Abstract

The recent history of Ukraine shows that the state can be in the form of state government nomenclature,, and under its political regime - a totalitarian and administrative state, but at the same time pursue social, paternalistic policies. In the Soviet era, Ukraine was called the Soviet republic, but in fact it was a nomenclature republic, since real power belonged to it not to the Soviets of People’s Deputies or even to the Communist Party, but also to the so-called nomenclature - to the ruling class of the Soviet Union. With regard to the widespread epithet «authoritarian», which is commonly used to characterize the political regime of the post-Stalinist period, this epithet is best used to define the style of leadership rather than the political regime. After the declaration of state independence in Ukraine in accordance with the Constitution of 1996 and amendments thereto, there were parliamentary-presidential, then presidential-parliamentary models of a democratic republic. It depended on which of the branches of government formally had more authority. However, with regard to the essential, not formal, features of the modern Ukrainian state, it has become a typical oligarchic republic, since the oligarchy plays a leading economic and political role, just as the Communist nomenclature previously did. As for the political regime, liberal policy was proclaimed in Ukraine after the proclamation of state independence - people were granted basic freedoms, a multi-party system was formed, ideological pluralism was introduced, the church was separated from the state and so on. However, as it turned out, it was only the implementation of certain liberal mechanisms in the old bureaucratic system, which subsequently acquired more and more features inherent in the totalitarian regime. As for the political regime, liberal policy was proclaimed in Ukraine after the proclamation of state independence - people were granted basic freedoms, a multi-party system was formed, ideological pluralism was introduced, the church was separated from the state and so on. However, as it turned out, it was only the implementation of certain liberal mechanisms in the old bureaucratic system, which subsequently acquired more and more features inherent in the totalitarian regime. Election of President V. Zelensky and a stunning victory in the parliamentary elections of the Servant of the People Party again led to a certain liberalization of the regime and gave rise to high expectations in Ukrainian society for the development of democracy and the achievement of social justice. However, while the overall picture seems still blurred, its contours are fuzzy and fleeting. An important task of a researcher of recent national history is not so much the description of social processes, political events and phenomena as the disclosure of their contradictory nature, which, among other things, will contribute to the implementation of the cornerstones of historical science - the principles of historicism, objectivity, systematicity.