The state is the central institution of any political system. Development of parliamentarism, formation of the rule of law in Russia
Throughout the history of human society, the political knowledge and culture of each individual and the mass political literacy and education of individual human groups and communities are significant factors protecting society as a whole from despotism and tyranny, negative and economically ineffective forms of existence and social organization. Therefore, the conscious formation of political culture as the art of joint civilized living of people is the concern of the entire modern society. As the head of the Academy of Political Education of the Federal Republic of Germany T. Mayer notes, “where political education is distinguished by constancy, continuity and covers all social strata, it does not always attract great social influence. It will never be unnecessary.” (1).
The ability of citizens to make rational decisions and participate in politics is not formed spontaneously, but is acquired through the systematic acquisition of relevant knowledge and experience, in particular, through the study of political science, which systematizes all previous experience of human society in the field of political and social activities.
One of the most important practical categories, defined and analyzed by the methods and tools of political science, is the state, which is the central institution of the political system of society. The main content of the policy B is fully and demonstrably concentrated in his activities
In a broad sense, a “state” is understood as a territorially stable community of people, represented and organized by a supreme authority. It is almost always identical to the concept of “country” and a politically organized people. And in this sense they say, for example, the Russian, American, German state. It should be noted that the existence of a developed state structure is known even 3...5 thousand years BC. (state of the Incas, Aztecs, Mesopotamia, Egypt, Urartu, Greece, etc.). Until about the middle of the 17th century. The state was usually interpreted broadly and was not separated from society. To designate the state, a wide range of specific terms were used: “polity”, “principality”, kingdom, “empire”, “republic”, “despotism”), etc. One of the first to depart from this tradition was Machiavelli, who introduced the designation of any supreme power over a person, be it a monarchy or a republic. At the same time, he introduced the special term “stati". Subsequently, on the basis of specific studies of faktic material, a clear distinction between state and society was justified in specific theories of the state by Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau. The concepts are not shared by them only meaningfully, but also historically, since it is argued that individuals who originally existed in a free and unorganized state, as a result of economic and other interactions, first organized society, and then, to protect their security and natural rights, by contract they created a special body, which became an organ and instrument of public power and the most important institution of the political system of society.
In modern political science, the state in the narrow sense is understood as an organization, a system of institutions that have supreme power in a certain territory. It exists along with other political organizations: parties, trade unions, etc.
States of different historical eras and peoples are very similar to each other. However, a careful analysis allows us to identify a number of common and significant features.
1. Difference from a tribal organization based on self-government. The separation of public authority from society, the discrepancy with the organization of the entire population, the emergence of a layer of professional managers.
2. Construction is not based on consanguinity or religion, but on the basis of the territorial and ethnic community of people. Availability of laws and powers that apply to the population of enterprises.
3. Sovereignty, i.e. supreme power in a certain territory, which distinguishes it from production, party, and family power.
4. Monopoly on the legal use of force, physical coercion, the ability to deprive citizens of the highest values: life and freedom. This feature (as well as the one given below) makes the state itself an instrument of public power. At the same time, to directly perform the function of coercion, there are usually public bodies - the army, police, security service, court, prosecutor's office.
5. The right to collect taxes and fees from the population to provide for employees and services of state policy: defense, economic and social, etc.
6. Mandatory membership in the state, which distinguishes this form of organization from others (for example, parties where membership is voluntary).
7. Claims to full representation of society as a whole and protection of common interests and the common good.
The characteristics noted above distinguish the state from any other organizations and associations, but do not fully reveal its connection with society, as well as the factors underlying its formation and development.
At the same time, the above general features in one form or another show the functional tasks implemented by the state. The nature and set of functions of the state changed during the historical development of the institution of statehood. from the point of view of the peculiarities of the relationship between the state and the individual, two global stages are distinguished: traditional and state.
The traditional stage is associated with institutionally unlimited power over subjects, lack of equality, and non-recognition of the individual as a source of state power. A typical embodiment of such a state was a monarchy. Based on the typical form of government of this period, the following functions should be highlighted as the main functions: protection of the political system and the sovereign personally; levying taxes, protecting external borders, etc.
The later constitutional stage seems more interesting from the point of view of the tasks and functions of the state. This stage is associated with the subordination of statehood to society and citizens, with the legal delineation of powers and areas of government intervention, with the legal regulation of state activities and is ultimately associated with the emergence of a constitution. The term “constitution” in science is used in two meanings. The first of them, introduced by Aristotle, is designated as the “real constitution”. It represents a stable model of state activity, determined by one or another value-normative code. This code does not necessarily take the form of a code of laws, but may have the character, for example, of religious-political commandments or unwritten centuries-old traditions.
In the second meaning, the constitution is a set of laws, which are stable rules legally recorded in special documents that define the foundations, goals, structure, principles of organization and functioning of the state. That is, the constitution regulates the activities of the state. The completeness of the process of formation of a constitutional state is characterized by the concept of a “rule of law state.”
In a rule-of-law state, the basis is to protect a person from state terror, violence against conscience, from petty tutelage on the part of authorities, a guarantee of individual freedom, and fundamental individual rights. This state is limited in its actions by the law that protects the freedom, security and dignity of the individual and subordinates power to the will of the sovereign people. An independent court is called upon to protect the primacy of law, which is universal and applies equally to all citizens, state and public institutions.
The establishment of the rule of law was an important stage in expanding the freedom of the individual and society and contributed to the emergence of a social state, the main task of which is to provide every citizen with decent living conditions. social security, participation in production management. The activities of such a state are aimed at the common good and the establishment of social justice in society. The activities of a modern state are multifaceted. This is the redistribution of national income in favor of less affluent segments of the population, ensuring employment and labor protection in production, social insurance, support for motherhood and family, caring for the unemployed, the elderly, disabled, youth, development of education, medicine, culture, etc. The current state of society confronts democratic (social) states with the task of ensuring environmental safety and preventing the nuclear threat.
The quality and completeness of the state's performance of its functions is sufficiently determined by the structure and form of government of the state.
Forms of government are divided according to the method of organizing power and its formal source into monarchies and republics.
