Democracy in Russia has gone through a series of ups and downs. The first rise refers to early stage feudalism, when direct democracy became widespread in many cities of the Novgorod land, and in them the most important decisions were made at the veche. In the Russian kingdom, tsars often sought support from various classes, for which there was a boyar duma and convened zemstvo councils. Second reforms half of the 19th century century and the beginning of the 20th century contributed to the development of zemstvo, estate, peasant, workers and national elected bodies. Established after revolutions and civil war The communist regime had the external attributes of democracy, although in fact it was authoritarian. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, major democratic reforms were introduced. The majority of citizens in the country have a positive attitude towards democracy and see a need for it.
According to the Byzantine historian Procopius of Caesarea, in the 6th century the ancient Slavs were not ruled by one person, but lived in “rule of the people.” The basis of their economic life was collective land ownership. People belonged to communities that elected elders. In many communities, violators were tried according to cop law.
After the emergence of the first Russian cities, in those of them that were located on Novgorod land (including Ladoga, Polotsk, Rostov, Smolensk, Suzdal, etc.), the citywide veche often became the highest authority. In these cities, residents elected officials of the city community at their meetings. In Novgorod of the 12th-15th centuries, the highest elected officials were the mayor, who was elected from the boyars, and the thousand, who were elected from other classes, and later from all classes. Over time, the veche system began to be increasingly replaced by the monarchy. After Tatar-Mongol invasion and the strengthening of the power of the princes, veche institutions were preserved only in Novgorod, Pskov and Vyatka, and in other cities they ceased to exist.
In the middle of the 16th century, the creation of the Russian state was completed, political system which became an estate-representative monarchy. Within the framework of this system, zemstvo councils were convened from time to time, where representatives of various classes gathered to discuss the most important issues of internal and foreign policy. The interests of the feudal aristocracy were represented by the boyar duma, whose chairman was the tsar and which, together with him, constituted the supreme body of state power.
At the turn of the 18th century, Russia began to turn into an empire, and its system acquired the features of absolutism. At the same time, the peculiarities of the Russian autocracy emerged, which had a Negative influence on democratic processes: firstly, its social base was only the nobility, and secondly, personal will and arbitrariness prevailed over legal methods when making political decisions. The role of representative bodies has sharply decreased. The place of the boyar duma was taken by the Senate, subordinate to the emperor. It should be mentioned that Peter I carried out a reform of city self-government, as a result of which the management of cities passed into the hands of elected mayor's chambers (town halls). However, after the death of Peter I, the rights of elected institutions were again limited. Catherine II tried to restore city self-government, but later abandoned this as well.
The consequence of the spontaneous flight of peasants from feudal oppression was the emergence of relatively free regions on the outskirts of the country. The special status of these territories could last for more than 100 years. In particular, in the regions where the Cossacks were widespread, in the 16th-18th centuries. had its own elected bodies. The supreme governing body of the Volga, Don, Terek and Yaik Cossacks was the military circle - a combined arms assembly that elected the ataman.
In the second half of the 19th century, Tsar Alexander II began the zemstvo reform, which marked the beginning of the creation of representative provincial, district and city institutions. At the same time, as a result of the abolition of serfdom, peasants began to organize themselves into communities again. The highest body in the community was the village assembly, which elected the headman. Communities were united into volosts, which had their own peasant representative body - the volost assembly. The issue of leaving the community at first also fell within the competence of peasant self-government bodies, but the Stolypin reform of 1906 gave every peasant the opportunity to freely leave the community and secure an allotment of land as private property. Other classes also had bodies of self-government: nobles, clergy, merchants and townspeople. Both zemstvo and estate assemblies functioned under the close supervision of governors and police. In addition, the right to participate in them was often limited by property qualifications.
After the abolition of serfdom, the influx of people from rural areas in the cities contributed to workers' self-organization. In 1903, the institution of factory elders was legalized. Increased class tensions and the growth of Marxist activity led to the emergence of the first Soviets of Workers' Deputies.
The 1905 revolution prompted Tsar Nicholas II to continue democratic reforms. Political parties were legalized and a full-fledged legislative body was established - The State Duma. After the fall of the autocracy at the end of February 1917, the country began to slide into anarchy. Supporters of the republic believed that its construction should begin with the adoption of a constitution on Constituent Assembly, before the convening of which official power passed into the hands of the Provisional Government. Due to the indecisiveness of the Provisional Government, the influence of alternative elected authorities - the Soviets - increased. The dual power ended with the revolution in October 1917 and the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat.
The Birth of Democracy in Russia
The history of our country has a long history of development, during which there were changes in forms of government, political regimes, state borders, various external and internal factors, etc. At the same time, scientists note that in all the diversity of forms of political organization in Russia there are democratic traditions, the development of which, unfortunately, was not progressive, but was replaced by a series of ups and downs.
