11:39 08.02.2010

On the modern political map of the world, many states are becoming democratic. This is a very common and popular concept that many people even confuse with liberalism. Of course, these words carry many similarities, but their essence is completely different, since liberalism is a political ideology, and democracy is a form of organization and internal relations in the country.

Many people believe that democracy came to us from the West and that it was there that this political direction was born. However, this is not entirely true, because even in ancient times people made important decisions together, arranged councils. Now a society based on liberal-democratic canons is based on the same rules as in antiquity. Although democracy reigns in countries, the main decisions in the state are made by people elected by the people, who, due to their political and managerial qualities, can make mistakes or be mistaken. Even Aristotle believed that democracy is the most pernicious device of any republic and that humanism in the wrong hands can become a terrible force. The events that are constantly taking place in the most democratic countries, so far only make you agree with the opinion of the famous philosopher.

The first mentions of democracy can be seen in the annals of the ancient era. It was here, in Athens, 2500 years ago that the democratic form of government was born. However, this was not the kind of democracy that modern people talk about. Ancient - it was completely different, and all important state decisions were made by the people of Athens, and the significance of each voice was the same. Such a regime did not find support among the people due to its failure, because human decisions were completely at variance. When considering such issues that will be raised in the first place - the sale of watches or agricultural products, the watchmakers supported the first point, and the peasants - in support of the second. Now everything looks different, and democracy takes place in a representative form, where one deputy represents at once a whole group of people. Only history has remained from the antique in the modern world.

Since we have already familiarized ourselves a little with the concept of democracy, we can move on to liberalism. This ideology arose several centuries ago in Europe, where, when creating a capitalist society, the individuality of each person began to stand out. From the statement of such a famous philosopher as Rousseau, each person is born completely unique, he carries hidden talents, and under the pressure of society throughout his life, he loses them. This statement puts a big cross on the study and upbringing of the child, because then teachers and parents forcibly impose knowledge and their life experience on him. In this regard, the education system in many European countries and the United States is based on the minimum teaching load for schoolchildren. And if, in general, deeply "dig" the problem of understanding the world and the formation of a person's personality, then Aristotle argued that any human action is destructive, in order to be ideal, a person must simply create.

Liberalism can only exist in capitalist societies. Indeed, with such an ideology, your interests are above all, you can safely speak out both against another person and against your entire state. In this situation, a citizen may disagree with the decisions of dishonest governance by democratic states. This is especially true in countries where oligarchs and corrupt officials are in power.

Summing up all of the above, we can safely say that democracy and liberalism today are the most efficient forms of government. And without the correct form of government, a politician cannot hold out in his chair: just as a man's belt holds his trousers, so democracy and liberalism maintain hope in the hearts of the people.

Friends, today is the time of freedom. And meaningless reasoning.

IagainstI. The government is pursuing policies as part of modernization. The country, that is, it must change: we must not rely on the help of the state, we must achieve everything ourselves, we must forget about great ideas, do business, respect the law, develop civil society, stop giving (taking) bribes, forget nepotism and rationalize as much as possible and formalize our lives. The only obstacle on this path is the Russian people. And no one especially hides that modernization is, first of all, the modernization of consciousness. Simply put, our mentality is not the same. We need another, better one. The traditional Russian mentality, which is already 700 years old, needs to be replaced. Politicians are not particularly interested in the fact that even the communists failed to change this mentality. On the contrary, they declare in essence Stalin the main den of this mentality, which cleverly escapes from the representatives of the authorities. Stalin as a tsar, an autocratic who is revered as a god, they are afraid as a devil, but even then they do not cease to call him the father of the nation, the leader of the nations.

It is not surprising that after a decade of devastating and bandit liberalism, the people remembered his figure. But the authorities realized that another "restalinization" would lead nowhere, and announced "de-Stalinization", which would only be able to adapt the country to the current realities and create conditions for the formation of a non-hydrocarbon economy.

It looks like the right decision, but the only snag is that 90% of the population is against de-Stalinization. From that moment on, as a political scientist, I really understood what is the difference between liberalism and democracy. Democracy is when people are asked. Liberalism is when de-Stalinization is carried out.

