The political system of Russia 19-21 centuries. Prominent politicians of Russia

Over the course of three centuries, our country managed to pass almost all the regimes that exist between slavery and democracy. Nevertheless, in pure form, no regime has ever taken place, it has always been one or the other symbiosis. And now the political system of Russia combines both elements of a democratic system, as well as authoritarian institutions and methods of government.

About hybrid modes

This scientific term refers to regimes where the signs of authoritarianism and democracy are merged together, and most often these systems are intermediate. There are a lot of definitions here, but with the help of a comprehensive analysis they were divided into two groups. The first group of scientists sees the hybrid regime as an illiberal democracy, that is, democracy with a minus, the second, on the contrary, considers Russia's political system to be competitive or electoral authoritarianism, that is, authoritarianism with a plus.

The very definition of "hybrid mode" is quite popular, because it has some kind of non-price and neutrality. Many scientists believe that the political system of Russia allows all its inherent democratic elements for decoration: parliamentarism, a multi-party system, elections and everything that is democratic only cover true authoritarianism. However, it should be noted that this imitation is moving in the opposite direction.

In Russia

Russia's political system is trying to present itself both more repressive and more democratic than it really is. The scale of authoritarianism - democracy is long enough for the subject of this scientific dispute to find a consensus. Most scientists are inclined to qualify for a hybrid regime in a country where at least two political parties legally exist who participate in the parliamentary elections. There should also be a legal multi-party system and regular election campaigns. Then the type of authoritarianism at least ceases to be pure. But is not the fact of competition between parties important? And the number of violations of freedom of elections is counted?

Russia is a federal presidential-parliamentary republic. In any case, so it is declared. Simulation is not a lie, as the social sciences assert. This is a much more complicated phenomenon. Hybrid regimes tend to have corruption at a very high level (including in court, not only in elections), government unaccountable to parliament, indirect but strict control of the authorities over the media, limited civil liberties (the creation of public organizations and public meetings). As we all know, these signs demonstrate the political system of Russia now. However, it is interesting to follow the whole path that the country has gone through in its political development.

A century earlier

It should be borne in mind that Russia is in the second echelon of countries that began capitalist development, and it began it much later than the countries of the West, which are considered leading. Nevertheless, literally in forty years it has done the same path that these countries took for many centuries. This was due to the extremely high growth rates of industry, and they contributed to the economic policy of the government, which forced the development of many industries and the construction of railways. Thus, the political system of Russia at the beginning of the 20th century, simultaneously with the advanced countries, entered the imperialist stage. But it was not so simple, capitalism could not hide its bestial grin with such rapid development. The revolution was inevitable. Why and how has Russia's political system changed, what factors triggered drastic changes?

The pre-war situation

1. Monopolies arose swiftly, relying on a high concentration of capital and production, capturing all the dominant economic positions. The dictatorship of capital was based only on its own growth, regardless of the costs of human resources. No one invested in the peasantry, and it gradually lost the ability to feed the country.

2. Industry densely merged with banks, financial capital grew, and a financial oligarchy appeared.

3. Goods and raw materials were exported from the country, a huge scope was acquired and the withdrawal of capital. The forms were diverse, as now: state loans, direct investments in the economy of other states.

4. There have emerged international monopoly unions and the struggle for markets for raw materials, sales and investments has intensified.

5. Competition in the sphere of influence between the rich countries of the world reached its apogee, this led first to a number of local wars, and then the First World War broke loose. And the people have already exhausted all these features of the social and political system of Russia.

The end of the 19th and early 20th centuries: the economy

The industrial upsurge of the nineties naturally ended in a three-year severe economic crisis, which began in 1900, after which there was an even more prolonged depression - until 1908. Then came, at last, the time of some prosperity - a whole series of fruitful years from 1908 to 1913 allowed the economy to make another sharp jump when industrial production grew by 50%.

Prominent politicians of Russia, who prepared the 1905 revolution and numerous mass protests, almost lost the fertile platform for their activities. Monopolization received another bonus in the Russian economy: many small businesses were killed during the crisis, even more medium-sized businesses went bankrupt during the depression, the weak ones left, and the strong ones were able to concentrate industrial production in their hands. Enterprises massively corporatized, it is time for monopolies - cartels and syndicates, which combined to sell their products in the best way.

