Classical and modern liberal democracy. Liberal democracy How liberalism differs from democracy

Liberal democracy is a model of the socio-political organization of a rule of law state, the basis of which is such a power that expresses the will of the majority, but at the same time protects the freedom and rights of a separate minority of citizens.

This type of power aims to provide each individual citizen of his country with the right to private property, freedom of speech, compliance with legal processes, protection of personal space, life, freedom of religion. All these rights are written down in such a legislative document as the Constitution, or other form of legal formation, adopted by the decision of the Supreme Court, endowed with such powers as may ensure the exercise of the rights of citizens.

Concept of democracy

The modern name of this political direction comes from the Greek words demos- "society" and Kratos- "rule", "power", which formed the word democratia meaning "power of the people".

Principles of a democratic system

Principles of liberal democracy:

1. The main principle is to ensure the rights and freedoms of citizens.
2. The board is ensured by the adoption of the will of the people, ascertained in the course of voting. The party with the most votes wins.
3. All rights expressed by the minority are respected and guaranteed.
4. Organization of the competitiveness of various areas of government, because democracy is not a means of ruling, but a means of limiting the ruling parties with other power organizations.
5. Voting is mandatory, but you can abstain.
6. Civil society restrains the activity of state power through the self-organization of citizens.

Signs of a democratic state structure

There are such signs of democracy in the state:

1. Fair and free elections are an important political tool for electing new representatives of power, or maintaining the current one.
2. Citizens take an active part both in the political life of the state and in the public life.
3. Ensuring legal protection for every citizen.
4. The supreme power extends to all in equal parts.

All this is at the same time the principles of liberal democracy.

Formation of liberal democracy

When did this trend start to form? The history of liberal democracy has many years of formation and a long history. This type of government is the fundamental principle of the development of the Western civilized world, especially the Roman and Greek heritage, on the one hand, as well as the Judeo-Christian heritage, on the other.

In Europe, the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries began the development of this type of power. Previously, most of the already formed states adhered to the monarchy, because it was believed that humanity is prone to evil, violence, destruction, so it needs a strong leader who can keep the people in a tight grip. People were assured that the government was elected by God, and those who were against the head were equated with blasphemers.

Thus, a new branch of thought began to emerge, which assumed that human relationships are built on faith, truth, freedom, equality, the basis of which is liberalization. The new direction was built on the principles of equality, and the election of the highest authority by God or belonging to noble blood does not have any privilege. The ruling power must be in the service of the people, but not vice versa, and the law is absolutely equal for everyone. The liberalist direction has entered the masses in Europe, but the formation of liberal democracy has not yet been completed.

Theory of liberal democracy

The division of democracy into types depends on how the population takes part in the organization of the state, as well as on who and how governs the country. The theory of democracy divides it into types:

1. Direct Democracy. It implies the direct participation of citizens in the social system of the state: raising the issue, discussion, decision-making. This ancient species was the key in ancient times. Direct democracy is inherent in small communities, towns, settlements. But only when these same issues do not require the participation of specialists in a particular field. Today, this view can be observed against the backdrop of the structure of local government. Its prevalence is directly dependent on the decentralization of issues raised, decisions made, on the transfer of the right to take them to small teams.
2. Plebiscitary Democracy. It, like the direct one, implies the right to the will of people, but it is different from the first one. The people have the right only to accept or reject any decision, which, as a rule, is put forward by the head of power. That is, the power of people is limited, the population cannot adopt appropriate laws.
3. representative democracy. Such democracy is carried out through the adoption by the people of the head of the authority, its representatives, who undertake to consider and accept the interests of citizens. But the people have nothing to do with solving more important problems that require the participation of a qualified specialist, especially when the participation of the population in the life of the camp is difficult due to the large area of ​​\u200b\u200bhabitat.
4. liberal democracy. Power is the people who express their needs through a qualified representative of the dominant power, who is elected to fulfill his powers for a certain period. He enjoys the support of the majority of the people, and the people trust him, using the constitutional provisions.

These are the main types of democracy.

Countries with liberal democracies

The countries of the European Union, the USA, Japan, Canada, South Africa, Australia, India, New Zealand are countries with a liberal democratic system. This opinion is shared by most experts. At the same time, some countries in Africa and the former Soviet Union consider themselves democracies, although the facts have long been revealed that the ruling structures have a direct influence on the outcome of elections.

Resolving disagreements between government and people

The authorities are not able to support every citizen, so it is quite expected that disagreements arise between them. To resolve such disputes, such a thing as the judiciary arose. In fact, it is authorized to resolve any conflicts that may arise both between citizens and the government, and within the population as a whole.

The main difference between liberal democracy and classical

Classical liberal democracy is based on Anglo-Saxon practices. However, they were not the founders. Other countries of Europe made a great contribution to the formation of this model of government.

Principles of classical liberal democracy:

1. The independence of the people. All power in the state belongs to the people: constituent and constitutional. People choose a performer and remove him.
2. Most resolve issues. To implement this provision, a special process is required, which is regulated by the electoral law.
3. All citizens definitely have equal voting rights.
   The election of the head chairman is the duty of the population, as well as its overthrow, control and supervision of public activities.
4. Separation of power.

Principles of modern liberal democracy:

1. The main value is the freedoms and rights of the population.
2. Democracy is rule by the head of society from the people and for the people. Representative democracy is a modern kind of liberal democracy, the essence of which is built on the competitiveness of political forces and the forces of voters.
3. Problems and wishes are fulfilled by the vote of the majority, while not violating, supporting the rights of the minority.
4. Democracy is a way of limiting government and other power structures. Creation of the concept of power sharing by organizing the work of competitive parties.
5. Reaching agreements through decision making. Citizens cannot vote against - they can vote for or abstain.
6. The development of self-government contributes to the development of democratic liberal principles.

