What is liberal democracy. Liberal democracy: definition, essence, characteristics, shortcomings Countries in which liberal democracies were formulated

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 not particularly interested in the fact 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 lies 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 be so uncritical and categorical about his views ... Hmm, maybe he would ...

I was asked a question in the comments. Important, interesting.
Interviewees in such cases usually say the sacramental phrase: "Good question!".
The answer to it is terribly important for understanding contemporary political life.
Therefore, we are talking about the direction of development - ideological, political, social.
promising direction.

The question looks like this:

"Valery, I read a phrase in your profile that interested me: "...only on the path of uniting the democratic wing of the liberals and the liberal wing of the democrats ...", and I had a question to which I have no answer.
I understand what "illiberal democracy" is, I can imagine a democrat who is not a liberal. But I don’t understand what “non-democratic liberals” are, how a person can be a liberal, but not be a democrat at the same time - this is not clear to me.
Personally, I have always believed that a person who does not share the principles of democracy cannot be called a liberal, that this is nonsense."

In a nutshell, here's what I think about it:

Liberalism as an ideology is primarily opposed to etatism.
Etatism is for a state that is larger than a person.
Liberalism is for a person who is more important than the state.

The main idea and value of liberalism is individual freedom, a minimum of participation in the affairs of the state, a minimum of dependence on the state.
The state should be small, the intervention of state administration in human life should be minimal.
« Laissez faire, laissez passenger».

A person should have the right and opportunity to independently build his private life.
The state should not have the right to total control over all aspects of human life.

In general, the ideas of liberalism do not quite correctly understand the interaction between man and the state.
Liberalism in its purest form is never realized.
When trying to incarnate it, it kills itself, as it quickly leads to the polarization of citizens, the separation of a group of powerful citizens, which begins to limit freedoms in their own interests.

We are well aware of such a development of events and social institutions.
Gaidar was a supporter of radical liberalism.
Under Yeltsin, we experienced an attempt to implement it.
It ended under Putin. What we see now.
Everything is according to the scheme: citizens are polarized, the establishment is greedy, arrogant and cynical, the top has turned the space of civil rights and freedoms, etc.

In addition, freedom leads to the degradation of the state, while it is not an invention of the oppressors and not a political union.
The state is primarily a system of social activity, military and commercial.
Everyone will agree that the authorities should have full control over military activities.
Not everyone will agree that the trading system of society should also be completely controlled by the state.
However, if the trading system is not managed, it ceases to serve the interests of the civil union and begins to work for the interests of a handful of citizens.
What we saw in Russia.
Free trade led to the fact that the economy stopped working for the country.
Restoring the economic base of the state required the intervention of the authorities and the return of the state to the trade and economic system according to the etatist version.

Historically, liberalism got along well with a census republic or a census parliamentary monarchy.
That is, strictly speaking, the ideas of liberalism do not focus on the participation of the population in power.
Power is the state. And a liberal citizen wants to run away from the state.
The main political idea of ​​the first liberals is that the people have the right to overthrow the sovereign, who restricts his freedom and tries to make his power total.

Democracy is a refinement of liberalism on the same value base.
Freedom, free competition must be limited in the interests of proper development.
VThe authorities must regulate the entire spectrum of relations between citizens, since fundamental human rights are being violated.

Citizens must have equal opportunities, the interests of small groups and weak citizens must be protected.
To do this, you need to create institutions that restrict freedom.
They can be created only in the case of the general participation of citizens in government, in the government bodies of the state.
Only then will the government act not in the interests of a handful of nouveau riches and bureaucrats, but in the interests of all citizens.
Democratic restriction of freedom leads to the fact that freedom becomes available to small groups and weak citizens.

If in order to create a society of equal opportunities, the government needs to go into the economy, it should do it.
There is only one limitation - the state should serve the people, and not people should serve the state and submit entirely to its interests.

Democracy is a competitor to liberalism.

Democracy is an alternative to statism.

This is very important to understand.
Especially in Russia.

Our rulers understand this very well.
Putin compromised and removed from the political arena the Yabloko democrats and democratic liberals like Nemtsov.
Offering instead of pseudo-democrats, etatists "Fair Russia".
The authorities do not want a democratic alternative.
Because this is exactly what threatens the established order.

But the future of the development of the state of Russia is precisely in its true democratization:

The state must become a state of equal opportunities;
- nouveaux riches and bureaucrats should be put in their place and limited to general civil rights and opportunities;
- in the political system there should be a pair of competitors-employees, liberals and democrats;
- statist parties must leave the scene (nationalist parties have no political prospects today);
- The rights of small groups, social and political, must be democratically guaranteed.

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 of these rights are written into a piece of legislation such as the Constitution, or some other form of legal formation issued by a 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.

Flaws

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.

The concept, so often used in our time and therefore already familiar, was once an unthinkable and impossible phenomenon. And this is due solely to the fact that until the middle of the 19th century the ideas of liberalism and democracy were in some contradiction with each other. The main discrepancy was along the line of defining the object of protection of political rights. sought to provide equal rights not to all citizens, but mainly to owners and the aristocracy. A person who owns property is the basis of society, which must be protected from the arbitrariness of the monarch. The ideologists of democracy saw disenfranchisement as a form of enslavement. Democracy is the formation of power on the basis of the will of the majority, of the entire people. In 1835 Alexis de Tocqueville's Democracy in America was published. The model of liberal democracy he presented showed the possibility of building a society in which personal freedom, private property, and democracy itself could coexist.

Key Features of Liberal Democracy

Liberal democracy is a form of socio-political structure in which representative democracy is the basis for the rule of law. With this model, the individual is separated from society and the state, and the focus is on creating guarantees for individual freedom that can prevent any suppression of the individual by power.

The goal of liberal democracy is equal provision to everyone of the rights to freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, private property and personal inviolability. This political system, which recognizes the rule of law, the separation of powers, the protection of fundamental freedoms, necessarily implies the existence of an "open society". An "open society" is characterized by tolerance and pluralism, making possible the coexistence of the most diverse socio-political views. Elections held periodically provide an opportunity for each of the existing groups to gain power. A characteristic feature of liberal democracy that emphasizes freedom of choice is the fact that the political group in power is not required to share all aspects of liberal ideology. But regardless of the ideological views of the group, the principle of the rule of law remains unchanged.

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 a certain 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 a theory, doctrine, program and political practice Mushinsky V. Decree. op. 45..

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, penetrating only weakly into the depths of 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.

The main differences of the constitutions, not related to the content of individual articles:

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 post 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 Commentary on the Constitution of the Russian Federation / Ed. L.A. Okunkov. - M.: BEK, 2000. - S. 6 ..

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 constitution of Russia is made at the level of modern legal science and is a more carefully worked out document Chirkin V.E. Constitutional law of foreign countries. - M.: BEK, 2001. - S. 156 ..