The state is the central institution of any political system. The development of parliamentarism, the formation of the rule of law in Russia
Throughout the history of the existence of human society, political knowledge and culture of each specific individual and mass political literacy and education of individual human groups and communities are essential factors protecting society as a whole from despotism and tyranny, negative and economically inefficient 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 German Academy of Political Education T. Mayer notes, "where political education is distinguished by constancy, continuity and covers all social strata, it does not always attract great public influence. It will never be unnecessary." (1).
The ability of citizens to make rational decisions, to participate in politics is not formed spontaneously, but is acquired in the course of their systematic mastery 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 activity.
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. In its activities, the main content of the policy is fully and revealingly concentrated.
In a broad sense, the "state" is understood as a territorially stable community of people, represented and organized by a body of supreme power. It is almost always identical to the concept of "country" and 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 system is known even for 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. A wide range of specific terms were used to designate the state: "polity", "principality", kingdom, "empire", "republic", "despotism), etc. One of the first who departed from this tradition was Machiavelli, who introduced the designation of any supreme power over a person, whether it be a monarchy or a republic.At the same time, he introduced a special term "stati". Later, on the basis of a specific study of the factual material, a clear distinction between the state and society was substantiated in specific theories of the state by Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau. 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 interaction, first organized a society, and then, in order to protect their security and natural rights, they created a special body by contract, 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 the highest power in a certain territory. It exists alongside other political organizations: parties, trade unions, etc.
The states of different historical epochs and peoples are not very similar to each other. However, a careful analysis allows us to identify a number of common and essential features.
1. Difference from tribal organization based on self-government. Separation of public authority from society, non-coincidence with the organization of the entire population, the emergence of a layer of professional managers.
2. Building not on consanguinity or religious grounds, but on the basis of the territorial and ethnic community of people. Existence 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 industrial, party, 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 sign (as well as the one below) makes the state itself an instrument of public power. At the same time, as a rule, public bodies are used directly to perform the function of coercion - the army, the police, the security service, the court, the prosecutor's office.
5. The right to collect taxes and fees from the population to ensure 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 for the full representation of society as a whole and the protection of common interests and the common good.
The features noted above distinguish the state from any other organizations and associations, but do not fully reveal its relationship 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 totality of the functions of the state changed in the course of the historical development of the institution of statehood. From the point of view of the characteristics of the relationship between the state and the individual, two global stages are distinguished: traditional and state.
The traditional stage is associated with imstitutively unlimited power over subjects, lack of equality, 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 the state structure of this period, the following functions should be singled out as the main functions: protection of the state system and the sovereign personally; collection of taxes, protection of external borders, etc.
More interesting from the point of view of the tasks and functions of the state is the later constitutional stage. This stage is associated with the subordination of statehood to society and citizens, with the legal outline of the powers and spheres of state intervention, with the legal regulation of the activities of the state and, ultimately, is associated with the appearance of the constitution. The term "constitution" in science is used in two meanings. The first of these, 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 set of laws, but may take the form of, for example, religious-political precepts or unwritten age-old traditions.
In the second meaning, the constitution is a code of laws, which is a stable rule legally fixed in special documents that determines 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 forming a constitutional state characterizes the concept of "legal state".
In a rule of law state, the basis is the protection of a person from the terror of the state, violence against conscience, from petty guardianship on the part of the authorities, the guarantee of individual freedom, and the fundamental rights of the individual. 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 step 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 activity of such a state is aimed at the common good, the establishment of social justice in society. The activity of the modern state is multifaceted. This is the redistribution of national income in favor of the less well-off segments of the population, ensuring employment and labor protection in production, social insurance, support for motherhood and the family, caring for the unemployed, the elderly, the disabled, youth, the development of education, medicine, culture, etc. The current state of society puts before democratic (social) states the task of ensuring environmental safety and preventing a 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, 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 electors. A variety of monarchy is: absolute monarchy (Qatar, Oman) - the full power of the monarch, constitutional monarchy - a monarchy limited by the constitution. In turn, the constitutional monarchy is divided into dualist. in which the monarch has predominantly executive power and only partially legislative (Jordan, Kuwait) and parliamentary, in which the monarch has de facto 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 the activities of the government;
- exercises control over the government and in case of which he can give him a vote of no confidence (resign or hold early parliamentary elections);
The government has executive power and partially legislative initiative. It also has the right to petition the President for the dissolution of Parliament, which the President usually satisfies.
