Book: Political Science / Dzyubko

4.4. Political organization of society. state - central organization

Society at any stage of its development acts as a set of interconnected organizations. It is organized in all spheres of life. The political system, which covers the political sphere and gives it a certain logical completeness of connections, is also characterized by a system of organizations. All political organizations function autonomously. Their differentiation is growing. However, this does not mean that they exist on their own. Evolution modern development represents a two-pronged process: differentiation and interdependence of political institutions and organizations. All of them, in their totality of relationships, create the political organization of society.

The political organization of society is a set of interconnected and mutually exclusive state, party organizations, public associations, created and operating for the purpose of forming and functioning of the system of power and orderliness of politics or have influence on it.

The determining place in the political organization of society is occupied by the state as a form of organization of social life. Without the state there is no political organization and political system of society as a whole. The state and its power are the axis on which the political system arises, rests and functions. Other organizational structures are being formed around the state. Outside of connection with the state, they have no political properties. Therefore, the state is a fundamental, basic organizational structure in the political organization of society and its entire political system.

The place of the state as a defining element of the political organization of society is determined by its purpose in society. She appears as:

> political organization civil society;

> bearer of power in society;

> representative of the entire population in a given geographical area;

> a form of political domination, which is expressed in the adoption of power decisions affecting the entire society and binding on the entire population;

> the source of everything political in society, its core element;

> representative of general interest;

> an instrument for implementing the general will in society;

> creator of common goals in society;

> the main stabilizer of social life;

> the main subject of political sovereignty.

Consequently, the state has a complex mechanism, and its functioning is multifaceted.

We all live in a state, feel its influence, submit to its authority, use the services of state bodies, therefore, it would seem, defining a state for everyone should be a simple matter. However, political literature since ancient times has provided many definitions of the state. And this is not accidental, since the state is a very complex political phenomenon and it is too difficult to comprehend such richness in the concept. The multivariate definition of the state is also due to the fact that, as it develops, it acquires new features and deepens the content of its functioning.

Thus, even after Aristotle, public life was served by the state, and the state itself was considered as an association for governing society. The good of the state was primitive relative to the good of the individual, man, who “by nature is a political being” (Aristotle).

Aristotle's ideas about the state attracted N. Machiavelli and J. Bodin. N. Machiavelli viewed the state as the embodiment of strong secular centralized power. J. Bodin defined the state as the legal management of many aspects of society. The definition of the legal principle of the state and the most important idea - the idea of ​​state sovereignty - was a progressive phenomenon of that time.

The Marxist-Leninist concept of the state was based on class violence, which was considered as the essence of political and legal phenomena. The political ideology of class violence was not a product of Marx's imagination. It is known that since ancient times, political thought has distinguished between two sides of the state - organized violence and the common good (what is now called public, or general, welfare). The absolutization of one of the sides led this or that thinker to the theory according to which the essence of the state is either violence, or a way of organizing society that ensures the common good. On the basis of this, either the theory of violence or the doctrine of the good of life were formed.

The Marxist theory of the state as an organ of violence is historically understandable, since the doctrine of class struggle as a metatheory of ideas about the state was formed during the formation of industrial society. At that time, the social structure had a pronounced class character. Class antagonisms gave rise to revolutionary actions of the proletariat, and the state personified and defended the interests of the predominantly economically dominant class.

However, in an industrial society, the Marxist “theory of violence” is unsuitable for analyzing statehood. This is due to the fact that modern society is complex social structure, where violence is increasingly receding into the background as a result of narrowing social contradictions, and the general social activity of the state comes to the fore.

There are heated discussions going on around the problem of state and society today in world political science. Based on the analysis of American political scientists G. Benjamin G. Duval, five authoritative concepts of the state have emerged:

1. The state is an “acting” or “authoritative force. Accordingly, before this, she makes a decision and makes policy in society.

2. The state is the embodiment of certain “organizational principles” that provide structural coherence and integrity to the various institutions of government. This is the concept of the state as an organizational whole, a structurally designed state apparatus.

3. The state is the embodiment of actually existing social relations, participation in the exercise of power in society by various social forces. The state is seen as the embodiment of the will of the ruling class.

4. The state is a system of management in society. It is the embodiment of laws both de jure and de facto. The state is a machine that eliminates conflicts, regulates social relations, governs society.

5. The state is the embodiment of the dominant system of ideas and normative order in society. The state and society are essentially inseparable.

Whatever discussions are held regarding civil society and the state, one thing is clear: even the most developed and free civil society does not have such self-regulation mechanisms that would negate the role of the state. The state is the institution that introduces, organizes and regulates social processes, coordinates and harmonizes the interests of various social groups and political forces, and creates the legal basis for a complex system of connections in society. The limited possibilities of self-regulation of civil society necessitate the state, which, without interfering in all its spheres, should become a powerful lever for the performance of power functions. Humanity has not yet created anything more perfect. That is why this lever must be humane (priority of human rights in relation to the rights of the state), democratic (overcoming the alienation of the individual from the state, creating a mass social base), moral (ideas of equality and justice); have a limited nature (separation of powers, creation of checks and balances).

Modern general theory The state that emerged after the Second World War in Western Europe considers the foundations of statehood in the rights of peoples. It connects the concept of state power with the category of human rights, i.e. basic pre-legislative and post-legislative requirements for a certain degree of freedom, primary in relation to the authorities. These demands and rights of peoples are recognized and recorded in principles and norms international law.

From the standpoint of international law, the state is the legal form of organization and functioning political power. This approach changes the content of the established theory, according to which the state was characterized by the presence of the following main features: 1) people (population); 2) territory; 3) public state power, based on the material conditions of its implementation.

1. The substantial element of the state: the presence of the people as an ethnic community, which is politically determined. Any ethnic group that recognizes itself as a historical nation on this territory has the right to create its own sovereign or autonomous organization of public power. This right is recognized by international law.

2. The territorial element of the state: the presence of a country, a geographical environment with which the nation is historically connected as a subject of the right to political self-determination. This territory is the nation's homeland. The right to a homeland is primary relative to other factors that determine the boundaries of the territory on which the political self-determination of a nation occurs.

