Political Science

POLITICAL REGIME AND LEGAL CULTURE: DIALECTICS OF CORRELATION

Trebin M.P., Doctor of Philosophical Sciences, Professor, Yaroslav the Wise National Law Academy of Ukraine (Kharkiv)

Romanuke S.M., PhD, Associate Professor, Yaroslav the Wise National Law Academy Ukraine (Kharkiv)

I. Introduction In Ukraine the democratic transformations require an appropriate level of citizens’ legal culture. Forming the latter is a consistent and long-standing process, which is still under pressure of the yesterday’s society, the dominating political, ideological and legal behavioral models. Thus it is very important to ascertain factors influencing legal culture development.

II. Problem formulation The analysis of various domestic and foreign researches and publications is evident that the problems of political regime and legal culture are constantly in sharp focus of the academic realm. Nevertheless, correlation between political regime and legal culture is still a sore subject that necessitates more research and further advance. Thereby the authors of the present research have for an object to study political regime as a determinant of legal culture.

III. Results Aristotle emphasized that «a human being by nature is a political being, whereas a being who lives beyond the state because of his\her nature and not as result of casual circumstances is a morally underdeveloped being or not a human being» [1]. Indeed, every individual of the time to some extent faces politics and law [2]. Nowadays it is impossible to make a step in public life without entering into legal relations and addressing a political «sore» subject. New political and law phenomena keep forming therefore. Consequently law consciousness and political awareness is becoming more and more topical particularly concerning their correlation and interdependence, influence (determination) of political regime on political awareness and legal culture [3].

In political science political regime is used as a category to describe the social character and order of relations between rulers and subjects as well as the methods of effective ruling on the whole. Political regime is regarded as an authoritative order. In other words authorities influence society through a political regime involving the forms and methods of ruling, and the structures of institutions authorized with the powers under the principles of power division [4]. Appeared in the Western Literature of the 19^th century the notion political regime» (from Latin regimen) has been used widely since the end of World War II. Till now the notion has a great number of different variants of use and definitions.

The term «political regime» is the most important in European political science as opposed to American one prefering «political system» [5]. «Political regime» lost its precise meaning because of free interpretations. Consequently the term still refers to a very complicate concept being interpreted differently within various paradigms. So, the followers of the system approach interpret political regime rather loosely and identify it with the category «political system». It causes some theoretical problems fraught with danger of terminological duplication of the two terms being the similar political phenomena.

Actually both «political system» and «political regime» describes political life from all sides, where the former characterizes relations with external surrounding and the latter determines means and methods to realize common interests. Some researchers narrow the latter’s meaning to «form of government». This point of view dominates in Constitutional law. Under it the classification of political regimes bases on ascertaining difference of the legislative and executive functions of a State and their relationships. Accordingly the regimes are: the power fusion regime (absolute monarchy), the power division one (presidential republic) and the cooperation one (parliamentary republic). Focusing on activity of governmental structures such interpretation ignores influence of other political institutions (party system, interest or pressure groups). A form of government should be more precisely referred to one of the components of political regime.

Well-known Russian lawyer Vengerov A. emphasized that political regime is always a political and law regime manifesting through lawful and unlawful governing forms. Just the availability of legal methods under representative and law enforcement organs’ activity, establishing the Army’s function, organization of political and justice power makes for precise ascertaining a kind of political regime, forecasting its dynamics [6]. Russian men of law as Burlakov V., Volkov Ju. and Salnikov V. stress that «political regime … determines … political life of the country, real rights and freedoms of its citizens (or law or actual suppression of rights), tolerance or intolerance of various «deviations» [7].

Scientifically two main approaches exist to interpret the term “regime”. The law one accentuates formal principles and rules of power exercised by public institutions [8]. The political science one is based on analysis of such means and methods which are implemented to exercise real public power and to a certain extent conditional on the socio-cultural traditions, system of labor division, communication type and etc.

By experience the most appropriate method of representing political regime is the approach which makes for comparing formal behavior standards of authoritative subjects with actual ones, reflecting the real state of rights and freedoms, establishing groups engaged with making decisions, and ect. Under this approach power agents are not only a government or authorities, but also those structures which are not empowered to govern, nevertheless they have a real influence upon decision process. For all these reasons the opposition and some other political components, except antisystem ones, can be considered as an important feature of government.

