On March 14, 2017, at an expanded meeting of the United Russia faction in the State Duma of the Russian Federation, Speaker V. Volodin, having entered into a debate with the Minister Agriculture A. Tkachev said:
Alexander Nikolaevich, they[deputies] and there is power, you messed up a bit. The source of power is the people, and deputies are representatives.
Article 3:
1. The bearer of sovereignty and the only source of power in the Russian Federation is its multinational people.
2. The people exercise their power directly, as well as through state authorities and local self-government bodies.
3. The highest direct expression of the power of the people is the referendum and free elections.
At the same time, we can state very important legal and political conflicts of the Constitution of B. Yeltsin:
1. Having eliminated the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation and the Congress of People's Deputies by Decree No. 1400 of September 21, 1993, B. Yeltsin usurped power in the hands of the State Duma and the Federation Council, since the people were left with only two opportunities for self-expression - through party and single-mandate elections, where candidates for some reason - then they indicate their affiliation to parties, and a referendum, whose decisions there is no one to approve, since there is no Constitutional Assembly.
2. According to article 13 part 2: "No ideology can be established as a state or mandatory", however, the United Russia party openly recognizes itself as the "party of power responsible for everything that happens in Russia", which has a majority in Parliament. Therefore, the ideology United Russia"is a state ideology, which is prohibited by the Constitution of the Russian Federation.
3. The State Duma is formed on a party basis, but nowhere in the Constitution is there a word about this, except that parties, movements, unions and other associations of citizens can nominate their representatives for the election of deputies of the State Duma of the Russian Federation. There is a direct usurpation of power along ideological and party lines.
4. Article 9 part 1 says: "Land and other natural resources are used and protected in the Russian Federation as the basis of life and activity of the peoples living in the respective territory", another legal incident: do the peoples living in this territory own land and mineral resources or not? If they do, then the privatization of enterprises and subsoil can take place only with the permission of the peoples living in this territory. If not, then the state must pay rent to the peoples living in that territory, the bowels and land of which have been privatized in whole or in part.
5. The Constitution of 1993 is not such, since only the draft Constitution is adopted at a referendum, which then must be approved by the Constitutional Assembly, but there is neither a Constitutional Assembly nor the approved Constitution itself. Accordingly, the transition period, for which 2 years were allotted, dragged on for 24 years and all modern authorities have a temporary nature of the transition period, according to Article 135 part 3: “The Constitutional Assembly either confirms the invariability of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, or develops a draft new constitution Russian Federation", therefore, the statement of Section II of the 1993 Constitution: "The Constitution of the Russian Federation comes into force from the day of its official publication based on the results of a popular vote" is in conflict with Article 135 and may be considered legally null and void.
To overcome the usurpation of power, the speaker of the State Duma of the Russian Federation V. Volodin only needs to: 1. Convene the Constitutional Assembly, which in its form is a congress of people's deputies, 2. Approve the 1993 Constitution, thereby abolishing the temporary nature of the current transitional authorities. But V. Volodin is unlikely to take such a step, since the congress poses a danger to those who would like, hiding behind the name of the people, to continue to create real lawlessness under the shadow of a non-existent, legally null and void Constitution. However, for V. Volodin, this step can make him the chairman of the revived Supreme Council - the highest representative power in Russia, endowed with the powers of the Congress of People's Deputies, which is able to abolish the presidency and change the foundations of the state system without resorting to uprisings, coups and other methods of usurpation power for which the 20th century was so famous. And if, according to V. Volodin, the deputies of the State Duma are the power in Russia, then no one can prevent the people's power, represented by the State Duma, from initiating the process of convening a Constitutional (Constituent) Assembly to legitimize power in Russia: either by the existing Constitution, or by restoring the true democracy by endowing the Supreme Soviet and the Congress of People's Deputies with the highest forms of popular representation. And the need for such a step is dictated by the position of Russia, the criticality of its economic development. If everything is left as it is, then the very near future may make such adjustments that it will be too late to correct anything.
And if everything is so bad in Russia with the illegitimate Constitution and the actual usurpation of power by political parties, whose ideology has again become the guiding one, then how is the situation in the fraternal republics former USSR: in Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan?
The Constitution of Ukraine, adopted at the fifth session of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine on June 28, 1996, as amended on December 08, 2004, establishes several important functions of state power:
Article 5. Ukraine is a republic. The right to determine and change the constitutional order in Ukraine belongs exclusively to the people and cannot be usurped by the state, its bodies or officials.
Article 9. The conclusion of international treaties that are contrary to the Constitution of Ukraine is possible only after making appropriate changes to the Constitution of Ukraine.
Article 13. Land, its subsoil, water and other natural resources located within the territory of Ukraine are objects of the right of ownership of the Ukrainian people.
Article 140. Local self-government is the right of a territorial community - residents of a village or a voluntary association.
So, unlike Russia, Ukraine has republican form government, the supreme representative power of the people has the Verkhovna Rada (Council), which approves the Constitution and referendums. Land and subsoil belong to the people, and local self-government is part of government controlled. At the same time, there is no concept of a congress of people's deputies, but this concept was not in the Constitution of the Ukrainian SSR of 1978, when there was an all-union congress and there was no need for republican congresses, where party bodies and the Armed Forces were in charge. But then comes complete identity with Russian reality: the absence of a state ideology, the formation of the Verkhovna Rada on a party basis, the independence of the National Bank, the absence of the people's will, otherwise, as soon as through elections and a referendum, that is, liberal democracy won a complete victory throughout the entire expanse of the destroyed USSR. Again we are faced with the usurpation of state power and people's property by party deputies. Again, power does not belong to the people, but to political parties that have nothing to do with the needs and aspirations of the people, because any political party is primarily engaged in the struggle for power and reproduction of itself, and not caring for the country and people, which was proved by the Central Committee of the CPSU in the last century. The abolition of Article 6 of the Constitution of the USSR on the leading role of the party, again resulted in the usurpation of power along party lines.
The Constitution of the Republic of Belarus of 1994 (with amendments and additions adopted at the republican referenda on November 24, 1996 and October 17, 2004):
Article 4. Ideology of political parties, religious or other public associations, social groups cannot be made mandatory for citizens.
Article 8. The Republic of Belarus recognizes the priority of the universally recognized principles of international law and ensures that the legislation complies with them.
Article 13 Agricultural land is owned by the state.
Article 117 local government and self-government is exercised by citizens through local Councils of Deputies.
