Z.N.Kurdyukova
Ph.D., Associate Professor of the Samara State Economic University
S.I.Tsheglov
Graduate student of the Samara State Economic University

THEORETICAL CATEGORY "POLITICAL REGIME OF THE STATE"

In the General Theory of Law and State, the term "political regime" is used in three main ways: as a concept, as a category, and as a legal institution. Western scholars - supporters of the political and institutional areas of political analysis - tend to be identified with the concept of the concept of regime form of government or political system. For example, an American scientist K.Bekster writes: "The political regime is a system or form of government." Thus, the political regime is associated with features of separation of powers and the relationship of its branches. Representatives of this direction are allocated: Merge mode powers (absolute monarchy), the regime of separation of powers (presidential republic), the mode of cooperation of the authorities (parliamentary republic). However, this position is not shared by all Western lawyers. The famous French scientist M.Dyuverzhe noted that the above classification may be considered as a secondary, it is seen that in the classification of a type of government structures.[1]

In the Russian legal literature as a trend identification category of "political regime" with other, often diverse, phenomena. In particular, the proposed G.N.Manov point of view that the term "political regime" is identical to the concept form of the state as a whole, and the form of government and form of government acting as its parts or elements.[2] This position adjoins B.A.Starodubsky, who writes: "Most of the political regime is synonymous with the state system."[3]

Similar statements can be found not only in the work of legal scholars, and political scientists. The well-known American political scientist G.Lassuel considers political regime as a way of legitimizing the political system. According to him "mode operates to minimize the element of coercion in the political process." This approach, first, connects regime, mainly with the legal rules and actions, and, secondly, refuses authoritarianism and totalitarianism as non-modes. This understanding allows to rank G.Lassuela and his followers (F.Riggs, R.Beyker, etc.) to the representatives of the political and legitimate interpretation of the category of "political regime".[4]

Supporters of a sociological approach to the analysis of political systems prioritize the analysis of the relationships between society and the state, the individual and the government, which has actual and not necessarily in accordance with the requirements of the law. Almost all members of this area agree that the regime can not evolve only through changes defining the content of legal norms. An example of a sociological approach to the analysis of the category of "political regime" may be the definition proposed by Professor Zh.L.Kermonnom: "Under the political regime, understood as a set of elements of the ideological, institutional and sociological order, contributing to the formation and functioning of the political power of the country for a certain period."[5] Positive aspect of this formulation is that this category is presented functional characteristic of the political system as a whole, in all its manifold elements. In addition, this feature allows you to classify political regimes on the basis of objective criteria.

According to the authors of this publication, the complexity of the analysis of the category of "political regime" is that it is not only a general theoretical concept, but also interdisciplinary Law Institute. As a specific institution right of each country's political regime is internally consistent system of legal norms of various branches of law (constitutional, administrative, criminal and other) governing the phenomenon in question in its legal relationships. In real life, however, the political system can not be understood only in the light of the law. "For the political regime is very important official mapping, including constitutional and legal norms to the real political life, the stated goals of the real policy. Along with the state and the legal registration, the political regime is manifested in the actual life of political and legal institutions, the general thrust of the political and legal development of society."[6] Political practice corrects certain constitutional wording and sometimes a source of original constitutional rules that can determine the form of the essential aspects of the state. For example, in the UK the Convention's agreements govern fundamental questions concerning the head of state, the parliament and the cabinet.

Of course, in many countries the degree of development of this institution is not the same. Many basic laws settled only its elements, in other such rules whitespace. However, the inclusion in the Constitution of generalizing the concept of "form of government" gives additional arguments about the necessity of determining not only through a set of institutions, but as a special institution.

If we consider the laws and political practices not individual countries, but in terms of the comparative study, we can state, at least, the establishment of such an institute. In the above, and many other fundamental laws, it is not about any one element of state forms, but two or three of them, or the shape of the whole. All this gives grounds to conclude that a constitutional form of government regulation, previously absent, incomplete or fragmented to exercise, gradually leads to a special constitutional-legal institution. The form of the state is not just a theoretical concept, formed on the basis of generalization primarily political practice, but also a comprehensive constitutional and legal institution - the system internally consistent rules governing this phenomenon in its legal relationships.

1. For details see: Modern bourgeois political science: problems of law and democracy. / Ed. G.H.Shahnazarov. Moscow, 1982. P. 228.; Tsygankov A.L. Modern political regimes: the structure, typology and dynamics. Moscow, 1995. P. 13.

2. Manoff G.N. The concept of state forms. / / Proceedings of the Tadgh. University Press, 1956. V. 9. No. 4. P. 7.

3. Staradubsky BA The classification of the forms of bourgeois states. Sverdlovsk, 1989. P. 840.

4. See: Riggs F.W. Fragility of the Worlds Regions. International Social Science Journal. Vol. XV. Number 2. 1993. P. 17.

5. See Shmachkova T.V. Of the foundations of the Western Political Science / / Polis. 1991. Number 2. Pp. 133-145.

6. Voplenko N.N Socialist law and application of the law. Saratov, 1983. P. 11.