The political sphere of society. What relations are associated mainly with the political sphere of society? Other varieties of multi-party systems

The current political situation in Russia is characterized by the formation of a democratic regime, the main feature of which is the existence of a rule of law state and civil society. This process is complex and time-consuming. One of its most important manifestations can be the formation of such institutions as a multi-party political system and a state apparatus responsible to the people.

Party system and its essence

The political system of any state is an extremely complex mechanism that includes many different elements. One of its connecting elements is the party system, which is not only the totality of the parties of a given state, but also the social and legal mechanisms of interaction between them, as well as the degree of understanding by citizens of the necessity and importance of their existence.

Main types of party systems

Most Western political scientists and social researchers have long come to the conclusion that the presence of a particular party system accurately reflects the political development of society. Thus, a multi-party system testifies both to the development of the social structure and to the high degree of influence of civil society on the decisions of state authorities. On the contrary, one-party system is an invariable sign of a totalitarian society, indicating that it is much easier for people to shift responsibility to officials than to take it upon themselves.

In a number of states (for example, in the USA and Great Britain), a two-party system has been operating for a relatively long time. At the same time, bipartisanship does not at all mean the existence of just such a number of parties. It's just that the real struggle is between the leading political forces, for other parties and movements there are practically no chances to come to power.

Multi-party system and its features

Features of a multi-party system include both external differences from other systems, and a complex internal essence. The former include the presence of more than two parties, most of which have real chances to come to power, developed electoral legislation, the active work of civil society institutions, and the turnover of the political elite.

Internal features stem from the fact that the essence of a multi-party system is a complex compromise between a huge number of participants. This is the most public system built on the basis of competition and mutual respect for each other. It allows every citizen to find exactly the political force that will most fully represent his interests and the interests of the people around him. forcing every citizen to be constantly interested in the events taking place in the country.

Classic type

The multi-party system exists in various varieties. It depends not only on the party structure, but also on the political tradition and political culture existing in a given society.

Classical is the so-called multi-party fragmentation, which currently exists in countries such as Denmark, Austria, Belgium. In this system, there is no party leader, none of the political forces receives an absolute majority in the elections, therefore it is forced to join certain coalitions. This system is unstable, as a result of which it tends to move to another state.

Other varieties of multi-party systems

One of the most stable states of the political system is associated with a bloc multi-party system. This multi-party system, operating, for example, in France, divides all the main political forces into several main blocks. Such a structure forces the parties and their leaders to make certain concessions with their allies, to take a more balanced approach to the preparation of election programs and internal party discipline.

Finally, there is a multi-party system in which one, the largest association plays a key role. Here, the opposition forces are fragmented and unable to offer citizens a clear alternative. The main disadvantage of such a regime, which is typical, for example, for India and Sweden, is that it most often leads to stagnation in and maturation of aspirations for revolutionary changes in the depths of society.

Formation of a multi-party system in Russia: pre-revolutionary period

The multi-party system in Russia began to take shape much later than in most developed countries of Western Europe and America. The main reason for this was the serfdom that prevailed for several centuries with a pronounced autocratic power.

The reforms of the sixties of the XIX century led not only to rapid economic growth, but also to noticeable changes in the political arena of the country. This, first of all, refers to the process of sharp politicization of society, when different people were looking for an opportunity to influence the autocracy, which was gradually losing its influence.

The multi-party system in Russia dates back to the late 19th and early 20th centuries, when more than fifty parties took shape in less than a decade. Of course, this process was directly related to the turbulent events of the first Russian revolution and the publication of the Manifesto of October 17, 1905. Among the most notable political organizations, it is worth highlighting the RSDLP, the Constitutional Democratic Party, the Octobrists, the Union of the Russian People and the Party of Socialist Revolutionaries.

At the same time, it is worth noting that the formation of a multi-party system in our country took place in conditions of serious social changes, and this process was not completed before the revolution. The main obstacles here were a complex multi-stage system of elections, unequal conditions for parties in political activity, as well as the continued dominance of the autocracy in the political arena.

