What is democracy?

Democracy is the personification of freedom. A democratic system implies election and freedom to elect and be elected. Democracy as a political system has 3 elements:
- State leaders are appointed by citizens through fair and competitive elections.
- the people are the only legitimate source of power. Power acquired except through elections is not recognized.
- the people exercise self-government, striving for the common good.

From here we can identify the characteristic features of democracy. Firstly, this is the election of the main government bodies, or rather the persons who are appointed to these bodies. Election can be carried out both directly (presidential elections) and through representatives (first you choose representatives, and they choose others).

Secondly, democracy implies a change of power. The president and the main authorities must change every few years. This principle makes it possible to prevent the authorities from “staying too long” in place.

Thirdly, democracy most often involves decentralization. Those. regions should not be dependent on the center. Naturally, regions must cooperate and strive for the common good, but at the same time the regions are free in most political and internal economic issues.

Democracy is not respected in Russia

If you look at our political system, you can see that democracy is poorly developed in Russia. Our head of state practically does not change. We don’t know many deputies, although we elect them ourselves. There is a lot of information that the elections are being rigged. There is poverty, corruption, and so on in Russia. In addition, basic freedoms are missing. Freedom of speech is often limited by censorship. You are free to talk about anything except politics.

If you watch TV, you get the impression that people are being oppressed. Rich officials fatten on the bones of poor workers. The media tells us that there is almost totalitarianism in Russia. This is indeed true. Many good jobs and educational positions are occupied by relatives of high-ranking officials. You can get a job in government agencies only through relatives or only for money.

As a result, it turns out that Russia has a kind of monarchy. Where deputies are an aristocracy (in the bad sense of the word). All elections are rigged. After all, it doesn’t matter how they vote, it’s important how these votes are counted. The length of the president’s “reign” has increased and will increase again. And Putin, sitting at the “throne” for his third term, looks more like a monarch than a president.

Does Russia need democracy?

Now forget about the previous section. Everything described above is just stereotypes that the media likes to push. The topic that there is no democracy in Russia is very popular not only in Russia, but throughout the world. Just give Western countries a reason to accuse Russia of violating human rights.

Russia is no better than other countries, but not worse either. Russia doesn't need democracy. Democracy has too many disadvantages.

Firstly, democracy is only possible in small towns and areas where everyone knows each other. After all, in order to choose someone, you must know everything about him. There's no point in choosing from 4 presidential candidates if you don't know anything about anyone. In Russia, elections are just like Russian roulette. In a small town where everyone knows each other, democracy makes sense. After all, you know everything about your neighbors. You know that Ivan is an alcoholic and you don’t need to choose him. But Peter is a hard-working family man, and therefore is well suited for the role of leader.

This is why people choose not those they know, but those they are used to seeing. United Russia and Putin are elected not because the elections are rigged, but because only their people know. If we don’t choose Putin, then who should we choose? Even though not everything is all right with Putin, there is simply no real alternative. It's like in a canteen where they serve nothing but pasta. Although you don’t like pasta, you will eat it because you have no choice.

Secondly, Russia has always been a centralized country. If you give a lot of power to the regions, they will begin to separate. Russia cannot afford to be divided. Territorial unity is our main weapon. That is why we are so actively fighting for the small Kuril Islands. You ask: “Why did Russia give Alaska to the Americans?” Many believe that Alexander II then made a big mistake by selling Alaska. Russia sold Alaska because there were no planes, no phones, no Internet back then. Therefore, it is very, very difficult to control a territory that is located thousands of kilometers away. If real democracy had existed then, we would not have sold Alaska, but it would have been taken away or recaptured anyway (remember what happened to distant colonies, such as America?).

Thirdly, democracy carries the seeds of moral decay. Democracy tells us about freedom. Most people believe that democracy is the only regime that gives freedom. Britain has a monarchy, but their democracy works more effectively.

