in which personal freedom and private property not only coexist with democratic ideals, but are also in harmonious unity, complementing each other.

Note 1

The key idea and condition for the viability of liberal democracy, according to A. de Tocqueville, is equality of opportunity for citizens in the state, including in the economic and political spheres.

Conditions for the formation and approval of liberal democracy in the state

Despite the sufficient prevalence of liberal-democratic ideas in political science and the programs of political parties, the question of what is the list of conditions necessary and sufficient for the emergence, formation and final approval of the liberal-democratic structure of the state is still quite acute.

Thus, in accordance with one point of view, the minimum volume of relevant conditions is presented:

• Developed justice system in the country;
• Legislative proclamation and protection of private property;
• The presence of a broad middle class as the basis of any democracy;
• A strong civil society consisting of politically active members of society.

However, not all scientists, sharing the need to ensure appropriate conditions, agree with the opinion that they are sufficient for the establishment of liberal democracy, citing examples of situations in which, despite their presence, the formation of “defective” democracies occurs.

In this regard, it should be emphasized that another condition for liberal democracy should be the existence of a long historical process of formation of democratic traditions, customs and institutions, as well as the involvement of legal procedures and the general population to resolve conflicts.

Liberal democracy is a form of socio-political system - 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 minorities 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 (such as a constitution or statute, or in precedent decisions made by the highest courts), which, in turn, empower various government 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. 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 [source not specified 897 days].

In a liberal democracy, the political group in power does not have to subscribe to all aspects of the ideology of liberalism (for example, 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 democratic nature of government is enshrined in the fundamental laws and supreme precedent decisions that make up the constitution. 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 ones of which are the rule of law, independent justice, separation of powers (by branches 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 (referendums), the vast majority of supreme government decisions are made by the government. The policy of this government should depend only on the representatives of the legislature and the chief executive, who are determined by 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 race, gender, wealth or education. 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 for the vote to be considered valid.

The most important task of electoral democracy is to ensure that elected representatives are accountable to the nation. Therefore, elections and referendums must be free, fair and honest. They must be preceded by free and fair competition between representatives of different political views, combined with equality of opportunity for election campaigns. In practice, political pluralism is determined by the presence of several (at least two) political parties that have significant power. The most important precondition for this pluralism is freedom of speech. 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.

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, the presence of a broad middle class and a 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.

There is a debate among political scientists about how sustainable liberal democracies are created. The most common two positions. According to the first of them, for the emergence of liberal democracy, a long-term split between the elites and the involvement of legal procedures, as well as broader sections of the population, in resolving conflicts is sufficient. The second position is that a long prehistory of the formation of democratic traditions, customs, institutions, etc. is necessary. of certain peoples.

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, Canada is technically a monarchy, but is actually governed by a democratically elected parliament. In Great Britain, the hereditary monarch formally has the highest power, but in fact such power is vested in the people, through their elected representatives (there is also the opposite point of view that parliamentarism in Great Britain is just a screen for an absolute monarchy). 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 are social democracies. 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.

Advantages:

First of all, liberal democracy is based on the rule of law and universal equality before it. [source not specified 409 days]

The publication, funded by the World Bank, argues that liberal democracy ensures government accountability 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 comes to power, the most reliable way to stay on is to avoid the mistakes of her predecessors (dismiss corrupt or ineffective officials, obey the laws, attract competent economists, etc.) Thus, according to the authors of the work, liberal democracy ennobles the desire for power and forces the government to work for the good of the nation. This ensures a relatively low level of corruption.

At the same time, a number of countries (Switzerland, Uruguay) and regions (California) actively use elements of direct democracy: referendums and plebiscites.

Because the minority is able to influence decision-making, liberal democracy ensures the protection of private property for the wealthy. [source not specified 409 days] American author Alvin Powell argues that the most democratic countries in the world are characterized by the lowest levels of terrorism (English) . This effect may even extend beyond the region: statistics show that since the late 1980s, when many countries in Eastern Europe embarked on the path of liberal democracy, the total number of military conflicts, ethnic wars, revolutions, etc. in the world decreased sharply (English)[not in source].