IN general view, the history of domestic democracy can be considered in three periods:
- Before the 20th century: democratic foundations are already revealed when analyzing the times of the early stage of feudalism. Thus, in many cities of the Novgorod land, mechanisms of direct democracy were spread, namely, direct adoption major decisions local population at the meeting. Subsequently, the corresponding tradition changed, but the Russian tsars still sought support from various classes, for which the boyar duma functioned and zemstvo councils were convened;
- in the 20th century, most of which passed in the conditions of functioning Soviet power, democratic principles, despite their partial proclamation, were not actually applied, and the political regime of Russia of that period would be more correctly characterized as authoritarian;
- end XX-early XXI centuries: a period of large-scale socio-political and economic reforms aimed at democratization Russian state.
At the same time, in order to form a holistic understanding of domestic democracy, it seems appropriate to dwell in more detail on the characteristics of the mentioned historical periods.
Development of Russian democracy until the 20th century
As noted earlier, already during the period of the emergence of the first Russian cities, especially those that were located on Novgorod land(Novgorod, Ladoga, Rostov, Smolensk, Suzdal) the highest body of power often became a citywide council, within the framework of which issues of local importance were resolved and officials of the city community were elected.
For example, in the XII-XV centuries. The highest officials were:
- Posadnik, elected from among the boyars,
- Tysyatsky, elected from among representatives of various classes.
Thus, at the dawn of the Russian state, institutions of direct and representative democracy are already being discovered, which is rightly recognized in science as the emergence of domestic democratic traditions.
In the 16th century, the process of forming an integral Russian state was completed, political basis which became an estate-representative monarchy. Distinctive feature This form of government was due to the fact that within its framework it was supposed to periodically convene zemstvo councils, at which representatives of various classes discussed the most important issues of domestic and foreign policy.
Note 1
The role of representative bodies in Russia sharply decreased due to the tendencies of absolutism that emerged at the turn of the 17th-18th centuries and finally became established with the emergence of absolute monarchy under Peter I. This, of course, had a negative impact on the democratic processes outlined above, and led to the actual extinction of the corresponding democratic principles.
The gradual restoration of Russian democracy, to the extent that this was possible under the conditions of an absolute monarchy, occurred in the second half of the 19th century, in connection with the zemstvo reform under Alexander II, which marked the beginning of the creation of representative provincial, district and city institutions.
In addition, the abolition of serfdom contributed to the organization of the peasant community, the highest authority in which was the village assembly, which elected the headman. In turn, in the volosts, as associations of peasant communities, their own representative body was also formed - the serf assembly.
The revolution of 1905 can be considered a kind of culmination of the development of democratic institutions in Russia, which prompted the tsar not only to continue democratic reforms, but also to legalize political parties by establishing a full-fledged legislative body - the State Duma.
Thus, in the second half of the 19th century - the beginning of the 20th centuries. In our country, both the institutions of direct and representative democracy were gradually formed.
Russian democracy in the XX-XXI centuries.
Established in the first half of the 20th century. The Soviet regime proclaimed its own democracy, confirming this thesis, among other things, by the existence of a written Constitution, which had undergone several editions. Moreover, certain signs characteristic of a democratic state can indeed be detected when analyzing government organization in Soviet times, however, all of them related to social, and partly economic sphere. The political principles of a democratic state are political pluralism, freedom of speech, competitive elections, etc. were actually missing.
This fact allows many domestic researchers to assert a well-founded thesis about the actual formation in the USSR of an authoritarian political regime, which gravitates at certain stages historical development to totalitarianism.
The new stage in the development of domestic democracy is associated with the events of the end of the last century, namely with the collapse Soviet Union, and the subsequent socio-economic and political transformations.
Note 2
Including, important event in the development of our state in the relevant area is the adoption in 1993 of the current Constitution of the Russian Federation, which proclaimed political, economic, social and spiritual rights and freedoms Russian citizens, political values - separation of powers, political pluralism, election of the President and legislative bodies, etc.
