USD

INSTEAD OF A PREFACE

The point of the question we shall try to present in this short study will seem to be very simple, and, undoubtedly, the reader will be surprised learning that arriving at these, at first sight evident and unrejectable conclusions we have needed more than thirty decades. Our searching where accompanied by struggles, which were natural and law-governed for the democracy and nations' self-determination fighters in the communist empire.

The precaution that this modest discovery is going to deserve indescribable opposition, contra-influence and even malice of jurisprudents, politicians and, particularly, political activists, must not arouse surprise.

There exist a stereotype that different nations can have their special, a different kind of democracy. At first sight, this opinion being attractive and providing national coloring, as you will see, is a mere wish having nothing in common with the real meaning of democracy concept, "Every nation may have its democracy" means every nation, every state may consider its ideas on human rights to be different from all-human perception - acceptable.

Yet, the adoption of the Proclamation of Human Rights established a common and unique idea on human rights for all the humanity. It became a starting point and a milestone for our civilization, contributed to the destruction of the communist totalitarism and became a head stone of common progress and security. Having started with the common proclamation of human rights and international pact on political and civil rights, then, being developed by other international conventions, the all - obligatory formulation - "standardization" of human rights must have been followed by the distinction, generalization of the principles of democracy just proceeding from it and even by the adoption of "Common Proclamation of Democracy"

We have no doubt, that our civilization stands on the threshold of that new implementation and with this modest work we try to contribute to the establishment of the common standards of being democratic.

Democracy is one of the greatest achievements of the latest centuries of our civilization and today it is not only the principle guide in infra-state public relations, but has also become an essential stimulus in the sphere of international relations regulation.

Nevertheless, jurisprudence in general and political science in private, haven’t yet defined the clear standard of democracy (the power of people), in consequence of which, political activists, and that’s more – specialist scientists considering democracy to be the highest value, can’t draw a unique conclusion relevant democracy. Hence, states having essentially different electoral systems are considered to be democratic.

Generally, for the democracy of any country the way of formation of executive and juridical powers, the electoral systems of local self-government bodies, the frequency of elections in general and other circumstances are very important. For formation of an idea about the democratic nature of any country the mentioned factors must be discussed in coordination. But for any country, undoubtedly, is of great importance the popularity of the highest representative body – the parliament of that country, so we make the subject of our discussion the parliamentary systems first.

One of the not less important ground of this kind of approaches is that in all the states considered to be democratic, in presidential, parliamentary, and semi-parliamentary republics as well as in the constitutional monarchies and also in the states giving themselves the high name of being democratic but having nothing in common with democracy (for example in the communist empire – in the Soviet Union) the elective parliaments are the obligatory and necessary elements of the state, unlike, for instance, the institution of the president elected by the people, which is the main characteristic of the presidential or semi-presidential republics.

It is not accidental that the concept of democracy is inseparably connected with the concept of “parliamentarism” and that is more, these concepts often are justly looked upon as identical. Even, under the circumstances of application the destruction of powers the executive body may also be considered a representative one, a general opinion is shaped about the evident reality that the main representative body is the parliament. That is precisely the reason, that people realize the control over the executive through their main and highest representative body – the parliament.

In the circle of constitutors and specialists of electoral right is widely spread the opinion that all the electoral systems are acceptable and applicable, and that every nation is to decide to which of the known parliamentary systems to give preference to and through which to realize the functions entitled to the parliament by the constitution or traditions of his country. The circles of these functions is quite clear – legislative and control function, financial activity, displacement of high rank officials and formation of executive power (in the parliamentary republics).

The last function creates direct connection with the political stability and parliamentary staff in the country, and consequently in the way of formation, which is the same – in the electoral system. The tendency of enlargement of political units acting in the parliaments of parliamentarian republics is stipulated by this factor. This is done to raise the controllability of the parliament itself (also self-controllability) and make its activity more “efficient and purposeful”. At the same time the formation of the government or overcoming of governmental crisis, which is necessary for governing the country, is becoming easier.