In a monarchy, the source of power is one person who receives his post by inheritance, regardless of the voters. A type of monarchy is: absolute monarchy (Qatar, Oman) - the full power of the monarch, constitutional monarchy - a monarchy limited by the constitution. In turn, a constitutional monarchy is divided into a dualist one. in which the monarch has predominantly executive power and only partially legislative (Jordan, Kuwait) and parliamentary, in which the monarch actually has representative power. The vast majority of modern democratic monarchies are parliamentary monarchies.
There are three types of republics in the modern world:
- presidential;
- parliamentary;
- mixed (semi-presidential).
The main distinguishing feature of a parliamentary republic is the formation of a government on a parliamentary basis. At the same time, the parliament performs a number of functions in relation to the government:
- forms and supports it;
- issues laws adopted by the government for execution;
- adopts the budget and establishes the financial framework for government activities;
- exercises control over the government and, if something happens, can give it a vote of no confidence (resign or hold early parliamentary elections);
The government has executive power and partly legislative initiative. He also has the right to petition the president to dissolve parliament, which the president usually grants.
The President actually has only representative functions.
In a parliamentary form of government, the head of government (prime minister, chancellor), although not officially the head of state, is actually the first person. This form of government power exists in a number of European countries (Italy, Germany, Czech Republic, etc.).
In a presidential republic, the president is both head of state and head of government. He directs the foreign and domestic policies of the state and is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces. The president is most often elected by direct popular elections.
Under a presidential republic, the government is stable and has two strictly separated branches - the executive and the legislative.
The relationship between the president and parliament is based on a system of checks, balances and interdependencies. Parliament cannot pass a vote of no confidence in the government, and the president cannot dissolve parliament. And only in the case of very serious unconstitutional actions or crimes on the part of the president can he be impeached - he is removed from power ahead of schedule. But the impeachment process is very cumbersome and convoluted. An example of a presidential form of government is the government system in the USA and Russia, and is also common in countries with long authoritarian traditions (Latin America, Africa, Asia.
In the mixed republic found in most European countries, strong presidential power is combined with effective parliamentary control of the government. At the same time, it does not have stable traditional features and, as a rule, tends to favor one of the branches of government. The classic example of the semi-presidential form is France. In it, the president and parliament are elected independently. Parliament cannot remove the president, and the president can dissolve parliament only when a date for early presidential elections is set.
The variety of republican and monarchical forms of state do not exhaust all possible mechanisms of government. One of them is the institution of referendums, which have their origins in the Greek Areopagus and Novgorod veche. It provides for the solution of the most pressing and key problems through a popular vote, the results of which have the highest legal status and are mandatory for execution by all government bodies.
According to the territorial structure, there are two main forms: unitary and federal.
A unitary state is a single, politically homogeneous organization consisting of administrative-territorial units (regions, lands, etc.) that do not have their own statehood. All government bodies will form a single system and operate on the basis of uniform regulations.
Unitary states can be centralized (Great Britain, Denmark, Sweden), in which middle and lower government bodies do not have sufficient autonomy and are aimed at implementing the decisions of the central authorities, and decentralized (France, Spain, Italy), granting individual regions the rights of broad autonomy.
The federal form of structure represents a stable union of states, independent to the extent of the competencies distributed between them and the center. The Federation ensures free association and equal coexistence of communities with significant ethnic, historical, cultural, religious, linguistic and other characteristics. Members of the federation are partners in state-wide sovereignty and have the right to unilaterally secede from the federation.
Another form of stable union of independent states is a confederation, which is created to achieve a specific goal. Its members retain their own state sovereignty and delegate to the competence of the union only some powers to resolve a limited range of issues. most often in the field of defense and foreign policy. transport and communications. Confederations existed for a limited time in Germany, Switzerland, and the USA and later either transformed into a federation or disintegrated.
In recent years, an attempt has been made to create the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), a union of sovereign states, on the territory of the former USSR. coordinating their actions in various areas.
Knowledge by every member of modern society of the above information from political science guarantees that he will receive orientation skills in modern turbulent life. Such political knowledge is especially necessary for the modern younger generation, which is distinguished by increased radicalism of judgments and actions, increased susceptibility to various kinds of utopian ideologies and demagogic appeals.
Literature:
1. Meyer T. Wie entbehrlich ist politisce Bildung?//Friedrich-Eben-Info, 1994. No. 1;
2.Aristotle.Politics.M., 1865. P.8;
3. Pugachev V.P., Solovyov A.I.. Introduction to political science. "Aspect-Press". M., 2002
Concept of state
The central institution of the political system is the state. The main content of politics is concentrated in its activities. The term “state” itself is usually used in two meanings. In a broad sense, the state is understood as a community of people, represented and organized by a supreme authority and living in a certain territory. It is identical to the country and the politically organized people. In this meaning they speak, for example, of the Russian, American, German state, meaning the entire society it provides.
Until about the 17th century, the state was usually interpreted broadly and was not separated from society. Many specific terms were used to designate the state: “polity”, “principality”, “kingdom”, “government” and others. Machiavelli was one of the first to depart from the traditions of the broad significance of the state. A clear distinction between the state and society was justified in the contractual theories of the state by Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau and other representatives of liberalism. In modern science, the state in the narrow sense is understood as an organization, a system of institutions that has supreme power in certain territory. It exists along with other political organizations: parties, trade unions, etc.
The following features are common to the state:
1. The separation of public power from society, its discrepancy with the organization of the entire population, the emergence of a layer of professional managers.
2. The territory delineating the borders of the state. The laws and powers of the state apply to people living in a certain territory. It itself is not based on consanguinity or religion, but on the basis of the territorial and, usually, ethnic community of people.
3. Sovereignty, i.e. supreme power in a certain territory. In any modern society there are many authorities: family, industrial, party, etc.
4. Monopoly on the legal use of force and physical coercion. The ability to deprive citizens of the highest values, which are life and freedom, determines the special effectiveness of the state; there are special means (weapons, prisons, etc.), as well as bodies - the army, police, security services, courts, prosecutors.
5. The right to collect taxes and fees from the population.
6. Mandatory membership in the state.
7. Claim to represent the whole and protect common interests and the common good. No other organization, except perhaps totalitarian parties-states, claims to represent and protect all citizens and does not have the necessary means for this.
Determining the general characteristics of a state has not only scientific, but also practical political significance, especially for international law. The state is a subject of international relations.
