The state as a political organization of society. Organs

I am engaged in "Five with a plus" in the group of Gulnur Gataullovna in biology and chemistry. I am delighted, the teacher knows how to interest the subject, find an approach to the student. Adequately explains the essence of his requirements and gives realistic homework (and not like most teachers in the year of the exam, ten paragraphs at home, but one in the class). . We study strictly for the exam and it is very valuable! Gulnur Gataullovna is sincerely interested in the subjects she teaches, she always gives the necessary, timely and relevant information. Highly recommend!

Camilla

I'm preparing for "Five with a plus" for mathematics (with Daniil Leonidovich) and the Russian language (with Zarema Kurbanovna). Very satisfied! The quality of classes is at a high level, at the school there are now only fives and fours in these subjects. I wrote test exams for 5, I'm sure that I will pass the OGE perfectly. Thank you!

Airat

I was preparing for the exam in history and social science with Vitaly Sergeevich. He is an extremely responsible teacher in relation to his work. Punctual, polite, pleasant in communication. It can be seen that the man lives his work. He is well versed in adolescent psychology, has a clear method of preparation. Thank you "Five with a plus" for the work!

Leysan

I passed the exam in the Russian language with 92 points, mathematics with 83, social studies with 85, I think this excellent result, entered the university on a budget! Thanks Five Plus! Your teachers are true professionals, with them a high result is guaranteed, I am very glad that I turned to you!

Dmitry

David Borisovich is a wonderful teacher! I was preparing in his group for the Unified State Examination in mathematics at the profile level, I passed by 85 points! although knowledge at the beginning of the year was not very good. David Borisovich knows his subject, knows the requirements of the Unified State Examination, he himself is a member of the commission for checking examination papers. I am very glad that I was able to get into his group. Thank you "Five with a plus" for this opportunity!

Violet

"Five with a plus" - an excellent center for preparing for exams. Professionals work here, a cozy atmosphere, friendly staff. I studied English and social studies with Valentina Viktorovna, passed both subjects with a good score, satisfied with the result, thank you!

Olesya

In the "Five with a plus" center, she studied two subjects at once: mathematics with Artem Maratovich and literature with Elvira Ravilievna. I really liked the classes, a clear methodology, an accessible form, a comfortable environment. I am very pleased with the result: mathematics - 88 points, literature - 83! Thank you! I will recommend your Education Centre!

Artem

When I was choosing tutors, I was attracted by good teachers, a convenient class schedule, free trial exams, my parents - affordable prices for high quality. In the end, we were very pleased with the whole family. I studied three subjects at once: mathematics, social studies, and English. Now I am a student of KFU on a budgetary basis, and all thanks to good preparation - I passed the exam with high scores. Thank you!

Dima

I very carefully selected a tutor in social studies, I wanted to pass the exam for the maximum score. "Five with a plus" helped me in this matter, I studied in the group of Vitaly Sergeevich, the classes were super, everything is clear, everything is clear, and at the same time fun and at ease. Vitaly Sergeevich presented the material in such a way that it was remembered by itself. I am very happy with the preparation!

The question of the state, admittedly, is one of the most complex and controversial. There are many contradictions in the definition of its nature and essence. Some, like Hegel, consider him an "earthly deity", others, like F. Nietzsche, a "cold monster". Some (anarchists: M.A. Bakunin, P.A. Kropotkin) demand its immediate abolition, others (Hobbes, Hegel), on the contrary, believe that the state is necessary for man and society, and they can never do without it. There are just as many disagreements in identifying the reasons for the emergence of the state and the foundations for its existence and development.

Perhaps the most ancient theory of the state is organic. Already Aristotle proceeded from the fact that the state is a polyunity of its constituent people (citizens), which realizes itself in a multitude of individuals. Since individuals are not equal by nature, for there are always people who are slaves by nature, that is, those who are born to obey, but there are also those who are born to command, insofar as the state becomes organically necessary people to streamline their lives and relationships with each other.

A later version of the organic approach to the state was reflected in the teachings of the nineteenth-century English philosopher G. Spencer. G. Spencer defines the state as joint-stock company to protect its members. The state is called upon to protect the conditions for the activities of people, beyond the established limits, which they should not go beyond. This Spencerian doctrine, just like the Aristotelian one, proceeds from the individual, his organic individualistic interests of the state as necessary tool realization of these interests.

Considering the state as a territorial organization of their life directly fused with people, the followers of the organic theory of the state talk about it as a living (biological) organism. They assure that, as in any living organism, where the cells are merged into one solid physical body, so in the state, individual people form a whole, despite the spatial distance from each other. Identifying the state with a living organism, they talk a lot and often about its illnesses, death, rebirth. They compare individual organs and tissues biological organism with elements of the state organization of society. (For example, they believe that state institutions are the same nerves of a biological organism.) Consequently, as we see, the organic theory considers the state as a necessary form of organization of society, an administrative committee of public affairs.

Another widely known doctrine of the state is the contractual theory. This is an even more individualistic concept, compared even with the organic theory of the state, since the authors of this doctrine are T. Hobbes, D. Locke, J.-J. Rousseau proceed from the postulate of freedom and equality for all people. According to this doctrine, society, being an aggregate of equal individuals, cannot function without power, and all people agree with this. It is this fact of consent (agreement) of all individuals that underlies the theory of the social contract, since it is possible to overcome the war of all against all, that is, anarchy, only with the help of an agreement - by carrying out the general will (power) implemented by the state. If people, T. Hobbes wrote, would be able to lead themselves, living according to the natural laws of nature, then they would not need a state. However, people do not have this quality, and therefore each of the people needs a state, or the establishment of an order that would ensure the safety and peaceful existence of all. After all, outside the state, according to T. Hobbes, everyone has an unlimited right to everything, while in the state, the rights of everyone are limited.

Social contract theorists did not explain how the power of the state actually came about, but they showed that state power relies not only on the strength, authority and will of its representatives, but also on the will of subordinates (their consent and approval). In other words, the state power must carry out the general will of the people in the state. The general will, according to J.-J. Rousseau, is not a simple sum of all individual wills (desires). The general will is a unanimous decision of people when discussing an issue, when each individual decides this issue, taking into account the common interests and on behalf of everyone.

So, the theory of the social contract explains the nature of state power by the aspirations of each of the individuals to secure their lives, to create equal conditions for the implementation of their interests. For this, the consent of each and every one of the people is necessary. In this regard, it is argued that all people are equal and the common will of all individuals should be equal to the will of each individual. As you can see, this is almost completely inconsistent with historical reality, since the state power has never been, and is unlikely ever to be, the slave of all its subjects. However, many modern scientists and politicians consider the social contract to be the ideal that a real democratic state should strive for and follow in order to take into account and implement the individual interests of as many of its citizens as possible.

Individualism in views on the state was overcome by Hegel. From his point of view, the state is the basis and focus of specific aspects of people's life: law, art, morals, religion, and therefore it is its form of community. The defining content of this form of community is the very spirit of the people, for the real state is animated by this spirit. This means that the state is such an association that has universal power, because in its content and purpose it carries a community of spirit. It is in the state that individuals are destined to lead a universal way of life. As for the private features of people's activities (special satisfaction of needs and interests, special behavior), according to Hegel, this is not the sphere of the state, but of civil society. As you can see, Hegel separates the state - the area of ​​general interests of people and civil society - the area of ​​manifestation of private interests and goals of individuals. He believed that if the state is confused with civil society and the purpose of the state is to ensure and protect property and personal freedom, then this means recognizing the interest of individual people, as such, as the ultimate goal for which they are united. The consequence of such a recognition, Hegel believed, could be a situation where everyone begins to determine purely arbitrarily whether or not to be a member of the state. The state, Hegel emphasized, is an objective spirit, and, consequently, the individual himself is objective, true and moral insofar as he is a member of the state.

