282
www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
DOI: https://doi.org/10.34069/AI/2023.64.04.29
How to Cite:
Skrypniuk, O., Lutskyi, M., Zvarych, R., Krykhovetskyi, I., & Lutska, H. (2023). Features of the political regime of Great
Britain. Amazonia Investiga, 12(64), 282-290. https://doi.org/10.34069/AI/2023.64.04.29
Features of the political regime of Great Britain
Особливості політичного режиму Великої Британії
Received: April 1, 2023 Accepted: May 29, 2023
Written by:
Skrypniuk Oleksandr1
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5620-7762
Lutskyi Myroslav2
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1562-8741
Zvarych Roman3
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3296-9591
Krykhovetskyi Ivan4
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2296-2185
Lutska Halyna5
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5840-0603
Abstract
The purpose of this article is to study the features of
the political regime of Great Britain. Methodology.
Methodological research has found its tactical
expression in the following research methods:
monographic, logical method, dogmatic, systemic,
system analysis, historical, analyzes and synthesis
Research results. The structural elements of the
form of the State, which is characterized, among
other things, by the form of the State and political
regime, are considered. It is established that the
political regime is a broader concept than the State
or State and legal one. Scientific approaches to the
concept of political regime, its forms and features,
which are usually analyzed to determine its essence,
are studied. Practical meaning. On the basis of the
proposed characteristics, the peculiarities of the
political regime of Great Britain, which is defined
as democratic, are described. Value/originality. It is
determined that there was a threat of introducing a
totalitarian regime in Great Britain, however,
democracy protected the monarchy from
totalitarianism.
Key words: democracy, features, Great Britain,
political regime, totalitarianism.
1
Candidate of Juridical Sciences, senior researcher at the Koretsky Institute of State and Law of National Academy of Science of
Ukraine, Ukraine.
2
Doctor of Juridical Sciences, professor, rector of Higher Education Institution “King Danylo University” Ukraine.
3
Doctor of Juridical Sciences, professor, professor of the Department of Law and Public Administration of Higher Education
Institution “King Danylo University” Ukraine.
4
Doctor of Juridical Sciences, associate professor, professor of the Department of Law and Public Administration of Higher Education
Institution “King Danylo University” Ukriane.
5
Doctor of Juridical Sciences, Associate Professor, Professor of the Department of Law and Public Administration of Higher
Education Institution “King Danylo University” Ukraine.
Skrypniuk, O., Lutskyi, M., Zvarych, R., Krykhovetskyi, I., Lutska, H. / Volume 12 - Issue 64: 282-290 / April, 2023
Volume 12 - Issue 64
/ April 2023
283
http:// www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
Introduction
The form of the state or its system is
characterized, among other things, by the form of
the State-political regime. Such a regime is also
called political, sometimes – State and legal.
Each of these modes has its own characteristics
and content. Political regime has a broader
concept than State or State and legal regime.
In the system of elements of the form of the State,
the political regime performs the role of an
internal one, and it is this purpose that determines
the specificity of its structure and content. It
really occupies a special and significant place,
since it is precisely through the formalized signs
of the political regime, in which the main
characteristics of political rule are embodied.
There are three forms of political regime:
1) democratic; 2) authoritarian; 3) totalitarian.
Democracy and authoritarianism are the main
forms of political regime. A specific type of
authoritarian political regime is totalitarianism.
Its existence does not depend on the form of
government in the country. In particular, the
experience of monarchical countries – Italy,
Great Britain and Japan – indicates that the
monarchical form of government and the
totalitarian political regime can coexist or oppose
each other. In particular, in contrast to the Italian
one, the British experience of coexistence with
totalitarianism turned out to be unsuccessful for
the latter.
Therefore, the purpose of this article is to study
the evolution of the political regime of Great
Britain in order to find out exactly how
democracy managed to "defeat" totalitarianism
in this country.
