Ilyin V.

The minority is always wrong - at first;
Herbert Procnow

Literal translation of democracy

The concept of “democracy” is quite difficult to explain and is understood differently by different people.

As a rule, this term is used not to define a specific positive direction in the development of society, but as a contrast to negative phenomena in the social order/political system of society:

Democracy, as opposed to totalitarianism,

Democracy as opposed to bureaucracy

Democracy as opposed to anarchy

Democracy and market relations, as opposed to state monopoly,

Democracy as a contrast to the hierarchical system of power...

IN direct translation from Greek: democracy is “the power of the people” (from Greek (demokratia: demos - people and kratos - power).

There is a contradiction hidden in the definition itself.

After all, the generally accepted concept of power is the ability to decide the fate of the people to someone endowed with this right. Therefore, power and people are largely opposed concepts. As soon as we try to formulate the concept of Democracy in more detail, questions immediately arise, since the term “Power of the People” does not define: over what/whom power is exercised, and how it is specifically exercised.

Let's take Dictionary and read what the word “Power” means:

“Power is the right and ability to dispose of someone or something at will.”

If one person has the opportunity to exercise power over himself or his property, then this is nothing more than freedom (a person’s ability to act in accordance with his interests and goals, to make choices).

What if there are a lot of people?

How to exercise the power of the people over themselves (democracy)?

And here many questions arise at once:

2. What society can decide regarding citizens and what it cannot. Or in other words, what a citizen is free to decide for himself, and what society can control in relation to a citizen (can society take away property, can society limit the freedom of an individual citizen, can society impose labor or military service on a citizen, can society execute a citizen, and so on.)?

3. What or who can the people dispose of at their own will? And why can’t it? For example, what is the personal property of a citizen, what can be public property, and what is public property?

4. How to determine this very will of the people. Should we use direct voting procedures or elect representatives who can formulate and express the will of the people?

5. How to implement this will (who and how will carry out the execution of the will of the people in relation to citizens and monitor the execution of the will of the people by individual citizens)? Who will protect personal, public and national property and how? Who and how will punish individual citizens for failure to fulfill the will of the people and for violating the rights of citizens?

6. How to resolve emerging contradictions if the specific application of the will of the people violates the interests of individual citizens? How to find the boundary between the will of a group of citizens and the will of the entire people?

Let's try to understand at least some of the issues mentioned.

What and how

What can the people dispose of at will in a democratic state?

In order for a group of people to have the opportunity to manage something, it is necessary that this group of people have something in common. This something had to either be a generalization of the particular, or belong to this group of people on some basis.

In a state, this is, as a rule, public wealth (land, mineral resources, water...), and the own fate of citizens (war, peace, life and freedom of citizens...), and the individual fate or freedom of citizens.

How to determine the will of the people and how to implement it?

The best option is a referendum or direct expression of will. This method of expressing will is often called direct democracy (as opposed to representative democracy).

The second option is delegation (transferring part of one’s rights and freedoms to another person).

There may be delegation without separation of powers, when one or more persons are elected who, on behalf of the people, decide for themselves what the people need and implement the decisions themselves. At the same time, the same persons themselves decide whether the will of the people was correctly implemented. This kind of democracy is often called representative democracy.

Most important questions It is customary to decide by methods of direct democracy (methods of direct and general elections or the method of popular referendum). In other cases, methods of representative democracy are used. In a representative democracy, abuse is possible when one person decides what to do and does as he decides. To avoid abuse, it is customary to use the method of separation of powers, when some people decide what the people need (legislative power), while others carry out the will of the people (executive power).

How to resolve emerging contradictions?

Since the legislative branch cannot describe absolutely all life situations, contradictions may arise between the executive branch and the people, or between different citizens. To resolve these contradictions both within the framework of the law and within the framework of common sense, the emergence of a third branch - the judicial branch - is possible. The judiciary, in practice, resolves disputes and contradictions that arise and makes the necessary decisions.

Power and society

It turns out that as soon as a society cannot exercise its will directly (for example, through referendums) due to certain difficulties (territory, population, geographical dispersion), it is forced to delegate part of its rights and freedoms to one or three branches of government.

And from this moment on, society is forced to divide into those who are related to power (have the right to manage the rights and destinies of individual citizens on behalf of the people) and those who do not have such a relationship. Different kinds The division of society into power and “non-power” is called the political system of society.

That part of society in a state that has special rights in relation to society (making decisions on laws, implementing laws, resolving conflicts) is usually called state power.

The rest of society (not directly related to the three branches of government) can be called differently: population, citizens, workers, workers and peasants. Some political scientists call this part of society “civil society,” based on the fact that the term “civil society” was first used by Aristotle when he contrasted state power with the rest of society.

How can relationships be built between civil society and state (as well as local) authorities?

