The division of the supreme executive power between real and ceremonial leadership. The functions of the real executive leadership are carried out by the government (cabinet of ministers) headed by the prime minister, who is elected by the parliament. The head of government is actually the first person in the political hierarchy, although executive power is exercised for the most part collectively. The strength of the prime minister's political power is determined by the extent to which he controls the appointment and activities of cabinet members and largely depends on the type of parliamentary regime. The functions of ceremonial leadership are performed by the formal head of state, deprived of real power - the president or the monarch. The president is usually elected to office by the parliament (in some countries, for example, in India, Italy, Germany, together with representatives of local legislatures). The formal legal possibilities of the head of state in purely parliamentary systems are much broader than his ceremonial powers (appoint and dismiss the prime minister and other senior officials, sign laws, accept the resignation of the government, dissolve parliament, call new parliamentary elections, etc.). However, all these functions are predominantly symbolic. The head of state fulfills them within the framework of imperative norms of written and unwritten law, containing instructions that are mandatory for execution (for example, the obligation to appoint a person elected to this post by a parliamentary majority as prime minister, the obligation to sign a law adopted by parliament, etc.). In addition, almost all acts signed by the head of state require countersigning (confirming signature) of the prime minister or the relevant minister, without which they will not be valid. However, the head of state may have some discretionary (selective) or dormant powers. These are such powers, the use of which puts the head of state in a situation of choosing one or another decision and thereby allows the exercise of political power. For example, the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Germany provides that if a person elected in the second round of voting for the post of prime minister does not collect a majority of the votes of the members of the Bundestag, then the federal president must either appoint him or dissolve the Bundestag within seven days. Selective powers appear ("wake up") in a non-standard, crisis situation. Therefore, they are very rarely used. In a normal situation, the head of state practically does not have the right to take initiative and make his own choice in making a political decision. parliament republic government.

Parliamentary way of forming the government. In a parliamentary system of government, only the legislative branch of government is directly elected by citizens, which, in turn, elects the top leadership of the executive branch. The government is formed most often by a parliamentary majority. In some countries, for example, in Denmark, Italy, Norway, Sweden, the practice of forming cabinets of a parliamentary minority is widespread. These are governments that do not rely on the absolute support of parliament. For their appearance, it is enough that the majority does not vote against the proposed cabinet. The Legislative Assembly is usually limited to electing the Prime Minister. (One of the few exceptions is Australia, where the ruling parliamentary faction elects all members of the government.) The prime minister is elected for an indefinite term, but he cannot exceed the period ("convening", "cadence") of parliament. The prime minister, as a rule, becomes the leader of the party (or coalition of parties) that controls the majority of seats in parliament. He selects other cabinet ministers. Moreover, in the vast majority of parliamentary systems, the cabinet of ministers is formed mainly from members of parliament with the preservation of their deputy mandates. In a number of countries, the personal composition and program of action of the new cabinet are presented to parliament along with a proposal to grant a vote of confidence to the government (for example, in Greece, Italy, the Czech Republic). This is not required in other parliamentary states. The government acts as long as the parliament does not specifically present it with a vote of no confidence (Great Britain, Denmark, Germany, Holland, Norway, Sweden, etc.). Responsibility of the government to parliament. Since the prime minister is elected by parliament, he, along with the cabinet, is politically responsible only to parliament. This is expressed in the fact that the government is fully controlled by the parliament. There are many forms of parliamentary oversight, such as ad hoc parliamentary inquiries or questions, hearings of parliamentary committees and commissions, and parliamentary debates. But the main one is the possibility of a vote of no confidence, that is, a vote by the parliamentary majority to remove the prime minister (and the entire current cabinet) or individual ministers. The cabinet can be removed by a vote of the parliamentary majority for a proposal to express no confidence in the prime minister, or for the rejection of a proposal to express confidence in the prime minister. A motion of no confidence is usually made by the parliamentary opposition, while a motion of confidence is made by the prime minister himself. The so-called "constructive vote of no confidence" has been introduced into the constitutional law of some countries (Germany, Spain, Italy, etc.), allowing the removal of the prime minister only if a successor is simultaneously elected by an absolute majority of votes. The Cabinet can be overthrown at any time and for any reason by a vote of a parliamentary majority. Therefore, the most important factor in the stability of the parliamentary system is the relationship of trust between the Cabinet and Parliament. In order to survive, the government must constantly rely on the confidence of the majority of MPs. If the prime minister and his cabinet lose the confidence of the parliamentary majority, they can be removed from their posts by a vote of no confidence. This usually entails the resignation of the government ("government crisis") or - which happens much less often - the early dissolution of parliament. The latter usually occurs primarily as a result of the inability of the parliament to form a new government within a certain period of time or an unconstructive vote of no confidence ("parliamentary crisis"). The head of state is obliged in this situation to dissolve parliament and call early parliamentary elections. Inverse dependence of parliament on the government. Political parties are the political link between parliament and government. In systems of parliamentary government, both branches of government are controlled by the same party (or party coalition). Leading politicians-deputies of the ruling party faction (coalition) are elected to the cabinet, play a decisive role in the development of its program and have a decisive influence on all subsequent activities of the parliament. Although legislative powers are among the main functions of the representative assembly, policy is usually developed and put forward by members of the cabinet. Ordinary parliamentarians of the ruling faction, bound by strict party discipline, mostly vote in support of those bills, budgets and other political decisions proposed by their leaders in government. Therefore, the parliament most often has less influence on the development of the state course than the government, and is in a certain dependence on it. This effect is only enhanced if the party leader is also the head of the cabinet. However, the degree of dependence of the parliament on the government is again determined by the type of parliamentary regime. Thus, under a parliamentary form of government, no government can be formed without at least a minimum support in the legislature. The cabinet grows out of the legislature and is the body of the parliamentary majority. The right of parliament to remove the cabinet and the possibility of early dissolution of parliament provide a certain interdependence of the legislative and executive branches of power, which encourages them to cooperate and seek agreement. This is a regime of "soft" separation of powers, or, to use M. Duverger's classification, a regime of cooperation between authorities.

There are four main types of parliamentary regime in the democratic world. The differences between them are determined by the number of political parties that have won control over the executive power, the level of parliamentary support for the cabinet, the style of government, and the mechanism for making political decisions. The first can be defined as a one-party majority regime. It arises in the so-called majoritarian situation, when any party has an absolute majority of seats in parliament. This gives her the opportunity to single-handedly form a one-party majority government and pursue an independent political course throughout the entire parliamentary cadence. Sometimes the acquisition of such control follows directly from the results of parliamentary elections, when one party wins an absolute majority of votes. After World War II, this category included parliamentary democracies in Sweden and Japan for a long time. However, a more common version of the one-party parliamentary majority regime is the Westminster model, which originated in England and was named after the location of its parliament - the Palace of Westminster. Today it is typical not only for Great Britain, but also for many other countries that have experienced British influence, such as Australia, India, Canada, New Zealand, Jamaica. The Westminster model is based on the majority electoral system of relative majority, which, as you know, comes down to the "winner takes all" formula. Thanks to this system, the party that won less than half of the votes of the entire country (in the UK this number must still be at least one third), as a rule, receives an absolute majority of seats and a monopoly on appointing cabinet members. The rest of the parties, which enjoy a relatively large aggregate support of the electorate, get the minimum number of seats in the legislative assembly. Prolonged application of such an electoral law leads to the emergence of a two-party system, when, in turn, one of the two largest parties in the country forms the government, and the other forms the official opposition. Advantages and disadvantages of parliamentary regimes.