7 See: Hegel G. Philosophy of Law. M., 1990. S. 279-315.

Thus, the state, according to Hegel, is the highest stage in the development of the objective spirit, which means the restoration of the unity of individuals and groups of the population, violated in civil society.

K. Marx and F. Engels in their doctrine of the state and its essence, like Hegel, reject the individualistic approach of organic and contractual theories. At the same time, they also criticize the Hegelian idea of ​​the state as a form of community where the single spirit of the people (nation) is concentrated. According to K. Marx and F. Engels, the state is imposed on society, and it is a product of the irreconcilability of class contradictions. The state arises in connection with the split of society into antagonistic classes, and therefore, according to Marxism, it is not a general will, but a machine (apparatus) for suppressing one class by another.

8 See: Lenin V.I. State and Revolution // Lenin V.I. Poly. coll. op. T. 33.

Revealing the essence of the state, Marxists always emphasize that the state is the organization of the economically dominant class into the politically dominant class, and that is why it is an instrument of dictatorship (power) of one class over another, an organ of violence and oppression. The state never exists to appease classes, but only to suppress one class by another. By the way, we note that violence in the activities of state power cannot, of course, be ruled out. M. Weber writes about this, for example, who defines the state as an organization within society that has a monopoly on legitimate violence. The modern English researcher E. Gellner also agrees with this, who also believes that the state is a specialized and concentrated force for maintaining order. However, in Marxism violence is given, perhaps, an absolute (self-sufficient) value. IN AND. Lenin, for example, paid special attention to this issue in his work The State and Revolution, when he analyzed various historical types of states. He carefully examines the mechanism of state power. Along with public authority - the state bureaucracy (authority separated from society), V.I. Lenin identifies as a necessary and extremely important link in the system of any government controlled the so-called detachments of armed people (punitive bodies) - the army, police, gendarmerie, intelligence, counterintelligence and their appendages - courts, prisons, correctional camps, etc. These punitive bodies, as well as public authorities, according to V.I. Lenin, are separated from society, stand above society and always ensure the strict implementation of the will of the ruling class. Let's say right away that during the development period of V.I. Lenin of these questions (the beginning of the 20th century), these conclusions of his did not differ from the real state of affairs. The state really acted as a committee for managing the affairs of the economically dominant class, and therefore all its might almost entirely served the interests and goals of this class.

In the Marxist theory of the state, much attention is paid to the issues of its development. Marxists, unlike many other schools that consider the state to be an eternal and unchanging entity, always emphasize its historical character. They believe that the state machine, having arisen in connection with the split of society into classes, is, after all, doomed to be scrapped in the course of socialist revolution. F. Engels in his work "Anti-Dühring" seriously argued that the first act of the new proletarian state - the law on the nationalization of the means of production will be at the same time its last act as a state. Now, instead of managing people, he wrote, there will be management of things. No less optimism was characteristic of V.I. Lenin. In his program of action after the seizure of power by the proletariat, he believed that in the new Soviet state there would be "payment to all officials in the election and replacement of all of them at any time not higher than the average salary of a good worker" (April theses, 1917). At the same time, at a party conference, he proclaims that the Soviet state will be a new type of state without a standing army and without a privileged bureaucracy. He quotes F. Engels: "A society that organizes production in a new way on the basis of a free and equal association of producers will send the state machine to where it will be its true place: to the museum of antiquities, next to the spinning wheel and the bronze axe."

Having come to power, the Bolsheviks could not but admit that they could not do without the state, that a long historical period was needed for the existence of the dictatorship of the proletariat as a new form of state power. They believed that with the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat, the essence of the state changes fundamentally, since the main function of the proletarian state is creative - building socialism in the interests of the absolute majority of people. That is why the state of the dictatorship of the proletariat V.I. Lenin no longer considered the state itself, but a semi-state, although at the same time the standing army, the police, the security service, and privileged officials, whose salary was many times higher than that of the average worker, were preserved. However, at the same time, neither V.I. Lenin and his followers never parted with the idea that with the disappearance of classes, the state would also disappear, which, as was usually said, would wither away as unnecessary.

K. Popper, evaluating the Marxist theory of the state in his book "The Open Society and Its Enemies", emphasized that the idea of ​​the state as a political superstructure over the economic basis, which must be broken, is true only for unregulated and legally unlimited capitalism, in which Karl Marx lived . However, this theory is not at all consistent, according to K. Popper, with modern reality, when state power is becoming more and more institutional, that is, an organization based on general legal forms of action for managing the affairs of society. This point is also emphasized by many other modern scientists who consider the state a political form of organization of society that regulates people's relations through law.

9 Popper K. Open society and its enemies. M., 1992. T. 2. S 189

Such a liberal approach to understanding the state as a form of political organization of society, which has been established today in science, considers it the bearer and executor of a certain general function (public power) that belongs to society and is carried out in order to maintain it. This approach presupposes the existence not only of the state - a public space dominated by the political unity of people based on law, but also of a civil society that is not politically organized. This means that society, acting as a prerequisite for the state, has a complex and mobile structure of its own, and it is a mass society. It is precisely these signs (its own structure and mass nature) that are implied by the concept of civil society. Even Hegel, and later P.A. Kropotkin showed that the state did not completely absorb social life even in a pre-capitalist society. P.A. Kropotkin wrote in this regard that almost always there were social forms completely or partially independent of the state and its institutions. Consequently, we can say that modern civil society is a relatively independent entity, separate from the state, which is the sphere of activity of diverse private interests of people.
Hegel, who developed the theory of civil society, believed that the line separating the state and civil society is conditional and relative. He emphasized that, even apart from the state, civil society remains its organic part. In this regard, we note that when Hegel wrote about this, civil society had not really yet sufficiently thoroughly separated from the state. Considering the state as the spirit of the people, Hegel believed that the spirit of the people penetrates (penetrates) almost all relations between people.

As you know, K. Marx used the concept of "civil society" in his early work, but then he abandoned it, considering it "Hegelian rubbish." For K. Marx and his followers, civil society is a bourgeois society. Since the Marxists opposed the bourgeois mode of production and advocated a new socialist society, they reasonably believed that this new society, which is entirely built on public property, does not need any special sphere of private interests and goals, independent of the general interest of the whole society. its individual members. After all, if you recognize civil society, it means agreeing that, firstly, there must be freedom of property (the freedom to sell and buy it by private individuals), and secondly, there must be freedom of human rights (his inviolability), freedom of the press, freedom of conscience, etc. It is clear that the Marxists, who argued that only socialism with its social ownership of the means of production represents true freedoms and human rights, considered the concept of civil society superfluous, and therefore the very idea of ​​civil society was rejected by them.

Today in the scientific literature there are two main approaches to the consideration of civil society: 1) civil society as a special system of people's relations, opposed to the state in any of its forms; 2) civil society as a civilized form of market democratic structure of modern society. If we bring these formulas together, it becomes clear that in addition to the state there is and should be a certain degree of independence of a person from the state (for example, a person should be able to get his bread not only from the hands of the state), that people can have different, not always associated with public space - the state, other private goals and interests of life (for example, obtaining individual education, special medical care, etc.). At the same time, these formulas simultaneously show that under a democratic regime, civil society should optimally come into contact with and interact with the state. The system of private interests of various social communities and individuals of civil society is faced with the need to streamline and harmonize them. It is quite clear that this can be done by the state, which, using unified management mechanisms, becomes an arbiter in emerging conflicts between people, guaranteeing an unbiased solution to their disputes in society.

