political power in modern world. This government is based on the idea that the original source of power is the people, and therefore they have the right and should take part in the government. Such management is implemented through the system of election by the population, directly or indirectly, of all authorities: the president, parliament, cabinet of ministers, representatives of the judiciary. This election takes place regular basis, and in its course the organs of government are constantly changing.

Features of the device in the world

Thus, the republican form of government implies that any apparatus of power in the country in its actions meets the interests of the broad masses of the population and is their chosen one directly or indirectly.

For example, the cabinet of ministers is formed by the elected president. In addition, in the modern world, the republican form of government implies the mandatory separation of the branches of power. Usually there are three of them: executive, legislative and judicial. But there are exceptions. Thus, in China there are still constituent, electoral, legal, examination and control branches. Similar authorities designed to exercise additional control exist in some European countries.

Origin and history of the republic

This form of political power existed in the ancient world. For the first time it was outlined in the ancient Greek city-states and the Roman state of the times of his early history. At the same time, even then the republican form of government demonstrated in practice that it can be different.

In this case, we are talking about variants of a democratic republic (in which the government was elected by a popular assembly), as in Greece, and an aristocratic one. An example of the latter is the Roman Republic, where the social stratum of wealthy patricians ruled the ball. The poor (plebeians) did not have much managerial leverage. The ancient republics differed greatly from the modern ones in that the concept of law absolutely did not extend to the numerous stratum of slaves. Although the latter were the production basis of all ancient states. With the death of the ancient world and the formation of barbarian kingdoms, feudalism came to Europe, expressed by the monarchy. This system of political power has taken root almost throughout the continent, although there have been exceptions. Thus, an aristocratic republican form of government existed in Russia during the times of fragmentation (Pskov and Novgorod republics), republics in Venice, Genoa, Bremen. The Zaporozhian Sich is also called the Cossack Republic. However, a full-fledged revival of this form of government took place already in the 18th - 19th centuries, when, under the influence of the enlightening ideas of Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau and other ideologists of the social contract, monarchies began to be overthrown one after another and regimes of democracy were established. The last two centuries have become a turbulent era of more and more expanding human and civil rights for different categories of the population.

Modern countries with a republican form of government

As already noted, in today's world this is the most popular form of political power. It first gained popularity in Europe and North America and later spread all over the world. By and large, there are three types of republics: presidential, parliamentary and mixed. They differ in the balance of powers between the two authorities. So, for example, the republican form of government in the Russian Federation has a presidential character, since it is the head of state who forms the government. In Italy, on the contrary, the president is himself elected by the parliament, which thus becomes the key body in the country.

As a sovereign country, Russia sets its own form of government on its own. Thus, the organization of state authorities, as well as the procedure for their activities, is determined.

The republican form of government in the Russian Federation is established by the Constitution. At the same time, the main feature of such a state structure is considered to be the turnover and election of the head of the country. This is where the republican form of government differs from the monarchy. With the latter, as you know, more often inherits power.

In Russia, the republican form of government provides for the rejection of any continuous or independent holding of power, which will be based on individual law. At the same time, the political system is guided by experience and intelligence, and not by achievement. ideal target which, as a rule, leads to the establishment of totalitarianism. Republican also provides for the formation of state bodies in accordance with the coordination of the interests of public administration with the steadfastness of civil freedom. The creation of governing bodies is carried out for a certain (limited) period through free elections.

The republican form of government provides for a democratic system. At the same time, democracy (as equal freedom for all) is an addition to the specified system of government in the country. In turn, the republic in every possible way supports the rise and development of this equal freedom for all, contributing to the even distribution of social benefits. At the same time, equal elections, access to education, public office and other things are ensured.

There are two presidential and parliamentary.

The main political difference of the first is the concentration of powers of both the head of government and the head of the country in the hands of the President. Other features of this form of government include an extra-parliamentary method of choosing the head of the country. In this case, indirect or direct elections are used. In addition, the presidential republic provides for an extra-parliamentary method of creating a government.

The system of higher state bodies under the parliamentary system of government is based on the principle of parliamentary dominance. In doing so, the government bears a collective responsibility to it. The government has power as long as it has a parliamentary majority.

Some modern countries with a republican form of government also have some features of the presidential system. Such states, in particular, include modern Russia. The combination of features of the two systems of government is reflected in the presence of the powerful power of the president, while maintaining the typical features of parliamentarism.

Since the beginning of the formation of the constitutional system, Russia has sought to strengthen the features of the presidential republic. At the same time, having as a result a presidential character, the public administration system retains certain external characteristics of a parliamentary country.

Today, the Russian Federation has a presidential-parliamentary or (as some sources call it) a semi-presidential form of government. The president is elected by popular vote. He has his own prerogatives that allow him to act independently of the government. At the same time, there is a government that is formed by ministers, has a chairman and is responsible to some extent to the parliament.

A republic is a form of government in which the supreme state power is exercised by elected bodies elected directly or indirectly by the population for a fixed term.

Signs of the republic:

· At the head of the state is the president and a collegial representative body (parliament).

· The urgency of state power. Election and turnover of the highest bodies of the state. Thus, state power is formed directly by the population (voters).

· Possibility of bringing to political and legal responsibility the highest officials of the state.

· The division of state power into judicial, legislative and executive, including mutual control or, as the term is often used, "checks and balances" and the interaction of all branches of government.

Types of republics.

Presidential republic. It is characterized by the combination in the hands of the president of the powers of the head of state and the head of government. The formal sign of a presidential republic is the absence of the post of prime minister, since the president himself directly heads the executive branch. The president forms the government and is the supreme commander in chief. Both the parliament and the president are directly elected by the people. It should be noted the significant independence, isolation of the government and parliament from each other. The government is not politically accountable to parliament. Parliament cannot express no confidence in the president. The president, in turn, has no right to dissolve parliament. The President has the right to veto laws passed by Parliament. Examples of a presidential republic are the USA, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina.

parliamentary republic. In this version of the republic, the president is the head of state with representative functions and formal powers. Executive power is exercised by the government headed by the prime minister. The prime minister is appointed by the president from among the ruling party or party coalition, which has a majority of votes in parliament. A parliamentary republic is characterized by indirect parliamentary elections of the president and a certain supremacy of the parliament in the political life of the state, due to the party nature of government. The parliament elects the president, forms the government and exercises control over its activities. Parliament has the right to express no confidence in the government and dismiss it in its entirety or individual ministers. The president, in turn, always acts on the consent of the government. Acts issued by him come into legal force after their approval by the government or parliament. Examples of a parliamentary republic - Austria, Germany, Switzerland, Italy, Israel, Turkey, India, Finland, Greece.

mixed republic characterized by a combination of different elements. In it, as institutions of state power, there are simultaneously a president with real powers, and a government, and parliament. Power functions in various proportions are divided between them. Examples are France, Russia, Yugoslavia.

At present, there is a tendency for convergence of various forms of government.

Republic(lat. state, public affair) is a form of government in which the head of state is elected and replaceable, and his power is considered to be derived from voters or a representative body.

Signs of the republic:

1. 1. elective power;
   2. limited term of office;
   3. dependence on voters.

Types of republics:

The provision contained in Art. one, Russian constitution makes a clear choice from two forms of government known to the modern state: the republic and the monarchy. The Russian Federation was proclaimed a republic, which means that the head of state is elected. However, having made this primary choice, the Constitution did not go further and did not determine the type of republican form of government. Meanwhile, three types of republic are known to the world constitutional theory and practice:

• • parliamentary;
  • presidential;
  • semi-presidential.

