Why monarchy. Monarchy

The monarchy is such a tool for managing the life of the state, which serves its greatness. The preservation of the monarchy is a guarantee of the preservation of the Fatherland. This was precisely the opinion of the great historian of Russia N.M. Karamzin.

According to the definition of the author of the "English Constitution" Walter Baghot, a monarchy is when one person who does grandiose deeds focuses all the attention of people on himself. And this is in contrast to the republic, when it is divided among many, of which none does anything memorable.

The most powerful form of government was the monarchy in the eyes of France's most famous writer, Jean-Jacques Rousseau.

The most natural form of government, the best and most correct, was considered by the Greek philosopher Aristotle to be a monarchy. According to his definition, it grows out of the people and exists for the people. And in translation from Greek, it means the power of a single person.

The main idea of ​​the monarchy is that a person alone rules, is considered a charitable figure and for this reason makes everyone who believes supporters of monarchism.

The monarch himself, as the anointed of God, is perceived as a symbol of morality, not at all legally, which contributes to the strengthening of the patriotism of the country's citizens. He rules for the good of the people, he is fully aware of his responsibility. As a rule, he is quite an experienced politician, because he has been taught to rule since childhood.

Such an ideology is close to the supporters of autocracy, as well as absolutism, when the monarch in the country is the sole ruler. Monarchism also has other directions:

1. Constitutional, when the government is carried out by the parliament, and the role of the monarch is almost decorative, for example, as it is in Spain, Denmark or Great Britain. It serves as a symbol of the country.
2. Dualistic, in which the monarch and parliament rule together and there is a division of power into judicial, executive and legislative.
3. Parliamentary, with the monarch in control of the judiciary.

The main feature of any monarchy is having a single chapter who has power for life, inherited. It is he who represents the country in the political arena, and is also the guardian and guarantor of the continuity of traditions.

Benefits of Monarchy

Opinions about this type of government are many and all sorts. But no matter what anyone says, there are advantages so obvious that it is rather difficult to dispute them.

1. Decisions are made very quickly and just as quickly implemented. Think about it first. Actually, it all depends on a single person. No debates. And this is especially significant and effective when a difficult time has come for the country. Even if the power of the monarch is a formality, he can become a symbol of the unity of the state.
2. It is easier to carry out long-term transformations in the state. Replacing leaders from one to another in a democracy threatens to change course, often to a sharply opposite one. And this can threaten the well-being of the country and its citizens. But the monarch is able to implement cardinal changes that are unpopular at the present time, but necessary in the future.
3. The monarch does not seek to improve his own welfare at public expense. This is obvious, he himself is a state.
4. Unity of power. A monarch is not just an individual power, it is also a strong system of power.
5. The coming to power of a random person is excluded.

The monarch, by virtue of his upbringing and circumstances, understands how responsible his place is. He is not a random person for whom power is only a goal.

Among the undoubted advantages are greater confidence of the monarch in his power, and hence a minimum of political repression. And the political upheavals of the monarchy are not as terrible as the republic, for example, because the successor is usually known.

Cons of a monarchy

But not everything is so smooth and beautiful. And the shortcomings of the monarchical system of government in some way can overshadow its advantages.

1. The throne is wonderful. But no one can guarantee that the successor will turn out to be a good ruler, that he will be capable of correct decisions, that he can lead the people, or vice versa, that he will not turn out to be a tyrant. And then the monarchy will easily turn into a dictatorship. Moreover, history knows many examples of a bloody struggle for the throne, when both the monarch and other applicants were killed by the heirs. And it is unlikely that the monarch will be replaced.
2. The monarch quickly, firmly and single-handedly makes decisions. But he does not bear any responsibility to anyone for this, even if they contradict the state interests.
3. There is no need to talk about pluralism under a monarchy.
4. Monarchy by its very existence contributes to the violation of the principle of equality of people.
5. Even if the royal power is formal, considerable funds are spent on its maintenance from the state budget. For small states, this is especially costly.

World history in the last three centuries has not spared the monarchy. A good example is the French Revolution, which was supposed to deliver a mortal blow by executing the king and his wife. But 80 years had to pass, two emperors Napoleon and two kings by blood had to rule before the republic finally triumphed in the country.

Many times such a form of government as a monarchy has died. But over and over she lives. And today European constitutional monarchies (there are about a dozen of them), Japanese, Middle Eastern monarchies serve as confirmation of this.

