For a number of years now, the discussions of domestic political scientists and publicists about the problems of democracy have been almost completely limited to talking about the features of social and political processes in modern Russia. At best, they are associated with the characteristics of the specifics of political development in the countries of the so-called “third wave of democratization.” In the conditions of the extremely contradictory and painful social transformation that Russia is experiencing, such “egocentrism” is, of course, not difficult to understand. However, this may give the impression that the only truly serious difficulties in the existence of democracy are associated only with the geographical expansion of its area. Meanwhile, democracy as one of the most important forms of social organization political life The modern world is currently experiencing a difficult and very ambiguous period of its development.

On the one hand, social changes last decades in various regions of the world led to an unprecedented spread of the democratic system in breadth and the establishment of its values ​​in public consciousness masses on all continents. However, on the other hand, today the insufficient effectiveness of existing democratic institutions in solving a number of problems of modern society is becoming more and more clearly revealed. A natural reflection of this situation is the steady increase in dissatisfaction of the masses with the functioning of the democratic system, recorded by numerous sociological surveys, and the ever wider spread in modern society sentiments of distrust in its institutions and mechanisms. In particular, a 2006 international study conducted by Gallup International in 68 countries found that public skepticism of and disillusionment with the process of democratic governance has become a truly global phenomenon. As many political scientists emphasize, today the existence of democracy is paradoxically characterized at the same time by both “progressive democratization” and the growing distrust of the masses in democratic institutions.

As a result, the triumphalism that dominated the political science community until relatively recently, generated by the expansion of the “democratic area,” has been replaced by a period of sobering and anxiety about the prospects for a democratic system of government. At the same time, concerns voiced in the political science literature about the current state and political potential of the democratic system are by no means connected only with the problems of “new democracies”. To no less extent they are determined by the nature of the current development of “classical democracies”.

The history of democracy is marked by a constant search for such forms of its institutional structure that would ensure the most effective management of social processes. And although the various forms and mechanisms of democratic politics that arose as a result of this search in different countries, turned out to be far from equally effective, in general, democracy in the past century was able to demonstrate its viability, finding a way out of crisis situations and giving more or less successful answers to the challenges of its time. At the same time, the new reality of the 21st century not only again requires the renewal of the democratic system, but also subjects the adaptive resource of democracy to an increasingly serious test, putting on the agenda the fundamental question: is a solution possible? modern problems democratic governance through reform of traditional forms of democracy and gradual improvement of its institutional design?

Democracy and the “relocation” of centers of power

The current problems of democracy, for the most part, are, in one way or another, caused by globalization trends. To a significant extent, this relationship is manifested in the narrowing of the sphere of sovereign power of the democratic institutions of the modern state.

Throughout previous history, the development of democracy has been associated with the transfer of power from the local to the national level. It was precisely as the territorial space of democratic politics was established within the borders of the nation-state that the concept of “people” was filled with concrete content, which became a natural condition for modern democracy to realize its textbook essence - “government of the people in the interests of the people.” However, today's world is experiencing a new process of epochal proportions - the transfer of an increasing amount of power from the level of national states to the level of supranational structures. Numerous international organizations, as well as transnational industrial and financial corporations, together form a kind of informal and widely ramified system of supranational government that regulates the movement of capital, goods, services, labor, cultural products, etc. in the world. and ultimately limiting the power of national state institutions.

Of course, it would be wrong to absolutize the current trends of desovereignization of the modern nation-state. At the same time, the reality is that in a number of cases, decision-making at the level of national states is today determined by very rigid frameworks determined by various supranational structures. And this “relocation” of centers of power caused by globalization turns out to be a clear challenge to democratic forms of government. acting as a factor in a new transformation of democracy, fraught with the threat of its certain emasculation.

The growing influence of international organizations on the socio-economic, economic, and cultural development of the world community makes the role of national governments in regulating many aspects of life in the territories under their authority increasingly limited and formal. In this sense, the processes of globalization come into conflict with such a key component of liberal democracy as accountability to citizens of their elected authorities. It is not the will of citizens expressed through democratic procedures, but the economic imperatives of globalization and corresponding international obligations that begin to play a decisive role in the decision-making process at the level of individual states. As very authoritative Western political scientists state, an important shift that determines the reality of the functioning of modern democracy is that “democratic governments are increasingly dependent on undemocratic international systems” (R. Dahl). At the same time, some authors, noting the globalization-related “decrease in the ability of national governments to manage many important processes”, they directly ask the question: “Does the democratization of states even retain its significance in the current world of transnational connections?”

It is characteristic that awareness of the negative impact of globalization on the state of democracy is becoming increasingly widespread not only in the political science community, but also among ordinary citizens in democratic countries. Thus, a 2002 international survey conducted in 47 countries by Gallup International found that a clear majority of respondents believed that the defining principle of democracy (“government in accordance with the will of the people”) was not being implemented in their country. And although such judgments are most often expressed by residents of developing countries, they are also shared by the majority of citizens in countries of “classical” Western democracy. In particular, in the USA and Canada, only 43% of citizens (versus 52%) believed that the “will of the people” prevails in the process of governing their country. In Western European countries that are part of the European Union, on average, only 33% of citizens believe that their country is “governed according to the will of the people” (versus 61% of citizens who express the opposite point of view).

Of course, it would be a simplification to associate the spread of such ideas only with current trends in globalization. For decades now, sociological surveys have been recording the dissatisfaction of ordinary citizens with their existing opportunities to influence real politics. At the same time, the objective decline in the ability of the political systems of individual national states to act in accordance with the requests of their citizens, characteristic of today’s globalized world, turns out to be another, additional source of public disappointment in modern democracy.

Autonomy of the political process

The impact of globalization on the functioning of democratic systems is manifested in two aspects. On the one hand, its imperatives serve as an objective limiter on the ability of the ruling elite to implement the principles of democratic politics, essentially “imposing” certain models of behavior on the ruling elites. But, on the other hand, there is also a certain “subjective” dimension to the impact of globalization on the democratic process. It not only forces the elites to make decisions within the framework of a certain “corridor of opportunities” given from the outside, but also increasingly clearly forms in a significant part of them an internal predisposition to this kind of behavior. There are noticeable changes in the mentality of the ruling elite, the result of which is a kind of stratification of elite groups of society into nationally oriented and cosmopolitanized elites. In their behavior, these cosmopolitanized layers of the elite are guided not only by their own narrow group egoistic interests, without paying due attention to the demands and opinions of mass categories of the population, but also by a completely new understanding of national interests. The implementation of policies determined by the imperatives of globalization is increasingly interpreted by them as the only true way to ensure social progress and effectively meet broad social needs, and not at all as some unpleasant but inevitable condition for the existence of a national state in modern world.