Orienting toward a real reflection of political and public power political regime can be understood as the whole set of the commonest operation methods of main institutions, their resources and tools of enforcement, which form and organize real interaction between a State and its society. From the definition above it is apparent that a political regime forms and develops under influence of considerably greater number of factors than political system does. Moreover a ruling regime is determined not only and not so much by macro factors, e.g. a social structure, society’s ethical traditions and so on, but also considerably by more individual features and circumstances, including intergroup relations within the ruling elite, internal or foreign political situation, international support of authorities, personal qualities of politicians and etc..

Political regime is more mobile and dynamic phenomenon than a government system [9]. In this sense a political system can evolve from changes of several political regimes. In the 20^th century, for example, the political system of the USSR underwent the transformations of the Stalin’s regime, the Krushchov’s “thaw” of 1960-s and the collective administration under Brezhnev’s leadership. It is a regime that develops, pursues and implements a certain state policy including law policy, internal and foreign policies [10]. The history of highly developed Powers evidences that centrism is the most auspicious and effective for self-preservation of a ruling regime. Regardless of its ideological burden it is the policy, which is conducive to minimizing conflicts in complex societies, using much effectively political potential of the whole community and supporting mutual respect of the elite and other strata.

Meanwhile, most regimes tend to populism as one of the most popular means of consolidating their own positions. Populism refers to the kind of policy under which the ruling top deludes citizens by meaningless promises, demagogic calls, legal idealism and different tricks for the sake of leaders’ popularity [11]. However, whatever regime or policy a country had, all power activity would ultimately bend to the aims of certain controlling political structures to preserve their own stability.

To sum up the above, political regime can be defined as the set of various relations of public power and society, particularly the following characteristics: 1) the institutional means of interaction between the State and a citizen (observance of the Constitution, including respect to fundamental human rights and freedoms; conformity of administrative measures with the law; importance of the official and legal sphere within all public activities); 2) participation of citizens in political life and involvement in public decision-making process that reflects social representation, popular control and expression of will; 3) possibility of free rivalry of the ruling and opposition groups under forming the government organs; 4) open violence and force of public administration. In other words, the matter is that there is a kind of «social compact» regulating relations of rulers and people and the dynamics of public administration reflects both a state of things under support of the ruling order and the nature of regulation of relations between the State and an individual. A political regime determines exercise of power, functioning of political institutions and relations, dynamics of the political system, relationship between the power and society, who controls whom, and also contributes to realizing political goals and elite’s at power wishes.

A political regime type is determined by the level of development and intensity of social and political processes, the ruling top structure, its formation mechanism, the human rights and freedoms status, the relationship with the bureaucracy, legitimacy, evolution of social and political traditions, political and legal consciousness of society [12]. The distinctive features are mechanism of ruling the State; method of functioning public agencies; procedures of selection of ruling groups and political leaders; methods of power division among different social forces including political organizations which represent the interests of these forces; power division into legislative, executive and judicial; implementation of the checks and balances principle; a set of methods to exercise power (permission — ban, persuasion — enforcement, economic — non-economic); citizens’ attitude to political participation (active, indifferent, passive, including the participation types: organized or spontaneous); enjoyment of rights and freedoms; realization of fundamental individual rights and citizen rights by the State; proper safeguards to realize the rights; methods of settling social and political conflicts; political and legal culture influence of the main social groups on the dynamics and tendencies of political processes; political parties available, parties’ organization and their interrelation with the State; the opposition, its status, its interrelation with the State; political and legal position of the army; political and legal position of the mass media, including censorship and publicity.

In the judgment of many theorists, contributing to effective management of social processes stability is the most important characteristics of both political regime and social order on the whole. Taking into account that being to some kind of continuation and safeguard of social standards and relations political institutions are intended first of all for regulating public relations. Therefore political stability, which they provide, would influence any regime very much.

