Types of political regimes and their characteristics

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

Contents

Entry

1. Description of the political regime

1.1 The concept of political regime

1.2 Signs of political regime

1.3 History of study of the political regime

1.4 The main approaches to the study of political regimes

2. Types of political regimes and their characteristics

2.1 The authoritarian and totalitarian political regimes, and their characteristic

2.2 Democratic political regime and the ways of democracy

2.3 Signs of mixed forms of political regime

2.4 Features of the political regime in Ukraine

Conclusions

References

Entry

The relevance of the work is that the political regime is one of the three most important structural elements form the State, and, therefore, its study is essential to the improvement of the state machinery. For Ukraine, which is a young country, the election proper vector of development is the main objective of the present regime, because all kinds of modes have their advantages and disadvantages, and only a combination of them can create the best system operation state.

The study of the phenomenon of political regime started since ancient Greece, with views of Aristotle, which were accepted and improved European lawyers. Special heyday doctrine of political regime acquired in XVIII - XIX centuries. and is associated with the names of Hobbes, E. Byerka, C. Montesquieu, A. de Tocqueville and others. However, their study had influence on the opinions of later thinkers (Marx, Max Weber, Karl Popper, D. Cola et al.). Over periods and the development of political and legal doctrine evolved relatively defined views (schools) to determine the political regime. These were the institutional school (G. Lassuell, F. Riggs, R. Baker) and sociological (A. de Tocqueville, and others.). Among local researchers of this issue can be called O. Haran, V. Horbatenko Kolodiy A., P. Kutuev, M. Myhalchenka, I. Bekeshkina, S. Ryabov, M. Ryabchuk, V. Polokhalo, F. Rudich, M. Sazonov, A. Fisun and others.

The object of study is the political regime and the subject are the social conditionality and functions of the political system in society that cause the development of the state.

Purpose - to consolidate learned material on the subject "theory of law" as well as deepen their knowledge on the topic of political regime.

The goal requires the following tasks:

* explore the phenomenon of political regime;

* analyze historiographical development of legal opinions on approaches to understanding the political regime;

* give an overview of the political regime;

* consider the types of political regimes and their characteristics.

Methods. The methodological basis of the course work is general scientific and special scientific methods, the use of which is caused by the complex nature of the object of research and the need to use theoretical advances in relevant fields, including philosophy, law, sociology, history, political science, management theory.

Structure of the course work. This course work consists of an introduction, four chapters, conclusions and list of sources and literature. Total - 29 pages.

1. Description of the political regime

1.1 The concept of political regime

Political power and variety of the forms and means of expression. To reflect different aspects of its operation using concepts such as "political system", "government", "political regime".

Organization of the supreme government, its agencies and their relationships with the population affects the concept of "government." Sure isolated monarchical and republican form of government. But not always the nature of political power in society is responsible form of government. For example, Sweden, Norway, Belgium more democratic than many republics, although the form of government is a constitutional monarchy. At the same time Germany 30 years in the form of government was a republic, but the nature of the government was dictatorial. In this regard, there was a need to identify the means and methods by which the state government organizes the relations between people. This aspect of the functioning of government reflects the concept of "political regime" [4, p. 43].

In European political science this is the basic concept, whereas in the U.S. the preferred category of "political system". However, the terms "political system" and "political regime" characterize political life from different sides: if the political system reflects the nature of the relationship of politics to economics, social, cultural and other spheres of social life, the political regime determines the means and methods of political power.

Political regime - is the way the political system of society, determining the nature of political life in the country, a system of techniques, methods and techniques of political (including the state) power in society [6, p. 143].

In political science, there are several interpretations of the political regime:

1. Institutional (political and legal) approach identifies the political regime of the forms of government and political system and focuses on the formal-legal Characteristics: Features division of power and the relationship between the branches of government, on the types of government.

Evident trend identification with the political regime form of government. Sidedness of this approach is that the actual practice of power may conflict with the norms enshrined in the Constitution, and the political regime expresses a more widespread phenomenon than government. Hailed republican form of government does not mean the establishment of real democracy, as evidenced by the examples of the Soviet Union and Germany's 30-pp. However, the European constitutional monarchy, regarded as a classic manifestation of liberal democracy.

2. Sociological approach puts emphasis on the nature of the relationship between state and society that have developed realistic and not necessarily according to the dictates of the Constitution and other legislation norms of political behavior. Within this approach draws attention to the social study of power, pressure groups, the relationship between elites and the people.

3. A broad interpretation of the political regime goes beyond just political-legal or just a sociological analysis and considers its value over several components that distinguish some types of political regimes from others [3, p. 251].