Democracy tells us that we are free and can do whatever we want. Freedom is generally a fiction. A person a priori cannot be free. After all, in addition to the laws of the state, there will always be moral laws, the laws of the crowd, the laws of physics. The fact that you have the opportunity to study exactly where you want, work where you want, do what you want - this is freedom. Freedom should not limit the freedoms of other people. But freedom gives rise to pedophilia and homosexuality. After all, if you are free, you can do what you like. As a result, propaganda begins. The state is trying to prohibit such antics by blocking the legislative ban on gay pride parades and other things.

And democracy also produces unemployed and stupid people. After all, no one is obliged to work or study. That’s why you can increasingly hear that modern children are sitting on the necks of their parents.

Fourth (or fifth), democracy affects the penetration of the Market into the country’s infrastructure. The market is the new God. Nobody controls the market anymore; it controls everyone. If a country has democracy, then it must introduce market relations. As a result, instead of schools and hospitals, we are building supermarkets. As a result, in democracy a person becomes free. But in reality - addicted to money. All our lives we strive to earn more money - this is what democracy dictates.

Sixth, democracy implies the rule of the people. In reality, this is the power of the crowd. The people do not understand anything about politics, but they vote for certain candidates. And those 5% who are well versed in politics and know how to make the state prosper are lost among the 95% of idiots (sorry: not idiots, but ordinary citizens).

Seventh, the frequent change of president and people in the state apparatus is a guarantee of destruction. The President does not manage to do anything in 6 years. On a national scale, this is simply impossible. Imagine the case that the owner of the restaurant changes every 6 weeks. Naturally, the restaurant will most likely collapse in six months. Because the new owner will not have time to do everything he planned.

In addition, a person who realizes the temporary nature of his tenure begins to steal. If you are put in a barn for life, you will not steal grain. Otherwise you won't last your whole life. But if a person is placed in a barn for a couple of days, he will decide that he needs to take away more in such a short period of time. Corruption thrives precisely because people think of life as something temporary. If an official or president knew that he would remain in his post all his life, then he would not become a corrupt official. After all, he would understand that if he did not follow moral rules, his people would simply kill or overthrow.

Yes, life is a temporary phenomenon. There is most likely no God, which means you will die and rot in the ground. But that doesn't mean you have to do whatever you want. After all, true democracy does not imply chaotic freedom, but a common desire for well-being.

What's the end result?

There is no democracy in Russia, but there is no totalitarianism or monarchy either. Russian democracy may be crooked, but it works. We have our own unique system. And even if we don’t live as we would like, it’s good that we don’t live worse. And all sorts of words about the fact that it is impossible to live in Russia are just made up. So many people live in Russia, and judging by the statistics, most of them are happy with life. Hence the question: Why is there so much noise around the fact that there is no democracy in Russia?

The answer is simple. Stupid people who blame the authorities for their lack of freedom are more active. Normal people don't need to write angry messages on the Internet. Those 20–30% who are confident in Russia’s totalitarianism shout more than others. Hence the impression that this topic is popular.

People! In Russia so far everything is at the very least, but it works. At the same time, one cannot fail to notice positive changes. And it is not the state that is to blame for the rise in prices for food and gasoline, but the Market. And there is no need to blame the Market for this, people invented it.

P.S. Many will think that this article was written at the request of the intelligence services. Naturally, this is not so. I'm not praising the president. To be honest, I see myself as president, not anyone else. But no one cares about this, because democracy implies loneliness in freedom. I don’t criticize democracy, but there’s nothing to praise it for either. And if you want to live better, then you need to strive not for democracy, but for something else.

Thank you for your attention!

On the topic: “Democracy in the modern world”

Discipline: "Political Science"

Performed:

1st year student, 4th group

Full-time - correspondence department

Faculty of Veterinary Medicine

Kiseleva Nadezhda Viktorovna

Record book number: B/B13077

Work verified

"___" ________________2014

Teacher:

Tikhomirov Nikita Vladimirovich

Moscow 2014

Introductions

Conclusions

Introductions

Democracy is a form of government in which all citizens participate in government and accept responsibility to society, either directly or through freely elected representatives. Democracy is a set of principles and practical measures that protect human freedom. Democracy is the institutionalization (introduction into legal framework) of freedom

