REFERENDUMUL CA FORMĂ FUNDAMENTALĂ A DEMOCRAȚIEI POLITICE

Abstract

Suveranitatea națională aparține poporului, iar cele mai importante probleme ale societății și ale statului le poate rezolva el însuși sau prin reprezentații săi. Referendumul, inclusiv prin inițiativa populară, în sensul prevederilor constituţionale, reprezintă o formă supremă de exercitare a suverani tăţii naţionale. În timp ce încrederea în Parlament, ca organ reprezentativ, scade constant, referendumul poate deveni o formă viabilă de consultare a poporului, precum și de adoptare a cadrului legal. Referendumul este un instrument important al democraţiei directe.National sovereignty belongs to the people, and the most important problems of society and the state can be solved by it self or through its representatives. The referendum, even by popular demand, in the sense of constitutional stipulations, is a supreme form of exercising national sovereignty. While trust in the Parliament, as a representative body, is steadily declining, the referendum could become a viable form of public consultation as well as the adoption of the legal framework. The referendum is an important tool of direct democracy.At the beginning the study underlines the scope of the problem by coming forward with a definition to the collocation of “mediating the commission of a crime”. A definition that put sgreat incentive towards forward characherization of the two derivatives forms of mediating the act of receiving and giving a bribe, which are: mediating intellectually the act of receiving and giving a bribe; mediating physically the act of receiving a bribe and giving a bribe. As a result, it is determined the moment of consumption for mediating the act of receiving and giving a bribe for each of these forms. There is also analyzed the circumstance of partial completion of the intention determined by a plurality of mediators. As an aftermath, it is mentioned that if, for reasons independent of the will of one of the mediators, the bribed person did not enter into the possession of the illicit remuneration, this act will be considered as an attempt to mediate the act of receiving a bribe and giving a bribe. It is argued that the mediator of an act of giving a bribe is not a part of the objective side of the act in question, and the mediator of an act of receiving a bribe is not a part of the objective side of the same act as well. The main conclusion is that the mediator cannot be held liable under the provisions of par.(5) art.42, art.333 or art.334 PC RM for giving away the material (immaterial ) object of the act of receiving a bribe and the act of giving a bribe. The complicity forms set out in par.(5) art. 42 PC RM are considered sufficient and exhaustive. Any attempt to arbitrarily expand this list or to extensively negatively interpret the collocation of „obstacle elimination”, which is a complicity form of the crime, must be ruled out as unlawful. It is considered absolutely necessary to supplement par. (5) art.42 PC RM so it would include the mediator giving away the material (immaterial) object of the act of receiving a bribe and the act of giving a bribe.