Some researchers believe that "political regime" - is too broad term for this phenomenon and prefer to use something else - "state (state legal regime)." Unlike the concepts of government and forms of government that relate to the organizational form of the state party, the term "state mode" describes its functional side - forms and methods of state power.

Of political regimes - a collection of methods and means of legitimizing the exercise of power and a certain type of state. Legalization of the government as a legal concept means the establishment, recognition, support for the rule of law, especially the Constitution, reliance on government law. Legitimation same state - is taking power the country's population, the recognition of its right to manage social processes, willingness to obey her. Legitimation may not be common, as there will always be some social groups, unhappy with the existing government. Legitimation can not be imposed because it is associated with a set of experiences and internal systems of people with ideas different groups on compliance with state power, bodies of norms of social justice, human rights and their protection. Legitimization - it support power by the people in the form of elections or referendums. Identify core mode, then determine how this state power is generated and controlled by the people.

State control - the most important part of the political regime that exists in society. Political regime - the concept is broader because it includes not only the methods of state domination, but typical methods of non-political organizations (parties, movements, associations).

Of political regimes - a concept that refers to a system of techniques, methods, forms, methods of making the state and political power in society. This functional characteristic of bodies. The nature of public-political regime never directly stated in the constitution (not counting the common guidelines for the democratic nature of the state), but almost always the most directly affect their dependent [7, p. 73].

Since the political regime is the functional aspect of the society's political system, its structure are the same elements as the structure of the political system. This is primarily political institutions - the state and its structural elements, political parties, socio-political organizations and political relations, political norms, political culture in their functional aspect. In respect of the issue is not just about the structure and the nature of the relations between its elements, how to organize its government relations with the citizens of the state, creating the conditions for its exercise of rights and freedoms and so on. Political parties are the elements of the political regime, not as political institutions, and the interaction between them, as a certain party system. NGOs are part of the political regime as a pressure group. It is this understanding of the structure of the political regime, we find the famous French political scientist Duverger, which determines this regime as "a combination of parties, the method of voting, one or more types of decisions, one or more structures of pressure groups."

1.2 Signs of political regime

political regime authoritarian democratic

Based on the structural elements of the political regime singles out its main features:

* the ratio of the legislative, executive and judicial authorities, central government and local governments;

* the position and role of civil society organizations and political parties;

* the legal status of a person;

* established legal system;

* the content and value of permissible and prohibited political activities;

* political stability of society;

* the functioning of law enforcement and penal institutions;

* historical and cultural traditions and moral habits in relation to power [5, p. 27].

The essence of the political regime is determined by the fact that the state is a priority - state's rights or the rights of the individual, the extent to which the state recognizes, guarantees, limits or falsifies rights under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and various international conventions relating to the mechanism of combination of political, civil, social and economic, social and cultural rights, or violates state rights (motives, form, scale violations).

Characterization of the political regime provides not only legal safeguards the rights and freedoms of citizens, and the degree of development of judicial and non-judicial structures to protect these rights, the degree of maturity of civil society that can not afford the political power to go beyond the legal field. For example, modern democratic constitutions exist in many low- and middle-income countries, but the degree of legal protection of citizens' rights is not sufficient compared to developed countries.

Another essential feature of the political regime is the distribution of power between the supreme state authorities - the head of state, government, parliament, supreme courts. The importance here is the amount of the prerogatives of a branch, and clarity of legal limits of competence between them. For example, a large amount of office of presidential power leads to authoritarianism and legal - to ohlokratychnoyi oligarchy. If allowed dualism executive, then at various levels of society it can have different effects. In a transitional society dualism executive weakens its effectiveness, leading to the dispersion of powers between the presidential and governmental structures, and highly societies, this phenomenon reduces the concentration of power, and balances the redistribution of power between the head of state and government based on party representation.

The optimum ratio of powers is a clear separation of executive and legislative powers (USA): strong single-party government and one-party opposition arbitration role of head of state (United Kingdom); supremacy of Parliament at the collegiate and consensual types of party cooperation (Austria, Sweden, Switzerland).

The most unfortunate relationship between the branches of power can occur with strong powers of the Parliament than the executive in politically unstructured society (the experience of Russia, Ukraine) or the limited prerogatives of Parliament with significantly enhanced (authoritarian) Powers of the President (modern Belarus, Russia).

Thus, different combinations of competencies higher government should evaluate ambiguous, given the degree of civilization maturity of society, as well as the extent of modernization transformation [9, p. 68].

