The forms of government determine the structure of the highest authorities, the order in which they are formed, the competence and the period of activity. At the same time, they establish the method of interaction of institutions with each other and with citizens, as well as the degree of participation of the population in their creation. Let us consider further the concept of "form of government" in more detail.
Theoretical aspects
In a narrow sense, the main forms of government are actually the organization of the highest authorities. Simply put, these are the ways in which the formation of the system is carried out. In a broad sense, these are the methods of organization and interaction of all institutions of power. Forms of government should not be confused with the way the state is structured and political regime in the country. These characteristics relate to different aspects, at the same time complementing each other.
The meaning of the form of government
This element shows exactly how the highest institutions of power in the country are created, what is their structure. The form of government reflects the principles that underlie the process of interaction between government agencies. It shows the way of building relationships between ordinary citizens and the supreme power, to what extent the implementation of the rights and freedoms of the population is ensured. 
System development
The form of government is the oldest element that began to be studied in the days of ancient Greece. This term has had different meanings at different times in history. For example, in the era of an agrarian society, the essence of the form of government consisted only in determining the method of replacing the head of the country - through elections or by inheritance. In the course of the decomposition of feudalism and the transition to industrialization, accompanied by the weakening of royal power, the formation and strengthening of civil representation, the system began to develop. Gradually, not the method of transferring power, but the method of organizing interaction between the head of the country, the government, parliament, and the mutual balancing of their powers became more important.
Definition criteria
The form of government is characterized by the following features:
- The method of transfer of power is elective or hereditary.
- Responsibility of higher institutions of power to citizens. For example, the monarchical form of government does not provide for it for the autocrat (unlike the republican one).
- Delimitation of powers between the highest power institutions.
Main forms of government
There are several types of power organization:
The Republic, in turn, can be:
- Presidential.
- Parliamentary.
- Mixed.
Monarchy is of the following types:
- Parliamentary.
- Dualistic.
- constitutional.
- Estate-representative.
- Limited.
- Absolute.
Mixed forms of government:
Republic
This form of government is characterized by a special procedure for the formation of government. The authorized institution, depending on the type of republic, may be the president or the parliament. The forming body coordinates the work of the government. It, in turn, is responsible to the highest institution. In a presidential republic, along with parliamentarism, the powers of the chairman of the government are in the hands of the head.
The president calls and dissolves the government. The existing parliament cannot exercise any meaningful influence. This form exists in Ecuador, USA. In a parliamentary republic, the president has no powers. This form exists in Greece, Israel, Germany. Parliament convenes the government and has the right to dissolve it at any time. In a mixed republic, the presidential power acts jointly with the parliament. The latter has the power to control the functioning of the government. Such a system operates in the Russian Federation.
Autocracy
A state where the monarch acts as the only supreme body is called an absolute monarchy. Such a system is present in Qatar, Oman, Saudi Arabia. Such a monarchy is called limited, in which, in addition to the autocrat, there are other institutions that are not accountable to him. The power is distributed among the highest authorities. This system, in turn, is of two types.
The estate-representative monarchy is characterized by the fact that the monarch in his powers is limited by the tradition of forming organs according to the criterion of belonging to one or another estate. In Russia, it was the Zemsky Sobor, for example.
In a constitutional monarchy, the autocrat's power is limited by a special act. It, in turn, is divided into dualistic and parliamentary. The first assumes that the monarch has all executive power, part of the legislative initiative and judicial powers. In such systems, there is a representative body that makes laws. But the monarch has the right to veto them. Such a system is typical for Morocco, Jordan. In a parliamentary monarchy, the autocrat acts as a tribute to tradition. It is not endowed with any significant powers. This system operates in Japan, Great Britain. 
Theocratic Republic
This form of government combines the main features of the Islamic Caliphate and the modern republican regime. According to the constitution, Rahbar is appointed as the head of the country in Iran. He is not elected by the citizens. His appointment is carried out by a special religious council. It includes influential theologians. The President is the head of the executive branch. The legislature is headed by a single-chamber parliament. The candidacies of the president, deputies of the Mejlis, members of the government are approved by the Council of Guardians of the Basic Law. He also reviews bills for consistency with Islamic law.
Font 7
Ticket 13 question 1 Organization of power and social norms of primitive society.
SOCIAL POWER AND NORMS OF THE PRIMARY-COMMUNAL ORDER
For protection against external environment and joint food procurement, primitive people created associations that were unstable and could not provide the necessary conditions for survival. Economics in primitive communal associations It was characterized by an appropriating form, since the extracted food was distributed equally and provided the minimum needs of its members.
The primary association of the organization of people- a genus in which the relationship of its members had a consanguineous character. With the development of life, clans united into tribes, unions of tribes.
At the head of the clan were leaders and elders whose behavior was an example for others. AT Everyday life the leaders and elders of the clan were recognized as equal among equals. General meeting of the entire adult population recognized as the supreme authority, which also had a judicial function. Relations between tribes were regulated council of elders.
Over time, associations of people began to need social regulation, as they faced the need to coordinate activities that would be aimed at a specific goal and ensure their survival. In the early stages of the primitive communal system human behavior was regulated at the level of instincts and physical sensations numerous bans
in the form of spells, vows, vows and taboos, since primitive society did not know the norms of morality, religion and law.
The main forms of norms that regulated the behavior of people in the primitive communal system:
1) myth (epos, legend, legend)- an artistic-figurative or subject-fiction form of conveying information about forbidden behavior or necessary behavior. The information transmitted through the myth acquired the character of holiness and justice;
2) custom– transmission of normative and behavioral information from generation to generation. In the form of customs, variants of people's behavior in socially significant situations were fixed, while expressing the interests of all members of society. By their content, customs could be moral, religious, legal, and also include both moral, religious and legal content. Customs regulated all spheres of activity in primitive society. Their strength was not in compulsion, but in the habit of people to be guided and follow the custom. Subsequently, in society, customs began to be used in conjunction with moral norms and religious dogmas;
3) ritual- a set of actions that were performed sequentially and had a symbolic character;
4) religious rite- a set of actions and religious signs aimed at symbolic communication with supernatural forces.
