Basic provisions of liberal democracy. About democracy and liberalism

2 History 3 Liberal democracy in the world

3.1 Types of liberal democracies 3.2 Liberal democracy in Russia

4.1 Advantages 4.2 Disadvantages

Notes

Introduction

Liberal democracy is a form of socio-political structure - a legal state based on representative democracy, in which the will of the majority and the ability of elected representatives to exercise power are limited in the name of protecting the rights of the minority and the freedoms of individual citizens. Liberal democracy aims to provide every citizen with equal rights to due process, private property, privacy, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom of religion. These liberal rights are enshrined in higher laws (such as a constitution or statute, or in precedent decisions made by the supreme courts), which, in turn, confer on various government and public bodies powers to ensure these rights.

Characteristic element liberal democracy is an “open society”, characterized by tolerance, pluralism, coexistence and competition of the widest range of social political views. Through periodic elections, each of the groups holding different views has a chance to gain power. In practice, extremist or fringe viewpoints rarely play a significant role in the democratic process. However, the model open society makes it difficult for the ruling elite to maintain power, guarantees the possibility of a bloodless change of power and creates incentives for the government to respond flexibly to the needs of society.

In a liberal democracy, the political group in power does not have to subscribe to all aspects of the ideology of liberalism (for example, it may advocate democratic socialism). However, it is obliged to obey the above-mentioned principle of the rule of law. Term liberal in this case it is understood in the same way as in the era of bourgeois revolutions of the late 18th century: providing every person with protection from arbitrariness on the part of the authorities and law enforcement agencies.

1. Structure of the socio-political structure

1.1. Political system

The democratic nature of government is enshrined in the fundamental laws and supreme precedent decisions that make up the constitution. The main purpose of the constitution is to limit the power of officials and law enforcement agencies, as well as the will of the majority. This is achieved with the help of a number of tools, the main ones of which are the rule of law, independent justice, separation of powers (by branches and at the territorial level) and a system of “checks and balances”, which ensures the accountability of some branches of government to others. Only such actions of government officials are lawful if they are carried out in accordance with the law published in writing and in due order.

Although liberal democracies include elements of direct democracy (referendums), the vast majority of supreme government decisions are made by the government. The policy of this government should depend only on representatives legislative branch and the head of the executive branch, which are established as a result of periodic elections. The subordination of the government to any unelected forces is not permitted. In the interval between elections, the government must operate in a mode of openness and transparency, and facts of corruption must be immediately made public.

One of the main provisions of liberal democracy is universal suffrage, which gives every adult citizen of the country an equal right to vote, regardless of race, gender, wealth or education. The exercise of this right is usually associated with a certain registration procedure at the place of residence. Election results are determined only by those citizens who actually voted, but turnout often must exceed a certain threshold for the vote to be considered valid.

The most important task of electoral democracy is to ensure that elected representatives are accountable to the nation. Therefore, elections and referendums must be free, fair and honest. They must be preceded by free and fair competition between representatives of different political views, combined with equality of opportunity for election campaigns. In practice, political pluralism is determined by the presence of several (at least two) political parties that have significant power. The most important prerequisite for this pluralism is freedom of speech. The choices of the people must be free from the dominant influence of armies, foreign powers, totalitarian parties, religious hierarchies, economic oligarchies and any other powerful groups. Cultural, ethnic, religious and other minorities should have an acceptable level of opportunity to participate in decision-making, which is usually achieved by granting them partial self-government.

1.2. Rights and freedoms

The most frequently cited criteria for liberal democracy take the form of civil rights and liberties. Most of these freedoms were borrowed from various movements of liberalism, but acquired functional significance.

Right to life and personal dignity Freedom of speech Freedom of the media and access to alternative sources of information Freedom of religion and public expression of religious views The right to associate in political, professional and other organizations Freedom of assembly and open public debate Academic freedom Independent justice Equality before the law Law to due process of law under the rule of law Privacy and the right to personal secrecy The right to own property and to private enterprise Freedom of movement and choice of place of work The right to education The right to free work and freedom from undue economic exploitation Equality of opportunity

Some of these freedoms are limited to a certain extent. However, all restrictions must meet three conditions: they must be strictly in accordance with the law, pursue a righteous purpose, and must be necessary and adequate to achieve that purpose. Laws imposing restrictions should strive to be unambiguous and not open to differing interpretations. Legitimate purposes include the protection of reputation, personal dignity, national security, public order, copyright, health and morals. Many restrictions are forced so that the rights of some citizens do not diminish the freedom of others.

It deserves special attention that people who fundamentally disagree with the doctrine of liberal democracy (including for cultural or religious reasons) have the same rights and freedoms as others. This follows from the concept of an open society, according to which the political system should be capable of self-change and evolution. Understanding the importance of this provision is relatively new in liberal democracy, and a number of its supporters still consider legal restrictions on the propaganda of any ideologies hostile to this regime to be legitimate.

1.3. Terms

According to popular belief, a number of conditions must be met for liberal democracy to emerge. Such conditions include a developed justice system, legislative protection of private property, the presence of a broad middle class and a strong civil society.

Experience shows that free elections by themselves rarely ensure liberal democracy, and in practice often lead to “flawed” democracies in which either some citizens are deprived of the right to vote, or elected representatives do not determine all government policy, or the executive branch subordinates the legislative and judicial, or the justice system is unable to ensure compliance with the principles laid down in the constitution. The latter is the most common problem.

Level material well-being in a country is also hardly a condition for a country's transition from an authoritarian regime to a liberal democracy, although research shows that this level plays a significant role in ensuring its sustainability.

There is a debate among political scientists about how sustainable liberal democracies are created. The most common two positions. According to the first of them, for the emergence of liberal democracy, a long-term split between the elites and the involvement of legal procedures, as well as broader sections of the population, in resolving conflicts is sufficient. The second position is that a long prehistory of the formation of democratic traditions, customs, institutions, etc. of certain peoples is necessary.

