Democracy now. Is there democracy in Russia (1 photo)

In Russia, democracy comes down to the single act of voting.
Young people vote as actively as people of the older generation (VTsIOM).
Just as the majority of older people voted for Putin, the majority of young people (in approximately the same percentage) followed their example (VTsIOM).
Russia is a totally depoliticized country. Anyone who tries to state any alternative is designated as an enemy of the people, a fifth column, and thus domestic policy is recoded into foreign policy.
A new generation came out to protest rallies; they were taught at school how to love the state, and they began to become ideologically intoxicated.
The image and style of modern life encourage the establishment of democratic values. However, the mechanisms of representation may change.

Tamara Lyalenkova: Today we will talk about why democracy, which gives every citizen the opportunity to express their point of view, is not taking root in Russia. Over the past four years, 66 regions have abandoned direct elections of heads of municipalities; local deputies will now also vote for the mayor of Yekaterinburg.

The low turnout and political indifference of a significant part of the population seem to confirm the unpopularity of the very principle of elections, at least in Russian circumstances. On the other hand, in Russia elections remain perhaps the only confirmation of democracy.

We discuss the tyranny of the majority, the effectiveness of debate, the boundaries of personal freedoms and public interests with the professor of the Moscow Higher School of Economics and Social Sciences. Grigory Yudin, journalist Anton Krasovsky, Project Manager of the Department of Socio-Political Research at VTsIOM Yulia Baskakova and postgraduate student at the National Research University Higher School of Economics Albert Sarkisyants.

Tamara Lyalenkova: Grigory, there is a feeling, with the obvious unanimity of the electorate, that something is wrong with the elections in Russia, wrong. Why do you think?

However, in Russia there are much more problems with democracy than with elections. The most important thing is missing here - there is no culture of political discussion, no culture of self-government. And without this, democracy really turns into a single vote, into opinion polls, which are now so popular, although they have lost their purpose.

Svyatoslav Elis: Anton, you advised Ksenia Sobchak in the current presidential elections and headed Prokhorov’s headquarters in the past. These are liberal candidates, who, however, were perceived as proteges of the Kremlin, who confirm the legitimacy of what is happening. Do you think that the participation of such candidates is beneficial for the authorities, even if they say things that are unpleasant for them?

Anton Krasovsky: By power, do you mean Vladimir Putin?

Svyatoslav Elis: Yes.

Anton Krasovsky: Of course, for Vladimir Putin, until some point, it was beneficial for the participation of absolutely all the clowns who are going to these elections - and it doesn’t matter whether it’s Sobchak, Prokhorov or Zhirinovsky and Grudinin. In the world of Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin, they are absolutely identical people.

A colleague believes that democracy will become possible if we hold debates...

Grigory Yudin: Democracy is possible if people govern themselves. This implies civic participation, municipal self-government, including debate. Unfortunately, there are no debates in Russia today.

Anton Krasovsky: What is the connection between debates and municipal self-government?

Grigory Yudin: Debate assumes that there are different points of view: they clash; people argue with each other; they can listen to each other; they can decide something together.

Anton Krasovsky: Do you think so. I don't agree with you. An important component of democracy is something that Russia does not have. There is no commune in Russia; people here do not live by public interests. And you can have endless debates. The debates were shown on all federal channels and on 85 regional channels for two weeks on a daily basis - here, watch, enjoy these troubles.

Grigory Yudin: Well, we understand that this is clowning, not a debate. They were only missing one member.

Anton Krasovsky: I think that Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin did not come to this debate for one simple reason: not because he was afraid to come there, but because he believed that, God forbid, he would come there, and then he would have 86% of the votes , as in Uzbekistan. The problem is not the debate, but the fact that people are not used to solving the issues of their small collective farm using public institutional principles, the election of the collective farm chairman. They don’t understand how to do this, they don’t understand that the money they hand over to some general cash register is their money, for example, money for repairing the same residential entrance.

Grigory Yudin: Look what changes when we debate. We begin to participate in discussions of common problems. And when we get involved in the discussion, we begin to express some points of view about how we can be here together. You say one thing, I say another. We still have some audience. And we are forced to argue with each other, prove something to our audience, and decide something together. The whole problem with the current government in Russia is that it doesn’t want to tell or prove anything to anyone. When you talk about Vladimir Putin, we understand how Vladimir Putin works. He would never in his life allow anyone to ask him a question without careful preparation.

Tamara Lyalenkova: But could it happen that out of urban public interest, of a purely social nature, which we recently observed during the elections to local councils, such a grassroots, Athenian democracy will arise?

