on the topic of:

Introduction.

I chose the topic "Comparative analysis of totalitarian and democratic regimes political power”, because I think it is the most interesting and ambitious. The life of an entire people depends on the political regime established in the country. It is through the political regime that the state has an impact on society. But the political regime itself in relation to the forms of functioning of state power has independence. With its help, you can determine the various periods of life of the main institutions political system society, development or erosion of democracy, the degree of participation of the masses in the formation of government.

The political regime of each country not only influences the political development of society, its social and class situation, but is itself determined primarily by the social essence of the corresponding state. In a slave-owning society, the political regime of any state was one way or another connected with the division of people into free and slaves, which determined their status in the political system and the attitude of the state authorities towards them; under feudalism, the same status followed from feudal, foreign economic relations; in a democracy, the political regime is conditioned by the fact of recognition of the equality of all people before the law, while simultaneously recognizing from inequality in relation to property; in a socialist society, the formal equality of all its members was constituted not only in the political, but also in the socio-economic and spiritual spheres.

The typology of political regimes is determined not only by the social factors of the corresponding state, but also by the moral, moral, worldview foundations of society. Thus, the broader and more diverse moral nature of a democratic regime presupposes the recognition of such general humanistic values ​​as freedom of conscience, beliefs, speech, political pluralism, and so on.

The moral nature of an authoritarian regime is, on the contrary, a uniform ideology imposed from above that suppresses the spiritual and cultural independence of the individual and pluralism of opinions, and reigns supreme over society and law. This ideology is united by the power of the state, guaranteed by its repressive organs, and seeks to unify and control even the thinking and tastes of the citizens. An authoritarian, especially a totalitarian, state actively and directly intrudes into a sphere of the inner, spiritual life of the individual that does not belong to it.

Analysis by various schools of political scientists of earlier and current political regimes shows that none of them existed in its pure form. There are also numerous "intermediate" political regimes. There is a constant evolution of political regimes in the world. Significant renewal or radical change of political regimes is allowed either by the masses through revolutionary measures, or by the ruling political elites through reforms and military coups.

I will consider the most common types of political regimes and analyze their impact on the life of society.

2. Comparative analysis of totalitarian and democratic regimes of political power.

2.1. The need for a comparative analysis of regimes of power.

For an in-depth study of political science, it is necessary to conduct a comparative analysis of various political processes and systems. Comparative analysis provides an opportunity to get acquainted with the universal values ​​that are characteristic of various states and the formation of new civilizations, a democratic and humanistic society, in the center of which is a person. It makes it possible to use all the values ​​that have been achieved in political life in the post-industrial information and technological society of the most developed countries and use this experience in the process of reforming Russian society on the path to the formation of a democratic society and the rule of law in our country. Comparison is the usual way thinking. There is nothing more natural than to consider political phenomena by comparing them with each other. We compare political categories in order to more objectively assess the existing political life, processes, systems, the situation from the standpoint of individuals in order to overcome social contradictions and choose a more rational path for the socio-political development of individual peoples, countries, states. Traditionally, the comparative method uses data from two or more societies, political systems, regimes, continents, logical and static material for more convincing evidence when considering political phenomena and categories. Thus, we acquire knowledge through comparisons. All of the above indicates that comparative analysis is the most important direction in political science.

A comparative analysis of political regimes gives us the opportunity to determine the political climate in society, the dynamics of its development and the nature of political life in a given state. When considering the essence of political regimes, their comparative analysis in the modern world, a certain contribution was made by French sociologists and political scientists. M. Duverger defines a political regime as a certain political system, a certain type of organization of power, a certain combination of a system of parties, methods of voting, one or more types of decision-making, one or more structures of pressure groups.

The well-known French sociologist R. Aron in his work “Democracy and Totalitarianism” notes that “we are striving to develop a theory of the regimes of our time” and gives his own version of the solution to this problem: “any regime that solves the problems of establishing power and relations between citizens must have idea of ​​one's own ideal (with which citizens must agree)”.

In modern conditions, the closest to this definition, in my opinion, is given by the professor at the Paris Institute of Political Sciences, J.-L. Kermonne: “A political regime is understood as a set of elements of an ideological, institutional and social order that contribute to the formation of the political power of a given country for a certain period.” The main components of the political regime, in his opinion, is the principle of legitimacy (legality), the structure of institutions, the system of parties, the form and role of the state.

A comparative analysis of political regimes in the 20th century, according to most Western and Russian political scientists, shows that the main types of political regimes are totalitarian, authoritarian, democratic regimes and the presence of mixed, transitional, hybrid regimes in most countries of the modern world. Their classification is importance for the development of political science and comparative political science.

Thus, the political regime, as a way of functioning of the political system, political life and political processes, plays an important role in the life of society and its political sphere, affecting the economic, social and spiritual life. The beginning of the 21st century is characterized by the gradual evolution of authoritarian and totalitarian regimes into democratic ones. Comparative analysis makes it possible to consider the common and distinctive features of anti-democratic regimes - authoritarian and totalitarian, to show those advantages of a democratic regime that open the way for the development of mankind along the path of progressive development. Even more difficult when considering this problem are the transitional, mixed and hybrid regimes that are characteristic of most countries of the modern world today.

2.2. Typology of political regimes.

The political regime means a set of techniques, methods, forms, ways of exercising political state power in society, characterizes the degree of political freedom, the legal status of the individual in society and a certain type of political system that exists in the country. The historical types of states, as a rule, did not coincide with the types of political regimes. Within the same type of state and the same form of government, different political regimes could exist. Athenian and Roman states ancient world were slave-owning republics, but by the nature of political regimes they differed significantly from each other: if in Athens all free citizens took an active part in political life, then in the Roman Republic the actual power was concentrated in the hands of the slave-owning elite.

In the modern world, we can talk about 140-160 modes, which differ slightly from each other. One of the fairly simple, widespread, classifications of political regimes is their division into totalitarian, authoritarian and democratic.

2.2.1. Democratic political regime.

Democracy - (from the ancient Greek DEMOS - people and CRUTOS - power) - democracy - this is one of the main forms of organization of any organization based on the equal participation of its members in management and decision-making by the majority; the ideal of social organization: freedom, equality, respect for human dignity, solidarity, etc.; social and political movement for democracy. Since its inception, democracy has been associated with the state, and therefore with coercion, and in best case is the power of the majority over the minority, and most often the form of government of a well-organized privileged minority, more or less under the control of the people.

Democratic regime - characterized by a high degree of political freedom of a person, the real exercise of his rights, allowing him to influence the public administration of society. The political elite, as a rule, is rather narrow, but it relies on a broad social base.

Characteristic features of a democratic regime:

1) Sovereignty of the people: it is the people who choose their representatives of power and can periodically replace them. Elections must be fair, competitive, and regularly held. By "competitive" is meant the presence various groups or individuals free to stand as candidates. Elections will not be competitive if some groups (or individuals) have the opportunity to participate, while others do not. Elections are considered fair if there are no frauds and there is a special fair game mechanism. Elections are not fair if the bureaucracy belongs to one party, even if that party is tolerant of other parties during elections. Using a monopoly on funds mass media, the party in power can influence public opinion to such an extent that elections can no longer be called fair.

2) Periodic election of the main bodies of the state. The government is born out of elections and for a definite, limited term. For the development of democracy, it is not enough to hold regular elections; it is necessary that it be based on an elected government. IN Latin America, for example, elections are held frequently, but many Latin American countries are outside of democracy, because. the most common way to remove a president is a military coup, not an election. Therefore, a necessary condition for a democratic state is that the persons exercising supreme power are elected, and they are elected for a certain, limited term, the change of government should take place as a result of elections, and not at the request of a certain general.

3) Democracy protects the rights of individuals and minorities. The opinion of the majority, democratically expressed in elections, is only a necessary condition for democracy, but it is by no means insufficient. Only the combination of majority rule and protection of the rights of the minority is one of the basic principles of a democratic state. If, however, discriminatory measures are applied against the minority, the regime becomes undemocratic, regardless of the frequency and fairness of elections and changes in the legitimately elected government.

4) Equality of citizens' rights to participate in government: the freedom to create political parties and other associations to express their will, freedom of opinion, the right to information and to participate in the competition for leadership positions in the state.

