Multiparty - good or bad? Political scientists from different countries cannot unambiguously answer this question. On the one hand, it makes it possible to express the opinion of the most diverse sections of society and defend it in power. On the other hand, there is confusion in the political life of any country.
Party systems
Under the party understand the organized, the most active part of society, which, based on its own interests, has formulated a program and seeks to implement it by participating in power or in its capture. The existence of various political organizations and their interaction determines the party system of the state. There are three types of such systems. Multi-party system is the first of them. It is determined by the presence of more than two political organizations that have a real chance of coming to power. A one-party system is formed with the dominance of one party in the country and a state ban on the operation of opposition political unions. In Great Britain, the United States of America there are two-party systems. Although in these countries there is no ban on the creation and operation of otherorganizations, but their real chances of coming to power are meager, which determines the change of the majority in parliament by representatives of one or another dominant political force. There is a kind of pendulum: power is transferred from liberals to conservatives and vice versa.
The birth of parties in Russia
At the beginning of the 20th century, a multi-party system was emerging in Russia. This process was characterized by a number of significant features. First, the very first, still illegally, political organizations of a revolutionary, radical kind began to take shape. Thus, the Social Democrats held their first congress back in 1898. The legal registration of the parties took place during the first Russian revolution, after the famous Manifesto of October 17, 1905, which introduced civil and political freedoms for the inhabitants of the Russian Empire. The next feature is the fact of the leading role of the intelligentsia in a wide range of formed unions, many of which were quite small, while the process of organizing some and dissolving others was constantly taking place. Thus, a multi-party system is a true characteristic of the political life of Russia at the beginning of the twentieth century.
Left, right and centrists
As already noted, at the beginning of the 20th century, several dozen parties arose in Russia, the study of which is rather difficult. In order to better understand what the Russian multi-party system was, all political organizations are divided into three groups. The first includes radical, revolutionary associations, which are also called left. The right sector is made up of conservative, reactionary unions that oppose any innovations and transformations. Centrists are political organizations with moderate programs that stand for liberal, gradual transformation of society.
Revolutionary parties of Russia
By the beginning of the last century, Russian society was entangled in a number of serious contradictions arising in connection with the development of capitalism. In Russian historiography, they are called "basic questions". These include the agrarian or peasant question, the worker question, the question of power, and the national question. One way or another, all political forces had to indicate the main ways to solve these problems. The most radical in this sense were the Bolsheviks - the RSDLP (b), calling for a socialist revolution, the nationalization of land and enterprises, the elimination of private property and the transition to socialism as such. The ideological leader and organizer was the well-known Vladimir Ulyanov (Lenin). Less radical were the Mensheviks - the RSDLP (m), who believed that Russian history had not yet ground the flour from which the pie of socialism should be baked. Their leader, Julius Martov, advocated a bourgeois-democratic revolution and the gradual resolution of major issues. A special place in the left bloc was occupied by the Socialist Revolutionaries (SRs), who positioned themselves as defenders of the peasantry, continuers of the populist traditions. They advocated the socialization of the land, that is, its transfer to the communities. The Social Revolutionaries were headed by Viktor Chernov. Along with these, there wereother revolutionary parties in Russia such as the Popular Socialists, Maximalist SRs, Trudoviks and a wide range of national revolutionary groups (Bund, Revolutionary Ukrainian Party and others).
Liberal parties
As such, the multi-party system in Russia has developed with the legal registration of liberal centrist parties. In the First and Second State Dumas, the largest number, but not the overwhelming majority, were occupied by the Cadets, who are called left centrists. They demanded the partial alienation of the landlords' lands in favor of the peasantry and the restriction of the monarchy by parliament and the constitution, further reforms. The generally recognized leader of the Cadets was the historian Pavel Milyukov. The main political force of the period of the Third and Fourth Dumas was the Octobrist Party, whose representatives recognized the great importance for the history of Russia of the October 17 manifesto. Alexander Guchkov, who led the movement, defended the interests of the big bourgeoisie, which counted on calming the country and further economic growth. The Octobrists are therefore called conservative liberals.
Right block
Very large in composition, but little organized at the beginning of the last century was the right-wing political sector. Monarchists, Black Hundreds, conservatives - it's all about them. The Russian Emperor Nicholas II was an honorary member of several parties at once, although they differed in name, but had a single political program. Its essence boiled down to the return of unlimited autocracy, the defense of Orthodoxy and the unity of Russia. Not recognizingDuring the First State Duma, the conservative-minded parts of society were not organized and did not participate in the elections. But subsequent events showed that it is impossible to completely drop out of the legal political struggle in parliament. Representatives of the Union of Michael the Archangel, the Union of the Russian People and other movements fully supported the policy of Nicholas II. And against their opponents they used violent methods, such as pogroms.
Liquidation of the multi-party system
After the Bolsheviks came to power on October 25, 1917, the multi-party system in Russia is gradually being destroyed. First, the monarchist associations, the Octobrists, left the political arena, and in November the Cadets were outlawed. Revolutionary parties continued to exist for several more years, among which the main rivals of the Bolsheviks were the Social Revolutionaries, who won the majority of seats in the general elections to the Constituent Assembly. But the action against Lenin and his supporters during the years of the Civil War and immediately after it led to a merciless struggle of the Bolsheviks against political opponents. In 1921-1923, a number of court hearings were held in Soviet Russia against the leaders of the Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries, after which belonging to these parties was regarded as an insult and a curse. As a result, there was no multi-party system in the USSR. The ideological and political dominance of one party - the communist one - was established.
Formation of a multi-party system in modern Russia
The collapse of the Soviet political system occurred during the period of perestroika,conducted by M. S. Gorbachev. One of the important steps in the formation of a multi-party system in modern Russia was the decision to abolish Article 6 of the Constitution of the USSR, adopted in 1977. It consolidated the special, leading role of communist ideology in the state, and, by and large, meant the monopoly of one party on power. After the GKChP putsch in August 1990, the President of the Russian Federation generally banned the operation of the CPSU on its territory. By this time, a new multi-party system had taken shape in Russia. It was united with the first by the presence of a huge number of political organizations that did not differ significantly from each other in their views within the same direction. Many researchers note a rather narrow social base of the majority, which is why they call them “proto-parties”. National movements in the republics, known as "popular fronts", became widespread.
Main political forces
In the 90s, among the many political organizations, several main ones stood out, which began to fight among themselves for mandates in the Duma. In the elections in 1995, the four leaders were determined, which were able to overcome the barrier of five percent. The same political forces characterize the current multi-party system in Russia. Firstly, these are the communists, headed by the permanent leader, who has repeatedly acted as a presidential candidate, Gennady Zyuganov. Secondly, the Liberal Democratic Party, with the same constant and bright head - Vladimir Zhirinovsky. The government bloc, which has changed its name several times over the past decades (“Our HouseRussia", "United Russia"). Well, the fourth place of honor was occupied by the Yabloko party headed by Grigory Yavlinsky. True, since 2003 she has not been able to overcome the barrier in the elections and since then she has not been a member of the representative legislative body. Most of the parties in Russia belong to the centrist direction, they have similar requirements and programs. They are called left and right only by tradition.
Some conclusions
Most political scientists agree that a multi-party system is not the best option for the country's political development. States with a two-party system are more predictable in their development, have more chances to avoid extremes and maintain succession. A multi-party system is a concept that has both legal and practical meaning. In the first case, formally there are many unions, but only one or two have real chances to come to power. The real multi-party system shows that no political force can get a parliamentary majority. In this case, coalitions are organized, temporary and permanent.
