The concept of state regime is one of the most controversial in modern political science. Aspects regarding the correlation of the key principles of the exercise by the authorities of authority in governing the country and the legal model with priorities in business development become an occasion for active discussions. In this connection? Why do scientists' approaches to defining the essence of terms related to the functioning of political institutions not always correlate with practice?
Definition
What definition can be given to the term "state regime"? Many of today's political scientists define it as a set of principles for the exercise of power. Some researchers prefer to separate the concept of “state regime” from the political one; others identify both terms. At the same time, one and the other should be fundamentally distinguished from such phenomena as the form of government and government. The identification of the terms in question is a mistake. Why? How does the state regime differ from the forms of organization of the political system and government?
Regime and form of state structure: differentiation of concepts
Let us consider what the fundamental difference between the three terms is (we also agree that the concepts of state and political regimes can be combined). In essence, all three are phenomena of the same order. That is why there is confusion in their use, some freedom in interpretation. Sometimes there is, for example, such a term as “forms of state regime”, although, strictly speaking, using it is not quite correct from the point of view of stylistics.
One way or another, all three phenomena - the regime, the form of government and government - characterize the mechanisms for the exercise of power. But if, strictly speaking, the political regime is principles, then the form of government and government is, in fact, instruments that reflect the practical functioning of political institutions. The classification of varieties of both of these will help us visually trace the difference.
Types of modes
Modern political scientists distinguish the following main types of state regimes: democratic, authoritarian and totalitarian. The criteria by which one can determine the affiliation of a country's political system vary quite a lot depending on the scientific school. But if you try to identify the main ones, they will look like this.
A democratic regime is characterized by the following: the presence of a popularly adopted constitution, the principle of the separation of powers into several branches, a multi-party system, the election of power bodies at different levels, the observance of key human and civil rights and freedoms, the availability of public resources for personal development, and freedom of business.
What are the signs of a totalitarian regime? Such experts include the following: lack of a multi-party system, a minimum of business freedom, political censorship, lack of resources for expressing public opinion and publicity, state ideology, a constitution is adopted without the participation of the people or is absent altogether, there is no separation of powers.
What is the characteristic of an authoritarian regime? According to a common interpretation, the presence of such can be fixed if the power in the state is concentrated in the hands of a specific person or a relatively small group, as a rule, not expressing the mood and priorities of citizens living in the country. Some political scientists believe that an authoritarian regime of power can be fixed if there are de jure institutions in the country that make it possible to talk about the existence of democratic mechanisms, but de facto government is implemented mainly on totalitarian principles.
Of course, the above criteria cannot be considered exhaustive. We also note that they fully reflect the characteristics of modern political systems. If you delve deeper into history, you will find additional signs of democracy, totalitarianism, or authoritarianism. It cannot be said that these criteria will definitely remain relevant in the near future.
It is worth noting that among scientists there is an opinion that in its purest form, it is rather difficult to fix democratic, authoritarian and totalitarian regimes in practice. The given classification is more theoretical. It is intended to provide some guidelines to determine the distinctive principles of the functioning of political power in a particular state. That is, comparing the systems of power institutions of the two states, one can conditionally identify which one is more democratic and which is predominantly totalitarian. However, there will almost certainly be even more democratic or totalitarian countries. Therefore, in terms of the classification of political systems of different states, everything is very relative both in the modern political context and in the historical one.
Types of forms of government
Having decided on the main types of political regimes, we will consider the classification of forms of government, primarily to understand the difference between the terms. As we said above, the state regime is the principles of the functioning of power. The forms of organization and government of the country are a practical tool for exercising the respective powers by the ruling institutions. In modern political science, the following classification of forms of government is the most common:
- unitary;
- federal;
In the first form, the country is a consolidated, centralized political unit, not divided into administrative zones that have any significant powers. Examples of predominantly unitary states: France, Great Britain, Finland.
Federal states, in turn, are organized on the principle of significant decentralization of political power. The country consists of fairly independent subjects of the federation (as in the Russian Federation), states (in the USA, Mexico), lands (in Germany), etc. Each of the administrative-territorial units may have its own budget, political system, and even a constitution.
In political science, the point of view is widespread that relatively small states prefer to organize their own political system according to unitary principles. Those whose territory is vast tend to a federal format. Russia is a state among the second. As well as many others with a large area, for example, USA, Brazil.
Types of government
What is the form of government, the political regime, we have studied. It is also necessary to consider the distinctive features of such a concept as a "form of government." In modern political science, it is customary to distinguish its following varieties:
- monarchy;
- republic;
The first, in turn, is classified into an absolute and constitutional (parliamentary) monarchy. A republic may be a presidential, parliamentary, or mixed type. The monarchy is a form of government in which the highest political power is inherited from one king to another. In the republic, key political institutions are formed through popular elections. In the event that the monarchy has significant democratic elements (for example, the formation of legislative bodies of power takes place through the will of citizens), it is recognized as constitutional or parliamentary. If not, then absolute.
In the presidential republic, a significant amount of power is concentrated in the hands of the head of state (the highest position in the executive branch). As a rule, he is elected by popular vote directly. Russia is a state that, as many political scientists believe, is among the typically presidential.
In parliamentary republics, legislative and representative structures are vested with key powers in the aspect of political power. Examples of such states are Germany, Austria. They also have a president who formally is the head of the executive branch, but his powers are incomparably small with those of the parliament.
There is another criterion for distinguishing between concepts of the presidential and parliamentary republics. It implies not so much the level of authority concentrated in the hands of the president or the legislature, but rather the mechanism for the formation of the highest institution of executive power (as a rule, such is the government). In presidential republics, the latter is usually formed with the direct participation of the president and based on his point of view on personnel and organizational issues. In the parliamentary model, the corresponding role of the legislative authority is prioritized.