Advantages of liberal democracy

The advantages of a liberal democracy are:

1. Liberal democracy is built on the Constitution and universal equality before the law. Therefore, the highest level of law and order in society is achieved through democratic views.
2. The accountability of state authorities to the people is fully ensured. If the population is not satisfied with the political management, then the opposing party has a high chance of winning in subsequent elections. Avoiding the past mistakes of the new government is a great way to stay on top. Thus, a low level of corruption is ensured.
3. Important political issues are resolved by a qualified specialist, which saves the people from unnecessary problems.
4. The absence of a dictatorship is also an advantage.
5. People are provided with the protection of private property, racial, religious affiliation, protection of the poor. At the same time, the level of terrorism is quite low in countries with such a political system.

Non-intervention of the government in the activities of entrepreneurs, low inflation rate, stable political and economic situation are the result of a democratic liberal system.

disadvantages

Representatives of direct democracy are sure that in a representative democracy the power of the majority of the population is exercised very rarely - only in elections, referendums. The real power is in the hands of a separate group of representatives of the board. This may mean that liberal democracy belongs to the oligarchy, while the development of technological processes, the growth of the education of citizens and their involvement in the public life of the state provide the conditions for the transfer of ruling powers directly into the hands of the people.

Marxists and anarchists believe that the real power is in the hands of those who have control over financial processes. Only those who have most of the finances are able to be at the top of the socio-political system, through the media introducing their importance and qualifications to the masses. They believe that money is everything, and therefore it becomes easier to manipulate the population, the level of corruption is growing, and inequality is becoming institutionalized.

Realizing long-term perspectives in society is very difficult, and therefore short-term perspectives are both an advantage and a more effective means.

To maintain the weight of the vote, some voters support certain social groups engaged in advocacy. They receive state benefits and win solutions that are in their best interest but not in the best interests of the citizens as a whole.

Critics believe that elected officials often change laws unnecessarily. This contributes to the difficulty of observance of laws by citizens, creates conditions for abuse of position by law enforcement agencies and public service agencies. Problems in the legislation also entail the inhibition and massiveness of the bureaucratic system.

Liberal Democracy in Russia

The establishment of this form of government took place with particular difficulties. Then, when liberal democracy already dominated Europe and America, at the beginning of the twentieth century, the remnants of the feudal system in the form of an absolute monarchy remained in Russia. This contributed to the start of the revolutionary movement, which seized power during the Revolution of 1917. For the next 70 years, a communist system was established in the country. Civil society was inhibited, despite the development of economic activity, the independence of the powers, because of this, the freedoms operating in the territories of other countries for a long time were not implemented.

Liberal-democratic changes in Russia took place only in the 90s, when a political regime was established that carried out global changes: it was allowed to privatize housing that previously belonged to the state, a multi-party system was established in the government, etc. At the same time, the creation of numerous cells of owners, which could become the basis of liberal democracy in Russia, was not organized, but, on the contrary, contributed to the creation of a narrow circle of the rich, who were able to establish control over the main wealth of the state.

At the beginning of the twenty-first century, the country's leadership reduced the role of the oligarchs in the economy and politics of the country by returning part of their property to the state, especially in the industrial direction. Thus, the further path of development of society today remains open.

11:39 08.02.2010

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

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

The first mention of democracy can be seen in the annals of the ancient era. It was here, in Athens, that the democratic form of government was born 2500 years ago. However, this was not the democracy that modern people talk about. Antique - it was completely different, and all important state decisions were made by the people of Athens, and the significance of each vote was the same. Such a regime did not find support among the people due to its failure, because people's decisions completely diverged. When considering such issues that will be raised first of all - the sale of watches or agricultural products, watchmakers spoke in support of the first point, and the peasants in support of the second. Now everything looks different, and democracy is taking place in a representative form, where one deputy represents a whole group of people at once. From the ancient in the modern world, only history remains.

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

Liberalism can only exist in capitalist societies. After all, with such an ideology, your interests are above all, you can safely oppose both another person and your entire state. In this scenario, a citizen may not agree with the decisions of the ill-government of democratic states. This is especially true in countries where oligarchs and corrupt officials are in power.

Summing up all of the above, we can safely say that democracy and liberalism today are the most capable forms of government. And without the right form of government, a politician cannot stay in his chair: as a man's belt holds his trousers, so democracy with liberalism maintains hope in the hearts of the people.

Faculty of Law

Department of General Theoretical Legal Disciplines

COURSE WORK

in the discipline "Theory of State and Law"

"Liberal and Democratic State: Comparative Characteristics"

Completed by: 1st year student

correspondence department 156 gr.

Galiullina E.R.

Checked:

Many experts state the fact that the current crisis of democracy has several manifestations. This is a crisis of statehood, a crisis of forms of participation and political activity, a crisis of citizenship. The well-known American political scientist S. Lipset notes that Americans' trust in government, in all state institutions in the United States is steadily declining.

As for Russia, the formula of the crisis state of democracy, defined by R. Aron as “not yet”, is quite applicable to it. Indeed, in Russia there are no deep roots of democracy (people's power), not to mention liberal (constitutional) democracy, i.e. power of the people, respecting the rights of every person. Today in Russia there is a contradictory situation. On the one hand, it can be argued that democracy has taken quite deep roots in Russia. At the same time, many studies show that the alienation of citizens from politics and, above all, from the authorities is growing in Russia. They are still immeasurably more the object of politics than its subject. Those striving for power hear about the urgent needs of ordinary people only during election campaigns, but, having entered power, they immediately forget about them and their needs. The responsibility of the authorities for the results of their leadership and management of society is smaller than ever.