Estimates suggest that this new cosmopolitan category of ruling class in advanced democracies, numbering around 20 million in 2000, of which approximately 40% were in the United States, could double by 2010. For the most part, this layer, sometimes called the “new global elite”, “Davos people” or “cosmocracy”, consists of representatives of the academic community, senior officials of international organizations and various kinds of international foundations that manage transnational corporations. However, it also includes a considerable part of the political establishment developed countries. In the person of this “transnational elite,” a ruling stratum appears that is increasingly losing ties with its own national soil and increasingly clearly puts the supranational priorities of the globalized world community at the forefront. “These transnationalists,” writes, for example, S. Huntington, “have a very small degree of national loyalty. They regard national boundaries as obstacles that are fortunately disappearing, and they regard national governments as vestiges of the past, the only useful feature which is to facilitate the successful global activities of the elites.”

Such changes in the worldview of a significant part of the ruling strata lead to increasing differences between them and ordinary citizens in the approach to many issues of domestic and foreign political life and, accordingly, to an increasing deviation of government policies in a number of democratic countries from the demands and preferences of the mass segments of the population. In this regard, there are more and more reasons to talk about the progressive loss of modern democracy of its representative character. Although changes in political leadership continue to be carried out through the usual process of free and fair elections in democracies, the “representativeness” of these democracies is in many respects becoming diluted and increasingly formal.

Manifesting in in this case The deepening discrepancies between real politics and public demands make it possible to characterize one of the trends of change taking place in modern democracy with the concept of “autonomization of politics.” Under the influence of not only the objective imperatives of globalization, but also the resulting transformation of the worldview of the elite strata of society, the policies of democratic countries are becoming more and more autonomous from the will of the masses, less and less consistent with their interests and demands.

The consequences of such a “separation” of the political process from broad public demands are quite diverse. They are expressed in the decline of citizens’ trust in the institutions of power, in the decline of political parties and the corresponding crisis of parliamentarism, and in the growth of political apathy of the population, a decrease in their interest in participating in political life, and in the appeal of a significant part of the masses to “alternative”, including extremist forms of expression of their socio-political sentiments. And all this, naturally, introduces significant qualitative changes in the functioning of democratic systems, seriously testing the ideology and practice of liberal democracy.

Contrary to the well-known thesis of F. Fukuyama about the triumph of the political model of liberal democracy, within Western society the “competition” between liberal democracy and the “alternative ideology” challenging it, which some Western authors call the ideology of “transnational progressivism” (J. Fonte), is intensifying. This ideology, the bearers of which are cosmopolitanized representatives of the elite and elite-forming strata of Western society, is based on the belief that globalization requires an appropriate form of transnational “global governance”, and the liberal democratic model of governing a nation-state no longer corresponds to the realities of the modern world.

Changing socio-cultural context of democratic politics

The problems of modern democracy described above seem to indicate one fundamental difference between the challenges that Western societies face today and those with which they dealt just a few decades ago - these challenges increasingly come from “outside” these societies than from the inside.

In the last quarter of the last century, the difficulties in the functioning of democracy in Western countries were caused mainly by internal changes in these countries themselves - in particular: the evolution of the social structure of societies that took place under the influence of structural changes in the economy; caused by the growth of the educational level of the masses and the improvement of the material conditions of their lives by socio-psychological changes that led to changes in the standards and motives of the social, economic, and political behavior of the mass segments of the population; the “closedness” of the ruling elites and their inability, and often unwillingness, to pursue policies that meet the interests of the broad masses; objective decline in the socio-economic capabilities of governments “overloaded” with obligations in social sphere, and so on.

However, the specificity of the problems of today's democracy lies in the increasing impact on its internal life of factors of an “exogenous” nature - such as, for example, immigration, terrorism, international crime, erosion under the influence of “external stimuli” national cultures and national ways of life. And if, as the experience of past decades has shown, democracies have learned to cope quite successfully with many endogenous challenges, they were not prepared for many exogenous challenges.

One of these fundamentally new phenomena for the life of Western societies, which significantly complicates the functioning of democratic systems, is shifts in the demographic structure of the population associated with the processes of mass immigration. Globalization has led not only to the widespread penetration of Western cultural and socio-political standards and values ​​into non-Western societies, but also to a large-scale infiltration of Western democratic societies by bearers of anti-Western values ​​and norms of behavior, including radical opponents of these societies, who pose a direct threat to their socio-political stability. Unable to free themselves from their ethnic identification, they continue to sympathize with the world from which they came and approve of those forms of behavior that are legitimate within the value system of their native civilization, but are not consistent with the value system of the new world around them.

Shifts in the ethno-national structure of Western (primarily European) countries generated by immigration processes lead to the emergence of new social conflicts and areas of social tension that have not yet found an effective solution, causing profound changes in the content of politics and the alignment of political forces. What makes these conflicts particularly acute is the fact that they are based on the emergence of a completely new reality, essentially unfamiliar to Western societies, the peculiarity of which is the increase in their cultural and religious heterogeneity, calling into question the preservation of the civilizational identity of the West. The most obvious and at the same time At the time, the most alarming manifestation of this trend from the point of view of the future of Western democracy is the so-called “Islamization of Europe” - that is, a steady and extremely rapid increase in the proportion of people of the Muslim faith in the population of European countries. Already today, more than a quarter of the population of a number of European capitals consists of people born outside the continent, and a significant part of them is Muslim. The appearance in the countries of European democracies of this mass of extremely difficult-to-integrate carriers of a culture alien to Europeans, norms of social behavior unusual for Europeans and often hostile to their liberal-democratic mentality of values ​​determines the increasing dependence of the political process in these countries on something that is quite new to it and by no means favorable to it. stability of the socio-cultural component.