The strengths and weaknesses of a particular form of government are determined by its ability to maintain the stability of state power and the entire political system. Political stability presupposes the establishment of a certain type of political domination, the legitimacy and effectiveness of the political regime. The stability of any democratic system is characterized by a high probability of maintaining the democratic, rational-legal nature of political domination, a low level of actual or potential political violence, and minimization of the risk of errors and costs in making and implementing political decisions. In disputes about which system of government best supports and strengthens democracy, many political theorists (for example, A. Valenzuela, H. Linz, A. Stepan, S. Skach) traditionally prefer the "pure type" of parliamentarism, and, above all, , its British model. However, according to some other authoritative political scientists, the degree of positive or negative impact of a certain form of government on democratic stability is derived not so much from its institutional features, but from the totality of political institutions operating in a given country D. Horowitz, as well as from its characteristic economic and Cultural Factors S. Lipset. This or that form of government can strengthen or, conversely, weaken the stability of a democratic regime, in combination with the following social and political conditions:

The state of the economy (sustainable development or deep crisis);

The degree of cultural and ideological differences in society (normative and value consensus or acute conflict and split);

Number of active political parties (two-party or multi-party system)

The degree of antagonism and polarization of parties (consensual, conciliatory or conflict party systems)

The type of electoral system and the degree of its compliance / non-compliance with this form of government;

General political and cultural traditions (democratic or autocratic). In the presence of more or less favorable conditions, parliamentary regimes demonstrate a number of pronounced institutional advantages, which can be summarized as follows:

1. Flexibility of executive power. The non-fixed, not predetermined term of office of the prime minister and the simplicity of the vote of no confidence procedure allow the parliament, if necessary, to remove the cabinet in a timely manner, change the political course or make significant adjustments to it. As a result, the executive power is able to respond flexibly and effectively to internal and external influences.

2. Cooperation between the executive and legislative branches. The interdependence of the government and parliament significantly reduces the likelihood of conflicts between both branches of government, makes them listen to each other's opinions and find agreement. In one-party majoritarian regimes, government programs tend to receive strong support from the parliamentary majority, which makes the decision-making process quite fast and efficient. In minority situations, the parliamentary way of forming a cabinet stimulates the creation and maintenance of a coalition majority, which is also interested in supporting the government. The head of such a government should be even more attentive to the opinion of parliament, not to mention the head of the minority cabinet. If the clash of party interests does not allow the coalition cabinet to remain in power, then the change in the composition of the ruling coalition makes it possible to elect a new prime minister, who will have to form a new government. The cabinet shift is taking place without any major political conflict. In exceptional cases, early parliamentary elections are called. Therefore, systems of parliamentarism rarely fall into deep crises.

3. Ensuring the stability of the executive power. The Westminster version of parliamentarism, combined with plurality electoral systems, produces very stable governments, in which the responsibility for running the country is assigned to one party, and the voters are presented with clear alternatives even before the elections. On the other hand, the experience of the FRG and the Scandinavian countries shows that the combination of a parliamentary system with a system of proportional representation also produces fairly stable and responsible cabinets if they are based on a consensus party system that allows keeping ideological contradictions between parties at a moderate level.

4. Maintaining the continuity of state power. The separation of ceremonial and real functions inherent in parliamentarism allows the ceremonial executive body (monarch or president) to stand above various party interests and political courses in order to be the representative of the whole people, symbolize the unity of the nation and personify the stability of the state.

5. Reducing the danger of establishing a personalist dictatorship. The no-confidence vote procedure allows the parliament quite easily, by a simple majority of votes, to remove from power a prime minister who is involved in a scandal or who resorts to authoritarian methods of leadership. The ability to repeatedly participate in future parliamentary elections and - in cases of victory - to head governments with several convocations of the legislature also serves as an important factor keeping the prime minister from rash acts. Therefore, parliamentary systems significantly reduce the risk of violations of the constitution by the executive body, the concentration of power in the hands of one person, and are little susceptible to coup d'état.

In the first part of our work, the classification of the form of government was considered, as noted above, there are two forms of government, a monarchy and a republic. Each of these forms has a number of its own characteristics, on which the structure of the state depends, who rules and who owns the power. Monarchies are divided into such groups as absolute (unlimited) and limited, dualistic (mixed) and parliamentary (constitutional). Republics are divided into presidential, semi-presidential (mixed) and parliamentary. All of these subdivided forms of government have their advantages and disadvantages. Let's consider them in more detail.

According to the author, absolute monarchy is the most unfavorable form of government, since it contains all the power of the head of state, the monarch, that is, in an unlimited monarchy, the will of the monarch is the main source of law. In a given monarchy, the head of state is not limited to any other body of state power. The author believes that the main negative feature of such a monarchy is the political lack of rights of the people. As a rule, under an absolute monarchy, an authoritarian political regime prevails, in which the people have practically no political and social freedom. The bulk of society must obey the prescribed laws of the monarch. History and life show that the reign in the person of the shah, tsar, king is characterized by unlimited power, complete irresponsibility of the authorities for the events taking place in the country. This means that there should be no place for such a form of organization of public authority either now or in the future. And states with the specifics of authoritarianism and totalitarianism are imprinted in the memory of mankind as examples of arbitrariness, innocent persecution of people who do not accept the regime. And at the heart of all this is an ideology that completely denies the responsibility of the "brilliant leader" to citizens, alienating him from the people, like heaven from earth, to an inaccessible height, glorifying this inaccessibility, stuffing him and his subjects with it, elevating cruelty to the level of state policy, violence, innocent persecution in the name of "strengthening the state", "protecting internal stability", achieving "ideal" goals, and therefore stimulating the relevant authorities to such cases.

According to the author, a limited monarchy in comparison with an absolute monarchy has a positive aspect. The author stakes on a constitutional monarchy, in which the power of the monarch is limited to a representative body, which is fixed, as a rule, in a constitution approved by parliament. The monarch has no right to change it. In a constitutional monarchy, despite the fact that the actual power does not belong to the people, there are political rights of society here, it can elect a parliament, which periodically changes depending on the terms of government. Having identified the positive and negative properties of the monarchy, let's move on to considering the advantages and disadvantages of the republic.