The purpose of the work is an analysis of the ratio of liberal and democratic state. To achieve this goal, it is necessary to solve the following tasks :

· to study the features of the liberal state, its features;

Consider the features of a democratic state, its basic principles;

· identify similarities and differences between liberalism and democracy.

1. The concept of a liberal state, its features

The liberal (semi-democratic) regime was characteristic of developed countries in the 19th century. In the XX century. it took shape in a number of developing countries approaching the developed ones (South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand), as well as as a result of the elimination of the command-administrative system in the post-socialist countries of Eastern Europe (Russia, Bulgaria, Romania).

The significance of the liberal regime is such that some scholars believe that the liberal regime is not actually a regime for the exercise of power, but a condition for the existence of civilization itself at a certain stage of its development, even the final result, which ends the whole evolution of the political organization of society, the most effective form of such an organization. But it is difficult to agree with the last statement, since the evolution of political regimes and even such a form as the liberal-democratic regime is currently underway. New trends in the development of civilization, the desire of a person to escape from environmental, nuclear and other disasters give rise to new forms of defining state power, for example, the role of the UN is increasing, international rapid reaction forces are emerging, contradictions are growing between human rights and nations, peoples, etc.

In the theory of state and law, political methods and methods of exercising power, which are based on a system of the most democratic and humanistic principles, are also called liberal.
These principles primarily characterize the economic sphere of relations between the individual and the state. Under a liberal regime in this area, a person has property, rights and freedoms, is economically independent and on this basis becomes politically independent. In relation to the individual and the state, priority remains with the individual, and so on.

The liberal regime upholds the value of individualism, opposing it to the collectivist principles in the organization of political and economic life, which, according to a number of scientists, ultimately lead to totalitarian forms of government. The liberal regime is determined, first of all, by the needs of the commodity-money, market organization of the economy. The market requires equal, free, independent partners. The liberal state proclaims the formal equality of all citizens. In a liberal society, freedom of speech, opinions, forms of ownership is proclaimed, and space is given to private initiative. The rights and freedoms of the individual are not only enshrined in the constitution, but also become feasible in practice.

Thus, private property leaves the economic basis of liberalism. The state releases producers from its guardianship and does not interfere in the economic life of people, but only establishes the general framework for free competition between producers, the conditions for economic life. It also acts as an arbitrator in resolving disputes between them. In the late stages of liberalism, lawful state intervention in economic and social processes acquires a socially oriented character, which is determined by many factors: the need to rationally allocate economic resources, solve environmental problems, participate in the peaceful division of labor, prevent international conflicts, etc.

The liberal regime allows the existence of the opposition, moreover, in the conditions of liberalism, the state takes all measures to ensure the existence of the opposition representing interests, creates special procedures for taking into account these interests. Pluralism, and above all, a multi-party system, are essential attributes of a liberal society. In addition, under a liberal political regime, there are many associations, public organizations, corporations, sections, clubs that unite people according to their interests. There are organizations that allow citizens to express their political, professional, religious, social, household, local, national interests and needs. These associations form the foundation of civil society and do not leave the citizen face to face with state power, which is usually inclined to impose its decisions and even to abuse its capabilities.

Under liberalism, state power is formed through elections, the outcome of which depends not only on the opinion of the people, but also on the financial capabilities of certain parties necessary for conducting election campaigns. The implementation of state administration is carried out on the basis of the principle of separation of powers. The system of "checks and balances" helps to reduce the opportunities for abuse of power. Government decisions are taken by majority vote. Decentralization is used in public administration: the central government takes upon itself the solution of only those issues that the local government cannot solve.

Of course, one should not apologise for the liberal regime, since it also has its own problems, the main ones among them are the social protection of certain categories of citizens, the stratification of society, the actual inequality of starting opportunities, etc. The use of this mode becomes most effective only in a society characterized by a high level of economic and social development. The population must have a sufficiently high political, intellectual and moral consciousness, legal culture. At the same time, it should be noted that liberalism is by far the most attractive and desirable political regime for many states. A liberal regime can only exist on a democratic basis; it grows out of a proper democratic regime.

The state more often than in a democratic regime has to resort to various forms of coercive influence, because the social base of the ruling elite is rather narrow. The low standard of living of numerous sections of society gives rise to marginality and a propensity for violent actions to achieve their social goals. Therefore, democratic institutions, including the legal opposition, function as if on the surface of public life, penetrating only weakly into the depths of society.

The liberal state is characterized by such specific features:

formalism of law and formal equality of rights; a liberal state is a formal legal state that does not recognize social and other differences between citizens;

· priority of individual rights and freedoms of citizens, non-interference in their private affairs, property rights and social relations. In England there is still no law limiting the working day;

Restriction of the multi-party system by the old ("traditional") parties. Exclusion of new parties from participation in power. The liberal states of the interwar period banned the activities of communist and sometimes social democratic parties, as well as the propaganda of socialist ideas in the press. These measures were taken in accordance with the laws on the protection of the constitutional order from propaganda for its violent overthrow. In many cases, it was about limiting democracy;

· the government of the parliamentary majority and the absence of a strong counterweight.

The ideology of the liberal state can be summarized in two well-known terms. One does not have an exact translation from French into Russian - laissez faire, which roughly means: do not interfere with the individual doing his own business. The second is very short: "The state is a night watchman".

The theoretical core of liberalism is: 1) the doctrine of the "state of nature"; 2) the theory of "social contract"; 3) the theory of "sovereignty of the people"; 4) inalienable human rights (life, liberty, property, resistance to oppression, etc.).

The main principles of liberalism are: absolute value; personality and its commitment to freedom, expressed in human rights; the principle of individual freedom as social: benefits, i.e. benefits; for the whole society; law as a sphere of realization of freedom, balancing the rights of an individual and other people, as a guarantee of security; the rule of law, not of people, the reduction of questions of power to questions of law; separation of powers As a condition for the rule of law, the independence of the judiciary, the subordination of political power to the judiciary; the rule of law as an instrument of social control; the priority of human rights over the rights of the state.