The process of formation of civil society relations has also begun in modern Russia. True, this process is very difficult, extremely slow and contradictory. People gradually, not without difficulties, are increasingly winning back from the state the opportunity to independently and freely conduct personal and business life. After all, civil society is a space of freedom, and it should be such a space for the personal, family, and business life of every citizen. Even I. Kant believed that only a person who has his own social rights and civil independence can be an active citizen. The existence of a person should not depend on the arbitrariness of the state or someone or something else, it is determined, subject to its own rights and powers, unless, of course, it goes beyond the norms and rules established in this society.

At the same time, people live and act simultaneously in the common space of the state for them. After all, the state is a form of political association of people within a certain territory (state borders). The state is based on the principle of formal equality, the organization of public power of individuals - their citizens. The state and civil society are, as it were, two opposite, but equally necessary and interconnected elements, each of which forms its own special world of human relations. Being a sphere of free (economic and other) interaction of equal citizens, civil society delegates to the state the task of ensuring the integrity of society through the regulation of economic, political and cultural forms of human behavior. With the help of legal and other levers of public power, the state creates conditions for the life of not only society as a whole, but also the activity of each individual. After all, the state is an organization purposefully created by people living together for the purpose of uniform management to solve the common affairs of all citizens of society. That is why the state almost always has the opportunity to politically (in the interests of the whole) regulate the economy, social sphere, culture. Of course, in some places this can be done well. The state and civil society coexist peacefully, mutually complementing each other's actions for the benefit of the people. But sometimes this interaction leads to a certain confrontation, since the state seeks to maintain, and under certain conditions even strengthen its power over society. Of course, cooperation or confrontation in the interaction of civil society and the state is the result of a whole range of socio-economic and political conditions in the life of a people, a country. However, at the same time, of course, we must not forget that state regulation should not be a petty guardianship of everything and everyone, limiting and restricting the activity and initiative of the citizens themselves.
The state has always assumed and carried out various functions of managing and regulating relations in society. It continues to do this at the present time, constantly completing in its "machine" (the system of governing bodies) the missing elements (ministries, departments, committees, etc.).

One of the main functions of the state is the creation of political conditions for the development of the social life of people, the protection of the constitutional order (the execution of common affairs, the maintenance of order, the conduct of foreign policy).

Today, in almost all industrialized countries, in one form or another, there is a regulatory influence of the state on the economic life of society. By means of various political means and legal laws, it tries to regulate relations between employers and workers, between individual enterprises and monopolies. The state helps its national firms and corporations to penetrate the foreign market, because it is the state that establishes certain import and export duties and taxes. For example, a flexible tax policy pursued by the state allows not only filling the treasury, but also stimulating technical and economic progress. State orders to entrepreneurs make it possible to provide employment for the population and regulate unemployment, as well as adjust the distribution of productive forces. All this indicates that even with full-fledged market relations, state intervention in the functioning of economic enterprises cannot be ruled out.

A necessary function of any state has always been to strengthen its defense capability. Any modern state continues to pay close attention to this activity, since its costs for improving the army and the military-industrial complex as a whole are not decreasing.

An important activity of the modern state is its unified demographic and environmental policy, the regulation of the processes of population development and the protection of people's life and health. The need for this activity of the state is dictated, first of all, by the crisis nature of the current environmental situation in the world. Due to their global nature, environmental and demographic problems can only be solved at the state and interstate levels. That is why these problems acquire a pronounced political character. The state is forced to resort to a number of measures in order to ease the socio-ecological and demographic tension in its own country. Through various medical and educational programs, their financing, the state seeks an appropriate solution to the problems that arise here.

By exerting its influence on society, the state seeks to take on a social function - taking care of its citizens, so that through the provision of constant assistance to them become a social state. Of course, the state is not intended to stoop to the private interest of an individual, considers the outstanding Russian philosopher I.A. Ilyin, but it is called upon to elevate every spiritually true and just interest of an individual citizen to the interest of the entire state. It is clear that there are many such interests in every society: the elderly, the disabled, children. There are many different situations where charitable assistance from the state is essential: victims of natural disasters, basic scientific research, promising educational, medical and other programs. If the state takes care of this, if it regularly deals with issues of culture, health, education of its citizens, then it becomes a social state through this. In other words, the most important task modern state as public institution is no longer just a guarantee social rights person and citizen, but also their realization.

True, there is a slightly different point of view on the question of the need for the state to be social. So, I. Kant was, for example, an opponent of the welfare state. According to I. Kant, concern for the well-being of citizens should not be among the duties of the state. He believed that forced charity leads to despotic paternalism (all-encompassing guardianship) of the state in relation to a person. By the way, this position of I. Kant is shared by many prominent representatives of modern economic liberalism (F. Hayek, M. Friedman and others). They also believe that the intensive and systematic concern of the state for the well-being of citizens contributes to the development of dependency among people, undermines the initiative and extinguishes the entrepreneurial spirit of citizens.

These arguments, of course, are reasonable, and therefore, perhaps, we can say that the idea of ​​a welfare state is justified only if it does not undermine the principle of freedom of civil society, if state assistance is strictly targeted and tight control is established over all its social expenditures. . At the same time, social protection and state assistance to people are especially necessary in the context of a radical reform of social relations.

The state, all its institutions will be able to effectively fulfill their role in politics, economics, social relations, cultural life society, if they are strictly guided in all their activities by legal (constitutional) norms and laws. State, managerial activity which is entirely based on the priority of law in resolving any issue, can be considered legal.

The idea of ​​a legal, more precisely, universal legal state is not new. Carrying a general democratic content, it was actively used in the struggle against despotism and fascist dictatorships. Now it receives a new sound and becomes the guarantor of the implementation of universal human values.

The rule of law is determined not so much by the goals that it sets for itself, but by the ways and forms of its constant activity. For a rule of law state, the main question is not where this activity is directed, but how it is carried out, what means and methods state power relies on, whether it uses violence, terror or allows freedom and is based on respect for the individual. The spirit of any legal state is expressed by the well-known formula: "What is not forbidden is allowed." This implies that the person himself, and not the state and society, chooses and fulfills the goals and methods of his activity, refusing only those that are prohibited by laws. In a state governed by the rule of law, laws should not limit the scope of human choice, they should not prescribe a strict rule for people: to act this way and not otherwise. After all, if the law prescribes the purpose and mode of activity for people, it ceases to be an abstract norm, and then it becomes at the service of one or another political expediency. Accordingly, the law in this case turns from an end into a means of politics, and then there is no point in talking about the rule of law at all. After all, the principles of the rule of law triumph where there is a real opportunity for the manifestation of the whole variety of initiative and creativity of human activity, where reality is not reshaped to please the law, but, on the contrary, life itself dictates adequate norms of law to it.

A democratic rule of law exists inextricably linked with civil society, and one can even say that it is its product. Naturally, such a state and all its governing bodies must unquestioningly fulfill all the rights of the citizens who elected it. The mandatory separation of legislative, executive and judicial powers that exists in a state governed by the rule of law makes it possible not only to carry out their consistent execution, but also to exercise control so that these rights are not violated. Of course, the rule of law (the strict obedience of all to the law) is created by the people themselves. Nothing significant can happen without the participation of citizens, without their knowledge and approval. And it is people who are responsible both for the laws that exist in a given society, and for how they are implemented in society. This applies, of course, to all citizens, but especially to those of them who must guard the law. The legal state should be absolutely alien to the bureaucratic psychology, in which "if you feel that the law puts an obstacle for you, then, having removed it from the table, put it under you. And then all this, having become invisible, makes it much easier for you in actions." (M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin). Laws in society are obliged to comply with everything, and here there are no and cannot be any exceptions for anyone.