Political regime depends on the ratio of powers between national, regional and local authorities. In modern conditions the central public administration is inefficient, since decentralization process acquires a universal significance. The degree of decentralization, as the experience of European countries, depends on historical traditions, ethnic and cultural and territorial specific regions, extent of territory and boundaries, legal and social culture of the population.

The relationship between the state and political parties provide a variety of mutual influence. Extremes there is a monopoly of the party and its superiority over the state and non-state formation. Unsuccessful option can be considered as lack of party leaders, the government can ensure stability. Based on the significant features of the political regime is important to know the ideological and organizational types of parties and their funding sources and mechanisms of state control of the financial activities of political parties. If the parties are shady sources of funding, not state-controlled, they can already be considered as potential candidates for mafia ways Policy.

To clarify the essential features of the political regime is the importance of studying the relationship between party leaders, party elites and party apparatus party mass political motivation mechanisms embodied in the organizational structure of the party. Lack of modern mechanisms of political motivation, political inertia mass ignorance of her patterns clicks party policy creates favorable conditions for maneuver in its own interests.

An important feature of the political regime is the relationship between the ruling elite and the opposition. It takes into account the legal status of the opposition form of legitimacy, its types (party, social, military, revolutionary, terrorist) and the extent of the opposition to influence society. In underdeveloped party system opposition is unable adequately to compete with the ruling elite of the state [8, p. 490].

Value of the electoral system and form of government allows the most accurate representation of the essential features of modern democratic political regimes. The effectiveness of each electoral system depends on the form of government and political culture. The most effective is proportional preferential electoral system using regional lists in parliamentary republic. In transitional societies is important because electoral laws encourage party competition.

If the public has civilized political pressure on the government to protect their interests, it provides a balance of social forces, thus increasing the level of party competition. If the dominance of certain social groups, strong in property, financial or ideological sense, the party under the guise of "national interests", appeal to people's instincts and actually forced to express strategy of monopoly groups. Accelerator party competition is the social stratification that recreates civilized public pressure on the government.

In the relations between the state and pressure groups is important to create equal legal conditions for defending social interests through mechanisms of social partnership, lobbying interests, simplify legislative solution to the conflict and to ensure public access to objective information about political life. The main elements of civil society is free media, free universities (with the status of autonomy) and pressure groups as the representative of the public interest [16, p. 112].

Consequently, among scientists there is no consensus and approach to the definition of the political regime and its characteristics. However, most local authors are inclined to believe that the political system - a way of functioning of the political system of society, determining the nature of political life in the country, a system of techniques, methods and techniques of political power in society. The political regime is characterized by a number of common features as well as special, inherent in our country.

1.3 History of study of the political regime

The first information about the study of the political regime (albeit rather vague) belonging to the ancient Greeks and Romans. Not surprisingly, the term democracy is of Greek origin. It is here formed an opinion about the power of people and the implementation of the latest in national interest but usurpation and concentration of power in the hands of one person (group of persons) as a power which in essence is not popular. The ancient philosopher Aristotle, for example, filed two criteria by which one can conduct classification state regime: later, in whose hands the power and on how this power is used.

During the Middle Ages the doctrine of special attention is paid to the political regime. However, interest in this phenomenon increased XVIII - XIX centuries. and is associated with such names as Hobbes, E. Byerk, C. Montesquieu, A. de Tocqueville, F. Ferguson, B. Constant, J. Myedison, Marx, Weber, K. Prev, D. Cola, F. Beneton, Aron, R. Dahl, E. Vyatr and others.

In Ukraine this subject actively processed such domestic political scientists and sociologists as O. Haran, V. Gorbatenko, A. Kolody, P. Kutuev, M. Mikhalchenko, I. Bekeshkina, S. Ryabov, M. Riabchuk, V. Polokhalo, F. Rudich, M. Sazonov, A. Fisun. A wide range of problems of postcommunist government modification covered by Russian scientists N. Afanasyev, K. Hajiyev, V. Hyelmanom, L. Gudkov, V. Rukavishnykovym, I. Klyamkinym, J. Levada, M. Ilyin, A. Melville, I. Pantin, L. Shevtsova, O. Yanytskyi.

In today's world we can talk about 140-160 modes, which slightly differ from each other. So there is a need to examine their common and distinctive features and classification according to certain criteria [11, p. 87].

1.4 The main approaches to the study of political regimes

The organic unity of the three political institutions - political organization, systems and methods of power system of rights and freedoms - form a new political phenomenon - the political regime.