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, some liberal democratic countries are still relatively poor (for example, India, Costa Rica), while a number of authoritarian regimes, on the contrary, are thriving (Brunei).

According to a number of researchers, liberal democracies manage available resources more effectively when they are limited than authoritarian regimes. According to this view, 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 an oligarchy, 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 transferring more and more 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 [source not specified 954 days]. 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 truly 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.

Libertarians and monarchists criticize liberal democracy because elected representatives frequently change laws without apparent need. This impedes the ability of citizens to comply with the law and creates opportunities for abuse by law enforcement agencies and officials. The complexity of legislation also leads to a slow and cumbersome bureaucratic machine.

There is a widespread belief that regimes with a high concentration of power are more effective in the event of war. It is argued that democracy requires a lengthy approval procedure; the people may object to the draft. At the same time, monarchies and dictatorships are able to quickly mobilize the necessary resources. However, the latter statement often contradicts the facts. In addition, the situation changes significantly if there are allies. Certainty in foreign policy leads to greater effectiveness of military alliances between democratic regimes than between authoritarian ones.

Liberal democracy is a form of political order that has two fundamental qualities. The government is "liberal" in terms of the core values ​​that underlie a given political system, and "democratic" in terms of shaping its political structure.

The key values ​​associated with the liberal democratic political system go back to traditional liberal ideas about limiting power and are designed to ensure the existence of a wide range of civil and human rights. The above can be guaranteed by such instruments as a constitution, a bill of rights, the principle of separation of powers, a system of checks and balances, and most importantly, the principle of the rule of law.

The functioning of a democratic political system reflects the will of the people (at least the majority of them). Social consent within the framework of a liberal democratic political system is ensured through representation: liberal democracy (sometimes also defined as representative) involves a small group of people making political decisions on behalf of all citizens of the country.

Those who assume such duties and responsibilities act with the consent of the citizens and rule on their behalf. Meanwhile, the right to make decisions is conditional on the presence of public support, and it can be denied in the absence of approval of the government’s actions from the population to which the government is accountable. In this case, citizens deprive their elected representatives of the right to exercise power and transfer them into the hands of other persons.

Thus, elections, during which the will of the population is manifested regarding the actions and personal composition of government bodies, is a fundamental function of liberal democracy. The electoral system gives all adult citizens of the country the right to vote, ensures regular elections and open competition between political parties vying for power.

The liberal democratic political system is primarily associated with first world countries with a capitalist economic system.

See also the articles “Rule of Law”, “Elections”, “Civil Rights”, “Democracy”, “Legitimacy”, “Liberalism”, “Marxism-Leninism”, “Accountability”, “Political Tolerance”, “Human Rights”, “Representation”, “Separation of powers”.

Plan:

Introduction

• 1 Structure of the socio-political structure
  • 1.1 Politic system
  • 1.2 Rights and freedoms
  • 1.3 Terms
• 2 History
• 3 Liberal democracy in the world
  • 3.1 Types of liberal democracies
  • 3.2 Liberal democracy in Russia
• 4 Critical analysis
  • 4.1 Advantages
  • 4.2 Disadvantages
Notes

Introduction

Liberal democracy 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 (such as a constitution or statute, or in precedent decisions made by the highest courts), which, in turn, empower various government 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. 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 subscribe to all aspects of the ideology of liberalism (for example, it may advocate democratic socialism). However, it is obliged to obey the above-mentioned principle of the rule of law. Term liberal in this case it 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.

1. Structure of the socio-political structure

1.1. Politic system

The democratic nature of government is enshrined in the fundamental laws and supreme precedent decisions that make up the constitution. 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 ones of which are the rule of law, independent justice, separation of powers (by branches 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 (referendums), 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 race, gender, wealth or education. 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 for the vote to be considered valid.

