Democracy is the most complex type of political regime. "Democracy" translated from Greek means "power of the people." However, starting from the first mention of it in Aristotle’s Politics, disputes about its content have not ceased to this day. Various authors focus their attention on its various components. For example, the power of the majority, limitation and control over it, general elections, openness, competition of different opinions, pluralism, etc. In some cases it is interpreted as a social system, in others - as a form of state in which all citizens have equal rights to power. This is how it differs from a monarchy.
Democracy was originally seen as direct rule by citizens. But since ancient times, democracy has been considered the worst form of government, because... the low level of culture of citizens allowed the rulers to manipulate the “power of the people”, as a result of which democracy passed into the power of the crowd, and then into tyranny.
The negative attitude towards democracy was not overcome even after the Great French Revolution in the 18th century. This was due to the fact that democracy could not solve the everyday social issues of a large state (unlike city-policies).
From the point of view of the descriptive approach, democracy is a set of political structures and procedures that would be effective in meeting public needs. The liberal theory of democracy, for example, views democracy as responsible and competent government, the source of power is the people, who, on the principles of trust enshrined in the constitution, express their power through their representatives (deputies). In this case, power is exercised by trained people who must express the aspirations of their voters. The theory of direct democracy denies the principle of representativeness. Democracy is understood as direct rule by the people. The will is expressed at the meeting and is the basis for government activities and the drafting of laws. Proponents of the pluralistic theory of democracy proceed from the fact that each individual strives to realize his personal interests, and not essential needs. In this regard, society is considered as a collection of social groups, and decision-making occurs as a result of the struggle of these groups and serves as a kind of compromise. Followers of the elitist theory of democracy use reverse logic to prove the merits of their approach. They proceed from the fact that there is no rational behavior of an individual, there is no concept of the “common good.” And therefore, there must be a ruling elite elected by the people, which, during its reign, deprives the people of the opportunity to act for the same period. On the contrary, supporters of participatory democracy deny the principle of division of labor and proceed from individual self-determination. Moreover, self-determination is their full right to participate in the political life of society. In the 60s, democracy of this type began to actively develop and found its expression in new social movements (for example, the “green” movement).
There is another interesting type of democracy - socialist democracy, which interprets it as a form of class domination. Within the framework of this concept, two directions developed: orthodox (K. Marx, F. Engels, V. Lenin) and reformist (K. Kautsky, E. Berstein). The paradox of the first is that only socialist democracy establishes the power of the people, but on the other hand, under communism, democracy as a principle of the existence of the state dies out altogether. The ideological goal (building communism) sacrifices all individual freedoms. Proponents of the second theory seek a form of compromise through an agreement between various social forces.
Currently, democracy in its various forms exists in 35 countries around the world. Moreover, democracies in these countries have a number of common characteristics:
Popular legitimacy that is based on popular confirmation in the form of elections.
Competitive politics - electoral competition.
Political parties. They serve as the main mechanism that facilitates the process of forming the will of the people.
Civil, political and social rights.
Democratization is the introduction of democratic principles, the reorganization of a society on democratic principles. The main directions of democratization: involving citizens in managing the affairs of society and the state; creating conditions for the manifestation of initiative by individuals, representative authorities, public organizations, labor collectives, development of self-government of society; the free development of every nation and nationality, strengthening their equal cooperation; constant strengthening of law and order; expansion of publicity; regular consideration of public opinion when discussing and resolving state and public affairs; improving the electoral system.
In politics, there is a popular theory of “waves” of democratization, according to which modern institutions of democratic government - polyarchy - were established in stages, and at each of them this process affected different groups of countries, and the expansion of the area of democracy (the rise of democratization) was followed by its slight reduction (a rollback of democratization ).
The first “wave” of democratization began to grow in the second half of the 19th century. and reached its peak shortly after the end of the First World War. The second "wave" was stimulated by the Allied victory in World War II and the processes of decolonization that lasted until the 1960s. gg. Finally, the third “wave” of democratization began in mid. 1970s with the fall of authoritarian regimes in Portugal, Spain, Greece, etc. So, by the end of the second millennium, the area of the spread of democracy covers almost the entire industrialized northern hemisphere, along with a number of countries, including such large ones as India.
Democracy is a fragile system, and if the appropriate conditions are not created to maintain it, it can be destroyed. Society often expects immediate returns from the elected government, without thinking about what the citizens themselves do to ensure that the system works effectively, so that the representatives of the people express their interests, are controlled and managed. This problem is also typical for Russia, which has embarked on the path of democratic development, whose citizens are not spoiled by the attention of the authorities and are not experienced in democratic subtleties and nuances.
As the experience of developed countries shows, democracy has serious problems, the resolution of which is a necessary condition for its effective functioning. J. Beshler calls these problems “distortions of democracies,” S. Eisenstadt calls them “the fragility of modern democratic regimes.”
American political scientist S. Huntington names poverty among the main economic obstacles to democratic development, so he associates the future of democracy with a developed economy. What hinders economic development is also an obstacle to the spread of democracy. “Most poor societies will remain undemocratic as long as they remain poor,” concludes the American scientist.
Democracy is characterized by regular renewal of the ruling elite and the policies it pursues. If such renewal occurs in non-violent, strictly defined and legal forms, society is not subject to upheavals due to periodic crises of power. Regular adjustment of power in democratic systems makes them relatively flexible, receptive to technological and social innovations, which ultimately ensures constant economic progress, as was the case in the democracies of Europe and North America.
The democratic process helps to increase the independence of the people, who learn to act lawfully. Experience of independent action Russian people very short. Russian political practice 1990s - early 2000s indicates an increasingly interested participation of people in management, an increase in demands on leaders, and a critical attitude towards the activities of political parties and public associations that claim to protect the interests of various social groups. This is an invaluable experience that will always be in demand and on the basis of which people learn not to make mistakes.
Despite all the difficulties that democracy has to face on its thorny path, the thought expressed by Robert Dahl will remain relevant: “The democratic idea will not lose its attractiveness for people in non-democratic countries, and, as modern, dynamic and more pluralistic societies, their authoritarian governments will find it increasingly difficult to resist aspirations for expanded democracy.”