The main value of liberalism is freedom. Freedom is a value in all ideological doctrines, but their interpretation of freedom as a value of modern civilization differs significantly. Freedom in liberalism is a phenomenon from the economic sphere: initially, liberals understood freedom as the liberation of the individual from medieval dependence on the state and workshops. AT; In politics, the demand for freedom meant the right to act according to one's own will, and, above all, the right to fully enjoy the inalienable rights of a person, limited only by the freedom of other people. Once the focus of the liberals was such a restrictor of freedom as other people with equal rights, it followed that the idea of ​​freedom was supplemented by the demand for equality (equality as a requirement, but not an empirical fact).

The development of liberal principles is reflected in the diverse theories created by staunch supporters: liberalism. For example, the principle of individual freedom as a social benefit is reflected in the theories of the free market, religious tolerance, etc. development in the theory of the "state of the night watchman", according to which it is necessary to limit the scope and scope; activities of the state by the protection of human rights, his life, property, inaction; negative freedom (“freedom from” - from oppression, exploitation, etc.); abstract freedom - like the freedom of man in general. any person; individual freedom: the most important kind of freedom is the freedom of enterprise.

Despite the presence of common liberal values ​​and principles in Western classical liberalism of the 17th-18th centuries. there have been serious disagreements in the interpretation of the list and hierarchy of inalienable human rights, including on the issue of their guarantees and forms of implementation. As a result, two currents arose: the bourgeois-elitist, defending the interests and rights of owners and demanding non-interference of the state in socio-economic relations, and the democratic, believing that since rights should be extended to everyone, the state needs to create conditions for this. Until the end of the XIX century. liberalism was dominated by the first direction, which proceeded from their understanding of private property as an inalienable human right and defended the idea that political rights should be granted only to owners who will conscientiously manage the national wealth of the country and adopt reasonable laws, since they have something for the results of their political activity. answer: their property. Manchester school of classical liberalism in the first half of the 19th century. with its preaching of market determinism or the social Darwinist school of the late 19th - early 20th centuries, founded by G. Spencer, are typical examples of this trend. In the United States, the followers of these views held their positions until the 1930s.

The democratic trend in liberalism was developed by B. Franklin and T. Jefferson in the USA. Fighting for the embodiment of the "American dream", the liberal democratic government of the United States in the 60s. 19th century under President A. Lincoln, approved an act on the right of every American over 21 years of age to acquire full ownership of 64 g of land from the state fund, which marked the beginning of the success of the farmer's path in agricultural production. The democratic direction strengthened its position and became the dominant form of liberalism at the turn of the 19th-20th centuries. During this period, it carried on an active dialogue with socialism and borrowed a number of important ideas from the latter. The democratic direction appeared under the name of "social liberalism".

For example, M. Weber spoke from the standpoint of social liberalism. Among the politicians who shared the convictions of social liberalism were D. Lloyd George, W. Wilson, T. Roosevelt. Social liberalism achieved particular success in the field of practical politics in the 1930s and 1940s, which accounted for the New Deal policy in the United States, developed back in the 1920s. D. Keynes as a theoretical model and implemented by F.D. Roosevelt. The model of "neo-capitalism", developed in the USA, was proposed and successfully used in the conditions of post-war devastation in Western Europe to restore the liberal-democratic foundations of life. In the second half of the XX century. social liberalism has become firmly dominant in the liberal tradition, so when someone calls himself a liberal today, you need to think that he does not share the views of two hundred years ago, but the views of the modern type of liberalism. Their essence is as follows.

1. Private property has a private-public nature, since not only owners participate in its creation, multiplication, protection.

2. The state has the right to regulate private property relations. In this regard, an important place in liberal theory is occupied by the problem of state manipulation of the production and market mechanism of supply and demand and the concept of planning.

3. The liberal theory of industrial democracy develops the idea of ​​workers' participation in management (in production, supervisory boards are created for the activities of the administration with the participation of workers).

4. The classical liberal theory of the state as a "night watchman" is replaced by the concept of the "welfare state": each member of society is entitled to a living wage; public policy should promote economic stability and prevent social upheaval; one of the highest goals of public policy is full employment.

In the XX century. most of the people are employees
and therefore the state cannot but be interested in
reduce the painful consequences of their economic dependence and helplessness before the modern economy.

An important place in modern liberalism belongs to the concept
social justice, based on the principles of rewarding an individual for enterprise and talent, and at the same time taking into account the need to redistribute social wealth in the interests of the least protected groups.

2. Democratic state, its basic principles

There are many definitions of the term "democracy". Juan Linz: “Democracy… is the legal right to formulate and defend political alternatives, accompanied by the right to freedom of association, the freedom of the elephant, and other fundamental political rights of the individual; free and non-violent competition of leaders of society with periodic evaluation of their claims to the management of society; inclusion in the democratic process of all effective political institutions; ensuring the conditions for political activity for all members of the political community, regardless of their political preferences ... Democracy does not require a mandatory change in the ruling parties, but the possibility of such a change must exist, since the very fact of such changes is the main evidence of the democratic nature of the regime.

Ralph Dahrendorf: “A free society maintains differences in its institutions and groups to the point of truly ensuring divergence; conflict is the vital breath of freedom.

Adam Przeworski: "Democracy is such an organization of political power ... [which] determines the ability of various groups to realize their specific interests" .

Arendt Lijpyart: “Democracy can be defined not only as governance by the people, but also, in the famous formulation of President Abraham Lincoln, as governance in accordance with popular preferences… democratic regimes are not characterized by absolute but by a high degree of accountability: their actions are relatively close to in accordance with the wishes of the relative majority of citizens over a long period of time.

