HOKIMIYAT TUSHUNCHASI VA UNING SIYOSIY TIZIMLARDAGI O’RNI
Keywords:
Kalit so’zlar: hokimiyat bo’linish prinsiplari, mikro hokimiyatlar, panoptikon loyihasi, despotizm, avtoritarizm, kongress, veto, impechment, disiplinar jamiyat., Keywords: principles of separation of powers, micro-governments, panopticon project, despotism, authoritarianism, congress, veto, impeachment, disciplinary societyAbstract
Annotatsiya: Ushbu maqola hokimiyat tushunchasi nazariyalarini yaratgan Mishel Fuko va Sharl Lui Monteskyening siyosiy hokimiyat va uning siyosiy tizimlardagi o’rnini taqqoslaydi. Monteskye o’zining "Qonunlarning ruhi" asarida hokimiyatni uch bo‘linishga ajratish zarurligini va bu orqali erkinlikni saqlashni ta'kidlagan. U hokimiyatning bo‘linishi faqat jamiyatni adolatli va barqaror qilish uchun emas, balki fuqarolarning erkinligini himoya qilish uchun ham kerakligini nazarda tutgan. Fuko esa hokimiyatni faqat qonunlar yoki davlat orqali emas, balki ijtimoiy munosabatlar va institutlar orqali ham amalga oshirish mumkinligini ko‘rsatgan. U hokimiyatning mikro darajadagi shakllanishiga, ya'ni odamlar o‘rtasidagi muntazam va kichik ijtimoiy aloqalarda qanday qilib amalga oshishiga diqqat qaratgan. Maqolada bu ikki olimning siyosiy tizimlar va hokimiyat haqidagi qarashlari solishtirilgan bo‘lib, ular o‘rtasidagi farqlar va o‘xshashliklar tahlil qilinadi. Maqola, hokimiyatning siyosiy tizimdagi o‘rnini va uning jamiyatdagi erkinlikka ta'sirini yaxshiroq tushunishga yordam beradi.
Abstract: This article compares the theories of power and its role in political systems as developed by Michel Foucault and Charles Louis Montesquieu. In his work "The Spirit of the Laws," Montesquieu emphasized the necessity of dividing power into three branches, thereby preserving freedom. He argued that the separation of powers is essential not only for creating a just and stable society but also for protecting citizens' freedoms. Foucault, on the other hand, demonstrated that power can be exercised not only through laws or the state but also through social relationships and institutions. He focused on the formation of power at the micro level, that is, how it is realized in regular and small social contacts between people. The article compares the views of these two scholars on political systems and power, analyzing the differences and similarities between them. The article helps to better understand the role of power in the political system and its influence on freedom in society.