CC BY
93
1.5. К СОВРЕМЕННОМУ ПОНЯТИЮ «ПОЛИТИЧЕСКОГО РЕЖИМА» ЧЕРЕЗ ПРИЗМУ «ГОСУДАРСТВ-ИЗГОЕВ»
Горшков Алексей Владиславович, аспирант ННГУ им. Н. И. Лобачевского. Заместитель генерального директора ООО «Выправы».
tel.89023030661@gmail.com
Аннотация: статья посвящена исследованию и критике современного понятия «политический режим» с учётом существования «государств-изгоев». Результатом стал вывод автора о том, что современный подход к дефиниции «политический режим» так называемый социологический подход, является слишком узким. Автор предлагает использовать опыт советской науки теории государства и права и диалектико-материалистический метод.
Ключевые слова: государства-изгои, государства,
вызывающие озабоченность, государства-негодяи, Клинтон, Буш, Щаранский, Каддафи, Асад, КНДР, Иран, Ирак, Белоруссия, Куба, Венесуэлла, Зимбабве, Ливия, Сирия.
TOWARDS MODERN CONCEPTION «POLITICAL REGIME» TAKING INTO ACCOUNT «PARIAH STATES»
Gorshkov Alexey Vladislavovich, graduate student of State Educational Institution of Higher Professional Training Lobachevsky State University of Nizhni Novgorod. Deputy General Director Vypravy llc
tel.89023030661@gmail.com
Annotation: the article is devoted to the study and criticism of the modern notion of «political regime» with a view of the existence of «rogue States». The aesslt was Oth acfcluuiof ao ate author that the modern approach to the definition of «political regime», the so-called sociological approach is too narrow. The author offers to use the experience of Soviet science, the theory of state and law and the dialectical-materialist method.
Keywords: rogue states, states of concern, State Scoundrels, Clinton, Bush,Sharansky, Gaddafi, Assad, North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Belarus, Cuba,Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Libya, Syria.
Everything is changing with the course of time. Stars appear and disappear, different civilizations grow and die, yesterday's toddler is now a student. Slavery does not exist in our society now, though just one and half century ago it was hard to imagine in Russia...
It is evident, that theoretic definitions are also being changed and during the development of a conception it should progress in the sense of gnoseology.
However, in many cases, if an occurrence have ideological component it is efficient for theory because it is ideally adapted to it.
For scientific men any category including “political regime” shows its essence by means of complex analysis of problems which are connected with it.
Such an analysis expresses philosophical and sociological content of a category, showing its methodological meaning in learning of political developments.
Nowadays, it is evident that the investigation of category «political regime» is only etimologo-semantical analysis. This fact leads to empiricism and brought science to a nonplus.
After the fall dawn of the Soviet Union and resignation of corresponding ideology Native political-legal ideas absorbed conceptions which having been developed by the West at struggle with socialism and with dialectical materialism as philosophical doctrine in general during mid-to-late XX century.
As a result, Russian academic science adapted a positivistic conception of «political regime», having forgotten about a high potential of native interpretation of this concept.
The fight between two worlds of science
It is widely known, that the term «political regime» was used for the first time by I.D. Levin during the analysis of fascist dictatorship1. Being that the mechanism of this dictatorship was determined in practice, but not juridically and couldn't be described in traditional terms of juridical science Levinbrought the term «political regime» to Soviet constitutional law. In the context of what is named «type of state» the contradiction is evident: from the one side fascism is a dictatorship of high finance and from the other sideits bourgeois social base . In context of what is named «form of government» there are also some problems because initially fascist dictatorship was carried out with the help of old constitutional forms, but obviously terroristic character didnot associate with traditional bourgeois democracy. To Levin's opinion these differences could be adjust with the help of the term «political regime». His definition of the term as a way to do state authority was based solely on the definition of fascism which was given by G. Dimitrov in ХIII Plenum of the Executive Committee of the Communist International. Dimitrov's definition was also repeated in VII Congress of the Communist International in 19353, where fascist dictatorship was defined as «open terroristic dictatorship for the most reactionary, chauvinistic and imperialistic elements of financial capital»4. Due to the classification I. D. Levin separated bourgeois-democratic and authoritarian (fascist) regimes. Emphatically, accordingly to Marxism, a socialist state could have only dictatorship of the working class.
