Volume 02 Issue 05-2022
56
American Journal Of Social Sciences And Humanity Research
(ISSN
–
2771-2141)
VOLUME
02
I
SSUE
05
Pages:
56-60
SJIF
I
MPACT
FACTOR
(2021:
5.
993
)
(2022:
6.
015
)
OCLC
–
1121105677
METADATA
IF
–
5.968
Publisher:
Oscar Publishing Services
Servi
ABSTRACT
This article discusses socio-political approaches to the formation of representative bodies. . In the structure of any
state, such basic parts consist of three; it is necessary to pay attention to the useful aspect for each type of legislative
state structure. The perfect condition of the state structure depends on the excellent functioning and functioning of
these parts; the fact that different types of state structure differ from each other stems from the logic that these parts
have different structures.
KEYWORDS
Socio-political approaches, representative bodies, structure of state, perfect condition, excellent functioning.
INTRODUCTION
During the formation of human society, people
thought about better organization of their life and
lifestyle, and dreamed of a fair society and rational
management. After the formation of the states, people
gradually thought about the power of the state power,
its role in the life of the society, and realized that the
complete concentration of the state power in the
hands of one person or some div is dangerous for the
development of the society. who have realized that the
situation often leads to abuse of power.
The advanced people of their time understood the
need to develop an organizational and political
Research Article
SOCIO-POLITICAL APPROACHES TO THE FORMATION OF
REPRESENTATIVE BODIES
Submission Date:
May 20, 2022,
Accepted Date:
May 25, 2022,
Published Date:
May 30, 2022
Crossref doi:
https://doi.org/10.37547/ajsshr/Volume02Issue05-11
Sunatilla S. Akhatjonov
Researcher, Namangan State University, Namangan, Uzbekistan
Journal
Website:
https://theusajournals.
com/index.php/ajsshr
Copyright:
Original
content from this work
may be used under the
terms of the creative
commons
attributes
4.0 licence.
Volume 02 Issue 05-2022
57
American Journal Of Social Sciences And Humanity Research
(ISSN
–
2771-2141)
VOLUME
02
I
SSUE
05
Pages:
56-60
SJIF
I
MPACT
FACTOR
(2021:
5.
993
)
(2022:
6.
015
)
OCLC
–
1121105677
METADATA
IF
–
5.968
Publisher:
Oscar Publishing Services
Servi
mechanism aimed at preventing such a situation, and
put forward theoretical and practical considerations in
this regard. In this way, the idea of separation of
powers was gradually formed in the ancient period of
history.
THE MAIN FINDINGS AND RESULTS
The idea of the origin of state power and its division
into branches has been the object of theoretical
debates and interpretations of thinkers for several
thousand years. According to scientists, the ideas
about the separation of powers are as old as the
doctrines of state power and law. According to the
French Enlightenment thinker S. Montesque, the origin
of theoretical views on the separation of powers “goes
bac
k to antiquity”.
In ancient times, the theory of the division of power
was expressed in the way of implementing the division
of labor in the life of the state. Plato’s (427
-347 B.C.)
interpretation of the division of labor as “the main
principle of state c
onstruction” had a strong influence
on the theory of the separation of powers in the new
era. Although Plato did not express his views on the
principle of the division of power into three, his idea of
division of labor in the life of the state was taken into
account by S. Montesque. According to Plato, rulers
should
alternately
deal
with
law-making,
administration, and judicial work. Of course, this idea
does not mean the principle of separation of powers
[1.184]. But it can be a proof that the tasks of the three
existing authorities were formed in that period.
Theoretical developments very close to the theory of
the separation of powers of the present time were
carried out by the thinker Aristotle (384-322 BC). He
went deeper into this issue than Plato and revealed
that the “three elements” of any state system are
different from each other. Aristotle in his work
“Politics” put forward the following opinion about the
type of authorities: “Now that we have determined the
aspects of their initial basis, we turn to a careful
consideration of the general and particular parts that
form the basis of each type of state structure. In the
structure of any state, such basic parts consist of three;
it is necessary to pay attention to the useful aspect for
each type of legislative state structure. The perfect
condition of the state structure depends on the
excellent functioning and functioning of these parts;
the fact that different types of state structure differ
from each other stems from the logic that these parts
have different structures. These are the three parts:
the first is the legislative div that deals with state
affairs, the second is the positions (in general, what
positions should be, what they should manage, how to
change them), the third - judicial authorit
ies” [2.514
-
515].
