The difference between democracy and liberalism. Liberal Democracy The inventor of democracy and the first theorist of liberalism was

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.

Faculty of Law

Department of General Theoretical Legal Disciplines

COURSE WORK

in the discipline "Theory of State and Law"

"Liberal and Democratic State: Comparative Characteristics"

Completed by: 1st year student

correspondence department 156 gr.

Galiullina E.R.

Checked:

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

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

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

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

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

· identify similarities and differences between liberalism and democracy.

1. The concept of a liberal state, its features

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The liberal state is characterized by such specific features:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. Democratic state, its basic principles

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Modern democracy has the following characteristics and features .

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

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

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

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

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

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

Signs of the political form of a democratic state are:

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

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

3. Freedom of opposition, absence of political persecution.

4. Freedom of the press, no censorship.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Liberalism and democracy: similarities and differences

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bibliography

1. Regulations

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

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

2. Special literature

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mushinsky V. Decree. op. 45.

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

Obviously, liberalism is a set of principles and attitudes that underlie the programs of political parties and the political strategy of a government or government coalition of a liberal orientation. At the same time, liberalism is not just a certain doctrine or creed, it is something immeasurably more, namely, a type and way of thinking. As emphasized by one of its leading representatives of the XX century. B. Croce, the liberal concept is metapolitical, going beyond the formal theory of politics, and also in a certain sense of ethics and coinciding with the general understanding of the world and reality. This is a system of views and concepts regarding the surrounding world, a type of consciousness and political and ideological orientations and attitudes, which is not always associated with specific political parties or political course. It is at the same time a theory, doctrine, program and political practice Mushinsky V. Decree. op. 45..

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8. Changes to the US Constitution are made by introducing amendments. The main articles (Ch. 1, 2, 9) of the Constitution of Russia are not subject to change, if necessary, a revision and adoption of a new Constitution is carried out. The US Constitution does not contain such a mechanism Commentary on the Constitution of the Russian Federation / Ed. L.A. Okunkov. - M.: BEK, 2000. - S. 6 ..

9. In general, the Russian constitution is significantly influenced by the US Constitution. Many of the basic provisions regarding the state structure and the republican form of government are very close. However, the constitution of Russia is made at the level of modern legal science and is a more carefully worked out document Chirkin V.E. Constitutional law of foreign countries. - M.: BEK, 2001. - S. 156 ..

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, 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.

It is believed that democracy and liberalism are extremely close concepts, almost identical. But it is not always the case. What are their most popular interpretations?

What is democracy?

Democracy- This is a political regime in which decision-making on the management of the country is carried out by the people - directly or through elected representative bodies. At the same time, in democratic regimes, power is usually divided into 3 branches - legislative, executive and judicial. This scheme excludes the concentration of the prevailing volume of powers in someone else's hands - as is the case with authoritarianism and totalitarianism, which are traditionally opposed to democracy.

What is liberalism?

Liberalism- this is an ideology, in the center of which is the proclamation of the supremacy of human rights and freedoms, assigning them the main role in the socio-economic and political development of society. The state, in accordance with liberal concepts, must help in various ways to ensure that its citizens have every opportunity to exercise their rights and freedoms. According to some ideologists, this should be expressed, first of all, in the non-interference of the country's authorities in social processes. However, if necessary, the authorities must exercise legal protection of the interests of their citizens, ensure the equality of all residents of the country before the law.

The main freedoms proclaimed by traditional liberalism are:

• freedom of speech;
• freedom of choice of religion;
• freedom of political views, cultural values;
• freedom to choose an ideologically close representative to the authorities;
• freedom to choose a profession, conduct business.

Thus, liberalism is an ideology that affects 3 main social institutions - politics, society and the economy.

Comparison

The main difference between democracy and liberalism is in the defined social phenomenon. The first term denotes a political regime, the second - an ideology. However, the concepts of democracy and liberalism, as we noted above, are very similar in many respects. What is the reason for this?

The fact is that the practical implementation of the ideas of liberalism can be fully implemented only under a democratic political regime. Only those people who have political freedoms - that is, the freedom to choose their views, values, representatives to government bodies - are able to count on the adoption of laws that guarantee other liberal preferences.

In turn, not every democracy can involve the introduction of liberal concepts into the life of society. It is quite possible that the people of the country will decide that they do not really need excessive freedom of speech or choice of political views, and will elect to power those people who will pass laws restricting such freedoms (or will themselves adopt the relevant laws in a referendum).

Thus, liberalism is possible only with democracy, but democracy is quite capable of existing without liberalism.

Having determined what is the difference between democracy and liberalism, let's fix its key criteria in the table.