Grigory Yudin: Of course, the fact that new active people become municipal deputies helps a lot in solving specific targeted issues. However, you need to understand that here we are starting more or less from scratch. Until now, interest in municipal self-government has been very low, and young people who are now going there will have to take this into account. They will also have to cope with the fact that people do not particularly believe that something can be changed in this way. But if they are persistent enough, then, of course, certain connections will appear between them and their voters, and then it will not be so easy to kick them out.

Svyatoslav Elis: A modern young man has the experience of making choices, unlike his parents. On the other hand, no one trusts politicians anymore...

Grigory Yudin: The most important thing that can now be said about Russia is that it is a completely depoliticized country. We have virtually no internal politics. Anyone who tries to state any alternative is immediately and deliberately labeled as an enemy of the people, a fifth column. That is, all domestic policy is being recoded into foreign policy, and this is a conscious line that the Kremlin has been pursuing for almost 20 years. The political space is filled with clowns, from Zhirinovsky’s security guard to the Freemasons, right down to people like Ksenia Sobchak, who is associated with the frivolous program “Dom-2”. And this is a conscious strategy that pushes people out of politics, especially young people who have never seen anything else.

Svyatoslav Elis: I didn’t go to the presidential elections because, firstly, no one represented me there. But besides that, I need to make a choice - and I don't understand the consequences.

Grigory Yudin: It's no coincidence that people don't know what they want. We need to discuss what seriously concerns us. Is anyone saying that Russia is the country with the most gigantic inequality? Is anyone seriously discussing during the election campaign that Russia has practically lost any allies in foreign policy? And these are problems that should be discussed.

Tamara Lyalenkova: On the other hand, democracy in the Athenian understanding is simpler and tougher than what exists in the world today. And perhaps Russia is closer to it than, say, Europe with libertarian views, which regulates more subtle settings, but sometimes has the opposite effect?

Grigory Yudin: In this sense, Russia actually has some advantage. Of course, democratic debate in Europe today is greatly stifled by the idea that

in Russia there is no culture of argument and public discussion

You can’t say anything bad about these people, and you can’t say anything bad about these people, and you can’t say anything bad about these people either. If you say anything bad about migrants, then you need to be thrown out of the public sphere immediately. In America it turns into medicalization. People say that if I took part in a discussion and my opponent insulted me, then that’s it - I have a moral injury. But democracy, meanwhile, presupposes open, free discussion between people who very often do not agree with each other. On the other hand, in Russia, unfortunately, there is no culture of argument and public discussion for historical reasons, so we, on the contrary, tend to perceive any criticism as an insult.

Tamara Lyalenkova: Yulia, it seems that opposition youth have become very active lately. Is it so? And did she go to vote?

Yulia Baskakova: This year, for the first time, we placed interviewers with tablets at the exits of polling stations so that they could record the gender and age of those leaving them. And we learned that young people (this came as a surprise to us) vote just as actively as older people. Because when we conduct surveys of the population by telephone or in person at home, and we ask: “Are you going to vote in the election or not?” young people are much less likely to answer that they are going to vote than, for example, older people.

About 80% of older people say they intend to vote, compared with about 60% of young people. According to the results of the exit poll, it turned out that representatives of all ages vote equally, and the turnout is approximately equal. This means that young people, contrary to stereotypes, are interested enough in politics to go to the polls and express their preferences, which are very similar to those of older people.

young people are similar to their elders in political views

Just as the majority of older people voted for Putin, the majority of young people voted for him in approximately the same percentage. True, among young people the proportion of those who voted for Ksenia Sobchak is slightly higher, although this difference is not colossal or fundamental. In general, we can say that young people are very similar to the older generation in their political views.

Svyatoslav Elis: This was quite unexpected to hear. Because it is generally accepted that the generation of young people is more oppositional. Albert, what do you think about our generation?

Albert Sarkisyants: It seems to me that the reaction to the new protesting youth was due to the fact that these were not the people who came out in 2011, but those who came later and for some, apparently, other reasons. After all, after Ukraine the situation changed. The rhetoric has changed a lot, and so have the tasks of the opposition. A generation has come to whom they began to teach at school how to love the state. When I was studying, there was no ideological intoxication yet, I don’t remember pressure in terms of the ideology of love for the state, there was no talk of patriotism. Those guys who came out in the last two years, 16-17 year olds, they just took a sip of this. And it turns out that they came out for some reasons of their own, which, perhaps, are not so closely related to our past moods. But we, rather, came through some organizations, through adults, we did not have an independent agenda.

Tamara Lyalenkova: Is there a request for some democratic things, perhaps related to freedom of speech, some things understandable to a young man?

Yulia Baskakova: The request is formed through an assessment of what is happening, how young people feel freedom of speech. A young man has the opportunity to speak out on social networks, search for information that interests him, and in this way he realizes his feeling and his request for freedom of speech.