2. History

To mid-19th centuries, liberalism and democracy were in a certain contradiction with each other. For liberals, the basis of society was a person who has property, needs its protection, and for whom the choice between survival and the preservation of his civil rights cannot be acute. The implication was that only property owners participate in a social contract in which they give the government consent to rule in exchange for guarantees that their rights will be protected. On the contrary, democracy means the process of forming power based on the will of the majority, in which all people, including the poor.

From the Democratic point of view, depriving the poor of the right to vote and the opportunity to represent their interests in the legislative process was a form of enslavement. From the liberals' point of view, the "dictatorship of the mob" posed a threat to private property and the guarantee of individual freedom. These fears especially intensified after the Great French Revolution.

DIV_ADBLOCK122">

The turning point was Alexis de Tocqueville's Democracy in America (1835), in which he showed the possibility of a society where individual freedom and private property coexisted with democracy. According to Tocqueville, the key to the success of such a model, called “ liberal democracy“is equality of opportunity, and the most serious threat to it is the sluggish government intervention in the economy and its violation of civil liberties.

After the revolution of 1848 and the coup d'état of Napoleon III (in 1851), liberals increasingly began to recognize the need for democracy. Events have shown that without the participation of the broad masses in the social contract, the liberal regime turns out to be unstable, and the full implementation of the ideas of liberalism remains a utopia. At the same time, social democratic movements began to gain strength, denying the possibility of a fair society built on private property and a free market. From their point of view, full-fledged democracy, in which all citizens have equal access to all democratic institutions (elections, media, justice, etc.), could only be realized within the framework of socialism. However, having become convinced of the growth of the middle class, the majority of Social Democrats abandoned the revolution, decided to participate in the democratic process and seek legislative reforms with the aim of a smooth evolution towards socialism.

By the beginning of the 20th century, social democrats in Western countries had achieved significant success. Voting rights were significantly expanded and reforms were launched that increased the level of social protection of the population. These processes accelerated after the October Revolution of 1917 in Russia. On the one hand, the revolution and the subsequent nationalization of private property greatly frightened right-wing (classical) liberals, who recognized the need to smooth out social contradictions and ensuring equality of opportunity. On the other hand, socialists saw the Soviet regime as a threat to democracy and began to support stronger protections for the rights of minorities and individual citizens.

3. Liberal democracy in the world

http://*****/1_-34012.wpic" width="350" height="178 src=">

States by their system of government
-- presidential republics
-- semi-parliamentary republics
-- semi-presidential republics
-- parliamentary republics
-- parliamentary constitutional monarchies
-- constitutional monarchies
-- absolute monarchies
-- one-party regimes
-- military dictatorships

DIV_ADBLOCK124">

There are many electoral systems for forming parliament, the most common of which are the majoritarian system and the proportional system. Under the majoritarian system, the territory is divided into districts, in each of which the mandate goes to the candidate who receives the majority of votes. Under a proportional system, seats in parliament are distributed in proportion to the number of votes cast for parties. In some countries, part of the parliament is formed according to one system, and part according to another.

Countries also differ in the way they form the executive and legislative branches. In presidential republics, these branches are formed separately, which ensures high degree their division by function. In parliamentary republics, the executive branch is formed by the parliament and is partially dependent on it, which ensures a more even distribution of power between the branches.

The Scandinavian countries are social democracies. This is due to high level social protection of the population, equality in living standards, free secondary education and healthcare, a significant public sector in the economy and high taxes. At the same time, in these countries the state does not interfere in pricing (even in the public sector, with the exception of monopolies), banks are private, and there are no obstacles to trade, including international trade; effective laws and transparent governments reliably protect civil rights people and property of entrepreneurs.

3.2. Liberal democracy in Russia

Until 1905 in the autocratic Russian Empire The official ideology denied liberal democracy, although such ideas were popular among the educated part of society. After the publication of the Manifesto by Nicholas II on October 17, 1905, many essential elements of liberal democracy (such as popular representation, freedom of conscience, speech, unions, meetings, etc.) began to be integrated into the political system of the Russian state. Victory February Revolution 1917, which took place under democratic slogans, formally turned liberal democracy into the official ideology of the new political regime, but this regime turned out to be extremely unstable and was overthrown during the October Revolution of 1917. The Soviet political regime that was established after it denied the liberal democratic ideology, no longer “on the right”, as in autocratic, and “on the left”. The erosion and fall (the so-called “perestroika”) of the Soviet regime in Russia in the late 1980s and early 1990s had its origins mainly under liberal-democratic slogans. The core values ​​and principles of liberal democracy are explicitly stated in the current Russian Constitution and have never been explicitly questioned by the official authorities of Russia in the post-Soviet period. However, there is a common view in the West that liberal democracy has never been realized in Russia. According to the Freedom in the World rating, the USSR in 1990-1991. and Russia in 1992-2004. were considered “partly free countries”, but since 2005 Russia has been included in the list of “not free countries”.

In Russia itself, part of the population mistakenly associates the doctrine of liberal democracy with the nationalist LDPR party. Democracy is generally supported, but most people prioritize social rights over political ones.

4. Critical analysis

4.1. Advantages

First of all, liberal democracy is based on the rule of law and universal equality before it.[ sourceNotindicated 221 day]

The publication, funded by the World Bank, argues that liberal democracy ensures government accountability to the nation. If the people are dissatisfied with government policies (due to corruption or excessive bureaucracy, attempts to circumvent laws, mistakes in economic policy etc.), then in the next elections the opposition has a high chance of winning. After she comes to power, the most reliable way to stay on is to avoid the mistakes of her predecessors (dismiss corrupt or ineffective officials, obey the laws, attract competent economists, etc.) Thus, according to the authors of the work, liberal democracy ennobles the desire for power and forces the government to work for the good of the nation. This ensures a relatively low level of corruption.

