For a man of the post-Soviet space, the expression "political regime" has long been familiar and is not at all surprising. This phrase in the minds of modern people is more likely to have a negative connotation, since it causes associations with a rather difficult period in history - the period of clashes and the struggle for a change of power.
Nevertheless, the concept of political regimes as such does not actually have a negative connotation. Generally speaking, a regime is a way of organizing government.
The essence of the concept
Before proceeding to the consideration of certain types, we define more specifically the meaning of the concept of political regime. By and large, it is a combination of methods and methods of governing a country, regulating the processes taking place in it. This is a system of power reproduced by a number of organs and structures.
Power and the political regime are practically inseparable concepts, and for the average layman they are often completely identical. It should be noted that the combination of these phenomena together is not entirely true - they are more likely to enter one into the other, forming a complex system of relations.
Types of modes
Today, there are 196 countries in the world, if you do not take into account various unrecognized areas and entities. It is quite obvious that they were formed, developed, existed and exist in different conditions. In this case, this refers not so much to the geographical location or climate, but to the social environment of their existence. It is precisely because of this diversity that a single state political regime is simply impossible for everyone.
The specificity of a country determines the diversity of governance. Political regimes and their types throughout the world represent a complex system in which there are certain features and patterns.
Let us define the main types of organization of state management that exist today. In general, three types of political regimes can be distinguished - authoritarian, democratic and, finally, totalitarian. Between themselves, they differ in the dominant principle of the distribution of power and management.
The above classification is general - in fact, political regimes and their types are more diverse, since in different countries they may have certain nuances that are not characteristic of analogues. It depends mainly on the social, political situation and historical heritage of a country.
People power
As mentioned earlier, the concept of a regime often causes negative associations than positive ones, and there are reasons for that. However, this control system causes a reaction almost the opposite.
If we consider all forms of political regimes, democracy can be called the most loyal. The guiding principle of this way of organizing government is the delivery of regulatory powers to the people themselves.
In this case, it is understood that it is the country's population, its citizens, that are the dominant link in the governance structure.
This principle of organization has come down to our days since ancient Greece and gained particular popularity in the twentieth century. In one form or another, democracy existed almost everywhere, but in some countries it was eventually supplanted by totalitarianism and authoritarianism, which will be discussed a little later.
Today, the basic principles and signs of a democratic regime are based on the philosophy of the New Age, presented by the works of J. Locke, I. Kant, S. de Montesquieu and others.
Different understanding of democracy
Like any other social phenomenon, this political regime has several forms and varieties. Almost from the very beginning, there existed in it, and in the twentieth century two equal directions were concretized and formed. In this case, we are referring to such forms of political regimes as liberal and radical democracy.
Despite the fact that both types provide for the entrustment of absolute power directly to the people, there is a significant difference between the options. It consists in determining the person himself as a representative of society.
The so-called “Hobbes problem” lies at the heart of the division of democracy into radical and liberal. In the first case, a person as a person is considered an integral part of society, and, accordingly, must follow his norms, rules and ideas. As a result of this, a kind of almost organic unity must be created within the people themselves, which determines political activity and government.
Liberal democracy, however, proceeded from the interests of the individual as an independent unit of the system. The private life of each person in this case is brought to the fore and placed above society as a unity. Such a state political regime would sooner or later lead to a conflict of interests and confrontation of various organizations within the people themselves.
Basic principles
We now define the signs of a democratic regime. First of all, the existence of universal suffrage, which guarantees the influence of the people on the political and economic situation in the country, speaks of this management system. Moreover, one can speak of a democratic regime only if the majority agrees with the chosen pattern of activity.
Also, for full-fledged democracy, it is necessary to control the activities of politicians by specially created popular institutions, one of which can be called trade unions. Any conflicts that arise in this case should be resolved exclusively by peaceful means and in accordance with the decision of the people.
It should be noted that there are a number of factors without which a democratic system is simply not possible. First of all, the country should have a fairly high level of economic development.
Secondly, for the state to develop, the people must be sufficiently developed by themselves. In this case, it is not so much the side of education that is meant (although it, no doubt, also), but the level of tolerance and willingness to consider the situation from different points of view. The people should be ready to recognize the rights of every person, their freedom of choice. Only in this case society as a whole will be healthy and capable of making decisions.
Finally, the people should be interested, first of all, in the prosperity of the country, improving the situation in it.