Albert Sarkisyants: Indeed, we are quite capable of living an individual life up to some limits, living our own interests and

own calculations. But individualism itself is a form of social life that does not always work successfully. This is a special form of self-presentation, a form of talking about oneself. And it is alive as long as our social energy fits into this form. Accordingly, such a moment is possible, and it periodically occurs in the life of society, when this form - individual existence - turns out to be too narrow for the potentialities and desires that circulate in society. Desire and social potency are more than just individuals. As long as these desires and potencies coincide with the individual form, there are no problems. When friction between these forms arises, then protests arise.

Tamara Lyalenkova: You said that a certain apathy had set in, including among people of your generation. Do you understand what this is connected with?

in 2012 there was a feeling that there was some kind of us, and we could

Albert Sarkisyants: There is a whole group of reasons here: something lies in our own failures and defeats, something is explained by the successes of the authorities, which opposed our agenda with some other meanings. This is especially noticeable in the example of events in Ukraine, how all attention turned in that direction. And all the little gains that we thought we had gained were suddenly spent, everything went to the bottom. In 2012 there was a feeling that we can, that there is some kind of us, and we can. Then a series of events related to Ukraine made it clear that, no, we can do very little. And now, rather, the prevailing desire is to forget this experience of a joint joyful political existence, so that we would not be so ashamed that we lost.

Svyatoslav Elis: Yulia, to what extent does the average Russian perceive himself as a government? How aware is he of democracy as the power of the people, of his responsibility for what is happening in the country?

Yulia Baskakova: Things are not going well with this yet. Still, many of our compatriots, perhaps due to habit, and the older generation due to the experience of living in the Soviet period, look with hope at the state, expecting it to solve the problem. When we ask the question of who is responsible for the state of affairs in the country, all citizens or those who voted for this particular government answer that it is the government, the one who is vested with authority, and in this sense abdicate their share of responsibility. I think this is some kind of symptom.

Tamara Lyalenkova: Albert, maybe democracy is already an outdated construct, at least in its current format, and some updating is required?

Albert Sarkisyants: Yes, that would be entirely possible. Mechanisms for presenting the people's will or what is called the people's will: something happened, someone was chosen, and then it turned out that it was someone's desire, someone's interest, the will of the people themselves - to believe in this procedure, I have to think that the people are united, that every opinion means approximately the same. And you need to believe that these designs reflect some kind of reality, that they are called to something. But the fact is that many theorists, usually of a radical kind, today are trying to separate the mechanisms of representation, the mechanisms of representation and democracy itself. Because, in the end, the representation (the Duma, the president, all these bodies) is not the people. Their power over us has nothing to do with our self-government. And the less we feel our involvement in them, the less we recognize ourselves in them, the less we think that there is any kind of people at all, that there is some kind of us. But this does not mean that the loss of faith in the efficiency of these mechanisms, in the existence of some kind of people, this very faith, its exhaustion, means that we have exhausted democracy itself, because democracy has always been something more. After all, representation is only one form of democracy. It turns out that the ideal of democracy is more than just representation. It seems to me that the value of democracy, namely self-government, freedom, rights, has not gone away, and, perhaps, is becoming more and more important. Because the very image and style of our life pushes us to consider this a value. And we will look, it seems to me, for the best mechanisms for implementing democracy. But the current mechanisms may well die out.

Democracy of the Western type in its pure form is possible only in the West, or in non-Western countries on which the West has had a critical influence: Japan, South Korea, etc. In principle, with many but, such democracy is possible in Latin America, where it is developing successfully in some places. In a weaker form, such democracy can develop in some former European colonies (India, Indonesia) or countries that have experienced European influence (Thailand).

European democracy is not only the English magna carta, which concerned exclusively the rights of the nobility, but also, for example, Magdeburg city law or the royal courts in France, to which a peasant (!) could theoretically appeal and win a case against his landowner. That is, the foundations of what we call Western democracy were formed over centuries, or even millennia, in a rather unique cultural and historical environment, which has not been reproduced almost anywhere else in the world.

Actually, in its current form, Western democracy and, in general, “that’s all” in Europe were formed in modern times, and the great German sociologist Niklas Luhmann called these changes (what he called “differentiation of social systems”) “impossible” - they were so unique in their compared to other regions of the world.

Russia is a non-Western country, with a Westernized elite, which throughout history has repeatedly tried to modernize the territory under its jurisdiction according to external Western models, without fundamentally changing the foundations of the socio-political structure. The first such attempt can be called the Livonian War of Ivan the Terrible, who tried to reorient trade policy from the southern to the northwestern direction, but failed, partly because he was never able to completely break the resistance of the boyars and consolidate the forces of the state (although he actively tried, for example, with the help of oprichnina). Peter I acted in the same direction, but more successfully, as an autocratic sovereign, actively modernizing the state economy and “building” the boyars according to his own understanding, but without changing the foundations of the economic and social life of the bulk of the population.

