For the first time definition, characterization and detailed description democracy as a form of government gave the ancient Greek philosopher Plato (IV century BC). He reveals a number of negative traits that this day have not disappeared from this system, despite the fact that the very form with time has undergone modifications. So, in his work "The State" the thinker notes a perverse understanding of freedom in a democratic regime, inversion of concepts, its instability and internal inconsistency. The system itself Plato defines as "the rule of the majority." The idea of democracy as an independent state system, entered into circulation in the period of antiquity, in subsequent eras for a long time disappears from the consciousness of people. The Middle Ages and Modern Times are poorly familiar with democracy as such. Regimes like democracies emerged as reaction to specific historical circumstances, in the center of which the idea of opposing the autocracy of monarchs and the struggle against infringement of the interests of the population by closed oligarchic groupings. The concept of democracy begins to revive only in XVIII century in connection with the movement of the Enlighteners and the ideas of the Great French Revolution (1789-1792). The search for a definition of democracy and its most important essential characteristics are currently relevant primarily due to three factors. First, modern societies have the opportunity to develop in conditions of "pure", nothing external, not opposed to democracy. If in a democratic society we are talking about the manifestation of oligarchic or tyrannical principles, then we have to talk not about the collision of two fundamentally different socio-political formations, but about the conflict within the very democratic system. Second: the complication of modern scientific knowledge and the ability to consider the same phenomenon in different contexts, from different perspectives and from a diversity perspective functions performed by him, does not allow to give the concept a short and clear definition. The third factor: a modern democratic regime, spreading over huge spaces, not very compatible with its classical form, which even in the conditions of small state formations (such as ancient city-states) took shape, only relatively successful. In other words: modern democracy is placed in the wrong conditions that are originally characteristic of it, and hence it follows the need to rethink and define this phenomenon.
Interestingly, recent scientists are inclined to think that the concept of "democracy" does not lend itself to a clear scientific definition. Together with so one of the most popular definitions of modern democracy is polyarchy (power of many, but not all). It is not a power system that embodies democratic ideals in their entirety, but government, reasonably close to such ideals.
So, we have established that a democratic regime is a political a regime where the people are the source of power. Note that the concept of "people" will always include a certain set of citizens who are not included in power institutions. And no matter what understanding of the people we come to, from of our main definition should naturally follow that management decisions should be made by the people (all citizens or some meeting certain conditions). And here we are faced with an interesting paradox: how can something that is not itself included in the institutions of power, and sometimes even opposed to them? Insofar as a democratic regime exists, then there is a mechanism that allows this mode to function. The principles that we will formulate below are, in fact, the principles of operation of this mechanism - attempts to solve the aforementioned paradox of democracy. We derive six such principles, leaving the question essentially more of their real number open and remembering that these principles do not actually function in isolation, but in relationships that need to be considered when considering specific cases. Majority rule and respect for minority rights. The management function is closely related to decision making, therefore, the question arises: on what grounds is this or that decision made source of power in a democratic regime? Majority rule with respect for rights minority assumes that all important decisions are made on based on the fact that they are supported by the majority of people who have the right to vote during the electoral process. Moreover, it is not necessary concerns issues of a national scale (for example, elections in government bodies or presidential elections). This principle also applies when solving issues of local importance (for example, when elections of deputies of city councils, etc.). Both cases differ only circle of decision-makers, i.e. those with an electoral right. On a national scale, the circle of such persons is practically coincides with the people as a body of citizens, with the bulk of the adult capable population. Cases when representatives of such a population do not receive electoral rights, as a rule, are specially recorded law. For example, Article 32 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation establishes that in addition to incapacitated persons do not enjoy the right to vote those who are in places of deprivation of liberty by a court verdict. Decision making is about identifying preferences majority: based on these preferences, the final decision. As a rule, we mean quantitative or "simple" majority: in some cases, restrictions on the quantitative the majority can be recorded in a legislative act. For example, in in accordance with article 105.4 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, a federal law is considered approved by the Federation Council only if more than half of the total number of members of the chamber voted. Section 5 of Article I of the US Constitution stipulates that “each house Congress may, with the consent of two-thirds of the House, expel a member of the House from its composition ". It is essential that persons, with the consent and majority endorsement with approval for some politicians are obliged to act in accordance with the views and interests of the minority. Respect for minority rights, in turn, presupposes that citizens and their political associations, who, as a result of the electoral process, remained in the minority, and therefore, are in the position losers, and after the final decision is made, they are not deprived of their rights and opportunities to defend their interests and preferences, if this happens within the law. As a rule, the minority has constitutional guarantees of protection from reprisals and discrimination on the part of the winner majority. The problem of protecting the rights of minorities is also important because the majority who made a certain decision might not be enough aware of all aspects of the problem known to the minority. From here such a definition of democracy as “the system of government of the majority, limited by minority rights ”.
Democracy is more than a set of constitutional rules and procedures that determine how a government functions. In a democracy, government is only one element coexisting in a social fabric of many and varied institutions, political parties, organizations, and associations. This diversity is called pluralism, and it assumes that the many organized groups and institutions in a democratic society do not depend upon government for their existence, legitimacy, or authority.
Thousands of private organizations operate in a democratic society, some local, some national. Many of them serve a mediating role between individuals and the complex social and governmental institutions of which they are a part, filling roles not given to the government and offering individuals opportunities to exercise their rights and responsibilities as citizens of a democracy.
These groups represent the interests of their members in a variety of ways--by supporting candidates for public office, debating issues, and trying to influence policy decisions. Through such groups, individuals have an avenue for meaningful participation both in government and in their own communities. The examples are many and varied: charitable organizations and churches, environmental and neighborhood groups, business associations and labor unions.
In an authoritarian society, virtually all such organizations would be controlled, licensed, watched, or otherwise accountable to the government. In a democracy, the powers of the government are, by law, clearly defined and sharply limited. As a result, private organizations are free of government control; on the contrary, many of them lobby the government and seek to hold it accountable for its actions. Other groups, concerned with the arts, the practice of religious faith, scholarly research, or other interests, may choose to have little or no contact with the government at all. In this busy private realm of democratic society, citizens can explore the possibilities of freedom and the responsibilities of self-government--unpressured by the potentially heavy hand of the state.
THE PILLARS OF DEMOCRACY
- Sovereignty of the people.
- Government based upon consent of the governed.
- Majority rule.
- Minority rights.
- Guarantee of basic human rights.
- Free and fair elections.
- Equality before the law.
- Due process of law.
- Constitutional limits on government.
- Social, economic, and political pluralism.
- Values of tolerance, pragmatism, cooperation, and compromise.