2.1.3 Mixed forms of government

In the practice of state building in foreign countries, sometimes there are such forms of government that do not fit into the classification accepted in the science of constitutional (state) law. We are talking about mixed forms of government in which various elements are combined, sometimes extremely contradictory.

There are forms of government that combine elements of both parliamentary and presidential republics. The most typical example of a mixed republican form of government is the V Republic of France. Under the French constitution of 1958, the president is elected by the citizens and leads the government, which is typical of a presidential republic. At the same time, the government he appoints must enjoy the confidence of the lower house of parliament, which is typical for a parliamentary republic. At the same time, the president can dissolve the national assembly at his own discretion, which is not characteristic of either version of the republican form of government.

As experience has shown, this form of government is effective, provided that the government, based on a parliamentary majority, and the president adhere to the same political orientation. Otherwise, between the President, on the one hand, and the Prime Minister and the parliamentary majority, on the other, a conflict may arise, for the resolution of which constitutional means are not always sufficient.

In a number of countries, the president is elected by the citizens, which is typical for a presidential republic, and has a number of powers that enable him to actively interfere in the political process, but in practice he does not use them.

There are also forms of government that combine elements of a monarchy and a republic. A typical example is the form of government in Malaysia. According to the 1957 constitution, Malaysia is a rare kind of constitutional monarchy - an elective (electoral) monarchy. The head of the Malaysian Federation is a monarch, but he does not receive his power in the order of succession to the throne, but is elected for a period of 5 years by the council of rulers that are part of the federation of 9 monarchical states.

According to the constitution, the monarch appoints the prime minister, and, on his advice, the ministers, but this is a purely formal position, because. The Government of the Federation of Malaysia is collectively responsible for its activities to Parliament. The form of government in Malaysia is a combination of a monarchy and a republic, but the republican element is not essential.

2.2 Types of forms of government

The next element of the form of the state is the form of government.

The form of government is understood as the structure of statehood. That is, it is in the category of "form of government" that the territorial division and structure of the state, the assignment of a certain territory to it, finds expression.

In contrast to the form of government, the organization of the state is considered here from the point of view of the distribution of state power and state sovereignty in the center and in the regions, their division between the constituent parts of the state.

The form of government shows:

What parts does the internal structure of the state consist of;

What is the legal status of these parts and what are the relationships between their bodies;

How relations are built between central and local government bodies;

In what state form the interests of each nation living in the territory of this state are expressed.

Historically, there have been three "classical" forms of government: a unitary state, a federal state (federation), and a confederation. However, recently the view of the confederation as one of the forms of government has begun to change. Many authors believe that the confederation is not an independent state, but just a commonwealth, a union of absolutely independent states created to achieve any specific goals (defense against a common enemy, economic development, political unification, etc.).

So, the first of the three types of form of government: a unitary state.

2.2.1 Unitary form of government

A unitary form of government exists in many countries. It is characterized by a single structure of the state apparatus throughout the country. Parliament, head of state, government extend their jurisdiction over the entire country. Their competence (functional, substantive, territorial) is neither legally nor actually limited by the powers of any local authorities.

All administrative-territorial units have the same legal status and equal position in relation to the central authorities. They may be based on legal acts that define and consolidate their legal status (for example, statutes). Administrative-territorial units cannot have any political independence. However, in the field of economic, socio-cultural, their powers can be quite broad, allowing them to manage the territory, while taking into account its features.

Next - a single citizenship. The population of a unitary state has a single state affiliation. No administrative-territorial formations of their own citizenship have and cannot have.

A unitary state is characterized by a single system of law. Its base is formed by a single Constitution - the Basic Law, the norms of which are applied throughout the country without any exceptions and restrictions. Local authorities are obliged to apply all other regulations adopted by the central authorities. Their own norm, which establishes activity, is of a purely subordinate nature, extends to the corresponding local territory.

In a unitary state, there is a single judicial system that administers justice throughout the country, guided by the norms of substantive and procedural law common to all state entities. The judiciary, as well as all other law enforcement agencies, are links of a single centralized system.

A unitary state uses a single-channel system of taxes. As a rule, taxes go to the center, and from there they are already distributed to different regions.

Thus, in a unitary state, the entire state apparatus is centralized and direct or indirect control over local bodies is introduced.

The centralization inherent in all unitary states can manifest itself in different forms and to different degrees. In some countries, there are no local bodies at all and administrative-territorial units are governed by appointed representatives of the central government. In other states, local bodies are created, but they are placed under the control (direct or indirect) of the central government. Depending on what kind of control the central government exercises over local bodies, there are centralized and decentralized unitary states. In some unitary states, the provision of a more preferential legal status to one or more administrative-territorial units is used. Such a unitary state is characterized by the presence of administrative autonomy for some structural territorial divisions. This form of government is used where it is necessary to take into account the specific interests of territorial units (national, ethnic, geographical, historical, etc.). Self-government rights for autonomous entities are somewhat wider than for the population of ordinary administrative-territorial units. However, the independence of autonomies is allowed only within the limits established by the central government.

Unitarism, in comparison with feudal fragmentation into destinies, principalities, other particularism, is certainly a progressive phenomenon, it contributes to the formation of a single market and the development of bourgeois economic relations. However, with the development of capitalism, scientific and technological progress, the emergence of global environmental problems and other factors, integration processes begin that lead to the creation of complex states and their formations - federations, confederations, commonwealths, etc. ... the bicameral structure of the parliament, in which one of the chambers (usually the upper one). Question 2. Correlation between the type and form of the state In domestic state studies, the political regime is often considered as another - after the form of government and the form of government - characteristics of the state, revealing a set of methods for exercising state power. ...

No matter how fair and moderate he may be, nevertheless, equality itself is not fair, since with him there are no steps in social status. The main vice of simple forms of state is, according to Cicero, that all of them inevitably, due to their inherent one-sidedness and instability, are on a “precipitous and slippery path” leading to misfortune. Royal power, fraught with arbitrariness ...

The body and own responsibility to the government, the head of which occupies an independent high position among the highest officials of the country. 2II. STATE FORMS SPECIFICALLY FOR COUNTRY INDIA 2II.1. Political regime India is a democratic state. Among the authorities, the central place is occupied by parliaments and the President. Members of Parliament of the People's House (Lok Sabha) ...

Before proceeding to consider what mixed forms of government are today, it is necessary to pay attention to one of the main categories used in this case. It allows you to get an idea of ​​how state power is exercised and who acts as its source.

Types of forms of government

This concept characterizes various ways of formation of the highest bodies of the state. In addition, it allows you to reveal the features of interactions both within the mechanism of power and beyond it - with the population of the country.

As is known from the theory, the main forms of government are the monarchy and the republic.

In the first of them, powers are inherited and, as a rule, are granted for life. Although there are exceptions to the rule - today you can find countries in which the head of state - the monarch - is elected.

The second is Republican. In this case, power is exercised by representative bodies, which may be elected or formed by national assemblies. Here, too, it was not without the presence of forms that do not fit into the framework of the criteria proposed by science.

Traditional typology of republics

The emergence of this form is attributed to the era of antiquity, but to this day it is dominant. There are more than 150 republics out of 194 independent states in the world.

The theory, based on a number of criteria, tries to “squeeze” all this diversity into the framework of its three types:

• presidential (USA, Columbia, etc.);
• parliamentary (Germany, Austria, India, etc.);
• mixed (France, Poland, etc.).

A distinctive feature of the first is the presence of the post of president in the highest bodies of power. He occupies a dominant position in the state, acting simultaneously as the head of state and government. The fact that the President is elected by the people by popular vote gives him the following powers:

• independence from parliament;
• the ability to form executive bodies at their own discretion.

But there is also a limitation - he does not have the right to dissolve parliament.

The second type is a parliamentary republic. From the name it is clear who has the most powers. The government is formed from the parties that won the election or on the basis of the formed coalition. It is headed by the Prime Minister, elected by the parliamentary majority. The government is responsible to him. Parliament also chooses from among its representatives and the president. The latter, however, does not have a significant impact on the process of governing the country.

