Retrospective view on the evolution of the theory and practice of parliamentarism in Russia

The purpose of the article is to analyze the evolution of the theory and practice of Russian parliamentarism. Methodologically, the article is based on theoretical developments of both foreign and Russian researchers. In foreign science, this problem is reflected in the studies of J. Blondel, J. Burdeau, M. Gunes, A. Daishi, R. Dick, I. Jennings, G. Ellinik, J. Coakley, P. Loesche, Th. Meaney, D. Olson, D. Ornstein, A. Fallback, W. von Alemann, E. Hubner, K. Schmitt and others. Russian scientists of the pre-revolutionary era made a significant contribution to the development of the ideas of parliamentarism. Not lost its value and is still relevant ideas, work and projects of V.I. Gere, V.M. Gessen, S.E. Desnitsky, B.A. Kistyakovsky, M.M. Ko-valevsky, N.M. Korkunov, S.A. Kotlyarevsky, N.I. Lazarev, P.I. Novgorodtsev, A.N. Radishchev, K.N. Sokolova, M.M. Speransky, B.N. Chicherin, L.A. Tikhomirov and others. Theoretical foundations of parliamentarism at the present stage is presented in the works of such Russian scientists as L.I. Bachilo, N.I. Biryukov, O.N. Bulakov, M.V. Varlen, O.V. Gaman-Golutvina, A.V. Glukhova, G.V. Golosov, V.I. Mikhailov, A.V. Dementiev, R.J. Evzerov, A.D. Kerimov, A.I. Kovler, V.N. Kolesnikov, I.V. Kotelevsky, Y.K. Krasnov, B.S. Krylov, O.O. Mironov, T.N. Mitrokhina, M.A. Mogunova, S.P. Obukhov, J.A. Place, R.M. Romanov, N.A. Sakharov, V.M. Sergeev, E.P. Sokolova, I.A. Soloviev, V.E. Usanov and others. Traditionally, in modern scientific literature there are three stages in the evolution of parliamentarism, which correspond to its three historical forms: ancient, medieval and modern parliamentarism. We believe that such a classification can only partially reveal the content and essence of the historical forms of this phenomenon. For a thorough analysis of the essence of parliamentarism at each individual historical stage, it seems necessary to move away from the conventional periodization and propose a new one, which provides for four stages in the formation of historical forms of parliamentarism. As criteria for the allocation of stages and identification of historical forms of parliamentarism, it is proposed to establish: the presence and degree of implementation of the principle of separation of powers into the system of government; the status and importance of normative legal acts in society; the place and role of an elected competitive parliamentary institution in the system of authorities; the presence of an orderly system of formation of a legislative (representative) body; the presence of free organizations, associations that can aggregate the interests of different social groups of society. On the basis of the above-mentioned criteria in the formation and development of parliamentarism, we distinguish four stages, which allow later to identify the following four historical forms: protoparlamentarism, class-representative parliamentarism, bourgeois parliamentarism and modern parliamentarism. Analysis of the evolution of the theory and practice of Russian parliamentarism shows that this institution has a natural and historical character and is in constant development. Its evolution, the transition from one stage to another, is caused by the political, socioeconomic, cultural and spiritual changes taking place in society. Features of implementation of parliamentarism in various epochs of development of political system reflect a condition of the public relations, and conform to requirements of society. This institution, having realized its historical potential at a certain stage, creates preconditions for the transition to a qualitatively different state, which is characterized by new content and forms of institutionalization.

Keywords

Authors

References