Реферат: State political system
The State Systemof any nation is not an artificial creation of some genius or simply theembodiment of different rational schemes. It is nothing else but a work of manycenturies, a product of a national spirit, a political mentality and theconsciousness of people.
I have chosen the topic because of its obvious importance. Ukraineis building a sovereign state and it is encounteing a lot of problems. Ukraineis suffering an overall deep crisis, trying to set herself free from thepersistent inheritance of totalitarianism preying upon economic, politic, nationalself-consciousness. There is no universally efficient remedy to help theUkrainian society out of this grave condition. The process of recovery will belong and arduous. Moreover, the country’s eventual deliverance fromtotalitarian inheritance and its harmonious entry into civilized worldcommunity remain for that matter, hardly practicable at all, unless politicalculture is humanized, and political education of such a kind propagated thatwould help society overcome the backwardness, the pre-modernity of prevailingvisions of justice, democracy, law and order, and the relationship of theindividual and the state.
It is quite clear that in the process of democracy formation a lotof problems connected with it will inevitably appear. Many of them already exist.In this solution, a considered usage of foreign experience can help theUkrainian community to optimize the processes essential for the transitionalperiod from one political system to another, and not to allow the socialprevailing tensions to develop into a national civil crisis. And it will alsohelp to save time and resources.
The Main Part.
A system of power is a complex of organically connected and bondedtogether governmental bodies, establishments and persons given the highestauthority, and also political parties and organizations, directly having thepower and putting it into life. The sources of power in a democraticallyorganized community are its people, and its system. First of all, key figureswithin this structure should be under control of the people. This system is thecore of legal functioning and serves as the foundation of state and publiclife. Its main parts are legislative and executive power.
If we want finally to live as normal people, we should seriouslythink which system of power we subject to and how is it possible to improve it,how to make it suitable for the interests of our people and what can be takenfrom foreign, world experience. But one of the main problems is that we are notthe only ones, who don’t have a good system of modern power. Humanity hasn’tyet worked out a suitable and ideal system. That is why we should build our ownpower by considering all positive and negative aspects of the world’s systemand our one. But we should not forget that a power works well only when itsauthority is clearly and definitely determined.
Let’s compare our system of power with the British one to seewhether it is competent enough and how well organized itis.
The Political System Of England
The organs of goverment in the United Kingdom of Great Britianare:
the legislature, which consists of the Queen in Parliament, and isthe supreme authority of the realm;
the executive, wich consist of:
the Cabinet and other ministers of the Crown, who are responsiblefor initiating and directing national policy;
Government departments, most of them under the control ofministers, and all staffed by civil servants, who are responsible foradministration at the national level;
local authorities, who administer and manage many services at thelocal level;
statutory boards, which are responsible for the operation ofparticular nationalized industries or public services;
“shadow cabinet” which is the directing and leading body of theoppositional group.
The most interesting and important aspect of the British politicalsystem, its pecularity, lies in its division of powers.
It is common knowledge that Great Britain, having the oldestParliament in the world, has one of the most stable and effective politicalregimes of our time. Its stability is mostly the result of the division ofpowers, which, by the the way, is not the exeption from the general rule.
The main idea of this variant lies in the following: the principleof the demarcation (division) is combined with a principle of interaction. Andits principle is fixed in the British system of power not as somethingabstract, but institutionally. I mean a special center, a linking section,which brings together the legislating and executing powers, and at the sametime is the center of making important political decisions. Surely, it is theCabinet and its leader which are at the head of the whole executive system ofthe state.
The main 4 principles of division of powers are:
sovereignty of the Parliament, as the highest body of politicalmanagement;
the leading role of the Cabinet and the government in thelegislative process;
a strict Parliamentary and commitee control of the legislativebranch;
a special role given to the State Machinery, which not onlyexecutes the instructions, but also influences a political process.
So, as we see, the legislators provide the execution of the lawsand resolutions of the Parliament by controlling the State machinery, and inits turn, the state machinery participates in the legislative process,providing its preparatory stage (by doing a spade-work).
British Parliament.The Comparison Of Two Political Systems:
Ukrainian And British Ones.
1.The first distinction may seem to be the form of rule:
Ukraine is a respublic. And Britain, as you probably know, isconsidered to be a parliamentary monarchy.
The Queen is the personification of the U.K. By law, she is thehead of the executive branch, an integral part of the legislature, the head ofthe judiciary, the commander-in-chief of all armed forces of the Crown and thetemporal head of the established Church of England. But in practice, as aresult of a long evolutionary process, these powers have changed. Today, thequeen acts only on the advice of her Ministers which she cannotconstitutionally ignore. In fact she reigns but she doesn’t rule.
However, the monarchy has a good deal more power than is commonly supposed. There remain certain discretionary powers in the hands of themonarch, known as the Royal Prerogative.
2.The Ukrainian and the British Parliaments have at least foursimilar functions:
to work out legislation, including the creation of a budget;
to control the government;
to represent and respond to public opinion;
to influence actively the people by acquainting them openly withthe facts, concerning the accepted desisions.
The difference lies in the electoral systems and the rules forrecalling the government.
But there is also one more remarkable peculiarity of the UkrainianParliament: the political history of Ukraine does not know any potentlegislative bodies (we can hardly take into account the experience of theSoviet Congress ).
3.Both Ukraine and Britain are countries with the representativedemocracy (which means that the people delegate power to the bodies, which acton their behalf).
The difference is, that Britain has a parliamentary form ofgovernment, and Ukraine, in its turn, has a so-called “semi-presidential” form.The main distinctions of this forms are shown in the table, given below.
The British parliamentary form The Ukrainian “semi-pesidential” form
1.The election solves two questions:
On one hand, the forming of the Parliament. And on the other hand, the creation of the Government and different coalitions.
1.The election solves just one question:
Either the problem of forming the Parliament or the creation of the Government.
2.The Government is formed only by the Parliament. 2.The Government is formed by both the President and the Parliament.
3.The executive Power is separated. 3.The executive Power is not separated.
/> /> /> /> />
4.Unlike Britain, Ukraine has different bodies of legislative andexecutive power, and one body doesn’t interfere with the activity of the other.
5.The negative features of the British system may seem to be toomuch power in the hands of Prime Minister and rather uncontrolled localgovernment.
Having compared two political systems, I have come to theconclusion that the form and the level of development of the systems are influencedgreatly by the history of the State. The second factor is that of evaluationaryprogress, which usually improves the existing order and makes it moredemocratic.
Having analysed two state systems, I have noticed the tendencytowards the reinforcement of the executive power and a lessening of thelegislative power. But still, parliament remains an integral institution in ademocratic society.
I have studied the British political experience concerning thedivision of powers and I can say that with all its originality, the BritishSystem is not something unique or exceptional. This system should be taken asthe foundation stone of the cooperation of two powers in countries with arepresentative democracy.
The reason for the lasting discussion of this problem in theUkrainian Parliament lies not only in involving the interests of powerfulpersons. Actually, it is the result of the “amateur” level to understand thisproblem.
Основидержави і права України, 1993
M.Y.Mezey Comparative Legislatures, Durham, 1979
Политическиеисследования, Полис, 1992
П.О.Бех Англійська мова, Либідь, 1992
A book of Britain, Просвещение, 1977
Деловаяжизнь // Правда, 1991
Entony Sempson Anatomy of Britain, 1992
Мироваяэкономика и международные отношения, Наука, 1993
Дляподготовки данной работы были использованы материалы с сайта www.bigmir.net/