The ideal form of building the relationship between civil society and state power was theorists of civil society of the 17th and 18th centuries (G. Grotius, T. Hobbes, J. Locke, J.J. Rousseau, S.L. Montesquieu, W. von Humboldt, etc.) considered either direct democracy, when the people themselves decide all issues of their existence, or a social contract, when contracting parties voluntarily sacrifice part of their natural rights for the sake of public interests: citizens undertake to serve in the army, pay taxes, execute laws (obey the general will), and the state the government undertakes to serve the public interest and not to overstep the boundaries of general agreements, ensuring civil liberty, equality, legislative power and protection. At the same time, citizens retain the right to overthrow by force the government that violates its obligations.

What do citizens sacrifice, and what is “natural law”?

If there is power, then this power controls something or makes some decisions. With regard to public wealth, everything is more or less clear. The government must contribute to the maximum preservation and increase of social wealth.

What can the authorities (legislative, judicial and executive) do in relation to citizens? What can they take from citizens or limit?

In order to answer this question, we will have to turn to the philosophical and legal term “natural law”.

It is believed that every person inherently has the right to life, health, liberty and property. He by nature (naturally) has these rights from birth, regardless of whether it is written down in the laws or not. He is free to dispose of these rights independently.

A citizen can sacrifice part of his rights for the sake of public interests. For example, a citizen may sacrifice his personal time and part of his freedoms for the sake of protecting the state and be called up to military service. In this case, his right to move is limited. A citizen cannot leave the territory of the unit without permission. He cannot walk around with the top button undone or the belt undone. He cannot disobey the orders of the commander and, on the order of the commander, he can sacrifice his life, etc.

Or a citizen can sacrifice part of his property (the results of his own labor) so that his life is protected from criminals. His health was protected at the proper level, his children could receive free education, etc.

Does state power sacrifice anything?

State power does not sacrifice its rights, but assumes the responsibility to carry out its activities publicly, under the control of civil society, to maintain equality, to protect public interests, to increase public wealth, and to ensure that the rights of citizens are respected. For example, this may mean that the state undertakes to use the conscript soldier as effectively as possible to protect the public interest.

Decision making procedures

Majority/Minority

Democratic decision-making procedures involve taking into account the opinions of various citizens. Opinions may differ. If the question is posed alternatively (yes/no, for/against), then part of society may speak for one solution, and part for another.

The decision favored by the majority is adopted. Such a democracy makes it easy to resolve alternative issues, but it can make mistakes in cases where decisions are made on issues that cannot be formulated alternatively (issues that have a whole scale possible solutions or choice).

Liberal democracy deals with such issues better.

In a consensual democracy, the minority has the opportunity to negotiate with the majority to change the majority's point of view.

In a liberal democracy, the opinion of the “minority” is taken into account by everyone in such a way as to respect the rights of the minority.

What is bad about direct democracy (democratic centralism)?

The foundations of direct democracy, as a method of decision-making with alternative options, are precisely formulated in the charter Communist Party Soviet Union:

2. Unconditional submission of the minority to the majority.

3. The decisions taken are binding on everyone.

Is such democracy humane and the best?

It is difficult to answer in the affirmative, because it was precisely on these principles that the decision was made to crucify Christ and poison Socrates. According to these principles, Prince Alexander Nevsky was summoned and expelled from Novgorod several times. Adolf Hitler was elected Chancellor on these principles, and general secretary Central Committee Joseph Stalin. This method was used to make decisions in the famous Stalinist troikas.

Try to hold a referendum on these principles in Moscow on the execution of all non-Muscovites, or in Russia on the execution of all Chechens, and you can predict what answer will be received.

Will such an answer be democratic? - Depends on your views on democracy.

If you adhere to direct democracy as a method of decision-making, and you are in the majority, then you are more likely to agree with the decision of the majority.

Would this be the humane and best response? - Probably not.

Such a referendum will only show that direct democracy does not take into account the interests of the minority. She is not liberal. And in modern world It is no longer possible to exist without taking into account the interests of all members of society.

How is liberal democracy different from direct democracy?

Liberal democracy, as a method of exercising power, is a democratic government in which the interests of the majority are realized, CONSIDERING THE INTERESTS OF THE MINORITY.

Such democracy ensures that the rights of minorities are respected. It allows the minority to have certain guarantees of protection of their rights.

For example. A majority vote makes the decision to build a plant within the city. But to take into account the interests of the minority, the plant is equipped with treatment facilities or moved to the safest possible place. Or: the majority decides to make transport paid, but taking into account the opinion of the minority leads to the fact that travel is made free for schoolchildren and pensioners. Or: the majority of votes decides to reduce the number of lessons at school, but at the request of the minority, additional classes are allowed for those who want to gain additional knowledge.

Of course, this version of democracy is much more difficult to implement. After all, it assumes either a correction decision taken, or introducing exceptions to the general rule.

But this is precisely what makes it more valuable to society, because liberal democracy, unlike direct democracy, does not suppress the minority, but allows it to realize its interests. The results do not satisfy the interests of a certain group (majority) at the expense of common resources or minorities, but the interests of the entire society.

In the modern world, taking into account the interests of minorities is becoming an urgent necessity.

It should be noted that the term “liberal democracy” has many meanings. It is often used in contrast to "totalitarian democracy". In this case, liberal democracy is understood as a method of implementing the relationship between state power and society, when the interests of society are realized through the priority of the interests of the individual and society over the interests of the state. In contrast to “totalitarian democracy,” in which the interests of the state are placed higher than the interests of a particular individual or the interests of the majority of society.