To achieve this goal, we should solve the
following questions: 1) to investigate the concept
of "political regime"; 2) to examine the
difference between the State regime and political
regime; 3) to clarify, on which criteria political
regimes differ; 4) to study distinctive features of
democratic regime; 5) to pay attention to the
historical development of the British political
regime; 6) to characterize the political regime of
Great Britain, using the following criteria for
differentiation: a) procedures and methods of
formation of power institutions; b) style of
political decision making; c) the relationship
between the authorities and citizens
Methodology
The search for methodological foundations of the
research was carried out in the following
directions:
• study of scientific works of famous scholars
who used general scientific methodology to
study a specific branch of science;
• analysis of the scientific works of leading
scientists who, simultaneously with the
general problems of their area, investigated
its specific issues;
• generalization of the ideas by the scientists
who directly studied this problem;
• analysis of general concepts in this area;
• study of scientific works of Ukrainian and
foreign scientists.
Methodological research has found its tactical
expression in the following research methods.
Monographic approach was useful when
examining the works by domestic and foreign
scholars, who have studied the characteristics of
the British political regime.
Logical method, as well as dogmatic approach
helped to deepen the conceptual apparatus and to
investigate the definitions of State regime,
political regime, democracy.
Systemic approach made it possible to examine
the structural elements of the form of the State,
which is characterized, among other things, by
the form of the State and political regime.
System analysis method was helpful when
identifying forms and features of political
regime, which are usually analyzed to determine
its essence. This method was also used when
studying distinctive features of a democratic
regime.
Historical method was of assistance when
investigating the formation of the British
political regime.
The method of analyzes and synthesis was
applied to characterize the peculiarities of the
political regime of Great Britain.
Literature Review
The issue related to such a phenomenon as the
regime in relation to the state is key in the
theoretical understanding of its form. Therefore,
a considerable amount of attention has been paid
to this problem.
284
www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
In particular, Garretón (2004) believes that the
political regime includes an established
mediation between the State and society solving
the problem of managing society through the
relationship between people and the country,
forms of representation and participation,
systems of conflict resolution and provision of
needs.
Schmitter and Karl (1991) share the opinion that
the regime or system of government determines
the methods of access to the main public
institutions of the State; characteristics of actors
to be allowed or excluded from this access; and
the rules followed in the process of making
binding public decisions. For this ensemble to
function properly, it must be institutionalized in
a certain way, so to speak, various models must
be known, tested in practice, and accepted by
most, if not all, political actors. Increasingly the
predominant mechanism of institutionalization
appears the written body of laws supported by a
written constitution, although many political
rules may have an informal, reason-dictated, or
traditional basis.
Font and Cardoso (2001) emphasize that it is
important to distinguish between the concepts of
political regime and the concept of the State. By
the concept of "political regime" they mean
formal rules connecting the main political
institutions (legislative power to the executive,
executive to the judiciary, to the party system, to
them together), as well as the result of the
political nature of the connections between
citizens and rulers (democratic, oligarchic,
totalitarian or any other).
The definition of the term "State" is a complex
matter, but there is some degree of agreement
that this concept refers to a basic alliance, a
"contract of superiority" between social classes
or groups of dominant classes and norms that
guarantees their dominance over subordinates.
O’Donnell, Schmitter and Whitehead (1991)
argue that by regime or political regime we
understand an ensemble of patterns, explicit or
implicit determining the forms and channels of
access to the main governmental positions, the
characteristics of actors, who is generally
recognized and who is excluded from such
access, and the resources or strategies they may
be accustomed to accessing. This necessarily
involves institutionalization, meaning that the
patterns that define the regime must be
sufficiently known, applicable in practice, and
accepted, at a minimum, by those who define
those same patterns as participant in the process.
Where a regime really exists, actual or potential
disagreement is unlikely to threaten these
specimens due to its weakness or absence,
manipulative politicization or outright
repression.
Pempel (1990) emphasizes that regimes
represent a social order and include a kind of
"fusion" between State institutions and specific
segments of the socio-economic model. In short,
the political regime will be determined by a
social coalition, powers of that Sate, and the
resulting institutionalization and bias of the State
policy.
