Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below
Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.
Hosted at http://www.allbest.ru/
FEDERAL AGENCY FOR EDUCATION
State educational institution
Higher professional education
"Ryazan State University
named after S.A. Yesenin"
Faculty of Law and Political Science
Course work
“M.Ya. Ostrogorsky as a researcher of the party and party systems"
Performed
second-year student of group "214"
Antonenko O.O
scientific adviser
Kozlov G.Ya.
Ryazan, 2009
Introduction
The socio-political transformations of the last fifteen years in our country have contributed to the discovery for the Russian reader of a whole layer of hitherto little-known domestic socio-political thought. This concerns, first of all, the works of the most prominent representatives of the liberal movement in Russia and domestic constitutionalism - V.I. Vernadsky, M.M. Kovalevsky, S.A. Muromtseva, P.N. Milyukova, L.I. Petrazhitsky, P.I. Novgorodtsev and others. A special place in this series is occupied by the legacy of Moisei Yakovlevich Ostrogorsky, a political scientist and sociologist, a public and political figure in Russia at the beginning of the 20th century, a deputy of the First State Duma.
Now Ostrogorsky is recognized, but mainly in the West, as one of the founders of the modern theory of formal organizations, who laid down a new approach to the study of political parties. This approach is determined by the presence of an analysis of the internal nature of parties, their organizational structures, intra-party hierarchy and ways of functioning of political parties in society, taking into account the socio-psychological patterns of behavior of political leaders and organized party masses. By applying the comparative historical method to the analysis of the emergence and development of the bourgeois parliamentary parties in England and the United States, the Russian scientist revealed many features of party structures that posed a danger to the functioning of democratic institutions of power. However, the works and ideas of Ostrogorsky are completely insufficiently studied in his homeland - in Russia.
The works of Ostrogorsky and, above all, his main work "Democracy and Political Parties" revealed the mechanism of power and control in contemporary society, showing the contradiction between the principles of democracy and the actual functioning of political parties. Ostrogorsky's concept laid the foundations of modern political sociology and significant influence on world political thought of the 20th century.
The ideas of the scientist are especially relevant now, when the parties have become one of the central institutions of the political system of most countries. In general, by the beginning of the XXI century. more than 550 parties operated in more than 100 states of the world. There are only a few countries where there are no parties as subjects of politics (Libya, Iran). Significance of parties for political life is revealed in the functions that they perform in relation to society and the state. Among them: the activation and integration of large social strata; formulation and justification of group interests; formation of public opinion; political education; development of political ideology and political doctrines; the formation of a political elite (in many states, governments and representative bodies are formed from members of large political parties); participation in the struggle for state power; implementation government controlled with coming to power.
There are three main reasons for the relevance of the chosen topic:
* firstly, Ostrogorsky's work is interesting from a "specifically problematic" point of view as, of course, a significant, fundamental phenomenon of theoretical thought that had a significant impact on the development of socio-political ideas in the 20th century;
* secondly, his works are undoubtedly relevant from the “historical and theoretical” point of view, since the legacy of Ostrogorsky, being an integral element of the history of political thought, seems to occupy a place that does not correspond to its significance - because of its little study, in connection with which a noticeable “gap” arises in the history of political doctrines that needs to be filled;
* thirdly, the works of Ostrogorsky are significant for the development and application modern concepts multi-party system and political democracy.
Works that explore the heritage of Ostrogorsky are extremely few in number. In scientific Russian and Western literature, Ostrogorsky is most often only mentioned as a "pioneer in partology" (M. Duverger, R. Mackenzie, V.M. Khvostov, V.I. Terekhov, V.D. Vinogradov). You will not find articles about Ostrogorsky in numerous dictionaries on humanitarian and socio-political topics published in modern Russia. Even in the specialized dictionary "Modern Western Sociology" there is no separate article about Ostrogorsky. The scientist is mentioned here only twice - in one case as "an outstanding Russian sociologist", and in the other - as a "French researcher".
Ostrogorsky was originally much better known in the West than in Russia. The first and main reason for this is that the scientist lived most of his conscious life in Europe and wrote mainly in French. A translation of his main work, Democracy and Political Parties, appeared in Russia only after the death of Ostrogorsky, in 1927. The second reason for the greater elaboration of Ostrogorsky's legacy in Western countries is the ideological attitudes that operated in the USSR for more than 70 years, which hindered the development of the study of non-Marxist sociology.
The purpose of this work is a systematic presentation of the socio-political views of M.Ya. Ostrogorsky, reconstruction of his concept of party democracy.
1. life path and political activities
Moses Yakovlevich Ostrogorsky (1854-10.02.1921 St. Petersburg, according to other sources in 1917 or 1919) was born in the Belsk district of the Grodno province in the family of a school teacher. After graduating from the Grodno gymnasium, in 1871 he entered the law faculty of St. Petersburg University, from which he graduated in 1875 with a degree in law. He then served for seven years in a Department of the Ministry of Justice. where he went from junior assistant clerk to editor of the legislative branch. In November 1882 (according to other sources, in 1881), due to the change in the political situation in the country and his scientific interests, M.Ya. Ostrogorsky left the service. In 1883 he went abroad, where for the next twenty years he lived mainly in France and England, partly in the USA. In 1885, he graduated with honors from the Free School of Political Science, having defended his final work in French, The Origins of Universal Suffrage. His work "Woman from the point of view of public law" (published in 1891 - in French, 1898 - in Polish) was awarded the Law Faculty of the University of Paris. Russia.
Ostrogorsky M.Ya. actively cooperates with Western scientists, making trips to universities different countries, having received an offer to take a chair at the University of Cleveland, USA, but refused it in connection with his election as a deputy of the First State Duma.
Ostrogorsky M.Ya., who returned to Russia in 1905, received the opportunity to put into practice the results of his theoretical developments as a deputy of the First Duma (April-July 1906). This was the peak of his practical political activity, but due to the short existence of the First Duma and the particular nature of the tasks that it managed to set for itself in the field of lawmaking, this activity did not receive a complete, systematic expression.
Ostrogorsky M.Ya. was elected a deputy from his Grodno province in March 1906. Political and organizational support was provided to him by the Union to achieve the full rights of the Jewish people in Russia, of which he was an activist. Since the autumn of 1905, he personally led his election campaign in the Grodno region. The scale of the popularity he won is evidenced by the fact that during the negotiations on the agreed list of candidates, representatives of the Belarusian peasants asked the leaders of the Jewish community to include M.Ya. Ostrogorsky .. “The peasants deliberately and freely gave me their votes,” he said later, “without raising any questions about the difference between faith and nationality that separates us; on the contrary, they expressed ... their complete sympathy, pointed to the solidarity of our interests: "you are the disadvantaged and we are the disadvantaged, therefore we must go together."
The work of M.Ya. Ostrogorsky in the Duma was very intense. According to statistics, he was the seventh among all the deputies of the Duma and the first among Belarusians in terms of the number of speeches at plenary sessions. Actively worked in the commissions of the Duma. Ostrogorsky M.Ya. was elected speaker of the "Commission of 19", which developed the first chapters of the Duma's Order, where he, along with Duma Chairman S.A. Muromtsev, played a leading role. He attached great importance to the drafting of the Nakaz, believing that it should ensure "the correct functioning of the entire parliamentary mechanism and, one might say, of the entire constitutional regime now being created in our country." O. was also a member of the "Commission of 15" and "Commission of 33", which prepared draft laws on personal immunity and civil equality, was the author of the rules for checking the correctness of the elections of deputies of the Duma and the chairman of one of the departments that carried out this procedure.
Realizing his theoretical views, he sought to reduce the influence of party factions on the adoption of Duma decisions. He declared his determination to fight for the approval of such regulations for the work of the Duma, which would protect the rights of even the smallest groups of deputies and individual deputies, would eliminate the possibility of "the slightest violence on the part of the majority." To achieve this goal, the idea of M.Ya. Ostrogorsky about the distribution of deputies into departments by lot, similar to the parliamentary practice of a number of European countries (France).
The most important component of the new, democratic political culture of M.Ya. Ostrogorsky believed that the participation of the largest possible number of citizens in the management of state affairs should be independent, free from party influence. This explains his struggle for the departition of the Duma departments and commissions, for the involvement of all deputies in their work. “... We are called upon to create not only political institutions, but also political customs,” he said in the Duma, “... We cannot allow a few tenors on the one side, and many extras on the other side” .
According to his conceptual approaches to the methods of transforming society, M.Ya. Ostrogorsky was close to the Cadets, but was neither a member of the party nor of its Duma faction. He supported the response address to the Throne Speech developed by the Cadets, the main provisions of the laws on civil equality, and the agrarian reform project. At the same time, he considered it necessary to avoid, if possible, unnecessarily radical actions and statements leading to an unnecessary aggravation of the political situation in the country.
Ostrogorsky M.Ya. He was also a member of a group of Duma deputies at an inter-parliamentary conference on the peaceful settlement of international disputes in London in July 1906, where, together with Kovalevsky, he was the author of the statement of the Russian delegation. The inclusion of the Duma in the system of international parliamentary relations could, in his opinion, ensure Russian parliament acquaintance with the rich experience of the legislative bodies of the most developed countries, to provide him with international support in his opposition to tsarism and to promote the creation of supranational structures designed to ensure the normal functioning of the world community.
The high intensity of the work of M.Ya. Ostrogorsky in the Duma shows his enthusiasm for the opportunity to transform his theoretical conclusions into legal norms, and then see their impact on the political life of Russia. At the same time, he had to face the tangible psychological pressure of the surrounding political environment. Like most liberals, he was opposed to harsh political speeches, which caused discontent on the left, while at the same time being attacked by the Black Hundred press.
The main practical results of M.Ya. Ostrogorsky in the Duma should recognize his contribution to the development of the first three chapters of the parliamentary Nakaz taken as the basis for the final revision of this document. The low effectiveness of efforts to create any serious organizational and legal mechanisms for limiting the influence of parties was not for him evidence of the inconsistency of his theoretical constructions about the expediency of "non-party principles" of political activity. In scientific terms, the experience of the first Russian revolution and the First Duma stimulated his attention to the problems of political modernization. He became convinced of the historical justification of only a revolution that would be carried out “not in a revolutionary way ... not catastrophically”, but passed through a “series of stages”, when “every forward movement was made with a backward glance”.
Ostrogorsky M.Ya. He ran for the elections to the Duma of the second convocation on a non-partisan list, but due to the activation of conservative political forces, the growing political differentiation of the Jewish community, as well as the use of administrative resources by the authorities, he did not become a deputy.
1.1 Scientific activity
After the failure in the elections Ostrogorsky M.Ya. retired from active political activity and left for the United States. The result of the trip was another book (Democracy and the Party System in the USA. 1910). He never returned to political activity. Prepared a number of textbooks on history, withstood a number of editions. Since 1876, he published the "Legal Calendar" annually. His main work: "La democratie et l "organization des partis politiques" (Paris, 1903; English edition, London, 1903; revised volume 2, entitled "Democracy and the party system in the United States", New York, 1910; new revised edition of the entire work, entitled "La democratie et les partis politiques", Paris, 1912). After the release of the book in the West, O. theory and its novelty were noted by the scientific community. The book "Democracy and Political Parties" was translated into Russian and published in 1927 and 1930, but then it was perceived not as a work on political sociology, but as a kind of criticism of bourgeois democracy.
Ostrogorsky M.Ya. laid the foundations for the sociology of political parties. Based on the analysis of political parties in the USA and Great Britain, he showed and revealed the mechanism of formation and activity of parties. He was interested in the question general characteristics political parties in conditions of democracy and political equality. The parties, having emerged as temporary organizations whose purpose was to mobilize the masses for elections, then acquired a stable character, becoming a permanent and integral component of the political system.