In a state governed by the rule of law, the exercise of rights and freedoms is inseparable from the fulfillment by each citizen of his duty to society. The human personality with its special individual needs and interests always remains a member of society and the state. That is why every citizen must be able to measure their interests with the interests of society, conscientiously fulfill their duties, bear a share of responsibility for the affairs and fate of the state. And it is the responsible approach of each citizen to his duty, organization and discipline that create a reliable basis for the most complete implementation of the principles of a democratic legal state and society.

Historical practice convincingly proves that high civic responsibility, strengthening of legal social discipline, compliance with the laws of the hostel are necessary conditions effective development of the state and society, and hence the growth of people's well-being, and more and more complete satisfaction of their material and spiritual needs.

Book: Political science / Dzyubko

4.4. The political organization of society. the state is the central organization

Society at any stage of its development acts as a set of interrelated organizations. It is organized in all spheres of life. The political system, covering the political sphere and giving it a certain logical completeness of connections, is also characterized by a system of organizations. All political organizations function autonomously. Their differentiation is growing. However, this does not mean that they exist on their own. The evolution of modern development is a twofold process: differentiation and interdependence of political institutions and organizations. All of them in their totality of interconnections create the political organization of society.

The political organization of society is a set of interrelated and mutually beneficial state, party organizations, public associations, created and operating for the purpose of formation and functioning of the system of domination and orderliness of politics or have an influence on it.

The decisive place in the political organization of society is occupied by the state as a form of organization of social life. Without the state there is no political organization and political system of society as a whole. The state and its power - and the axis on which it arises, keeps and functions politic system. Other organizational structures are being formed around the state. Outside of connection with the state, they have no political properties. Therefore, the state is a fundamental, basic organizational structure in the political organization of society and its entire political system.

The place of the state as a defining element of the political organization of society is determined by its purpose in society. She appears as:

> a political civil society organization;

> carrier of power in society;

> a representative of the entire population on a given geographical area;

> a form of political domination, which is expressed in the adoption of powerful decisions relating to the entire society and binding on the entire population;

> the source of everything political in society, its core element;

> spokesman for the general interest;

> a tool for the implementation of the general will in society;

> creator of common goals in society;

> the main stabilizer of public life;

> the main subject of political sovereignty.

Consequently, the state has a complex mechanism, and its functioning is multifaceted.

We all live in the state, feel its influence, obey its authority, use the services of state bodies, therefore, it would seem that the definition of the state for everyone should be a simple matter. However, since ancient times, political literature has given many definitions of the state. And this is not accidental, since the state is a very complex political phenomenon, and it is too difficult to fit into the concept of such richness. The multivariance of the definition of the state is also due to the fact that, as it develops, it acquires new features and deepens the content of its functioning.

So, even before Aristotle, public life served the state, and the state itself was seen as an association for managing society. The good of the state was primitive in relation to the good of the individual, a person who “by nature is a political being” (Aristotle).

Aristotle's ideas about the state attracted N. Machiavelli and J. Bodin. N. Machiavelli considered the state as the embodiment of a strong secular centralized power. J. Bodin defined the state as the legal management of many aspects of the life of society. The definition of the legal principle of the state and the most important idea - the idea of ​​state sovereignty - was a progressive phenomenon of that time.

The Marxist-Leninist concept of the state was based on class violence, which was seen as the essence of political and legal phenomena. The political ideology of class violence was not a product of Marx's imagination. It is known that since ancient times, political thought has distinguished two sides of the state - organized violence and the common good (what is now called public, or common, prosperity). The absolutization of one of the parties led this or that thinker to the theory, according to which the essence of the state is either violence, or such a way of organizing society that ensures the common good. On the basis of this, either the theory of violence, or the doctrine of the good of life, was formed.

The Marxist theory of the state as an organ of violence is historically understandable, since the doctrine of the class struggle as a metatheory of ideas about the state was formed during the formation of an industrial society. At that time, the social structure had a pronounced class character. Class antagonisms gave rise to revolutionary actions of the proletariat, and the state personified and defended the interests of the predominantly economically dominant class.

However, in the conditions of an industrial society, the Marxist "theory of violence" is unsuitable for the analysis of statehood. This is explained by the fact that modern society is a complex social structure, where violence is increasingly receding into the background as a result of the narrowing of social contradictions, and the general social activity of the state comes to the fore.

Around the problem of the state and society, even today in world political science there are heated discussions. Following the analysis of American political scientists G. Benjaminat G. Duval, there were five authoritative concepts of the state:

1. The state is an “acting” or “powerful force. Accordingly, before that, she makes a decision and makes a policy in society.

2. The state is the embodiment of certain "organizational principles" that provide structural coherence and integrity to the various institutions of government. This is the concept of the state as an organized whole, a structured state apparatus.

3. The state is the embodiment of real-life social relations, participation in the exercise of power in society by various social forces. The state is seen as the embodiment of the will of the ruling class.

4. The state is a system of government in society. It is the embodiment of both de jure and de facto laws. The state is a machine that eliminates conflicts, regulates social relations, and manages society.

5. The state is the embodiment of the dominant system of ideas and normative order in society. State and society are essentially inseparable.

Whatever discussions are held regarding civil society and the state, one thing is clear: even the most developed and free civil society does not have such mechanisms of self-regulation that would nullify the role of the state. The state is the institution that introduces, streamlines and regulates social processes, coordinates and harmonizes the interests of various social groups and political forces, creates legal basis complex system of social relations. The limited possibilities of self-regulation of civil society necessitate the state, which, without interfering in all its spheres, should become a powerful lever for the performance of power functions. Humanity has not yet created anything more perfect. That is why this lever should be humane (the priority of human rights over the rights of the state), democratic (overcoming the alienation of the individual from the state, creating a mass social base), moral (ideas of equality and justice); be limited (separation of powers, creation of checks and balances).

The modern general theory of the state, which developed after the Second World War in Western Europe, considers the foundations of statehood in the rights of peoples. It connects the concept of state power with the category of human rights, i.e. the main pre-legislative and post-legislative requirements of a certain degree of freedom, primary in relation to power. These demands and the rights of peoples are recognized and fixed in the principles and norms of international law.

From the standpoint of international law, the state is a legal form of organization and functioning of political power. This approach changes the content of the established theory, according to which the state was characterized by the presence of the following main features: 1) people (population); 2) territory; 3) public state power, based on the material conditions for its implementation.

1. Substantial element of the state: the presence of the people as an ethnic community, which is politically determined. Any ethnic group that recognizes itself as a historical nation on this territory has the right to create its own sovereign or autonomous organization of public authority. This right is recognized by international law.

2. The territorial element of the state: the presence of a country, a geographical environment with which the nation is historically connected as a subject of the right to political self-determination. This territory is the homeland for the nation. The right to a homeland is primary in relation to other factors that determine the boundaries of the territory on which the political self-determination of the nation takes place.

3. Institutional element: the state is the main subject of political power and political relations. It is the main intuitional, organizational element of political relationships, the most organized political form of society. The state is an organization of public political power, limited by human rights. In other words, the state is an organization designed to ensure the free joint political, economic and spiritual existence of people. If the state is not totalitarian, it should represent the general will, and not the interests and needs of a particular social group, prevent conflicts, and if they arise, resolve them by consensus.