The analysis of the varieties of political regimes
and their features definitely enriched the array of
characteristics of this phenomenon. The studies
by a number of scientists make it possible to
outline the evolution of the understanding of the
term "political regime" and become an impetus
for further scientific elaborations corresponding
to the modern development of society.
Many questions regarding the structure,
functioning and evolution of democratic political
regime have been studied in the form of scientific
research, but it is clear that the field for scientific
research remains quite wide today.
Results and Discussion
The political regime is a set of ways and methods
of exercising power by the State. Some
researchers are of the opinion that "political
regime" is too broad a concept for this
phenomenon and prefer to use another one –
"State (state-legal regime)". In contrast to the
concepts of the form of government and the form
of the State system, which refer to the
organizational side of the State form, the term
"State regime" characterizes its functional side –
the forms and methods of exercising State power.
The State regime is a set of ways and methods of
exercising State power in society.
The concept of "State regime" is not the same as
the concept of "political regime", although they
are close to each other. The state regime is a type
of political regime that has a broader meaning
than the state regime. The concept of "political
regime" includes not only the methods of activity
of state bodies, but also the forms of activity of
all elements of the political system of society:
political parties, public organizations, and other
associations of citizens. In contrast to the form of
State government and the form of state
organization, the State regime characterizes the
order of state activity and determines its
Volume 12 - Issue 64
/ April 2023
285
http:// www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
functional direction. The State regime is the most
unstable element of the State form (Kyrychenko
& Kurakin, 2010).
Political regime is a form of organization and
functioning of the political system, which
determines specific procedures and methods of
organization of government institutions,
relations between citizens and the state, decision-
making style, etc. In essence, this concept means
how the government and the one who heads it use
power, control and manage social processes.
Political regimes are distinguished according to
the following criteria: 1) the method of formation
of authorities; 2) the relationship between the
central and regional authorities; 3) the role of
political parties, public organizations in public
life; 4) legal status of the individual; 5) political
culture; 6) the nature of the implementation of
the State’s functions; 7) the method of formation
of authorities. In political science, 3 main types
of political regimes are distinguished:
totalitarian, authoritarian and democratic
(Skakun, 2001, p. 97).
To determine the essence of the political regime,
it is necessary to pay attention to the following
signs: a) procedures and methods of formation of
power institutions; b) style of political decision
making; c) relationship between the authorities
and citizens. It is worth noting that the listed
features make it possible to easily distinguish
established autocracies or democracies, but they
are not very suitable for defining transitional
regimes (Matsiievskyi, 2006, p. 18).
All researchers agree that a democratic regime
operates in Britain. However, there was a period
in British history when democracy was under
threat. Thus, the king in Great Britain in 1936
was Edward VIII, who sympathized with Hitler.
It was in the year of his reign that Germany
demilitarized the Rhineland, because the king
believed that the latter historically belonged to
Germany and that it would be possible to
conclude a special pact with Hitler, under which
the latter undertook to be responsible for the
population of the Rhine. After his abdication, he
left for the Continent, where he married Bessie
Wallis Simpson and visited a number of
European countries as the Duke of Windsor. It
was then that "The Times" published articles
dedicated to Edward’s visit to Germany: "His
Royal Highness smiles and salutes to the crowd
of people who have gathered under his windows
near the hotel...". In July 1940, after the capture
of France, the couple moved to Portugal, where
they lived, communicating with circles close to
the German embassy. Subsequently, they
planned to go on a cruise on a yacht that belonged
to a friend of H. Goering. The intelligence
services of the allies in the anti-Hitler coalition
took quite seriously the rumors about the
relations of Edward’s wife with the German
Foreign Minister J. Ribbentrop, during his stay as
the German ambassador in London and later.
Moreover, there are even assumptions that A.
