The concept, which is so often used in our time and therefore has already become familiar, was once an unthinkable and impossible phenomenon. And this is due solely to the fact that before mid-19th centuries, 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 structure 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.

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 partially free countries, but since 2005 Russia has been included in the list of unfree countries.

In Russia itself, part of the population mistakenly associates the doctrine of liberal democracy with the ultranationalist LDPR party. Democracy is generally supported, but most people say social rights higher than liberal ones. Chudinova I.M. Political myths // Socio-political magazine. 2011. No. 6

Advantages

First of all, liberal democracy is based on the rule of law and the equality of all before it. Therefore, it is in democracy that it is ensured highest level law and order.

Further, liberal democracy ensures that government is accountable 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, 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, which in an authoritarian regime can only be achieved at the cost of an extremely tough dictatorship.

Since politically important decisions are made by elected representatives - professionals who are members of the political elites, - this frees people from the need to spend time studying and discussing many government issues. At the same time, a number of countries (Switzerland, Uruguay) and regions (California) actively use elements of direct democracy: referendums and plebiscites.

Constitutional protection against the dictatorship of the majority is an essential advantage of this regime and distinguishes it from other types of democracy. In fact, every person, according to some characteristics, belongs to a certain minority, therefore, in conditions of complete subordination to the will of the majority, civil rights are suppressed. In a liberal democracy, this has the opposite effect, since it forces the current majority to view itself as a temporary coalition and therefore pay attention to the point of view of the current minority.

Thanks to the ability of minorities to influence decision-making, liberal democracy provides protection of private property for the wealthy, social protection for the poor, and the smoothing out of cultural, ethnic and religious conflicts. The most democratic countries in the world are characterized by the most low level terrorism. 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.

The ability to change a government or its policies peacefully and without violence contributes to stability and certainty in society. This is also facilitated by the fact that democracy forces the government to work openly, communicate its strategic goals and report on ongoing measures to achieve them. Freedom of speech also allows authorities to be better informed about the real state of affairs in the state.

The consequence of liberal democracy is the accumulation of human capital, low inflation, less political and economic instability and relatively low government intervention in the activities of entrepreneurs. 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, several liberal democratic countries are still relatively poor (India, Costa Rica, Estonia), and a number authoritarian regimes, on the contrary, are thriving (Brunei).

Research also shows that liberal democracies are more effective at managing available resources when they are limited than authoritarian regimes. Thus, 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.

Liberal- democratic regime- this is a kind of democratic type of government, in which democratic methods, forms and methods of implementing state power receive relatively incomplete, limited and inconsistent application.

On the one hand, this mode is associated with quite high level political freedom of the individual; and on the other hand, real objective and subjective conditions in countries significantly limit the ability to use democratic means and methods of state and political management. This guarantees that the liberal democratic regime should be classified as a democratic state type of ruling power and at the same time a special type of democratic regime differs from actually democratic or developed democracies Vedenina N.A. Modern political liberalism and the problem of social justice: Dis. Ph.D. ist. Sci. M., 2003.- P.253..

Liberal state- political regime- the embodiment of the socio-political principles and ideals of liberalism (from the Latin liberalis - free) - one of the most important and widespread ideological and socio-political movements, which finally formed into a special, independent direction in the 30-40s. XIX century, although the ideological origins of liberalism go back to the 17th-18th centuries. (J. Locke, C. Montesquieu, J.J. Rousseau, T. Jefferson, B. Franklin, I. Bentham, etc.). Historically classical liberalism developed in the struggle against feudal enslavement of the individual, against class privileges, hereditary state power, etc., for freedom and equality of citizens, equal opportunities for everyone, democratic forms socio-political life.

Liberal democratic regimes exist in many countries. Its significance is such that some scientists believe that the liberal democratic regime is not in fact the implementation of a regime for the exercise of power, but, on the contrary, is a condition for the existence of civilization itself at a certain stage of its development, even the final result, which ends the entire evolution of a political organization, most an effective form of such an organization Dimov V. Fair liberalism. The path to a comfortable state. M., 2007.- P. 425.. But it is difficult to agree with the last statement; at present, the evolution of political regimes is even in such forms as the liberal-democratic regime of power.

New trends in the development of civilization, the desire of man to break out of environment, nuclear and other disasters give rise to new forms of exercise of state power, the role of the UN increases, international rapid reaction forces emerge, but at the same time, contradictions between human rights and nations, peoples, and so on are growing.

In the theory of the state, liberal are those political methods and methods of exercising power that are based on a system of the most democratic and humanistic principles.

These principles are primarily characterized by the relations of the economic sector between the individual and the state. In a liberal democratic regime, a person has property, rights and freedoms, economic independence, and on this basis they become politically independent. In relation to the individual and state priority are reserved for interests, rights, personal freedoms and others.

The liberal democratic regime supports the values ​​of individualism, contrasting it with the collectivist principles of organizing political and economic life, which, according to some scientists, ultimately leads to totalitarian forms of government.

The liberal democratic regime primarily determines the needs of the commodity-money organization of a market economy. The market requires equal, free, independent partners.

A liberal state proclaims the formal equality of all citizens. In a liberal society there should be freedom of speech, opinions, property rights, taking into account the space for private initiative. Human rights and freedoms are not only enshrined in the constitution, but also become possible in practice Tkachenko S.V. Liberalism as the state ideology of Russia // Law and State: Theory and Practice. 2010. N 1.-S. 32..

Thus, the economic basis of liberalism is private property. The state frees producers from its tutelage and does not interfere in the economic life of people, but establishes a general framework for free competition between producers and the conditions of economic life. He also acts as an arbitrator and resolution of their disputes.

At later stages of liberalism, legitimate government intervention in economic and social processes acquires a socially oriented character, which is associated with many factors: the need to rationally distribute economic resources to solve environmental problems, to participate in the international division of labor, prevent international conflicts, etc.