With the coming to power in October 1917 of the revolutionary-minded Bolshevik Party, the activities of all other political associations began to gradually curtail. By the summer of 1918, the RSDLP(b) remained the only legally operating political party, all the rest were either closed or self-disbanded. For many decades, a monopoly of one force was established in the country.

The multi-party system in the USSR began to revive in the late 1980s, when, in connection with perestroika and the policy of democratization of society, opposition political movements began to appear in the country. This process went on especially rapidly after the abolition in 1990 of the sixth article of the Constitution, which guaranteed the dominant position of the CPSU.

Already in the first months after the famous March Congress of People's Deputies, the Ministry of Justice of the USSR registered about twenty political parties and movements. By the time of the collapse of the state, there were already more than sixty of them.

Formation of a multi-party system in Russia: the current stage

The formation of a multi-party system in Russia moved to a qualitatively new level after the adoption in December 1993 of a new Constitution. It is here, in the thirteenth article, that such a political and legal institution as a multi-party system is fixed. It implies the existence of an unlimited number of parties, which, on the one hand, have the right to legally fight for power, and on the other hand, must answer for their actions to the voters.

There is currently no official ideology in Russia, so political parties can have both right and left bias. The main condition is the absence in their program requirements of calls for racial or national discrimination, as well as for revolutionary actions in order to radically change the existing system. Bearing in mind the Soviet experience, the creation of party cells in factories, organizations and institutions is prohibited.

The largest and most well-known political movements, whose activities have been going on for more than one election cycle, include the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, United Russia, Yabloko, the Liberal Democratic Party, and Just Russia. These parties differ from each other not only in their program requirements, but also in their organizational structure and methods of working with the population.

Features of the modern Russian multi-party system

Considering the formation of a multi-party system in our country, analyzing its features, it should be remembered that its formation and development took place in difficult conditions of transition from one social system to another. In addition, one should keep in mind the peculiarity of the folding of domestic parties, as well as the skeptical attitude of the majority of citizens towards the party system itself.

One of the most important components of the process of a multi-party system in our country should be recognized that it is of a spasmodic nature. The multi-party system in modern Russia is strongly influenced by external processes. This is due, first of all, to the fact that many parties are formed solely from momentary goals, without setting themselves the solution of serious social and ideological tasks.

A feature of the multi-party system in Russia lies also in the fact that practically all parties (with the possible exception of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation) are created around a specific leader, and not as spokesmen for the interests of certain social strata or classes. The leaders, in turn, consider the creation of a political association as an opportunity for themselves to get into the echelons of power and integrate into the existing political model.

Main difficulties and ways to solve them

The main difficulty in the process of developing political and ideological pluralism in our country is connected with the fact that the main ideological core has not been developed in the society for more than twenty years of transition. In many ways, this is precisely why the parties are focused on momentary benefits, not caring about systematic systematic work. The way out of this situation can be consistent joint work of the state and civil society, which will lead to the development of ideological guidelines that are understandable to all.

Another difficulty is that the multi-party system, examples of which were discussed above, in most countries was formed in the process of so-called bourgeois revolutions. In our country, a multi-party system began to develop after seventy years of the existence of a rigid authoritarian model. This, in turn, left its mark on the attitude of ordinary citizens to power, on their desire and desire to actively participate in the life of society.

Key Findings and Perspectives

One-party and multi-party systems in various countries reflect the situation in the political spheres, give an idea of the traditions and mentality of the people. Modern Russia is in a difficult time when the attitudes that were considered unshakable for a long time turned out to be rapidly destroyed, and new ideological guidelines have not been formed.

Under these conditions, the multi-party system is doomed to a long and complex process of its formation. At the same time, world experience makes it possible to assume that all the main difficulties will be overcome from time to time, and Russia will move on to a more active construction of a modern democratic society.

First write down the task number (26, 27, etc.), and then a detailed answer to it. Write your answers clearly and legibly.

Read the text and complete tasks 26-31.