Hitler discussed the possibility of Edward’s
restoration to the English throne in the event of
victory in the war. In addition, Edward gave an
interview to a Portuguese publication that was
devastating for the anti-Hitler coalition, which
was the last straw for the British government
during the war. In August 1940, the couple was
arrested and sent from Portugal on a warship to
the Bahamas, where Edward was appointed
governor. So, as we can see, there was a threat of
introducing a totalitarian regime in Great Britain
due to Edward VIII’s connections with A. Hitler.
However, fortunately, this did not happen: the
government of Great Britain, led by S. Baldwin,
stood in the way. Taking advantage of the king’s
matrimonial plans, which were not perceived
positively in English society, the government
forced Edward VIII to abdicate. That is, in fact,
democracy protected the monarchy from
totalitarianism (Sukhonos et al., 2017, p. 26).
Democracy is a political regime based on the
recognition of the people as the source of power,
their right to participate in the decision-making
of State affairs combined with a wide range of
civil rights and freedoms.
Distinctive features of democratic regime are:
In the economic sphere: • the rule of private
property, which is protected by law; • market
mechanism of managing the economy; • partial
State regulation of the economy (antimonopoly
legislation, the presence of a state order, etc.);
In the political sphere: • the leading principle
"everything that is not prohibited by law is
allowed"; • the population participates in the
formation and implementation of State power
with the help of direct and representative
democracy; • decisions are made by the majority
taking into account the interests of the minority;
• the existence of civil society with its developed
structure and the rule of law; • electability and
changeability of central and local state
authorities, their accountability to voters; • real
legitimacy of state power; • "power" structures
are under the democratic control of society, are
used only for their direct purpose, their activities
are regulated by laws; • the law reigns in all
286
www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
spheres of public life; • human and citizen rights
and freedoms are proclaimed and actually
ensured; • methods of persuasion, agreement,
compromise; methods of violence, coercion are
limited; • real implementation of the principle of
separation of powers into legislative, executive
and judicial ones.
In the ideological sphere: • political and
ideological pluralism; • multi-party system,
competition of political parties, existence of
political opposition on legal grounds;
• transparency, lack of censorship (Hal et al.,
2011, p. 24).
Having considered the general features of a
democratic regime, let us move on to those
characterizing the political regime of Great
Britain, using the features for differentiation
proposed by Matsiievskyi (2006).
a) procedures and methods of formation of
power institutions.
The highest legislative body in the United
Kingdom and the Royal Overseas Territories is
the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland. It is headed by the
British monarch.
Parliament is bicameral, including an upper
house called the House of Lords and a lower
house called the House of Commons.
The House of Lords is not elected, it includes
Lords Spiritual (higher clergy of the Anglican
Church) and Lords Secular (members of the
peerage). Members of the House of Lords have
extensive experience and thorough knowledge of
various professions and industries. Many
members of the House of Lords have successful
careers in business, culture, science, sport,
academia, law, education, health and the public
service. They use their professional knowledge to
investigate matters of public interest to the state
and to solve problems affecting the citizens of
Great Britain (UK Parliament, 2023a).
The influence of the Pan-European process of
democratization led to the need to minimize the
anachronisms present in the political system of
Britain, in particular, the so-called undemocratic
institutions, which primarily concerned the
review of the House of Lords hereditary status.
Therefore, in 1997, T. Blair’s government began
to modernize the Parliament and reform the
specified Chamber.
The result of this reform activity was the House
of Lords Act (Legislation, 1999), which
significantly changed it storage. After the
adoption of the specified document on June 01,
2000, the number of members was reduced by
almost half. Out of 750 hereditary peers, only 92
were left with the right to sit and vote in the
House of Lords. The right to participate in the
activities of the House of Lords was retained by
those Lords who were given the title by the
monarch in recognition of their personal merits.
As part of the reform, the position of Lord
Chancellor was also removed, and the position of
Speaker became called Lord Speaker (since
2006, it became elective). The Lord Speaker is
elected by the members of the House of Lords for
a term of five years and no more than two
consecutive terms. The Lord Speaker is not a
member of the government.