Ticket 13 2 question Forms of government: Concepts and types.
Form of government: concept and types
Form of government- the organization of the highest state power, the procedure for the formation of the highest bodies of the state and their relationship with the population.
Types of forms of government: 1) monarchy, in which all government concentrated in one person - the monarch, who simultaneously performs the functions of head of state, legislative and executive power, as well as controlling justice and local self-government.
Signs of a monarchy:
a) the presence of a sole head of state;
b) transfer of power by inheritance to representatives of the ruling dynasty;
c) the exercise of supreme power solely, for life and indefinitely;
d) the lack of specific legal responsibility of the monarch for the results of his activities.
Types of monarchy:
a) absolute(unlimited), in which all the fullness of state power belongs by law to one person - the monarch (in Saudi Arabia, Oman, Qatar, Bahrain);
b) constitutional(limited), in which the power of the monarch is limited by other higher authorities:
– parliamentary- power is exercised by a government formed by a parliament of representatives of the party that won the election, and the monarch's orders acquire legal force only with the consent of the relevant minister who is a member of the government (in England, Denmark, Belgium, Japan, etc.); - dualistic- all state power is divided between the parliament and the government formed by the monarch (in Morocco, Bhutan, Jordan, etc.); 2) republic, in which the state power is transferred by the people to elected bodies that perform their functions jointly with the executive and judicial authorities.
Signs of the republic:
a) formal legal recognition of the people as a source of power;
b) the transfer by the people of state power to a collegial governing body;
c) separation of powers into legislative, executive and judicial branches;
d) turnover and electivity of representative power;
e) accountability and responsibility (legal and political) of the authorities for the results of their activities.
Types of republics:
a) presidential- power is distributed between the president and parliament (in the USA, Mexico, Argentina);
b) parliamentary- Parliament has all the power (in Germany, Italy, India);
in) semi-presidential and semi-parliamentary republics (France, Finland).
There are also mixed forms of government of the republic and the monarchy (Malaysia), absolute and limited monarchy (Kuwait).
Ticket 14 question 1 Decomposition of the primitive communal system and the emergence of the state. Decomposition of the primitive communal system and the emergence of the state
The development of social production could not stop at the primitive level. The next evolutionary stage is associated with the transition from an appropriating economy (hunting, fishing, picking fruits) to a producing economy - pastoralism and plow (arable) agriculture. This process, according to archeology and ethnography, began 10-12 thousand years ago. years ago and continued different peoples- several millennia. It was called the Neolithic Revolution , since it happened in the Late Neolithic (New Stone Age), at the turn of the transition to the Bronze Age, when a person learned to smelt and use downloaded "soft" colored metals - copper, tin, bronze, gold, silver, and then iron. These stages, as well as the mastery of the culture of agriculture and animal husbandry, including selection, have passed all the tribes and peoples who have embarked on the path of civilization development. eight
Major social consequences were associated with the emergence of fundamentally new productive forces. Regarding the economic consequences, F. Engels, in accordance with the Marxist concept, noted the emergence of private property of individual families and major social divisions of labor, the first of which he called the separation of pastoral tribes from the entire mass of barbarians. nine
Modern ethnographers and archaeologists play an equally important role in the Neolithic revolution. development in IV-III millennium to AD agriculture, which gave incredibly high grain yields in the regions of the Middle East and Ancient Egypt. This is due to the rapid growth of the population of Asia Minor, Mesopotamia, the Nile Valley, the Mediterranean, and a number of other regions of Europe. With the development of agriculture in the I-II centuries. BC. and I millennium AD. the increase in the population of Mesoamerica and the flowering of early agricultural cultures among the tribes of the Maya, Aztecs, Incas, Mexican Indians (I-II centuries BC - I millennium AD) were associated.
From the point of view of modern historical science and ethnography, the Neolithic revolution became possible not only due to the appearance of cattle breeding. It was the transition to arable farming that most contributed to the rapid progress of the economy (including cattle breeding), population growth, the development of crafts, art, the emergence of the first cities, writing and other achievements of material and spiritual culture. The culture of the most ancient societies of the transition to civilization was called the early agricultural culture. ten
The main consequence of the Neolithic revolution was the growth of wealth: agriculture and cattle breeding made it possible to obtain an excess of product (surplus product), which the appropriating economy could not provide. On this basis, a regular exchange of products between the tribes arose, which made it possible to accumulate new wealth, which had previously been inaccessible under subsistence farming. The surplus of manufactured products also created the possibility of attracting additional labor required for tending livestock and cultivating fields. Such labor force wars supplied: prisoners of war began to be turned into slaves, as a result of which "the first major division of society into two classes arose - masters and slaves, exploiters and exploited." eleven
Here, however, clarification is required. Not everywhere and not always did slavery become the basis of the economy of early agricultural (including pastoral) societies. AT Ancient Sumer, Egypt and in many other societies, the basis of the early agricultural economy was the labor of free privates, community members , and property and social differentiation developed in parallel with the functions of managing agricultural work (especially in irrigated agriculture) and distributing products in the form of creating an accounting apparatus and administrative functions in the person of scribes, harvest keepers, etc. An important place in this differentiation was occupied by military functions, the fulfillment of which led to a division into military leaders, commanders of squads and ordinary soldiers. At the same time, the formation of the estate of priests, who had a great spiritual and cultural influence on society, took place. Finally, thanks to the development trade and crafts, estates (strata) of merchants, artisans and urban planners arose.
Early agricultural societies were associated with the emergence of city-states, where the main agricultural population became dependent on urban centers, in which not only handicrafts and trade but also managerial, military and spiritual nobility. Therefore, the most ancient type of social differentiation of society was not the division into slave owners and slaves, but social and functional stratification into unequal groups and strata of society. Such stratification in the form of division into closed castes (varnas, estates, etc.) from ancient times was consecrated by religions and existed not only in the state, but also in the communal system of the early agricultural societies of the Ancient East, Mesoamerica, India, as well as among the Scythians, Persians , other Eurasian tribes 12 . Slavery in these societies was originally palace, or family, character and only later it was used in production (for example, in the construction of cities and temples).