Democracy

Democracy (ancient Greek δημοκρατία - “power of the people”, from δῆμος - “people” and κράτος - “power”) is a form of government in which citizens personally or through elected representatives exercise the right to make (political) decisions. Democracy is based on the recognition of the people as the source of power and presupposes the rule of the majority, equality of citizens, the rule of law, etc. In direct democracy, the main decisions are made by the voters themselves (for example, through referendums), while in representative democracy, decisions are made by elected institutions (for example, parliaments). A form of government where the power of the majority is exercised within the framework of constitutional restrictions that guarantee the minority the exercise of certain individual or collective rights (such as freedom of speech, religion, etc.) is called liberal or constitutional democracy.

Human rights, democracy and freedom in the modern world.

“There is no person who does not love freedom, but a just person demands it for everyone, and an unjust one only for himself.” This phrase belongs to Karl Ludwig Börne, a German thinker and publicist, defender of the doctrine of human freedom, equality of all before the law and a democratic, fair form of government.

Today, respect for human rights and democratic norms is one of the main indicators by which the degree of development of society and the state is assessed. Many countries of the world put the issue of respect for human rights at the forefront of their foreign policy; there are a number of influential human rights international non-governmental organizations.

Today, concepts such as “democracy” and “human rights” are often devalued internationally. And this cannot but worry. The idea of ​​human rights ceases to be the beacon that guides countries experiencing economic and political change. This idea ceases to be an absolute, undeniable and authoritative value.

there is reason to assert that in the modern world there is a departure from the foundations of democracy and a devaluation of the idea of ​​human rights, which can be explained by three reasons.

Firstly, in some countries there were not enough prerequisites for the self-organization of society, for the development of civil society, for the rooting of the idea of ​​human rights. Therefore, the power elites established undivided power there. These elites reject the universal principles of respect for human dignity and humanity. It happens that even the most minimal standards are not met, and any criticism is perceived as an encroachment on state sovereignty and interference in internal affairs.

Secondly, By citing the example of economic growth in states such as China, Russia or Belarus, authoritarian rulers around the world claim that it is possible to modernize the economy without political pluralism, democracy and respect for human rights. They are unwilling to share power with a society that is exposed to mass propaganda from state-monopolized media. For example, economic difficulties caused by the problems of transition to a market economy in many post-Soviet states were mistakenly interpreted as a result of the first democratic transitions. This has led to the fact that some people consciously chose and continue to support undemocratic methods of governing the country.

Third, States that have acted as defenders of human rights and democracy on the planet have sometimes, unfortunately, provided examples of inconsistency in their actions and departure from their own fundamental principles. Actions such as the war in Iraq, the existence of prisons with unacceptable conditions for prisoners, and the large-scale development of trade relations with clearly undemocratic countries have created the ground for accusations of double standards and selective application of norms on the part of Western democracies. When human rights are violated by the governments of the countries most active in defending them, then authoritarian rulers have a convenient excuse for complete disregard and disregard for generally accepted standards.

Modern democracy

Modern Western political scientists do not consider democracy as the power of the people, who determine the essence of the implemented state policy. Democracy, in their opinion, is a system of government that takes into account the will of the people, which is expressed at the time of election of the ruling elite.

Domestic political science solves this issue differently. According to it, the basic principles of democracy are:

popular sovereignty, t.s. the primary bearer of power is the people; all power comes from the people and is delegated to them;

free elections of representatives to government bodies for a limited period;

political pluralism;

guaranteed access of all social groups to political institutions;

control of representative institutions over the work of government;

elimination of political privileges for certain social groups and categories of citizens, institutions and governing bodies.

Principles of democracy:

the principle of popular sovereignty, according to which the only source of supreme political power in a democracy is the people

free elections of government representatives at all levels, including the right to remove from power those who have not lived up to the trust of voters

participation of citizens in managing the affairs of the state using the mechanisms of both direct (immediate) democracy and representative (mediated) democracy

constitutionalism, which ensures the rational and legal nature of the organization and functioning of the state and the equality of everyone before the law

the presence of an opposition that is guaranteed the right to legal political activity and the right to replace the old ruling majority in power based on the results of new elections

the principle of separation of powers, in accordance with which one power restrains the other, excluding the possibility of usurping the full power of one of them.