The House of Commons, on the other hand, is a
democratically elected chamber. The population
of Great Britain elects 650 members of the
Parliament who represent their interests and
solve their problems in the House of Commons.
The latter consider and propose new laws and can
scrutinize government policy by asking ministers
questions about current affairs in the House of
Commons or in committees of the House of
Commons. The House of Commons is managed
by a group of deputies who are members of the
House of Commons commission. Members of
the House of Commons discuss important
political issues of our time and make proposals
for new laws (UK Parliament, 2023b).
The Parliament of Great Britain is rightfully
considered the oldest in the world, because its
formation and evolution has been going on since
the 11th century. In addition, the British
legislative body became a prototype for the
parliaments of a number of other European
countries, which were created according to its
model.
Parliament is the true center of political life in
Great Britain, the concentration of the State
power. Inside the British Parliament, there is an
uncompromising competition for power, the
positions of the main political forces are outlined,
and there is a struggle between the current
government and the opposition. An essential
indicator of the level of democratic development
of Great Britain is that the opposition has the
right to a political struggle for power and real
opportunities to legally come to power. Given the
complex composition of the political class of
Great Britain, parliamentary competitions have
become the unique mechanism for making state
Volume 12 - Issue 64
/ April 2023
287
http:// www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
decisions, which most optimally determines the
future vectors of the State’s development
(Yakovenko, 2017, p. 65).
The country’s Government is usually headed by
the leader of the party that won the election and
has the largest number of seats, and the House of
Commons consists of members of the Cabinet,
non-Cabinet ministers and junior ministers
(about 100 in total). The Prime Minister single-
handedly forms the composition of the
Government and determines which ministers are
part of the Cabinet.
The Cabinet of Ministers of Great Britain is part
of His Majesty’s Government and the highest
executive body. It consists of government
officials chosen by the Prime Minister, most of
them are government ministers, basically, heads
of departments in the positions of «state
secretaries». Formally, the members of the
Cabinet are elected exclusively from one of the
chambers of the Parliament.
There are two key constitutional conventions in
the United Kingdom governing the conduct of
the executive. They provide for two main forms
of responsibility of the Cabinet: the first is the
individual responsibility of the minister, that is,
his (her) obligation to report to the Parliament for
his (her) words and actions and for the words and
actions of civil servants subordinate to him. The
second is the collective responsibility of
ministers, which, among other things, provides
that decisions taken by the Cabinet or committees
are binding on all members of the Government,
regardless of whether individual ministers agree
with them or not (Webley & Samuels, 2021).
Note that in Great Britain, the executive power is
not separated from the legislative one, as the
members of the Cabinet are simultaneously
members of the Parliament.
The judicial system of Great Britain at the
present stage remains complex and
decentralized. Due to the fact that case law is an
essential part of the Constitution, the system of
higher courts is very extensive. The highest court
in the United Kingdom is the House of Lords,
which hears appeals from the appellate courts of
England and Wales, as well as Scotland (in civil
cases only). The opinion of the House of Lords is
referred to the appropriate appellate body, which
formulates an order in accordance with that
opinion.
The Supreme Court of England and Wales is
headed by the Lord Chancellor and consists of
three independent judicial institutions – the Court
of Appeal, the High Court and the Crown Court.
Judges of the Supreme Court are appointed by
the Queen for life on the recommendation of the
Lord Chancellor from among barristers (lawyers
who are to act exclusively in the higher courts).
The lower courts of the British court system
include county courts and magistrates.