The demographic transformation of a number of Western countries, primarily Western European democracies, is leading to the strengthening and activation in their political life of those forces that challenge the traditional institutions of democratic politics. Today we are talking about mainly, about strengthening the positions of right-wing political parties, based on the growing concern of representatives of the indigenous population of Western countries about various negative consequences growth of immigration. At the same time, there is a certain probability that some tendencies destructive to the democratic process will intensify in the future and acquire new characteristics as new ethnic groups inevitably become more active in the European population.

For significant masses of “new residents” of Europe, integration into the political life of democratic countries will most likely turn out to be as painful and difficult as their integration into social life. In particular, it can be assumed that the “inclusion,” for example, of the Muslim part of the European population in the political process will become, along with the continent’s already ongoing political shift to the right, another powerful factor changing the face of European politics. If Europe fails to integrate its Muslim population into a “common liberal culture” by finding a replacement for the failed model of multiculturalism, the presence in European society of a mass category of “new citizens” will become, in the words of F. Fukuyama, a “time bomb” that will inevitably provoke further a shift in politics to the right and in general may pose a “threat to the existence of European democracy itself.” Today we can already see that the social-class conflicts that determined the content of the political process of Western democracies for most of the past century are being replaced by socio-cultural conflicts caused by the growing ethno-national and religious heterogeneity of society. And this change becomes a very difficult test for democracy, since ethnic conflicts are, as many experts note, “the most difficult type of social conflict to resolve for democracy.” During the class confrontations of the past, democratic systems developed certain relatively effective mechanisms for resolving them. However, democracies do not have anything similar that could be used to resolve ethnic conflicts and, in general, clashes based on national and cultural differences.

Democracy and public safety

Another component of “external influence” on Western democracy, which largely determines not only its current state, but, most likely, its development trends in the long term, is international terrorism. The transformation of international terrorism into one of the most important factors of modern reality puts with particular urgency on the agenda of the internal political life of Western countries the question of the need for a certain rethinking of the problems of the functioning of democracy in the context of the emergence of qualitatively new threats to its security. With the transformation of international terrorism into one of the most important factors of modern reality, The traditional adherence for Western citizens to the values ​​of liberal democracy with its priority of individual rights and freedoms has turned out to be supplanted by the understanding that ensuring public safety in the modern world requires a certain limitation of individual freedoms, strengthening police control measures and a certain deviation from the principles of privacy. Many sociological surveys show that a significant part of citizens in a number of Western countries recognize the need to expand the powers of governments to ensure their security and support giving intelligence agencies greater rights.

Of course, compared with the situation immediately after the famous events of September 2001, the willingness of Western citizens to sacrifice some civil rights in order to combat the terrorist threat has decreased today. However, even today, concern for the interests of ensuring public safety and support for measures taken by the authorities in this area (largely fueled by fears of new terrorist attacks such as those that occurred in 2004 in Madrid or in 2005 in London) still remain one of the most important characteristics of public sentiment. And today, a clear majority of not only Americans, but also citizens of a number of Western European countries believe that emergency measures taken by the authorities and various kinds of security agencies are “the price worth paying for security.” In any case, the fierce criticism that libertarians subject to last years infringement of civil liberties, and their assertions that the authorities are turning democratic countries into police states, judging by the results of sociological surveys, do not find wide support among the masses.

At the same time, the rhetoric of supporters of restrictions on the rights of citizens looks quite demagogic, claiming that the measures taken by the authorities of a number of countries to counter the terrorist threat are nothing more than a temporary deviation from the principles of liberal democracy. The current " emergency“is radically different from those in which Western democracies previously found themselves, as a rule, only in wartime. While in the past such “situations” were indeed transient, the current war on international terrorism seems to threaten to continue indefinitely. As a matter of fact, it has become one of the everyday elements of the existence of modern Western society, requiring the permanent subordination of liberal values ​​of individual freedom to the imperatives of ensuring the security of society. In light of the problems that Western democracies face today in the sphere of ensuring both their social stability and their public safety , the conclusion suggests itself that the difficulties in the functioning of democratic systems can be generated not only by a deficit, but also by a certain “excess” of democracy. It seems that it is precisely the redundancy of democracy in a number of cases that today “ties the hands” of Western political systems, preventing them from effectively and promptly responding to some of the new challenges of modern reality. It is no coincidence that the question of “excess democracy” as the reason for the current tension in its development is increasingly being raised by Western political scientists, not only in connection with the analysis of processes in the countries of “new” democracy, but also in the countries of “classical” democracy (F. Zakaria).

Speaking about the difficulties experienced by the democratic system today in connection with the current aggravation of the conflict between the values ​​of individual freedom and public safety, one cannot fail to touch upon those new problems that arise as a result of the development of information technology and, especially, such a tool as the Internet. The established practice of its spontaneous and uncontrolled development, which gave impetus to the rapid filling of the World Wide Web with a huge mass of diverse information, created conditions that made it possible to use it not only in the interests of democratizing politics, but also for purposes that have nothing to do with democracy.

Until relatively recently, the issue of regulating the development and functioning of information technologies was perceived in a purely negative way and was seen as an attempt to introduce new forms of anti-democratic control over society. Today, however, it is becoming increasingly clear that the real alternative to the regulation of processes in the field of information technology is the danger of their use by extremist forces capable of damaging the functioning of infrastructures and life support systems.

At the same time, the objective need to review the current practice of the uncontrolled existence of the Internet space creates a new point of social tension in the political life of Western democracies. Moreover, the problem lies not only in the exceptional complexity of regulating the World Wide Web, associated with the existence of many intractable legal, socio-psychological and purely technological obstacles. The point is also that the very need to develop legal norms regulating the functioning of information technologies, in fact, drives a democratic society into a dead end, since a review of the practices of the Internet in order to counter the abuse of democratic freedoms is hardly possible without making decisions that limit these freedoms. In other words, in this case the paradox of the current situation is again revealed, when ensuring the viability of a democratic society presupposes a certain infringement of democracy.

Uncertain prospects

The challenges of modern times place modern democracy in an extremely difficult position. In any case, the possibility of solving the current problems of democratic governance within the framework of the traditional paradigm of the democratic process, which took shape in past eras, looks increasingly doubtful. In this regard, the changes taking place in democracy under the influence of new realities are acquiring a qualitatively new character, the essence of which is still largely unclear.