Mankind, on the one hand, striving for freedom, and on the other hand, realizing the need for power and the rule of law, is looking for such forms of public power that would, if possible, ensure freedom. At one time, this search led to the discovery democracy, occupying a dominant position in the fundamental laws of states and in other political documents, disturbing human consciousness, born from the ancient Greek tradition and understood in content as freedom. He also led to the discovery republics, the foundation of which was laid in ancient Rome, but in essence consisting of a free order. The ancient Greeks endowed the world with such values ​​as freethinking, the art of high philosophical reflection and creative daring, and the Romans - with law, a sensitive attitude towards it, fidelity to the past, to history. And the subsequent culture of the state-legal construction of mankind took shape and developed under the influence of these ancient states - Greece and Rome. Mankind, striving for freedom, after all sorts of trials and tribulations, came to the following conclusion: democracy is by no means a call for total freedom, it is the defense and equal division of ordered freedom: moreover, this freedom can exist in a republican form of government.

It is in the republican form of government that the expansion of spontaneous desire for freedom is stopped, freedom is organized, ordered on the basis of the legal organization of state power and, thus, a wide scope is opened for its development and flourishing, because in this form of government the branches of power are bound by the Constitution, laws, law and public opinion formed in relation to them. It is in the republican form of government that long-term appropriation of state power on the basis of individual right and personal desires is not allowed; state bodies are formed on the basis of strict protection of civil rights and only for a limited period through free elections; State power is exercised on the basis of the Constitution, law and right, the participation of the people in government and the observance of human dignity.

But, unfortunately, in the existing states, these characteristic features of the republican form of government are not always and everywhere implemented at the required level and to the required extent. First of all, life is much more complicated than the most intricate, scrupulous theories, and it inevitably makes its own corrections to these theoretical constructions. On the other hand, the reasons for the decline in the authority of the republican system in the past, now and in the future, I think, should be sought in political ambitions. It is the indefatigable political ambitions aimed at satisfying the "higher" goals of the power-hungry subject that lead to the trampling, sometimes defiantly, of the law, rights, civil rights and freedoms of political rivals - everything that forms the basis of the rule of law state. Under the pressure of these ambitions, the most socially necessary prohibitions are rejected and swept aside, restrictions seem to be worthless, random "obstacles".

In such a situation, the question naturally arises: in what form of the republican system are the principle of separation of powers inherent in the rule of law, as well as the above signs of this system, implemented in the required volume and at the proper level, which means that political ambitions are suppressed accordingly? It is known that the republican state system is implemented in two forms of government - a parliamentary republic and a presidential republic. In our opinion, it is with the parliamentary form of government that there are more opportunities for implementing the characteristic features of the rule of law and the republican system.

England, faithful to the monarchical system, is the birthplace of the parliamentary republic. In this country, political parties with their programs are fighting for votes. The party that wins the election determines the composition of not only the government, but also, in general, the parliament. And thus, the political unity of the legislative and executive powers is ensured. Historical documents dating back to the time prior to the era of Parliamentarianism should include the Bill of Rights of 1689, which prescribed that "claims to the power to suspend laws or the execution of laws by royal command, without the consent of Parliament, are illegal." On this basis, it is believed that it was in England, practically the first of the influential European countries, that the foundations of modern parliamentarism and parliamentary monarchy had already taken shape in the period from the end of the 17th century to the end of the 19th century.

Presidential republic found its most perfect level in the USA. According to the Constitution of this country, both parliamentary candidates and presidential candidates compete for votes. In this struggle, the winning side independently, independently of political parties and parliament, forms the government. Under the US Constitution, the legislative power is vested in the United States Congress, which consists of the Senate and the House of Representatives. But from this point of view, in Turkey (legislative power belongs to the Grand National Assembly of Turkey (GNT) - a unicameral parliament (Mejlis) consisting of 550 deputies elected on the basis of direct, universal, equal and one-stage elections), Finland (the country's highest legislative body - unicameral parliament - Eduskunt The norms governing the procedure for elections to parliament, the rules of its work and functions, are contained in three legislative acts - the "Form of Government of Finland", the "Act on Eduskunt" and the "Law on Parliamentary Elections" of 1955. includes 200 people who are elected by direct universal suffrage on the principle of proportional representation), in France (The powers of the president in all spheres of public life are extremely extensive, Article 5 of the Constitution assigns him the obligation to ensure "by his arbitration the normal functioning of state bodies, as well as the continuity of the state ".) The President has broad prerogatives in the field ty legislation. There is another type of presidential republic system. In these countries, the people in some elections elect the head of the executive branch - the president, and in others - party deputies, the winners form the parliamentary majority, and thus the government, subordinate to the president. It should be noted that in Turkey and Finland the president is not elected directly by the people, but by its representative body, the parliament. Such an election of the legislative and executive authorities requires large expenses from a financial point of view and, moreover, does not ensure the political unity of these two branches of power.

For example, in Turkey, the former leader of the "Right Way" party, S. Demirel, was elected president of the country. In parliament, the majority of seats belonged to the parties Rifag ("Prosperity") and Ana Veten ("Patronymic"). Such a state, although at first glance it creates the impression of a correct solution to the issue, subsequently led to a government crisis and early parliamentary elections, as was the case, for example, in France (in 1981, the socialist F. Mitterrand was elected president, while most of the seats Right-wing parties occupied the parliament.As a result, a government crisis began, and early parliamentary elections were held.

One truth should be recalled: a presidential form of government in a country like Azerbaijan, with weak democratic traditions, can lead to the establishment of a regime of personal power that does not take into account public opinion and acts arbitrarily from public control. According to Art. 81 and Art. 82 of the Constitution of Azerbaijan, the legislative power in the Republic of Azerbaijan is exercised by the Milli Mejlis, which consists of 125 deputies. For example, in the Philippines, Marko, after being elected president, retained this position in his hands for 20 years; appropriated the wealth of the country, unambiguously headed for the destruction of political rivals. Similar events have repeatedly taken place in the countries of Latin America and Africa. This situation is partly explained by the diminishing role of political parties in the presidential republics, their insignificant participation in the formation of the executive branch and in drawing up the government's program.

In most Western European countries, as well as in the Constitution - Australia (According to the Australian constitution, legislative power is vested in a bicameral parliament elected by popular vote. The Upper House - the Senate consists of 76 people, and in the House of Representatives - 148 people). Canada (According to the form of government, Canada is a constitutional parliamentary monarchy. In accordance with the constitutional law of 1082, the head of state is the Queen (King) of Great Britain, who is represented in Canada by the Governor General), Japan (According to Article 41 of the Constitution of Japan, it is established that the Parliament is the highest body of state power and the only legislative body of the state) parliamentary republic. It is in these countries, one can say, that there are no internal and external problems that exist in other countries, on the contrary, the inflation rate is low here, there is a balanced budget, a stable national currency. In all countries of North and South America, except Canada and Jamaica, in most countries of Asia and Africa, as well as in independent states that emerged in the former USSR, there is a presidential form of republican government. It is these countries that are most characterized by political and economic instability, trade and payment deficits, ever-growing public debt and inflation, mass exodus of the population from the country. Of course, these complex problems are determined by other reasons, but still organizational and legal factors play an important role here.