The most important task of electoral democracy is to ensure that elected representatives are accountable to the nation. Therefore, elections and referendums must be free, fair and honest. They must be preceded by free and fair competition between representatives of different political views, combined with equality of opportunity for election campaigns. In practice, political pluralism is determined by the presence of several (at least two) political parties that have significant power. The most important precondition for this pluralism is freedom of speech. 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.

1.2. 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 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
• 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 under the rule of law
• 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 open to differing interpretations. Legitimate purposes 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. 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.

1.3. 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, the presence of a broad middle class and a 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.

There is a debate among political scientists about how sustainable liberal democracies are created. The most common two positions. According to the first of them, for the emergence of liberal democracy, a long-term split between the elites and the involvement of legal procedures, as well as broader sections of the population, in resolving conflicts is sufficient. The second position is that a long prehistory of the formation of democratic traditions, customs, institutions, etc. is necessary. of certain peoples.

2. History

Until the middle of the 19th century, liberalism and democracy were in a certain contradiction with each other. For liberals, the basis of society was a person who has property, needs its protection, and for whom the choice between survival and the preservation of his civil rights cannot be acute. The implication was that only property owners participate in a social contract in which they give the government consent to rule in exchange for guarantees that their rights will be protected. On the contrary, democracy means the process of forming power based on the will of the majority, in which all people, including the poor.

From the Democratic point of view, depriving the poor of the right to vote and the opportunity to represent their interests in the legislative process was a form of enslavement. From the liberals' point of view, the "dictatorship of the mob" posed a threat to private property and the guarantee of individual freedom. These fears especially intensified after the Great French Revolution.

Alexis de Tocqueville

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 equality of 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'état of Napoleon III (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 the ideas of liberalism remains a utopia. At the same time, social democratic movements began to gain strength, denying the possibility of a fair society built on private property and a free market. From their point of view, full-fledged democracy, in which all citizens have equal access to all democratic institutions (elections, media, justice, etc.), could only be realized within the framework of socialism. However, having become convinced of the growth of the middle class, the majority of Social Democrats abandoned the revolution, decided to participate in the democratic process and seek legislative reforms with the aim of a smooth evolution towards socialism.

By the beginning of the 20th century, social democrats in Western countries had achieved significant success. Voting rights were significantly expanded and reforms were launched that increased the level of social protection of the population. These processes accelerated after the October Revolution of 1917 in Russia. On the one hand, the revolution and the subsequent nationalization of private property greatly frightened right-wing (classical) liberals, who recognized the need to smooth out social contradictions and ensure equality of opportunity. On the other hand, socialists saw the Soviet regime as a threat to democracy and began to support stronger protections for the rights of minorities and individual citizens.

3. Liberal democracy in the world

██ free countries
██ partially free countries
██ unfree countries

States by their system of government
██ presidential republics
██ semi-parliamentary republics
██ semi-presidential republics
██ parliamentary republics
██ parliamentary constitutional monarchies
██ constitutional monarchies
██ absolute monarchies
██ one-party regimes
██ military dictatorships

Elected democracies by their system of government. According to Freedom House experts, in these countries a change of government through elections is possible.

A number of organizations and political scientists maintain ratings of the level of liberal democracy in countries around the world. Among these rankings, the most famous are the Polity Data Set, Freedom in the World, compiled by the American organization Freedom House, and the Economist Democracy Index.

3.1. 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, Canada is technically a monarchy, but is actually governed by a democratically elected parliament. In Great Britain, the hereditary monarch formally has the highest power, but in fact such power is vested in the people, through their elected representatives (there is also the opposite point of view that parliamentarism in Great Britain is just a screen for an absolute monarchy). 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 are social democracies. 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.