- 3. Give a comparative analysis of the three historical forms of political democracy of the New Age: liberal, collectivist and pluralistic. Describe their strengths and weaknesses
- 1). The wary attitude of liberalism towards the masses influenced liberal democracy, which was, as it were, a fusion of the liberal idea of limiting the arbitrariness of power with the help of individual rights and the democratic principle of popular sovereignty. In general, this model of democracy in its classical version (XIX - early XX centuries) has the following characteristic features:
Identification of the people as a subject of power with male owners, exclusion of the lower strata, primarily wage workers, as well as women from the number of citizens with the right to vote. In most Western democracies up to beginning - middle XX century property and other qualifications were preserved - mandatory conditions, without which a person did not have the right to participate in voting. (In some US states, a kind of property qualification - a poll tax - was abolished only in 1961.)
Individualism, recognition of the individual as the primary and main source of power, priority of the rights of the individual over the laws of the state. For the purposes of protection, individual rights are enshrined in the constitution, the strict implementation of which is monitored by an independent court.
3. The narrowly political, formal nature of democracy, resulting from a narrow, negative understanding of freedom as the absence of coercion and restrictions. Unlike ancient democracy, freedom here is interpreted not as the possibility of active equal participation in politics, but as a passive individual right to be protected from interference from the state and other people. “The goal of the ancients,” B. Constant wrote in this regard, “was the division of public power between all citizens of the country. This is what they called freedom. The goal of our contemporaries is the security of the private sphere; and they call freedom the guarantees created by public institutions for these purposes."
Parliamentarism, the predominance of representative forms of political influence. As D. Acton wrote, the lesson of Athenian democracy teaches that the government of the whole people, being the government of the most numerous and powerful class, is an evil of the same order as an unlimited monarchy, and needs, for almost the same reasons, institutions that would would protect him from himself and would assert the constant rule of law, protecting him from arbitrary revolutions of opinion."
Limitation of the competence and sphere of activity of the state primarily by the protection of public order, security and rights of citizens, social peace, etc., its non-interference in the affairs of civil society, economic, social and spiritual-moral processes.
Separation of powers, creation of checks and balances as a condition for effective control of citizens over the state, prevention of abuse of power. As noted back in the 18th century. Montesquieu, society is able to control only that power that is fragmented and whose individual parts are opposed to each other.
Limiting the power of the majority over the minority, ensuring individual and group autonomy and freedom. The minority is obliged to obey the majority only in strictly defined matters, beyond which it is completely free. A minority has the right to have its own opinion and defend it within the framework of the law, regardless of the decisions made by the majority.
These and other features of liberal democracy indicate that it has become a major step forward towards the liberation of man, respect for his dignity and fundamental rights. At the same time, this model of democracy, presented in its classical version, is very far from the ideal of democracy and is justifiably criticized.
Disadvantages of classical liberal democracy:
- 1. Social class limitations. Like ancient democracy, it does not apply to the majority of the population: proletarians, other lower strata, women, and therefore is not the power of the people in the full sense of the word.
- 2. The formality and, as a consequence, the declarative nature of democracy for the poor, socially disadvantaged segments of the population, its transformation from democracy into a competition of money bags. The non-extension of democracy to economic and social processes leads to deepening social inequality and exacerbation of social conflicts, and does not satisfy the interests of the majority of citizens. The property polarization of the population stimulated by this form of power devalues the fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual for the lower strata, makes them difficult to implement in practice and ultimately calls into question the democracy of this form of government.
- 3. The limited scope of democracy and political participation of the individual. The reliance on representative bodies and only episodic predominantly electoral political activity of citizens actually removes the authorities from the control of the masses and turns democracy into a form of domination by the political elite. The consequence of extremely limited political participation is mass political apathy, alienation of citizens from power, and its weak legitimacy.
- 4. Downplaying the role of the state in managing society and strengthening social justice. The needs of economic and social development require expansion of government regulation, active investment tax and other policies. A democratic state cannot be limited to the role of a “night watchman” and must have the right to regulate economic and social processes, strengthen justice in society and prevent conflicts.
- 5. Excessive value-based individualism, ignoring the collective nature of man, his belonging to various social groups. This hinders the social self-realization of the individual, his development, stimulates selfishness and egocentrism, which undermine the foundations of the state and society. A practical response to the shortcomings of classical liberal democracy was the workers', socialist, communist and other movements, as well as new democratic concepts, in many ways opposed to liberalism, and attempts to bring them to life.
- 2). Despite significant differences, the various collectivist theories of democrats have a number of common features. These include:
- 1). collectivism in the interpretation of the people, recognition of the people as a single homogeneous whole, having an objective common interest and will that exists even before its awareness;
- 2). absence of contradictions within the people, consideration of political opposition as a pathology or an enemy subject to violent elimination;
- 3). collectivist (close to ancient) understanding of freedom as active equal participation of a citizen in the affairs of the entire state and society;
- 4). totalitarianism, the all-pervasive absolute nature of power, in fact exercised by leaders identified with the people (classes, nation), the complete defenselessness of the minority, including the individual;
- 5). eliminating the very problem of human rights, since the whole - the state - is already interested in the well-being of its own constituent parts;
- 6). general political mobilization, predominantly direct participation of citizens in governance, consideration of representative bodies and officials not as independent leaders within the limits of the law and responsible for the decisions made, but only as conductors of the will of the people, their servants;
- 7). declaration of social democracy, shifting the main emphasis from the legal declaration of political rights to ensuring social conditions for citizen participation in governance.
The theories of collectivist democracy have shown their practical inconsistency or, at least, incompatibility with democracy in its liberal understanding. Attempts to implement them inevitably led to the emergence of a new ruling class - the nomenklatura, to totalitarianism, the suppression of all individual freedom, and terror against dissidents. It turned out that the power of the people (class, nation) cannot be real without guarantees of individual freedom and other individual rights, without recognition and institutional consolidation of its role as the primary source of power.
The following general fundamental ideas of pluralistic democracy can be identified:
1). An interested group is a central element of a democratic political system that guarantees the realization of individual interests, rights and freedoms. In this case, the personality itself is relegated to the background, although its status as the primary subject of power is not denied;
General will as a result of conflicting interaction between different groups and their compromises. This will does not exist a priori, before the competition of various political actors, but is formed in the process of “reconciliation”, equalization of diverse interests;
- 3). rivalry and balance of group interests are the social basis of democratic power and its dynamics;
- 4). checks and balances apply not only to the institutional sphere (liberalism), but also to the social sphere, where they are rival groups;
- 5). “reasonable egoism”, personal and, especially, group interests as policy generators;
- 6). the state is not a “night watchman” (liberalism), but a body responsible for the normal functioning of all sectors of the social system and supporting social justice in society. The theory and practice are quite compatible with the pluralistic theory of democrats social state providing decent living conditions for every person. The state is also an arbiter that guarantees compliance with laws, rules of the game in the competition of diverse groups and does not allow the monopolization of power;
- 7). diffusion, dispersion of power between various centers of political influence: state institutions, parties, interest groups, etc.;
- 8). the presence in society of a value consensus, which presupposes recognition and respect by all participants in political competition of the foundations of the existing political system, democratic rules of the game, individual rights, law;
- 9). democratic organization of the basic groups themselves as a condition for adequate representation of the interests of their constituent citizens. Without this, democracy turns into pluralism of elites.
