Ideological pluralism and a competition of opinions.
Such ways of formation of the power assume investment operating and operated the special rights and powers major of which are connected with simultaneous action of mechanisms direct, плебисцитарной and representative democracy. Direct democracy assumes direct participation of citizens in the course of preparation, discussions, acceptances and realisations of decisions. Democracy which also assumes open will of the population is close under the maintenance to it плебисцитарная, but is connected only with a certain phase of preparation of decisions. Thus results of voting not always have obligatory legal consequences for the structures, making the decision. Representative democracy is more difficult form of political participation of citizens in decision-making process through the elite them of representatives in legislative or power executive powers. The main problem of representative democracy is connected with maintenance of a representativeness of a political choice. So, at majority systems of voting considerable advantages to parties which have won the contenders with insignificant majority of votes can be created.
Despite distinctions in approaches to democracy or an estimation of priorities on its embodiment in life, its any created model should consider by all means presence at it internal contradictions. Their ignoring is capable to call into question the projected purposes, to cause an exhaustion of the state resources, to provoke disappointment of weights or elite in ideals of a democratic system and even to create conditions for transformation of democratic modes to the authoritative:
First, “non-executable promises” concern them democracy (N.Bobbio)when and in the democratic countries alienation of citizens from a policy and the power is quite often shown so-called;
Secondly, called to embody a priority of public interests over private, the democratic power at the same time is filled with activity of the numerous groups operating frequently in an opposite direction and subordinating imperious mechanisms to own plans and requirements;
Thirdly, one of существеннейших democracy contradictions is discrepancy of political possibilities of owners of the formal rights and real resources. This described still А де Tokvilem the paradox of freedom and equality means that, despite declaration and even legal fastening of equality in distribution of the rights and powers of citizens, democracy not in a condition to provide this equality in practice;
Fourthly, constantly generating разномыслие, promoting display of ideological pluralism, diversifying, doing various spiritual space of a society, democracy undermines the abilities to forming of a uniform line of political development of society, carrying out of a uniform policy of the state.
IV. In a political science the theory of "waves" of democratisation of the modern world according to which institutes of democratic board affirmed according to three "waves" uses enough wide popularity, each of which mentioned various groups of the countries, and expansion of an area of democracy was followed by certain recoil of process of democratisation. Сэмюэл Huntington(the sort 1927) as follows dates these "waves": the first lifting of a wave of democratisation - 1828 - 1926, the first recession - 1922 - 1942; the second lifting - 1943 - 1962, recession - 1958 - 1975; the beginning of the third lifting - 1974 - 1995, the beginning of new recoil - second half 90th years ХХ century According to American “freedom Houses” (“Freedom House”), the organisations, on an extent of many decades of freedom tracing a condition and democracies by criteria of observance civil and political freedoms (in many respects formal), in 1972 were 42 “the free countries”, in 2002 Them became already 89.
In the course of transition to democracy- democratic transit -usually distinguish three stages: liberalisation, democratisation and consolidation. At a liberalisation stage there is a process of fastening of some civil freedom, there is an opposition self-organising, автократический the mode becomes more tolerant to any sort to heterodoxy, there are incoincident opinions concerning ways of the further development of the state and a society. The authoritative mode weakens the control, reduces reprisals, but the system of the power does not change and keeps not democratic essence.
When in order to avoid civil war leading groupings of the split top of the power conclude the pact (contract) on basic rules of political behaviour, the democratisation stage, on which main thing - introduction of new political institutes begins. Historical examples of such agreements - “nice revolution” to England, the pact of Monkloa in Spain, etc. and their subsequent development give the chance 1688 to Legitimatsija of such pacts for carrying out of so-called constituent elections - all-comers competition of the various centres of the power by the rules of a game of politics caused by the pact.
The fastening of democracy connected with constituent elections, is represented essentially important. To make it it is possible only repetition some times elections by the same rules, in конституционно target dates and under condition of obligatory change of imperious commands. After that it is possible to tell about the introduction of democratisation into its finishing phase, that is about consolidation already actually democracies. Before achievement of the given stage any mode, as though it would like to proclaim itself democratic, in full sense that cannot be, and is only transit. Democratic consolidation in the existing politological literature basically is treated as a certain ascending process: From the minimum procedural level of sufficiency when institutes and procedures with formal signs of democracy, to level maximum are founded, assuming different measurements of democratic consolidation - from behavioural and valuable to social and economic and international (Wolfgang Merkel).
According to Juan Lintsa and Alfreda Stepan's point of view, democratic consolidation assumes realisation deep трансформационных processes at least at three levels:
- On behavioural when no influential political groups aspire to undermine a democratic mode or to carry out сецессию, that is secession of the state of its any part;
- On valuable, transforming democratic institutes and procedures in the most comprehensible mechanisms of regulation of social life, and a society - in refusing not democratic alternatives;
- On the constitutional, political subjects providing the consent to operate only on the basis of democratic laws and procedures.
From the aforesaid at all does not follow that there is any one universal “транзитологическая a paradigm”. In a real variety of successful and unsuccessful democratic transits of last three decades were and the transitions described above from liberalisation to the pact and democratisation with the subsequent advancement to democratic consolidation, and variants of the reforms which are carried out by groups of reformers in elite, and imposing cases (привнесения) democratisation from above, and mass revolts against dictatorships. Already clearly that instead of global democratisation expected as a result of third "wave" the modern world even more often faces its antiphase - along with expansion of space of liberal democracies there is “a globalisation of exaggerated democracies” (expression of Larri Dajmonda, a sort. 1951). It is a question not only of hybrid political modes, in unequal proportions and in different quantity combining democratic and автократические institutes and experts, but about the frank pseudo-democracies, new forms of not democratic modes simply simulating some formal signs of democracy. So the mankind and in the XXI-st century, during a globalisation epoch, faces a dilemma, which else in a XVIII-th century the French writer Nikola-Sebasten Shamfor (1741-1794) has formulated: “I am everything, the rest - anything, here despotism and its supporters. I am another, another is I, here a national mode and its adherents. And now solve”.