Depending on how the people participate in governance, who directly performs power functions and how, democracy is divided into:

1. representative.

Direct democracy

Direct democracy- this is the direct participation of citizens in the preparation, discussion and decision-making. This form of participation dominated in ancient democracies. Now it is possible in small towns, communities, enterprises, etc. when solving issues that do not require high qualifications. Plebiscite democracy is a type of direct democracy, which also implies the direct expression of the will of the people. However, here the influence of citizens on the processes of government is limited. They can only vote to approve or reject a draft law or other decision prepared by the government, party or initiative group. This form of democracy allows for the possibility of manipulating the will of citizens through ambiguous wording of issues put to vote.

Representative democracyRepresentative democracy- the leading form of political participation of citizens in modern political systems. Its essence is the indirect participation of subjects in decision making. Citizens elect their representatives to government bodies, who are called upon to express their interests, make laws and give orders on their behalf. This form of democracy is necessary in the context of huge social systems and the complexity of decisions made. For the democratic life of a society, it is important not only who rules, but also how they rule, how the system of government is organized. These issues are determined by the country's constitution, which is perceived by many people as a symbol of democracy.

The general features of democracy as a modern constitutional system and mode of functioning of the political system are:

Recognition of the people as the source of power in the state. The power of the people is expressed in the fact that they form state power through elections and participate in its implementation directly (through referendums, local self-government, and also, mainly, through representative bodies elected by them); - periodic election and turnover of central and local government bodies, their accountability to voters;

Proclamation and real provision of human and civil rights and freedoms. Of particular importance for the full functioning of a democratic political system is the guarantee of the rights of citizens to participate in government - voting rights, the right to create political parties and other associations, freedom of speech, opinions, the right to information, etc.;

Decision-making by the majority and subordination of the minority to the majority in their implementation;

Democratic control of society over security forces, used only for their intended purpose and strictly within the framework of the law;

Dominance of methods of persuasion, agreement, compromise; rejection of methods of violence, coercion, suppression;

Real implementation of the principles of the rule of law, including the principle of separation of powers.

From Greek “power of the people.” The basis of democracy is collective decision-making, with the people being the only source of legitimate power. In a democracy, they are determined through direct and fair elections. It is society that chooses the direction of the country’s development to satisfy common interests.

One of the main distinguishing features of democracy is the principle of individual freedom. In this case, democracy is freedom limited by the law. Thanks to the democratic structure of the state, citizens can directly influence the choice of the country's development course by voting for certain parties and leaders who express their interests.

Democracy dates back to Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome. Since then, a variety of models of democratic society have been built, with their own advantages and disadvantages. The most successful forms of democracy still exist today.

Is democracy the fairest way? The answer to this question is still being sought. For all its advantages, democracy also has many disadvantages. As Winston Churchill put it, “Democracy is the worst form of government that has ever been tried.” One of the significant disadvantages of democracy is that very often people who already have power and (or) significant material resources come to power. It is very difficult, if not almost impossible, for a “man on the street” to get to the top of power. In the overwhelming majority of cases, people who come to power express the interests not of the people as such, but of political and industrial groups. Even if the leader of a country is directly elected by the people, this does not guarantee that he will pursue policies that are most favorable to society. There are many smart people in any country, but the people as a whole are often a crowd. And the interests of the crowd are usually base and primitive. Therefore, in a democracy, people often come to power who express the mood of the crowd, who are its idols.

Another big problem with democracy is the manipulation of public opinion. Thanks to modern media, it has become possible to quite easily turn public opinion in the right direction. As a result, democracy, conceived as a means of expressing the will of the people, loses its fundamental principle. At the vote, the people obediently express the opinion imposed on them; outwardly, such a choice is completely legitimate. But in reality there is no question of any free will; people vote for those whom they are pointed to.

Democracy is not ideal, but nothing better has yet been invented. All other methods of political rule led to even sadder results. Will there ever be a better system? Necessarily. When people themselves change. Without a change for the better in the psychology of people, no positive changes in forms of government are possible.