3. Institutional element: the state is the main subject of political power and political relations. It is the main intuitional, organizational element of political relationships, the most organized political form of society. The state is an organization of public political power, limited by human rights. In other words, the state is an organization designed to ensure the free joint political, economic and spiritual existence of people. If the state is not totalitarian, it must represent the general will, and not the interests and needs of a separate social group, prevent conflicts, and if they arise, resolve them on the basis of consensus.

Note that in connection with the general theory of the state, an organization of political power that openly despises and neglects human rights (for example, does not recognize the right to life, freedom, personal integrity, carries out terror against the people of its country) is not a state in the modern understanding of this concept . Moreover, the general theory of the state recognizes the right to civil disobedience, up to and including violent resistance to an illegitimate regime of political power. Consequently, the exercise of state power is associated with its legality and legitimacy, that is, its legal validity, on the one hand, and justice, recognition, and support from the population, on the other. The severity of this problem in modern Ukraine is also explained by the conditions for the formation of nomenklatura-mafia capitalism in some areas, the insubordination in some cases of commercial, administrative, and even criminal structures, opposition from the local nomenklatura or central government, its incompetence and other factors.

Political legalization (from the Latin legalis - legal) is the establishment, recognition and support of power by law, primarily by the constitution, norms, which, depending on the type of power, can vary significantly.

The legalization of state power may be illusory. This occurs in the event of a violation of the democratic procedures for the adoption of the constitution, other acts of constitutional significance, as well as for the discrepancy between these procedures and the ability of the people to exercise constituent power when adopting the fundamental law. If the law contradicts extra-humane values, it does not correspond to the law.

Thus, constitutions and laws can be adopted, amended, or repealed in any way. For example, in many countries in Asia, Africa, and Latin America, military and revolutionary councils were created as a result of military coups, decreed different constitutions (sometimes suspended their operation), and often proclaimed new temporary constitutions without any procedures. In Iraq since 1970, in the UAE - since 1971, temporary constitutions have retained the force of law. In Saudi Arabia and Nepal, the monarchs personally “gave the constitution to their faithful people.” In Brazil, the constitution was replaced by institutional acts, in Ethiopia - by proclamations. The 1936 USSR Constitution contained democratic provisions on the rights of citizens, but were not implemented, and the 1977 USSR Constitution, although formally adopted in a democratic manner, did not reflect the needs of real practice.

Consequently, legalization as a proclamation of the establishment of state power requires bringing it into a real state. This reflects the concept of legitimation of state power.

The phenomenon of political legitimacy of power is the embodiment of the cultural and human dimension. The meaning of this phenomenon lies in the acceptance of power by the population, in recognition of its right to govern and in agreement to obey it. The process of political legitimation of power involves its “incorporation” into culture, which can either accept or reject this or that system of power. Cultural, creative, social functions can only be performed by legal power, based on the law and acting within its limits.

Political legitimation (from the Latin legitimus - legal) is not a legal concept, but more of a factual one: it is a state that expresses justification, expediency and other dimensions of compliance of a particular state power with the attitudes and expectations of citizens, social communities, and society as a whole.

Recognition of state power is not associated with the publication of a law, the adoption of a constitution (although this may also be part of the process of legitimation), but with a complex of experiences and attitudes based on rational assessment, political experience and internal incentives, with political ideas of various segments of the population about the state authorities’ compliance with norms social justice, human rights. Illegitimate power is power based on violence and other forms of coercion, including mental influence.

The political legitimation of state power gives it appropriate authority in society. The majority of the population voluntarily and quite consciously submits to it. This makes power stable and sustainable. However, a simple arithmetic majority cannot serve as the basis for genuine legitimation, since the majority of Germans adopted the policy of territorial claims and “race cleansing” for the Hitler regime.

The decisive criterion for the political legitimation of power is its compliance with universal human values.

The political legitimation of state power can and does provide for its legalization. However, it should be remembered that legitimation sometimes contradicts formal legalization. This happens when the adopted laws do not correspond to the norms of justice and the over-democratic values ​​of the majority of the population. In this case, legitimation or not (for example, the population has a negative attitude towards the totalitarian order established by the authorities), or in the course of revolutionary events, national liberation movements, the legitimation of another, anti-state, rebel, pre-power power occurs, which has developed in the liberated areas and subsequently turns into state power.

Pseudo-legitimation is also possible when, under the influence of propaganda, incitement of hatred, the leader’s use of personal charisma while banning the opposition and free press, concealing truthful information and other actions, the majority of the population supports state power, which satisfies some of its current interests to the detriment of its fundamental aspirations.

Political legalization and legitimation of power are closely interconnected. Starting from G. Weber, three “pure” types of legitimation of power are distinguished. These are traditional, charismatic and rational legitimation.

1. Traditional legitimation is domination based on traditional authority, based on respect for customs, faith in their continuity and is based on stereotypes of consciousness and behavior.

Thus, traditions play a leading role in strengthening monarchical power in the Muslim states of the Persian Gulf - Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, etc., as well as in Nepal, Bhutan, Brunei.

2. Charismatic legitimation is domination based on belief in the special qualities of a leader or a separate group of people, in their exclusive mission in the development of the state. An example would be the belief in a “good king,” in a “great leader of all nations.” Charismatic state ideology is associated with the names of I. Stalin, Mao Zedong, Kim Il Sung, Ho Chi Minh and others.

3. Rational legitimation - domination based on rational assessment, conviction in the reasonableness of existing orders, laws, rules adopted in democratic states. Rational legitimation modern conditions is the main one for

creation of a democratic rule of law state.

It very rarely happens that only one form of legitimation of power in a state is used; more often they act in combination. Thus, in democratic Great Britain, the main thing is the method of rational legitimation. However, the activities of Prime Ministers V. Churchill and M. Thatcher had elements of charisma, and traditions played an important role in the activities of parliament and the cabinet. To a large extent, the role of Charles de Gaulle, the President of the French State, is associated with his activities as a leader of the Resistance Movement in the fight against fascism during World War II. Power

V. Lenin and I. Stalin in the USSR was consecrated by ideological factors. Consequently, the establishment of rational legitimation takes some time.

Political legalization and political legitimation of state power are associated with the concept of political, state sovereignty.