Note that in connection with the general theory of the state, the organization of political power, which openly despises, neglects human rights (for example, does not recognize the right to life, freedom, inviolability of the person, carries out terror against the people of his country), is not a state in the modern sense of this concept. . Moreover, the general theory of the state recognizes the right to civil disobedience, up to violent resistance to an illegitimate regime of political power. Consequently, the exercise of state power is associated with its legality and legitimacy, that is, its legal validity, on the one hand, and justice, recognition, support from the population, on the other. The severity of this problem in modern Ukraine is also explained by the conditions for the formation of nomenklatura-mafia capitalism in some areas, inconsistency in some cases of commercial, administrative, and even criminal structures, opposition from the local nomenklatura or the central government, its incompetence and other factors.

Political legalization (from Latin legalis - legal) is the establishment, recognition and support of power by law, primarily by the constitution, norms that, depending on the type of power, can vary significantly.

The legalization of state power may be illusory. This happens in case of violation of democratic procedures for adopting a constitution, other acts of constitutional significance, as well as for discrepancies between these procedures and the ability of the people to exercise constituent power when adopting a fundamental law. If the law is contrary to the fundamentally humane values, it does not correspond to the law.

So, constitutions, laws can be adopted, changed, repealed in any way. For example, in many countries of Asia, Africa, and Latin America, military and revolutionary councils were created as a result of military coups and decreed differences in constitutions (sometimes suspended them), and often proclaimed new provisional constitutions without any procedures. In Iraq, since 1970, in the United Arab Emirates, since 1971, interim constitutions have retained the force of law. AT Saudi Arabia, Nepal, the monarchs personally "gave the constitution to their faithful people." In Brazil, the constitution was replaced by institutional acts, in Ethiopia - by proclamations. The Constitution of the USSR of 1936 contained democratic provisions on the rights of citizens, were not implemented, and the Constitution of the USSR of 1977, formally adopted in a democratic way, did not reflect the needs of real practice.

Consequently, legalization as the proclamation of the establishment of state power requires bringing it into a real state. This reflects such a concept as the legitimation of state power.

The phenomenon of political legitimacy of power is the personification of the cultural and human dimensions. The meaning of this phenomenon lies in the acceptance of power by the population, in recognizing its right to govern and in agreeing to obey it. The process of political legitimation of power presupposes its "awakening" into culture, which can either accept or reject this or that system of power. Cultural, creative, social functions can only be performed by legal power based on the law and acting within its limits.

Political legitimation (from Latin legitimus - legal) is not a legal concept, but rather an actual one: it is a state that expresses the justification, expediency and other measurements of the compliance of a particular government with the attitudes, expectations of citizens, social communities, society as a whole.

Recognition of state power is not associated with the issuance of a law, the adoption of a constitution (although this may also be part of the process of legitimation), but with a set of experiences and attitudes based on rational assessment, political experience and internal incentives, with political ideas of various segments of the population about the observance of norms by state power social justice, human rights. Illegitimate power is power based on violence, other forms of coercion, including mental influence.

The political legitimation of state power gives it the appropriate authority in society. The majority of the population voluntarily and quite consciously submits to it. This makes power stable and sustainable. However, a simple arithmetic majority cannot serve as the basis for true legitimation, because the majority of Germans adopted the policy of territorial claims and "purification of the race" for the Hitler regime.

The decisive criterion for the political legitimization of power is its compliance with universal human values.

The political legitimation of state power can and does provide for its legalization. However, it should be remembered that legitimation sometimes contradicts formal legalization. This happens when the adopted laws do not comply with the norms of justice, the ignominious democratic values ​​of the majority of the population. In this case, legitimation or not (for example, the population has a negative attitude towards the totalitarian order established by the authorities), or in the course of revolutionary events, national liberation movements, legitimation of another, anti-state, insurgent, pre-state power takes place, which has developed in the liberated areas and subsequently turns into a state power.

Pseudo-legitimation is also possible, when under the influence of propaganda, inciting hatred, the use of personal charisma by the leader while banning the opposition and the free press, hiding true information and other actions, the majority of the population supports state power, which satisfies some of its current interests to the detriment of fundamental aspirations.

Political legalization and legitimation of power are closely interrelated. Beginning with H. Weber, there are three "pure" types of legitimation of power. This is traditional, charismatic and rational legitimation.

1. Traditional legitimation is domination based on traditional authority, based on respect for customs, faith in their continuity and based on stereotypes of consciousness and behavior.

Thus, traditions play a leading role in strengthening monarchical power in Muslim states. Persian Gulf- Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, etc., as well as in Nepal, Bhutan, Brunei.

2. Charismatic legitimation is domination based on faith in the special qualities of a leader or a separate group of persons, in their exclusive mission in the development of the state. An example would be faith in the "good king", in the "great leader of all peoples". The charismatic state ideology is associated with the names of I. Stalin, Mao Zedong, Kim Il Sung, Ho Chi Minh and others.

3. Rational legitimation - domination based on rational assessment, conviction in the reasonableness of existing orders, laws, rules adopted in democratic states. Rational legitimation in modern conditions is the main

creation of a democratic legal state.

It very rarely happens that only one form of legitimation of power in the state is used, more often they act in combination. So, in a democratic UK, the main thing is the method of rational legitimation. However, the activities of Prime Ministers W. Churchill and M. Thatcher had elements of charisma, and traditions played an important role in the activities of parliament and the cabinet. To a large extent, the role of Charles de Gaulle, President of the French state, is associated with his activities as the leader of the Resistance Movement in the fight against fascism during the Second World War. Power

V. Lenin and I. Stalin in the USSR was consecrated by ideological factors. Therefore, the assertion of rational legitimation requires a certain amount of time.

Political legalization and political legitimation of state power are associated with the concept of political, state sovereignty.

Sovereignty is inherent in the modern state. The properties of state sovereignty include: absolute power, the supremacy of power in the geographical area where the state is located; the unity and indivisibility of the territory, or territorial integrity; inviolability of territorial borders and non-interference in the internal affairs of another state; provision of the legal system. The state ensures its sovereignty by all means, even by force, if circumstances so require.

A characteristic feature of the state is the presence of tools for the enforcement of policy. The content of the army and the judicial-repressive apparatus is what distinguishes the state from other political organizations. No political organization is capable of declaring and waging war. Only the state can do this. Violence is a method that is unique to the state, that is, it is its monopoly. No other organization, by its very nature, should use violence. Forms of violence are legalized by the state. The monopoly on legitimate violence by the state has limits defined by law.

The strength and power of the state, as well as its power, in modern conditions are not in the ability to use force, but in caring for members of society, creating conditions for their security and self-realization. Abuse of power, deprivation of rights and freedoms is the result of unjustified concentration of state power, incompetence in the use of political power, misunderstanding of the power prerogatives of the state.

As a sovereign, independent entity, the state performs its functions of managing society.

The essential features of the functions of the state are the following:

1) stand the substantive activity of the state in a particular sphere of life;

2) a direct connection between the essence of the state and its social purpose, which is realized through the corresponding functions;

3) the orientation of the functions of the state towards the fulfillment of specific tasks and the achievement of goals arising on each historical stage development of society;

4) the exercise of power in certain forms (most often legal) and with the help of special methods inherent exclusively in state power.

The functions of the state are multifaceted, their formation is carried out in the process of formation, strengthening and development of the state. The order in which functions arise depends on the order of tasks facing society. The content of functions changes with the development of the state and society. The functions of the state acquire special specificity during the period of radical social changes, transitional stages, and revolutionary upheavals.