At the same time, a number of countries (Switzerland, Uruguay) and regions (California) actively use elements of direct democracy: referendums and plebiscites.

By allowing a minority to influence decision-making, liberal democracy ensures the protection of private property for the wealthy.[ sourceNotindicated 221 day] American author Alvin Powell argues that the most democratic countries in the world have the lowest levels of terrorism. This effect may even be spreading beyond the region: statistics show that since the late 1980s, when Eastern Europe many countries have taken the path of liberal democracy, total number military conflicts, ethnic wars, revolutions, etc. in the world have sharply decreased (English)[ not in the source].

A number of researchers believe that these circumstances (especially economic freedom) contribute to economic recovery and an increase in the level of well-being of the entire population, expressed in GDP per capita. At the same time, despite high rates of economic growth, some liberal democratic countries are still relatively poor (for example, India, Costa Rica), while a number of authoritarian regimes, on the contrary, are thriving (Brunei).

According to a number of researchers, liberal democracies manage available resources more effectively when they are limited than authoritarian regimes. According to this view, liberal democracies are characterized by higher life expectancy and lower infant and maternal mortality, regardless of the level of GDP, income inequality or the size of the public sector.

4.2. Flaws

Liberal democracy is a type of representative democracy, which has attracted criticism from supporters of direct democracy. They argue that in a representative democracy, the power of the majority is expressed too rarely - at the time of elections and referendums. Real power is concentrated in the hands of a very small group of representatives. From this point of view, liberal democracy is closer to an oligarchy, while the development of technology, the growth of people’s education and the increase in their involvement in the life of society create the preconditions for transferring more and more power into the hands of the people directly.

Marxists and anarchists completely deny that liberal democracy is democracy, calling it a “plutocracy.” They argue that in any bourgeois democracy, real power is concentrated in the hands of those who control financial flows. Only very wealthy citizens can afford to campaign politically and spread their platform through the media, so only the elite or those who make deals with the elite can be elected. Such a system legitimizes inequality and facilitates economic exploitation. In addition, critics continue, it creates the illusion of justice, so that the discontent of the masses does not lead to riots. At the same time, “stuffing” certain information can cause a predictable reaction, which leads to manipulation of the consciousness of the masses by the financial oligarchy. Supporters of liberal democracy consider this argument to be devoid of evidence: for example, the media rarely voice radical points of view because it is not interesting to the general public, and not because of censorship[ sourceNotindicated 766 days]. However, they agree that campaign finance is an essential element in the electoral system and that in some cases it should be public. For the same reason, many countries have public media that pursue a policy of pluralism.

In an effort to maintain power, elected representatives are primarily concerned with measures that will allow them to maintain a positive image in the eyes of voters in the next elections. Therefore, they give preference to decisions that will bring political dividends in the coming months and years, to the detriment of unpopular decisions, the effect of which will appear only in a few years. However, doubts have been expressed whether this is truly a disadvantage, since long-term forecasts are extremely difficult for society, and therefore an emphasis on short-term goals may be more effective.

On the other hand, to strengthen their voice, individual voters may support special lobbying groups. Such groups are able to obtain government subsidies and achieve solutions that serve their narrow interests, but do not serve the interests of society as a whole.

Libertarians and monarchists criticize liberal democracy because elected representatives frequently change laws without apparent need. This impedes the ability of citizens to comply with the law and creates opportunities for abuse by law enforcement agencies and officials. The complexity of legislation also leads to a slow and cumbersome bureaucratic machine.

There is a widespread belief that regimes with a high concentration of power are more effective in the event of war. It is argued that democracy requires a lengthy approval procedure; the people may object to the draft. At the same time, monarchies and dictatorships are able to quickly mobilize the necessary resources. However, the latter statement often contradicts the facts. In addition, the situation changes significantly if there are allies. Certainty in foreign policy leads to a greater effectiveness of military alliances between democratic regimes than between authoritarian ones.

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

This type of government has the goal of ensuring that every individual citizen of his country has the rights to private property, freedom of speech, compliance with legal processes, protection of personal space, life, and freedom of religion. All these rights are spelled out in a legislative document such as the Constitution, or other form of legal formation adopted by a decision of the Supreme Court, endowed with such powers as can ensure the implementation of the rights of citizens.

Democracy concept

The modern name of this political movement comes from the Greek words demos- "society" and kratos- “rule”, “power”, which formed the word democracy, meaning "power of the people."

Principles of a democratic system

Principles of liberal democracy:

1. The main principle is to ensure the rights and freedoms of citizens.
2. Government is ensured by accepting the will of the people, as determined by voting. The side with the most votes wins.
3. All rights expressed by the minority are respected and guaranteed.
4. Organizing the competitiveness of various areas of management, because democracy is not a means of power, but a means of limiting the ruling parties with other power organizations.
5. Participation in voting is mandatory, but you can abstain.
6. Civil society restrains the activities of state power through the self-organization of citizens.

Signs of a democratic state structure

The following are the signs of democracy in the state:

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

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

Formation of liberal democracy

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

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

Thus, a new branch of thought began to emerge, which assumed that human relationships are built on faith, truth, freedom, equality, the basis of which is liberalization. The new direction was built on the principles of equality, and the election of the highest authority by God or belonging to noble blood had no privilege. The ruling power is obliged to be in the service of the people, but not vice versa, and the law is absolutely equal for everyone. The liberalist trend has entered the masses in Europe, but the formation of liberal democracy has not yet been completed.