The liberal democratic regime allows for the existence of an opposition; moreover, from the point of view of liberalism, the state takes all measures for the existence of an opposition representing the interests of a minority, creating special procedures to address these interests.

Pluralism and multi-party systems are, first of all, necessary attributes of a liberal society. In addition, under a liberal democratic regime there are many associations, corporations, non-governmental organizations, sections, clubs that unite people of mutual interest. There are organizations that allow citizens to express their political, professional, religious, social, social, personal, local, national interests and needs. These associations are the basis of civil society and do not leave citizens face to face with the state, which, as a rule, is inclined to impose its decisions and even abuse its capabilities Politics and law - “Democracy” by A.F. Nikitin, 2012.- P. 12.

When liberalism shapes elections, their outcome depends not only on the opinion of the people, but also on the financial capabilities of certain parties necessary for election campaigns.

The implementation of public administration is based on the principle of separation of powers. A system of "checks and balances" reduces opportunities for abuse of power. Government decisions are usually accepted in legal form.

IN public administration decentralization of power is used: the central government takes upon itself to resolve only those issues that local authorities cannot solve.

Of course, one should not apologize the liberal-democratic regime, because it also has its own problems, the main ones being social protection of certain categories of citizens, stratification of society, actual unequal starting opportunities, etc.

The most effective use of this regime becomes possible only in a society with a high level of economic and social development. The population must have a sufficiently high political, intellectual and moral culture.

The liberal democratic regime is based on the ideas and practice of democracy, the system of separation of powers, the protection of individual rights and freedoms, in which the judiciary plays an important role. This generates respect for the court, the Constitution, and the rights and freedoms of others. The principles of autonomy and self-regulation permeate many aspects of society.

For the liberal democratic regime there is another type of democracy. This is a humanistic regime, which, while retaining all the meaning of a liberal democratic regime, continues and strengthens the trend by eliminating its shortcomings. True, the humanistic regime, overcoming contradictions and failures, is just emerging in some countries, serving as the ideal goal of the political development of a modern state.

Its legal form is not at all focused on the individual, on dividends, and on ensuring health, safety, welfare, specific social protection, support for a specific family and personal life every member of society.

Man is an end, not a means, that is main principle humanistic regime. The state does not create state dependence on social security, and creates all conditions for the normal creative work of each member of society. High social and legal protection, the importance of organizing the life of each person are obligations in the practical activities of all government agencies Tsygankov P.A., Tsygankov A.P. Between Westernism and nationalism: Russian liberalism and international relations // Questions of Philosophy. 2012. N 1.-S. 32..

Humanity has been searching for the most perfect forms of state organization of society for thousands of years. These forms change with the development of society. The form of government, the state apparatus, the political regime are those specific areas where the search is most intensively carried out. See ibid..

Modern democracy is the representation of interests, not classes. All citizens in a democratic state, as participants, are equal before the state, that is, equality before the law and equality of political rights and freedoms. A modern democratic state is a rule of law state and in practice the three branches of government are separated, and real mechanisms are created to protect the rights and freedoms of citizens.

The liberal democratic regime supports the values ​​of individualism, contrasting it with collectivist principles in the organization of political and economic life, which, according to some scientists, can ultimately lead to totalitarian forms of government.

Under liberalism, the state formed through elections comes not only from the opinions of the people, but also from the financial capabilities of certain parties necessary for election campaigns.

The implementation of management is based on the principle of separation of powers. Checks and balances reduce the potential for abuse of power. Government decisions are usually made in legal form Politics and Law - “Democracy” A.F. Nikitin, 2012.- P. 12..

The use of a liberal democratic regime is most effective only in a society with a high level of economic and social development.

However, it should be noted that a liberal democratic regime can only exist on a democratic basis, and is created from a proper democratic regime.

Liberal democracy (polyarchy) 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.

The peculiarity of liberal democracy is that it is characterized by the development of private entrepreneurship, restrictions on state intervention in a person’s private life, and the formation of civil society.

Some authors understand a liberal regime (they also call it liberal-democratic) to mean methods and means of exercising state power that are based on a system of the most democratic and humanistic principles. That is, the liberal regime in this case is thought of as a regime of a higher order than the democratic one, as a regime that grows out of the democratic regime itself.

A semi-democratic regime arises as a result of the elimination of totalitarian and authoritarian regimes, administrative-command and bureaucratic methods of managing society. Currently, liberal, semi-democratic regimes have developed in the post-socialist countries of Eastern Europe, in a number of CIS countries (including Russia), in Egypt, Sri Lanka, Nicaragua and many other countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America after the collapse of totalitarian and authoritarian regimes.

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

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. The term liberal in 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.

A liberal state-legal regime is the form, method and procedure for the exercise of state power in the conditions of a modern rule of law state and civil society. Such a regime presupposes the official recognition and practical implementation of basic innate and inalienable human rights and freedoms, and a wide range of civil rights, the rule of law, and the separation of powers (legislative, executive and judicial). The establishment of constitutionalism, parliamentarism, ideological and political diversity, multi-party system, the exercise of the sovereign power of the people in the legal forms of referendum and free elections, the independent and effective functioning of civil society institutions, forms and mechanisms of public control over the activities of state power.

A liberal state-legal regime includes all aspects of democracy that are valuable, from the point of view of civil society and the rule of law, and, above all, the idea of ​​people's sovereignty in its legal (and state-legal) understanding and application. Therefore, bearing in mind specifically legal democracy (democracy in legal form), the liberal regime can be characterized as a liberal-democratic regime.

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 what/whom the power is over, 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, between executive branch and the people, or between different citizens, contradictions may arise. 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 political system 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 a minority, 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: