5 Answers

  1. 1). This is when they are regularly judged for dissent. Moreover, even the most innocent statement can be adapted to the desired article in Jesuit ways. Moreover, whether they pay attention to such a statement or not depends on the situation on the ground; on instructions given from above to local officials, and not on the laws.

    2). The whole life of society is strongly regulated by various prohibitive articles.

    3). There is no freedom to hold demonstrations, protest actions and public events.

    In short, congratulations! You live in it.

    But it can get worse. North Korea, China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkmenistan… The list is extensive.

  2. Police state — a figurative expression used for a social system in which the government is rigid (including through repression) It seeks to control the social, economic, and political life of its citizens. From a scientific point of view, the term does not make much sense, since any state in history has in one way or another attempted to forcibly suppress ideological groups or ethnic groups that oppose it. The state is an apparatus of violence of one class or social group over all others. It may or may not be relatively restrained by law. For example. a British citizen who is opposed to the government will tell you that his state is a police one-pointing out the violence and terror of unionists and British special services in Northern Ireland, pointing out the dispersal of demonstrations and mass dismissals of workers under Thatcher, pointing out the dismissal of journalists from publications, discrimination and lies against both left and right radicals, and so on. If you come to the United States, you can also find someone who can tell you about racial violence, ghetto politics for indigenous and black people, the Iran-Contra case, when the CIA bought heroin and sold weapons,and the Unabomber case, when one person was engaged in terrorism for 16 years (!), so that only one article was published in newspapers (all major publications in the United States refused to publish his article under various pretexts, In general, he will say, ” we have a police state in the United States.” Go back to Russia and they will tell you about the shooting of the White House, about the persecution of leftist activists, about the beatings and murders of striking workers (yes, and this was the case in the 90s), about the complete silence of the media about these facts or their deliberate distortion, about the seizure of some scientific works from local and university libraries for subsequent destruction (this is what I personally witnessed) , etc., etc. And so there will not be a single state in the world that does not have a long trail of criminal, or illegal or semi-legal acts. Such are the cases. And “ideal democracies” exist only in the minds of democrats.

  3. As noted above, it is not necessary to confuse the police and totalitarian state. Moreover, for the most part, police States can be attributed to States that are formally democratic, with effectively functioning structures. A police state is a state in which the life of citizens is rather strictly regulated in all senses, starting from criminal or administrative law, and ending with the permissible noise level at night. Roughly speaking, a police state is a state that makes maximum use of the right to legitimate violence and regulation of all aspects of human life. This is exactly the kind of state that Max Weber and Michel Foucault described – the state of the European “order”. In Asia, Singapore is an excellent example of such a state.

    Russia cannot be a police state, since the regulation of life is still quite conditional and often even fictitious (the severity of the law is compensated for by its non-compliance). Moreover, the nature of Russians strongly opposes “policing” in all spheres. starting from paying taxes and ending with parking in courtyards. The average Russian hates Europeans “walking on a string”, who are forced to sort garbage and firecrackers can only be allowed in Germany strictly from 18: 00 on December 31 to 6: 00 on January 1. His favorite saying is ,” What do I have to do?..?! “The main thing for a Russian is “volya”. which he usually confuses with simple power. He sees himself as free, free. And therefore supports the “free” government, which “does not obey anyone.” The government also behaves in the same way. here. For example, as Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov commented on the cancellation of the meeting between Putin and Trump in Vietnam: “Appeal to the Americans. We heard Trump say that he wants to meet with Putin… I do not know what the rest of his “officials” say to this, ask them.” That is ,the “Tsar” obeys only the one God, no one can break his “volyushka” , not zahomutat, especially some lousy “bureaucrats” there. The concepts of structure, procedure, power and bureaucracy are not for the Russian consciousness.

  4. A “police state” without any additional political connotation refers to states in which the legislative and executive powers are not separated or very poorly separated, and the police forces (i.e., civilian armed formations, the judicial system, prisons, etc.) are the basis of the existence of the system and are actively involved in managing all spheres of the country's life. At the same time, in my opinion, the “police state”, unlike, for example, a military dictatorship, remains a flawed, but “civil” society, where it is possible to adopt socially useful laws, peacefully change power (albeit with difficulty), protect certain rights, etc.Almost always a police state is a democratic society.

    It is easy to distinguish the police state from any other: the police (in a broad sense, i.e., including the entire executive system) in it is a privileged class with increased salaries, additional rights and” untouchability ” for the law.

    Currently, any country of the former CIS can be called a police state, with the possible exception of Lithuania and Ukraine (in the latter there are too many parties claiming to be “police”). Many third world countries that have moved away from dictatorships in favor of democracy use this model of governance. In Europe, an almost ideal police state is the United Kingdom, where very strict measures are possible by law, and activities outside the legal field are punished very harshly. At the same time, the police have exclusive rights and are virtually beyond their jurisdiction (see cases of shooting at people, etc.) At the same time, the UK is a developed country with a high standard of living and one of the world leaders.

    Party dictatorships like the DPRK, where society is rigidly governed by an inflexible system of rules, to which only a few people are immune, as well as the right to introduce new ones, should not be considered “police states”. There are no police here as such – the party is the police and is just as vulnerable to the wrath of the leaders as ordinary Koreans.

    The militarized society of South Korea also does not fit the role of a classic “police state”, although the level of freedom and ideals of the locals may surprise the average European.�

    As a rule, the term “police state “is used to denounce” insufficiently democratic “regimes by more” developed ” ones, or by socialists to refer to conservative democracies. It is incorrect to call non-democratic regimes by this term in principle.

  5. The police state is described in George Orwell's low-grade novel 1984, which is also considered an icon of dystopia. In fact, there are no such States. In fact, any economically developed state suppresses in one way or another a person and his political freedoms, from that there are appropriate analogies in conversations about Russia, the United States, or Spain. This is a stamp that is used for a depressing assessment of the state of affairs in a country with political freedoms.

Leave a Reply

Categories