To give a substantial description of power stability it is necessary to compare either different political systems or with the former regime. Politically, regimes can be stable, medium-stable or ultra-stable. Each has its own instruments and mechanisms to govern society, regulate public order, maintain its self-preservation and development, law consciousness and legal culture. Stability of a political regime is a complex phenomenon including the following features: maintenance of the government system, public order, legitimacy, effective administration, law and order. That’s why it is generally determined by certain political processes (e.g. absence of wars and armed conflicts), flexibility of the government to adapt to social changes, relation balance within the elite and of political forces. The stability criteria thereto can be as follows: the government’s term of office, its support by the parties, representation in the legislature, the multi-party system, distribution of parliament seats, etc. The means of achieving stability are of wide range from persuasion and encouragement of citizens to play free political part to application of force. Stability does not exclude changes or reforms and under certain conditions allows conducting them. First of all it denies unlawful violence in society as well as ruling of the forces unrecognized by society. In other words power is as stable as able to prevent the dominating unlawful forcers. In the sense of ability of society to defend itself stability facilitates maintenance of such power organization, which satisfies the social system and public mood, and furthers its efficient integration under social and economic development [13]. Stabilization can be caused by the constitutional and legitimate order maintained by the State; effective exercise of power; application of flexible pressure tactics; observance of public traditions; lack of drastic changes in the power structure; thought-out and efficient government strategy; strong support to the opposition from the current government; people tolerance of unconventional ideas; and performance of the basic functions by the State.

In contrast, instability very often accompanies qualitative reform processes, crucial changes in society and in power. Instability can result from cultural and political splits in society; disregard of peoples’ needs; and intense competition of the parties of opposite ideologies. Another fact worthy of being noted is that instability is directly proportional to such conditions as increasing urbanization and population growth; industrial development, which destroys natural social connections; weakening of social and political control; and trade and financial dependence on the external sources. At the same time it is inversely proportional to the level of legitimacy; development of political institutions; social and economic mobility; economic growth rate; advanced net of political communications; consensus within the elite, etc.

One of the widespread reasons behind destabilization of a political regime is the opposition’s activity. The opposition is a political institution which task is to express the interests and values unavailable under the ruling regime, thereby it, persuades the electorate that is better qualified to govern in its stead, consolidates the electorate’s activity, opposes or corrects the ruling behavior. The opposition is a bearer of «spirit of criticism» in politics. Sometimes law nihilism is peculiar to it. Its existence depends inherently and inseparably both on the qualities of human being incarnate and the diversity of society that hampers to preserve strong and constant political relations. Desire for life changes, alternative projects, and overcoming of obstacles is inherent in a human being as a social being. Politically the opposition available makes impossible for society to establish once for all common and solid attitudes to the objectives of the State and to raze any kind of conflicts.

Political regime integrates the principle of legitimacy, the form and role of the State, the institution structure, the party and election systems. It is known that influence of the State on society is determined by legitimacy rather than enforcement. The legitimacy principle means the ability of authorities to develop public faith in that, in spite all of their failures and defects, the current political institutions are the best ones which have ever been or would ever be established. Development of confidence in legality and efficiency of the State to make decisions, which citizens shall obey, is conditional on conformity of these decisions with the values shared by most community [14]. These values meet the standards of a democracy which is capable to create the best institutions. Legitimacy is not urgent under authoritative and totalitarian regimes.

Being a political organization of society and a value itself, democracy is based on the following maxims: the State is a guarantor of the fundamental individual rights and freedoms; people possess political power exercised through direct and indirect elections; authorities are formed by means of free elections under free candidates’ nomination, general, equal and voting right, freedom of choice; the majority respect the minority’s (the opposition) rights to criticize, to take over the present government at the regular elections; constitutionalism is a regulation by force of the Constitution of relations between the State and society, their equal responsibility under the law. Litvinov О.М. states that «servility, e.i. rights are subordinate to the political goals», is peculiar to democracy [15].

The will of most people is expressed through the system of political institutions. The most important element of a regime is the State along with law, party system, pressure groups, non-political influential structures (Church, mass media). According to Fichte J.G. and Hegel G.W. a State is «the best reflection» and «crystallization» of the nation’s spirit, «truth of its moral idea». On the whole emergence of public institutions (one of which is State) reflects appearance of such needs, which can not be satisfied on the account of individual resources. As opposed to personal power, institutionalized power is significant as it is based on restriction of self-will, subordination of goals to the rights that reflects the commonweal interests.