In his study, he showed the process of transforming a traditional party into a consolidated organization that has no other goal than its own growth. He paid great attention to the analysis of the administrative organization of the party, especially its core (caucus). The caucus, having arisen as a specialized body that provides communication between parliamentary parties and the masses of voters, over time becomes an institution that coordinates all party work both in parliament and among the masses, and promotes party ideology.
The party leaders of the party in power are, in the words of the scientist, "the phonographs of the Caucus" and, therefore, cannot have an independent position; on the other hand, they are relieved of personal responsibility for the policy pursued. If the party is in power, then the discussion in parliament is a formality, since everything is decided in advance in a caucus.
Ostrogorsky M.Ya. believed that political parties, instead of fulfilling their key function mediators between civil society and the state have become a tool for the implementation of the power structures of the group interests of the party elites. He was especially alarmed by the degradation of personal qualities of ordinary party members generated by party discipline, who, in his opinion, are losing the ability and will to independently comprehend political reality, turned into “wheels and cogs” of party “machines”. The scientist traced similar trends in the mass consciousness of the electorate, forced to automatically vote for party candidates who came up with obscure and contradictory programs. The practical proposals of M.Ya. Ostrogorsky on overcoming crisis phenomena in democratic political institutions and especially the proposal to abandon party system and replacing it with a highly controversial and difficult to put into practice system of various interest groups - less organized and ideological, more flexible and focused on solving specific problems of public life.
Objecting to him, one of the leaders of the Cadets P.I. Novgorodtsev wrote: “The hopes for possible results the transformation of parties, from which some writers expect a complete recovery of political life. The venerable author of an extensive monograph on the modern organization of the parties, Mr. Ostrogorsky, who has so vividly depicted the operation of the party mechanism in England and America, proposes a whole plan for the reorganization of the parties. The main idea of this plan is that the parties should lose their permanent and closely united character and acquire the significance of temporary associations to achieve certain goals, upon the fulfillment of which these organizations would consider both their work and their existence finished. We are not talking about the difficulty of establishing boundaries for the activities of parties according to Ostrogorsky's project: it would be extremely difficult to justify the legal prohibition of the activities of unions that are not contrary to the law and peacefully engaged in politics. But regardless of this, the power of party connections does not change whether these connections are temporary or permanent. At that decisive moment, when the parties will carry out their tasks during elections and popular votes, they will still act as cohesive groups, obeying party discipline. Showing their action in moments of the most intense public attention, they will more surely reveal their unifying and organizing power.
Peru M.Ya. Ostrogorsky also owns a project to reform the political system as a whole - "Organization of Public Power", indicating that best form he assumed a parliamentary republic. At the same time, the scientist outlined in his project a set of "checks and balances" of the power potential of the lower house, which is the supporting structure of the state in parliamentary forms of government. Thus, it was envisaged that the head of state, who had the right to appoint ministers, be elected jointly by both houses of parliament; giving both chambers the right to pass a vote of no confidence in ministers; the right of the head of state to single-handedly appoint judges; two-stage elections of the majority of members of the upper house, the remaining senators were elected by "social, economic and other" interest groups. The participation of political parties in the formation of government bodies was not allowed.
The author of the project acts as a supporter of a democratic type of political system, but is concerned about the problem of eliminating a number of factors that destabilize this system, and above all political parties that have mastered the technique of manipulating mass consciousness and profaning parliamentary activity. The core idea of the project was the desire to mitigate the contradiction between the enormous opportunities for influencing state affairs that the broad masses of the people had with the development of democracy, and their real willingness to do it in a qualified manner. Ostrogorsky M.Ya. resolutely protested against the "mechanical process" of the forced planting of political institutions that did not have a basis in the form of an appropriate mass political culture - a culture of tolerant interaction of free, rationally thinking individuals focused on disinterested service to the public good.
1.2 The concept of the internal organization of the parties
The main work, Democracy and Political Parties, was published in the USSR in the 1920s.
Ostrogorsky uses a compromising approach to show the vices of bourgeois parties. In a party, the struggle between factions is sometimes more bitter than that of rival parties. Party members are most often united by a common desire to use politics as beneficially as possible for their own purposes.
There is an unprincipled pursuit of power in the party: "Barely differing from each other in their methods, the parties mainly challenge each other for power."
Ostrogorsky explores the internal organization of bourgeois pariahs and concludes that at first everyone joins the party on equal terms, but in the course of development a circle of people is formed that connects the political elite and the party itself. This he calls the caucus of the party.
Caucus is a closed meeting of party leaders for a preliminary discussion of political and organizational issues. The caucus destroys the free competition of candidates in the party, replaced them with the only candidates with the stamp of the caucus. There is a process of differentiation in the cocus itself. Deputies become completely cut off from the bulk of voters and from the power of party politicians.
The personal characteristics of the candidate are not important. From the deputy capital is required, joining without reservations to the politics of the party, subordination to the party bosses. There is a process of oligarchization and bureaucratization of the party.
All the activity of the party ends in a campaign not so much of persuasion as of hypnosis of the voters. The parties compete in ways to surprise the voter. Political parties depend financially on the propertied strata of the population, who determine the policy of the party.
Ostrogorsky proposes to replace the system of political parties with a system of non-permanent temporary parties. He explains this by the need to ensure individual freedom.
He also raises the issue of political participation. Concerning the role of the masses in political life, he remarks: "The function of the masses is to deserve stewards."
2. Reflections on the book "Democracy and political parties"
The sketches of party life made by the author sometimes look like prophecies, although they were made from nature in Great Britain and the United States of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Thus, "the strength of a party organization," he says, "depends much less on the number of its members than on the number of workers." We know this well; as well as the fact that every well-functioning organization tries to multiply the occasions and occasions of meetings; their numbers are proof of the vitality of the organization. One of the favorite performances is the voting of resolutions on topical political issues. It provides the members of the party organization with proof of their perspicacity and energy and fills them with the sweet consciousness of a great duty fulfilled. "Any party believes, notes Ostrogorsky, that "political progress can be achieved only through constant agitation, and that to agitate means to educate the country ... In any case In any case, the rallies should keep the party uproar to show that it is alive and strong, "and party speakers constantly prove that their party is always right." Party life, he writes, “is only a long school of slavish submission. All the lessons a citizen receives in it are only lessons of cowardice; it first of all teaches the citizen that there is no salvation for him outside a permanent party, and prepares him to every kind of renunciation and humility."
Democracy, therefore, has limitations, local idiosyncrasies, and vices. "The main vices inherent in democratic governance," says Ostrogorsky, "are general mediocrity, the influence of demagogues, the lack of awareness of the public good, weak action laws either come from the cowardice of citizens, or are varieties of it.
The validity of the electoral principle in government, contrary to popular belief, is limited ... An overdeveloped electoral system is often only a formal attribute of democracy, it leads to the fact that the people, instead of strengthening their power, disperse it; the direct responsibility to the people, which he seeks to establish along the whole line, is dissipated, and while it should reign everywhere, it does not exist anywhere. In order for direct responsibility towards the people to be real, it must be concentrated, so that it extends only to certain, firmly established functions of state power, to legislative functions, and, secondly, to local self-government. Any extension of the electoral regime beyond these boundaries, to administrative posts or judicial offices, can only be tolerated as the lesser of two evils, for example, in countries that are still at a lower or intermediate stage of political progress, such as Russia or even Germany. ... The progress of a political society depends not so much on the development of suffrage, but on the extent to which it can afford to limit it and safely entrust administration and justice to permanent officials. In a developed political society, the selective method applied to administration and justice ceases to serve him as it served him during the years of growth and struggle ... it makes him waste his strength in electoral maneuvers that have already become superfluous and have no other aims only to waste and tire his attention, and ultimately to divert public opinion from its real task, which is to observe and control the organs of government.
From this, a paradoxical and all the more true-to-truth conclusion is drawn: “The political function of the masses in a democracy is not to govern it; they will probably never be able to do so.
In fact, a small minority will always govern, under democracy as well as under autocracy. Concentration is a natural property of any power... But the ruling minority must always be under threat. The function of the masses in a democracy is not to rule, but to intimidate the rulers. ... These rulers will behave differently if they have to deal with more educated voters; they will intimidate them more. That is why it is doubly important in a democracy to raise the intellectual and moral level of the masses: along with it, the moral level of those who are called upon to stand above the masses automatically rises. "However, propaganda of all varieties and shades is of little use for such an increase in the intellectual level. Ostrogorsky notes about the eloquence of party orators that it "does not at all develop the thinking faculty of the audience, but more or less contributes to the political education of the masses", about newspapers: "newspapers ... form public opinion only by the way of presenting facts, reporting some and omitting or distorting others", and ends the conversation on propaganda sad conclusion: the voting masses "avoid everything that requires some effort of the mind," although "their interest in politics, from a certain point of view, has even developed. The cheap press and political agitation carried on by the parties put many facts and ideas into general circulation. As a result of this, the masses began to show a more lively interest ... in relation to political and social issues ..., but it is superficial, fluent. In the vast majority, they assimilate facts and arguments quite automatically. ...Read more, but think less than before. A newspaper full of small news not only fails to focus the attention of the reader, it makes his mind flutter from headline to headline, and as a result exhausts the brain rather than nourishes it.
ostrogorsky democracy political party
Conclusion
Ostrogorsky's main work, Democracy and Political Parties, was the first comparative study of political parties, thanks to which Ostrogorsky is considered one of the pioneers of the comparative approach in the sociology of political relations and the science of politics. He was also the first to scientifically analyze the activities of the party as a large organization. The conclusions drawn from this analysis were pessimistic.
Since Ostrogorsky identified democracy with the direct participation of the party masses in management and since he came to the conclusion that in every mass party the power is in the hands of the party apparatus, then, in his opinion, parties, regardless of the ideology preached, inevitably acquire a non-democratic character. To avoid this, Ostrogorsky proposed an obviously utopian method - the replacement of permanent parties with free associations in order to achieve any one, specific goal.
In practice, this proposal did not find a response, but theoretically a realistic analysis of the functioning of large political parties as bureaucratic organizations was carried out. It was Ostrogorsky's merit in posing this problem, although at the same time he ignored the question of the extent to which the difference in class interests and ideologies of individual parties can influence the strengthening or weakening of the trend towards bureaucratization that he analyzes.
His book has generated a lot of different opinions and judgments. And not all of them were positive.
“It has been objected to me that the evil of the party regime is not the only one; there are still other diseases inherent in democracy. Oh sure. But is this an objection? If someone suffers from tuberculosis or gout, is that a reason not to pay serious attention to an eye disease that threatens blindness? I go even further: not only is the party regime not the only evil of democracy, but some of its unfortunate consequences are also found where the system of rigid parties does not prevail. Thus, for example, the prostitution of the general interest in favor of private interests, favoritism, the regular use of the administration to serve the electoral interests of deputies, which is so complained about in France, developed in much milder forms of party regime than the caucus. But is it because of this that the problem of the party regime in a democracy is destroyed or loses its significance?
Other critics really think that this problem is unimportant and that it is not the party regime and the caucus that threaten democracy, but that its enemy is capitalism - something that I do not seem to notice. This critique, it seems to me, comes from an extremely simplistic, but very widespread concept at the present time, which finds the cause of all evils in capitalism, just as it used to be said at every opportunity: “Voltaire is to blame for this.” I denounce more than anyone the predatory capitalism, I have as much contempt for plutocracy as anyone else, but I did not allow myself to be hypnotized by the word "capitalism" and I do not think it is enough to hate it or even shoot at it. I look around him to see where he draws his strength, what he relies on, and I am forced to state that he is favored, among other things, by the current political order, that in order to achieve his goals, he uses modern political methods, and I say to those who burn with such intense indignation against capitalism: beware, do not forget that economic life flows along the political channel and that, if the latter is defiled, it infects everything that passes through it.