V. Ilyin

Other materials on this topic:

Plan:

Introduction

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

Introduction

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

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

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

1. Structure of the socio-political structure

1.1. Politic system

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

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

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

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

1.2. Rights and freedoms

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

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

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

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

1.3. Conditions

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

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

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

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

2. History

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

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

Alexis de Tocqueville

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

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

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

3. Liberal democracy in the world

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

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

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

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

3.1. Types of liberal democracies

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

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

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

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

3.2. Liberal democracy in Russia

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

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

4. Critical analysis

4.1. Advantages

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

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

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

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

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

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

4.2. Flaws

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

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

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

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

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

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

The concept, which is so often used in our time and therefore has become familiar, was once an unthinkable and impossible phenomenon. And this is due solely to the fact that until the middle of the 19th century, the ideas of liberalism and democracy were in some contradiction with each other. The main discrepancy was along the lines of determining the object of protection of political rights. sought to provide equal rights not to all citizens, but mainly to property owners and the aristocracy. A person who owns property is the basis of society, which must be protected from the tyranny of the monarch. Ideologists of democracy perceived deprivation of the right to vote as a form of enslavement. Democracy is the formation of power based on the will of the majority, the entire people. In 1835, Alexis de Tocqueville’s work “Democracy in America” was published. The model of liberal democracy he presented showed the possibility of building a society in which personal freedom, private property and democracy itself could coexist.

Main characteristics of liberal democracy

Liberal democracy is a form of socio-political system in which representative democracy is the basis for the rule of law. With this model, the individual is separated from society and the state, and the main attention is focused on creating guarantees for individual freedom that can prevent any suppression of the individual by power.

The goal of liberal democracy is equal provision to everyone of the rights to freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, private property and personal integrity. This political system, which recognizes the rule of law, the separation of powers, and the protection of fundamental freedoms, necessarily presupposes the existence of an “open society.” An “open society” is characterized by tolerance and pluralism and makes possible the coexistence of a wide variety of socio-political views. Periodic elections provide an opportunity for each of the existing groups to gain power. A characteristic feature of liberal democracy that emphasizes freedom of choice is the fact that a political group does not have to share all aspects of the ideology of liberalism. But regardless of the ideological views of the group, the principle of the rule of law remains unchanged.

General characteristics of liberal democracy

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

Definition 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Note 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The philosophical essence of the concepts of democracy and liberalism, the inadequacy of these ideas, generated by subjective ideas, giving rise to terrifying collisions in the history of peoples, the way to solve social problems.

I hope that the article will not be a red rag for liberals and democrats who are faithful to the Idea, but will serve as a reason for rethinking many interesting social problems.

To date, there are many philosophical concepts in the world that are far from science, each of which claims to be the correct understanding of what society needs and what should be the basis of relationships. Of these, the two most popular today stand out: democracy and liberalism.

Democracyin the very general view postulates the power of the people. It remains to determine what is considered a people: whether everyone or only the dominant ethnic group (and immigrants, migrant workers, slaves and tourists are not considered) or only those who share the dominant religion of this ethnic group. Usually, the elderly and young children who have lost their minds are not taken into account ( At what age are we considered adults?)? But stupid and asocial people, far from any kind of government, and even criminals are considered quite a people who have the right to vote. As will become clear later, practically implemented democracies made one or another selectivity the main thing in determining who and how can be governed. But each society has its own characteristics and therefore it is not possible to apply a certain general template of democracy to everyone.

Liberalismin its most general form, it postulates the primacy of individual freedom. But there are definitely other individuals who will be harmed by this freedom. And there are limits to the extent to which one can allow oneself freedom, so that complete disunity of society does not arise, worse than any anarchy. It will become clear below how important these boundary conditions are and what they lead to in different cases.

Philosophy has never led to practical knowledge adequate to reality. The ancient Greek philosophy of the Olympian gods was then taken much more seriously than the philosophy of democracy. Power was considered the implementation of the will of the gods, there was a whole system of attitudes and ethics that took into account ideas about the gods of Olympus (and not only) so that entire groups of people found themselves in preference to one or another patron god. This religious philosophy and ethics was practically embodied in life, and in contrast to the futuristic ideas of democracy and liberalism.

As a result, none of these philosophical concepts turned out to be adequate to reality: in attempts of any kind of practical implementation, they clearly show their inferiority and unacceptability, their inability to solve social problems. It is similar to how in 5000 years of the history of mystical philosophy, not one of their mystical ideas has led to any practically useful result to the extent of taking them seriously.

The idea of ​​democracy is no less ancient, and its first incarnation in Athens dates back half a century BC. But so far it has not given the promised fruits of the desired prosperity of society and is always accompanied by a variety of inhumane phenomena, which will be shown below using examples of implementation.

This happens because philosophical ideas - subjective models of personal ideas, are always and literally in everything inadequate to reality, especially concrete, not fictitious reality, and require verification to correct errors. But such verification most often rejects most ideas from the subjectively produced ones, unless they are very well and carefully based on already reliably identified patterns of the real world.