Liberal democracy theory

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

1. Direct democracy. It implies the direct participation of citizens in the social structure of the state: raising an issue, discussing, making decisions. This ancient look was key in ancient times. Direct democracy is inherent in small communities, towns, and settlements. But only when these same issues do not require the participation of specialists in a particular field. To date this type can be observed against the background of the structure of local government. Its prevalence is directly dependent on the decentralization of issues raised, decisions made, and the transfer of the right to make them to small teams.
2. Plebiscitary democracy. It, like the direct one, implies the right to express the will of people, but is different from the first. The people have the right only to accept or reject any decision, which, as a rule, is put forward by the head of government. That is, the power of people is limited, the population cannot pass relevant laws.
3. Representative democracy. Such democracy is carried out through the acceptance by the people of the head of the government body and its representatives, who undertake to consider and accept the interests of citizens. But the people have nothing to do with solving more important problems that require the participation of a qualified specialist, especially when the participation of the population in the life of the country is difficult due to the large territory inhabited.
4. Liberal democracy. Power is the people who express their needs through a qualified representative of the ruling power, who is elected to exercise his powers for a certain period. He enjoys the support of the majority of the people, and the people trust him, taking advantage of the constitutional provisions.

These are the main types of democracy.

Countries with liberal democracies

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

Resolving disagreements between the government and the people

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

The main difference between liberal democracy and classical

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

Principles of classical liberal democracy:

1. Independence of the people. All power in the state belongs to the people: constituent and constitutional. People choose a performer and remove him.
2. The majority resolves issues. To implement this provision, a special process is required, which is regulated by electoral law.
3. All citizens definitely have equal voting rights.
   The election of the supreme chairman is the responsibility of the population, as well as his overthrow, control and supervision of public activities.
4. Power sharing.

Principles of modern liberal democracy:

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

The virtues of liberal democracy

The advantages of liberal democracy are:

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

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

Flaws

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

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

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

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

Critics say elected officials often change laws unnecessarily. This makes it difficult for citizens to comply with laws and creates conditions for abuse of power by law enforcement agencies and bodies serving the people. Problems in legislation also entail slowdown and massiveness of the bureaucratic system.

Liberal democracy in Russia

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

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

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

General characteristics of liberal democracy

In political science, liberal democracy is one of the most common models of the democratic structure of the state. This is largely due to the compliance of the direction under consideration with classical democratic ideals. Moving on to consider the essential features and characteristics of liberal democracy, it seems necessary to provide one of the definitions of the corresponding category:

Definition 1

Liberal democracy - model government organization, built on the basis of representative democracy, in which the will of the social majority and the powers of public authorities are limited in such a way as to ensure the protection of the rights and legitimate interests of each member of society.

At the same time, one of the key features of liberal democracy is that in its conditions the main goal of the state is declared to be equal provision of inalienable rights and freedoms to every citizen, among which can be named:

• Private property;
• Privacy, freedom of movement;
• Freedom of thought and speech, religion, freedom of assembly, etc.

At the same time, in connection with the fact that in a liberal democracy the corresponding benefits are given the status of absolute values, their legal consolidation is ensured at the highest legislative level, primarily in the Constitution of the state, and is continued in the law enforcement activities of public authorities.

In addition, the literature notes that liberal democracy is characterized by the model of the so-called “open society,” that is, a society in which a wide variety of socio-political views (political pluralism and pluralism of opinions) coexist on a competitive basis.

In particular, the corresponding feature may be reflected in the fact that in a liberal democracy, the political force in power does not necessarily share and support all the values ​​and ideals of classical liberalism, gravitating, for example, towards democratic socialism. However, despite the place of views of the relevant party or public association in the political spectrum, it must necessarily share the ideas of the rule of law in a liberal democratic state.

In this regard, it seems reasonable to believe that in relation to the characteristics of a political regime, “liberalism” is understood not in the sense of the economic component of the corresponding term, but in the sense of comprehensive protection of each member of society from arbitrariness on the part of government bodies and their officials.

History of the formation and development of the ideas of liberal democracy

Over a long period of historical development, until the middle of the 19th century, the ideas of democracy and liberalism were in a certain contradiction with each other, since classical liberalism assumed as the basis of the state the individual owner, for whom ensuring his economic rights is much more important than, for example, the need for survival, or various kinds of social benefits.

At the same time, as is known, democrats argued for the need for the majority of the population, including representatives of the poor class, to participate in the formation of power and the adoption of socially significant decisions, since, according to democrats, the deprivation of such electoral and political rights in its content is a form of enslavement of citizens. Liberals, in turn, defended the view that the power of the have-nots represented a real threat to private property and guarantees of individual freedom.

The turning point in the corresponding discussion, which predetermined the possibility of the emergence of liberal democracy as a model of government, was the period of the mid-19th century, when a number of researchers, led by the French politician Alexis de Tocqueville, consistently substantiated the point of view that there is a real possibility of the existence of a society in which personal freedom and private property not only coexist with democratic ideals, but are also in harmonious unity, complementing each other.

Note 1

The key idea and condition for the viability of liberal democracy, according to A. de Tocqueville, is the equality of opportunities for citizens in the state, including in economic and political spheres.

Conditions for the formation and approval of liberal democracy in the state

Despite the sufficient prevalence of liberal-democratic ideas in political science and the programs of political parties, the question of what is the list of conditions necessary and sufficient for the emergence, formation and final approval of the liberal-democratic structure of the state is still quite acute.

Thus, in accordance with one point of view, the minimum volume of relevant conditions is presented:

• Developed justice system in the country;
• Legislative proclamation and protection of private property;
• The presence of a broad middle class as the basis of any democracy;
• A strong civil society consisting of politically active members of society.

However, not all scientists, sharing the need to ensure appropriate conditions, agree with the opinion that they are sufficient for the establishment of liberal democracy, citing examples of situations in which, despite their presence, the formation of “defective” democracies occurs.