The pluralistic theory of democracy has found recognition and application in many countries around the world. However, her ideas are not controversial and are subject to criticism. One of the initial shortcomings of this theory is often considered to be the idealization of reality, the exaggeration of group identification of the population, and the participation of citizens in interest groups. In Western countries, only no more than one third of the adult population is actually represented in interest groups. Therefore, a model of democracy built according to pluralistic recipes will not be the rule of the majority.
In modern political thought, not only is the consistency of the pluralistic theory with real life questioned, but the very model of such democracy is criticized. It is argued that pluralistic democracy is conservative because it requires broad consent of all interested groups to make decisions, which is difficult to ensure in practice, especially during periods of political reform. Such democracy reduces the general will to the lowest threshold of consent achievable in society. Moreover, in a pluralistic system, universal, global, long-term and new interests find it difficult to make their way and gain recognition.
political democratization
In the spring of 1953, changes were made in the leadership of the CPSU and the Soviet government. The Secretariat of the Party Central Committee was headed by N. S. Khrushchev, a well-known party figure who for many years led the largest party organizations in the country. G. M. Malenkov was appointed Chairman of the Council of Ministers, V. M. Molotov was appointed Minister of Foreign Affairs, and N. A. Bulganin was appointed Minister of Defense. The new Ministry of Internal Affairs, which united the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the USSR and the Ministry of State Security of the USSR, was headed by L.P. Beria, who had previously been Deputy Minister of Internal Affairs. K.E. Voroshilov was approved as Chairman of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR. The new leaders declared their readiness to exercise “collective leadership” of the country. However, from the very first days of being in power, a struggle began between them for political leadership. The main rivals in it were L.P. Beria, G.M. Malenkov and N.S. Khrushchev. All of them were at one time in Stalin’s inner circle and were involved in unjustified repressions. At the same time, they understood the need to choose a new political path, restore the rule of law and some reforms. The country's leadership has declared a course towards democratization of social life.
The first steps towards restoring the rule of law in the country were taken in April 1953. The investigation into the “Doctors’ Case” was stopped. Participants in the “Mingrelian Cause” were released from prison. In 1953, L.P. Beria was arrested. He was accused of intending to distinguish between the responsibilities of party and economic bodies, in the desire to expand the powers of the Ministry of Internal Affairs - its main support in the struggle for power. Beria was expelled from the party as an “enemy of the people” and put on trial.
One of the central places in the activities of the new leadership was occupied by the work of liberating society from the most monstrous forms of the administrative-command system, in particular, by overcoming the cult of personality of I.V. Stalin. The main role in it belonged to N. S. Khrushchev, who was elected in September 1953 to the post of First Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee. Criticism of the cult of personality of J.V. Stalin began in the press. Law enforcement agencies were reorganized. The State Security Committee (KGB) was organized under the Council of Ministers of the USSR. The police were transformed into departments of the executive committees of the Soviets of Working People's Deputies. Not all changes in the administrative control system were well thought out. Discontent was caused by the division of local councils carried out in 1962 according to the production principle - into industrial and rural. This reorganization disrupted the unity of power and mixed the functions of local governments.
Work was carried out to rehabilitate innocent victims of repression, for which a special commission was created under the chairmanship of P. N. Pospelov. Among the rehabilitated persons were many large Soviet, state and military workers who were unjustly convicted in the trials of the 30s: A. S. Bubnov, S. V. Kosior, P. P. Postyshev, A. V. Kosarev, M. N. Tukhachevsky and others. By the beginning of 1956, about 16 thousand people were rehabilitated.
The 20th Congress of the CPSU (February 1956) was of great importance in the beginning of liberalization of social and political life. The report on the work of the Party Central Committee and the directives of the sixth five-year plan for national economic development were discussed at the congress. At a closed meeting of the congress, N. S. Khrushev made a report “On the cult of personality and its consequences.” The report contained information collected by P. N. Pospelov’s commission about the mass executions of innocent people and the deportation of peoples in the 30s and 40s. The reasons for the mass repressions were associated with the personality cult of J.V. Stalin, with the negative traits of his character, with deviations from the Marxist-Leninist understanding of the role of the individual in history.
After the end of the congress, N. S. Khrushchev’s report was read at meetings of party organizations. The facts contained in the report aroused indignation among listeners and a desire to understand the reasons for the connivance of lawlessness on the part of party bodies. The public condemnation of the cult of J.V. Stalin and the exposure of the crimes of the Stalinist regime caused profound changes in public consciousness and the destruction of the system of fear. “Fears are dying in Russia...”—with these words began one of E. A. Yevtushenko’s poems of those years.
Transformations in social and political life
In the second half of the 50s, policies aimed at restoring legality in the socio-political sphere continued. To strengthen law and order, reform of the justice system was carried out. New criminal legislation was developed and approved. The Regulations on Prosecutor's Supervision were adopted.
The rights of the union republics in the field of legislation expanded. Their competence included issues of the organization of republican courts, the adoption of the Civil and Criminal Codes. Higher government structures were given additional rights in the economic sphere. From now on, the republican Councils of Ministers could independently distribute budget funds. They were given the opportunity to approve plans for the production and distribution of industrial products themselves. Over 14 thousand light and heavy industry enterprises and motor transport were transferred to the jurisdiction of the republican authorities. To maintain the leading role of the center in the development of the economy, for the purpose of its coordination, the Economic Commission of the Council of Nationalities of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR was created.
At the end of the 50s, unfounded charges against the deported peoples were dropped. Chechens, Kalmyks, Ingush, Karachais and Balkars evicted from their native places received the right to return to their homeland. The autonomy of these peoples was restored. Charges of aiding the German occupiers were dropped against the Soviet Germans. The repatriation of citizens of Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria and other countries in special settlements has begun. The scale of rehabilitation of victims of repression was great. However, the policies pursued were inconsistent. Rehabilitation did not affect many major Soviet and government figures of the 30s, in particular A.I. Rykov, N.I. Bukharin - leaders of the opposition to I.V. Stalin. The deported Volga Germans were denied return to their former places of residence. The rehabilitation did not affect the Soviet Koreans repressed in the 30s and the Tatar population evicted from Crimea during the Patriotic War.
