Democracy is a bad form of government, but mankind has not come up with anything better
democratic collective adversarial self-government
I agree with Churchill's opinion that democracy is a bad form of government, but nothing better has yet been invented. This can easily be seen in a comparison of all the forms of government that we know.
So, our world in different epochs of its existence was influenced by different forms government: monarchy, tyranny, despotism, dictatorship, democracy. What unites the first four forms? So, this is that power (limitless, undeniable, complete) was in the hands of one person or a handful of people who decided fate and told everyone around how to live, complete absence freedom of speech, thought and punishment for the slightest manifestation of independence and dissent.
It seems to me that by the time humanity came up with democracy, how new form government, the people were simply tired of constant total control, and everyone treated it as a utopia, an ideal world. After all, democracy offered freedom of expression, a chance to see in the leaders not a monarch, tyrant or despot, but common man, which the population of the state itself has chosen, we can say that a person has become the master of his life.
But nothing is perfect, and democracy has not justified the hopes of many, because such is the essence of man, everywhere and in everything to look for flaws. Some people think that it would be better if there was a monarchy, then you won’t have to decide anything yourself, just do what you are told, follow orders, and just give up independence, you don’t need to turn on your head and strive for nothing ... you have a task and You live with her all your life. Someone thinks that he has little power and wants more and more, he longs to be a kind of "monarch" and tell everyone what to do and how to do it. For some, freedom of speech, freedom of action is not enough, and hence a flurry of criticism and sarcasm flows towards the government, the government that he himself chose. This list is endless, there will always be dissatisfied.
So far, we do not have the opportunity to understand, to feel what democracy really is, for good or bad, because so far we have lived only in democracy, and on this moment we don't know anything better.
The main thing to remember is that we are all not without flaws, and we should always strive for the best and hope that someday we will find a form of government that suits everyone.
As you know, Churchill's statement is widely spread "Democracy - worst form reign until you compare it with the rest"“Democracy is the worst form of government unless you compare it to all the rest.”
Admit that at least a couple of times you have heard this "ultimatum argument", behind which individual citizens are hiding who are not burdened with a critical view of the world.
Here, as it should be according to the encyclopedia of propaganda ww.compromat.ru/page_16233.htm, the use of mediators is manifested.
This technique is based on two postulates. Firstly, special studies have found that it is not massive propaganda campaigns in the media that influence the formation of an “average” person’s opinion on any issue most of all. Strange as it may seem, the myths, rumors and gossip circulating in society have the greatest effect. The second postulate follows from the first one: effective information impact on a person is not carried out directly from the mass media, and through authoritative people who are significant for him, familiar to him (“opinion leaders”) - opinion translators and rumors
As mediators in different situations and for different social groups and strata can act informal leaders, politicians , representatives of religious denominations, cultural figures, scientists, artists, athletes, military, sex bombs, etc. - for each category of the population is its authority. In influence psychology, this is called "fixation on authority."Most people are prone to imitative behavior, focusing their actions on the actions of opinion leaders that are authoritative for them. They tend to take an example from those whom they respect and who is their leader. Therefore, the choice of pop and sports "stars", other popular persons for advertising and propaganda programs and participation in election campaigns is primarily due to the fact that they have a fairly wide audience of admirers, many of whom are not inclined to bother assessing the competence of their idols, not only in political , but also other issues on which they give their assessments.
The main task of all advertising and PR campaigns is to with the help of "fixation on authorities" to force target audience acquire desired product or a service.
In this case, we see how the figure of Churchill is presented as a recognized authority, whose opinion is important. That is, Churchill is a mediator. But who is Churchill? Churchill is a politician of the first half of the 20th century who ruled the British Empire at a number of historical stages. I emphasize - the empire. Which oppressed the peoples under its control, deprived the colonies of political rights, carried out regular aggressive wars, carried out annexations and the like, purely non-democratic actions. Churchill himself had a direct bearing on these actions. And now, as an "expert on democracy", we are presented with the hardened imperialist Churchill, who throughout his life tried with all his might to strengthen and preserve the British Empire, where Britain and the people who inhabited it would maintain a dominant position over the rest.