With a mixed republican form of government, the powers of the legislative and executive authorities are approximately the same. It is difficult to single out unequivocal criteria that determine their weight. But, as a rule, they are scattered across different branches of government, key for the state - the budget, the army, the social sphere, and business. Confusion can also be expressed in the need for consistent coordination in political decision-making between different branches of government. In this regard, there is an opinion that neither one nor the other republican form of government exists in its purest form. That is, no matter how significant the powers of the president may be, his concepts regarding governing the country, one way or another, will be consistent with the opinion of the parliament. In turn, the legislative authority, ensuring the entry into force of certain legal acts, as a rule, coordinates them with executive structures.
Correlation of regime, forms of organization and government
And now for the fun part. How do types of state regimes, forms of organization and government relate? Is there a certain relationship between their various types? An unambiguous answer to these questions cannot be given. And that's why.
Let us recall the signs of a totalitarian regime: the absence of a multiparty system, a minimum of individual freedoms, censorship, etc. Consider the example of one of the few states that modern political scientists, as a rule, classify as totalitarian. This is China. Indeed, only one party rules there, the Communist Party, hence relatively few freedoms, strong censorship (this is especially noticeable in the case of government interference in the Internet space, expressed in the periodic ban of Western social networks).
Combination of dissimilar
In terms of government, China is a republic. This is reflected even in the official name of the country - the People's Republic of China. In the political structure, therefore, there are mechanisms by which power is elected by the population. Moreover, it cannot be said that in China there is an authoritarian state regime. Despite the fact that power is concentrated in the hands of the Communist Party, the interests of the people, according to many political scientists, are represented in sufficient quantities. It turns out that the PRC, no matter how strange it may sound, is a democratic republic under a totalitarian regime.
In the aspect of the form of government of China - a unitary state. And this despite the large territory, the presence of megalopolises that are not inferior to the capital in terms of population and economic development, to Beijing. We noted above that federal principles are characteristic precisely for states with a large area. In relation to China, this rule does not work.
At the same time, some political scientists believe that China is an exception to the rule. That is, in most cases, if the political regime is authoritarian and totalitarian, then the implementation of republican principles in the country will be very difficult. In turn, under democracy, the institutions of election and representation function, if we follow this concept, more efficiently. This is achieved mainly due to increased competition in the political arena. There are parties offering different programs, and those that promote ideas close to most of the population fall into power. A democratic republic, according to this theory, must necessarily be multi-party, have no state censorship and ensure the full range of basic civil rights and freedoms.
Political Regime and Business
Consider one interesting aspect regarding the relationship between the political regime and business opportunities. We noted above that one of the hallmarks of democracy is the existence of a free enterprise institution in the country. What are its criteria? First of all, this is a minimum of barriers in the aspect of the registration of new enterprises. This is a low tax burden. This is the minimum state regulation.
Is it possible to record compliance with these criteria in the business environments of modern countries considered to be typically democratic - the USA, France, Germany? In some aspects, of course, yes. However, if we take the ratings of freedom of enterprise popular in the world, it turns out that Hong Kong and Singapore are the leaders in them. The first state, de jure, is part of a "totalitarian" China. The second has a political system that is close to totalitarian. In particular, it does not in fact have a multi-party system - there is an opposition, but its influence on the authorities is minimized. Singapore is also known for its very strict laws governing the public sphere of life.
Thus, political (state) regimes do not always determine the degree of freedom of enterprise. Although, according to a common point of view and prevailing practice in many regions of the world, there is still some correlation between the relevant principles of government and business environments.
Political Regime and Law
Political (state) regimes may differ, as we have already noted, in approaches to the realization of human and civil rights. Under totalitarianism, if we follow a widespread theoretical concept, the level of legal support is lower than under democracy. However, a number of modern political scientists prefer to approach the assessment of the relevant aspect with caution. Why?
There are undeniable examples of the rule of law - the USA, Germany, Great Britain. Due to what mechanisms in these countries was the corresponding quality of the political system achieved? According to many political scientists, this has become possible due to the emergence (not immediately, but in the course of gradual development) of an independent judicial institution. That is, the presence of formal mechanisms, which should in theory predetermine the construction of a system for realizing human and civil rights, is not enough. We need a tradition that has been accepted in society as a basis for behavior.
The examples of the rule of law noted above may indicate the existence of such a tradition in these states. In turn, according to some experts, in those countries where the activities of the courts in the historical context did not always imply real independence, the authorities will be forced to compensate for the lack of necessary traditions by strict laws. And it may look like a neglect of human rights. Although in fact the state is trying to provide them, it cannot delegate the corresponding function to the courts because of their insufficient independence.
The political regime in Russia
What is the form of political (state) regime in the Russian Federation? This is a question that raises incredibly intense discussions. We will try to touch on several key points of view regarding him.
There is a version that historically the forms of state regime in Russia never met the basic criteria characteristic of democracy. There were times of absolute monarchy under the Empire, totalitarianism under the USSR. Therefore, despite the fact that in the Russian Federation there is a popularly adopted constitution and democratic electoral mechanisms, de facto power in our country is very close to authoritarian or even totalitarian concepts. Opposition parties, according to this point of view, although they are present in Russia, but, due to pressure from the authorities, cannot play a significant role in the political system. Business in the Russian Federation, as the proponents of this concept believe, cannot be characterized as free: the level of taxes is quite high, especially in terms of social burden, the registration of an enterprise is quite long, and the level of state regulation is high.
There is another point of view. , - . , , , , , , .
, . , , - , , , . . , , . . , , , .