home Health technologies Liberal concept of democracy. Liberal democracy: definition, characteristics, advantages and disadvantages

Liberal concept of democracy. Liberal democracy: definition, characteristics, advantages and disadvantages

Refers to “Personality and Society”

The philosophical essence of the concepts of democracy and liberalism, the inadequacy of these ideas, generated by subjective ideas, giving rise to terrifying collisions in the history of peoples, the way to solve social problems.

I hope that the article will not be a red rag for liberals and democrats who are faithful to the Idea, but will serve as a reason for rethinking many interesting social problems.

To date, there are many philosophical concepts in the world that are far from science, each of which claims to be the correct understanding of what society needs and what should be the basis of relationships. Of these, the two most popular today stand out: democracy and liberalism.

Democracyin its most general form postulates the power of the people. It remains to determine what is considered a people: whether everyone or only the dominant ethnic group (and immigrants, migrant workers, slaves and tourists are not considered) or only those who share the dominant religion of this ethnic group. Usually, the elderly and young children who have lost their minds are not taken into account ( At what age are we considered adults?)? But stupid and asocial people, far from any kind of government, and even criminals are considered quite a people who have the right to vote. As will become clear later, practically implemented democracies made one or another selectivity the main thing in determining who and how can be governed. But every society has its own characteristics and therefore it is not possible to apply a certain general template of democracy to everyone.

Liberalismin its most general form, it postulates the primacy of individual freedom. But there are definitely other individuals who will be harmed by this freedom. And there are limits to the extent to which one can allow oneself freedom, so that complete disunity of society does not arise, worse than any anarchy. It will become clear below how important these boundary conditions are and what they lead to in different cases.

Philosophy has never led to practical knowledge adequate to reality. The ancient Greek philosophy of the Olympian gods was then taken much more seriously than the philosophy of democracy. Power was considered the implementation of the will of the gods, there was a whole system of attitudes and ethics that took into account ideas about the gods of Olympus (and not only) so that entire groups of people found themselves in preference to one or another patron god. This religious philosophy and ethics was practically embodied in life, and in contrast to the futuristic ideas of democracy and liberalism.

As a result, none of these philosophical concepts turned out to be adequate to reality: in attempts of any kind of practical implementation, they clearly show their inferiority and unacceptability, their inability to solve social problems. It is similar to how in 5000 years of the history of mystical philosophy, not one of their mystical ideas has led to any practically useful result to the extent of taking them seriously.

The idea of democracy is no less ancient, and its first incarnation in Athens dates back half a century BC. But so far it has not given the promised fruits of the desired prosperity of society and is always accompanied by a variety of inhumane phenomena, which will be shown below using examples of implementation.

This happens because philosophical ideas- subjective models of personal ideas are always and literally in everything inadequate to reality, especially concrete, not fictitious reality, and require verification to correct errors. But such verification most often rejects most ideas from the subjectively produced ones, unless they are very well and carefully based on already reliably identified patterns of the real world.

In order to produce the idea of effective management of society, it is necessary to very well develop 1) an adequate reality of the current state of society with all its inherent cause-and-effect relationships, i.e. create a working, reality-tested model of society. In addition, it is equally necessary to 2) build a reliable model of personality that interacts with other personalities. Only after this will it become clear which path to follow in developing the most optimal management model. Neither the first nor the second exists today even in the outlines of a generally accepted theory. This already suggests that any philosophical (i.e., pre-scientific) concepts of managing society have no chance of being correct in any way.

When a famous politician (de mortuis aut bene, aut nihil) tells the people: “Take as much democracy as you can swallow,” what is this if not an anarchist call? And this is exactly what was proposed in Russia. We know the consequences.

But the worst thing about modern democracy is the absence of any moral and ethical standards. As, for example, we are told from the West: “You don’t have rights for gays, which means you are an undemocratic country.”

...How can one give the right, say, to a person who claims to communicate with aliens, to be given the opportunity to vote in elections, to drive a car, a tractor, an airplane?

Only one country has arrogated to itself the right (in a democratic way, of course) to decide who has democracy and who has little of it.

Democracy is now very selective. It comes to where there are geopolitical interests of the main democrats (rather, democrats) of the planet. Take, for example, unfortunate Libya. What were they told? That the government is a tyrant, that there are no cultures, but we will give you (videos with Sasha Grey, right?), that you generally live below the poverty line, although such a social system as it was under Gaddafi, God forbid everyone.

And it's the same in Iraq. There is a tyrant in power, there is no culture, there is no beer either (but there is oil), but you will have all this. After 13 years, beer has not appeared (Islam, after all), but there are terrorist attacks at least once a week in full force. Even though Saddam had his cockroaches, he kept order, but what else does the country need? Gay pride parades and films with Schwartz?

Democracy in modern world took on terrifying features. The tyranny of one country, with a jackal pack of hangers-on, dictating its will to those who are not allies. This is the destruction of the cultures and traditions of those who, not being their litter, want to live according to their own values. Of course, let men use Max Factor, marry each other (like women), raise their adopted children in their sodomist values, and also give away all their mineral resources, and territories to boot, for eternal use. After all, this is true democracy, right?..

Atilio Boron The truth about capitalist democracy

Now that more than a quarter of a century has passed since the beginning of the process of re-democratization of Latin America, the time has come to assess its defects and unfulfilled promises. Do capitalist democracies deserve the respect so often expressed to them? In these pages we are going to look at what democracy means and then, based on some reflections on the limits of democratization in a capitalist society, continue to explore the effectiveness of "real democracies"
Let me start with Lincoln's formula - democracy as the power of the people, by the will of the people, for the people. Today these sound like the words of an unbroken radical, especially in light of the political and ideological involution brought about by the rise of neoliberalism as the official ideology of global capitalism.
... It seemed possible for Schumpeter to decide “democratically” using his by example, whether Christians should be persecuted, witches sentenced to be burned, or Jews exterminated.
... If democracy is so reasonable and elementary, then why did its establishment and effective implementation cause such difficulties? Why are some organizational formats such as, for example, a capitalist company or Joint-Stock Company, were mastered without significant resistance after the establishment of the capitalist mode of production, while attempts to establish a “democratic form of government” in states led to wars, civil conflicts, revolutions, counter-revolutions and incessant massacres?
... What do political scientists mean when they use the word “democracy”? Democracy, which is based on slavery, as in Ancient Greece? Or that democracy that flourished in cities surrounded by the desert of feudal serfdom, and in which artisans and workers (popolo minuto) struggled to be more than a maneuvering mass under the rule of the oligarchic patriciate of Florence and Venice? Or perhaps the European democracies before the First World War, in which even men did not have voting rights, let alone women? Or so called. "Keynesian democracies" after World War II, characterized by what T. H. Marshall meant by social citizenship?

...After decades of dictatorial regimes accompanied by bloodshed, the social struggle of the masses brought Latin America back (or in some cases for the first time) to the first and most simple level of democratic development.
...capitalist society has everywhere proven its limitations and instability for building a strong democratic order.

American democracy and genocide in the Philippines

The US government with enviable regularity condemns the actions and teaches various countries a democratic way of life, but to achieve its goal it uses absolutely any means, including punitive operations and massacres. A clear example of this is the enslavement of the Filipino people during the aggressive colonial war of 1899-1902.

The United States of America decided to use the liberation war for its own purposes, which, during the uprising in April 1898, attacked Spain with the aim of seizing its colonies of Cuba, Puerto Rico and the Philippines. The Americans themselves admit that they needed “foreign resources.” Senator Albert Beveridge substantiated the claims in his speech: “Europe is producing more and more goods and will soon supply almost all its needs itself, receiving the lion's share of raw materials from its colonies. Where can we sell our surplus production? Geography provides the answer to this question. Our natural consumer is China... And the Philippines will serve as our stronghold at the gates of the East... Wars will now be fought primarily over sales markets. And the dominant position in the world will be occupied by the power that subjugates Pacific Ocean. Thanks to the Philippines, the American Republic has become and will forever remain such a power... God has made the Americans his chosen people.”

“Samosa, of course, is a scoundrel, but he is our scoundrel,” said President Lyndon Johnson about Nicaraguan dictator Anastasio Somoza Garcia. And the United States had quite a lot of such “scoundrels.” Against this background, all statements that Russia supports dictators in Syria, Libya, North Korea and other countries look at the very least hypocritical. In this article we will talk about several of the most cannibalistic regimes of the 20th century, which received military, financial and political support from the United States.

Michael Mann: "The Origins of Social Power" (in 4 volumes, Cambridge, 1986–2012)

I am pleased to present to the attention of the Russian reader my book “The Dark Side of Democracy”, which I hope will shed light on a very dark topic. Initially, I didn’t even think about dedicating a separate book to her. I realized the need for this in the process of writing another work, “Fascists,” which tells how the fascist movements gained strength in the period between the two world wars.

The Nazis were not the only ones responsible for the bloody ethnic cleansing of the Modern Age, nor was their example the most typical (since the Jews did not pose a threat to German society and did not demand the founding of their own state, unlike some other peoples). I began researching other examples of bloody purges; the result of this was the book you are holding in your hands.
... The word “democracy” we know comes from the Greek word demos, but by “democracy” they also understood the power of the people in a different meaning - ethnic group, ethnic group. Thus, the power of the people can also mean the power of a particular ethnic, linguistic or religious group over other groups. This book describes many movements that claim that their ethnic (religious, linguistic) group is the “true” people of the country, and that they themselves embody the “spirit” of the people.