The president actually has only representative functions.
Under the parliamentary form of government, the head of government (prime minister, chancellor), while not officially the head of state, is in fact the first person. This form of state power exists in a number of European countries (Italy, Germany, the Czech Republic, etc.).
In a presidential republic, the president is both head of state and head of government. He directs the foreign and domestic policy of the state and is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces. The president is most often elected by direct popular election.
Under a presidential republic, the parvitelship is stable, it has two rigidly divided branches - the executive and the legislative.
The relationship between the president and parliament is based on a system of checks, balances and interdependencies. The parliament cannot pass a vote of no confidence in the government, the president cannot dissolve the parliament. And only in the case of very serious unconstitutional actions or crimes on the part of the president, he can be impeached - he is prematurely removed from power. But the impeachment procedure is very cumbersome and complicated. An example of a presidential form of government is the government in the United States and Russia, and is also common in countries with long authoritarian traditions (Latin America, Africa, Asia.
Under the mixed republic that exists in most of Europe, 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, gravitates towards the advantage of one of the branches of power. The classic example of a semi-presidential uniform is France. In it, the president and parliament are elected independently. The parliament cannot remove the president, and the president can only dissolve the parliament when the deadline for early presidential elections is set.
The variety of republican and monarchical forms of state does not exhaust all possible mechanisms of government. One of them is the institution of referenda, which has its origins in the Greek Areopagus and Novgorod veches. It provides for the solution of the most urgent and key problems through a popular vote, the results of which have the highest legal status and are mandatory for execution by all state bodies.
According to the territorial structure, two main forms are distinguished: 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 state 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 governments 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 within the limit of 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 accomplices in the sovereignty of the state and have the right to unilaterally withdraw from the federation.
Another form of stable cohesion of independent states is a confederation, which is created to achieve a specific goal. Its members retain their own state sovereignty and delegate only certain powers to the union's competence to resolve a limited range of issues. most often in the field of defense, foreign policy. transport and communications. Confederations existed for a limited time in Germany, Switzerland, and the USA, and subsequently either transformed into a federation or disintegrated.
In recent years, an attempt has been made on the territory of the former USSR to create the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), a union of sovereign states. coordinating their activities in various fields.
Knowledge by each member of modern society of the above information from political science guarantees him the acquisition of orientation skills in modern turbulent life. Such political knowledge is especially necessary for the modern younger generation, which is distinguished by an increased radicalism of judgments and actions, an 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. C.8;
3. Pugachev V.P., Solovyov A.I. Introduction to political science. "Aspect-Press". M., 2002
The concept of the state
The central institution of the political system is the state. The main content of politics is concentrated in its activity. The term "state" itself is usually used in two senses. In a broad sense, the state is understood as a community of people represented and organized by a higher authority and living in a certain territory. It is identical with the country and the politically organized people. In this sense, they speak, for example, of the Russian, American, German state, meaning the entire society provided by it.
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”, “rule” and others. Machiavelli was one of the first to depart from the traditions of the broad meaning 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 a narrow sense is understood as an organization, a system of institutions with supreme power over a certain territory. It exists along with other political organizations: parties, trade unions, etc.
Common to the state are the following features:
1. Separation of public authority from society, its mismatch with the organization of the entire population, the emergence of a layer of professional managers.
2. The territory delineating the boundaries of the state. The laws and powers of the state apply to people living in a certain territory. It itself is built not on consanguineous or religious grounds, but on the basis of the territorial and, usually, ethnic community of people.
3. Sovereignty, i.e. supreme power in a certain area. In any modern society there are many authorities: family, industrial, party, etc.