The functions of the state can be classified according to various criteria:

> the principle of separation of powers - legislative, managerial, judicial;

> parties to the action of the state - internal and external;

> spheres of state influence - economic, social, cultural, spiritual, legal, etc.;

> regulation of processes - self-regulation, self-organization, self-government, initiative, etc.;

> zagalnopolitichnymi approaches-providing democracy; general social activity;

> volume of influence - national, maintenance of world order;

> scaling value - major and non-core.

The main state functions of society management are: management of the spheres of social, economic, spiritual life, processes, changes, development that take place in them; regulation of national and international relations; guaranteeing observance of generally binding norms in society; ensuring public order and national security; peacekeeping within the country and participation in world peacemaking. To carry out its functions, the state supports its own reproduction, vital activity and new creation.

The state is an internal structure of organs that act as the main system, manage the affairs of society and ensure the functioning of the state. We are talking about the main system, since the parties and public organizations. The state apparatus performs functions of national importance.

The system of state bodies in its totality forms the state mechanism. Such a system includes: authorities, state administration bodies, courts, prosecutor's office, bodies serving the activities of the army, police, state security. All state bodies are endowed with powers of authority, embodied in their competence (a set of rights and obligations).

Each state is formed in a certain way, territorially organized and has certain ways of ruling. These primarily include the form of the state as a certain orderly organization and exercise of state power. its elements are: state board - a way of organizing the highest state power;

state structure - the division of the state into certain constituent parts and the distribution of power between these parts;

state regime - a set of methods and means of exercising state power.

Historically, there have been two forms of government, namely: the monarchy and the republic.

Monarchy is a form of government in which power is wholly, partially or nominally owned by one person (king, king, emperor, shah) and is inherited.

As a form of government, the monarchy arose during the period of slavery, and in the Middle Ages it became the main form of government. Full development and changes in the defining qualities of the monarchy acquired for the New Age. The following types of monarchies are historically known: absolute (unlimited), dualistic and parliamentary (constitutional).

An absolute monarchy is a form of government when all power is concentrated in the hands of the monarch, who alone decides all issues of power.

A dualistic monarchy is a form of government in which power functions are divided between the monarch and parliament.

Parliamentary monarchy - a system of omnipotence of parliament, the monarch performs only representative functions.

The second historically known form of government is the republic.

A republic is such an organization of state power, which is carried out by an elected collegial body, which is elected for a certain period by the entire population or part of it. There are presidential and parliamentary republics. There are different approaches to assessing republican forms of government. The advantage of the parliamentary form is that it is seen as a more stable and systemic form of government, which prevents the spread of authoritarianism and other forms of dictatorship. The advantages of a presidential republic are seen in the fact that it more stably ensures the functioning of free power, the guarantor of which is the president. Consider the content of each of them. A presidential republic is a form of government when the head of state (president) alone or with subsequent approval by parliament forms the composition of the government, which he leads with his own hands.

A typical example of a presidential republic is the United States of America. According to the US Constitution, adopted on September 17, 1787, to which 26 amendments have since been made, the president is both the head of government and the state. He is elected by the citizens of the country for four years. The president forms the government. Candidates for key positions are approved by legislative assemblies. The US Congress consists of two chambers: the upper - the Senate and the lower - the House of Representatives. A feature of the structure of this country is that the government is formed by the president in an extra-parliamentary way. The president cannot dissolve parliament. The government is not responsible to him. The president exercises control over the federal administration. Power functions are actually divided between the president and the Congress, between the chambers within the Congress, between the standing committees within the chambers.

The peculiar relationship of the American president with the party that nominated him. He is not a party leader in the European sense. The formal head of the party, the president is not legally it. It is understood that the President of the United States must be outside the parties, their contradictions, interests, conflicts. However, this does not mean that the president neglects the parties. Since the nomination of a candidate for the presidency depends on the party, the president seeks to maintain good relations with its leaders and members, but basically the president appeals to the electorate.

The parliamentary form of government is a form in which the composition and policy of the government are formed exclusively by the parliament, the government is accountable only to it, and the president has no influence on the parliament.

There is a parliamentary form of government in Great Britain, where the executive branch has strong positions. The party that wins the parliamentary elections becomes the ruling party. She forms the government. The prime minister has broad powers. The government also has great powers.

In the UK, the prime minister receives a mandate from the electorate. He concentrates in his hands the functions of leading the party and the cabinet of ministers, and is responsible to the parliament. In the event of a vote of no confidence or other extraordinary circumstances, the Prime Minister may dissolve Parliament.

A typical example of a parliamentary republic is also the FRG, where all legislative power belongs to the parliament (Bundestag). The president actually performs representative functions, his rights are narrower. The Bundestag forms the government, elects its head - the chancellor. The government is formed from among the deputies of the Bundestag, representing the party factions of the parliamentary majority. Non-Party specialists very rarely enter cabinets.

Classical forms of government - a parliamentary republic, a presidential republic, a constitutional monarchy - are increasingly being replaced by mixed or simply distorted forms. The essence of the latter lies in a varying degree of combination of signs of "pure" parliamentarism, "pure" presidential tours and "parliamentary" monarchy. One way or another, the parliamentary-presidential and presidential-parliamentary republics became the leading forms of government in the republican type, and constitutional and parliamentary in the monarchical type (as opposed to monarchies of an absolutist, monocratic or theocratic nature).

The parliamentary-presidential and presidential-parliamentary forms of government are characterized by a certain dualism. It lies in the fact that the leading executive functions are the prerogative of both the president and the cabinet of ministers, which is responsible to the parliament.

France can serve as an example. Here the President key person. He develops a political and economic strategy for the development of the country. The president relies on a strong bureaucracy. A feature of this form is that a conflict between the president as head of state and the government is possible here.

Any of these forms of government is carried out on the territory of the country, which is organized in a certain way. The state-political structure provides for the administrative organization of the territory. Thus, a mechanism of vertical relations is being formed - between central and local public authorities. Such forms of territorial-administrative organization are historically known: unitarism, federalism, confederalism.

The political system is the administratively and nationally organized territory of the state, as well as the system of relations between central and regional bodies.

A unitary state is a single state entity. The main features of a unitary form of state formation are as follows: a single constitution, the norms of which are applied without any changes throughout the country; one system the highest bodies of state power; a unified management system from top to bottom, which is subject to the government; unified legal system; division of the territory into administrative-territorial units that do not have political independence. Emphasizing the "single" in each feature, we note that the degree of centralization in different countries may be different. It depends primarily on the political regime prevailing in the country. Yes, in recent times in many highly developed countries (Great Britain, France, etc.) there is a tendency to decentralize power, increase the role of local authorities, and develop amateur principles in solving many local problems.

A federation is a form of state structure of a country that was formed on the basis of the union of state-political utvopen (states, republics, provinces, cantons, lands), which have a legally defined amount of independence in various spheres of public life.

The main features of the federal form of government are: the territory in political and administrative terms is not one; Availability state formations having a certain political and legal independence and as a whole constitute the territory of the state; the subjects of the federation are endowed with constituent power, that is, they are granted the right to adopt their own constitutions; subjects of the federation have the right to issue legislative acts within the established competence; the subject of the federation has its own legal and judicial system; having dual citizenship; bicameral structure of the federal parliament.

Among states with a federal form of structure (USA, Germany, Canada, Mexico, Russia, Brazil, Argentina, Austria, India, Australia, etc. In states such as Russia and India, territorial-political and territorial-national principles are combined. countries reigns territorial-political principle of government.

Federations can be built on a treaty and on a constitutional basis.