Sovereignty is inherent in a modern state. The properties of state sovereignty include: full power, the supremacy of power in the geographical territory where the state is located; unity and indivisibility of the territory, or territorial integrity; inviolability of territorial borders and non-interference in the internal affairs of another state; provision of the legal system. The state ensures its sovereignty by all means, even by force, if circumstances require it.

A characteristic feature of the state is the presence of instruments of power to support policy. The maintenance of the army and the judicial-repressive apparatus is what especially distinguishes the state from other political organizations. No political organization is capable of declaring and waging war. Only the state can do this. Violence is a method that is unique to the state, that is, it is its monopoly. No other organization by its nature should use violence. State-legalized forms of violence. The monopoly on legitimate violence on the part of the state has limits determined by law.

The strength and power of the state, as well as its power, in modern conditions are not in the ability to use force, but in caring for members of society, creating conditions for their safety and self-realization. Abuse of power, deprivation of rights and freedoms is a consequence of unjustified concentration of state power, incompetence in the use of political force, and lack of understanding of the power prerogatives of the state.

As a sovereign, independent entity, the state performs its functions of governing society.

The essential features of the functions of the state are the following:

1) persistent objective activity of the state in one or another area of ​​life;

2) a direct connection between the essence of the state and its social purpose, which is realized through the corresponding functions;

3) the focus of the functions of the state on the implementation of specific tasks and achievement of goals that arise at each historical stage of the development of society;

4) the exercise of power in certain forms (most often legal) and using special methods inherent exclusively to state power.

The functions of the state are multifaceted, their formation is carried out in the process of formation, strengthening and development of the state. The order in which functions arise depends on the order of tasks facing society. The content of functions changes with the development of the state and society. The functions of the state acquire particular specificity during periods of radical social changes, transitional stages, and revolutionary upheavals.

The functions of the state can be classified according to various criteria:

> the principle of separation of powers - legislative, administrative, judicial;

> parties to state action - internal and external;

> spheres of influence of the state - economic, social, cultural, spiritual, legal, etc.;

> regulation of processes - self-regulation, self-organization, self-government, initiative, etc.;

> extrapolitical approaches - ensuring democracy; general social activities;

> volume of influence - national, maintaining world order;

> scale of meaning - basic and non-basic.

The main state functions of managing society are: managing the spheres of social, economic, spiritual life, processes, changes, developments that occur in them; regulation of national and international relations; guaranteeing compliance with generally binding norms in society; ensuring public order and national security; peacekeeping within the country and participation in global peacemaking. To carry out its functions, the state supports its own reproduction, life activity and new creation.

The state is internal structure bodies that perform the role of the main system, manages the affairs of society and ensures government functioning. It's about namely the main system, since parties and public organizations also have their own administrative apparatus. The state apparatus performs functions of national importance.

The system of government bodies in its entirety forms the state mechanism. Such a system includes: authorities, public administration bodies, courts, prosecutor's office, bodies serving the activities of the army, police, and state security. All government bodies are vested with authority, embodied in their competence (a set of rights and responsibilities).

Each state is formed in a certain way, is territorially organized and has certain methods of ruling. These primarily include the form of the state as a certain orderliness in the organization and exercise of state power. its elements are: state government - a way of organizing the highest state power;

government structure - the division of the state into certain components and the distribution of power between these parts;

state regime is a set of methods and means of exercising state power.

Historically, two forms of government have developed, namely: monarchy and republic.

Monarchy is a form of government in which power is fully, partially or nominally owned by one person (king, czar, emperor, shah) and is inherited.

As a form of government, monarchy arose during the period of slavery, and in the Middle Ages it became the main form of government. The monarchy acquired full development and changes in its defining qualities during the New Age. Historically known the following types monarchies: absolute (unlimited), dualistic and parliamentary (constitutional).

An absolute monarchy is a form of government when all power is concentrated in the hands of the monarch, who alone decides all issues of power.

Dualistic monarchy is a form of government in which power functions are divided between the monarch and parliament.

Parliamentary monarchy is a system of omnipotent parliament, the monarch performs only representative functions.

The second historically known form of government is the republic.

A republic is an organization of state power that is carried out by an elected collegial body, which is elected for a certain period by the entire population or part of it. There are presidential and parliamentary republics. There are different approaches to assessing republican forms of government. The advantages of the parliamentary form are that it is seen as a more stable and systemic form of government, which prevents the spread of authoritarianism and other forms of dictatorship. The advantages of a presidential republic are seen in the fact that it more stably ensures the functioning of free power, the guarantor of which is the president. Let's consider the content of each of them. A presidential republic is a form of government in which the head of state (president), alone or with subsequent approval by parliament, forms the composition of the government, which he directs personally.

A typical example of a presidential republic is the United States of America. According to the US Constitution, adopted on September 17, 1787, to which 26 amendments have since been made, the president is simultaneously the head of government and state. He is elected by the citizens of the country for four years. The president forms the government. Candidates for key positions are approved by legislative assemblies. The US Congress consists of two houses: the upper - the Senate and the lower - the House of Representatives. A peculiarity of the structure of this country is that the government is formed by the president through extra-parliamentary means. The president cannot dissolve parliament. The government is not responsible to him. The President exercises control over the federal administration. Power functions are actually divided between the president and Congress, between chambers within Congress, and between standing committees within chambers.

The peculiar relationship of the American president with the party that nominated him. He is not a party leader in the European sense. The formal head of the party, the president, is not legally so. It is understood that the President of the United States must be outside of parties, their contradictions, interests, and conflicts. However, this does not mean that the president neglects parties. Since the nomination of a candidate for the post of president depends on the party, the president strives to maintain good relations with its leaders and members, but mainly the president appeals to the electorate.

A parliamentary form of government is a form in which the composition and policies of the government are formed exclusively by parliament, the government is accountable only to it, and the president has no influence on parliament.

A parliamentary form of government exists in Great Britain, where the executive branch has a strong position. The party that wins the parliamentary elections becomes the ruling party. She forms the government. The Prime Minister is vested with broad powers. The government also has great powers.