Article 138. The issue of amending and supplementing the Constitution is considered by the Houses of Parliament at the initiative of the President.
Everything is the same: the National Bank is independent, the will of the people is possible only through elections and a referendum, international law is part of national law, no ideology is national. Differences: the president and the bicameral Parliament are empowered to change the Constitution, even without the need to convene the Congress of People's Deputies, which is absent as a concept of the supreme power of the people. There is a usurpation of power by illegitimate authorities, a transitional period of 2 years for temporary institutions of power, which has stretched to the present day. State property is manipulated at the will of A.G. Lukashenko and the pool of his close friends, where pseudo-socialism is paid for by the Russian treasury as abundantly as the Kremlin leadership allows.
The Constitution of the Republic of Kazakhstan (Adopted by referendum on August 30, 1995. Amended and supplemented on October 7, 1998, May 21, 2007, February 2, 2011):
Article 2 1. The Republic of Kazakhstan is a unitary state with a presidential form of government.
Article 3 2. The people exercise power directly through a republican referendum and free elections.
Article 4 3. International treaties ratified by the Republic take precedence over its laws and apply directly.
Article 6 3. Land and its subsoil, water, flora and fauna, and other natural resources shall be state property.
Article 49 1. The Parliament of the Republic of Kazakhstan is the highest representative body of the Republic, exercising legislative functions.
Article 53 1. Parliament at a joint meeting of the Chambers, at the proposal of the President of the Republic of Kazakhstan, introduces amendments and additions to the Constitution.
Article 85 Local state administration is carried out by local representative and executive bodies (maslikhats).
The difference is that the National Bank of Kazakhstan belongs to the state and reports directly to the president. So, the Russian Federation has a mixed parliamentary-presidential form of government, Ukraine has a republican form of government, and Belarus and Kazakhstan have a pronounced presidential form of government. The differences could be greater if it were not for the main thing - the usurpation of the people's will by state authorities, when the people are equidistant from exercising their power in all the republics of the former USSR. It becomes clear the main role of B. Yeltsin, who was rightfully erected a monument in Yekaterinburg in the form of Yeltsin - the center, this is the destruction of the former statehood of the USSR, from democracy (albeit under the yoke of the Central Committee of the CPSU) to state property, which, although recognized as such in some republics, but in fact it was usurped by a group of managers - irremovable leaders of sovereign republics. And everywhere there are practically the same provisions in national constitutions, which provide unlimited opportunities for presidents and parliaments to usurp the power of the people, deprived of their own voice. As the practice of the 25th anniversary of liberalism has shown, it is impossible to influence the government through elections or referendums and is a complete political utopia, because the party government in the country will never allow even a hint of competition to itself.
But any parliament in any republic has a unique chance to return democracy and legitimacy to the authorities - this is to assemble people's deputies, not by party affiliation, but by territorial, for the legitimacy of the Constitution, it is quite possible that the changed legitimacy of the authorities, which should be the Supreme Council and the Congress of People's Deputies, as well as to bring the destroyed integrity of the state, its land, bowels and waters into constitutional order. No one can cancel the actions of the Parliament to convene the Constituent Assembly, as the highest expression of the people's will and people's power, which belongs to it by the right of territorial unity. Since otherwise, actions blocking the convocation of the Constituent (Constitutional) Assembly (Congress) should be regarded as a coup d'état. With all the ensuing consequences.
Ipatiev K.F. (GRU major, retired)
http://mayoripatiev.ru/1489589847
WHAT AUTHORITY DO WE CHOOSE?
When we speak or write about power, it is always necessary to understand what kind of power we are talking about. But first of all, it is necessary to understand what is the state? Listing the features of the state, Russian lawyer, historian, philosopher Boris Nikolaevich Chicherin (1828-1904) wrote:
1. There is a state union.
2. Union of the whole people .
3. It certainly has territory .
4. It has single law .
5. In it the people become legal entity.
6. It rules supreme authority.
7. Its purpose is common good.
Summarizing B. Chicherin writes: "The state represents the organization folk life, preserved and renewed in the continuous change of generations. "Given the growth of national self-consciousness of the peoples inhabiting all countries of the world and the changes that have taken place over the past hundred years, the definition of the state should be as follows: "The state is a union of nationalities, based on the universal principle of JUSTICE, under the supreme authority corresponding to it."
The most difficult to understand is the problem of identifying the type of supreme power of a particular state and management system. In every state there is both a supreme power and a governing power. According to B. Chicherinsovereignty "one, constant, continuous, sovereign, sacred, indestructible, irresponsible, inherent everywhere, and is the source of all state power." "The totality of her rights is sovereignty (Machtvolkommenheit - the omnipotence of power), both internal and external. Legally, she is not limited by anything. She does not submit to anyone's court, because if there were a supreme judge, then supreme power would belong to him. She is the supreme judge of every right... In a word, this power in the legal field is complete and unconditional.This fullness of power is sometimes called absolutism of the state in contrast to the absolutism of the prince. In autocratic governments, the monarch therefore has unlimited power, because he is the only representative of the state as a whole union. But in every other form of government Sovereignty is likewise unlimited... This sovereignty is inseparable from the very essence of the state.
Objecting to the opinion about the possibility of limiting the supreme power, Chicherin answers: “All its limitations can only be moral, and not legal. Being legally unlimited, the supreme power finds a limit both in own moral consciousness, and in the conscience of citizens.
More than 2,000 years ago, Polybius described the cycle of supreme powers as follows: “In a society that is not yet well-organized or has fallen into disorder, POWER is the lot of POWER. But in clashes between people, concepts of honest, dishonest, just, and unjust are inevitably developed. by justice than by force. Such persons, popular by their justice, create a MONARCHY. It maintains itself as long as it retains its moral character. Losing it, it degenerates into TYRANNY. need in the overthrow of the tyrant, which is done by the best, most influential people. The era of ARISTOCRACY is coming. The end of the aristocracy is when it degenerates into OLIGARCHY, against which the power of the people - DEMOCRACY - is a protest. Its degeneration, in turn, creates an unbearable OCHLOCRACY, the rule of the crowd, which again brings society into chaos. Then the salvation is again the restoration of ONE AUTHORITY.