The political regime is due to three bases. Economic stands ownership of the basic means of production: in whose hands the property - in the class and favorable conditions of political life. Political - serves the state. Endowed with legislative and executive powers, it establishes and maintains order in society, profitable incumbents. The ideological basis is the ideology of the ruling class, which states in people's minds with the expediency with the existing social order.

In political science there were two traditions in understanding political regimes. One of them is related to the political-legal, or institutional, approach other - with Sociology. The difference between them is very significant, though not insurmountable.

Political and legal (institutional) approach. Scientists representing this area of policy analysis, tend to equate the concept of "regime" with the term "form of government or polity."

"The political regime is a system or form of government," writes, for example, an American researcher K. Baxter. Such an approach is traditional and has been characterized as the French State management where monarchy and republic differed just as the form of government, and the term "political regime" considered part of the categorical system of constitutional law and contacted with special division of power and the ratio of its branches. According distinguished: mode fusion power (absolute monarchy), the regime of separation of powers (presidential republic) and mode of cooperation of government (parliamentary republic) [13, p. 132].

This group of policy analysis and align new institutional development (F. Riggs, R. Baker et. al.), Often linking their origins to the name of the greatest American political scientist G. Lassuella.

Feature understanding Lassuella regime is the regime considered it as a way to organize and legitimize the political system. According to the scientist, "regime" (a form of government, the political order) is a model of political forms. Mode functions in order to minimize the element of coercion in the political process.

Lassuell opposes the concept of "regime" concept "government" which, in his view, includes "ways of distributing and controlling functions in policy." Such an understanding, first, linking the regime, mainly with constitutional acts, and secondly, denying the military dictatorship in law called modes [15, p. 83].

Sociological approach. Proponents of this line of analysis modes devote priority attention to understanding the linkages between society and the state prevailing real and are not required under the proposed constitution and other legal acts, norms of political behavior. Mode is seen not only as a form of government or political system and not only as a power structure with its methods of political will, but also in a much broader sense - as a balance in the relationship of social and political. The term "mode" ("Order") since the publication of the works of Tocqueville's "old order and the Revolution" here has a totally different meaning.

Within sociological analysis modes is considerable diversity positions. If the first line of political analysis to identify the modes of the forms of government or polity, the representatives of the second often do not make any distinction between political regimes and political systems. Each set rests on that of social reasons, so the transition can take place only if these reasons are taken into account.

Characteristic in this respect, the definition of political regime belongs Duverger, which in one case treated it as a "structure of government, the type of human society that distinguishes one from the other social community", and in another - as "a combination of parties, the method of voting, one or more types of decision-making, one or more structures of pressure groups. "In the same style and embodies the definition follower Duverger J. - L. Kerman: "Under the political regime refers to a set of elements of ideological, institutional and sociological order to facilitate the formation of the political power of the country for a certain period." Finally, another formulation of the concept of "mode" from the pen of American researchers G. O'Donnell and Schmitter AF mode: a "set of structures, express or implied, that define the forms and channels of access to top government positions, and characteristics of leaders that are considered for these structures relevant or irrelevant, using their resources and strategies to achieve the desired purpose" [5, p. 37].

In domestic science also has spread position (formulated Burlatskii F. and A. Galkin), whereby "to determine the political regime to comparing official, including constitutional and legal norms with the actual political life, proclaimed goals - with real politics." Like the Western political sociology, F. and A. Galkin Burlatskii analysis modes associated not only with the discovery of behaviors but also the social nature of political power. Together, the same study mode requires, in their opinion, the answers to these questions: "Are groups of the ruling class are in the user state, which methods of domination and control preferred - direct, indirect or violent, democratic, that party or party coalition is the guiding force, allowed and to what extent the activities of institutions of social control and pressure, including the opposition, revolutionary parties, trade unions and other forms of associations of workers, provision of the individual in the state, etc." [10, p. 482].

For classification of political regimes use the approach proposed by the French political scientist E. Shylzom which distinguishes between five types of regimes: political democracy (rather significant differentiation of functions and specialization structures); keepers Democracy (main goal is the democratization of political society, but the power is concentrated in the hands of bureaucratic state) upgraded oligarchy (implies the absence or existence of formal democratic institutions, all power belongs to the military or bureaucratic clicks, but the regime is trying to modernize the economy) totalitarian oligarchy (different from the previous high degree of state influence on society, a strong concentration of power, intense mobilization of members society to participate in the economic life), the traditional oligarchy (dynastic or family profiles that negative attitude to any changes and tend to keep the existing system).

Another approach to the typology of political regimes proposed by A. Leyphart, based on the ratio type of electoral system and form of government, on which he identified four democratic regimes: presidential-majority (USA) parliamentary-majority (United Kingdom, New Zealand, Australia, Canada); parliamentary-proportional (Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Italy (until 1995), the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden); presidential-proportional (Latin America).