Depending on how the people participate in governance, who and how directly performs power functions, democracy is divided into direct, plebiscitary and representative.

In a direct democracy, all citizens themselves directly participate in the preparation, discussion and decision-making. Such a system can only be practical with a relatively small number of people, such as community or tribal councils or local trade union bodies, where all members can meet in one room to discuss issues and decide by consensus or majority vote. The first democracy in the world in ancient Athens carried out direct democracy through meetings in which 5-6 thousand people participated.

An important channel for the participation of citizens in the exercise of power is plebiscitary democracy. The difference between it and direct democracy is that direct democracy involves the participation of citizens at all the most important stages of the process of ruling (in preparing, making political decisions and monitoring their implementation), while in plebiscitary democracy, the possibilities of political influence of citizens are relatively limited, for example, referenda. Citizens are allowed to vote to approve or reject this or that draft law or other decision, which is usually prepared by the president, government, party or initiative group. Opportunities for the participation of the bulk of the population in the preparation of such projects are very small.

The third, most common modern society form of political participation is representative democracy. Its essence is that citizens elect their representatives to the authorities, who are called upon to express their interests in making political decisions, in adopting laws and implementing social and other programs. Election procedures can be very diverse, but whatever they are, elected persons in a representative democracy hold their posts on behalf of the people and are accountable to the people in all their actions.

Democracies are different, but they all have common features:

1) Democracy - i.e. recognition of the people as a source of power, a sovereign (from the French SOUVERAIN - the bearer of supreme power in the state);

2) Government is based on the consent of the governed;

3) Majority rule - recognition of a subordinate minority to the majority while respecting the interests and opinions of the minority;

4) Minority rule;

5) Guarantees of fundamental human rights;

6) Free and fair elections;

7) Equality before the law;

8) Fair trial;

9) Constitutional limitation of the government;

10) Social, economic, ideological and political pluralism;

11) Values ​​of cooperation and compromise.

There are different forms of government of democratic regimes. Quite common forms of republican government are the presidential republic and the parliamentary republic.

A distinctive feature of a presidential republic is that the president in it simultaneously acts as both the head of state and the head of government. Perhaps the most striking example of presidential democracy is the United States. Executive power is concentrated in the hands of one ruler, i.e. the president of the United States, who is regularly elected every 4 years by all the people. The president appoints cabinet ministers who are accountable only to him and not to parliament. This is the essence of presidential government. This does not mean that the president is a dictator. The President has no legislative powers. All legislative power belongs to the highest legislative body of the United States - Congress (House of Representatives and Senate). In the exercise of his powers, the President of the United States is limited to a certain extent by the power of Congress. Congress decides on budget issues, has the right to cancel any appointment of the President of the United States (the right of veto) and, finally, Congress has the right to begin the process of "impeachment", i.e. early removal of the president from power (for treason, for violating the Constitution and other crimes).

The main distinguishing feature of a parliamentary republic is the formation of a government on a parliamentary basis (usually by a parliamentary majority) and its formal responsibility to parliament. Parliament performs a number of functions in relation to the government: forms and supports it; publishes laws adopted by the government for execution; approves the state budget and thereby establishes the financial framework for the activities of the government; exercises control over the government and, if necessary, can express a vote of no confidence in it, which entails either the resignation of the government or the dissolution of parliament and the holding of early elections. There are 3 main types of parliamentary regimes in the modern world.

The first can be described as a one-party majority in parliament, i.e. when one political party is consistently strong enough to form a government. Sometimes such a government is called the "Westminister model", referring to the British Parliament, in which 50% of the votes are enough for a taken party to form a government for the entire election period.

The second type is a parliamentary coalition system, when the cabinet of ministers is formed on the basis of a coalition (agreement) of various parties, none of which has an absolute majority in parliament. Coalitions can be long-term (former Germany) and short-term (Italy).

The third type of parliamentary regime is often called consensual. It was proposed by one of the modern political scientists Leibhart. He proposed the concept of a consensual parliamentary regime in order to designate regimes that exist at the expense of a regional or ethnic majority. For example, in Belgium, where the Flemings make up less than 15% of the Belgian population and where, under parliamentary or presidential rule, the French-speaking population would become second-class people, a system of pre-planned compromises was invented, i.e. the situation in which the rights of both linguistic groups are protected. To resolve any contentious issues, both sides create a commission of an equal number of representatives of these ethnic groups and try to find a compromise.

Modern democracy is the representation of interests, not estates. All citizens in a democratic state are equal as participants in political life. Equality is of two kinds - equality before the laws and equality of political rights. A modern democratic state is a state of law, in which the separation of three powers has been carried out in practice and real mechanisms have been created to protect the rights and freedoms of citizens.

The democratic regime is based on democratic methods and means of ruling and the political participation of the people in the adoption of power decisions. It is characterized by the following features:

1. The source of power in the state is the people. He elects the government and gives it the right to decide any issue based on its own opinion. The laws of the country protect the people from the arbitrariness of the authorities and the authorities from the arbitrariness of individuals.

2. Political power is legitimate and carries out its functions in accordance with the adopted laws. The basic principle of the political life of a democratic society is that "citizens are allowed everything that is not prohibited by law, and representatives of the authorities are allowed only those activities that are provided for by the relevant by-laws."

3. A democratic regime is characterized by separation of powers (separation of legislative, executive and judicial powers from each other). Parliament has the exclusive right to make laws. The supreme executive power (president, government) has the right to legislative, budgetary, and personnel initiatives. The highest judicial body is vested with the right to determine the conformity of laws issued with the constitution of the country. In a democracy, the three branches of government balance each other.

4. A democratic regime is characterized by the right of the people to influence the development of political decisions (through approval or criticism in the media, demonstrations or lobbying, participation in election campaigns). Political participation people in the development of decisions is guaranteed by the constitution of the country, as well as international legal norms.

5. An important characteristic of a democratic political regime is political pluralism, which implies the possibility of forming a two- or multi-party system, the competition of political parties and their influence on the people, the existence of legal political opposition both in parliament and outside it.

6. The democratic political regime is characterized by a high degree of realization of human rights. These include norms, rules and principles of relations between the state and citizens.

The democratic regime presupposes the recognition of broad rights and freedoms for citizens, legally operating opposition parties, the formation of the government by those parties that won the respective elections, etc. As one of critical tasks associated with the formation of a democratic state, it is necessary to consider the development and improvement of legislation, the formation of a new essentially legal system.

A modern democratic legal state assumes a developed civil society in which various public organizations and political parties interact, in which no ideology can be established as the official state ideology. Political life in a state governed by the rule of law is built on the basis of ideological and political diversity (pluralism), and a multi-party system. Therefore, one of the ways to form a state of law, one of the directions of this work is the development of civil society, which is an important link between the individual and the state, in which most of human rights and freedoms; affirmation of the principles of political pluralism.

An authoritarian regime is a system of government in which power is exercised by one specific person with minimal participation of the people. This is one of the forms of political dictatorship. The dictator is an individual politician from an elite environment or a ruling elite group. If this person is the royal family, then the authoritarian regime is called an absolute monarchy.

Such regimes are maintained with the help of the apparatus of coercion and violence of the army. Unlike a democratic regime of power, where the repressive apparatus operates within the framework of the law, in an authoritarian state, the means of violence, on the contrary, are kept in plain sight. Power, subordination and order are valued under an authoritarian regime of government more than freedom, harmony and participation in the political life of the people. In such circumstances, ordinary citizens are forced to obey the laws, pay taxes without personal participation in their discussion.

The democratic institutions that exist in authoritarian states as a screen have no real power in society. The political monopoly of one party that supports the regime is being legalized. Under this regime, the activities of other political parties and public organizations are excluded. The principles of constitutionality and legality are denied. Separation of powers is ignored. There is a strict centralization of all state power. The leader of the ruling authoritarian party becomes the head of state and government for life. Leadership is transformed into an official state principle. The theory and practice of authoritarian rule were expressed in the aphorism "The State is me", expressed by Louis XIV.