4. Monopoly on the legal use of force, 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, the court, the prosecutor's office.
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 the common interest and the common good. No other organization, except perhaps the totalitarian parties - states, claims to represent and protect all citizens and does not have the necessary means for this.
The definition of common features of the state has not only scientific, but also practical political significance, especially for international law. The state is the subject of international relations.
Lecture No. 1,2
The State as a Central Institutionpolitical system
"Origin, essence and main features
statesas a "special organization of force"
Among the variety 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 imperious principles in the life of any society. That is the organizational and managerial core represented by the hierarchy of authorized authorities, both in the center and in the field, which ensures the joint life of people as a differentiated set (within the boundaries of a certain territory). And 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, did not arise to ensure the integrity and regulation of human society, then people (and classes) would simply destroy each other in a fierce struggle, in the “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), on this occasion, it is said that “the need for the state does not follow 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 pray for it, “in order to lead us 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 the 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 of 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 affairs. Revealing Christ's teaching about the correct attitude to state power, the apostle Paul wrote: “Let every soul be subject to the highest authorities; for there is no authority except from God, but the existing authorities are established by God" Wherefore he who opposes the authority opposes God's ordinance; but those who oppose themselves will bring condemnation upon themselves. For those who are in authority are not terrible for good works, but for evil ones. 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, it's good for you. If you do evil, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain: he is God's servant, the avenger in punishment for the one who does evil ... "
The apostle Peter expressed the same thought: “Therefore, be submissive to every human authority, for the Lord: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, or to rulers, as sent from him to punish criminals and to encourage those who do good, - for such is the will of God that we, doing good, stopped the mouths of the ignorance of insane people - as free, not as using freedom to cover up evil, but as servants of God.
In general, the apostles taught Christians to obey the authorities, regardless of their relationship to the church. It is well known that in the apostolic age the Church of Christ was persecuted both by the local Jewish authorities and by the Roman state. 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 is from God” are constantly present in the arguments of theologians and preachers John Chrysostom (345-407), Aurelius Augustine the Blessed (354-430), Thomas Aquinas () and others, having as their ultimate goal justification the need to subordinate the state to the church, the secular rulers of the saint to the servants. So, F. Aquinas believed that all types of power, including monarchical, which was given preference, from God. But at the same time, he put church authority 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 maintained between church power and political power as a whole: each dominated in its own sphere, but the first was still revered more.
The theocratic theory of the origin of the state is based on real historical facts: the first state formations had religious forms (the rule of priests), divine law gave authority to power, and the decisions of the state were 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 it is written in the already mentioned Fundamentals of the Social Concept of the ROC, “Christians should avoid absolutizing power, from not recognizing the boundaries of its purely earthly, temporary and transient value, due to the presence in the world of sin and the need to restrain it”, Equally, according to the teachings of the Church, this also applies to power itself - it “also does not have the right to absolutize itself, expanding its boundaries 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. In the course of the English bourgeois revolution, two opposing theories became widespread; On the one side, idea patriarthe origin and essence of the state and the thesis derived from this about the divine nature of monarchical power (Claudius Samasius and Robert Filmer). With another - contractual origin theorygift power.
So, with regard to 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 mechanically connecting clans into tribes, tribes into larger formations up to the state, which appears as a developed form of patriarchal power, exercised on behalf of everyone and for the common good. At the same time, the monarchical power is presented as the 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 has a paternalistic, custodial character. It is built on the principles of virtue.
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, before the contract, were in a primitive natural, absolutely free state. Their behavior was determined by instincts, uncontrolled desires and needs. In order to protect themselves, people establish the state, voluntarily transferring to it a part of the rights given by nature, receiving in return myrtle order, 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 whole society and would be ... a common center and point of unity of all their wills and all their forces ".
Adherents of the theory of the contractual origin of the state interpreted it in different ways. So if at D. Locke, the people hand over power to the sovereign, becoming his subject, and undertakes to fulfill his will, then 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 away their right to self-government and the decision of their own destiny to anyone.