In Great Britain, the prime minister receives a mandate from the electorate. He concentrates in his hands the functions of leadership of the party and the cabinet of ministers, and is responsible to parliament. In the event of a vote of no confidence or other extraordinary circumstances, the prime minister may dissolve parliament.

A typical example of a parliamentary republic is also the Federal Republic of Germany, where all legislative power belongs to the parliament (Bundestag). The President actually performs representative functions, his rights are narrower. The Bundestag forms the government and elects its head - the chancellor. The government is formed from among the deputies of the Bundestag, representing the party factions of the parliamentary majority. Non-partisan specialists are very rarely included in cabinets.

Classic forms of government - parliamentary republic, presidential republic, constitutional monarchy - are increasingly being replaced by mixed or simply distorted forms. The essence of the latter lies in varying degrees of combination of features of “pure” parliamentarism, “pure” presidency and “parliamentary” monarchy. One way or another, the leading forms of government in the republican type were the parliamentary-presidential and presidential-parliamentary republic, and in the monarchical type - constitutional and parliamentary (in contrast to monarchies of an absolutist, monocratic or theocratic nature).

The parliamentary-presidential and presidential-parliamentary forms of government are characterized by a certain dualism. It lies in the fact that leading executive functions are the prerogative of both the president and the cabinet of ministers, which is responsible to parliament.

France can serve as an example. The President is here key person. He develops a political and economic strategy for the country's development. The president relies on a strong bureaucracy. The peculiarity of this form is that there is a possible conflict between the president as head of state and the government.

Any of these forms of government is carried out on the territory of a country that is organized in a certain way. The state-political structure provides for the administrative organization of the territory. Thus, a mechanism of vertical relations is formed - between central and local government bodies. Historically, the following forms of territorial administrative organization are known: unitarism, federalism, confederalism.

The state system is the administratively and nationally organized territory of the state, as well as the system of relations between central and regional bodies.

A unitary state is a single state entity. The main features of the unitary form of state education are the following: a single constitution, the norms of which are applied without any changes throughout the country; a unified system of supreme government bodies; a unified top-down management system, which is subject to the government; unified legal system; dividing the territory into administrative-territorial units that do not have political independence. Emphasizing the “single” in each feature, we note that the degree of centralization in different countries may be different. It depends primarily on the political regime dominant in the country. So, in Lately in many highly developed countries (Great Britain, France, etc.) there is a tendency towards decentralization of power, increasing the role of local authorities, and the development of amateur principles in solving many local problems.

Federation is a form government structure a country that was formed on the basis of uniting into a union of state-political states (states, republics, provinces, cantons, lands), which have a legally defined amount of independence in various spheres of public life.

The main features of the federal form of government are: the territory in political and administrative terms is not one whole; Availability state entities, having a certain political and legal independence and generally constituting the territory of the state; the subjects of the federation are endowed with constituent power, that is, they are given the right to adopt their own constitutions; subjects of the federation have the right to issue legislative acts within the established competence; a subject of the federation has its own legal and judicial system; having dual citizenship; bicameral structure of the federal parliament.

Among the states with a federal form of structure (USA, Germany, Canada, Mexico, Russia, Brazil, Argentina, Austria, India, Australia, etc. States such as Russia and India combine territorial-political and territorial-national principles. In single-national ones countries the territorial-political principle of government reigns.

Federations can be built on a treaty and a constitutional basis.

A treaty federation is an association of states that, according to a treaty, has delegated a number of their powers to the central federal government and, if desired, can terminate this treaty at any time.

Constitutional federation is a form of association in which the powers of the center and local state-political entities are constitutionally determined, and power is divided between them.

The constitutional federation does not provide for the right of the subjects of the federation to withdraw from it. In the case when the desire to exit is realized by force, such actions lead to disintegration, collapse of the federation and other negative consequences. An example of this is the collapse of the USSR, Yugoslavia, and Czechoslovakia. In these countries, the political-territorial division was associated with the national-territorial one.

Federation as a form of government has always been the subject of discussion on issues of sovereignty of the federation and the subjects of the federation. The problem lies in the degree and scope of divisibility of sovereignty. The federal government concentrates in its hands activities related to defense, state security, its external relations, finances, labor organization, social protection of the population, etc. Local authorities are vested with the competence to organize local life. Supremacy in the distribution of competence (rights and responsibilities) remains with the federal constitution and legislation. Constitutional and other local legislation must comply with federal legislation.

A more complex form of federation is a confederation. A confederation is a state-legal association, a union of sovereign states created for the purpose of coordinating actions to achieve certain goals defined at a given historical moment. Most often these are foreign policy and military goals. In contrast to a federation, a confederation does not have a center that makes binding government decisions in relation to the subjects of the federation. An example of a confederation is Switzerland. Confederation is a less stable form of government. Confederations either disintegrate or become federations. Even Switzerland, where the confederal form has existed since the 13th century, in the 20th - early 21st centuries. is increasingly gravitating towards federation.

For any structure, the state achieves high rates of development where the principles of democracy, legal and social content of the state are optimally combined and interact. The political nature of a state organization largely determines the political nature of law, which is personified in the law. It is in the law that the fact of the chosen policy is enshrined.

Modern world transformations have brought to life the need to reconsider the relationship between state and law, which for decades was the ideological justification for the totalitarian regime in many countries of the world. Thus, law was considered as a product, an instrument, the main instrument of the state, with the help of which it carried out coercion, trying to ensure order in the country. Law, in accordance with the socialist normative concept of law, was a system of norms established and sanctioned by the state aimed at regulating social relations. So, the scheme of the approach was this: the state is primary, law is secondary, that is, law is the result of the creation of the state itself, its expression of will.

The overcoming of totalitarianism gave rise to new approaches to understanding the relationship between law and state. Their essence lies in the fact that law is primary, and the state is secondary. The right is not of state origin, but of social origin, since it is connected with the activities of people. The source of law is people. It is a person with his needs and interests, way of life that is the source and bearer of law. So, law has a social, human, and not state origin. It is a product of normal human activity. Therefore, if we consider it only in relation to the state and consider it a product of state activity, then the historical result of such a process will be nationalization, the bureaucratization of a person as a cog in a large state machine. In connection with this approach, the place and role of branches of law is being reconsidered. The main place is given primarily to private (including civil) law, and other branches play a supporting role relative to private law and are aimed at its provision and implementation.