• In Russia, democracy comes down to the single act of voting.
• Young people vote as actively as people of the older generation (VTsIOM).
• Just as the majority of older people voted for Putin, the majority of young people (in approximately the same percentage) followed their example (VTsIOM).
• Russia is a totally depoliticized country. Anyone who tries to state any alternative is designated as an enemy of the people, a fifth column, and thus domestic policy is recoded into foreign policy.
• A new generation came out to protest rallies; they were taught at school how to love the state, and they began to become ideologically intoxicated.
• The image and style of modern life encourage the establishment of democratic values. However, the mechanisms of representation may change.

Tamara Lyalenkova: Today we will talk about why democracy, which gives every citizen the opportunity to express their point of view, is not taking root in Russia. Over the past four years, 66 regions have abandoned direct elections of heads of municipalities; local deputies will now also vote for the mayor of Yekaterinburg.

The low turnout and political indifference of a significant part of the population seem to confirm the unpopularity of the very principle of elections, at least in Russian circumstances. On the other hand, in Russia elections remain perhaps the only confirmation of democracy.

We discuss the tyranny of the majority, the effectiveness of debate, the boundaries of personal freedoms and public interests with the professor of the Moscow Higher School of Economics and Social Sciences. Grigory Yudin, journalist Anton Krasovsky, Project Manager of the Department of Socio-Political Research at VTsIOM Yulia Baskakova and postgraduate student at the National Research University Higher School of Economics Albert Sarkisyants.

Tamara Lyalenkova: Grigory, there is a feeling, with the obvious unanimity of the electorate, that something is wrong with the elections in Russia, wrong. Why do you think?

However, in Russia there are much more problems with democracy than with elections. The most important thing is missing here - there is no culture of political discussion, no culture of self-government. And without this, democracy really turns into a single vote, into opinion polls, which are now so popular, although they have lost their purpose.

Svyatoslav Elis: Anton, you advised Ksenia Sobchak in the current presidential elections and headed Prokhorov’s headquarters in the last ones. These are liberal candidates, who, however, were perceived as proteges of the Kremlin, who confirm the legitimacy of what is happening. Do you think that the participation of such candidates is beneficial for the authorities, even if they say things that are unpleasant for them?

Anton Krasovsky: By power, do you mean Vladimir Putin?

Svyatoslav Elis: Yes.

Anton Krasovsky: Of course, for Vladimir Putin, until some point, it was beneficial for the participation of absolutely all the clowns who are going to these elections - and it doesn’t matter whether it’s Sobchak, Prokhorov or Zhirinovsky and Grudinin. In the world of Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin, they are absolutely identical people.

A colleague believes that democracy will become possible if we hold debates...

Grigory Yudin: Democracy is possible if people govern themselves. This implies civic participation, municipal self-government, including debate. Unfortunately, there are no debates in Russia today.

Anton Krasovsky: What is the connection between debates and municipal self-government?

Grigory Yudin: Debate assumes that there are different points of view: they clash; people argue with each other; they can listen to each other; they can decide something together.

Anton Krasovsky: Do you think so. I don't agree with you. An important component of democracy is something that Russia does not have. There is no commune in Russia; people here do not live by public interests. And you can have endless debates. The debates were shown on all federal channels and on 85 regional channels for two weeks on a daily basis - here, watch, enjoy these troubles.

Grigory Yudin: Well, we understand that this is clowning, not a debate. They were only missing one member.

Anton Krasovsky: I think that Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin did not come to this debate for one simple reason: not because he was afraid to come there, but because he believed that, God forbid, he would come there, and then he would have 86% of the votes , as in Uzbekistan. The problem is not the debate, but the fact that people are not accustomed to solving the issues of their small collective farm using public institutional principles, the election of the collective farm chairman. They don’t understand how to do this, they don’t understand that the money they hand over to some general cash register is their money, for example, money for repairing the same residential entrance.