In this regard, it should be emphasized that another condition for liberal democracy should be the existence of a long historical process of formation of democratic traditions, customs and institutions, as well as the involvement of legal procedures and the general population to resolve conflicts.

Plan:

Introduction

• 1 Structure of the socio-political structure
  • 1.1 Political system
  • 1.2 Rights and freedoms
  • 1.3 Terms
• 2 History
• 3 Liberal democracy in the world
  • 3.1 Types of liberal democracies
  • 3.2 Liberal democracy in Russia
• 4 Critical analysis
  • 4.1 Advantages
  • 4.2 Disadvantages
Notes

Introduction

Liberal democracy is a form of socio-political structure - a legal state based on representative democracy, in which the will of the majority and the ability of elected representatives to exercise power are limited in the name of protecting the rights of the minority and the freedoms of individual citizens. Liberal democracy aims to provide every citizen with equal rights to due process, private property, privacy, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom of religion. These liberal rights are enshrined in higher laws (such as a constitution or statute, or in precedent decisions made by the highest courts), which in turn empower various government and public bodies to ensure these rights.

A characteristic element of liberal democracy is an “open society”, characterized by tolerance, pluralism, coexistence and competition of the widest range of socio-political views. Through periodic elections, each of the groups holding different views has a chance to gain power. In practice, extremist or fringe viewpoints rarely play a significant role in the democratic process. However, the open society model makes it difficult for the ruling elite to maintain power, guarantees the possibility of a bloodless change of power and creates incentives for the government to respond flexibly to the needs of society.

In a liberal democracy, the political group in power does not have to subscribe to all aspects of the ideology of liberalism (for example, it may advocate democratic socialism). However, it is obliged to obey the above-mentioned principle of the rule of law. Term liberal in this case is understood in the same way as in the era bourgeois revolutions the end of the 18th century: providing every person with protection from arbitrariness on the part of the authorities and law enforcement agencies.

1. Structure of the socio-political structure

1.1. Political system

The democratic nature of government is enshrined in the fundamental laws and supreme precedent decisions that make up the constitution. The main purpose of the constitution is to limit the power of officials and law enforcement agencies, as well as the will of the majority. This is achieved with the help of a number of tools, the main ones of which are the rule of law, independent justice, separation of powers (by branches and at the territorial level) and a system of “checks and balances”, which ensures the accountability of some branches of government to others. Only such actions of government officials are lawful if they are carried out in accordance with the law published in writing and in due order.

Although liberal democracies include elements of direct democracy (referendums), the vast majority of supreme government decisions are made by the government. The policy of this government should depend only on representatives legislative branch and the head of the executive branch, which are established as a result of periodic elections. The subordination of the government to any unelected forces is not permitted. In the interval between elections, the government must operate in a mode of openness and transparency, and facts of corruption must be immediately made public.

One of the main provisions of liberal democracy is universal suffrage, which gives every adult citizen of the country an equal right to vote, regardless of race, gender, wealth or education. The exercise of this right is usually associated with a certain registration procedure at the place of residence. Election results are determined only by those citizens who actually voted, but turnout often must exceed a certain threshold for the vote to be considered valid.

The most important task of electoral democracy is to ensure that elected representatives are accountable to the nation. Therefore, elections and referendums must be free, fair and honest. They must be preceded by free and fair competition between representatives of different political views, combined with equality of opportunity for election campaigns. In practice, political pluralism is determined by the presence of several (at least two) political parties that have significant power. The most important prerequisite for this pluralism is freedom of speech. The choices of the people must be free from the dominant influence of armies, foreign powers, totalitarian parties, religious hierarchies, economic oligarchies and any other powerful groups. Cultural, ethnic, religious and other minorities should have an acceptable level of opportunity to participate in decision-making, which is usually achieved by granting them partial self-government.

1.2. Rights and freedoms

The most frequently cited criteria for liberal democracy take the form of civil rights and liberties. Most of these freedoms were borrowed from various movements of liberalism, but acquired functional significance.

• Right to life and personal dignity
• Freedom of speech
• Freedom of the media and access to alternative sources of information
• Freedom of religion and public expression of religious views
• The right to associate in political, professional and other organizations
• Freedom of assembly and open public debate
• Academic freedom
• Independent justice
• Equality before the law
• The right to due process under the rule of law
• Privacy and the right to personal secrets
• The right to own property and private enterprise
• Freedom of movement and choice of place of work
• Right to education
• The right to free work and freedom from excessive economic exploitation
• Equality of opportunity

Some of these freedoms are limited to a certain extent. However, all restrictions must meet three conditions: they must be strictly in accordance with the law, pursue a righteous purpose, and must be necessary and adequate to achieve that purpose. Laws imposing restrictions should strive to be unambiguous and not open to differing interpretations. Legitimate objectives include the protection of reputation, personal dignity, national security, public order, copyright, health and morals. Many restrictions are forced so that the rights of some citizens do not diminish the freedom of others.

It deserves special attention that people who fundamentally disagree with the doctrine of liberal democracy (including for cultural or religious reasons) have the same rights and freedoms as others. This follows from the concept of an open society, according to which the political system should be capable of self-change and evolution. Understanding the importance of this provision is relatively new in liberal democracy, and a number of its supporters still consider legal restrictions on the propaganda of any ideologies hostile to this regime to be legitimate.

1.3. Terms

According to popular belief, a number of conditions must be met for liberal democracy to emerge. Such conditions include a developed justice system, legislative protection of private property, the presence of a broad middle class and a strong civil society.

Experience shows that free elections by themselves rarely ensure liberal democracy, and in practice often lead to “flawed” democracies, in which either some citizens are deprived of the right to vote, or elected representatives do not determine all government policy, or the executive branch subordinates the legislative and judicial, or the justice system is unable to ensure compliance with the principles laid down in the constitution. The latter is the most common problem.