There is a double catch in the quote - not only that expert opinion gives the imperialist Churchill, the concept of democracy is also deliberately eroded. It can be different, bourgeois or socialist. Churchill, as a representative of bourgeois and imperialist circles, speaks precisely of "bourgeois democracy" in the sense that existed in Churchill's contemporary world. This quote has nothing to do with the modern understanding of "democracy", because the modular example on the basis of which Churchill gave an expert opinion has ceased to exist.
Just think about why the British Empire, despite the presence of "bourgeois democracy" and the mediator himself, ceased to exist? Why didn't "democracy" save? And the thing is that Churchill, who fought for the British Empire all his life, saw in the future something completely different from what they are trying to attribute to him now.
The empires of the future - empires of the mind. the future are the empires of the mind.
That's it. Empires of the future. This is to the question of another common conjecture "all empires fall apart." But Churchill, as a mediator, believes that smarter empires will replace the modern empires. What is an empire? An empire is such a structure of society in which the state as an institution takes precedence over society.
And here is one of the hallmarks of democracy.
Democratic states protect members of society from the omnipotence of central governments and carry out the process of decentralization state power delegating part of the powers to the regional and local levels. At the same time, states with a democratic form of government are aware that local authorities the authorities must, to the greatest extent possible, be accessible to the people and responsive to their needs and aspirations.
It's a classic clash of interests. What is the priority - general or personal interest? As you can see, Churchill is talking specifically about smart empires, in the context of the "bourgeois democracy" known to him within the framework of the capitalist system, which he himself stamped as a system of unequal distribution of wealth.
As we can see, bourgeois democracy modern to Churchill functioned within the framework of the British Empire, which was not a democratic state and collapsed under the same bourgeois democracy, while the unequal distribution of benefits as the basis for the functioning of such a system was preserved even with the collapse of the state.
And after that, we are offered to trust such an "expert on democracy", while the British Empire was survived by many states, in particular the same communist China, where there was no smell of bourgeois democracy and where everything is still subordinated to common interests. But for some reason he does not quote the Chinese comrades, although Comrade Mao spoke very much about the possibility of an effective symbiosis of bourgeois and socialist democracy. But at the same time, what did he say about the basis of bourgeois democracy? I don't believe in elections. Chairman Mao.
But for some reason we are quoted not by Mao, but by Churchill. Of course, the bourgeois imperialist Churchill is much more in demand in the modern liberal environment than the Marxist-Communist-Maoist Mao. But who determines this? The British Empire is no more. Mao's brainchild you are now watching in all its splendor. It turns out that they have achieved this without "the best of the worst forms of government." Here's a simple comparison for you. Compare and then say that the Chinese way is worse than the bourgeois democracy of the Churchill era and the decline of the British Empire.
As for the quote in the title picture, it reflects Churchill's thoughts about those who are the basis of democracy much more accurately. A classic example of elitist thinking that has nothing to do with democracy. Actually, the best argument against democracy is Churchill himself, who clearly demonstrates that he was never a democrat and beautiful rhetoric was just an ordinary screen behind which the same imperialist of the beginning of the century was hiding, thinking in terms of empire and elitism.
Well, for a snack, in addition to the already mentioned quotes, a little more to load, into which you can poke the next zealots of Churchill and his ideas about democracy.
So to speak, we will hit mediators, mediators.
The sheep and the wolf understand the word "freedom" differently, this is the essence of the disagreements that prevail in human society.
Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865), 16th President of the United States
Everyone is free to believe what they want. I'm just against forcing everyone to believe in one thing.
Isaac Asimov
PS. Actually a great quote. You can poke anyone who postulates the only true character of democracy and liberalism.
Democracy is really about order and discipline. When they are, we can talk about a real, large-scale democracy.
Alexander Prokhorov, Governor of the Smolensk Region
In democratic countries, each new generation is a new people.
Whoever seeks in freedom anything but freedom itself is made for slavery.
Alexis de Tocqueville
PS. That's how wonderful. Because there is no absolute freedom. That every person is a slave.
The best cure for the ills of democracy is more democracy.
Alfred E. Smith
PS. This is directly about Russia and the nano-president.
To say that the best cure for the ills of democracy is more democracy is like saying that the best cure for crime is more crime.
Henry Louis Mencken
Any democracy leads to a dictatorship of scum.