And it seemed that democracy and liberalism go hand in hand! History has already seen liberal dictatorships (the Pinochet regime is a prime example of this).

In fact, there is no assessment here. On the contrary, the need for change is understandable. But by what means is this done? All the same - Stalinist. Soviet Stalin vs Liberal Stalin. Russia vs Russia. No wonder. The directive imposition of norms has always existed in our country and has not disappeared anywhere. Only the fashion has changed. Then socialism was fashion. Today is liberalism. Both are justified by the difficult situation and its gloomy prospects. Considering the experience of the October coup, let us ask ourselves: how will the attempt to restructure the world outlook end?

Take liberals away from postmodernism! Ronald Eaglehart is a wonderful scientist. And primarily because I noticed a shift in our society towards postmodernism in terms of values. In fact, postmodernists are all understood in one phrase: shift from absolute to relative... Einstein helped them in this regard by proving the relativity of space and time. This means, concluded the postmodernists, about everything! This means that there is no single correct ideology, there are no absolute religious values ​​that would be worth adhering to. Accordingly, the authoritarian government lies that it knows the truth, which means that it must be replaced by a democracy that knows what relativity is!

Everything seemed to be taken correctly. So Inglehart noticed that people are less and less accepting of strict rules and ideological mobilization. It seemed that postmodernism is a batmobile that delivers our hero (liberalism) to the heat of battle, where the confrontation between the absolute and the relative, dictatorships and liberal democracies takes place.

But take liberals away from postmodernism! By relativizing strict rules, they forget to relativize relativity itself! To be a consistent postmodernist, it must be admitted that relativity itself is relative, which means that within the framework of this relativity there must be a place for absoluteness. When rejecting any dictatorship, one must not forget to reject the dictatorship of liberalism. You should be real no matter what the people choose. Therefore, liberalism is not an expression of postmodernism. Postmodernism presupposes democratization, not liberalization. For example, in the philosophy of K. Leont'ev, diversity (that is, relativity) is associated with the real dictatorship itself, and never with liberalization, which leads to the uniformity of all states and civilizations, their alteration under one Western standard. So the United States, embodying democracy, practices totalitarianism in the international arena when it invades foreign sovereign territories. Thus, in any democratic country, a person has the right to defend not only the transition to free morals, but also the return to rigid religious dogmas. So S. Huntington was a greater postmodernist than F. Fukuyama. The first spoke about the increase in civilizational diversity in the world, and the second - about the liberal triumph and, therefore, "the end of history." So J. Rosenau understood the term "governance" in a postmodernist way (like any management), and G. Stoker - in a liberal one (like network management). So in Russia, postmodernism is rejected and modernist methods of imposition are continued to be practiced. This has been demonstrated with the example of de-Stalinization.

This is what postmodernism and democracy are. Distinguish real thinkers from ideologues trying to hide their liberalism under the cover of postmodernism. A real philosopher would never have become so uncritical and categorical about his views ... Hmm, maybe he would ...

Liberalism has many hypostases both in the historical and in the national-cultural and ideological-political dimensions. In the interpretation of the fundamental issues concerning the relationship between society, the state and the individual, liberalism is a very complex and multifaceted phenomenon, manifested in various variations that differ both within individual countries and especially at the level of relations between countries. It is associated with such concepts and categories that have become familiar to the modern socio-political vocabulary, such as the idea of ​​the intrinsic value of the individual and responsibility for their actions; private property as a necessary condition for individual freedom; free market, competition and entrepreneurship, equality of opportunity, etc .; separation of powers, checks and balances; the rule of law with the principles of equality of all citizens before the law, tolerance and protection of the rights of minorities; guarantees of fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual (conscience, speech, assembly, creation of associations and parties, etc.); universal suffrage, etc.