The right is personified in the legislation of the state.

The process of creating a rule-of-law state is associated with the awareness of citizens’ desire for freedom, to curb the monster state, to the primacy of law over the state, to ensure rights and freedoms. The Germans, in the concept of “legal statehood” (this word means “rule of law state” in German) emphasize a negative attitude towards revolutionary ideas in relation to the state, recognition of the evolutionary path of development of society, and the dominance of the constitutional foundations of “legal statehood”.

World civilization has accumulated extensive experience in the theory and practice of the rule of law. According to former French President F. Mitterrand, the rule of law is a system of democratic values ​​and legal foundations, consecrated by European culture. The history of the Ukrainian people on this occasion should bear witness to the world one of its pages.

The creation of the Ukrainian state went through an extremely difficult historical path. After the collapse of Kievan Rus and the seizure of the Galician-Volyn principality by Polish-Lithuanian feudal lords, the process of development of Ukrainian statehood was interrupted for a long time. Only in the second half of the 17th century. part of the Ukrainian lands inhabited by Ukrainians was united into a state under the control of Bohdan Khmelnytsky. In order to establish itself in the difficult international situation of that time, the newly formed state entered into a military-political alliance with Russia. Subsequently, the agreement was violated by Russian tsarism. Ukraine was deprived of state independence and turned into a “Little Russian province.” Having liquidated the people's rightful, democratic Cossack republic - the Zaporozhye Sich, which was too sharp a contrast to Russian absolutism, Catherine II transported the hetman's symbols to St. Petersburg. At that time, socio-political thought in Ukraine nurtured projects for an independent state. Ukrainian hetman in exile Pylyp Orlyk developed the first democratic constitution in Ukraine “Pacts and the Constitution of the Rights and Liberties of the Zaporozhian Army”, its text was announced on May 5, 1710 at the Celebrations of the election of Pylyp Orlyk as hetman. The Constitution is imbued with a liberal and democratic spirit, which places it among the most interesting attractions of European political thought of that time.

The Constitution of Pylyp Orlyk defined the borders of the Ukrainian state, provided for the establishment of national sovereignty, ensuring human rights, recognition of the inviolability of the components and factors of a legal society, namely: the unity and interaction of the legislative (elected General Council), executive (hetman, whose actions are limited by law, general foreman and elected representatives from each regiment) and the judiciary, accountable and controllable. Install

Introduction

Human society is in a process of constant change, which occurs under the influence of various factors. Social relationships between people become more complex, new needs appear, and, accordingly, types of activities that satisfy them appear. Therefore, the question of how society adapts to changing conditions is always relevant. The answer to it will reveal the mechanisms of adaptation of society that form the basis of its viability and stability. The ability of society to respond to the needs of individuals and to adapt to changing conditions is ensured by the political system. Thanks to the action of political institutions and structures, the political system influences various aspects of the life of society. The operation of the mechanisms of the political system is based on the ability to distribute values ​​and resources within society by means of authority, to prescribe certain norms of behavior and standards to the population. In this regard, the political system also includes the interaction of the ruler and the ruled. Thus, the political system is a characteristic of the relationship between the state and society.

The concept and essence of the political system of the Republic

Belarus

The term “political system” was introduced into constitutional law by the Bulgarian constitution of 1971, which enshrined some principles of the “socialist political system”. The term was subsequently used in the constitutions of El Salvador 1983, Nicaragua 1987 and Ethiopia 1987 (the latter is currently defunct). The 1977 USSR Constitution contained an entire chapter devoted to the political system. In the vast majority of the constitutions of the countries of the world, the term “political system” is not used, but they all regulate one or another of its links, sides, elements: the state, the political regime, often political parties, sometimes political ideology. Therefore, the political system has traditionally been the object of study of constitutional law, although for a long time only its individual aspects have been studied, and only in the last two decades has it become the object of study as a complex constitutional legal institution.

Constitutional legislation does not contain a definition of the political system, and in modern social science (mainly political science) there are two approaches to this concept. The structural-functional approach in its behaviorist (behavioral) interpretation, formed on the basis of American political science, considers the political system as political behavior, a process within various human groups: parties, trade unions, firms, clubs, cities, etc. From this point of view, in any society there are many political (parapolitical) systems that are not necessarily associated with state power.

The institutional approach, represented, in particular, by French political science (although in recent years it has also been significantly influenced by American post-behaviourism), proceeds from the existence in any state-organized society of one political system, which is associated with state power. Along with such institutions as the state, parties, etc., the concept of a political system usually includes a political regime, although some French political scientists identify the system with the regime, while others interpret it very broadly, understanding by it the entire political (and sometimes not only the political) ) life. In domestic literature, the political system is defined as a universal control system of a socially asymmetric society, the components of which (institutional - parties, state, etc., normative - political norms, including relevant branches and institutions of law, functional - political regime, ideological - political ideology) are united into a dialectically contradictory, but integral formation by “secondary” political relations - between the links of the system (“primary” political relations are the relations between large social communities of a given country). Ultimately, the political system regulates the production and distribution of social benefits between various communities and individuals based on the use of state power, participation in it, and the struggle for it.

The constitutions of countries contain provisions related to the political system. They proclaim the power of the people. In fact, the main role in political power in developed countries is played by the “middle class”, which has good living conditions and is interested in political stability, and the real levers of power are in the hands of the political elite of society. In a number of developing countries, political power belongs to a broader segment of the population, including the beginnings of the emerging “middle class,” or to a narrow group (political elite), which is not bound by the pressure of various segments of the population and acts in selfish interests (some countries Tropical Africa, Oceania).

State power in all countries is exercised by the relevant state bodies. They will be discussed below.