Alfred Nobel
PS. Well, already ... There is simply no passage.
A conservative is a statesman who is in love with existing disorders, in contrast to a liberal who seeks to replace them with disorders of a different kind.
Ambrose Bierce
PS. I immediately recall "Putin's stability" ... And it becomes scary from "disorders of a different kind" that they will try to feed us ...
For the ruling majority, the greatest danger is represented by a minority in their own camp.
Amintore Fanfani
PS. To the question of the tandem and the possibility of course correction.
Today, all countries can be divided into two classes - countries where the government is afraid of the people, and countries where the people are afraid of the government.
Amos R. E. Pinochet
In politics, as in grammar, the mistake everyone makes is proclaimed the rule.
André Malraux
States perish when they cannot distinguish good people from fools.
Antisthenes of Athens, 435-370 BC uh
PS. Of course, I'm not Antisthenes, but looking at " United Russia"I can't tell the good from the bad... And if only I.
Moderate liberalism: the dog needs freedom, but still it needs to be kept on a chain.
Anton Chekhov
What's good about democracy is that it gives every voter the chance to do something stupid.
Art Spender
PS. Exactly so ... I observe every election.
Democracy is a device that guarantees that we will not be better governed than we deserve.
Democracy cannot rise above the level of the human material of which its voters are composed.
Bernard Show
Citizens of a mixed state are like steps, which are all equal, but placed one above the other.
Buast
If the deputies of the people pass laws that are clearly contrary to its aspirations, they violate the powers of the people and become on a par with its tyrants.
Buast
The alien Western European mind was called upon by us to teach us to live with our own mind, but we tried to replace our own mind with it.
Vasily Klyuchevsky
Democracy is the way in which a well-organized minority governs an unorganized majority.
Vasily Rozanov
No one has ever had other rights than those that he has won and managed to keep for himself.
Villiers de l'Isle-Adan
Real democracy is the despotism of the mob.
Voltaire
Democracy can only exist in a small corner of the earth.
Voltaire
Democracy is just a dream: it is on a par with the fabulous Arcadia, Santa Claus and the Garden of Eden ...
Henry Louis Mencken
In a democracy, one party spends all of its energy trying to prove that the other is incapable of running the country—and usually both succeed.
Henry Louis Mencken
Democracy is the science and art of running a monkey cage circus.
Henry Louis Mencken
No one can be completely free until everyone is free.
Herbert Spencer
Freedom also corrupts, and absolute freedom corrupts absolutely.
Gertrude Himmelfarb
There is nothing more hateful than the majority: a small number should show the way strong people, the masses must follow them, unconscious of their will.
Goethe
The biggest slavery is not having freedom, to consider yourself free.
Goethe
PS. The last one is great...
Democracy ends when you put your ballot in the ballot box.
D.Ayatskov
Freedom must be judged by the degree of freedom of the lowest.
Jawaharlal Nehru
Democracy is a form of government that gives every person the right to be their own oppressor.
James Russell Lovell
Democracy: you say what you want, you do what you are told.
John Berry
The best example of democracy that comes to my mind is five wolves eating one sheep.
John Gatsis
Remember, democracy does not last forever. It soon wears out, fizzles out, and destroys itself. There has never been a democracy that has not committed suicide.
John Quincy Adams
Democracy encourages the majority to make decisions about issues that the majority have no idea about.
John Simon
Declarations of Independence have not yet made anyone truly independent.
George Santayana
Real democracy easily turns into anarchy.
Diderot
One of the most common and leading to the greatest disasters of temptations is the temptation to say: "Everyone does it."
L.N. Tolstoy
Thank God we have three advantages in this country: freedom of speech, freedom of thought, and the wisdom to never use either.
Mark Twain
Every party gathering consists of fools and scoundrels.
Napoleon Bonaparte
When the people in a state are corrupted, the laws are almost useless unless it is ruled arbitrarily.
Napoleon Bonaparte
A dozen talkers make more noise than ten thousand who are silent; this is the means to the success of those who bark from the stands.
Napoleon Bonaparte
Freedom is the right to inequality.
Nikolai Berdyaev
Democracy is fooling the people with the help of the people for the good of the people.
Oscar Wilde
From democracy comes tyranny.