So, it is possible to distinguish a presidential republic from a parliamentary one on a number of grounds, but the main difference has to do with the formed government, or rather, how its political responsibility is implemented. Its essence has recently been increasingly transformed. As a result, the number of "pure" types of republics is reduced and mixed forms of government arise.

Their appearance reflects the outlined directions of the constitutional development of modern countries, aimed at improving the quality of public administration and reducing instability in society. As a result, a third type appeared - a mixed republic. A form of government that is characterized by a combination of elements of the previous types. Based on which body has more powers, there is a division into the corresponding subspecies.

Major Disadvantages of Pure Republican Forms

Describing them, one should recall the facts from the history of the development of the statehood of a number of countries, in which the combination in one hand of the powers of the head of state and the government as a whole led to the usurpation or monopolization of power. The result of the manifestation of such tendencies was the emergence of modified forms in the form of a super-presidential or presidential-monistic republic. Clear examples demonstrating the manifestation of such transformations can be observed in a number of countries in Africa and Latin America.

A parliamentary republic, in turn, is quite often characterized by instability, the emergence of various crises, including governmental ones, and the resignations of ministers and the cabinet as a whole. The reason for this state of affairs is determined by dependence on the parliamentary majority. The loss of his support could lead to a vote of no confidence. The change of government creates tension in society and the threat of political instability.

Features of mixed forms of government

The introduction of certain components of parliamentarism into the presidential republic makes it possible to neutralize the growth of authoritarian tendencies. At the same time, the introduction of presidential elements into parliamentary forms makes it possible to get rid of some of its shortcomings.

To distinguish this type of republic from others will allow the main feature of a mixed form of government - the way the government is responsible.

In this case, it is double and is implemented in front of two main representatives legitimized by the people, one of which is the president, the second is the parliament.

In addition, attention should also be paid to the restraining system, the elements of which act as counterbalances. First, parliamentarians can express their distrust of the government in a certain way. Secondly, the president has the ability to veto laws that have been passed by parliament.

The fact that in modern conditions a mixed republican form of government has appeared can be explained by the desire to eliminate the "weak points" of traditional ways of organizing power.

What are the benefits of a mixed republic? And are there any disadvantages?

First of all, it should be noted that mixed forms of government make it possible to organize a stable leadership of the state, ensuring the consolidation of political forces in parliament, reducing the frequency of government changes and their dependence on opportunistic party preferences. All this makes it possible to strengthen the authority of the state on the ground and secure its integrity.

As a result of the choice of these developmental advantages by some modern states, mixed presidential-parliamentary forms of government have arisen.

Also, do not forget about the cons. There are other interactions that were absent in pure forms, various inconsistencies and inconsistencies. The existing standards governing the separation of powers are changing. Such confusion in some cases can lead to violation of constitutional norms.

In addition, quite often the strengthening of the parliamentary role in a presidential republic can be purely formal. And the increase in the presidential significance in the second case is fraught with the manifestation of the tendency of his omnipotence.

Mixed forms of government in the modern world

The criteria proposed by the theory, which make it possible to determine what type a state belongs to, have not lost their significance and to this day remain the starting points of such an analysis. It should also be noted that on their basis, together with them, combining and creating completely different features, hitherto unknown formations are formed - atypical mixed forms of government.

At the same time, legal categories that rigidly defined the criteria underlying the classification of states are similarly blurred and mixed. Examples here are monarchical republics, which are no longer just mixed forms of government, but the emergence of a completely different type of state. The main feature of such formations is the election of a monarch for a certain period. Vivid examples of such "republics" are:

• Malaysia - here the head is chosen for five years from nine hereditary ruling sultans;
• United Arab Emirates - The monarch is elected by the Supreme Council of Emirs for a five-year term.

An interesting combination are republican monarchies. Their emergence is associated with the exaggerated strengthening of presidential power. As a result, a new form of republic is emerging, in which, in fact, there is no elective head of state. Countries with similar characteristics are called presidential-monistic. There are many examples confirming their appearance in the modern world:

• President Sukarno, who initiated this process in Indonesia;
• the head of the Philippines, Marcos, who declared himself as an irremovable ruler;
• President Bokassa, who headed the Central African Republic and changed his life status to imperial.

These are far from all the states that followed this path of development. In most of them, the power of the proclaimed president for life is overthrown. There is only one country left in which the head has a similar status to this day - the DPRK.

A republic is a form of government in which all the highest authorities are either elected or formed by nationwide representative institutions (parliament), and citizens have personal and political rights. Republican government is sometimes based on the principle of dividing the unified state power into a number of powers: legislative, executive and judicial. This means that different organs of the state are entrusted with performing different functions in the administration of the state. Parliament (People's Assembly, National Assembly, Duma, Supreme Council, Congress, etc.) is instructed to pass laws. The government and its bodies (executive - administrative bodies) - to implement laws, to organize their implementation. Judicial bodies - to exercise control over the execution of laws, to hold accountable for their violation, etc. In other words, the bodies of republican government are endowed with different powers and spheres of activity (competence) for the implementation of a unified state power. Despite the separation of powers, all republican bodies are called upon to exercise a unified state power in a coordinated, systematic, organized manner and cannot function without each other. The republic also differs greatly from the monarchy in the field of education of government bodies. In essence, a republic is a form of government in which all the highest bodies of state power are elected by the people or formed by a nationwide representative institution. There are different electoral systems in different countries, but the fact remains that the people, one way or another, necessarily participate in the formation of state authorities. In the Republic, government bodies are elected for a fixed term. Most countries set an additional limit on how many times one can be elected to a particular position. Thus, the principle of turnover is being implemented in the republic. 1 Officials in the Republic are responsible. Of course, it is primarily political in nature and can be expressed in such actions as early recall, resignation, dissolution of parliament, removal from office, and so on. It is precisely the clear distribution of competence between state bodies that makes it possible to establish in which part of the state mechanism a failure occurred and where one or another official needs to be replaced.

Signs of the republic:

The source of power is the people. The people exercise power through a referendum, elections of higher and local representative bodies of power, as well as local self-government bodies;

Election for a certain period of the head of state, parliament and a number of other supreme bodies of state power. As a rule, in normative legal acts, the term of office of certain bodies is clearly defined;

Legal responsibility of the head of state. Officials of elected bodies of state power bear political responsibility to their constituents. It can be expressed in such forms as early recall of a deputy, dissolution of parliament, resignation of the government, dismissal of the president;

In the cases provided for by the Constitution, the president has the right to speak on behalf of the state;

The highest state power is based on the principle of separation of state power on a clear delimitation of powers. The principle of division into branches can also be present in a monarchy (for example, in Great Britain). Therefore, all signs must be considered together.

Republics are divided on three grounds: how the parliament is elected, how the government is formed, and how much power belongs to the president.

Presidential republic- characterized by a significant role of the president in the state system. bodies to combine the powers of the head of state and head of government.

Signs of a presidential republic:

1. The President is the head of state and government;

2. The President has broad powers;

3. The President appoints the members of the government;

4. The government is responsible to the president;

5. The President has the right to veto the laws of Parliament and can independently issue regulations;

6. The President may dissolve Parliament.

The classical presidential republic is the United States (the constitution is based on the principle of division of power into branches, the legislative belongs to the Congress, the executive to the president, the judicial to the Supreme Court). The president forms the government from persons belonging to his party.

Parliamentary republic- a kind of republic with a preponderance of powers in favor of parliament. The government is formed from the party (majority in parliament).