The condemnation of the party regime, which is the central point of my book, shocked conventional wisdom too much not to provoke criticism and protest. Some, considering the party system almost as a phenomenon of a natural order, or as a phenomenon dependent, as it were, on providence, or as a political combination, which precisely creates the superiority and greatness of parliamentarism, were content with ascertaining the blindness or unconsciousness of the author. Others, without denying the evil of the party system, dutifully accepted it as a necessary evil against which they know no means. The resolution of the question I have indicated seems to them doubtful or difficult, if not impossible to carry out.
But, despite Ostrogorsky's criticism, this person influenced many people who, thanks to Moisei Yakovlevich, were able to form their own points of view or continue Ostrogorsky's theory. An example is Robert Michels, who knew Ostrogorsky and constantly referred to him in his judgments. By identifying democracy with the direct participation of the masses in government, as Ostrogorsky did, Michels came to pessimistic conclusions about democracy in general, no.
The classic work of Ostrogorsky for the first time revealed the mechanism of power and control in modern society, showing the contradiction between the principles of democracy and the real functioning of political parties. The rapid transition from a traditional society to democracy, which turned the masses into a real factor in the political process, created the possibility of a new authoritarianism - democratic Caesarism, using democratic forms to establish an anti-legal regime, to justify the power of a minority of the party oligarchy over the majority. Ostrogorsky was the first to establish the connection between such parameters of modern development as the transition to a mass society and the possibility of manipulating the will of voters, the relationship between the masses and political parties, the bureaucratization and formalization of these parties themselves in conditions of fierce competition in the struggle for power. All these trends are expressed in the emergence of a special political machine that allows leaders to concentrate power over party structures.
As a political thinker, he received recognition in the West earlier than in Russia, and had a significant impact on the world political thought of the 20th century. Along with Max Weber and Robert Michels, he is considered one of the founders of political sociology, in the first place, such a field as the doctrine of political parties.
Used Books
1. Bourgeois Sociology at the End of the 20th Century Ed. ed. V.N. Ivanov. M., 1986.
2. Degtyarev A.A. Fundamentals of political theory: Proc. allowance In-t "Open Island". - M.: Higher. school, 2001. - 239 p.
3. Evdokimov V. B. Parties in the political system of the bourgeois society of USU. - Sverdlovsk, 2000.
4. History of political and legal doctrines Responsible. ed. V.S. Nersesyants. M., 1989.
5. Michels R. Sociology of a political party in a democracy Dialog. - 1990; 1991.- No. 2.
6. Ostrogorsky M.Ya. Democracy and political parties. T. 2. M., 1930. S. 250.
7. Parties in the mechanism of political power Political science: a course of lectures Coll. ed. ed. A. V. Mironova. - M.: Sots.-polit. journal, 2003. - S. 90 106.
Hosted on Allbest.ru
Similar Documents
The concept of "political party", its features, functions, goals and main types. Political parties and political movements, their characteristics. Features of the party system of modern Russia. Comparative analysis of party systems in Russia, USA and Germany.
abstract, added 10/11/2013
Forms of political activity of people. Political institutions, concept, purpose. Typology of political parties, party systems, their classification and main functions. Features political party. The main types of party systems.
abstract, added 04/27/2013
Political systems of society in general and specifically in modern Russian society. Power, its functions and problems. State and civil society. Democracy as a form of public power. Political parties and socio-political movements.
thesis, added 01.12.2008
Political parties as an important element of the political system of society. Description of features and distinguishing features parties. Varieties of party systems. Features of a number of states that have a multi-party and one-party system, the specifics of their formation.
abstract, added 03/07/2011
Political parties as a product of representative democracy. Functions and signs of parties, their participation in the struggle for the highest power in the state, political program, party charter and governing bodies. Classification of political parties and their strategy.
abstract, added 10/17/2010
Formation of modern political parties: typology, signs and functions. Formation of civil thought in accordance with the party ideology. The role of pressure groups in society. Political parties of Ukraine. Party system as an element of democracy.
abstract, added 02/07/2010
Party as a voluntary association of people of a certain ideological and political orientation. The main political parties and movements, the essence of the main types of party systems, their typology and functions. Trends in the development of political parties and movements in Russia.
presentation, added 04/11/2013
Political parties play the role of an important element of the political system: they are a mechanism that connects the people with the government, civil society with the political society, with the state. Structure, types of party systems, their essence, typology.
control work, added 02/17/2008
Parties as a social phenomenon. Reasons for the emergence and signs of a political party, their typology, goals and functions. The essence and varieties of party systems. The origin and development of a multi-party system in Ukraine. Pros and cons of a multi-party system.
abstract, added 03/28/2010
Political parties are the most important element of the political system of society, the main subjects of political relations. Their classification. Disclosure of the social essence of political parties and party systems, description of their typology and definition of their functions.
M.Ya. Ostrogorsky, a scientist and public figure, believed that the democratic structure of the state contributes to the progressive development of society, production and social equality, but still such a society guarantees people only material freedom. Because moral freedom - the ability of a person to act according to his beliefs and values - has not been achieved even in the most developed democratic countries. Why is this happening? In his main work, Democracy and the Organization of Political Parties, the author answered this question in the following way: this moment party organization kills all will and independence in a person. Representative and executive authorities cannot express and embody in politics all the interests of citizens.
Previously, it was believed that political parties are an instrument of civil society control of political power. M.Ya. Ostrogorsky changed the vector in his work, in his opinion, political parties are a tool for controlling the civil and political elite. The scientist very clearly noted in his work that in the mass party the power is in the hands of the party apparatus. Provisional parties that are created to mobilize society for elections later have no other purpose than their own growth. If the party is ruling, then a caucus is created inside it - shadow meetings of party leaders. Further, the caucus turns into an independent institution that coordinates all party activities, both in parliament and among the masses.
The scientist said that if the party is ruling, then the parliamentary discussion is a formality, since everything is decided in advance in the caucus. M.Ya. Ostrogorsky wrote that the parties have become a means of realizing the interests of the party elites in the power structures, instead of fulfilling their main function - mediation between the state and civil society. Ostrogorsky was particularly alarmed by the degradation of personality traits of ordinary party members, who were losing the will and ability to independently understand and comprehend political reality. The author considers this degradation caused by party discipline.
If we consider the theory of political parties of the scientist in a modern interpretation, then the author means that the political pluralism that should exist in democratic countries does not actually exist. The program of the party is approved by the members of the caucus, and then brought to the attention of the citizens.
Ostrogorsky's work is still relevant today, since parties are one of the main institutions of the political system in many countries. Political pluralism is the principle of socio-political development, which tells us about the presence of different political ideas. It is needed so that social groups have the opportunity to express their ideas. Also, political pluralism implies the existence of many parties that compete with each other, representing the interests of individual social groups. But how does political pluralism manifest itself in Russia today?
Let's turn to history. In Russia for 70 years there was only one party of the CPSU, which held all the levers of power in its hands and did not allow other parties. Those. established a one-party system. The dictatorship of the party was enshrined in the Constitution of the Russian Federation. Such a system, on the one hand, is associated with the desire to retain power in the country, on the other hand, to exercise control over all spheres of the life of the state and society.
The modern system of parties began to take shape after the “perestroika”. Many parties (for example, the Liberal Democratic Party, the Communist Party of the Russian Federation) had weight in the political race, but they were outstripped by United Russia, which was created to support V.V. Putin in the all-Russian presidential elections. However, now this party has become a mass party and has received a majority of votes in the Federation Council and the Government, and it is also supported by the President Russian Federation. What gives this advantage? Firstly, United Russia allowed the Government to purposefully pursue policy, since there are far fewer deputies from other parties. Secondly, the control of the ruling party over the entire state is traced, which is unacceptable in a democratic country, which Russia considers itself to be. Many Western analysts say that the Russian Federation is a hidden autocracy, since it is no longer possible to change the ruling party.
Our country has a large number of parties with different ideological orientations and views. This should speak of a competitive struggle among the parties, but in fact the situation is very deplorable, because all of them do not have a clear political role. The Communist Party of the Russian Federation is supported by the majority of the population, but this society dates back to the times of the USSR, which is not able to offer new ideas for the development of Russia. This party seeks to return Russia to the times of the USSR, which does not quite correspond to modern realities. The slogans of the LDPR say that it is an opposition party, which in fact largely agrees with United Russia. A Just Russia is a fairly young party that does not yet have enough popular support to have serious political weight.
After analyzing the most popular parties in Russia, one can come to the conclusion that only the ruling party, United Russia, has real political weight. Ostrogorsky foresaw this and outlined all his thoughts in his book, saying that “the system of parties since the advent of democracy no longer had a rational justification in facts. New problems could not divide the minds of entire generations and create on the side of each of the contending parties the same permanent ties as before. At the same time, the problems have become infinitely more numerous and heterogeneous. The emancipation of the individual and the differentiation of the social conditions of a more complex civilization have brought about everywhere, in ideas, interests and aspirations, diversity in unity and a kind of perpetual movement compared to the stagnation of former times. The methods by which the system of permanent parties was introduced, as artificial as it was irrational and obsolete in principle, must inevitably have had the same character.
M.Ya. Ostrogorsky rightly believed that an overdeveloped electoral system is only a purely formal attribute of democracy. It leads to the fact that the people, instead of strengthening their power, “disperse” it: the direct responsibility to the people, which they seek to establish along the entire line, is dissipated, and while it should reign everywhere, it actually does not exist anywhere. This statement is very relevant today, since the Russian parties, which are represented in the Government, have long ceased to represent the interests of the people. In the 21st century, the following trend has emerged: big businessmen who want to make their business legal, finance parties so that they, in turn, represent their interests in the Government. How can we talk about democracy?
To avoid the creation of a caucus and the transformation of mass parties into an instrument of control over the state and society, the scientist proposed to deprive the ruling parties of a permanent character. Parties should be created temporarily, so that when the goal is achieved, they cease to exist.
It is very difficult to establish the boundaries of the activities of such organizations, and it is also extremely difficult to justify the legal justification for the prohibition of the actions of unions peacefully engaged in politics. Regardless of this, the power of connections does not change from their nature: temporary or permanent. At the moment the parties carry out their tasks during the elections, they will function as cohesive groups subject to party discipline. Showing their action at the time of the most intense attention from the masses of the people, they will only more correctly reveal their organizing and unifying power.
Also M.Ya. Ostrogorsky believed that it was necessary to "concentrate" people's power, extending it: to certain, "firmly established" state functions; on the legislative functions of the state; to local government.
Thus, Ostrogorsky's theory of political parties is very relevant today in Russia. Because democracy in modern developed countries implies the presence in the state of political pluralism or a plurality of parties that defend the interests of a certain segment of the population or a group in the Government. But what do we see? The State Duma of the Russian Federation has members from the United Russia, LDPR, KPRF, Just Russia parties, although there are 77 active political parties in the country. Only 8% of this number receive funding, namely United Russia, the Liberal Democratic Party, the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, Just Russia, Yabloko, Patriots of Russia. Moreover, the last two form their budget from the transfers of commercial organizations and individuals.
All this suggests that the political parties have ceased to fulfill their main function, namely the representation of the interests of the people in the Government. A ruling party appeared in the country, as in the days of the USSR, which controls the state, society and, at the same time, other parties. There seem to be 77 parties, but how can we talk about political pluralism and democracy in general in Russia?