In a parliamentary republic the head of state (president) is elected by the parliament, and the leader of the party that wins the election becomes head of government. Parliament exercises control over the government. If the Parliament passes a vote of no confidence, the Government automatically resigns (or the Prime Minister raises the issue of dissolving Parliament and calling new elections). Ministers are appointed from among the members of Parliament and retain their seats in it. Examples: Italy, Germany.

In a presidential republic the head of state (president) is elected by the population () and forms a government himself, which is accountable only to him. Parliament has no right to pass a vote of no confidence. The President does not have the dissolution of Parliament. Ministers cannot be members of Parliament at the same time. Examples: USA, Mexico.

In a semi-presidential republic the head of state (president) is elected by the population (citizens) and himself forms the government, which is accountable to him. Parliament has the right to express distrust (reproach) to the government, but the issue of resignation is decided by the president. The President has the right to dissolve the Parliament. Ministers are not members of Parliament. The government has the right to put pressure on the parliament, but the parliament retains elements of control over the government. Example: France.

Close to this form of government is the so-called parliamentary-presidential republic (Ukraine), in which powers are divided between the president and parliament, but the parliament plays a more significant role, including in the formation of the government.

These are the most common various kinds republican form of government, which varies in different ways even in the countries given as examples within the same form of government. Features are characteristic of almost every country, since no one wants, and cannot, due to circumstances, blindly copy the model of another country. But if we try to compare the current Russian uniform board with the above, it will become clear that this is more of a semi-presidential republic, but with broader powers of the president.

A note on the possibility of restoring the monarchy in Russia

Consider the question of the possibility of restoring the monarchy in Russia. AT modern Russia there are political movements advocating the restoration of the monarchy. What are the legal arguments for or against the position of the monarchists?

On March 2, 1917, Emperor Nicholas II abdicated and resigned his supreme power. However, he did not transfer her law to his heir, Tsarevich Alexei, explaining this by his unwillingness to part with his son, but announced the transfer of the heritage to his brother, Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich, and blessed him to ascend the throne of the Russian state. But on March 3, the Grand Duke refused to accept the supreme power, declaring his decision “in that case, to accept, if such is the case with our great people, who should by popular vote through their representatives in the Constituent Assembly establish the form of government and the new basic laws of the state of Ros -Sian".

The Provisional Government prepared the Regulations on the elections to the Constituent Assembly, approved on September 23, 1917, but on September 1 it proclaimed the Russian Republic, for which, of course, it had no legitimate authority (the State Duma did not actually work). As for the October coup and the establishment of Soviet power in the form of a republic of Soviets, the monarchists, not without reason, note that the legitimacy of all the constitutional provisions of this period is more than doubtful, since the Bolsheviks dispersed the Constituent Assembly, which, however, the first day of his work managed to pro-proclaim Russia a republic. And although no free elections were held later in the country (until 1989), the 1993 referendum and the approval of the Constitution with a republican form of government can be considered a legitimate end to the dispute over the fate of the monarchy in Russia. To challenge this conclusion, monarchists have to find evidence in favor of the illegitimacy of the Constitution of the Russian Federation itself and presidential power, although the latter was again established by an all-Russian referendum (1990) and repeatedly confirmed by presidential elections.

1.1 The concept of the form of government of the state

The form of government means the organization of the supreme state power, in particular its higher and central bodies, the structure, competence, the procedure for the formation of these bodies, the duration of their powers, relations with the population, the degree of participation of the latter in their formation. The form of government is the leading element in the form of the state, interpreted in a broad sense.

At one time, Aristotle distinguished between forms of government depending on whether sovereignty individually (monarchy), a limited number of persons (aristocracy), the entire population (democracy).

This criterion has remained up to the present time: the forms of government differ depending on whether the supreme power is exercised by one person or belongs to an elected collegial body. In this regard, they distinguish between monarchical and republican forms of government.

A monarchy can be called such a state where the supreme power belongs to one person who uses it at his own discretion, by right that is not delegated to him by any other power, while in a republic it is always delegated to one or several persons for a certain period by all the people or part of it, to which sovereignty belongs. This provision characterizes the modern monarchy, however, over the course of many centuries, the historical experience of many states has given rise to big variety monarchies, which are difficult to cover with a single, verified formula. The term "monarchy" of Greek origin means "autocracy", "monocracy", although exceptions are known. one

Unlike a monarchy, under a republican form of government, the sole source of power under the law is the popular majority. The very origin of the term "republic" is connected with the people. “Respublica est res populi,” Cicero emphasized, considering the state “the cause of the people.” In the republic, power is exercised by representative bodies elected by the people for a fixed term. Parliamentary republics and presidential republics are known.

The choice of government is influenced by a number of factors, but the long-term interests of the stability of the state, and not momentary political problems and this or that alignment of forces, should be decisive here. The advantage of a parliamentary republic is the unity of the highest echelons of executive power, since the head of the executive branch (prime minister) and his cabinet are appointed and controlled by the parliament, more precisely, by the parliamentary majority. As long as the government has the support of the majority of legislators, it performs its functions, not excluding the submission of bills. With the loss of the parliamentary majority, the government resigns. With all the variations that exist in parliamentary republics, the president plays a minor role; the executive power is, in fact, a continuation of the legislative, and thus the possible conflict between the two branches of power is minimized. one

The shortcomings of a parliamentary republic come down, firstly, to the extreme fragmentation of the party system, which dooms the parliamentary coalition to similar fragmentation, and the government to instability. With the underdevelopment of the party system, even extremist (small) parties may be part of the parliamentary coalition of the majority. This can become no less pernicious than the impasse in the relationship between the executive and legislative branches. 2

Secondly, the threat of tyranny, which a simple parliamentary majority is able to create, that is, may turn out to be quite real. the effectiveness and stability of parliamentary forms of government depend on the nature of the political parties competing for seats in parliament. The fate of the parties and the structure of the party system are to a large extent determined by the way the legislators are elected, i.e. majoritarian or proportional systems. one

The presidential republic as a form of government is characterized primarily by the fact that the elected head of state is also the head of the government, which he appoints in a number of countries with the consent of parliament and which he can dissolve. The advantage of the presidential form of government lies primarily in the fact that the popularly elected president is the focus of national aspirations, acts as a symbol of the nation, a symbol of citizens belonging to a single state. This form gives authority to one person who can exercise leadership in an emergency. It is no coincidence that when faced with one or another complex problem, some countries (for example, France in the 1950s) emphasize the importance of the presidency. The presidential system of government, in principle, provides a greater degree of political stability than the parliamentary one, since the government (president) is elected for a fixed term, determined by the constitution. The presidential form of government, in turn, is not perfect. First, unlike the parliamentary form of government, it is fraught with the possibility of friction in the relationship between the executive and legislative branches of government and provoking a constitutional crisis. The probability of the latter increases especially if the president and the parliamentary majority belong to different parties or political currents. Assumptions that the president is constantly above the party struggle and the politicking of the lobbyists may not be well founded. In other words, the choice between parliamentary and presidential forms of government may mean a choice between a single but unstable leadership and a stable leadership that is fraught with conflict between the two powers.