Until recently, I found it difficult to decide on my political preferences. The default is "liberal". But what about - freedom, all things ... Only now I understand what the essence of this so-called freedom is ... But the article is not about that, but about the monarchy.

Previously, I did not hesitate to condemn absolutism and was skeptical about it. Considered it a relic of the past. Until I started studying history. Especially - the history of the Great Russian Empire. And everything somehow immediately fell into place in my head.

So why a monarchy?

The answer is much simpler than it seems. Because the monarch has lifelong power. which he passes on to his children.

Well, so what, you ask. And here's what.

Answer 3 questions honestly:

1. Will you make high-quality repairs in a rented apartment? Not? And in your own?
2. Will you carefully wash your rented car, polishing it to a shine with expensive products? Or do this only if it's yours?
3. And, finally, will you work "for your uncle" as diligently and selflessly as you do for yourself, for your business?

That's it. If you know that it is yours. Then you take responsibility for it. You invest in this effort, time, money and soul.

Why would a monarch “do bad things” to his country? After all, he will pass it on to his son. Etc. The rule “at least a flood after us” will not work here.

What about the interim ruler? He doesn't care what happens next. The main thing for him is to have time to snatch more money for himself. So that later, when he is removed, he can live for his own pleasure.

You may object - monarchs are also different. There are crazy ones. There are tyrants. Here's how such a one will ascend the throne - and what to do? To suffer until he dies?

No, history says. Let's see some examples.

Peter III

He reigned for only 6 months. At the age of 30, he amused himself by hanging rats, playing soldiers and marching at night in the Winter Palace. He spoke Russian badly. In the political arena, he acted against Russia, in favor of his idol - the King of Prussia. There is evidence that the sovereign suffered from a manic-depressive psychosis. Outcome? Sudden mysterious death in the suburbs of St. Petersburg.

Pavel I

Ruled the country for 4 years, 4 months and 4 days. Nervous, capricious and not too adequate, the emperor was pedantic to the point of insanity. He found fault with the costumes of the courtiers, kept the officers at bay. He suffered from paranoia - he saw murderers everywhere. Result? Hit with a snuff box in the temple and strangulation with a scarf in the Mikhailovsky Castle.

My conclusion. The monarchy, or at least the firm and more or less permanent power of one president, is a guarantee that this person will really develop the country with all his might. And he doesn’t “grab” money and run away at the first opportunity, knowing that in a year he will still have to give up his “throne” to someone else.

Monarchy, like any form of government, has its advantages and disadvantages.

The main advantage of the monarchy is its patriotism, which is ensured by the fact that the power, the state and the people are the property of the monarch, so he takes care of the state and the people as his property. All kinds of embezzlers are direct enemies of the monarch, because they steal from him. For the same reasons, the monarch protects the state from external enemies - they encroach on his property.

However, this is where the advantages of the monarchy by and large end and continuous disadvantages begin.

The main drawback of the monarchy is that, while ensuring the conceptual patriotism of the rulers, it does not at all guarantee their competence, does not ensure the quality of power.

A monarch can be any kind of patriot, but if he is not capable of governing the state, then there is no sense in his patriotism. It's like putting a person in the cockpit of an airplane who is beautiful in all human respects, only he doesn't know how to fly an airplane. What is the use of his high human qualities if he is not capable of control and will almost certainly crash the plane? Who will be relieved by the fact that the plane crashed a beautiful soul of a person?

And the monarchy has stepped on such a rake in its entire history many times with enviable regularity.

In a hereditary (dynastic) monarchy, problems with the poor quality of a ruler are not only possible, but generally inevitable, because it cannot be that for several generations all children are equal in size with their fathers - this, in principle, does not happen.

There are very few cases in history when great fathers have equally great children. Take any kind of activity where personal qualities play the main role - science, art, sports - how many examples do you know of an outstanding father's son achieving equally outstanding results? There are few such examples. One tenth of a percent, if not less.

How many great writers, composers or architects do you know whose children have become great again? How many scientists? How many athletes?

Why didn't Pushkin's children become equally great poets (or at least simply famous ones), Tolstoy's children did not become equally great writers, Mendeleev's children became great scientists, Vysotsky's children became great songwriters, and so on?

Why don't children of Olympic champions become champions even after one?

Genetics has long answered this question - offspring do not necessarily inherit the best qualities of their parents, especially the best from some purely thematic point of view. That is, children of outstanding parents can also be outstanding, but in a completely different area. And that is infrequent.

It cannot be guaranteed that the eldest son will be the most capable of the children.