Treaty federation - such associations of states that, according to the agreement, have delegated a number of their powers to the central federal government and, if desired, can terminate this agreement at any time.

A constitutional federation is a form of association in which the powers of the center and local state-political entities are constitutionally determined, and power is shared between them.

The constitutional federation does not provide for the right of the subjects of the federation to withdraw from it. In the case when the desire to exit is implemented by forceful methods, such actions lead to disintegration, the collapse of the federation and other negative consequences. An example of this is the collapse of the USSR, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia. In these countries, the political-territorial division was associated with the national-territorial.

Federation as a form of government has always been the subject of discussion on the sovereignty of the federation and subjects of the federation. The problem lies in the degree, the volume of divisibility of sovereignty. The federal government concentrates in its hands activities related to defense, state security, its foreign relations, finances, organization of labor, social protection of the population, etc. Local authorities are empowered to organize local life. The supremacy in the distribution of competence (rights and duties) remains with the federal constitution and legislation. Constitutional and other local legislation must comply with the federal one.

A more complex form of federation is a confederation. A confederation is a state-legal association, a union of sovereign states, created with the aim of coordinating actions to achieve certain goals defined at a given historical moment. Most often these are foreign policy, military goals. In contrast to the federation, the confederation does not have a center that makes binding power decisions in relation to the subjects of the federation. Switzerland is an example of a confederation. Confederation is a less stable form of government. Confederations either break up or turn into a federation. Even Switzerland, where a confederate form has existed since the 13th century, in the 20th - early 21st century. more and more towards federation.

For any device, the state achieves high rates of its development where the principles of democracy, the legal and social content of the state are optimally combined and interact. The political nature of the state organization determines to a large extent the political nature of law, which is personified in the law. It is in the law that the fact of the chosen policy is fixed.

Modern world transformations have brought to life the need to revise the relationship between state and law, which for decades was the ideological justification of the totalitarian regime in many countries of the world. Thus, law was considered as a product, an instrument, the main instrument of the state, with the help of which it carried out coercion, trying to ensure order in the country. Law, in accordance with the socialist normative concept of law, was a system of norms established and sanctioned by the state aimed at regulating social relations. So, the approach scheme was as follows: the state is primary, law is secondary, that is, law is the result of the creation of the state itself, its expression of will.

The overcoming of totalitarianism brought to life new approaches to understanding the relationship between law and the state. Their essence lies in the fact that law is primary, and the state is secondary. The right has not a state origin, but a social one, since it is connected with the activities of people. People are the source of law. It is a person with his needs and interests, way of life that is the source and bearer of law. Thus, law has a social, human, and not a state origin. It is a product of normal human activity. Therefore, if we consider it only in relation to the state and consider it a product of state activity, then the historical result of such a process will be nationalization, bureaucratization of a person as a cog in a large state machine. In connection with this approach, the place and role of branches of law is being reviewed. The main place is given primarily to private (including civil) law, while other branches play an auxiliary role relative to private law and are aimed at its provision and implementation.

The right is embodied in the legislation of the state.

The process of creating a rule of law state is associated with the awareness of the desire of citizens for freedom, for curbing the monster statehood, for the primacy of law over the state, for ensuring rights and freedoms. The Germans in the concept of "legal statehood" (this word means "lawful state" in German) focus on a negative attitude towards revolutionary ideas regarding the state, on the recognition of the evolutionary path of development of society, on the dominance of the constitutional foundations of "legal statehood".

World civilization has accumulated great experience theory and practice of the rule of law. In the words of the former French President F. Mitterrand, the rule of law is a consecrated European culture system of democratic values ​​and legal foundations. The history of the Ukrainian people on this occasion should testify to the world one of its pages.

The creation of the Ukrainian state has passed an extremely difficult historical path. After the collapse of Kievan Rus and the capture of the Galicia-Volyn principality by the Polish-Lithuanian feudal lords, the process of development of Ukrainian statehood was interrupted for a long time. Only in the second half of the XVII century. part of the Ukrainian lands inhabited by Ukrainians was united into a state under the control of Bogdan Khmelnitsky. In order to establish itself in the difficult international situation of that time, the newly formed state entered into a military-political alliance with Russia. Subsequently, the agreement was violated by Russian tsarism. Ukraine was deprived of state independence and turned into a "Little Russian province." Having eliminated the people's rights, the democratic Cossack republic - the Zaporozhian Sich, which was too sharp a contrast to Russian absolutism, Catherine II transported the hetman's symbols to St. Petersburg. At that time, socio-political thought in Ukraine hatched projects of an independent state. The Ukrainian hetman in exile Pylyp Orlyk developed the first democratic constitution in Ukraine "Pacts and the Constitution of the Rights and Liberties of the Zaporizhzhya Army", its text was announced on May 5, 1710 at the Celebrations on the occasion of the election of Pylyp Orlyk as hetman. The constitution is imbued with a liberal and democratic spirit, which puts it among the most interesting sights of European political thought of that time.

The Constitution of Pylyp Orlyk determined the borders of the Ukrainian state, provided for the establishment of national sovereignty, ensuring human rights, recognizing the inviolability of the components and factors of a legal society, namely: the unity and interaction of the legislative (elected General Council), executive (the hetman, whose actions are limited by law, the general foreman and elected representatives from each regiment) and the judiciary, accountable and controlled. Install

All scientists note that it is impossible to define the concept of the state, which would reflect all, without exception, the features, properties of the state, characteristic of all its periods in the past, present and future. At the same time, as world science has proven, any state has a set of universal features that manifest themselves at all stages of its development. These features have been identified above.

Summarizing them, we can formulate a definition of the concept of the state. State- this is a single political organization of society, which extends its power to the entire territory of the country and its population, has a special administrative apparatus for this, issues decrees binding on all and has sovereignty.

The essence of the state. Correlation of universal and class principles in the state.

To reveal the essence of the state means to reveal the main determining factor that determines its objective necessity in society, to understand why society cannot exist and develop without the state. When considering the essence of the state, two aspects must be taken into account:

2. Whose interests - class, universal, religious, national, does this organization serve.

There are two approaches to the study of the essence of the state:

1. class approach .

The class approach is that the state is seen as a machine for maintaining the rule of this class over another, and the essence of such a state lies in the dictatorship of the economically and politically dominant class. Such a concept of the state reflects the idea of ​​the state in its proper sense as an instrument of the dictatorship of the ruling class. This position is directly or indirectly proven by world science and historical practice. Thus, the slave-owning state in its essence was a political organization of slave-owners, the feudal state was an organization of feudal lords and other wealthy estates, the capitalist state at the first stages of its development acted as an organ for expressing the interests of the bourgeoisie. The state is used here for narrow purposes, as a means of ensuring mainly the interests of the ruling class. The priority satisfaction of the interests of any other classes cannot cause resistance from opposing classes, so the problem arises in the constant removal of this resistance with the help of violence and dictatorship. Speaking of the socialist state at the stage of the dictatorship of the proletariat, it should be noted that the state must exercise this dictatorship in the interests of the overwhelming majority of the population. Unfortunately, many theoretical propositions about the socialist state remained a theory, since in practice the state apparatus served not the broad strata of the working people, but the party and nomenklatura elite.