A famous V. I. Lenin's utterance proves the reasonableness of the classification: «Practically,
bourgeoisie in all countries develops two systems of government, two methods of controlling needed for upholding its interests. Sometimes these methods alternate, sometimes they interweave in different combinations. The first method is a method of violence, method of resignation any concession for the movement of workers, method of supporting old institutions, method of irreconcilable negation of reforms... The second method -is a method of «liberalism», which presupposes the development of political rights, reforms etc5.»
Besides there was a necessity of holding the fort in connection with absolutization of violent character of the working class dictatorship by bourgeois critics: «.in this connection there is a necessity of a political and juridical analysis of essence and forms of violence in the period of
1 Левин И. Д. Современная буржуазная наука государственного права. М., 1960. С. 357.
2 Тольятти Пальмиро. Лекции о фашизме. М., 1974. С. 11-15.
3 Пономарев М.В. Смирнова С.Ю. Новая и новейшая история стран Европы и Америки.т. 3. М., 2000. С. 171-173.
4 VII Конгресс Коммунистичсекого Интернационала и борьба против фашизма и войны. (Сборник документов). М., 1975. С. 121-122.
5 Ленин В. И. ПСС. т. 20. М., 1967. С. 67.
Бизнес в законе
3’2012
building of socialism. Violence could be democratic or could have repressive forms»6.
At the same time the West developed its own understanding of «political regime». It would be enough to mention the work of VII Congress of the International Political Science Association (Brussels, 1967) which was just completely dedicated to problems of political regime typology. Till sixties XX century Weber's classification was mostly used. Weber divided them into democratic and undemocratic. In early sixties using R. Dahl's conclusions about multipolarity of authority American politolog Z. Bzhezinsky7 separated a totalitarian regime on the base of politological analysis of socialistic country's political system.
It is accepted that in scientific literature there are two ways of understanding of political regimes. The first connects with politico-institutional approach (K.Baxter, A. V. Starodubsky, G. N. Manov, H. Laswell, F. Riggs, R. Baker), the second connects with sociological approach (J. L. Kermon, F. M. Burlatsky, A. A. Galkin).
It should be note that the authors of this work do not hesitate to define what approach is more objective and which one corresponds to modern ideas about state structure because of narrowness of the first one, which does not include «political regime» in state functioning. But in the process of analysis of political regime, class essence of State should be considered as a source of political authority.
«Back to Kant»
Nowadays, it is traditional to include political regime in the concept «form of State» together with form of government and form of state structure. However, political regime logically should be included in the concept «contain of State». But the last one is slightly developed and in practice could be eliminated or replaced by the concept «essence of state». Kalensky V. G. turned mind to this case. He wrote: «although the category of «political regime» is closely connected with the category «form of State», however it is not the part of this form. It is meant for substantial analysis of several important, inner aspects of political development and in this meaning the category is a part of the concept «contain of State».
This fact wears down the affectation which is used by the authors who tries to reduce form of State to political regime8.In this case, obviously, Kalensky V. G. is not an explorer, but he uses his predecessors' experience. Immanuel Kant marked that «forms of State are only a littera of original legislation in civil state. But a spirit of an original treaty imposes the authority an obligation to choose methods of government accordingly the idea of the original treaty and if it could not be accomplished at once, to change this government gradually and consistently so that it would be in agreement accordingly it's effect with merely rightful system»9. In other words Kant did not see political regime as a part of state form and in this context Otto Liebmann's slogan «Back to Kant»” is greatly relevant.
6 Соболев А. О социалистической государственности// Коммунист. 1982. № 10. С. 103.
7 КФридрих, 3. Бжезинский «Тоталитарная диктатура и автократия» // Тоталитаризм: Что это такое? (Исслед. зарубеж. политиков). М.: ИНИОН. 1993. Ч. 2. С. 79-91.