There is also such an effect as degeneration - this is when the gene pool is limited, couples begin to be made up of distant relatives and not only a general drop in the quality of offspring occurs, but also real genetic diseases.

And in the monarchy, this problem actually arose, because according to palace rules, kings could only marry well-born princesses, and they were often distant relatives. The circle of marriage acquaintances in a hereditary monarchy is very limited, so degeneration is almost inevitable.

Among other things, there is the problem of fathers and children, when children begin to act contrary to their parents. That's how my father acted - so I will act exactly the opposite and that's it. The attempt of children to prove that they are worthy and even better than their parents sometimes leads to disastrous consequences. And this is all the more likely, the more success the father has achieved. Sometimes, being unable to surpass their father, the children indulge in all serious and begin, out of principle, to break what was built by their ancestors.

A great burden of responsibility always weighs on the heir of a great ruler, society and the elite expect great achievements from him - and not everyone can cope with this burden. Especially if nature is not given to rule the state - that's not given and that's it.

The totality of these factors leads to the fact that the hereditary (dynastic) monarchy is akin to a lottery or roulette.

Sometimes power is in the hands of a truly strong ruler, gifted, capable of governing the country, who is not pressured by the authority of his immediate father. And then the country develops. But this doesn't happen often. In the vast majority of cases, the monarchy either slowly degrades and each next ruler is weaker than the previous one, or even rulers turn out to be a little worse, odd ones a little better, and in general the country hangs like something in an ice hole.

At the same time, the probability of the appearance of a great ruler is approximately equal to the probability that there will be a complete zero - there will be no heirs at all or all of them will be incapacitated. Something like this happened to Ivan the Terrible - out of eight children, only two survived their father, but Dmitry did not live long, and Fedor a little longer, but left no one behind.

Also very characteristic of the dynastic monarchy is the story of the accession of Peter, who was the younger of two brothers, but the elder Ivan was incapacitated. And the struggle for power between Peter and Sophia is also a characteristic example of a monarchy.

The struggle of heirs for power, during which the state is on the verge of turmoil, is another drawback of the dynastic (hereditary) monarchy. In the course of the struggle of successors for power, the state may weaken and fall under the influence of foreign agents, or even fall into confusion.

There is a version that the death of some of the heirs of Ivan the Terrible was also violent and was the result of a struggle for power.

Another example is the murder of Paul, which was carried out in the interests of Great Britain.

Given the above, a hereditary (dynastic) monarchy, in principle, cannot ensure the stable development of the country over long periods of time.

Putting the development of the country "on the roulette" - depending on whether the next heir turns out to be a capable leader or, on the contrary, a degenerate - is too risky. Risky and stupid.

There is another type of monarchy - elective.

An elective monarchy is when power does not pass to the direct heir, but the ruler is chosen by the boyar duma or other similar body (by the way, the Politburo of the Central Committee of the CPSU can also be considered in this capacity and draw parallels).

But there is also a problem with the elective monarchy.

The sovereign chosen by the boyar duma (or even the Politburo of the Central Committee of the CPSU, parliament or other sexual body) may turn out to be, figuratively speaking, not a cake. Something like this happened with Putin. We chose, we thought it would be good, but it turned out not very well. And what to do?

By the way, at the end of the Troubles, the Romanovs were also chosen during the Council. And it is not a fact that the choice was the most correct, because there were not so many successful rulers in the Romanov dynasty.

The disadvantage of an elective monarchy is that it is worth making one mistake at the time of the election of the ruler - and that’s it, the country for many years ends up in the hands of a person who does not justify hopes and leads the state not to prosperity, but to decline.

And even though Putin is not a monarch, the example of his "accession" for many years and without the possibility of a replacement clearly shows what the elective monarchy is fraught with.

Under an elective monarchy, the future of the country is determined in one moment for many years, maybe even for half a century. The price of a mistake is too high for such a decision to be made instantly and irreversibly. It is unreasonable to determine the course of the country 10-50 years ahead at a time, during one meeting. It's just unwise.

The monarchy (both elective and hereditary) has another problem.

When all power is concentrated in one hand and all the most important decisions are closed to one person, he has to work with such an array of information and understand problems of such complexity that it begins to go beyond the limits of human abilities.

This is what led to the destruction of most monarchies in the 19th and 20th centuries and to the transformation of absolute monarchies into constitutional ones.