In the second half of the LH century, thanks to well-known discoveries in the field of biology and zoology, it became popular organic shape theorypeace of the state, which was developed by O. Comte and G. Spencer. So, 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 nutrition system - commodity exchange, a nervous system - production organizers ( capitalists), the musculoskeletal system is the government. True, G. Speser did not completely identify the social and biological organisms. He saw the main difference between them in the fact that people do not lose their individuality, merging into an integral system, that is, into society, while the cells and organs of an animal do not possess such individuality. According to G. Spencer, the laws of evolution operate in the same way both in the plant and animal world, and in the social environment.
Sociological concept of the state and law (the theory of violence) of the Polish-Austrian positivist philosopher J. Gumplovich explains the reason for their occurrence in the enslavement of some tribes by others, as a result of which there are ruling and subject, ruling and ruled, winners and defeated. Not divine providence, a social contract or the idea of freedom, but a clash of hostile tribes, a crude superiority of force, violence, conquest - these, in the words of L. Gumplovich, are "the parents and midwife of the state." F. Nietzsche also believed that the state is a means of origin and continuation of this violent social process, during which the birth of a privileged cultured person, who dominates the rest of the mass, takes place.
Marxist theory of the genesis of the state derives this institution primarily from private property, which always and everywhere gave rise to classes and the exploitation of some classes by others, which, in turn, led to the emergence of the state. The state arose there and then, where and when the division of society into antagonistic classes took place - this is the main postulate of Marxism in the question of the emergence of the state. The state is the product of the irreconcilability of class interests. There is an instrument for the domination of one class over another, an instrument 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 to suppress 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, it is the creation of an“ order ”that legitimizes and strengthens this oppression, moderating the clash of classes.”
However, it was only in ancient Greece that class antagonisms within the tribal system led to the formation of polis-states. Whereas in Ancient Rome the state arises as a result of the struggle between the powerless alien population (plebs) and the old tribal aristocracy (patricians), and among the Germanic tribes - "as a direct result of the conquest of vast foreign territories."
The postulation of private property as the root cause of the emergence of the state does not fit the teachings of K. Marx about the Asian mode of production, in which the state existed, but there was no private ownership of the means of production. The need to create and maintain irrigation facilities for the benefit of agriculture and the preservation of the environment is the circumstance that decisively determined the pre-class emergence of the state within this mode of production. In this process of the pre-class emergence of the state, an essential role was also played by the need for the compulsory prohibition of incest (incest) and the intertribal exchange of women in the name of the preservation and reproduction of the family.
The above theories cannot be assessed unambiguously - each proceeds from the amount 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 common 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 in different ways. 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 especially the government. Most often, this perception of the state is typical of the everyday level. life. And finally, thirdly, as an extensive system of state bodies and legal norms, designed to provide a rationally-legally organized 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 features that distinguish it from other socio-political institutions and organizations. Among these features, the most important "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 sign of the state, which distinguishes it from all other public 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) for a monopoly of legitimate physical violence. For it is characteristic of our age that the right to physical violence is attributed to all other associations or individuals only insofar as the state on 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 relation of domination of people over people, based on legitimate (that is, considered legitimate) violence as a means. Thus, in order for it to exist, the people under domination must submit to the authority claimed by those who now dominate.” A prominent representative of the Western liberal tradition, the Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises, interprets the state in the same vein: “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” .
As "the structure of domination, which is constantly renewed as a result of the joint actions of people, actions that take place thanks to the government, and which ultimately regulates social actions in one area or another," defines the state a philosophical dictionary published in Germany.
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, in which, as in a single organism, a multitude of various conflicting, often incompatible interests, aspirations, attitudes, etc.) is not able to ensure the fulfillment of its main task - the realization of the common will of its subjects - by persuasion or but relying on their consciousness and good will.