Modern scientists today should turn to the work of Ostrogorsky and revise the electoral system as a whole. Russia should abandon mass and permanent parties in favor of temporary political organizations that will be created only to achieve the set goal, without the right to permanence and growth. The creation of such a system will help the successful development of democracy in the Russian Federation.
Liked? Click the button below. To you not difficult, and to us Nice).
To free download Essay at maximum speed, register or log in to the site.
Important! All submitted Essays for free download are intended to draw up a plan or basis for their own scientific works.
Friends! You have a unique opportunity to help students like you! If our site helped you find the right job, then you certainly understand how the work you added can make the work of others easier.
If the Essay, in your opinion, is of poor quality, or you have already met this work, please let us know.
story
political
thoughts
M.Ya. Ostrogorsky
Democracy
and
our parties
Moscow
ROSSPEN
LBC 66.6
0-78
Edition
implemented with financial support
(Pocmàcfano tptaunmajmoto much stock
(RMF)
Jsfe project 96-03-16036
Responsible editor,
author of the introductory article and comments
A. N. Medushevsky
M. Ya. Ostrogorsky
Democracy and political parties. - M .: "Russian
political encyclopedia" (ROSSPEN), 1997. - 640 p.
The classic work of Ostrogorsky for the first time revealed the mechanism of power and
management in modern society, showing the contradiction of the principles of demo-
cracy and the actual functioning of political parties. Quick re-
the move from traditional society to democracy, which turned the masses into real
factor of the political process, created the possibility of a new authoritarian
ma - democratic caesarism, using democratic forms
to establish an anti-legal regime, justify the power of a minority
party oligarchy over the majority. Ostrogorsky was the first to establish
connection of such parameters of modern development as the transition to mass production
society and the possibility of manipulating the will of voters, the relationship
masses and political parties, bureaucratization and formalization of these
parties in the face of fierce competition in the struggle for power. All these
trends in the evolution of parties are expressed in the emergence of the Caucus - a special
a political machine that allows leaders to concentrate power over the
ty structures. Prophetically pointing out the extreme danger of these
negative tendencies of modern democracy, Ostrogorsky at the same time
outlined ways to overcome them.
Ostrogorsky's book belongs to the classics of political science, it
laid the foundations of modern political sociology and had a significant
new influence on the world political thought of the XX century.
LBC 66.6
ISBN 5-86004-077-6
"Russian Political Encyclopedia"
(ROSSPEN), 1997
A.N. Medushevsky. introductory article,
comments, 1997
A.N. Medushevsky. Problems of modern democracy
From the author
BOOK ONE
Chapter I Complete Unity
Chapter II. Decay of the old society
Chapter ///. Attempts at counter-revolution
Chapter IV. The final triumph of the new order
45
50
60
64
BOOK TWO
Chapter /. Origin of political associations
Chapter //. Start of party organizations
Chapter III. Emergence of the Caucuses
Chapter IV Development of the Caucus
Chapter V. Caucus in Power
Chapter VI. Caucus in power (end)
Chapter VII. Organization of Conservatives
Chapter VIII. Conservative Organization (end)
Chapter IX. Crisis of 1886
Chapter X. Decline of Parties
78
81
91
99
107
113
122
132
137
144
BOOK THREE
CHAPTER I Caucus Mechanism
Chapter II. Caucus activities
Chapter III. Caucus activity (end)
Chapter IV. Candidates and the election campaign
Chapter V. Central Organizations. .
Chapter VI. Auxiliary Organizations
Chapter VII. Workers and socialist organizations
VW head. conclusions
3
168
181
197
203
230
242
253
262
BOOK FOUR
Chapter I. The First Party Organizations
in the United States
Chapter II. The rise of the convention system
CHAPTER III THE EVOLUTION OF THE CONVENTION SYSTEM
Chapter IV. The evolution of the convention system (continued)
CHAPTER V THE EVOLUTION OF THE CONVENTION SYSTEM [END]
297
305
319
328
340
BOOK FIVE
Chapter
Chapter
Chapter
Chapter
Chapter
Chapter
Chapter
Chapter
I Local organizations
II Conventions
III National Convention
IV. Election campaign
V. Election campaign (end)
VI Politics and machine
VII. Politics and the machine [end]
VIII Extra-Constitutional Government
in the legislature
Chapter IX. The fight for emancipation
Chapter X. The Struggle for Emancipation (end)
Chapter XI. Conclusions. . . . :
361
368
377
393
413
428
442
460
466
482
506
BOOK SIX
Conclusion
Afterword
Comments
540
618
629
A.N. Medushevsky
Problems of modern democracy
The transition from authoritarianism to democracy has become the dominant
trend of world development at the end of the 20th century. In the last de-
a decade we had a unique opportunity to see the rapid
the collapse of the most ambitious authoritarian regimes in history
rii of humanity, the search for other ways of socio-political
development, which were found in the ideology of democracy, parliament
mentalism and multi-party system. At the same time, it turned out that
the first transition to democracy in schools that were poorly prepared for this
society not only does not mean the solution of all social
blem, but creates new ones, sometimes no less difficult. This, from one
parties - the imposition of the will of the majority on the minority of the public
property (which is a threat to the rights of the individual), on the other hand,
the possibility of a qualitatively new democratic caesarism, using
using democratic principles and forms of social
organizations to assert anti-legal power. Main of
these dangers, which was pointed out by ancient thinkers,
since Aristotle, is a constant trend of a new type
wounds arising from the manipulation of will and consciousness
voters, monopolization (with the help of new communications,
especially the mass media) their will according to
political parties and party demagogues. Realizing this
fundamental fact in modern times by such major
European thinkers like Montesquieu, Tocqueville, Weber created
lo a completely new perspective on the development of the social sciences.
A turning point in the interpretation of the phenomenon of modern fashion
mocracy was the emergence of the concept of M.Ya. Ostrogorsky, for the first time
linking together issues such as the transition from traditional
society to democracy, the significance of general elections for
political mobilization of the population, the mechanism of mutual
masses and political parties, finally, the process of bureaucratization
tions of these parties themselves, which finds expression in the creation of a special
the political machine, the caucuses. Obviously, all these problems
we are extremely relevant "today, in the context of the transition to democ-
ratii. The main question to be answered is
following: is democracy at all possible as a real or-
organizational principle, or is it a myth, an illusion, once again
replaced a long string of previous utopias, serving
for simple legitimation of the new ruling elite? For an answer
it is expedient to address these questions today to creativity
5
Ostrogorsky, who stood at the origins of the modern democratic
and one of the first to show its complexity at the turn of two
cov.
Late 19th-early 20th centuries represent an important quality
essentially a new stage in the history of mankind. Its distinctive
features became: the sharply increased participation of the masses of the population in half-
itic life; transformation of the mechanism of political life
nor which cannot exist without taking into account this principle
now a factor in the political process; unprecedented technical
technical means that create a qualitatively different situation in
relations between the masses and the authorities. These trends are gaining
force throughout the 20th century, lead to a number of important
stviya. First of all, there is a need for new ways
legitimation of power, which now appeals not to the divine
sanctification or hereditary privileges, but to the will
mass phenomenon. Secondly, there are specific organizations
traditional methods of gaining and retaining political power,
the result of which is the creation of mass parties, fighting
seeking to influence voters. Thirdly, there are
links for an extremely effective impact of power on the
social consciousness for political purposes.
Already at the end of the XIX century. many social thinkers state
argued the inefficiency of existing theories for explaining
new political reality. On the other hand, in their work
Attempts have been made to understand this new reality or, for all intents and purposes,
In any case, pay attention to those development trends that
which caused them the greatest anxiety. Often astounding
many features of the political reality were correctly guessed.
sti, which have found their fairly complete expression significantly
later. At the end of the 20th century, their deep
side correctness in the very formulation of the problem of the relationship of democ-
ratia and tyranny as the main issue of our time. How about-
democratic transformations at once, often undertaking
with the best of intentions, turned out to be a source of
more authoritarian rule than the one they are fighting
foxes? How does the realization of the ideals of humanistic thought
past has resulted in the destruction of these very
ideals? The answer to these questions lies in the analysis of social
mechanism for the transition of democratic institutions and procedures for
governance in its opposite. To carry out such research
studies, in turn, it is important to rethink the ideas of those
others who posed these problems and tried to solve them.
In the study of the social reality of modern times
a special role belongs to representatives of Russian sociology.
The movement of Russia along the path of modernization confronted the public
the problem of determining the development prospects
world system of relations, the choice of promising ways to accelerate
catching up development, analysis of the specifics of the transition from
6
Traditional attitudes to rational. The path of reform and revolution
lution, the ratio of the center and the periphery, movement along the path of right
new state and the development of individual rights - all these problems
we had not a purely theoretical, but also an actual political
meaning, up to the problem of choosing a personal position. Russian
sociology, acting as part of world science, at the same time
was faced with the need to comprehend that problem
we, which for Western constitutionalism has decided on
at an earlier stage and, in essence, had already been solved by life itself.
new. It was a question about how the transition of the old
row of the absolutist regime to modern forms of democratic
ti.
“As a historian, for a more accurate understanding of the issue, so
policy, in order to more fully embrace it, - writes M.Ya. Ostrogorsky, - it is necessary, first of all, to be aware of
data of the problem in its consistent development. What
sees the problem one of the most prominent sociologists of modern times
meny, the Russian scientist M.Ya. Ostrogorsky? At the center of his attention
As he himself explains, it is no coincidence that the situation turns out to be
social conflict of the contemporary British Empire. it
the problem of transition from the old order to the rule of law,
from feudal to civil society. In this regard,
he explains, modern England presents undeniable
Benefits. Two generations ago, she was an aristocrat
feudal and feudal: “Uninterrupted in its course, occurring
short distance, democratic evolution in
England unfolds before the viewer as a consistent
logical process with its prerequisites and consequences arising from
its consequences. Formulated in this way, the thought
brings us back to the central idea of political philosophy
Russian constitutionalism. It is for Russia at the end of XIX—
early 20th century was characterized by the search for a model of political forms
within the law. Russian constitutionalists based their
their political decisions comparative analysis Russian abso-
Lutism with its natural connections, political system and
historical role of the state.
As it has been shown at the present time, the political philo-
the sophia of Russian constitutionalism acts as a philosophical and political paradigm that interprets the relations of society
and states in general and in Russia especially. It was about the
new possibility of getting out of the fundamental social
conflict not through revolution, but through radical socio-economic
medical and political reforms, purposefully carried out
received by the state. The focus of theoretical thought is
there was a model of transition from authoritarian rule to modern
pluralistic democracy while maintaining the succession
the legitimacy of power and the legitimacy of government, the establishment of special
fics of theoretical foundations, strategies and tactics of the constitution7
Onalism in the conditions of accelerated political modernization. AT
construction of this theoretical model M.Ya. Ostrogorsky
takes on a special place. It can only be understood in general
context of the development of Russian sociology of pre-revolutionary
rhoda.
An integral philosophical and sociological concept of Russian
historical process was given by the law school (B.N. Chi-
Cherin, K.D. Kavelin, A.D. Gradovsky). In legal thought, this
found expression in the new concept of the sociological school
law (V.I. Sergeevich, S.A. Muromtsev, N.M. Korkunov). Compare-
analysis of Western constitutionalism and Russian political
medical practice was founded by M.M. Kovalevsky, an outstanding
connoisseur of Western European constitutionalism. Comparative-
but-historical method for the analysis of general patterns and
specifics of Russian and Western European historical
process in the era of transition from absolutism to the society of the new age
It occupies a prominent place in the works of N.I. Kareev, N.P. Pavlov Silvansky, V. O. Klyuchevsky, P. G. Vinogradov. At that time
the foundations of Russian sociology were laid.