The main working population were ordinary community members, who constituted the lower castes and paid taxes. In addition to cultivating their allotments of land and cattle breeding, they carried out public Works for irrigation of lands, served as ordinary soldiers.
Nevertheless, the general conclusion is that the productive economy, as it grew and improved, led to a social division of labor, to social, including class, differentiation, to the property stratification of the population into rich and poor, into masters and slaves or servants, into unequal castes, remains true for the period of transition from the tribal system to the first civilizations. Gradually, among the peoples of antiquity (Ancient Greece, Ancient Rome, Troy, Carthage and other ancient policies), the division into free and slaves became the main one. In the 1st millennium A.D. in Europe, the decomposition of the tribal system led to the emergence of a feudal formation.
Another important social consequence of the Neolithic revolution was the transition from the tribal community to individual families and the neighboring (peasant) community.
F. Engels called the greatest revolution the coup in the tribal system, which led to the replacement of matriarchy by patriarchy. Class cattle breeding and farming was no longer possible for everyone. clan, but by separate families. The family (in most peoples it consisted of representatives of two or three generations) could well feed and clothe itself. Therefore, the public property of the maternal clan gradually passes into the private property of individual families that have become independent economic units. At the same time, the head of the family and the owner of the main means of production - livestock, agricultural tools and new products production - becomes the main worker - shepherd and a plowman, a man. In a large family-community, dominance in the house, up to complete power over a woman and children, passes to its patriarchal head - the eldest man in the family. Property and power are inherited through the male line, from the father - to the eldest son by birthright (among the Slavs - to the foreman, with the consent of all sons) 13. This not only consolidated the transition to private property of families, but also established inequality among members of the patriarchal family-community. It was an irreparable crack in the tribal system.
The appearance of the state among different peoples was caused by a number of other reasons, in addition to social and economic ones.
The tribal community was based on personal blood and family ties. The clan and tribe had their own territory, and only members of the clan could live on it and have the rights of a member of the community. "Outsiders" could only enjoy hospitality or had to be accepted into a tribal, blood brotherhood. With the development of a productive economy and exchange, merchants, artisans, sailors and other foreigners participating in economic turnover and intertribal ties began to appear more and more often on the territory of the clan and tribe. Many of them began to settle in cities.
This stage of evolution is also characterized by the migration of various peoples. As a result, heterogeneous groups settled on the same territory, the mutual interests of which could not be regulated by the customs of the tribal system, which knew only blood ties. Meanwhile, the interests of the “alien” population and members of the clan were closely intertwined, without which trade, in which the population was interested, would not have been possible, and the resolution of disputes would not have been possible. The new conditions also required a new territorial organization, covering the rights and obligations of both the indigenous population and the newcomer.
This all-territorial interest is connected with the transformation of the former tribal community into a neighboring (peasant) community. Such a community, like a clan, consisted of several families. But unlike the clan, the family was the owner of its property (for example, livestock, buildings) and the product of labor (for example, crops). The neighboring (peasant) community, being a social organism, performed the functions of organizing common affairs (for example, sharing land, irrigation, deforestation). But she herself was no longer the owner of property and the product of labor. In the neighboring community, various relations of mutual assistance, gifts, and services developed, which, however, were not connected with the public property that existed in the tribal community.
One of the most important social conditions for the transition from the tribal system with its social power to the state is the increased importance of wars and the military organization of tribes during the formation of early agricultural and early feudal societies. In connection with the growth of social wealth, wars between tribes were fought mainly for the purpose of robbery and became a means of constant enrichment through the capture of cattle and slaves. However, the military organization also served to protect the own interests of the tribes.
During the period under review, processes are activated migration to searching for better territory and for its conquest. These processes are known in Europe, in particular on the Central European Plain, in Asia (for example, the conquest of the Aryans in India), in Mountainous Peru, where the Incas conquered other tribes. Under such conditions, not only the conquests, but also the military organization of the tribes itself contributed to the gradual transformation of the public authorities of the tribes into the bodies of military democracy in the form of elected military leaders, squads, troops. . They received significant privileges not only for the best share of the booty, but also for the supreme power, claiming to be inherited, for priority over the people's assembly, which by that time had turned into an assembly of squads, troops. In their hands gradually concentrated the power of the high priest (among the Egyptians, Babylonians, Sumerians, Scythians), the supreme judge.
Military life contributed to the unification of kindred tribes into a single people. This, in turn, led to the usurpation by one of the military leaders (kings) of the most powerful tribe of the power of the leaders of other tribes. This is how the formation of statehood took place in Ancient Egypt, Akkad, among the Scythians, among the Mayan and Inca tribes in Mesoamerica. Therefore, we can say that wars and the strengthening of the military organization influenced the nature of the power of the tribes, turning into a single people, in some cases not only contributed to the formation of classes or the stratification of society, but also initiated these processes.
Religion had a significant influence on the process of the emergence of statehood, especially among the most ancient peoples. Religion played an important role in uniting individual clans and tribes into united peoples. In primitive society, each clan worshiped its own pagan gods, had his own "totem" (his "idol"). During the period of unification of tribes, religious norms helped to strengthen the power of "kings", basileus, supreme (often military) leaders. The dynasties of new rulers sought to unite the tribes by common religious canons. Arthashastra in ancient India, the cult of the Sun and the god Osiris in Ancient Egypt, the cult of the patronage of the gods of the Greek policies, etc. There was a gradual adaptation of religious norms to consolidate the supreme power of the ruling tribes among the Maya and Incas, among the Scythians. This power was associated with its transfer from the gods and was fixed first by extending the elective term, and then - for life and hereditarily (for example, the Inca clan).
Thus, recognizing the paramount importance of production progress, as well as property and social, including class, differentiation as the reasons for the transformation of the primitive communal system into civilized societies and tribal power into the state, modern science cannot consider that these factors exhaust the conditions and causes of the emergence of the state. The latter include the transformation of the tribal community into separate families and rural communities, the transition to a territorial organization of the population, as well as the intensification of wars and the military organization of tribes, the influence of religion on the unification of tribes into a single people and on strengthening the supreme royal state power.