However, some questions regarding the future of democracy in a changing world can at least be formulated. Among them, one of the most fundamental and at the same time the most difficult to answer is the question of whether today’s changes reflect the transformation of democracy or, on the contrary, its erosion. This question is also associated with a number of others: will democracy be able to find answers to the challenges of modern times without losing its distinctive qualities? Are we talking today about the erosion of democracy in general or about the erosion of only its “liberal component”? In this regard, the question arises about the degree of identity of democracy and liberalism. The answer to this question also determines the need to think, on the one hand, about whether we are today witnessing the emergence of a more “tough” (or at least less liberal) design of a democratic system of government, implying greater adequacy to the realities of today’s world, and on the other hand, how to establish the line between the “rigidity” of democracy and the presence of democracy as such.

All these questions, as already said, do not yet have obvious answers. The range of judgments expressed regarding the nature of the processes currently undergoing by the democratic system is very wide. At the same time, one cannot help but notice some commonality of existing points of view on this matter. One of the increasingly recognized opinions is the understanding that the interests of improving the mechanisms for regulating social processes require a certain rethinking of the current liberal democratic paradigm of the functioning of political institutions in Western society. Doubts about the lack of alternative to this paradigm no longer seem to be perceived by the public thought of the West as a kind of “ideological heresy,” as was the case relatively recently. Increasingly, with more or less frankness, the opinion is being expressed that the strict adherence of democratic institutions to the principles of liberal politics reduces their ability to counter the elements of globalism, which harbors dangerous destructive potential.

Another opinion, shared by many experts, is the ever-increasing compatibility of the forms and mechanisms of democratic politics that emerged in the past with the reality of today. As some highly respected Western political scientists write, “representative democracy is no longer the compelling idea it once was. There is a search for new institutional forms of expressing conflicts of interest” (R. Dahrendorf). Some authors believe, however, that such a new model of the political process can only emerge in the more or less distant future. However, others believe that it is already taking shape and talk about “the qualitative difference between modern democracy and the representative model.”

It seems that the main feature of the development of democracy in the modern era is that it does not lead so much to the “increase” of democracy (i.e., not to the deepening and improvement of the democratic principle in political systems), as it happened in the past, but rather to its “decrease” - to the emasculation of this democratic principle. And this is by no means connected only with the selfish interests of the ruling elites, but also with the objective imperatives of the functioning of democratic systems in a changed world.

In connection with the above, one should, however, make one very significant reservation. The development of a democratic society (as well as any other) is (especially in the modern era) a process with many unknowns. And although many factors influencing this process seem to be quite established and stable today, it would still be wrong to talk about some kind of predetermination of the prospects for the development of modern democracy and the irreversibility of the trends that are emerging today.

If we keep in mind, for example, the processes of globalization, then it is unknown how long they will maintain their current character and whether they will undergo a certain transformation or even some turn towards autarky. At one time, at the beginning of the last century, the trends of globalization, although not as large-scale as they are today, were already reversed. And in the face of new “insoluble” problems generated by modern globalization, the desire to “roll back” some of its trends may gain recognition not only among the masses of society, but also in fairly influential circles of the political and economic elite.

Also, obviously, one should not make absolute the current trends in removing the masses from influencing politics. In particular, the development of European integration shows that it is clearly too early to “write off” the masses as an active force capable of determining the fate of the political process, contrary to the wishes of political elites. Thus, the refusal of the population of France and the Netherlands to support the European Constitution demonstrated the unviability of political decisions made by elites without taking into account the wishes of ordinary citizens, and the continuing importance of democratic mechanisms for expressing their will. Of course, the example of the European Constitution demonstrates the role of the mechanisms of not so much parliamentary as plebiscitary democracy. And yet, the very fact that the democratic mechanism retains the ability to resist the technocratic pragmatism of the elites is quite indicative.

Grigory Vainshtein - Doctor of Historical Sciences, presenter Researcher IMEMO RAS

On the topic: “Democracy in the modern world”

Discipline: "Political Science"

Performed:

1st year student, 4th group

Full-time - correspondence department

Faculty of Veterinary Medicine

Kiseleva Nadezhda Viktorovna

Record book number: B/B13077

Work verified

"___" ________________2014

Teacher:

Tikhomirov Nikita Vladimirovich

Moscow 2014

Introductions

Conclusions

Introductions

Democracy is a form of government in which all citizens participate in government and accept responsibility to society, either directly or through freely elected representatives. Democracy is a set of principles and practical measures that protect human freedom. Democracy is the institutionalization (introduction into legal framework) of freedom

Democracy

Democracy (ancient Greek δημοκρατία - “power of the people”, from δῆμος - “people” and κράτος - “power”) is a form of government in which citizens personally or through elected representatives exercise the right to make (political) decisions. Democracy is based on the recognition of the people as the source of power and presupposes the rule of the majority, equality of citizens, the rule of law, etc. In direct democracy, the main decisions are made by the voters themselves (for example, through referendums), while in representative democracy, decisions are made by elected institutions (for example, parliaments). A form of government where the power of the majority is exercised within the framework of constitutional restrictions that guarantee the minority the exercise of certain individual or collective rights (such as freedom of speech, religion, etc.) is called liberal or constitutional democracy.

Human rights, democracy and freedom in the modern world.

“There is no person who does not love freedom, but a just person demands it for everyone, and an unjust one only for himself.” This phrase belongs to Karl Ludwig Börne, a German thinker and publicist, defender of the doctrine of human freedom, equality of all before the law and a democratic, fair form of government.

Today, respect for human rights and democratic norms is one of the main indicators by which the degree of development of society and the state is assessed. Many countries of the world put the issue of respect for human rights at the forefront of their foreign policy; there are a number of influential human rights international non-governmental organizations.

Today, concepts such as “democracy” and “human rights” are often devalued internationally. And this cannot but worry. The idea of ​​human rights ceases to be the beacon that guides countries experiencing economic and political change. This idea ceases to be an absolute, undeniable and authoritative value.

there is reason to assert that in the modern world there is a departure from the foundations of democracy and a devaluation of the idea of ​​human rights, which can be explained by three reasons.