3.2. Liberal democracy in Russia

Until 1905, in the autocratic Russian Empire, the official ideology rejected liberal democracy, although such ideas were popular among the educated part of society. After the publication of the Manifesto by Nicholas II on October 17, 1905, many essential elements of liberal democracy (such as popular representation, freedom of conscience, speech, unions, meetings, etc.) began to be integrated into the political system of the Russian state. The victory of the February Revolution of 1917, which took place under democratic slogans, formally turned liberal democracy into the official ideology of the new political regime, but this regime turned out to be extremely unstable and was overthrown during the October Revolution of 1917. The Soviet political regime that was established after it denied the liberal democratic ideology , no longer “on the right,” as in the autocratic, but “on the left.” The erosion and fall (the so-called “perestroika”) of the Soviet regime in Russia in the late 1980s and early 1990s had its origins mainly under liberal-democratic slogans. The core values ​​and principles of liberal democracy are explicitly stated in the current Russian Constitution and have never been explicitly questioned by the official authorities of Russia in the post-Soviet period. However, there is a common view in the West that 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 “partly free countries”, but since 2005 Russia has been included in the list of “not free countries”.

In Russia itself, part of the population mistakenly associates the doctrine of liberal democracy with the nationalist party LDPR. Democracy is generally supported, but most people prioritize social rights over political ones.

4. Critical analysis

4.1. Advantages

First of all, liberal democracy is based on the rule of law and universal equality before it. [ source not specified 221 days]

The publication, funded by the World Bank, argues that liberal democracy ensures government accountability 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 comes to power, the most reliable way to stay on is to avoid the mistakes of her predecessors (dismiss corrupt or ineffective officials, obey the laws, attract competent economists, etc.) Thus, according to the authors of the work, liberal democracy ennobles the desire for power and forces the government to work for the good of the nation. This ensures a relatively low level of corruption.

At the same time, a number of countries (Switzerland, Uruguay) and regions (California) actively use elements of direct democracy: referendums and plebiscites.

By allowing a minority to influence decision-making, liberal democracy ensures the protection of private property for the wealthy. [ source not specified 221 days] American author Alvin Powell argues that 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 embarked on the path of liberal democracy, the total number of military conflicts, ethnic wars, revolutions, etc. in the world decreased sharply (English) [ not in the source] .

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, some liberal democratic countries are still relatively poor (for example, India, Costa Rica), while a number of authoritarian regimes, on the contrary, are thriving (Brunei).

According to a number of researchers, liberal democracies manage available resources more effectively when they are limited than authoritarian regimes. According to this view, 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.

4.2. 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 an oligarchy, 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 transferring more and more 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 [ source not specified 766 days] . 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 truly 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.

Libertarians and monarchists criticize liberal democracy because elected representatives frequently change laws without apparent need. This impedes the ability of citizens to comply with the law and creates opportunities for abuse by law enforcement agencies and officials. The complexity of legislation also leads to a slow and cumbersome bureaucratic machine.

There is a widespread belief that regimes with a high concentration of power are more effective in the event of war. It is argued that democracy requires a lengthy approval procedure; the people may object to the draft. At the same time, monarchies and dictatorships are able to quickly mobilize the necessary resources. However, the latter statement often contradicts the facts. In addition, the situation changes significantly if there are allies. Certainty in foreign policy leads to greater effectiveness of military alliances between democratic regimes than between authoritarian ones.

Democratic government has become widespread in many countries around the world. The movement towards democracy is an objective trend in the development of human society. There are a great many definitions of democracy. Here are some of them:

Juan Linz:"Democracy... is the legitimate right to formulate and defend political alternatives, accompanied by the rights to freedom of association, freedom of speech and other basic political rights of the individual; free and non-violent competition of leaders of society with periodic evaluation of their claims to govern society; inclusion in the democratic process of all effective political institutions; providing conditions for political activity for all members of the political community, regardless of their political preferences... Democracy does not require a mandatory change of ruling parties, but the possibility of such a change must exist, since the very fact of such changes is the main evidence of the democratic nature of the regime."