Signs of a parliamentary republic:

1. The government is formed by the parliament from among the deputies of those parties that have a majority of votes in parliament;

2. The head of state is elected by the parliament;

3. The head of state has broad powers;

4. The head of government is appointed by the president;

If the confidence of the majority of members of parliament is lost, the government either resigns or, through the head of state, seeks the dissolution of parliament and the appointment of early parliamentary elections. Less extensive powers of the president, in particular, regulations issued by the president must be approved by the government or parliament (Germany, Austria, Italy) Has the following powers: promulgates laws, issues decrees, appoints the head of government, is the supreme commander of the armed forces, etc. .d. The head of state is elected by parliament or by a specially formed broader electoral college, which includes, along with members of parliament, representatives of regional self-government bodies. In Italy, for example, the president of the republic is elected by the members of both chambers at their joint meeting, but at the same time, three deputies from each region, elected by the regional council, participate in the elections. In federal states, the participation of the parliament in the election of the head of state is also shared with representatives of the members of the federation. The main function of Parliament is legislative activity and control over the executive branch. Parliament has important financial powers, since it develops and adopts the state budget, determines the prospects for the development of the country's socio-economic development, and decides the main issues of foreign policy, including defense policy.

Countries: Italy, Turkey, Germany, Greece, Israel, Austria, Switzerland, Iceland, Ireland.

mixed republic- a form of government in which the features of both a parliamentary and a presidential republic are combined.

Signs of a mixed republic:

1. There is a strong parliament and presidential power;

2. There is a prime minister with broad powers;

3. The President is not the head of state;

4. The government is formed by the president and parliament;

5. The government is responsible to the president and parliament.

For example, along with a strong president, who is also the head of government, the parliament also participates in the formation of the government, for example, it approves the candidacies of ministers presented by the president. At the same time, the government is responsible not only to the president, but also to the parliament. “Another variant of a mixed republic is an increased independence of the government, an increased role of the head of government.” 2 For the first time, such a form of republic was established in 1958 in France on the initiative of Charles de Gaulle, who aspired to strong presidential power, but took into account the traditions of parliamentarism in his country. Countries: Poland, Portugal, Bulgaria, Russia, etc.

Super presidential state(in some sources supra-presidential, English superpresidency or superpresidentialism) - a form of government in which the principle of separation of powers is declared, but observed only externally, in reality, power is concentrated mainly with the president and administrative institutions controlled by him. It is one of the forms of authoritarianism. Often the president in a super-presidential state heads the government, while being the leader of the ruling party (which may be the only one or enjoy significant extra-constitutional advantages over other parties). At the same time, in a super-presidential state, provided for by the national constitution, “the range of possible use by the president of his emergency powers is wider than in an ordinary presidential republic”: the constitutional powers of the president provide for the issuance of decrees that have the force of law, the ability to dissolve parliament by his decision, remove ministers and heads of administrative-territorial formations, etc. The establishment of a super-presidential republic in a country may lead to the replacement of the periodic election of a new head of state by the establishment of a “presidency for life” regime (by a referendum or a vote of a parliament fully controlled by the president) and / or the actual appointment of a new president by a decision of the previous one, followed by the formal approval of this election decisions. V. E. Chirkin in the monograph “Constitutional Law of Foreign Countries” (1997) distinguishes three types of super-presidential states:

presidential monocratic republic- a form of government in which presidents lead the only permitted party that is the bearer of an officially proclaimed mandatory ideology (Ghana under Kwame Nkrumah, Guinea under Ahmed Seku Tour, Zaire under Mobutu, etc.);

presidential-military republic- the form of government established as a result of a military coup with the proclamation of its leader as the head of the country;

a presidential republic in countries with a socialist ideology (Angola, Benin, the Republic of the Congo, Mozambique), where the president is elected by the highest body of the only ruling party in the country, - supplementing V. E. Chirkin, Kazan political scientist O. I. Zaznaev suggests calling this type presidential-partocratic republic [

It is customary to talk about a super-presidential state in relation to the countries of Latin America, especially in the 19th century, as well as a number of countries in Africa and the post-Soviet space: Belarus, Turkmenistan, etc. Thus, the co-chairman of the Ak Zhol opposition party Altynbek Sarsenbaev called Kazakhstan a super-presidential country. (Killed February 13, 2006.) The notion of contemporary Russia as a super-presidential regime is developed, for example, in the work of American political scientist Stephen Fish; According to Fish, Russia has a “bloated and overpowered executive power that is not balanced by or accountable to either the legislature or the judiciary,” and this is what “undermined the legitimacy of the post-Soviet regime and, perhaps, even democracy itself; stopped the development of non-state political organizations; hindered the formation of an effective state; hindered the emergence of responsible government. The political scientist Lilia Shevtsova also writes about the super-presidential nature of the regime that was established in Russia in 1993. Theocratic Republic (Islamic republic) - a special form of the republic, ruled by the Muslim clergy, combines the main features of the traditional Islamic Caliphate and the features of the modern republican system. In Iran, in accordance with the Constitution of 1979, the head of state is Rahbar - the highest clergyman who is not elected by the population, but is appointed by a special religious council (Council of Experts), consisting of influential theologians of the country. The executive branch is headed by an elected president, while the legislative branch is headed by a unicameral parliament (Mejlis). The candidacy of the president, as well as all members of the government and candidates for deputies of the Majlis, are approved by the Council of Guardians of the Constitution, which also checks bills for compliance with Islamic law and has the right to veto any decision of the Majlis.

Atypical (mixed) forms of government

• Monarchy with republican elements(“Republican monarchy”, elective) - such a monarchy has the main republican feature - the systematic election of the head of state, however, any citizen who satisfies the electoral qualifications and requirements for the president cannot be elected, but only one of several monarchs - the rulers of the constituent parts of the federation. A similar non-traditional form of government exists in the UAE and Malaysia, which are federations in their state structure, while each of the constituent parts (7 emirates of the UAE) or some constituent parts of the state (9 of the 13 states of Malaysia) are hereditary monarchies. The head of state as a whole is formed by elections between the monarchs who head one or another subject of the federation. At the same time, the term of his office is clearly specified (in both states it is 5 years), and after the expiration of the specified term of office, the monarch is elected again.
• Republic with monarchical elements("monarchic republic", super-presidential) - in the modern world, in the conditions of totalitarian systems, republics have appeared that are characterized by the most important element of the monarchy - the irremovability of the head of state. The head of state in such a republic can be formally elected, can be appointed, but in reality the people do not take part in the formation of the head of state. In addition, the powers of such a head of state are not limited, he is a lifelong ruler, moreover, the transfer of power by inheritance is possible. For the first time, Sukarno became a life president in Indonesia, then the president of Yugoslavia Tito began to hold a life post, currently it is found in some countries of Asia and Africa (DPRK, Turkmenistan under Niyazov, Gambia).
• Theocratic Republic(Islamic republic) - a special form of the republic, ruled by the Muslim clergy, combines the main features of the traditional Islamic Caliphate and the features of the modern republican system. In Iran, in accordance with the Constitution of 1979, the head of state is Rahbar - the highest clergyman who is not elected by the population, but is appointed by a special religious council (Council of Experts), consisting of influential theologians of the country. The executive branch is headed by an elected president, while the legislative branch is headed by a unicameral parliament (Mejlis). The candidacy of the president, as well as all members of the government and candidates for deputies of the Majlis, are approved by the Council of Guardians of the Constitution, which also checks bills for compliance with Islamic law and has the right to veto any decision of the Majlis.

Homework

§ 3. Form of government. One of the constituent elements of the form of the state is the form of the state structure, expressing the territorial organization of the state.

The history of the formation and development of the state defines three ways of dividing the state on a territorial basis: administrative-territorial units, national-state formations, sovereign division. Depending on these methods, the form of government is determined.

Interstate associations, commonwealths and communities of states do not belong to the forms of government.

There are two forms of government: unitary states and federation.

A unitary state is a simple state subdivided according to the administrative-territorial principle. As part of a unitary state, territorial units are formed that do not have the status of a state entity.

The signs of a unitary state are: a single constitution and legislation, a single legal and judicial system, a single system of state authorities, a single citizenship. The governing bodies of administrative-territorial formations are subordinate to the central bodies of state power. The right to adopt laws belongs only to the highest legislative bodies, although representative bodies of state power may operate in administrative-territorial entities, authorized to issue normative legal acts that are by-laws and must comply with all requirements of laws.