AT parliamentary republics power is given to the political party that has won the election, in other words, to professional politicians who have devoted their lives to politics; as far as presidential republics are concerned, the coming to power of inexperienced, ignorant people is not ruled out here.

AT presidential republics the formation of the government lasts for months, and this, of course, negatively affects the solution of state and social problems. The experience of Azerbaijan is a clear proof of this. In the parliamentary form of republican government, however, so much time is not given to the formation of the government, because the party that came to power, while still in opposition, has its own "shadow cabinet." For example, in 1990, the leader of the Workers' Party of Norway, G. H. Brundtland, who came to power, just an hour after the Conservative cabinet resigned, presented the composition of her government to parliament.

On the other hand, the presidential power, which brings relatives, members of its tribe, relatives to leadership positions on the principle of personal devotion, cannot by any means be characterized by strength and viability. On the contrary, life shows that this form of government is especially sensitive to coup d'état. As, for example, has already been noted in the legal literature, over the past 50 years there have been four military coups in Argentina and Brazil, seven in Guatemala, and more than ten in Bolivia. A number of coups and attempts on the lives of heads of state have taken place in Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Tajikistan, which have gained independence over the past few years. As a result of such upheavals, along with the fact that in most cases incompetent, worthless people with a destructive psychology come to power, society suffers major losses.

In parliamentary republics, heads of state have strong support in the form of party structures and numerous voters throughout the country, which makes coup d'état impossible. The above and other shortcomings of the presidential form of republican government, from the point of view of democracy and freedom, as well as the fact that this power is in a certain way an authoritarian power, shows the advantage of the parliamentary form of government over the republican form of government and the need for a transition to it.

It is known from history that in long-suffering Bangladesh, after gaining independence in 1975, several coups d'état were carried out, two presidents were killed - Mujibur Rahman and Ziaur Rahman. In 1991, the parliament of this country, in order to eliminate political instability, decided to switch to a parliamentary form of republican government.

Supporters of a presidential republic usually cite the United States as an example to show the advantage of their position. Indeed, there were no coups d'etat in this country, but in the same United States there were not rare cases of assassination of presidents and attempts on their lives (the fate of A. Lincoln, J. Kennedy, R. Reagan is a good example of this). And each such case actually ends with a coup d'état. On the other hand, such phenomena as Watergate and Irangei are also from the experience of this country.

In parliamentary republics, even if the same person leads the government for several terms (for example, M. Thatcher, G. Kohl, etc.), such actions are impossible in principle. In addition, life shows that in the presidential form of republican government, due to political ambitions, more obstacles are created for the development of democracy. On a global scale, this form of government is already understood as a path leading directly to authoritarianism.

AT parliamentary In the republics, the executive branch is headed by the prime minister (chairman of the government), the government is appointed by the parliament and bears political responsibility to it for its activities (for example, in Italy, Germany, Greece, India). The composition and policy of the government directly reflect the balance of power in parliament. This may be, on the one hand, the advantage of such a form of government, but on the other hand, and a disadvantage. The fact is that in the absence of a strong majority for any one party (a stable alliance of several parties), with splits in the ruling party and the appearance of a faction (factions) voting together with its opponents, the government loses stability, which creates instability in the political situation in the country.

These shape modifications are due to several reasons. Firstly, for the manageability of the state, it is not so much the separation of powers and the presence of a system of checks and balances that is important, but the establishment of the necessary relationships, interaction, mutual coordination in the work of the highest bodies of the state, since their absence leads to a crisis of the political system, which could be observed on the example of Russia in opposition to the legislative and executive powers. Secondly, the traditional forms of the state also have disadvantages, consisting, in particular, in the emergence of super-presidential republics in Latin America, presidential-monistic republics in Africa, and parliamentary republics are characterized by government instability, frequent government crises and resignations (for fifty post-war years in Italy more than fifty cabinets of ministers have been replaced). Thirdly, the emergence of mixed forms is a reflection of the perception of universal human values, humanistic ideas and institutions (the adoption of constitutions in the emirates of the Persian Gulf), the struggle of progressive forces to change the form of government (for example, in Jordan, Nepal).

Inextricably linked. The study of the state and law should begin with the origin of the state. The emergence of the state was preceded by a primitive communal system, in which the basis of production relations was public ownership of the means of production. The transition from the self-government of primitive society to state administration lasted for centuries; in various historical regions, the collapse of the primitive communal system and the emergence of the state took place in different ways, depending on historical conditions.

The first states were slaveholding. Together with the state, law arose as an expression of the will of the ruling class.

There are several historical types of state and law - slave, feudal, bourgeois. The state of the same type may have different forms of structure, government, political regime.

State shape indicates how the state and law are organized, how they function, and includes the following elements:

• form of government - determines who has power;
• form of government - determines the ratio of the state as a whole and its individual parts;
• political regime - a set of methods and ways of implementing state power and control in the country.

Form of government

Under form of government refers to the organization of the highest bodies of state power (the order of their formation, relationships, the degree of participation of the masses in their formation and activities). Under the same type of state, there can be various forms of government.

The main forms of government are the monarchy and the republic.

Monarchy- a form of government in which the supreme state power belongs to one person (monarch) and is inherited;

Republic- in which the source of power is the popular majority; The highest authorities are elected by the citizens for a fixed term.

Monarchy can be:

• absolute(omnipotence of the head of state);
• constitutional(the powers of the monarch are limited by the constitution).

Republic can be:

• parliamentary(the president is the head of state; the government is responsible only to parliament);
• presidential(the president is the head of state; the government is responsible to the president);

Presidential republic characterized by the combination in the hands of the president of the powers of the head of state and head of government. The formal distinguishing feature of a presidential republic is the absence of the post of prime minister, as well as a strict separation of powers.

The features of a presidential republic are: an extra-parliamentary method of electing a president and forming a government; lack of parliamentary responsibility, i.e., the possibility of dissolving parliament by the president.

AT parliamentary republic the principle of the supremacy of parliament is proclaimed, to which the government is politically responsible for its activities. The formal distinguishing feature of a parliamentary republic is the presence of the post of prime minister.

In the second half of the XX century. mixed forms of government appeared, combining the features of presidential and parliamentary republics.

Forms of government

State structure- this is the internal national-territorial organization of state power, the division of the territory of the state into certain constituent parts, their legal status, the relationship between the state as a whole and its constituent parts.

Form of government- this is an element of the form of the state, which characterizes the territorial organization of state power.