The policy of de-Stalinization pursued by N. S. Khrushchev and numerous restructurings in the political and economic spheres caused growing discontent among part of the party and state apparatus. According to many of the country's leaders, the exposure of the cult of J.V. Stalin led to a decline in the authority of the USSR and the Communist Party in the international arena. In 1957, a group of party leaders led by G. M. Malenkov, V. M. Molotov and L. M. Kaganovich tried to remove N. S. Khrushchev from the post of First Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee. They accused Khrushchev of violating the principles of “collective leadership” and establishing his own cult, of arbitrary and thoughtless foreign policy actions, and of economic voluntarism. However, the open resistance of some party and state leaders to the reform policy ended in failure. A significant part of the party and Soviet leaders at this moment supported N.S. Khrushchev. The June (1957) Plenum of the CPSU Central Committee found the group of G. M. Malenkov, V. M. Molotov and L. M. Kaganovich guilty of opposing the political course of the party. The group members were expelled from the highest party bodies and removed from their positions.
Renewal of the apparatus of power
After the “opposition” was eliminated, changes were made in the composition higher authorities authorities. In particular, K. E. Voroshilov was relieved of his duties as Chairman of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR - his place was taken by L. I. Brezhnev. Defense Minister G. K. Zhukov, who played a decisive role in June 1957 in preserving N. S., was removed. Khrushchev as leader of the CPSU. At the same time, the cult of N. S. Khrushchev grew. Since 1958, he began to combine two positions: first secretary of the party Central Committee and head of government. Under his leadership the project was prepared new Program CPSU, which was approved in 1961 at the XXII Party Congress.
The new Program proclaimed the country's entry into a period of “full-scale communist construction.” The Program defined the tasks of building communism: achieving the highest per capita production in the world, the transition to communist self-government, and educating a new person. The implementation of program objectives was planned for the next two decades. “The current generation of Soviet people will live under communism,” stated N. S. Khrushchev. The congress adopted new charter CPSU, which provides for the expansion of the rights of local party cells, the introduction of a system of rotation (renewal) of party posts, and the expansion of social principles in party work.
The New Program of the CPSU, especially the provisions on the rapid resolution of social issues, found a response in the country and caused a massive labor upsurge in the population. However, deterioration economic situation, the inconsistency and ill-considered nature of the ongoing transformations in the country led to the growth of opposition sentiments in society. In 1962, due to the worsening food situation, the retail prices for some food products (meat, butter, etc.). The result of this was mass protests by the urban population. In 1962, workers at one of the largest factories in Novocherkassk went on strike. Weapons were used against the strikers who organized the demonstration. Innovations in domestic policy caused dissatisfaction among many social groups. Part of the party-economic apparatus showed growing dissatisfaction with the instability of society and measures to rebuild the party, in particular, the reorganization of party committees along production lines (1962).
Test on the topic:
Democracy as the basis of political life of society
Plan
Introduction
1. Democracy: essence, historical forms, theories and models
1.1 Essence, historical forms of democracy
1.2 Basic theories and models of democracy
2. Criteria and conditions for the implementation of democracy
2.1 Conditions necessary for democracy
2.2 Democratization in the Russian Federation
Conclusion
Literature
Introduction
The idea of civil society goes back to the political and legal thought of antiquity. This concept acts as a synonym for the concept of “political society”, i.e. "state". To be a member of society meant to be a citizen - a member of the state. This obliged them to act in accordance with state laws without harming other citizens. This state of affairs was determined by the fact that in antiquity and the Middle Ages an individual person essentially did not think of himself outside the economic, social, cultural, religious and other spheres of society.
The transition from the Middle Ages to modern times was marked by the maturation of civil society and the identification of differences between public and purely state institutions. The idea of individual freedom put on the agenda the question of freedom of a person as an individual, as a member of society, independent of the state.
The main merit in developing the concept of civil society in its relationship with the state belongs to the 19th century German philosopher Hegel.
Civil society can be thought of as a kind of social space in which people interact as independent arcs from each other and from the state of individuals. The basis of civil society is a civilized, independent, full-fledged individual. In a democratic society, political and social functions are clearly separated and performed by different institutions. The emergence of civil society led to the distinction between human rights and civil rights. Human rights are ensured by civil society, and civil rights are ensured by the state. Along with the right of private property, state-guaranteed freedom of entrepreneurial, labor and consumer activities is important.
A political regime is the methods of exercising political power in society. Any political regime represents one or another combination of two polar opposite principles of organizing human interactions: authoritarianism and democracy. Regimes that are completely devoid of forms of implementation of one principle and built on forms of implementation of only another principle are practically impossible. It is customary to divide political regimes into three types: totalitarian, authoritarian and democratic.
In the political sphere totalitarianism corresponds to monopolization of power. It ends up in one party, and the party itself is under the authority of one leader. The ruling party is merging with the state apparatus. At the same time, the nationalization of society is taking place, i.e. destruction (or extreme narrowing) of independence from the state public life, destruction of civil society. The role of law is diminished.
Authoritarian regime As a rule, it arises where old socio-economic institutions are broken down and forces are polarized in the process of countries' transition from traditional structures to industrial ones. This regime most often relies on the army. It intervenes in the political process in order to end a long-term political crisis that cannot be resolved through democratic, legal means. As a result of this intervention, all power is concentrated in the hands of political leader or a specific organ.
Concept democracy born in Ancient Greece. There are a number of historical types of democracy with many of them various forms:
primitive communal and tribal
antique
feudal-class
bourgeois
socialist
Democracy is, first of all, the degree of participation of the masses in government, as well as the actual presence of citizens of democratic rights and freedoms, officially recognized and enshrined in constitutions and other laws. Democracy as a socio-political phenomenon over its centuries-long history of development has developed certain principles and values.
In this test we will consider in detail the essence of the democratic regime, historical forms, theories and various models.
Let us reveal the prerequisites and conditions (political, economic, sociocultural) for the implementation of democracy.
1. Democracy: essence, historical forms, theories and models
1.1 Essence, historical forms of democracy
Although in reality in a general sense“democracy” is a fairly ancient concept; those forms that are considered today were generated by the 20th century.