Authoritarian regimes are established in crisis situations or on the basis of an undeveloped political and social structures society. The possibility of the emergence of an authoritarian regime in the transition period from totalitarianism to democracy lies in the psychological reaction of people to a crisis situation, in their striving for social order, reliability, and predictability. They can solve progressive tasks related to the country's exit from the crisis. Thus, before the Second World War, during the crisis in some countries of Western Europe, the parliamentary democratic regime proved incapable of resolving tense social conflicts. Under these conditions, authoritarian systems arose that even grew into fascism. Authoritarianism was also a desired regime after the Second World War, influenced by the existing acute economic and social contradictions.

2.2.3. Totalitarian political regime (totalitarianism).

The extreme form of an authoritarian regime is totalitarianism. The formation of political totalitarian regimes became possible at the industrial stage of human development, when not only comprehensive control over the individual, but also total control of his consciousness became technically possible, especially during periods of socio-economic crises.

This term should not be considered only as a negative evaluative one. This is a scientific concept that requires an appropriate theoretical definition. Initially, the concept of "total state" had quite a positive meaning. It denoted a self-organizing state, identical with the nation, a state where the gap between political and socio-political factors is being eliminated. The current interpretation of the concept was first proposed to characterize fascism. Then it was extended to the Soviet and related models of the state.

The first totalitarian regimes were formed after the First World War in countries that belonged to the "second echelon of industrial development" (Italy, Germany, Russia).

The ideological origins, individual features of totalitarianism are rooted in antiquity. Initially, it was interpreted as the principle of building an integral, unified society. In the VII-IV centuries. BC e. rationalization theorists of Chinese political and legal thought (legists) Zi Chan, Shang Yang, Han Fei and others, rejecting Confucianism, came up with the rationale for the doctrine of a strong, centralized state that regulates all aspects of public and private life. Including for endowing the administrative apparatus with economic functions, establishing mutual responsibility among the population and bureaucracy (along with the principle of responsibility of an official for his own affairs), systematic state control over the behavior and mindset of citizens, etc. At the same time, they considered state control in the form of a constant struggle between the ruler and his subjects.

Close to the legalists of China, the type of totalitarian state regime was proposed by Plato. In his later dialogues ("Politia", "Laws"), the socio-economic characteristics of the second, more perfect and different from the Athenian society depicted in the "State" are drawn. Plato endowed his third worthy state with the following features: the unconditional subordination of all citizens and each individual individually to the state; state ownership of land, residential buildings and cultural buildings, which were used by citizens on the rights of possession, and not private property; planting collectivist principles and unanimity in everyday life; state regulation by laws of education of children; a single religion for all fellow citizens, political and legal equality of women with men, excluding holding positions in higher bodies authorities. Platonov's law forbade persons under 40 to travel outside the state on private matters and restricted the entry of foreigners; provided for the cleansing of society from objectionable persons with the death penalty or expulsion from the country. Plato's model of state regime for the majority modern countries unacceptable, but in what social system it is better to live, it is clearer after Plato. Liberal democrats, philosophers, B. Russell, K. Popper, generally came to the conclusion that both medieval authoritarianism and modern totalitarianism go back to Plato.

The concept of a totalitarian regime was developed in the works of a number of German thinkers of the 19th century: G. Hegel, K. Marx, F. Nietzsche, O. Spengler and some other authors. Nevertheless, as a complete, formalized political phenomenon, totalitarianism matured in the first half of the 20th century. Political significance he was first given the leaders of the ideologists of the fascist movement in Italy. In 1925, Benito Mussolini was the first to use the term "totalitarianism" to characterize the Italo-fascist regime. In the late 1920s, the English newspaper The Times also spoke of totalitarianism as a negative political phenomenon that characterizes not only fascism, but also the political regime in the Soviet Union.

The Western concept of totalitarianism, including the direction of its critics, was formed on the basis of an analysis and generalization of the regimes of fascist Italy, Nazi Germany, Francoist Spain and the USSR during the years of Stalinism. After the First World War, the subject of additional study of political regimes was China, the countries of Central and South-Eastern Europe, some states of the "third world".

This list, far from complete, indicates that totalitarian regimes can arise on various socio-economic bases and in diverse cultural and ideological environments. They may be the result of military defeats or revolutions, appear as a result of internal contradictions, or be imposed from outside.

Western political scientists K. Friedrich and Z. Brzezinski in their work "Totalitarian dictatorship and autocracy" were the first to identify six features that distinguish all totalitarian state regimes from democracy and authoritarianism:

General state ideology;

One mass party, led by a charismatic leader, that is, exceptionally gifted and endowed with a special gift;

State monopoly on the media;

State monopoly on all weapons;

A specially organized system of violence, terror as a specific means of control in society;

Rigidly centralized control over the economy.

The state under totalitarianism strives for global domination over all spheres of public life. Pluralism is being eliminated from socio-political life. Social-class barriers are forcibly demonstrated. The authorities claim to represent a certain general "superinterest" of the population, in which social group, class, ethnic, professional and regional interests disappear and become depersonalized. The total alienation of the individual from power is affirmed. Totalitarianism forcibly removes problems: civil society - the state, the people - political power. The state completely identifies itself with society, depriving it of its social functions of self-regulation and self-development. Hence the features of the organization of the totalitarian system of state power:

Global centralization of public power headed by a dictator;

Domination of repressive apparatuses;

Abolition of representative bodies of power;

The monopoly of the ruling party and the integration of it and all other socio-political organizations directly into the system of state power and the transformation of the latter into a kind of "transmission belts" (means) of a totalitarian dictatorship.

Legitimation of power is based on direct violence, state ideology and personal commitment of citizens to the leader, political leader (charisma). Truth and individual freedom are virtually non-existent. A very important feature of totalitarianism is its social base and the specificity of the ruling elites due to it. According to many researchers of Marxist and other orientations, totalitarian regimes arise on the basis of the antagonism of the middle classes and even the broad masses in relation to the previously dominant oligarchy.

Let us consider in more detail the essential features and principles of the functioning of totalitarian political regimes:

First of all, about the "ideological absolutism" of totalitarian power. First of all, it is connected with the spread in such countries of a messianic mono-ideology - social or national, designed to inspire, to gather the broad masses under the banner of the regimes. Secondly, the spiritual preparation of the population for certain sacrifices in the name of solving "sublime heroic tasks", an ideological cover for the selfish interests of the ruling nomenklatura.

In accordance with the installations of totalitarian regimes, all citizens were called upon to express support for the official state ideology, to spend time studying it. Dissent and the release of scientific thought of the official ideology were persecuted. Without an understanding of all this, it is impossible to reveal the reasons for the establishment of the Hitlerite and Stalinist political regimes, to explain their connection with the masses, their support for the peoples of these countries.

A special role in a totalitarian regime is played by its political party. Only one party has a lifetime status of the ruling (leading), acts either in the singular, or "leads" a bloc of parties or other political forces, the existence of which is allowed by the regime. Such a party, as a rule, is created before the emergence of the regime itself and plays a decisive role in its establishment - by the one that once comes to power. At the same time, her coming to power does not necessarily take place by violent means. For example, the Nazis in Germany came to power in a completely parliamentary way, after the appointment of their leader A. Hitler to the post of Reich Chancellor. Having come to power, such a party becomes a state party, party and state structures unite and merge, and the power itself becomes party-state.

The specific features of a totalitarian regime are organized terror and total control, used to ensure the adherence of the masses to the party ideology. The apparatus of the secret police and security services, through extreme methods of influence, forces society to live in a state of fear. In such states, constitutional guarantees either did not exist or were violated, as a result of which secret arrests, detention without charge and torture became possible.

Hitler's Gestapo and the Soviet organs of the NKVD were not subject to any legal and judicial restrictions. Their actions were directed by the directors of power not only against individual citizens, but also against entire peoples, classes and political parties. Depending on the specific country, Jews, communists, capitalists, etc. could be declared such enemies of society, the regime.

Totalitarian regimes are characterized by a monopoly of power on information, complete control over the media. With the help of the media and institutions of the spiritual sphere, political mobilization and almost one hundred percent support for the ruling regime are ensured.