According to the form of government, states are divided into:

• Unitary
• Federated
• Confederates

Previously, there were other forms of government (empires, protectorates).

unitary state

Unitary states- these are single states, consisting only of administrative-territorial units (regions, provinces, provinces, etc.). Unitary states include: France, Finland, Norway, Romania, Sweden.

Signs of a unitary state:

• the existence of a one-tier system of legislation;
• division into administrative-territorial units (ATE);
• the existence of only one citizenship;

From the point of view of the territorial organization of state power, as well as the nature of the interaction between central and local authorities, all unitary states can be divided into two types:

Centralized unitary states - are distinguished by the absence of autonomous entities, that is, ATEs have the same legal status.

decentralized unitary states - have autonomous entities in their composition, the legal status of which differs from the legal status of other ATUs.

At present, there is a clear trend towards an increase in the number of autonomous entities and an increase in the diversity of forms of autonomy. This reflects the process of democratization in the organization and exercise of state power.

federal state

federal states- these are allied states, consisting of a number of state formations (states, cantons, lands, republics).

The federation imposes the following features:

• a union state consisting of formerly sovereign states;
• the presence of a two-tier system of state bodies;
• dual taxation system.

Federations can be classified:

• according to the principle of formation of subjects:
  • administrative-territorial;
  • national-state;
  • mixed.
• on a legal basis:
  • contractual;
  • constitutional;
• by equality of status:
  • symmetrical;
  • asymmetric.

Confederation

Confederation- a temporary union of states created to jointly solve political or economic problems.

The confederation does not have sovereignty, since there is no common central state apparatus and a unified system of legislation.

There are the following types of confederations:

• interstate unions;
• commonwealth;
• community of states.

Political regime

Political regime- a system of methods, techniques and means by which political power is exercised and the political system of a given society is characterized.

The political regime can be: democratic and anti-democratic; state - legal, authoritarian, totalitarian.

Characteristics of the Russian state

Russian state It is a democratic federal state with a republican form of government.

The structure of Russia includes 89 constituent entities of the Russian Federation: republics, territories, autonomous region, regions, cities of federal significance, autonomous districts. All these subjects are equal. The republics have their own constitution and legislation, the rest of the subjects of the Russian Federation have their charters and legislation.

In Art. 1 says: "The Russian Federation - Russia is a sovereign federal state created by the peoples historically united in it."

The unshakable foundations of the constitutional system of Russia are democracy, federalism, republican form of government, separation of powers.

The concept and main provisions of constitutional (state) law

Constitutional (state) law is fundamental to the Russian Federation.

Constitutional law establishes the principles, the basic starting points that should guide all other branches of law. It is constitutional law that determines the economic system of the Russian Federation, the position of the individual, fixes the state structure of Russia, the system of the judiciary.

The main normative source of this branch of law is the Constitution of the Russian Federation, adopted by popular vote on December 12, 1993. The Constitution fixed the fact of the existence of Russia as an independent independent state, which, as you know, happened on December 25, 1991.

Fundamentals of the constitutional order enshrined in the first chapter of the Constitution. The Russian Federation is a democratic federal legal state with a republican form of government.

The democracy of the Russian Federation is manifested primarily in the fact that a person, his rights and freedoms are declared the highest value by the Constitution, and the state assumes the obligation to recognize, observe and protect human rights and freedoms. The democracy of the Russian Federation also lies in the fact that the power of the people is manifested during referendums and free elections.

Russia includes a number of equal subjects of the Russian Federation, each of which has its own legislation. This is the federal structure of Russia.

However, federal structure of Russia is based on the state integrity of the country and on the unity of the system of state power.

The Constitution emphasizes that federal laws have supremacy throughout the territory of Russia, and the integrity and inviolability of the very territory of our country is ensured.

The legal nature of the state and the law of Russia is manifested in the fact that all basic social relations, all the rights and obligations of citizens must be determined by law and fixed primarily at the level of law. In addition, compliance with the law should be mandatory not only for individual citizens and organizations, but also for all public authorities, including the highest authorities and administration.

The republican form of government in Russia is determined by the presence of three branches of power: legislative, executive and judicial. All of them are in mutual unity and at the same time control each other, ensure the equality of the various branches of power.

The most important principles of the country's economic life are also enshrined in constitutional law. First of all, this is the unity of the economic space, the free movement of goods, services and financial resources, the support of competition, and the provision of freedom of economic activity.

The basis of economic relations are the rules relating to property. Private, state, municipal and other forms of ownership are recognized and given equal protection in Russia. This principle, which applies to property, applies to one of the most important wealth of the country - land. Land and other natural resources may be in private, state, municipal and other forms of ownership.

In Russia, ideological and political diversity has been proclaimed and is being implemented. At the same time, no ideology can be established as a state or mandatory one.

Russia is a secular state. And this means that no religion can be introduced as a state or obligatory one, and the church is separated from the state.

The Constitution of Russia establishes the basic principles for the construction of the legal system and legislation.

The Constitution of Russia has the highest legal force. It is a law of direct action, that is, it can be applied in practice and in courts by itself.

All laws are subject to mandatory official publication, without which they do not apply.

Any regulations (and not just laws) affecting , cannot be applied unless they are officially published for public information.

Finally, since Russia is part of the community of states of the world, it applies generally recognized world principles and norms of law. The rules of an international treaty in which the Russian Federation participates are considered binding on the territory of Russia.

Questions and tasks

1. Describe three correct and three incorrect forms of government.

The correct forms of government are:

1. Monarchy:

Absolute:

Monarch - head of state;

Exercises sole control. Has full power. His power is supreme and independent;

His power is declared sacred and endowed with a religious halo;

As a rule, power is inherited;

Limited:

The monarch is limited in the field of legislative, executive activities

The monarch is independent of parliament, but is forced to reckon with its activities

2. aristocracy - a form of government in which power belongs to the nobility. It is based on the idea that only the elite should govern the state. Chosenness was determined by origin, size of property, religious superiority.

3. democracy. It comes from two Greek words: "demos" - "people" and "kratos" - "strength", "rule". Democracy means such a device in which all citizens manage their own routine of life, influence public life. They also say that in a democracy the people are sovereign, that is, they are independent of the authorities in choosing their way of life. Sovereignty means that the legitimate source of power is the people. In a modern democratic system, the people form representative bodies of power through elections. True democracy is possible under certain conditions:

law supremacy;

equality of all citizens;

separation of powers, i.e. independence from each other of the judicial, executive and legislative powers;

multi-party system and political competition;

media free from censorship and state pressure;

the presence of market relations in the economy, etc.

Incorrect forms of government include:

1. Autocracy (tyranny) is one of the forms of government based on the unlimited and uncontrolled sovereignty of one person in the state. In modern literature, this concept means the unlimited and uncontrolled power of one person.

2. Oligarchy is a form of government in which power is concentrated in the hands of a small group of people. Power and capital are concentrated in the hands of one group of people

3. Ochlocracy or anarchy - a form of government, resulting from the extreme development and bringing to the point of absurdity of democratic tendencies - the rule of the mob, the worst of the citizens.