Democracy, like fire, painting, and writing, was invented more than once and in more than one place. After all, if conditions were favorable to the emergence of democracy in a certain place and time, why could not similar favorable conditions arise elsewhere? The impulse towards a democratic mode of government comes from what can be called the logic of equality.
The term "democracy" comes from the Greek words " demos" - people and " kratos" - power and is translated as “power of the people.”
In Ancient Greece, where democracy originates, it was understood as a special type of state organization that existed along with tyranny, monarchy, aristocracy, oligarchy and denoted the power of the majority of full citizens of the state. The modern use of the term “democracy” is multivariate. For example, the following main options can be distinguished.
Democracy is a certain ideological ideal, which includes core liberal values such as individual freedom, the primacy of human rights, and equality before the law. In this context, democracy represents the basis for social movement for the democratic transformation of society.
Democracy is an ideal type of social order or in other words: the introduction of democracy at various levels of the social structure, the proclamation of the constant value for society of liberal rights and freedoms of the individual, the participation of the people in the political process, etc.
Democracy is interpreted as the most acceptable form of structure of any organization. In this understanding, democracy presupposes the introduction of elections into the production process, the equality of all members of the organization in the decision-making process, the leading role of the majority, etc. This may include, for example, industrial democracy, party democracy, etc.
Democracy is considered as a political regime along with With totalitarianism and authoritarianism. In this context, democracy characterizes the methods and techniques of power relations.
What are the main features of a democratic political regime that distinguish it from totalitarian and authoritarian regimes?
For a democratic political regime, Firstly, characterized by the real exercise of the sovereignty of the people. The people are the main source of power. Secondly, in democracy, the equality of citizens is affirmed. Thirdly, all major political decisions are made based on the will of the majority. And finally, in a democratic regime, government bodies are actually elected.
Thus,democracy can be defined as a political regime characterized by the use of methods and means of government based on popular sovereignty and designed to implement it.
Further development The approach to democracy we are considering received thanks to the activities of the social democratic movement of the 20th century, and then in communist state building. Marxists and their followers in our country professed the values of collectivist democracy. The general features of such a democracy are as follows.
Personality does not have independent political significance. An individual occupies a subordinate position in relation to the people, class, etc., in relation to a single political organism.
PAGE_BREAK--
The primacy of the people in decision-making. The people, the working people, or another social community called upon to express the general will have an undeniable advantage in the political life of society.
The desire to smooth out the contradictions of social development, to achieve the monolith of the people. Characteristic is the elimination of the possibility of a clash between the individual and the state through its complete subordination in political and economic terms.
The people are first and foremost the majority. All decisions can only be made by a majority. The possibility of the existence of a dissenting minority is recognized as an anomaly.
These collectivist theories of democracy are currently subject to quite intense criticism. Their main shortcomings include underestimation of the role of the practical implementation of individual rights and freedoms, the protection of the rights of minorities to express their political interests, which leads to the formation of a totalitarian political regime.
1.2 Basic theories and models of democracy
Many ideas have not lost their scientific and practical significance today. But along with them, in recent decades, a number of new theories have appeared that developed scientific ideas about democracy taking into account changed realities. Thus, within the framework of the value approach, ideas were formed participatory(English) participation- participation) democracy, which has become quite widely known today. According to this concept, special meaning in the process of implementing democracy, it is mandatory for all citizens to perform certain functions in managing the affairs of society and the state. This theory justifies the participation of citizens in democratic procedures both at the level of elections of representative government bodies, referendums, and at the level of individual work collectives, educational institutions, local government, etc. These measures ensure the development of the process of democratization of society and create conditions for the political development of the individual, who participates more and more consciously and purposefully in political life. The theory of participatory democracy is widely used in the ideology of social democratic parties, which strive to establish a new socialist society through the introduction of democratic procedures into the political, social and economic spheres of public life.
Within the framework of the procedural approach, the theory of egalitarian elitism also emerged, put forward in the early 40s of the last century in the work “Capitalism, Socialism, Democracy” by J. Schumpeter, an American scientist of Austrian origin.
According to this theory, the people are recognized as the primary source of power. However, his participation in politics is limited. Citizens elect representative bodies of power and delegate their powers to them, after which the people are removed from government. Therefore, democracy, according to Schumpeter, is a purely institutional event that ensures competition between elites for support and votes. Thus, democracy appears as a form of government under through people, as a form of exercise of power by professional politicians. And therefore, the main problem of democracy, according to Schumpeter, is the selection of qualified politicians. At the same time, it is not at all necessary to involve the people in the decision process when solving certain issues.
The democratic nature of the political regime when implementing such a concept is ensured through competition and periodic changes of elites based on electoral preferences. The basis for the functioning of the political system is the approval effective way selection of elites capable of managing society.
Significant contributions to the development of the theory of democracy were made by supporters pluralism. Although this term was first introduced into scientific circulation by X. Wolfon (1679-1754), it began to be used to develop a democratic theory only in the first half of the 20th century. Theorists of this direction (A. Bentley, G. Wallace, J. Madison, G. Laski, R. Dahl) believe that it is precisely belonging to a certain social group that allows a person to recognize himself as a real subject of power relations, to develop fairly clear value orientations, which allow a person to acquire motivation for his behavior in political life.
Free play, competition between different groups are driving force politicians. Therefore, democracy as a system of maintaining dynamic equilibrium competing forces represents the power of a constantly changing majority, formed from various groups with coinciding positions on certain issues. A democratic regime is considered by supporters of this concept as a means for an individual to freely identify himself with a certain social community, group, association, to preserve the diversity of such communities, balance between them, and prevent the seizure of power by just one of them. It means that democracy is a political regime that is based on a combination of various group interests and the selection of a certain average component of these interests as the basis for political developmentsociety . This concept of democracy also expresses the principles of the welfare state with its desire to implement, to a greater or lesser extent, social justice in society.
A significant contribution to the development of the theory of democracy was made by A. Lijphart, who proposed the idea consocial(consociational) democracy. Attaching paramount importance to the procedural aspects of democracy, he proposed a model of “power sharing,” providing for the representation of the interests of the minority that did not gain access to the levers of government.