These three examples highlight the dangers of democratization in divided nations. Once two hostile communities declare the creation of their own states, democratization becomes a threat to their politicized ethnic, religious or linguistic differences that have a regional basis.
... The most popular alternative to blaming an entire ethnic group is blaming elites, especially government elites. It is argued that evil deeds occur when people are controlled by evil, manipulative leaders. It is believed that democracy and the people strive for peace, while leaders and elites pose a greater danger. Civil society theory argues that democracy, peace and tolerance flourish when people are engaged in a dense network social relations provided by voluntary agencies and which protect them from manipulation by state elites (Putnam, 1993, 2000). This approach is naive. Radical ethnonationalists often succeed precisely because their social networks within civil society are denser and more easily mobilized than those of their more moderate rivals. This was true of the Nazis (see my book The Fascists, Chapter 4, and also Hagtvet, 1980; Koshar, 1986); as we will see below, this is also true of Serbian, Croatian and Hutu nationalists. Civil society can be evil.
... Democratic peace theory also argues that states based on popular representation are peaceful, rarely wage war, and almost never fight with each other (Doyle, 1983; see Barkawi & Laffey, 2001 for a critique). The roots of this theory lie in the liberal idea that if the people are given the opportunity to freely express their will, it will be the will for peace. As Rummel (1994: 1, 12-27; 1998: 1) writes, the more authoritarian a state is, the more likely it is to kill its own or other people’s citizens. “Power kills; absolute power kills absolutely,” he repeats like a mantra. This is certainly true, but we are talking about tautologies and. Regimes that kill a significant number of their citizens cannot be considered democratic, since they grossly violate the component of democracy that relates to civil liberties. However, Rummel believes that social peace is guaranteed by the electoral component of democracy; he believes that purge regimes come to power through authoritarian means rather than through free elections.

But the number of exceptions to this rule is alarming. Since the 17th century, European settlers were more likely to commit genocide if they lived under a constitutional government than under an authoritarian regime. Perhaps settler democracies are more correctly described as ethnocracies, that is, democracies for one ethnic group - this is how Yiftachel (1999) characterizes the current situation in Israel.

These days, the word “democracy” has gained unprecedented popularity. We are told about it from blue screens, on the radio, and, perhaps, it is impossible to find a single issue of a printed publication where this word has not appeared at least once. Moreover, in an exclusively positive sense. One gets the impression that democracy is the same indisputable and universally recognized good as oxygen, water and world peace.

For example, American Republican politician John McCain promises to forcefully introduce democracy in Russia, China and other countries. And our prominent Russian politicians, imitating their Western colleagues, promise, with the help of democracy, to build a bright future in our country, ensuring the prosperity of everyone and everything.
... There is a fairly widespread belief that there was democracy in Ancient Rome and Ancient Greece. But we can safely say that not only in these ancient states, but throughout its entire history, human history has not known a single state where the principle of democracy and democracy was actually implemented. When citing such examples, we should not forget that in these “democratic” states it was not the people who had the right to vote, but the so-called “citizens” - an elite stratum that made up an insignificant percentage of the bulk of the entire population, and the same slaves, like women, did not have the right to participate in elections.

As for Russia, it is generally accepted that democracy existed in Ancient Novgorod, but in Novgorod, too, for the most part only boyars voted, in other words, decisions were made by those few who had the right to vote.

In this regard, the question arises, “what kind of democracy are we talking about?” Where is the ideal to which the Americans and others like them are calling us? Where is this democracy?
...Manipulation of mass consciousness, as well as the work of various political strategists, is carried out according to certain scenarios, using the best practices social psychology, which you can easily read about on the Internet if you wish. These technologies have long been thoroughly studied.
The voter is manipulated with the help of modern political technologies, and the voter does not know for whom he is casting his vote.

And it has long been no secret that not a single candidate has ever stood in an election “without a penny in his pocket.” It is clear to everyone that behind each chosen candidate, be it a presidential candidate or a parliamentary candidate, there are certain structures that generously sponsor the election campaign, thereby ensuring the candidate’s loyalty in the future.

In other words, sponsors provide financial support for the election campaign of a candidate they are interested in, from which, with the help of the media, they create a beautiful image-picture using a certain technology. And it is for her that the electorate subsequently votes.
It turns out that so-called “democracy” is used by very specific people, structures, business communities, political associations, world structures, but certainly not by the people. The same people, by the way, are the main “PR managers” of democracy, with the help of which they do their business, resolve their political issues and satisfy their power ambitions. For these people, democracy is a brand that they impose on others in order to be able to receive various kinds of dividends.

And is it possible to talk about democratic elections while there are all sorts of political technologies comparable to the promotion of low-quality goods on the market with the help of aggressive advertising and the creation of false brands?
... A striking example of these shows is the US presidential election. It was quite funny to see

Americans literally crying with happiness after learning about the victory of “their” black guy Barack. In general, the American model of elections, which supposedly shows an example of democracy, can be rather imagined as a game of betting on a hippodrome, where all the spectators root for their “horse” and cry with happiness when he comes to the finish line first. It is impossible not to note the spectacle of American campaigns, in which a lot of money is invested. But, alas, this is just a show and a farce.
...a few simple analogies that clearly illustrate the absurdity of “democratic” elections: tell me who would like to go to sea cruise on a ship where the captain was elected from among the sailors by the passengers by voting on the basis of personal liking or attractive appearance? It is clear that no one would ever board such a ship.

About liberalism, practical results

The book by Anthony Arblaster, lecturer in politics at the University of Sheffield, is recommended to readers as the first major English study of liberalism in historical and critical-analytical terms. The pathos of the book lies in exposing the myth of liberalism as a “soft ideology.”
The first part (“Analysis of Liberalism”) is devoted to the philosophy and ethics of liberalism, the second (“Evolution of Liberalism”) to its history, the third (“The Fall of Liberalism”) to the current situation.
... preliminary clarification of the content of the term: what is it - an ideology, movement, party, politics, culture? As a specific organized political tendency, liberalism practically does not exist.
... For millions of people, liberalism is synonymous with hypocrisy or naivety, pharisaism or frivolity. “The word ‘liberal’ has become a dirty word, and before deciding whether this is fair, we must understand why this happened” (p. 4). In the West itself, the crisis has displaced liberal values and led many liberals to accept harsh domestic policy. Nevertheless, it is premature to write epitaphs for liberalism. The very strength of the aggressive reaction to liberalism speaks volumes about his life: dead doctrines do not provoke such rage.

Liberalism exists not as an organized political force: it is no longer needed, because at the political level its goals (in the West, at least) have already been achieved, but as an ethos, as a diffuse, often half-conscious and even more influential ideology. “The liberal worldview, the liberal worldview, and not the traditional conservative or revolutionary socialist one, dominates today in the West. But it is hidden under layers of various social, political or economic formulations... we have all, without realizing it, been breathing the air of liberalism for four centuries” (p. 6).
...The absence of an open and consistent program in modern liberalism is not, as liberals themselves believe, proof of their free thinking, but only reflects the depth and universality of liberal attitudes, that is, the strength of their ideology. But this strength has a weakness on the other side: having seeped into all ideologies, dissolved in everything, liberalism stands on the verge of life and death: it lives at such a depth into which the fresh air of open polemics does not penetrate. But liberalism does not have to die completely; It is in the interests of humanity to preserve some of its elements, and this requires its analytical dissection.
...Individualism can be considered the metaphysical and ontological core of liberalism, provided that it is grounded in the bourgeois individualist concept of man. The ontological dimension of liberal individualism is revealed in the perception of man as more real than society, its structures and institutions.
...the author formulates first a serious contradiction of the philosophy of liberalism is the uncritical unconditional acceptance of needs, strange for critical, doubting, skeptical thought. Liberalism does not ask why certain needs are formed and ignores the problem of socialization of the individual. Instead of a real changing person, educated, exposed to fashion, dependent on culture and history, taught and promoted, he sees the bearer of eternal and unchanging desires. Liberalism blindly believes that real human needs and those about which a person wants and has the opportunity to speak openly are one and the same, especially since a person always knows what he needs. “The Father of Liberalism,” John Stuart Mill, formulated the axiom: “Man knows what he needs better than any government” (quoted from: p. 30).
... second the knot of contradictions of the liberal worldview - respect for a person as a self-sufficient individual, as a goal, and not someone else's means, cannot be ontologically combined with the egoism of needs, the use of people as instruments for their satisfaction. Individualism, making a choice in favor their needs, as in Nietzsche and Stirner, ceases to be liberal.
... The values traditionally associated with liberalism have today become simply mandatory for every decent political movement. The liberal nature of these values is determined solely by their specific gravity in the general value structure and their place in the hierarchy.

Freedom is not a liberal, but a universal value, but in the liberal code it prevails over all others: “Freedom,” wrote Lord Acton (following Tocqueville), “is not a means to achieve a higher political goal: it itself is the highest political goal” (quote from: p. 58). The liberal content of the concept of “freedom” is determined by the answer to three questions: freedom from what, why, for whom?