2. Describe in detail the republican type of government of the state. What is the function of Parliament here?

Republic (from lat. respublica, lit. - public affair) is a form of government when the head of state (for example, the president) is elected by the population or a specially elected college. Legislative power belongs to an elected representative body (parliament). The republic combines elements of democracy, monarchy, aristocracy. The country is ruled by one person (monarchy), but his power is limited by the legislature, the parliament, which is elected by all or the majority of the people (democracy). The vast majority of modern states are republics. In the republics, the popular majority acts as the source of power, and the highest bodies of the state are elected by citizens.

There are three types of republic: presidential, mixed, parliamentary. They differ mainly in which of the organs of supreme power (president or parliament) forms the government, and to which it is responsible. Their characteristics are presented in the table.

Parliament in relation to the government usually performs the following functions:

1. Forms and maintains it;

2. Issues laws adopted by the government for execution;

3. Votes (approves) the state budget and thereby establishes the financial framework for the activities of the government;

4. Exercises control over the government and, if necessary, can express a vote of no confidence in it, which entails either the resignation of the government, or the dissolution of parliament and the holding of early elections;

5. Criticizes government policy, presents alternative versions of government decisions and the entire political course.

3. Under what conditions is impeachment carried out?

Impeachment is a special procedure for bringing to justice and judicial review of cases of crimes of high officials. The grounds for impeachment are unconstitutional actions.

4. Describe democracy, compare its ancient and modern forms, emphasize the general and the special.

Democracy comes from two Greek words: "demos" - "people" and "kratos" - "strength", "government". Democracy means such a device in which all citizens manage their own routine of life, influence public life. They also say that in a democracy the people are sovereign, that is, they are independent of the authorities in choosing their way of life. Sovereignty means that the legitimate source of power is the people. In a modern democratic system, the people form representative bodies of power through elections. True democracy is possible under certain conditions:

Law supremacy;

Equal rights for all citizens;

Separation of powers, i.e. independence from each other of the judicial, executive and legislative powers;

Multi-party system and political competition;

Media free from censorship and state pressure;

The presence of market relations in the economy, etc.

There are two main forms of democracy:

1. direct - the main decisions are made directly by all citizens at meetings or through referendums (ancient Greek policies). The essence of direct democracy is this: literally all citizens who have the right to vote gather in one place at a certain time and publicly discuss the most important decisions, including war and peace, the form of government, the amount and method of levying taxes. The final decision is made by majority vote. In the periods between assemblies, current issues are decided by the democratic government elected by the people.;

2. representative - decisions are made by elected bodies (USA). Representative democracy is such a structure of society in which the part of the population that has the right to vote elects its authorized representatives, who, on behalf of the people, exercise legislative power. The larger the society, the greater the need for such a form. The population is divided into districts and votes for one or another party. More precisely, for their representatives living right there. If someone is not satisfied with any party, he can vote for an independent candidate. The person with the highest number of votes in a given constituency becomes an MP.

Greek Democracy:

1. has come a long way of development - more than 250 years;

2. covered not all, but part of the people - about 1/10 of the total population, reflected the opinion of the entire free people;

3. evolved from direct to representative form.

So, in Athens, slaves, meteki (settlers) and women did not have the right to vote. The most important issues were discussed by the People's Assembly (ekklesia), and all laws were adopted here. Executive power was exercised by elected officials - magistrates. The highest judicial power belonged to the jury (helieya). Democracy in Athens meant the right of every citizen to elect and be elected to any position in the state.

Ancient democracy is characterized by a synthesis of civil society and the state. The state was a community of citizens who jointly defended their rights from outside threats from other states, and within the policy - from those who did not enjoy civil rights - slaves and meteks (settlers). Consequently, ancient democracy was a minority democracy.

Modern democracy restricts in some rights minor citizens of their country.

5. * Why does democracy degenerate into ochlocracy and not into tyranny? Can you give historical examples of such a transformation?

Ochlocracy - a perverted form of government, which arises as a result of disorderly development and bringing democratic tendencies to the point of absurdity;

The element of riots, pogroms, street riots, in which the crowd is the master of the situation;

One of the characteristics of a mass society.

Despite their different appearances, ochlocracies share some common features. The main characteristic features of ochlocracy are demagogy, adventurism, populism. It is characterized by variability of the political course, unpredictability and impulsiveness of political actions. Ochlocracy simplifies complex social problems as much as possible, often uses provocations, incites mass passions, provokes scandals. It is usually supported by the marginalized and lumpenized sections of the population, dissatisfied with their social position and ready for uncontrolled actions (murders, senseless destruction of material values, violence).

Ochlocracy often comes into its own at a turning point, at critical periods for society. Since the crisis of society always has limits, ochlocracy is characterized by both non-vitality and fragility. In most cases, the instability and fleeting nature of ochlocracy leads to a deterioration in the social situation. Exit from it very often ends with totalitarian, dictatorial or oligarchic forms of government. Classical historical examples of ochlocracy are the Time of Troubles in Russia at the beginning of the 17th century, certain periods of civil wars, popular uprisings in the Ancient World and the Middle Ages, as well as periods of changing socio-political relations in the context of transforming societies. However, there were not so many pronounced forms of ochlocracy. History knows more examples of deformed, partial forms of ochlocracy, which often coexist with other forms of political power, manifest themselves in certain areas of public life, in certain periods of the crisis state of society, in certain regions or parts of the state.

6. * What, in your opinion, are the advantages and disadvantages of the republican type of state structure?

Advantages:

1. Election of power;

2. Separation of powers, which hinders the transformation of the republic into

3. The stability of the republic, since the president and government are elected for a fixed term.

4. Involvement of all citizens of the country in the life of the state

Flaws:

1. The possibility of establishing a sole board.

2. Political instability, since a change in the parliamentary majority entails the loss of support for the government from the parliament and a vote of no confidence in the government.

3. Excessive bureaucratization of power.

7. * Conduct a comparative analysis of the three republics in the modern world - parliamentary, presidential, mixed. Make brief written conclusions.

As can be seen from the table, all types of republics have an elective character of power. The differences lie in how the president is chosen and the government is formed, as well as to whom the government is (or not at all) accountable.

? Problem

Do you agree with the opinion of the Russian historian N. M. Karamzin: “Democratic government is most suitable for small states, aristocratic - for medium, monarchical - for large"?

Yes, one can agree with N. M. Karamzin, because the administration of large territories sometimes requires non-democratic methods of administration.

Let's consider such a situation. There is a certain state of large sizes. It is divided into certain parts for easier management (let's say 5). It's time for the election. And then the controversy began. Everyone "pulls the blanket over himself." Each part of the country wants to see its representative in power. This will give some dominance in the state itself. They could not agree, and some representatives of this state decided to create their own state in order to adopt those laws and political decisions that would suit only them and not make concessions to other residents of this country, contrary to their desires. Such is the nature of man. In order for democracy to exist in a state with a large territory, the personal responsibility of each citizen to his country, the high moral qualities of each person who is ready to sacrifice something for the sake of the common is necessary.