Lecture No. 1,2
State as a central institutionpolitical system
“Origin, essence and main features
statesas a “special organization of force”
Among all the diversity of institutions and institutions structuring the political system, the decisive role is played by the state as a “special organization of power”, which in the most concentrated and socialized form embodies the political and power principles in the life of any society. That organizational and managerial core represented by the hierarchy of authorized authorities, both in the center and locally, which ensures the joint life of people as a differentiated set (within the boundaries of a certain territory). And it mediates the movement of the main contradiction of this life, namely: the contradiction between the social nature of human activity and the individual form of its implementation. Between people's needs for freedom and the impossibility of realizing this freedom in conditions of anarchy. If this instrument personified by the state had not arisen to ensure the integrity and regulation of human society, then people (and classes) would simply have destroyed each other in a fierce struggle, in a “war of all against all” determined by the “sinfulness” of man as a biological being.
In the Fundamentals of the Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) it is said on this matter that “the need for a state follows not directly from the will of God about the primordial Adam, but from the consequences of the Fall and from the agreement of actions to limit sin in the world with His will.” Seeing the moral meaning of the existence of the state in limiting evil and supporting good, “the church not only orders its children to obey state power, regardless of the beliefs and religion of its bearers, but also to pray for it, “so that we may lead a quiet and serene life in all piety and purity.” "
Theories of the origin of the state.
Exists many different theories and concepts about the origin and essence of the state, its functional purpose. Among them, the most common are:
Theocratic theory as a product of the era of undivided dominance of the Catholic Church. It is based on the idea that the emergence of the State was the result of a contract between man and God. And the transition sanctioned by him from direct rule by God to worldly rule, the arrangement of worldly affairs based on an earthly ruler,
faithful to the commandments of God and the creation of good business Revealing the teaching of Christ about the correct attitude towards government authority, the Apostle Paul wrote: “Let every soul be subject to the higher authorities; for There is no authority that is not from God, but the existing authorities have been established by God.” Therefore, he who resists authority resists God's institution; and those who resist will bring condemnation upon themselves. For rulers are not a terror to good deeds, but to evil deeds. Do you want to not be afraid of power? Do good and you will receive praise from her; for the boss is God's servant, for your good. If you do evil, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain: he is God’s servant, an avenger to punish those who do evil...”
The Apostle Peter expressed the same thought: “Be subject therefore to every human authority, for the sake of the Lord: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, or to the rulers, as those sent by him to punish criminals and to encourage those who do good - for this is the will of God, that We, doing good, stopped the mouths of the ignorance of foolish people - as free people, not as those who use freedom to cover up evil, but as servants of God.”
In general, the apostles taught Christians to obey authorities regardless of their relationship to the church. It is well known that in the apostolic age the Church of Christ was persecuted by both the local Jewish authorities and the Roman state authorities. This, however, did not prevent the martyrs and other Christians of those times from praying for the persecutors and recognizing their authority.
Teachings built on the postulate “all power comes from God” are constantly present in the reasoning of theologians and preachers John Chrysostom (345-407), Aurelius Augustine the Blessed (354-430), Thomas Aquinas () and others, having justification as the ultimate goal the need to subordinate the state to the church, the secular rulers of the sacred ministers. Thus, F. Aquinas believed that all types of power, including monarchical power, which was given preference, came from God. But at the same time he placed church power above secular power, insisting that all rulers must obey the Pope, since he received power “from Christ.” However, in the Middle Ages, a balance was generally maintained between church power and political power: each dominated in its own sphere, but the former was still revered more.
The theocratic theory of the origin of the state is built on real historical facts: the first state formations had religious forms (rule of priests), divine law gave authority to power, and the decisions of the state - binding. Modern Catholicism and Orthodoxy also presuppose the divine genesis of the idea of the state and the principles of power, but at the same time, as written in the already mentioned Fundamentals of the Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church, “Christians must avoid the absolutization of power, from non-recognition of the boundaries of its purely earthly, temporary and transitory value, due to the presence of in the world of sin and the need to restrain it,” Equally, according to the teachings of the Church, this applies to power itself - it “also does not have the right to absolutize itself, expanding its borders to complete autonomy from God and the order of things established by Him, which can lead to abuses of power and even the deification of rulers.” During the English bourgeois revolution, two opposing theories became widespread; On the one side, idea patriarchhalal origin and essence of the state and the thesis derived from this about the divine nature of monarchical power (Claudius Samazius and Robert Filmer). With another - theory of contractual origin of state governmentgift power.
So, as for R. Filmer, he outlined his views on the state in the essay “Patriarchy, or the Natural Power of the King.” In it, he interpreted the formation of the state as a process of mechanical connection of clans into tribes, tribes into larger formations up to the state, which appears as a developed form of patriarchal power, exercised on behalf of all and for the common benefit. At the same time, monarchical power is presented as power inherited by the king directly from the progenitor (patriarch, father) of the human race - Adam and is not subject to earthly laws. The sovereign is not appointed, elected or removed by his subjects; his power over the people is likened to the natural power of a father over his son and is paternalistic, guardian in nature. Built on the principles of virtue.
The theory of contractual origin of the state(the theory of social contract or social contract) is associated with the names of G. Grotius, D. Locke, T. Hobbes, B. Spinoza, J.-J. Rousseau and others. They believed that the state arose as a result of a conscious and voluntary agreement between people who were in a primitive, natural, absolutely free state before the agreement. Their behavior was determined by instincts, uncontrollable desires and needs. In order to protect themselves, people affirm the state, voluntarily transferring to it part of the rights given by nature, receiving in return order and the ability to act within the framework of established legal laws. As the French thinker D. Diderot noted, people “realized that each person needs to give up part of his natural independence and submit to the will, which would represent the will of the entire society and would be ... the common center and point of unity of all their wills and all their forces "
Proponents of the theory of the contractual origin of the state interpreted it in different ways. So, if at D. Locke, the people entrust power to the sovereign, becoming his subjects, and undertake to carry out his will, then in J.-J. Rousseau, everyone submits to everyone and, therefore, to no one in particular. A person acquires civil liberty and the right of ownership of personal property. The people cannot give up their right to self-government and decide their destiny to anyone.