Secondly, there is hardly any best way election of the president. Each of them has its strengths and weak sides. Minority demands and the introduction of proportional representation under the presidential system are not so important, if only because of the decline in the influence of parliament. The method of presidential elections takes the first place in importance. Direct elections seem to be the simplest and most democratic. But there are varieties of direct elections, when the choice of ways to conduct them does not always depend on the president. The presidency can become highly dependent on the legislative branch, which can determine many things, such as the procedure for re-election of the president for a second term in an extremely complicated manner. one

In the specifics of the political life of a country, taking into account one or another correlation of political forces, established traditions or reforms being introduced, mixed or intermediate (between a presidential republic and a parliamentary republic) forms of government are possible. 2

Theorists of mixed forms of government are driven by the idea of ​​strengthening statehood by eliminating government crises, frequent changes of governments for reasons of political conjuncture, optimizing ways of organizing and interrelating with the highest bodies of state power, central and local authorities. These problems can be especially acute in newly formed states that have emerged as a result of integration and disintegration processes. However, the commendable desire to concentrate in a "hybrid", mixed form, only positive features traditional forms of government and avoid their shortcomings is not always embodied in a new organic quality. Such an important advantage of the presidential form of government as the strength of the constitutional position of the government, which cannot be dismissed by parliament due to the struggle of parliamentary factions in a mixed, "semi-presidential" republic, is largely lost due to the strengthening of the controlling powers of the highest legislative representative body of power. In turn, the undoubted advantage of a parliamentary republic is the responsibility of the government to parliament, its obligation to take into account the emerging balance of political forces in its policy, public opinion is practically reduced to nothing in such an “atypical” form of government as a “semi-parliamentary” republic. In the latter case, an increase in the president's powers entails an almost automatic decrease in the role of the representative institution of power. Something similar happens with the legislative introduction of a limitation on the vote of no confidence in the government in parliamentary republics, or when establishing the responsibility of individual ministers to parliament in presidential forms of government.

1.2. The concept and essence of the republican form of government

Unlike a monarchy, under a republican form of government, the only source of power under the law is the popular majority. The very origin of the term republic (from the Latin res publica - a public affair) is a form of government that is characterized by the election of the head of state, usually called the president.

The republican form of government was used in the ancient world (for example, a democratic republic in Athens and an aristocratic one in Rome), many cities of the state were republics in the Middle Ages (Dubrovnik in Yugoslavia, Bremen in Germany). But this form was most widely used in modern times, after the victory of the bourgeois revolutions. The first republic associated with such revolutions was the United States. one

The republic is the most democratic form of government, because it assumes that the powers of any branch of government, any supreme body, including the head of state, are ultimately based on the mandate of the people. But it should be emphasized that this conclusion is correct only under otherwise equal conditions.

The Republic is also a rather ancient form of government. It is found in slave-owning (Athens, Sparta, Rome) and feudal (Venice, Genoa, Novgorod, Pskov, etc.) states, but it became most widespread in modern times. Already in the first Mesopotamian city-states (4th-3rd centuries BC), as later in the ancient Greek policies, power had a complex structure. And in this structure, the supremacy of power often remained with the democratic body - the assembly and the council. At the same time, all full-fledged citizens, all citizens of the city-state, who made the main decisions, elected the council to conduct current state affairs, participated in the meeting. Foreigners and slaves, as a rule, were excluded from participation in state administration.

Military leaders, leaders of squads carried out the decisions of the meeting, were in the service of the council. Republican government is sometimes based on the principle of dividing the unified state power into a number of powers: legislative, executive and judicial. This means that different organs of the state are entrusted with performing different functions in the administration of the state. Parliament (People's Assembly, National Assembly, Duma, Supreme Council, Congress, etc.) is instructed to pass laws. The government and its bodies (executive-administrative bodies) - to implement laws, to organize their implementation. Judicial bodies - to exercise control over the implementation of laws, to hold accountable for their violation, etc. one

In other words, organs republican government are endowed with different powers and spheres of activity (competence) for the implementation of a unified state power. Despite the separation of powers, all republican bodies are called upon to exercise a unified state power in a coordinated, systematic, organized manner and cannot function without each other.

Consequently, the separation of powers allows, firstly, to better solve the tasks assigned to each of the authorities, secondly, to prevent the abuse of power, which becomes very likely under the monopoly of power, and thirdly, to exercise control over the actions of state bodies.

Historically, the United States (1787) and France (1792) became the first republics.

The fact that in the period of bourgeois and national liberation revolutions the preference was in most cases given to the republic over the monarchy, as well as the fact that modern model monarchical form of government has acquired many features of the republican, testifies to the effectiveness of the latter. At the same time, it must be borne in mind that a pseudo-republican state structure is possible, which, while maintaining the external forms inherent in the republic, is characterized by the illegitimacy of power. For example, fascist Germany in the second half of the 1930s - mid-1940s, modern monocratic republics in some countries of Latin America.

The republic also differs greatly from the monarchy in the field of education of government bodies. In essence, a republic is a form of government in which all the highest bodies of state power are elected by the people or formed by a nationwide representative institution. Different countries have different electoral systems, but the fact remains unchanged that the people, one way or another, necessarily participate in the formation of state authorities.

In the Republic, government bodies are elected for a fixed term. Most countries set an additional limit on how many times one can be elected to a particular office. Thus, the principle of turnover is being implemented in the republic.

Officials in the republic are responsible. Of course, it is primarily political in nature and can be expressed in such actions as early recall, resignation, dissolution of parliament, removal from office, and so on. it is precisely the clear distribution of competence between state bodies that makes it possible to establish in which part of the state mechanism a failure occurred and where one or another official needs to be replaced. In modern states, this form of government is predominant.

The republican form of government has the following main features. First, the highest state power in the republic always belongs to elected bodies. Secondly, the head of state is either an elected person or an elected body. The monarch, as such, is absent. Thirdly, the elected bodies that hold the supreme state power, including the head of state, are elected for a fixed term and are replaceable. The lifelong head of state, which is found in some republics, is generally not characteristic of a republican form of government and introduces elements of a monarchy into it. Fourthly, the elected bodies, which own the supreme state power, exercise power not at their own discretion, but in the interests of the population of the country or any social groups. And, fifthly, the republican form of government presupposes the responsibility of the elected bodies exercising the highest power in the state to their constituents. one Common features republican forms of government are:

– the existence of a sole and collegiate head of state;

- election for a certain period of the head of state and other supreme bodies of state power;

- the exercise of state power not at its own behest, but on behalf of the people;

- legal responsibility of the head of state in cases provided for by law;

- binding decisions of the supreme state power.

The existence of a sole head of state is expressed in the presence of the post of president, and collegiality is manifested in the presence of three branches of power: legislative, executive and judicial. With this system of organization of power, a system of checks and balances is implemented, which is the basis of the rule of law.

Electiveness for a certain period of the head of state and other supreme bodies of state power for a certain period is expressed in the fact that these bodies are elected by direct popular vote and exercise their powers within a certain period established by the Constitution.

Now many legal scholars are raising the issue that, in particular, in Russia there is a distortion of this principle on the part of the judicial branch of power, which is expressed in the fact that judges are practically not controlled by anyone. The State Duma has repeatedly raised the issue of reviewing the status of judges. Perhaps it would be expedient to introduce into the Russian Constitution the institution of the election of judges and to limit the term for the exercise of their powers. one

The exercise of state power not at its own behest, but on behalf of the people, is expressed in the rule of law, the subordination of all state authorities to the law, the principle of the functioning of state power not for the interests of the state power itself, but in the interests of the people.

The legal responsibility of the head of state in cases provided for by law is expressed in the fact that if there are signs of a crime in the acts of the head of state, he must be held accountable, but before that he is dismissed from office. To implement this provision in the constitutions there is an institution of impeachment.

The binding nature of the decisions of the supreme state power is expressed in the fact that this power acts in accordance with the law and obeys the law. Thus, the Constitution of Russia stipulates that federal laws, presidential decrees, and government decrees are valid throughout Russia and are subject to mandatory execution.

The republican form of government in its final form was formed in the Athenian state. As social life developed, it changed, acquired new features, and became more and more filled with democratic content.

There are other, distorted forms of the republic, when the president is not elected by the citizens, but is proclaimed as such by a military or revolutionary council after a coup d'état, when the president is proclaimed president for life, etc.