Unlikely to other institutions a State possesses two peculiarities: firm organization and strong solidarity of its members. Emergence of the institution of State is conditional on necessity to express common needs and interests, which other institutions failed to do, including needs for security, observance of the individual rights and freedoms, keeping peace and order. The advantage of a State is that under attaining objectives and interests it first of all has an appropriate specialization and division of governors’ labor. Law-makers create laws, officers execute laws, and judges supervise observance of laws by citizens and authorities. Second, a State possesses vast material and other resources for performing its tasks. For instance, it is a State that has the army and police capable to be a weighty argument when it bursts into open conflict. Third, a State implements the developed system of sanctions applied to instill obedience in its citizens. However, sanctions are not enough to form such communication as a State. Its integral components are the priority of national relations rather than some other ones; unity of representatives and groups of the same nationality. National solidarity derives from religious beliefs. Exercise of power and enforcement are based predominantly on the religion of participants of the public communication. Another important element is legitimacy which is determined by the concept of law. It is the course of law that endows power with the institutional character and makes it legitimate in the eyes of citizens.

However legitimacy does not prove its effectiveness, i.e. capability to satisfy the needs of a majority community, to respond quickly to their different demands, and to preserve social and political stability. The effectiveness mainly depends on the organization principles of the power branches. The methods of power formation, principles of organization of institutions including their relations with citizens are referred to as a unified concept «form of government».

The present western democracies are based on two principles. Under the majority one power belongs to most people. The rule of law means that officials and citizens are equal before the law. Under forming the institutions these principles unite to different extent with the principle of power division into legislative, executive and judicial. The majority principle can serve for two institutional democracies, parliamentary and presidential, which are based on the different procedures of selection of a majority and lawful investiture (the right to form, control and dismiss the government) of Parliament or of President, respectively. The legislative and executive branches can be formed under either the principle of strict division or lack of it that depends on the power organization, i.e. parliamentary or presidential.

To satisfy public interests a State interacts with political forces, which express electorate’s needs and political parties play a crucial role therefore. The latter appear to battle social groups’ interests. The party systems determine the nature of political regimes. Before coming-to-be of the party systems the institutions of democracy formed under the principle of power division. The former’s existence has changed the situation. The majoritarian or dominant parties, i.e. possessing a majority of deputies’ mandates, controlling a parliamentary majority and a government, alter the principle of power division into a symbol. They make single-handed decisions to set a certain policy and means of its realization.

Interrelations of a parliament, a government and voters are prescribed by the rules referred to as the electoral system or the election regime. These rules prescribe how subjects name rulers, relationship of the legislative and executive branches is formed, and their legitimacy is established or cancelled. Having a strong impact on political regimes the electoral systems are not neutral.

Stable democracies are political regimes, which governors get access to power and the decision-making right as a result of free general elections. Furthermore different mechanisms of electing a legislature and forming a government depend on different government systems. The present structure of democratic institutions can not be considered as a mere reflection of public advantages because the latter is indeterminate. Individual preferences and their capability to distinguish between alternatives range from the best to the worst. A choice among possible alternatives is made in the community comprising of various groups which interests and opinions conflict with each other.

The approaches to defining the concept ‘political regime’ can be used for its classification. All means and methods applied by a State for exercising power reflect the level of political liberty in society and legal status of a citizen. A level of social individual freedom and a nature of ‘State-citizen’ relationships entail three types of regimes: totalitarian, authoritative and democratic. Litvinov O.M. underlines that under transition from totalitarianism to democracy «importance of rules regulating individual relations and weight of savage physical (or military, etc.) force gradually diminishes by replacing with “force of persuasion”, “force of belief”, even “force of deception” and “force of ruse”» [16]. Transition is also characterized with humanization of politics and law that by the opinion of Bigun V.S.: «is considered as a step-by-step process of realizing the principle under which a human being is of key social value that manifests itself through political and law reality, fundamental laws (the Constitution, Criminal Code, etc.) and law realization («humanization of a an individual» as indispensable to humanization of law)» [17].

Being extremes of the classification democracy and totalitarianism have many intermediate forms. For example, semidemocratic regimes are such under which power of leaders is restricted, and free and democratic elections are so dubious that their results disagree noticeably with the will of majority. Furthermore civil and political rights are so diminished that expression of political goals and interests hardly possible.