Law as a social regulator is, first of all, an instrumental value, i.e., a value that acts as an instrument, instrument, means that ensures the functioning of other social institutions. However, it is important to emphasize that the right has its own value. In the most general way, the intrinsic value of law can be defined as the expression and personification of the right of social freedom and activity of people on the basis of orderly relations and in accordance with justice, the need to harmonize the will and interests of various segments of the population, social groups.

Even when law acts as the right of the strong or the right of power, when its content often does not correspond to the needs of progress in its main characteristics, it still represents a socially valuable, albeit extremely limited, phenomenon in comparison with what opposes it. - with arbitrariness, with self-will, with the subjectivism of individuals and groups. After all, social freedom and activity of people can have a different character. Unbound by law, outside of law, they can develop into arbitrariness without barriers. In law, social freedom and activity to some extent reflect the unity of freedom and responsibility, exist within the framework outlined by law, in combination with legal obligations. The inherent value of law is directly conditioned by its social nature and very significantly depends on the stage of development of society, the stage of civilization, the nature of the political regime.

(S. Alekseev)

Highlight the main semantic parts of the text. Give a title to each of them (make a text plan).

Show answer

The following semantic fragments can be distinguished:

1. The values of law as a social regulator (instrumental and personal).

2. Disclosure of the role of law in society.

3. Dependence of the intrinsic value of law.

Other formulations of the points of the plan are possible that do not distort the essence of the main idea of the fragment, and the allocation of additional semantic blocks.

Show answer

The correct answer should contain two sentences that reveal the meaning of the concept, for example:

1) law as a social regulator is a system of obligatory social norms protected by the power of the state;

2) with the help of law, state power regulates the behavior of people and their teams, provides legal, i.e. stipulated by the rules of law, the impact on the development of public (social) relations on the scale of the whole society.

Other correct definitions, suggestions can be given.

Based on the text, name two values that, according to the author, the right has.

Show answer

The answer should include the following values:

1) instrumental;

2) own.

The author argues that "even when the law acts as the right of the strong or the right of power ... it is still a socially valuable phenomenon." Based on the text and knowledge of the social science course, give three arguments supporting the author's point of view.

Show answer

Arguments may be given in the response:

1) by restricting the social freedom and activity of people, the law does not allow them to develop into arbitrariness;

2) legal social freedom and activity reflect the unity of rights and obligations;

3) contributes to the coordination of the will and interests of various segments of the population, social groups;

4) in law, social freedom and activity exist within the framework outlined by law, in combination with legal obligations.

Based on the text, formulate three properties of law that express its role in society.

Show answer

The following properties of the right can be named in the response:

1) ensures the functioning of other social institutions;

2) promotes social freedom;

3) is able to ensure the activity of people;

4) contributes to the coordination of the will and interests of various segments of the population, social groups.

Other formulations of the answer are allowed that do not distort its meaning.

The author argues that the inherent value of law "depends on the stage of development of society, the stage of civilization, the nature of the political regime." Based on the knowledge of the social science course, other academic disciplines and social experience, give three arguments that support the author's point of view.

Show answer

The following arguments may be given in the response:

1) the level of economic development of the country, the degree of development of the market for goods and services requires fixing in legal norms the necessary degree of freedom for vigorous activity, protection of private property;

2) the level of civilization determines the degree of development of culture, ideas about a person, his place in the world and, thereby, determines the nature of values, which is also reflected in legal norms;

3) since the laws are issued by the state, the level of rights and freedoms granted to citizens, the degree of their participation in the government of the state depends on the nature of the political regime.

Other arguments may be given.

Until recently, our country was dominated by univariance in almost everything. And she wondered existing one-party system. We were doomed to lack of freedom, to lack of options, to stagnation, to a suffocating state of the social atmosphere. Under the conditions of a one-party system, genuine or, as they say, alternative elections to government bodies are impossible, a real, informal separation of powers is impossible, full-fledged freedom of speech is impossible, and a rule of law is impossible in principle. All the horrors of Stalinism are generated to a large extent by the one-party system.