Being historically very conservative, the UK’s
judicial system has become an object for reform
following the country’s accession to the
European Union. The main confirmation of the
victory of the European development choice was
the Constitutional Reform Act (Legislation,
2005). Its importance is difficult to overestimate,
because for the first time in almost 900 years, the
independence of the judiciary, supported by
historical traditions, was enshrined at the
legislative level. The main changes introduced by
this Law include:
a. entrusting government ministers with the
duty to maintain the independence of the
judiciary and prohibiting them from
influencing court decisions through any
specific access to judges (Article 3);
b. reforming the post of the Lord Chancellor,
which lies in the transfer of its judicial
functions to the Chief Justice of England and
Wales (his new name is the Lord Chief
Justice). Currently, he is responsible for the
training, placement and administration of
judges, representing the views of the
judiciary of England and Wales before the
Parliament and the Government of the
country (Article 7);
c. establishment of the Supreme Court,
separate from the House of Lords, with an
independent system of judicial
appointments, its own staff, budget and
premises (Articles 23 – 27);
d. formation of an independent Judicial
Appointments Commission, which is
responsible for the selection of candidates
for judicial positions and recommends them
for appointment to the State Secretary for
Justice. This Commission acts as the
guarantor that each candidate for the
position of judge will be recommended
exclusively for personal merit, and the
appointment system must be modern, open
and transparent (Articles 61, 63);
e. introduction of the position of a special
ombudsman, who is responsible for hearing
complaints submitted regarding the
consideration of cases in courts and judicial
appointments, and issuing recommendations
288
www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
in accordance with the law based on the
results of this activity (Article 62).
In addition, the Service of Tribunals (Courts of
the First Level) was created, which brought
together a significant amount of the
administration of separate tribunals, resulting in
common and consistent approach to all persons
seeking legal protection in these courts.
b) style of political decision making.
In Great Britain, the highest source of power is
the sovereign – the Head of State; however, he
has very little practical influence on its
implementation. The institution of a monarch
outside of politics is actually one of the important
guarantees that politicians will always find a way
to resolve their conflicts.
The constitutional system of Great Britain
contains various formal mechanisms on which
the influence of various institutions on power
depends. These include, for example, the right of
veto (in the legislative sphere, the monarch has
the right of absolute veto; however, the last time
he used this right was in 1707). But the most
important indicator of how these formal powers
are implemented is not their legal boundaries;
rather, it is the degree to which the political
process recognizes their exercise as legitimate
under certain circumstances.
As a result, political power is distributed and
everyone who has an influence on how it is
exercised begins to cooperate. In this regard, the
most revealing thing is that the legislative
function in the country does not belong
exclusively to the Parliament – it is divided
between two chambers on the one hand, and the
Government – on the other. Everyone has their
own defined role in this process, which, in turn,
is only the basis for practical influence and an
incentive for cooperation.
In practice, the Government controls the
legislative initiative – only the Government has
the right to propose draft laws that can be
included in the code of laws. The Parliament
often conducts a preliminary review of the
proposals of the executive power; it also plays an
important retrospective role in ensuring
accountability for government action, which
includes responsibility for implementing
legislation once it is enacted and for its
effectiveness.
An example of how political legitimacy is more
important than formal powers is the House of
Lords, which is endowed with a wide range of
possibilities, but rarely implements them in
practice. The "restraint" of the House in the
exercise of its powers is explained by the direct
recognition that the active use of power by an
unelected House cannot be recognized as
legitimate from a political point of view (indeed,
the House’s intensive use of its formal powers at
the beginning of the 20th century was a sufficient
reason for their reforming and reduction). The
House’s formal right to delay or sometimes block
the adoption of a law gives it the opportunity to
be heard.
Likewise, there is theoretically a supreme
executive veto over legislation passed by both
Houses, but it has not been used for over 300
years. In practice, the control of legislative
initiative is sufficient enough to ensure that the
government must approve or at least agree with
all laws. The legitimacy of using the right of veto
can be questionable both from a constitutional
point of view (because it has not been used for a
very long time) and because this procedure
requires the Monarch’s personal intervention.
c) the relationship between the authorities and
citizens.
Since April 2018, a kind of transformation of
society began in the UK, when the Ministry of
Justice of the UK published “The national
framework for greater citizen engagement”
(Ministry of Justice, 2008). In the specified
document, the list of issues of national
importance, which must be discussed and
developed jointly with citizens, is provided.