Grigory Yudin: Look what changes when we debate. We begin to participate in discussions of common problems. And when we get involved in the discussion, we begin to express some points of view about how we can be here together. You say one thing, I say another. We still have some audience. And we are forced to argue with each other, prove something to our audience, and decide something together. The whole problem with the current government in Russia is that it doesn’t want to tell or prove anything to anyone. When you talk about Vladimir Putin, we understand how Vladimir Putin works. He would never in his life allow anyone to ask him a question without careful preparation.

Tamara Lyalenkova: But could it happen that out of urban public interest, of a purely social nature, which we recently observed during the elections to local councils, such a grassroots, Athenian democracy will arise?

Grigory Yudin: Of course, the fact that new active people become municipal deputies helps a lot in solving specific targeted issues. However, you need to understand that here we are starting more or less from scratch. Until now, interest in municipal self-government has been very low, and young people who are now going there will have to take this into account. They will also have to cope with the fact that people don’t particularly believe that something can be changed in this way. But if they are persistent enough, then, of course, certain connections will appear between them and their voters, and then it will not be so easy to kick them out.

Svyatoslav Elis: A modern young man has the experience of making choices, unlike his parents. On the other hand, no one trusts politicians anymore...

Grigory Yudin: The most important thing that can now be said about Russia is that it is a completely depoliticized country. We have practically no internal politics. Anyone who tries to state any alternative is immediately and deliberately labeled as an enemy of the people, a fifth column. That is, all domestic policy is being recoded into foreign policy, and this is a conscious line that the Kremlin has been pursuing for almost 20 years. The political space is filled with clowns, from Zhirinovsky’s security guard to the Freemasons, right down to people like Ksenia Sobchak, who is associated with the frivolous program “Dom-2”. And this is a conscious strategy that pushes people out of politics, especially young people who have never seen anything else.

Svyatoslav Elis: I didn’t go to the presidential elections because, firstly, no one represented me there. But besides that, I need to make a choice - and I don't understand the consequences.

Grigory Yudin: It's no coincidence that people don't know what they want. We need to discuss what seriously concerns us. Is anyone saying that Russia is the country with the most gigantic inequality? Is anyone seriously discussing during the election campaign that Russia has practically lost any allies in foreign policy? And these are problems that should be discussed.

Tamara Lyalenkova: On the other hand, democracy in the Athenian understanding is simpler and tougher than what exists in the world today. And perhaps Russia is closer to it than, say, Europe with libertarian views, which regulates more subtle settings, but sometimes has the opposite effect?

Grigory Yudin: In this sense, Russia actually has some advantage. Of course, democratic debate in Europe today is greatly stifled by the idea that

in Russia there is no culture of argument and public discussion

You can’t say anything bad about these people, and you can’t say anything bad about these people, and you can’t say anything bad about these people either. If you say anything bad about migrants, then you need to be thrown out of the public sphere immediately. In America it turns into medicalization. People say that if I took part in a discussion and my opponent insulted me, then that’s it - I have a moral injury. But democracy, meanwhile, presupposes open, free discussion between people who very often do not agree with each other. On the other hand, in Russia, unfortunately, there is no culture of argument and public discussion for historical reasons, so we, on the contrary, tend to perceive any criticism as an insult.

Tamara Lyalenkova: Yulia, it seems that opposition youth have become very active lately. Is it so? And did she go to vote?

Yulia Baskakova: This year, for the first time, we placed interviewers with tablets at the exits of polling stations so that they could record the gender and age of those leaving them. And we learned that young people (this came as a surprise to us) vote just as actively as older people. Because when we conduct surveys of the population by telephone or in person at home, and we ask: “Are you going to vote in the election or not?” young people are much less likely to answer that they are going to vote than, for example, older people.

About 80% of older people say they intend to vote, compared with about 60% of young people. According to the results of the exit poll, it turned out that representatives of all ages vote equally, and the turnout is approximately equal. This means that young people, contrary to stereotypes, are interested enough in politics to go to the polls and express their preferences, which are very similar to those of older people.

young people are similar to their elders in political views

Just as the majority of older people voted for Putin, the majority of young people voted for him in approximately the same percentage. True, among young people the proportion of those who voted for Ksenia Sobchak is slightly higher, although this difference is not colossal or fundamental. In general, we can say that young people are very similar to the older generation in their political views.