This model involves, first of all, the creation of a coalition government with the participation of representatives of all parties representing all major strata of society. Secondly, Lijphart is a proponent of forming a government on a proportional basis so that different social groups are represented in it. Thirdly, providing maximum autonomy for social groups in resolving their internal issues (in the form of federalism or cultural autonomy). Finally, Lijphart is a supporter of granting groups the right of veto when making political decisions, which could be overcome on the basis of a decision of a qualified majority (two-thirds or three-quarters of the votes of elected officials). In practice, such a model can be implemented only on the condition that all groups have their own political organization and pursue relatively independent policies. In this approach a vital role in the development and implementation of policy is recognized by the elites, who have a fairly wide field for maneuver and are largely independent in the face of ordinary members of parties or other socio-political organizations. This means that for the implementation of such a model of democracy, the minimum necessary condition is the presence of a highly responsible elite.
IN last years theories have become quite widespread market democracy, which the system of power is considered as an analogue of an economic system in which there is a constant exchange of “goods”. Political action refers only to electoral behavior, in which the act of casting a vote is interpreted as a kind of “purchase” or “investment.” Voters are largely viewed as passive “consumers.” It turns out that the main task of democracy is to apply electoral strategies that should connect the contender for power with the positions of voters. True, this concept may, during its implementation, contribute to increasing the danger of using consciousness manipulation technologies, which, in general, is at odds with the principles of democracy.
Democracy, based on strict procedures, cannot fail to take into account the new realities of social development. One of them is the growing influence of electronic media mass media, which gave life to the concept of teledemocracy (“cyberocracy”). In this case, traditional democratic procedures are complemented by the latest capabilities of television and the Internet, which are increasingly used in election campaigns. This opens up opportunities for a dialogue regime between the authorities and a number of categories of citizens who were previously not very active participants in politics.
The involvement of ever wider sections of society in political processes raises with all urgency the question of changing the relationship of democratic authorities with ordinary citizens. Concepts appeared "receptive" social system that sensitively takes into account the interests and demands of various social groups, as well as reflective(reflective) democracy. The latter is designed to facilitate the maximum inclusion of public opinion in political governance and the accountability of power structures to it. By the way, the introduction of this type of democracy in our country is a very important political task, because The role of public opinion in Russia is clearly underestimated.
Democracy as a certain system of power is a form of organization of political life that reflects the free and competitive choice by the population of one or another alternative for social development. It is open to any social choice that meets the views of the majority of the population.
Democracy has a number of universal ways and mechanisms for organizing political order.
Such a political system presupposes:
ensuring the equal right of all citizens to participate in the management of the affairs of society and the state;
systematic election of the main government bodies;
the presence of mechanisms to ensure the relative advantage of the majority and respect for the rights of minorities;
absolute priority of legal mechanisms for the administration and change of power (constitutionalism);
the professional nature of elite rule;
public control over the adoption of major political decisions;
ideological pluralism and competition of opinions.
In modern conditions, as a rule, a democratic political regime is built on the use of opportunities representative democracy. It involves the indirect inclusion of citizens in the decision-making process through their representatives elected to the legislative or executive branches.
And another feature of a democratic regime is the possession of considerable powers by local authorities. At the same time, the rights of local communities and national minorities are respected, which is especially important for multinational Russia.
It is hardly possible to describe all modern theoretical models of democracy. The conceptualization of democracy has given rise to a huge variety of options: according to some data, we can talk about the existence of 550 “subtypes” of democracy. In fact, the modern theory of democracy breaks down into many internally interconnected concepts, generalizations, classifications of models of democratic processes, institutions, behavior and relationships. Summarizing the various approaches, it is possible, however, to highlight a number of models that most often come to the attention of researchers. Let us note that the whole variety of theoretical models of modern democracy, if we talk about their ideological foundations, one way or another gravitates towards two main theoretical paradigms formed by the classics of political thought of the 17th-19th centuries. We are talking about liberal democratic and radical democratic theories.
Continuation
--PAGE_BREAK--
Representatives of the liberal-democratic and radical-democratic movements considered man to be a rational being, but interpreted this anthropological premise of democratic theory in different ways. They were united in their interpretation of the origin of the state from a contract accepted by reasonable individuals, but they differed in the source of this contract. They defended human freedom, but understood it differently and interpreted its foundations differently.
Liberal democratic theory
Radical democratic theory
Morally autonomous individual
Personal sovereignty
Society as a sum of individuals
Everyone's interest
Pluralism of interests
Primacy of law
Human freedom
Primacy of human rights
Representative democracy, elections
Free mandate
Separation of powers
Subordination of the minority to the majority with protection of minority rights
Social person
Sovereignty of the people
Organic Society
General interest
Unity of interests
The primacy of the common good
Freedom of the citizen
Unity of rights and responsibilities
Direct democracy
Imperative mandate
Separation of functions
Subordination of the minority to the majority
IN liberal democratic concepts human freedom meant his moral autonomy to rationally determine his life and the rules of communication with other people, which should not violate his individual rights. The state, which arises on the basis of an agreement between people as morally autonomous individuals, is limited by law, i.e. an equal external measure of freedom for each individual. Thus, this democratic paradigm was based on the premise of the autonomous individual, while society was interpreted as the sum of free individuals, and the public interest as the interest of all. Private life is valued here more than public life, and law is higher than the public good. The pluralism of individual interests and interests, emerging associations of individuals (civil society) was accompanied by a conflict between them, the resolution of which was possible through compromise. In principle, the state could not and should not interfere in the process of communication between autonomous individuals and their voluntary associations. It was called upon only when the intervention of an arbitrator was required. Liberal-democratic concepts allow only a “limited state.”
Is democracy always the most effective political regime? It is effective only when society has reached a certain and sufficiently high level of economic development, when the basic elements of civil society have been formed, when society has a certain level of political culture with its tolerant attitude towards other points of view and worldviews.
During acute crises and shocks, military clashes, especially if the level of economic development is not high enough, democracy is not always effective and can be limited in a number of areas in the name of high state interests.
Democracy is not an ideal phenomenon. The democratic political regime is not ideal either. But despite all the shortcomings, democracy has been and remains the fairest form of government. The famous English politician W. Churchill said that democracy is the worst form of government, apart from all the others. Humanity has not yet come up with anything better.
2. Criteria and conditions for the implementation of democracy
2.1 Conditions necessary for democracy
Democracy arises and persists under certain conditions. Firstly, this is a high level of economic development. Studies conducted by S. Lipset, W. Jackman, D. Kurt and others have convincingly proven that stable economic growth ultimately leads to democracy. According to statistics, among 24 high-income countries, only 3 are non-democratic. Among the moderately developed countries, there are 23 democracies, 25 dictatorships and 5 countries in transition to democracy. Of the 42 countries with low economic development and low income, only 2 can be called democratic. Secondly, this is the presence of tolerance in society, respect for the rights of the political minority. Thirdly, this is the agreement of society regarding such basic values as human rights, property rights, respect for the honor and dignity of the individual, etc. Fourthly, this is the orientation of a significant part of the population towards political participation (primarily in the form of elections) or, in other words, the dominance of activist culture.