In order to produce the idea of ​​effective management of society, it is necessary to very well develop 1) an adequate reality of the current state of society with all its inherent cause-and-effect relationships, i.e. create a working, reality-tested model of society. In addition, it is equally necessary to 2) build a reliable model of personality that interacts with other personalities. Only after this will it become clear which path to follow in developing the most optimal management model. Neither the first nor the second exists today even in the outlines of a generally accepted theory. This already suggests that any philosophical (i.e., pre-scientific) concepts of managing society have no chance of being correct in any way.

When a well-known politician (de mortuis aut bene, aut nihil) tells the people: “Take as much democracy as you can swallow,” what is this if not an anarchist call? And this is exactly what was proposed in Russia. We know the consequences.

But the worst thing about modern democracy is the absence of any moral and ethical standards. As, for example, we are told from the West: “You don’t have rights for gays, which means you are an undemocratic country.”

...How can one give the right, say, to a person who claims to communicate with aliens, to be given the opportunity to vote in elections, to drive a car, a tractor, an airplane?

Only one country has arrogated to itself the right (in a democratic way, of course) to decide who has democracy and who does not have enough of it.

Democracy is now very selective. It comes to where there are geopolitical interests of the main democrats (rather, democrats) of the planet. Take, for example, unfortunate Libya. What were they told? That the government is a tyrant, that there are no cultures, but we will give you (videos with Sasha Grey, right?), that you generally live below the poverty line, although such a social system as it was under Gaddafi, God forbid everyone.

And it's the same in Iraq. There is a tyrant in power, there is no culture, there is no beer either (but there is oil), but you will have all this. After 13 years, beer has not appeared (Islam, after all), but there are terrorist attacks at least once a week in full height. Even though Saddam had his cockroaches, he kept order, but what else does the country need? Gay pride parades and films with Schwartz?

Democracy in the modern world has acquired terrifying features. The tyranny of one country, with a jackal pack of hangers-on, dictating its will to those who are not allies. This is the destruction of the cultures and traditions of those who, not being their litter, want to live according to their own values. Of course, let men use Max Factor, marry each other (like women), raise their adopted children in their sodomist values, and also give away all their mineral resources, and territories to boot, for eternal use. After all, this is true democracy, right?..

Atilio Boron The truth about capitalist democracy

Now that more than a quarter of a century has passed since the beginning of the process of re-democratization of Latin America, the time has come to assess its defects and unfulfilled promises. Do capitalist democracies deserve the respect so often expressed to them? In these pages we are going to look at what democracy means and then, based on some reflections on the limits of democratization in a capitalist society, continue to explore the effectiveness of "real democracies"
Let me start with Lincoln's formula - democracy as the power of the people, by the will of the people, for the people. Today these sound like the words of an unbroken radical, especially in light of the political and ideological involution brought about by the rise of neoliberalism as the official ideology of global capitalism.
... It seemed possible for Schumpeter to decide “democratically,” using his own example, whether Christians should be persecuted, witches sentenced to be burned, or Jews exterminated.
... If democracy is so reasonable and elementary, then why did its establishment and effective implementation cause such difficulties? Why were some organizational formats, such as the capitalist company or joint stock company, adopted without significant resistance after the establishment of the capitalist mode of production, while attempts were made to establish " democratic form
... rule" in states led to wars, civil conflicts, revolutions, counter-revolutions and continuous massacres? What do political scientists mean when they use the word “democracy”? Democracy, which is based on slavery, as in Ancient Greece

...? Or that democracy that flourished in cities surrounded by the desert of feudal serfdom, and in which artisans and workers (popolo minuto) struggled to be more than a maneuvering mass under the rule of the oligarchic patriciate of Florence and Venice? Or perhaps the European democracies before the First World War, in which even men did not have voting rights, let alone women? Or so called. "Keynesian democracies" after World War II, characterized by what T. H. Marshall meant by social citizenship?
...After decades of dictatorial regimes accompanied by bloodshed, the social struggle of the masses brought Latin America back (or in some cases for the first time) to the first and simplest level of democratic development.

capitalist society has everywhere proven its limitations and instability for building a strong democratic order.

American democracy and genocide in the Philippines

The United States of America decided to use the liberation war for its own purposes, which, during the uprising in April 1898, attacked Spain with the aim of seizing its colonies of Cuba, Puerto Rico and the Philippines. The Americans themselves admit that they needed “foreign resources.” Senator Albert Beveridge substantiated the claims in his speech: “Europe is producing more and more goods and will soon supply almost all its needs itself, receiving the lion's share of raw materials from its colonies. Where can we sell our surplus production? Geography provides the answer to this question. Our natural consumer is China... And the Philippines will serve as our stronghold at the gates of the East... Wars will now be fought primarily over sales markets. And the dominant position in the world will be occupied by the power that subjugates Pacific Ocean. Thanks to the Philippines, the American Republic has become and will forever remain such a power... God has made the Americans his chosen people.”

