State regime: the concept. Political state regimes

The notion of a state regime is one of the most ambiguous in modern political science. Aspects concerning the correlation of the key principles of the exercise by the authorities of powers in the governance of the country and the legal model with priorities in business development become an occasion for active discussions. In this connection? Why are scientists' approaches to defining the essence of terms relating to the functioning of political institutions not always correlated with practice?

Definition

What is the definition of the term "state regime"? Many of modern political scientists define it as a set of principles for the realization of power. Some researchers prefer to separate the concept of "state mode" from the political one, others identify both terms. At the same time, both should be distinguished in principle from such phenomena as the form of government and government. Identification of the terms in question is an error. Why? How does the state regime differ from the forms of the device of the political system and government?

The mode and form of state organization: the distinction between concepts

Consider what the fundamental difference between the three terms (we agree that the concepts of the state and political regimes can be combined). In fact, all three are phenomena of the same order. That is why there is confusion in their use, some freedom in interpretation. Sometimes there is, for example, a term such as "forms of the state regime," although, strictly speaking, it is not entirely correct to use from the point of view of stylistics.

Anyway, all three phenomena - the regime, the form of state structure and government - characterize the mechanisms for the realization of power. But if, strictly speaking, the political regime are principles, then the form of government and government is, in fact, instruments that reflect the practical functioning of political institutions. Visualization of the differences will help us to classify varieties of both.

Kinds of modes

Modern political scientists distinguish the following main types of state regimes: democratic, authoritarian and totalitarian. Criteria by which it is possible to determine the ownership of the political system of the country vary greatly depending on the scientific school. But if you try to determine the main, they will look like this.

The democratic regime is characterized by the following: the existence of a popularly accepted constitution, the principle of the division of power into several branches, a multi-party system, the election of the authorities at different levels, respect for the key human and civil rights and freedoms, the availability of public resources for personal development, and business freedom.

What are the signs of a totalitarian regime? The experts consider such as: absence of multi-party system, minimum of business freedom, political censorship, lack of resources for expressing public opinion and publicity, state ideology, the constitution is adopted without the participation of the people or is absent altogether, there is no separation of powers.

What is the characteristic of an authoritarian regime? According to a common interpretation, the existence of such a one can be fixed if the government in the state is concentrated in the hands of a particular person or a relatively small group, usually not expressing the mood and priorities of citizens who inhabit the country. Some political analysts believe that an authoritarian regime of power can be fixed if there are institutions in the country de jure that allow us to speak about the existence of democratic mechanisms, but de facto state governance is realized primarily on totalitarian principles.

Of course, the above criteria can not be considered exhaustive. We also note that they reflect the characteristics of modern political systems in a relatively full measure. If you go deeper into history, you can find additional signs of democracy, totalitarianism or authoritarianism. It can not be said that these criteria will definitely remain relevant in the near future.

It should be noted that among scientists there is an opinion that in a pure form, the democratic, authoritarian and totalitarian regimes are difficult to document in practice. The specified classification is more theoretical. It is designed to give some guidance, allowing to determine the distinctive principles of the functioning of political power in a particular state. That is, by comparing the systems of power institutions of two states, it is possible to conditionally reveal which of them is more democratic, and which is predominantly totalitarian. At the same time, there are almost certainly more democratic or totalitarian countries. Therefore, in the classification of political systems of different states, everything is very relative, both in the current political context and in the historical context.

Types of forms of government

Having defined the main types of political regimes, let us consider the classification of forms of state structure, first of all, to understand the difference between terms. As we said above, the state regime is the principles of the functioning of power. The forms of organization and government of the country - a practical tool for the implementation of the relevant powers of the ruling institutions. In modern political science, the following classification of forms of state structure is most common:

- unitary;

- federal;

In the first form, the country is a consolidated, centralized political unit that is not divided into administrative zones that have any significant powers. Examples of predominantly unitary states: France, Great Britain, Finland.

The federal states, in turn, are organized on the principle of considerable decentralization of political power. The country consists of quite independent subjects of the federation (as in the Russian Federation), states (in the USA, Mexico), lands (in Germany), etc. Each of the administrative-territorial units can have its own budget, political system and even the constitution.