Rigid centralized control over the economy is an important feature of a totalitarian regime. Here control serves a dual purpose. First, the ability to dispose of the productive forces of society creates the necessary material base and support for the political regime, without which totalitarian control in other areas is hardly possible. Second, the centralized economy serves as a means of political control. For example, people can be forcibly moved to work in those areas of the economy where there is a shortage of labor.

Totalitarian political regimes, therefore, are created by the ruling elites to implement the ideological doctrines and selfish economic interests of the ruling classes. And therefore, all totalitarian regimes sooner or later disintegrate, and the countries where they took place go either to liberal democratic systems (Germany, Spain, Italy, etc.) or to socialist democracy (China, etc.).

2.3. Democracy or totalitarianism: advantages and disadvantages.

Economists Benjamin Jones and Benjamin Olken, authors of the study "The Role of the Leader", tried to find a relationship between the regime of their government and the economic growth rates in the countries they lead.

The degree of influence of the change of one or another leader on economic processes largely depends on the level of development of political institutions in the country. Jones and Olkin conducted a comparative analysis between totalitarian and democratic countries, while acknowledging the lack of great accuracy in such a comparison. The difference lies in the fact that in democratic societies the leader is constantly faced with the limitations of his own power, including in the process of his election to the highest office in the state. Restrictions are also shown in the ease of losing one's post as a result of ill-advised policies.

Even in autocratic countries where political parties really operate and really compete, the negative effect of a change of ruler is much less than in countries where there are no political parties at all or they perform only decorative functions. The lack of proper legislation, as well as the peculiarities of the very procedure for choosing the leader of the state, also have great importance. The smaller the role of institutional structures in the political life of the country, the greater the impact on the economy of the death of the first person. It is curious that the level of poverty of the population does not have any noticeable effect on this process. The change of the ruler of an authoritarian or totalitarian country significantly affects the level of inflation - no such relationship has been found in democratic states.

The authoritarian regime ensures the power of individual or collective dictate by any means, including direct violence. They do not allow any competition of political subjects. Monopoly on power is the principle of authoritarianism. At the same time, authoritarian power does not interfere in those areas of life that are not directly related to politics. Relatively independent can remain (but not necessarily remain) the economy, culture, interpersonal relations. Within certain limits, the independence of the individual is also allowed. That is, the state is differentiated from society, the institutions of civil society function within a limited framework.

Historically, the first and classic form of totalitarianism was communism (socialism) of the Soviet type, the beginning of which was laid by the military-communist system, which was formed in general terms in 1918. Communist totalitarianism, to a greater extent than other varieties, expresses the main features of this system, since it involves the complete elimination private property and, consequently, any autonomy of the individual, the absolute power of the state. And yet, the characterization of Soviet-type socialism as totalitarianism is one-sided and does not reveal the content and goals of politics in this type of society. Despite the predominantly totalitarian forms of political organization, humane political goals are also inherent in the socialist system. For example, in the USSR, the level of education of the people sharply increased, the achievements of science and culture became available to them, the social security of the population was ensured, the economy, space and military industries developed, etc., the level of crime sharply decreased, moreover, over the For decades, the system almost did not resort to mass repression.

The second variety of totalitarian political systems is fascism. It was first installed in Italy in 1922. Here the totalitarian features were not fully expressed. Italian fascism gravitated not so much towards the radical construction of a new society, but towards the revival of the Italian nation and the greatness of the Roman Empire, the establishment of order, and firm state power. Fascism claims to restore or purify the "people's soul", ensure a collective identity on cultural or ethnic grounds, and eliminate mass crime. In Italy, the boundaries of fascist totalitarianism were established by the position of the most influential circles in the state: the king, the aristocracy, the officer corps and the church. When the doom of the regime became obvious, these circles were able to remove Mussolini from power themselves.

The third type of totalitarianism is National Socialism. As a real political and social system, it arose in Germany in 1933. National Socialism is related to fascism, although it borrows a lot from Soviet communism and, above all, revolutionary and socialist components, forms of organization of the totalitarian party and state, and even the address “comrade”. At the same time, the place of class here is occupied by the nation, the place of class hatred is national and racial hatred. If in communist systems aggressiveness is directed primarily inward - against its own citizens (class enemy), then in National Socialism - outward, against other peoples. The main differences between the main varieties of totalitarianism are clearly expressed in their goals (respectively: communism, the revival of the empire, the world domination of the Aryan race) and social preferences (the working class, the descendants of the Romans, the German nation).

Any totalitarian states in one way or another adjoin the three main varieties of totalitarianism, although there are significant differences within each of these groups.

Totalitarianism in its communist form proved to be the most tenacious. It still exists today in some countries. History has shown that a totalitarian system has a fairly high ability to mobilize resources and concentrate funds to achieve limited goals, such as victory in a war, defense construction, industrialization of society, etc. Some authors consider totalitarianism even as one of the political forms of modernization of underdeveloped countries.

Communist totalitarianism has gained considerable popularity in the world due to its connection with the socialist ideology, which contains many humane ideas. The attraction of totalitarianism was also facilitated by the fear of the individual, who had not yet come off the communal-collectivist umbilical cord, before the alienation, competition and responsibility inherent in a market society. The vitality of the totalitarian system is also explained by the presence of a huge apparatus of social control and coercion, the brutal suppression of any opposition. Yet totalitarianism is a historically doomed system. This is a Samoyed society, incapable of effective creation, prudent, enterprising management and existing mainly at the expense of the rich. natural resources, exploitation, limiting the consumption of the majority of the population. Totalitarianism is a closed society, not adapted to timely qualitative renewal, taking into account the new requirements of a continuously changing world. Its adaptive possibilities are limited by ideological dogmas. The totalitarian leaders themselves are prisoners of an inherently utopian ideology and propaganda. Totalitarianism is not limited to dictatorial political systems opposed to idealized Western democracies. Totalitarian tendencies, manifested in the desire to organize the life of society, limit personal freedom and completely subordinate the individual to state and other social control, also take place in Western countries.

So, totalitarianism has its advantages and disadvantages, but is it necessary to society democracy? The spread of democracy in the world is a complex and contradictory process. Since the rise of the Athenian Republic, democratic states have always been in the minority. In the history of mankind, after the rare "tides" of democracy, the expansion of the number of democratic states, its protracted "ebb" usually followed - a decrease in the number of such or even disappearance for many centuries. Is any country ready for democracy and what can it give society and individuals - the destruction of statehood, chaos and anarchy, or freedom, order and prosperity? The answers to these questions are especially relevant for Russia and a number of other post-socialist states that have embarked on the path of democratization of society.

For many decades, liberal democracy has been one of the main symbols of the West in its struggle against communist ideology and the countries of command socialism. This left its mark not only on ordinary, but also on scientific ideas about democracy, contributed to the mass dissemination of idealized, clearly overestimated estimates of its capabilities, which manifested itself in attempts to justify democracy as the universal and best form of political structure for all countries and peoples. In world political thought, there are value and rational-utilitarian justifications for democracy. The first of them consider democracy as a value in itself (regardless of its economic and social influence), as a real embodiment in the state system of the most important universal values: freedom, equality, social justice, etc. Is it really? To what extent the modern model of democracy embodies these values ​​or contributes to their implementation, and whether these values ​​themselves are universal, i.e. recognized and desired by all people, or at least by their overwhelming majority?

One of the most revered democratic values ​​is freedom. For thousands of years, many of the manifestations of freedom were not considered a blessing. Even the greatest mind of antiquity, Aristotle, considered giving people the opportunity to live as they please as a sign of wrong, bad forms of government. Some civilizations did not know the concept of freedom in its liberal interpretation at all; as independence from the state and society. Thus, a liberal understanding of freedom was brought to China by European Christian missionaries only in the 19th century. This society proceeded from the naturalness of the social and political hierarchy, the construction of state government on the basis of such principles as humanity, the care of the elders for the younger and the obedience of the latter, good manners, shame and punishment. With the development of an individualistic worldview and self-awareness of the individual, the desire of people to participate in the affairs of the state increased, political freedom turned into one of the social values. And yet, despite the fact that politics has a fairly large impact on life modern man, the possibility of free participation in its formation, equal influence on power is not considered by the majority of citizens to be the most important value.