Later, the spinning class continued its elite modernization, at a certain point firmly adopting the Western picture of industrial modernity. which penetrated into his consciousness as a rigid, unconditional matrix, a model of worldview. That is, at a certain point in time, a certain picture was chosen, or even, one might say, taken out of context, which later became a role model. But the problem is that the West is constantly changing and now it is both externally and internally completely different from the West during the Industrial Revolution. But this is precisely the peculiarity of the West - to constantly change, this is precisely what distinguishes it from non-Western static societies. And Russia is just such a static non-Western society, which periodically takes examples from the West to follow (fortunately, the West is close). Imagine that you bought a license for Windows 95 in the mid-90s and since then you have been using only it and, moreover, you relate all other programs only to it. This is how Russia adopted the classical European modernism of the 19th century. But I learned it very well, primarily at the level of humanitarian consciousness and culture, which was copied so meticulously and efficiently that it even began to resemble the original (Bolshoi ballet).

Then a revolution happened in Russia, the ruling elite was swept away by the new government, which, at the same time, the names had some relation to it - the ideologists of the revolution were intellectuals and commoners, who mastered this very project of European modernity very well. But here a funny thing happened: being isolated from the rest of the world, primarily cultural and humanitarian-scientific, the Bolshevik intellectuals treasured the very “great Russian culture” as the apple of their eye, that is, that image of modernity from the times of the European industrial revolution, which (of course in a form revised taking into account the Orthodox consciousness) was imprinted in their memory forever.

This image of 19th century modernity in its most reactionary form - in the form of imperialism and crude capitalism with the construction of gunboats, cannons and railways about which Pushkin and Fet wrote poems :) - continues to remain basic for Russian cultural consciousness. At the same time, it is mixed with the vulgarly adopted socialist collectivism and with the socialist apathy and isolation from each other of simple “cogs”, on whom “nothing depends” and for whom “they can always come”, so it is better to sit quietly, so that “unless something happens” came out."

With such basic attitudes of mass consciousness, one cannot talk about any democracy - even if Navalny and Shenderovich accidentally come to power, nothing much will change. As Zhvanetsky said: “...and the nanny will live forever!”

From Greek “power of the people.” The basis of democracy is collective decision-making, with the people being the only source of legitimate power. In a democracy, they are determined through direct and fair elections. It is society that chooses the direction of the country’s development to satisfy common interests.

One of the main distinguishing features of democracy is the principle of individual freedom. In this case, democracy is freedom limited by the law. Thanks to the democratic structure of the state, citizens can directly influence the choice of the country's development course by voting for certain parties and leaders who express their interests.

Democracy dates back to Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome. Since then, a variety of models of democratic society have been built, with their own advantages and disadvantages. The most successful forms of democracy still exist today.

Is democracy the fairest way? The answer to this question is still being sought. For all its advantages, democracy also has many disadvantages. As Winston Churchill put it, “Democracy is the worst form of government that has ever been tried.” One of the significant disadvantages of democracy is that very often people who already have power and (or) significant material resources come to power. It is very difficult, if not almost impossible, for a “man on the street” to get to the top of power. In the overwhelming majority of cases, people who come to power express the interests not of the people as such, but of political and industrial groups. Even if the leader of a country is directly elected by the people, this does not guarantee that he will pursue policies that are most favorable to society. There are many smart people in any country, but the people as a whole are often a crowd. And the interests of the crowd are usually base and primitive. Therefore, in a democracy, people often come to power who express the mood of the crowd, who are its idols.

Another big problem with democracy is the manipulation of public opinion. Thanks to modern media, it has become possible to quite easily turn public opinion in the right direction. As a result, democracy, conceived as a means of expressing the will of the people, loses its fundamental principle. At the vote, the people obediently express the opinion imposed on them; outwardly, such a choice is completely legitimate. But in reality there is no question of any free will; people vote for those whom they are pointed to.

Democracy is not ideal, but nothing better has yet been invented. All other methods of political rule led to even sadder results. Will there ever be a better system? Necessarily. When people themselves change. Without a change for the better in the psychology of people, no positive changes in forms of government are possible.

07But I

Democracy is a term that applies to the description of a political system of government, an idea and concept based on the principles of people's power. Literally, the word " democracy", translated as " People power"and has Ancient Greek origin, because it was there that the main ideas of the democratic concept of management were formed and implemented.

What is democracy in simple words - a brief definition.

In simple words, democracy is a system of government in which the source of power is the people themselves. It is the people who decide what laws and norms are necessary for the harmonious existence and development of the state. Thus, each person in a democratic society receives a certain set of freedoms and obligations formed taking into account the interests of the entire community. Based on the foregoing, we can conclude that democracy is the opportunity for every person to freely participate in the direct management of their state, society and ultimately their personal destiny.