It is customary to divide republics into presidential (for example, the United States) and parliamentary (for example, India). The first of these forms has received special distribution. Until the 1990s, there were no parliamentary republics in Africa, and there are none in Latin America either. In the classical literature on constitutional law, there are 3 main types of republican form of government: presidential, parliamentary and mixed. one

2. MAIN TYPES OF THE REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT

2.1 Presidential republic

Parliamentary and presidential republics are known.
The presidential (dualistic) republic is somewhat reminiscent of a dualistic monarchy, however, it has very significant differences from it.
First of all, the principle of separation of powers is most consistently carried out here, and the relationship between the branches of power is built on the basis of the principle of the so-called "checks and balances".

Both the legislative branch and the executive branch in a presidential republic receive their mandate directly from the people. The head of the executive branch is the president elected by the people, who combines these functions with those of the head of state. There is no government as a collegial body; each minister is individually subordinate to the president. Judges, like the highest officials of the executive branch, are appointed by the president with the consent of the upper house of parliament, which proceeds not from the political face of the candidates, but from their competence and moral qualities. The president can remove ministers and other executive officials appointed by him: he cannot be forced to work with those with whom he cannot and does not want to work. one

The main feature of this form of government is the lack of responsibility of the executive branch to parliament for the policy pursued. Parliament cannot remove its officials unless they have broken the law. For their activities, they do not need the political trust of Parliament. Therefore, in presidential republics there is often a situation characterized by the fact that the president belongs to one party, and the majority in parliament belongs to another. Nevertheless, they are compelled to cooperate, since neither branch of government can constitutionally eliminate the other (the removal of executive and judicial officials by parliament through the so-called impeachment can only take place if serious offenses have been committed by these persons).

The presidential republic is one of the varieties modern form state government, which, along with parliamentarism, combines the powers of the head of state and head of government in the hands of the president.

The presidential form of government is characterized by the following features:

1) the combination in the hands of the president of the powers of the head of state and head of government;

2) extra-parliamentary method of electing the president;

3) non-parliamentary method of government formation and the absence of the institution of parliamentary responsibility;

4) the president does not have the right to dissolve parliament;

5) formal distinctive feature presidential republic is the absence of the post of prime minister. one

The most characteristic features of a presidential republic include:

- extra-parliamentary method of electing the president and forming the government;

- the responsibility of the government to the president, and not to the parliament;

- broader than in a parliamentary republic, the powers of the head of state.

In a presidential republic, the president is the head of state and the head of the executive branch, as a rule, is elected independently of parliament (for example, in Mexico by direct vote of voters, in the United States - by indirect). In a classical presidential republic, there is no prime minister.

The classical presidential republic is the United States of America. The US Constitution, namely Article IV, states the following: "The United States guarantees to every state in this Union a republican form of government." The republican form of government in the United States was realized in the form of a presidential republic: the president of the republic is the head of state and government; the government is not accountable to Congress; The President does not have the power to dissolve the Houses of Congress.

All established powers of the legislative branch are vested in the United States Congress, which consists of the Senate and the House of Representatives. But the constitution does not speak of the legislature in general, but only of the powers of the legislature specified in the constitution itself. Consequently, Congress has limited legislative powers. This is due to the fact that in the United States there are another 50 state legislatures that legislate in accordance with their powers.

Executive power is exercised by the President, his powers are very voluminous. In his direct subordination is the entire state administration apparatus: ministers, heads of numerous departments, he directly supervises the huge executive apparatus. The president of the republic and the executive state apparatus form the presidential power in the United States. The president forms the administration, the cabinet of ministers, and the executive boards. The Cabinet of Ministers is an advisory body, the President is not obliged to follow its advice. The Cabinet of Ministers does not adopt any government acts.

The president appoints ministers, as, for example, in the USA or Brazil, and in this case there is no government separate from the president, the ministers make up the president's cabinet, his administration, where the ministers have only an advisory vote (they, of course, exercise executive power delegated to them by the president) . This means that the cabinet is formed by the party (very rarely, a bloc of parties) that wins presidential rather than parliamentary elections, and the president is the leader of the ruling party, although in many countries, once elected, he resigns his party duties and acts as "non-partisan" figure. The president is free to select ministers and does it at his own discretion (in Nigeria, the United States and some other countries, however, the appointment of ministers requires the consent of the upper house of parliament - the senate). As a rule, ministers are responsible for their activities only to the president and cannot be dismissed by a vote of no confidence in parliament. one

As already mentioned, in most presidential republics there is no special position of prime minister, it is the president. If in a presidential republic there is a post of prime minister (Egypt, Peru, Syria, etc.; sometimes it is provided for by constitutions, but may not be mentioned by them, and in many countries of Asia and Africa it was either introduced or abolished), then this is the so-called administrative premier. Legally, he heads the government, but in reality the policy of the government is determined by the president, under whose leadership the official meetings of the council of ministers are held, where the most important issues are decided (less important issues are decided under the chairmanship of the administrative prime minister).

Checks and balances are manifested, in particular, in the fact that the president can slow down the legislative activity of parliament by imposing a suspensive (suspensive) veto on laws adopted by him, which requires a qualified majority of votes in both houses of parliament to overcome. In turn, the upper house of parliament can prevent the appointment of officials by the president, and in addition, ratifies (and may refuse to do so) international treaties concluded by the president. The judiciary controls the constitutionality of the acts of both the Parliament and the President, thereby ensuring that both the legislative and the executive authorities observe the rule of law.

In the presidential republic, a “hard” separation of powers is carried out: the president does not have the right to dissolve the parliament ahead of schedule (in practice, this happens in developing countries; for example, in 1993, the President of Peru suspended the constitution and dissolved the parliament, calling, however, new elections), but also Parliament cannot remove ministers by a vote of no confidence. Sometimes in a presidential republic, the parliament has the right to remove ministers (for example, Uruguay, Costa Rica), but it is always provided that this does not apply to the actual head of government - the president, and even with regard to the resignation of ministers, the decisive word belongs to him. The responsibility of the government (ministers - where, as, for example, in the United States, there is no government board) to the president, and not to parliament - main feature presidential republic. True, the parliament in such a republic has certain powers (often very significant) to control and manage. In some countries they are implemented on a large scale (USA), in others - traditionally to a small extent (Mexico).

In a presidential republic such a situation (it is called "divided government") is quite possible, when the president belongs to one party, and in parliament the majority of seats belong to the opposition party (parties). This happened repeatedly in Venezuela, Costa Rica, the USA. The role of the president is especially great in the countries of the East. Often they appoint their sons as successors as leaders of the ruling party and state (DPRK in 1994, Azerbaijan in 2003, Syria in 2000, Iraq in 2000).

Due to the special role of the head of state, the concentration of great powers in his hands, the president's reliance directly on the army, individual countries of Latin America were called super-presidential republics. However, in recent decades, such republics have appeared in Asia and Africa, where the power of presidents has been further strengthened. They were the leaders of the only legal, if not the only party proclaimed by the constitution in one form or another as the guiding force of society and the state. The presidents were the main ideologists of the country, the creators of the officially proclaimed obligatory ideology (Ghana under President Kwame Nkrumah, Guinea under President Sekou Tour, Zaire under President Mobutu, Turkmenistan under President S. Niyazov, etc.). Finally, many of these leaders in different countries (Zaire, Tunisia, Uganda, Turkmenistan, Equatorial Guinea, etc.) were proclaimed presidents for life by constitutions or other acts. Thus arose the presidential-monocratic republic, a form of presidential absolutism. As a result of the collapse of totalitarianism at the turn of the 80-90s. and in the early 90s. 20th century this form disappeared as a legal phenomenon. one

A special form of the republic is a form of government that is established in many states as a result of military coups. This is a fairly common occurrence in developing countries: since the formation of independent states in Latin America (approximately 200 years ago), more than a thousand military coups have taken place in the countries of this region, as well as in Asia and Africa, more than half of them were successful and led to the creation of a new government systems. In this case, the parliament, as a rule, is dissolved (the exception was, for example, Brazil, where only its purge was carried out in 1964), the government and the president are removed from their posts. A new supreme body is created - the military council (revolutionary council, council of national salvation, etc.), its chairman - the leader of the coup, is proclaimed the president of the republic. Military governors, commandants, etc. are appointed to the places. Civil courts are usually retained from the former bodies, but military tribunals are created in parallel with them, which also try civilians (according to certain types of crimes). Although under military rule elections can be held for grassroots representative bodies in the field (as has happened repeatedly in Algeria and Nigeria), they are placed under the supervision of the military authorities. Thus, in fact, a republic is being created without republican institutions, one can say that it is a presidential-military republic.