Obviously, liberalism is a set of principles and attitudes that underlie the programs of political parties and the political strategy of a particular government or government coalition of liberal orientation. At the same time, liberalism is not just a kind of doctrine or credo, it is something immeasurably greater, namely a type and way of thinking. As one of its leading representatives of the XX century emphasized. B. Croce, the liberal concept is a metapolitical one that goes beyond the formal theory of politics, as well as in a certain sense of ethics and coincides with the general understanding of the world and reality. This is a system of views and concepts in relation to the surrounding world, a type of consciousness and political and ideological orientations and attitudes, which is not always associated with specific political parties or political course. This is at the same time theory, doctrine, program and political practice Mushinsky V. Decree. Op. 45 ..

Liberalism and democracy condition each other, although they cannot be completely identified with each other. Democracy is understood as a form of power, and from this point of view, it represents the doctrine of legitimizing the power of the majority. Liberalism, on the other hand, implies the boundaries of power. There is an opinion that democracy can be totalitarian or authoritarian, and on this basis they speak of a tense state between democracy and liberalism. If we consider it from the point of view of forms of power, then it is obvious that with all the external similarity of individual attributes (for example, the principle of election by universal suffrage, which in a totalitarian system was a formal and purely ritual process, the results of which were predetermined in advance) totalitarianism (or authoritarianism) and democracy according to the overwhelming majority of system-forming principles were directly opposite forms of organization and implementation of power.

At the same time, it should be noted that in the liberal tradition, democracy, largely identified with political equality, understood the latter as the formal equality of citizens before the law. In this sense, in classical liberalism, democracy was, in fact, a political expression of the principle of laissez faire and free market relations in the economic sphere. It should also be noted that in liberalism, as well as in any other type of world outlook and the course of socio-political thought, not one, but several tendencies were laid, which is expressed in its multivariance.

The common thing is that both liberalism and democracy are characterized by a high degree of political freedom, but under liberalism, however, due to a number of circumstances, relatively few can actually use democratic political institutions. The state under liberalism more often than under a democratic regime has to resort to various forms of coercive influence, because the social base of the ruling elite is rather narrow. The low standard of living of many sectors of society gives rise to marginality and propensity for violent actions in order to achieve their social goals. Therefore, democratic institutions, including legal opposition, function as if on the surface of public life, only weakly penetrating deep into society.

The state interferes in the life of society under liberalism, but not under democracy. In a democracy, human rights and freedoms are more widely granted.

In order to better understand what are the similarities and differences between liberalism and democracy, one can compare the Constitutions of the Russian Federation and the United States.

The main differences between constitutions, not related to the content of individual articles:

1. The US Constitution does not declare the rights and obligations of citizens. Fundamental rights and freedoms were introduced later by amendments.

2. The declaration of powers of the branches of government in the US Constitution is more abstract. There is no description of the powers of the cabinet of ministers.

3. The US Constitution provides for an elective office of vice president, in Russia this office has been abolished.

4. The Constitution of Russia provides for direct general elections of the President, referendums on the Constitution, etc. The US Constitution, declaring universal suffrage, does not imply direct general elections, leaving such mechanisms in the competence of the states.

5. The Constitution of Russia guarantees the right to local self-government.

6. The US Constitution restricts the right of citizens to be elected to all government bodies on the basis of age and residency. The Russian Constitution restricts only candidates for the office of President, and also establishes an educational qualification for representatives of the judiciary.

7. The US Constitution has undergone significant changes from the original version through the introduction of amendments. The Constitution of Russia allows the adoption of Federal Constitutional Laws, acting on a par with the Constitution, and the procedure for their adoption is much simpler.

8. Changes to the US Constitution are made through amendments. The main articles (chap. 1, 2, 9) of the Constitution of Russia are not subject to change, if necessary, the revision and adoption of the new Constitution is carried out. The US Constitution does not contain such a mechanism. Commentary on the Constitution of the Russian Federation / Ed. L.A. Okunkova. - M.: BEK, 2000. - S. 6 ..

9. In general, the Russian constitution is significantly influenced by the US Constitution. Many of the main provisions in terms of government and the republican form of government are very close. However, the Constitution of Russia is made at the level of modern legal science and is a more thoroughly worked out document Chirkin V.E. Constitutional law of foreign countries. - M .: BEK, 2001 .-- S. 156 ..