There are many classifications of political systems in the scientific literature. There are socialist, bourgeois-democratic and bourgeois-authoritarian political systems, political systems in countries of socialist and capitalist orientation, one-party, two-party and multi-party systems, etc. The most recognized is the division of political systems into democratic, authoritarian and totalitarian. In democratic systems, the main structural principle is pluralism, and the functional principle is role autonomy. There is a multi-party system (often there are more than a hundred or even a thousand parties, for example in Japan, among them the smallest), and political opposition parties are allowed (the principle of competition is sometimes enshrined in constitutions, for example, in the Czech Republic); the separation of powers is recognized (along with the principles of checks and balances and interaction between the branches of government); there are several decision-making centers; the right of decision-making by the majority and the protection of minority rights are recognized; fundamental human and civil rights are exercised; the principle of legal equality has been proclaimed and implemented; the ideas of the rule of law and legality are recognized and implemented; there is ideological pluralism; the election method is decisive in the formation of government leadership and various political associations; The main methods of resolving conflicts are compromise and consensus. In short, this system contains all the basic elements of democracy. This open system, and various segments of the population, “interest groups,” parties can achieve concessions and solutions to their problems with the help of various forms of peaceful pressure on state power. Changes in political groups and persons at the levers of power are carried out through free elections.

In an authoritarian system, the principles of pluralism and role autonomy may not be denied, but in fact they are reduced to a minimum. These principles apply only to a small part of society. Single-party system has not been introduced, but only certain activities are allowed political parties and organizations. The permitted parties are not genuine political opposition, but pro-government parties, a loyal quasi-opposition. Although there is a parliament and judicial bodies, the separation of powers, sometimes mentioned in the constitution, does not exist in practice: the executive branch, headed by a president re-elected 5, 6, or even 8 times (Paraguay), who is de facto and sometimes legally heads the ruling party and makes all the most important decisions; constitutions declare basic human and civil rights, but many of them are actually limited or not respected (some parties and publications are banned); socio-economic rights are not ensured/personal rights of citizens are violated by the all-powerful administrative apparatus; when forming various kinds of bodies, the principle of appointment often dominates, and elections in the context of a ban on opposition parties and publications give distorted results; there is an official dominant ideology enshrined in the constitution, although deviation from it is still not punishable by criminal law; when resolving conflicts, compromises are rarely used; the main method of resolving contradictions is violence (in the East the principle of consensus dominates, but this applies only to the regulation of relations in parliament, among the ruling elite and is not applied to the opposition part of the population).

In short, under this political system there are only minor elements of democracy, and even then in the texts of constitutions, but not in practice. It is almost a closed, semi-closed system. The opposition is virtually excluded from it; it is difficult for it to organize peaceful pressure on the state authorities in order to achieve certain concessions, and the state authorities respond to mass protests with brutal reprisals. But some elements of opposition may still be allowed.

Under the conditions of a totalitarian system, even limited pluralism is eliminated; there is no role autonomy for parts of the political system. A single, united total organization is created, linking together the state, the ruling party, and sometimes other authorized parties. The center for making all socially significant decisions is the top of the ruling party, essentially the only legal party (sometimes some small parties are allowed, but they recognize the leading role of the ruling party in society and the state and are its unique branches). In some countries, under the conditions of a religious-totalitarian system, all parties are prohibited (Kuwait, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Swaziland, etc.). They are usually prohibited during military coups, when military totalitarianism is established. Public organizations are viewed as the “transmission belts” of the party, and the state is often seen as its technical apparatus. The concept of separation of powers is rejected, the idea of ​​unity of power dominates, headed by the Fuhrer, Duce, Caudillo, “President for Life.” Sometimes he is not proclaimed a lifer and is re-elected, but in fact remains in place until his death, ruling the country, in particular, with the help of the Politburo of the ruling party. It happens that the basic rights of a person and, in particular, a citizen are directly limited by law (for example, in accordance with the racist ideology of the regime, as was the case in South Africa) or proclaimed in constitutions, but are not actually implemented (repression of dissidents, placement of dissidents in psychiatric hospitals , the punitive role of all-powerful committees and ministries of state security, etc.). In fact, the principle of appointment prevails, only outwardly covered by elections, since only candidates from the ruling party are offered for election. Under a totalitarian system, there is a mandatory ideology (the idea of ​​the “Aryan race” under fascism). Criticism of this ideology is not permitted and will result in punishment. A totalitarian system is a closed, closed system. Only illegal, underground opposition is possible, the activities of which are criminally punishable; it cannot exert peaceful pressure on state power, its leaders are expelled from the country and put in prisons and psychiatric hospitals.

Along with the three main types of political systems and within them, there are other gradations. Some countries have semi-democratic systems, while others have totalitarian systems under military regimes (for example, Haiti, Nigeria).

The state as a political organization of society. Organs

State power

Every structural element political system is a subject of social relations, which, depending on their content, occupies one or another place in the organization of society. Due to the difference in the content of social relations, their subjects - elements of the political system - have different competencies.

In the legal literature, there is a consensus that the state has a decisive place in the political system of society. However, in this context, the state should be considered not as a collection of disparate government bodies, but as an integral political institution.

Why does the state act as a special link in the structure of the political system of society? Why can’t his role and place in this system be identified, for example, with the ruling party or with another public organization? According to researchers, the special place and role of the state in the political system of society is determined by the following factors:

Firstly, having separated from society, the state becomes its main ruling political organization. State power is the main, unifying, organizing and coercive force in society. Its effect covers all persons living in the territory of the state. Consequently, the state is not just the most massive political association of citizens, but an association of all members of society who are in a political and legal connection with the state, regardless of class, age, professional and other affiliation. The activities of the state are associated with real and widest opportunities for all citizens to participate in the political life of society.

Secondly, the state has the unity of legislative, managerial and control functions; it is the only sovereign organization throughout the country. An extensive system of legal means allows the use of various methods of coercion and persuasion.

Thirdly, the state plays an important role in improving society as the owner of the main instruments and means of production, determines the main directions of its development in the interests of everyone.

Fourthly, the state has sovereignty. It is an official, a representative of the entire people within the country and in the international arena.

Fifthly, the state plays a creative role in the development of society and is the organizing principle for determining national policy. If the state ceases to serve the interests of social development, society has the right to make appropriate adjustments to the practical organization of its statehood.

However, history also shows that, occupying a decisive place in the political system of society, the state can absorb not only this system, but the entire society. Actually, this is what happens in states with a totalitarian, fascist or authoritarian regime. Therefore, excessive government intervention in political life society leads to the nationalization of the political system, lawlessness and arbitrariness. That is why it is so important to constitutionally establish and actually ensure the limits of the state’s activities, to remove from the scope of its action those social relations that should be free from state regulation, control and interference.