Ralf Dahrendorf:"A free society maintains differences in a hundred institutions and groups to the point of actually ensuring divergence; conflict is the life-breath of freedom."

Adam Przeworski: "Democracy is an organization of political power... [that] determines the ability of various groups to realize their specific interests."

Arendt Lijpiart:"Democracy can be defined not only as government through the people, but also, in the famous formulation of President Abraham

Lincoln, as governing in accordance with popular preferences... democratic regimes are characterized not by absolute, but by a high degree of accountability: their actions are in relatively close accordance with the wishes of the relative majority of citizens over a long period of time."

Roy Makridis:“Despite the growing interdependence between state and society, as well as the growing activity of the state (especially in the economy), democracy, in all its varieties, from liberal to socialist, pays special attention to the separation of the spheres of activity of state and society.”

One can easily continue the list of similar definitions, but in modern political science democracy acts as a synonym for democracy, a form of state, a form and principle of organization of political parties and social movements, a political regime, a political worldview and a political value.

Democracy is democracy, a form of government of the state, characterized by recognition of the people as the source of power, equal rights of citizens, election of public authorities, respect for the rights and freedoms of citizens.

In the history of politics one can find many democratic forms of organizing public life: Athenian democracy in Ancient Greece, Republican Rome, urban democracies of the Middle Ages, including the Novgorod Republic, parliamentary forms of democracy in England, democracy in the North American states, etc. Modern democracies inherit many traditions of historical democracies, but at the same time differ significantly from them.

It is hardly possible to describe all modern theoretical models of democracy.

Conceptual democracy has given rise to a huge variety of options: according to some data, we can talk about the existence of 550 “subtypes” of democracy. In fact, the modern theory of democracy breaks down into many internally interconnected concepts, generalizations, classifications, models of democratic processes, institutions, behavior and relationships. Summarizing the various approaches, we can identify a number of models that most often come to the attention of researchers. Let us note that the whole variety of theoretical models of modern democracy, if we talk about their ideological foundations, one way or another gravitates towards two main theoretical paradigms formed by the classics of political thought of the 17th-19th centuries: we are talking about liberal-democratic and radical-democratic theories (Table 8.2).

Table 8.2

Signs of liberal democratic and radical democratic theories of democracy

Both theories arise as an attempt to solve the so-called Hobbes problem, the essence of which can be briefly defined as follows: a person, moving from the state of “war of all against all” (state of nature) to an agreement on state-social life (social state), entrusts himself to the authorities state, since only it can guarantee compliance with the treaty. How to preserve human freedom in a social state?

In this question lies the knot of the “Hobbes problem”. Consequently, the theoretical task was to justify the boundaries of state activity that ensure the preservation of human freedom.

Representatives of the liberal-democratic and radical-democratic movements considered man to be a rational being, but interpreted this anthropological premise of democratic theory differently. They were united in their interpretation of the origin of the state from the agreement accepted by reasonable individuals, but they differed in the source of this agreement. They defended human freedom, but understood it differently and interpreted its foundations differently.

IN liberal democratic concepts human freedom meant his moral autonomy to rationally determine his life and the rules of communication with other people, which should not violate his individual rights. The state, which arises on the basis of an agreement between people as morally autonomous individuals, is limited by law, i.e. an equal external measure of freedom for each individual. Thus, this democratic paradigm was based on the premise of the autonomous individual. Society was interpreted as a collection of free individuals, and public interest as the interest of everyone. Private life is valued here more than public life, and law is higher than the public good. The pluralism of individual interests and the interests of emerging associations of individuals (civil society) was accompanied by a conflict between them, the resolution of which was possible in the form of a compromise. In principle, the state cannot and should not interfere in the process of communication between autonomous individuals and their voluntary associations. It was called upon only when the intervention of an arbitrator was required. Liberal-democratic concepts allow only a “limited state,” a “night watchman” state. Such a state is impossible without an agreement between people, and state representatives are elected by the population. Consequently, great importance is attached to the electoral process and representative democracy, in which elected representatives are bound only by their conscience and constitution (free mandate). Freedom in such a state is limited only by law, and the state itself (in order to avoid usurpation of state power by individual bodies or persons) must be built on the principle of separation of powers. The principle of majority voting, which is valid in voting, is supplemented by the principle of protecting the rights of the minority.