The form of government is the organization of the highest bodies of state power, their structure, the order of formation, the distribution of competence and relations with the population.
Even Aristotle tried to develop a classification of states according to the criterion of the form of government. He singled out several forms of government: republic, monarchy, despotism, based on the classification methods of formation of state bodies, their correlation, methods of exercising state power. Currently modern theory of state and law can offer a deeper and sufficiently substantiated understanding of the form of government as one of the main characteristics of the structure of the state, give a more balanced classification of these forms, and outline a more realistic forecast for their development. It is equally important to take into account those factors that were previously excluded from the scope of scientific consideration: historical traditions, national psychology, religiosity, etc.
There are two main forms of government - monarchical and republican.
monarchical form of government - (Greek monarchia - autocracy) - a very ancient form of government. In this form of government sovereignty carried out individually and is inherited.
The main features of the classical monarchical form of government are:
the existence of a sole head of state who uses his power for life (king, king, emperor, shah, caesar, pharaoh);
hereditary order of succession of supreme power;
representation of the state by the monarch at his own discretion;
the legal irresponsibility of the monarch;
the monarch is not elected by the people;
the monarch cannot be forcibly removed from office (except for a revolutionary coup);
legal irresponsibility and independence of the monarch, which is emphasized by the institution of countersignature (the procedure in which laws approved by the monarch are subject to mandatory certification by the signature of the prime minister (less often one of the ministers) responsible for the implementation of this law.)
The monarchical form of government arose during the slave system and continued to develop over time, retaining its traditional features.
Absolute Monarchy is a form of government in which all supreme state power belongs by law to one person - the king, king, pharaoh, emperor. According to the lawyer Hammurabi, all power - legislative, judicial and executive - belonged to the king, who was the vicegerent and servant of God on earth. According to the Military Charter of Peter I, the sovereign is “an autocratic monarch who should not give an answer to anyone in the world about his affairs” See: Yu.P. Titov. “Anthology on the history of the state and law of Russia”, M: Prospekt, 2000, p.169. Thus, the main feature of an absolute monarchical form of government is the absence of any government agencies(Parliament, Congress, Federal Assembly or States General), limiting the powers of the monarch, where the will of the monarch is the source of law and law. also in absolute monarchy there is no constitution and separation of powers, and the presence of a standing army led by the monarch. At present, some monarchies of the Middle East (Saudi Arabia and Oman) are considered absolute.
Limited monarchy - this is a form of monarchy in which the power of the monarch is limited by a representative body, i.e. in England it is the Parliament, in France it is the National Assembly. A peculiar duality of state power arises, which was expressed in the fact that although the monarch was legally and in fact independent of parliament in the sphere of executive power, at the same time he was often forced to reckon with the activities of parliament. He appointed a government that was responsible to him, but the activities of this government could be discussed and criticized in parliament. The monarch had a strong influence on the parliament: he could veto its laws, he had the right to appoint deputies to the upper house, he could dissolve the parliament. However, a representative institution under the monarchy acquires control functions, acts as a legislative body, with which the monarch is forced to reckon. There are varieties of limited monarchy: parliamentary(constitutional) and dualistic.
parliamentary A (constitutional) monarchy is a form of monarchy in which the power of the monarch is limited in the legislative sphere by parliament, and in the executive sphere by the government. In a parliamentary monarchy, the king has no real power and does not interfere in the politics of the state. This does not mean that the king does not play any role in the state. His powers, which traditionally belong to the head of state (declaring a state of emergency and martial law, the right to declare war and conclude peace, etc.), are sometimes called “dormant”, since the monarch can use them in a situation of a threat to the existing state (Spain, 1981) .
This form of monarchy is also called constitutional, because the power of the monarch can also be limited by the constitution. For example, according to the constitution of the Japanese Empire in 1889, the power of the emperor was limited by the Imperial Parliament, he considered, approved and adopted the bills proposed by the emperor. Thus, in a constitutional monarchy, all acts emanating from the monarch acquire legal force if they are approved by parliament and are based on the constitution, that is, they cannot contradict the constitution. The monarch in a constitutional monarchy plays a mainly representative role, is a kind of symbol, decorum, representative of the nation, people, state. He reigns but does not rule.
parliamentary(constitutional) monarchy is distinguished by essential features:
parliament is elected by the people;
the government is formed from representatives of a particular party (or parties) that received a majority of votes in parliamentary elections;
party leader with largest number deputy seats, becomes the head of state (the prime minister in the UK actually rules the country);
in the areas of legislative, executive and judicial power of the monarch is virtually absent, it is symbolic;
legislative acts are passed by parliament and formally signed by the monarch;
the government, according to the constitution, is responsible not to the monarch, but to parliament;
Only in some parliamentary monarchies does the monarch have real levers of government (he dissolves parliament, is the head of the judiciary, the head of the church is Great Britain).
At present, almost all the monarchs of Europe are parliamentary monarchies: Great Britain, Sweden, Spain, Belgium, Holland, Denmark, Norway, Japan and others.
dualistic monarchy is an intermediate, transitional option from absolute to parliamentary monarchy. In a dualistic monarchy, the division of power occurs formally legally between the monarch and parliament. That is, laws are adopted only by the parliament, and the monarch rules the country through the government appointed by him and responsible only to him. If in a parliamentary monarchy the monarch is deprived of legislative and executive power, then in a dualistic monarchy only legislative.
The dualistic monarchy has become the embodiment of a compromise, where the monarch at the same time expresses the interests of the feudal lords (the nobility), and the parliament represents the interests of the bourgeoisie and, to a certain extent, other segments of the population (most often the “third estate”).
Despite this, the powers of the monarch were very strong:
with his decrees (decrees) he social spheres of society, such decrees did not require the approval of parliament;
the king had the right of veto (only suspensive) in relation to the laws of Parliament;
appointment of members of parliament (or one of its chambers) by the monarch (as opposed to a parliamentary monarchy, where parliament is elected by the monarch);
had the right to dissolve parliament;
had the right to set the date for new elections.