The advantage of the presidential form of government lies, first of all, in the fact that the popularly elected president is the focus of national aspirations, acts as a symbol of the nation, a symbol of citizens belonging to a single state. This form authorizes one person who can exercise leadership in an emergency. And it is no coincidence that, faced with these or complex problems, some countries increase the importance of the presidency. The presidential system of government, in principle, provides a greater degree of political stability than the parliamentary one. the cabinet of ministers is appointed for a fixed term determined by the constitution.

The head of state in a presidential republic receives his powers as a result of election for a certain period (usually from 4 to 7 years, in Latvia - for 3 years) from among the citizens of the state (in Argentina, Ireland, Iceland, the Philippines, Sri Lanka and some other countries). not only men, but also women were elected to this post) and is responsible before the court for illegal acts while in power.

The presidential form of government, in turn, is not perfect. First, unlike the parliamentary form of government, it is fraught with the possibility of friction in the relationship between the executive and legislative branches of government and provoking a constitutional crisis. The likelihood of the latter increases especially if the president and the parliamentary majority belong to different parties or political currents. Assumptions that the president is always above the party struggle and the politicking of the lobbyists may not be well founded. In other words, the choice between parliamentary and presidential forms of government may mean a choice between a single but unstable leadership and a stable leadership that is fraught with conflict between the two powers. Second, there is hardly an optimal way to elect a president. Each of them has its strengths and weaknesses. The method of presidential elections takes the first place in importance. Direct elections seem to be the simplest and most democratic. But there are also many models of direct elections, and the choice of methods does not always depend on the president. The presidential power may become more dependent on the legislative branch, on which many things may depend, for example, the procedure for re-electing the president for a second term in an extremely complicated manner. one

The state regime under this form of government is only dualistic. Depending on the circumstances, the significance and role of a particular parliament or president may be stronger or weaker, but this does not change the quality of the state regime.

Presidential republics are common in Latin America. This form of government is also found in some countries of Asia and Africa. True, sometimes in these countries the power of the head of state actually goes beyond the constitutional framework, and, in particular, the Latin American presidential republics were characterized by researchers as super-presidential. In the last 10 to 15 years, however, the situation in many of these countries has begun to change and approach the constitutional standard.

2.2 Parliamentary form of government

All of the above about parliamentary monarchy can be attributed to the parliamentary form of government, with the exception of the question of the head of state.
Instead of a weak monarch, we observe a weak president, who is typically elected either by the parliament or by a broader collegium, which includes, along with the parliament, ordinary deputies of the parliaments of the constituent entities of the federation or representative regional self-government bodies. The extensive powers sometimes given by the constitution to the president of a parliamentary republic are, as a rule, exercised by the government, which, in the person of its head or minister, countersigns acts of the president. It is significant that part 1 of Article 74 of the Constitution of the Republic of India of 1949, as amended by the 42nd and 44th amendments, directly established the duty of the president to follow the advice of the government.

The main feature of a parliamentary republic, like a parliamentary monarchy, is the political responsibility of the government to parliament. As there, this responsibility is often joint and several: distrust of one member of the government, especially its head, entails the resignation of the entire government.
Instead of resigning, the government may require the president to dissolve parliament (its lower house) and call new elections.

Under a parliamentary republic, two state regimes are also possible - parliamentary and ministerial.

There are not so many purely parliamentary republics. These include Germany, Hungary, Italy, India, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Estonia and some others. In those countries where a multi-party system determines the operation of a parliamentary state regime, frequent government crises are its consequence. In Italy, for example, the government stays in power for less than a year on average, although the party composition of governments usually remains almost unchanged, and there are few personal changes.
The advantage of a parliamentary republic is the unity of the highest elements of power, since the head of the executive branch (prime minister) and his cabinet are appointed and controlled by the parliament, more precisely, by the parliamentary majority. As long as the government has the support of the majority of legislators, it performs its functions, not excluding the submission of bills. With the loss of the parliamentary majority, the government resigns. With all the variations that exist in parliamentary republics, the president plays a minor role; the executive branch is essentially a continuation of the legislative branch, and thus the possible conflict between the two branches of government is minimized.

The shortcomings of a parliamentary republic come down, firstly, to the extreme fragmentation of the party system, which dooms the parliamentary coalition to similar fragmentation, and the government to instability. With the underdevelopment of the party system, even extremist (small) parties can appear as part of the parliamentary coalition of the majority. This can be no less pernicious than the impasse in the relationship between the executive and the legislature. Secondly, the threat of tyranny, which a simple parliamentary majority is able to create, that is, may turn out to be quite real. efficiency, stability of parliamentary forms of government depends on the nature of political parties competing for seats in parliament. The fate of the parties and the structure of the party system are to a large extent determined by the way the legislators are elected, i.e. majoritarian or proportional system.

2.3. Mixed form of government

As already mentioned, in modern conditions"pure" forms of presidential parliamentary republics are considerably rare. On the one hand, some weakened forms of political responsibility of ministers (but not the cabinet as a whole, since it is headed by a president who is not responsible to parliament) are envisaged in presidential republics; on the other hand, hybrid forms of republics are emerging. The first path is characteristic of certain countries of Latin America (these are Venezuela, Peru, Uruguay, Colombia, etc.), where the constitutions provide for the responsibility of ministers to parliament. The second way to create mixed, hybrid forms was indicated by the French constitution of 1958 and accepted with significant changes by Greece (1975), Portugal (Constitution of 1976 before subsequent changes), etc. 1

A mixed republic combines features of both a presidential and a parliamentary republic. But the combination is different. For example, under the Constitution of the French Republic of 1958, the president is elected by the citizens and leads the government, which is typical of a presidential republic. At the same time, the government appointed by him must enjoy the confidence of the lower house of parliament - the National Assembly, which is typical for a parliamentary republic. At the same time, the president can dissolve the National Assembly at his own discretion, which is not typical for either type of republican form of government in Portugal, Madagascar (until 1922), Belarus, Russia, Ukraine, Armenia and other countries by the de facto leader government is the president, which brings these hybrid forms closer to the presidential republic (under his chairmanship, in some countries, the so-called official government meetings of the Council of Ministers are convened), at which the most significant issues are resolved), but there is also a constitutional position of the prime minister (in a number of presidential republics such a position was either introduced or abolished at the discretion of the president). This is the administrative prime minister, he knows organizational work, presides over less important meetings of the government, this is done by the president.