In the second half of the twentieth century, thanks to famous discoveries in the field of biology and zoology, it became popular organic theory of forthe formation of the state, which was developed by O. Comte and G. Spencer. Thus, drawing an analogy between a social organism and a living organism, G. Spencer argued that human society, like a biological body, has its own epidermis (protective skin) - an army, a vascular system - means of communication, a nutritional system - commodity exchange, a nervous system - organizers of production ( capitalists), musculoskeletal system - government. True, G. Speser did not completely identify social and biological organisms. He saw the main difference between them in the fact that people do not lose their individuality, joining an integral system, i.e., society, while the cells and organs of an animal do not possess such individuality. According to G. Spencer, the laws of evolution operate equally in both the plant and animal world, and in the social environment.
Sociological concept of the state and rights (theory of violence) of the Polish-Austrian positivist philosopher J. Gumplowicz explains the reason for their emergence in the enslavement of some tribes by others, as a result of which the rulers and the ruled, the rulers and the ruled, the winners and the vanquished appear. Not divine providence, a social contract or the idea of freedom, but a clash of hostile tribes, brute superiority of force, violence, conquest - these, in the words of L. Gumplowicz, are “the parents and midwife of the state.” F. Nietzsche also believed that the state is a means of initiating and continuing this violent social process, during which the birth of a privileged, cultured person dominates the rest of the masses.
Marxist theory of the genesis of the state derives this institution primarily from private property, which has always and everywhere given rise to classes and the exploitation of some classes by others, which, in turn, led to the emergence of the state. The state arose where and when the division of society into antagonistic classes occurred - this is the main postulate of Marxism on the issue of the emergence of the state. The state is a product of the irreconcilability of class interests. There is a weapon for the domination of one class over another, a weapon for the suppression of one class by another. “The state,” wrote F. Engels, “is the state of the most powerful, economically dominant class, which, with the help of the state, also becomes the politically dominant class and thus acquires new means for suppressing the oppressed class.” The state is interpreted in the same vein and, for which “the state is an organ of class domination, an organ of oppression of one class by another, is the creation of an “order” that legitimizes and strengthens this oppression, moderating the clash of classes.”
However, only in Ancient Greece did the formation of state-polises proceed from class antagonisms within the clan system. Whereas in Ancient Rome the state arises as a result of the struggle between the disenfranchised newcomer population (plebs) and the old tribal aristocracy (patricians), and among the Germanic tribes - “as a direct result of the conquest of vast foreign territories.”
K. Marx’s teaching about the Asian mode of production, in which the state existed, but there was no private ownership of the means of production, does not fit into the postulation of private property as the root cause of the emergence of the state. The need to create and maintain irrigation structures for the benefit of agriculture and the preservation of the habitat is a circumstance that, to a decisive extent, determined the pre-class emergence of the state within the framework of this mode of production. In this process of the pre-class emergence of the state, a significant role was also played by the need for the forced prohibition of incest (incest) and inter-tribal exchange of women in the name of preservation and reproduction of the clan.
The above theories cannot be assessed unambiguously - each comes from the sum of knowledge available at that moment and in its own way reveals one or another side (or manifestation) of the historical process of the origin and development of the state - a process that was generally objective in nature, being an institutional expression of the social needs of people in streamlining joint life and centralization
The essence and main features of the state.
What is the state as a consciously organized social force that governs society and for society? As the Polish sociologist A. Bodnar emphasizes, The concept of “state” is perceived differently. Firstly, as an organization of a large social group. In this case, it is equivalent to the concept of “country”, “nation”, “society”, “fatherland” (American state, American nation, American people, etc.). Secondly, as an analogue of the executive branch and first of all the government. Most often, this perception of the state is typical at the everyday level. life. And finally, thirdly, as an extensive system of government bodies and legal norms, designed to provide a rationally and legally organized living environment for society.
This latter is most adequate to the essence of the state as a political institution (universal organization), which has a number of characteristics that distinguish it from other socio-political institutions and organizations. Among these signs, the most important one is "monopoinfluence on coercion and violence.”
The state, as M. Weber argued, cannot be defined in sociological terms of its goals or from the content of its activities, since there is no such task that would be exclusively the property of the state. Therefore, a clearly defined feature of the state, distinguishing it from all other social institutions and organizations, should be sought in the means that it uses. Such a means, in his opinion, is violence. “The state,” wrote M. Weber, “is a human community that, within a certain area... claims (successfully) a monopoly of legitimate physical violence. For it is characteristic of our era that the right to physical violence is attributed to all other unions or individuals only to the extent that the state, for its part, allows this violence: the state is considered the only source of the “right” to violence.” Based on this postulate, M. Weber considers the state “as a relationship of domination of people over people, based on legitimate (that is, considered legitimate) violence as a means. Thus, for it to exist, the people under domination must submit to the authority claimed by those who now dominate.” The state is interpreted in the same vein by a prominent representative of the Western liberal tradition, the Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises: “The state is essentially an apparatus for the execution of coercion, its most important feature is to force by threats of force or persuasion to an order different from what we would like to do.” .
The philosophical dictionary published in Germany defines the state as “a structure of domination that is constantly renewed as a result of the joint actions of people, actions carried out thanks to the government, and which ultimately organizes social actions in a particular area.”
It would, of course, be wrong to reduce the essence of the state entirely to relations of domination and subordination. However, from the point of view of power and power structures, as the domestic political scientist rightly notes, it is these relations that distinguish the political from all other spheres of public life. For “the state (especially the modern state, which combines, as if in a single organism, many different conflicting, often incompatible interests, aspirations, attitudes, etc.) is not able to ensure the fulfillment of its main task - the implementation of the general will of its subjects - by persuasion alone or relying on their consciousness and good will.”
In this light state appears as a political organizationtion having ultimate power over all people livingmi within the boundaries of a certain territory, and having its mainThe goal is to solve common problems and ensure the common good while maintaining, above all, order. At the same time, a modern democratic state in its activities is directly connected and limited by law, stands under the law, and not outside it and not above it. As a result, the violence used by this state, which is used only and exclusively as a last resort to ensure public safety and order, is legitimate in the sense that it is provided for and regulated by law.
A modern state has a number of characteristic features and characteristics, the most important of which are recognized by the world community and are used by them as criteria for recognizing individual states as subjects of international relations with certain rights and responsibilities.