To establish a democratic mechanism of political governance, achieving national unity is of particular importance. This means that the vast majority of citizens of a given state have clear ideas about which political community they belong to. Democracy is a system in which those in power are those who represent the majority of the population at the time. Further, when leaders and politicians change, the general boundaries and structure of society with its democratic disposition must remain unchanged. National unity is a background condition; it must precede other phases of democratization - increasing the level of economic development, reducing social differentiation. National unity is the result not so much of a community of attitudes and opinions as of responsibility and agreement. This “consensus” is associated with informed opinions and deliberate agreement. And yet, this condition is best achieved in those cases when national unity is formed unconsciously, simply accepted as a given. Any voiced call for national unity can actually lead to public wariness.
Despite the presence of only one background condition, the dynamic process of democratization is itself the product of a protracted and prolonged political struggle. In order for such a struggle to begin, its participants must identify clearly defined forces (usually social classes), for which the subject of the struggle must be important. Such a struggle usually begins as a consequence of the emergence of a new elite, which calls on an oppressed and hitherto unled social group to coordinated action. At the same time, the specific social characteristics of the competing forces, both leaders and their supporters, as well as the essence of the subject of the struggle, can vary widely both in different countries and in one country at different periods.
The distinctive feature of the preparatory stage is not pluralism, but polarization. Certain restrictions are imposed on the requirement of national unity, which, of course, must be maintained in subsequent stages. If the division is strictly along regional lines, the most likely outcome will not be democracy, but schism. Even if the rival parties are separated by geographical boundaries, there must be a certain sense of community within them, or at least a balance of power, which would make a massive outbreak of separatism, as happened in the Russian Federation in the first half of the 90s of the 20th century, impossible. This situation certainly suggests that many processes in the preparatory stage may not be going as they should. The fight can continue until the rivals are exhausted or the subject of the conflict disappears without the use of any democratic options for resolving it. Or one of the sides will still find a way to crush its opponents in the end. The result of such a development may be the emergence of serious obstacles on the path to democracy, which is most likely precisely at the preparatory stage.
According to R. Dahl, the positive consequences of democracy include:
Deliverance from tyranny.
Respect for fundamental rights and freedoms.
Freedom of the individual.
Self-determination.
Moral autonomy.
Opportunity for personal development.
Protection of fundamental interests of the individual.
Political equality.
The desire for peace.
10.Prosperity.
2.2 Democratization in the Russian Federation
IN beginning of XXI V. world statistics have stated the unprecedented spread of democracy throughout the world - in 117 states. However, globalization does not automatically lead to the development of planetary democracy, since modern global architecture is organized precisely according to undemocratic standards. The role and importance of organizations such as the UN, OSCE is decreasing, and the influence of such elite communities as the G8, IMF, IBRD, and NATO is increasing.
Speaking about democracy as a political regime, it is necessary to consider the process of democratization in Russia. This is an important question for us, Russians, when democracy is a condition of our life. The problems of Russia's advancement along the path of democratization are far from just a theoretical issue. The idealization of market relations in Russia was put an end to by the destructive social consequences of the first shock economic reforms. The dramatic political crisis and the shooting of parliament in 1993 dealt a severe blow to illusions about democracy, which the destructive opposition represented by the Communist Party of the Russian Federation faction in the State Duma took advantage of.
Continuation
--PAGE_BREAK--
The crisis of August 17, 1998 dealt a final blow to the mythologies of the market and democracy in Russia. All these circumstances stimulated the emergence of a deep ideological crisis and a value vacuum in the mass consciousness and led to a crisis in the democratic movement.
But this crisis was also predetermined by another previous circumstance - the actual retreat from the democratic movement of the new regime, in the establishment of which it played such a large role. Having placed the personal charisma of the leader at the forefront, the government did not follow any of the possible paths to implement reforms - it did not build effective institutions of democracy and did not recreate a system of strict authoritarianism capable of effective modernization. This also reflected and clearly demonstrated other specific features of Russian democratic reform. These, first of all, include the absence of a pact, a preliminary agreement on the democratic rules of the game, which were subsequently adhered to by the main political forces. Due to its absence in Russia, a very significant political segment of society has been divided between radicals and conservatives for a long time.
By refusing to compromise and seeking a complete and unconditional victory over the Soviet regime, the radicals deliberately excluded the possibility of achieving a compromise phase of the pact, which in most successful democratic reforms performed an important stabilizing function. Such a pact was formulated for the whole time, until the elections in December 1993, which legalized the opposition, and turned out to be artificially excluded from the democratic process.
It is possible to push rival political forces and their leaders to resolve other important issues through democratic procedures.
The transition to democracy requires unity among certain politicians and ordinary citizens. At the same time, in a number of others, differences cannot be ruled out, which become noticeable at the decisive stage, when leaders are busy searching for a compromise, and their supporters still continue to defend their previous radical slogans. They become even more noticeable at the stage of adaptation, when processes of three types begin.
Firstly, both POLITICIANS and ordinary citizens, having enriched themselves with experience in solving certain problems, begin to use newly developed mechanisms to solve new problems with their help. Secondly, experience of working in a democracy and the OPPORTUNITY to attract new supporters convince politicians of the correctness of democratic practice and contribute to the strengthening of democratic views. Third, the population as a whole gets the opportunity to integrate into the activities of emerging structures by establishing, through party organizations, effectively working connections between metropolitan politicians and the mass provincial electorate.
In 1993, Russia paid for the fact that it received its first democratic regime as a gift from the hands of the State Emergency Committee. But after 1998, events began to develop in correct sequence. Crisis of 1998-1999 revealed the existence of political and social conflict, and for the first time a wide range of social and economic problems began to be discussed publicly. The conflict unfolded between the destructive opposition represented by the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, on the one hand, and representatives of the democratic majority represented by United Russia, on the other, and a compromise between them made it possible to resume the democratic experiment in 2004 on a more stable basis.