The prime minister and members of the government are appointed by the president, and the government is responsible to parliament. The latter denounces this form from the presidential republic and brings it closer to the parliamentary one. However, the responsibility of the government to parliament is extremely difficult. In France, a resolution of reprimand can be adopted by a majority of the entire composition of the National Assembly and can be submitted for discussion only in three cases: in two cases when the demand for confidence comes from the government itself and in one case from the deputies, but the draft must be signed by at least 1 /10 members of the lower house. If the resolution is not adopted, the deputies who introduced it are deprived of the right to introduce another resolution of censure until the end of the session. In practice, for the entire period of the 1958 constitution, such a resolution was adopted only once (in 1962), but this did not entail the resignation of the government, but the dissolution of the lower house by the president. In Madagascar, the political responsibility of the government under the Constitution of 1975 was possible only in one case: when the parliament rejected the development plan proposed by the government. In the conditions of the undivided dominance of the President's party in parliament until the 90s. it was unrealistic. In addition, in case of distrust, the president has the right to decide whether he dismisses the government or dissolves parliament with the appointment of new elections. The president himself, the real head of government, does not resign. The virtual absence of political responsibility of the government to the parliament brings these hybrid forms closer to the presidential republic.

Along with the excessive strengthening of the power of the president in one group of countries, in other states, tendencies were found to soften the presidential omnipotence. As a result, presidential republics emerged with elements of parliamentarism; presidential-parliamentary and parliamentary-presidential (depending on the real role of one of these bodies). These elements are characterized by the fact that the president is elected directly by the citizens, regardless of parliament (as in a presidential republic), but this form of government provides for the possibility of a vote of no confidence in the government and (or) ministers (but not the actual head of government - the president), who remain in that at the same time responsible to the president (double responsibility). True, this responsibility has varying degrees: the main one is still the responsibility of the ministers to the president, under whose authority the ministers work. An example of this is the constitutional changes in Venezuela, Colombia, Uruguay, Peru, Ecuador and some other Latin American countries, where the parliament can express no confidence in ministers, although this often requires a qualified majority of 2/3 votes, and the question of no confidence can only be raised a significant number of members of parliament (usually at least 1/10). In addition, the president, in certain cases, has the right not to dismiss the government or a minister, even after a vote of no confidence in parliament. one

In some countries (for example, Uruguay, France, Ukraine), it is possible to express a vote of no confidence only in the entire council of ministers (but not in individual ministers), which is characterized by constitutions as an organ of executive power. In some post-socialist states, prime ministers must often be appointed with the consent of the parliament, but the appointment of ministers by the president does not require such consent, he appoints ministers at his own discretion. The responsibility of the entire composition of the government in connection with the expression of a vote of no confidence is possible, but extremely difficult (for example, it is necessary to reject the government program in Belarus twice, once is not enough). In other cases, a two-time vote of no confidence is not required, but the question of no confidence in the government can be raised only by a significant part of the total number of members of parliament (in Ukraine - 1/3 of the unicameral parliament), but still, with a vote of no confidence, the president sometimes has the right to decide whether to dismiss the government in resign or dissolve parliament. In addition, the president has the right to dismiss the government at any time at his own discretion, the consent of the parliament is not required, and new elections to the lower house are not held.

The government in a semi-presidential republic can itself raise the question of confidence. In this way, it usually tries to strengthen its position or pass a law in parliament, otherwise threatening to resign. In many semi-presidential republics, a number of acts of the president, in order to be valid, need the countersignature (signature) of the prime minister. The phenomena considered testify to the emergence of presidential-parliamentary or parliamentary-presidential republics and reflect modern tendencies in the development of the constitutional law of the countries of the world.

The features of presidentialism are even more pronounced in some post-socialist states. In Russia, Belarus, Ukraine, the parliament can express no confidence in the government, but this does not entail legal consequences: the decision to dismiss the government is made by the president. He has the right to disagree with Parliament. In Russia, the lower house of parliament has repeatedly assessed the work of the government as unsatisfactory, and this did not entail any consequences. If in Russia the parliament tries to insist and within three months again expresses no confidence in the government (this is the period established by the constitution), then it will put itself at risk: the president has the right to choose whether to dismiss the government or dissolve the lower house of parliament.

The constitutions establish a double responsibility of ministers: before the president and parliament, but only the first kind of responsibility is real.

As experience has shown, a changeable form of government is effective, provided that the government, based on a parliamentary majority, and the president adhere to the same political orientation. Otherwise, a conflict may arise between the president, on the one hand, and the prime minister and the parliamentary majority, on the other, for the resolution of which constitutional means are not always sufficient.

In a number of countries, the president is elected by citizens, which is typical for a presidential republic, and has a number of powers that enable him to actively interfere in the political process, but in practice he does not use them (“sleeping powers”), and the existing state regime is typical of a parliamentary republic (parliamentarism or ministerialism). Austria, Ireland, Iceland can serve as an example, where “person No. 1” is still recognized not as the head of state, but as the head of government.

2.4. Other forms of republican government

Other forms of republican government include a super-presidential republic, a republic with monarchical elements, a Soviet republic, and a theocratic one. Due to the special role of the head of state, the concentration of great powers in his hands, individual countries of Latin America have long been called super-presidential republics. However, in recent decades, such republics have appeared in Asia and Africa, where the power of presidents has been further strengthened. They were the leaders of the only legal, if not the only party proclaimed by the constitution in one form or another as the guiding force of society and the state. The presidents were the main ideologists of the country, the creators of the officially proclaimed obligatory ideology (Ghana under President Kwame Nkrumah, Guinea under President Sekou Type, Zaire under President Mobutu, etc.). Finally, many of these leaders in different countries (Zaire, Tunisia, Uganda, Equatorial Guinea, etc.) were proclaimed presidents for life. Thus arose the presidential-monocratic republic, a form of presidential absolutism. one

At present, due to the processes of global democratization, there are almost no such forms of presidential republic in the world, but their appearance in the future cannot be ruled out.

A special form of super-presidential republic is a form of government that is established in many states as a result of military coups. This is a fairly common occurrence in developing countries: since the formation of independent states in Latin America (about a century and a half ago), more than a thousand military coups have taken place in the countries of this region, as well as in Asia and Africa, more than half of them were successful and led to the creation of a new control systems. In this case, the parliament, as a rule, is dissolved (the exception was, for example, Brazil, where only its purge was carried out in 1964), the government and the president are removed from their posts. A new supreme body is created - the military council (revolutionary council, council of national salvation, etc.), its chairman - the leader of the coup, is proclaimed the president of the republic. Military governors, commandants, etc. are appointed to the places. Civil courts are usually retained from the former bodies, but military tribunals are created in parallel with them, which also try civilians. While under military rule elections can be held for grass-roots representative bodies in the field (as happened three times in Algeria and twice in Nigeria), they are placed under the supervision of the military authorities. Thus, in fact, a republic without republican institutions is being created, it can be said that it is a presidential-militarist republic. However, in other developing countries, the concept of the dual role of the army (military and political) is also used, and the armed forces serve as the backbone of many "civilian" presidential republics (Indonesia, Turkey, etc.). 2

The presidential republic in some former countries of socialist orientation had specific features. In some states (Angola, Benin, Congo, Mozambique), it was practiced to elect the president of the republic by the highest body (congress or central committee) of the only ruling party in the country. The chairman of this party, elected by its congress, became, in accordance with this party post, automatically the president of the republic. He received only an investiture (approval, handing over of power) in parliament: the latter could neither refuse to recognize him as president, nor elect another person as president. Such a president relied not only on the state, but also on the really ruling party apparatus. one

Republic with monarchical elements. Earlier it was already said about the presidents for life. Such a position, created for the first time in Yugoslavia for Josip Broz Tito, the first president of Yugoslavia, who led the liberation struggle of the Yugoslav peoples against the fascist invaders, was then established in some countries of Asia and Africa: in the 60s - in Indonesia, in the 70s - in Tunisia, Uganda, the Central African Republic, Equatorial Guinea and some other countries. The post of a permanent, lifelong president was combined (except for Indonesia) with a one-party system (the president for life has always been the leader of this party), with the proclamation of the president as the "spiritual leader of the people", the founder of a new ideology, declared state. One of these presidents for life, Bokassa, went even further: he proclaimed himself emperor of the Central African Empire (he was overthrown in 1979). In the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, the son of President for Life Kim Il Sung was declared his heir and became the head of the country in 1994. The institution of a president for life and especially the announcement of this post as hereditary bring this republican form of government closer to the monarchy.