Liberalism defines freedom negatively (see Hobbes “the absence of external restrictions” (quoted from: p. 56), from J. Berlin: “I am free to the extent that they do not interfere with my activities” (quoted from: p. 57) ), ignoring linguistic dilution freedom to do something and the strength (ability) to do something. And although most liberal philosophers admit that freedom without force is inactive, the meaning of freedom remains precisely in the absence of external prohibitions.
...The most vulnerable aspect of the liberal concept of freedom turned out to be its identification with other human values. As Iris Murdoch writes, “we all live according to Mill: freedom equals happiness, equals personality, but in reality we do not live like that” (quoted in: p. 65).
...The liberal value of tolerance, which directly follows from the attitude towards individual freedom, is one of the most difficult to realize. Mill also emphasized the difference between toleration of opinions and tolerance of deeds; the latter in liberal ideology and politics is sharply limited by a system of repression against dissidents.
... Freedom, privacy and tolerance appear in liberalism as ideal values, the implementation of which requires auxiliary values: laws and constitutions. These values determine the main political requirement of liberalism - control over the implementation of laws. Moreover, the object of control is - in complete contradiction with the ontology of liberalism - “fictitious” structures: the state is responsible to the nation, laws must serve the people, the constitution must be determined and controlled by society.

The main legal idea of liberalism - the idea of legality, the subordination of all state bodies to the law - raises a critical question about the sources of the law: after all, if there is no natural, divine, or moral norm, the law can only be a product of egoistic will and subjective opinion, as well as its interpretation and application.

Social theories can be divided into two classes, depending on whether they propose radical or, on the contrary, gradual methods of social transformation. On the other hand, such theories can be divided into those that give priority to collective values over individual ones, and those that place individual values above collective ones. Combining these two divisions, we get four main types of modern social theories: socialism, anarchism, conservatism and liberalism.

The main value and goal of liberalism is the realization of individual freedom. Other values - democracy, the rule of law, morality, etc. - are only means to achieve this freedom. The main method of liberalism is not so much creativity and the creation of new things, but rather the elimination of everything that threatens individual freedom or interferes with its development.
... Liberalism is an individualistic system, since the individual person comes to the fore, and the value of social groups or institutions is measured solely by the extent to which they protect the rights and interests of the individual and whether they contribute to the implementation of the goals of individual subjects.
... One of the main problems of liberalism is the relationship between man and government, combining the idea of equality and personal autonomy with the need for political power. If the individual is free and not obliged to submit to any personal despotic power, then to what power is he subject? Liberalism's answer to this is that the individual must obey only the law which is properly established and designed to govern men and restrain their impulses. As Voltaire aphoristically put it, “freedom consists in being independent of everything except the law.” ... But on the other hand, the law is a product of a strong-willed decision and often an expression of group, subjective interests. In the first case, obedience to the law is based on the conviction of its justice and its usefulness for social life. Under the second interpretation, obedience to the law is formal in nature and is explained by the fact that it is introduced by the authorities and has coercive force. The divergence between the two possible understandings of the law was one of the reasons for the crisis of liberalism at the beginning of this century, when, under the influence of positivism and socialism, the second interpretation of the law began to dominate.
... Liberalism's decisive rejection of the revolutionary path of transforming society echoes the idea of social engineering by K. Popper. Social engineering is a gradual, sequential or stage-by-stage transformation of society, with particular caution regarding the possible social consequences of the changes. Popper contrasts this method of transforming society with utopian engineering, to which Plato and Marx clearly gravitated and the essence of which is a radical and large-scale transformation of society but a single, pre-developed plan designed to create a perfect society. ... Popper's position at this point is clearly inconsistent. Social engineering is clearly unsuitable for realizing an ideal society. Moreover, to everyone who insists on a global reorganization of society, gradualism in its transformation will seem simply harmful. If you need to pull out a diseased tooth, then biting off a piece of it, even the most unusable one, means causing unnecessary pain to the patient. Popper seems to forget that almost all those who believed in building an ideal society were convinced that its establishment should occur in the near future, and demanded that we begin not with partial reforms, but with a deep social revolution. We may also recall that the bourgeois revolutions in these countries opened the way for the very method of stage-by-stage social engineering in Western European countries.

Classics about liberalism

The word liberalism has long lost all charm, although it comes from the wonderful word freedom. Freedom cannot captivate the masses. The masses do not trust freedom and do not know how to connect it with their vital interests. Truly, there is something aristocratic rather than democratic in freedom. This is a value dearer to the human minority than to the human majority, addressed primarily to the individual, to individuality. Liberalism has never triumphed in revolutions. He did not triumph not only in social, but also in political revolutions, because in all revolutions the masses rose up. The mass always has the pathos of equality, not freedom. And great revolutions have always been driven by the principle of equality, not freedom. The liberal spirit is not essentially a revolutionary spirit. Liberalism is the mood and worldview of cultural strata of society. There is no stormy element in it, no fire that ignites the heart; there is moderation and too much formality in it. The truth of liberalism is a formal truth. She says nothing positive or negative about the content of life; she would like to guarantee the individual any content of life. The liberal idea does not have the ability to turn into a semblance of religion and does not evoke feelings of a religious nature. This is the weakness of the liberal idea, but this is also its good side. Democratic, socialist, anarchist ideas claim to provide content human life; they easily turn into false religions and evoke attitudes of a religious nature. But this is where the lie of these ideas is rooted, for they have no spiritual content and there is nothing worthy of a religiously pathetic attitude. Attaching religious feelings to unworthy objects is a great lie and temptation. And we must admit that liberalism does not encourage this. The democratic idea is even more formal than the liberal idea, but it has the ability to present itself as the content of human life, as a special type of human life. And therefore, a poisonous temptation is hidden in it.

Fedor Mikhailovich Dostoevsky

Our Russian liberal is first and foremost a lackey and is only looking to clean someone's boots.

My liberal has gone so far as to deny Russia itself, that is, he hates and beats his mother. Every unfortunate and unfortunate Russian fact arouses laughter and almost delight in him. He hates folk customs, Russian history, everything. If there is an excuse for him, is it that he does not understand what he is doing, and mistakes his hatred of Russia for the most fruitful liberalism...
Lev Nikolaevich Tolstoy

The Liberal Party said that everything was bad in Russia, and indeed, Stepan Arkadyevich had a lot of debts, but there was a decided lack of money. The Liberal Party said that marriage was an outdated institution and that it was necessary to rebuild it, and indeed, family life gave little pleasure to Stepan Arkadyevich and forced him to lie and pretend, which was so contrary to his nature. The liberal party said, or, better, implied, that religion is only a bridle for the barbaric part of the population, and indeed, Stepan Arkadyevich could not endure even a short prayer service without pain in his legs and could not understand why all these terrible and pompous words about that world, when living in this would be very fun.
Anton Pavlovich Chekhov

I don’t believe in our intelligentsia, hypocritical, false, hysterical, ill-mannered, deceitful, I don’t even believe when it suffers and complains, because its oppressors come from its own depths.
Moderate liberalism: a dog needs freedom, but still it needs to be kept on a chain.

Nikolay Semyonovich Leskov

“If you are not with us, then you are a scoundrel!” According to the author of the article “To Study or Not to Study,” this is the slogan of today’s Russian liberals.

our liberals are ordering Russian society to immediately renounce everything that it believed in and that has grown into its nature. Reject authorities, do not strive for any ideals, do not have any religion (except for the notebooks of Feuerbach and Buchner), do not be embarrassed by any moral obligations, laugh at marriage, at sympathies, at spiritual purity, otherwise you are a “scoundrel”! If you are offended that they call you a scoundrel, well, in addition, you are also a “stupid fool and a trashy vulgar.”
Boris Nikolaevich Chicherin
The Russian liberal theoretically does not recognize any power. He wants to obey only the law that pleases him. The most necessary activity of the state seems to him to be oppression. He... sees a police official or a soldier on the street, and indignation boils within him. The Russian liberal comes out with a few big words: freedom, openness, public opinion..., merging with the people, etc., to which he knows no boundaries and which therefore remain platitudes, devoid of any significant content. That is why the most elementary concepts - obedience to the law, the need for police, the need for officials - seem to him to be the product of outrageous despotism...

Scientific approach

The idea of democratic governance is a type of principle of decentralized, distributed governance and is opposed to centralized governance or authoritarian government.

Even at its very core, it would be wrong to believe that a complex system of interaction in society can be built only on the basis of authoritarian or only on the basis of distributed control.

Extrapolating principles of individual and socialadaptive oh, you can come to models of the correct structure of society .

Conclusions in a popular presentation

Liberalism and democracy are philosophical abstract formations and they do not exist in nature, but they are called certain embodiments of political views. And what becomes important is not what these theories ideally embodied, but what was named by them, often simply because there is no more a suitable name: you decided to politicize your activities, you are thinking about what to call it. Fascism, communism, anarchism have compromised themselves and are considered evil, but for now democracy and liberalism are in fashion.

Previously, there was no popular word liberal and the cattle called themselves anarchists, they even made Makhnovist heroics out of it. And today Zhirinovsky is a democratic liberal, although he is absolutely not what Navalny or anyone else who calls himself a liberal is. The name becomes so conventional that it practically does not express anything, and only real deeds mean.

There is not and never has been in nature anything that could be clearly verified as democracy and liberalism, and one should not fall under the spell of the ideality of the image, but should look at the real manifestations of those who hang an opportunistic sign on themselves.

Only through the development of a common culture is it possible to achieve those idyllic values that liberals and democrats dream of.

