Co-operating of citizens with power structures as an indicator of possibility application of the armed violence by public authorities
AbstractThe interaction of citizens with security forces depends on the form of the political regime, the place and role of security forces in the political system. In the second half of the twentieth century it has developed the concept of typology of political regimes, based on the principle of social life according to the principles of democracy. According to this approach identified two main forms of political regime – democratic and antidemocratic, which, in turn, divided into totalitarian and authoritarian. One of the conditions of existence of the totalitarian regime is tough police control over the population, implemented with security forces. In scientific circles common opinion on the existence of two models of using violence authorities. For the first model of security forces were institution wholly subordinate and accountable civil party nomenclature. The second model assumes that the security forces operate both as a central object of political power, which distributed the impact of the ruling party elite, and how to partial subject. Regardless of whether the security structures subject or partially subject to policy influence on them by the citizens in a totalitarian regime is not novel. In addition, government translates on society series features power structures.Under the authoritarian regime the role of security forces is changing, they are actively intervene in politics, are able to enter the political arena as an independent political force can operate and act as an instrument of violence in the hands of some political groups. There is a transformation of the role of power structures of the object in an active subject of political life. Along with the transformation of power structures in key subject of politics within the authoritarian regime begins to form civil society, the public gets the experience of uncontrolled self, there are various social organizations that operate autonomously from the government, but not in politics. Cooperation with security forces can occur both in support and in criticism. However, criticism quickly removed.A characteristic feature of a democratic political regime is that security forces operating in the public interest, they don’t take part in the political struggle, thus ensuring its stability. In democracies countries subject to government security forces and their use clearly defined by law. For legal democratic state autonomy security forces is unacceptable. In democracies the citizens do not translate function power structures. The interaction detected in participating in the formation of the staff of the security forces and control over security forces. Said control is implemented through coverage of law enforcement agencies in the independent media, NGO activities, meetings and other mechanisms of direct democracy.
Bogajchuk V., 2005. Polity`ka i armiya: problemy` vzayemozv’yazku [Politics and the Army: problems of interaction]. Polity`chny`j menedzhment 5, 31–38 (in Ukraine).
Gry`nenko O.I., Dyenyezhkin M.M., 2002. Problemy` formuvannya cy`vil`no-vijs`kovy`x vidnosy`n v Ukrayini [Problems of civil-military relations in Ukraine]. Nauka i oborona 2, 36–40 (in Ukraine).
Derzharxiv Donecz`koyi oblasti. [State Archives of Donetsk region], F. R. 424, Op. 10. – Spr. 36, Ark. 44.
Derzharxiv Donecz`koyi oblasti. [State Archives of Donetsk region], F. R. 424, Op. 10, Spr. 55, Ark. 102.
Derzharxiv Lugans`koyi oblasti. [State Archives of Lugansk region], F. R. 311, Op. 12, Spr. 77, Ark. 7.
Karpins`ky`j I., 1998. Armiya i derzhava: polity`chna sub’yekty`vnist` armiyi v umovax perexodu suspil`stva do demokratiyi [The army and the state: political subjectivity army in society during the transition to democracy]. Visny`k derzh. un-tu «L`vivs`ka politexnika» «Derzhava ta armiya» 344, 119–127 (in Ukraine).
Il`ny`cz`ka I. V., 2008. Armiya i polity`ka: modeli vzayemodiyi v umovax rizny`x polity`chny`x rezhy`miv [The army and politics: the interaction model under different political regimes]. Visny`k derzh. un-tu «L`vivs`ka politexnika» 612, 205–211 (in Ukraine).
Komitet soldatskih materej Rossii. Obshherossijskaja obshhestvennaja organizacija. Access: http://ksmrus.ru (in Russian).
Politologiya: Pidruchny`k dlya kursantiv vy`shhy`x vijs`kovy`x navchal`ny`x zakladiv Zbrojny`x sy`l Ukrayiny` [Political science: the textbook for students of higher educational institutions of the armed forces of Ukraine], 2002. Vinny`cya, 446 (in Ukraine).
Russo Zh. Zh., 1998. Ob obshhestvennom dogovore. Traktatу [The Social Contract. Treatises]. Moscow, 416 (in Russian).
Slovny`chok yury`dy`chny`x terminiv, 2003. [Glossary of legal terms] Kiev, 128 (in Ukraine).
Trebin M., 1999. Armiya i parlament: problemy` vzayemodiyi ta kontrolyu [Army and Parliament: Cooperation and control]. Nova polity`ka 3, 46–53 (in Ukraine).
Trebin M. P., 2004. Armiya ta suspil`stvo: social`no-filosofs`ky`j analiz vzayemodiyi v umovax transformaciyi: Monografiya. [Army and society: socio-philosophical analysis of interaction in terms of transformation]. Xarkiv: Vy`davny`chy`j Dim «Inzhek», 404. (in Ukraine).
Cheremiskina N., 2002. Cy`vil`ny`j kontrol` nad voyennoyu organizaciyeyu derzhavy` [Civilian control over the military organization of the state // new policy]. Nova polity`k 2, 42–45 (in Ukraine).