“Samosa, of course, is a scoundrel, but he is our scoundrel,” said President Lyndon Johnson about Nicaraguan dictator Anastasio Somoza Garcia. And the United States had quite a lot of such “scoundrels.” Against this background, all statements that Russia supports dictators in Syria, Libya, North Korea and other countries look at the very least hypocritical. In this article we will talk about several of the most cannibalistic regimes of the 20th century, which received military, financial and political support from the United States.

Michael Mann: "The Origins of Social Power" (in 4 volumes, Cambridge, 1986–2012)

I am pleased to present to the attention of the Russian reader my book “The Dark Side of Democracy”, which I hope will shed light on a very dark topic. Initially, I didn’t even think about dedicating a separate book to her. I realized the need for this in the process of writing another work, “Fascists,” which tells how the fascist movements gained strength in the period between the two world wars.

The Nazis were not the only ones responsible for the bloody ethnic cleansing of the Modern Age, nor was their example the most typical (since the Jews did not pose a threat to German society and did not demand the founding of their own state, unlike some other peoples). I began researching other examples of bloody purges; the result of this was the book you are holding in your hands.
... The word “democracy” we know comes from Greek word demos, but by “democracy” they also understood the power of the people in a different meaning - ethnic group, ethnic group. Thus, the power of the people can also mean the power of a particular ethnic, linguistic or religious group over other groups. This book describes many movements that claim that their ethnic (religious, linguistic) group is the “true” people of the country, and that they themselves embody the “spirit” of the people.

These three examples highlight the dangers of democratization in divided nations. Once two hostile communities declare the creation of their own states, democratization becomes a threat to their politicized ethnic, religious or linguistic differences that have a regional basis.
... The most popular alternative to blaming an entire ethnic group is blaming elites, especially government elites. It is argued that evil deeds occur when people are controlled by evil, manipulative leaders. It is believed that democracy and the people strive for peace, while leaders and elites pose a greater danger. Civil society theory argues that democracy, peace, and tolerance flourish when people are embedded in a dense network of social relationships provided by voluntary institutions that protect them from manipulation by state elites (Putnam, 1993, 2000). This approach is naive. Radical ethnonationalists often succeed precisely because their social networks within civil society are denser and more easily mobilized than those of their more moderate rivals. This was true of the Nazis (see my book The Fascists, Chapter 4, and also Hagtvet, 1980; Koshar, 1986); as we will see below, this is also true of Serbian, Croatian and Hutu nationalists. Civil society can be evil.
... Democratic peace theory also argues that states based on popular representation are peaceful, rarely wage war, and almost never fight with each other (Doyle, 1983; see Barkawi & Laffey, 2001 for a critique). The roots of this theory lie in the liberal idea that if the people are given the opportunity to freely express their will, it will be the will for peace. As Rummel (1994: 1, 12-27; 1998: 1) writes, the more authoritarian a state is, the more likely it is to kill its own or other people’s citizens. “Power kills; absolute power kills absolutely,” he repeats like a mantra. This is certainly true, but we are talking about tautologies and. Regimes that kill a significant number of their citizens cannot be considered democratic, since they grossly violate the component of democracy that relates to civil liberties. However, Rummel believes that social peace is guaranteed by the electoral component of democracy; he believes that purge regimes come to power through authoritarian means rather than through free elections.

But the number of exceptions to this rule is alarming. Since the 17th century, European settlers were more likely to commit genocide if they lived under a constitutional government than under an authoritarian regime. Perhaps settler democracies are more correctly described as ethnocracies, that is, democracies for one ethnic group - this is how Yiftachel (1999) characterizes the current situation in Israel.

These days, the word “democracy” has gained unprecedented popularity. We are told about it from blue screens, on the radio, and, perhaps, it is impossible to find a single issue of a printed publication where this word has not appeared at least once. Moreover, in an exclusively positive sense. One gets the impression that democracy is the same indisputable and universally recognized good as oxygen, water and world peace.

For example, American Republican politician John McCain promises to forcefully introduce democracy in Russia, China and other countries. And our prominent Russian politicians, imitating their Western colleagues, promise, with the help of democracy, to build a bright future in our country, ensuring the prosperity of everyone and everything.
... There is a fairly widespread belief that there was democracy in Ancient Rome and Ancient Greece. But we can safely say that not only in these ancient states, but throughout its entire history, human history has not known a single state where the principle of democracy and democracy was actually implemented. When citing such examples, we should not forget that in these “democratic” states it was not the people who had the right to vote, but the so-called “citizens” - an elite stratum that made up an insignificant percentage of the bulk of the entire population, and the same slaves, like women, did not have the right to participate in elections.

As for Russia, it is generally accepted that democracy existed in Ancient Novgorod, but in Novgorod, too, for the most part only boyars voted, in other words, decisions were made by those few who had the right to vote.

In this regard, the question arises, “what kind of democracy are we talking about?” Where is the ideal to which the Americans and others like them are calling us? Where is this democracy?
...Manipulation of mass consciousness, as well as the work of various political strategists, is carried out according to certain scenarios, using the best practices social psychology, which you can easily read about on the Internet if you wish. These technologies have long been thoroughly studied.
The voter is manipulated with the help of modern political technologies, and the voter does not know for whom he is casting his vote.