Having learned the definitions of the term “democracy,” questions naturally arise such as: “How exactly do the people govern the state?” and “What forms and methods of democratic governance exist?”

At the moment, there are two main concepts for the exercise of people's power in a democratic society. This: " Direct democracy" And " Representative democracy».

Direct (direct) democracy.

Direct democracy is a system in which all decisions are made directly by the people themselves through their direct expression of will. This procedure becomes possible thanks to various referendums and surveys. For example, it might look like this: In State “N”, a law should be passed banning the consumption of alcoholic beverages at certain times. To do this, a referendum is held in which residents vote “For” or “Against” this law. The decision about whether a law will be adopted or not is formed based on how the majority of citizens voted.

It is worth noting that given the development of modern technologies, such referendums can take place quite quickly and effectively. The fact is that almost all citizens have modern gadgets (smartphones) with which they can vote. But, most likely, states will not use direct democracy, at least in full. This is due to the fact that direct democracy has a number of problems, which we will discuss below.

Problems of direct democracy.

The main problems of direct democracy include the following aspect: the number of people. The fact is that the principle of constant direct popular government is possible only in relatively small social groups where constant discussions and compromises are possible. Otherwise, decisions will always be made to suit the sentiments of the majority, without taking into account the opinion of the minority. It follows that decisions can be made based on the sympathies of the majority, and not on the logical and reasonable opinions of the minority. This is the main problem. The fact is that, in fact, not all citizens are, so to speak, politically and economically literate. Accordingly, in most cases, the decisions they (the majority) make will be incorrect in advance. To put it in very simple terms, it would be wrong to trust the management of important political and economic affairs to people who do not understand this.

Representative democracy.

Representative democracy is the most common type of government, in which people delegate part of their powers to elected specialists. In simple words, representative democracy is when people choose their government through popular elections, and only then the elected government is responsible for governing the country. People, in turn, reserve the right to control power using various levers of influence: resignation of the government (official), and the like.

At this stage of development of human society, it is Representative Democracy that shows itself to be the most effective way of governing, but it is not without its drawbacks. The main problems of this form include: usurpation of power and other unpleasant aspects. It is to prevent such problems that society must always be active and constantly keep power under control.

The essence and principles of democracy. Conditions and signs of democracy.

Moving on to this relatively large section, first of all it is worth listing the main points or so-called “pillars” on which the entire concept of democracy is based.

The main pillars on which democracy is based:

people;
The government is formed with the consent of the people;
The majority principle applies;
Minority rights are respected;
Fundamental human rights and freedoms are guaranteed;
Free and fair elections;
Equality before the law;
Compliance with legal procedures;
restrictions on government (authority);
Social, economic and ;
Values, cooperation and compromise.

So, having familiarized yourself with the basis, you can move on to analyzing the concept in finer details.

What does democracy consist of?

To better understand all the key points of democracy, the concept should be broken down into its main key elements. There are four of them in total, these are:

Political and electoral system;
The activity of citizens in the political and social life of the state;
Protection of citizens' rights;
Rule of law (equality before the law).

Figuratively speaking, now we will analyze the above points in detail and find out what conditions should exist for democracy to flourish.

Political system and electoral system.

The ability to choose your leaders and hold them accountable for actions committed while in office.
People decide who will represent them in parliament and who will lead the government at the national and local levels. They do this by choosing between competing parties in regular, free and fair elections.
In a democracy, the people are the highest form of political power.
Powers of power are transferred from the people to the government only for a certain period of time.
Laws and policies require the support of a majority in parliament, but the rights of minorities are protected in various ways.
People can criticize their elected leaders and representatives. They can watch how they work.
Elected representatives at the national and local levels must listen to the people and respond to their requests and needs.
Elections must take place at regular intervals as prescribed by law. Those in power cannot extend their tenure without asking the people's consent in a referendum.
For elections to be free and fair, they must be supervised by a neutral, professional body that treats all political parties and candidates equally.
All parties and candidates must have the right to freely campaign.
Voters must be able to vote in secret, without intimidation or violence.
Independent observers must be able to observe the voting and counting of votes to ensure that the process is free from corruption, intimidation and fraud.
Disputes regarding election results are heard by an impartial and independent court.

The activity of citizens in the political and social life of the state.

The key role of citizens in a democracy is to participate in public life.
Citizens have a responsibility to closely monitor how their political leaders and representatives use their powers and to express their own opinions and wishes.
Voting in elections is an important civic responsibility of all citizens.
Citizens must make their choice after thoroughly understanding the election programs of all parties, which ensures objectivity when making decisions.
Citizens can take an active part in election campaigns, public discussions and protests.
The most important form of participation is membership in independent non-governmental organizations that represent their interests. These are: farmers, workers, doctors, teachers, business owners, religious believers, students, human rights activists and so on.
In a democracy, participation in civil associations should be voluntary. No one should be forced to join an organization against their will.
Political parties are vital organizations in a democracy, and democracy is stronger when citizens become active members of political parties. However, no one should support a political party because they are under pressure. In a democracy, citizens can freely choose which side to support.
Citizen participation must be peaceful, respectful of the law, and tolerant of the views of opponents.

