How does the democratic state?

There is an old myth, very convenient for the executive power - the equality or equilibrium of the three branches of government.

Let's face it.  Democracy - rule by the people.  Simple and easy for the people of ancient Athens to gather at the Forum and to solve pressing problems of social life.  All occurred within a small by modern standards, the town has a population of tens of thousands of people.

How, in what superforume, now you can collect 130 million Russians, or 40 million Ukrainians - is unknown.  Hence was invented Institute of elected representatives - parliament .  Candidates for MPs offered their action programs, voters choose among them the most relevant to their interests, and the person who offered such a program, becoming a deputy.  They all come together to form a parliament, and make some decisions.

But immediately raises the question - who are these solutions will be put into practice?  Then the parliament takes a decision on the introduction of taxes and the creation of an executive authority, ie  hire people who will execute his decisions. 

It also establishes the post of chief government official, president, head of the whole executive power.  The fact that MPs are left to the people the right to designate a specific person for this position, in principle, nothing changes, no additional powers to the President does not.  He and all his subordinates are still the people hired for the execution of the Parliament, ie, completely subordinate to him.

In the presidential oath shall be the words "undertake to accurately execute all decisions of the legislative and judicial powers, everything else, there stirs the president in his oath - so lyrical, these same words must be exhausted and the program of the president.  Note the essential difference - the decision of the Parliament are binding all citizens, is, by and large, the solution of all the people the president's decision are binding only on government officials.

Now on the right of veto, which seems to be the call between the president and parliament.  MPs - it is possible to say, people from the street.  Someone from their lawyer, the other - the teacher, the third - a worker.  And often happens that they are in their weight, not being experts in a certain issue, take not the optimal solution.  On the other hand, the president is subordinate to the relevant minister, which is competent pursuant to the decision adopted by the parliament.  The idea is that this minister is one of the best in the country, experts on the subject, he immediately sees all the shortcomings of the decision, report them to the president, and they must work together to decide on the veto, although formally it imposes a single president, and he is obliged to present and reasons for its imposition.  Thus, the presidential veto - only the request to parliament to take into account the views of experts on the subject under discussion.

Now, about the judiciary.  Suppose Parliament passed a law - let's say, "Thou shalt not kill."  And a citizen took and killed him, although they say they did not kill anyone.  Parliament itself can not deal with each of these cases, especially since millions of them, and parliamentarians of several hundred people.  To get out of this situation, again, the Parliament shall establish another branch of government designed to deal with each specific violation of law - judicial power and executive power imposes the obligation to execute and its solutions.

Thus the structure of a democratic state is as follows: the source of power is the people, he chooses the parliament, which establishes the judicial and executive branches, the latter dominates the first, and both are subordinate to the parliament.  So what about some equity and balance of powers - hence, grist to the mill of executive power, which already has the country's peak real power.

Of course, all this theoretical scheme.  In real countries, Russia or Ukraine, not to mention the central Asian republics, to this ideal - as the sky.  Almost all power belongs to the leaders of political parties which, in turn, are subject to a kind of secret tips oligarchs , of which ordinary citizens know almost nothing and can only wonder why it Yeltsin before stranglehold gripping the presidency, suddenly in the New Year's address declares his resignation.