In this perspective of the development of the main line of Russian and
European thought should consider the works of Ostrogorsky.
Russian thinkers who have made a significant contribution to the modern
political theory, acted both as philosophers and as a specialist
alists in the field of legal science, and as politicians. Each of the hundred
Ron their activities enriched others, creating a special synthesis.
In the work of Ostrogorsky, these typological features are
quite specific biographical expression.
M.Ya. Ostrogorsky (1854-1919) graduated from the law faculty
cult of St. Petersburg University. For a number of years
he worked for the Department of Justice. He graduated from the Free
School of Political Science in Paris, where he wrote a dissertation on
topic "On the origin of universal equality" (Les origines du
suffrage universel, 1885). The main subject of this research
time - the spread of the principles of equality to different
new categories of society. In this regard, draws attention to
mania interest in the problem of women's equality (La femme au
point de vue du droit public, 1891). However, the main theme
creativity of Ostrogorsky turned out to be the problems of the Western demo-
ratii, to the study of which he approached from the point of view of the mechanism
ma of its functioning, first of all - political parties,
to which one of the first works is already devoted5. It is this on-
a board of studies tying together the philosophy,
law, sociology and politics of leading Western democracies,
allowed Ostrogorsky to take a fundamentally new step in
social sciences. At the turn of the century, he laid the foundations
political sociology as an independent scientific discipline
lines, formulating conclusions that have received in science the character of pa-
radigms. This was made possible thanks to the extremely wide
Mu coverage of the problem, studied to a large extent by
personal observations. Ostrogorsky studied political sciences
only in Russia, but also in a number of Western countries, especially in France,
received a European education. During its many
trips to the United States and Great Britain, he studied
the khanism of the functioning of the political systems of the Western democracies
ratii and especially the role of political parties and their leaders.
Ostrogorsky's fundamental work - "La démocratie et
l "organization des parties politiques" ("Democracy and political
party") was first published in Paris in 1898 in French
language 6 . Already from the manuscript, it was simultaneously translated into English.
Russian language for simultaneous publication in London and New York.
The publication of this book aroused great interest and controversy in
Western scientific press. The scientist soon received an offer
about taking a chair at the University of Cleveland, USA, however,
this proposal was not accepted by him, because it was at this
time he was elected a deputy of the First State Duma
(1906). Thus, the theoretical interest in the Western
mocracy was combined with practical activities to create it
research institute in Russia. In the future, the work of Ostrogorsky firmly entered
into the classics of political science, withstood a number of editions based on
other European languages and to this day enjoys a well-deserved
popularity.
To characterize the general outlook of a scientist, it is important to
mark his contribution to the Russian science of law and historiography. At-
steel interest in Russian history in comparative coverage
did not leave Ostrogorsky throughout his work.
He prepared and published a special work for secondary schools
deniy - comparative chronological tables of the general and
Russian history, which went through at least 18 editions
(1878-1903) 7 . M.Ya. Ostrogorsky is the author of a systematic
course of Russian history, which also withstood a lot of
Denmark8. In this perspective of comparative research,
zhany of his courses in the chronology of the general and Russian history of the era
medieval and modern times. It is important to note the contribution of the scientist
in the study of Russian law. He was one of the major
currents of Russian legal practice, who published a systematic
handbooks for jurists and legal practitioners10. For
These works of Ostrogorsky are characterized by the consideration of Russia in
context of the global and, above all, European
M.Ya. Ostrogorsky
Democracy and political parties
Ostrogorsky M. Democracy and political parties: In 2 t. M., 1930. T. 2. United States of America.
pp. 276-290, 293, 295, 296, 298-299, 303, 308, 314, 324, 343-346, 350-351, 354-357,365-368.
BOOK SIXTH CONCLUSION
[...] The Party by its nature is a free association of citizens, which, like any other association, is not subject to external influence, since it contradicts common law. A state that respects the fundamental rights of citizens ignores parties as such. It has no right to ask the members of any group what their political ideas are and what their political background is. The state has no right either to stamp political opinions or to establish the conditions under which this stamp may be imposed. None free country no such interference has been attempted. Only in Russia has it recently been decided to establish "legal political parties". [...]
[...] The principles or program of the party was a faith clothed, like the church's faith, with the sanction of legitimacy and heterodoxy. Adherence to the party had to be complete, one could not disagree with the party on any of the points of its creed, just as one could not accept individual dogmas of religion by choice. [...] "Conformity" ( conformity ) with the creed of the party was the only rule of political behavior; like a religious faith, it extended due mercy to all its present and future members. Not a single action of the party, not a single crime committed by it, could either destroy or undermine its real goodness, nor betray it to the opposite party: it was governed by the theological principle of hereditary dignity or unworthiness.
Based on these views, which are so opposed to modern concepts, the system of parties since the advent of democracy no longer had a rational justification in facts. [...] New problems could not divide the minds of entire generations and create on the side of each of the contending parties the same permanent ties as before. At the same time the problems have become infinitely more numerous and heterogeneous: the emancipation of the individual and the differentiation of the social conditions of a more complex civilization have produced everywhere, in ideas, interests and aspirations, diversity in unity and a kind of perpetual movement compared to the stagnation of former times. [...]
The methods by which the system of permanent parties was introduced, as artificial as it was irrational and outdated in principle, must inevitably have had the same character. Since the problems that occupied public opinion were many and varied, it was necessary to adapt problems to certain groupings of people, instead of grouping people according to problems. For this purpose, controversial issues were raised to the level of the system, collected in universal programs and superimposed on each other; they were shuffled like cards, taking out one or the other, and, if necessary, throwing away those that caused insurmountable differences of opinion. [...]
The penetration of modern forms of popular voting and free association into the party system has far from weakened the shortcomings of the method, but only strengthened them. First of all, they masked the reactionary tendencies of this system. The party system, clothed in the forms of popular vote and association, appeared in the dazzling splendor of democratic principles. Secondly, the extension of elections and associations to extralegal political relations required new efforts from citizens: in addition to numerous elections prescribed by law, which were quite enough to confuse the citizens, there were elections to designate party representatives; in addition to observing the actions of the constitutional representatives of the people, the voters also had to discuss the actions of a large number of party representatives. Citizens could not cope with this task, and the overtightened spring of elected government weakened even more, again and even more convincingly proving that the value of the elective principle is limited. [...]
[...] The association underlying the system of parties also had no definite boundaries, it was, as it were, an "integral" association, similar to the one through which some social reformers have tried and are still trying to organize economic life with the aim of eradicating poverty. I will not argue here whether a universal association is possible, into which man enters with all his economic individuality in order to realize the aims of his material existence; but in a political life based on freedom, a similar association cannot function usefully. Association for the purpose of political action, which is a combination of efforts pursuing a material goal, always presupposes the presence of voluntary and conscious cooperation of its members. [...]
Democratized only in appearance, the party system reduced political relations to a purely outward uniformity. This formalism allowed the weaknesses inherent in democratic governance to be reinforced and diminished its strength.
The first sign of democratic government is the participation in it of a large mass of citizens. However, a large mass is naturally passive. [...] Public consciousness must be active, i.e. militant: a citizen must always be on guard, with a look fixed on the public cause, and ready to give him his time and his efforts without any interest. [...]
It could even be said that of all non-despotic regimes, the democratic regime is the least capable of awakening popular consciousness in the conditions of modern civilization. The latter, by making life more and more complicated, has made private interests, worries and entertainments, both material and non-material, more numerous and intense. In the same way, the citizen, who is first of all a man, is naturally impelled by his egoistic instinct to sacrifice the interests of the state, which seem to him more distant and less completely indifferent to him. [...]
In addition to the economic and social conditions that divert the attention of the citizen from public affairs and lull his vigilance, in democracies there is added the extreme credulity inspired by the possession of unlimited power. As a member of an autocratic people, every citizen, consciously or unconsciously, refers to himself the indestructible strength of the people, which makes all concern for the public good superfluous. He imagines that he can always intervene in time to bring order to affairs if necessary. [...]
While the conditional concept of the party lulled the civic consciousness that should take care of the state, it seized the power of social intimidation, which is the supreme force of democracy. This power, which consists in compelling everyone to do their duty by the force of law, as well as by the force of public opinion, is the regulating force of all government. To exercise power is nothing more than to intimidate, to use moral coercion in order to force oneself to obey. The despot uses it just as well as the republican minister: his material power would not be enough, since it would be reduced to his muscular strength. The power of intimidation that governs a political society is only complete when it dominates all its members, the rulers as well as the ruled. [...]
A democratic regime and a regime under which the power of social intimidation can best take root are thus equivalent concepts. What has been agreed to be regarded as democratic principles is in reality only the application of the principle of social intimidation in the organization of social order. [...]
If it is said that the people are incapable of self-government, and that, therefore, universal suffrage and parliamentarism are therefore absurd, then I am ready to agree with the first point, but I find that the conclusion drawn from it is completely erroneous: the political function of the masses in democracy is not to manage it; they will probably never be able to. Even if they are vested with all the rights of popular initiative, direct legislation and direct administration, in fact, a small minority will always govern, under democracy as well as under autocracy. Concentration is a natural property of any power; it is, as it were, the law of gravitation of the social order. The ruling minority need not always be under threat. The function of the masses in a democracy is not to govern, but to intimidate the rulers. The real question in this case is whether they are capable of intimidating and to what extent they are capable of it. That the masses in most modern democracies are capable of seriously intimidating rulers is beyond doubt. And it was thanks to this that serious progress could be made in society; whether it is bad or good, but the rulers are forced to reckon with the people's needs and aspirations. The great difficulty of the present political situation is that the still poorly educated and insufficiently conscious masses do not intimidate politicians enough. Thus, widespread mass education and the ability of the masses to express their opinions are less directly important in political life - except, of course, for the more conscious choice of their representatives - and more necessary for the better intimidation of those who govern. on behalf of the people and capitalizes on their lack of insight. These rulers will behave differently if they have to deal with more educated voters; they will intimidate them more. That is why it is doubly important in a democracy to raise the intellectual and moral level of the masses: along with it, the moral level of those who are called to stand above the masses automatically rises.
What has been said about the universal suffrage is no less true about other principles of the modern political system. All political freedoms: the freedom of the press, the right of assembly, the right of association and the guarantees of individual freedom, on which the universal suffrage rests and which are regarded as guarantees of freedom, are only forms or instruments of the power of social intimidation, the protection of the members of the state against the abuse of force. [...]
However, this power of social intimidation has been undermined on all sides by the political formalism introduced by the party system, and this formalism prevents it from taking root with all its might. [...]
And when the power of social intimidation is reduced only to repression, to popular anger, which must be feared, the power of social intimidation is weakened not only, so to speak, quantitatively, but also qualitatively, and with it the power of the democratic regime also decreases. Indeed, different political regimes differ from each other in the nature of the fear that this power inspires. [...]
[...] Of all the citizens of a democracy, the most fearful are those who wield political power. They depend on the first person they meet; their fate is in the hands of the man in the street. They try to please him by lowering themselves to him; but since they do not know his feelings at all, for fear of miscalculating, they regard them as low as possible and adapt to this. Anyone who is invested with a particle of state power or who aspires to it, thereby already loses human dignity. Human dignity is understood only as loyal obedience, which falls on its face before the autocratic crowd. [...]
The conditional concept of a party only supports and develops this situation. The ritual cult with which this conditional concept surrounds the “majority”, the “party”, gives a quasi-concrete form to that indefinite power of the many, which shakes the imagination of the individual and takes possession of his will. It establishes an external criterion for it. political behavior. He can be caught at the scene of the crime by the first comer; all eyes are fixed on him, to see whether he is going in the indicated direction; Well, how can he not go on the specified path? Party life, therefore, is only a long school of slavish submission. All the lessons that the citizen learns in it are only lessons of cowardice; it first of all teaches the citizen that there is no salvation for him outside of a permanent party and prepares him for all kinds of renunciations and humility. [...]