Protection of citizens' rights.

In a democracy, every citizen has certain basic rights that the state cannot take away. These rights are guaranteed by international law.
Citizens have the right to their own beliefs. They have the right to freely speak and write about what they think. No one can dictate how a citizen should think, what to believe, what to talk about or write about.
There is freedom of religion. Everyone can freely choose their religion and worship it as they wish.
Every person has the right to enjoy their own culture together with other members of their group, even if their group is a minority.
There is freedom and pluralism in the media. A person can choose between different sources of news and opinions.
A person has the right to associate with other people and to create and join organizations of his choice.
A person can move freely around the country or leave it if he wishes.
Individuals have the right to freedom of assembly and protest against government actions. However, he is obliged to exercise these rights peacefully and with respect for the law and the rights of other citizens.

The rule of law.

In a democracy, the rule of law protects the rights of citizens, maintains order, and limits the power of government.
All citizens are equal under the law. No one may be discriminated against on the basis of race, religion, ethnic group or gender.
No one can be arrested, imprisoned or expelled without cause.
A person is considered innocent unless his guilt is proven in accordance with the law. Anyone accused of a crime has the right to a fair public trial before an impartial tribunal.
No one may be taxed or prosecuted except as provided by law.
No one is above the law, not even a king or an elected president.
The law is applied fairly, impartially, and consistently by courts that are independent of other branches of government.
Torture and cruel and inhuman treatment are absolutely prohibited.
The rule of law limits the power of government. No government official may violate these restrictions. No ruler, minister or political party can tell a judge how to decide a case.

Requirements for society for the normal functioning of a democratic system.

Citizens must not only exercise their rights, but also comply with certain principles and rules of democratic behavior.
People must respect the law and reject violence. Nothing justifies using violence against your political opponents just because you disagree with them.
Every citizen must respect the rights of his fellow citizens and their dignity as human beings.
No one should condemn a political opponent as pure evil simply because he has different views.
People should question government decisions, but not reject government power.
Each group has the right to practice its culture and have some control over its own affairs. But, at the same time, such a group must recognize that it is part of a democratic state.
When a person expresses his opinion, he must also listen to the opinion of his opponent. Every person has the right to be heard.
When people make demands, they must understand that in a democracy it is impossible to please absolutely everyone. Democracy requires compromise. Groups with different interests and opinions must be willing to agree. Under these conditions, one group does not always get everything it wants, but the possibility of compromise leads to the common good.

Bottom line.

As a result, I would like to end this article with the words of a truly great man - Winston Churchill. One day he said:

"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried from time to time."

And apparently, he was right.

Categories: , // from

Introduction

1.Democracy in theory and practice

2.Democracy in Russia

Literature

Introduction

What is democracy? Democracy (from Latin Demos - power of the people). The concept of democracy means: a political regime based on the method of collective decision-making with equal influence of participants on the outcome of the process or on its significant stages. That is voting. Universal voting, expression of will, society, “for” or “against” something or someone. But this is ideal for an ideal, legal state, in which the opinion of the people comes first! And not the opinion of one person, or the opinion of the majority. Russia is a multinational state that has lived almost its entire history under the reliable tutelage of the “father of the king.”

The monarchy existed successfully, our state always won wars and was among the leaders of the whole world. But later, as you know, people wanted freedom. Tired of obeying the monarch, and within a few years he overthrew the monarchy, as if it never existed. What then? Socialism, communism, belief in something that is basically unattainable. But the people of the USSR were tired of this notorious stupid faith; they wanted something else, but what?! B.N. Yeltsin gave democracy to the people. But is this the kind of democracy people wanted? In my work I will try to figure this out.

1. Democracy in theory and practice

Democracy is a form of political organization of society based on the recognition of the people as the source of power, on their right to participate in solving public affairs and endowing citizens with a fairly wide range of rights and freedoms. (Great Soviet Encyclopedia).

Democracy is a political system in which power legally belongs to the people and the freedom and equality of citizens is proclaimed. (Historical Dictionary)

No matter how many sources I take, everyone pays attention to the fact that the rights and freedoms of citizens occupy a special place. That is, the state simply must guarantee the observance of these rights and freedoms, and protect them from violations.