The history of mankind has developed only three simple forms of supreme power: monarchy, aristocracy and democracy. The sophisticated reader will notice that there is a constitutional monarchy. It seems to combine two simple principles of supreme power: monarchy and democracy. For example, in the UK, the Queen exercises the power of the monarch, and the constitution expresses and exercises the power of the people. Jean-Jacques Rousseau spoke out against such delusions:
"For the same reason that the Souverainete (Supreme Power) is inalienable, he says, it is indivisible (indivisible, that is, one)." The law, he explains, is the will of this Souverain. Our politicians, he caustically remarks to the already nascent constitutionalists of the Angloman school of Montesquieu, not being able to divide the Supreme Power into principle, smash it in its manifestations and make a fantastic creature out of the Souverain, in a way, as if to compose a person from several bodies, from which one has only eyes, another only hands, a third legs and nothing else. Rousseau not only ridicules these "Japanese conjurers," but also bluntly declares that their tricks come from a lack of precision in observation and reasoning. Only in the government (in the system of government) Rousseau allows, and even then with reservations, "mixed" forms of power, precisely in the form of their mutual limitation. By dividing into various branches of power and limiting them, the supreme power only ensures even more of its own autocracy. Therefore, the English constitutional monarchy is the most ordinary democracy - the power of the people.
From the clearly understood fact that the Law is the expressed will of the Supreme Power, a simple postulate follows: LAW IS THE ARBITRARY OF THE SUPREME POWER. When we are persuaded: “It is necessary to live according to existing laws,” it is necessary for citizens to understand whether the true government established this ARBITRACY, or whether certain groups usurped the executive and legislative powers of the state by deceit and force and bake laws, regardless of the interests of citizens. The call to live by the laws in such a democratic state is criminal in relation to the majority of citizens, since these laws express the interests of the clans and small groups of the population that have usurped power. Such supreme power represents a degenerate form of democracy - OCHLOCRACY, which requires urgent replacement. After all THE MAIN GOAL OF THE STATE IS THE COMMON GOOD.
Today, no one doubts that we live in a democratic state. Consequently, the supreme power in Russia should belong to its citizens. What power do we choose? Why talk about the division of power into executive, legislative and judicial? And the president with the government, and the parliament, and the judiciary - they are all different parts GOVERNING AUTHORITY. In fact, they are all officials whom we, the citizens of Russia, hire (elect) to perform the main function of the state - to ensure stability and tranquility in the state. But why are so many who want to "steer" announced every time when regular elections are held in all "democratic" states? The reason is that the Souverain people in the most "democratic" country of today's world has never exercised and does not exercise SUPREME POWER. According to the philosophical dictionary: "Power - in general sense the ability and ability to exercise one's will, to exert a certain influence on the activities, behavior of people with the help of any means - authority, law, violence.
Now let's try to figure out whether the people, under existing democratic regimes, have the opportunity to influence the activities or behavior of people exercising power in the state and adopting laws? All contacts of those in power with the people end after the vote. Contrary to the opinion of the citizens of the USSR, it was liquidated, privatization was carried out without asking the opinion of the inhabitants of Russia, there is not a single citizen in our country who agrees with the current taxation laws, but they operate and destroy the country's economy, and such examples can be cited ad infinitum. Therefore, since the Souverain people do not have a direct influence on the rulers, we have a degenerate form of democracy - OCHLOCRACY. Power in all modern ochlocratic countries has been usurped by a small group of people who, through the media, dupe their citizens and exercise real dominance in these countries, replacing the Souverain-people. The desire for power in ochlocratic states is so tempting because officials actually hired by the people through elections do not bear any responsibility to the Souverain people for their actions and decisions or laws. The most terrible punishment for the most unscrupulous "people's" elected is not to be elected for the next term to exercise power. The material benefit of being in power is incommensurably great, in contrast to the contribution of these individuals to the construction of society.
To exercise in the statereal democratic sovereignty The Souverain people must directly encourage or punish their representatives for the activities they carry out in their elected positions. It is necessary to create a mechanism for the direct impact of citizens on the bodies of elected power and its specific representatives. Today, any employer in the smallest "OOO" has immeasurably more power in relation to its employees than the Souverain-people has in relation to officials. Citizens of the country should encourage and punish directly, so that any body of the GOVERNING AUTHORITY knows and understands that for actions that worsen or improve the life of the inhabitants of the state or any smallest village, either punishment or encouragement will follow.
For the full implementation of DEMOCRATIC GOVERNANCE by the stateSouverain-by the peoplewe propose to adopt laws of direct action at a referendum, which provide for the assessment of the activities of the authorities for a certain period and the encouragement or punishment for this activity. According to these laws, during the elections of authorities for the next term, a referendum must be held at the same time, according to which the voters will decide on punishment or encouragement of representatives of the elected authorities for their activities in the previous period. Draft laws on the evaluation of the activities of the State Duma of the Russian Federation and the heads of subjects of the federation are proposed below. The responsibility of the authorities to the voters is the main idea of these laws.
"RESPONSIBILITY is the basis of effective management!"
LAW
Novosibirsk region
"On the assessment of the activities of the Administration"
This Law establishes the measures of responsibility of the head of the Administration of the Novosibirsk Region, heads of all departments, committees and heads of departments, heads of administrations of districts of the region, their deputies and heads of departments of the district administration and local governments (Novosibirsk City Hall) to the inhabitants of the region.
Chapter 1. General provisions
Article 1. The purpose of the Law is to provide residents of the Novosibirsk region with the opportunity to encourage or punish the Administration of the region and local self-government for fulfilling its obligations to ensure the constitutional rights and freedoms of citizens for a decent and prosperous life.
Article 2. Deterioration of the life of the population of the region, expressed in a reduction in the birth rate, a reduction in the average life expectancy, a decrease in the number of housing put into operation, an excess of mortality over the birth rate, an increase in unemployment or a reduction in real incomes of the population in relation to the previous period of the Administration's activity, is a crime against it.
Article 3. Improving the life of the population of the region, expressed in an increase in the birth rate, an increase in average life expectancy, an increase in natural population growth, an increase in the volume of housing put into operation, a reduction in unemployment and an increase in real incomes of the population in relation to the previous period, is a feat.
Article 4. In the event of a deterioration in the life of the people (Article 2), all representatives of the Regional Administration of the Novosibirsk Region and local self-government bodies are criminals.
Article 5. In case of improving the life of the people (Article 3), all the heads of the Administration of the region and local self-government, listed in the preamble of the Law, deserve special encouragement.
Chapter 2 Evaluation of the activities of the Administration
Article 6. Evaluation of the executive power for the period of its activity is given by all voters of the Novosibirsk region by means of a referendum. The court is carried out during the election of the head of the executive power of the region.