A dualistic monarchy existed in Germany (1871-1918), Turkey, Kuwait, Jordan, Libya, Nepal and other countries. Until 1990 Nepal and Kuwait were absolute monarchies, but due to historical events(popular uprising in Nepal in 1990, Kuwait's war with Iraq in 1991) democratic reforms began in them and today Kuwait and Nepal have moved from absolute to dualistic monarchies.
Republic(translated from Latin - a nationwide affair) See: Dictionary of Foreign Words - 19th edition, M, 1990, p. 441
This is a form of government in which the supreme power in given state carried out by elected bodies.
Republics, like monarchies, there are a huge number. The source of power in the republics is the people, who at certain intervals elect the highest representative bodies of the state. This manifests popular sovereignty - one of the fundamental principles of modern democratic statehood. The people elect the highest legislative body - parliament and in some cases - the president. All other supreme bodies of the state are formed, as a rule, by these representative bodies. The powers of the highest elected bodies of the state are limited to a certain period - to prevent a possible usurpation of power.
Republican government is based on the principle of separation of powers. Principles of separation of powers - division of the unified state power into legislative, executive and judicial, when various state bodies are instructed to perform different functions of governing the state: the parliament (people's assembly, national assembly, duma, supreme council, congress, etc.) is instructed to adopt laws; the government and its bodies (executive-administrative bodies) - to implement laws, organize their implementation; judicial authorities - to exercise control over the implementation of laws, to hold accountable for their violation, etc.
According to the nature of the relationship between the legislative and executive authorities, there are parliamentary, presidential and mixed(or semi-presidential) republics.
parliamentary republic. Here the legislative power is strong, and the executive power is subordinate to it. This form of government is characterized by the supremacy of the parliament, which exercises legislative power. The government is formed by the parliament and is responsible to it. Thus, the elections simultaneously decide the composition of both the parliament and the government.
In a parliamentary republic, the post of president may be provided, but he does not have such broad powers (primarily in relation to the parliament and government) that the president has in a presidential republic, and depends on the government for his activities. The president is the head of state, but not the head of government; he is not responsible for the actions of the government. Usually the president in a parliamentary republic is not popularly elected (one of the few exceptions is Bulgaria), so that he, using the support of the people, could not oppose himself to the parliament. The election of the president is carried out either by the parliament or by a specially created collegium. The president represents the state in the field foreign policy, but even here he is forced to coordinate his actions with the government. The president, as a rule, does not have the right to hold a referendum, to declare a state of emergency, to dismiss the head of government at his own discretion, and usually does not have the right to veto laws passed by parliament. Formally, the president may be the supreme commander in chief, but the actual leadership of the armed forces is carried out by the minister of defense, who is subordinate to the head of government.
A significant place in the parliamentary republic is occupied by the position heads of government Prime Minister (in In Germany, this post is called the "Federal Chancellor", and the state is sometimes called the chancellor's republic in the literature). As a rule, it is the leader of the ruling party or party coalition; he is elected by Parliament. The government is formed by the leader of the winning party and is in power as long as it enjoys the support of the majority of parliamentarians. Members of the government are responsible to parliament for their activities. Parliament can pass a vote of no confidence in the government or its individual members, and then they resign. Depending on whether it is possible to form a party majority in parliament, just as in the case of parliamentary monarchies, it is possible to speak of parliamentarism and ministerialism.
There are not very many parliamentary republics in the world: Germany, Finland, India, Turkey, Hungary, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Estonia, Italy and some other states.
presidential republic. This form of government is characterized by the fact that the president occupies a very significant place in the state apparatus. Therefore, sometimes, by analogy with monarchies, it is called a dualistic republic, since it has two main centers of power - the parliament and the president.
In a presidential republic, the legislative power belongs to the highest representative body - the parliament, which issues laws, and the executive - to the government. However, the parliament does not form the executive branch, the latter is not responsible to it. Parliament cannot dismiss officials of the executive branch (only if a crime has been committed, gross violation constitution) if the deputies do not agree, for example, with the policy pursued by the government.
The President is the head of state and head of the executive branch. He usually appoints ministers and forms the government himself. The government (ministers) is responsible to the president and is not responsible to the parliament for their activities, the president can independently remove members of the government. Typically, the president is elected by popular vote. The President has the right of suspensive veto on laws passed by Parliament.
In a presidential republic, the president has broad powers in various fields of activity. Usually, the president has the right to initiate legislation, call a referendum, declare a state of emergency, decide on his own the most important personal affairs, be the commander-in-chief of the armed forces, have the right to make peace, declare war, etc. The president, within his competence, independently issues regulations that occupy important place within the legal system of a particular country.
A presidential republic is a fairly common form of government. The presidential republics are the United States, many states of Latin America (Brazil, Argentina, Mexico, etc.), Africa (Zimbabwe, Nigeria, etc.), Asia (Philippines, etc.).
Parliamentary and presidential republics are the two main varieties of this form of government. Each has its own advantages and disadvantages.
Among the advantages of a presidential republic is a rather high degree of efficiency of state leadership of society: after all, the president, having broad powers, largely determines the policy of the state. Management impact is more targeted if it comes from one center. Effective management is especially important during periods of reforms, major social transformations, and the country's withdrawal from the crisis. The main drawback of the presidential republic: the extensive powers of the president can lead to excessive centralization of power, to the usurpation of power and its abuse.
The advantages of a parliamentary republic can be seen in the great guarantees of real implementation in public administration society began democracy, because among the organs of the state there is no single-management body endowed with broad competence. Consequently, there are no objective prerequisites for the establishment of someone's dictatorship. The main disadvantage of parliamentary republics is that under a multi-party system, when it is not possible to form a parliamentary majority, it is practically impossible to pursue a well-thought-out, purposeful policy, government crises are frequent.
In many states, attempts have been made to combine the features of parliamentary and presidential republics in order to overcome the shortcomings and preserve the virtues inherent in these forms of government. It seems possible even to speak of an "intermediate" form of government - semi-presidential(or mixed) republic, in which elements characteristic of the classical X forms of government.
There is a strong president elected by the people. He, as a rule, is the head of the executive branch and leads the government. But in the formation of the latter in without fail the parliament takes part (for example, it approves the candidacies of ministers presented by the president). The government must enjoy the confidence of the majority in parliament and must be accountable to parliament. Thus, it is the formation, and to an even greater extent the responsibility of the government, that is the factor that legal science considers key in distinguishing between varieties republican government.