Issues related to the right of citizens of a state to participate in the management of the affairs of a given state were considered by ancient philosophers. Democritus, Plato and Aristotle viewed democracy as a form of government. Democritus was a strong supporter of Greek slave democracy. He wrote: “Poverty under democracy is as much preferable to prosperity under rulers as freedom is preferable to slavery.” Plato pointed out that democracy is the power of the crowd, the ignoble demos. According to Plato, democracy, along with tyranny, is the most unacceptable form of government. Aristotle took the opposite point of view. In his works he focuses on the need for active human activity. He considers practical life worthy of a free person, i.e. filled political activity, or theoretical, filled with cognitive activity. Thus, free citizens are obliged, according to Aristotle, to take part in the affairs of the state. Arguing this position, he writes in his “Politics”: “It is dangerous to eliminate them from participation in power: when in a state many people are deprived of political rights... such a state is inevitably overcrowded with hostile people.” Pointing out the preferability of democracy, Aristotle justifies this by the fact that democracies have greater security compared to oligarchies and their existence is more durable. As we see, here too certain attention is paid to the issue of implementing democracy in the state. The ancient understanding of democracy does not correspond to the modern one, ancient world I knew only direct democracy in which the people (slaves were not considered the people) themselves ruled the state through the people's assembly. The people's assembly (eklessia) in Ancient Athens consisted of full-fledged citizens of Athens over 20 years of age, regardless of property status and nobility. Women and metics (non-indigenous residents) also did not have the right to participate in the national assembly of the Athenians, thus the citizens of Athens had full rights in the political sphere (1% of the total number of inhabitants of this ancient Greek polis). Among the prominent philosophers of the Middle Ages interested in social problems, we can single out Thomas Aquinas. His views on society are based on the following principles: denial of social equality, inviolability of class differences. Subjects must submit to their masters; obedience is their cardinal virtue, as is that of all Christians in general. In the works of T. Hobbes there is a mention of the voluntary renunciation of people's sovereignty on the basis of a contract. Hobbes distinguishes 3 types of states (depending on who is the bearer of supreme power), and the first of them, “when the power is in the assembly and when every citizen has the right to vote, is considered a democracy.” Hobbes is not a supporter of this form of government. J. Locke, in contrast to Hobbes, who denied subjects the right to discuss the actions of the “Sovereign,” believed that the social contract arises on the basis of respect for natural rights. Therefore, if the ruler violates these rights, his subjects have the right to refuse the contract. Still, both do not consider the possibility of concrete participation of citizens of the state in managing the affairs of this state. B. Spinoza was an obvious supporter of democracy. It was he who believed that best form state will be one in which all citizens (unless they are deprived of this right due to the commission of a crime or dishonor) participate in the government of the state. In his “Theological-Political Treatise” he narrated: “A state that strives only to ensure that its citizens do not live in constant fear will be more infallible than virtuous. But people must be led in such a way that it seems to them that they are not led.” , but live according to their own will and decide their affairs completely freely, so that they are kept in check only by the love of freedom, the desire to increase their property and the hope that they will achieve places of honor in government affairs". This statement cannot be considered relevant in relation to modern conditions. In the 18th century, French enlightenment philosophers developed the topic of people's participation in government in such detail that their justifications and conclusions are still used today when it is necessary to argue for the positive development of democracy in modern states, including Russian Federation. Among them, first of all, one should name C. Montesquieu, who pointed out that the right to make laws in the state belongs to the people. According to his version, the people themselves should do everything that they are able to do well and entrust only the remaining part of their power to their authorized representatives. That is, representative democracy as a derivative of direct democracy fades into the background. Jean-Jacques Rousseau is the father of modern democracy; he considered democracy possible only in the form of direct popular rule, connecting legislation with execution. In his Treatises, he reflected on the “primary right to cast a vote in every act of sovereignty, a right which nothing can deprive citizens of.” Rousseau was of the opinion that the “general will,” in order to be truly universal, must “flow” from everyone and even then concern everyone. “It cannot be represented by another will: it is the same will or completely different. There is no middle.” Therefore, according to Rousseau, the elected representatives of the people cannot be their representatives; they are only their confidants and cannot finally decide anything themselves. Law, according to Rousseau, is nothing more than a manifestation of the “general will.” And it is natural that the people who obey the laws must be their creator. It can be represented in the area of executive power, which is the power attached to the law. But at the moment when the people “legally assembled and formed an autocratic body of citizens,” all legitimate activities of the government cease, because “where the person represented is present, representatives no longer exist.” Let us turn to the representatives of German classical philosophy I. Kant and G.V.F. Hegel. In his works, Kant does not call for direct participation of citizens in the affairs of the state; he only conveys the idea that the best way the principles of republican government can be realized in a state headed by a monarch who is guided by that general will of the citizens of the state, which is duly expressed by philosophers. After all, according to Kant, it is philosophers, and not delegates elected by the population, who are the true representatives of the people before state power. Moreover, Kant’s republican rule is not identical to democracy, which, along with autocracy and aristocracy, is fraught with despotism and the illegal use of power. Hegel