In the past, when the population was one or two orders of magnitude smaller, the economy was agrarian, when most of the country lived on subsistence farming, when events developed relatively slowly, life flowed measuredly and changed extremely slowly, one ruler could make all key decisions - that was enough abilities of any more or less educated person with a couple of competent advisers. And there was time to make decisions, and the decisions themselves were not so complicated. And a lot could be done according to the template, copying the decisions of the ancestors.

In the 19th century, with the rapid development of economies, population growth, scientific and technological progress, increasing urbanization and industrialization, the abilities of one person were simply not enough to make all the key decisions, simultaneously deal with the legislative framework and control the implementation of laws, and even and engage in foreign policy, participate in wars and all sorts of conflicts.

The division of power into legislative, executive and judicial, as well as the emergence of parliaments that work constantly, and do not assemble episodically like the boyar thoughts of the past - this was the requirement of the time, which turned out to be incompatible with absolute monarchy. Therefore, there were no absolute monarchies, they were preserved only in a small number of countries as exceptions.

Absolute monarchy has simply become obsolete.

The reasons for the destruction of the Russian monarchy largely boil down to this. The prerequisites for the transition from an absolute monarchy to a constitutional or generally to a republican form of government arose as early as the beginning of the 19th century. Decembrists - representatives of the aristocracy, nobility, officers - began to come up with similar ideas. After that, Emperor Alexander II was directly involved in the reforms of the state, but his reforms were not completed and Nicholas II ran into problems when he simply could not keep track of all the affairs and was not able to manage the entire empire "in one person".

Most of the administrative mistakes of the era of Nicholas II, including the failures in the Russo-Japanese and World War I, by and large boil down to the fact that the complexity of the problems turned out to be higher than the level of the emperor's abilities, the volume of information turned out to be too large for one person, and there was no necessary distribution of power. The attempt to create the State Duma was belated and not very successful.

In principle, this problem is solved in a constitutional monarchy.

But a constitutional monarchy is, by and large, no longer a monarchy at all.

There are two types of constitutional monarchy - parliamentary and dualistic. Parliamentary, as in Great Britain, Spain or Japan, is a monarchy in which the monarch performs representative functions. Roughly speaking, shines face. This is essentially a beautiful ritual performed in memory of historical traditions. The monarch does not take real state decisions under a parliamentary form of government.

True, there is a "sect of witnesses of the British Queen", which believes that it is the British royal that rules not only the country, but the whole world. However, this is just a belief, there are no real facts of such a government. These are just myths that the supporters of this theory like and are not confirmed by anything - neither by the economic position of Great Britain in the world, nor by its army and navy, and even more so by the actual actions of the queen. Yes, Britain continues to play a big role in Europe and the world, but the decisions are made by the parliament and the cabinet, and the queen exercises mainly ritual rule.

And even if we take for granted the myth that the British Queen rules the world, then this will be an exception, not the rule, because in all other parliamentary monarchies - Spain, Japan and others - the monarchs do not make state decisions.

There are also dualistic monarchies, when the monarch participates in the real government, but his functions are limited. However, this is a rather rare species, existing in Morocco, Jordan and may be elsewhere. There is no such monarchy in any of the large and developed countries. And calling it a monarchy is also not quite right.

Monarchy is autocracy, from the words "monos" (one) and "archy" (rule).

Monarchy is the essence of one-man rule.

Sole rule is carried out only under an absolute monarchy, when all the supreme power in the country is limited to one person, who is the monarch (sole ruler).

As soon as the monarch loses any significant part of his power (legislative or part of the executive), as soon as the monarch is obliged to confer with parliament (does not do this at will, namely, he becomes obliged to do so) - he ceases to be a monarch in the full sense of the word.

Therefore, the monarchy can be either absolute - this is a full-fledged, real monarchy, or ritual, decorative - this is a parliamentary monarchy, when the monarch performs only representative functions, like a wedding general, is present at events in tribute to traditions.

And even if the British queen actually rules something, this is no longer a monarchy, but some kind of cryptarchy or something like that. If the monarch is forced to hide and encrypt, he is no longer a monarch in the original sense, but a secret ruler.

A monarch is one who rules really and without hiding.

But to rule in the modern world, in a large state, to manage the modern economy, to write laws and monitor their implementation, to manage a country with a multi-million population in our rapidly changing world, in which everyone interacts with everyone, in which technology is rapidly developing and making the world global, where it is simply impossible for one person to succeed in all sciences at once, it is impossible to keep track of all significant events, to control the cabinet of ministers, the army, parliament, courts, the media and much more at the same time - all this is simply beyond the power of one person.