According to A. Leyphart, the highest rates of democracy (representation of women in senior government, voting, policies in support of families) and economic development (inflation, unemployment, economic growth) are found in countries with parliamentary-proportional mode, the lowest - when presidential-proportional mode. However, this approach should be taken with caution, as the above figures depend not only on the ratio of the form of government and electoral system, and most likely - the degree of civilization of the whole society [7, p. 212].

Thus, the study of the political regime devoted their work, many researchers, lawyers, political scientists as foreign and Ukraine. Pluralism of opinions and views led to the formation of two common approaches to understanding the political regime: institutional (political and legal) and sociological. However, some approaches advocated as Leyphart A., E. Shylz and others.

2. Types of political regimes and their characteristics

2.1 The authoritarian and totalitarian political regimes, and their characteristics

Authoritarian political regime. Authoritarianism is usually regarded as a type of regime that is intermediate between totalitarianism and democracy.

Authoritarianism - a political regime in which all power is concentrated in one person (monarch, dictator) or ruling group.

Authoritarianism is one of the most common modes of political modernity. It was developed mainly in several countries in Asia, Africa, Latin America, resigned and the Soviet Union, when, after the death of Stalin, began the transformation of the totalitarian regime in authoritarian.

The essential features of authoritarianism are:

- The monopoly of power of one group, party or coalition that to no one accountable.

- Complete or partial ban on the opposition.

- Highly centralized power structure.

- Save limited pluralism, the existence of differentiated relationship between society and the state.

- Inheritance and cooptation as the main ways of forming the dominant political elite.

- Lack of nonviolent change of government.

- Use the power structures to maintain power.

At the roots of authoritarianism include:

- The preservation of the traditional type of society with a focus on common and persistent forms of social life and authority;

- Preservation of patriarchal nationality type of political culture as overwhelming;

- Significant influence of religious norms (most of Islam, Buddhism, Confucianism) on the political orientation of the population;

- Economic backwardness;

- Lack of civil society;

- A high degree of conflict in societies [12, p. 246].

Relevant authoritarian political system occupies an intermediate position between totalitarianism and democracy. Under the influence of a complex set of economic, social, political, cultural and other factors, it will eventually evolve toward democracy or totalitarianism. This transient nature of authoritarian political regime wore in the last decades of the twentieth century. Thus, the authoritarian regime F. Castro established in 1959 in Cuba, then turned into totalitarianism. In the same number of other countries (Korea, Chile, Thailand, Haiti, Panama, Argentina and some other Latin American countries) authoritarianism gradually evolved towards democracy. However, there are states with very pronounced authoritarian regime (Saudi Arabia, Brunei, Oman, Abu Dhabi, Dubai, etc.). [14, p. 76].

Totalitarian political regime. The term "totalitarianism" is derived from the medieval Latin word «totals», which means "whole", "full", "general". Totalitarianism - a complete control and strict regulation of the state in all spheres of society, every person by direct armed violence. State absorbs all of society and a particular person [12, p. 243].

Dictatorship (from Lat. Dictatura - “unlimited power”) - the mode of government of one person or group of persons led by a leader without any control by the governed, there was a long time and had many historical forms of its manifestation. First, in Rome republican dictator called emergency official (magistrate), destined for a term not exceeding six months to provide protection from external threats or to suppress domestic rebellion. Since Sulla and especially Caesar, who often received dictatorial powers, the nature of dictatorship has changed significantly. The dictator was impervious law, unaccountable people and changed the laws to their advantage.

Totalitarianism is a new type of dictatorship in which the special role played by the state and ideology. The term "totalitarian" entered the political lexicon of Italian Fascists leader B. Mussolini (1883-1945). The purpose of the fascist movement, in his opinion, was to create a strong state, the use of force only principles of exercising power. The essence of totalitarianism B. Mussolini expressed formula: "Everything in the State, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state." Since 1925 he began to use the term "totalitarianism" to describe the Nazi state. And from 1929 (the newspaper "Times"), this term was taken against the regime that emerged in the Soviet Union.

Totalitarianism arises in the twentieth century as the political regime and as a special model of socio-economic order, characteristic of the stage of industrial development, and as an ideology. Creating an extensive system of mass communications allowing for ideological and political control over the entity. The person is in the destruction of traditional ways of life become vulnerable to world market forces and competition. Complications of social relationships required to strengthen the role of the state ("statism") as a universal regulator organizer and interaction of individuals with no matching interests. Experience shows that totalitarian regimes tend to arise in extreme conditions: the growing instability in society; deep crisis that covers all aspects of life, and finally, if necessary, the strategic objectives, critical to the country [14, p. 350].