Plan:

1 Structure of the socio-political structure
- 1.1 Politic system
- 1.2 Rights and freedoms
- 1.3 Terms
2 History
3 Liberal democracy in the world
- 3.1 Types of liberal democracies
- 3.2 Liberal democracy in Russia
4 Critical analysis
- 4.1 Advantages
- 4.2 Disadvantages

Introduction

Democracy
Values
Legality · Equality
Freedom · Human rights
Right to self-determination
Consensus Pluralism
Theory
Theory of democracy
Story
History of democracy
Russia · USA · Sweden
Varieties
Athens
Bourgeois
Imitation
Consociational
Liberal
Majoritarian
Parliamentary
Plebiscitary
Representative
Protective
Straight
Developmental
Socialist
Social
Sovereign
Christian
Electronic
Portal:Politics

Liberalism

Ideas
Liberty
Capitalism Market
Human rights
Rule of law
Social contract
Equality · Nation
Pluralism · Democracy
Internal currents
Libertarianism
Neoliberalism
Social liberalism
National liberalism

Liberal democracy is a form of socio-political structure - a legal state based on representative democracy, in which the will of the majority and the ability of elected representatives to exercise power are limited in the name of protecting the rights of the minority and the freedoms of individual citizens. Liberal democracy aims to provide every citizen with equal rights to due process, private property, privacy, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom of religion. These liberal rights are enshrined in higher laws (such as a constitution or statute, or in precedent decisions made by the highest judicial authorities), which, in turn, confer on various government and public bodies powers to ensure these rights.

A characteristic element of liberal democracy is an “open society”, characterized by tolerance, pluralism, coexistence and competition of the widest range of socio-political views. Through periodic elections, each of the groups holding different views has a chance to gain power. In practice, extremist or fringe viewpoints rarely play a significant role in the democratic process. However, the model open society makes it difficult for the ruling elite to maintain power, guarantees the possibility of a bloodless change of power and creates incentives for the government to respond flexibly to the needs of society.

In a liberal democracy, the political group in power does not have to subscribe to all aspects of the ideology of liberalism (for example, it may advocate democratic socialism). However, it is obliged to obey the above-mentioned principle of the rule of law. Term liberal in this case it is understood in the same way as in the era of bourgeois revolutions of the late 18th century: providing every person with protection from arbitrariness on the part of the authorities and law enforcement agencies.

1. Structure of the socio-political structure

1.1. Politic system

The democratic nature of government is enshrined in the fundamental laws and supreme precedent decisions that make up the constitution. The main purpose of the constitution is to limit the power of officials and law enforcement agencies, as well as the will of the majority. This is achieved with the help of a number of tools, the main ones of which are the rule of law, independent justice, separation of powers (by branches and at the territorial level) and a system of “checks and balances”, which ensures the accountability of some branches of government to others. Only such actions of government officials are lawful if they are carried out in accordance with the law published in writing and in due order.

Although liberal democracies include elements of direct democracy (referendums), the vast majority of supreme government decisions are made by the government. The policy of this government should depend only on representatives legislative branch and the head of the executive branch, which are established as a result of periodic elections. The subordination of the government to any unelected forces is not permitted. In the interval between elections, the government must operate in a mode of openness and transparency, and facts of corruption must be immediately made public.

One of the main provisions of liberal democracy is universal suffrage, which gives every adult citizen of the country an equal right to vote, regardless of race, gender, financial situation or education. The exercise of this right is usually associated with a certain registration procedure at the place of residence. Election results are determined only by those citizens who actually voted, but often turnout must exceed a certain threshold for the vote to be considered valid.

The most important task of electoral democracy is to ensure that elected representatives are accountable to the nation. Therefore, elections and referendums must be free, fair and honest. They must be preceded by free and fair competition between representatives of different political views, combined with equality of opportunity for election campaigns. In practice, political pluralism is determined by the presence of several (at least two) political parties that have significant power. The most important precondition for this pluralism is freedom of speech. The choices of the people must be free from the dominant influence of armies, foreign powers, totalitarian parties, religious hierarchies, economic oligarchies and any other powerful groups. Cultural, ethnic, religious and other minorities should have an acceptable level of opportunity to participate in decision-making, which is usually achieved by granting them partial self-government.

1.2. Rights and freedoms

The most frequently cited criteria for liberal democracy take the form of civil rights and liberties. Most of these freedoms were borrowed from various movements of liberalism, but acquired functional significance.

Right to life and personal dignity
freedom of speech
Freedom of the media and access to alternative sources of information
Freedom of religion and public expression of religious views
The right to associate in political, professional and other organizations
Freedom of assembly and open public debate
Academic freedom
Independent justice
Equality before the law
The right to due process under the rule of law
Immunity privacy and the right to personal privacy
The right to own property and private enterprise
Freedom of movement and choice of place of work
Right to education
The right to free work and freedom from excessive economic exploitation
Equality of opportunity

Some of these freedoms are limited to a certain extent. However, all restrictions must meet three conditions: they must be strictly in accordance with the law, pursue a righteous purpose, and must be necessary and adequate to achieve that purpose. Laws imposing restrictions should strive to be unambiguous and not allow for different interpretations. Among the legitimate goals are the protection of reputation, personal dignity, national security, public order, copyright, health and morals. Many restrictions are forced so that the rights of some citizens do not diminish the freedom of others.

It deserves special attention that people who fundamentally disagree with the doctrine of liberal democracy (including for cultural or religious reasons) have the same rights and freedoms as others. This follows from the concept of an open society, according to which the political system should be capable of self-change and evolution. Understanding the importance of this provision is relatively new in liberal democracy, and a number of its supporters still consider legal restrictions on the propaganda of any ideologies hostile to this regime to be legitimate.

1.3. Conditions

According to popular belief, a number of conditions must be met for liberal democracy to emerge. Such conditions include a developed justice system, legislative protection of private property, the presence of a broad middle class and a strong civil society.

Experience shows that free elections by themselves rarely ensure liberal democracy, and in practice often lead to “flawed” democracies, in which either some citizens are deprived of the right to vote, or elected representatives do not determine all government policy, or the executive branch subordinates the legislative and judicial, or the justice system is unable to ensure compliance with the principles laid down in the constitution. The latter is the most common problem.

The level of material well-being in a country is also unlikely to be a condition for a country's transition from an authoritarian regime to a liberal democracy, although research shows that this level plays a significant role in ensuring its sustainability.

There is a debate among political scientists about how sustainable liberal democracies are created. The most common two positions. According to the first of them, for the emergence of liberal democracy, a long-term split between the elites and the involvement of legal procedures, as well as broader sections of the population, in resolving conflicts is sufficient. The second position is that a long prehistory of the formation of democratic traditions, customs, institutions, etc. is necessary. of certain peoples.

2. History

Before mid-19th centuries, liberalism and democracy were in a certain contradiction with each other. For liberals, the basis of society was a person who has property, needs its protection, and for whom the choice between survival and the preservation of his civil rights cannot be acute. The implication was that only property owners participate in a social contract in which they give the government consent to rule in exchange for guarantees that their rights will be protected. On the contrary, democracy means the process of forming power based on the will of the majority, in which all people, including the poor.

From the Democratic point of view, depriving the poor of the right to vote and the opportunity to represent their interests in the legislative process was a form of enslavement. From the liberals' point of view, the "dictatorship of the mob" posed a threat to private property and the guarantee of individual freedom. These fears especially intensified after the Great French Revolution.

Alexis de Tocqueville

The turning point was Alexis de Tocqueville's Democracy in America (1835), in which he showed the possibility of a society where individual freedom and private property coexisted with democracy. According to Tocqueville, the key to the success of such a model, called “ liberal democracy“is equality of opportunity, and the most serious threat to it is the sluggish government intervention in the economy and its violation of civil liberties.

After the revolution of 1848 and the coup d'état of Napoleon III (in 1851), liberals increasingly began to recognize the need for democracy. Events have shown that without the participation of the broad masses in the social contract, the liberal regime turns out to be unstable, and the full implementation of the ideas of liberalism remains a utopia. At the same time, social democratic movements began to gain strength, denying the possibility of a fair society built on private property and a free market. From their point of view, full-fledged democracy, in which all citizens have equal access to all democratic institutions (elections, media, justice, etc.), could only be realized within the framework of socialism. However, having become convinced of the growth of the middle class, the majority of Social Democrats abandoned the revolution, decided to participate in the democratic process and seek legislative reforms with the aim of a smooth evolution towards socialism.

By the beginning of the 20th century, social democrats in Western countries had achieved significant success. Voting rights were significantly expanded and reforms were launched that increased the level of social protection of the population. These processes accelerated after October revolution 1917 in Russia. On the one hand, the revolution and the subsequent nationalization of private property greatly frightened right-wing (classical) liberals, who recognized the need to smooth out social contradictions and ensure equality of opportunity. On the other hand, socialists saw the Soviet regime as a threat to democracy and began to support stronger protections for the rights of minorities and individual citizens.

3. Liberal democracy in the world

██ free countries
██ partially free countries
██ unfree countries

States by their system of government
██ presidential republics
██ semi-parliamentary republics
██ semi-presidential republics
██ parliamentary republics
██ parliamentary constitutional monarchies
██ constitutional monarchies
██ absolute monarchies
██ one-party regimes
██ military dictatorships

Elected democracies by their system of government. According to Freedom House experts, in these countries a change of government through elections is possible.

A number of organizations and political scientists maintain ratings of the level of liberal democracy in countries around the world. Among these rankings, the most famous are the Polity Data Set, Freedom in the World, compiled by the American organization Freedom House, and the Economist Democracy Index.

3.1. Types of liberal democracies

The presence of liberal democracy is largely determined by the principles actually implemented and the compliance of the regime with the above criteria. For example, Canada is technically a monarchy, but is actually governed by a democratically elected parliament. In Great Britain, the hereditary monarch formally has the highest power, but in fact such power is vested in the people, through their elected representatives (there is also the opposite point of view that parliamentarism in Great Britain is just a screen for an absolute monarchy). The monarchy in these countries is largely symbolic.