Plato
An ill-organized and ill-defined democracy is more hated than traditional royalty. This latter is capable of creating something; the former is good only for destroying.
Rock Barsia
Democracy is a form of government in which it is allowed to speak out loud about what a country would be like with better leadership.
Senator Soaper
I do not believe in the collective wisdom of ignorant individuals.
Thomas Carlyle
If the majority does sometimes right choice only under the influence of false motives.
Philip Chesterfield
In politics, you have to betray your country or your voters. I prefer the second.
Charles de Gaulle
I think few people in the country now do not know about the upcoming elections in State Duma.
But not everyone knows about the primaries of the Democratic coalition based on the People's Freedom Party.
Although, no doubt, for the last two weeks we have been witnessing the excitement around the members of the Democratic Coalition and the leader of the list, Mikhail Kasyanov, who received first place without the will of supporters. The problem was especially acute in the last two or three days, when Ilya Yashin and Ivan Zhdanov withdrew from the Primaries. A question has arisen that is discussed by all democratic forces, both supporters and non-supporters of the People's Freedom Party. Whether or not Mikhail Kasyanov should go to the Primaries first in the quota list, or take part in the Primaries on a general basis and confirm the voters' confidence. And of course, everyone is concerned about the question whether Ilya and Ivan did it right or wrong.
Let's go in order.
Let me remind you of the words of one Prime Minister in the title. Democracy is the worst form of government. Except for everyone else.
This means that it is precisely democratic methods of governance that allow us to achieve the maximum result in development with the maximum freedom of man and citizen allowed by the state and society. As a matter of fact vowels or not vowels rules of mutual relations of the power, a society and the person. The basis of Democracy is the principle of freedom, which says that you can do everything that is not prohibited and does not affect the freedoms of other citizens. Democracy creates the basis for competition, which in turn is the basis for sustainable development. If there is no competition in politics, then eventually there is no competition in the economy, which leads to stagnation and recession. In the same way, it begins to be absent in society, which leads to the destruction of social institutions, the absence of social elevators and the final degradation of society.
We see all this very well in the situation that has developed in the country over the past 16 years.
It turns out that the formation of competitive institutions, primarily in politics, is the main task aimed at public good. And the moment that the Democratic coalition decided to use the Primaries to form a list for the State Duma-2016 is the most correct way of development.
The comrades-in-arms, volunteers, supporters involved in the process were initially notified that Mikhail Kasyanov was in first place on the list, receiving a quota for nomination through the use of the license of the Parnassus party for the right to nominate without collecting signatures. At this moment, many are under the delusion that the question that has arisen now should have been raised earlier, and in no case now, when the film was released on NTV. But! The fact is that the participants of the Democratic Coalition have previously expressed the opinion about the need for equal participation in the elections by the leader of the People's Freedom Party. Politics, the art of the possible, and without obtaining the consent of Mikhail Mikhailovich, there were no other options for cooperation. Whose mistake is this? Navalny, Milov or Kasyanov? My opinion is that first of all Kasyanov, since it was he who reduced the opportunities for a full-fledged democratic process and put the rest of the partners in a situation of choosing the least of the evils. Either the collapse of the coalition, or he is in the first place. The partners have made a choice in favor of maintaining the coalition agreements, and this is their merit. And then a myth arose that, having received first place on the list, Mikhail Kasyanov ceased to compete in the intra-coalition political field. And competition in this is such a thing that exists apart from your desires. It lives by itself and is conditioned by the course of processes.
Here Mikhail Mikhailovich, cheating on his wife, acted, at least, ugly. Discussing the place in the Primaries with Ms. Pelevina is incorrect, and it is not clear to whom more, to her or to other participants in the Primaries. Hiding in the closet of the hotel and threatening the court fools from the NOD is stupid. As a result, each mistake led to the loss of points, both in intra-coalition competition and in the general political competition of the Democratic Coalition as a whole.
Are Yashin and Zhdanov obliged to endure this endlessly? No.
Do other participants have the right to tolerate this. Yes.
And this is neither good nor bad. This is the right of choice of each participant in the political process. Are we for Democracy? Then why don't we leave the right to Ilya and Ivan to make their choice? Each of those who decided to participate in this political process has the right to withdraw from it. If only the situation did not turn out when the majority will be removed from the Primaries and the Parnassians will be left face to face with the preliminary and main elections.