Unitary states may include autonomy. Autonomy is recognized as a self-governing territory formed on national, religious or other grounds. For example, we can single out autonomies in Spain, where there are both national (Catalonia, Basque Country) and territorial (Galicia) autonomies. Unitary states were formed in countries with a mono-ethnic population, although some of them, for example, Spain, may include other national entities enjoying autonomy.

At first glance, unitary states have a simple structure, which facilitates the problems of solving territorial problems. But we must not forget that this may not take into account the various features of the territorial, national, geographical, historical and other organization of the state, this may lead to a violation of the rights of the population of the regions.

Unitary states can be centralized or decentralized depending on:

the nature of the relationship between higher and local authorities;

the scope of powers granted to administrative-territorial units or autonomous entities within a unitary state;

It is customary to consider the state to be centralized if local government bodies are headed by officials appointed from the center, to whom local self-government bodies are subordinate. In decentralized unitary states, local government bodies are elected by the population and enjoy considerable autonomy in resolving issues of local life.

An example of a centralized unitary state is Turkmenistan, a decentralized one is the Kingdom of Spain.

Sometimes distinguished:

states with one autonomy (for example, Ukraine with the autonomous republic of Crimea),

states with many autonomies (for example, Spain with autonomous communities (regions))

States with different levels of autonomy (for example, the People's Republic of China with autonomous regions, autonomous counties, autonomous regions and special administrative regions).

Centralized unitary states (Great Britain, Sweden, Denmark, etc.) can represent broad independence (self-government) to local authorities. However, in them, the middle levels of management do not have significant autonomy and are aimed at implementing the decisions of the center.

In a decentralized unitary state (France, Italy, Spain), large regions enjoy considerable autonomy and even have their own parliaments, governments and independently resolve issues assigned to them by central authorities, especially in the field of education, public order, etc.

Another form of government is the federation. federal state- a complex state consisting of subjects (states) with political and legal independence and united to achieve common goals and objectives. The federation is formed according to the territorial or national principle, or both of these principles are used and the so-called mixed federation.

Territorial federations (USA, Germany) have historically proved to be stronger and more stable, how national federations (USSR, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia), which eventually broke up into sovereign states.

The federation is characterized by the following features: legal and political independence of the subjects, expressed in the presence of the subjects of their own constitution (charter) and legislative system; the presence of the highest bodies of state power of the subjects of the federation, dual citizenship - citizenship of the federation and subjects of the federation.

A federation can be formed on the basis of a constitution (constitutional federation), for example, this is how Belgium or Germany was formed, as well as on a contractual basis (treaty federations).

A number of federations are formed on the basis of both the constitution and the treaty, for example, the Russian Federation in its present form after the collapse of the USSR was formed on the basis of the 1993 Constitution of the Russian Federation and the 1992 Federal Treaty, which is in force to the extent that it does not contradict the Constitution.

The subjects of the federation are states and other national-state or administrative-territorial entities. Their number may be different. Thus, the United States has fifty states, Germany - sixteen lands, Switzerland - twenty-three cantons.

In a federal state, in contrast to a unitary state, there are two systems of higher authorities (federal and subjects of the federation); along with the federal constitution, the subjects of the federation have the right to adopt their own regulatory legal acts of a constituent nature (for example, constitutions, charters, basic laws); they have the right to make regional laws; the subjects of the federation, as a rule, have their own citizenship, capital, coat of arms and other elements of the constitutional and legal status of the state, with the exception of state sovereignty.

At the same time, the subject of the federation does not have the right to secede from the federation (secession) and, as a rule, cannot be a subject of international relations. The subjects of the federation may have different names, which are usually determined by historical or legal factors: states, provinces, republics, states or federal states (as in Germany and Austria) and others. A federation should be distinguished from a confederation, which is an international legal union of sovereign states. However, in practice it is very difficult to distinguish the legal nature of certain entities.

We can distinguish the most common features that are characteristic of most federal states:

· The territory of the federation consists of the territories of its individual subjects: states, cantons, republics, lands, etc.

· In a union state, the supreme legislative, executive and judicial power belongs to federal state bodies. The competence between the federation and its subjects is delimited by the federal constitution.

· In some federations, the subjects have the right to adopt their own constitution, have their own supreme legislative, executive and judicial bodies.

· In most federations there is a single federal citizenship and citizenship of federal units.

· The main national foreign policy activity in the federations is carried out by federal state bodies. They officially represent the federation in interstate relations (USA, Germany, Brazil, India, etc.).

· A mandatory feature of the federal form is the bicameral structure of the federal parliament. One chamber is considered as a body of federal representation, deputies are elected to it from all over the country. The second chamber is called upon to represent the interests of the members of the federation.

Federation types

According to the peculiarities of the constitutional and legal status of the subjects of a federal state, the following are distinguished:

symmetrical

Asymmetrical

In symmetrical federations, the subjects have the same constitutional and legal status (for example, the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, the United States of America), in asymmetric federations, the constitutional and legal status of the subjects is different (for example, the Republic of India, the Federative Republic of Brazil, the Russian Federation). Absolutely symmetrical federations do not exist today: they all have certain signs of asymmetry.

According to the features of the formation of the federation, there are:

territorial

national

mixed

When forming territorial federations, a territorial geographical feature is used (for example, the United States of America, Germany), in national federations, on a national basis (for example, the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia). In mixed federations, the formation goes on both grounds (for example, Russia). Ways of formation of the federation to a large extent determine the nature, content, structure of the state system.

According to the method of formation, federations are divided into:

contractual

constitutional

Constitutional federations arise on the basis of a previously existing single state. Contrary to popular misconception, the constitutions of such states, as a rule, spell out the principle of the country's territorial integrity and the subjects of the federation do not have the right to freely secede from the state (for example, Germany, Brazil, Russia).

Treaty federations arise as a result of the unification of previously independent states into one, for which an association agreement is signed. Such an agreement can even spell out the conditions for entry (for example, in the US Constitution) and exit (secession) of states from the federation (for example, in the treaty on the formation of the USSR).

degree of centralization:

centralized (Argentina, India)

decentralized (Switzerland, USA)

The Russian Federation includes eighty-three subjects: twenty-one republics (they have the status of a state), six territories, forty-nine regions, two federal cities (Moscow and St. Petersburg), ten autonomous districts and one autonomous region.

The territories of the subjects together form the territory of the federation. The federation must ensure the integrity and inviolability of its territory. The modern constitutions of federal states do not provide for the right of subjects to secede from the federation. However, this is not an axiom, for example, in the USSR, according to the Constitution, the republics had the right to secede from the state, but for the time being they did not use it.

The peculiarity of the federal state structure is expressed in the presence of a bicameral parliament. At the same time, the upper house represents the interests of the subjects of the federation, and the lower house directly represents the interests of the population. This scheme allows defending the legislative interests of the subjects and building a reasonable balance in parliament. In the Russian Federation, the parliament - the Federal Assembly consists of two chambers: the Federation Council, which consists of representatives of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, and the State Duma, which represents the interests of the entire population of Russia.

One of the complex and problematic issues in the federation is the division of powers between the two levels of government. In different states of the world, these issues are resolved in different ways. The US Constitution establishes the exclusive competence of the federation and the residual competence of the subjects of the federation. The constitutions of Mexico and Canada establish the exclusive jurisdiction of the federation and the exclusive jurisdiction of the subjects. In Germany, India, as well as in Russia, subjects of joint jurisdiction of the federation and its subjects are enshrined at the constitutional level.

In the Constitution of the Russian Federation in Art. 71, the exclusive competence of the Russian Federation is fixed, in Art. 72 is the subject of joint jurisdiction of the federation and subjects of the Russian Federation, and art. 73 fixes the residual competence of the subjects of the federation.

In addition to the above forms of the state, historically there is such a form of association of states as confederation. The confederation combines the features of an international legal mechanism and an intra-state organization. Confederation- it is an alliance of sovereign states united to achieve goals of an economic, military or other nature. Confederation as a form of interstate unity is, in fact, temporary. However, in world history there are enough cases of the development of a confederation and other relations and their transformation into federal ones. When the state was formed, the USA, the Netherlands, Germany and a number of other countries passed through the confederation. Switzerland is still referred to as the Swiss Confederation, although it has long been a federal state in content.