In accordance with radical democratic concepts a reasonable person could exist autonomously only in a natural state, but in a social state he becomes a social being, i.e. rationally accepting the values ​​of society. The state, which arises on the basis of an agreement, is guided by the values ​​of society, the bearer of which is the people; it is limited by the “sovereignty of the people.” Human freedom in a social state can be ensured only when the people are free and have the will to change the laws of the state.

The liberal democratic and radical democratic paradigms are presented here only in the most general form, but they make it possible to see the unity at the origins behind the external diversity of existing modern models of democracy. Many theoretical constructs develop individual provisions of the presented paradigms. Western political scientist D. Held notes that democratic regimes can be correlated with the following models:

• protective (protecting) democracy, which is described by T. Hobbes, J. Locke, C. Montesquieu. Such a democracy considers the main meaning of its existence to be the protection of citizens - both from the arbitrariness of the authorities and from the lawlessness of private individuals. Important for this model of democracy is the separation of the state from civil society and the non-interference of government in many areas of life, primarily in the economy;
• developmental democracy(J.-J. Rousseau). J.-J. Rousseau believed that democracy is not only a state mechanism, but also develops and improves people through the direct participation of all citizens in political life. He was a staunch opponent of factory production and a supporter of small property, which, in his opinion, should be evenly distributed among all citizens, each of whom would become responsible for his own business, which would contribute to his development;
• model of "withering away of the state"(K. Marx). K. Marx saw the liberation of people in the cessation of economic exploitation. Since the system of exploitation is supported by the state, the task of building “true democracy” (and the young K. Marx was a democrat) is to create conditions for the gradual “withering away” of the state. These conditions - the destruction of private property, the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat, complete social equality, the election of all government bodies - can be created as a result of a social revolution;
• "competitive elitism"(M. Weber, J. Schumpeter). The creators of this model of democracy spoke of selecting the most gifted and competent elite, capable of both legislative and administrative activities. Democracy, according to M. Weber and J. Schumpeter, prevents the appropriation of power by one of the struggling, “competing” groups within the elite. This model provides for a strong executive power, control of the ruling party over parliament, and a competent bureaucracy independent of the political leadership. The role of the masses is reduced to participation in elections;
• "pluralistic democracy(D. Truman, R. Dahl). This model represents society as a collection of a large number of small groups, each of which seeks to influence the decision-making process. The government acts as a mediator in the process of competition between these groups. Therefore, she sees the main asset of democracy in the protection of the rights of minorities and in the inability of any elite group to permanently remain in power. The masses can interfere in the political process, but they do so quite passively (for example, only in elections), leaving the government and the leaders of interest groups to solve the problems of society;
• "legal" democracy(F. Hayek, R. Nozick, “new right”). It is understood as a form of government that protects the freedom and power of the majority. But to ensure wise and just government, this principle must be limited to placing the law above the will of the people, i.e. build a rule of law state, separate civil society from state institutions and reduce, on the one hand, bureaucratic state regulation, and on the other, the wage-regulating activities of trade unions in the economy to a minimum. According to F. Hayek, peoples find themselves on the road to slavery when they replace democracy with collectivism;
• "participatory" democracy(N. Poualantzas, K. Pateman, B. Barber, “new left”). This is participatory democracy, which the authors of this model see as the main factor for competent, engaged problem solving, combining individualism and collectivism. Participation does not just mean voting. It lies in the creation of self-government at the local level, including in production, in the democratization of political parties and social movements, and institutions of power. This model relies not so much on the rule of law as on constant change and democratization of the entire society.