However, in this case, we should not smear the rope with soap, we just need to learn lessons. If we still want to build a system in this country that is different from totalitarian and authoritarian. A system that aims to create competitive institutions and development. Are we for European values? Then we simply have to treat any opinion normally and not make a tragedy because we look at many events differently. This, of course, does not mean that we should not discuss someone's actions and deeds. Just by expanding the discussion, we can get as close as possible to the truth. Just as Mikhail Kasyanov can take into account the opinion of partners, partners can take into account the opinion of Mikhail Kasyanov. The main thing is that all parties understand what the actions are aimed at and the final result is aimed at.
If Mikhail Kasyanov wants to win the State Duma elections for Parnassus by overcoming the 5% barrier, then he, without a doubt, must take into account the opinion of supporters and potential voters and see the obvious himself. The request for his participation in the Primaries on a general basis is very high. This would give positive effect and would in no way mean a retreat, since it is easily explained by the necessity of a common victory.
At the same time, if Mikhail Kasyanov remains first on the list, he will have to bear responsibility for further actions. For the integrity of the coalition, for the result of work, for the number of State Duma deputies from the Democratic Coalition or their absence. This is his right and his choice, although I hope he will be reasonable. We reserve the right to act according to circumstances. And continue intra-coalition competition. That's what the primaries are for, right?
Now, finally, I am registered and can start the campaign.
And maybe it was not worth starting it with a little criticism of the leader of the list, but we are sailing in a common boat and we would like the helmsman to sail in the same direction with us, bypassing the rapids and stones that stand in the way. By the opportunity to arrange internal discussions, we show that we stand for exactly those values that we declare. Therefore, I do not see any serious reasons for worrying. The process is underway. Moreover, now is the time to take an active part in it and become a voter.
Remember that democratic procedures are influenced by you and me. Register on the Wave of Change website and participate in the Primaries. https://volna.parnasparty.ru
The more votes your candidates get, the stronger your point of view will be represented.
p.s. Naturally, I consider the NTV film itself and the footage posted by the FSB to be a criminal offense, and the numerous provocations against Mikhail Kasyanov to be dirty games of the Kremlin.
Introduction
Democracy is the worst form of government
Winston Churchill
Perhaps, there is not so much talk about any state in the world today as about the United States of America. It captured the minds of journalists, historians, political scientists, and ordinary citizens.
Many political and social institutions in America today are detailed analysis from history, politics, law.
One of the most frequently studied institutions, as a special political and social phenomenon, is American democracy; to date, its issues are the most topical and discussed, which expresses the relevance of this work.
Besides, this topic was chosen due to the fact that today the global political situation is formed on the basis of fairly close international relations, whether they manifest themselves positively or negatively. Historically, the state usually had contacts with its “neighbors”, while now the situation has changed and one hemisphere of the Earth always wants to know what is happening on the other, and how this can affect its own status.
The problem of American democracy today is, first of all, the restriction of the rights and freedoms of citizens in favor of the police functions of the state. Moreover, such a problem is the complexity not only of America, but also of other states that have the same form of government.
We used various sources information. But special attention is paid to three of them: this is the work of A. de Tocqueville "Democracy in America", in which he explores American democracy as a political one, comparing it with the mores that reign in aristocratic societies; textbook "Constitutional law foreign countries", as one of the paragraphs containing factual data and opinions about the features social order USA; and a number of articles Russian newspapers, as sources that fairly quickly reflect the course of political events, both in Russian Federation, as well as in the world.
The structure of the work has the following order: introduction, main body, conclusion and list of sources.
Main part
Democracy in terms of political science is a kind of political regime, which can be democratic or authoritarian. In the first case, it is based on a developed civil society and taking into account the rights and freedoms of the individual, while the second type is the rigid power of one or several persons, as a result of which rights and civil liberties are limited.
Thus, democracy is defined, first of all, as an element of the form of the state, in which the supremacy belongs to the general will of the people. This is the self-government of the people, without distinguishing them into "blacks and whites", "proletarians and bourgeoisie", i.e., the entire mass of the people as a whole. Consequently, any class domination, any artificial exaltation of one person above another, no matter what kind of people they may be, is equally contrary to the democratic idea.