Policy

The political system of Russia at the beginning of the 20th century was an absolute monarchy, all the power was in the hands of the emperor with mandatory succession to the throne. The two-headed eagle with royal regalia proudly sat on the arms, and the flag was the same as today-white-blue-red. When the political system in Russia changes and the dictatorship of the proletariat comes , the flag will be just red. Like the blood that the people have shed for many centuries. And on the arms there is a sickle and a hammer with ears. But it will be only in 1917. And at the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th, the system, created under Alexander the First, still triumphed in the country.

The State Council was a legal counselor: he did not decide anything, he could only express opinions. No project without the king's signature has ever become a law. The court was in charge of the Senate. State affairs were regulated by the Cabinet of Ministers, but there was nothing to be done without the Tsar either - this was the political system of Russia in the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th. But the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Internal Affairs already had the widest competence at that time. Financiers could dictate conditions to the tsar, and the secret search detachment with its provocateurs, perusal of correspondence, censorship and political investigation if not dictated, could influence the royal decision in a cardinal way.

Emigration

Civil lawlessness, a difficult situation in the economy and repression (yes, Stalin did not invent them!) Caused a growing and growing flow of emigration - and this is not the 21st century, but the 19th! The peasantry left the country, going first to neighboring states - to work, then rushed all over the world, it was then that Russian settlements were established in the USA, Canada, Argentina, Brazil and even in Australia. Not the revolution of 1917 and the subsequent war gave birth to this stream, they simply did not let it go out for a while.

What are the reasons for this outflow of subjects in the nineteenth century? Russia's political system in the 20th century could not be understood and accepted by everyone, so the reason is clear. But people have already fled from the absolute monarchy, how is it? In addition to harassment on national grounds, the people lacked conditions for obtaining education and better professional training, citizens were looking for a worthy application of their abilities and forces to their life, but this was impossible for very many reasons. And a huge part of the emigration - many thousands of people - were wrestlers with the autocracy, future revolutionaries, who from there led the parties that rose on the wing, published newspapers, wrote books.

Liberation movement

The contradictions in society were so acute at the beginning of the twentieth century that they often poured open thousands of protests, the revolutionary situation was brewing by leaps and bounds. The storm was constantly raging among the students. The labor movement played the most significant role in this situation, and it was so determined that by 1905 it already demanded a combination of economic and political. The social and political system of Russia has been noticeably unsteady. In 1901 the workers of Kharkov struck on May Day at the same time as the strike at the Obukhov enterprise of St. Petersburg, where there were repeated skirmishes with the police.

By 1902, the strike had swept the entire southern part of the country, starting from Rostov. In 1904, the general strike in Baku and many other cities. In addition, there was a growing movement in the ranks of the peasantry. Both Kharkov and Poltava were rebelling in 1902, so much so that it was quite comparable with the peasant wars of Pugachev and Razin. The liberal opposition also raised its voice in the Zemstvo campaign of 1904. In such conditions, the organization of the protest was to be held necessarily. The government, however, still hoped, but it still did not take any steps towards a radical reconstruction, and very long ago died out its long-standing political system of Russia. In short, the revolution was inevitable. And it occurred on October 25 (November 7), 1917, significantly different from the previous ones: the bourgeois one - 1905 and the February 1917, when the Provisional Government came into power.

The twenties of the twentieth century

At that time, the state structure of the Russian Empire was radically changed. On the whole territory, except for the Baltic states, Finland, Western Byelorussia and Ukraine, Bessarabia, the dictatorship of the Bolsheviks came as a variant of a political system with one party. Other Soviet parties that still existed in the early twenties were crushed: the Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks self-dissolved in 1920, the Bund in 1921, and in 1922 the leaders of the Socialist-Revolutionaries were accused of counter-revolution and terrorism, tried and repressed. The Mensheviks were slightly more humane, as the world community protested against repression. Most of it was just kicked out of the country. So with the opposition was over. In 1922, Josef Vissarionovich Stalin was appointed General Secretary of the Central Committee of the RCP (B.), And this accelerated the centralization of the party, as well as the development of power technology - with a rigid vertical structure within the structures of local representations.