Firstly, in some countries there were not enough prerequisites for self-organization of society, for development civil society, to take root the idea of ​​human rights. Therefore, the power elites established undivided power there. These elites reject the universal principles of respect for human dignity and humanity. It happens that even the most minimal standards are not met, and any criticism is perceived as an encroachment on state sovereignty and interference in internal affairs.

Secondly, By citing the example of economic growth in states such as China, Russia or Belarus, authoritarian rulers around the world claim that it is possible to modernize the economy without political pluralism, democracy and respect for human rights. They are unwilling to share power with a society that is exposed to mass propaganda from state-monopolized media. For example, economic difficulties caused by the problems of transition to a market economy in many post-Soviet states were mistakenly interpreted as a result of the first democratic transitions. This has led to the fact that some people consciously chose and continue to support undemocratic methods of governing the country.

Third, States that have acted as defenders of human rights and democracy on the planet have sometimes, unfortunately, provided examples of inconsistency in their actions and departure from their own fundamental principles. Actions such as the war in Iraq, the existence of prisons with unacceptable conditions for prisoners, and the large-scale development of trade relations with clearly undemocratic countries have created the ground for accusations of double standards and selective application of norms on the part of Western democracies. When human rights are violated by the governments of the countries most active in defending them, then authoritarian rulers have a convenient excuse for complete disregard and disregard for generally accepted standards.

Modern democracy

Modern Western political scientists do not consider democracy as the power of the people, who determine the essence of the implemented state policy. Democracy, in their opinion, is a system of government that takes into account the will of the people, which is expressed at the time of election of the ruling elite.

Domestic political science solves this issue differently. According to it, the basic principles of democracy are:

popular sovereignty, t.s. the primary bearer of power is the people; all power comes from the people and is delegated to them;

free elections of representatives to government bodies for a limited period;

political pluralism;

guaranteed access for everyone social groups to political institutions;

control of representative institutions over the work of government;

elimination of political privileges for certain social groups and categories of citizens, institutions and governing bodies.

Principles of democracy:

the principle of popular sovereignty, according to which the only source of supreme political power in a democracy is the people

free elections of government representatives at all levels, including the right to remove from power those who have not lived up to the trust of voters

participation of citizens in managing the affairs of the state using the mechanisms of both direct (immediate) democracy and representative (mediated) democracy

constitutionalism, which ensures the rational and legal nature of the organization and functioning of the state and the equality of everyone before the law

the presence of opposition, which is guaranteed the right to legal political activity and the right to replace the old ruling majority in power, based on the results of new elections

principle separation of powers, in accordance with which one power restrains the other, excluding the possibility of usurping the full power of one of them.

Depending on how the people participate in governance, who directly performs power functions and how, democracy is divided into:

1. representative.

Direct democracy

Direct democracy- this is the direct participation of citizens in the preparation, discussion and decision-making. This form of participation dominated in ancient democracies. Now it is possible in small towns, communities, enterprises, etc. when solving issues that do not require high qualifications. Plebiscite democracy is a type of direct democracy, which also implies the direct expression of the will of the people. However, here the influence of citizens on the processes of government is limited. They can only vote to approve or reject a draft law or other decision prepared by the government, party or initiative group. This form of democracy allows for the possibility of manipulating the will of citizens through ambiguous wording of issues put to vote.

Representative democracyRepresentative democracy- the leading form of political participation of citizens in modern political systems. Its essence is the indirect participation of subjects in decision making. Citizens elect their representatives to government bodies, who are called upon to express their interests, make laws and give orders on their behalf. This form of democracy is necessary in the context of huge social systems and the complexity of decisions made. For the democratic life of a society, it is important not only who rules, but also how they rule, how the system of government is organized. These issues are determined by the country's constitution, which is perceived by many people as a symbol of democracy.

The general features of democracy as a modern constitutional system and mode of functioning of the political system are:

Recognition of the people as the source of power in the state. The power of the people is expressed in the fact that they form state power through elections and participate in its implementation directly (through referendums, local self-government, and also, mainly, through representative bodies elected by them); - periodic election and turnover of central and local bodies state power, their accountability to voters;

Proclamation and real provision of human and civil rights and freedoms. Of particular importance for the full functioning of a democratic political system is the guarantee of the rights of citizens to participate in government - voting rights, the right to create political parties and other associations, freedom of speech, opinions, the right to information, etc.;

Decision-making by the majority and subordination of the minority to the majority in their implementation;

Democratic control of society over security forces, used only for their intended purpose and strictly within the framework of the law;

Dominance of methods of persuasion, agreement, compromise; rejection of methods of violence, coercion, suppression;

Real implementation of the principles rule of law, including the principle of separation of powers.

2.2 PROSPECTS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF DEMOCRACY IN THE MODERN WORLD

In this paragraph, I would like to consider the most important, in my opinion, question - is democracy still our future or will it forever remain only a phenomenon of Western civilization.

After we have studied the entire history of democracy, familiarized ourselves with its concepts and features, and designated it distinctive features in the West and in Russia, it is necessary to formulate a conclusion, talk about its prospects and future.

So, as we already know, democracy, in the very form in which it exists now, originated in Ancient Greece, in a slave state and was called “the power of the people.” But no one even thinks that this power did not belong to everyone. A limited number of people had the right to vote and speech, only those who had freedom, who were slave owners or high-ranking citizens. The main population of the state were slaves who were deprived of these privileges. It turns out that there was no democracy? Or was it there, but far from being in the form in which it is presented?

In my opinion, democracy, of course, existed, but only in the pre-state period, at a time when people were not yet divided into masters and slaves, where everyone was equal and had equal rights and responsibilities.

Later, with the advent of the first states, people needed rulers, those who could take upon themselves all the responsibilities and affairs of governance the whole country. Monarchy, totalitarianism, authoritarianism and many other political regimes appeared. Over the course of history, democracy has appeared and then disappeared again. And this is not surprising.

Currently, officially, democracy covers more than half of the countries in our country. globe, but it seems to me that almost nothing has changed over time, people are still divided into different layers and classes, and the ruler of any country is still at the head of it. This means that there will never be absolute, true equality of all, power will always be in the hands of the elite, the rich, high-ranking citizens, and the people will forever strive to change something. Democracy, as you know, is the voice of the people, generally accepted decisions and laws, but it is important to remember that as many people have so many opinions, which means the fundamental factors underlying any democracy cannot be respected and implemented in full.