[...] The difference between government that is supposed to be free and government that is not, lies in the nature of the driving force of public opinion: in unfree states, public opinion is primarily determined by prejudices and feelings frozen in tradition, while in a democratic mode - if it really is - it is determined primarily by reason, which is affirmed in discussions. But here again the conditional concept of the party appears on the scene, it does not allow discussion. Not because it destroys the material freedom of discussion, but because it stifles it by suppressing moral freedom. [...]
VIII
[...] Equality of rights cannot compensate for the natural inequality of minds and characters. On the other hand, the authority of leaders cannot directly and directly affect people who are called to political equality. In order not to go astray, therefore, democracy needs leaders, but they can only appear and perform their functions if, in this leveled society, there is a natural selection of the leading group. How to create more favorable conditions for the development of this selective element in public life? This is one of the fundamental problems of democracy. [...]
[...] Associated with the party, the permanent organization turns from a means into an end to which everything ultimately obeys: principles, personal convictions, the dictates of public and even private morality. The more perfect the organization, the more it demoralizes the party and degrades public life. But on the other hand, in order to support themselves, the parties are more and more in need of a strong organization, which alone can mask the emptiness of the conventionality on which they rely. Thus a vicious circle is created. How to get out of it? Shouldn't the organization of parties be abandoned? In no case.
The increasing complexity of social life has made more necessary than ever the unification of individual efforts. The development of political life, calling on each citizen to participate in government, forces him, in order to fulfill his civic duty, to enter into an agreement with his fellow citizens. In a word, the realization by each of his own goals in society and in the state presupposes cooperation, which is impossible without organization. Groupings of citizens for political purposes, which are called parties, are necessary wherever citizens have the right and duty to express their opinions and act; but the party must cease to be an instrument of tyranny and corruption. [...]
Is it not now clear enough the resolution which the problem of parties requires? Does it not consist in abandoning the practice of inert parties, permanent parties that have power as their ultimate goal, and in restoring and preserving the true character of the parties as groups of citizens specially organized to carry out certain political demands? Such a solution of the question would free the parties from goals that have only a temporary and accidental political significance, and would restore that function of theirs, which is the permanent meaning of their existence. The Party, as a universal entrepreneur, dealing with the solution of many and varied problems, present and future, would give way to special organizations limited to some private objects. It would cease to be an amalgam of groups and individuals united by an alleged agreement, and would turn into an association, the homogeneity of which would be ensured by its common goal. A party that would, as it were, hold its members in a vice because they entered it, would give way to groupings that would freely organize and reorganize according to the changing problems of life and the resulting changes in public opinion. Citizens, dispersing on one issue, would walk together on another issue.
The change in the method of political action that would take place on this basis would fundamentally renew the functioning of democratic governance. The application of the new method would begin by identifying the root cause of the corruption and tyranny that the current party regime has generated. The temporary nature of the groupings would not allow any more maintenance of these regular armies, with the help of which they conquer and exploit power. [...]
XIII
[...] Neither in the religious sphere, nor in society, nor in the state, unity is no longer possible since the era of freedom began, when ideas and interests seek to take root in all their diversity. The various social elements cannot be kept together except by tyranny, whether it be tyranny armed with a sword or a moral tyranny that began with theocracy and continues in the form of social conventions. [...]
[...] Everywhere, albeit to varying degrees, parties based on a traditional base have lost the ability to perform the dual function that is the raison d'etre of their existence: to unite the various shades of public opinion, turning them into a single body with a single soul, and balancing one with the other to ensure the regular play of political forces. Instead of producing such results, the system only leads to disorder and paralysis of political forces, if not outright corruption. [...]
[...] The orthodox doctrine of parliamentary government, presupposing a "two great parties" in the House, and under an English-style regime also a naturally homogeneous and solidary ministry collectively responsible to the House, has outlived its time. The "big two parties" no longer exist; in almost all parliamentary countries the chamber now consists of more or less numerous changing groups which defy any permanent classification. The regime distorted in its principle with fatal logic causes all these misfortunes, which have become the very essence of parliamentary life; divided, the House can only have an unstable majority and a government that is constantly fighting for its life; in order to hold out, the ministry is forced to maneuver, concluding agreements right and left; in need of deputies, it is forced to recruit them through endless concessions that would enable representatives to support their electoral clientele; interference by deputies and favoritism are made the rule in the administration; the precarious position of ministers encourages intrigues and coalitions directed against them; since the real object of parliamentary debate is the defeat or support of the ministry, the questions are not considered on the merits, but only depending on the requirements of the moment; barely formed coalitions collapse and lead to frequent ministerial crises; appearing as a result of coalitions, the ministries combine heterogeneous and directly opposite elements, the solidarity of which boils down to the desire to stay together in power as long as possible, and no matter how much changes occur, everything remains in the same position. [...]
Instead of clinging to accountable forms, would it not be better to frankly recognize the new situation and try to adapt the parliamentary regime to this situation? To do this, it is only necessary to extend to parliamentary life the principle that dominates the new social relations, which is the principle that replaced unity with the union. The method of free unions is made necessary in the chamber as well as outside it. Parliamentary relations cannot be anything other than a reflection of relations that exist outside the parliamentary hall. Since Parliament now unites the representatives of various numerous aspirations, its activity must consist in transactions decided by a majority, the composition of which may vary from one question to another, but which in each individual case faithfully reflects the views and feelings of the real, single majority that can be created on the basis of this issue. [...]
[...] Now, with the multiplicity of intersecting problems, the creation of continuity can manifest itself only within the limits of any one big problem or several problems closely related to each other by natural affinity. There will be no inconsistency if, for example, the majority formed in the House on the basis of anti-clerical policies does not show the same unanimity in fixing the income tax, and if the majority that could unite this reform would consist of both supporters and opponents. anti-clerical politics. And why should this question lead the anti-clerical majority to change its permanent attitude towards the clerical question? [...]
[...] The first function of Parliament, which is the raison d'etre of its existence, is to control the executive; how can he do it if the ministers are hidden from his sight? Since the area of national interest entrusted to the legislative and executive powers is one and indivisible, it becomes necessary to unite these two powers; but how can they unite when they are separated from each other?
In any case, if the presence of ministers in the chamber and their direct cooperation with the trustees of the nation is an indispensable condition for the good functioning of a representative regime, ministers cannot be allowed to be a plaything in the hands of the parties and their changing majority; the Chamber must not be allowed to run the show in the area of executive power; to be towed by the ministers who dominate both legislation and administration. [...] The presence of ministers in the chambers and the replacement of their collective responsibility by individual responsibility...would put everything in its place. [...]
The new position of ministers in the legislature thus created will change the character of the people who exercise ministerial functions and their attitude towards the performance of their duties. The head of any ministry will be appointed to his office by virtue of his special competence, and not by virtue of his qualities as a political gladiator or skillful tactician capable of leading a ministerial ship through parliamentary reefs. [...]
[...] As regards the development of legislative measures, the destruction of the system of the Cabinet, which is in a certain way the main entrepreneur of legislation, will make it necessary to develop a system of standing committees. [...] The neutral composition of the standing committees will prevent that usurpation of power which the example of the committees of the National Convention during the French Revolution makes one fear; since they will not represent the ruling party, their decisions will only have the value of consulting experts well informed on the matter. The publicity of their activities will dispel any danger and ensure their work with maximum efficiency: ministers will always be able to freely attend the meetings of the commissions and speak at them. The possibility of attending committee meetings, but without the right to vote, may also be given to all deputies, who will thus be able to more consciously determine their convictions. [...]
The introduction of new methods in parliament will deal the final blow to the political formalism that oppresses democracy; free union and individual responsibility will be established along the entire line of the political order.
It goes without saying that in order for this victory over political formalism to become real, it must first of all be implanted in the minds of the voters. There will no longer be such a legal authority that could issue and enforce decrees dictated by this formalism: 1) permanent parties will be finally dissolved; 2) the struggle for power will be unconditionally forbidden to the parties; 3) voters will prove their civic consciousness. In order to make these assumptions feasible, it is necessary to change the mindset of the voters, it is necessary to uproot from them conventional concepts, prejudices that have taken possession of their minds and make them think that a citizen who blindly follows his party is a “patriot” and that the prostitution of power in favor of party is a good thing. [...]
Arousing reason and conscience in citizens and developing in them a sense of individual responsibility is not enough to ensure free and direct action, without which democracy will remain superficial. It goes without saying that internal freedom cannot be established in public life without external freedom, that the state equally needs free institutions and rights corresponding to these institutions. This formula, which was already once given by Tacitus in his famous saying: quid leges sine morions ? (what are laws without morals?), is not entirely complete, since besides the establishment and mores, besides the legal means for the realization of the goal of a political society and the reason that animates it, there is a third factor, the help of which is no less necessary and which has not been sufficiently appreciated: methods necessary to make the means serve the ends are political methods. They must also conform to the rules and manners; if not, they will distort them like a poorly controlled machine and paralyze and impede the will and best intentions of those who use them. The success of the regime itself, therefore, ultimately depends on the effectiveness of the political methods of the regime, and from this point of view it can be said that everything in government comes down to the question of methods. [...]
AFTERWORD
[...] It has been objected to me that the evil of the party regime is not the only one; there are still other diseases inherent in democracy. Oh sure. But is this an objection? If someone suffers from tuberculosis or gout, is that a reason not to pay serious attention to an eye disease that threatens blindness? I go even further: not only is the party regime not the only evil of democracy, but some of its unfortunate consequences are also found where the system of rigid parties does not prevail. Thus, for example, the prostitution of the general interest in favor of private interests, favoritism, the regular use of the administration to serve the electoral interests of deputies, which is so complained about in France, developed in much milder forms of party regime than the caucus. But is it because of this that the problem of the party regime in a democracy is destroyed or loses its significance?
Other critics really think that this problem is meaningless and that it is not the party regime and the caucus that threaten democracy, but that its enemy is capitalism - something that I do not seem to notice. This critique, it seems to me, comes from an extremely simplistic, but very widespread concept at the present time, which finds the cause of all evils in capitalism, just as it used to be said at every opportunity: "Voltaire is to blame for this." I denounce more than anyone the predatory capitalism, I have as much contempt for plutocracy as anyone else, but I did not allow myself to be hypnotized by the word "capitalism" and I do not think it is enough to hate it or even shoot it. I look around him to see where he draws his strength, what he relies on, and I am forced to state that he is favored, among other things, by the current political order, that in order to achieve his goals, he uses modern political methods, and I say to those who burn with such intense indignation against capitalism: beware, do not forget that economic life flows along the political channel and that, if the latter is defiled, it infects everything that passes through it.
The condemnation of the party regime, which is the central point of my book, shocked conventional wisdom too much not to provoke criticism and protest. Some, considering the party system almost as a phenomenon of a natural order, or as a phenomenon dependent, as it were, on providence, or as a political combination, which precisely creates the superiority and greatness of parliamentarism, were content with ascertaining the blindness or unconsciousness of the author. Others, without denying the evil of the party system, dutifully accepted it as a necessary evil against which they know no means. The resolution of the question I have indicated seems to them doubtful or difficult, if not impossible, to carry out. [...]