This is primarily due to the fact that the immediate vital interests of citizens usually lie in non-political spheres and their implementation is not directly related to democracy. Political freedom may even hinder their implementation. In such cases, citizens tend to choose to restrict their freedom for other vital purposes, such as economic efficiency, increased security and order, and so on. At the same time, democracy, decisions of the majority may well serve as an instrument for limiting individual, and sometimes any freedom, as was the case, for example, in the case of the democratic transfer of supreme power in the Weimar Republic to Hitler. The relatively low importance of political freedom for most people and the very weak connection between democracy and freedom call into question the value foundations of democracy.

Other widely held value justifications for democracy, such as its identification with equality and social justice, are also not convincing. These concepts themselves are rather ambiguously interpreted by various people, including scientists. In today's world, the value revered by the majority of citizens is the understanding of equality as equal life chances for each person, opportunities for self-realization of the individual, its development, or as a reward for everyone according to their merits. Such equality is considered fair as opposed to social leveling and unfair inequality.

Democracy has very little to do with equality of opportunity and merit. It means only the formal equality of all citizens, i.e. their equality as legal entities. The political equality it provides is very far from the actual equality of people's life chances and can be used as a screen to cover up deep social inequality.

Given the very weak connection of democracy with freedom, equality and humanism in general, there is no reason to identify it with social justice, which is one of the fundamental human values.

If democracy itself is not some kind of universally recognized value, then perhaps it has an instrumental value, i.e. is capable of bringing the greatest benefit to society and people compared to other forms of government? Democracy is not a universal value, and although one cannot agree with all such judgments about a person and democracy, history teaches that democracy is good only when it corresponds to the political culture and mentality of the people, and has the necessary economic and social prerequisites. Otherwise, it degenerates into ochlocracy - the power of the crowd, directed by demagogues, leads to chaos and anarchy, and ultimately to dictatorial regimes.

Vulnerability to criticism of both axiological and rational-utilitarian justifications of democracy means that it is not a universal, best form of government for all times and peoples. "Bad", inefficient democracy can be worse for society and citizens than some authoritarian and even totalitarian regimes. History shows that many monarchies and other authoritarian governments have done much more than weak or corrupt democracies in the days of economic prosperity, increased prosperity, increased security of citizens and guaranteed their individual freedom, and fair distribution of the results of labor.

Yet the growing desire of the population of the modern world for democratic forms of government is not accidental. In the presence of certain social preconditions, democracy has a number of advantages over other forms of government. The common drawback of all non-democratic political systems is that they are not under the control of the people, which means that the nature of their relationship with citizens depends primarily on the will of the rulers. In past centuries, the possibility of arbitrariness on the part of authoritarian rulers was significantly restrained by the traditions of government, the relatively high education and upbringing of monarchs and the aristocracy, their self-control based on religious and moral codes, as well as the opinion of the church and the threat of popular uprisings. In the modern era, these factors have either disappeared altogether, or their effect has been greatly weakened. Therefore, only a democratic form of government can reliably curb power, guarantee the protection of citizens from state arbitrariness.

It is needed not only by individual citizens, but also the political system itself. In the context of the weakening of the possibilities of charismatic, traditional and ideological legitimation, in order to be effective, the government especially needs to be recognized by the people through democratic procedures.

Modern socio-economic progress in many ways stimulates the development of democracy, nourishes the democratic mentality and value orientations of citizens. It requires the social emancipation of the individual, respect for his dignity and independence of thought, fundamental rights and freedoms. It needs freedom of information and pluralism in public life in general. And in this sense, for those peoples who are ready for individual freedom and responsibility, limiting their own egoism, respecting the law and human rights, democracy really creates the best opportunities for individual and social development, the realization of humanistic values: freedom, equality, justice, social creativity

2.4. The influence of political regimes on the life of society on the example of some countries.

China. Statistics show that throughout the reign of Mao Zedong (creator communist china), the economic growth in the country was negligible, averaging 1.7% per year. In the period immediately following his death in 1976, economic growth soared to 5.9%. The statistics of the period of Mao's rule coincide with the periods of forced collectivization, the "big push" and the "cultural revolution", which naturally slowed down the growth of the country's economy. The coming to power of Deng Xiaoping in 1978 is considered to be the date of the beginning of China's economic recovery.

Mozambique. Samora Machel, leader of the Mozambican Liberation Front (FRELIMO) in 1975 achieved Mozambique's independence from Portugal and was elected President of the new country. He made FRELIMO the only legal political party and launched a land nationalization campaign (Machel was a committed communist). The result of this was the collapse of the already weak economy of Mozambique (during the reign of Zamora, economic growth was negative, averaging 7.7% per year) and the emergence of anti-communist rebels (the RENAMO front). After the death of Samor Machel (plane crash, 1986), President Joaquin Chisano carried out a series of reforms - he abandoned the one-party system of government (1990) and began to create a free market economy. As a result, Mozambique's economic growth averaged 2.4% per year.

Russia. The end of the Cold War was the result of the proven competitive advantages of the system of democratically organized states over the system of totalitarianly organized states in the global competition between capitalist and socialist systems.

The factor of the political regime (totalitarian - democratic) is a strategically important, although not the only reason for the historical defeat of the socialist system. Another factor of strategic importance external to it was the advent of the “post-industrial”, and then the “information” era of the technological development of society. Technically, the role of totalitarianism was reflected in the fact that in the new historical conditions it came into conflict with the dynamics of changes in the technological side of the life of the human community. The totalitarianism of the "Soviet model", adapted to the conditions of an industrial society, turned out to be insensitive to the challenges of the post-industrial stage of social development. The world of socialism, thanks to the totalitarian organization, turned out to be essentially "fenced off" from the process of creation. The socialist countries, largely due to the totalitarian organization, which reduced the economic and technological gap with the countries of the democratic West by the middle of the 20th century, by maintaining the totalitarian nature of political systems and regimes in the post-industrial era, themselves put themselves in the position of catching up. By the beginning of the 1980s, all socialist countries were faced with the task of re-carrying out the modernization of the “catching up type”.

Spain is the last country in modern Europe where fascist dictatorship existed for the longest time. This is the only country in which the ideology of fascism survived the Second world war and in which the authoritarian regime disappeared naturally with the death of General Franco. The modern political organization of Spain was created after the death of this dictator, which followed in November 1975. At that time, a number of institutions of the former regime continued to operate for several years. Two consecutive governments of A. Novarro and especially A. Suarez took a clear course towards the democratization of the country. A draft law prepared by the government of A. Suarez political reform was approved by a national referendum in December 1976. This law established some democratic principles for the transitional period; at the national level, a practically new structure of state authorities was established, in particular, a bicameral parliament was formed - the Cortes, formed by general and direct elections by secret ballot. Elected June 15, 1977 the new Cortes developed the country's constitution, the eleventh in a row since the First Spanish Revolution of 1808. In December 1978, in a national referendum, this constitution was approved by an overwhelming majority of voters; it abolished fascist laws and established a new state legal order. Spain received a form of government of a parliamentary monarchy, a unitary political and administrative structure with significant rights of the constituent units of the country - autonomous communities and a democratic political regime. Implementing the principles of political pluralism, today in Spain there are more than 200 (!) various parties, of which the main ones are: the Spanish Socialist Workers' Party, the Communist Party of Spain, the Communist Party of the Peoples of Spain, the People's Party, the Democratic and Social Center, the Reformist Democratic Party .

3. Conclusion.

So, modern political scientists distinguish two most common political regimes: democratic and anti-democratic. Among the democratic most common in the world are parliamentary and presidential regimes. Anti-democratic, in turn, are divided into authoritarian and totalitarian.

The political regime as a way of functioning of one or another political system is determined both by the social factors of the corresponding state, and by the moral, moral and ideological foundations of society. In an absolutely pure form, political regimes are usually rare. Therefore, when describing them, double concepts are used: liberal-democratic, democratic-authoritarian, etc.

Through political regimes, the ruling subjects have a direct impact on the people as a whole and on each person individually.

Democracy, as evidenced by the historical experience of civilizations, gives a wider outlet of energy and social creativity personality than other types of political regimes. It is a powerful tool for overcoming various kinds dictatorships and despotic governments.

