The preconditions for overcoming such a theoretical collision are outlined by A.
The general principles of decentralization in France are:
free self-government of local groups; transfer of state powers to local groups; in parallel with such a «transfer», it is necessary to provide local governments with adequate financial, human and legal resources.
According to I. Hrytsiak, decentralization of public administration is «the activity of independent local self-government as a result of the transfer of state powers to them» . The transfer of powers in this case is not seen as a delegation, but as the transformation of state powers into self-governing, which, obviously, makes it possible to consider the different nature of local government and state power.
At the same time, I. Hrytsiak notes: «If the processes of deconcentration extend only to the state executive power on the ground, then decentralization activity has as its object the sphere of local self-government» .
As for the forms of decentralization, according to M. Kornienko, we can talk about the existence of two forms of decentralization:
«democratic decentralization as the devolution of part of the state executive power to the level of the population of the relevant administrative-territorial units and bodies they elect; administrative decentralization: the creation of special executive bodies (prefectures, state administrations, etc.) and empowering them to exercise executive power. there is not so much the decentralization of executive power as the deconcentration or delegation of its powers vertically from top to bottom «.
It is generally accepted that local self-government is not public administration. Most constitutions of foreign countries in one way or another stipulate the autonomy of local governments and their «non-belonging» to the hierarchical vertical of executive power. But, in this case, «if local government is not part of the system of executive power, ie is not a form of government, it seems incorrect to define it as a» form of decentralization of public administration «or as a» form of decentralization of executive power «.
A. Cherkasov outlines the preconditions for overcoming such a theoretical collision. He argues that modern political science views local self-government through the prism of concepts such as deconcentration and decentralization, and sees the main difference between them that «deconcentration is the transfer of power to center-to-field officials and the fragmentation of power. level, and decentralization is expressed in the transfer of the center of certain powers to local authorities «.
Obviously, in this case, the concepts of «one-level government» and «local authorities» need a semantic analysis. If local state administrations, which exercise executive power at the regional level, as well as local self-government bodies, which exercise other power by nature, are two independent subsystems of public power of one level — local, ie public power at the local level , then such «fragmentation» power of one level is a deconcentration of public power.
Similarly, the concept of «local authorities» can be considered: if it includes local executive bodies, it can be agreed that decentralization is expressed in the transfer of certain powers of the center to local authorities .
The etymology of the word «decentralization» means the abolition of any centralization. And centralization is «the concentration of management or leadership in one place, in a single center» . That is, centralization in the field of local government involves a hierarchical system (vertical) of the relevant bodies, which ends with the center, from which, in turn, come all the mandatory regulations for the exercise of power at the local level.
Decentralization means the «abolition» of management from one center and the transfer of powers from local government to bodies endowed with appropriate independent powers, but hierarchically subordinated to the central government. In this case, it is necessary to emphasize the features of the competent jurisdiction of local governments. Namely, such bodies, as emphasized above, have, so to speak, «own» competence and perform the functions delegated by the central government. Therefore, it can be argued that the definition of «decentralization» applies to:
spheres of executive power (public administration in the narrow sense) as the delegation of rights by central executive bodies to its local institutions; Given the exercise of «delegated» powers, in terms of which local governments are accountable and controlled by the relevant state institutions, the delegation of powers can also be defined as a «form of decentralization of public administration» .
However, this term obviously cannot be used in the field of exercise of local self-government powers by local self-government bodies, as in this case it is not practiced (in most countries) to include these bodies in the subordinate vertical of state executive power. The result is a fragmentation of public power at the local level.
Thus, it is more appropriate to use the term «deconcentration» because it, without providing a rigid hierarchical vertical, at the same time emphasizes the dispersion of public power between its subsystems.
It is necessary to distinguish between decentralization of public administration in the sense of the state’s predominant delegation of powers to local governments and deconcentration of public power as «an independent form of public power at the local level as a result of transformation of state sovereign rights into own, self-governing rights. «
In our opinion, we should agree with G. Breban, who believed that «decentralization and deconcentration are two different types of transfer of power from center to place» . The only thing that should be emphasized in this case is the already mentioned thesis that the effectiveness of the exercise of public authority at the local (regional) level largely depends on the practice of such distribution, which requires special research attention to it.
