Z.N.Kurdyukova
Ph.D., Associate Professor of the Theory and History of State and Law
SSEU
S.V.Vasilyev
Graduate student of Theory and History
of State and Law SSEU
THE THEORETICAL PROBLEMS
OF THE POLITICAL
FORM OF THE MODERN RUSSIAN STATE
Theoretical aspects of the political form of modern Russian State are
described in this paper. It continues the scientific investigations in this
field of theoretical jurisprudence.
The article analyses not only theoretical problems, but also the normative
acts of the international and the Russian national Law. The concept of the
president republic is researched by the authors. The evidence of the preference
of such a political form as a president republic for the Russian Federation are
presented in the article.
As a result of this investigation some scientific recommendations for
judicial practice have been done.
Keywords:
political form of government, form of government,
parliamentary republic, presidential republic, the
government.
The form of government is that
element of the form of the state, which reveals the
organization of the supreme government, the
legal status of the higher organs of the state, the principles of the relationship between them, the degree of participation in the
formation of these bodies. Therefore, it is
this element of the structure form of the state traditionally is of
special scientific interest. Another classic State Science noticed that the
"doctrine of the distinction of state or government of the forms" is "as shaky and unknown, as well as the
definition of the state."[1] Even in determining
the balance of such basic concepts as the form, content and nature of the state, there
is no unanimity.
Contemporary researchers often
exaggerate determinate form of the state: "The form of the state always acts as a direct expression
of the essence and content. What are the nature
and content (functions) of the State is, in the
end, its form.”[2] From this
position it is difficult to accept. It seems that
there is a strong relationship between the form and content of the
state or public authority. Thus, both the legal and the police
state allow republican and monarchical forms
of government, unitary and federal government. State power in the
form of a monarchy in the form of the republic can
solve the same problem, "but
between the modern constitutional
monarchy and a republic can not establish a significant difference."[3] The
social orientation of public policy, the paternalistic role of
the state may be in both democratic and authoritarian political
and legal regime.
Recently, interest in the problems of the form of
government (the political form of the state) has grown significantly.[4] However, there remain many unexplored aspects.
Contemporary political processes require review of many of the theoretical
constructs in the field of legal science and practice. Thus, it is impossible
to distinguish between the individual forms of the state, guided only by the
quantitative criteria. In connection with this, in the late nineteenth century,
the famous Russian lawyer N.M.Korkunov wrote that if "the ruling to
understand those in whose hands are concentrated disposal of all public
authority, and other entities are only contributing to them or acting under
their authority, then the definition of the monarchy as the power of one is
suitable only unlimited, absolute monarchy ", because" in a
constitutional monarchy Parliament not only contributes to the monarch, and not
away from it derives its authority."[5] In contrast, "being an independent body, and based
on the powers given to him by the people, the parliament strongly limits the
monarch." If "under the ruling meant those in whose hands the focus
is not all available to the authorities, but only so-called executive functions
of government, while most of the modern republic with a single executive, the
president, would be well within the definition of the monarchy." On the
other hand, "the definition of democracy as the government will not do all
in fact no one really existing state as Nowhere to participate in providing the
government is not allowed without exception, people."[6] Thus, it is quite a fair conclusion that the
quantitative criterion is far from perfect and superficial.
The distinction between the monarchical and
republican forms of government is seen not in the presence of various ruling
parties, and their different legal status. Noticed even in 1912, another
Russian scientist - F.Kistyakovsky. In his writings, he strongly emphasized
that "the legal difference between a monarchy and a republic must be
sought not in the competence of government, and in its organization, namely,
the legal status of the bearer of this power."[7]
The difference between monarchy and republic by
criteria of election, collegiality, the short-term, accountability is also very
conditional. Thus, the election of the monarch are no exception, and
collegiality in the country can not be taken for all state agencies. When
opposing monarchies and republics have in mind the real monarchy, above all -
the absolute, which occurred in the period of late feudalism and really is the
opposite of the republic.[8] Real monarchy typical "pre-industrial"
society, and for the "industrial" characteristic of the republic and
the nominal monarchy preserved as a tradition in many of the developed
countries. About nominal, ie constitutional monarchies, it is difficult to say
as the antithesis of a republican form of government.
Political division of the state in the form of the
monarchy and the republic is historically the first and most general of their
classification. Depth and complexity of the study of forms of government
requires further their units into separate species and subspecies.