The situation in the world community at the end of the 20th century shows that anti-democratic regimes have outlived their usefulness historically and politically. The world is evolving towards civilized democracy. In this regard, there is hope that the next century will be its final victory. Consequently, the typology of political regimes will become a thing of the past.

4. Literature.

1. Klyamkin I.M. What kind of political regime is possible today in Russia. Polit. research 2003- №5.

2. Aron R. Democracy and totalitarianism. M., 2003.

3. Zerkin D.P. Fundamentals of political science. Lecture course. Rostov-on-Don, "Phoenix", 1996.

4. Shilobod M.I., Petrukhin A.S., Krivosheev V.F. Politics and law. Moscow, Bustard, 2004

5. Gadzhiev K.S. Introduction to political science. - M., 2001.

8. Foreign political science: Dictionary-reference book. - M., 1998.

9. Leiphart A. Democracy in multi-component societies: a comparative study. - M., 2001.

10. First All-Russian Congress of Political Scientists: Materials. - T. 1. - M., 1999.

11. Pugachev V. P. Introduction to political science. M., 2001.

12. Sumbatyan Yu.G. Historical genesis and essence of political regimes. // Bulletin of Moscow State University. – Series 12: Political Science. - 1995. - No. 6.

When we hear about an authoritarian political regime, most people perceive this concept as a purely negative one. It is customary to mix authoritarianism and totalitarianism. But are these concepts really the same? Or is there a significant difference between them? Let's find out what constitutes an authoritarian regime.

Definition of the term

An authoritarian political regime is a practically unlimited form of power of one person or group of people with the appearance of some democratic institutions. Also, under it, some of the freedoms for the population in the economy, spiritual life, or in another area may be preserved, if these freedoms do not pose a threat to the regime itself.

Classification of political regimes

In order to understand the place of authoritarianism among other political regimes, it is necessary to pay attention to their classification. There are many types of forms of government. Three types dominate among them: authoritarian, totalitarian, democratic political regimes. In addition, anarchy is singled out separately, which is defined as anarchy.

Democratic regime in perfect shape characterized by the maximum participation of the people in government and in the change of power. The totalitarian system, on the contrary, is marked by the complete control of power over all areas of life and activity of citizens, who, in turn, do not take part in solving state issues. Moreover, power is often actually usurped by one person or a group of people from a narrow circle.

An authoritarian regime is somewhere between a democratic and a totalitarian one. Many political scientists present it as a compromise version of these systems. We will talk about the features of authoritarianism and its differences from other political regimes later.

Differences between authoritarian and democratic regimes

The main difference between authoritarianism and democracy lies in the fact that the people are actually removed from governing the country. Elections and referendums, if they are held, are purely formal in nature, since their result is a foregone conclusion.

At the same time, pluralism, that is, a multi-party system, can exist under authoritarianism, as well as the preservation of democratic institutions that still continue to function, which creates the illusion of ruling the country by the people. This is what unites the authoritarian and democratic political regime.

Differences between authoritarianism and totalitarianism

The main difference is that under authoritarianism, the basis of power is the personal qualities of the leader or a group of leaders who have managed to seize the levers of government. Totalitarianism, on the contrary, is based on ideology. Often, totalitarian leaders are put forward by the ruling elite, which can even come to power democratically. Thus, under authoritarianism, the role of the leader is much higher than under totalitarianism. For example, an authoritarian regime can fall with the death of a leader, but a totalitarian system can only be ended by a general decline in the governance structure or military intervention by a third party.

As mentioned above, totalitarian and authoritarian regimes also differ in that the former often has no democratic institutions at all, and under authoritarianism they can exist, although they have, by and large, a decorative function. Also, an authoritarian regime, unlike a totalitarian one, can allow the functioning of various political parties, and even moderate opposition. But, nevertheless, real forces capable of harming the ruling regime, both under authoritarianism and totalitarianism, are banned.

In addition, these two systems are also united by the fact that they lack real democracy and the ability of the people to govern the state.

Signs of an authoritarian system

The authoritarian regime of power has a number of features that distinguish it from other political systems. They allow to dissociate this type of management from other forms. government controlled that exist in the world. Below we will analyze the main features of an authoritarian regime.

One of the main features of this system is the form of government in the form of autocracy, dictatorship or oligarchy. This implies the actual government of the state by one person or a limited group of persons. The access of ordinary citizens to this group is either completely impossible or significantly limited. This actually means that the government of the state becomes out of control of the people. National elections to the authorities, if they take place, are purely nominal, with a predetermined outcome.

An authoritarian regime is also distinguished by the monopolization of government by one person or a certain political force. This allows you to actually control and manage all branches of government - executive, legislative and judicial. Most often, representatives executive power usurp the functions of other structures. In turn, this fact leads to increased corruption at the top of society, since in fact the management and control bodies represent the same persons.

Signs of an authoritarian political regime are expressed in the absence of real opposition. The authorities can allow the existence of a "manual" opposition, which acts as a screen, designed to testify to the democratic nature of society. But in fact, such parties, on the contrary, further strengthen the authoritarian regime, actually serving it. The same forces that are able to really oppose the authorities are not allowed to political struggle and are subjected to repression.

There are signs of an authoritarian regime in the economic sphere as well. First of all, they are expressed in the control of people in power and their relatives over the country's largest enterprises. Not only political power is concentrated in the hands of these people, but also the management of financial flows, aimed at their personal enrichment. A person who does not have connections in higher circles, even if he has good business qualities, has no chance of becoming financially successful, since the economy is monopolized by those in power. However, these features of an authoritarian regime are not a mandatory attribute.

In turn, in an authoritarian society, the leadership of the country and members of their families are actually above the law. Their crimes are hushed up and go unpunished. The power structures of the country and law enforcement agencies are thoroughly corrupt and are not controlled by society.

In addition, this system of power does not seek to fully control society. The authoritarian regime focuses on absolute political and significant economic control, and in the sphere of culture, religion and education provides significant freedoms.

The main method of governing the country, which is used in an authoritarian regime, is command-administrative.

It should be noted that in order to judge the management system as authoritarian, it is not necessary to have all of the above features. For this, a few of them are enough. At the same time, the existence of one of these signs does not automatically make the state authoritarian. In fact, there are no clear criteria by which one could make a distinction between authoritarianism and totalitarianism with democracy. But the presence in the state of most of the factors described above already confirms that the system of government is authoritarian.

Classification of authoritarian regimes

Authoritarian systems in various countries may take various forms often outwardly dissimilar to each other. In this regard, it is customary to divide them into several typological types. Among them are the following:

• absolutist monarchy;
• sultan's regime;
• military-bureaucratic regime;
• racial democracy;
• corporate authoritarianism;
• post-totalitarian regimes;
• post-colonial regimes;
• socialist authoritarianism.

In the following, we will dwell on each of the above types in more detail.

Absolutist monarchy

This type of authoritarianism is inherent in modern absolute and dualistic monarchies. In such states, power is inherited. The monarch has either absolute powers to govern the country, or slightly limited.

The main examples of an authoritarian regime of this type are Nepal (until 2007), Ethiopia (until 1974), as well as the modern states of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Kuwait, and Morocco. And last country is not an absolute monarchy, but a typical constitutional (dualistic) one. But, despite this, the power of the Sultan in Morocco is so strong that this country can be classified as an authoritarian state.

Sultan's regime

This type of authoritarian regime is so named because the power of the ruler in the countries where it is applied is comparable to the power of medieval sultans. Officially, the position of the head of such states may have various titles, but in most known cases they held the presidential post. In addition, under the sultanist regime, there is the possibility of transferring power by inheritance, although this is not enshrined in law. The most famous leaders of countries dominated by this type of authoritarian regime were Saddam Hussein in Iraq, Rafael Trujillo in the Dominican Republic, Ferdinand Marcos in the Philippines, Francois Duvalier in Haiti. The latter, by the way, managed to transfer power to his son Jean-Claude.

Sultanic regimes are characterized by the maximum concentration of power in one hand in comparison with other autocratic systems. Their distinguishing feature is the absence of ideology, the prohibition of a multi-party system, as well as absolute autocracy.

Military bureaucratic regime

A distinctive feature of this type of authoritarian regime is the seizure of power in the country by a military group through a coup. At first, all power is concentrated in the hands of the military, but in the future, representatives of the bureaucracy are increasingly involved in management. In the future, this type of governance may gradually take the path of democratization.