defended a different point of view. He put forward the idea of the monarch as the bearer of state sovereignty, denying popular sovereignty. Hegel did not recognize the right of the people to determine legislative changes in the socio-political system. He only considered it expedient (given the desire of the masses to participate in political life, which can no longer be suppressed): First, to inform citizens through the press about how the discussion of state affairs is taking place in class assemblies, since this will help “public opinion come to a true thoughts”, “to delve into the state and concept of the state”. Secondly, to develop public opinion and make it possible to express it publicly through the press. In the “Philosophy of Law”, one can find the following statements on this issue: “The people are a general expression that includes everything, but this expression is readily understood as a crowd... You can call the state the people, but part of the sovereignty is attributed to the people, contrasting his government." Hegel considers two provisions: 1. The people know better than anyone what their good is, what the good of the state is, because this is everyone’s business, and everyone knows it best. 2. The people necessarily have the greatest desire to fulfill the requirement that no one treats another better than he treats himself. Hegel summarizes: “the first idea is completely wrong, the same can be said about the second.” It is not true, Hegel believes, that the people know what is best for them or even want it. An individual rarely knows what he really wants; understanding this is not typical of the people. Thus, Hegel considers the direct participation of the people in governing the state unattainable due to the very properties of this people. In the 20th century, the right of the people to participate in the management of state affairs became, if not generally recognized, then difficult to dispute. V.I. also touched on this topic in his works. Lenin. He pointed out that as socialist statehood develops into communist public self-government, the importance of popular initiative and referendum increases. On this occasion V.I. Lenin wrote: “The transition to the abolition of the state in the sense that not a special body, not special bodies will be in charge of the affairs of the state, but all its members. How? A kind of new kind of “direct popular legislation.” In the 20th century, some philosophers denied the people the right to democracy. N. Berdyaev, in relation to Russia, found in people a fear of freedom, their attraction not to freedom, but to justice, although he argued that “society, a nation, a state are not individuals, a person as an individual has great value than they are." Therefore, a person’s right and at the same time his duty is to protect his spiritual freedom in relation to the state and society. Among the opponents of the people’s right to participate in government, one can single out K. Jaspers. This German researcher calls the people “the masses” and writes that the mass is a crowd of people not connected with each other, who in their combination constitute a certain unity. It has always existed as a certain social phenomenon. The negative properties of mass lie in the illusory idea of its meaning as large number of people. The mass "forms its opinion as a whole, which is not the opinion of any one individual."
Among all existing species structure of the supreme power of the state, democracy is the only form of government in which powers are assigned to the majority, regardless of its origin and merit.
Today, this is the most widespread and progressive type of political regime in the world, characterized by continuous development and species diversity.
This form government system Many works of philosophers and scientists of all times are devoted to it.
Democracy is a system of government in which power is recognized by the people and is exercised on the basis of legislatively expressed equal rights and freedoms of citizens.
Democracy is inseparable from the concept of the state, as it arose along with it.
* State– a political form of organization of society, implemented in a certain territory.
The history of democracy
Democracy began in 507 BC. e. V Ancient Greece as one of the forms of popular self-government of ancient city-states. Therefore, literally from ancient Greek democracy translated as “power of the people”: from demos - people and kratos - power.
I wonder what demos the Greeks did not call the entire people, but only free citizens endowed with rights, but not classified as aristocrats.
General signs of democracy
The essential features of a democratic system are:
- The people are the source of power.
- The electoral principle is the basis for the formation of state self-government bodies.
- Equality civil rights, with selective priority.
- Guiding the majority opinion on controversial issues.
Signs of modern democracies
In the process of historical development, democracy has developed new features, including:
- the primacy of the Constitution;
- separation of powers into legislative, executive and judicial;
- priority of human rights over state rights;
- recognition of the rights of minorities to freely express their opinions;
- constitutional consolidation of the priority of the rights of the majority over the minority, etc.
Principles of democracy
The system-forming provisions of democracy are, of course, reflected in its characteristics. In addition to political freedoms and civil equality, election of government agencies and separation of powers, the following principles should be noted:
- The will of the majority should not infringe on the rights of the minority.
- Pluralism is socio-political diversity that underlies freedom of choice and expression. It assumes plurality political parties and public associations.
Types of democracy
They talk about the ways in which people can exercise their power existing varieties democracy:
- Straight— Citizens themselves, without intermediaries, discuss an issue and put its decision to a vote
- Plebiscite(considered a type of direct) - Citizens can only vote for or against a decision in the preparation of which they are not involved.
- Representative— Decisions for citizens are made by their representatives in power, who received popular votes in elections.
Democracy in the modern world
In modern times, democracies are states of representative democracy. They contain the people's will, unlike ancient society, is expressed through elected representatives (deputies) in parliament or local government.
Representative democracy makes possible the popular government of a large state with a large territory and population.
However, in all forms of modern democracy there are elements of direct democracy, such as referendums, direct presidential elections, plebiscites.