8 Политические системы современности (Очерки). М. 1978. С 39.
9 Кант И. Метафизика нравов в двух частях // Кант И. Критика
практического разума. СПб. 1995. С. 378.
Amicus Plato, sedmagis arnica Veritas10
By «contain of State» we mean a collectivity of state object-matters hunted by dominant class (essence of state) and methods of attaining these objects (political regime).
The main heuristic value of such a consideration of political regime is concluded in that understanding a genuine goal of State is impossible without understanding methods of its achievement.
If «political regime» is considered as a concept connected with the idea about State existence as a spokesman for dominant class, using the term «democratic political regime» referring to USA in the period of aggression upon Iraq with a view to take control under resourcesof this country, is absolutely impossible.
Besides, In March, 18th, 2011 intervention in Libya was
11
started with UN sanction. Intervention was supposed to be against «totalitarian political regime» which obliterates residents going to a peaceful political meeting. It is wide open to criticism because after comparison of realization of State contain facts do not permit to draw a conclusion
about its undemocratic character. Thus, even simple
12
analysis of index of human potential development reveals the fact that countries which are considered by USA and founders of bourgeois term «political regime» to be totalitarian states and moreover, rogue states 3 are in advance from Russia Federation and many other states which is known to be «democratic regime». Thus, Russia takes 71stplace from 182 in this rating based on the results of 2009. While regimes named «totalitarian» and even «tyrannical» have guaranteed for the most of working people the following results: Cuba - 51 place, Great Socialist People's Libyan Jamahiriya - 55 place, Venezuela - 58 place and even Byelorussia which is included in the list of tyrannical regimes by USA National Security Strategy 200614 takes 68 place. However social and economic achievements of states are not an absolute measure in the context of dependence of economics on a great number of external factors. For giving a characteristic of one or another political regime institutional analysis of authorities is needed as well as affecting methods, but only in direct connection with goals defined by dominant class.
Thus, shahi Iran was not considered by USA to be a tyrannical (or even totalitarian!) regime. Vice versa until Iran oil was belonged to shah and American, French, English companies Mohammad RezaShah Pahlavi with his mate had an opportunity to have a rest in West Germany and to buy 25% of Krupp's concern. During this time students protesting against shah tyranny in Iran were being dreadfully beatten in Hamburg streets. And in June, 2nd,1967, in West Berlin during anti-Shah demonstration the police of «democratic political regime» Federal Republic of Germany shoutedBennoOhnesorg, student -
10 Мне дорог Платон, но истина еще дороже; правда превыше всего (лат.), приписывается Аристотелю.
1 http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2011/sc10200.doc.htm#Resolution (дата обращения: 06.03.2011).
2 Index of human potential development -average consolidated figure of state achievements in the sphere of human development accordingly three main dimensions: health, education and income. Index is developed and published in UN in annual report about human potential development from 1990 year.
13 http://merln.ndu.edu/whitepapers/USNSS-Russian.pdf (дата обращения: 16.12.2012).
14http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/nsc/nss/2006/ (дата обращения: 07.01.2011).
theology15. But when revolution against Shah happened in Iran in 1979 and nationalization of mineral wealth was realized - Islamic Republic of Iran became the main threat source in the world. And today it remains this status accordingly USA National Security Strategy 201016. There are a lot of examples of such «casuses» from authoritarian Iraq and Yugoslavia to «Evil Empire» USSR.
Z. Brzezinski's classification of political regimes which is classical during the analysis leads to the fact that no one modern state could be qualified as «democratic political regime».
In this connection conjunctural character of west bourgeois term «political regime» is evident.
It is no wonder that when authors tackle subproblems, such as classification of today political regimes, without preliminary solution of a question about philosophical meaning of the term «political regime» at the end they face the question and have to accept the absence of significant and irreproachable classification of political regimes.
We are sure that problems of gnoseological status of the term «political regime» lie in investigation of this occurrence. It is conducted not so much in philosophical aspect as in juridical science. It is no mere chance that Chirikin V. E. thinks that the term «political regime»” has no analogues in philosophy17.