Roy Makridis: "Despite the growing interdependence between the state and society, as well as the growing activity of the state (especially in the economy), democracy, in all its varieties from liberal to socialist, pays special attention to the separation of the spheres of activity of the state and society" .

One could easily continue the list of such definitions of democracy. With all their diversity, each of the definitions draws direct or indirect attention to the presence of legally fixed opportunities to participate in the management of society for all social groups, regardless of their position, composition, social origin. This feature reflects the specifics of modern democracy. Thus, unlike ancient democracy, modern democracy includes not only the election of rulers, but also guarantees of political opposition for participation in the management of society or open criticism of the government's course.

In domestic legal literature there is no unity in the interpretation of the concept of direct democracy. Scholars define it in different ways. The definition given by V.F. Kotok, who understood direct democracy in a socialist society as the initiative and self-activity of the masses in governing the state, their direct expression of will in the development and adoption of state decisions, as well as direct participation in the implementation of these decisions in the implementation of people's control.

According to N.P. Faberov, "direct democracy means the direct expression of the will of the masses in the development and adoption of state decisions, as well as their direct participation in the implementation of these decisions, in the exercise of people's control" .

There are a number of other definitions of direct democracy. So R.A. Safarov considers direct democracy as the direct exercise by the people of the functions of legislation and government. G.H. Shakhnazarov understands direct democracy as an order in which decisions are made on the basis of the direct and concrete expression of the will of all citizens. V.T. Kabyshev believes that direct democracy is the direct participation of citizens in the exercise of power in the development of the adoption and implementation of state decisions.

All of these definitions complement each other to a certain extent, have a number of advantages, and also have disadvantages.

The most meaningful is the definition of V.V. Komarova, who believes: "Direct democracy is the public relations of certain issues of state and public life by subjects of state power, authorized and expressing their sovereignty, through a directly imperious expression of will, which is subject to universal execution (on the scale of the issue being resolved) and does not need any approval".

Modern democracy has the following characteristics and features .

First, it is built on a new understanding of freedom and equality. The principles of freedom and equality, in accordance with the natural law theory of liberalism, apply to all citizens of the state. With the democratization of society, these principles are increasingly embodied in practical life.

Secondly, democracy develops in states that are large in territory and in number. The principles of direct democracy in such states operate mainly at the level of local self-government, and a representative form of democracy is being developed at the national level. Citizens manage the state not directly, but by electing representatives to state bodies.

Thirdly, a representative form of democracy arises in response to the need to express the diverse, primarily economic interests of civil society.

Fourth, modern liberal-democratic states, differing in many respects from each other, are built on a system of common liberal-democratic principles and values: recognition of the people as the source of power; equality of citizens and observance of human rights; the priority of human rights over the rights of the state; the election of the main bodies of state power, the subordination of the minority to the majority in decision-making, but with a guarantee of the rights of the minority; law supremacy; separation of powers, which implies their relative autonomy and mutual control, etc.

Fifth, democracy is seen as a process that began in the early constitutionalism of England and the United States and tends to democratize all aspects of life, as well as to spread throughout the world.

The historical paths towards democracy are different for different peoples, but all modern democratic states function on common liberal democratic principles and have reached an internal consensus (consent) regarding the basic values ​​of public and private life.

Signs of the political form of a democratic state are:

1. A real opportunity for citizens to participate in the elections of representative bodies of power, the freedom to choose candidates.

2. Multi-party system, freedom of political struggle between parties within the framework of the law.

3. Freedom of opposition, absence of political persecution.

4. Freedom of the press, no censorship.

5. Guarantees of personal inviolability and freedom of citizens, deprivation of freedom of citizens and imposition of other criminal penalties only by a court decision.

These are the minimum signs of a democratic state. They could be united by the famous statement of the American President Abraham Lincoln: democracy is "government by the people, by the people and for the people." However, this is more an idea of ​​democracy than a reality, it expressed the desire for an ideal that has not yet been achieved in any country, especially with regard to the exercise of government by the people themselves. The democratic regime is formed in the rule of law states. They are characterized by the methods of the existence of power, which really ensure the free development of the individual, the actual protection of his rights and interests.

Specifically, the mode of modern democratic power is expressed as follows:

the regime represents the freedom of the individual in the economic sphere, which is the basis of the material well-being of society;

· real guarantee of the rights and freedoms of citizens, their ability to express their own opinion about the policy of the state, to actively participate in cultural, scientific and other public organizations;

· creates an effective system of direct influence of the country's population on the nature of state power;

· in a democratic state, a person is protected from arbitrariness, lawlessness, since her rights are under the constant protection of justice;

The power equally ensures the interests of the majority and the minority;

· the main principle of the activity of a democratic state is pluralism;

· the state regime is based on laws that reflect the objective needs of the development of the individual and society.

Providing its citizens with broad rights and freedoms, a democratic state is not limited only to their proclamation, i.e. formal equality of legal opportunities. It provides them with a socio-economic basis and establishes constitutional guarantees for these rights and freedoms. As a result, broad rights and freedoms become real, and not just formal.

In a democratic state, the people are the source of power. And this becomes not just a declaration, but the actual state of affairs. Representative bodies and officials in a democratic state are usually elected, but the criteria for election vary. The criterion for the election of a person to a representative body is his political views, professionalism. The professionalization of power is a hallmark of a state in which there is a democratic political regime. The activities of people's representatives should also be based on moral principles, humanism.

A democratic society is characterized by the development of associative ties at all levels of public life. In a democracy, there is institutional and political pluralism: parties, trade unions, popular movements, mass associations, associations, unions, circles, sections, societies, clubs unite people according to different interests and inclinations. Integration processes contribute to the development of statehood and individual freedom.