Thus, the model for Russia takes into account the characteristics that are considered as necessary conditions for democracy: a high level of economic and social development or the achievement of a strong consensus on fundamental issues. Economic growth may be one of the factors that generates the tension characteristic of the preparatory or conflict stage, but it may also be due to other factors. As for increasing the level of social development and, first of all, systems of universal education and social security, it is most likely the result of democratization.
The Russian political regime is distinguished by: a) the absence of a developed and large middle class; b) lack of consensus in society on basic values; c) underdevelopment of market relations; d) exaggerated role of the state and bureaucracy; e) corruption in all echelons of power; f) highly limited and minimized role of representative authorities; g) the actual lack of control of government bodies by society; h) the preservation and reproduction in society of relationships and connections of a vertical type as opposed to horizontal ones. Therefore, the concept of “democracy” in its classical form is modern Russia not applicable. The categories “post-communist” or “post-totalitarian” indicate significant differences Russian democracy from classical models.
Some political scientists argue that the political regime in Russia is authoritarian in nature and define it as oligarchic authoritarianism. There are indeed grounds for such an assessment. First of all, there is no doubt that the comprador bourgeoisie has a significant influence on the political elite. The national bourgeoisie (entrepreneurs associated with domestic production) do not have serious political weight. Society has little influence on political institutions. The process of articulation and aggregation of interests is intermittent. Therefore, decisions made often meet narrow corporate interests. The result of the policies pursued was a significant stratification of society.
Conclusion
Having considered some of the many models and theories of democracy, the following conclusions can be drawn.
The basis of democracy is not absolute consensus, but a delicate balance between enforced uniformity (which can lead to a kind of tyranny) and implacable hostility (which risks division and civil war). In the process of the emergence of democracy, the element that can be called consensus must be present at least three times. First, there must be an a priori sense of community, preferably a community that is perceived as an indisputable given, and not the result of a “conscious” agreement. There must be a conscious acceptance of democratic rules, perceived not as an object of faith, but as a functional mechanism, used first out of necessity and then out of habit. And finally, the very use of this mechanism must step by step expand the scope of consensus - as democracy embraces ever wider sections of the population.
However, new problems will always arise, and new conflicts will threaten the agreements already reached. Characteristic features of democracy are election rhetoric, selection of candidates, factional parliamentary struggle, votes of confidence and no confidence, i.e. many ways to reflect conflicts and their subsequent resolution. The essence of democracy is the regular practice of disagreement and reconciliation on constantly changing problems in an ever-changing balance of power. Totalitarian leaders must forcefully impose unanimity on essential principles and procedures before moving on to other problems. Democracy, on the contrary, is a form of government in which power can be exercised even if almost half of the governed disagree with it.
In conclusion, I want to emphasize that democracy as a complex form of relationship between government and citizens is vulnerable in changing conditions, but effective in highly organized, pluralistic societies.
Literature
1. Political Science / Edited by V.A. Achkasova, V.A. Gutorova. - M.: Yurayt – Publishing House, 2006.
2. Smirnov G.N., Petrenko E.L., Sirotkin V.G., Bursov A.V. Political science. Textbook - M.: TK Welby, Prospekt Publishing House, 2006, 336 p.
3. Zheltov V.V. Political science: Tutorial. – Rostov n/d: “Phoenix”, 2004. – 512 p.
4. Political Science / Textbook, ed. M.A. Vasilika. - M.: Gardarika, 2006. – 588 p.
5. Belogurova T.A. Political science. Lecture course.
Peaceful regime change became possible as a result of the voluntary decision of the previous authorities to give way to democratically elected governments. Although this voluntary abdication of power was always provoked by some kind of crisis, it was ultimately made possible by the growing democratic movement.
At the turn of the XIX-XX centuries. formed " mass democracy”, which differed from old liberalism primarily in its broad social base.
The expansion of the number of voters occurred due to the poor and dissatisfied with life of people experiencing constant hardships and deprivations. The class consciousness of these people became increasingly threatening to the social, economic and political foundations of society. The growth of social tension in society was facilitated by the liberals themselves, who could not be called democrats in the true sense of the word: the liberals of that era resisted the introduction of equal and general political rights, limiting themselves only to protecting the rights of owners.
The emergence of a mass of new voters, aware of the social injustice of society and ready to fight for its changes, led to a weakening of the influence of traditional liberalism as a political force. In its place, democracy brought two other forces - class and national consciousness, which competed during this period.
French writer Anatole France accurately depicted the essence of the ideals of bourgeois society: “The law, in its majestic justice, gives every person the right to both dine at the Ritz restaurant and spend the night under a bridge.”
At the beginning of the 20th century. a working man living in an atmosphere of scientific and technological progress and achievements could no longer put up with the imperfection of the social structure, which was becoming unbearable for him.
In April 1974, a coup was carried out in Portugal by democratically minded military forces, which was subsequently supported by a massive popular movement, which put an end to the long-term dictatorship of the military. A few months later in Greece, as a result of a deep political crisis, the military government was forced to resign, and power passed into the hands of civilian leaders of democratically oriented political parties. In Spain in November 1975, Franco's death marked the end of 36 years of authoritarian rule.
Eastern Europe
Appeared in the mid-1970s. détente of international tension, which, however, was short-lived, led to the emergence of a dissident, essentially human rights, movement in the USSR and other countries of Eastern Europe. This movement consistently opposed the violation of human rights and for the democratization of the existing political system in the countries of the socialist camp.
Of the former communist countries, the most developed (Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic) moved to democracy faster, and the less developed (Bulgaria, Romania, Albania) - slower; the governments in these countries consisted of communist reformers, who for the most part were not ready to carry out the necessary changes. Material from the site
In 1980, after 20 years of military dictatorship, a democratically elected government was restored in Peru. The War for the Malvinas Islands led to the fall of the military junta in Argentina and the rise to power of a democratically elected president. Argentina was followed by Uruguay in 1983 and Brazil in 1984. By the end of the decade, the dictatorships of A. Stroessner in Paraguay and A. Pinochet in Chile gave way to elected authorities. In Chile, a special commission investigated cases of human rights violations and crimes committed by the Pinochet junta. In the early 1990s. The Sandinista government of Nicaragua gave way to the democratic government of Violetta Chamorro.
In 1986, the Marcos dictatorship was overthrown in the Philippines, and the team of President Corazon Aquino, enjoying popular support, came to power. The following year, General Chun gave up power in South Korea, and Roh Dae Woo was elected president. In Taiwan, after the death of Chiang Kai-shek in 1988, democratic unrest began. Similar changes also affected Burma, where an authoritarian government was in power.