The level of material well-being in a country is also unlikely to be a condition for a country's transition from an authoritarian regime to a liberal democracy, although research shows that this level plays a significant role in ensuring its sustainability.

There is a debate among political scientists about how sustainable liberal democracies are created. The most common two positions. According to the first of them, for the emergence of liberal democracy, a long-term split between the elites and the involvement of legal procedures, as well as broader sections of the population, in resolving conflicts is sufficient. The second position is that a long prehistory of the formation of democratic traditions, customs, institutions, etc. is necessary. of certain peoples.

2. History

Until the middle of the 19th century, liberalism and democracy were in a certain contradiction with each other. For liberals, the basis of society was a person who has property, needs its protection, and for whom the choice between survival and the preservation of his civil rights cannot be acute. The implication was that only property owners participate in a social contract in which they give the government consent to rule in exchange for guarantees that their rights will be protected. On the contrary, democracy means the process of forming power based on the will of the majority, in which all people, including the poor.

From the Democratic point of view, depriving the poor of the right to vote and the opportunity to represent their interests in the legislative process was a form of enslavement. From the liberals' point of view, the "dictatorship of the mob" posed a threat to private property and the guarantee of individual freedom. These fears especially intensified after the Great French Revolution.

Alexis de Tocqueville

The turning point was Alexis de Tocqueville's Democracy in America (1835), in which he showed the possibility of a society where individual freedom and private property coexisted with democracy. According to Tocqueville, the key to the success of such a model, called “ liberal democracy“is equality of opportunity, and the most serious threat to it is the sluggish government intervention in the economy and its violation of civil liberties.

After the revolution of 1848 and the coup d'état of Napoleon III (in 1851), liberals increasingly began to recognize the need for democracy. Events have shown that without the participation of the broad masses in the social contract, the liberal regime turns out to be unstable, and the full implementation of the ideas of liberalism remains a utopia. At the same time, social democratic movements began to gain strength, denying the possibility of a fair society built on private property and a free market. From their point of view, full-fledged democracy, in which all citizens have equal access to all democratic institutions (elections, media, justice, etc.), could only be realized within the framework of socialism. However, having become convinced of the growth of the middle class, the majority of Social Democrats abandoned the revolution, decided to participate in the democratic process and seek legislative reforms with the aim of a smooth evolution towards socialism.

By the beginning of the 20th century, social democrats in Western countries had achieved significant success. Voting rights were significantly expanded and reforms were launched that increased the level of social protection of the population. These processes accelerated after the October Revolution of 1917 in Russia. On the one hand, the revolution and the subsequent nationalization of private property greatly frightened right-wing (classical) liberals, who recognized the need to smooth out social contradictions and ensure equality of opportunity. On the other hand, socialists saw the Soviet regime as a threat to democracy and began to support stronger protections for the rights of minorities and individual citizens.

3. Liberal democracy in the world

██ free countries
██ partially free countries
██ unfree countries

States by their system of government
██ presidential republics
██ semi-parliamentary republics
██ semi-presidential republics
██ parliamentary republics
██ parliamentary constitutional monarchies
██ constitutional monarchies
██ absolute monarchies
██ one-party regimes
██ military dictatorships

Elected democracies by their system of government. According to Freedom House experts, in these countries a change of government through elections is possible.

A number of organizations and political scientists maintain ratings of the level of liberal democracy in countries around the world. Among these rankings, the most famous are the Polity Data Set, Freedom in the World, compiled by the American organization Freedom House, and the Economist Democracy Index.

3.1. Types of liberal democracies

The presence of liberal democracy is largely determined by the principles actually implemented and the compliance of the regime with the above criteria. For example, Canada is technically a monarchy, but is actually governed by a democratically elected parliament. In Great Britain, the hereditary monarch formally has the highest power, but in fact such power is vested in the people, through their elected representatives (there is also the opposite point of view that parliamentarism in Great Britain is just a screen for an absolute monarchy). The monarchy in these countries is largely symbolic.

There are many electoral systems for forming parliament, the most common of which are the majoritarian system and the proportional system. Under the majoritarian system, the territory is divided into districts, in each of which the mandate goes to the candidate who receives the majority of votes. Under a proportional system, seats in parliament are distributed in proportion to the number of votes cast for parties. In some countries, part of the parliament is formed according to one system, and part according to another.

Countries also differ in the way they form the executive and legislative branches. In presidential republics, these branches are formed separately, which ensures a high degree of separation by function. In parliamentary republics, the executive branch is formed by the parliament and is partially dependent on it, which ensures a more even distribution of power between the branches.

The Scandinavian countries are social democracies. This is due to the high level of social protection of the population, equality in living standards, free secondary education and healthcare, a significant public sector in the economy and high taxes. At the same time, in these countries the state does not interfere in pricing (even in the public sector, with the exception of monopolies), banks are private, and there are no obstacles to trade, including international trade; effective laws and transparent governments reliably protect the civil rights of people and the property of entrepreneurs.

3.2. Liberal democracy in Russia

Until 1905, in the autocratic Russian Empire, the official ideology rejected liberal democracy, although such ideas were popular among the educated part of society. After the publication of the Manifesto by Nicholas II on October 17, 1905, many essential elements of liberal democracy (such as popular representation, freedom of conscience, speech, unions, meetings, etc.) began to be integrated into the political system of the Russian state. The victory of the February Revolution of 1917, which took place under democratic slogans, formally turned liberal democracy into the official ideology of the new political regime, but this regime turned out to be extremely unstable and was overthrown during the October Revolution of 1917. The Soviet political regime established after it denied the liberal democratic ideology , no longer “on the right,” as in the autocratic, but “on the left.” The erosion and fall (the so-called “perestroika”) of the Soviet regime in Russia in the late 1980s and early 1990s had its origins mainly under liberal-democratic slogans. The core values ​​and principles of liberal democracy are explicitly stated in the current Russian Constitution and have never been explicitly questioned by the official authorities of Russia in the post-Soviet period. However, there is a common view in the West that liberal democracy has never been realized in Russia. According to the Freedom in the World rating, the USSR in 1990-1991. and Russia in 1992-2004. were considered “partly free countries”, but since 2005 Russia has been included in the list of “not free countries”.