Referendums, plebiscites, popular initiatives, discussions, demonstrations, rallies, meetings become necessary attributes of public life. Citizens' associations participate in the management of state affairs. Along with local executive power, a parallel system of direct representation is being created. Public bodies participate in the development of decisions, advice, recommendations, and also exercise control over the executive branch. Thus, the participation of the people in managing the affairs of society becomes truly massive and goes along two lines: the election of managers - professionals and direct participation in solving public affairs (self-government, self-regulation), as well as control over the executive power.

A democratic society is characterized, as it were, by the coincidence of the object and subject of management. Management in a democratic state is carried out according to the will of the majority, but taking into account the interests of the minority. Therefore, decision-making is carried out both by voting and by using the method of coordination when making decisions.

The system of differentiation of powers between central and local bodies is being raised to a new level. The central state power takes upon itself only those issues on the solution of which the existence of society as a whole, its viability depends: ecology, division of labor in the world community, conflict prevention, etc. The rest of the issues are dealt with decentralized. As a result, the question of concentration, monopolization of power and the need to neutralize it is removed.

Normative regulation acquires a qualitatively new character. Ideally, since a democratic society is characterized by a fairly high level of consciousness and, in addition, citizens themselves take a direct and direct part in the development of decisions, the question of the massive use of coercion in non-execution of decisions is removed. People, as a rule, voluntarily submit their actions to the decision of the majority.
Of course, the democratic regime also has its own problems: excessive social stratification of society, at times a kind of dictatorship of democracy (authoritarian domination of the majority), and in some historical conditions this regime leads to a weakening of power, violations of order, even sliding into anarchy, ochlocracy, sometimes creates conditions for the existence of destructive, extremist, separatist forces. But still, the social value of a democratic regime is much higher than some of its negative concrete historical forms.

It should also be borne in mind that a democratic regime often appears in those states where the social struggle reaches a high intensity and the ruling elite, the ruling strata of society are forced to make concessions to the people, other social forces, to agree to compromises in the organization and implementation of state power.

In addition, the democratic regime in the structure of states becomes the most adequate to the new problems that the modern state of civilization poses to humanity with its global problems, contradictions, and possible crises.

3. Liberalism and democracy: similarities and differences

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

Obviously, liberalism is a set of principles and attitudes that underlie the programs of political parties and the political strategy of a government or government coalition of a liberal orientation. At the same time, liberalism is not just some kind of doctrine or creed, it is something immeasurably more, namely, a type and way of thinking. As emphasized by one of its leading representatives of the XX century. B. Croce, the liberal concept is metapolitical, going beyond the formal theory of politics, and also in a certain sense of ethics and coinciding with the general understanding of the world and reality. This is a system of views and concepts regarding the surrounding world, a type of consciousness and political and ideological orientations and attitudes, which is not always associated with specific political parties or political course. It is at the same time theory, doctrine, program and political practice.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. The US Constitution provides for the elected office of Vice President, in Russia this office has been abolished.

4. The Russian Constitution provides for direct universal presidential elections, referendums on the Constitution, etc. The US Constitution, declaring universal suffrage, does not provide for direct universal elections, leaving such mechanisms within the competence of the states.

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

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

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

8. Changes to the US Constitution are made by introducing amendments. The main articles (Ch. 1, 2, 9) of the Constitution of Russia are not subject to change, if necessary, a revision and adoption of a new Constitution is carried out. The US Constitution does not contain such a mechanism.

9. In general, the Russian constitution is significantly influenced by the US Constitution. Many of the basic provisions regarding the state structure and the republican form of government are very close. However, the Russian constitution is made at the level of modern jurisprudence and is a more carefully worked out document.