As for political systems based on class antagonism, they observe the fusion of the state and political organizations of the ruling classes, which act together. They are also opposed by their class and political opponents represented by their organizations. Of course, between these two poles there are intermediate layers, organizations that often occupy contradictory positions.

In conclusion, we note “that the state is one of the strictly political organizations, that, being equipped with a special apparatus of coercion and suppression with the corresponding “material appendages” in the form of prisons and other compulsory institutions, the state acts as the main force in the hands of the political forces in power , as the main conductor of their will and interests in life, as the most important means of exercising political power."

The specificity of any public authority is that it carries out the tasks and functions of the state and acts on its behalf, and is endowed with state powers. These powers consist in the right of the body to issue legal acts on behalf of the state, which are binding on those to whom they are addressed, and to apply measures to ensure the implementation of legal acts, including measures of persuasion, incentives and coercion.

A state body is an organized team that forms an independent part of the state apparatus, endowed with its own competence, performing public functions, the structure and activities of which are regulated by law.

It is characteristic of a state body that it is a political organization, i.e. endowed with state power. This implies the most essential feature of a state body - the presence at its disposal of powers of a state-imperious nature. The content of state power consists, firstly, in issuing legally binding acts on behalf of the state, i.e. binding on those to whom they are addressed; secondly, the state has the right to ensure the implementation of adopted acts by applying measures of education, persuasion and encouragement on behalf of the state; thirdly, in the right of state bodies to carry out, on behalf of the state, supervision (over the thief) over the fulfillment of the requirements of legal acts.

It is characteristic that when exercising state powers, state bodies, in order to protect the legal acts issued by them from violations, use coercive measures in necessary cases.

Thus, the main features of a state body are expressed as follows:

a) a state body is a link, part of the state apparatus;

b) a state body - an organization, a cell of society, a team, organized in a certain way;

c) it is characteristic of a state body that it is a political organization (empowered with state power);

d) carries out its tasks and functions on behalf of the state;

e) has government powers;

f) has its own organized structure, territorial scale of activity, competence;

g) is formed in the manner prescribed by law, carries out the tasks assigned to it through one of the types of state activities;

h) bears responsibility to the state for its activities.

In the current legislation, the terms government body and state body almost coincide, however, the concept of a state body is broader, in contrast to the concept: government body.

Government bodies (executive power), being one of the types of government bodies, have the above characteristics. They differ from other bodies (legislative and judicial) in the purpose, content of their activities and their nature. They carry out state activities that are specific in their content, forms and methods - public administration, thus also being a governing body. Each government body, like any other government agency, has its own organizational structure, i.e. the system for constructing its internal, or working, apparatus, determined by the tasks of the body, the territorial scale of activity, the competence with the help of which its subjects of jurisdiction and powers are determined. Their formation, structure, and order of activity are mainly regulated by legal norms.

All government bodies have legal personality, which is determined by the charter or regulations on a particular body.

The competence of government bodies is enshrined in the Constitution of the Republic of Belarus, laws, decrees and decrees of the President of the Republic of Belarus, charters or regulations on a particular body.

The state is a political organization of society that has an apparatus of power.

The state serves society, solves problems facing society as a whole, as well as tasks reflecting the interests of individual social groups and territorial communities of the country's population. The solution to these problems of organization and life of society is the expression social purpose states. Changes in the life of the country and society, for example, industrialization, urbanization, population growth, put forward new tasks for the state in the field of social policy, in the development of measures for organizing the life of society in new conditions.

To the number most important tasks, in the resolution of which the social purpose of the state is expressed, includes ensuring the integrity of society, fair cooperation of various social groups, timely overcoming acute contradictions in the life of society and its constituent communities and groups.

The social purpose and active role of the state are expressed in ensuring a strong social order, scientifically based use of nature, and in protecting the environment of human life and activity. And the most important thing in characterizing the social purpose of the state is to ensure a decent life for a person and the well-being of the people.

The ideas of the social purpose of the state were concretized and developed in the concept (theory) of the “social state”. The provisions on the social state are enshrined in a number of constitutions of democratic states.

A democratic social state is designed to provide all citizens with constitutional rights and freedoms. To ensure not only material well-being, but also cultural rights and freedoms. A social state is a country with a developed culture. The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, adopted on December 16, 1966, states that the ideal of the free human person, free from fear and want, can only be realized if conditions are created in which everyone can enjoy their economic , social and cultural rights, as well as civil and political rights.

In modern conditions in Russia, the urgent tasks in the social policy of the state are ensuring the right to work and measures to overcome unemployment, labor protection, improving its organization and payment. It is necessary to multiply and improve measures to strengthen and state support family, motherhood and childhood. Social policy needs to stimulate assistance to older citizens, people with disabilities, strengthen health care, and other social institutions and services. The big tasks of the state's social policy are in the field of regulating the demographic processes of society, stimulating the birth rate, and enhancing the role of women in the life of the state's society.

(V.D. Popkov)

Show answer

The correct answer must contain the following elements:

1) an example of a task facing society as a whole, let’s say:

Ensuring strong public order;

Environmental protection of human life and activity;

2) an example of a task reflecting the interests of individual social groups, let’s say:

State support for family, motherhood and childhood;

Help for elderly citizens and disabled people.

Other tasks may be given

What is preparation for the Unified State Exam/Unified State Exam at the Tetrika online school?

👩 Experienced teachers
🖥 Modern digital platform
📈 Progress tracking
And, as a result, a guaranteed result of 85+ points!
→ Sign up for a free introductory lesson ← in ANY subject and assess your level now!

State, the main instrument of political power in a class society. In a broader sense, government is understood as a political form of organization of social life, which develops as a result of the emergence and activity of public power - a special management system that governs the main spheres of public life and, if necessary, relies on the power of coercion. Since G. is built according to territorial principle, this term is sometimes inaccurately used as a synonym for the concept of “country”. Various types of government are known: slaveholding, feudal, bourgeois, socialist; various forms of organization of G. - monarchy, republic.