And it has long been no secret that not a single candidate has ever stood in an election “without a penny in his pocket.” It is clear to everyone that behind each chosen candidate, be it a presidential candidate or a parliamentary candidate, there are certain structures that generously sponsor the election campaign, thereby ensuring the candidate’s loyalty in the future.

In other words, sponsors provide financial support for the election campaign of a candidate they are interested in, from which, with the help of the media, they create a beautiful image-picture using a certain technology. And it is for her that the electorate subsequently votes.
It turns out that so-called “democracy” is used by very specific people, structures, business communities, political associations, world structures, but certainly not by the people. The same people, by the way, are the main “PR managers” of democracy, with the help of which they do their business, resolve their political issues and satisfy their power ambitions. For these people, democracy is a brand that they impose on others in order to be able to receive various kinds of dividends.

And is it possible to talk about democratic elections while there are all sorts of political technologies comparable to the promotion of low-quality goods on the market through aggressive advertising and the creation of false brands?
... A striking example of these shows is the US presidential election. It was quite funny to see

Americans literally crying with happiness after learning about the victory of “their” black guy Barack. In general, the American model of elections, which supposedly shows an example of democracy, can be rather imagined as a game of betting on a hippodrome, where all the spectators root for their “horse” and cry with happiness when he comes to the finish line first. It is impossible not to note the spectacle of American campaigns, in which a lot of money is invested. But, alas, this is just a show and a farce.
...A few simple analogies that clearly illustrate the absurdity of “democratic” elections: tell me, who would want to go on a sea cruise on a ship where the captain was elected from among the sailors by the passengers by voting on the basis of personal sympathies or attractive appearance? It is clear that no one would ever board such a ship.

About liberalism, practical results

The book by Anthony Arblaster, lecturer in politics at the University of Sheffield, is recommended to readers as the first major English study of liberalism in historical and critical-analytical terms. The pathos of the book lies in exposing the myth of liberalism as a “soft ideology.”
The first part (“Analysis of Liberalism”) is devoted to the philosophy and ethics of liberalism, the second (“Evolution of Liberalism”) to its history, the third (“The Fall of Liberalism”) to the current situation.
... preliminary clarification of the content of the term: what is it - an ideology, movement, party, politics, culture? As a specific organized political tendency, liberalism practically does not exist.
... For millions of people, liberalism is synonymous with hypocrisy or naivety, pharisaism or frivolity. “The word ‘liberal’ has become a dirty word, and before deciding whether this is fair, we must understand why this happened” (p. 4). In the West itself, the crisis has displaced liberal values ​​and led many liberals to accept harsh domestic policy. Nevertheless, it is premature to write epitaphs for liberalism. The very strength of the aggressive reaction to liberalism speaks volumes about his life: dead doctrines do not provoke such rage.

Liberalism exists not as an organized political force: it is no longer needed, because at the political level its goals (in the West, at least) have already been achieved, but as an ethos, as a diffuse, often half-conscious and even more influential ideology. “The liberal worldview, the liberal worldview, and not the traditional conservative or revolutionary socialist one, dominates today in the West. But it is hidden under layers of various social, political or economic formulations... we have all, without realizing it, been breathing the air of liberalism for four centuries” (p. 6).
...The absence of an open and consistent program in modern liberalism is not, as liberals themselves believe, proof of their free thinking, but only reflects the depth and universality of liberal attitudes, that is, the strength of their ideology. But this strength has a weakness on the other side: having seeped into all ideologies, dissolved in everything, liberalism stands on the verge of life and death: it lives at such a depth into which the fresh air of open polemics does not penetrate. But liberalism does not have to die completely; It is in the interests of humanity to preserve some of its elements, and this requires its analytical dissection.
...Individualism can be considered the metaphysical and ontological core of liberalism, provided that it is grounded in the bourgeois individualist concept of man. The ontological dimension of liberal individualism is revealed in the perception of man as more real than society, its structures and institutions.
...the author formulates first a serious contradiction of the philosophy of liberalism is the uncritical unconditional acceptance of needs, strange for critical, doubting, skeptical thought. Liberalism does not ask why certain needs are formed and ignores the problem of socialization of the individual. Instead of a real changing person, educated, exposed to fashion, dependent on culture and history, taught and promoted, he sees the bearer of eternal and unchanging desires. Liberalism blindly believes that real human needs and those about which a person wants and has the opportunity to speak openly are one and the same, especially since a person always knows what he needs. “The Father of Liberalism,” John Stuart Mill, formulated the axiom: “Man knows what he needs better than any government” (quoted from: p. 30).
... second the knot of contradictions of the liberal worldview - respect for a person as a self-sufficient individual, as a goal, and not someone else's means, cannot be ontologically combined with the egoism of needs, the use of people as instruments for their satisfaction. Individualism, making a choice in favor their needs, as in Nietzsche and Stirner, ceases to be liberal.
... The values ​​traditionally associated with liberalism have today become simply mandatory for every decent political movement. The liberal nature of these values ​​is determined solely by their specific gravity in the general value structure and their place in the hierarchy.