Liberal regime. A limited democratic liberal political regime provides people with freedom of personality, conscience, speech, press, and ensures the safety of citizens. Governance of society through laws, and not through people, historically goes back to the ancient principle of equality of all before the law. It was embodied in the political regimes of England in the 17th century. and was common in Europe during the Enlightenment and especially manifested in American constitutionalism, which added a decisive support to government in the form of legal control over the execution of laws. Now liberal regimes in their purest form exist in Japan, Israel, Greece, and some Latin American countries. In general, liberalism and democracy are close in meaning, as are totalitarianism and authoritarianism. But for a liberal regime, the category of “freedom” is more suitable (look for work and leave it, buy and sell goods, including labor, earn and spend money, elect and re-elect a government, form various associations), while for a democratic regime the main category is “justice” ". Although democracy involves people in governing through fair elections, some believe that participation in elections should be separated from participation in government. The political elite must govern society, but they can only win the right to do so through free and open competition.

Thus, a democratic regime is a way of functioning of power based on the recognition of the people as the source of power, on their right to participate in state and public affairs, on endowing citizens with the widest range of political rights and freedoms.

Depending on how the people participate in governance, who and how performs power functions, democracy is divided into direct, plebiscitary and representative.

In a direct democracy, all citizens themselves are directly involved in the preparation, discussion and decision-making. Such a system can only exist with a relatively small number of people. The first direct democracy in the world was implemented in Ancient Athens, when important decisions were made at general meetings of 5–6 thousand people.

The difference between plebiscitary and direct democracy is that direct democracy involves the participation of citizens at all stages of the process of exercising power - in preparing, making political decisions and monitoring their implementation, while in plebiscitary democracy the possibilities for political influence of citizens are relatively limited. For example, in referendums, citizens can approve or reject a particular draft law or other decision, which is usually prepared by the president, government, party or initiative group. The possibility of participation of the majority of the population in the preparation of such projects is very small. Representative democracy is the most common form of political participation in modern society. Its essence is that citizens elect their representatives to government bodies, who are called upon to express their interests in making political decisions, laws and implementing social, cultural and other programs. Election procedures may vary widely from country to country, but elected officials in a representative democracy hold office on behalf of the people and are accountable to the people in all their actions.

Democracy arises and persists under certain conditions. Firstly, this is a high level of economic development. Studies conducted by S. Lipset, D. Jackman, D. Kurt and others have convincingly proven that stable economic growth ultimately leads to democracy. In terms of economic indicators, democracies are significantly ahead of authoritarian and totalitarian states. A prerequisite such as a high degree of urbanization of the country directly depends on the degree of industrial development. Residents of large cities are more inclined to democracy than the rural population, which is characterized by greater conservatism and adherence to traditional forms of government.

One of the conditions for the development of democracy is the level of development of mass communications. It is characterized by the prevalence of newspapers, radio and television. The media make possible competent judgments of citizens about politics: decisions made, parties, candidates for elected positions, etc. In the conditions of modern states with large territory and population, democracy is practically impossible without mass communications.

Secondly, an important condition for the development of democracy is a relatively high level of well-being of citizens. It makes it possible to smooth out social conflicts and make it easier to achieve the consent necessary for democracy.

The development of democracy is facilitated by a large middle class, since this class consists of various groups that are similar in important indicators: income, property, education, etc. The middle class has a high level of education, personality development, self-esteem, literacy in political judgment and activity. He prefers a democratic system of development more than the lower and upper strata. Due to his position in society, he is interested in political stability, highly values ​​freedom and human rights, prefers compromises, and has moderation in political demands.

In addition to the middle class, the pillars of the democratic regime are entrepreneurs - the competitive bourgeoisie associated with the market. The formation of democracy is more successful in large states with a developed internal market and a competitive bourgeoisie.

