Constitutional reforms in foreign countries on the example of Israel

The major principles of the democratic legal state - legitimacy of public authorities, mutual liability of the state and a person, division of the powers, the new, higher level of legality, unity of natural and positive law and connected with it tendency of the rapprochement of the law and morality - render the great influence on its organization and functioning. The democratic state is inherent to the definite organization of power. Not suppression by power of the individual both separate personality, and the people but their participation in organization of power in the legal state. A personality, as well as association of individuals, people as a whole act not only as objects of the power, but as subjects of it and participate in its realization in different forms, including elections and public representation, referendum, public initiative, petitions and institute of the constitutional complaint, assemblies and meetings of the people, institutes of public and jurors and others. Exactly democracy is the basis of the legal state and is one of the major features of the democratic state.

Thus, depending on the forms of the participation of people in realization of the state power there should be differentiated the direct democracy and the representative democracy. The direct democracy is when the people but not the representatives, realizes the most important state functions of legislation and management, in particular, by means of referendum.

For the representative democracy, it is characteristic participation of people in realization of the most important function of legislation and management, but through their own representatives. Moreover public representation is the dominant organizing form of the democratic legal state that, however, does not mean the merging of the state power and people. The question is in transfer by people by means of free elections of the right to the legislative power to the parliament at preservation supervision after activity of the parliament and other forms of realization of the state power. Therefore the interference of the institute of public representation is interference of public sovereignty, fullness of the power of people and his supremacy. The renovation of the representative system from the point of view of its organizing forms, and personal composition of the public representatives is the right of the people, realized by free elections.

In other words, the main way of expression of will of people and maintenance of the rights is the free elections, which individualized reflex is the uniform equal and direct electoral right at suffrage. This right at equal measure is actual not only for free elections as the forms of supreme direct expression of the power of people, but for referendum, fixed directly in the Constitution.

Undoubtedly the above mentioned idea about methodology of “legal cognition” does not mean the refusal of account of realities of social realities. Such refusal in the given case is particularly dangerous since fraught by turning of the science into the scholastic system of notions: actually the uniform equal and direct electoral right at suffrage creates the formal possibility for will forming of people and its identical expression. It is capable to reveal individual interests and atomized will of each citizen as the co member of the state, but it is incapable to raise them to the principle of common wealth fare, forming the base and purpose of activity of democratically organized and democratically acting state, in which there exists authentic public representation, rather then assembly of fiduciary salesmen of different supreme groups with their self-interest, which has no right to act on behalf of people and has no right to be referred to representation.

The experience of state-legal development convinces that the strong public representation is not the result of electoral right, but is the result of the policy whose subjects are the political parties. Exactly political parties, revealing whole depth of social, political and other interest, ideals, contradictions, prejudices, work out the way of peaceful social transformations and serve the condition of non revolutionary, but evolutionary development of the society. This is the way not only to forming of the political culture of people, but its conversion in the united state civil nation, consciously creating public representation and vigilantly controlling it.

Therefore freedom of creation and activity political parties has got the constitutional recognition for all states pretending the democracy; otherwise there should be inevitably either creation of secret societies, withstanding the state and threatening the fundamentals of the statehood or conversion of the parliament in the assembly of the representatives of separate groups of the population, united by economic, national and other interests and led by selfish interests, rather then the common wealth fare. As for the state, loss by it its democratic nature or autorotation, when the body of public representation changes in the simple appurtenance of the executive power, formed and fully controlled by it, or "privatization" of this or that powerful in economic regard grouping is inevitable that is particularly proved by our own experience of 1990.

This can explain speeches against multiparty membership and political pluralism though in fact the critics are most often directed not against the pluralistic democracy, but against the surrogate multiparty memberships! In fact the so-called political parties, in the great number appeared on the border of 1980-1990actually acted as lobby groupings, united by selfish economic interest, actively promoted robbing public wealth, created by labour of many generations, and shamelessly traded the public welfare under the slogan of democracy. Under threat there were put the unity and integrity of the Russian state, and small self-interest (not on scale and level of influence of the power, but in its correlation with the good of the society) became the determining vector of the state activity [1].

Therefore appeared the farfetched dilemma: either "closing" the political parties and refusal of the constitutional principles of the pluralistic democracy with the further inevitable development antisocial trend, threatening the fundamentals of the statehood, or opening of the space for development of political parties and participation in them of the most broad masses of people, united by common interest, realized in the public representation, as it is stipulated ion the Fundamental Law.

The Constitution t of Russia of 1993 on the account with experience of the own history of the soviet stage of its development and perceiving general democratic civilized standards, stipulated the principles of the pluralistic democracy based on multiparty membership and ideological variety. The fact is that the legal form established by it needs real political filling, formed by the time and activity of people, which is only capable to saturate it with the social contents. With the time and activity of people, filled with the civil feeling and responsibility for the present and the future of the country!

Thus, we should not make the wide-spread methodological mistake, identifying multiparty membership and political pluralism. Presence of several or even many parties is capable to provide really pluralistic democracy only on condition that they reveal and express the whole variety of public contradictions and the whole palette of interests of different social groups, forming the society as a whole, and their representation in the parliament, appointment of which - statement in the legislation, consequently, in the whole state activity of the principle of the common welfare, combinations and interactions of the whole variety of interests existing in the society.

It means that the surrogate of multiparty membership, the stage we have not passed yet, is capable to turn and is turning into political pluralism only as a result of stubborn labour and in the course of time. As for the Constitutions - it can only promote it by means of fixing of freedom of speech and different forms of political activity, guaranteeing the realized participation of the citizens and their associations in realization of the state power. Thus we should specify: the constitutional principle of political pluralism legalizes not the fight for power, but the fight for participation in the power. And only in this case there can be in full be shown the significance of democracy as the way of self regulation and self development of the society, excluding social cataclysms, threatening the fundamentals of domestic statehood (disintegration of the USSR!), and guaranteeing the evolutionary development of the society.

The literature

1. См., например: Эбзеев Б., Карапетян Л. Будущее за беспартийностью // Независимая газета. 14 февраля 1994 г.; Борисов Э., Карапетян Л. Издержки партстроительства // Независимая газета. 13 апреля 2010 г.; Эбзеев Б.С., Карапетян Л.М. Конституционные основы политического плюрализма в Российской Федерации // Свободная мысль. 2010. № 12.

Размещено на Allbest.ru