The issue of the rights and freedoms of man and citizen today is the most important problem of internal and foreign policy all states of the world community. It is the state of affairs in the field of ensuring human rights and freedoms, their practical implementation that is the criterion by which the level of democratic development of any state and society as a whole is assessed.
When they talk about a democratic state, they first of all mean its social nature: what rights and freedoms are proclaimed in this state and how can citizens use these rights, how does the state take care of its citizens?
The term "democracy" has many definitions. One of them belongs to the American President Abraham Lincoln (): democracy is “the government of the people, chosen by the people and for the people.” Most often, democracy is understood and explained as “power of the people” or “power of the people” (Greek demos-people + cratos-power). Dictionary definition: this political regime in which people's power, enshrined in the laws of freedom and equality of citizens, are established and implemented in practice.
Democracy was understood as a form of state in which power belongs to all or the majority of free citizens who obey the law. This idea of democracy has developed up to late XIX century, until the time of the French Revolution. In the new European political thought, the concept of democracy was transferred from the forms to the principles of the political system.
The US political system is constitutionally based on such democratic features as popular sovereignty, separation of powers, respect for human rights, and a multi-party system.
Parties play an important role in political system USA. As you know, the party system of this state was called a two-party system, since the leading place in it belongs to the two main parties: the Republican and the Democratic. It is noteworthy that the founding fathers - Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, James Madison and others, developing in late XVIII century, the foundations of the US political system did not provide for a place for political parties in it. They advocated the creation of a government formed on the basis of the consent of the whole society, and not the victorious predominance of one political group over another. However, political practice and, above all, election campaigns brought the political theater of the party to the forefront.
Thus, those who drafted the American constitution in 1787 sought to avoid creating a government absolutely dependent on the will of a simple majority of the electorate. James Madison, "the father of the American constitution," argued: "Such democracies have always been a model of unrest and strife, have always been incompatible with the guarantee of personal security and property rights, and in general have lived as short as they died a violent death."
An analysis of the norms of the American constitution suggests the following conclusions.
Of all constituent parts of the US federal government, only the House of Representatives is directly accountable to the voters. The composition of the Senate is formed in the manner determined by each Senate independently (that is, senators can be appointed by state legislatures). Supreme Court appointed by the Senate on the proposal of the President, and its members are not subject to control by the electorate. And finally, the president, instead of being elected by a simple direct vote, is chosen by an electoral college, an electoral body that, although formed through elections, is not at all obliged to follow the wishes of the voters.
However, traditions and amendments have changed a lot in this structure (senators are now elected publicly, and political parties perform most functions of the Electoral College), but even today the United States avoids such democratic forms in which the government would directly follow the will of the citizens.
It is commonly believed that the framers of the US constitution aimed above all to strike a balance between the ideal of a majority vote and the need to protect the rights of various social groups, including the right to property and conduct business.
But it must be taken into account that they also sought to create a stable system of government, since for them the close connection between the observance of minority rights and political stability was obvious. Citizens should be able to peacefully and legally replace one political leader by another, but the exercise of this right in practice is subject to restrictions.
In the writings of the founders of the American constitution, one can find many arguments in favor of this thesis. The basis of control over the government, in their opinion, was to be provided by the government itself. When a government is formed, the main difficulty lies in this: first it must be made fit for the leadership of the country, and then oblige it to control itself.
Approximately half a century after the adoption of the American constitution, the French political scientist A. de Tocqueville devoted one of his studies to the US political system, and specifically, to American democracy.
In his book Democracy in America, he examines the institution of democracy and compares it with the characteristics of an aristocratic society.
Thus, as democratic methods for preventing abuse by the central government, he names:
Elections of officials of local self-government;
Public associations;
freedom of the press;
Respect for formalities on the part of civil servants and citizens as a guarantee of the observance of the rights of the latter;
Preventing public authorities from sacrificing the individual rights of a few citizens in the name of realizing their global plans.
Thus, the idea is once again emphasized that the opinion of the majority cannot prevail over the interests of the majority: each social group must have equal rights and obligations, there can be no priority of one over the other.