The president may constitutionally have broad powers, but in practice he may not exercise some. In a semi-presidential republic, the independence of the government increases, the importance of the post of head of government increases compared to a presidential republic, where such a position may not exist, or there is a so-called administrative prime minister who only coordinates the activities of sectoral governments.
The form of government in Switzerland is peculiar. The government (Federal Council) is appointed by the parliament (Federal Assembly) and is accountable to it, but the political responsibility of the government to parliament is not provided.
Sometimes it is generally difficult to draw a line between a parliamentary and a presidential republic (Turkey, Sri Lanka, Peru, Russia, Ukraine, etc.). In certain cases, there is essentially new form republics: semi-presidential, semi-parliamentary, with a predominance of features of one or another republic, and sometimes with such features that were not inherent in either a presidential or a parliamentary republic.
The republican form of government is characteristic of modern constitutional states with a democratic political regime, however, two points must be borne in mind.
Firstly, republics existed both in a slave-owning society, and under feudalism, however, on a limited territory: as a rule, these were city-republics.
Secondly, behind an outwardly democratic republican form of government, there may well be an authoritarian political regime.
In a number of countries tropical Africa, where monarchical traditions turned out to be especially strong, such a phenomenon as "monocratic republics". Formally, the separation of powers is proclaimed there, but the president's power is practically unlimited and in reality it differs very little from an absolute monarchy. Power is acquired, as a rule, in an illegitimate way (usurped). next elections of the President, if they are held (for example, in accordance with the Constitution of Malawi, the president is in office for life), are decorative in nature. The president may be the head of the sole political party, and even the creator of the official and only allowed state ideology (for example, Ghana under President Kwame Nkrumah, Guinea under President Sekou Tour, Zaire under President Mobutu, etc.). The change of the president occurs as a result of a military coup or his natural death.
For the same reason - the enormous and virtually unlimited power of the president - many states of Latin America received the names "superpresidential" republics. The so-called "socialist" or "people's democratic" republics that arose after the Second World War were in fact a form of dictatorship of the general secretary and the central committee of the corresponding communist party.
In the conditions of military regimes, it is created presidential-military republic. This, although temporary, is not so rare: since the emergence of independent states in Latin America, Asia, Africa, Oceania, and also, although to a lesser extent, in Europe, there have been about 700 successful military coups. In some countries, this form of government existed for more than 10 years (Algeria, Nigeria, etc.), and in some of them military rule, interspersed with civilian regimes, covered a significant period of existence of an independent state (Nigeria, Pakistan, etc.).
Thus, after considering various forms of government, it is possible to clarify the understanding of the fundamental issues of the organization and activities of the state apparatus. The problem of the form of government is, first of all, the problem of recognizing or not recognizing the separation of powers, the methods of formation and correlation of legislative and executive authorities, the problem of their responsibility to the people.
AT last years there are changes in the theoretical understanding of the form of government, since there are such models of organization of the highest bodies of state power that cannot be attributed with full certainty to one or another group in accordance with traditional classifications. We have already mentioned the difficulties that arise when drawing clear boundaries between absolute and dualistic, between dualistic and parliamentary monarchies, between parliamentary, semi-presidential and presidential republics. In addition, monarchical and republican principles are sometimes combined in the form of government of specific states.
Earlier it was about the election of monarchs in the United United Arab Emirates and Malaysia, and after all, the election (as opposed to inheritance) of the head of state is the most important feature of a republican form of government. There are also republics with presidents for life. At one time, such a situation, characteristic of monarchies, took place, for example, in the Central African Republic, in Tunisia. The functioning of the highest authorities in modern Western constitutional monarchies and in parliamentary republics does not fundamentally differ.
In developed countries, the distinction between monarchy and republic is practically irrelevant; in terms of the degree of democracy in the order of government, the same monarchy of Great Britain differs little from the republic of France. However, in developing countries these differences can be fundamental.
concept "form of government"(or simply “form of government”) answers the question of who “rules” in the state, that is, who exercises the highest (supreme) power in it.
There are two approaches to understanding the form of government: narrow - according to which the form of government means only the position of the head of state, wide - in the form of government, among other things, they also include the political environment. As a result, in legal science, the form of government is understood as something in between.
Form of government represents an outwardly expressed institutional and functional characteristic of the structure of state power, the procedure for its acquisition and implementation, the mechanism of legal restriction and separation of powers.
To features of the form of government should include:
1. The structure of the highest bodies of state power (their composition, competence, principles of interaction);
2. The nature of the relationship of the highest state authorities with other state bodies and with the population;
3. Responsibility of state power;
4. The order of education and change;
5. The degree of participation of the population in the formation.
In jurisprudence, it is customary to consider two forms of government - monarchy and republic.
Monarchy- autocracy (from the Greek "monos" - one and "arche" - power, that is, "monoarchy") - a form of government, according to which the monarch (pharaoh, king, king, sultan, etc.) is the sole head of state uniting all the power in his hands, unlimited in time, passing it on by inheritance, and responsible for his powerful actions before God.
Signs of a monarchical form state government:
1. The existence of an autocratic bearer of supreme state power;
2. The method of transferring power is hereditary;
3. Lifelong possession of power by the monarch;
4. The power of the monarch is acquired "by the grace of God", i.e. comes from God;
5. The monarch is not legally responsible for his actions as the head of state (according to the Military Regulations of Peter I, the sovereign is “an autocratic monarch who should not give an answer to anyone in the world about his affairs”).
AT early XXI century on the globe There are about 30 states with a monarchical form of government, most of which are constitutional. At the same time, there is a global trend to reduce monarchies, while in states that have retained such a device, there is an active restriction of the rights of the monarch.
In the historical aspect Monarchies can be subdivided into ancient oriental - oriental despotism, based on the Asian mode of production (Babylon, India, Egypt), slave antique(for example, the ancient Roman monarchy), feudal(early feudal, class-representative, absolute).
