Who can be considered as a democrat?
B the last, recently taken place regional elections participated parties which called themselves “ democratic opposition “ - Union of the right forces, " party; " Apple; etc. I - that considered till this moment that democrats are supporters of the structure of the state most popular now and society - the democracies aspiring to that the will of the people had crucial importance in public administration (Brockhaus and Efron`s dictionary). And at those who call themselves “ democratic opposition “ the main slogan absolutely another - not limited “ economic freedom of an individual “. Such people are called not democrats, but liberals, and their ideology - not “ democracy “. and “ liberalism “. So in what here business? Why the people professing ideas from extreme nationalism to anarchism are covered with the word “ democracy “? What is it so attractive by what is present at names of the parties supporting at all not democracy? Liberally - democratic party. It is national - democratic party (“ oil buttered “). Etc.
Before solving whom it is possible to call the democrat, let`s understand and what is democracy? Demokratia (Greek) - literally “ democracy “. from demos - the people and kratos - the power, is the form of the organization of society based on recognition of the people as a source of the power on the right of the people to participate in the solution of public affairs and investment of citizens with rather wide range of the rights and freedoms.
According to Dahl`s dictionary democracy - national board, narododerzhavy, democracy, a miroupravstvo. We find the most developed definition in Brockhaus and Efron`s dictionary: the democracy is a democracy, the state form in which the Supreme power belongs to all people. Happen “ direct democracy “ where the power goes all people collected on “ people`s assembly “ who adopts laws and appoints officials (executive power as now speak); and “ representative democracy “ where the people trust the power to the representatives elected by it forming parliaments or other authorities. Represents a transitional form between these two types of democracy “ republic “ where the people have the right “ referendum “ - when address directly voters for the solution of any legislative or state question, and in the rest of the time the parliament operates.
And now the fresh dictionary on economy and finance is esteemed: the democracy is the form of government based on recognition:
- rule of the constitution and laws;
- democracy and political pluralism;
- freedoms and equalities of citizens;
- inalienability of human rights.
acts as the Form of realization of democracy republican board with division of the authorities and the developed system of national representation.
In this definition where there were alien democracies of idea of liberalism, democracy is removed in a footnote and acts in shape “ the developed system of national representation “. And from where undertook suddenly “ constitution and laws “? Whom and how they are accepted? Why democracy moved to the second line and mixed up with “ political pluralism “ (the word is some opposite, it is similar to the Russian curse), where one actually excludes another. Why here occurred “ human rights “ understood as the rights “ independent individual “ having advantage before the rights of the people, society and state? Now you understand on what basis of the USA teach us to democracy and human rights, and ours “ human rights activists “ protect not the rights of Russians, not the rights of Russians, but the right of terrorists and turncoats and demand from the President and the Government to enter negotiations with the terrorists possessing “ inaliennable human rights “. One business - to protect the rights of our people from an arbitrariness of officials (“ to human rights activists “ it is not interesting) and quite another matter - to protect the rights of the bandits who put themselves out of the people and laws under what slogans they would not act. The democracy is a priority of the rights of most of the people at observance of the rights of minority, but no more than that.
And now we will look from where such definition undertook in the called dictionary. We read the Constitution of the Russian Federation 1993 - “ The Russian Federation is the democratic federal constitutional state with the republican form of government (Art. 1). “ Person (not the people!) its rights and freedoms are the supreme value. Recognition, observance and protection of the rights and freedoms of the person and citizen - an obligation of the state (Art. 2). As you can see, “ person “ and “ citizen “ here - absolutely different concepts, and “ person “ costs earlier, than “ citizen “. And word “ citizen “ has purely technical value here for transition to Art. 3 where (at last!) it is about the people as a source of the power etc.) . And further to Constitutions there is a transfer of the rights of citizens which, as we know, for 90% of citizens are not observed. Especially it is necessary to tell also the right for work. The right for work - the only source of a subsistence of workers and members of their families. But this right to them it is refused. This question is pushed in Art. 37 before which, by itself, go “ human rights “. And so, there it is told “ Work is free “. That is you want - work, you want - do not work, and nobody is going to provide the right for work to you. Will want - will employ you, will not want - will refuse without any bases, and there is no place to complain and there is nobody. Go - go on the dole. And all this. That is the most important right, a basis of their existence, citizens of Russia under the Constitution are deprived. You for it voted on first and the only referendum in Russia?
And now we will lose about liberalism. Many consider “ liberalism “ and “ democracy “ synonyms that allows liberals to drag deception the slogans. And as, freedom is such sweet word which turns the head. And actually it means release from any duties and obligations to society, the people that is opposite to the concept “ democracy “. Liberalism denies democracy as on the first place exposes “ rights of an individual “ imaginable free from society and the state.
Greeks - inventors of democracy called three, inherent in it, the principle:
- “ izonomiya “ - equality of citizens before the law, that is - equality when freedom of an individual is as necessary limited to the law not to cause damage to other members of society;
- “ izotimiya “ - the right, equal for all citizens, to execute any functions in the state, that is in practice - the right to choose and be elected;
- “ izegoriya “ - freedom of speech, that is the right of the citizen to freely express the opinion on any question. At us now freedom of speech is substituted for permissiveness of the press. And who considers that it has freedom of speech, let material which is not pleasant to the editor will try to publish in any mass media.