FORCESS- The state maintains the order necessary for the normal functioning of society, mainly by means of coercion. The forms and methods of this coercion, as well as their volume and nature, depend primarily on the social essence of the existing political regime, as well as on the content and orientation of the norms of state law. For example, in the process of holding elections, referendums, and plebiscites, coercion is manifested in an ideological form. The relationship between the government and local authorities (municipalities, city halls, etc.) is based on administrative and financial coercion. For this purpose, the state has special detachments of armed people (army, police, etc.) and various punitive institutions (court, prosecutor's office, prison, etc.). Relationship" href="/text/category/vzaimootnoshenie/" rel ="bookmark">relationships with other governments in foreign policy affairs. Being an inalienable prerogative of state power, the sovereignty of the state cannot be transferred, divided or limited. At the same time, the state must strictly observe and implement its legislation in accordance with its international obligations in relation to to other states and the UN.
UNIVERSALITY- The state acts on behalf of the entire society and exercises supreme power in the territory under its control, that is, the territory over which its sovereignty extends. This means that all citizens located in this territory, as well as stateless persons, persons with dual (multiple) citizenship, as well as foreigners, inevitably fall under the jurisdiction of the state - regardless of whether they wish it or not. Moreover, they all pay for the maintenance of the state not voluntary (as, say, in political parties), but mandatory contributions (taxes), from which they can only be released by leaving its borders. But even after renouncing citizenship and emigrating from the country, people are not always freed from the previous state - if, for example, they still have real estate there, then this dependence on the previous state remains.
All legal entities are equally dependent on the state.
, including public associations and political parties, regardless of whether they share its goals or fight against it (i.e., their activities are regulated by laws adopted by government bodies). And they can only get out from under the tutelage of the authorities by ceasing to exist. Therefore, it is not by chance that in the eyes of the “common man” the state acquires a “supernatural” appearance, which he subconsciously bestows on those in power (the government, the president, the prime minister, the monarch, the dictator, etc.).
TERRITORY- As the physical, material1 basis of the state and its fundamental feature, territory is characterized by such concepts as:
“non-division” (even in the conditions of the existence of private ownership of land, the ownership of land by private owners does not mean division of the territory between them);
“inviolability” (which means the inviolability of borders and non-submission to the authority of another state);
“exclusivity” (on the territory of a state, the power of only this state dominates);
“inalienability” (a state that has lost its territory ceases to be a state).
And although in modern conditions, within the framework of the development of integration processes (as the main form of globalization), as well as the formation of interstate associations and blocs, the dominance of many states on their territory is becoming more and more limited, nevertheless, the state-territorial division does not die out. The territory is still remains one of the main structuring elements of statehood.It is no coincidence that in the modern world acute conflicts, including armed conflicts over disputed territories or for the preservation of territorial unity, do not cease.
POPULATION- As an integral element of the state, the population is a human community living on the territory of a given state and subject to its authority. At the same time, the population can be either mononational (and then the state is interpreted as a legal personification of its constituent nation), or multinational, consisting of various tribes, nationalities and even nations (and then the state appears in a different guise - as a legal personification not of a nation, but people as a community, which is built not on the basis of ethnicity, but according to the criterion of economic and civil community). This is exactly what Russia, the USA, Switzerland and some other countries are like, formed as multi-ethnic states.
Such a “de-ethnicized” (“denationalized”) interpretation of the people as the social basis of the state more accurately reflects the political realities of the modern world, taking into account the noticeable increase in the multi-ethnicity of many states that were previously formed as mononational (Germany, France, etc.), associated with mass migration to these states from underdeveloped countries. Under these conditions, any advantages of the “titular nation,” not to mention attempts to secure them legally in countries where these nations constitute a minority of the population, can serve (and most often do serve) as the root cause of the growth of inter-ethnic tension, which poses a serious threat to social stability and integrity of the state - to the point that it does not exclude the possibility of its “Balkanization” (i.e., collapse according to the Yugoslav “scenario”).
Closely related to the concept of population as an invariable attribute of any state is concept of citizenship. Citizenship is understood as the legal affiliation of a person to a given state with all the ensuing rights and obligations not only on the territory of his state, but also beyond its borders. In monarchical states, another term is used - “nationality”. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 01/01/01 states: “No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality or the right to change his nationality.”
STATE MACHINE- the presence of special governing bodies that play the role of intermediate links between the rulers and the governed. M. Weber interprets the emergence of a powerful bureaucratic apparatus as the formation of a modern state, which “technically is completely dependent on its bureaucratic basis. The more it grows, the more this dependence increases.” The transformation of the state into a special, independent institution led to the creation of a “class of officials” paid from the treasury, i.e., at the expense of taxpayers. As a result, officials become identified with their functions, which politically eliminates the question of their social origin. In democratic states, bureaucracy, although it does not replace politicians, sometimes has a significant influence on decision-making on a national scale. Moreover, unlike the highest bodies of state power, which are directly dependent on the results of the electoral struggle and the balance of power in parliament, the position of this category is characterized by great stability and stability. Being an instrument for the implementation of direct power functions, the army of government officials and employees continues to do their job regardless of what happens at the top of the power pyramid (that is, it continues to function despite government crises, the dissolution of parliament, early elections, etc.) . And if the political elite is a variable component of state power, then the bureaucracy is that part of it that personifies the battle the inviolability and “eternity” of this institution.
Three branches of government.
In structural and institutional terms, the state appears as an extensive network of institutions and organizations, embodying three branches of government: legislative, executive and judicial. Unlike the totalitarian system represented by the USSR, under which state power was structured according to the principle of a “working corporation,” i.e., the Councils of People's Deputies were simultaneously legislative and executive bodies of power, in a democracy such merging is not permissible. Here the basic principle of the organization and functioning of state power is the principle of "separation of powers" in accordance with which each branch of government is autonomous and independent from the other, that is, each has a clearly defined scope of powers and prerogatives by the constitution and other regulations, beyond which it is unlawful. And the legal principle of democracy - “everything that is not prohibited is permitted” - applies only to the level of ordinary citizens, while in relation to government bodies and bureaucrats another principle applies: “only what is permitted is permitted, everything else is prohibited.” Failure to comply with this principle and the absence of limits to bureaucratic discretion when making decisions lead to administrative and bureaucratic arbitrariness, omnipotence and permissiveness of the authorities.