Unlike membership in one federation, a state can be a member of several confederations at the same time. Judging by historical experience, the confederation over time either breaks up or transforms into a federation.

A confederation is characterized by the presence of several distinguishing features: contractual consolidation of confederate relations; preservation of sovereignty for each of the subjects of the confederation and the absence of sovereignty for the entire confederation as a whole; formation of general authorities and administration for specific tasks; the right to withdraw subjects from the confederation; the right of subjects to cancel the acts of general bodies on their territory (nullifications), the confederation does not have a common constitution and common citizenship. The member countries of the confederation have the right to secede from the confederation at will, that is, to terminate the confederal treaty.

In the modern world, the formation of a confederation is in principle possible, although rather difficult due to the processes of general integration of the world community. As a confederation, the formation of the Commonwealth of Independent States was conceived on the basis of the USSR that ceased to exist. But over time, we are increasingly coming to the conclusion that this interstate entity is virtual. Each of the countries - members of the CIS in the period of formation was preoccupied with its own problems. As a result, the created general governing bodies did not begin to work effectively, not a single serious decision at the CIS level was ever adopted. The positive moment was that interstate associations were formed on the basis of the CIS over time: the Union of Russia and Belarus, economic communities.

Summing up the consideration of the forms of government, it should be noted that it is rather difficult to talk about a single optimal form of the state. Too many factors must be taken into account when defining and developing the territorial organization of the state.

Thus, Russia throughout its history has changed many forms of territorial structure, reaching the level of a multinational federation. This form is the most difficult to build territorial relations, and therefore the problems of federal statehood in Russia are relevant and significant. The reform of federal relations in the future of the Russian Federation is inevitable, while we must take into account the positive experience of our history and other states.

§ 4. Political regime

The form of government and the form of government are important for the comprehensive characterization of the state, but they often do not reflect its internal content, the relationship between civil society and the state, and the specifics of the exercise of state power. To do this, there is such an element of the form of the state as a political regime.

The political regime is a set of means and methods for exercising state power, regulating the relationship between the state and society.

The political regime is often identified with the state-legal regime, which is justified, since the political regime expresses the features of the functioning of the state mechanism. When performing functions, state bodies interact with the population, public associations, political parties and Futimi elements of the political system.

The political regime, in fact, is an indicator of the development of democracy in the country, reflects the state of the political system. The state "is the central element of the political system, personifies public authority and represents society. Realizing its [functions with the help of the state mechanism, the state uses a wide arsenal of means, methods and techniques of a permissive, stimulating, restrictive nature, influencing other elements of the political system, in cash features.

Depending on the means and methods, there are democratic and anti-democratic political regime.

Democracy is a political regime in which the people are recognized as the only source of power, power is exercised by the will and in the interests of the people. Democratic regimes are formed in the rule of law states.

There are the following types of democracy.

• Imitation democracy
• liberal democracy
• Representative Democracy
• direct democracy
• Protective Democracy
• Developing Democracy
• Model of the withering away of the state
• Competitive elitism
• pluralistic democracy
• legal democracy
• participatory democracy
• Electronic democracy

The democratic political regime is characterized by the recognition, observance and provision of the rights and freedoms of the individual on the basis of international law. Such principles are proclaimed as the election of the highest bodies of the state, the real access of the population to participate in elections, the possibility of citizens' participation in the development and adoption of the most significant decisions through such forms of democracy as a referendum, law-making initiative, conferences of citizens.

A democratic political regime is characterized by the presence of a multi-party system, political pluralism. Moreover, political pluralism implies not just the nominal existence of several political parties, but also their real activities, participation in the formation of the government, factions in representative bodies of power. To achieve this, it is necessary not only to have parties, but also to provide opportunities for their effective and "transparent" activities.

Freedom of thought and speech is of great importance for a democratic political regime. The absence of censorship is a mandatory feature of a democratic political regime. The media are the mouthpiece of democracy. Through criticism of state power, a real opportunity is provided to influence its actions and decisions, to learn about the specific activities of the state for the benefit of society.

Public associations and political parties of a democratic state allow citizens to be in opposition to the authorities without fear of persecution for dissent. The presence of a developed and constructive opposition is an indispensable attribute of a strong and effective state and a democratic political regime.

In a democratic state, the principle of separation of powers actually operates. Each of the branches of government is independent of the other and does not suppress other authorities. The activities of state bodies should be carried out on the basis of the principle of legality and within their competence.

In a democratic political regime, social policy is of particular importance. In Art. Article 7 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation proclaims that Russia is a social state whose policy is aimed at ensuring a decent life and free development of a person, the main directions of the social policy of the Russian state are highlighted. 1 -^"The anti-democratic political regime exists in two forms: authoritarian and totalitarian modes.

An authoritarian regime is characterized by the nominal functioning of the main state institutions, the strengthening of the role of the executive in government, the command system of government, the loss of the role of justice in protecting the rights and freedoms of the individual.

The role of the legislature is significantly reduced. Significant segments of the population are not allowed to participate in legislative elections, laws are adopted only at the initiative of the ruling elite of the state.

Totalitarian political regimes have similar features. They are characterized by the dominance of one ideology, the merging of the state and party apparatus, and the militarization of the state.

The formation and formation of authoritarian and totalitarian political regimes took place actively in the first half of the 20th century. in Europe. They get their logical conclusion under the fascist regime in Germany and Italy. In these states in the 30s. of the last century, the following signs of anti-democratic regimes were established:

Leadership cult, whose actions are not discussed and are recognized as the only true and correct ones, they are subject to strict execution. Devotion to the leader and his general praise are honored.

Executive authorities were given priority before all other organs. For example, in Nazi Germany, the legislative function was carried out by the government through the adoption of laws without the sanction of the parliament (Reichstag). It was allowed to pass laws that were contrary to the constitution, provided that these derogations would improve the welfare of the nation and people. The adopted laws came into force the next day without their obligatory publication. Moreover, in Germany in the late 30s. The Constitution of the Weimar Republic ceased to operate.

Dictate of one party. Party bodies developed state policy, carried out ideological work among the population

Authoritarianism (from Latin auctoritas - power, influence) is a characteristic of special types of non-democratic regimes based on the unlimited power of one person or group of people while maintaining some economic, civil, spiritual freedoms for citizens. The term "authoritarianism" was introduced into scientific circulation by the theorists of the Frankfurt School of Neo-Marxism and meant a certain set of social characteristics inherent in both political culture and mass consciousness in general. There are 2 definitions of authoritarianism

• authoritarianism, as a socio-political system based on the subordination of the individual to the state or its leaders.

• authoritarianism, as a social attitude or personality trait, characterized by the belief that in society there should be strict and unconditional devotion, unquestioning obedience of people to authorities and authorities.

An authoritarian political regime means the absence of true democracy, both in terms of free elections and in the management of state structures. Often combined with the dictatorship of an individual, which manifests itself to one degree or another. Authoritarian regimes are very diverse. These include:

Military bureaucratic regime

The military-bureaucratic regime of authoritarianism usually arises in the form of a military dictatorship, but in the further political development, various kinds of civilian professionals begin to play an increasingly important role. The ruling coalition is dominated by the military and bureaucrats, lacking any integrating ideology. The regime can be both non-party and multi-party, but most often there is one pro-government, by no means mass, party. The military and bureaucrats are usually united by the fear of a revolution from below, so the elimination of the influence of radical intellectuals on society seems to them a necessary condition for its further development. This problem is solved by the regime with the help of violence and/or closing the access of intellectuals to the political sphere through electoral channels. Examples of military-bureaucratic regimes were: the reign of General Pinochet in Chile (1973-1990), military juntas in Argentina, Brazil, Peru, Southeast Asia. Pinochet said: Not a single leaf moves in Chile without my will. General Martinez (El Salvador, 1932) philosophized: It is a greater crime to kill an insect than a person, about 40 thousand peasants became victims of his anti-communist purges, as a result of which the Indian culture in the country was essentially finished. The slogan of General Ríos Montt (Guatemala) was: A Christian must carry a Bible and a machine gun. As a result of his Christian campaign, 10,000 Indians were killed and more than 100,000 fled to Mexico;

Corporate authoritarianism is established in societies with fully developed economic and social pluralism, where corporate representation of interests becomes an alternative to an overly ideological mass party and an addition to one-party rule. Samples of the corporate regime - the reign of António de Salazar in Portugal (1932-1968), the regime of Francisco Franco in Spain. In Latin America, the lack of broad political mobilization

Recent decades have shown that the classical forms of parliamentary and presidential republics do not always contribute to the coherence and interaction of the highest bodies of the state, which leads to a decrease in the controllability of the state, to a crisis in the entire political system. So, if in a parliamentary republic the parliament consists of numerous opposing factions, then the country is doomed to frequent government crises and resignations. To eliminate these and some other negative manifestations, mixed (semi-presidential) modern statehoods are being created.