In this light state appears as a political organizationtion, which has ultimate power over all people livingmi within the boundaries of a certain territory, and having its mainaims to solve common problems and ensure the common good while maintaining, above all, order. At the same time, the modern democratic state in its activities is directly connected and limited by law, stands under 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 prescribed and regulated by law.
The 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 obligations.
FORCEDENCE- 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 direction of the norms of state law. For example, in the process of holding elections, referendums, plebiscites, coercion in an ideological form is typical. The relationship between the government and local governments (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.). ="bookmark">relationships with other governments in foreign affairs. Being an inalienable prerogative of the 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.
GENERALITY- The state acts on behalf of the whole society and exercises supreme power in the territory subject to it, that is, the territory to which its sovereignty extends. This means that all citizens 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. At the same time, all of them pay for the maintenance of the state not voluntary (as, say, in political parties), but mandatory contributions (taxes), from which they can only get rid of leaving its borders. But even having renounced citizenship and emigrated from the country, people are not always freed from the former state - if, for example, they have real estate there, then this dependence on the former state remains.
All legal entities are in the same dependence 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 state bodies). And they can get out from under the guardianship of the authorities only by ceasing to exist. Therefore, it is far from accidental that in the eyes of a “common man” the state acquires a “supernatural” appearance, which he subconsciously endows with those in power (government, president, prime minister, monarch, dictator, etc.).
TERRITORY- As a physical, material1 basis of the state and its fundamental feature, the territory is characterized by such concepts as:
“indivisibility” (even in the conditions of the existence of private ownership of land, the ownership of land by private owners does not mean the division of territory between them);
"inviolability" (which means the inviolability of borders and non-subordination to the authority of another state);
"exclusivity" (on the territory of the 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, as part 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 increasingly 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 acute conflicts, including armed conflicts over disputed territories or for the preservation of territorial unity, do not stop in the modern world.
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 mono-ethnic (and then the state is interpreted as a legal personification of its forming nation), or multi-national, 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). These are Russia, the USA, Switzerland and some other countries that have formed as multi-ethnic states.
Such a “de-ethnized” (“denationalized”) interpretation of the people as the social basis of the state more accurately reflects the political realities of the modern world, given the noticeable increase in the multi-ethnicity of many states that were previously formed as mono-national (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 is a serious threat to social stability and the integrity of the state - up to the point that it does not exclude the possibility of its "Balkanization" (ie, disintegration according to the Yugoslav "scenario").
With the concept of the population as an invariable attribute of any state is closely connected 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 outside it. In monarchical states, another term is used - "citizenship". 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 ruled. M. Weber interprets the emergence of a powerful bureaucratic apparatus as the formation of a modern state, which “technically completely depends on its bureaucratic basis. The more it grows, the more this dependency increases.” The transformation of the state into a special, independent institution led to the creation of a "class of officials" paid from the treasury, that is, at the expense of taxpayers. As a result, officials are identified with their functions, which, in political terms, removes 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 a tool for the implementation of direct power functions, the army of government officials and employees continues to do its job regardless of what happens at the top of the power pyramid (i.e., continues to function despite government crises, 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 embodies the combat 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 that embody the three branches of power: legislative, executive and judicial. In contrast to the totalitarian system represented by the USSR, in which state power was structured according to the principle of a “working corporation,” i.e., the Soviets of People’s Deputies were both legislative and executive authorities, such merging is not permissible in a democracy. 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 power is autonomous and independent of the other, that is, each has a scope of powers and prerogatives clearly outlined by the constitution and other normative acts, going beyond which is illegal. And the legal principle of democracy - "everything that is not forbidden" - applies only to the level of ordinary citizens, while in relation to state bodies and bureaucracy another principle applies: "only what is allowed is allowed, everything else is prohibited." Failure to comply with this principle and the absence of bureaucratic discretion in decision-making lead to administrative-bureaucratic arbitrariness, omnipotence and permissiveness of power.
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 show us that every person endowed with power is inclined to abuse it and keep power in his hands to the last possible ... In order to prevent such an 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 are united In the same body... there can be no freedom... On the other hand, there can be no freedom if the judiciary 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 nature, begins to exercise all three types of power.