In the famous work “On the Spirit of Laws” Sh.-L. Montesquieu wrote in 1748: “Political freedom can only be found where there is no abuse of power. However, many years of experience shows us that every person endowed with power is inclined to abuse it and retain power in his hands to the last opportunity... In order to prevent such abuse of power, it is necessary, as follows from the very nature of things, that one power restrained the other... When the legislative and executive powers unite in the same body... there can be no freedom... On the other hand, there can be no freedom if the judicial power is not separated from the legislative and executive. And the end of everything will come if the same person or body, noble or popular in character, begins to exercise all three types of power.”
Legislative power at the macrosystem level is represented byon parliament - the highest law-making body of the country. The essential features of this power are:
Representative character in the sense that parliamentary power is born during general democratic elections as a result of the free expression of the will of the people. Parliament is a body that embodies popular sovereignty. And in this capacity as an exponent of the people’s will and in the interests of performing the functions associated with this circumstance, it has legitimizing (legitimizing) power;
In the system of separation of powers, parliamentary power is limited and isolated from other subsystems of power. At the same time, it constantly interacts with them and has a certain supremacy in relation to the executive power - it is endowed with certain (“constituent” and supervisory-controlling) powers related to the processes of formation and functioning of this power;
Parliamentarism as a specific structure of power is organically connected with the party system and is formed on a multi-party basis. Parliamentary activity is a continuation of party activity - the struggle between political parties for power and influence - the organizational form of which is the activity of parliamentary factions formed on a party basis;
The power of parliament is a constitutional, normatively guaranteed power - the nature and breadth of the powers of parliament are determined by the number and nature of the functions with which it is endowed in accordance with the fundamental law of the country (i.e., the constitution).
Functions of Parliament
ü Function of power
ü Function of legislation
ü Legitimacy function
ü Function of representation of political interests
ü Function of ensuring political transparency
ü Function of political control and holding politicians accountable
Function of power- as a body embodying popular sovereignty, parliament makes political decisions related to the development of the main directions of development of society, determining the structure and content of its political system, as well as its individual component subsystems, based on the choice of alternatives for economic and socio-political development. These alternatives are formed by the programs of parliamentary parties promoted among voters. Voters, according to With personal ideas about the coincidence of certain programs with their interests, they give them their votes in parliamentary elections. The electoral support thus provided to parties, measured by their share of participation in parliament, reflects the will of voters and legitimizes the strategy and program of the parties that won the elections.
After winning the elections and gaining a parliamentary majority, the political programs of the parties are implemented in parliamentary decisions that are made With compliance with relevant (legally prescribed) procedures. The latter are designed to combine legal, professional rationality and reasonableness of decisions made with the requirements of parliamentary democracy.
Legislative or law-making function- the main goal of parliamentary activity is the creation of legal norms; regulating the behavior of citizens and organizations, their interaction with each other. Rule-making in the hands of parliament is the instrument through which it carries out the function of managing society. And it is the highest authority in this area, possessing a “monopoly of legitimate coercion (violence).”
(At the same time, the legislative rights of parliament are not unlimited. Modern political practice has developed stable forms of limiting them, which primarily include directly vesting the government with the right to issue regulations that have the force of law. In some states this right is constitutionally enshrined (for example, in Germany , Italy, France), in others - it exists on the basis of tradition, contrary to the constitution (USA, Japan).
In a number of countries there is also a de facto or constitutional limitation on the range of issues on which parliament can legislate. In this case, many issues are determined and decided by the executive branch (for example, in the UK, Finland).
There is also the practice of applying “framework laws”, laws-principles, when parliament adopts a law in general form, and the government develops it and fills it with specific content.
Function of ensuring political transparency- requires open political debate from parties, governments and deputies. Parliament is a kind of arena (tribune) where various parliamentary factions, independent deputies, and the government not only declare their positions, but also argue and defend them.
Limitation of parliamentary openness (conducting closed meetings and parliamentary hearings) is strictly stipulated by certain conditions and is legally enshrined.
Function of political control and responsibility- within the framework of the modern system of separation of powers, parliament has significant rights, which in certain cases are:
Exceptional (bringing the president to account through impeachment proceedings);
Special (expression of a vote of no confidence or refusal of confidence in the government);
Special (deprivation of deputies’ right to parliamentary immunity (i.e., immunity), removal from duties).
The second branch of government power is executive power - represented by the government and administrative and management bodies. The structure of executive government bodies includes ministries and departments, control and supervisory authorities, the armed forces, law enforcement agencies, the state security service, etc. This part of state power in a democracy carries out the main political decisions made by the legislative branch. At the same time, the government has the constitutional right to make its own political decisions and by-laws related to the implementation of its management functions.
The third branch of government - the judiciary - is represented by a system of judicial bodies and the institution of independent judges who are subject only to the law. The court represents the highest legality in the state and plays a major role in resolving conflicts and all kinds of collisions that arise in various spheres of public life. The democratic principles in accordance with which the court organizes its activities include as basic: independence, collegiality, transparency, presumption of innocence, adversarialism, equality of parties, the right to appeal decisions, etc.
Functions of the state.
The state differs from all other subjects of the political system in a number of functions that are vital for society, giving it the character of a universal institution - a guarantor of maintaining the integrity and regulation of the social environment. Regardless of the type, the functions of the state include:
ü protection of the state (constitutional) system and its fundamental values and principles, achieving on this basis public consensus, consolidation around common goals and development prospects
ü ensuring social stability in society and preventing (eliminating) explosive conflicts fraught with increased social tension, sporadic outbreaks of violence and civil strife
ü maintaining a common internal policy for the country, differentiated in such areas as social, economic, financial, military, cultural, etc.
ü ensuring national security and protecting the interests of the country in the international arena, developing mutually beneficial international cooperation, bilateral and multilateral relations with other states, participation in solving global problems, etc. (foreign policy functions).
At the intra-country level, these functions are specified as functions:
Economic- is expressed in the organization, coordination, regulation of economic processes through taxes and credit policy, creating incentives for economic growth or implementing sanctions, and ensuring macroeconomic stability.
Social- manifests itself in caring for a person as a member of society: meeting people’s needs for housing, work, maintaining health, education. Ensuring social security of vulnerable groups of the population (targeted assistance to the elderly, disabled, unemployed, etc.). Life, health, property insurance.
Organizational- consists in streamlining all government activities: making, organizing and executing decisions, forming and effectively using the administrative apparatus, monitoring the implementation of laws, coordinating and coordinating the activities of various subjects of the political system, etc.