Svyatoslav Elis: This was quite unexpected to hear. Because it is generally accepted that the generation of young people is more oppositional. Albert, what do you think about our generation?

Albert Sarkisyants: It seems to me that the reaction to the new protesting youth was due to the fact that these were not the people who came out in 2011, but those who came later and for some, apparently, other reasons. After all, after Ukraine the situation changed. The rhetoric has changed a lot, and so have the tasks of the opposition. A generation has come to whom they began to teach at school how to love the state. When I was studying, there was no ideological intoxication yet, I don’t remember pressure in terms of the ideology of love for the state, there was no talk of patriotism. Those guys who came out in the last two years, 16-17 year olds, they just took a sip of this. And it turns out that they came out for some reasons of their own, which, perhaps, are not so closely related to our past moods. But we, rather, came through some organizations, through adults, we did not have an independent agenda.

Tamara Lyalenkova: Is there a request for some democratic things, perhaps related to freedom of speech, some things understandable to a young man?

Yulia Baskakova: The request is formed through an assessment of what is happening, how young people feel freedom of speech. A young man has the opportunity to speak out on social networks, search for information that interests him, and in this way he realizes his feeling and his request for freedom of speech.

Albert Sarkisyants: Indeed, we are quite capable of living an individual life up to some limits, living our own interests and

own calculations. But individualism itself is a form of social life that does not always work successfully. This is a special form of self-presentation, a form of talking about oneself. And it is alive as long as our social energy fits into this form. Accordingly, such a moment is possible, and it periodically occurs in the life of society, when this form - individual existence - turns out to be too narrow for the potentialities and desires that circulate in society. Desire and social potency are more than just individuals. As long as these desires and potencies coincide with the individual form, there are no problems. When friction between these forms arises, then protests arise.

Tamara Lyalenkova: You said that a certain apathy had set in, including among people of your generation. Do you understand what this is connected with?

in 2012 there was a feeling that there was some kind of us, and we could

Albert Sarkisyants: There is a whole group of reasons here: something lies in our own failures and defeats, something is explained by the successes of the authorities, which opposed our agenda with some other meanings. This is especially noticeable in the example of events in Ukraine, how all attention turned in that direction. And all the little gains that we thought we had gained were suddenly spent, everything went to the bottom. In 2012 there was a feeling that we can, that there is some kind of us, and we can. Then a series of events related to Ukraine made it clear that, no, we can do very little. And now, rather, the prevailing desire is to forget this experience of a joint joyful political existence, so that we would not be so ashamed that we lost.

Svyatoslav Elis: Yulia, to what extent does the average Russian perceive himself as a government? How aware is he of democracy as the power of the people, of his responsibility for what is happening in the country?

Yulia Baskakova: Things are not going well with this yet. Still, many of our compatriots, perhaps due to habit, and the older generation due to their experience of life during the Soviet period, look with hope at the state, expecting it to solve the problem. When we ask the question of who is responsible for the state of affairs in the country, all citizens or those who voted for this particular government answer that it is the government, the one who is vested with authority, and in this sense abdicate their share of responsibility. I think this is some kind of symptom.

Tamara Lyalenkova: Albert, maybe democracy is already an outdated construct, at least in its current format, and some updating is required?

Albert Sarkisyants: Yes, that would be entirely possible. Mechanisms for presenting the people's will or what is called the people's will: something happened, someone was chosen, and then it turned out that it was someone's desire, someone's interest, the will of the people themselves - to believe in this procedure, I have to think that the people are united, that every opinion means approximately the same. And you need to believe that these designs reflect some kind of reality, that they are called to something. But the fact is that many theorists, usually of a radical bent, today are trying to separate the mechanisms of representation, the mechanisms of representation and democracy itself. Because, in the end, the representation (the Duma, the president, all these bodies) is not the people. Their power over us has nothing to do with our self-government. And the less we feel our involvement in them, the less we recognize ourselves in them, the less we think that there is any kind of people at all, that there is some kind of us. But this does not mean that the loss of faith in the efficiency of these mechanisms, in the existence of some kind of people, this very faith, its exhaustion, means that we have exhausted democracy itself, because democracy has always been something more. After all, representation is only one form of democracy. It turns out that the ideal of democracy is more than just representation. It seems to me that the value of democracy, namely self-government, freedom, rights, has not gone away, and, perhaps, is becoming more and more important. Because the very image and style of our life pushes us to consider this a value. And we will look, it seems to me, for the best mechanisms for implementing democracy. But the current mechanisms may well die out.

