Lessons from Russias parliamentary early twentieth century - Реферат

Lessons from Russias parliamentary early twentieth century Study of Russias historical and political experience beginning of XX century. Promotes better understanding of the social realities of the Belarusian society, allows a clearer idea of the difficulties and possibilities of our movement toward democracy and the rule of law. In Russia the beginning of the century there were signs of the crisis of the political regime, in which the characteristics of profiling is a monopoly position of the charismatic leader - the autocrat. Any volume of the Complete Collection of Laws Russia Empire convinces us that a decision on even the small, private issue needs to sanction the king. He personified the hypertrophied role of the state as property relations and the mechanism of their implementation, and in all other spheres of national life. To maintain this role, the ruling elite has sought to streamline the political system, although the complexity of the structure of society and its problems reclaim. On the growth of opposition sentiment in society at large-scale social conflicts authority responsible only palliative measures in the sphere of political system. The stormy events of autumn 1905 forced Nicholas II to sign the Manifesto of October 17 On improvement of public order, which announces the introduction in Russia unshakable foundations of civil liberty. The State Duma was declared a legislative agency to take part in which he promised to bring to the extent possible those segments of the population who were excluded from the elections in Bulygin Duma [1, c. 199]. Consistent implementation of the principles proclaimed on October 17 could lead to the design of the constitutional order. However, in late 1905 - early 1906 enacts a number of limiting civil liberties temporary rules. In April 1906, the text appears in the new edition of Basic state laws. Because of this Code of Nicholas II disappears definition of power of the monarch as unlimited, but remains its symbol - obviously ambiguous - as autocratic. The most radical 86-I article Code reads: No new law can not follow without the approval of the State Council and State Duma and absorb force without the approval of the emperor, ie for the monarch has the final say, and not determined by the necessary procedures advance the bill in case of disagreement with the Emperor. Next 87 article provided an opportunity in the event of termination or interruption of the Duma and State Council to conduct debates in the Council of Ministers, with subsequent confirmation by the king in the form of His Majestys orders, take effect immediately. And the king retained the right to interrupt the meeting of the Duma and the State Council. Emperor could not enforce the laws in the form of individually approved by the acts of top management [2, c.139]. In the exclusive jurisdiction of the autocrat were the foreign policy, finances, army and navy, the appointment to senior posts in the government bureaucracy. All other public institutions were of secondary nature. Nominally, reminiscent of some West European counterparts, Russias parliament (State Duma - the lower chamber plus the State Council - upper chamber) really is not.