Legal- includes ensuring legality and order, establishing legal norms governing social relations and the behavior of citizens, as well as the organization and functioning of the state itself and its individual institutions.
Political- consists of ensuring political stability and stability, exercising power using rational and legal technologies and techniques, developing programmatic and strategic goals and objectives for the development of society, making the necessary adjustments in accordance with the dynamics of social demands and expectations of citizens, as well as changes in the international plan
Educational- is implemented in the activities of the state to ensure democratization and humanization of the entire education system, its continuity, providing people with equal opportunities for access to higher and postgraduate education, etc.
Cultural and educational- aimed at creating conditions to satisfy the cultural needs of people, the formation of high spirituality and citizenship. Maintenance and development of such “branches” of culture as literature, art, theater, cinema, music, media, fundamental and applied science, etc.
Ecological- is associated with the establishment by the state of a legal regime for environmental management, obligations to citizens to ensure a normal living environment.
In carrying out these functions, the state most often plays the role versupreme social arbiter, which organically follows from the asymmetric structure of society and the general interest of citizens and various groups in having such an arbiter - standing above public disagreements and having the right to distribute (or observe with the right to intervene) public values (material goods, education, health care, etc.). d.) with the aim of ensuring the common good and social justice, “protecting the weak from the tyranny of the strong.”
In order to mitigate the disproportionate distribution of social benefits and resources, the state legislatively provides for certain restrictions for some and guarantees for others, both general and private (for example, unemployment benefits or the prohibition of officials in their functional activities to obey party directives), but there are no absolute guarantees of the correctness (impartiality) of state arbitration, and given the limited resources of society (and they are always limited, scarce), with different strengths of interested groups (and they are always unequal), there cannot be.
“The unrestricted nature of the freedom of private enterprise,” R. Dahl writes in this regard, “gives rise to economic inequality, which, in turn, creates a threat to political democracy, the meaning of which is, first of all, equal opportunities for people and groups and associations representing their interests to influence political decisions. The state is not an objective “arbiter” - “interested groups” do not have equal or counterbalancing political resources in the final outcome. Government structures are not a neutral “arbiter” in relation to all “interests”: business organizations have a disproportionate share of resources and have much greater opportunities to influence legislative bodies. This naturally conflicts with the nature of democracy.”
And yet, the social arbitration of the state is still carried out on a larger or smaller scale, which is also served by the activities of special bodies designed to monitor compliance with legal norms (constitutional court, special arbitration, general courts and other bodies).
In cases of particularly acute struggle between opposing forces, the social arbitration of the state can take on specific forms: the introduction of a state of emergency, the dissolution of organizations and associations restabilizing public order, the prohibition of printed publications, rallies, demonstrations, etc. If these actions are carried out on the basis of the law and with strict observance the latter, they do not go beyond the implementation of that “hypostasis” of the state, which is called social arbitration.
In the most concentrated form, social arbitration of the state is expressed by such concepts as:
- constitutional state, the essence of which is expressed in the unconditional dominance of law as the main regulator of the life of society. At the same time, not only social groups and individuals, but also the state itself, all bodies respect the law and are in the same position in relation to it
- social state, the essence of which is expressed in the government pursuing a strong social policy with the aim of providing all its citizens with a decent level of social security and safety, as well as creating relatively equal living conditions for all
start.
The central institution of political power is the state. State power is exercised through the establishment of laws, administration, and courts. Even in Politics, Aristotle distinguished between legislative, executive and judicial activities of institutions. Today, the democratic political system is based on the mechanism of separation of powers, the mechanism of balancing interests and political counterbalances. The combination of powers is not permissible. Thus, the combination of legislative and executive powers undermines the rule of law. If judges not only judge, but also legislate, then people’s very lives will become victims of arbitrariness. The combination of three powers means despotism.
In our country, until recently, it was difficult to distinguish the components of the legislative, executive and judicial powers. All of them were pulled together into one node, where the greatest concentration was on the executive component. The legislative branch had no power. The essence of the laws was distorted by by-laws. The courts were dependent on telephone law and did not enjoy authority. In addition, all the threads of state power were tied to the party apparatus, and the role of laws was played by joint resolutions of the CPSU Central Committee and the Council of Ministers of the USSR. Today's political reform is designed to ensure the separation of powers and the creation of a system of “checks and balances” that guarantee against abuse of power. But today there is no firm rule of law or stable law and order in the country. In many ways, the political and legal situation remains the same according to Gilyarovsky: “There are two misfortunes in Russia: Below is the power of darkness, and above is the darkness of power!” .
Another major problem is the problem of delegation of power. Since everyone cannot rule, only a part of people, a social stratum of society, a group has this right, so the question of delegation of power arises.
First, let's consider the process of delegation of power "upward", when one subject of power transfers part of the control to another subject who has a greater ability to act than himself. This issue is relevant today in our country in connection with solving the problem of the powers of local administrations of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation. A problem arises: is there a risk that delegated power can be turned against the lower echelon of the structure? There is such a danger. The emergence of cults, dictatorships, and totalitarian regimes is an example of this. At one time, M. Bakunin, P. Kropotkin, R. Michels, M. Weber thoroughly developed this problem. A historical example of this is the structure of power that developed in our country after 1917, when the Bolshevik Party from a political organization actually degenerated into a body of state power that does not tolerate opposition. For decades, the same people stood at the helm of government, pursuing policies that reflected the interests of those to whom power was delegated, and not those who delegated it.
How does the process of delegating power “down” happen? A subject of power at the upper echelon delegates some of his abilities to act “downwards”, while still remaining the holder of greater power. This is beneficial for the central government, but there is also a risk, since the subject of the lower level of power often seeks to get out of the tutelage of the center and dictate its own rules of behavior. The holder of central power in this situation becomes dependent on the decisions and judgments of the lower echelons of power and gradually loses the ability to govern. What is the way out? Delegation of the volume of powers “downwards” must always have a certain limit, beyond which there may be a danger of not only the loss of power by the subject, but also the disruption of all government affairs, the loss of independence and unity of the country. State power is not something frozen and unchangeable. With the development of society, it acquires more developed forms.