A mixed form of government (sometimes referred to in scientific literature as parliamentary-presidential, presidential-parliamentary, semi-presidential, semi-parliamentary) is a kind of republican form of government in which elements of a presidential republic are combined with elements of a parliamentary republic. These elements are characterized by the fact that the president is elected directly by the citizens, regardless of parliament (as in a presidential republic), but this form of government provides for the possibility of a vote of no confidence in the government and (or) ministers (but not the actual head of government - the president), who remain and at the same time responsible to the president (double responsibility). True, this responsibility has varying degrees: the main one is still the responsibility of the ministers to the president, under whose authority the ministers work. An example of this is the constitutional changes in Venezuela, Colombia, Uruguay, Peru, Ecuador and some other Latin American countries, where the parliament can express no confidence in ministers, although this often requires a qualified majority of 2/3 votes, and the question of no confidence can only be raised by a significant the number of members of parliament (usually at least 1/10). In addition, the president, in certain cases, has the right not to dismiss the government or a minister, even after a vote of no confidence in parliament.

The main features of a mixed republic should be called:

1) the president is the head of state and arbitrator;

2) the president is elected on the basis of universal and direct elections, receiving power directly from the people;

3) the president is not legally the head of the executive branch (the government is headed by the head of government - the prime minister), at the same time he has a number of important powers that allow him to influence government policy. He presides at the official meetings of the government, approves the acts of the government, i.e. in fact, the president leads the government, which manifests the property of the bificial nature of the executive power;

4) the president appoints the head of government, as a rule, from among the leaders of the most influential party factions in parliament, and, on the recommendation of the head of government, appoints members of the government. The government appointed by the president presents itself to the parliament (lower house), lays out its program and asks for confidence. Parliament can withhold confidence by passing a resolution of reprimand, which means the formation of a government, i.e. the freedom to choose the president in relation to the head of government and its members is always limited by parliament, which is typical for parliamentary republics;

5) one of the signs characteristic of a mixed republic is the double responsibility of the government: both to the president and to the parliament. The President is not responsible for the actions of the government;

6) the strongest power of the president is the right to dissolve parliament and call early parliamentary elections. But this right is constitutionally limited;

7) the president has the right to veto the laws adopted by the parliament, but at the same time some of the acts specified in the constitution are countersigned.

It should be borne in mind that there is no single stereotype of a republic of a mixed type, since the combination of features of a presidential and parliamentary republic can be very diverse. In addition, each mixed republic may have its own specific features.

Mixed forms are an attempt to overcome the shortcomings of one or the other system, moreover, when they want to remove or weaken the shortcomings of the presidential republic, they strengthen the role of the parliament, introduce the dependence of the government not only on the president, but also on the parliament, which contributes to the appropriation of the political system under the political system with the party regime and party system. If they seek to overcome the shortcomings of the parliamentary system, then they strengthen the role of the president, transferring additional powers to him.

The difference between the presidential-parliamentary and parliamentary-presidential mixed systems lies in the difference in emphasis: in the first, the responsibility of the government to the president is maintained in parallel with the responsibility to parliament and a vote of no confidence, in the second, in theory, there should be no government responsibility to the president, but often the opportunity to influence on the activities of several ministers, to ensure the functions of the head of state (defense, foreign policy).

On the other hand, mixed systems make it possible to transform the state mechanism to meet the needs of the existing alignment of political forces. A typical example of this is the constitutional reform of 2004 in Georgia, which, according to the official version, should contribute to the transformation of Georgia into a parliamentary-presidential state.

In themselves, these systems are transitional to the parliamentary model, but the powers of the president in them are much broader than is typical for it.

Although the introduction of mixed systems aims to overcome the shortcomings of the presidential and parliamentary systems, their achievement in practice is not so frequent. The fact is that mixed systems themselves contain a fundamental drawback: the real situation of "two governments", one - officially established, the other - "a government from among ministers subordinate to the president or represented by his administration." In mixed systems, this fundamental deficiency is often exacerbated by the "divided government" situation. This can be illustrated by the example of Bulgaria, a republic with parliamentary government, as it is characterized in the Constitution of 1991. It repeatedly faced the situation of electing a president from one party and a parliamentary majority from another, which led to a confrontation between the president and parliament.

Mixed (semi-presidential) republic

For the first time, a semi-presidential republic (this is a not entirely accurate, conditional name that has been established in the literature) was introduced in France in 1958 on the initiative of de Gaulle, who strove for strong presidential power, but had to take into account the long traditions of parliamentarism in the country. The name "semi-presidential" does not mean the weak power of the president, on the contrary, it is real, unlike a parliamentary republic, but this power is really weaker than it is in a presidential republic. This is the meaning of the name "semi-presidential", although it would be more accurate to call it a semi-presidential-semi-parliamentary or presidential-parliamentary republic. It combines certain advantages of both, seeking to eliminate some of their shortcomings.

As in the presidential, in the semi-presidential republic there is a relatively “rigid” separation of powers, but it is still softened: the president, according to the text of the constitutions, is not the head of the executive branch (he is characterized only as the head of state), the executive power, according to the constitution, belongs to the government, which bears the main responsibility to the president and limited responsibility to parliament. The dual responsibility of the government is a specific feature in the model of separation of powers under this form of government.

In a semi-presidential republic, there are the following features that unite it with a presidential form of government:

The president is directly elected by the voters, which makes him independent of the parliament and makes it possible to oppose himself to the parliament;

The president can appoint vice-premiers and ministers at his own discretion, regardless of the party alignment of forces in parliament;

The government is responsible to the president, who may, but at his own discretion, dismiss the prime minister, individual ministers and the entire government into resignation.

Along with strong elements of presidentialism, there are features of parliamentarism in a semi-presidential republic. Chief among them is the government's responsibility to parliament. It is always difficult, to a lesser extent in France (you need at least 10% of the signatures of the general composition of the chamber to introduce such a resolution, there are other conditions), more - in Russia, it is even more difficult to achieve such responsibility in Belarus and some other countries. In Russia, to resolve the issue of the resignation of the Government, not one, but two votes (votes) of no confidence at the initiative of the Parliament are needed, moreover, within a three-month period (if the term has expired, the first vote loses its force). However, even after two votes, the Government's resignation is not unconditional. The president can instead dissolve parliament (the State Duma) and set a date for new elections. The second element of parliamentarianism: the consent of the lower house to the appointment of a certain candidate proposed by the president to the post of prime minister. Such a procedure is not provided for in all countries, in France this is not the case, but in Russia and some other countries obtaining such consent is mandatory.

Along with combining the features of a presidential and a parliamentary republic, a semi-presidential republic has features that are not inherent in the former. The main one is the special status of the president. According to the constitutions, the president is taken out of the triad of separation of powers. It does not belong to any of its branches, including the executive branch, as is always the case in a presidential republic and, traditionally, in a parliamentary one. According to the Constitution of the Republic of Kazakhstan of 1995, executive power belongs only to the Government, the President is described only as the head of state. At the same time, in France, and in Romania, and in Kazakhstan, and in Russia, the idea of ​​the president’s arbitration power is embedded in the constitution: he is an arbiter in relations with all other public institutions, and according to the Constitution of the Republic of Belarus of 1996, he is an arbiter not only in state, but also in society. German researchers H. Baro and E. Wesel believe that in a semi-presidential republic the head of government depends on both the president and the parliament, but the president influences the government's activities not directly, but indirectly.