There are also monarchies according to the principles of inheritance of power:
Dynastic monarchy in such a monarchy, a strictly dynastic principle operates, according to which the throne is transferred from father to son, but can also be transferred, for example, from brother to brother. It was invented by Western European feudalism and then spread to other parts of the world, although, perhaps, it developed independently in the countries of Islam.
tribal monarchy much more often than strict succession to the throne, the principle of belonging to the royal family acted in the monarchies. Those. the king had to come from the royal family, but this did not mean at all that he automatically inherited the throne.
Elective monarchy represents the most ancient principle of acquiring royal power - its prototype is the elected military leaders or high priests. Byzantium, for example, was an elective monarchy, as was the Holy Roman Empire. It must be remembered that the people chose not so much the king as the royal family, and these events took place solely because the previous dynasty was interrupted.
From the point of view of the completeness of the power of the monarch, the following types of monarchy can be distinguished: unlimited and limited. At the same time, traditionally, unrestricted absolute. In our opinion, the identification of unlimited and absolute monarchies is erroneous. First, as a form of government, absolute monarchies arise as a result of tendencies that have intensified as a result of the crisis of feudal relations towards a centralized, unified system of state power. This means that as a legal phenomenon, absolutism arose relatively recently, in the 16th-17th centuries. (But monarchies have existed since much earlier times). Secondly, absolute monarchies (such as the absolutism that existed in Russia in the 17th century) symbolized, first of all, not the “omnipotence” of the sovereign (this is just more characteristic of the early, primitive forms of monarchical statehood - Eastern despotisms), but rather the unity and strength states. By the way, the powers of the monarch himself in the conditions of an absolute monarchy (especially in economic sphere) were often quite severely limited. It appears that unlimited can be considered monarchies in which the sources of the highest state power are individually defined individuals. With such an approach, the already mentioned ancient monarchies (Eastern despotisms), which were characterized by social structure, headed by the monarch (pharaoh) and included slaves as objects of control. At the same time, the place of a slave in the social hierarchy and his very life depended entirely on the will of the pharaoh. In addition, unlimited monarchies may include different kinds theocracies, in which the monarch combines the powers of the head of the secular and spiritual authorities. As a form of unlimited monarchy, theocracies have survived up to the present time in a number of Arabian states (Bahrain, Oman).
AT limited monarchies the power of the monarch is limited by an elected body - parliament or a special legal act- the constitution. In most limited monarchies, there is a combination of both ways of limiting the power of the monarch - the constitution and parliament. Monarchies limited in this way are called constitutional (parliamentary) and dualistic.
Constitutional (parliamentary) monarchy characterized by the following main features:
1. The government is formed from representatives of parties that have received a majority in parliamentary elections;
2. The leader of the party that has received the majority of deputy mandates becomes the head of government;
3. The power of the monarch is symbolic, he "reigns", but does not rule;
4. The government is accountable in its activities to the parliament.
As one of the signs of a parliamentary monarchy, one can name the adoption of legislative acts by the parliament and their signing by the monarch. However, in our opinion, this prerogative of the monarch, like most of his other powers, is of a formal nature. Due to established political practice and constitutional customs, the monarch, as a rule, does not refuse to sign bills adopted by parliament. In this regard, it would be more appropriate to attribute to the number of features of this form of government the presence of the institute of countersignature, suggesting that the signature of the monarch on the document is symbolic. The monarch, as a formal head of state, only confirms a document already signed by an authorized official who led the preparation of this document and bears full responsibility for it.
Most monarchical states are currently constitutional (parliamentary) monarchies: Great Britain, Spain, Denmark, the Netherlands, Belgium, Sweden, Japan, Thailand, etc. It should be borne in mind that, in accordance with the constitutions of these countries, the functional powers of monarchs as heads States are different in socio-political significance. For example, monarchs in Japan, Sweden, Norway and some other countries are deprived of any independent powers, remaining in most cases only a symbol of the unity of the nation. In other countries, the monarch not only formally certifies the fact of the appointment of the government, but also plays a certain independent role, for example, by appointing the shaper of the government (Spain). Moreover, if the formator's attempt to form a government fails, the monarch can replace him with another candidate. The “strengthened” status of the monarch is characteristic of those countries where several parties are represented in parliament, none of which has an absolute majority, or the parties cannot form a majority coalition. Under such conditions, the monarch can create a short-term minority government, the purpose of which is only to organize the election of a new parliament.
It is also quite reasonable, in our opinion, to single out dualistic monarchy as the original form of a limited (constitutional) monarchy. This form of government is characterized the following signs:
1. Along with the legal and de facto independence of the monarch, there are representative bodies with legislative and control functions (parliament);
2. Executive power belongs to the monarch, who exercises it directly or through a government accountable to him;
3. The monarch, although he does not legislate, is endowed with the right of an absolute veto, that is, he has the right to approve or not approve laws adopted by representative bodies.
Dualistic monarchies were, for example, Germany in the period from 1871 to 1918 and Japan from late XIX in. to 1945. There are no classical dualistic monarchies at present, although since certain share conventions, modern monarchies in Jordan, Morocco, and Nepal can be classified as dualistic.
The monarchy is a very flexible and viable form of state government, with a centuries-old history and traditions, undoubtedly having a number of both negative and positive qualities that have not lost their significance for the present. Monarchist sentiments are not alien and modern Russia. On its territory there are various public organizations that position themselves as monarchist and call for its restoration within the entire state.
Republic(from Latin "res publica" - a public affair, nationwide) - a form of state government in which the highest state power is exercised collectively by elected bodies elected by the population for a certain period.
The republic is characterized the following signs:
1. Election of the highest bodies of state power and their collegial (collective) nature;
2. The presence of an elected head of state;
3. Election of bodies of supreme state power for a certain period;
4. The derivative of state power from the sovereignty of the people: "respublica est res populi" ("the state is a matter of the whole people");
5. Legal responsibility of the head of state for decisions made;
6. The possibility of early termination of power.
As modern forms republican government are considered presidential and parliamentary republics.
Presidential republics(USA, Argentina, Mexico, Philippines, etc.) are characterized by the concentration of the greatest amount of power in the head of state - the president.