Recognizing that Aristotle’s definition of the division of
power into three, the scholars of the new and modern
times paid attention only to the aspects of creating
forms, Because they did not study the details of this
doctrine more deeply, thinkers such as J. Locke and S.
Montesquieu were recognized as authors of
discoveries in this field.
Most scholars attribute the genesis of the separation
of powers theory to the political and legal theories of
John Locke (1632-1704) of the XVII century. In the 1940s
and 1960s in England, during the struggle for freedom
of the newly formed social strata (“independents” and
“levelers”), it was necessary to prevent the
concentration of other bodies in the hands of one state
div, otherwise, despotism would rise up and it would
be a person’s idea that “natural” rights and freedoms
can be violated was the reason for the origin of the
doctrine of separation of powers. J. Locke’s theories
on the separation of powers were formed at the time
Volume 02 Issue 05-2022
58
American Journal Of Social Sciences And Humanity Research
(ISSN
–
2771-2141)
VOLUME
02
I
SSUE
05
Pages:
56-60
SJIF
I
MPACT
FACTOR
(2021:
5.
993
)
(2022:
6.
015
)
OCLC
–
1121105677
METADATA
IF
–
5.968
Publisher:
Oscar Publishing Services
Servi
when the constitutional projects inspired by these
ideas were being advanced. J. Locke regarded the
“separation of powers” as a universal doctrine. He
developed the most basic rules of the separation of
powers: exercising legislative power only by electing a
representative div; that the representative div
cannot be allowed to execute the laws; in connection
with this, the creation of a permanent executive div
of the government [3349-350]. According to J. Locke,
the legislative power should be superior to the
executive power in the administration of the republic.
In a constitutional state, there can be only one
supreme power, and it is the legislative power to which
all other powers are subordinate [4. 349].
According to the US political scientist K. Friedrich, the
key to the correct understanding of power can be
found in J. Locke’s theory of contracts, as well as in S.
Montesque's comments on the idea of the separation
of powers. In J. Locke, the power of the king, the lords
and the commons (which means the House of Lords
and the Commons) flows into the power of the
parliament and is carried out through it. According to
Locke, power originates from the whole society - from
their mutual agreements, social contracts, and
parliamentary
power
is
their
coercive
and
“proprietary” de
rivative. It can be divided by acquiring
a property quality.
When thinking about the subject of representative
power, most people first imagine the Parliament, and
most people associate its roots with the times of the
ancient Greek society and the Roman Empire, as we
noted above. However, in the course of our research,
we are convinced that there is no scientific basis for
directly connecting the history of representative
power with the political system in Greece or with the
Roman Senate.
In Roman and Greek thought, the idea of
representation was not direct, but only in some cases
manifested in partial forms. It is true that Polybius
spoke about the “responsibility of the consuls before
the Senate and the people” and “the responsibility of
the Senate befor
e the people”. In some articles of the
Roman law, it is explained that the Senate was a
representative div by nature, that is, it made
decisions for other persons who were not members of
this div. But Polybius did not consider Roman
government officials to be agents or representatives of
the people. The actual composition of the Roman
Senate was not representative in any historical or
modern sense. This, of course, does not mean that the
theory and practice of representation was unknown to
the ancients.
The city was not free from representative institutions,
but it was not familiar with the political mechanisms of
these institutions either. The representatives elected
to the assembly of the Council of Athens did not have
“representation”, “the power to th
ink and make
decisions”. The synod of the “Boeotian League”
consisted of 660 members, elected in equal numbers
from the League’s eleven constituencies, but it was
more of a diplomatic assembly than a legislative div
in the modern sense. Therefore, it is not unreasonable
to say that representation was completely alien to
Greek and Roman politics, but there are also few
practical examples of this [5.230]. The conclusion is
that the modern representative bodies have no
historical connections with the Greek and Roman
period. Therefore, the starting point of representative
power is medieval Europe.
At this point, the views of the famous American
political scientist F. Fukuyama on the patrimonial state
are important. Patrimonialism refers to a state ruled by
a single ruler, an autocrat, or a group of oligarchs. In
Volume 02 Issue 05-2022
59
American Journal Of Social Sciences And Humanity Research
(ISSN
–
2771-2141)
VOLUME
02
I
SSUE
05
Pages:
56-60
SJIF
I
MPACT
FACTOR
(2021:
5.
993
)
(2022:
6.