It is known that all the jurisdictions of the parliament proceed from its representative character. The essential speciality and characteristic of the parliament is the representativeness of that body. For realization of democracy by means of elections is shaped the Parliament having the mission to replace the people through their representatives. The almost all-embracing power of the parliament proceeds from the circumstances being shaped by the free will of the people (the citizens who form people) and being the representative precisely of these people. (It is useful to remember that the branches of power, both the executive and juridical as well as the parliament itself, realize their activity through the law defined by the legislator.) All other specifications and authorizations are derivative from and subject to representativeness.

Representativeness is the necessary and sufficient condition for the parliament to come. Furthermore, providing the representativeness of the people in realization their rights – to participate in the government of the country through their representatives, the urgent task must be the preservation of their equal rights. The parliament is the citizens’, the people’s and only theirs (not areas’ or communities’ or collective thing’) political, that is to say representative body enjoying the right to participate in the government of the country for governing the country.

That’s why, the parliamentary systems in different countries deserve our special attention from the point of view of their representativeness.

Before speaking about the amount of the people’s presence in the parliament it will be proper to try to consider practically the concept of democracy.

People are human collectivity-men, hence democracy too are the self-governance, autocracy of human collectivity-men. If we try to achieve the smallest expression of democracy, we shall dwell upon the man-individual's right for self-determination - self-governance, In other words, democracy means the combination of human self-governance (individuals' self-determinations).

In the democratic countries the state power belongs to the people, that is to say, we repeat, to men. For adjusting the amount of man-individual's state power we must divide the conditional unit of state power - F on the total number of the given state citizens

As only from 18-21 years old citizens in different countries enjoy the right to participate in the governance of the country, it is better to present the above mentioned formula in the following way:

At the elections, in fact, the citizens' electoral votes are brought together around one or other individual or party. If a number of citizens have voted for A electoral unit (party or individual), it gets "a" time quantity of state power assigned for each elector for the governance of the country.

Likewise, if b number of citizens have voted for B electoral unit, it gets b time quantity of state power assigned to each elector for the governance of the country.

Not all the citizens enjoying eligibility consider it necessary to use their right to participate in the governance of the country. In consequence, the concept of having participated in the elections comes forth and the formulas presented above look as follows:

At the second stage of presidential elections, when there are only two candidates, or in the elections realized by the relative majority electoral system, gain those electors (electoral units having received their votes), who unite a greater part of the share in the governance of the country round the electoral unit they have given preference to (the candidate, who gets more electoral votes).

From disparity proceeds the fact that the A unit has won. Of course, if we simplify this disparity we'll dwell upon a>b disparity, but we consider it proper to underline at this stage, that it concerns not so much the citizens' simple number, but mostly the amount of state power belonging to those citizens.

In the parliamentary elections taking place by relative majority electoral system, having more than two candidates, won those of the electors (and their candidate), who have collected a little more number of individual share of state power. In that case also remains only the candidate having got privilege and all the candidates are left out of the parliamentary system.

If the executive's - the president, the governor, the mayor elections demand the separation of one and only one electoral unit from all the rest in the process of democratization - its absolute victory over all the other candidates, which is stipulated by the free strategy of the power branch performing the direct functions on the principle "Governance the first", then the application of the same approach in the representative systems, that would mean the adoption of the principle "the first introduces the rest" is not justified because the principle of the representativeness of the representative body is distorted and the equality of the citizens guaranteed by the constitutions of all the countries is violated.

"A" electoral unit collecting parliamentary power unit in the amount falling to each individual's share, enjoys the power of parliamentary right in that electoral boundaries by means of B, C and D electoral units of the citizens who have displayed their parliamentary power right in the amount of b+c+d falling to the share of individuals. The citizens who have given their votes to A electoral unit and to B, C, D electoral units do not enjoy equal rights and the parliament is not the representative body of the electors but the electors' won in the electoral boundaries.

We suggest to put into circulation the concept of citizens' representativeness coefficient (henceforth the coefficient of representativeness). It is the amount of the parliamentary votes of the citizens in the given country, in the given parliament. It is logical that under the conditions of people's equal rights, that amount cannot be essentially various for different people.

The coefficient of representativeness has a direct connection with the parliamentarians' equal rights, which is expressed by a single vote in the parliament for each parliamentarian. Even though the equality of parliamentarians' right is not a juridical concept put into independent circulation, it is adopted indirectly by the constitutions of a number of countries and the electoral codes. For instance, the fact, that in the countries having the plurality system of voting, the definite number of population (electoral boundaries), which may not essentially vary from the number of population of another electoral boundaries and necessary for voting one parliamentarian, is fixed and demonstrates that the concept of delegates' equality comes out from the principle of citizens'' incontrovertible equality being the core of fundamentals of a legal state.