The main features of government: 1) the presence of a special system of bodies and institutions that together form the mechanism of government. 2) the presence of law, that is, mandatory rules of behavior established or sanctioned by government. With the help of law, government as a political power consolidates a certain order of social relations, as well as the structure and order of operation of the state mechanism; 3) the presence of a certain territory within which this state power is limited. Acting as a territorial organization, Germany actively contributed to the process of nation formation.

G. is the main, but not the only political institution of class society; Along with government, in a developed society there are various parties, unions, religious associations, etc., which together with government form the political organization of society. The difference between government and other political institutions of class society is that it has the highest power in society (sovereignty of state power). The supremacy of state power is specifically expressed in universality (its power extends to the entire population and public organizations of a given country), prerogatives (state power can cancel any manifestation of any other public power), as well as the presence of such means of influence that no other public power can use. does not have (for example, monopoly of legislation, justice).

G. is a social phenomenon limited by a certain historical framework. The primitive communal system did not know G. It arises as a result of the social division of labor, the emergence of private property and the split of society into classes. The economically dominant classes need to protect their privileges and consolidate the system of exploitation in a special power mechanism of political domination, which is what G. and his apparatus were. With the advent of government, this mechanism no longer coincides with society, as if it stands above it and is maintained at the expense of society (taxes, fees). No matter how different the historical forms of government, state power and organization of the apparatus of government may be, its essence, the nature of its relations with society is the political power of the ruling class (dictatorship of the class). With the help of government, the classes that own the means of production become politically dominant and thereby consolidate their economic and social dominance and leading role within a given society and in its relations with other societies and countries.

G., thus, is ultimately determined by the nature of production relations and the method of production as a whole. In the course of history, G. acquires independence. Its independent impact on the main spheres of social life, historical and social processes is very significant and is carried out in different directions, i.e. G. can contribute to the development of social relations or, conversely, slow it down. As state-organized society becomes more complex, the role of this influence increases.

44.Functions of the state. The concept of political power. Forms of power.

State- this is a system of organs of society that ensures the organized internal legal life of the people as a whole, protects the rights of its citizens, carries out the normal functioning of the institutions of power - legislative, judicial and executive, controls its territory, protects its people from external threats, guarantees the fulfillment of obligations to others states, preserves the natural environment and cultural values, contributing to the survival of society and its progress. Signs: 1) Separation of public authority from society, 2) Territory limited by a clearly defined border, 3) Sovereignty, 4) The right to collect taxes and fees from the population, 5) Mandatory citizenship. Functions of the state (internal): 1) Political

2) Economic

3) Social

4) Ideological

5) Cultural and educational

6) Ecological

7) Protection of the rights of citizens (According to lectures: 1Regulation of relations between layers, 2 Management of the general affairs of citizens living in a given territory and organizing in a state, functions are carried out through tasks 1-7)

1) Border protection

2) Integration into the global economy

3) Protection of international security

Policy - represents participation in state affairs, in determining the direction

its functioning, in determining the forms, tasks and content of activities

states. The purpose of the policy is to maintain or create the most acceptable

for certain social strata or classes, as well as society as a whole, conditions and

ways of exercising power. Political power- this is a subtle art

government controlled. It is a collection of elements

who are officially recognized executors of political power (state apparatus,

political parties, movements, trade unions). These are the main elements of a ramified mechanism, with

through which political power is exercised in society.

Power- is always the organized will and power of any subjects, aimed at

people, regardless of their attitudes regarding such influence.

There are monarchical and republican forms board. Monarchy- This

a state whose head is a monarch; there is an autocratic or

limited power of one person (king, king, emperor), which is usually

is inherited and birth determines who will be the ruler. Republic -

form of government carried out by elected bodies, i.e. legally source

The popular majority is in power. A republic presupposes a legal order,

transparency and separation of powers.

Oligarchy - form of government in which government power is vested in

a small group of people, usually the most economically powerful.

Despotism- a form of government and government in which the autocratic

the ruler has unlimited control in the state, acting in relation to

subject as lord and master.

Democracy- a form of government in which supreme power belongs to everything

Theocracy- a form of state in which both political and spiritual power

concentrated in the hands of the clergy (church).

45 Political and legal consciousness, their role in social life.

Political consciousness arose in antiquity as a response to the real need for understanding such new phenomena as the state and state power, cat. first arose with the split of society into anthological classes. Since the social division of labor leads to the emergence of classes, and therefore to sharp differences in the conditions, their life and activities, there is a need to maintain the existing class structure through state power, cat. most often, it naturally expresses the interests of the ruling class. Thus, political consciousness is a reflection of the production, economic and social relations of classes in their aggregate relationship to state power. This conditioning by direct economic and class interests is the specificity of political consciousness. The structure of state power is the central problem of political thinking. The political struggle to determine the structure, tasks and content of the state’s activities has historically taken on a variety of forms, ranging from public discussion of social problems, from parliamentary discussions and economic demands leading to private reforms, and ending with violent coups d’état and social revolutions.

(2var) It is political interests that are most often the core of all socially active associations, and even more so of social clashes. Not only the socio-political, but also the spiritual life of society depends on political interests.

Until classes (=the problem of state power) disappear, all the aspirations of the human spirit will be drawn, consciously or violently, into political contradictions. Legal consciousness- this is the form of social consciousness in which knowledge and assessment of normative social laws accepted in a given society as legal laws are expressed -economic activity various subjects rights (individual, enterprise, labor collectives, organizations. Officials, etc.) Legal consciousness is, as it were, intermediate between political and moral consciousness. If political consciousness is formed depending on objective socio-economic interests. then legal consciousness is more oriented towards rational and moral assessments.

The internal closeness of legal consciousness with rational and moral categories has historical reasons. In a classless primitive society with its mythological worldview, laws were considered as a moral tradition; they “took the form of institutions sanctioned by the gods” (Hegel).

The legal consciousness of society is always support for the very idea of ​​regulated relations between the individual and the state, cat. are recognized as necessary to maintain society against the forces of anarchy.cat. need to be known and observed, but cannot be considered absolute, that is, free from critical assessment. Political and legal consciousness exist both at the socio-practical and at the theoretical levels.