There are many electoral systems for forming parliament, the most common of which are the majoritarian system and the proportional system. Under the majoritarian system, the territory is divided into districts, in each of which the mandate goes to the candidate who receives the majority of votes. Under a proportional system, seats in parliament are distributed in proportion to the number of votes cast for parties. In some countries, part of the parliament is formed according to one system, and part according to another.

Countries also differ in the method of forming the executive and legislative branches. In presidential republics, these branches are formed separately, which ensures a high degree of separation by function. In parliamentary republics, the executive branch is formed by the parliament and is partially dependent on it, which ensures a more even distribution of power between the branches.

The Scandinavian countries are social democracies. It's connected with high level social protection of the population, equality in living standards, free secondary education and healthcare, a significant public sector in the economy and high taxes. At the same time, in these countries the state does not interfere in pricing (even in the public sector, with the exception of monopolies), banks are private, and there are no obstacles to trade, including international trade; effective laws and transparent governments reliably protect the civil rights of people and the property of entrepreneurs.

3.2. Liberal democracy in Russia

Until 1905 in the autocratic Russian Empire The official ideology denied liberal democracy, although such ideas were popular among the educated part of society. After the publication of the Manifesto by Nicholas II on October 17, 1905, many essential elements of liberal democracy (such as popular representation, freedom of conscience, speech, unions, meetings, etc.) began to be integrated into the political system Russian state. Victory February Revolution 1917, which took place under democratic slogans, formally turned liberal democracy into the official ideology of the new political regime, but this regime turned out to be extremely unstable and was overthrown during the October Revolution of 1917. The Soviet political regime that was established after it denied the liberal democratic ideology, no longer “on the right”, as in autocratic, and “on the left”. The erosion and fall (the so-called “perestroika”) of the Soviet regime in Russia in the late 1980s and early 1990s had its origins mainly under liberal-democratic slogans. The core values and principles of liberal democracy are explicitly stated in the current Russian Constitution and have never been explicitly questioned by the official authorities of Russia in the post-Soviet period. However, there is a common view in the West that liberal democracy has never been realized in Russia. According to the Freedom in the World rating, the USSR in 1990-1991. and Russia in 1992-2004. were considered “partly free countries”, but since 2005 Russia has been included in the list of “not free countries”.

In Russia itself, part of the population mistakenly associates the doctrine of liberal democracy with the nationalist party LDPR. Democracy is generally supported, but most people prioritize social rights over political ones.

4. Critical analysis

4.1. Advantages

First of all, liberal democracy is based on the rule of law and universal equality before it. [ source not specified 221 days]

The publication, funded by the World Bank, argues that liberal democracy ensures government accountability to the nation. If the people are dissatisfied with government policies (due to corruption or excessive bureaucracy, attempts to circumvent laws, mistakes in economic policy etc.), then in the next elections the opposition has a high chance of winning. After she comes to power, the most reliable way to stay on is to avoid the mistakes of her predecessors (dismiss corrupt or ineffective officials, obey the laws, attract competent economists, etc.) Thus, according to the authors of the work, liberal democracy ennobles the desire for power and forces the government to work for the good of the nation. This ensures a relatively low level of corruption.

At the same time, a number of countries (Switzerland, Uruguay) and regions (California) actively use elements of direct democracy: referendums and plebiscites.

By allowing a minority to influence decision-making, liberal democracy ensures the protection of private property for the wealthy. [ source not specified 221 days] American author Alvin Powell argues that the most democratic countries in the world have the lowest levels of terrorism. This effect may even be spreading beyond the region: statistics show that since the late 1980s, when many countries in Eastern Europe embarked on the path of liberal democracy, total number military conflicts, ethnic wars, revolutions, etc. in the world have sharply decreased (English) [ not in the source] .

A number of researchers believe that these circumstances (especially economic freedom) contribute to economic recovery and an increase in the level of well-being of the entire population, expressed in GDP per capita. At the same time, despite high rates of economic growth, some liberal democratic countries are still relatively poor (for example, India, Costa Rica), while a number of authoritarian regimes, on the contrary, are thriving (Brunei).

According to a number of researchers, liberal democracies manage available resources more effectively when they are limited than authoritarian regimes. According to this view, liberal democracies are characterized by higher life expectancy and lower infant and maternal mortality, regardless of the level of GDP, income inequality, or the size of the public sector.

4.2. Flaws

Liberal democracy is a type of representative democracy, which has attracted criticism from supporters of direct democracy. They argue that in a representative democracy, the power of the majority is expressed too rarely - at the time of elections and referendums. Real power is concentrated in the hands of a very small group of representatives. From this point of view, liberal democracy is closer to an oligarchy, while the development of technology, the growth of people’s education and the increase in their involvement in the life of society create the preconditions for transferring more and more power into the hands of the people directly.

Marxists and anarchists completely deny that liberal democracy is democracy, calling it a “plutocracy.” They argue that in any bourgeois democracy, real power is concentrated in the hands of those who control financial flows. Only very wealthy citizens can afford to campaign politically and spread their platform through the media, so only the elite or those who make deals with the elite can be elected. Such a system legitimizes inequality and facilitates economic exploitation. In addition, critics continue, it creates the illusion of justice, so that the discontent of the masses does not lead to riots. At the same time, “stuffing” certain information can cause a predictable reaction, which leads to manipulation of the consciousness of the masses by the financial oligarchy. Supporters of liberal democracy consider this argument to be devoid of evidence: for example, the media rarely voice radical points of view because it is not interesting to the general public, and not because of censorship [ source not specified 766 days] . However, they agree that campaign finance is an essential element in the electoral system and that in some cases it should be public. For the same reason, many countries have public media that pursue a policy of pluralism.

In an effort to maintain power, elected representatives are primarily concerned with measures that will allow them to maintain a positive image in the eyes of voters in the next elections. Therefore, they give preference to decisions that will bring political dividends in the coming months and years, to the detriment of unpopular decisions, the effect of which will appear only in a few years. However, doubts have been expressed whether this is truly a disadvantage, since long-term forecasts are extremely difficult for society, and therefore an emphasis on short-term goals may be more effective.

On the other hand, to strengthen their voice, individual voters may support special lobbying groups. Such groups are able to obtain government subsidies and achieve solutions that serve their narrow interests, but do not serve the interests of society as a whole.

Libertarians and monarchists criticize liberal democracy because elected representatives frequently change laws without apparent need. This impedes the ability of citizens to comply with the law and creates opportunities for abuse by law enforcement agencies and officials. The complexity of legislation also leads to a slow and cumbersome bureaucratic machine.

There is a widespread belief that regimes with a high concentration of power are more effective in the event of war. It is argued that democracy requires a lengthy approval procedure; the people may object to the draft. At the same time, monarchies and dictatorships are able to quickly mobilize the necessary resources. However, the latter statement often contradicts the facts. In addition, the situation changes significantly if there are allies. Certainty in foreign policy leads to a greater effectiveness of military alliances between democratic regimes than between authoritarian ones.

2 History 3 Liberal democracy in the world

3.1 Types of liberal democracies 3.2 Liberal democracy in Russia 4 Critical analysis

4.1 Advantages 4.2 Disadvantages

Notes

Introduction

Democracy
Values
Legality · Equality
Freedom · Human rights
Right to self-determination
Consensus Pluralism
Theory
Theory of democracy
Story
History of democracy
Russia · USA · Sweden
Varieties
Athens
Bourgeois
Imitation
Consociational
Liberal
Majoritarian
Parliamentary
Plebiscitary
Representative
Protective

Developmental
Socialist
Social
Sovereign
Christian
Electronic
Portal:Politics

Liberalism

Ideas

Capitalism Market
Human rights
Rule of law
Social contract
Equality · Nation
Pluralism · Democracy
Internal currents
Libertarianism
Neoliberalism
Social liberalism
National liberalism

Liberal democracy is a form of socio-political structure - a legal state based on representative democracy, in which the will of the majority and the ability of elected representatives to exercise power are limited in the name of protecting the rights of the minority and the freedoms of individual citizens. Liberal democracy aims to provide every citizen with equal rights to due process, private property, privacy, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom of religion. These liberal rights are enshrined in higher laws (such as a constitution or statute, or in precedent decisions made by the highest courts), which, in turn, empower various government and public bodies to ensure these rights.

A characteristic element of liberal democracy is an “open society”, characterized by tolerance, pluralism, coexistence and competition of the widest range of socio-political views. Through periodic elections, each of the groups holding different views has a chance to gain power. In practice, extremist or fringe viewpoints rarely play a significant role in the democratic process. However, the open society model makes it difficult for the ruling elite to maintain power, guarantees the possibility of a bloodless change of power and creates incentives for the government to respond flexibly to the needs of society.

1. Structure of the socio-political structure

1.1. Politic system

One of the main provisions of liberal democracy is universal suffrage, which gives every adult citizen of the country an equal right to vote, regardless of race, gender, wealth or education. The exercise of this right is usually associated with a certain registration procedure at the place of residence. Election results are determined only by those citizens who actually voted, but often turnout must exceed a certain threshold for the vote to be considered valid.

1.2. Rights and freedoms

Right to life and personal dignity Freedom of speech Freedom of the media and access to alternative sources of information Freedom of religion and public expression of religious views The right to associate in political, professional and other organizations Freedom of assembly and open public debate Academic freedom Independent justice Equality before the law Law to due process of law under the rule of law Privacy and the right to personal secrecy The right to own property and to private enterprise Freedom of movement and choice of place of work The right to education The right to free work and freedom from undue economic exploitation Equality of opportunity

Some of these freedoms are limited to a certain extent. However, all restrictions must meet three conditions: they must be strictly in accordance with the law, pursue a righteous purpose, and must be necessary and adequate to achieve that purpose. Laws imposing restrictions should strive to be unambiguous and not open to differing interpretations. Legitimate purposes include the protection of reputation, personal dignity, national security, public order, copyright, health and morals. Many restrictions are forced so that the rights of some citizens do not diminish the freedom of others.