Article 7. During the next election campaign, the executive authorities through the mass media inform the population about the change in the integral indicators of the standard of living of the population (Article 2) for the past period of the executive authority in comparison with the previous period.
Article 8. When voting for a candidate for the next term of the Regional Administration, voters receive a ballot paper containing two items: "The Administration is worthy of encouragement" and "The Administration is worthy of punishment." The voter crosses out one of the items or leaves the ballot unchanged.
Article 9 If more than 50% of the registered voters cross out the item "The administration is worthy of encouragement" and leave the item "The administration is worthy of punishment", then all representatives of the regional administration are criminals.
If more than 50% of registered voters cross out the item "Administration deserves punishment" and leave the item "Administration deserves encouragement", then the Administration of the region is encouraged.
If more than 50% of the registered voters are not recruited on any item, then the decision is considered favorable "No difference".
Ballot papers with both items crossed out are considered spoiled and their number is subtracted from the total number of registered voters when a decision is made.
Chapter 3 Punishment and encouragement.
Article 10 public Works upon submission of employment departments with payment of wages in the amount of the minimum pension established by Russian legislation for a period of five years.
Article 11. The execution of the sentence under Article 10 is suspended for the term of the deputy's office, if any of the persons to whom the punishment applies is a deputy of any body of legislative power. The punishment comes into force from the date of the expiration of the deputy's powers and lasts for the next five years.
Article 12. If the voters passed the verdict "The administration is worthy of encouragement", then all representatives of the Administration are worthy of encouragement. Incentive measures are developed by the legislative body of the region and must be implemented no later than three months after the decision on encouragement is made.
Article 13 An offense under this Law has no statute of limitations. At the initiative of the legislative or executive power, the executive power of any past years, due to newly discovered circumstances, can be again presented to the court of voters and, upon receipt of another verdict from it, either rehabilitated and awarded, or deprived of titles and punished.
Chapter 4 The inevitability of fulfilling the will of the people.
Article 14. Evasion of the judgment of the people or the execution of their sentence is a particularly dangerous crime. The punishment for him is five years in prison with serving in a correctional colony of general regime.
Article 15 become criminals and are subject to punishment (Article 10).
Article 16. If any member of the Administration tries to avoid punishment on his own, he must be sought out by the appropriate state authorities, wherever he may be, and punished (Article 14).
Article 17. No legal entity or individual has the right to employ, provide material assistance in any form to persons who have been punished under Article 10 during the execution of the sentence. Legal entities and individuals providing material assistance either directly or through nominees during the execution of punishment are subject to deprivation of licenses for all types of their activities.
Chapter 5 Conditions for amending this Law
Article 19 This Law is adopted by referendum and any changes and additions can be made to it only through a referendum.
LAW
Russian Federation
"On the assessment of the activities of deputies of all levels"
This Federal Law establishes measures of responsibility of deputies to voters.
Chapter 1. General provisions
Article 1. The purpose of the Law is to provide the people of Russia with the opportunity to encourage or punish the representative legislature for the performance of their duties to ensure constitutional rights and lead citizens to a decent and prosperous life.
Article 2. Deterioration of the life of the people, expressed in a reduction in the birth rate, a reduction in the average life expectancy, a decrease in the number of housing put into operation, an excess of mortality over the birth rate, or a reduction in real incomes of the population in relation to the previous period of activity of the legislature is a crime against it.
Article 3. Improving the life of the people, expressed in an increase in the birth rate, an increase in average life expectancy, an increase in natural population growth, an increase in the volume of housing put into operation and an increase in real incomes of the population in relation to the previous period, is a feat.
Article 4. In the event of a deterioration in the life of the people (Article 2), all representatives of the legislature are criminals.
Article 5 In the case of improving the life of the people (Article 3), all representatives of the legislature are heroes.
Chapter 2 Evaluation of the activities of deputies
Article 6. Evaluation of the legislative power for the period of its activity is given by all voters by means of a referendum. The court is carried out during the elections of deputies of the legislature.
Article 7. During the next election campaign, the executive authorities through the mass media inform the population about the change in the integral indicators of the standard of living of the population (Article 2) for the past period of the legislative body's activity.
Article 8 When voting for candidates for the next term of the legislature, voters receive a ballot containing two items: "Worthy of encouragement" and "Worthy of punishment." The voter crosses out one of the items or leaves the ballot unchanged.
Article 9 If more than 50% of the registered voters cross out the item "Worthy of encouragement" and leave the item "Worthy of punishment", then all members of the legislature are criminals.
If more than 50% of registered voters cross out the "Worthy of Punishment" box and leave the "Worthy of Encouragement" box, then all legislators are heroes.
If more than 50% of the registered voters are not recruited on any item, then the decision is considered favorable "No difference".
Ballot papers with both items crossed out are considered spoiled and their number is subtracted from the total number of registered voters when a decision is made.
Chapter 3 Punishment and encouragement.
Article 10. If the voters pass the verdict "Worthy of Punishment", then within two weeks after the official announcement of the results by the Central Election Commission, the bodies of the Ministry of Internal Affairs detain all deputies of the convicted convocation and place them in places of detention under general regime for a period of 3 (three) years.
Article 11. The execution of the sentence under Article 10 is postponed for the term of the deputy's office, if the deputy is re-elected for another term. The punishment for this deputy is canceled if, after his next term in the legislature, the voters pass the verdict "Worthy of encouragement" to this body, and is reduced by half if the verdict "No distinctions" is passed.
Punishments by the judgment of the court of the people are not absorbed, but summed up.
Article 12. If the voters pass the verdict "Worthy of encouragement", then all deputies are awarded the title of Hero of Russia with all the rights and benefits that this title gives.
Article 13 An offense under this Law has no statute of limitations. At the initiative of the legislative or executive power, the legislative power of any past convocations, due to newly discovered circumstances, can be again presented to the court of voters and, upon receipt of another verdict from it, either rehabilitated and awarded, or deprived of their titles and punished.
Chapter 4 The inevitability of fulfilling the will of the people.
Article 14. Evasion of the judgment of the people or the execution of their sentence is a particularly dangerous crime. The punishment for him is the death penalty.
Article 15. If the entire legislature, by means of legislative subterfuge or self-dissolution or dissolution under the influence of any force, tries to evade the judgment of the people, then all deputies of this convocation, two months after the constitutional term of the court of electors, become criminals and are subject to immediate execution.
Article 16 If a deputy tries to avoid punishment on his own, he must be sought out by the appropriate state authorities, wherever he is, and executed.