Signs of a presidential republic:
- the president is elected by popular vote and is thus independent of parliament;
- the president either directly heads the executive branch and forms the government, or appoints the chairman of the government (prime minister) and approves the composition of the government presented by the prime minister;
- the government is responsible to the president and acts during the presidential term;
- the president has the sole right to dismiss the government;
- Relations between the president and parliament are built on the principle of separation of powers and are based on a system of checks and balances.
parliamentary republics(Italy, Germany, Finland, Turkey, Hungary, India, etc.) are characterized by a strong legislative power (concentration of the greatest powers in the parliament) and subordination to the executive power. As a rule, in a parliamentary republic, the president does not have the right to veto laws, the right to hold a referendum, or to introduce a state of emergency.
Signs of a parliamentary republic:
- the president is elected from among the members of parliament or by a special parliamentary commission, as in Germany, for example;
- the government is formed from members of parliament and is headed by the leader of the party of the parliamentary majority;
- the government is responsible to parliament and acts during the term of parliament;
- in the event of a declaration of “no confidence in the government” by the parliament, the president is obliged to decide on the resignation of the government;
- The actions and decisions of the president must be coordinated with the government.
The legal literature notes both the advantages and disadvantages of both types of republics. The advantages of a presidential republic usually include its stability and greater efficiency, since the president, having broad powers, largely determines the policy of the state, and managerial influence is more targeted, since it comes from the center. The main disadvantage of such a republic is the excessive concentration of power in the hands of one person - the president, and hence the possibility of its abuse, which can lead to a cult of personality and the transformation of the republic into a super-presidential one, when representative bodies practically lose their significance.
A parliamentary republic is considered more democratic, since the government is formed by a collegial body - parliament, and not by one person, as in a presidential republic, therefore there are no objective prerequisites for the concentration of power in one hand. The main disadvantage of a parliamentary republic is that with a multi-party system and government appointments, frequent government crises are possible.
Some states use a form of government in the form mixed republic with elements of presidential and parliamentary republics. Such a republic is distinguished by the fact that, along with a strong president, who can simultaneously be the head of government, the parliament also participates in the formation of the government, for example, approves the candidacies of ministers presented by the president. At the same time, the government is responsible both to the president and to the parliament.
The history of the formation of the republican form of government also knows its varieties, such as democratic(Athenian Democratic Republic) and aristocratic(Spartan, Roman). There were feudal city-republics, which, as a result of strengthening their power, moved from city self-government to the sovereignty of the state. Such city-republics were Florence, Venice, Genoa - in Italy, Novgorod and Pskov - in Russia. Free cities were also in Germany, France, England.
The form of government of a totalitarian state is called a "perverted form of a republic" or a "partocratic" republic, which has all the features of a totalitarian organization.
Form of government- this is an element of the form of the state, characterizing the organization of the supreme state power, the procedure for the formation of its bodies and their relationship with the population. Depending on the position of the head of state, forms of government are divided into monarchies and republics.
Monarchy
Monarchy is a form of government where the supreme state power belongs to the sole head of state - the monarch, who occupies the throne by inheritance and is not responsible to the population.
Distinctive features of the monarchy:
The sole head of state is the monarch, who receives his power by inheritance;
The monarch is legally irresponsible (it is impossible to remove the monarch from power).
Types of monarchies:
Absolute monarchy (unlimited)- a state in which the monarch is the only supreme body in the country and all the fullness of state power is concentrated in his hands (Saudi Arabia, Oman). A special variety is the theocratic monarchy (Vatican).
Limited monarchy- a state in which, in addition to the monarch, there are other bodies of state power that are not accountable to him, and state power is dispersed among all the highest authorities, the power of the monarch is limited on the basis of a special act (Constitution) or tradition. In turn, the limited monarchy is divided into:
A class-representative monarchy is a monarchy in which the power of the monarch is limited on the basis of the tradition of forming bodies according to the criterion of belonging to a certain class (Zemsky Sobor in Russia, the Cortes in Spain) and playing the role, as a rule, of an advisory body. There are currently no such monarchies in the world.
A constitutional monarchy is a monarchy in which the power of the monarch is limited on the basis of a special act (Constitution), where there is another supreme body of power formed by elections of representatives of the people (parliament). In its turn a constitutional monarchy divided by:
A dualistic monarchy is a state in which the monarch has full executive power, and also has some legislative and judicial powers. A representative body in such a state exists and performs legislative functions, but the monarch can impose an absolute veto on the adopted acts and, at his discretion, dissolve the representative body (Jordan, Morocco).
A parliamentary monarchy is a state in which the monarch is only a tribute to tradition and does not have any significant powers. The state structure in such a monarchy is based on the principle of separation of powers (Great Britain, Japan, Denmark).
Republic
Republic - a form of government in which the highest bodies of state power are elected by the people, or formed by special representative institutions for a certain period and are fully responsible to the voters.
Distinctive features of the republican form of government:
There are always several higher authorities, while the powers between them are divided in such a way that one body is independent of the other (the principle of separation of powers);
The head of state is the President, who exercises his power on behalf of the people;
The highest authorities and officials are responsible to the population, which can be expressed in the following:
they are elected for a fixed term, after which their powers may not be renewed;
possible early termination.
Types of republics:
Republics differ mainly in which of the authorities - parliament or the president - forms the government and directs its work, as well as to which of these governments is responsible.
A presidential republic is a state in which, along with parliamentarism, the powers of the head of state and head of government are simultaneously combined in the hands of the president. The government is formed and dissolved directly by the president himself, while the parliament cannot exert any significant influence on the government - here the principle of separation of powers is most fully revealed (USA, Ecuador).
A parliamentary republic is a state in which the supreme role in organizing public life belongs to the parliament. Parliament forms the government and has the right to dismiss it at any time. The president in such a state does not have any significant powers (Israel, Greece, Germany).
A mixed republic - in states with this form of government, strong presidential power is simultaneously combined with the presence of effective measures to control the parliament over the activities of the executive branch in the face of the government, which is formed by the president with the obligatory participation of the parliament. Thus, the government is simultaneously responsible to both the president and the country's parliament (Ukraine, Portugal, France).