1 July 2014, 15:37 Come on, we also have democracy in Russia, just like in Khokhlo Ukraine, only at different levels and with our own characteristics.
Democracy is a living process of organizing society
. Living processes constantly fluctuate from one level of something to another, and only dead processes are motionless.
Democracy is a way of governing society when the people elect the ruling elite and
The level of independence of this process can be anything, depending on the state of this society, and the influence of other societies surrounding it.
Therefore, the question in the article, whether there is democracy or not, is meaningless.
We can only talk about the level of democracy.
Whether or not the level of democracy is sufficient in a particular country.
Democracy exists to varying degrees all over the world, with the possible exception of North Korea.
But there is no democracy anywhere to a sufficient extent,
Pendosia is a hindrance for some, financial problems for others, and it’s impossible to list everything that interferes with the undivided and independent will of the people in choosing the ruling elite.
And the brains of some MP commentators are fucked up, this is due to the incorrect process of defecation, when feces do not come out through the anus, but through the mouth.
You need treatment.

3 -3 0

Yuri Martyshchenko replied to Viktor Knyazev July 2, 2014, 14:04 Well, it’s so doomed, Mr. Knyazev. For example, Novosibirsk residents not only elected a representative of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation as mayor. But since May 2008, they have been mastering direct democracy and their direct power in parallel and competitively representative ways, deploying non-violent, civilized, strictly constitutional, intellectual pressure on the President of the Russian Federation and the formation of additional to the presidential guarantees, their own, independent of the presidential guarantees of constitutionality, distributed directly to people, today, already hundreds of thousands of Novosibirsk residents and spreading to other cities of the Russian Federation with a stream of written demands, from each personally, to the President of the Russian Federation: “I, as a citizen of the Russian Federation, having the constitutional status of the bearer of the sovereignty of the Russian Federation and the bearer of the supremacy of power in the Russian Federation, I order you , Mr. President of the Russian Federation, as an official of the Russian Federation, to instruct the development of a bill on the privatization of the shares of all citizens of the Russian Federation in all natural resources of our country for all citizens of the Russian Federation and all subsequent ones from the day of their birth without the right of purchase and sale, inheritance and donation and with automatic transfer of all these

0 0 0

Yuriy Martyshchenko replied to Yuriy Martyshchenko July 2, 2014, 2:15 pm privatized shares of natural resources for rent to the state of the Russian Federation for continued professional use and disposal of all natural resources that have become the property of citizens of the Russian Federation, for an annual rent from the expenditure part of the budget of the Russian Federation under the name of the law on Natural Rent and its derivative: lifetime capital accumulated by annual rents. Next, initiate the procedure for considering the bill in the State Duma of the Russian Federation. Citizens of the Russian Federation shall spend their lifetime capital strictly non-cash for socially important purposes established by the state of the Russian Federation and approved by the direct authority of the majority of citizens of the Russian Federation. It is allowed to vary these social goals based on the development strategy of the Russian Federation, the situational situation, the ages of citizens of the Russian Federation and by blocking from expenses the proportionally accumulating insurance untouchable share of the lifetime capital for the disabled age of citizens of the Russian Federation, established by them independently on the declarative principle after 60 years,” with an eye to expanding the number demanders up to tens of millions with the possibility of transforming it (pressure) into an avalanche-like process of forming an expression of will

continuation in the underlying block

0 0 0

Yuri Martyshchenko replied to Yuri Martyshchenko July 2, 2014, 2:16 pm