Article 17. If the executive bodies of Russia, for any reason, do not carry out the sentence under Articles 15 and 16 of this Law, then the obligation to carry out the sentence falls on every citizen of Russia. With regard to these criminals, Russian citizens are given the right to act independently, by any means and anywhere in the world.
Article 18. A citizen of Russia, who brought his own sentence under Articles 15 and 16 of the Law, becomes a Hero of Russia under this Law without any additional submissions and decrees.
Chapter 5 Conditions for amending this Law
Article 19 This Law is adopted by referendum and any changes and additions can be made to it only through a referendum.
Another mechanism for the implementation of the SUPREME POWER by the Souverain people we propose to implement in the form "Social Contract". The essence of the proposal is that all candidates for elected positions conclude legally binding agreements with political parties or socio-political associations and with specific voters to support specific points of his program. These agreements should provide for the obligations of the candidate to the voters and the measures of responsibility in case of non-compliance with these obligations. To nominate a candidate to the republican authorities (president, duma), it is necessary to conclude agreements with at least three Republican parties or socio-political movements and individual agreements with all citizens actively participating in the candidate's election campaign. In the event of the insolvency of an elected official, organizations and citizens who have concluded an agreement with him have the right to sue him, and if the court recognizes the fact that the agreement has not been fulfilled, this official is removed from office and new elections are scheduled. In the event that voters at a referendum recognize the activity of a duma or an official as negative, political parties, associations and citizens are deprived of the right to nominate their candidates. The form of "Social Contracts" still requires a detailed legal study, but the need for such an instrument for the transition from an ochlocratic society to a democratic one is beyond doubt.
Alexander Chvalyuk
By its very nature, political power is primarily government- is the organizing principle of the life of society. State power has great potential for targeted impact on social development. “The state is hired by society for professional management, competent coordination of diverse interests and actions. Society loses from total nationalization public life, but needs to strengthen state power within those reasonable limits that preserve social integration and national dignity and provide scope for the development of the individual and the free interaction of people.
The state is a set of political institutions, institutions and bodies, each of which is called upon to perform its specific functions of the legislative, executive and judicial order. It is clear that we are talking about parliamentary power, the executive power represented by the government, the judiciary, law enforcement agencies, etc. The political organization of society, which has a monopoly on physical violence (M. Weber), we call the state. The state is directly connected with political processes.
Aristotle, M. Weber and G. Lasswell, like most sociologists and political scientists at all times, believed that political processes include relations of leadership, authority, or power. Aristotle and Weber, moreover, found that the concept of "politics" requires additional characteristics. For Weber, the sphere of the political contains not only leadership, but also relations limited by territory. According to Aristotle, politics includes, in addition to the named properties, the qualities of self-sufficiency and self-organization. The sphere of the political expands with the progressive development of human civilization and the complication of life. And Lasswell already called political what Aristotle, and then Weber, did not attribute to this area due to the underdevelopment or absence of these phenomena of life in their era: according to Lasswell, a firm or trade union, for example, may contain political aspects.
When analyzing the problems of politics, one should take into account the fact that in political science both a broad and a narrow understanding of the term "politics" is used. Politics, as it was found out, means the desire to participate in power or to influence the distribution and exercise of power (M. Weber). The first understanding of politics involves the relationship of leadership, management and participation (R. Dahrendorf). The second meaning of the concept of "politics" excludes bureaucratic, bureaucratic, apparatus, administrative structures and explains the relationship between government institutions as "power over management" or "management of management". And also such terms as "leadership", "political management", "management on higher levels organization", "steering", "political management", or "general management".
In the second sense, the word "politics" includes those subjects of social relations that determine the strategy for the development of society and the state, oversee the implementation of this strategy, mobilize the masses in support of the policy being pursued, exercise ceremonial power, etc. To political institutions in this sense the concepts of "politics" include: elected and approved public authorities (representative structures of various levels, heads of state, prime ministers, governments, elected and approved heads of regional and local administrations - presidents, governors, mayors, etc.). They also include non-elected or partially elected institutions, but implementing the functions of control and supervision over compliance with the effectiveness of formal law (court, prosecutor's office). The policy strategy is embodied by executive structures represented by the state apparatus, employees, officials, bureaucracy, etc. Such an understanding of politics, or rather the relationship between politics and management, indicates that the choice of a political strategy is the prerogative of socio-political institutions that use bureaucracy and which it is subordinated to the legal field.
The functional features of various authorities are manifested in the fact that socio-political power is more decentralized, since it is based on the principles of election and, in this sense, is more independent in its decisions. Bureaucracy, on the other hand, requires indispensable centralization. It is based on the principles of appointment, professionalism and formal hierarchical subordination.
We emphasize that the performing and political function(both wide and narrow) special meanings) are characteristic of the executive, legislative and other authorities. But these functions are embodied in organizational structures two types; on the one hand, these are officials and bureaucracy, on the other, politicians and electoral system in parliamentary or party regimes. The dissimilarity of the principles of formation and operation of the various branches of power is the basis for their combination, if one of them does not absorb the other.
At the same time, in modern "democracies" the question of the relationship between politics and governance is not simply solved. The problem is that between different representatives political elite there is a struggle for the apparatus in questions of control over it or its formation. P. Bourdieu reveals this problem in the following way: “To the extent that politics is “professionalized” and parties are “bureaucratized”, the struggle for political mobilization power is increasingly turning into a two-stage competition: from the outcome competition for the power over the apparatus, which is unfolding within the apparatus exclusively among professionals, depends on the choice of those who can join the struggle for the conquest of ordinary laymen.
The distribution of functions between the socio-political authorities and the bureaucracy can be represented as follows: 1) the lower level of management is predominantly in the hands of public institutions, the bureaucracy at this level is an organizing and controlling institution; 2) the middle link of state administration is concentrated mainly in the hands of the bureaucracy, and the representative bodies in this case act as a controlling structure; 3) in top management executive functions of public administration remain with the bureaucracy and the government, while legislative and control functions are carried out on the basis of a combination of representative, judicial and government structures, as well as interest groups.
Stability in modern society can only be ensured by a balance of socio-political and political-bureaucratic principles. The effective organization of the entire political and administrative system also requires a combination of representative and bureaucratic subsystems. But the recognition of the fact of the separation of powers, neither in practice nor in theoretical basis does not deny the understanding of power relations as a structurally ordered integrity.