1.3. Conditions

Experience shows that free elections by themselves rarely ensure liberal democracy, and in practice often lead to “flawed” democracies in which either some citizens are deprived of the right to vote, or elected representatives do not determine all government policy, or the executive branch subordinates the legislative and judicial, or the justice system is unable to ensure compliance with the principles laid down in the constitution. The latter is the most common problem.

2. History

Until the middle of the 19th century, liberalism and democracy were in a certain contradiction with each other. For liberals, the basis of society was a person who has property, needs its protection, and for whom the choice between survival and the preservation of his civil rights cannot be acute. The implication was that only property owners participate in a social contract in which they give the government consent to rule in exchange for guarantees that their rights will be protected. On the contrary, democracy means the process of forming power based on the will of the majority, in which all people, including the poor.

Social protection" href="/text/category/zashita_sotcialmznaya/" rel="bookmark">social protection of the population. These processes accelerated after the October Revolution of 1917 in Russia. On the one hand, the revolution and the subsequent nationalization of private property greatly frightened right-wing (classical) liberals, who recognized the need to smooth out social contradictions and ensure equality of opportunity.On the other hand, socialists saw the Soviet regime as a threat to democracy and began to support strengthening the protection of the rights of minorities and individual citizens.

3. Liberal democracy in the world

http://*****/1_-34012.wpic" width="350" height="178 src=">

States by their system of government
-- presidential republics
-- semi-parliamentary republics
-- semi-presidential republics
-- parliamentary republics
-- parliamentary constitutional monarchies
-- constitutional monarchies
-- absolute monarchies
-- one-party regimes
-- military dictatorships

Public sector" href="/text/category/gosudarstvennij_sektor/" rel="bookmark">public sector in the economy and high taxes. However, in these countries the state does not interfere in pricing (even in the public sector, with the exception of monopolies), banks are private, and there are no barriers to trade, including international trade; effective laws and transparent governments reliably protect the civil rights of people and the property of entrepreneurs.

3.2. Liberal democracy in Russia

Until 1905, in the autocratic Russian Empire, the official ideology rejected liberal democracy, although such ideas were popular among the educated part of society. After the publication of the Manifesto by Nicholas II on October 17, 1905, many essential elements of liberal democracy (such as popular representation, freedom of conscience, speech, unions, meetings, etc.) began to be integrated into the political system of the Russian state. The victory of the February Revolution of 1917, which took place under democratic slogans, formally turned liberal democracy into the official ideology of the new political regime, but this regime turned out to be extremely unstable and was overthrown during the October Revolution of 1917. The Soviet political regime established after it denied the liberal democratic ideology , no longer “on the right,” as in the autocratic, but “on the left.” The erosion and fall (the so-called “perestroika”) of the Soviet regime in Russia in the late 1980s and early 1990s had its origins mainly under liberal-democratic slogans. The core values and principles of liberal democracy are explicitly stated in the current Russian Constitution and have never been explicitly questioned by the official authorities of Russia in the post-Soviet period. However, there is a common view in the West that liberal democracy has never been realized in Russia. According to the Freedom in the World rating, the USSR in 1990-1991. and Russia in 1992-2004. were considered “partly free countries”, but since 2005 Russia has been included in the list of “not free countries”.

In Russia itself, part of the population mistakenly associates the doctrine of liberal democracy with the nationalist LDPR party. Democracy is generally supported, but most people prioritize social rights over political ones.

4. Critical analysis

4.1. Advantages

First of all, liberal democracy is based on the rule of law and universal equality before it.[ sourceNotindicated 221 day]

The publication, funded by the World Bank, argues that liberal democracy ensures government accountability to the nation. If the people are dissatisfied with the government's policies (due to corruption or excessive bureaucracy, attempts to circumvent laws, errors in economic policy, etc.), then in the next elections the opposition has a high chance of winning. After she comes to power, the most reliable way to stay on is to avoid the mistakes of her predecessors (dismiss corrupt or ineffective officials, obey the laws, attract competent economists, etc.) Thus, according to the authors of the work, liberal democracy ennobles the desire for power and forces the government to work for the good of the nation. This ensures a relatively low level of corruption.

At the same time, a number of countries (Switzerland, Uruguay) and regions (California) actively use elements of direct democracy: referendums and plebiscites.

By allowing a minority to influence decision-making, liberal democracy ensures the protection of private property for the wealthy.[ sourceNotindicated 221 day] American author Alvin Powell argues that the most democratic countries in the world have the lowest levels of terrorism. This effect may even extend beyond the region: statistics show that since the late 1980s, when many countries in Eastern Europe embarked on the path of liberal democracy, the total number of military conflicts, ethnic wars, revolutions, etc. in the world decreased sharply (English)[ not in the source].

4.2. Flaws

Marxists and anarchists completely deny that liberal democracy is democracy, calling it a “plutocracy.” They argue that in any bourgeois democracy, real power is concentrated in the hands of those who control financial flows. Only very wealthy citizens can afford to campaign politically and spread their platform through the media, so only the elite or those who make deals with the elite can be elected. Such a system legitimizes inequality and facilitates economic exploitation. In addition, critics continue, it creates the illusion of justice, so that the discontent of the masses does not lead to riots. At the same time, “stuffing” certain information can cause a predictable reaction, which leads to manipulation of the consciousness of the masses by the financial oligarchy. Supporters of liberal democracy consider this argument to be devoid of evidence: for example, the media rarely voice radical points of view because it is not interesting to the general public, and not because of censorship[ sourceNotindicated 766 days]. However, they agree that campaign finance is an essential element in the electoral system and that in some cases it should be public. For the same reason, many countries have public media that pursue a policy of pluralism.

There is a widespread belief that regimes with a high concentration of power are more effective in the event of war. It is argued that democracy requires a lengthy approval procedure; the people may object to the draft. At the same time, monarchies and dictatorships are able to quickly mobilize the necessary resources. However, the latter statement often contradicts the facts. In addition, the situation changes significantly if there are allies. Certainty in foreign policy leads to greater effectiveness of military alliances between democratic regimes than between authoritarian ones.

Liberal democracy is a form of political order that has two fundamental qualities. The government is "liberal" in terms of the core values that underlie a given political system, and "democratic" in terms of shaping its political structure.

The key values associated with the liberal democratic political system go back to traditional liberal ideas about limiting power and are designed to ensure the existence of a wide range of civil and human rights. The above can be guaranteed by such instruments as a constitution, a bill of rights, the principle of separation of powers, a system of checks and balances, and most importantly, the principle of the rule of law.

The functioning of a democratic political system reflects the will of the people (at least the majority of them). Social consent within a liberal democratic political system is ensured through representation: liberal democracy (sometimes also defined as representative) involves a small group of people making political decisions on behalf of all citizens of the country.

Those who assume such duties and responsibilities act with the consent of the citizens and rule on their behalf. Meanwhile, the right to make decisions is conditional on the presence of public support, and it can be denied in the absence of approval of the government’s actions from the population to which the government is accountable. In this case, citizens deprive their elected representatives of the right to exercise power and transfer them into the hands of other persons.

Thus, elections, during which the will of the population is manifested regarding the actions and personal composition of government bodies, is a fundamental function of liberal democracy. The electoral system gives all adult citizens of the country the right to vote, ensures regular elections and open competition between political parties vying for power.

The liberal democratic political system is primarily associated with first world countries with a capitalist economic system.

The decline of communist ideology at the end of the 20th – beginning of the 21st centuries. Left and right radical forces.

According to the Italian researcher N. Bobbio, not a single doctrine or movement can be both right and left; exhaustive in the sense that, at least in the accepted meaning of this pair, a doctrine or movement can only be either right or left"

A strict distinction between ideologies and their carriers (parties, movements) into two camps according to similar features leads to the leveling of deeper differences that do not lie on the surface and are hidden from analysis. Ignoring the historical context can lead not only to terminological confusion, but also to incorrect conclusions regarding the relativity of “leftism” or “rightism” of a particular political movement or party, since in different historical conditions the right and left often change places at the poles of the continuum. Therefore, Operating with the “left-right” continuum, it is necessary to consider certain forces that are in the process of interaction at the poles of the political axis historically (i.e., consider the given position of political forces on the axes as a special case of the general historical process).

In our case, this means that the contradiction between left and right forces at one or another stage of historical development is “removed” through deep social changes in society, which leads to the transfer of this contradiction to a qualitatively new stage interactions.

At this stage, not only the social base of the poles of contradiction changes, but certain ideological constructs designed to reflect the social position of the left and right.

The left began to be considered the champions of social change (in a broad sense: both reform and revolution) and democracy, and the right was associated with the reaction of the subjects of a traditional society receding into history. The left, as bearers of the new “spirit of the times”, through revolutionary changes set the structure and content of the political system, the main element of which was the National Assembly. The right, in order not to be thrown out of the political process, had to join this system as equals, which for them was already a definite concession to the left democrats.

As a historical phenomenon, the “left-right” continuum had a certain logic and direction of development.

