CONCEPTUALIZATION OF MODERN FORMS OF DEMOCRACY
Abstract
The author researched the concepts of democracy relevant in our time – parliamentary, presidential, delegative, representative, participatory, direct, deliberative, electronic, social, pluralistic, elitist and other models of democracy. On the basis of the conducted analysis, two main functions, which are assigned to citizens as a source of modern democracy, are defined. It's about delegation and participation. Therefore, there are grounds to assert that the development of democracy in terms of political regime, ideology and a set of governance principles took place in the following logical sequence: direct democracy – representative or delegative democracy – participatory democracy. The author defines an approach that considers the issue of conceptualizing modern models, concepts and forms of democracy, which is a combination of its dynamic and static components. In the first case, it refers to the processes that are called democratic (elections, change of elites, political communication, separation of powers, decentralization, etc.) and the subjects that are identified with the sources of democracy (people, civil society, instruments of public participation, etc.). All of these components in their content ensure the realization of people's power in the volumes and forms that meet the needs of the state and its leadership. It is proposed to consider national models of democracy as a modern measure of democratic forms. Based on current political and legal practices, we singled out a group of countries of liberal democracy (USA, Great Britain, Canada), parliamentary democracy (Germany, France, Sweden), presidential democracy (USA, Brazil, Latin American countries), consensus democracy (Switzerland, Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark), corporate democracy (Scandinavian countries). It is stated that each state of a stable or transitional democracy forms its own set of democratic institutions, fills them with real content, provides them with appropriate tools, and legitimizes them through electoral and legislative procedures. At the same time, it is noted that the constitutional enshrinement of the democratic nature of a state does not mean that it must comply with this principle.
References
Shugart M., Carey J. Presidents and Assemblies. Constitutional Design and Electoral Dynamics. Cambridge University
Press, 2004. 315 p.
Madison J.Jr. The Same Subject Continued. The Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection. The
Federalist Papers. 1787. № 10. P. 83.
Hobolt S. Direct democracy and European integration. Journal of European Public Policy. 2006. Vol. 13. Issue 1. P. 153–166.
Dalton R.J., Bürklin W., Drummond A. Public opinion and direct democracy. Journal of Democracy. 2001. Vol. 12. № 4.
P. 141–153.
Elster J. (Ed.). Deliberative Democracy (Cambridge Studies in the Theory of Democracy). Series Number 1. Cambridge
University Press. 1998. 296 p.
Fishkin J.S. When the People Speak. Deliberative Democracy and Public Consultation. Oxford University Press, 2011.
p.
Поппер К. Відкрите суспільство та його вороги. Київ : Основи, 1994. 444 с. URL: https://shron1.chtyvo.org.ua/
Popper_Karl/Vidkryte_suspilstvo_ta_ioho_ vorohy_Tom_1.pdf
Митко А. Інформаційна демократія: реалії та виклики часу. Луцьк : Вежа-друк, 2014. 400 с.
Литвин В. Концепт ефективної демократії у сучасній порівняльній політології: дефініція, операціоналізація та
наслідки. Духовність. Культура. Наука : матеріали міжнародної наукової конференції. Львів : ЛНУ ім. Івана Франка,
URL: https://filos.lnu.edu.ua/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/effect.dem_.pdf
Наумкіна С., Жаровцева Т. Основні підходи до сучасного виміру демократії. Актуальні проблеми політики. 2010.
№ 39. С. 17–25.
Україна тимчасово відступає від Конвенції з прав людини – Рада Європи. Укрінформ. 2024. URL: https://www.
ukrinform.ua/rubric-society/3857954-ukraina-timcasovo-vidstupae-vid-konvencii-z-prav-ludini.html