The cry of indignation against party orthodoxy, against the tyranny of the present system is heard louder and louder. Major political reforms, which are demanded from various sides, such as proportional representation, a referendum, popular initiative - all of them, if not directly aimed at overthrowing the party yoke, then in one way or another correspond to this task ... All these reforms are heading in the same direction as the solutions I have proposed: towards the disintegration of the permanent parties, towards free groupings in and out of parliament, and towards the questioning of the nation on certain problems. [...]
[...] Free majorities in parliament, with a composition that varies depending on the issues and seemed, when I developed their idea, if not utopian, then chaotic, already exist in the well-organized parliamentarism of Belgium and lead to the creation of "a new concept management". [...] Recently, one could also observe the development of the use and the strengthening of the role of leagues dedicated to the defense of any particular tasks to the detriment of permanent party organizations.
Whether these leagues will supplant the permanent parties - a change that I see as vital to democracy - is not the most important question at the moment. This change can take place only after a rather long evolution, since it necessarily presupposes a democracy in which the political entity will be higher than it is now. [...] Democratic governance, suffocating under a party regime, requires a more flexible, more elastic mode of action. The concept of leagues, inspired by political experience itself, gives the clearest, most complete expression of this practical necessity. [...]
Published in: Political science: a reader / Comp. prof. M.A. Vasilik, Associate Professor M.S. Vershinin. - M.: Gardariki, 2000. 843 p. (Red font in square brackets indicates the beginning of the text on the next page of the printed original of this publication)
BOOK SIXTH CONCLUSION
[...] The Party by its nature is a free association of citizens, which, like any other association, is not subject to external influence, since it is contrary to the general law. State-
Chapter 11. POLITICAL PARTIES, PARTY SYSTEMS, SOCIAL AND POLITICAL MOVEMENTS 527
A government that respects the fundamental rights of citizens ignores parties as such. It has no right to ask the members of any group what their political ideas are and what their political background is. The state has no right either to stamp political opinions or to establish the conditions under which this stamp may be imposed. No free country has attempted such an intervention. Only in Russia has it recently been decided to establish "legal political parties". [...]
[...] The principles or program of the party was a faith clothed, like the church's faith, with the sanction of legitimacy and heterodoxy. Adherence to the party had to be complete, one could not disagree with the party on any of the points of its creed, just as one could not accept individual dogmas of religion by choice. [...] "Conformity" (conformity) with the creed of the party was the only rule of political behavior; like a religious faith, it extended due mercy to all its present and future members. Not a single action of the party, not a single crime committed by it, could either destroy or undermine its real goodness, nor betray it to the opposite party: it was governed by the theological principle of hereditary dignity or unworthiness.
Based on these views, which are so opposed to modern concepts, the system of parties since the advent of democracy no longer had a rational justification in facts. [...] New problems could not divide the minds of entire generations and create on the side of each of the contending parties the same permanent ties as before. At the same time the problems have become infinitely more numerous and heterogeneous: the emancipation of the individual and the differentiation of the social conditions of a more complex civilization have produced everywhere, in ideas, interests and aspirations, diversity in unity and a kind of perpetual movement compared to the stagnation of former times. [...]
The methods by which the system of permanent parties was introduced, as artificial as it was irrational and outdated in principle, must inevitably have had the same character. Since the problems that occupied public opinion were many and varied, it was necessary to adapt problems to certain groupings of people, instead of grouping people according to problems. For this purpose, controversial questions
528 Section IV. POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS
were raised to the level of the system, assembled into universal programs and superimposed on each other; they were shuffled like cards, taking out one or the other, and, if necessary, throwing away those that caused insurmountable differences of opinion. [...]
The penetration of modern forms of popular voting and free association into the party system has far from weakened the shortcomings of the method, but only strengthened them. First of all, they masked the reactionary tendencies of this system. The party system, clothed in the forms of popular vote and association, appeared in the dazzling splendor of democratic principles. Secondly, the extension of elections and associations to extralegal political relations required new efforts from citizens: in addition to numerous elections prescribed by law, which were quite enough to confuse the citizens, there were elections to designate party representatives; in addition to observing the actions of the constitutional representatives of the people, the voters also had to discuss the actions of a large number of party representatives. Citizens could not cope with this task, and the overtightened spring of elected government weakened even more, again and even more convincingly proving that the value of the elective principle is limited. [...]
[...] The association underlying the system of parties also had no definite boundaries, it was, as it were, an "integral" association, similar to the one through which some social reformers have tried and are still trying to organize economic life with the aim of eradicating poverty. I will not argue here whether a universal association is possible, into which man enters with all his economic individuality in order to realize the aims of his material existence; but in a political life based on freedom, a similar association cannot function usefully. Association for the purpose of political action, which is a combination of efforts pursuing a material goal, always presupposes the presence of voluntary and conscious cooperation of its members. [...]
Democratized only in appearance, the party system reduced political relations to a purely outward uniformity. This formalism allowed the weaknesses inherent in democratic governance to be reinforced and diminished its strength.
Chapter 11. POLITICAL PARTIES, PARTY SYSTEMS, SOCIO-POLITICAL MOVEMENTS 529
The first sign of democratic government is the participation in it of a large mass of citizens. However, a large mass is naturally passive. [...] Public consciousness must be active, i.e. militant: a citizen must always be on guard, with a look fixed on the public cause, and ready to give him his time and his efforts without any interest. [...]
It could even be said that of all non-despotic regimes, the democratic regime is the least capable of awakening popular consciousness in the conditions of modern civilization. The latter, by making life more and more complicated, has made private interests, worries and entertainments, both material and non-material, more numerous and intense. In the same way, the citizen, who is first of all a man, is naturally impelled by his egoistic instinct to sacrifice the interests of the state, which seem to him more distant and less completely indifferent to him. [...]
In addition to the economic and social conditions that divert the attention of the citizen from public affairs and lull his vigilance, in democracies there is added the extreme credulity inspired by the possession of unlimited power. As a member of an autocratic people, every citizen, consciously or unconsciously, refers to himself the indestructible strength of the people, which makes all concern for the public good superfluous. He imagines that he can always intervene in time to bring order to affairs if necessary. [...]
While the conditional concept of the party lulled the civic consciousness that should take care of the state, it seized the power of social intimidation, which is the supreme force of democracy. This power, which consists in compelling everyone to do their duty by the force of law, as well as by the force of public opinion, is the regulating force of all government. To exercise power is nothing more than to intimidate, to use moral coercion in order to force oneself to obey. The despot uses it just as well as the republican minister: his material power would be insufficient, since it would be reduced to his
530 Section IV. POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS
muscle strength. The power of intimidation that governs a political society is only complete when it dominates all its members, the rulers as well as the ruled. [...]
A democratic regime and a regime under which the power of social intimidation can best take root are thus equivalent concepts. What has been agreed to be regarded as democratic principles is in reality only the application of the principle of social intimidation in the organization of social order. [...]
If it is said that the people are incapable of self-government, and that, therefore, universal suffrage and parliamentarism are therefore absurd, then I am ready to agree with the first point, but I find that the conclusion drawn from it is completely erroneous: the political function of the masses in democracy is not to manage it; they will probably never be able to. Even if they are vested with all the rights of popular initiative, direct legislation and direct administration, in fact, a small minority will always govern, under democracy as well as under autocracy. Concentration is a natural property of any power; it is, as it were, the law of gravitation of the social order. The ruling minority need not always be under threat. The function of the masses in a democracy is not to govern, but to intimidate the rulers. The real question in this case is whether they are capable of intimidating and to what extent they are capable of it. That the masses in most modern democracies are capable of seriously intimidating rulers is beyond doubt. And it was thanks to this that serious progress could be made in society; whether it is bad or good, but the rulers are forced to reckon with the people's needs and aspirations. The great difficulty of the present political situation is that the still poorly educated and insufficiently conscious masses do not intimidate politicians enough. Thus, widespread mass education and the ability of the masses to express their opinions are less directly important in political life - except, of course, for the more conscious choice of their representatives - and more necessary for the better intimidation of those who govern. on behalf of the people and capitalizes on their lack of insight. These stewards will behave differently if they have to deal with more general
Chapter 11. POLITICAL PARTIES, PARTY SYSTEMS, SOCIAL AND POLITICAL MOVEMENTS
disorganized voters; they will intimidate them more. That is why it is doubly important in a democracy to raise the intellectual and moral level of the masses: along with it, the moral level of those who are called to stand above the masses automatically rises.
What has been said about the universal suffrage is no less true about other principles of the modern political system. All political freedoms: the freedom of the press, the right of assembly, the right of association and the guarantees of individual freedom, on which the universal suffrage rests and which are regarded as guarantees of freedom, are only forms or instruments of the power of social intimidation, the protection of the members of the state against the abuse of force. [...]
However, this power of social intimidation has been undermined on all sides by the political formalism introduced by the party system, and this formalism prevents it from taking root with all its might. [...]
And when the power of social intimidation is reduced only to repression, to popular anger, which must be feared, the power of social intimidation is weakened not only, so to speak, quantitatively, but also qualitatively, and with it the power of the democratic regime also decreases. Indeed, different political regimes differ from each other in the nature of the fear that this power inspires. [...]
[...] Of all the citizens of a democracy, the most fearful are those who wield political power. They depend on the first person they meet; their fate is in the hands of the man in the street. They try to please him by lowering themselves to him; but since they do not know his feelings at all, for fear of miscalculating, they regard them as low as possible and adapt to this. Anyone who is invested with a particle of state power or who aspires to it, thereby already loses human dignity. Human dignity is understood only as loyal obedience, which falls on its face before the autocratic crowd. [...]
The conditional concept of a party only supports and develops this situation. The ritual cult with which this conditional concept surrounds the “majority”, the “party”, gives a quasi-concrete form to that indefinite power of the many, which shakes the imagination of the individual and takes possession of his will. It sets the external
532 Section IV. POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS
criterion of his political behavior. He can be caught at the scene of the crime by the first comer; all eyes are fixed on him, to see whether he is going in the indicated direction; Well, how can he not go on the specified path? Party life, therefore, is only a long school of slavish submission. All the lessons that the citizen learns in it are only lessons of cowardice; it first of all teaches the citizen that there is no salvation for him outside of a permanent party and prepares him for all kinds of renunciations and humility. [...]
[...] The difference between government that is supposed to be free and government that is not, lies in the nature of the driving force of public opinion: in unfree states, public opinion is primarily determined by prejudices and feelings frozen in tradition, while in a democratic mode - if it really is - it is determined primarily by reason, which is affirmed in discussions. But here again the conditional concept of the party appears on the scene, it does not allow discussion. Not because it destroys the material freedom of discussion, but because it stifles it by suppressing moral freedom. [...]
[...] Equality of rights cannot compensate for the natural inequality of minds and characters. On the other hand, the authority of leaders cannot directly and directly affect people who are called to political equality. In order not to go astray, therefore, democracy needs leaders, but they can only appear and perform their functions if, in this leveled society, there is a natural selection of the leading group. How to create more favorable conditions for the development of this selective element in public life? This is one of the fundamental problems of democracy. [...]
[...] Associated with the party, the permanent organization turns from a means into an end to which everything ultimately obeys: principles, personal convictions, the dictates of public and even private morality. The more perfect the organization, the more it demoralizes the party
Chapter 11. POLITICAL PARTIES, PARTY SYSTEMS, SOCIAL AND POLITICAL MOVEMENTS 533
and belittles public life. But on the other hand, in order to support themselves, the parties are more and more in need of a strong organization, which alone can mask the emptiness of the conventionality on which they rely. Thus a vicious circle is created. How to get out of it? Shouldn't the organization of parties be abandoned? In no case.