The problem of modern researchers connected with the fact that the question about character and status of «political regime» is considered not only in complex analysis of state problems but is replaced by consideration of interdependent parts of political regime.
Referring to colossal inheritance of Soviet science would be a forward step for modern science of this state. Soviet science was based on dialectical materialism and even if it is not fashionable today, but it helps to investigate the problem fundamentally.
Список литературы:
1. Кант И. Метафизика нравов в двух частях // Кант И. Критика практического разума. СПб. 1995.
2. Левин И. Д. Современная буржуазная наука государственного права. М., 1960.
3. Ленин В. И. ПСС. т. 20. М., 1967.
4. Майнхоф У. От протеста к сопротивлению. Все говорят о погоде. М. 2004.
5. Тольятти Пальмиро. Лекции о фашизме. М., 1974.
6. Пономарев М.В. Смирнова С.Ю. Новая и новейшая история стран Европы и Америки. т. 3. М., 2000.
7. Соболев А. О социалистической государственности// Коммунист. 1982. № 10.
8. Чиркин В. Е. Формы социалистического государства. М. 1973.
9. Политические системы современности (Очерки). М. 1978.
10. VII Конгресс Коммунистического Интернационала и
борьба против фашизма и войны. (Сборник
документов). М., 1975.
11. Фридрих К., Бжезинский 3. «Тоталитарная диктатура и автократия» // Тоталитаризм: Что это такое? (Исслед. зарубеж. политиков). М.: ИНИОН. 1993. Ч. 2.
12. http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2011/sc10200.doc.htm #Resolution (дата обращения: 06.03.2011).
13. http://merln.ndu.edu/whitepapers/USNSS-Russian.pdf (дата обращения: 16.12.2012).
14. http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/nsc/nss/2006/ (дата обращения: 07.01.2011).
15. http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/nati onal_security_strategy.pdf (дата обращения: 06.01.2011).
Reference list:
1. Kant I. The metaphysics of morals in two parts / / Kant And. The critique of practical reason. St. Petersburg. 1995.
2. Levin I. D. The modern bourgeois science of state law. M., 1960.
3. Lenin V. I. PSS. v. 20. M., 1967.
4. Meinhof U. From protest to resistance. Everyone talks about the weather. M. 2004.
РЕЦЕНЗИЯ
Статья Горшкова А. В. посвящена исследованию и критике современного понятия «политический режим» с учётом существования концепции «государств-изгоев».
Избранная автором тема является актуальной в связи с большим значением понятия «политический режим» в современной теории государства и права. Особенно важно, что данная дефиниция позволяет классифицировать политические режимы разных стран. Теория и политическая практика концепции «государств-изгоев» основана в первую очередь на анализе политического режима таких стран.
С практической точки зрения это привело к появлению концепции «государств-изгоев», то есть таких государств, которые, по мнению разработчиков концепции, не имеет прав на существование в современном мире.
Автор заявляет, что при использовании социологического подхода утрачивается возможность объективного анализа проявлений политического режима, создаются предпосылки для использования двойных стандартов при применении дефиниции «политический режим».
Избранная тематика представляет научный интерес. Статья написана на английском языке, что существенно расширяет границы её научного применения и позволяет рассчитывать на обсуждение иностранными специалистами.
Автор предлагает обратиться к богатому опыту советской науки теории государства и права, основанной на диалектикоматериалистическом методе, и при анализе политического режима исследовать сущность государства, наряду с формой.
Суждения, изложенные в статье, в должной мере аргументированы.
Научная статья Горшкова А. В. «Towards modern conception «political regime» taking into account «pariah states» соответствует всем требованиям, предъявляемым к работам такого рода. Данная статья может быть рекомендована к публикации.
К.ю.н., доцент
В. И. Цыганов
15Майнхоф У. От протеста к сопротивлению. Все говорят о погоде. М. 2004. С. 153-158.
16Ийр:/Лллллл/. whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/national_security_s trategy.pdf (дата обращения: 06.01.2011).
17Чиркин В. Е. Формы социалистического государства. М. 1973. С. 14.