015
)
OCLC
–
1121105677
METADATA
IF
–
5.968
Publisher:
Oscar Publishing Services
Servi
ancient times, the states built on the dynastic principle
were patrimonial states. F. Fukuyama cites the
example of patrimonial states against modern states,
which mean state bodies under the control of
representative power. Citing a number of important
examples from ancient China, ancient India, and the
Ottoman Empire, he notes that representative power
is essential to the effectiveness and development of
public administration. For example, he writes: “
Only
the Ottomans, clearly realizing the need to expel
patrimonialism from their state machine, did this for
three hundred years. They kept even the military under
strict civilian control. By the end of the seventeenth
century, however, dynasticism and patrimonialism had
begun to reassert their influence, and they too began
to decline” [6.587].
F.Fukuyama also cites the superiority of the modern
democratic system based on the institutions of civil
society over the patrimonial state as a clear example of
the patrimonial state, emphasizing the superiority of
the state bureaucracy in Ancient China and the
superiority of the Brahmins in the system of state
bodies in Ancient India. In the West, Pope Gregory
argues that the main source of patrimonialism, the
main source of patrimonialism, has attacked the right
of priests to have children in order to overcome
corruption in the Church and control the
administration of the system.
By the Middle Ages, the king’s power was deprived of
the right to impose cruel taxes on his subjects. The
authorities were trying to find alternative ways of
taxation. Lands and real estates in the kingdom,
interests and relations that could not be ignored
should not endanger the prestige and politics of the
monarch. As a result, proper organization of public
order, cooperation with people to a certain extent
served as the most effective way to achieve immediate
goals.
If we look at the formation and development of
representative government in Europe, at first the
meetings of parliaments were called by monarchs, first
of all, to pay taxes to the royal treasury. The original
parliament was devoid of people and equal leaders, it
was the property of the kingdom and included
representatives of the nobility, clergy, landowners and
city authorities. The first parliamentary meetings
discussed ways and means of raising revenue (hence
the term “parliament”).
In the Middle Ages in Europe, uprisings were organized
as a result of increased pressure on landowners and
peasants by the authorities. The revolution in France is
of particular importance in this regard. At that time,
Jean-
Jacques Rousseau’s statement that “all men are
equal and everyone has an equal share in government”
became popular. As a result, the right to vote was
gradually legitimized in society.
The first use of the concept of “representation” as a
political term in the sense of “acting as someone’s
official representative” was recorded in a treatise by
Isaac Pennington in 1651, and then in a speech by Oliver
Cromwell in the English Parliament on January 22, 1655:
“I was concerned about your safety and the safety of
those representing you” [7].
In the course of research, there are also cases where
medieval Western scholars recognized the king and his
heirs as representatives of society. According to the
philosopher John Salisberg (Chartres - Plaque Jean de
Salisbury), “A prince must first control himself and the
state of all members of the society he represents”. And
again: “Therefore, every decree and other kind of
announcement of the princes should be considered
Volume 02 Issue 05-2022
60
American Journal Of Social Sciences And Humanity Research
(ISSN
–
2771-2141)
VOLUME
02
I
SSUE
05
Pages:
56-60
SJIF
I
MPACT
FACTOR
(2021:
5.
993
)
(2022:
6.
015
)
OCLC
–
1121105677
METADATA
IF
–
5.968
Publisher:
Oscar Publishing Services
Servi
not only as an action of an official, but as a decision of
the corporate community...” [5.226].
CONCLUSION
Representation determines its responsibility to the
people (voters) for their level, powers and actions of
the state power in general. As a result of the research,
we witnessed that there are many opinions about the
representative div, and we will continue our research
in this regard.
REFERENCES
1.
Nersesyants B.C. Political doctrines of Ancient
Greece.-
Мoscow:,1979.
-P.184.
2.
Aristotle. Politics//Works: In 4 volumes. V.4.-
Moscow: Thought, 1984.-P.514-515.
3.
Locke J. Kllll,. Мoscow:, 1988. V.3. P.349
-350.
4.
LockJ. Decree op. P.349.
5.
Сharles
А.
Beard
and
john
D.Lewis.
Representative government in evolution. The
American
political Science Review. №2
(April.,1932).
226.
230-p.
https//about.jstor.org/terms
6.
Fukuyama, Francis. The origins of political
order: from prehuman times to the French
Revolution I st ed. 2011, 587pp.;
7.
Korneva A.A. The principle of representative
democracy in the context of modernity: the
paradoxes of evolution // Actual problems of
Russian
law.
2016.
№7
(68).
URL:
https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/printsip-
predstavitelnoy-demokratii-v-kontekste-
sovremennosti-paradoksy-evolyutsii.