The structurally ordered integrity of public authority and the stability of society is ensured by the main institution of the political system - the state, which acts as a system-forming factor.
The first states known to mankind were formed 5-6 thousand years ago in various geographical regions and became the centers of several civilizations. These are the states of the indigenous peoples of America (Aztecs, Mayans, Incas), Ancient China, Ancient Egypt, Ancient Rome, Ancient Greek policies, the states of the Indus and Ganges valleys (on the territory of modern India), Assyria, Babylon, Sumer and Akkad, the states of Ancient Mesopotamia (between the Tigris and Euphrates).
The very concept of "state" (state) - in the sense of a politically organized society - is relatively new, dating back to N. Machiavelli. Machiavelli separated the state from society. He understood the state as one of the states of society, based on domination and subordination. The ancient Greeks used the concepts "polis" and "politea", and the Romans "res publica", "civitates". These and other concepts have been used in various political implications, and eventually transformed into the term "state" (stato, staat, etat, state).
In modern social science the concept of "state" is used in two senses - narrow and broad. As M. Duverger noted, when they talk, for example, about state intervention in economic life, or in the case of criticism of the state, they are talking about institutions and officials that together make up the management system. And when they say that France, Great Britain or Russia are states, what is meant is that they constitute human communities of a special type, nations organized in a specific way, possessing sovereignty. Obviously, these two meanings are closely related. The state in the first sense governs the state in the second sense.
The state in the second sense is political organization, equal in scale to society, with fixed geographical boundaries, the people living in this territory and represented by the supreme power. The state in the first sense is an aggregate political and managerial official in the form of political bureaucracy (head of state, government, judiciary, regional political officials, etc.) and executive structures (officialdom itself, bureaucracy, managers, state apparatus at various levels).
Attention deserves the question of the origin of the state. However, we do not find a more or less clear answer to this question. There are a number of theories that propose to solve this problem: theological, patriarchal, contractual theory, the theory of violence, materialistic theory, organic theory, psychological and other theories. Each of these theories has its own advantages and disadvantages. The issue is that states were formed in different periods human history and in different conditions under the influence of a combination of factors. Therefore, one should not single out one factor or any specific condition as the main or determining one in the form of a generally significant reason. The formation and development of states in their historical dimension took place and is taking place under the influence of various reasons.
In a generalized form, the transition from pre-state to public-state relations in society could occur in three main ways. They are:
1. By military means, when the institutionalization of public power occurs as a result of the isolation of the institution of the “military leader” and his troops and their appropriation of the administrative apparatus, as a rule, consisting of the leader’s relatives and close associates; 2. In an aristocratic way, when representatives of the tribal nobility gradually became the bearers of public power, concentrating political and administrative power in their hands; 3. In a plutocratic way, in which the rich (the most fortunate subjects of the community), concentrated material resources authorities and formed around themselves groups of supporters (clients) and gradually transformed their material wealth, authority and influence into public power.
The state as the bearer and subject of policy and management, relying on a special apparatus, performs the functions of managing the general affairs of society, resolving issues that are related to human, material and natural resources. Among these features special meaning have the functions of managing and managing economic, social, spiritual and political processes proper, as well as the spheres of national and international relations, guaranteeing observance of generally binding norms and rules in society, ensuring public order in the country and its security, etc.
The general characteristic of the state is embodied in the concept of "form of the state". In Russian political science, it is traditionally accepted that the form of the state includes the form of government, the state structure and political regime. Today, the criteria for the typology of forms of government are increasingly questioned, as well as the need to include the term “political regime” in the phrase “form of state”.
The classification of forms of government adopted in Russian literature in the form of a monarchy and a republic, when monarchies are divided into absolute, dualistic and parliamentary, and republics into presidential, parliamentary (or parliamentary) and mixed (semi-presidential), does not meet, according to a number of social scientists, modern requirements. .
It is argued that such a typology of forms of government is associated with the choice of non-existent criteria, when the important in the classification is replaced by the unimportant, and the real by the formal, etc. This is explained by the fact that in the political and legal literature it is difficult to find such a disparity in views that relate to the problem typology of forms of government. For the number of distinguished types varies from two to several dozen (three, five, seven, eight, twenty-four). There is no unity on the question of what type to classify different countries. Modern France can be classified as a presidential, parliamentary, semi-presidential, semi-parliamentary, mixed, prime-presidential system, or a presidential and parliamentary republic at the same time. Russia is presented as presidential, super-presidential, mixed, semi-presidential or presidential-parliamentary systems. That is, there is no answer to the question that government is a complex of relations that cannot be reduced to a method of replacing the head of state.
It further emphasizes that the distinction between democratic and non-democratic regimes should not be ignored in classifying forms of government. The corrected classification should look like this. The form of government includes a form of democratic government and a form of non-democratic government. The first includes presidential (republic), parliamentary (parliamentary monarchy and parliamentary republic), semi-presidential (republic), semi-parliamentary (republic). To the second - absolute monarchy, dualistic monarchy, authoritarian republic (USSR), other regimes.
It should be noted that such a classification of regimes is not denied by social scientists. However, in the above typology of forms of government, we do not find a place for "democracies" that are at the stage of formation - democracies "in Russian", "partly illiberal democracies", etc., as well as super-presidential republics, etc. The thing is, any theoretical construction is schematic and is not able to reveal all the diversity functional features state power. Therefore, real forms of government cannot be distinguished from ideal-typical models, but it is necessary to combine (compare) ideal theoretical models and real political processes.
Recall that, in solving the problems of democracy, political science includes the following “formal” procedures that characterize the features of the liberal form of democracy: “universal suffrage of citizens; the opportunity for citizens to apply for elective office; regular holding of free, competitive and fair elections; giving elected officials the constitutional right to control government decisions; lack of harassment in relation to the political opposition; the right of citizens to form and join independent associations and organizations (including independent political parties and interest groups); Free access citizens to sources of alternative information” (see: Ch. 2).
In the 70s of the twentieth century, the number of countries that, according to most of the above formal characteristics, were defined as democratic, tripled. If in 1974 only 39 states (27%) met the criteria of "formal democracy", then by 1996, according to Freedom House, there were 117 such countries (61%). These figures indicate that significant changes in the world community have influenced approaches to the study of "new democracies".