Among the main features that characterize totalitarianism as a political regime, H. Arendt, K. Fridrihs and Z. Bzhezinskiy are the following:

* centralized management and control in the economy;

* The system overall control over the behavior of individuals in social field;

* recognize the leading role of one party in policy and its implementation dictatorship;

* domination of official ideology in the spiritual realm and the forced imposition members of society;

* concentration in the hands of the party and the state of the media (press, radio, television, film);

* cult guiding people at all levels, government at all levels is hands of unaccountable people nomenclature administration;

* fusion of party and state apparatus, the control of the executive elected bodies;

* absence of punitive laws and subjugation of society and as result, arbitrary form of state terror and mass arrests.

These features are common to all totalitarian regimes. However distinguish several varieties of totalitarianism: Communist totalitarianism ("left"), fascism, national socialism ("right").

Communist totalitarianism existed in the Soviet Union and other socialist countries. Now in one way or another it exists in Cuba, North Korea, Vietnam, and China.

Totalitarianism in its communist form was the most tenacious. To the 80-th century. in totalitarian states lived about a third of mankind.

Fascism was first established in Italy in 1922 Here totalitarian features were not fully expressed. Fascist regimes also existed in Spain. Portugal, Chile.

The third kind of totalitarianism - national socialism arises in Germany in 1933 He characterized almost all common features of totalitarianism. National Socialism has an affinity with fascism combines the features of one and another.

The main differences are the main varieties of totalitarianism distinct in their political purposes: building communism, the rebirth of the Roman Empire, the consolidation of world domination Aryan race. They also identified in social preferences: the working class, the descendants of the Romans, Germanic nation [2, c. 158].

2.2 Democratic political regime and the ways of democracy

Democracy is the most difficult type of political regime. The term "democracy" in Greek (demos - people, kratos - power, dominion) means "people power."

Democracy - is a form of the state, its political regime in which the people or the majority is (considered) a carrier state.

Democracy is associated with freedom, equality, justice, human rights, participation of citizens in governance. Therefore, democracy as a political regime decided to oppose authoritarian, totalitarian and other dictatorial regimes.

The most important features of democracy are:

- Legal recognition of the sovereign power of the people.

- Periodic major election authorities.

- Universal suffrage, which guarantees every citizen to participate in the formation of representative institutions.

- Equality of rights of citizens to participate in government, so that every citizen has the right not only to vote but also to be elected to any public office.

- A decision by a majority of the votes cast and the subjugation of minority majority.

- Control of the representative bodies of the activities of the executive.

- Accountability of elected their constituents [12, p. 239].

The main ways (forms) of democracy.

Depending on how the way people exercise the right to rule there are three main ways of democracy.

Direct democracy - all people have the right to vote directly decides and monitors their implementation. This form of democracy is most characteristic of the early forms of democracy, such as tribal communities. Direct democracy existed in ancient times in Athens. Thus, the main government institutions are the national assembly who make decisions and often can arrange their immediate execution. This kind of democracy existed in ancient Rome, the medieval Novgorod, Florence and other cities-republics.

Plebiscitary democracy - the people making decisions only in certain cases, such as during a referendum on any issue.

Representative democracy - the people elect their representatives, and they manage on behalf of the government or some authority. Representative democracy is the most common form of democracy. Disadvantages of representative democracy are that the people's representatives, having authority, not always fulfill the will of those they represent.

Also distinguish between these types of democratic regime as democratic-liberal, democratic-conservative and radical democratic. Proponents of the liberal regime too lenient, a radical - for drastic changes, conservative - the defenders of the old adversaries changes [6, c. 215].

2.3 Signs of mixed forms of political regime

There are also mixed forms of political regime.

Authoritarian and democratic regime (soft authoritarianism) is characterized primarily by a strong presidential government, where the president has the right to form the government, dissolve parliament, shift heads of local state administrations to eliminate the government system, have an advantage over the legislature in shaping the judiciary. However, this option saves all democratic institutions: parliament, the electoral and party system, opposition, local authorities, judicial protection of human rights. Such a regime existed in France at the time of de Gaulle, and exists in many Latin American countries and some CIS countries.

Anarchic-democratic (ohlokratychnyy) mode provides ample prerogatives of representative government and local governments over the executive, and the widespread use of direct democracy. For anarchic-democratic regime is characterized by lack of power, lack of effective regulation of social relations, poor administration and distribution ohlokratychnyh confidence in political activities.