In a word, I want to say that, in my opinion, democracy will forever remain for us only a phenomenon of Western civilization. It originated there and developed, but the echoes of democratic ideas reached us rather than the whole theory. In our world there will always be contradictions, diversity of opinions, the desire to live better than another, which is deeply contrary to the basic criteria of a democratic regime.

It seems to me that all we can do to develop democracy is to try to peacefully and culturally, directly, through negotiations, convey to the authorities our rights and beliefs. After all, no one needs, I think, the same consequences that we could and can observe in Syria, Libya and Egypt. Democracy should be built and developed not on violence, but on the will and desire of the people to do something significant for their state, on the desire to participate in the life of the country and be useful.

The influence of the Earth's demographic growth on the ecological state of the planet

demographic population ecological inhabitant Based on the developments of demographers, it is possible to analyze population growth over the history of mankind. Demographic data shows...

The influence of Islam on world politics

The second half of the 20th century marked itself with a global return to religious origins and sacred foundations. The tendency to return to fundamentalism as an ideological movement is increasingly observed in those areas of public life...

Military policy of the USA and Russia: comparative analysis

Democracy as political regime

It can be said that certain processes active development democracy precisely in the global dimension, various processes that are associated with democratic transition in some states are quite closely related to other global ones...

The place of conflicts and wars in the life of the world community

World political ideologies

Having inherited a number of ideas of the ancient Greek thinkers Lucretius and Democritus, liberalism as an independent ideological movement was formed on the basis of the political philosophy of the English enlighteners D. Locke, T. Hobbes, A. Smith at the end of the 17th - 18th centuries...

Youth parliamentarism

The structure of this thesis consists of three chapters, each of which is divided into paragraphs, as well as an introduction and conclusion, including an analysis of the relevance of the problem under study, conclusions and recommendations...

Nationalism in the modern world and in Russia

The ideology of nationalism has by no means lost its popularity in the more than sixty years that have passed since the collapse of the largest nationalist (Nazi) project in history. It changes under new conditions...

Basic principles of federalism in Russian Federation

Federalism is one of the leading foundations of the constitutional system of Russia; it allows for a combination of the principles of centralization and decentralization in the context of the diversity of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation Zametina T.V...

Political culture and consciousness

Political attitudes and stereotypes play a huge role in the formation of modern political thinking and power relations. They are the ones who mediate the relationship between the political culture of society and government institutions...

Political ideologies. Main directions

Development of youth parliamentarism in the Chuvash Republic

Youth parliamentary movement - component youth policy carried out by the state, one of the forms of youth self-government. It is defined as an activity...

Social communities in the modern world

Society is a system, since it is a set of elements that are interconnected and interrelated and form a single whole, capable of changing its structure in interaction with external conditions. This is a social system, that is...

Theoretical approaches to defining monarchy in the modern world

Public choice theory

As examples of lobbying in the modern world, consider state lobbying of national companies abroad. All states that have something to promote on foreign markets and something to protect in the domestic...

Democratization is the process of introducing democratic principles into political culture, lifestyle, etc.

In Russian journalism, the term was first used at the end of the 19th century by Konstantin Leontiev, who meant the transition of society from an estate-monarchical structure to a bourgeois-egalitarian one (“classlessness”). Since the 1980s, the term has generally been used to refer to the process of transition from an authoritarian, totalitarian, etc. political system to a democratic political system.

Main directions of democratization:

involving citizens in managing the affairs of society and the state;

creating conditions for the manifestation of initiative by individuals, representative authorities, public organizations, labor collectives, development of self-government of society;

the free development of every nation and nationality, strengthening their equal cooperation;

constant strengthening of law and order;

expansion of publicity; regular consideration of public opinion when discussing and resolving state and public affairs;

improving the electoral system.

Many authors point to democratization as the main trend of modern political development. Moreover, the concept itself in political science is used mainly in two meanings. The democratization of the world, firstly, means an increase in the number democracies; secondly, the strengthening and development of democratic institutions and procedures in various countries.

Recent decades have been characterized by the fall of authoritarian regimes and an attempt to establish democratic institutions in many countries around the world. The famous researcher S. Huntington characterizes this process as the third wave of democratization, covering a large group of countries. Characterizing this process as a global democratic revolution, he notes that by the beginning of the 90s, “democracy is seen as the only legitimate and viable alternative to an authoritarian regime of any type.”

According to S. Huntington, the beginning of the first wave is associated with the spread of democratic principles in the USA in the 19th century; it continues until the end of the First World War (1828-1926). The rise of democratization is usually followed by its retreat. The first recession dates back to 1922-1942. The second wave of democratization comes with the victory over National Socialism and the establishment of democracy, primarily in West Germany, Italy, and Japan. This wave continues until the mid-60s. (1943--1962). The second recession covers the time interval between 1958 and 1975. 1974 marks the beginning of the third (modern) democratic wave. It captured such southern European states as Spain and Greece, then spread to Latin America. By the mid-80s, democratization spread to a number of countries in Asia, Central and Eastern Europe, and then the USSR.

The experience of political development of countries experiencing the third wave of democratization was, in some way, a refutation of the optimistic conclusions of S. Huntington, showing all the ambiguity and inconsistency of this process. First of all, the point is that in many countries democratization has led to the establishment of completely undemocratic regimes (most of the countries of the former USSR can serve as a striking example of this).

Many scientists recognize the wave nature of democratization and agree with the periodization proposed by S. Huntington. However, they note that the third wave was characterized by a number of features that confirmed the complexity and ambiguity of the process under consideration. Among them the following stand out:

specificity of the results: “democratic transits” of the third wave in most cases do not end with the creation of consolidated democracies;

significant difference in the initial characteristics of transforming political regimes: from classical authoritarianism and military juntas in Latin America before the post-totalitarian regime in Eastern Europe;

more favorable international context.