Workshop. Consider the table. It contains the names of the forms of government and their brief interpretation. Put a cross in the place that indicates that this form of government belongs to this particular definition, which belongs only to it.

The concept of "federalism" comes from the Latin foedus, which means "agreement

thief", "union", "agreement". From the end of the 19th century the term "federalism" was used

to denote an association whose parts retain their administrative

or financial independence. D. King notes that “federalism is an institution

conventional agreement on the form of a sovereign state, different from

other states only by the fact that its regional units, according to the constitution

rationally approved procedures, participate in the decision-making process of the central

ral government." V. Riker defines federalism as a political

an organization in which power is shared among regional governments

by you and the central government and each type of government has an area

making final decisions. Federalism can be seen as

strange or territorial division of powers. D. Elazar reviews

federalism as “a fundamental separation of powers among a multitude of centers

moat." That is why the federation is interpreted as a multilevel system of institutions.

tuts, exercising the functions of political control.

We can distinguish the most common features that are characteristic of most federal states:

· The territory of the federation consists of the territories of its individual subjects: states, cantons, republics.

· In a union state, the supreme legislative, executive and judicial power belongs to federal state bodies. The competence between the federation and its subjects is delimited by the federal constitution.

· In some federations, the subjects have the right to adopt their own constitution, have their own supreme legislative, executive and judicial bodies.

· In most federations there is a single federal citizenship and citizenship of federal units.

· The main national foreign policy activity in the federations is carried out by federal state bodies. They officially represent the federation in interstate relations (USA, Germany, Brazil, India, etc.).

· A mandatory feature of the federal form is the bicameral structure of the federal parliament. One chamber is considered as a body of federal representation, deputies are elected to it from all over the country. The second chamber is called upon to represent the interests of the members of the federation.

Advantages

1. The presence of numerous barriers to the abuse of power. the presence of specific interests of the subjects of federations requires their coordination and prevents the monopolization of power.

2. Efficiency of innovations. The federal system of government allows minimizing erroneous decisions at the national level. In the federation, there is an opportunity to test any innovations, reform projects in one or more subjects of the federation, thereby determining the effectiveness of the planned social and political innovations. The positive experience gained can be further implemented across the entire federation.

3. Expanding opportunities to overcome conflicts. In federal states, the social space of conflicts is shrinking. Most often they arise and develop at the regional level, are autonomous in nature and do not undermine the stability of the state.

4. Activation of political participation. Federalism makes it possible to diversify the forms of political participation.

5. Military and political advantages. Federalism allows you to combine resources and forces to ensure national security and achieve foreign policy goals.

6. Economic gain. The federal state structure allows removing customs barriers between regions, minimizing costs for the internal movement of goods, labor and other resources, as well as creating common “rules of the game” in the economy, which greatly facilitates work in the domestic market.

Flaws

1. "Egoism" of the subjects of the federation. Each subject has specific interests that may conflict with the interests of other subjects. The desire to implement them, infringing on the interests of other members of the federation, weakens the state as a whole.

2. Problems of coordination. It becomes more difficult to coordinate the activities of authorities, especially if they are little dependent on each other. The polycentrism of power leads to a delay in decisions, which is due to the need to coordinate them between different levels of power.

3. Socio-economic inequality. Under federalism, quite deep social differences (in the level of economic development, incomes of the population, etc.) between different regions and subjects of the federation are possible.

52. Features of the federal structure of the Russian Federation.

Several important circumstances determine the need for federalism in Russia. The first is the multinational composition of the country's population; the second is a large territory and population; Third, and perhaps most important, modern Russia needs federalism as one of the means of ensuring its democratic development. Genuine federalism destroys the centralization of administration and the monopolization of power in the center, and thereby contributes in no small measure to strengthening the guarantees of civil liberty. Thus, the question of the need to form genuine federalism in Russia is equivalent to the question of the need to build a democratic state of law. However, the adoption of such a model in practice has many difficulties, one of which is the influence of the experience of the Soviet federation.

Russia was first proclaimed a federal state at the very beginning of 1918. And this was not done by the Bolsheviks, as is commonly believed, but by the Constituent Assembly of Russia, where the Bolsheviks were in a clear minority. the Russian state is proclaimed the Russian Democratic Federative Republic, uniting in an inseparable union peoples and regions within the limits established by the Federal Constitution, sovereign. There was no alternative to federation, since the democratization of the country was meant.

Stages of the federalization process:

1. "Parade of Sovereignties" (1990-1991), when the autonomous republics within Russia declared their state sovereignty and the question of their interaction with Moscow arose.

2. Development and signing of the Federal Treaty (August 1991 - March 1992), which made it possible to temporarily remove the danger of further sovereignization that goes beyond the federal principle.

3. The growth of contradictions between the President and the Supreme Council in the struggle for the regions (December 1992 - October 1993), when the issue of equal rights for the subjects of the federation became acute and the possibility of forming a federation "from below" arose.

4. De-Sovietization of the authorities and the adoption of the Constitution of the Russian Federation (October 1993 - December 1993), which consolidated the foundations of the federation in Russia.

5. Formation of new authorities of the subjects of the federation, signing of the Agreement on Civil Consent and agreements with a number of republics and regions, which provided them with the implementation of several additional rights (1994-1999).

6. In place of the former looseness and disorder comes a hierarchical structure, where the preservation of polycentricity is combined with the growing inequality of power centers, and in relations between Moscow and the subjects of the Federation, coercion gradually comes to the fore.

The transition from unitarism to true federalism was made by the signing of the Federal Treaty on March 31, 1992. The main meaning of the treaty lies, first of all, in the fact that it outlines a setting for the rejection of the hybrid nature of the Russian Federation, in which both federal and unitary principles coexisted. So, in it, along with the republics within Russia and autonomous entities, the territories, regions, Moscow and St. Petersburg received the status of subjects of the federation, which, acquiring elements of statehood and thereby raising their status, enter into appropriate federal relations with Moscow.

a specific federal system has developed in Russia, which is characterized by the following features:

The mixed ethno-territorial character of the federation building, fraught with ethno-conflicts and "ethno-squeezing out";

The asymmetry of the scale of federal units and, accordingly, the unequal weight of the votes of the population living in them;

Inequality in the status of subjects of the federation (differences between republics and "simple provinces", the presence of subjects of the federation that are simultaneously part of other subjects);

Economic, social and political differentiation of regions that differ significantly from each other in terms of living and working conditions of citizens, in terms of the effectiveness of social infrastructure, in terms of the share and role of democratic institutions and procedures, in terms of the level of political activity and the nature of political preferences of the electorate;

The subsidization of the majority of subjects of the federation, and, consequently, their dependence on subventions of the federal government;

Provincial centralism, i.e. reproduction (in a worse version) at the regional level of existing relations between the center and the regions;

Autocracy of regional elites, as well as less control over their activities than in the center by civil society and legal institutions;

The unjustifiably high role of the subjective factor, when the personal qualities of the head of the region and his personal connections in the center largely determine the attitude of the federal authorities towards the region and, thereby, the social and economic status of the citizens living in it;

The inconsistency in legislation, which, although reduced as a result of President Vladimir Putin's efforts to strengthen the "vertical of power," still remains a factor shaping the real political situation in the country.