Oligarch clan regime based on dominance in the structures of political power powerful politico-business and media groups, which, having excess profits, control the political structure - factions, parties, public organizations, as well as segments of the information space (TV, radio, newspapers, etc.). They have made their position is not in competition, where it was necessary to identify talent, but in terms of its monopoly in such sectors as trade in excise goods and natural resources, as well as state protectionism and non-monetary forms of payment (barter, offsets, bills) [7, p. 217].

Thus, depending on the degree of observance of rights and freedoms of man and citizen, the possibility of obtaining and exercising power political regimes are divided into democratic and anti-democratic, those where the power belongs to the people, and those where the government has control over social life.

2.4 Features of the political regime in Ukraine

Under Article 1 of the Constitution of Ukraine is a sovereign, independent, democratic, social, rule of law [1, p. 5].

The main features of the modern political system of Ukraine:

- Constitutional symptoms (election of the most important organs of political power, the legal equality of citizens, guarantees of minority rights, a multiparty system, etc.);

- Procedural characteristics (transitivity, and development of a democratic state, etc.);

- Operation modes features, features that relate directly to ways of exercising power (electoral, limited competition in the political process, authoritarianism in solving some of the problems nonconsensual type resolving political conflicts, etc.) [10, p. 582].

For determination of the type of political regime of Ukraine there are many opinions, but the only right way to solve the contradictions surrounding this issue is an attempt to compare several typologies of political regimes.

Ukrainian political system is one of the modifications of neopatrymonial political regime. Neopatrymonializm - a kind of symbiosis between some elements of traditional society and the modern state. Consequently neopatrymonial modes inherent discrepancy between the "exterior" of the modern state (presence constitution written law, parliamentary and party institutions, electoral systems, and others.) And the internal logic of its operation, which is quite patrimonial.

For example, Ukraine is characterized by personalization of power when the political identity of the main mass is not political programs, and identity politics. Another sign neopatrymonializm in Ukraine clientelism or patronage relations - is the spread of ethnic, regional, family-related and similar ties to the political sphere. The distribution of positions of ministerial portfolios, benefits, etc. is exactly under these criteria. The consequence of such a relationship is the high level of corruption, which is now one of the most important channels for political and other purposes.

The political process in Ukraine reveals neopatrymonial following features: firstly, the main agent of the political process in Ukraine is a state which does not exist, along with society, and above it, and secondly, a leading place in public administration representatives occupy bureaucratic complex (in Ukraine This found its reflection in the existence of the "party of power" that centered around the president, and relationships which are built again on a clienteles). Neopatrymonializm theory allows us to detect signs of political regime, but does not allow to describe the possible directions of its development. Analysis of the political regime of Ukraine may be made within the theories of transformation (S. Huntington, Brzezinski) and supplemented with modern theories of democracy, namely, theories polyarchy R. Dalya, electoral and liberal democracy L. Daymonda, delegating democracy H. O'Donnelly, public democracy of A. Leyphart.

L. Daymond fundamentally separates electoral (minimum) Democracy, which has a formal character, and liberal democracy, which provides not only a formal election, but also effective protection of civil rights and political freedoms. Electoral democracy, unlike liberal democracy, recognize the need for a certain set of civil liberties essential to competitiveness and participation made sense. However, they do not pay much attention to basic freedoms and do not try to include them in the real criteria of democracy. Intermediate concepts located within the continuum between electoral and liberal democracies, including the criteria of democracy basic civil liberties (right to a candid expression of views and freedom of association), but allow serious restrictions on the rights of citizens. Thus, Ukraine liberties taken into account mainly in the extent to which they provide meaningful electoral competition and participation, unlike French or English models of liberal democracy, where they are essential components of democracy, guaranteeing the implementation of a wider range of democratic functions. Political regimes, which by its characteristics like Ukrainian, called profiles semi-democracy. They allow to understand the dynamics of the measurement regime and the democratic development of post-communist societies, in particular, Ukraine [5, p. 73].

Around them is a model of delegate democracy G. O'Donnell, who comes from the fact that the political regimes in transitional societies are democratic in terms of formal procedures, but they do not changes towards liberal democracy. Characteristic features delegativity democracy is the dominance of the executive over the representative bodies, the presence of indirect control of executive power over the media, neutralize or eliminate actual and potential centers of opposition patronage of associations by the executive in exchange for public support of their latest, preserve some autonomy political society, the lack of direct restrictions on civil liberties. Almost all of the inherent characteristics and Ukrainian political regime. Popularly elected president at its discretion is delegated his authority, which leads to the transformation of Ukrainian voters until the next election to the passive audience. And since the state have been an attempt to influence the political competition from the government, the political regime in Ukraine becomes semi-competitive content [10, p. 614].