As noted, many republican features are deprived of the form of government created in the conditions

military regimes

The presidents of such republics are not elected by the people or by any legitimate constitutional body, such as parliament or a special electoral college. They are proclaimed presidents by a group of their accomplices in the coup d'etat, which forms a military, revolutionary or other council. Under these conditions, the parliament is dissolved, the constitution is completely or in large part canceled (sometimes suspended, which does not actually change the state of things), elections of local bodies are a rare exception, management is built on the basis of a rigid hierarchy of military authorities. Thus, an unusual kind of republic is created, in which there are virtually no republican institutions. one

A special form of republic - a theocratic republic ruled by a Muslim clergy - exists in Iran. In this country, in accordance with the constitution of 1979, there is an elected president and parliament, but the head of state (Rahbar) plays the main role. This post was created taking into account the traditions of Muslim fundamentalism and in many respects resembles the organization of power in an ideal Muslim state - the caliphate. The post of Head of State belongs to the highest spiritual person, who is selected by the Muslim Council of Experts. In the event of a vacancy, the Council of Experts selects another person for this post, guided primarily by the religious qualities of the candidate, or constitutes a collegial body that performs the duties of the head of state.

There is another kind of republican form of government - the Soviet republic. Although this form is used only in "socialist" countries, where the political regime is usually totalitarian, i.e. farthest away from democracy. Regardless of how specifically the representative bodies in the socialist countries are called -People's councils and the National Assembly (Parliament) in Vietnam, the people's congresses in China, the people's assemblies in the DPRK, the assemblies (i.e. assemblies) of people's power in Cuba - in the doctrine of these countries it is more or less generally recognized that all these are Soviet-type bodies.

The initial signs were such as the production-territorial principle of the formation of representative bodies, which ensured the "purity of the class composition", the election of higher levels by lower ones. In most of the "socialist" countries, these signs either subsequently disappeared, as in the USSR, or did not appear at all, as in Romania. Elections to these bodies, as a rule, were considered and today are considered universal, equal, direct by secret ballot.

From the point of view of the legal model, the signs of the Soviet republic are as follows:

“supremacy and sovereignty of councils or representative bodies under other names, all other state bodies (except for the strictly centralized prosecutor’s office) are formed by councils of the appropriate level, are responsible to them and (or) accountable to them (including sometimes even courts)”;

“councils of all levels form a single system within which there are relations of leadership and subordination”;

“since the deputies of the councils perform their functions without leaving their main work, the sessions of the councils are rare and brief, and their current powers are exercised by their executive bodies in the field and by special, relatively narrow collegiate bodies in the center, the decisions of which are usually subject to subsequent approval by the councils.” one

This form of government resembles a parliamentary republic, the government is formed by the "parliament" and is legally responsible to it. But there is no balance of power here: the dissolution of the “parliament” in the event of a government crisis, if any, is not envisaged. The separation of powers is not even theoretically recognized; he is opposed to the principle of the unity of power of the working people, embodied in the soviets. The Soviets must combine in their hands both legislative and executive functions. In most cases, the independence of the judiciary is recognized, but purely declarative: the election of judges by councils, the accountability and recall of judges, even under the constitution, nullify this independence. one

It would seem quite obvious that the soviets, which in their mass consist of ordinary workers (in practice, however, the share of bureaucracy in them gradually became predominant: the deputy mandate became a necessary supplement to a leadership position, even often an economic one), because of this, it is not able to perform the tasks of the executive branch, requiring, as a rule, special training. But in reality, this means nothing, because the state regime has nothing to do with this model. The real power at every level is held not by the top of the Communist Party apparatus, and often by the sole first secretary of the relevant party committee. All decisions of councils and other state bodies, including courts (sometimes even scripts for their meetings), are initiated or pre-approved by communist party committees or their bureaus and first secretaries. This state regime was called partocratic.

3. FEATURES OF THE FUNCTIONING OF THE REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT IN THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION

3.1. Republican system

The first form of a republican structure in the history of Russia was the veche (from “broadcast”) - people's meetings in the cities of Kievan Rus, which became a form of limiting the power of the princes in the interests of the city leaders. They were most widespread in the era of feudal fragmentation. The weakening of cities after the Mongol-Tatar invasion and the subsequent strengthening of the grand ducal power led to the elimination of veche institutions by the end of the 14th century; the exception was Veliky Novgorod and its neighbors Pskov and Vyatka, where the veche system reached its greatest development and was liquidated as a result of the forcible annexation of these "North Russian people's governments" (N.I. Kostomarov) to Moscow in 1478 - 1510. The approval of the republican form of government in its modern sense falls on the period of transition from an agrarian system to an industrial one. In Russia, the republic was approved by the Provisional Government on September 1, 1917. The Constitution of the Russian Federation (Article 1), fixing the republican form of government, does not indicate the specific type (model) of such a form of government. As you know, among the republican forms of government (republics) there are: 1) a parliamentary republic; 2) a presidential republic; 3) mixed, parliamentary-presidential republic. Socialist republics are a special variety; This form is most fully embodied in state structure THE USSR. Specialists in constitutional law attribute the Russian Federation to either a presidential or a mixed (presidential-parliamentary) republican form of government. In reality, the Russian Federation is most likely characterized by a quasi-presidential or quasi-mixed form of government.

Defining the structure and legal status of the highest bodies of state power, the Constitution establishes the order of relations between them, as well as between them and the people, who exercise their power through these bodies in accordance with their sovereign will and fundamental interests. This determines the form of government and the nature political regime. The Russian Federation (theoretically, but not always practically) can be defined as a state with a republican form of government.

The Republic is one of the mechanisms for implementing the principle of popular sovereignty. The republican form of government assumes that all the highest bodies of state power are either popularly elected or formed by nationwide representative institutions. Sovereign rights to power are recognized for all capable citizens, or the majority of them, and management is carried out on the basis of popular representation by elected authorities. Our Fatherland mastered these principles not just

Being a sovereign state, the Russian Federation independently establishes the form of government that determines the organization of public authorities and the procedure for their activities.

The Constitution of the Russian Federation (Article 1) establishes a republican form of government. Its main feature is the election and turnover of the head of state. This republican form of government differs from the monarchy, which is inherent in the inheritance of the status of the head of state.

If we consider the form of government from purely formal positions, then

Establishing a republican form of government in the Russian Federation, the Constitution fixes its following features: renunciation of any independent and long-term possession of state power based on individual law; the orientation of the state system of the Russian Federation on reason and experience, and not on the achievement of ideal goals, which usually lead to totalitarianism of the right or left; the creation of state bodies on the basis of coordinating the interests of state administration with the inviolability of civil liberties; formation of state bodies through free elections and limited time.

In some modern countries, there are forms of government that combine the features of parliamentary and presidential republics. The Russian Federation is one of these countries.

The combination of features of the presidential and parliamentary republics in the Russian Federation is expressed in the presence of strong presidential power while maintaining some typical features of the parliamentary form (the presence of the Chairman of the Government, the possibility, although limited, of removing the Government from power by the Parliament and dissolving the Parliament by the President).

Since its inception as constitutional state The Russian Federation was constantly moving towards strengthening the features of a presidential republic in it. However, having eventually become a presidential republic in character, it still retains some external signs parliamentary state.