How is power exercised? There are usually two aspects to the exercise of political power:
the process of making political decisions and b) the process of implementing the adopted political decisions. These two aspects of the process of exercising political power are interconnected, since when implementing decisions made, there is a need for adjustments, clarification of the political course, and adoption of additional decisions. It should be borne in mind that the implementation of the decisions made is subject to the fulfillment of a number of conditions:
The political leadership must consistently ensure that decisions are implemented. If a law, decree, or resolution is adopted, then they must be implemented so that there is no doubt about the firmness of political power;
the ability of the political leadership to mobilize the necessary material and human resources to implement the decisions made;
provide support for those groups of society that can contribute to the implementation of decisions made;
the ability of the political leadership to neutralize the actions of political forces that oppose the decisions made.
One of the most important means of influencing the process of making and implementing political decisions are pressure groups - these are organized groups whose task is to achieve a goal, for the implementation of which they must put pressure on political institutions (various economic associations, associations, groups representing the interests of the military-industrial complex , national, religious, mafia groups, etc.). A significant part of them actively cooperates and is in contact with political parties and various departments of foreign states. The goal of pressure groups is to use all available means to induce political subjects to take action that is beneficial to them, to impose the implementation of the political decision they need. At the same time, they use all kinds of means, including criminal ones. A special place in the political process is occupied by such a pressure group as the lobby - a powerful mechanism for influencing government bodies, an informal institution of the political system. The main goal of the lobby is to put pressure on the legislative process by putting pressure on deputies, forcing them to make the bills and political decisions they need.
Discretion is important in the technology of political power - giving a specific performer the authority to interpret, interpret laws and apply them in this interpretation, passing off the living creativity of the masses.
The main criteria for a person’s belonging to a particular social group are his place in the system of ownership-disposal relations and, accordingly, the level of income and quality of life in general. These criteria are relative, since, for example, the “new middle class” in Russia can only be correlated with certain “upper” and “lower” social strata for a given society and under given conditions.
In Soviet society, as an administrative society, the key criterion for stratification was the level of administrative and administrative functions performed by representatives of various social groups. In modern Russia, the indicator “size of property” has also been added to this criterion. The income system based on distribution has been replaced by a system of “absolute income”, which involves receiving, in exchange for monetary resources, any goods and products at real market value, and not from state bins - through “pull”, position or at reduced privileged prices . The level of income and standard of living of people thus become the key criteria for their social well-being and membership in a particular social group.
In the totality of old and new social groups, one can distinguish two main "macrogroups" associated with the disposal or ownership of two main types of resources - administrative-political and actually material, economic.
The dynamics of the development of these two groups in Russia over the past 10 years is such that the administrative-political groups are gradually weakening, as administrative functions are becoming less and less significant, the “old political class” (administrators) 2 partly it is eroded and comes to naught, partly it is transformed and flows into the “new political class”, and administrative methods of managing the economy and society as a whole are gradually giving way to market ones, primarily financial and fiscal methods of management.
Accordingly, the role of economic groups and, especially, groups of the new economy is currently, on the contrary, increasing. Moreover: the development of new economic structures is ahead of the formation of new political corporations. The thesis is based on a well-known pattern: people first become aware of their material, economic interests, and only as society develops do they grow to translate these interests into political language.
The main factor in the development of the political process in modern Russia (from 1991 to approximately 2010-2015) is the emerging MARKET in the country: privatization, development of the credit and stock markets, the struggle for influence and the establishment of certain rules in the securities markets , real estate, land and natural resources. Taking this into account, as well as the pattern we formulated above of “the accelerated development of new economic structures in comparison with the development of new political corporations,” we can assert that in the time period indicated above, “interest groups” are dominant in the aggregate, and
This means that in the political system as a whole there will be groups that have the greatest material resources. Of course, these are not yet purely economic, but rather administrative and economic groups. Thus, an integral part of the “interest groups” of the country’s fuel and energy complex are the relevant departments of the federal government and departments of local administrations;
new financial groups are integrated into the Ministry of Finance and the Central Bank of the Russian Federation, into committees and departments for managing state property and finance at all levels; and the leading Moscow “interest groups” could not develop the financial, construction and other sectors of the capital’s economy if they did not form a single whole with the Moscow government.
So, speaking about groups that own or control material resources, we can distinguish two main subgroups:
A) "new economic groups" - primarily financial, financial-trading and financial-industrial groups;
b) "old economic groups" - first of all, industry groupings, groups of leaders of post-Soviet monopolies (including “natural”) and the largest not only state-owned, but also privatized or already privatized industrial concerns and companies.
Functions of social institutions: 1) reproduction of members of society (family, state, etc.); 2) socialization - the transfer to individuals of patterns of behavior and methods of activity established in a given society (family, education, religion); 3) production and distribution (economic and social institutions of management and control - authorities); 4) management and control functions (carried out through a system of social norms and regulations); Conditions for the successful functioning of social institutions: 1) a clear definition of the goal and range of actions performed, 2) a rational division of labor and its rational organization, 3) depersonalization of actions, 4) conflict-free inclusion in the global system of institutions. The state has all the signs and functions of social services. Institutes. Functions of the State: 1. Ensuring integrity and stability, military, economic, security; 2. Protection of the constitution and the rule of law, guarantee of rights and freedoms; 3. Providing conditions for the development of public life; 4. Regulation of social relations based on rights; 5. Coordination of interests based on compromise; 6. Control to improve management efficiency; 7. Ensuring national interests in the world community. The largest social institution is the state. The state arises from certain social needs, with a certain target orientation; social stratification, identification of social statuses and positions are quite clearly carried out in it, and there are pronounced signs of a social institution. The state already clearly separates the control and managed subsystems. The most important place in the structure of the state as a social institution (public-power organization of class society) belongs to the state apparatus. The state apparatus is that necessary committee which, due to the division of labor within the public form of power, the organization of class society, carries out the functions of this organization and class power. The main function of the state is to form a social environment that would contain the prerequisites for the development of prevailing relations of production and the class of owners itself. Another equally important function of the state is to suppress the resistance of the oppressed classes, establishing relations of domination and subordination. Domination is nothing more than the imposition of the wolf class on the rest of society through the use of institutional coercion. Coercion is carried out through various forms of influence, including ideological ones. Ideology in this regard appears as an instrument of the ruling classes, functioning in the state to introduce into the consciousness of the masses principles and ideals that contribute to the implementation of class domination.
