Classical and modern liberal democracy. Stalinism over Stalinism, or what is the difference between liberalism and democracy Democracy and liberalism differences

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

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

Concept of democracy

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

Principles of a democratic system

Principles of liberal democracy:

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

Signs of a democratic state structure

There are such signs of democracy in the state:

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

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

Formation of liberal democracy

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

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

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

Theory of liberal democracy

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

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

These are the main types of democracy.

Countries with liberal democracies

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

Resolving disagreements between government and people

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

The main difference between liberal democracy and classical

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

Principles of classical liberal democracy:

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

Principles of modern liberal democracy:

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

Advantages of liberal democracy

The advantages of a liberal democracy are:

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

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

Flaws

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

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

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

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

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

Liberal Democracy in Russia

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

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

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

Liberal democracy is a form of political organization 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 stem from traditional liberal notions of limiting power and are designed to ensure a wide range of civil and human rights. The above can be guaranteed by such instruments as the constitution, the bill of rights, the principle of separation of powers, the 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 (or at least the majority). Public consent within a liberal democratic political system is ensured through representation: liberal democracy (sometimes also defined as representative) involves the adoption of political decisions by a small group of people on behalf of all citizens of the country.

Those who assume such duties and responsibilities act with the consent of the citizens and govern in their name. 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 actions of the government by the population to which the government is accountable. In this case, citizens deprive their chosen ones 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 in relation to the actions and personal composition of state government bodies, is a fundamental function of liberal democracy. The electoral system gives the right to vote to all adult citizens of the country, regular elections are held and open rivalry between political parties claiming power is ensured.

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

The decline of communist ideology in the late XX - early XXI centuries. Left and right radical forces.

According to the Italian researcher N. Bobbio, no doctrine and no movement can be right and left at the same time; 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"

The rigid division of ideologies and their carriers (parties, movements) into two camps on the basis of 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 about the relativity of “leftism” or “rightness” of a particular political movement or party, since in different historical conditions, right and left often change places at the poles of the continuum. Therefore, operating on a “left-right” continuum, it is necessary to consider historically certain forces that are in the process of interaction at the poles of the political axis (i.e., consider this 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 the 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 of interaction.

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 leftists began to be considered champions of social change (in the broad sense: both reforms and revolutions) and democracy, while the rightists were associated with the reaction of the subjects of a traditional society that was going down in history. system, the main element of which was the National Assembly. The rightists, in order not to be thrown out of the political process, had to join this system on an equal footing, which was already a certain concession to the left democrats for them.

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

Over time, qualitative changes take place on the flags of the continuum, both in the social base of the opposing camps and in ideology. The socialists took "on the shield" the values ​​of equality (primarily economic equality) and solidarity. The social base of the left is gradually changing: a rather numerous proletariat is already becoming its core. But at the same time, the big and middle bourgeoisie are becoming the social support of already right-wing parties and movements, where these classes are actually consolidated with various elements of the progressive aristocracy, which has assimilated the basic economic and political provisions of liberalism: “in the first half of the 20th century, in each of the camps there were already five six currents: 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 on the right” [The internal differentiation of the flanks of the continuum led to a more complex system of ideologies that was no longer limited to the choice of “either-or”, thereby creating an opportunity for search 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 willingness to compromise, or the degree of radicalism, mainly understood as the impossibility of sacrificing the basic ideological principles and interests of the representatives of their social base.

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

Thus, the "left-right" continuum in the political and ideological space of Western Europe 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 face problems of an entirely new significance. Previously, for party structures to be most successful in the political process, it was enough to be able to identify themselves ideologically by referring themselves either to the left or to 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. Under the new conditions, parties actually lose their traditional means of control over their voters, as the boundaries between potential groups of the electorate are blurred, and the social groups themselves 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 ties 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 a person has completely lost the ability to control social development and thus took its spontaneity and uncontrollability for granted and fell into the most significant uncertainty in history. According to Bauman, this led to “a paralysis of political will; to the loss of faith that something significant can be achieved collectively, and solidarity actions can make decisive changes in the state of human affairs. colonized by "private"; “public interest” degrades to a curiosity about the private life of “public figures”, and “public problems”, which cannot be subjected to such reduction, cease to be understandable at all” 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 for political participation, but also party ideologies, presenting ready-made projects for solving social problems that have already become incomprehensible to the individual, change. 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, in essence, being in power, or directly influencing the course of the political process, to pursue the same policy . Within the framework of this policy, the doctrinal differences of the parties come down only to maintaining a balance between social justice, mainly understood as the expansion of budgetary spending on the social sphere, and economic growth.