Signs of democracy:

It is generally accepted that democracy, as a form of government, has three formal characteristics:

Referendum

Since citizens of a particular state must choose something, there will always be those who will be “for” with all hands and feet, but at the same time with these people there will be those who are also “against” with all hands and feet. This is natural, because people in a democracy have the right to express their own opinions. Defend it ardently and furiously. Imagine the situation: The candidate from the “Freedom” party won the general vote in State N; 51% of the country’s citizens voted for him. The question arises: And the rest, the people who voted, those 49%, what should we do with them? After all, they, in principle, do not agree with the election of the president. But nothing can be done, this is democracy.

Freedom of citizens (democratic freedoms)

Firstly, what is freedom? In Soviet times, Spinoza’s statement that freedom is a conscious necessity was very popular. But Spinoza only tried to substantiate the organic relationship between freedom and necessity, and not to give a general definition of freedom. In my opinion, freedom is having a choice. Formally, everyone has a choice, but in fact, society does not allow it to be implemented and leaves each person one or, at best, two opportunities, but no more.

Secondly, again formally, it seems that there are freedoms, but not everyone has the opportunity to realize them. For example, the most socially significant freedom is freedom of speech. Lately, there have been no longer timid, but rather persistent cries about the lack of this freedom, but look who is screaming. Journalists and television figures, that is, those who use this freedom. Do they not have freedom of speech?! Yes, if it didn’t exist, then there would be no yellow press and “House-2” and other rubbish. So who needs freedom of speech for journalists who want to write and say whatever they want, while others have to read, listen and watch it, without having any choice? If there is freedom, then it must be realized for everyone. Can (is it possible) in our country for anyone who has something to say to speak out in the media? There is nothing even close to this.

As for the opportunity to elect and be elected, which is considered a very important democratic achievement, everything is just as bad here. It seems like there is someone to choose from, but who provided the objects of choice? State. That is, there is an opportunity to choose only from those who are imposed on you. Some people probably have the opportunity to be elected, but with the current electoral legislation, certainly not everyone does. The worst thing is that democracy does not allow for a decent choice at all, even with different electoral legislation, such as in America or Europe. Look who they choose - either a lowly organized primate or inadequate idiots. Why? We come to where we started: the crowd is the worst judge. Returning to our country, who is the most politically active part of the population that always votes? The most politically uneducated masses and incapable of making independent decisions and analyzing what is happening. That’s why we have a Duma like this and the president has already been chosen in advance.

Equality of citizens (or rather, those who are considered citizens in a given society)

The third formal sign of democracy has nothing to do with our country at all, since in fact the number of rights for different social groups is not the same, and this number is directly proportional to proximity to power and the thickness of the wallet. Although in other countries that call themselves democratic, there is equality and it is expressed, first of all, in the rule of law, but recently this sign of democracy is losing its former position. This is the only democratic norm that, indeed, would not interfere with Russia, but it does not correspond to our mentality and historical traditions. In addition, the current state of the judicial system does not allow us to hope for the triumph of the law in the near future.

. Democracy in Russia

We will proceed from the signs:

1. Referendum. In other words, the subordination of the minority to the will of the majority. democracy freedom equality Russia

How is a referendum conducted now? Huge, powerful propaganda of one or another party on television, banners of United Russia, LDPR, Communist Party of the Russian Federation decorate buildings with collapsed plaster. TV advertising turns not into advertising of goods, but into real advertising of those same parties, and the same thing in newspapers. Candidates shout about what they have achieved and how well they have performed. And some throw mud at their opponents (I think you understand who we are talking about). They go out on cleanup days, paint fences, etc. This is great, but why is all this happening 2 weeks before the elections? These people want power! Of course, perhaps some of them go there with exceptionally good intentions, but these people are one in a million. And do they even exist?..

The next aspect is “rigging the results.”During the recent presidential elections in the Russian Federation, United Russia was accused of rigging the election results. United Russia is the ruling party of Russia, it is not the only one, but the dominant one. Everyone knows this very well. Therefore, it costs her nothing to make sure that the voting takes place seemingly openly, but at the same time the result will be the same - victory for the United Russia party. You can easily “agree” with outside observers, bribe voters, or intimidate them - this is possible in theory, and therefore feasible in practice.

A referendum is an expression of the will of the people, but this will is not always the people's. At least in Russia.

2. Freedom of citizens (democratic freedoms);

Freedom is the possibility of certain human behavior enshrined in the constitution or other legislative act (for example, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc.).

We are all free to act, we can get an education, work, say what we think and believe what we want. In other words, we have the right! But of course within the law. Chapter 2 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation is entirely devoted to human rights and freedoms.

It is legally enshrined in the Constitution. We don’t break the law, at least not all and not always. Therefore, the advantages of the monarchy include Freedom. This is clearly not observed under other political regimes.