Legislative power at the macrosystem level is represented byParliament - the highest law-making body of the country. The essential features of this power are:
Representative in the sense that parliamentary power is born in the course of general democratic elections as a result of the free will of the people. Parliament is the body that embodies popular sovereignty. And in this capacity as the spokesman of the people's will and in the interests of performing the functions associated with this circumstance, he 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 powers of parliament is determined by the number and nature of the functions that it is vested with in accordance with the fundamental law of the country (i.e., the constitution).
Functions of Parliament
ü Power function
ü Legislative function
ü Function of legitimacy
ü The function of representing political interests
ü Political publicity function
ü The function of political control and holding politicians accountable
Power function- as a body embodying popular sovereignty, the parliament makes political decisions related to the development of the main directions for the development of society, determining the structure and content of its political system, as well as its individual constituent subsystems, based on the choice of alternatives for economic and socio-political development. These alternatives are formed by the programs of the parliamentary parties propagated among the voters. Voters, according to With personal ideas about the coincidence of certain programs with their interests, give them their votes in parliamentary elections. The electoral support provided in this way to the parties, measured by their share in parliament, reflects the will of the 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 program of the parties is implemented in parliamentary decisions that are taken With compliance with the relevant (legally prescribed) procedures. The latter are called upon to combine the legal, professional rationality and reasonableness of decisions made with the requirements of parliamentary democracy.
Legislative or law-making function- the main purpose 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 performs the function of managing society. And it is the highest authority in this area, having a "monopoly of legitimate coercion (violence)".
(At the same time, the legislative rights of the parliament are not unlimited. Modern political practice has developed stable forms of their limitation, which primarily include the direct granting of the government the right to issue normative acts that have the force of law. In some states, this right is constitutionally enshrined (for example, in Germany , Italy, France), in others - 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 resolved by the executive branch (for example, in the UK, Finland).
There is also the practice of applying “laws-frameworks”, laws-principles, when the parliament adopts a law in a general form, and the government develops it, fills it with specific content.
Political publicity function- requires open political polemics from parties, the government and deputies. Parliament is a kind of arena (tribune) where various parliamentary factions, independent deputies, the government not only declare their positions, but also argue and defend them.
The restriction of parliamentary publicity (holding closed meetings and parliamentary hearings) is strictly stipulated by certain conditions and is legally fixed.
The 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 to account the president through the impeachment procedure);
Special (expression of a vote of no confidence or refusal of confidence in the government);
Special (deprivation of deputies of the right to parliamentary immunity (i.e., immunity), removal from duties).
The second component of state power branch - executive power - represented by the government and administrative and management bodies. The structure of the executive state bodies includes ministries and departments, control and supervisory authorities, the armed forces, law enforcement agencies, the state security service, etc. This part of the state power in a democracy carries out the main political decisions made by the legislature. 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 managerial functions.
The third branch of state power - the judiciary - is represented by a system of judiciary and an institution of judges independent and subject only to the law. The court embodies the highest legality in the state and plays a major role in resolving conflicts and all sorts of conflicts that arise in various spheres of public life. Democratic principles, in accordance with which the court builds its activities, include as basic ones: independence, collegiality, publicity, presumption of innocence, competitiveness, equality of arms, the right to appeal against decisions, etc.
State functions.
The state differs from all other subjects of the political system by 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, achievement of public consensus on this basis, consolidation around common goals and development prospects
ü ensuring social stability in society and preventing (eliminating) explosive conflicts that are fraught with an increase in social tension, sporadic outbreaks of violence and civil strife
ü maintaining a common domestic policy for the country, differentiated in such areas as social, economic, financial, military, cultural, etc.
ü ensuring national security and protecting the country's interests in the international arena, developing mutually beneficial international cooperation, bilateral and multilateral relations with other states, participating in solving global problems, etc. (foreign policy functions).