The classification of political regimes is also based on: political parties available, their organization, interrelation principles within the party system; interrelation between administration and self-administration, a role of the local authorities in political processes; importance of the armed, police and special forces; degree of power division (legislative, executive and judicial); level and character of citizens’ participation in political and governmental processes; extent of publicity as to authorities’ activity, their veracity and openness for public control; possibilities to express and realize different interests; methods to form state bodies, procedures to select ruling groups and political leaders.

In the narrow sense, the regimes are liberal, dictatorial, violent and others. By the form of government the regimes are as follows: parliamentary, presidential, monarchy, republican, emergency governing, etc. Evaluations of political regime can be symbolic that’s why lack for an objective analysis of the government form (absolute, czar’s, etc) which instead being often personified by the name of the ruler (Stalin’s regime, Hitler’s regime, etc). That’s why a political regime is a typological, stylistic and symbolic characteristic of society and a State.

Robert Dahl applies two criteria of competitive struggle for power and citizens’ involvement in governing to distinguish the four ideal types of political regimes: hegemony, open hegemony, oligarchy of competition and polyarchy. Hegemony is characterized by most severe restrictions, ban on any opposition irrespective of adherence (loyalty) of subjects. Oligarchy tolerates competition but within the elite. Being the nearest form to democracy the following distinctive features of poliarchy are: 1) electiveness of power organs that is guaranteed by the Constitution; government’s decisions are controlled by means of elections; 2) free and fair elections are conducted regularly and periodically; any compulsion is ruled out; 3) universal suffrage entitled to almost all adults 4) the right to be elected granted to almost all adults, however the age qualification can be higher than the right to vote; 5) freedom of expression: without fear to be punished citizens enjoy the right to express their own opinion of a wide range of issues, including criticism against public authorities, the government, regime, social and economic order and predominant ideology; 6) alternative information: citizens have the right to information from alternative sources; moreover, these sources are guaranteed by the law; 7) autonomy of associations: to realize their rights, including the ones discussed above, citizens are entitled to join in free associations and organizations, including independent political parties and interest groups [18]. There are also a great number of mixed regimes which can be similar to one of the ideal types.

Some authors reckon the following groups as separate regimes: military, one-party, liberal, quasi-democratic and transitional ones. Samuel Huntington marked out four types of nondemocratic regimes: one-party, military, personal dictatorship and racial oligarchy. Thus the tasks of politological analysis would determine one of the classifications. The typology of political regimes by American political scientist Juan J. Linz is widely recognized and includes five main types: democratic, authoritarian, totalitarian, post-totalitarian and sultanistic. These types are ideal and differ in the following four features: political mobilization of citizens, pluralism, level of ideologizing and power constitutionality of a leader or ruling group. To our mind, to classify political regimes into totalitarian, authoritarian and democratic it is efficient to compare them by the following characteristics: political pluralism, social and economic pluralism, ideology, mobilization, leadership, legal culture (See the Table below).

Comparative Description of the Main Political Regimes

Features	Totalitarian	Authoritarian	Democratic
Political pluralism	NO (the official party has absolute monopoly of power)	Restricted, irresponsible; may have a weak position	Responsible
Social- Economical pluralism	No possibility for parallel society or shadow economy	Possible	YES
Ideology	Predominant one as the utopia which could be achieved in the future	Absence of well-defined dominant one	Adherence to civil principles and competition rules; respect for the minority’s rights, legality and importance of a person
Mobilization	Extensive one of many organizations established by the regime; based on enthusiasm	Absence of political one, barring exceptional cases	Low one; awareness of importance of high activity; tolerance of the opposition, which obeys respective political rules
Leadership	Unlimited; absolute, unpredictable, often charismatic; nomination to top office depends on adherence and party career	Restricted power of a leader (a small group of rulers), the restrictions are ill-defined	Leaders change periodically by results of free elections; their power is restricted by the Constitution
Legal Culture	Totalitarian	Authoritarian	Democratic

The comparative description makes it possible to draw up the conclusion that it is a political life that determines legal consciousness and culture of society and an individual. On the other hand, M.I. Panov says that «political ideals, aims and other values are realized by establishing the system of laws and their application» [19]. The problem of correlation and two-way influence of political life, legal consciousness and culture is very complicated and urgent.