The main factors that lead to the establishment of military regimes are dissatisfaction with the existing government and fear of revolution "from below". It is the latter factor that further influences the restriction of democratic freedoms and the right to choose. Preventing the intelligentsia, which is opposed to such a regime, from power is its main task.

The most typical representatives of this type of authoritarianism are the regime of Nasser in Egypt, Pinochet in Chile, Peron in Argentina, and the 1930 and 1969 juntas in Brazil.

Racial democracy

Despite the fact that the word "democracy" is present in the name of this type of authoritarianism, this political regime provides freedoms and rights only to representatives of a certain nationality or race. Other nationalities are not allowed to participate in the political process, including through violence.

The most typical example of racial democracy is South Africa during the apartheid period.

Corporate authoritarianism

The corporate form of authoritarianism is considered to be its most typical form. It arises in societies with a relatively developed economy, in which various oligarchic groups (corporations) come to power. In such a state structure, ideology is practically absent, and the economic and other interests of the group that has come to power play a decisive role. As a rule, in states with corporate authoritarianism there is a multi-party system, but these parties cannot play a significant role in political life because of the apathy of society towards them.

This type of political regime became most widespread in Latin American countries, in particular in Guatemala, Nicaragua (until 1979), and Cuba during the reign of Batista. There were also examples of corporate authoritarianism in Europe. This regime manifested itself most clearly in Portugal during the reign of Salazar and in Spain during the dictatorship of Franco.

Post-totalitarian regimes

This is a special type authoritarian regimes, which is formed in societies moving along the path from totalitarianism to democracy. At the same time, the phase of authoritarianism is not at all obligatory on this road, but it is inevitable in those former totalitarian countries where it was not possible to quickly build a full-fledged democratic society.

Post-totalitarian regimes are characterized by the concentration of significant economic assets in the hands of representatives of the former party nomenklatura and people close to them, as well as the military elite. Thus, they turn into an oligarchy.

Postcolonial regimes

Like post-totalitarian regimes, in many post-colonial countries authoritarianism is a phase on the road to democracy. True, often the development of these states stops at this stage for many decades. As a rule, this form of power is established in countries with a poorly developed economy and an imperfect political system.

Socialist authoritarianism

This type of authoritarianism is manifested in the peculiarities of the development of socialist society in individual countries of the world. It is formed on the basis of a special perception of socialism within these states, which has nothing in common with the so-called European socialism or real social democracy.

In states with a similar form of government, there is a one-party system and there is no legal opposition. Often, countries with socialist authoritarianism have a fairly strong leadership role. In addition, quite often socialism is combined with nationalism in a mild form.

Among modern countries, socialist authoritarianism is most pronounced in Venezuela, Mozambique, Guinea, and Tanzania.

general characteristics

As you can see, an authoritarian regime is a rather ambiguous form of government with no clear boundaries to define. Its place on the political map lies between the democratic and totalitarian systems. general characteristics authoritarian regime can be sounded as a compromise between these two regimes.

Under an authoritarian regime, some freedoms are allowed in relation to members of society, but as long as they do not threaten the ruling elite. As soon as a threat begins to emanate from a particular force, political repression is applied against it. But, unlike a totalitarian society, these repressions are not massive, but are applied selectively and narrowly.

Political regimes: democratic, totalitarian, authoritarian

The concept of "political regime" appeared in scientific circulation in the second half of the 20th century. This is a phenomenon of political life and the political system of society as a whole. Along with the concept of a political system, the concept of “political regime” is used to clarify the nature and method of the relationship between power, society and citizens. The term "mode" is translated as the order of control.

The political regime is a system of methods, forms and ways of exercising political (state) power in society.

The political regime is determined by the form of government. However, the concept of "political regime" is broader than the concept of "state regime", because includes not only methods and techniques for the implementation of political power by the state, but also by political parties and public organizations. The category "political regime" characterizes how civil society and the state relate and interact, what is the scope of the rights and freedoms of the individual, social groups and the real possibilities for their implementation.

Many factors influence the varieties of the political regime: the essence and form of the state, the nature of legislation, the powers government agencies, the level and standards of life, the state of the economy, the historical traditions of the country.

Depending on the characteristics of state power, two types of polar regimes are distinguished - democratic and non-democratic. Non-democratic political regimes are usually divided into authoritarian and totalitarian.

Consequently, in the political literature there are three main types of political regimes: democratic, totalitarian and authoritarian.

Let's consider each of these types of political regimes, highlighting them. character traits.

Democratic regime.

The term "democracy" is used so often that it loses its clearly defined and solid content. As domestic political scientists note, the concept of "democracy" is one of the most numerous and obscure concepts of modern political science.

Democratic regime has become widespread in many countries of the world. The word "democracy" is translated from Greek as "rule of the people".

The birthplace of democracy is the city-state of Athens, 5th c. BC. The central political institution was the Assembly, open to all adult male citizens (women, slaves and foreigners were excluded).

But ancient Greek thinkers called democracy the worst form of government, because was very low level culture of citizens, which allowed the rulers to manipulate the "power of the people". Democracy began to be perceived negatively, and this term was forced out of political use.

New stage in the understanding of democracy developed in modern times, in the 17-18 centuries. in Western Europe and the USA. A new character of relations between the authorities and subjects appeared, institutions of civil society appeared, demands for the social equality of individuals.

A democratic political regime is a guarantee of proclaimed rights and freedoms, strong law and order.

Society must be freed from arbitrary arrests, especially for political reasons, and the court must be independent and subject only to the law. No democratic government can be carried out in conditions of arbitrariness and lawlessness.

Basic principles of a democratic regime:

1. Recognition of the people as a source of power in the state.

That is, it is the people who have the constituent, constitutional power in the state, and the people have the right to participate in the development and adoption of laws through referendums.

2. Participation of citizens in the formation of government bodies, making political decisions and exercising control over government bodies.

That is, the source of power is citizens who express their will in elections.

3. Priority of the rights and freedoms of man and citizen over the rights of the state.

That is, state authorities are called upon to protect human rights and freedoms (the right to life, liberty and security; to equality before the law; to non-interference in personal and family life).

4. Possession by citizens of a large amount of rights and freedoms, which are not only proclaimed, but also legally assigned to them.

5. Political equality of all citizens.

Those. Every person has the right to be elected to the authorities and participate in the electoral process. Nobody should have a political advantage.

6. The rule of law in all spheres of society.

7. Separation of powers.

8. Political pluralism (plurality), multi-party system.

9. Freedom of speech.

10. Power in the state is based on persuasion, not coercion.

Of course, democracy is not an ideal phenomenon, but, despite all the shortcomings, it is the best and most just form of political regime from all known so far.

Totalitarian regime.

The complete opposite of a democratic regime is a totalitarian regime, or totalitarianism. The term "totalitarianism" in Latin means "whole", "whole", "complete".

Totalitarianism is a political regime in which the state exercises complete control and strict regulation of all spheres of the life of society and the life of every person, which is provided by means of force, including the means of armed violence.

The term "totalitarianism" was introduced into the political lexicon to characterize Mussolini's movement in 1925.

But its ideological origins go back to ancient times. The works of Plato contain totalitarian views on the state. The ideal state is characterized by the unconditional subordination of the individual and class, state ownership of land, houses, and even the socialization of wives and children, as well as a single religion.

Representatives of utopian socialism of the 16th-18th centuries also had many totalitarian ideas. T. Mora, Campanella, Fourier, and others. However, the ideas of totalitarianism received mass dissemination and practical implementation only in the 20th century.

The main signs of totalitarianism:

1. Centralized leadership and management in the socio-economic sphere.

2. Recognition of the leading role of one party and the implementation of its dictatorship.

3. The dominance of the official ideology in the spiritual sphere and the forced imposition of it on members of society.

4. Concentration in the hands of the party and the state of the media.

5. Merging of the party and state apparatus, control executive bodies elected.

6. Arbitrariness in the form of state terror and mass repressions.

Varieties of totalitarianism:

1. Communist - existed in the USSR and other socialist states. Today, to one degree or another, it exists in Cuba, North Korea, Vietnam, and China.