In Russia itself, part of the population mistakenly associates the doctrine of liberal democracy with the nationalist party LDPR. Democracy is generally supported, but most people prioritize social rights over political ones.

4. Critical analysis

4.1. Advantages

First of all, liberal democracy is based on the rule of law and universal equality before it. [ source not specified 221 days]

The publication, funded by the World Bank, argues that liberal democracy ensures government accountability to the nation. If the people are dissatisfied with the government's policies (due to corruption or excessive bureaucracy, attempts to circumvent laws, errors in economic policy, etc.), then the opposition has a high chance of winning in the next elections. After she comes to power, the most reliable way to stay on is to avoid the mistakes of her predecessors (dismiss corrupt or ineffective officials, obey the laws, attract competent economists, etc.) Thus, according to the authors of the work, liberal democracy ennobles the desire for power and forces the government to work for the good of the nation. This ensures a relatively low level of corruption.

At the same time, a number of countries (Switzerland, Uruguay) and regions (California) actively use elements of direct democracy: referendums and plebiscites.

By allowing a minority to influence decision-making, liberal democracy ensures the protection of private property for the wealthy. [ source not specified 221 days] American author Alvin Powell argues that the most democratic countries in the world have the lowest levels of terrorism. This effect may even extend beyond the region: statistics show that since the late 1980s, when many countries in Eastern Europe embarked on the path of liberal democracy, the total number of military conflicts, ethnic wars, revolutions, etc. in the world decreased sharply (English) [ not in the source] .

A number of researchers believe that these circumstances (especially economic freedom) contribute to economic recovery and an increase in the level of well-being of the entire population, expressed in GDP per capita. At the same time, despite high rates of economic growth, some liberal democratic countries are still relatively poor (for example, India, Costa Rica), while a number of authoritarian regimes, on the contrary, are thriving (Brunei).

According to a number of researchers, liberal democracies manage available resources more effectively when they are limited than authoritarian regimes. According to this view, liberal democracies are characterized by higher life expectancy and lower infant and maternal mortality, regardless of the level of GDP, income inequality, or the size of the public sector.

4.2. Flaws

Liberal democracy is a type of representative democracy, which has attracted criticism from supporters of direct democracy. They argue that in a representative democracy, the power of the majority is expressed too rarely - at the time of elections and referendums. Real power is concentrated in the hands of a very small group of representatives. From this point of view, liberal democracy is closer to an oligarchy, while the development of technology, the growth of people’s education and the increase in their involvement in the life of society create the preconditions for transferring more and more power into the hands of the people directly.

Marxists and anarchists completely deny that liberal democracy is democracy, calling it a “plutocracy.” They argue that in any bourgeois democracy, real power is concentrated in the hands of those who control financial flows. Only very wealthy citizens can afford to campaign politically and spread their platform through the media, so only the elite or those who make deals with the elite can be elected. Such a system legitimizes inequality and facilitates economic exploitation. In addition, critics continue, it creates the illusion of justice, so that the discontent of the masses does not lead to riots. At the same time, “stuffing” certain information can cause a predictable reaction, which leads to manipulation of the consciousness of the masses by the financial oligarchy. Supporters of liberal democracy consider this argument to be devoid of evidence: for example, the media rarely voice radical points of view because it is not interesting to the general public, and not because of censorship [ source not specified 766 days] . However, they agree that campaign finance is an essential element in the electoral system and that in some cases it should be public. For the same reason, many countries have public media that pursue a policy of pluralism.

In an effort to maintain power, elected representatives are primarily concerned with measures that will allow them to maintain a positive image in the eyes of voters in the next elections. Therefore, they give preference to decisions that will bring political dividends in the coming months and years, to the detriment of unpopular decisions, the effect of which will appear only in a few years. However, doubts have been expressed whether this is truly a disadvantage, since long-term forecasts are extremely difficult for society, and therefore an emphasis on short-term goals may be more effective.

On the other hand, to strengthen their voice, individual voters may support special lobbying groups. Such groups are able to receive government subsidies and seek solutions that serve their narrow interests, but do not serve the interests of society as a whole.

Libertarians and monarchists criticize liberal democracy because elected representatives frequently change laws without apparent need. This impedes the ability of citizens to comply with the law and creates opportunities for abuse by law enforcement agencies and officials. The complexity of legislation also leads to a slow and cumbersome bureaucratic machine.

There is a widespread belief that regimes with a high concentration of power are more effective in the event of war. It is argued that democracy requires a lengthy approval procedure; the people may object to the draft. At the same time, monarchies and dictatorships are able to quickly mobilize the necessary resources. However, the latter statement often contradicts the facts. In addition, the situation changes significantly if there are allies. Certainty in foreign policy leads to greater effectiveness of military alliances between democratic regimes than between authoritarian ones.

Democratic and liberal (liberal-democratic) regimes are two varieties of the general democratic way of implementing state power, the antipode of which is the non-democratic or anti-democratic way in its two main varieties - authoritarian and totalitarian regimes. In most textbooks on constitutional law, only three types of state or political regimes are usually distinguished - democratic, authoritarian and totalitarian. In others, the liberal regime is specifically highlighted, which seems more correct and consistent. If we limit ourselves to only the most general division of these regimes, then, as already mentioned, they can be divided simply into democratic and non-democratic. But since the latter are differentiated into authoritarian and totalitarian, expressing varying degrees of their undemocratic nature, then, while remaining consistent, it is necessary to subdivide the democratic type of state power according to the degree of democracy into actually democratic and liberal, or liberal-democratic.