In political science, the view is widespread that relatively small states prefer to organize their own political system on unitary principles. Those whose territory is vast, gravitate toward a federative format. Russia is the state among the second. As well as many others with a large area, for example, the US, Brazil.

Kinds of forms of government

What is the form of the state structure, the political regime, we have studied. It is necessary to consider the distinctive features of such a notion as "form of government". In modern political science, it is customary to distinguish the following varieties:

- monarchy;

- Republic;

The first, in turn, is classified into an absolute and constitutional (parliamentary) monarchy. The republic can be presidential, parliamentary or mixed type. Monarchy is a form of government in which the highest political power is inherited from one king to another. In the republic, key political institutions are formed through popular elections. In the event that there are significant democratic elements under the monarchy (for example, the formation of legislative bodies of power occurs through the will of citizens), it is recognized as constitutional or parliamentary. If not, then absolute.

In the presidential republic, a significant amount of power is concentrated in the hands of the head of state (the highest post in the executive branch of government). As a rule, he is elected by popular vote in a direct way. Russia is a state that many political scientists consider to be among the typically presidential ones.

In the parliamentary republics, legislative and representative structures are vested with key powers in the aspect of political power. Examples of such states are the Federal Republic of Germany, Austria. They also have a president who is formally the head of the executive branch of power, but his powers are incomparably small with those that the parliament possesses.

There is another criterion for distinguishing between the concepts of the presidential and parliamentary republics. It implies not so much the level of authority concentrated in the hands of the president or the legislature, as much as the mechanism for the formation of a higher institution of executive power (as a rule, this is the government). In the presidential republics, the latter is usually formed with the direct participation of the president and on the basis of his point of view on personnel and organizational issues. In the parliamentary model, the relevant role of the legislative body is of priority.

With a mixed republican form of government, the powers of legislative and executive authorities are approximately equal. Unambiguous criteria that determine their weight, it is difficult to distinguish. But, as a rule, they are dispersed in different branches of power, the key for the state - the budget, the army, the social sphere, business. Mixedness can also be expressed in the need for consistent coordination in making political decisions between different branches of government. In this regard, there is an opinion that neither this nor another republican form of government exists in its pure form. That is, no matter how significant the powers of the president, his concepts relating to the governance of the country, one way or another, will be consistent with the opinion of the parliament. In turn, the legislative body of power, ensuring the entry into force of certain legal acts, as a rule, will coordinate them with the executive structures.

The ratio of mode, device shape and control

And now the most interesting. How are the types of state regimes, forms of organization and government correlated? Is there some relationship between their different types? A unequivocal answer to these questions can not be given. And that's why.

Let us recall the signs of a totalitarian regime: the absence of a multiparty system, the minimum of individual freedoms, censorship, etc. Let us consider an example of one of the few states that modern political scientists, as a rule, consider to be totalitarian. This is China. Indeed, there is only one party ruling there - communist, hence relatively few freedoms, censorship is strong (this is especially noticeable in the example of state interference in the Internet space, expressed in the periodic ban on Western social networks).

The combination of the unlike

From the point of view of the form of government, China is a republic. This is reflected even in the official name of the country - the People's Republic of China. In the political structure, therefore, there are mechanisms by which power is elected by the population. Moreover, one can not say that China has an authoritarian regime of the state. Despite the fact that the power is concentrated in the hands of the Communist Party, the interests of the people, as many political scientists consider, are presented in sufficient volume. It turns out that the PRC, no matter how strange it sounds, is a democratic republic under the totalitarian regime.

In the aspect of the form of the state structure of the PRC - a unitary state. And this despite the large territory, the existence of cities-megacities, not inferior in population and economic development to the capital, - Beijing. Above we noted that federal principles are characteristic as time for states with a large area. With respect to the PRC, this rule does not work.