Russia	USA
Legislature
Federal Assembly, consisting of the Federation Council and the State Duma. Duma - 450 deputies, for a period of 4 years. Any citizen over the age of 21 can be elected. Federation Council - two representatives from each subject. The chairmen of the chambers are elected.	Congress, consisting of the Senate and the House of Representatives. House of Representatives: elections every two years. State representation is proportional to population (no more than 1 in 30,000). Citizens aged 25 or older who have lived in the United States for at least 7 years. Speaker is an elected position. The Senate is two senators from a state. One third is re-elected every two years. The vice-president presides, without the right to vote.
Legislative process
The bill is submitted to the Duma, adopted by a majority of votes, and submitted for approval by the Federation Council. Deviation by the Federation Council can be overcome by a two-thirds vote of the Duma. A presidential veto can be overridden by a two-thirds majority vote in each house.	The bill is prepared by Congress and submitted to the President for approval, the President's veto can be overridden by a two-thirds vote of each of the houses of Congress.
Parliament's competence
Council of the Federation: Border Changes State of emergency and martial law Use of armed forces outside of Russia Appointment of judges of the Constitutional Court, the Supreme Court, the Prosecutor General. The State Duma: Appointment of the Chairman of the Central Bank Amnesty announcement	Government loans regulation of foreign trade issue of money standardization formation of judiciary other than the Supreme Court fight against violations of the law declaration of war and peace formation and maintenance of the army and navy drafting bills conflict resolution between states admission of new states to the United States
executive power
The President is elected for a term of 4 years by direct universal suffrage. At least 35 years old, permanently residing in Russia for at least 10 years. No more than two terms in a row. In case of impossibility of performance of duties by the President or resignation, the duties are performed by the Chairman of the Government. The Prime Minister is appointed by the President with the consent of the Duma.	The president and vice president are elected to four-year terms by an electoral college from each state. At least 35 years of age, permanently resident in the United States for at least 14 years. No more than two terms. If it is impossible for the President to fulfill the duties, they are assumed by the Vice President, then by an official by decision of the Congress.
Powers of the President and his duties
head of state Supreme Commander Protection of the sovereignty of Russia Definition of main policy directions Representing the interests of the country in international relations Appointment of the Prime Minister, high military command, ambassadors. Government resignation Formation of the Security Council Dissolution of the Duma	Head of state. Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces. Conclusion of agreements with foreign countries Appointment of ambassadors, ministers, members of the Supreme Court
Judicial branch
Constitutional Court - 19 judges: compliance of laws with the Constitution, disputes over competence between state bodies. The Supreme Court - civil, criminal, administrative cases, within the jurisdiction of courts of general jurisdiction. Supreme Arbitration Court - economic disputes	Supreme Court, state courts The Supreme Court has direct jurisdiction in proceedings where either party is acting the state at large, or the highest officer. In other cases, direct jurisdiction is exercised by the courts of another level, the Supreme Court hears appeals. Decisions are made by a jury.
Rights of subjects of the federation
The subjects have their own legislation within the framework of the Constitution and representative bodies, as well as local self-government bodies. They have no right to limit the operation of the Constitution and the power of the President establish customs borders, duties, fees emission of money Jointly administered with the Russian Federation demarcation of property conformity of legislative acts nature management principles of taxation coordination of international and foreign economic relations.	States have legislatures and make laws that apply to the state They have no right to agreements and alliances emission of money issuance of loans repeal of laws titles Have no right without the consent of Congress tax imports and exports
Relationships between subjects of the federation
The republic (state) has its own constitution and legislation. A krai, oblast, federal city, autonomous oblast, autonomous okrug has its own charter and legislation. In relations with federal government bodies, all subjects of the Russian Federation are equal among themselves.	Citizens of all states are equal in rights A person prosecuted for a crime in any state shall be detained in the territory of any other state and handed over to the authorities of the first.
Constitutional changes
Federal constitutional laws are put forward by the Duma and adopted by three-fourths of the votes of the Federation Council and two-thirds of the votes of the Duma. According to the main articles - the convocation of the Constitutional Assembly, the development of a draft of a new Constitution, the adoption by popular vote.	Amendments are put forward by Congress and must be approved by the legislatures of three-quarters of the states.
Citizens' rights
Private, state, municipal property is recognized and protected in the same way Freedom of thought, speech, mass media Freedom of Religion Freedom of assembly Labor is free. Forced labor is prohibited. Everyone is equal before the law and court Personal integrity, privacy and home Freedom of movement Equality of rights of a citizen regardless of gender, race, nationality, language, origin, property and official status, place of residence, attitude to religion, beliefs Voting rights Right to housing Right to health care Right to education Freedom of creativity, protection of intellectual property	(I Amendment) Freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly. (IV Amendment) Inviolability of person and home. (V amendment) Protection of private property. (XIII Amendment) Prohibition of slavery and forced labor (XIV amendment) Equality of citizens before the law (XV Amendment) Equal voting rights regardless of race or nationality (XIX Amendment) Equal voting rights regardless of gender (XXVI Amendment) Equal voting rights regardless of age, over 18 years of age Support for science and art through copyright protection
Duties of Citizens
Paying taxes Defense of the Fatherland (military or alternative service) environmental protection

Conclusion

Only the state can function efficiently and smoothly, providing individuals with the opportunity to choose and self-realization to the extent that this does not contradict the interests of society as a whole. The degree of such efficiency is determined by three main parameters:

a measure of compliance of the principle of legality with real practice;

· the difficulties faced in their work by state institutions, the reasons for the strength and weakness of these institutions;

· the causes and nature of the difficulties that citizens face in the process of exercising their constitutional rights.

As difficult as it is to define the effectiveness of governance in a democratic environment, it can be boiled down to two elements that seem to be the most important for evaluating the functioning of any governance - political and economic:

1. ensuring the unity of the state, despite the inevitability of conflict situations arising in it;

2. constant renewal of the economy, more or less rapid, depending on the propensity of various cohesive social groups to change or to preserve the old order.

The reasons for the imperfection of public administration in a democratic government boil down to three main points:

· an excess of oligarchy: the actions of parties sometimes depend on the omnipotence of some influential minority;

· excess of demagogy: individual groups (strata, classes) and the parties representing them sometimes forget about the needs of society as a whole, about the interests of the country;

· lack, limited freedom to take decisive action in critical situations: this is hampered by the inconsistency of the interests of various social movements.

The building of a liberal state depends not only on the intentions and way of thinking of the ruling circles. It also depends on the way power is distributed in society. The likelihood of the formation of a liberal order is extremely small in the absence of a sufficient number of well-organized, active and independent social groups that, through threats and negotiations, force the state to make its behavior predictable.

To create a liberal state, two conditions must meet: the ruling elite must have incentives to make their own actions predictable, and entrepreneurs must have incentives to strive for the establishment of general rules, instead of special deals. The building of a liberal state has historically depended on the distribution of wealth among the general population - much wider than we see in Russia today - which made the use of force a less attractive option for the government than negotiations with taxpayers. It is clear that liberalism will not be supported by the vast majority of Russians today, who have no property, no means to enjoy freedom of movement, and no interest in freedom of the press.

Bibliography

1. Regulations

1. The Constitution of the Russian Federation. - M.: Spark, 2002. - Ch. 1. Art. 12.

2. Commentary on the Constitution of the Russian Federation / Ed. L.A. Okunkov. – M.: BEK, 2000. – 280 p.

2. Special literature

1. Aron R. Democracy and totalitarianism. - M.: Open Society Foundation, 1993. - 224 p.

2. Butenko A.P. State: its yesterday's and today's interpretations // State and Law. - 1993. - No. 7. - S. 95-98.

3. Vekhorev Yu.A. Typology of the state. Civilizational types of the state // Jurisprudence. - 1999. - No. 4. - S. 115-117.

4. Vilensky A. The Russian state and liberalism: the search for an optimal scenario // Federalism. - 2001. - No. 2. - S. 27-31.