It is quite natural that, in fact, consistently democratic and liberal-democratic, liberal state-political regimes have a lot in common in the main and fundamental things, which allows them to belong to the same democratic type of state power. At the same time, there are significant species differences between them that require their scientific differentiation. Since the liberal regime in this regard acts as a kind of democratic type of state-political rule, it can be called liberal-democratic.

A democratic state-political regime is characterized by a commitment not only to truly democratic goals and values, but also to a fairly complete and consistent use of appropriate methods and methods for achieving them in the process of exercising state power. As historical and modern experience shows, the most adequate basis for the establishment of such regimes is a socially oriented economy, the achievement of a relatively high general standard of living of the population, civil society, the implementation of the principles of social justice and social harmony, etc. It is no coincidence that such regimes are firmly established and successful operate today in industrialized countries, while even in those developing countries that have chosen a generally democratic path of development, the application of the principles, forms and methods of democracy turns out to be objectively limited by a low level economic development, poverty of the bulk of the population, acute social conflicts, extremely low general and especially political and legal culture of citizens. This, of course, does not mean that among developing countries there are not and cannot be countries with democratic regimes. But even when this occurs, we can actually talk most often about a liberal, liberal-democratic variety of such a regime and only in some cases about the formation of a democratic regime proper. And in most post-socialist countries what is happening today is precisely the process of establishing truly and consistently democratic state-political regimes.

Generally speaking, a democratic state-political regime is characterized by a number of common essential features despite the variety of specific forms of its manifestation. The most important of them are as follows.

• 1. Recognition and guaranteed implementation of democracy, the sovereignty of the people as the fundamental basis of the entire state and political system countries.
• 2. Legislative consolidation and guaranteed implementation of the basic generally recognized rights and freedoms of man and citizen, ensuring genuine and high freedom, autonomy and active initiative of citizens.
• 3. The connection of state power with law and law, the subordination of its bodies to them, i.e. legal nature of this power.
• 4. Separation and equality of branches of government - legislative, executive and judicial, the use of a system of various checks and balances in the process of their interaction. These branches of government are both independent of each other and interconnected.
• 5. Political pluralism, ensuring, in particular, a multi-party system.
• 6. Political pluralism and multi-party system, presupposing freedom of organization and activity of the opposition, periodic legal and legitimate change at the helm of state power of representatives of various parties and movements, unhindered expression of the opinion of opposition forces on issues of government policy and public administration, respect for it and taking it into account when adoption by state authorities of political and management decisions etc.
• 7. Political pluralism and multi-party system, organically connected with the need to ensure ideological freedom and ideological diversity, including freedom of agitation and propaganda, openness, independence of the media, etc.
• 8. Wide real participation of citizens in the exercise of government power, i.e. application of the principle of participation as a way to implement feedback from the state to the population.
• 9. Decentralization of state power and the development of local self-government, allowing for vertical division of power and preventing the monopolization of this power at the top to the detriment of the middle and lower echelons of the state system.
• 10. Extremely narrow, strictly limited by law, use of violent methods and means of exercising state power.

A liberal, or liberal-democratic regime is a type of democratic type of state rule, in which democratic methods, forms and methods of exercising state power receive relatively incomplete, limited and inconsistent application. On the one hand, such a regime is associated with a fairly high level of political freedom of the individual; and on the other hand, the real objective and subjective conditions of the respective countries significantly limit the possibilities of using democratic means and methods of state-political government. This stipulates that the liberal state-political regime should be classified as a democratic type of government and at the same time identified within its framework as a special type of democratic regime, different from actually democratic or developed democratic regimes.

The liberal state-political regime is the embodiment of the socio-political principles and ideals of liberalism (from the Latin liberalis - free) - one of the most important and widespread ideological and socio-political trends, which finally developed into a special, independent direction in the 30-40s. XIX century, although the ideological origins of liberalism go back to the 17th-18th centuries. (J. Locke, C. Montesquieu, J.J. Rousseau, T. Jefferson, B. Franklin, I. Bentham, etc.). Historically, classical liberalism developed in the struggle against feudal enslavement of the individual, against class privileges, hereditary state power, etc., for freedom and equality of citizens, equal opportunities for everyone, democratic forms of socio-political life.

For liberalism the characters are: recognition of the self-worth of the individual and the original equality of all people; individualism, humanism and cosmopolitanism; upholding the inalienable rights, freedoms and responsibilities of citizens, primarily the rights to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness; support for the principles of democracy, constitutionalism, separation of powers, parliamentarism, law and order; understanding of the state as a body based on agreement and consensus with members of society, limited to the goals of protecting the original rights of man, not interfering in his private life, supporting the principles market economy, freedom of enterprise and competition with minimal government intervention in the economy. Classical liberalism, which became widespread and seriously influential in the second half of the 19th - first half of the 20th centuries, especially in connection with the creation and activities of liberal parties and the rise of many of them to power, has today undergone significant evolution and renewal. In particular, modern liberalism or neoliberalism is distinguished by a greater perception of the ideas of pluralistic democracy and diversity of forms of ownership, expansion and strengthening of the role of the state in public life, social state, social justice, etc.

If in the past, especially in the 19th century, the liberal regime was inherent in the industrial developed countries, which was then experiencing the process of becoming a true democracy, then in the modern world such regimes are especially characteristic of post-colonial and post-socialist countries moving from anti-democratic colonial or totalitarian regimes to developed democratic rule (India, Egypt, Turkey, the Philippines, Sri Lanka, etc.) , who have seriously advanced along the path of democratization of political life, but have not yet reached the level of developed democracies, as well as in some post-socialist countries of Europe.