Three components can be found in legal culture: cognitive (knowledge), axiological (values) and behavior [20]. The cognitive and axiological components involve law consciousness while behavior is connected with law behavior, i.e. the system of practical activity of applying and obeying law. Within this framework a systematizing factor is exactly democratic legal values or social and law preconception, which predetermine law consciousness and legal culture in general. According to S. Maksimov it is true that: «legal culture is, first of all, the moment of values and ideals» [21]. The values serve as respective foundation and means of making decisions and setting goals conformable to some values; they are a criterion as to what one should strive for and\or avoid under the current political regime; they serve as an arbiter to settle internal conflicts and find appropriate solutions [22].

Law consciousness can be defined as a set in esse of interdependent ideas and emotions demonstrating attitudes of social groups and individuals towards law as an entire social institution including its system and structure, certain laws and other law system features of the present political regime [23]. Law consciousness is also a channel of law influence on individual behavior, development of social and group relations through motivation, emotions and consciousness in universe of the present political regime. Law consciousness can consist of the following components: knowledge of the Constitution, legal rules and laws including judgment about law organization of a particular society and criticism of the current law system and other values that directed at changing the law system of the day. Law consciousness reflects the spirit and nature of the present laws in individual consciousness and helps creatively improve and criticize the current legislation and institutions from a position of individual fairness assuming ever greater importance and deeper life sense among many people. It is also possible to distinguish the institutional and noninstitutional forms of law-consciousness being. The former embodies documents as a form of active mental process of professional lawyers; the latter manifests itself through law reasoning, will and emotions as the form an active process or act of consciousness in its «unobjectified form». Moreover, according to the manner of mental process the noninstitutional form is divided into the everyday and theoretical levels. The everyday one embraces conceptions, expressions of will, attitudes to current law, knowledge and judgment of the present laws, opinions about legitimacy of court rulings and fairness of the existing laws. The theoretical one can be reckoned as some legal «doctrines» developed by law theorists and a large number of problems such as law, justice and fairness, rights and duties of society and individuals, fundamental legislative institutions discussed in researches on the humanities [24]. The levels aforesaid differ in amount of knowledge of law and its system, degree of comprehension of law facts, phenomena and law consciousness. The everyday law consciousness must include ethical estimation, which can even be dominant because at this level views on law are far from being professional. Being kept informed about legal rules and law depends on both social and law experience of individuals and law practices of society and the existing political regime [25]. Law consciousness can be formed under influence of the following factors: historical experience of a society, social environment of individuals, personal social experience of each individual and group. It conforms to а social structure of a society and acquires different forms and contents dependent on a social subject including society in tote, classes, groups, strata, separate individuals.

IV. Conclusions It is clear that it is a political regime that influences cognitive (knowledge), axiological (values) and behavior levels of legal culture. That’s why it is appropriate to form a respective value system of an individual and the whole community in order to have any progress towards democracy and legal culture prevailing in European community where Ukraine strives for.

V. Literature

1. Історія вчень про право і державу: Хрестоматія для юридичних вузів і факультетів / Уклад., заг. ред. проф., д-р істор. наук Г.Г. Демиденко. – 2-е вид., доп. і змін. – Харків: Легас, 2002. – С.52.

2. Див.: Береза С.В. Правова культура і політика: взаємозв’язок і взаємозалежність // Держава і право: Збірник наукових праць. Юридичні і політичні науки. – К.: Ін-т держави і права ім. В.М. Корецького НАН України, 2005. – Вип. 29. – С. 112-117.

3. Див.: Усеінова Г.С. Політична та правова свідомість людини в контексті взаємозв’язку політичної культури, права і політики // Політична культура суспільства: джерела, впливи, стереотипи: Збірник статей і тез за матеріалами Всеукраїнської науково-теоретичної конференції – ХХ Харківські політологічні читання. – Х.: НЮАУ ім. Ярослава Мудрого, НДІ державного будівництва та місцевого самоврядування АПрН України, 2008. – С.335-338.

4. Див.: Соціологія політики: Енцикл. словник / Авт.-упоряд.: В.А. Полторак, О.В. Петров, А.В. Толстоухов. – К.: Вид-во Європ. ун-ту, 2009. – С. 326-327.