Interesting, for example, it is the opinion of
some scientists that no significant differences between the parliamentary
monarchy and parliamentary democracy (or even a republic at all) does not
exist. "In developed countries, the difference between monarchy and
republic have little or no value: the degree of democratization of how to
operate the monarchy of Great Britain is not much different from the Republic
of France."[9] In this parliamentary monarchy and parliamentary
republic considered variants of the same form of government, are united in one
thing - "parliamentary countries" and "countries with a parliamentary
form of government."[10]
Paying tribute to the similarity of these species
forms of government, yet is not quite true to such a union. Modern
parliamentary monarchy, despite its democratic and republican features, is an
example of the evolutionary development of the absolute monarchy and retains
its structure, the nominal head of state, whose powers are permanent in nature
and are inherited. In countries with a parliamentary monarchy state development
has gone the way of reducing the powers of the monarch in the field of public
administration and transfer them to other elected public bodies. Despite its
archaic nature, the institution of the monarchy is flexible and adapted to the
conditions of the post-industrial society. This is due to the fact that the
monarchy in the developed world has long become a symbol of the continuity of
the historical traditions, a visual embodiment of the idea of
national statehood, the continuity of its existence.
Republican form of government is the most common
in the world today. The absolute majority of the States represented, such as
the United Nations are republics. It is well known traditional division of
modern republics in the parliamentary and presidential. The basis of this
classification is to answer the main question of state-legal practice: who
heads the executive branch? The executive of the presidential republics, the
President, in the parliamentary - Head of Government. But while making this
classification some changes, which in turn gives rise to theoretical and
practical discussions. For example, in the legal literature and other varieties
are called republics - for example, a presidential-partocratic,
presidential-clerical, presidential-monocratic.[11] It seems, however, that these terms are used to describe
the features of the political and legal status of individual presidential republics.
In the domestic legal literature is also found the
claim that the Constitution established a mixed form of government, designed to
ensure the stability and efficiency of the government due to its accountability
to Parliament for the complicated procedure of announcement of no confidence in
the president for his leadership role in the structure of government.[12] In this statement there is a tendency to add
classification republics parliamentary and presidential hybrid and mixed forms
of government - "semi" and "semi-parliamentary" republics.
The argument is usually indicated on the implementation of elements of the
parliamentary and presidential republic in presidentialism - a parliamentary
republic.
With such judgments difficult
to accept. For example, it is not clear contrast republic
"semi-" from "semi-parliamentary." In addition, the election campaign of 2007-2008 showed a clear
tendency to "Fit
the" state of modern
Russia under the present Constitution, the
text of which follows that the structure set out in the Basic
Law of the state mechanism form of government of the Russian Federation is a parliamentary
republic.
However, this problem shows
the need for new scientific approaches and new classifications,
which should be reflected in constitutional terms.
[1]Gumplowich L. General
theory of the state. - Spb., 1910. - P. 221.
[2]Ermakov A.P. The theory
of the state in the form of Soviet legal science. Abstract:. diss. Candidate.
jurid. Science. - M., 1985. - P. 3-5.
[3]Gumplowich L. General
theory of the state. - Spb., 1910. - P. 247.
[4]See, for example: Avdeev
D.A. Republican form of government: the problems of classification and
identification / / The modern law. 2011. Number 4. Pp. 12-14.; Andreev A.F.
Sovereign Russian state. Its role and place in the contemporary world order / /
The Citizen and the Law. 2012. Number 4. Pp. 43-60.
[5]Korkunov NM Lectures on
the general theory of law. - St. Petersburg, 1898. - P. 255.
[6]Ibid, pp. 256.
[7]Kistiakowsky F. Lectures
on the general state law. - M., 1912. - P. 298.
[8]Problems of the general
theory of law and state / Editor V.S.Nersesyants. - M., 1999. - P. 596.
[9]Chirkin V.E. Based on
comparative gosudarstvovedenie. - M., 1997. - P. 119.
[10]See: Problems of General
Theory of Law and State / Editor V.S.Nersesyants. - M., 1999. - P. 599.
[11]Chirkin V.E.
Constitutional Law: Russia and foreign experience. – M., 1998. – P. 275-278.
[12]See: Chirkin V.E.
Atypical forms of government in the modern state / / State and law. – 1994. - ¹
1. - P. 111.