2. Fascism - first established in Italy in 1922. And also existed in Spain, Portugal, Chile.

3. National Socialism - arises in Germany in 1933. It is related to fascism.

An authoritarian regime is a political regime in which partial opportunities have been created for expressing social interests, and relations between the state and the individual are built more on coercion than persuasion, without the use of armed violence.

1. Monopoly of power, absence of political opposition.

2. The autonomy of the individual and society is preserved in non-political spheres.

3. It is possible to use punitive measures in domestic politics.

4. Imposed unanimity and obedience.

Traditional authoritarian regimes are based on various cults, where there is a shallow social stratification, traditions and religion are strong. These are the countries Persian Gulf: Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE, Bahrain, as well as Brunei, Oman, etc.

In these countries, there is no separation of powers, political competition, power is concentrated in the hands of a narrow group of people.

Dictatorship in its authoritarian version was the most common type of political regime in the world until modern times. It played a certain role in the modernization of a number of countries, in preparation for their transition to a democratic system. A number of signs of totalitarianism can be found in ancient Eastern and medieval despotisms: the absence of guaranteed private property, the complete dependence of citizens on the will of the ruler, and other characteristic features of the "Asiatic mode of production." But totalitarianism became a true phenomenon in the 20th century.

Today in Russia the concepts of "authoritarianism" and "totalitarianism", borrowed from Western political science, are widely used both to explain certain periods of our national history and to explain the development of other countries. These categories are most often used by transposing (often arbitrary) the thoughts of Western researchers and transferring their assessments to our soil.

Authoritarianism (lat. autoritas - influence, power) is a non-democratic political regime that acts as a form of political power that is concentrated in the hands of one person or in one authority, as a result of which the role of other authorities or branches of government is reduced, first of all, the role of representative institutions.

Authoritarianism, with its consistent implementation as the power of one person, one person, can turn into autocracy (Greek autocrateja - autocracy, autocracy), i.e. into a form of government with unlimited uncontrolled sovereignty of one person. This is how the despotisms of the Ancient East, empires - Rome, Byzantium, absolute monarchies Middle Ages, New Age.

• 1) the concentration of power in the hands of one person or one - most often the executive - branch of government and its institutions;
• 2) the role of the representative branch of power and its bodies has been significantly narrowed;
• 3) minimizing the opposition and autonomy of various political organizations (associations, parties, unions, institutions), a sharp curtailment of democratic political procedures (political debates, mass rallies and demonstrations, restrictions on the press, etc.).

Totalitarianism (lat. totalitas - wholeness, completeness) is a non-democratic political regime characterized by universal - total - control of those in power over all aspects of public life: the economy, politics, culture, over all aspects of human life - both in public and in private life.

In the modern everyday consciousness, totalitarianism often appears as a monstrous modern Leviathan, which does not allow citizens not only to live, but simply to breathe freely, and the totalitarian leader is an outright dictator whose atrocities could not be recognized only by lackeys and complete idiots. another thing is an authoritarian, civilized dictator, like Charles de Gaulle, his main concern is public order and ensuring the prosperity of the country.

What is the real similarity and difference between authoritarianism and totalitarianism? We must immediately emphasize the main thing: both political regimes are anti-people and undemocratic. The following comparison can be made.

Authoritarianism is established contrary to the opinion of the majority, while totalitarianism is established with the most active participation of the masses, which is why it is sometimes called "dictatorship". mass movements". It was they who brought Mussolini and Hitler to power.

Under authoritarianism, civil society remains autonomous to a certain extent, although it is not capable of exerting a serious influence on the state. Under totalitarianism, the civil society that began to form is purposefully and completely subordinate to the state.

Under authoritarianism, the political leader does not always try to "flirt" with the people, but, on the contrary, often emphasizes his superiority. At the same time, the people often consider the leader as a usurper and do not at all strive for closeness with him. The totalitarian leader constantly emphasizes his unity with the people. The enemy of an authoritarian leader is perceived only as his enemy, while the enemy of a totalitarian leader is perceived as an enemy of the people. The totalitarian leader, as a rule, is the favorite of the crowd, it is enough to recall the enthusiastic attitude of millions of Italians towards their Duce - Benito Mussolini, or the hysterical worship of Hitler by the majority of representatives of the German nation, not to mention the monstrous cult of Stalin in the USSR.

Under authoritarianism, those in power provide a person with certain opportunities for self-realization in civil society and hinder the active independent political activity of citizens. Under totalitarianism, under conditions of extreme politicization and ideologization of all people's life, the political regime is constantly trying to keep people in a state of political tension and even exaltation.

One of the key problems that arise in the study of non-democratic regimes is to find out the reasons for the emergence of totalitarian orders in the most seemingly unequal conditions: in Italy in the 20s, in Germany in the 30s, and in the Soviet Union of the Stalin era. In Western political science, Hannah Arendt's seminal book The Origin of Totalitarianism (1951) is most often referred to. But the book focuses on the Jewish question and anti-Semitism, which does not reveal the main reasons for the emergence of totalitarianism.

In educational literature, it is rarely mentioned that one of the first to describe in detail the conditions for the emergence and signs of totalitarianism was an outstanding representative of the Russian diaspora, I.A. Ilyin (1883 - 1954). He put three signs in the basis of totalitarianism:

• 1) monopoly on property,
• 2) monopoly on power,
• 3) a monopoly on the socialization of citizens (on their assimilation of social experience). Two other signs:
• 4) the desire to realize a utopian idea
• 5) ideological messianism - together with the first three they form "incomplete totalitarianism".

"Complete", from the point of view of I.A. Ilyin, totalitarianism makes other signs: unlimited violence against citizens, the cult of the leader, anti-democratism, material and spiritual self-isolation.

Generally, there are three types of totalitarianism.

Bolshevik (communist) type. Most often it is associated with the era of Stalinism. Here everything, including economic life, is covered by total control. Private property has been liquidated, which means that the basis of individualism and autonomy of members of society has been destroyed.

The political regime of Mao Zedong in China is close to this type. Characteristically, the tightening of this regime coincided with the period of transition from totalitarianism to authoritarianism in the USSR. In fact, relations between the CPSU and the CPC were interrupted. China found itself practically in a state of political isolation, which acted as a prerequisite for the tightening of totalitarianism.

Fascist type. Fascism was established in Italy in 1922. It was characterized by the desire to revive the Great Roman Empire. It was characterized by racism and chauvinism, was based on the cult of the leader, strong merciless power. Paradoxically, Italy during this period remained a monarchy, and Mussolini sent reports from time to time to King Victor Immanuel III.

Nazi type. National Socialism took hold in Germany in 1933 and had features similar to both the fascist and Bolshevik regimes. The goal was the domination of the Aryan race, the German nation was proclaimed the highest nation.

A special form of authoritarian regimes are military regimes established as a result of military coups. This practice is especially common in developing countries. During the 20th century, an attempted military coup was carried out in 81 countries, in some countries - several times. In general, they are associated with the instability of the socio-economic structures of developing countries, with the struggle of various social forces for power (in these countries, not only socio-economic, but also tribal and clan differences often play a significant role). Often the immediate cause for military coups is the threat to the privileged position of army officers or the active interference of civilians in the affairs of the army.

The establishment of military regimes was most often not accompanied by economic development. However, in recent decades in Latin America, military regimes of the so-called "new authoritarianism" are often established, the purpose of which is the implementation of serious economic reforms in practice. Chile's military junta regime, established in 1973 after the overthrow of democratically elected President Salvador Allende, is often cited as an example of "new authoritarianism."

The line between totalitarianism and authoritarianism is mobile: the difference between them is only in the degree of state control over society (democracy is characterized by the control of society over the state). Therefore, it is easier for totalitarianism to transform from authoritarianism than from democracy.

However, it is most easily born out of anarchy, just as Hitler's fascism emerged from the anarchy of the Weimar Republic. It was precisely this situation that Jaspers had in mind when he wrote that “freedom, if it is suddenly granted to a people not prepared by self-education, can not only lead to ochlocracy and, ultimately, to tyranny, but, above all, contribute to the transfer of power to the hands of a random cabal because the people don't know what they're voting for."