Among them: 1) issues capable of leading to
significant constitutional changes; 2) issues in
which the active participation of the citizens is
necessary to obtain a noticeable effect – for
example, the fight against smoking or obesity;
3) if there are several policy options, on which
the government has not reached a final
conclusion; 4) if there is a public benefit from
studying complex and difficult compromises
between different political decisions.
Besides, this consultative document establishes a
number of basic criteria inherent in effective
mechanisms for building public confidence and
describes in detail two new forms that can be
used along with standard consultation
procedures:
1) public summits: large groups of people
gather (usually 500 – 1000 persons) to
discuss one or more related issues. The
summit takes place in the personal presence
Volume 12 - Issue 64
/ April 2023
289
http:// www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
of the participants or online. The
recommendations of the summit are
submitted to the Parliament for further
consideration;
2) public juries: an independent public forum
designed to analyze and discuss important
issues of public policy. Public juries have
much in common with juries in the court
system. The public jury collects expert
information on the discussed topics, may ask
questions to relevant experts, and then
makes its decision. In turn, the Government
is obliged to publish its own response to such
a decision – either as a general response to
the results of broad public consultations, or
in the form of a separate public document;
3) petitions to Westminster: The Rules
Committee of the House of Commons has
proposed an electronic system of submitting
petitions, which would work in parallel with
the traditional one. It is proposed to discuss
separate electronic petitions in the House of
Commons three times a year. The principle
of e-petition was also characterized as a
valuable mechanism of public participation
in the local self-government. It is interesting
that even before the publication of this
program document, numerous local
authorities have introduced electronic
petition submission procedures in parallel
with the traditional "paper" process.
This electronic tool turned out to be one of the
most effective mechanisms for increasing public
participation in local decision-making processes.
Adhering to the course of more responsible and
transparent policy, the British government
organized a consultative platform "Have your
say" (Department of Communities and Local
Government, 2006).
The British Ministry of Justice notes that any
mechanisms for strengthening citizen
participation in democratic processes and
enhancement trust will achieve their goal only if
they meet the following criteria: 1) take into
account the interests of relevant population
groups. For this, they should be considered
useful, and their participants feel better informed
as a result of their application; 2) ensure the
widest possible representation and accessibility,
involvement of broad sections of the population
and participation in the process of proportional
selection of relevant audiences; 3) are
trustworthy, and therefore people feel their
importance. For this purpose, an effective
objective standard for the application of
mechanisms of public involvement in the
discussion of national policy issues must exist
and be effectively implemented: there must be
feedback from the participants in the discussions
and a mandatory evaluation of the results at the
appropriate level; 4) openness and transparency:
participants must know in advance the possible
extent of their influence and how the government
will take into account their conclusions. There
must be mutual understanding as to when and
how these mechanisms will be applied; 5)
systemic nature and integration into the policy-
making process, otherwise people will consider
them a publicity stunt that undermines the
legitimacy of the process; 6) correspond to the
fundamental principles of representative
democracy. The government and parliament
should continue to leave some room to consider
the effect of any policy changes – particularly
where resource needs will increase significantly.
The government considers it extremely important
that these mechanisms complement and do not
question the supremacy of our system of
representative democracy, and there should be a
clear understanding of the relationship between
these mechanisms and the consideration of issues
in the parliament (Makarenko, 2016, p. 335).
Conclusion
So, we saw that in Great Britain there was a threat
of the introduction of a totalitarian regime, but,
in fact, democracy protected the monarchy from
totalitarianism.
Currently, in this country, power institutions
organically interact with each other, not only not
"encroaching" on each other's sphere of
authority, but also consciously limiting their own
rights for the sake of achieving common
interests. To resolve conflicts, authorized persons
will rather use the method of persuasion than to
"press" competitors with their authority, because
there is always a political price that will have to
be paid for this. The more important the issue, the
higher this price will be. For example, it can be
expressed in parliamentary time: using more
parliamentary time to discuss one problem limits
its amount to solve others.