In this regard, the question arises of the adequacy of the applicability of the "left-right" continuum as a tool for the analysis and classification of party ideologies and types of political practice, as well as a way of self-identification of the European parties themselves. Obviously, in the context 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 a tool with a rigidly set coordinate system, cannot fully reflect the entire range of party doctrines and related him types of party politics. This, in turn, causes the need to supplement the two-dimensional dimension of the continuum 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 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, ideologically, can be great champions of freedom, but at the same time, in terms of exercising power, they can be quite authoritarian. So the right can be quite radical in its ideological attitudes, but at the same time adhere to non-authoritarian methods of exercising power (Le Pen's National Front) and recognize democratic norms and procedures. Given this, we can conclude that the very categories of "freedom" and "authoritarianism" are poorly correlated with each other. The category of “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 the relationship between equality of rights and equality of opportunities, and even left prefer the term "justice" to him

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

The systemic camp includes both the left and the right, that is, those political forces that are ready, with certain reservations, to recognize the existing system of "socialized capitalism" that has developed by the 90s of the XX century, and perceive the modern type of globalization as objective , a natural process. According to the author, this camp includes: “parties of a liberal-conservative persuasion, together with purely clerical parties leaving the political arena, and the Social Democrats with the reforming communists gravitating towards them, and most of the ecological 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 - these are those right-wing parties and movements that defend the values ​​of the market and the primacy of economic growth over social redistribution, but already in a global aspect (here the author includes liberals, conservatives, demochristians ); the second pole is the left wing of the systemic camp, or socio-ecosystemists, “defending 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 the Left Democrats in Italy, the Greek PASOK, etc.

The anti-system camp looks more colorful. In ideological terms, its representatives at the level of political parties and movements act from 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 the processes of globalization. First of all, these are issues of illegal emigration, national and confessional tolerance in an increasingly internationalized community of European states. This pole can be attributed to the "National Front" in France. The left wing of the anti-systemic camp consists, first of all, of Trotskyist parties and movements that stand on the principles of internationalism and the struggle against "imperialism" and "global capital".

This classification scheme proposed by Schweitzer also suffers from a number of shortcomings. First, it is limited in its application. Obviously, this typology of parties does not fit the left-wing organizations of Central and Eastern Europe (Socialist Party of Serbia; Communist Party of the Czech Republic and Moravia), which until recently were ruling in their countries, but now are actually “stuck” in the process of evolution from communist orthodoxy to the model 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 forces.

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 is conducive to this: “political opposition is the most intense, most extreme opposition, and any a concrete opposition is a political opposition.” That is why the political interaction of the left and right is still a tool for the political classification of parties and movements, despite their internal changes in the course of the historical process.

Diversity of civil society organizations.

Many scholars of the new democratic regimes that have emerged in the last fifteen years have emphasized the importance of a strong and vibrant civil society for the strengthening of democracy. Speaking about the 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, because of which passive moods 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 usually look to advanced Western democracies, and above all the United States, as a role model. However, there is strong evidence that the viability 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 due to the prevailing belief that the level of development of civil society in America is traditionally unusually high (as we will see below, such a reputation is quite justified) .

Tocqueville, who visited the United States in the 1930s, was most struck by the tendency of Americans to unite in civil associations, which he saw as the main reason for the unprecedented success of this country in creating a functioning democracy. All the Americans he met, regardless of their "age, social status and character," were members of various associations. Further, Tocqueville remarks: “And not only in trade and industry - almost the entire adult population is their member - but also in a thousand others - religious and moral, serious and trifling, 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."

Recently, American sociologists of the Neo-Tauquilian school have collected a large amount of empirical evidence that the state of society and the functioning of public institutions (and not only in America) do indeed depend to a large extent on the norms and structures of citizen participation in public life. Researchers have found that interventions to reduce urban poverty, reduce unemployment, fight crime and drug abuse, and promote education and health care work best where community organizations and civil society institutions exist. Similarly, analyzes of the economic performance of various ethnic groups in the US have shown that economic success depends on the presence of social ties within the group. These data are in full agreement with the results of studies conducted in various background conditions, which convincingly proved that social structures play a decisive role in the fight against unemployment and the solution of many other economic problems.

The classical liberal model of democracy is based on the Anglo-Saxon tradition. However, it should be noted that other European countries also made a significant contribution to the development of this model. Democratic traditions were laid in the small city-states of Northern Italy during the Renaissance, and in the Dutch cities, etc. In England since about the 13th century. treaty, deliberative and representative institutions (Magna Carta, Parliament, etc.) begin to develop. The Glorious (Bloodless) Revolution of 1688 laid the foundations of a constitutional monarchy, defining the framework of state government. The principles of classical democracy were finally formed in the 17th century.

Principles of classical liberal (representative) democracy:

1) Sovereignty of the people. All power comes from the people. He has the founding, constitutional power in the state. The people elect their representatives and depose them.