A one-party system is unnatural, since it imposes on society, which is a living statistical ensemble of people, the structure of a solid body. And, on the contrary, a multi-party system is adequate to the diverse palette of human types, characters, and interests. In modern conditions, it is synonymous with democracy. If there is no multi-party system, then there is no democracy.

Multi-party system valuable in itself; she happens to be self-regulating a mechanism for managing society or, in other words, a form self-organization people. It is a natural defense against both anarchy and totalitarianism. In the first case, a multi-party system is able to find compromises between diverse human interests, is able to mitigate, so to speak, buffer the clash of interests, i.e. prevent this clash from turning into conflicts that are dangerous to the life of society (wars, pogroms, bloody clashes between different groups, etc.). As a defense against totalitarianism, the multi-party system limits the power of the administrative system to the required extent, does not give it the opportunity to turn into an all-powerful organization. The existence of various independent parties in society makes it possible to ensure the independence of the media, the judiciary, cultural institutions, etc. - from the all-encompassing influence of the state apparatus.

As opposed to the idea of strong, firm power, I put forward the idea soft power. Strong power is boundless, boundless power, it is inevitably the dictatorship of an individual or a group of individuals. Soft power is limited power proportionate to the person. It is possible only if there is a separation of powers. Different powers (legislative, executive, judicial) limit each other and thus prevent the concentration of power in one hand. With the separation of powers, the supreme “leader” of society is law, law, i.e. an anonymous, impersonal force that excludes or significantly limits the arbitrariness of individuals.

So, the separation of powers in a one-party system can only be declared, but never put into practice. The party, since it is the only political force in society, has every opportunity to hold all branches of power in its hands. And since the branches of power are dependent on one party, they are connected with each other through this party, and, therefore, are not separated. The independence of the various branches of power from each other is a condition for their separation. Nobody has to stand above them. The multi-party system just creates the conditions for an effective separation of powers and thus their limitation. With the existence of various independent parties, it is impossible for any one party to establish unconditional control over all government bodies.

In society, as in the court, there must be a situation of positional conflict, i.e. in addition to the ruling party, there should or should be opposition parties that argue with it, criticize it, and fight for power in elections to government bodies.

Democracy cannot be understood as the rule of the majority. It's in the truest sense People power. The people are not only the majority but also the minority. It is a complex dialectical unity of the majority and the minority. The majority can shrink and become a minority, and the minority can grow and become a majority. Yes, they win elections thanks to the majority, and in this sense, democracy is the rule of the majority ... but only for a given period of time!

A multi-party system is akin to a market in the economy. If the market is the coexistence and interaction of independent economic entities (manufacturing enterprises, trade and financial organizations, consumers), then the multi-party system is the coexistence and interaction of independent political entities (parties, individual politicians, voters). And just as the market is a form of economic democracy, so a multi-party system is a form of political democracy.

Multi-party system valuable in itself; she happens to be self-regulating a mechanism for managing society or, in other words, a form self-organization people. It is a natural defense against both anarchy and totalitarianism. In the first case, a multi-party system is able to find compromises between diverse human interests, is able to mitigate, so to speak, buffer a clash of interests, i.e., prevent this clash from turning into conflicts dangerous for the life of society (wars, pogroms, bloody clashes between different groups, etc.). d.). As a defense against totalitarianism, the multi-party system limits the power of the administrative system to the required size, does not give it the opportunity to turn into an all-powerful organization. The existence of various independent parties in society makes it possible to ensure the independence of the media, the judiciary, cultural institutions, etc. - from the all-encompassing influence of the state apparatus.

As opposed to the idea of strong, firm power, I put forward the idea soft power. Strong power is boundless, boundless power, it is inevitably the dictatorship of an individual or a group of individuals. Soft power is limited power proportionate to the person. It is possible only if there is a separation of powers. Different powers (legislative, executive, judicial) limit each other and thus prevent the concentration of power in one hand. With the separation of powers, the supreme “leader” of society is law, law, that is, an anonymous, impersonal force that excludes or significantly limits the arbitrariness of individuals.