д.и.н. Кукеева Ф.Т.,
Ордабаев А.К.
Казахский Национальный Университет им. аль-Фараби, Казахстан
Parliamentarism impact to democracy development.
Feature of the present stage
of development of post-Soviet states is the fact that such a development from the point of view of political science can be seen as part of the complex and diverse processes of social and political transformations taking place in the world
as a whole, on the one hand, and the countries in the past quarter century
have taken the path of democratic development
on the other. In political science, formed the whole research
area, exploring the features of the different options for the transition from non-democratic rule to
democracy.
According to a number of international organizations, not only, but also
from governments, political leaders of certain Western states, now in Central
Asia and the most important acute problem of building democracy. Such views are
often expressed in the direct request of the commission or refraining from
making any political action, systematically channeled directly to the
leadership of the republics. Of course, just 14 years of independence, no
government in the Central Asian republics have contrived to ongoing democratic
reforms enough to satisfy all of today, that neither is the democratic
aspirations of the West. Exist today in the region of the country earlier
simply absent on the world map as an independent state and are not full
subjects of international relations in the full sense of the word. Before
colonization in the second half of the nineteenth century Tsarist Russia, in
Central Asia, there were feudal states controlled by an absolute monarchy.
Belonging to the Soviet Union rules out any more or less independent of the
republics to address its internal structure, and especially aimed at the adoption
and implementation of any kind of democratic reforms, unprecedented for the
country [1].
Various countries of
Central Asia in different ways
involved in the process of democratic
transition. Sometimes he takes a
more successful, others - less
well, there are some states where
such transit generally not noticeable. In this sense, we have tried very carefully to constantly hear calls to act on reforms on
the basis of their own experience. There is nothing wrong to occasionally check their
own plans and actions to similar
to those of other countries.
Thus, to build democracy does not work. Do not
let the historical stages of development, with all its features and
inevitably be a requirement. Certain basis for transition to democratic reforms, certainly had, up for a reminder. Involve
as it fully proved
difficult due to the collapse of a single cross-sectional socio-economic and state of the organism and
the forced transfer of the participants on the course of the Soviet federation unitary independent development. The available material and social conditions
of reforms collectively make a base for the transitional period, the
duration of which depended on a number
of other factors - external and internal. In a systemic crisis, as a rule, is the most
popular organized politically experienced
force. Now, independently solving
its domestic and foreign policy, the Central Asian republics constitutionally
declared priorities of building democracy, as would require
a democratically developed West,
on behalf of which more and more active in the USA
and the UK [2].
Another issue is the possibility of building a democracy
assumption, coupled with historical
patterns of development of a country, as situation in the West. Then
for some reason the world's democracies "guarantors" allow themselves to negative perception
towards their models of democratic
development in the post-Soviet
space, not only in the Central Asian
republics, and in Russia? Is it
time to decide gentlemen in uniform for all skill
democratic and non-democratic regimes and work-still
single and unambiguous understanding of
the problem? Today, such a universal understanding yet, accordingly, there
is not one ideal, inadequate pursuit
of which it is appropriate to blame the "passive",
according to the Western "superintendents" of
building democracy and government [3].
Efforts came to power
public politics prevail building approach super strong presidential power, endowed with huge, often redundant power.
Of course, this is possible due to
a certain weakening of other state institutions, including the parliament,
political parties, the judiciary, the forms of direct democracy. In defense of this position is usually given a standard set of arguments, which essentially boils down to the assertion
of a lack of alternatives to
create a strong government transformative
leader, called for a series of
radical changes during the transition from the former Soviet totalitarian system to a new market democratic society.
Parties in the
same were assigned a different role. In Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan, the structures of the
communist parties with no reforms were directly subordinated
to the task of ideological and political service of presidential power. In Kazakhstan, these functions are assumed pro-presidential party "Nur Otan", as
it emerged on a new basis, but (as well as similar organizations in Uzbekistan and
Kyrgyzstan) structurally and methodologically communicates the supreme power to the lower floors of
society in the field, doing, of course,
without its former ideological
dogma. Later, with
the strengthening of the positions of president, has introduced
a multi-party technology (Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, and Kyrgyzstan Askar
Akayev in). These attempts,
however, had profound consequences;
rather they pursued simulation purpose [4].
Adopted, in most CIS
countries, including all countries in Central Asia constitutions provide for non-party character of the organization
of state power. No parliamentary majority and parliamentary
coalition did not have and do not have the right to form a government. In this sense, democracy is truncated by
the fact that the competition of
political parties in the election and the election itself is largely deprived of its
main point, which exists in the
party democracies, where the most
important goal is to change the
electoral marathon lost the
support of the Government and its
policy.
Only the presence
of the political practice of the
State Institute of voting allows voters from time to time to visit the polls are not enough. The citizens there are no real possibility of such a
choice, which would be able to affect change in their socio-economic
situation and protect their interests. At
a time when even the electoral
victory of a certain political forces
do not allow it to implement its program, completely lost the value of political pluralism and a multiparty system of representative government. Status and
powers of parliament in all the
Central Asian states do not yet allow
these agencies to effectively control
the president and the government. It
seems that in general the result
of the impact on the character of transforming the political regimes in Central Asia by the
West at this stage of their
development can be described more
as a bad (in the sense of failing to meet stated goals), although this conclusion is no it does not mean a
negative attitude in the conduct of these country programs.
From our point of view,
it was more useful part in the development of the democratic reforms of the United States is not so much how many of the Western
European institutions and international organizations.
It seems that the politicians and the
public in Western Europe, as a
region with a long tradition of
parliamentary, could more productively
have a beneficial effect on the
development of the situation in Central
Asia than it is the case with the president of
the republic, which is the USA.
1)
Габдулхаков Н. Ф:
Центральная Азия + демократия =? Уравнение
с тремя неизвестными // http://www.law.edu.ru/doc/document.asp?docID=1189194.
2) Р.Агаев. ЦАР: проблемы эволюции
политических систем // Центральная Азия. Геополитика и Экономика Региона. М 2010, с 11-28.
3) Dorothee Bohle, Béla Greskovits:
Neoliberalism, Embedded Neoliberalism, and Neocorporatism: Paths towards
Transnational Capitalism in Central-Eastern Europe //
http:www.ceu.hu//url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CC4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fpeople.duke.edu%2F~spp7%2FBohle-Greskovits.doc
4)
Eugheniy Zhovtis: Democratization and Human Rights in Central Asia: Problems,
Development Prospects and the Role of the International Community // Engaging
Central Asia: “The European Union’s new strategy in the heart of Eurasia”,
Center for European Policy Studies, Brussels. http://aei.pitt.edu/32610/1/49._Engaging_Central_Asia.pdf