Thirdly, the general condition for democracy is the literacy of the population, its education as a whole. The competence of an individual’s political judgments, his intellectual development, freedom of thinking, and self-esteem directly depend on culture and education. An illiterate person, essentially, stands outside politics and outside democracy, and is an object of manipulation by the authorities or other political forces. Education is one of the conditions for the formation of a democratic culture.

The dominant political culture in society largely influences the economic and social factors of government. It represents a mentality, i.e. ways of perceiving and understanding politics, the experience of people processed in human consciousness, their attitudes, value orientations and patterns of behavior that characterize the attitude of citizens to power.

Religion has a great influence on the behavior of citizens and political culture. In many ways, by shaping mentality, religion can both slow down the transition to democracy and stimulate it.

Fourthly, foreign policy conditions are of great importance for democracy. They manifest themselves in two ways: through direct political, economic, cultural, informational and other influences and through the influence of the example of democratic states. As history has shown, democracy can be the result not only of internal development, but also a consequence of external influence, including through force. In dozens of former colonies, democratic institutions were created under the direct influence of the mother countries, and in some states, for example, in the Dominican Republic, Germany, Iraq, after military occupation. However, if introduced from outside, democracy will not be stable and viable until the necessary internal prerequisites for it are created.

The most famous and studied by political science regimes are democratic, authoritarian and totalitarian (Table 8.3).

Table 8.3

Typology of political regimes

The process of democratization is facilitated by the proximity to influential democratic powers and their varied assistance. Most countries in the world, having embarked on the path of industrial development and not avoiding a more or less long period of authoritarian rule, are democratic or moving in this direction. For authoritarian regimes, the process of transition to democracy is greatly facilitated by the fact that here we see the presence of private property, a market, a certain sphere of civil society, and the allowance, within certain limits, of pluralism of ideological views, legal opposition, political rights of citizens and socio-political organizations.

Democracies are different, but they have common unifying features:

• – democracy – recognition of the people as the source of power, the sovereign;
• - government is based on the consent of the governed;
• – majority rule with respect for the interests and opinions of the minority;
• – guarantees of fundamental rights and freedoms of citizens;
• – free and fair elections;
• – equality before the law and fair proceedings;
• – constitutional limitation of government;
• – pluralism in all spheres of society.

In domestic political science since the mid-90s. XX century Attempts to determine the specifics of the political regime that has developed in modern Russia do not stop. The definition of the regime as a post-communist or post-totalitarian democracy turned out to be quite common. It captures two features of the modern political process. On the one hand, it is emphasized that Russia has irrevocably moved away from its communist past, and in this sense, the term “democracy” is used as an antipode to the concept of “totalitarianism.” On the other hand, it is obvious that the political system that has formed in today's Russia differs significantly from the classical Western models of democracy. Domestic political scientist M.A. Vasilik notes the following differences in the Russian political regime in the 90s. XX century;

• a) lack of a developed and large middle class;
• b) lack of consensus in society on basic values;
• c) underdevelopment of market relations;
• d) exaggerated role of the state and bureaucracy;
• e) corruption in all echelons of power;
• f) very limited role of representative government bodies;
• g) the actual lack of control of government bodies by society;
• h) preservation and reproduction in society of relationships and connections of the patron-client type as opposed to horizontal connections.

The categories “post-communist” and “post-totalitarian” indicate certain differences between Russian democracy and classical examples. It is also obvious that such a regime is transitional in nature and can evolve. In modern Russia, such features of a democratic society as the development of legal statehood and civil society are becoming more and more clearly visible; election and change of power; system of separation of powers; the existence of political opposition; free and competitive market with a variety of forms of ownership.

The choice of development alternative will be largely determined by the political preferences of Russian society, including the political position of young people entering social and political life.

• Tsygankov A. P. Modern political regimes: structure, typology, dynamics. M.: Interfax, 1995. pp. 96–97.
• Vasilik M. A. Political science: a textbook for universities. M., 2009. P. 252.