Freedom is not a liberal, but a universal value, but in the liberal code it prevails over all others: “Freedom,” wrote Lord Acton (following Tocqueville), “is not a means to achieve a higher political goal: it itself is the highest political goal” (quote . according to: p. 58). The liberal content of the concept of “freedom” is determined by the answer to three questions: freedom from what, why, for whom?

Liberalism defines freedom negatively (see Hobbes “the absence of external restrictions” (quoted from: p. 56), from J. Berlin: “I am free to the extent that they do not interfere with my activities” (quoted from: p. 57) ), ignoring linguistic dilution freedom to do something and the strength (ability) to do something. And although most liberal philosophers admit that freedom without force is inactive, the meaning of freedom remains precisely in the absence of external prohibitions.
...The most vulnerable aspect of the liberal concept of freedom turned out to be its identification with other human values. As Iris Murdoch writes, “we all live according to Mill: freedom equals happiness, equals personality, but in reality we do not live like that” (quoted in: p. 65).
...The liberal value of tolerance, which directly follows from the attitude towards individual freedom, is one of the most difficult to realize. Mill also emphasized the difference between toleration of opinions and tolerance of deeds; the latter in liberal ideology and politics is sharply limited by a system of repression against dissidents.
... Freedom, privacy and tolerance appear in liberalism as ideal values, the implementation of which requires auxiliary values: laws and constitutions. These values ​​determine the main political requirement of liberalism - control over the implementation of laws. Moreover, the object of control is - in complete contradiction with the ontology of liberalism - “fictitious” structures: the state is responsible to the nation, laws must serve the people, the constitution must be determined and controlled by society.

The main legal idea of ​​liberalism - the idea of ​​legality, the subordination of all state bodies to the law - raises a critical question about the sources of law: after all, if there is no natural, divine, or moral norm, the law can only be a product of the egoistic will and subjective opinion, as well as its interpretation and application.

Social theories can be divided into two classes, depending on whether they propose radical or, on the contrary, gradual methods of social transformation. On the other hand, such theories can be divided into those that give priority to collective values ​​over individual ones, and those that place individual values ​​above collective ones. Combining these two divisions, we get four main types of modern social theories: socialism, anarchism, conservatism and liberalism.

The main value and goal of liberalism is the realization of individual freedom. Other values ​​- democracy, the rule of law, morality, etc. - are only means to achieve this freedom. The main method of liberalism is not so much creativity and the creation of new things, but rather the elimination of everything that threatens individual freedom or interferes with its development.
... Liberalism is an individualistic system, since the individual person comes to the fore, and the value of social groups or institutions is measured solely by the extent to which they protect the rights and interests of the individual and whether they contribute to the implementation of the goals of individual subjects.
... One of the main problems of liberalism is the relationship between man and government, combining the idea of ​​equality and personal autonomy with the need for political power. If the individual is free and not obliged to submit to any personal despotic power, then to what power is he subject? Liberalism's answer to this is that the individual must obey only the law which is properly established and designed to govern men and restrain their impulses. As Voltaire aphoristically put it, “freedom consists in being independent of everything except the law.” ... But on the other hand, the law is a product of a strong-willed decision and often an expression of group, subjective interests. In the first case, obedience to the law is based on the conviction of its justice and its usefulness for social life. Under the second interpretation, obedience to the law is formal in nature and is explained by the fact that it is introduced by the authorities and has coercive force. The divergence between the two possible understandings of the law was one of the reasons for the crisis of liberalism at the beginning of this century, when, under the influence of positivism and socialism, the second interpretation of the law began to dominate.
... Liberalism's decisive rejection of the revolutionary path of transforming society echoes the idea of ​​social engineering by K. Popper. Social engineering is a gradual, sequential or stage-by-stage transformation of society, with particular caution regarding the possible social consequences of the changes. Popper contrasts this method of transforming society with utopian engineering, to which Plato and Marx clearly gravitated and the essence of which is a radical and large-scale transformation of society but a single, pre-developed plan designed to create a perfect society. ... Popper's position at this point is clearly inconsistent. Social engineering is clearly unsuitable for realizing an ideal society. Moreover, to everyone who insists on a global reorganization of society, gradualism in its transformation will seem simply harmful. If you need to pull out a diseased tooth, then biting off a piece of it, even the most unusable one, means causing unnecessary pain to the patient. Popper seems to forget that almost all those who believed in building an ideal society were convinced that its establishment should occur in the near future, and demanded that we begin not with partial reforms, but with a deep social revolution. One may also recall that the very method of stage-by-stage social engineering in Western European countries was opened up precisely by the bourgeois revolutions in these countries.