At the same time, some political scientists believe that the PRC is an exception to the rules. That is, in most cases, if the political regime is authoritarian and totalitarian, then the implementation of republican principles in the country will be very difficult. In turn, under democracy, the institutions of election and representation function, if we follow this concept, more qualitatively. This is achieved, mainly due to increased competition in the political arena. There are parties that offer different programs, and those who promote ideas close to the majority of the population fall into power. The democratic republic, according to this theory, must be necessarily multi-party, do not have state censorship and provide the full range of basic civil rights and freedoms.

Political regime and business

Let's consider one interesting aspect concerning the relationship between the political regime and business opportunities. We noted above that one of the signs of democracy is the existence of an institution of free enterprise in the country. What are its criteria? First of all, this is the minimum of barriers in the aspect of registration of new enterprises. This is a low tax burden. This is the minimum state regulation.

Is it possible to fix compliance with these criteria in the business environment of modern countries, which are considered to be typically democratic - the USA, France, Germany? In some respects, of course, yes. However, if we take the popular ratings of the freedom of entrepreneurship in the world, it turns out that Hong Kong and Singapore are leading in them. The first state is de jure part of the "totalitarian" China. The second has a political system, closely approximated to the totalitarian system. In particular, there is no multi-party system in fact - there is opposition, but its influence on the authorities is minimized. Singapore is also known for very strict laws regulating the public sphere of life.

Thus, political (state) regimes do not always determine the degree of freedom of entrepreneurship. Although, according to a common point of view and established practice in many regions of the world, there is still some dependence between the relevant principles of state management and business environments.

Political regime and law

Political (state) regimes can differ, as we have already noted, in the approaches to realizing human rights and citizenship. Under totalitarianism, if you follow a common theoretical concept, the level of legal support is lower than under democracy. At the same time, a number of modern political scientists prefer to approach the assessment of the relevant aspect with caution. Why?

There are indisputable examples of the rule of law - the USA, Germany, Great Britain. Due to what mechanisms in these countries was the relevant quality of the political system achieved? According to many political scientists, this became possible due to the emergence (not immediately, but in the course of gradual development) of an institution of independent judicial proceedings. That is, the existence of formal mechanisms, which in theory should predetermine the construction of a system for the realization of human rights and citizens, is not enough. We need an established tradition, accepted in society as a basis for behavior.

Examples of the rule of law, mentioned above, may indicate the existence of such a tradition in these states. In turn, according to some experts, in those countries where the activities of courts in the historical context did not always imply real independence, the authorities will have to compensate for the lack of necessary traditions by the strictness of the laws. And this outwardly may look like a disregard for human rights. Although in fact the state tries to provide them, but can not delegate the corresponding function to the courts due to their insufficient independence.

Political regime in Russia

What is the form of the political (state) regime in the Russian Federation? This is an issue that engenders incredibly intense discussions. We will try to touch upon several key points of view concerning it.

There is a version that historically the forms of the state regime in Russia never met the basic criteria characteristic of democracy. There were times of absolute monarchy under the Empire, totalitarianism under the USSR. Therefore, despite the fact that the Russian Federation has a popularly adopted constitution and democratic electoral mechanisms, de facto power in our country is closely approximated to authoritarian or even totalitarian concepts. Opposition parties, according to this point of view, although they are present in Russia, but, due to pressure from the power structures, can not play a significant role in the political system. Business in the Russian Federation, as the supporters of this concept believe, can not be described as free: the level of taxes is quite high, especially in the aspect of social work, the registration of the enterprise is quite long, the level of state regulation is high.

There is another point of view. In accordance with it, modern Russia is a fully-fledged democracy. The failures of the opposition parties, if we consider the results of the recent parliamentary elections, are mainly related not to the suppression of their activity, but to the fact that citizens do not share the essence of the programs they offer.

Significant restrictions for entrepreneurs are explained by low social responsibility of business and so far low legal culture of people engaged in their business. Very many companies strive, first of all, to earn something for themselves, by all means deceiving customers, partners, consumers. Hence the necessary strictness of laws in the aspect of state intervention. But, according to optimistic experts, with the natural growth of competition in the Russian economy, state regulation will weaken. To replace strict laws, market mechanisms will come. Those firms that prefer to play a dishonest game, neglect service and decency, simply lose to competitors.