In addition, the policy of Great Britain allows us
to talk about a high level of development in the
field of relations between the government and
society in the context of strengthening mutual
trust and ensuring good governance, which
promotes democracy, the rule of law and
sustainable economic development (Leshchenko
& Zaika, 2018, p. 50).
290
www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
Bibliographic references
Department of Communities and Local
Government (2006). Strong and prosperous
communities. The Local Government White
Paper. https://acortar.link/xxyaFk
Font, M., & Cardoso, F. H. (2001). Charting a
New Course: The Politics of Globalization
and Social Transformation. Fernando
Henrique Cardoso. US: Rowman &
Littlefield Publishers.
https://acortar.link/dAy9Sn
Garretón, M. A. (2004). Incomplete Democracy:
Political Democratization in Chile and Latin
America. US: UNC Press Books.
https://uncpress.org/book/9780807854839/in
complete-democracy/
Hal, B., Yehorova, O., Zienkin, M., Kolisnyk, D.,
Lytvynenko, V., & Poukh, A. (2011).
Political Science: Educational and
methodological guide for external students.
Dnipropetrovsk: DVNZ "National Mining
University".
https://ipt.nmu.org.ua/ua/library/Politologiya
_dlya_ekstern.pdf
Legislation (1999). House of Lords Act, 1999
(c. 34).
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1999/
34
Legislation (2005) Constitutional Reform Act
2005 (p. 4).
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2005/
4/contents
Leshchenko, R.M., & Zaika, A.V. (2018).
"Relations between State and Civil Society in
Great Britain: Experience for Ukraine".
Forum Prava, 3, pp. 48–55.
https://acortar.link/9Ee7l8
Kyrychenko, V. M., & Kurakin, O. M. (2010).
Theory of state and law: modular course:
training manual. Kyiv: Center of Educational
Literature.
http://books.zntu.edu.ua/book_info.pl?id=16
3022
Makarenko, L. P. (2016). “Problems of
communicative interaction between the state
and civil society”. Hileya, 106(3),
pp. 334–338, https://acortar.link/b6BrVI
Matsiievskyi, Yu. (2006). "Between
authoritarianism and democracy: the political
regime after the "Orange Revolution".
Political Management, 5, pp. 18-32.
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/38339071.p
df
Ministry of Justice (2008). A national framework
for greater citizen engagement. A discussion
paper – published July 2008.
https://data.parliament.uk/DepositedPapers/F
iles/DEP2008-1881/DEP2008-1881.pdf
O’Donnell, G. A., Schmitter, P. C.,
Whitehead, L. (1991). Transitions From
Authoritarian Rule: Comparative
perspectives. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
University Press, 1991.
https://hdl.handle.net/1814/22003
Pempel, T. J. (ed.) (1990). Uncommon
Democracies: The One-Party Dominant
Regimes. Cornell University Press.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7591/j.ctvr7f8
kn
Schmitter, P. C., & Karl, T. L. (1991). What
democracy is. . . and is not. Journal of
Democracy. https://acortar.link/AgTgSk
Skakun, O. (2001). Theory of the State and Law:
a textbook. Kharkiv: Konsum.
http://politics.ellib.org.ua/pages-cat-51.html
Sukhonos, V.V., Volochay, Yu. V., &
Sokolenko, O.P. (2017). "Monarchical Form
of Government and the Totalitarian Political
Regime: Dichotomy of Antinomy and
Symbiosis". Legal horizons, 4(17), pp. 22-29.
https://acortar.link/NxXpPf
UK Parliament (2023a). House of Lords.
https://www.parliament.uk/business/lords/
UK Parliament (2023b). House of Commons.
https://www.parliament.uk/business/commo
ns/
Webley, L., & Samuels, H. (2021). 12.
Responsible Government and Constitutional
Conventions. In Complete Public Law: Text,
Cases, and Materials. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1093/he/9780198853183.0
03.0012
Yakovenko, N. (2017). "British Experience on
Democratic Interaction between Power and
Opposition". The Problems of World History,
1(3), pp. 63-80.
https://bibliotekanauki.pl/articles/894467