Over time, qualitative changes occur on the flags of the continuum, both in the social base of the opposing camps and in ideology. Socialists took on board the values of equality (primarily economic equality) and solidarity. The social base of the left is gradually changing: its core is becoming a fairly large proletariat. But at the same time, the big and middle bourgeoisie become the social support of right-wing parties and movements, where these classes actually consolidate with various elements progressive aristocracy, which had assimilated the basic economic and political principles of liberalism: “in the first half of the 20th century, in each of the camps there were already five or six movements: anarchism, communism, left socialism, social reformism, non-socialist radicalism (left liberalism), social Christianity - in the left; reactionary and moderate conservatism, right-wing liberalism, Christian democracy, nationalism and, finally, fascism - in the right" [Internal differentiation of the flanks of the continuum led to a more complex system of ideologies, which was no longer limited to the "either-or" choice, thereby creating the opportunity for searching for a compromise between the left and right camps. In such a situation, the flanks themselves became a kind of continuum, the poles of which determined either the degree of moderation and readiness to compromise, or the degree of radicalism, mainly understood as the inability to sacrifice the basic ideological principles and interests of representatives of their social base.

The expanding space of dialogue, and sometimes cooperation, between the most moderate representatives of the “left-right” continuum formed the sphere of the political “center”, as a field of pragmatic politics: “the centrist is committed to ensuring that the extremes, the poles in our life become reconciled, he is looking for a mechanism for such reconciliation and complementarity of the parties. If class-antagonistic thinking puts class interest before the public, and social interest before the universal, then the centrist reverses it.

Thus, the “left-right” continuum in the political-ideological space Western Europe It is already becoming a three-member structure, where the poles of the political spectrum, one way or another, are forced to shift towards each other, forming a space for political dialogue - the center. Since the 70s of the last century, European parties have been faced with problems of a completely new significance. Previously, for party structures to be most successful within the political process, it was enough for them to be able to identify themselves ideologically by identifying themselves either with the left or the right pole of the political spectrum. This was possible, since the boundaries of the social base of the parties were quite clear and static. In the new conditions, parties actually lose traditional means of control over their voters, since the boundaries between potential groups of the electorate are blurred, and they themselves social groups become objects not so much of party ideology as of other agents of political socialization: public organizations, trade unions, various informal associations, mass media, various subcultures, etc.

The individual, as a potential object of party indoctrination, acquires a certain negative freedom in relation to traditional connections with the social environment or a large reference group in politics - a political party.

The English sociologist Z. Bauman, analyzing the latest trends in Western society, comes to the conclusion that man has completely lost the ability to control social development and thereby took its spontaneity and uncontrollability for granted and found himself in the most significant uncertainty in history. According to Bauman, this led “to the paralysis of political will; to the loss of faith that something significant can be achieved collectively, and that joint actions can bring decisive changes to the state of human affairs.” The isolation of a person into himself, into the sphere of personal social activity, according to the sociologist, leads to the fact that “social” colonized by the “private”; “Public interest” degenerates into curiosity about private life.” public figures”, and “social problems” that cannot be subjected to such a reduction completely cease to be understandable” for the individual.

It is natural that in such a society, not only the role of parties as agents of political socialization, offering ready-made rules, changes political participation, but also party ideologies that present ready-made projects for resolving social problems that have no longer been perceived by the individual. Modern trends in socio-political development have led to the fact that the leading European parties, both left and right, are forced within the framework of European party systems, essentially while in power, or directly influencing the course of the political process, to pursue the same policies . Within the framework of this policy, the doctrinal differences between the parties are reduced only to maintaining a balance between social justice, mainly understood as the expansion of budget expenditures on social sphere, and economic growth.

In this regard, the question arises about the adequacy in the applicability of the “left-right” continuum as a tool for analyzing and classifying party ideologies and types of political practice, as well as as a way of self-identification of European parties themselves. It is obvious that in the conditions of de-ideologization of politics at the level of party programs, which are more focused on a pragmatic approach to the exercise of power, the “left-right” continuum, as an instrument with a strictly defined coordinate system, cannot fully reflect the entire range of party doctrines and related nim types of party politics. This, in turn, creates a need to supplement the two-dimensional continuum dimension with new coordinates. Within the framework of this scheme, parties that are supporters of “freedom” in the political and ideological sphere are differentiated according to the criterion of “equality-inequality” into the left or the right center. At the same time, advocates of “authoritarianism” in the exercise of power are classified as left and right radicals

At the same time, many radical leftists can be great champions of freedom in ideological terms, but at the same time, in terms of exercising power, they can be quite authoritarian. Likewise, the right can be quite radical in its ideological guidelines, but at the same time adhere to non-authoritarian methods of exercising power (Le Pen’s National Front) and recognize democratic norms and procedures. Taking this into account, we can conclude that the categories “freedom” and “authoritarianism” themselves are poorly correlated with each other. The category “equality,” as Kholodkovsky correctly notes, referring to S. Olla: “can no longer be considered an essential criterion for distinguishing between left and right, because today it is not so much abstract equality that is being debated, but rather the relationship between equality of rights and equality of opportunity, and even left they prefer the term “justice”

inadequacy in the application of the classical “left-center-right” model in the conditions of “socialized capitalism” and globalization, the author proposes to classify parties and political movements into two large camps: system camp and anti-system camp.

The systemic camp includes both left and right, that is, these are the political forces that are ready, with certain reservations, to recognize existing system“socialized capitalism” that had developed by the 90s of the 20th century, and perceive modern type globalization as objective, natural process. According to the author, this camp includes: “parties of the liberal-conservative sense, together with purely clerical parties leaving the political arena, and the Social Democrats with the reforming communists gravitating towards them, and most of the environmental camp, which found itself in the coalition governments of a number of states. At the same time, within the framework of the systemic camp, the researcher identifies two poles: the first pole - economic systemists - are those right-wing parties and movements that defend the values of the market and the primacy of economic growth over social redistribution, but in a global aspect (here the author includes liberals, conservatives, demo-Christians ); the second pole is the left wing of the system camp, or socio-ecosystemists, “who defend the priorities of socio-ecological development within the framework of the new system.” This group includes various social democratic, socialist and environmental parties in Europe, such as the SPD, PDS (Party of Democratic Socialism) in Germany, the FSP in France, the Bloc of Left Democrats in Italy, the Greek PASOK, etc.

The anti-system camp looks more motley. In ideological terms, its representatives at the levels of political parties and movements advocate anti-globalist positions. Its right wing is formed by representatives of nationalist parties who negatively assess the socio-economic problems within their states caused by globalization processes. First of all, these are issues of illegal emigration, national and religious tolerance in an increasingly internationalized community European countries. The “National Front” in France can be attributed to this pole. The left wing of the anti-system camp consists, first of all, of Trotskyist parties and movements that stand on the principles of internationalism and the fight against “imperialism” and “global capital.”

This classification scheme proposed by Schweitzer also suffers from a number of shortcomings. Firstly, it is limited in its application. It is obvious that the leftist organizations of the Central and of Eastern Europe (Socialist Party Serbia; Communist Party Czech Republic and Moravia), which until recently were ruling in their countries, but are now actually “stuck” in the process of evolution from communist orthodoxy to the model of Western European social democracy. The consequence of this problem is ideological eclecticism, sometimes expressed in the form of nationalistic, conservative elements of the doctrines of these parties, which is not typical for representatives of the left.

But, nevertheless, the “left-right” binary opposition in the form of a struggle of opposites is actively used both in theory and in practice, since politics itself encourages this: “political opposition is the most intense, the most extreme, and every concrete opposition is political opposition” That is why the political interaction of left and right is still an instrument for the political classification of parties and movements, despite their internal changes during the historical process.

Diversity of civil society organizations.

Many scholars of the new democracies that have emerged in the last fifteen years have emphasized the importance of a strong and active civil society for strengthening democracy. Speaking about former communist countries, both scientists and adherents of democracy express regret that in them the tradition of social activity did not develop or was interrupted, which is why passive attitudes became widespread; When solving any problems, citizens rely only on the state. Those concerned about the weakness of civil society in developing or post-communist countries typically look to developed Western democracies, most notably the United States, as a role model. However, there is compelling evidence that the vitality of American civil society has declined markedly over the past few decades.

Since the publication of Alexis Tocqueville's On Democracy in America, the United States has become a major focus of research examining the links between democracy and civil society. This is largely due to the fact that any new trends in American life are perceived as harbingers of social renewal, but mainly this occurs due to the prevailing belief that the level of development of civil society in America has traditionally been unusually high (as we will see later, such a reputation is completely justified) .

Tocqueville, who visited the United States in the 1930s, was most struck by the Americans' penchant for uniting in civil associations, in which he saw the main reason for this country's unprecedented success in creating an effective democracy. All the Americans he met, regardless of their “age, social status and character,” belonged to various associations. Further, Tocqueville notes: “And not only in commercial and industrial ones - their members are almost the entire adult population - but also in a thousand others - religious and moral, serious and trivial, open to everyone and very closed, infinitely huge and very tiny... "Nothing, in my opinion, deserves more attention than the intellectual and moral associations in America."

IN Lately American sociologists The neo-Tocqueville school has collected a large amount of empirical evidence indicating that the state of society and the functioning of public institutions (and not only in America) indeed depend to a large extent on the norms and structures of citizen participation in public life. Researchers have found that interventions aimed at reducing urban poverty, reducing unemployment, combating crime and drug abuse, and promoting education and health care produce better results where community organizations and civil society institutions exist. Similarly, an analysis of the economic achievements of various ethnic groups in the United States has shown that economic success depends on the presence of social connections within the group. These data are fully consistent with the results of studies conducted in various background conditions, which have convincingly proven that in the fight against unemployment and solving many other economic problems social structures play a decisive role.