2) Solving issues on the majority. To implement this principle of position, a special procedure is required, regulated by the electoral law (this is the difference from ancient democracy).

3) Equality of citizens before the law. Mandatory equality of electoral rights of citizens.

4) Election and periodic turnover of all state bodies. Officials receive certain powers, and citizens - ways to control their activities.

5) Separation of powers.

The modern liberal model of democracy has enriched the content of some principles and expanded their list.

Principles of modern liberal democracy:

1) The rights and freedoms of citizens are the main value of democracy.

2) Democracy is not the rule of the people. This is government in the name of the people and for the people. Modern democracy is a representative democracy, the meaning of which lies in the competition between political forces for votes.

3) Solving all issues by the majority, but respecting and guaranteeing the rights of the minority.

4) Separation of powers. Creation of a mechanism of checks and balances, with the help of which various branches of government could mutually limit each other. Democracy is not a way of governing, but a way of limiting government and other power structures.

5) Adoption of the principle of consensus in the decision-making process. You can refrain, but not resist.

6) Restriction (balancing) of the activities of the state by civil society. Civil society is understood as a sphere of spontaneous self-organization of people. Democracy develops self-government of citizens.

pluralistic democracy

Politics, according to supporters of the pluralistic concept of democracy, is a conflict of interest groups in the field of political struggle. It is impossible to make an absolutely fair decision for all. Decisions are made on the basis of compromise.

Supporters of the pluralist concept criticize representatives of liberal democracy in the following areas:

Excessive attention to the individual as a subject of politics. Liberals do not see behind the personality the main subject of politics - the interest group.

Limited understanding of individual freedom. In liberalism, freedom is understood as a negative phenomenon, i.e. freedom from state interference in the affairs of the individual, but this approach reinforces social conflicts and thereby makes the rights of the individual formal.

Underestimation of the role of the state. Liberals limit state intervention in public life. But the needs of the social and economic development of society objectively lead to the expansion of the role of the state. Consequently, the pluralists argue, to insist on non-intervention of the state in social processes means to distort reality.

Signs of a pluralistic concept of democracy:

1) Interest groups are the main subject of policy. But none of them should dominate the political process, because does not represent the opinion of the whole society.

2) The essence of democracy lies in the rivalry of group interests. Citizens do not have to express their opinions; interest groups do it much better for them.

3) Democracy is not the power of the people, but power with the consent of the people. The necessary representation can be achieved without the active participation of citizens. The responsibility of politicians will be caused by the need for support from the electorate, so they will strive to satisfy the demands of interest groups.

4) Recognition and guarantee of minority rights. The basis of consent in society is the principle of the majority, but its dictatorship is unacceptable.

5) Recognition of the special role of political culture as a condition for civilized rivalry between political forces.

6) Transferring the system of checks and balances from the state sphere to the social sphere of society.

Supporters of other models of democratic organization of society criticize pluralists for the following shortcomings:

Exaggeration of the role of group differentiation of society. Many citizens are not represented in any groups at all.

Ignoring the inequality of opportunities for different groups to influence state power and politics. Groups expressing the socio-economic interests of the upper classes are better organized, more active, have a lot of money and enjoy more political influence. In addition, individual groups can become so powerful that their activities paralyze the political system, because. only their interests will be satisfied, and the demands of citizens will be ignored.

The interpretation of the state as a neutral element. The state cannot be neutral in the competitive struggle of interest groups, since there are influential groups that can put pressure on it.

Liberal democracy is a form of political organization 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 stem from traditional liberal notions of limiting power and are designed to ensure a wide range of civil and human rights. The above can be guaranteed by such instruments as the constitution, the bill of rights, the principle of separation of powers, the 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 (or at least the majority). Public consent within a liberal-democratic political system is ensured through representation: liberal democracy (sometimes also defined as representative) involves the adoption of political decisions by a small group of people on behalf of all citizens of the country.

Those who assume such duties and responsibilities act with the consent of the citizens and govern in their name. 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 actions of the government by the population to which the government is accountable. In this case, citizens deprive their chosen ones 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 in relation to the actions and personal composition of state government bodies, is a fundamental function of liberal democracy. The electoral system gives the right to vote to all adult citizens of the country, regular elections are held and open rivalry between political parties claiming power is ensured.

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

See also Rule of Law, Elections, Civil Rights, Democracy, Legitimacy, Liberalism, Marxism-Leninism, Accountability, Political Tolerance, Human Rights, "Representation", "Separation of Powers".

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

The question looks like this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Democracy is a competitor to liberalism.

Democracy is an alternative to statism.

This is very important to understand.
Especially in Russia.

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

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

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