Classics about liberalism

The word liberalism has long lost all charm, although it comes from the beautiful word freedom. Freedom cannot captivate the masses. The masses do not trust freedom and do not know how to connect it with their vital interests. Truly, there is something aristocratic rather than democratic in freedom. This is a value dearer to the human minority than to the human majority, addressed primarily to the individual, to individuality. Liberalism has never triumphed in revolutions. He did not triumph not only in social, but also in political revolutions, because in all revolutions the masses rose up. The mass always has the pathos of equality, not freedom. And great revolutions have always been driven by the principle of equality, not freedom. The liberal spirit is not essentially a revolutionary spirit. Liberalism is the mood and worldview of cultural strata of society. There is no stormy element in it, no fire that ignites the heart; there is moderation and too much formality in it. The truth of liberalism is a formal truth. She says nothing positive or negative about the content of life; she would like to guarantee the individual any content of life. The liberal idea does not have the ability to turn into a semblance of religion and does not evoke feelings of a religious nature. This is the weakness of the liberal idea, but this is also its good side. Democratic, socialist, anarchist ideas claim to provide content human life; they easily turn into false religions and evoke attitudes of a religious nature. But this is where the lie of these ideas is rooted, for they have no spiritual content and there is nothing worthy of a religiously pathetic attitude. Attaching religious feelings to unworthy objects is a great lie and temptation. And we must admit that liberalism does not encourage this. The democratic idea is even more formal than the liberal idea, but it has the ability to present itself as the content of human life, as a special type of human life. And therefore, a poisonous temptation is hidden in it.

Fedor Mikhailovich Dostoevsky

Our Russian liberal is first and foremost a lackey and is only looking to clean someone's boots.

My liberal has gone so far as to deny Russia itself, that is, he hates and beats his mother. Every unfortunate and unfortunate Russian fact arouses laughter and almost delight in him. He hates folk customs, Russian history, everything. If there is an excuse for him, is it that he does not understand what he is doing, and mistakes his hatred of Russia for the most fruitful liberalism...
Lev Nikolaevich Tolstoy

The Liberal Party said that everything was bad in Russia, and indeed, Stepan Arkadyevich had a lot of debts, but there was a decided lack of money. The Liberal Party said that marriage was an outdated institution and that it was necessary to rebuild it, and indeed, family life brought little pleasure to Stepan Arkadyevich and forced him to lie and pretend, which was so contrary to his nature. The liberal party said, or, better, implied, that religion is only a bridle for the barbaric part of the population, and indeed, Stepan Arkadyevich could not endure even a short prayer service without pain in his legs and could not understand why all these terrible and pompous words about that world, when living in this would be very fun.
Anton Pavlovich Chekhov

I don’t believe in our intelligentsia, hypocritical, false, hysterical, ill-mannered, deceitful, I don’t even believe when it suffers and complains, because its oppressors come from its own depths.
Moderate liberalism: a dog needs freedom, but still it needs to be kept on a chain.

Nikolay Semyonovich Leskov

“If you are not with us, then you are a scoundrel!” According to the author of the article “To Study or Not to Study,” this is the slogan of today’s Russian liberals.

our liberals are ordering Russian society to immediately renounce everything that it believed in and that has grown into its nature. Reject authorities, do not strive for any ideals, do not have any religion (except for the notebooks of Feuerbach and Buchner), do not be embarrassed by any moral obligations, laugh at marriage, at sympathies, at spiritual purity, otherwise you are a “scoundrel”! If you are offended that they call you a scoundrel, well, in addition, you are also a “stupid fool and a trashy vulgar.”
Boris Nikolaevich Chicherin
The Russian liberal theoretically does not recognize any power. He wants to obey only the law that pleases him. The most necessary activity of the state seems to him to be oppression. He... sees a police official or a soldier on the street, and indignation boils within him. The Russian liberal leaves with a few big words: freedom, glasnost, public opinion..., merging with the people, etc., to which he knows no boundaries and which therefore remain commonplaces, devoid of any significant content. That is why the most elementary concepts - obedience to the law, the need for police, the need for officials - seem to him to be the product of outrageous despotism...

Scientific approach

The idea of ​​democratic governance is a type of principle of decentralized, distributed governance and is opposed to centralized governance or authoritarian government.

Even at its very core, it would be wrong to believe that a complex system of interaction in society can be built only on the basis of authoritarian or only on the basis of distributed control.

Extrapolating principles of individual and socialadaptive oh, you can come to models of the correct structure of society .

Conclusions in a popular presentation

Liberalism and democracy are philosophical abstract formations and do not exist in nature, but they are called certain embodiments of political views. And what becomes important is not what these theories ideally embodied, but what was named by them, often simply because there is no more suitable name: you decided to politicize your activity, you are thinking about what to call it. Fascism, communism, anarchism have compromised themselves and are considered evil, but for now democracy and liberalism are in fashion.

Previously, there was no popular word liberal and the cattle called themselves anarchists, they even made Makhnovist heroics out of it. And today Zhirinovsky is a democratic liberal, although he is absolutely not what Navalny or anyone else who calls himself a liberal is. The name becomes so conventional that it practically does not express anything, and only real deeds mean.

There is not and never has been in nature anything that could be clearly verified as democracy and liberalism, and one should not fall under the spell of the ideality of the image, but should look at the real manifestations of those who hang an opportunistic sign on themselves.

Only through the development of a common culture is it possible to achieve those idyllic values ​​that liberals and democrats dream of.