The coefficient of citizens' general representativeness (CGR) is the relation between one parliamentarian seat and the number of constituents' votes enjoying suffrage. There are two ways to receive that coefficient:

a. The general number of parliamentarians (P) is divided into the electors' general number (it is the only way for the countries shaping the parliament by means of proportional voting).

b. The number of a single candidate, being elected from one-plurality or majority electoral boundaries is divided into the constituents' general number of the given electoral boundaries.

We do not apprehend as a separate variant the multi-mandate electoral systems rarely applied in the world as it doesn't principally vary from proportional and plurality electoral systems and is an experiment to bring together the merits of both.

It's a general truth that the process to participate in the government of the country is mainly perceived as being the citizens' right (not duty) and that not all the citizens want to enjoy that right, in other words, not all the citizens take part in the elections. In the result of the above mentioned, the concept of legal (participated in the elections) constituents' mass and coefficient of legal representativeness (CLR) comes forth. It is calculated with the following formula:

Even in the states having the most democratic electoral systems, only a part of citizens participated in the elections, is destined to have a direct (that is to say, in the result of their given votes made a parliamentarian) delegate. In the democratic countries, as a rule, only one part of the constituents votes "reaches its destination" - turns into a delegate. These are the electors having representative in the Parliament. The coefficient of a constituent's mass having a representative in the parliament and named by us Relative Coefficient of Representativeness(RCP), looks as follows:

We may also name RCR with other term - Coefficient of Represented Representativeness (CRR), which unlike the won term given above, more fully characterizes the problem of a citizen at a parliamentary election - to have a representative in the highest representative body.

The relation of CGR or CLR to CRR represents the state of democracy in the given country. We suggest this fraction to be called coefficient of democracy of the given country, accordingly absolute and relative coefficient of democracy (CAD and CRD). If the coefficient of representativeness helps to find out how the equal rights are preserved in parliamentary systems of one or other countries, it doesn't necessarily enable to do comparisons between the levels of democracy in different countries. The possibility is offered by the Democracy Coefficient

M is the number of parliamentarians of the given country,
N is the constituents' general number
E is the number of election participants and
r is the number of votes having won representatives in the parliament in the result of the given parliamentary elections.

So the main characteristic of being democratic for the parliamentary system of any country - the absolute coefficient of democracy is the relation of constituents number at the parliamentary elections in the given country to the general number of constituents of the given country and the relative coefficient of democracy is the relation of the same number to the number of constituents won a representative/s at parliamentary elections.

Let's repeat, that, of course, for general characterization of democracy in any country are of great importance the systems of formation of local state power bodies - executive and juridical, local self-government bodies, referendums, the systematic frequency of elections in general and other factors. But for the countries having adopted the law power principle, the most important establishment of democracy is the legislative body. That is why, by finding out the main standard of democracy coefficient for characterizing the highest representative body - the legislator, we reserve us the right to declare.

It is not correct to speak about the existence of different models of democracy in reference to the parliamentary systems. The humanity must take the course of adopting the electoral system guaranteeing the citizens' best representativeness in the parliament.

The best parliamentary of our civilization is the system which enables the people participated in the elections for parliament formation to consider to be elected those among the single or collective (party) candidates, who receive 1/p number of citizens, votes (let's remember, that P is the quantity of the parliamentarians of the given country). In other words, if 3 million people out of 4 million inhabiting in the given state have taken part in the parliament elections having 100 members, then we may consider democratic the electoral system in application of which the candidate having received about 3 million/100 = 300 thousand votes is considered to be elected.

We deal with the absolutely (without any percent of prohibition) proportional electoral system widely known in the international practice. The common transition to this parliamentary system is the shortest way for guaranteeing fully peoples' political rights.

CONCLUSION

Evidently the absolutely proportional parliamentary electoral system guaranteeing the best representativeness as a system excluding (minimizing) the discrimination of the electors must be proclaimed as the single and all-obligatory electoral system for democratic countries by the international most authoritative organizations.