As a rule, if earlier the main attention was paid to the analysis of subtypes of democratic systems mainly on the material of the differences between established, stable democracies, now, as a result of the post-authoritarian reforms of the “third wave”, which led to a new typology of democracies, democracies that are in the process of becoming. That is, to determine the qualitative state of democracy, there are already proposed additional criteria. Therefore, in the case of identifying, for example, a post-socialist oligarchy in the system of emerging democracies, formal legal features are important, but they are not enough. Under the new conditions, the socio-economic and substantive characteristics of the social system are increasingly taken into account.
The task of the researcher in studying the transition from one qualitative state to another includes at least two interrelated aspects: the normative one, which implies a deliberate, purposeful change in nominal institutions (formal, informal norms, rules, procedures) that affect the functioning of socio-political institutions, and procedural, caused by a change in models of socio-economic and political activity of people.
Transformations do not lead to the expected changes in the functioning of socio-political institutions if they are not supported by appropriate changes in the models of social action. As a result, dysfunctions arise in the activities of these institutions. A symmetrical situation is also possible: shifts in the models of social action that change the functioning of socio-political formations do not correspond to the formal norms designed to regulate this functioning.
Options for the development of post-authoritarian systems from a substantive, and not just formal, position are described using various concepts. For example, categories such as "façade democracies", "fragile democracies", "non-established democracies", "unstable populist democracies", "somewhat illiberal democracies", "competitive semi-democracies", "semi-democracies with limited pluralism", and "semi-competitive, partially pluralistic autocracies”, “delegated democracies”, etc. Based on the regional criterion, “Latin American”, “South European”, “Eastern European” and other democracies are distinguished.
Democracy in today's political sociology is understood in different, sometimes diametrically opposed senses, which is explained both by the historical era that leaves its mark on the very content of this phenomenon, and by the socio-political views of the creators of various concepts of democracy.
So, the form of the state contains: “Firstly, the authorities of the state (public authorities); secondly, special territorial units of the state - territorial state units of the suborganization. State authorities are subdivided, in turn, into central, regional and local. They are in certain internal relationships with each other and citizens or subjects of the state ... Thus, the form of the state is a set of stable relationships between the authorities of the state and between its territorial units, that is, the way they coexist, including the way the state power is distributed between its bodies , the way of their formation (formation) and mutual responsibility”. That is, such a broad sense of the term "state form" in the form of a mechanism for exercising political power includes: a form of government, a form of structure and a political regime.
The form of government answers the question about the system of building the highest bodies of state power. The form of the device assumes the territorial, national and national-territorial organization of the state. The political regime gives an idea of how state power is exercised. “If the concept of a political system defines general order interaction and functioning of political institutions, then the political regime expresses the specific ways and means by which these institutions interact with each other.
Supreme state power: concept, features, institutions.
The supreme power is the highest power in the state, which is the source of authority for all its organs.
The supreme power has the following main features arising from its fundamental content and state significance:
Unity (indivisibility). "State power is always one and, in its essence, cannot allow competition of another similar power in relation to the same persons, in the space of the same territory." The principle of separation of powers applies to state bodies subordinate to the supreme authority, which delegates to them the appropriate powers (legislative, executive, judicial, etc.).
Unlimited. The legal subordination of the bearer of supreme power to some external force (another state, a supranational entity) means the transfer of supreme power to this force.
Completeness. There is no power in the state that is not controlled by the supreme.
Constancy and continuity. The cessation of the existence of supreme power is tantamount to the disappearance of the state itself (the loss of its independence). A change in the type of supreme power is possible not in an evolutionary, but only in a revolutionary way - through the elimination of the old state system and the establishment of a new one.
The bearer of supreme power is called the sovereign. Depending on its nature, three historical types of supreme power are distinguished (first identified by Aristotle):
Monarchic - supreme power is concentrated in the hands of one person.
Aristocratic - the supreme power belongs to the nobility.
Democratic - supreme power belongs to the people.
All existing and existing forms of states can be assigned to one of the listed types. At present, most countries have a democratic supreme power (including countries with a constitutional monarchy).
signs supreme power flow from the very essence of the state and from the relationship of the supreme power to other elements of the political union.
1) From the concept of the state, as a single whole, it follows that the supreme power should be one. This unity is expressed in the unity of the ruling will. If there are two wills independent of each other, then each of them will belong not to the whole state, but to a certain part of it; therefore, each part will constitute a separate state. This is what happens in complex states, when the supreme power is distributed between the union and individual states. But if the different wills are so dependent on each other that the supreme will, binding on all, is established by their agreement, then the latter will be the one supreme will; then the supreme power is assigned to the totality of organs.
2) the supreme power, as an integral part of the state, is constant and uninterrupted. The individuals invested with it may change, but the essence of power as an institution is preserved continuously. In this sense, there was a saying in the old French law: the king does not die (le roi ne meurt pas). As a result, all rights and obligations of the predecessor directly pass to the successor.
3) the supreme power is independent of any other: it is sovereign power. We have seen, however, that not every state actually enjoys complete independence. In semi-independent states, the supreme power is not completely sovereign; but since here the subordination is incomplete and in some respects the power remains independent, it retains the character of the state. The degree of submission may vary.
4) Since the moral principle is combined with the legal principle in the state union, the supreme power, as a representative of the highest moral order, is sanctified by the moral law. In that sense, it is considered sacred. This is the basis of its connection with religion and the church.
5) Being the source of every positive law that determines the rights and obligations of citizens, it is inviolable in relation to the latter. She must be given complete obedience.
6) Supreme power exists for the common good and acts in the name of the common good. But the final judge in this case is only herself. Therefore, she is irresponsible. Any responsible body ceases to be the bearer of supreme power; he becomes subordinate.
7) Since the territory in its entirety, with everything that is acquired in it, constitutes the property of the state, the supreme power extends to everything that is within these limits. In this sense, it is recognized as inherent everywhere.
8) since the supreme power represents the will of the state as a single whole, and extends to everything, then any private power established for state purposes is only an organ of the supreme power and borrows its strength from it. Therefore, the supreme power is the source of all state power.
Power is always assigned to a well-known person. Without a person, it is unthinkable, because only a single person can decide and act. It can belong to several persons together; then it is necessary to establish methods of cumulative decision, so that the will is one. Thus, any power contains two elements: a legal element, a right that constitutes the essence of power, and a person or persons vested with a right; they determine the form of power.
Power can be private or public. The first belongs to a private person over another person; such are the powers of the family and the master. The second belongs to the union, or society, above its members. Here the person in authority is the organ and representative of the whole; it acts in the name of a common goal. The right belongs to him, not as a person, but as an organ of the whole.