There is no unity among political scientists in the definition of this term. Most often, in the most general sense, democratization is considered as a transition from non-democratic forms of government to democratic ones. It is important to note that the extensive use of this concept to characterize various types social transformations associated with the democratic wave are not always justified: the process of democratization does not always lead to the establishment of modern democracy. Some researchers propose using another concept - “democratic transition”, which does not imply a mandatory transition to democracy, but points to the fact that democratization is a process with uncertain results. Therefore, these researchers highlight democratization itself as the process of the emergence of democratic institutions and practices and the consolidation of democracy as a possible outcome of democratization, suggesting a transition to modern democracy based on the establishment of democratic institutions, practices and values.

In modern political science, there are different approaches to studying and explaining the content and factors of democratization. A.Yu. Melville proposes to consider the theory of democratization within the framework of two approaches: the first - structural, based on the analysis of structural factors, and the second - procedural, focused on procedural factors (primarily the choice and sequence of specific decisions and actions of those political factors on which the process of democratization depends ).

Representatives of the structural approach are S. Lipset, G. Almond and S. Verba, R. Inglehart, L. Pai and others. They try to identify the relationship between certain socio-economic and cultural factors and the likelihood of establishing and maintaining democratic regimes in different countries. This dependence is understood precisely as a structural prerequisite for democratization, that is, due to the influence of certain objective social structures, and not to the subjective intentions and actions of participants in the political process.

There are three main types of structural prerequisites for democracy:

gaining national unity and corresponding identity;

achieving a fairly high level economic development;

mass dissemination of cultural norms and values ​​that imply recognition of democratic principles, trust in basic political institutions, interpersonal trust, a sense of citizenship, etc.

Of the conditions for democracy, modern researchers have no doubt about only one thing - national unity and identity, which precedes democratization. Others are criticized. For example, the strict dependence between the level of socio-economic development of society and democracy today is refuted by extensive factual material. Currently, there are states with a high level of economic development and at the same time having a non-democratic regime (for example, Singapore). It is also possible to distinguish states with a fully formed democratic type of relationship between political institutions and authors, where it is noted high level poverty and the existence of traditional social structures and practitioners (eg India).

Describing the presence of necessary cultural values ​​as a condition for the emergence of democracy, it is important to emphasize that they rather create a favorable climate for the formation of a stable, sustainable democracy.

The structural approach focuses on the presence of “objective” social, economic, cultural and other factors influencing the successful or unsuccessful outcome of democratic transformations, while the procedural approach, as a necessary basis for democratization and democracy, highlights the actions of political authors carrying out this process of transformation.

An example of the application of this approach is the identification of factors whose presence is necessary for the consolidation of democracy, undertaken by H. Linz and A. Stepan. They identify the following series of factors that are the result of certain transformations:

formation of civil society by ensuring interaction of the state with independent public groups and associations;

development of democratic procedures and institutions;

development of the rule of law;

the formation of an effective state apparatus and bureaucracy, which the new democratic government can use for its own purposes;

development of economic society by creating a system social institutions and norms that mediate between the state and the market.

Although the process of democratization has become one of the most important directions in political life on the planet, a minority of the Earth's population still lives in democracy. In many countries, including Russia, democracy serves as a cover for a predominantly authoritarian government. Often democratic forms of government fail and fail.

Numerous Scientific research in the West, and in Lately- and in our country, show that the implementation of democracy requires a number of economic, social, cultural, religious and foreign policy conditions. The economic prerequisites for the development of democracy include:

• 1. high level of industrial and economic development in general. In terms of economic indicators, countries with relatively developed democracies are significantly ahead of authoritarian and totalitarian states, although there is no direct determination between the levels of economic development and democracy;
• 2. the presence of socially oriented market relations. Market economy prevents the concentration of economic and political power in the hands of one group of society. Needing competitive market relations, democracy at the same time promotes the development of state enterprises and the socialization of production;
• 3. high degree of urbanization. Industrial development objectively leads to the creation of large urban-type settlements, whose residents are more prepared for democratization than rural population, committed to traditional forms of government; dynamic balance of production and consumption. If such a balance is maintained, then all other spheres of life, including democracy, develop in a favorable economic environment. When this balance is disturbed, a crisis is inevitable, restriction of the rights and freedoms of citizens, deformation of state power, conflict clashes between its various branches.

The social prerequisites for the development of democracy are as follows:

• 1. relatively acceptable level of workers' well-being. It allows you to mitigate social conflicts, achieve the consensus and agreement necessary for democracy;
• 2. reducing the level of social inequality. The polarization of society into rich and poor is the most important obstacle to democracy, because... it leads to acute social conflicts and is the basis for oligarchic rule;
• 3. the presence of social pluralism in the structure of society. It means the diversity of the social composition of the population, clearly defined classes, professional, creative, religious, cultural, ethnic groups with common interests and collective consciousness. Such groups prevent the concentration of power and create the possibility of establishing control over it;
• 4. literacy of the population, its education as a whole. The validity of an individual’s political judgments, his civic position, and self-esteem depend on his education. “An illiterate person stands outside politics” (V.I. Lenin). He is an object of manipulation by the authorities or other political forces.

The political culture of the population is also an important prerequisite for the development of democracy. She absorbs political knowledge, folk traditions, ways of perceiving and comprehending politics, attitudes and value orientations of people that characterize their attitude towards power.

Religion can both slow down the transition to democracy and stimulate it. Christianity with its principles of equality, hard work, responsibility, and moral behavior had a beneficial effect on the development of democracy. However, not all religions stimulate the development of democracy.

Democracy is hampered by those religions that leave no choice to the individual, claim to be perfect and complete, and to strictly regulate personal and public life.

As history shows, the establishment of democratic regimes often occurred under external influence, including the use of force. However, if introduced from outside, democracy is not stable and viable until internal conditions are created for it.

The foreign policy prerequisites for democracy include:

• 1. military intervention;
• 2. political influence;
• 3. economic impact;
• 4. cultural and informational impact;
• 5. good neighborliness, providing practical assistance in the development of democracy.

Principles of democracy:

free elections

citizen participation

constitutionalism

presence of opposition,

principle of separation of powers,

Direct democracy -

Plebiscite democracy

Representative democracy

Representative democracy

.

Criticism of the traditional concept of democracy by J. Schumpeter.

The difference between democracy and non-democracy is that a politician can lose. A democratic regime is a regime where the elite can be recalled and a new one can be called to take its place. Authoritarian regimes do not know how to peacefully transfer power from one ruler to another.