5. Докладніше про це див.: Проблеми модернізації політичних систем сучасності: Монографія / М.І. Панов (кер. авт. кол.), Л.М. Герасіна, О.Г. Данильян та ін.; За заг. ред. Л.М. Герасіної, О.Г. Данильяна. – Х.: Право, 2008. – 320 с.

6. Див.: Венгеров А. Теория государства и права: Учебник. – М.: Новый юрист, 1999. – С.150.

7. Политический режим и преступность / Под ред. В.Н. Бурлакова, Ю.Н. Волкова, В.П. Сальникова. – СПб.: Изд-во «Юридический центр Пресс», 2001. – С.41.

8. Див.: Загальна теорія держави і права: [Підручник для студентів юридичних вищих навчальних закладів] / М.В. Цвік, О.В. Петришин, Л.В. Авраменко та ін.; За ред. д-ра юрид. наук, проф., акад. АПрН України М.В. Цвіка, д-ра юрид. наук, проф., акад. АПрН України О.В. Петришина. – Харків: Право, 2009. – С.118-120.

9. Див.: Шакірзянова І.В. Політичний і державний режими: сучасні погляди та характеристики // Держава і право. Юрид. і політ. науки: Зб. наук. пр. – 2008. – Вип. 39. – С. 58-62.

10. Див.: Шипунов Г. Категорія «political regime»: суть та основні підходи щодо визначення // Укр. нац. ідея: реалії та перспективи розв. – 2006. - №18. – С. 235-241.

11. Див.: Герасіна Л.М. Правової ідеалізм і політичні практики: проблема взаємодії // Політична культура суспільства: джерела, впливи, стереотипи: Збірник статей і тез за матеріалами Всеукраїнської науково-теоретичної конференції – ХХ Харківські політологічні читання. – C.23-27.

12. Див.: Лубнин Д.А. Разновидности политического режима // Вопр. гуманит. наук. – 2007. - №6. – С.327-333.

13. Див.: Ладиченко В. Гносеологічні аспекти взаємовідносин держави та особистості // Юридична Україна. – 2008. - №12. – С.24-29.

14. Див.: Правдюк Т.И. Правовая культура и правопорядок // История государства и права. – 2008. - №7. – С.8-10.

15. Литвинов О.М. Про взаємозв’язок політики і права як проблему правової культури: від сервільності до верховенства права (спроба попередньої розвідки) // Трансформація політики в право / За редакцією академіка НАН України, академіка АПрН України В.Я. Тація. – Х.: Право, 2006. – С.254.

16. Там само.

17. Бігун В.С. Людський вимір політики і права: осмислення сучасного українського досвіду» // Трансформація політики в право. – С.256.

18. Див.: Соціологія політики: Енцикл. словник. – С. 297.

19. Панов М.І. Політична і правова культури як фундаментальні чинники державотворення в Україні // Політична культура суспільства: джерела, впливи, стереотипи: Збірник статей і тез за матеріалами Всеукраїнської науково-теоретичної конференції – ХХ Харківські політологічні читання. – С.5.

20. Див.: Степанов О.В., Самыгин П.С. Социология права: Учебное пособие. – Ростов-на-Дону: Феникс, 2006. – С.98.

21. Див. Максимов С.І. Українська правова культура: ціннісній вимір // Правова культура і громадянське суспільство в Україні: стан і перспективи розвитку: Матеріали міжнар. наук. конф., м. Харків, 12 жовт. 2007 р. / Редкол.: Ю.П. Битяк, І.В. Яковюк, Г.В. Чапала. – Х.: Право, 2007. – С.11.

22. Див.: Черкас М.Є. Правосвідомість і правова культура як основа громадянського суспільства // Там само. – С.139-140.

23. Див.: Калиновський Ю.Ю. Розвиток демократичної правосвідомості як основа функціонування громадянського суспільства в Україні // Там само. – С.77-79.

24. Див.: Клімова Г.П. Поняття та структура правової свідомості: соціологічний аспект аналізу // Там само. – С.82.

25. Див.: Червякова О.Б. Правова культура особистості та правова інформація: деякі аспекти взаємодії // Там само. – С.104-106.