The increasing complexity of social life has made more necessary than ever the unification of individual efforts. The development of political life, calling on each citizen to participate in government, forces him, in order to fulfill his civic duty, to enter into an agreement with his fellow citizens. In a word, the realization by each of his own goals in society and in the state presupposes cooperation, which is impossible without organization. Groupings of citizens for political purposes, which are called parties, are necessary wherever citizens have the right and duty to express their opinions and act; but the party must cease to be an instrument of tyranny and corruption. [...]
Is it not now clear enough the resolution which the problem of parties requires? Does it not consist in abandoning the practice of inert parties, permanent parties that have power as their ultimate goal, and in restoring and preserving the true character of the parties as groups of citizens specially organized to carry out certain political demands? Such a solution of the question would free the parties from goals that have only a temporary and accidental political significance, and would restore that function of theirs, which is the permanent meaning of their existence. The Party, as a universal entrepreneur, dealing with the solution of many and varied problems, present and future, would give way to special organizations limited to some private objects. It would cease to be an amalgam of groups and individuals united by an alleged agreement, and would turn into an association, the homogeneity of which would be ensured by its common goal. A party holding its members as if in a vice because they entered it would give way to groupings that would freely organize and reorganize according to changing
534 Section IV. POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS
problems of life and the resulting changes in public opinion. Citizens, dispersing on one issue, would walk together on another issue.
The change in the method of political action that would take place on this basis would fundamentally renew the functioning of democratic governance. The application of the new method would begin by identifying the root cause of the corruption and tyranny that the current party regime has generated. The temporary nature of the groupings would not allow any more maintenance of these regular armies, with the help of which they conquer and exploit power. [...]
[...] Neither in the religious sphere, nor in society, nor in the state, unity is no longer possible since the era of freedom began, when ideas and interests seek to take root in all their diversity. The various social elements cannot be kept together except by tyranny, whether it be tyranny armed with a sword or a moral tyranny that began with theocracy and continues in the form of social conventions. [...]
[...] Everywhere, albeit to varying degrees, parties based on a traditional base have lost the ability to perform the dual function that is the raison d'etre of their existence: to unite the various shades of public opinion, turning them into a single body with a single soul, and balancing one with the other to ensure the regular play of political forces. Instead of producing such results, the system only leads to disorder and paralysis of political forces, if not outright corruption. [...]
[...] The orthodox doctrine of parliamentary government, presupposing a "two great parties" in the House, and under an English-style regime also a naturally homogeneous and solidary ministry collectively responsible to the House, has outlived its time. The "big two parties" no longer exist; in almost all parliamentary countries the chamber now consists of more or less numerous changing groups which defy any permanent classification. Distorted in its principle regime with
Chapter 11. POLITICAL PARTIES, PARTY SYSTEMS, SOCIO-POLITICAL MOVEMENTS
causes all these misfortunes, which have become the very essence of parliamentary life, with fatal logic; divided, the House can only have an unstable majority and a government that is constantly fighting for its life; in order to hold out, the ministry is forced to maneuver, concluding agreements right and left; in need of deputies, it is forced to recruit them through endless concessions that would enable representatives to support their electoral clientele; interference by deputies and favoritism are made the rule in the administration; the precarious position of ministers encourages intrigues and coalitions directed against them; since the real object of parliamentary debate is the defeat or support of the ministry, the questions are not considered on the merits, but only depending on the requirements of the moment; barely formed coalitions collapse and lead to frequent ministerial crises; appearing as a result of coalitions, the ministries combine heterogeneous and directly opposite elements, the solidarity of which boils down to the desire to stay together in power as long as possible, and no matter how much changes occur, everything remains in the same position. [...]
Instead of clinging to accountable forms, would it not be better to frankly recognize the new situation and try to adapt the parliamentary regime to this situation? To do this, it is only necessary to extend to parliamentary life the principle that dominates the new social relations, which is the principle that replaced unity with the union. The method of free unions is made necessary in the chamber as well as outside it. Parliamentary relations cannot be anything other than a reflection of relations that exist outside the parliamentary hall. Since Parliament now unites the representatives of various numerous aspirations, its activity must consist in transactions decided by a majority, the composition of which may vary from one question to another, but which in each individual case faithfully reflects the views and feelings of the real, single majority that can be created on the basis of this issue. [...]
[...] Now, with the multiplicity of intersecting problems, the creation of continuity can manifest itself only within the limits of any one big problem or several problems closely related to each other by natural affinity. There will be no inconsistency if, for example, the majority formed in the House on
536 Section IV. POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS
on the basis of anti-clerical politics, would not show the same unanimity in establishing an income tax, and if the majority that could unite this reform would consist of both supporters and opponents of anti-clerical policies. And why should this question lead the anti-clerical majority to change its permanent attitude towards the clerical question? [...]
[...] The first function of Parliament, which is the raison d'etre of its existence, is to control the executive; how can he do it if the ministers are hidden from his sight? Since the area of national interest entrusted to the legislative and executive powers is one and indivisible, it becomes necessary to unite these two powers; but how can they unite when they are separated from each other?
In any case, if the presence of ministers in the chamber and their direct cooperation with the trustees of the nation is an indispensable condition for the good functioning of a representative regime, ministers cannot be allowed to be a plaything in the hands of the parties and their changing majority; the Chamber must not be allowed to run the show in the area of executive power; to be towed by the ministers who dominate both legislation and administration. [...] The presence of ministers in the chambers and the replacement of their collective responsibility by individual responsibility...would put everything in its place. [...]
The new position of ministers in the legislature thus created will change the character of the people who exercise ministerial functions and their attitude towards the performance of their duties. The head of any ministry will be appointed to his office by virtue of his special competence, and not by virtue of his qualities as a political gladiator or skillful tactician capable of leading a ministerial ship through parliamentary reefs. [...]
[...] As regards the development of legislative measures, the destruction of the system of the Cabinet, which is in a certain way the main entrepreneur of legislation, will make it necessary to develop a system of standing committees. [...] The neutral composition of the standing committees will prevent that usurpation of power which the example of the committees of the National Convention during the French Revolution makes one fear; since they will not represent the ruling party, their decisions will only have the value of consulting experts well informed on the matter. Publicity
Chapter 1 1. POLITICAL PARTIES, PARTY SYSTEMS, SOCIAL AND POLITICAL MOVEMENTS 537
their activities will dissipate any danger and ensure their work with maximum efficiency: ministers will always be able to freely attend the meetings of the commissions and speak at them. The possibility of attending committee meetings, but without the right to vote, may also be given to all deputies, who will thus be able to more consciously determine their convictions. [...]
The introduction of new methods in parliament will deal the final blow to the political formalism that oppresses democracy; free union and individual responsibility will be established along the entire line of the political order.
It goes without saying that in order for this victory over political formalism to become real, it must first of all be implanted in the minds of the voters. There will no longer be such a legal authority that could issue and enforce decrees dictated by this formalism: 1) permanent parties will be finally dissolved; 2) the struggle for power will be unconditionally forbidden to the parties; 3) voters will prove their civic consciousness. In order to make these assumptions feasible, it is necessary to change the mindset of the voters, it is necessary to uproot from them conventional concepts, prejudices that have taken possession of their minds and make them think that a citizen who blindly follows his party is a “patriot” and that the prostitution of power in favor of party is a good thing. [...]
Arousing reason and conscience in citizens and developing in them a sense of individual responsibility is not enough to ensure free and direct action, without which democracy will remain superficial. It goes without saying that internal freedom cannot be established in public life without external freedom, that the state equally needs free institutions and rights corresponding to these institutions. This formula, which was already once given by Tacitus in his famous saying: quid leges sine morions? (what are laws without morals?), is not entirely complete, since besides the establishment and mores, besides the legal means for the realization of the goal of a political society and the reason that animates it, there is a third factor, the help of which is no less necessary and which has not been sufficiently appreciated: methods necessary to make the means serve the ends are political methods. They are
538 Section IV. POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS
must also conform to regulations and mores; if not, they will distort them like a poorly controlled machine and paralyze and impede the will and best intentions of those who use them. The success of the regime itself, therefore, ultimately depends on the effectiveness of the political methods of the regime, and from this point of view it can be said that everything in government comes down to the question of methods. [...]
AFTERWORD
[...] It has been objected to me that the evil of the party regime is not the only one; there are still other diseases inherent in democracy. Oh sure. But is this an objection? If someone suffers from tuberculosis or gout, is that a reason not to pay serious attention to an eye disease that threatens blindness? I go even further: not only is the party regime not the only evil of democracy, but some of its unfortunate consequences are also found where the system of rigid parties does not prevail. Thus, for example, the prostitution of the general interest in favor of private interests, favoritism, the regular use of the administration to serve the electoral interests of deputies, which is so complained about in France, developed in much milder forms of party regime than the caucus. But is it because of this that the problem of the party regime in a democracy is destroyed or loses its significance?
Other critics really think that this problem is meaningless and that it is not the party regime and the caucus that threaten democracy, but that its enemy is capitalism - something that I do not seem to notice. This critique, it seems to me, comes from an extremely simplistic, but very widespread concept at the present time, which finds the cause of all evils in capitalism, just as it used to be said at every opportunity: "Voltaire is to blame for this." I denounce more than anyone the predatory capitalism, I have as much contempt for plutocracy as anyone else, but I did not allow myself to be hypnotized by the word "capitalism" and I do not think it is enough to hate it or even shoot it. I look around him to see where he draws his strength, what he relies on, and I am forced to state that he is favored, among other things, by the current political order, that in order to achieve his goals, he uses modern political methods, and I say to those who burn with such strong indignation against capitalism: look, do not forget that economic life flows along political
Chapter 11. POLITICAL PARTIES, PARTY SYSTEMS, SOCIAL AND POLITICAL MOVEMENTS 539
channel and that if the latter is defiled, then it infects everything that passes through it.
The condemnation of the party regime, which is the central point of my book, shocked conventional wisdom too much not to provoke criticism and protest. Some, considering the party system almost as a phenomenon of a natural order, or as a phenomenon dependent, as it were, on providence, or as a political combination, which precisely creates the superiority and greatness of parliamentarism, were content with ascertaining the blindness or unconsciousness of the author. Others, without denying the evil of the party system, dutifully accepted it as a necessary evil against which they know no means. The resolution of the question I have indicated seems to them doubtful or difficult, if not impossible, to carry out. [...]
The cry of indignation against party orthodoxy, against the tyranny of the present system is heard louder and louder. Major political reforms, which are demanded from various sides, such as proportional representation, a referendum, popular initiative - all of them, if not directly aimed at overthrowing the party yoke, then in one way or another correspond to this task ... All these reforms are heading in the same direction as the solutions I have proposed: towards the disintegration of the permanent parties, towards free groupings in and out of parliament, and towards the questioning of the nation on certain problems. [...]
[...] Free majorities in parliament, with a composition that varies depending on the issues and seemed, when I developed their idea, if not utopian, then chaotic, already exist in the well-organized parliamentarism of Belgium and lead to the creation of "a new concept management". [...] Recently, one could also observe the development of the use and the strengthening of the role of leagues dedicated to the defense of any particular tasks to the detriment of permanent party organizations.
Whether these leagues will supplant the permanent parties - a change that I see as vital to democracy - is not the most important question at the moment. This change can take place only after a rather long evolution, since it necessarily presupposes a democracy in which the political entity will be higher than it is now. [...] Democratic governance, suffocating under a party regime, requires a more flexible, more elastic mode of action. The concept of leagues, inspired by the
540 Section IV. POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS
political experience, gives the clearest, most complete expression of this practical necessity. [...]
Printed by: Ostrogorsky M. Democracy and political parties: In 2 t. M., 1930. T. 2. United States of America. pp. 276-290, 293, 295, 296, 298-299, 303, 308, 314, 324, 343-346, 350-351, 354-357,365-368.