The classical liberal model of democracy is based on the Anglo-Saxon tradition. However, it should be noted that other European countries have also made significant contributions to the development of this model. Democratic traditions were also established in the small city-states of Northern Italy during the Renaissance, and in Dutch cities, etc. In England from about the XIII century. contractual, consultative and representative institutions begin to develop (Magna Carta, parliament, etc.). The glorious (bloodless) revolution of 1688 laid the foundations for a constitutional monarchy, defining the framework of government. The principles of classical democracy were finally formed in the 17th century.

Principles of classical liberal (representative) democracy:

1) The sovereignty of the people. All power comes from the people. He belongs to the constituent, constitutional power in the state. The people elect their representatives and remove them.

2) Resolving issues on the majority. To implement this principle of the situation, a special procedure is required, regulated by the electoral law (in this contrast to ancient democracy).

3) Equality of citizens before the law. Obligatory equality of electoral rights of citizens.

4) Selectivity and periodic replacement of all state bodies. Officials are given certain powers, and citizens are given ways to control their activities.

5) Separation of powers.

The modern liberal model of democracy has enriched the content of some of the principles and expanded their list.

Principles of modern liberal democracy:

1) The rights and freedoms of citizens are the main value of democracy.

2) Democracy is not the rule of the people. This is government in the name of the people and for the people. Modern democracy is a representative democracy, the meaning of which is the competition between political forces for votes.

3) Resolving all issues on the majority, but respecting and guaranteeing the rights of the minority.

4) Separation of powers. Creation of a mechanism of checks and balances, with the help of which different branches of government could mutually restrict each other. Democracy is not a method of government, but a method of limiting government and other power structures.

5) Adoption of the principle of consensus in the decision-making process. One can abstain, but not resist.

6) Restricting (balancing) the activities of the state by civil society. Civil society is understood as a sphere of spontaneous self-organization of people. Democracy develops citizens' self-government.

Pluralistic democracy

Politics, according to the supporters of the pluralistic concept of democracy, is a conflict of interest groups in the field of political struggle. It is impossible to make a decision that is absolutely fair for everyone. Decisions are made on the basis of a compromise.

Supporters of the pluralist concept criticize representatives of liberal democracy in the following directions:

Excessive attention to the individual as a subject of politics. Liberals do not see the person as the main subject of politics - the group of interests.

Limited understanding of individual freedom. In liberalism, freedom is understood as a negative phenomenon, i.e. freedom from state interference in the affairs of the individual, but this approach intensifies social conflicts and thereby makes the rights of the individual formal.

Underestimation of the role of the state. Liberals limit government interference in public life. But the needs of the social and economic development of society objectively lead to the expansion of the role of the state. Therefore, the pluralists argue, insisting on non-interference of the state in social processes means distorting reality.

Signs of a pluralistic concept of democracy:

1) Interest groups are the main subject of politics. But none of them should dominate the political process, since does not represent the opinion of the whole society.

2) The essence of democracy lies in the rivalry of group interests. Citizens do not have to express their opinions; interest groups will do it much better for them.

3) Democracy is not the rule of the people, but the power with the consent of the people. The required representation can be achieved without the active participation of citizens. The responsibility of politicians will be driven by the need for support from the electorate, so they will strive to meet the demands of interest groups.

4) Recognition and guarantee of minority rights. The basis of consent in society is the principle of the majority, but its dictatorship is unacceptable.

5) Recognition of the special role of political culture as a condition for civilized rivalry of political forces.

6) Transferring the system of checks and balances from the state sphere to the social sphere of society.

Supporters of other models of democratic organization of society criticize pluralists for the following shortcomings:

Exaggeration of the role of group differentiation in society. Many citizens are not represented at all in any groups.

Ignoring the inequality of opportunities for different groups to influence state power and politics. Groups representing the social and economic interests of the upper classes are better organized, more active, have a lot of money and enjoy more political influence. In addition, individual groups can become so powerful that their activities paralyze the political system. only their interests will be satisfied, and the demands of citizens will be ignored.

Interpretation of the state as a neutral element. The state cannot be neutral in the competitive struggle of interest groups, since there are influential groups capable of exerting pressure on it.