53. Forms of government. Monarchy.

Form of government Monarchy(lat. monarchia from other Greek. μοναρχία - "autocracy": μόνος - "single, united" and ἀρχή - "management, power") - a form of government in which the supreme state power belongs to one person - the monarch (king, king, emperor, duke, archduke, sultan, emir , khan, etc., etc.) and, as a rule, is inherited. It can also be the concentrated power of the country (empire) in the center, that is, the capital. This can be seen in the political structure of Kievan Rus: The ruler (monarch) was in the capital. It is a form of government in which the head of state receives power in the order of succession to the throne.

Main signs classical monarchical form of government are:

· the existence of a sole head of state, using his power for life (king, king, emperor, shah);

hereditary (according to the law on succession to the throne) order of succession of supreme power;

The monarch embodies the unity of the nation, the historical continuity of tradition, represents the state in the international arena;

legal immunity and independence of the monarch

The monarchy is divided into absolute and constitutional.

Absolute monarchy was most common during the Middle Ages. It is characterized by the combination of legislative and executive power in the hands of one person - the monarch. Currently, this form of government is preserved in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Oman.

A constitutional monarchy - a monarchy in which the power of the monarch is limited by the constitution or by unwritten law or custom. The constitutional monarchy exists in two forms: dualistic monarchy (Austro-Hungarian Empire 1867-1918, Japan 1889-1945, currently exists in Morocco, Jordan, Kuwait and, with some reservations, also in Monaco and Liechtenstein) and parliamentary monarchy (currently Great Britain, Denmark, Sweden) It, in turn, is divided into dualistic and parliamentary.

At dualistic monarchy(Jordan, Kuwait, Morocco) an institution of parliament arises and functions, which formally has legislative powers. However, the powers of parliament are limited by the monarch's right to appoint members of parliament, the right to dissolve parliament, and the right to veto. In fact, Parliament does not play any significant political role in the political system.

essence parliamentary monarchy beautifully reflected in the phrase "the king reigns, but does not rule." The most influential institution, significantly limiting the power of the monarch, is the parliament. It is the parliament that forms the government, which actually bears political responsibility to the legislature. The monarch performs representative and ceremonial functions, he is more of a historical and political symbol than a political institution.

Benefits Monarchies as forms of government are commonly referred to as:

· The monarch, as a rule, is brought up from childhood, taking into account the fact that in the future he will become the supreme ruler of the state. This allows him to develop the qualities necessary for such a position and ensures that power is not obtained through pseudo-democratic machinations by an incompetent or malicious person;

· The replacement of power is not based on the candidate's abilities, but on the basis of an accident of birth, which reduces the possibility of penetration into power by people for whom power is an end in itself.

Compared with the republic, the following advantages are also distinguished:

Monarchy ensures the unity and, as a result, the strength of the system of power;

· The monarch, by virtue of his position, is above any political party and therefore is an unbiased political figure;

· Under the monarchy, it is more possible to carry out any long-term transformations in the life of the state;

· Under the monarchy, there is more opportunity to carry out fundamental changes that are necessary in the long term, but unpopular in the short term;

· The monarch is much more aware of his responsibility for the state he controls than the elected head of state.

Compared with a republican dictatorship, the following advantages are also distinguished:

· Monarchs are usually more confident in the strength of their power, so they are less prone to mass political repression;

· After the death of the monarch, a successor is almost always known, which reduces the risk of political upheavals.

disadvantages monarchies are called:

· If in a democratic republic power is replaced by elections, then in a monarchy - after the death of the monarch. Therefore, heirs to the throne often kill the monarch and / or other pretenders to the throne in order to gain power, while in the republic they use agitation among the people for the same purpose.

· The replacement of power takes place not according to the abilities of the candidate, but by chance of birth, as a result of which a person who is completely unprepared to perform such duties can receive the supreme state power;

The monarch is not legally responsible to anyone for his rule, which may lead to decisions that are objectively not in the interests of the state;

Under a monarchy, there is more theoretical possibility for the emergence of a dictatorship

Under a monarchy, pluralism of opinions is provided worse than under a republic

54. Forms of government. Republic.

Form of government- these are ways of forming and organizing the highest state institutions of power, as well as the distribution of powers between them. There are two main forms of government - the monarchy and the republic.

Republic(lat. res publica, "the cause of the people") - a form of government in which the supreme power is exercised by elected bodies elected by the population (or state bodies) for a certain period. Currently, out of 193 states of the world, more than 140 are republics.

The republic has the following features:

· The existence of a sole head of state - the president, parliament and cabinet of ministers. Parliament represents the legislative branch. The task of the president is to head the executive branch, but this is not typical for all types of republics.

· Election for a certain period of the head of state, parliament and a number of other supreme bodies of state power. All elected bodies and positions must be elected for a fixed term.

· Legal responsibility of the head of state. For example, according to the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the parliament has the right to remove the president from office for grave crimes against the state.

· In cases stipulated by the constitution, the president has the right to speak on behalf of the state.

The people are recognized as the source of power.

· The highest state power is based on the principle of separation of powers, a clear division of powers (not typical for all republics).

in many modern democracies, not only the term of office of the president is limited, but also the number of terms itself. The power of the head of state is also limited, although to a different extent. All citizens of the country have the right to vote in the republics. For comparison, in the Venetian Republic, the doge was elected for life and not by all citizens, and also had almost unlimited powers. However, even now in some countries the elections are not universal. In South Africa, until the 1990s, blacks and mulattos did not have the right to vote.

Some republics have senators for life (Italy, France), but their seats are not hereditary. However, a republic is not synonymous with democracy. In many countries, officially republics, presidential elections are canceled or take place on a non-alternative basis. At the same time, democratic institutions are widespread in many monarchical states. However, in the republics there are more opportunities for the development of democracy. Republic - the most common political system. Most republics are divided into presidential and parliamentary.

55. Signs, advantages and disadvantages of the presidential republic.

In a presidential republic, the positions of head of state and head of government are combined. The head of state is elected by popular vote and forms the government, which bears political responsibility to him. In a parliamentary republic, the government is formed by the parliament, and the head of state (if such a position exists) is elected by the parliament. The prime minister (head of government), as a rule, becomes the leader of the party that won the majority of votes in parliamentary elections.