France is a prime example of a semi-presidential republic. "France is an indivisible, secular, democratic and social Republic." This was established by the French constitution of 1958. The Basic Law established a republican form of government, which has a mixed character, since it has features of a presidential republic (the head of state is elected without the participation of parliament, the government is appointed by it) and a parliamentary republic (the government is responsible to the lower house of parliament) .

The main feature of the 1958 constitution is the concentration of political power in the hands of the executive bodies. The concentration of power in the hands of the head of state and government is one of the manifestations of the constitutionally fixed authoritarian tendency in the French political regime. The President is at the top of the hierarchy of state authorities. Article 5 of the Constitution assigns to him the obligation to ensure “by his arbitration the normal functioning of state bodies, as well as the continuity of the state.” The same article proclaims that the president is "the guarantor of national independence, territorial integrity, compliance with Community agreements and treaties." The President has broad legislative prerogatives. He is endowed with the right of legislative initiative. In relation to Parliament, the President has the power to dissolve the lower house of Parliament.

The legislative body of the Republic - Parliament - plays a relatively small role in the political life of the country. Parliament consists of two chambers - the National Assembly and the Senate. The main function of Parliament - passing laws - is heavily limited by the constitution. The Constitution precisely defines the range of issues on which Parliament has the right to legislate. Issues not included in this list are the responsibility of the government. The rights of parliament are also limited in the financial sphere. The Constitution sets a fixed time limit for the adoption of financial bills by Parliament. Parliament has the right to control the activities of the government.

The Government of France - the Council of Ministers, according to Art. 20 of the Constitution, "determines and conducts the policy of the nation." The government consists of the prime minister - head of government, ministers in charge of ministries, and state secretaries in charge of departments of individual ministries. The Government is responsible to the National Assembly. If a resolution of censure is adopted by an absolute majority of the National Assembly, the government must resign. The Constitution specifically defines the powers of the Prime Minister. He is responsible for national defense, he must ensure the implementation of laws, carry out rule-making activities.

The Constitutional Council is a special body that monitors the observance of the Constitution. All laws, before promulgation by their president, and regulations of the chambers, before they are adopted, must be submitted to the Constitutional Council, which gives an opinion on whether they are in accordance with the Constitution. If the Constitutional Council decides that an act is contrary to the Constitution, it has the right to cancel it. The powers of the Constitutional Council also include monitoring the course of presidential elections and holding referendums.

The process of concentration of political power in the hands of the executive bodies led to a change in the status of the parliament. The government authorities have been given ample opportunities to influence the parliament, and in some cases to act “over its head”.

The President of the Republic is elected for a term of seven years by universal and direct suffrage.

The President of the Republic is elected by an absolute majority of the votes cast. If it is not received in the first round of voting, then on the second Sunday following it, a second round is held. Only the two candidates who, if the more favored candidates are withdrawn, will be the highest bidders in the first round, may participate.

The President of the Republic is at the top of the hierarchy of state bodies. The formal legal powers of the President are subdivided into those exercised by him personally and those requiring the countersignature of the Prime Minister or responsible ministers. In practice, there are other personal powers, in particular - the prime minister is appointed without a countersign.

The most important personal power of the President of France is the right to dissolve the National Assembly, which is limited only by three conditions: 1) there can be no dissolution during the year following the previous dissolution; 2) during the state of emergency; 3) the interim president of the republic, i.е. President of the Senate, who holds the vacant position of head of state until a new president is elected.

The President may submit to a referendum any bill concerning the organization of public authorities which, without contradicting the constitution, would affect the functioning of state institutions.

The role of the head of state especially increases when he decides to introduce a state of emergency in the country. Article 16 of the constitution allows for a true one-man dictatorship for the president, during which he takes all the measures that, in his opinion, are dictated by circumstances. But this article stipulates two conditions for the introduction of a state of emergency: first, one of four requirements must be present - a serious and immediate threat either to the institutions of the republic, or to the independence of the nation, or to the integrity of its territory, or to the fulfillment of international obligations; second, the normal functioning of the organs of state power created in accordance with the constitution must be disrupted. This article cannot be used in other circumstances, and the president cannot enact it whenever he wants. However, the lack of sufficient legal and political guarantees makes the right to declare a state of emergency the most formidable weapon in the hands of the president. To introduce it, the head of state is only required to receive “official advice” from the prime minister, the chairmen of the chambers and the Constitutional Council and address the nation with a message. It is not necessary to take into account the opinions of the above-named persons at all. In this situation, the parliament should have become a restraining body, but in practice it does not have control functions. True, the parliament cannot be dissolved at this time and it has the right to refer the case of treason to the president to the High Court of Justice, but the concept of treason is very vague and there is no official interpretation of this term.

The president practically from top to bottom forms the executive branch. He appoints ministers, all senior officials. The President is the head of the armed forces and presides over the highest councils and committees of national defense. The unconstitutional right of the president to put strategic nuclear forces into action is extremely important; this right is provided for by a simple decree of January 14, 1964.

In the field of international relations, the President concludes and ratifies international treaties, with the exception of those that require mandatory ratification by Parliament. Ratification requires the countersigning of members of the government.

In the judicial field, the president is the owner of the traditional right of the head of state - the right to pardon. The President is at the top of the judiciary, being the guarantor of its independence.

In practice, the president has more rights than the letter of the law implies. Thus, he makes decisions in areas that fall within the competence of the government, when there is a “monochrome” majority in parliament with the president. The President sometimes openly intrudes into the competence of the Prime Minister. Thus, the issuance of ordinances on the basis of a delegation received from parliament, the raising of the question of confidence, and some others do not do without the sanction of the president.

The president is assisted in his activities by a personal apparatus, reaching several hundred people. It consists of a cabinet, a general secretariat, a military headquarters, several officials for special assignments; all employees of these services are personally appointed by the President.

The Government of France is a collegiate body consisting of the prime minister and ministers. In accordance with the constitution, they differ: the Council of Ministers - a meeting of ministers chaired by the President of the Republic, and the Cabinet of Ministers - a meeting of ministers chaired by the Prime Minister. It is the Council of Ministers that exercises the powers vested in the constitution by the government.

The government is appointed as follows: The President of the Republic selects a candidate and appoints the Prime Minister. The prime minister selects the ministers and presents them to the president, who appoints them. When choosing a candidate for the post of prime minister, the president has considerable freedom. This is his personal right. The only important thing is that the vote in the National Assembly should not be denied confidence in the Prime Minister. In other words, the president must take into account the alignment of party forces in the lower house of parliament.

The prime minister has a special role in the government. He coordinates the work of the ministries, controls it, gives instructions on the preparation of the most important acts. He presides over inter-ministerial committees; may also preside over the Council of Ministers. The Prime Minister is responsible for national defense. These powers must, however, be considered in conjunction with the very important powers of the president. The powers of the prime minister in appointing military and civilian officials are residual and delegated. The activities of the Prime Minister in the field of governance are of great importance. He "enforces the laws." He exercises regulatory power and issues decrees that are not considered in the Council of Ministers. These decrees, at least as high as those adopted in the Council of Ministers, are issued by the Prime Minister with the countersign of the relevant Minister.

The Prime Minister has significant powers in relation to Parliament, some of which he exercises personally, others in cooperation with the President. The Prime Minister may propose to the President to convene Parliament when it is not in session. The Prime Minister has the right of legislative initiative, personally participates in the preparation of bills, can participate in the work of parliamentary commissions and in the chambers, at any time he must be heard there.

The Prime Minister has the right to convene mixed parity commissions in case of disagreement between the parliamentary chambers regarding any bill; he may ask the President to propose to Parliament that the bill be reconsidered; he has the right to raise the question of confidence in the National Assembly. The Prime Minister has the personal right to submit a bill to the Constitutional Council with a demand that it be recognized as unconstitutional, firstly, and to demand a decision on the delimitation of legislative and regulatory powers. The last right he widely uses.