At present, the Russian Federation has a presidential-parliamentary, or, as it is sometimes called in legal literature, “semi-presidential” republican form of government: firstly, the President is elected by universal suffrage (this is its difference from the parliamentary form), and secondly , he has his own prerogatives that allow him to act independently of the Government, thirdly, along with the President, the Chairman of the Government and the ministers form the Government, which is to a certain extent responsible to the parliament (this is its difference from the presidential form); It is these features that characterize the Russian Federation as a "semi-presidential" republic.

3.2. Institute of Presidency in the Russian Federation

The presidency is a relatively young, new and not yet fully established legal institution in Russian constitutional and political practice. In the USSR, the post of president was established in 1990 (M.S. Gorbachev held the presidency), in the RSFSR - in 1991 (B.N. Yeltsin was elected the first president of the RSFSR).

The 1993 constitution established new system public authorities. The American model of a presidential republic was rejected, where the president combines the post of head of state and head of government in one person. The choice was made in favor of the French model of a mixed, semi-presidential republic, in which there is a division of functions between two officials - the head of state and the head of government 1 . According to the current Constitution of the Russian Federation, the President of the Russian Federation is the head of state (Part 1, Article 80). It can be called a symbol of the state and the official representative of the whole people.

Fixing the status of the President of the Russian Federation, the Constitution of the Russian Federation in Article 80 provides for related functions relating to the foundations of the life of the state and society.

The President of the Russian Federation is the guarantor of the Constitution of the Russian Federation. It ensures compliance with constitutional norms by all state bodies, imposes a veto on laws that do not comply with the Constitution of the Russian Federation, suspends the acts of executive authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, and is also vested with the right to cancel orders and resolutions of the Government of the Russian Federation. In addition, he can perform the function of the guarantor of the Constitution of the Russian Federation not only personally, but also by applying to the competent authorities, primarily to the courts. The President of the Russian Federation has the right to send requests to the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation on the constitutionality of various normative legal acts and to apply to the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation on questions of interpretation of the Constitution.

The President of the Russian Federation is entrusted with the function of the guarantor of the rights and freedoms of man and citizen. He implements this function in his personal activities, issuing decrees and submitting bills to the State Duma as a legislative initiative. Decrees and laws can be aimed at protecting the legal status of the individual as a whole or regulate the status of certain groups of the population: pensioners, military personnel and other groups of the population in need of state protection.

Under the President of the Russian Federation, there is a Commission on Human Rights, which is an advisory and consultative body. Its tasks include: creating conditions for the President of the Russian Federation to exercise his constitutional powers as a guarantor of the rights and freedoms of man and citizen in the Russian Federation; assistance in improving the mechanism for ensuring and protecting the rights and freedoms of man and citizen; assistance to the activities of federal state authorities, state authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation in the implementation of the foundations of state policy in the field of ensuring and protecting the rights and freedoms of man and citizen; strengthening international cooperation in the field of ensuring and protecting human rights and freedoms.

In addition, the President of the Russian Federation is called upon to take the necessary measures to protect the sovereignty of the Russian Federation, its independence and state integrity.

For example, the President of the Russian Federation decided to exclude duplication of functions and powers of federal executive authorities, executive authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation and local governments; improve the legal regulation of the division of powers between federal state authorities, state authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation and local governments in order to abolish the functions of state authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation and local governments, etc. 1

The state inseparability of the Russian Federation is ensured by the integrity and inviolability of its territory; the unity of the economic space, which does not allow the establishment of customs borders, duties, fees and any obstacles to the free movement of goods, services and financial resources; the supremacy of the Constitution of the Russian Federation and federal laws throughout the Russian Federation; single citizenship of the Russian Federation; the absence of the right of the subjects of the Russian Federation to secede from the Federation or otherwise change their status without the consent of the Russian Federation, since the unilateral solution of such issues poses a threat to the state integrity of the Federation, the unity of the system of state power.

Sovereignty presupposes supremacy, independence and autonomy, i.e. full power of the state throughout its territory. This property of state power is manifested in its autonomy and independence in solving domestic and foreign policy issues.

The protection of sovereignty, independence, security and integrity is the direct duty of the President of the Russian Federation, named in the oath, which he takes upon taking office.

The most important task of the President of the Russian Federation is to ensure the coordinated functioning and interaction of state authorities. The President of the Russian Federation has concrete means to resolve conflicts and disagreements between government agencies. One of the most effective and frequently used means in practice is conciliation procedures (the most commonly used type of conciliation procedures is negotiations), which provide opportunities for settling relations between various public authorities. The essence of such procedures is the search for compromise solutions that satisfy all disputing parties, and, ultimately, in reaching mutual agreement. In all such cases, the President of the Russian Federation plays the role of an arbiter; he acts not as one of the parties to the conflict, but as a national authority. At the same time, negotiations are often held either by him personally or with the participation of his representatives.

The President of the Russian Federation sends his remarks to the Parliament to ensure the interaction of the authorities. Subsequently, this avoids the need for a presidential veto. There are also procedures for the joint formation of a number of central bodies of the state. For example, the composition of the CEC of Russia is appointed on an equal footing by the President of the Russian Federation, State Duma and the Federation Council.

The President of the Russian Federation determines the main directions of the domestic and foreign policy of the state. The main directions of domestic and foreign policy are determined in the annual message of the President of the Russian Federation to the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation. The implementation of these main policies, their implementation is a right and a duty authorized bodies legislative and executive power.

Finally, the President of the Russian Federation, as head of state, represents Russia within the country and in international relations. He has the right to recognize, on behalf of his state, the text of an international treaty or give the consent of the state to be bound by the treaty. The President of the Russian Federation is given the opportunity to actively influence foreign policy and implement certain political guidelines himself.

In addition, the President of the Russian Federation can act in different capacities. When concluding an agreement between a federal state authority and an authority of a subject of the Federation, as well as in a number of other intra-federal relations, he acts on behalf of the federal authorities. In determining the tasks of a unified system of executive power in the Russian Federation, he represents the state as a whole, including all its subjects.

Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of July 27, 1999 No. 906 “On approval of the description of the symbol of presidential power - the Sign of the President of the Russian Federation” 1 defines the symbol of presidential power - the Sign of the President of the Russian Federation, which is an equal cross with expanding ends. The President of the Russian Federation also has the right to a standard (flag), the original of which is in his office at his residence in Moscow, and the duplicate is raised above the residences of the President of the Russian Federation during his stay in them and on the vehicles of the President of the Russian Federation 1 .

The President of the Russian Federation has immunity (Article 91 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation). During the exercise of his powers, no one has the right to use physical or mental violence against him, detain him, search him, arrest him, interrogate him, bring him to any kind of responsibility, forcibly bring him to court as a witness.

Finally, he cannot be either overthrown or removed from his duties in accordance with Article 278 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (“Forcible seizure of power or forcible retention of power”).

The role of the President of the Russian Federation in the state is determined by his place in the system of division of state power into legislative, executive and judicial. In science, there are different opinions on this issue.

The Constitution of the Russian Federation and the practice of recent years allow us to talk about special position President of the Russian Federation in the system of separation of powers, i.e. about the formation of an independent presidential branch of power. From effective use The powers of the President of the Russian Federation depend on the stable operation of the entire state mechanism. The allocation of the fourth branch of power does not give any reason to interpret presidential power as standing above other powers that depend on it. Each of them exercises its constitutionally assigned powers, functions in cooperation with other authorities, is provided with certain levers of influence on other authorities and on the President of the Russian Federation. The Constitution of the Russian Federation contains the necessary system of checks and balances, which contributes to a balanced interaction of the authorities.
Belov. G. A. Political science. -M.: Nauka 2007. The concept of forms of government. Variety of forms of government within the same type of state External storage devices. Main characteristics Causes, patterns and forms of the emergence of the state and law