Also available in Ukraine, freedom of speech (which lately has repeatedly mentioned international organizations), the tendency to increase the powers of the President, clientelistic voting patterns and the exercise of power, ignoring criticism from the opposition or civil society institutions. In general, these signs are not complete characteristics of an authoritarian regime, so we are talking about authoritarian syndrome in Ukraine.

For compound constitutional signs Ukrainian political regime is mixed by type for combining majoritarian and proportional electoral system with a presidential form of government. This attempt at combining the characteristics of political regimes in Ukraine is not a guarantee of stability, however, it leads to constant conflict between the branches of government. As you know, during the presidential reign of the government appointed by the president rather than parliament, so in parties that have achieved parliamentary representation, there is little incentive for building coalitions in support of government policy. But the president, as chief executive, can not manage effectively without the support of Parliament. In turn, the parliament is not responsible for the activities of the government. Hence the conflict. Trying to put in Ukraine proportional representation of political parties was due Regards to create an effective parliament, like the European systems. But its combination with a presidential form of government does not allow to reach a consensus in the political process [9, p. 42].

Thus the political regime in Ukraine can be defined as a semi-electoral regime with delegating semi-competitive characteristics and type of electoral competition. It combines elements of majoritarian and proportional electoral systems that are mixed in type and non-consensual content. And it is an essential characteristic of authoritarian syndrome.

According to the theory A. Leypharta, the best political regime in Ukraine, if it is, of course, wants to be a democratic state should be public democracy that characterized most European countries, and which was more or less neutral with respect to the categories of "Western" and " non-Western "type of democracy, which is especially important in terms neopatrimonial former Soviet countries. This theory applies to societies that are characterized by division into segments. Segments can be religious, ideological, linguistic, ethnic, national, etc.. character. The main purpose of democracy is public alignment conflicts and creating a system of constraints and balances for a large number of political elites, but the main feature - co elites [5, p. 94].

So, for the political regime of Ukraine features both democratic and undemocratic regimes. Our state has two possible ways of development: towards democratic reforms or usurpation power and controlling powers over the people. Unsettled and unpredictable today remains the question: what is the way Ukraine will choose for themselves?

Conclusions

Thus, analyzing the history of studies of the political regime, examining approaches to understanding, considered the advantages and disadvantages of different types of state regimes can be concluded that the political regime - is the way the political system of society, determining the nature of political life in the country, a system of techniques, methods, techniques of political power in society. The origins of the study of the political regime date back to ancient Greece and are associated with the name of Aristotle.

The impetus for further study were bourgeois revolution and the overthrow of the old feudal order. By this time, researchers should include Montesquieu C., A. de Tocqueville and others. Pluralism of opinions and views led to the formation of two common approaches to understanding the political regime: institutional (political and legal) and sociological. However, some approaches advocated as Leyphart A., E. Shylz and others. Among local researchers of the topic you want to pay tribute to A. Garau, V. Horbatenko collodions A., P. Kutuev, M. Sazonov, A. Fisun and others. They all agree in opinion that political regimes can be divided into two categories: the democratic and anti-democratic. In democracies are democratic-liberal, democratic, conservative and radical democratic.

Proponents of the liberal regime too lenient, a radical - for drastic changes, conservative - the defenders of the old, the opponents of change. Among the anti-democratic regimes can be distinguished totalitarian and authoritarian. Totalitarianism - a complete control and strict regulation of the state in all spheres of society, every person by direct armed violence. Authoritarianism - a political regime in which all the fullness of political power concentrated in one person (monarch, dictator) or ruling group, but allowed an opposition, there is some discretion regarding economic, spiritual and other spheres of life. However, one can clearly draw the line and define the political regime of a country clearly democratic or undemocratic. Usually the political regime of the state combines the features of several modes. According to this release and anarchy-democratic (ohlokratychnyy)-clan oligarchs and other modes. As for Ukraine, in the first article of the Constitution of Ukraine states that "Ukraine is a sovereign, independent, democratic, social, law-based state." However, a comprehensive analysis of the political regime in Ukraine gives reason to believe that notwithstanding democratic features it contains elements of authoritarianism and other modes.

References

1. The Constitution of Ukraine was adopted at the Fifth Session of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine on 28 June 1996.

2. Averyanov VB Public Administration: Theory and Practice. - K.: Inter Yurinkom, 1998. - 385 p.