Every permanent union is based on the subordination of the members to the whole; without it there is no union. Therefore, in every union there is a public authority; and since the unions are different, the powers may be different.
Public power can be patriarchal, civil, church, state. Patriarchal power in more extensive forms of blood union, such as: in the genus and tribe, acquires social significance; but at the same time, the private character is always preserved, for such, in essence, is the character of the blood union itself. Civil power is established in private unions, which are formed in civil society, such as: in partnerships and corporations. And it is, by its origin, largely private; it acquires real social significance only when the corporation becomes an organ of the state. Church authority has the highest moral significance; she commands in the name of the religious-moral law. But in itself it has the power of coercion only moral, not material. Finally, state power has a purely social character. Acting in the name of the idea of the state, which is both a legal and moral union, it has both coercive power and the highest moral sanctification. Belonging to the state, as a supreme union, which in the legal field rules over everyone, it is the supreme power.
The need for supreme power has been proven above. It stems from the need to establish a stable order of community in society. People unite in unions; each union has a certain power over its members, for without this there is no common action. If, as always happens in society, there are different alliances, then they can naturally come into conflict with each other. If there is no power dominating over all, then social order is impossible. This power will be supreme. If it is subordinate to another, then the latter will be supreme, but there will still be supreme power. The union ruling in the legal sphere is a state union, and therefore the supreme power is state power.
The same requirement follows from the necessity of subordinating private ends to public ones. This is the good of every union, the highest goal for which it is established. For the fulfillment of this task, a single supreme will is needed, ruling over the private aspirations of the members. In a word, the stability of order and the subordination of ends require the establishment of a power to which the supreme decision would belong.
State and supreme power: the essence of concepts
For the purpose of a detailed definition and analysis of state-binding relations, it is necessary to determine what a state is.
Definition 1
The state is an organization of political power, which, having a special control mechanism, rules society and ensures stability and order in it, protects it from external threats.
Historically, the concept of the state is defined as a social organization that has power over people living in a given territory, limited by territorial boundaries, as well as providing them with benefits and normal life.
Among the functions that the state performs are internal, such as social, stabilization, economic, coordination, as well as external, important of which are to provide defense and establish the international cooperation. The state is the official representative of all its members, called citizens. According to the forms of government, states are divided into presidential, parliamentary and mixed republics, as well as absolute and constitutional monarchies. According to the forms of government, states are unitary, federations and confederations.
The structured state is a network of organizations and institutions divided into three branches of government, namely, judicial, legislative and executive.
Definition 2
The supreme power is the dominant power in the state, which belongs to its highest bodies and is the basis of their powers.
The power of the state becomes supreme, that is, sovereign in relation to all persons and organizations within the country, as well as in relation to other states, becomes autonomous and independent.
This power is the highest, most important and dominant, which divides the people into government and subordinates.
Key signs of supreme power
Following from the very definition of the state and the relationship of the supreme power with other representatives of the political union, the signs of the supreme power are:
- unity;
- completeness and unlimitedness;
- constancy and continuity.
The supreme power in the state is one. This concept comes from the concept of the state as a whole. In the presence of two declarations of will that contradict each other, each will belong not to a single state, but only to its part, which means that each part will determine a separate state. This happens in complex state systems, when the supreme power is distributed between separate areas and a single union. In the event that different, but mutually dependent wills are united by agreement, then the latter will be the supreme will. In this case, the totality of organs has the supreme power.
The state power, properly organized, for the implementation of its functions always has joint tasks, goals and directions of work, which rely on the tasks and goals that the state and the population living in it have. Also, the unity of state power is also expressed by the presence of a single source as the dominant group of society, the interests and will of which it primarily expresses.
To achieve these tasks and goals, unity and coordination of all bodies and links of the state power system and their coordination is required. This requires a single management center that works on coherence and communication between various state structures, as well as defining and controlling the legal, organizational and functional single link in organizing the work of the state apparatus.
The supreme state power extends to the entire territory, marked by certain boundaries, the state and is inherent in it everywhere.
Being a link of laws that characterize the duties and rights of the population, this power is considered absolute and is not violated, it must be completely obeyed. In the state there should be no other power that is not controlled and not subject to the supreme.
As an integral attribute of the state, the supreme power is characterized, among other things, by constancy and continuity. This means that the essence of power is always continuous, although the individuals who possess it can change, that is, all rights and obligations are transferred to the successor from the predecessor.
The unlimitedness of the supreme power is that the holder of this power is completely subordinate to it from a legal point of view. Legal obedience to another external manifestation of power, for example, to another state, indicates the transition to this power of supreme power. The supreme power is the power of the state, and it does not depend on any other power.
The supreme power in the state is constant and uninterrupted. If the supreme power ceases to exist in the state, this may mean the disappearance given state, that is, the loss of their independence. The elimination of the former state government is possible only in a revolutionary way, and not in an evolutionary way, and will mean a change in the type of supreme power, that is, the establishment of a new state system.
Types of sovereignty
Definition 3
A person (or a group of persons) who, for an unlimited period of time, has full, without any restrictions and conditions, the supreme power in the state, is called the sovereign.
This value was introduced into science by the French lawyer and politician Jean Bodin.
Designated for the first time by Aristotle, depending on the sovereign, historically there are three types of supreme power:
- Monarchy is a form of government in which the supreme power belongs entirely to one ruler, most often receiving his post by inheritance.
- Aristocracy - a form of government, where the supreme power belongs to a privileged layer of the population: the aristocracy and the nobility.
- Democracy is a form of government, based on which the supreme power belongs to the majority of citizens who freely and collectively express their will.
The forms of states that existed earlier and still exist to this day can be attributed to one of the above types of government. AT modern world in the vast majority of countries a democratic type of supreme power has been established (even in countries with constitutional monarchy).
Functions of the Supreme Power
The supreme power is not a group of individual powers, it has a binding unity, since the supreme power is one, like the state itself. The power of the state, thanks to its independence, can be realized in many areas of human social life and resort to various kinds of domination over people. However, it is possible to identify the most important functions of the supreme power and to distinguish between their different forms, where it demonstrates its activities.
There are three such functions:
- legislative;
- judicial;
- government.
The legislative activity of the supreme power determines the establishment of certain legally justified norms that determine the order of the country's life.
Judicial activity is protection from violation of legal norms and laws.
The governmental activity of the supreme power consists in the implementation of the norms specified in the laws, as well as in resolving issues not provided for by law. This activity is necessary, because even with developed legislation, the law cannot provide for everything.