Exists in many countries. Liberal are those ways and methods of exercising power that are based on a system of the most democratic and humanistic principles. In the sphere of relations between the individual and the state, a person has property, rights and freedoms, and is economically independent. In relation to the individual and the state, priority remains with the interests, rights, and freedoms of the individual.

The liberal regime defends the value of individualism and is determined by the needs of the commodity-money, market organization of the economy. The state proclaims the formal equality of all citizens, freedom of speech, opinions, and forms of ownership. Individual rights and freedoms are not only enshrined in the constitution, but also become enforceable in practice.

The economic basis of liberalism is private property. The state does not interfere in economic life people, acts as an arbiter in resolving disputes between them.

The liberal regime allows the existence of an opposition; the state takes all measures to ensure the existence of an opposition representing the interests of a minority and takes these interests into account.

Pluralism and multi-party system are necessary attributes of a liberal society.

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 the parties necessary to conduct the election campaign. Public administration is carried out on the basis of the principle of separation of powers. A system of checks and balances helps reduce opportunities for abuse of power. Decentralization is used in public administration: the central government takes upon itself to resolve only those issues that the local government cannot resolve.

Flaws liberal regime:

social protection of certain categories of citizens, stratification of society, actual inequality of starting opportunities. The use of this regime becomes possible 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, and legal culture.

2. humanistic regime– preserves all the values of the liberal democratic regime, continues and strengthens its tendencies, eliminating its shortcomings. Its legal form is not focused on the individual in general, but on ensuring health, safety, welfare, specific social protection, and support.

Main principle humanistic regime - man is the end, not the means. High social and legal security, affirmation of the value of every human life - these obligations of the state lie in the practical activities of all government bodies.

Matuzov and Malko also distinguish presidential and parliamentary regimes as types of democratic regime.

The meaning and content of the idea of the rule of law among some thinkers often differed from the meaning and content of other thinkers and statesmen. If for some the idea of the rule of law was ultimately associated with private property, the wealth of certain classes and strata, with the use of other people's labor in various forms, then for others everything looked the other way around.

The beginnings of the theory of the rule of law in the form of ideas of humanism can be traced back to the reasoning of the advanced people of their time in Ancient Greece, Rome, India, China and other countries of the Ancient World.

Even in Plato’s dialogues, the idea was expressed that where “the law has force and is under someone’s authority,” the “imminent destruction of the state” is inevitable. “Accordingly, where laws are established in the interests of several people, we are not talking about the state structure, but only about internal strife.”

Expressing his attitude to state power, law and law, Aristotle constantly pursued the idea that “ruling not only by right, but also contrary to law, cannot be a matter of law; the desire for violent submission, of course, contradicts the idea of law.” Where there is no rule of law, there is no place for the form of government. The law must rule over everything.

Very important was the legal principle formulated by Cicero, according to which “all, and not just some, elected citizens must fall under the law.” The position he developed turned out to be important, according to which any law should be characterized by the desire to at least “convince of something, and not force everything by force and threats.”

Humanistic motives, ideas of spiritual freedom of all people, regardless of their occupation and position in society, sounded in numerous treatises of Seneca. All people, according to the teachings of Seneca, are equal to each other in the sense that they are “fellow slaves”, equally under the power of fate.

Similar philanthropic motives developed in China, where the idea was that “order should reign in the state,” based on the law. It was argued that the sovereign, if he wants to remain safe for the rest of his life, must be fair, and “the government of the country must correspond to tranquility.” You cannot impose order by force, because the country is governed by justice.

The state-legal views and ideas of the leading thinkers of that time became the fundamental basis for the subsequent process of development of humanistic views and ideas, which later formed the foundation of the theory of the rule of law. The process of creating this concept of the rule of law was still far from complete completion.

Much for the development of the theory of the rule of law was done by thinkers of the 18th -20th centuries. A number of positions were developed by such thinkers as Locke, Montesquieu, Radishchev, Herzen and others. The philosophical foundations of the theory of the rule of law were created and developed by Kant, who pointed out the need for the state to rely on the law, strictly coordinate its actions with the law, and constantly focus on the law. The state, according to Kant, acts as an association of many people, subject to legal laws, where the principle applies that the legislator cannot decide about the people what the people cannot decide about themselves. If the state deviates from this principle, then it risks losing the respect and trust of citizens and encourages them to take a position of alienation towards themselves. Kant's teaching had a huge impact on the subsequent development of the concept of the rule of law. Under the influence of his ideas, a representative movement was formed in Germany, among whose supporters were Mohl, Welker, Gneist and others.

The phrase “rule of law” first appears in the works of the German scholars Welker and Freiherr von Arenthin (1824). But the first legal analysis of this term and its introduction into scientific circulation was made by their compatriot Robert von Mohl. He considered the rule of law as a category of continuously developing doctrine about the state and placed it fifth after the patriarchal, patrimonial, theocratic and despotic states.

The idea of the rule of law has found significant coverage and development in the works of modern Western lawyers, political scientists, and sociologists. In direct, and more often indirect form, it is enshrined in the current legislation of a number of Western countries (Spain, Germany). The idea of the rule of law was indirectly reinforced in the constitutions of Austria, Greece, Italy and a number of other states.

The ideas of a rule of law state have occupied the minds of not only foreign but also domestic legal scholars for a long time (Kotlyarovsky, Korkunov, Kistyakovsky, Mikhailovsky). Very important from the point of view of the formation and development of the ideas of the rule of law in Russia at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century were the provisions enshrined in legislative acts concerning the exercise of legislative power by the sovereign emperor “in unity with representatives of the people”, the procedure for elections to the State Duma, and the rights and the responsibilities of Russian citizens, including “the right to freely choose a place of residence, occupation, acquire and alienate property, freely travel outside the state, etc.

In conditions of autocracy, it would be very naive to talk about the formation of a rule of law state. The main body of legislation was aimed not only at preserving, but also at strengthening autocratic power. Nevertheless, the appearance in regulatory legal acts of general articles and provisions that appeal to the law indicates that in Russian state and legal life ideas have been formed that are consonant with the ideas of a rule-of-law state.

The entire history of the formation and development of the idea of the rule of law in Russia can be divided into three periods:

1. second half of the 19th century - before the October Revolution of 1917

2. 1917 – 1985

3. 1985 – until now.

Characteristics the first stage of the formation and development of the ideas of the rule of law:

1. formation and development of them under strong impact Western democratic ideas

2. the formation and development of the ideas of the rule of law in the period under review was carried out in the conditions of maintaining a strong autocratic power, in confrontation with the ideas of enlightened absolutism. Autocratic ideas about the sacredness and inviolability of monarchical power dominated the minds of many people.

3. the formation of ideas of a rule-of-law state was carried out against the background and in the context of academic discussions about the relationship between state and law, not only at the present stage, but also at the very first stage of their emergence and development.

Important For the development of the ideas of the rule of law in Russia, there was the development of problems of civil society and a constitutional state. According to the existing opinion, the constitutional state was the practical implementation of the idea of the rule of law. A rule-of-law state was defined as a state that “in its relations with its subjects is bound by law and is subject to law.” In other words, this is a state whose members in relation to it have not only obligations, but also rights, are not only subjects, but also citizens.

One of the most important conditions The normal functioning of the rule of law during this period was considered not only the existence in practice of the principle of separation of powers, but also the constant maintenance of a balance of powers. Kistyakovsky highlighted guarantees against the seizure of power:

a) the right of popular representation to annually determine the budget and size of the army

b) the responsibility of ministers to the people's representation, expressed in the latter's right to make requests to them, express his opinion on their actions and refer them to the court for crimes in office.

c) the right of the judiciary to check the legality of government orders and leave orders that do not agree with the law without execution.

In addition to the above-mentioned issues relating to the concept of the rule of law, other issues were also in the spotlight. This period was one of the most fruitful for domestic researchers during the development of ideas of the rule of law.

The next stage in the development of the ideas of the rule of law in Russia was not particularly positive. In practical terms, this period is Russian history was a step back.

An analysis of scientific sources indicates that at this stage there was no shortage of scientific works and decisions of state and party authorities. However, many theoretical developments of ideas remained nothing more than theoretical developments. In practice, completely different ideas and principles prevailed in the country.

A significant step in the development of the ideas of the rule of law in Russia has been made over the period from 1985 to the present.

During this period, the political rights and freedoms of citizens were expanded and political censorship was abolished. The adopted Constitution of the Russian Federation of 1993 enshrined such principles and provisions as the principle of pluralism in political life and ideology, the principle of the rule of law, the principle of separation and relative independence of the legislative, executive and judicial powers. The provision was established that the Russian Federation is a social, legal state.

Diagnostics and diseases. Medicines from A to Z

Liberal concept of democracy. Liberal democracy: definition, characteristics, advantages and disadvantages

About liberalism, practical results

Scientific approach

Conclusions in a popular presentation

Plan:

Introduction

1. Structure of the socio-political structure

1.1. Politic system

1.2. Rights and freedoms

1.3. Conditions

2. History

3. Liberal democracy in the world

3.1. Types of liberal democracies

3.2. Liberal democracy in Russia

4. Critical analysis

4.1. Advantages

4.2. Flaws

Introduction

1. Structure of the socio-political structure

1.1. Politic system

1.2. Rights and freedoms

1.3. Conditions

2. History

3. Liberal democracy in the world

3.2. Liberal democracy in Russia

4. Critical analysis

4.1. Advantages

4.2. Flaws