By the way, you know how in England freedom of speech is guaranteed? There is the only place where it is allowed - the square in the center of London. Go and speak about what you want and how many you want. And we and have no such place. For public statements it is necessary to ask permission of the authorities and if it is not pleasant to them - you will be responsible for a market! Will wear out on vessels as about what it is possible to speak, and than it is impossible - it is strictly regulated.
“ People “ at Greeks it was understood not as set “ free individuals “ and as the uniform community connected cultural, ethnic and religious traditions that is as “ collective individual “. And it means that if among the people we have no consent (as now), then about any democracy out of the question. And for achievement of a consent the democracy has to be representative, that is in legislature all social groups of society (but not, as at us, only representatives of officials) have to be presented on an equal basis which have to reach agreement. At the same time the minority submits to the majority at observance of the rights of minority if they do not violate the rights of the majority. Thus, “ freedom of an individual “ it is as necessary limited that it was good not only to it, but all rest. Or, as tells the people, “ live itself and let`s live another “.
Recently in ideology and society distinction between democracy and liberalism appears more and more sharply, political breaks are more and more rigid, economic projects differ more and more. In effect it becomes clear that democratic and liberal ideologies - antipodes, irreconcilable and hostile each other. All the matter is that liberalism is based on ideology of individualism, personal egoism. This current - rather recent origin, it appeared in the period of early capitalism as justification of need of release from the developed traditions, class prpyatstviye, a national framework etc. of
the Term “ liberalism “ comes from the word “ libert “ - freedom, but this term was never applied by liberals to the collective subject, such as “ people “ “ society “ “ nation “ “ social group “ “ class “ “ state “ etc., but only to a human individual, his personal welfare, also demanded exactly and only for him high gift - “ freedoms “. For liberals an individual - something absolutely independent, primary, not connected with historical, social, religious roots. Person, “ individual “ is considered as something opposite “ to the citizen “ - to the member of society. Therefore if the liberal acts and demands freedom, then it is necessary to understand that he demands it only for himself - darling, and more for anybody. But we - that do not know it and we think that he demands freedom for all of us. For this reason our liberals who for some reason call themselves “ democratic opposition “ or “ democrats “ cannot unite in any way, each of them feathers the own nest!
It is obvious that such freedom “ individual “ it is inapplicable to society as right there faces need of freedom for another “ individual “ also it is limited to the last. Therefore from a certain stage liberalism left alone philosophical and social problems and passed to the requirement “ economic freedom of an individual “ the free, limited by nothing market. Adam Smith - the chief theorist " was and remains the main ideologist in this direction; liberal economy “. It translated the principle “ freedoms of an individual “ in the principle “ freedom of trade “ based on not limited tovaron - a monetary exchange and the market, removal of all not economic restrictions for behavior “ free individual “. All know, than application of ideas of Adam Smith in practice - " came to an end; great depression “ in the USA, caused a world economic crisis of 1929 - 1933. Since then any liberal economy and any “ pure capitalism “ practically does not exist anywhere. In the USA, for example, the economy is rigidly regulated. Exactly there the antitrust law is invented. Therefore the USA acts for “ human rights “ and “ economic freedom “ anywhere, only not at home, and it is exclusive in the mercenary purposes of weakening of competitors. So do not listen openmouthed, people when to you hang up on them similar noodles.
Thus, a genuine democracy can be only there and then where and when in society there is a majority consent. The multi-party system which allegedly exists at us only then is a sign and one of the main elements of democracy (you remember “ pluralism “ huh?) when parties it is full, but not in words, all represent (I emphasize - all!) social groups and sectors of society. And we have most of party leaders of nobody, except ourselves, represent. And the most important - nobody represents 90% of the population of Russia. In this sense two-party systems in the USA, England and other countries are not instruments of democracy. As critics in these countries speak, just occurs “ replacement of one gang of swindlers by another “. Numerous corruption scandals also testify to it. Probably, our reformers to same process case and at us.
In Russia at the beginning of 90 - x years of the last century “ economic freedom “ under a screen of democracy turned back robbery speculative “ neobourgeoisies “. which richest representatives are called for some reason " now; oligarchs “ though the most decent name for them “ nouveau riches “ - novoobogashchenets. Narrow circles of the former nomenclature, financial speculators and the corrupted officials became real owners. You remember how ran from the posts “ fathers of the Moscow democracy “ (Gabriel Popov and others) when were the law on a ban of combination of the state posts with commercial activity is adopted? Others are still searched by militia. As a result on one pole the small group skorobogachy (nouveau riches), and on another - the huge mass of poor people was formed. Work, qualification, ability, talents appeared and remain not demanded. And so far it so, the democracy in Russia will not be (only external, formal signs) as the consent between these poles in principle is impossible.
Therefore, people, be vigilant! The elections of the State Duma and the President, major for Russia, are coming us soon. If you want democracy, vote for those who try to obtain overcoming of poverty of the main part of the population of Russia and in practice proved that it does something in this direction. BELIEVE, it WILL be BETTER FOR ALL than us. Also remember! The democrat - this the one who supports the rights of the people, but not for “ human rights “ and the democracy is a democracy what who would not tell there!