Terror sharply decreased and quickly disappeared completely, although as such, the rule of law in the modern sense was not built. However, already in 1922, the Civil and Criminal Codes were approved, the tribunals were abolished, the Bar and the Prosecutor's Office were established, the censorship was enshrined in the Constitution, and the Cheka was reorganized into the GPU. The end of the Civil War was the time of the birth of the Soviet republics: the RSFSR, Belorussian, Ukrainian, Armenian, Azerbaijani, Georgian. There were also Khorezm and Bukhara and Far East. And everywhere at the head was the Communist Party, and the state system of the Russian Federation (RSFSR) was no different from the system, say, the Armenian one. Each republic had its own constitution, its organs of government and administration. In 1922, the Soviet states began to unite in a federal union. It was not an easy and difficult task, it did not turn out right away. The formed Soviet Union was a federative formation where national formations had only cultural autonomy, but it was exceptionally powerful: in the 1920s a huge number of local newspapers, theaters, national schools were created, literature in all languages of the USSR peoples, without exception, was mass-produced, And many peoples who did not have written language, received it, which attracted the brightest minds of the scientific world. The Soviet Union showed unrivaled might, despite the fact that the country was twice in ruins. However, seventy years later he was killed not by war, not by deprivation, but ... by satiety and contentment. And traitors inside the ruling class.

21 century

What is today's mode? This is no longer the 90th, when the authorities reflected only the interests of suddenly emerging bourgeoisie and oligarchy. Wide middle-class masses were heated by the media in their own interest and hope to "spin up" in the near future. It was not order, but, rather, his absence. Complete robbery and lawlessness. What now? Now the state system of the Russian Federation, in the opinion of some experts, is very similar to Bonapartist. The reference to the modern Russian program of transformations allows to see in it similar parameters. This program began to be implemented as an adjustment to the previous course of radical social transformations related to the abandonment of a fairly boring Soviet model of society, and in this sense, of course, has a conservative orientation. The legitimizing formula of the new Russian political system today also has a dual character, based simultaneously on democratic elections and traditional Soviet legitimacy.

State capitalism - where is it?

There is an opinion that under Soviet rule there was a system of state capitalism. However, any capitalism relies primarily on profit. Now it is very similar to this system with its state corporations. But in the USSR, even when Kosygin tried to find economic levers of management, this was not at all. In the Soviet Union the system was transitional, with features of socialism and, to a lesser extent, capitalism. Socialism manifested itself not so much in the distribution of public consumer funds with state guarantees for the elderly, sick and disabled. Recall that even pensions for all appeared only at the last stage of the country's existence.

But here the organization in the management of social life and economy was not capitalist at all, it was completely built on technocratic principles, not capitalist ones. However, even in its pure form, the Soviet Union did not know socialism. It is true that there was public ownership of the means of production. However, state ownership is not synonymous with public property, because it is not possible to dispose of it, and sometimes even know how to do it. Openness in a constantly hostile environment is impossible, so even the information was a state monopoly. There was no publicity where the layer of managers controlled information as private property. Social equality - the principle of socialism, quite by the way, admits material inequality. There is no antagonism between classes, no social stratum has been suppressed by others, and therefore it never occurred to anyone to protect social privileges. However, there was a powerful army, and around it - the mass of officials who had not only a huge difference in wages, but also had a whole system of benefits.

Cooperation

Socialism in its pure form, as Marx saw it, can not be built in a single country. The famous Trotskyist of the twenties of the twentieth century, Saakhobayev argued that the salvation of the world - only in the world revolution. But it is impossible, because the contradictions are basically transferred from the countries of the first echelon of industrialization to the countries of the third world. But one can recall the undeservedly trampled teachings of Lenin, who proposed to change the point of view and build socialism in the form of a society of civilized cooperators.

State property should not be transferred to co-operatives, just at all enterprises, the principles of self-government should be introduced. The Jews understood it correctly - all the features of the society that Vladimir Ilyich described were present in the kibbutz. In the same way, there are trade union enterprises in America, and in our country there were such people's enterprises during perestroika. However, under capitalism, the prosperity of such industries is problematic. At best, they are the enterprises of a collective capitalist. Only the seizure of all political power by the proletariat can serve as a basis for building socialism.