2. General social or universal approach .

Another approach of the state is to consider the essence of the state from the universal human and social principles. The peculiarity of the slave-owning, feudal, capitalist states at the first stages of development is that they, first of all, expressed the economic interests of a minority of slave-owners, feudal lords, and capitalists. However, as society improves, the economic and social base of the state expands, the coercive element narrows, and due to objective reasons, the state turns into an organizing force of society that expresses and protects the personal and common interests of members of society. Contrary to the predictions of political scientists about the crisis and "decay" of capitalism, about imperialism as the eve and threshold of the socialist revolution, capitalist society withstood and managed to successfully overcome the crisis and the decline in production. Capitalism as a social system gradually strengthened and changed significantly. He was able to accept and actually implement progressive ideas of social development into practice. The society that was formed after the Second World War in developed countries Western Europe and Asia has already become qualitatively different. It differed significantly from the capitalist society of the times of Marx and Engels and the imperialist society studied by Lenin. Modern Western society is sometimes more oriented toward socialism than countries that call themselves socialist. The state mechanism has turned from a tool, a means of predominantly implementing common affairs, into an instrument for reaching agreement and compromise. In the activities of the state, such important general democratic institutions as the separation of powers, the rule of law, publicity, pluralism of opinions, and so on, begin to come to the fore.

Thus, in the essence of the state, depending on historical conditions, it can come to the fore as a class principle, which is typical for exploitative states, or a general social principle, which is increasingly manifested in modern post-capitalist and post-socialist states.

State, the main instrument of political power in a class society. In a broader sense, government is understood as a political form of organizing the life of society, which develops as a result of the emergence and activity of public power - a special control system that governs the main areas of public life and, if necessary, relies on the force of coercion. Since the state is based on the territorial principle, this term is sometimes inaccurately used as a synonym for the concept of "country". Various types of government are known - slave-owning, feudal, bourgeois, socialist; various forms of organization G. - monarchy, republic.

The main features of G.: 1) the presence of a special system of organs and institutions that together form the G. mechanism; relations, as well as the structure and procedure for the operation of the state mechanism; 3) the presence of a certain territory, within which the given state power is limited. Speaking like territorial organization, G. actively contributed to the process of formation of nations.

G. - the main, but not the only political institution of class society; along with the government in a developed society, there are various parties, unions, religious associations, etc., which, together with the government, form the political organization of society. G. differs from other political institutions of class society in that it holds the highest power in society (sovereignty of state power). The supremacy of state power is concretely expressed in universality (its power extends to the entire population and public organizations of a given country), prerogatives (state power can cancel any manifestation of any other public power), as well as in the presence of such means of influence that no other public power does not have (for example, monopoly of legislation, justice).

G. is social phenomenon limited by certain historical boundaries. The primitive communal system did not know G. It arises as a result of the social division of labor, the emergence of private property, and the split of society into classes. In order to protect their privileges and consolidate the system of exploitation, the economically dominant classes need a special power mechanism of political domination, which was precisely the state and his apparatus. With the advent of government, this mechanism no longer coincides with society, as if it stands above it and is maintained at the expense of society (taxes, fees). No matter how different historical forms G., state power and organization of the G. apparatus. its essence, the nature of its relations with society is the political power of the ruling class (the dictatorship of the class). The classes that own the means of production become politically dominant with the help of the state, and thereby consolidate their economic and social dominance and the leading role within the given society and in its relations with other states and countries.

G., thus, is ultimately determined by the nature of production relations and the mode of production as a whole. In the course of history, G. acquires independence. Its independent impact on the main spheres of social life, historical and social processes is very significant and is carried out in different directions, i.e. G. can contribute to the development of social relations or, conversely, slow it down. As the state-organized society becomes more complex, the role of this influence increases.

44.Functions of the state. The concept of political power. Forms of power.

State- a system of organs of society, which provides an organized internal legal life people as a whole, protects the rights of its citizens, carries out the normal functioning of the institutions of power - legislative, judicial and executive, controls its territory, protects its people from an external threat, guarantees the fulfillment of obligations to other states, preserves natural environment and cultural values, contributing to the survival of society and its progress. Signs: 1) Separation of public authorities from society, 2) Territory bounded by a clearly defined border, 3) Sovereignty, 4) The right to levy taxes and fees from the population, 5) Mandatory citizenship. Functions of the state (internal): 1) Political

2) Economic

3) Social

4) Ideological

5) Cultural and educational

6) Environmental

7) Protection of the rights of citizens (According to the lectures: 1 Regulation of relative between layers, 2 Management of the general affairs of citizens living in a given territory and organizing in a state, functions are carried out through tasks 1-7)

1) Border protection

2) Integration into the world economy

3) Protection of international security

Politics - represents participation in the affairs of the state, in determining the direction

its functioning, in determining the forms, tasks and content of activities

states. The aim of the policy is to maintain or create the most acceptable

for certain social strata or classes, as well as society as a whole conditions and

ways to exercise power. Political power is a fine art

government controlled. It is a collection of elements

who are officially recognized executors of political power (the state apparatus,

political parties, movements, trade unions). These are the main elements of an extensive mechanism, with

through which political power is exercised in society.

Power- it is always the organized will and power of any subjects, aimed at

people, regardless of their attitudes regarding such influence.

There are monarchical and republican forms of government. Monarchy- this is

a state headed by a monarch; there is an autocratic or

limited power of one person (king, king, emperor), which is usually

is inherited and birth determines who will be the ruler. Republic -

a form of government exercised by elected bodies, i.e. legal source

the popular majority is in power. Republic assumes legal order,

publicity and separation of powers.

Oligarchy - form of government in which state power is vested in

a small group of people, usually the most economically powerful.

Despotism- a form of government and government in which the autocratic

the ruler unlimitedly disposes of the state, acting in relation to

subjects as lord and master.

Democracy- state form in which the supreme power belongs to everything

Theocracy- a form of state in which both political and spiritual power

concentrated in the hands of the clergy (church).

45 Political and legal consciousness, their role in the life of society.

Political consciousness arose in antiquity as a response to a real need to comprehend such new phenomena as the state and state power, a cat. first arose with the split of society into anthological classes. Since the social division of labor leads to the emergence of classes, and hence to sharp differences in the conditions of their lives and activities, it becomes necessary to maintain the existing class structure through state power, a cat. most often, naturally expresses the interests of the ruling class. In this way, political consciousness is a reflection of the production, economic and social relations of classes in their total relation to state power. In this conditioning by immediate economic and class interests lies the specificity of political consciousness. The structure of state power is the central problem of political thinking. The political struggle for determining the structure, tasks and content of the state's activities has historically been clothed in forms of various quality, starting from a public discussion social problems, from parliamentary discussions and economic demands leading to private reforms, and ending with violent coups d'etat, social revolutions.

(2var) It is political interests that are most often the core of all socially active associations, and even more so, social clashes. Not only the socio-political, but also the spiritual life of society is dependent on political interests.

Until classes disappear (=the problem of state power), all the aspirations of the human spirit will be involved consciously or forcibly in political contradictions. Legal consciousness- this is the form of public consciousness in which knowledge and assessment of the normative socio-economic activities of various subjects of law (individual, enterprise, labor collectives, organizations) accepted in a given society as legal laws are expressed. Officials etc.). Legal consciousness is, as it were, intermediate between political and moral consciousness. If political consciousness is formed depending on objective socio-economic interests. then legal consciousness is more oriented towards rational and moral assessments.

The inner closeness of legal consciousness with rational and moral categories has historical reasons. In a classless primitive society with its mythological worldview, the laws were considered as a moral tradition, they "were in the form of institutions sanctioned by the gods" (Hegel).

The legal consciousness of society is always support for the very idea of ​​regulated relations between the individual and the state, a cat. recognized as necessary to sustain society against the forces of anarchy. cat. must be known and observed, but cannot be considered absolute, that is, free from critical evaluation. Political and legal consciousness exist both at the social-practical and theoretical levels.