Yes, there is freedom of speech. How could she not be if there is all sorts of “yellow press”, where they often write very offensive and terrible things. Well, for example, ordinary people who hold rallies. They are not immediately shot on the spot, they are allowed to speak out, and sometimes they listen. It happens, of course, that you have to use force, but that’s only if people go completely crazy.

The Constitution of the Russian Federation states that it is possible to hold rallies, processions, etc. But! Only with the permission of the administration. What if the people want to express their will and demonstrate right today and right now? The administration will most likely not allow it. And if people gather, the state will “punish” them.

Let's imagine for a moment: the President of some country signed a decree that education becomes paid. Citizens are unhappy. They need to react somehow. But how? Demonstrations are not allowed (the people in the administration are not stupid). But people gathered for a rally, and they were immediately dispersed by riot police with batons and stun guns. This is somewhat reminiscent of 1905. Bloody Sunday? Remember? There is a demonstration - there is no demonstration. It's simple. Only in 1905 there was a monarchy, and an absolute one at that, but now we supposedly have democracy.

Freedom of speech. It is a person's right to freely express their thoughts. We have the media, they just chatter in all directions about this and that, some with the truth, some with nonsense. There is freedom of speech, but what kind?

There is still no freedom of speech in Russia, believe researchers from the non-governmental organization Reporters Without Borders. In the latest ranking of freedom of speech in the world, they ranked our country 141st out of 173, putting it on a par with African lagging countries. At the same time, Russia rose three places compared to last year’s ranking. According to the authors of the study, “the Putin-Medvedev duo keeps state and opposition media under strict control” and along with Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez, who pursued a tough policy towards the media. Venezuela is a revolutionary and somewhat wild country. And Russia is a European country. It’s strange, but in this regard we are equal.

3. Equality of citizens (or rather, those who are considered citizens in a given society):

Equality is the officially recognized equality of citizens (subjects) before the state, law, and court.

The Constitution of the Russian Federation, namely the entire second chapter, is devoted to human rights and freedoms. It is also mentioned that everyone is equal. It says that the state is obliged to protect and ensure human rights and freedoms. If they violate their rights, the state will punish them. Regardless of who committed the crime: an official or a teenager, a Buryat or a Russian, a man or a woman, everyone faces responsibility. Fair, proportionate to the crime, not humiliating the honor and dignity of a person. Freedoms and rights must be protected!

In practice, of course, it is completely different. And it’s even worse in Russia. The accident with the governor of the Sverdlovsk region Misharin is not the only example of this. The governor's driver was driving a Mercedes at an estimated speed of no less than 180 km/h; at that speed he simply did not notice the car of an ordinary citizen and demolished an old Volga. As a result, the owner of the Volga needed an expensive operation and remained disabled for life.

The governor's driver also suffered serious injuries. And the Governor was sent to Germany for treatment. WOW!! THIS IS EQUALITY!! A simple worker was exposed as a traffic violator, and they were in no hurry to perform the operation. Is this what they do in a “democratic state”? Why do officials drive expensive foreign cars? After all, their salary level is just a little higher than the salary of an ordinary worker. Why can someone who has a more expensive jacket or a cooler car not care about all the laws? This is in our country, where democracy flourishes! Where did this come from for us? After all, this is not the case everywhere. For example, in Japan, officials ride bicycles to work, confirm their professional preparedness with an exam, and must also be able to fence, ride a horse, and shoot.

Conclusion:

In the introduction, I mentioned that our state existed under a monarchical form of government for most of its history. Then in the “era of socialism”, now here is democracy. Yes, in 20 years Russia has strengthened, more or less stood on its feet, but at the same time, shortcomings have appeared: these are guest workers, corruption, bureaucracy, a demographic problem, and a lack of ideology. Perhaps we should return the monarchy? The people of Russia need to believe in something. First, “to the Tsar, to the Fatherland.” This is exactly the slogan that the soldiers of the Russian Empire had in the First World War, in the Russo-Japanese War. In the USSR, people believed in a bright future. Then war, blood, death: For the Motherland! For Stalin! People screamed as they went to their death, they believed that there would be life afterwards, they believed that there would be a good, bright life next. Russians need something to believe in! If there is democracy, then let it be, but not like this, but another.

Literature:

1.Textbook Theory of State and Law, 2005. Perevalov V.D., Yurayt Publishing House

2.Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1967, Moscow

.Historical Dictionary, Leningrad, 1977.

.Reflections on legitimacy, Lipset S. M., 2005.

.Democratic regime, Ivanets G.I., Kalinsky I.V., Chervonyuk V.I.

.Constitutional law of Russia: encyclopedic dictionary. - Moscow: Legal. lit., 2002.

Tutoring

Need help studying a topic?

Our specialists will advise or provide tutoring services on topics that interest you.
Submit your application indicating the topic right now to find out about the possibility of obtaining a consultation.

Categories

Editor's Choice