At the in-country level, these functions are specified as functions:
Economic- is expressed in the organization, coordination, regulation of economic processes with the help of taxes and credit policy, the creation of incentives for economic growth or the implementation of sanctions, in ensuring macroeconomic stability.
Social- is manifested in the implementation of care for a person as a member of society: meeting the needs of people in housing, work, maintaining health, education. Ensuring the social security of vulnerable groups of the population (targeted assistance to the elderly, the disabled, the unemployed, etc.). Life, health, property insurance.
Organizational- consists in streamlining all power 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 the provision of law and order, the establishment of 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 in ensuring political stability and stability, exercising power using rational legal technologies and methods, 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 the 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- is aimed at creating conditions for meeting the cultural needs of people, the formation of high spirituality, citizenship. Maintenance and development of such "branches" of culture as literature, art, theater, cinema, music, mass media, fundamental and applied science, etc.
Ecological- is associated with the establishment by the state of the legal regime of nature management, obligations to citizens to ensure a normal living environment.
In carrying out these functions, the state most often plays the role vergoddamn 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 social disagreements and having the right to distribute (or observe with the right to interfere) social values (material wealth, education, health care, etc.). e.) in order to ensure the common good and social justice, "protection of the weak from the arbitrariness 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 with limited resources of society (and they are always limited, scarce), with different strengths of interested groups (and they are always different), there can be no.
“The unlimited nature of the freedom of private enterprise, writes R. Dahl in this regard, gives rise to economic inequality, which, in turn, creates a threat to political democracy, the meaning of which is primarily in equal opportunities for people and groups representing their interests, associations to influence political decisions. The state is not an objective "arbiter" - "interested groups" do not have political resources equal or balancing each other in the end. State structures are not a neutral "arbiter" in relation to all "interests": business organizations have a disproportionate share of resources, have much greater opportunities to influence the legislature. This, of course, is in conflict with the nature of democracy.”
Nevertheless, social arbitration of the state on a larger or smaller scale is nevertheless carried out, 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 a 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 that restabilize public order, the prohibition of 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 the law as the main regulator of the life of society. At the same time, not only social groups and the individual, but also the state itself, all bodies respect the law and are in the same position in relation to it.
- welfare State, the essence of which is expressed in the implementation by the government of a strong social policy in order to provide all its citizens with a decent level of social protection and security, as well as to create 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, court. Even in "Politics" Aristotle distinguished between the legislative, executive and judicial activities of institutions. Today, the democratic political system is based on the mechanism of separation of powers, the mechanism of balance of interests and political balances. The union of powers is not allowed. Thus, the combination of legislative and executive power undermines the rule of law. If the judges will not only judge, but also legislate, then the very life of people will become a victim of arbitrariness. The union of the three powers means despotism.
In our country, until recently, it was difficult to single out the components of legislative, executive and judicial power. All of them were pulled into one node, where the highest concentration fell on the executive component. The legislative branch had no power. The essence of the laws was perverted 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 performed by joint resolutions of the Central Committee of the CPSU 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 the abuse of power. But today there is no firm legality, stable law and order in the country. In many respects, the political and legal situation according to Gilyarovsky is preserved: "There are two misfortunes in Russia: Below - the power of darkness, and above - 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 there is a question of delegating power.
First, let's consider the process of delegation of power "up", when one subject of power transfers part of the control to another subject that has a greater ability to act than he does. This issue is relevant today in our country in connection with the solution of the problem of the powers of local administrations of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation. The problem arises: is there a risk that the delegated power can be turned against the lower level of the structure? There is such a danger. The emergence of cults, dictatorships, 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 power structure that developed in our country after 1917, when the Bolshevik Party de facto degenerated from a political organization into a government body that does not tolerate opposition. For decades, the same people have been at the helm of government, pursuing policies that reflect the interests of those to whom power has been delegated, and not those who have delegated it.