Tocqueville directly pointed out that, having destroyed various forces that, beyond all measure, restrain the growth of individual self-consciousness, democratic peoples will begin to worship the absolute power of the majority, evil will only change its appearance.
It is obvious that already in Tocqueville's work, not only the merits of democratic government are indicated, but also its frank shortcomings, or rather, what an unlimited, all-encompassing "power of the people" can lead to.
Thus, he notes that historians living in a democracy not only deny any individual citizen the ability to influence the fate of their people, but also take away from the peoples themselves the ability to change their own fate, subjecting them either to inexorable providence or a kind of blind inevitability. In their opinion, every nation has its own inevitable fate, determined by its position, origin, its past and innate characteristics, and no effort can change this fate. If this doctrine of fatal inevitability, which is so attractive to those who write about history in times of democracy, being passed down from historians to readers, will thus penetrate all strata populace and master public consciousness, it can be foreseen that it will soon paralyze the activity modern society and turn Christians into Turks.
And what Tocqueville said about citizens democratic state, frankly looks like a criticism of the democratic system. “In democratic peoples, all citizens are independent and weak, almost incapable of doing anything alone. They would all be helpless if they did not learn to volunteer to help one another. Public associations play the role of powerful nobles of the Middle Ages. "In democratic societies long arm The government searches for each individual person in the crowd in order to personally subordinate him to the laws common to all.
As you can see, Tocqueville was torn between an enthusiastic attitude towards democracy and the fear that it would make life monotonous and lead again to the establishment of state despotism.
Unfortunately, it is all too obvious today that, with all the undeniable virtues of democracy in America, Tocqueville's fears have come true.
Growing throughout the 20th century, and manifesting itself in the results of the Second World War, the intervention in Vietnam, Iraq, the bombing of Yugoslavia, dubious democratic virtues clearly manifested themselves in the events after September 11, 2001.
The domestic political situation in the country has changed significantly, and certain trends have emerged that require special consideration.
Thus, "with thoughts about its own people," the United States tightened its measures to combat terrorism so much that outright encroachments on the rights and freedoms of citizens, so carefully protected by the American Constitution for more than two hundred years, immediately became visible.
The author of this statement considers the problem of the essence of a democratic regime, namely its superiority over other political regimes. This problem is relevant in the context of democratic transition.
I agree with the opinion of the publicist, because it is confirmed by facts from history. It is under democracy that a person is free in his actions, deeds, and thoughts.
Politics is a complex social phenomenon, without which society cannot do now.
Politics is closely interconnected with all spheres of society, there is not a single subsystem in which this concept would not appear. Depending on the policy pursued, states can be divided into democratic and anti-democratic. The democratic regime is a relatively young political regime based on the recognition of human rights and freedoms.
Democracy is a regime in which citizens are allowed to participate in political life countries, in contrast to totalitarian states - a regime in which the government controls all aspects of society, a ban on participation in politics. The German philosopher Max Weber considered the cause of totalitarianism to be a crisis in the state, a confrontation between the government and the people.
In a democracy, there is freedom of speech, the press, and the free development of the individual. In Russia, the principles of a democratic state are enshrined in the CRF. Thus, in the country the president is elected for a period of 6 years by the people (Article 81 of the CRF), which allows us to speak about the absence of usurpation of power, as in non-democratic regimes.
In countries with an authoritarian regime, the policy is aimed at exaggerating military power, as a result of which the problem of general disarmament is acute. Also in such countries, Egypt, Tunisia, an armed seizure of power can happen, as for an authoritarian regime, that is, a regime in which power is concentrated in the hands of one leader. Citizens do not have the right to exercise their civic position. In this example, the importance of democracy is manifested in the fact that it provides peace and security for the development of countries and humanity as a whole. UN in the Millennium Declaration outlined the path of development European countries: further development and strengthening democracy, protecting human rights and freedoms.
Thus, despite a number of problems in democratic societies, democracy is the most humane and developed policy. Preserving the principles of democracy is the task of society as a whole, for favorable and peaceful cooperation between countries.
Effective preparation for the exam (all subjects) - start preparing
Updated: 2017-11-24
Attention!
Thank you for your attention.
If you notice an error or typo, highlight the text and press Ctrl+Enter.
By doing so, you will invaluable benefit project and other readers.