In particular, in this sense, such areas of possible scientific research as determining the most effective way of distribution of power at the level of local self-government in Ukraine, characterization of economic and financial resources of its implementation, etc. seem quite relevant.
It should be noted that in this article the author did not aim to analyze the fundamental specifics of decentralization and deconcentration of power in Ukraine. However, an attempt at a conceptual and theoretical analysis of the peculiarities of the «transfer of power» of power from the center to the ground may be the basis for such a research and cognitive search.
Political science encyclopedic dictionary. Ed. Yu. S. Shemshuchenko, VD Babkin. — K., 1997. — P. 336. Belov AG Political system // Centaur. — 1995, No. 2. — P. 151. Political dictionary. Ed. VF Khalipov. — M., 1995. — P. 35. Krusyan A. Decentralization and deconcentration of public power: the relationship in the theory and legislation of Ukraine // Legal Bulletin. — 1999, No. 1. — P. 30 Vedel J. Administrative law of France. — M., 1973. — P. 392. Breban G. French administrative law. — M., 1988. — P. 57. Hrytsyak IA Problems of theory and practice of public administration and local self-government / Proceedings of the annual scientific-practical conference of faculty and students of the Ukrainian Academy of Public Administration (31.05. 1996 ). — K., 1996. — P. 58. Ibid. Kornienko MS Local government. — K., 1997. — P. 20 — 21. Krusyan A. Decentralization and deconcentration of public power: the relationship in the theory and legislation of Ukraine // Legal Bulletin. — 1999, No. 1. — P. 32. Cherkasov AI Comparative constitutional law. — M., 1996. — P. 88. Krusyan A. Decentralization and deconcentration of public power: the relationship in the theory and legislation of Ukraine // Legal Bulletin. — 1999. No. 1. — P. 31. A large explanatory dictionary of foreign words. — Rostov-on-Don. — Vol. 3. — 1995. — P. 347. Krusyan A. Decentralization and deconcentration of public power: the relationship in the theory and legislation of Ukraine // Legal Bulletin. — 1999, No. 1. — P. 33. Krusyan A. Decentralization and deconcentration of public power: the relationship in the theory and legislation of Ukraine // Legal Bulletin. — 1999, No. 1. — P. 32 Breban G. French administrative law. — M., 1988. — P. 87.
Socio-political development of man: legal awareness. Abstract
In the socio-political development of man at the stage of formation of a democratic state governed by the rule of law, the most important role is played by legal awareness, which represents the legal behavior of citizens in the legal field of society. It is legal consciousness and legal culture that are the system-forming factors of human socio-political development, which should be considered in the civilizational dimension and in the context of the axiology of universal values.
The confrontation between the state and citizens over the choice of the optimal model of social development has lasted for centuries. The state not only experimented on the population, implementing the models of socio-political development developed by it. History knows examples of armed aggression in order to prove by force the superiority of one or another model of development. At the end of the twentieth century, the world embarked on a path to combat violence, totalitarianism, various forms of restriction of human rights and freedoms.
The system-forming factor of a democratic state governed by the rule of law has always been, of course, legal awareness and legal culture, a high level of protection of the rights and freedoms of citizens. However, humanity has not been https://123helpme.me/buy-compare-and-contrast-essay/ able to agree on the fundamental issues of this cardinal phenomenon [1, p. 69].
The specificity of modern life is that the system of social, group and individual rights and interests is in a dynamic, unbalanced state, which requires a modern structure of political governance, able in tactical and strategic terms to consistently and continuously democratize the entire political system supported by market socialization. economy.
The actualization of the legal aspect in our study is due to the relationship between the current level of spirituality of society and the state of crime in it, the manifestations of this relationship in the youth environment in a difficult stage of formation of the Ukrainian rule of law.