5. Homerov I.N. State and state power: background, features, structure. - M: UKEA, 2002. - 832 p.

6. Grachev M.N. Democracy: research methods, perspective analysis. – M.: VLADOS, 2004. – 256 p.

7. Kireeva S.A. Constitutional and legal aspects of the democratization of the political regime in Russia //Jurisprudence. - 1998. - No. 1. - S. 130-131.

8. Klimenko A.V. Characteristics of a liberal economy and a liberal state// Lomonosov Readings: Tez. report - M., 2000. - S. 78-80.

9. Komarova V.V. Forms of direct democracy in Russia: Proc. allowance. - M.: Os-98, 1998. - 325 p.

10. Kudryavtsev Yu.A. Political regime: classification criteria and main types // Jurisprudence. - 2002. - No. 1. - S. 195-205.

11. Lebedev N.I. Liberal Democratic Ideas in Russia // Democracy and Social Movements: Historical and Social Thought. - Volgograd: Leader, 1998. - S. 112-115.

12. Marchenko M.N. A course of lectures on the theory of state and law. – M.: BEK. - 2001. - 452 p.

13. Mushinsky V. ABC of politics. - M.: Vanguard, 2002. - 278 p.

14. Stepanov V.F. The most important criteria for the effectiveness of a democratic state// State and Law. - 2004. - No. 5. - S. 93-96.

15. Theory of state and law / Ed. A.V. Vengerov. – M.: Infra-N, 1999. – 423 p.

16. Tsygankov A.P. modern political regimes. – M.: Open Society Foundation, 1995. – 316 p.

17. Chirkin V.E. State studies. - M.: Jurist, 1999. - 438 p.

18. Chirkin V.E. Constitutional law of foreign countries. – M.: BEK, 2001. – 629 p.

Aron R. Democracy and totalitarianism. – M.: Open Society Foundation, 1993. – P. 131.

Mushinsky V. ABC of politics. - M.: Vanguard, 2002. - S. 54.

Theory of State and Law / Ed. A.V. Vengerov. – M.: Infra-N, 1999. – S. 159.

Theory of State and Law / Ed. A.V. Vengerov. - M.: Infra-N, 1999. - S. 160.

Tsygankov A.P. modern political regimes. – M.: Open Society Foundation, 1995. – P. 153.

Kudryavtsev Yu.A. Political regime: classification criteria and main types // Jurisprudence. - 2002. - No. 1. - S. 199.

Klimenko A.V. Decree. op. S. 80.

Tsygankov A.P. Decree. op. From 207.

Mushinsky V. Decree. op. 45.

Friends, today is the time of freedom. And pointless arguments.

IagainstI. The government is pursuing the policy as part of modernization. The country, that is, needs to change: we should not count on government assistance, we should achieve everything ourselves, we should forget about great ideas, do business, respect the law, develop civil society, stop giving (taking) bribes, forget nepotism and rationalize as much as possible and formalize our lives. The only obstacle on this path is the Russian people. And no one especially hides that modernization is, first of all, the modernization of consciousness. Simply put, our mentality is not the same. We need another, better one. The traditional Russian mentality, which is already 700 years old, needs to be replaced. Politicians are generally not particularly interested that even the communists failed to change this mentality. On the contrary, they essentially declare Stalin to be the main lair of this mentality, cleverly slipping away from the authorities. Stalin, as a tsar, an autocrat who is revered as a god, is feared as a devil, but even then they do not stop calling him the father of the nation, the leader of the peoples.

It is not surprising that after a decade of devastating and bandit liberalism, the people remembered his figure. But the authorities realized that the next “re-Stalinization” would lead to nothing, and announced “de-Stalinization”, which would only be able to adapt the country to current realities and create conditions for the formation of a non-hydrocarbon economy.

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

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

In fact, there is no evaluation here. On the contrary, the need for change is understandable. But by what means is this done? All the same - Stalinist. Soviet Stalin vs liberal Stalin. Russia vs Russia. Nothing surprising. The directive imposition of norms has always existed in our country and has not disappeared anywhere. Only fashion has changed. Socialism was the fashion back then. Today - liberalism. Both are justified by the difficult situation and its gloomy prospects. Considering the experience of the October Revolution, let us ask ourselves the question: how will the attempt to restructure the worldview end?

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

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

But get the liberals away from postmodernism! While relativizing strict rules, they forget to relativize relativity itself! To be a consistent postmodernist, one must recognize that relativity itself is relative, which means that within the framework of this relativity there must be a place for absoluteness. Rejecting any dictatorship, one must not forget to reject the dictatorship of liberalism. You should really not care what the people choose. And therefore liberalism is not an expression of postmodernism. Postmodernism implies democratization, but not liberalization. For example, in K. Leontiev's philosophy, diversity (i.e. relativity) is associated with real dictatorship itself, and never with liberalization, which leads to the uniformity of all states and civilizations, remaking them under one Western standard. So the United States, embodying democracy, practices totalitarianism in the international arena when it invades foreign sovereign territories. So in any democratic country, a person has the right to defend not only the transition to free mores, but also the return to rigid religious dogmas. So S. Huntington was a greater postmodernist than F. Fukuyama. The first spoke about the growth of civilizational diversity in the world, and the second - about the liberal triumph and, therefore, the "end of history." So J. Rosenau understood the term "governance" in a postmodern way (as any management), and G. Stoker - in a liberal way (as a network management). So in Russia, postmodernism is rejected and modernist methods of imposition continue to be practiced. This was demonstrated by the example of de-Stalinization.

That's what postmodernism and democracy are. Distinguish real thinkers from ideologists who try to hide their liberalism under the guise of postmodernism. A real philosopher would never have become so uncritical and categorical about his views ... Hmm, maybe he would ...