Parliament consists of two chambers: the lower - the National Assembly and the upper - the Senate. Passive suffrage is granted for election to the National Assembly at the age of 23, to the Senate - from the age of 35. There is an electoral deposit in all elections. In the election of deputies, it is 1 thousand francs per candidate, senators - 200 francs. According to the official version, the bail is due to the need to cover the election campaign at least partially and to some extent to prevent the nomination of persons who nominate themselves not for the purpose of election, but for other purposes.

The National Assembly is elected for a term of 5 years by universal, direct suffrage according to a mixed majoritarian system: in the first round, an absolute majority of the votes cast must be received in the first round (one deputy is elected from the district). If in a week no one has received such a majority, then a second round is held in a week. Candidates who received at least 12.5% ​​of the votes from the number of voters included in the lists are admitted to it. To be elected in the second round, it is enough to receive a relative majority of votes. In the conditions of the existing multi-party system, an insignificant part of the seats is replaced in the first round. The main struggle unfolds in the second round. The possibility of blocking games determines the tactics in the second round. Parties, having rallied, put forward one candidate, as a rule, removing the rest.

The upper house - the Senate - is formed differently. According to the founders of the Fifth Republic, the special conditions for the formation of the Senate should give it a different political "face" than that of the National Assembly. This chamber is formed mainly by tripartite elections. Senators are elected for 9 years in colleges in each of the departments. The Chamber is renewed by 1/3 every three years, which leads to a decrease in the influence of the electoral corps on the composition of the Senate and does not allow it to drastically change its political course.

The functions of the French parliament differ little from those of the central representative bodies of other foreign countries; they are divided into legislative, economic, control, judicial and foreign policy.

The legal position of members of parliament does not differ in anything special from elected representatives in other countries. Parliamentarians are regarded as representatives of the whole nation and carry out their functions on the basis of a representative rather than an imperative mandate. In France, there is no right to recall a parliamentarian. An ordinary voter can follow the activities of his deputy through reports in the press and the media. The obligatory nature of a public meeting, the provision of seats for representatives of the media, the maintenance of a special protocol, the fixation of the speech of each deputy and senator and the publication of materials of parliamentary discussions, the printing of a list of deputies and senators for each vote indicating the nature of the vote of each of them, to a certain extent, provide information about the behavior of deputies.

French law seeks to ensure the independence of parliamentarians and the most representative institution from the encroachments of the executive branch. Such measures include rules on incompatibility of posts. The law allows to be members of Parliament to persons whose positions are specified in its provisions, but these persons must resign from office within a certain time if elected. These provisions are intended not only to ensure the independence of the parliamentarian, but also to enable him to devote himself to parliamentary activities. The personal independence of a parliamentarian includes immunity, which consists of irresponsibility and immunity and the provision of material opportunities for the parliamentarian to ensure his activities. Non-responsibility implies the impossibility of prosecuting a parliamentarian for expressing opinions or voting. The purpose of immunity is to prevent the persecution of a member of parliament and pressure being exerted on him.

Article 34 of the constitution establishes a list of issues on which Parliament can legislate. All areas outside those mentioned in this article are the responsibility of the government. Disputes about the belonging of a particular sphere of regulation are resolved by the Constitutional Council. In addition to the established range of issues on which the parliament can legislate, its powers in this area are also limited by: 1) the possibility for the president of the republic to act over the head of the parliament during a referendum; 2) the possibility of delegating its powers from parliament to the government on certain issues.

Parliament has the right to change the current constitution. Despite the fact that the economic powers of the parliament include, first of all, the adoption of economic plans for the development of the national economy, control over their implementation, the adoption of financial laws and laws on budget execution, the parliament has little influence on the fate of the state budget. The main role in its adoption is played by the government.

Legislative initiative belongs to the prime minister and parliamentarians. The President of the Republic formally does not have the right to initiate such initiative. Based on Art. 40 of the constitution, bills are not acceptable if the consequence of their adoption would be a reduction in revenues or the creation or increase in state expenditures. This requirement greatly reduces the capacity of parliamentarians.

The government has the right to demand from the chamber a single vote on all or part of the text under discussion, taking into account only the government's amendments. This procedure is called “blocked voting”. This procedure allows the government to interrupt the discussion at any time. To avoid a shuttle, the 1958 constitution provided for a procedure for overcoming the resistance of the Senate, but only when the government wanted it. “If, as a result of a disagreement between the Houses, a bill has not been passed after two readings in each House, or if the Government requires its urgent discussion, then after one reading in each House, the Prime Minister has the right to convene a meeting of a mixed parity commission, authorized to proceed with the act concerning the provisions, on which disagreements remain. In order to expedite the passage of the project, the Prime Minister may thus require the introduction of an urgent procedure.

After the bill is passed by Parliament, it is submitted to the President for promulgation. The Head of State may, however, require Parliament to reconsider the law or parts of it. Such consideration cannot be denied. The law is countersigned by the prime minister and the relevant minister and published.

The delegation of authority to the government is carried out under two conditions - if the government has a program and if it has received the authorization of the parliament. The transfer of powers is limited to some time period. Subject to these conditions, the government may, by issuing ordinances, take measures that normally fall within the scope of legislative regulation.

The French Parliament applies practically all known forms of control over the activities of the government; the exception is interpellation. Although Article 156 of the Rules of Procedure of the National Assembly mentions it, however, this right of parliamentarians must be subject to the same rules as the resolution of reprimand. All forms of control can be divided into two large groups: 1) not containing direct sanctions against the government, except for public disclosure; 2) containing such a sanction leading to the political responsibility of the government. The first group is carried out in both houses of parliament, the second - only by the National Assembly. The right of petition and the activity of the parliamentary mediator are connected with the control powers of the parliament. The right to petition consists in the fact that various kinds of appeals are sent to the chairmen of the chambers. Petitions can also be given to parliamentarians who write and sign in the margin. The government's political responsibility means that members of the National Assembly can force the government to resign either by passing a resolution of reprimand or by denying the confidence requested by the government. Only the Assembly can decide on the issue of political responsibility.

The French Parliament is characterized by considerable restraint in using a vote of confidence and a resolution of censure. The question of confidence is a double-edged weapon, since both the government and the National Assembly may be out of work as a result of a negative vote.

The issue of confidence in connection with the adoption of the bill is an open government pressure on the National Assembly in order to force it to accept a pleasing draft. The debate in this case is adjourned for 24 hours to allow the deputies to introduce a resolution of reprimand, which is adopted in compliance with stricter rules than the question of confidence is decided. By raising the question of confidence on the basis of the third paragraph of Article 49 of the constitution, the government, as it were, calls the Assembly against itself, but on unfavorable conditions.

The most formidable weapon of the Assembly - the resolution of censure - is severely limited by a number of procedural clauses in favor of the government. Firstly, the right to introduce such a resolution is not granted to an individual parliamentarian, but only to a group of deputies. Secondly, the resolution can only be voted on 48 hours after it has been submitted. Thirdly, an absolute majority of the votes of the members that make up the National Assembly is required to pass a resolution. The last restriction is the prohibition for the authors of the resolution to introduce a similar one during the same session, ordinary or extraordinary. The ban does not apply to cases where deputies introduce a resolution of reprimand in response to a question of confidence. As a result, if the opposition has 200 seats in the National Assembly, then it can introduce 3-4 resolutions of censure during the session. The foreign policy powers of the parliament are reduced to two - the declaration of war and the introduction of a state of siege in the country and the ratification of international treaties.

The second type of mixed republican form of government is the form of government established in Switzerland. Switzerland has a constitution that combines the features of presidential and parliamentary forms of government. Although the parliament elects the government, it cannot be recalled by it. In turn, the government does not have the right to decide in relation to parliament. A government post and a deputy mandate are incompatible. The government forms a collegiate body, and also has - in contrast to the presidential system - the formal possibility of legislative initiative.