Totalitarianism
Political regimes and their types are a particularly interesting topic if we consider it in the context of comparative studies. This is how the difference between views and systems is most clearly visible. So, if democracy is the desire for the absolute power of the people, this is completely impossible to say about totalitarianism.
The very name of this regime speaks of its features, because its root - totalis - means "whole, whole." Already from this one can understand that there can be no talk of any freedom of the will of the people.
A totalitarian political regime implies complete control over the life of not only the whole nation, but also each individual person. This is a global enforcing of rules and norms of behavior, the requirement to support certain views, regardless of personal preferences. Any pluralism, be it political or ideological, is simply impossible in this case. Acts objectionable to the government are eliminated in this case by violent and cruel methods.
A totalitarian political regime is most easily determined by the presence of a certain dominant person who is practically deified, and not always voluntarily. So, for fascist Germany it was Adolf Hitler, so the Stalinist USSR existed at that time.
This principle of government is based on the complete disregard for the rights and freedoms of citizens and the imposition of certain ideals, norms of behavior, views and actions.
Our hard past
As mentioned earlier, the political regime of the USSR of the 30s completely fit into the concept of totalitarianism. The absolute dominance of power over the people, the leveling of the individual, the existence of prohibitions on certain topics and even their discussion.
The aspiration for a totalitarian regime is also evidenced by the enormous number of punitive structures and organizations that existed at that time. During this period, there was an absolute suppression of any dissent (most of the prisoners were sent to Kolyma precisely under article 58).
There was very strict censorship in the media and literature, the main criterion of which was compliance with the ideals of the current government. The totalitarian regime operated on the territory of the USSR in full until the 50s of the last century, and its rudiments were discovered up to the 80s.
Totalitarianism and modern states
Types of political regimes almost never could exist in a pure, absolute form. This is especially true of the present.
Nevertheless, not only the world community, but also leading political scientists argue that signs of the same totalitarianism can be found in a fairly large number of countries. For example, certain of its features are found in China and Korea, Iran and even Russia. Most researchers believe that at this stage of human development, the features of the totalitarian regime are simply hidden, not so cruel and obvious. The formation of a common opinion, for example, is carried out by the media, which, in turn, are subject to strict censorship.
It is worth noting that there are signs of a totalitarian state in the USA - a country so proud of its democratic aspirations.
Authoritarianism
Under this political regime, the levers of power are also completely concentrated in the hands of governing structures, and the opinion of the people themselves does not affect the political situation in the country.
Authoritarian political regimes provide for a single system of governance and are often combined with dictatorship.
Key features
Like any other regime, authoritarianism has a number of characteristic features. First of all, this, of course, is the lack of control over power among the people of the country. In this case, the head of state can be a specific person (monarch, tyrant) or a whole group of people (military junta).
Secondly, the orientation of the board on the power impact. In this case, it is not so much about full-scale repression, as is the case under totalitarianism, but rather tough measures can be used to force people to obey.
Politics and power under an authoritarian regime are completely monopolized and the existence of a full-fledged opposition is impossible. Disagreement with the control system may be popularly, however, it does not turn into full-scale political resistance.
Another characteristic feature of authoritarianism is the practical absence of constitutional paths to the continuity of power. That is why changes in governance structures often occur through coups.
Finally, these types of political regimes are characterized by non-interference in all areas, except directly politics (foreign and domestic), security issues. Thus, culture, economy and other components remain outside the influence of power structures.
Classification
All authoritarian political regimes can be conditionally divided into three groups: strictly authoritarian, moderate and, finally, liberal.
However, there is another classification of regimes, according to which authoritarianism is divided into populist and national-patriotic. In the first case, the political system of the state is completely based on equal-oriented masses.
In the case of national-patriotic authoritarianism, as the name implies, the national idea is the basis.
Case studies
The modes of this type are primarily related as absolute monarchies and the monarchy of the dualistic type, a characteristic example of which can be called Great Britain. Also in the regime of authoritarianism, the state exists in the presence of military rule and dictatorship. Do not forget about cases of personal tyranny and theocracy, which also apply to the regime of this type.
A big difference
Summing up, we can say that the concept of political regimes has been relevant since the dawn of mankind, the formation of a certain system. Now it is fully understood and studied. All political regimes and their types have their minuses and pluses, nuances and pitfalls. However, power always remains power, no matter who it is.