Democracy in the modern sense is the power of politicians.

In democracy, the emphasis shifts from individual choice to the common good. A person is only interested in what he is responsible for. Otherwise, he is just a frivolous everyman. Based on this, although the classical doctrine of democracy contradicts facts, it lies in the sphere of values, and therefore survives. For in democracy, as elsewhere, parties always compete for power rather than promote values.

against 1: there is no specific concept of the common good, since different individuals and groups put different content into the concept of the common good.

Against 2. The utilitarians - the fathers of the democratic doctrine - did not fully understand the meaning of this argumentation, because none of them seriously considered the possibility of fundamental changes in the economic system and habits of bourgeois society. (They could have decided what they needed, but they would not have found a definite answer) .

According to Kaplan, people make certain conclusions without first bothering to study the subject of the assessment.

Main problems of representative democracy

Problem 1. System stability. A stable system is one that returns to a state of rest after a small disturbance.

Problem 2. Honesty of politicians. A guarantee of honesty arises only if a system is created that is completely open from all sides. It cannot be that somewhere there is some kind of institution that checks everyone, but it cannot be checked. Any official who sits and regulates some processes can and should be recalled if his activities cause constant and widespread discontent.

Problem 3. Complexity of procedures. Attempts to make democracy more sustainable and transparent, to provide it with feedback lead to cumbersome procedures that are increasingly less accessible to the average citizen.

Authoritarianism (from the Latin auctoritas - power, influence) is a characteristic of special types of non-democratic regimes based on the unlimited power of one person or group of persons while maintaining certain economic, civil, and spiritual freedoms for citizens.

The term “authoritarianism” was introduced into scientific circulation by theorists of the Frankfurt School of neo-Marxism and meant a certain set of social characteristics inherent in both political culture and mass consciousness as a whole.

Most of the non-democratic regimes that have existed and currently exist are authoritarian in nature. It is difficult to determine the specifics of authoritarian regimes, “... because, unlike totalitarianism, autocracy is a category that includes much of what is neither democracy nor totalitarianism”

It seems that the main difference between authoritarianism and totalitarianism is that autocracy does not have (more precisely, does not have the technological capabilities to implement) totalitarian ambitions. If you do not go into open confrontation with such a regime, then you can even have a certain freedom of action, for example, in the economic and intellectual sphere. It is also not necessary to actively demonstrate support for the regime; it is enough to tolerate it. If the operating principle of a totalitarian regime is “Everything that is ordered is permitted,” then an authoritarian regime is “Everything is permitted except politics.”

The following types of authoritarian regimes are distinguished: 1) dictatorial; 2) oligarchic (a political regime in which power is concentrated in the hands of a relatively small group and, at times, serves their personal and/or group interests, rather than the interests of all citizens); 3) “Praetorian” (Military regimes. Unlike one-party ones, military regimes most often arise as a result coups d'etat against civilians in charge.

Egalitarianism and elitism

And in democratic regimes there are 2 principles: political opportunities for participation in politics (egalitarianism), and elitism - we are so beautiful, educated, but there are all sorts of cattle.

Egalitarianism- (from egalite - equality) - a socio-political theory that substantiates equality, the starting point in the understanding of which is the equality of property, therefore egalitarianism is often characterized as a utopian theory. In modern conditions, different approaches to the problem of equality can be distinguished: neoliberals and social democrats are supporters of moderate egalitarianism, strive to find a compromise between equality of opportunity and equality of results, advocate for smoothing out property differences, preventing a large gap between incomes, etc.

The ideas of egalitarianism became widespread in the era of bourgeois revolutions (J.-J. Rousseau, G. Babeuf, etc.), although its origins go back to social movements Ancient Greece, Rome, religious teachings. Problems of egalitarianism Special attention was emphasized in Marxism.

Elitism

Elitism- an ideology that emerged in Italy at the beginning of the 20th century, developing Machiavelli’s ideas about government. According to it, society consists of an elite that manages its activities and a biomass people. According to elitism, the elite could fashion anything out of biomass.

Elite theory. There are different interpretations of the term “elite”. Some believe that the authenticity of the elite is ensured by noble origin, others rank the richest in this category, and still others - the most gifted. It is believed that entry into the elite is a function of personal merit and merit, while G. Mosca and V. Pareto believe that for inclusion in the elite, the social environment from which a person came is primarily important, and only then personal sympathy or antipathy leader.

The role of democracy in the modern world, types of democracy.

Principles of democracy:

the principle of popular sovereignty, according to which the only source of supreme political power in a democracy is the people

free elections representatives of government at all levels, including the right to remove from power those of them who have not lived up to the trust of voters

citizen participation in managing the affairs of the state using the mechanisms of both direct (immediate) democracy and representative (mediated) democracy

constitutionalism, which ensures the rational and legal nature of the organization and functioning of the state and the equality of everyone before the law

presence of opposition, which guarantees the right to legal political activity and the right to replace the old ruling majority in power based on the results of new elections

principle of separation of powers, in accordance with which one power restrains the other, excluding the possibility of usurping the full power of one of them.

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

Direct democracy - This is the direct participation of citizens in preparation, discussion and decision-making. This form of participation dominated in ancient democracies. Now it is possible in small towns, communities, enterprises, etc. when solving issues that do not require high qualifications.

Plebiscite democracy is a type of direct democracy, which also implies the direct expression of the will of the people. However, here the influence of citizens on the processes of government is limited. They can only vote to approve or reject a draft law or other decision prepared by the government, party or initiative group. This form of democracy allows for the possibility of manipulating the will of citizens through ambiguous wording of issues put to vote.

Representative democracy

Representative democracy- the leading form of political participation of citizens in modern political systems. Its essence is the indirect participation of subjects in decision making. Citizens elect their representatives to government bodies, who are called upon to express their interests, make laws and give orders on their behalf. This form of democracy is necessary in conditions of huge social systems and the complexity of decisions made.

For the democratic life of a society, it is important not only who rules, but also how they rule, how the system of government is organized. These issues are determined by the constitution of the country, which is perceived by many people as a symbol of democracy .

Cryptography is the science of methods for ensuring confidentiality (impossibility of reading information by outsiders) and authenticity (integrity and authenticity of authorship, as well as the impossibility of renouncing authorship) of information.