How is the process of delegation of power "down"? The subject of power of the upper echelon delegates some of his possibilities to action "down", while remaining the owner of more power. This is beneficial for the central government, but there is also a risk, since the subject of power at the lower level often seeks to get out of the tutelage of the center and dictate their own rules of conduct. The owner of the central authority in this situation becomes dependent on the decisions and judgments of the lower echelons of power and gradually loses the ability to manage. What is the way out? The delegation of the scope of authority "down" must always have a certain limit, beyond which there may be a danger not only of the loss of power by the subject, but also the breakdown of all state affairs, the loss of independence and unity of the country. State power is not something fixed, immutable. With the development of society, it acquires more developed forms.
How is power exercised? In the exercise of political power, two aspects are usually distinguished:
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 interrelated, since the implementation of the decisions made requires adjustment, clarification of the political course, and adoption of additional decisions. At the same time, it should be borne in mind that the implementation of the decisions made is associated with the fulfillment of a number of conditions:
the political leadership must consistently pursue the implementation of the decisions taken. If a law, decree, resolution is adopted, then they must be implemented so that there are no doubts about the firmness of political power;
the ability of the political leadership to mobilize the necessary material, human resources for the implementation of the decisions made;
provide support for those groups of society that can contribute to the implementation of the decisions taken;
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 is pressure groups - these are organized groups that set themselves the task of achieving some 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 are actively cooperating and in contact with political parties, various departments of foreign states. The goal of pressure groups is to induce the subjects of politics to action that is beneficial for them by all available means, to impose on them the political decision they need to implement. In doing so, they use all sorts of means up to criminogenic. A special place in the political process is occupied by such a pressure group as the lobby - a powerful mechanism for influencing public authorities, 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 adopt the bills and political decisions they need.
Discretion is important in the technology of political power - empowering a particular executor with the authority to interpret, interpret laws and apply them in this interpretation, posing as 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-disposition 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, this criterion has also been supplemented by the indicator "size of property". The system of income based on distribution was replaced by the system of "absolute income", which implies the receipt in exchange for monetary resources of any goods and products at real market value, and not from state bins - by "blank", by 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 belonging to a particular social group.
In the totality of old and new social groups, one can distinguish two main "macrogroups", associated with the disposal or possession 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 become less and less significant, the "old political class" (administrators) 2 partly eroded and disappearing, partly transformed and flowing into a "new political class", while administrative methods of managing the economy and society as a whole are gradually giving way to market, 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 realize their material, economic interests, and only as society develops, they grow to translate these interests into political language.
The main factor in the development of the political process in modern Russia (in the period from 1991 to approximately 2010-2015) is the emerging MARKET in the country: privatization, the development of credit and stock markets, the struggle for influence and the establishment of certain rules in the securities markets , real estate, land and natural resources. Considering this, as well as the regularity we have formulated above of "advanced development of new economic structures in comparison with the development of new political corporations," we can assert that in the time period indicated above, the dominant groups in the aggregate are "interest groups", and
this means that in the political system as a whole there will be groups that have the greatest material resources. Of course, this is 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 the management of 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 of groups that own or manage 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 purpose and range of actions performed, 2) 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 features and functions of social. institutes. Functions of the State: 1. Ensuring integrity and stability, military, economic, security; 2. Protection of the constitution and the right to rule of law, guarantee of rights and freedoms; 3. Providing conditions for the development of social life; 4. Regulation of public relations on the basis of 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 is quite clearly carried out in it, social statuses and positions are identified, there are pronounced signs of a social institution. The state already clearly separates the governing and managed subsystems. The most important place in the structure of the state as a social institution (the public-power organization of class society) belongs to the state apparatus. The state apparatus is that necessary committee which, by virtue of the division of labor within the form of public authority, the organization of class society, exercises the functions of this organization and class power. The main function of the state is to form such a social environment that would contain the prerequisites for the development of dominant production relations and the class of owners itself. Another no less important function of the state is to suppress the resistance of the oppressed classes, to establish relations of domination and subordination. Domination is nothing more than the imposition of the wolf class on the rest of society through the application of institutional coercion. Coercion is carried out by 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 the principles and ideals that contribute to the implementation of class domination.