And to close all key state decisions in all spheres of activity of a huge state with a multi-million population per person is completely unreasonable and fraught with multiple management errors, the decline of the state and the collapse of power - about the same as it led to the destruction of the Russian Empire in 1917.

And to choose a sole ruler, on whose success the fate of the state and the many millions of people will depend, for 10-50 years ahead, without the possibility of changing this decision, putting the fate of the whole country for many years ahead on the agenda of one council or council is all the more unreasonable.

Therefore, the monarchy in modern realities in Russia is impossible and unreasonable.

And a hundred years ago, the monarchy in Russia disappeared not by chance and for good reason.

No matter how attractive the history of the great rulers of the past is, no matter how much one would like to see a great and wise king at the head of the state, with a firm hand leading the country to prosperity, there will be no more monarchy in its traditional sense.

In modern realities, absolute monarchy does not work, and any other monarchy, in essence, is not a monarchy. And the past... the past cannot be returned.

Monarchy ("monos" - one, "arche" - power) - a state where the supreme power belongs to one person who uses it at his own discretion, by right that is not delegated to him by any other power.

The monarch acquires power on the principle of blood, inheriting it in his own right ("by the grace of God", as is usually indicated in his title, or in the case of election, "by the grace of God and the will of the people"). The monarch does not bear any legal responsibility for his political actions. All the fullness of the supreme state power is concentrated in the hands of the monarch, the monarch acts as the source of all law, only with his will, certain decrees can acquire the force of law. The monarch is at the head of the executive power, justice is done on his behalf. In the international arena, in relations with other states, the monarch alone represents his state.

With an unlimited, absolute monarchy, the monarch enjoys all the above rights, unconditionally and unlimitedly, with a limited one, through or with the obligatory assistance of any bodies or authorities that exist independently of the monarch.

Republic (the origin of the term is connected with the word "people") - a state where the supreme power is delegated to one or several persons always for a certain period by all the people or part of it, to which sovereignty belongs. Unlike a monarchy, under a republican form of government, the sole source of power under the law is the popular majority.

What is better? Today, it seems to me, hardly anyone seriously thinks about the possibility of the emergence of a monarchy in our country, at least this assumption is true for most of the population. One way or another, after reading a textbook on the theory of state and law, one gets the impression that the monarchy as a form of government has already become a thing of the past.

Indeed, having considered all aspects, the republic in its purest form, the election of power seem to be more fair in relation to human rights, the principle of separation of powers is a rather significant deterrent from arbitrariness and dictatorship. Ideally, based solely on theory, the republican form of government seems to be the solution to all problems, but the human factor still plays a decisive role.

Formally, now the population of the country itself elects the president and the State Duma. But let's look at the psychological aspect of the elections: more than 55% of the population, due to average or low intelligence, are easily amenable to campaigning and vote not for the one who will run the country better (if such people run at all), but for the one whose campaign is better. About 20% do not go to elections, another 25% of the population (smart people) vote for the one who has the most chance of positively influencing the life of the country, but what is the opinion of 25% compared to 55%. As a result, the one who rules is still the one who has more opportunities to come to power, who has stronger and more serious support in economic terms. It is not difficult to conclude in whose interests the government takes place. The three existing branches of government: the executive, legislative and judicial, are more interested in strengthening their own influence, again with the aim of acquiring economic benefits, and not in leading the country to prosperity in all spheres of life by joint efforts.

As for the monarchy.

There are quite constructive approaches that are hard to ignore.

"A group of experts proposed the foundations of construction and the main features of a new monarchy, which, being devoid of the vices of democratic forms of state power, will take all the best from the capitalist and socialist methods of organizing production:

The most effective separation of powers: the Emperor has the legislative and executive, the only elective branch of power is the judiciary (justices of the peace, provincial courts, the Imperial Supreme Court). The courts are supported by a special judicial tax. Justices of the peace are elected from candidates with legal education, and ex officio are members of the Zemsky Assembly. The jurors of the territorial court are chosen from well-known citizens living in the area. The composition of provincial courts is elected by judges and jurors of territorial courts from among their number. Judges of the Supreme Court of the Empire are elected for life at a meeting of provincial courts;

The agreement on rights concluded between the Emperor and the subjects of the Empire - the citizens of Russia - includes the rights and freedoms declared, but not fulfilled by Western democracies. Only the Emperor can be the true guarantor of the rights and freedoms of the citizens of the Empire. To do this, he has all the resources of the country, material means and services of investigation and inquiry. This is done by the victims filing a claim for damages, the respondent in the claim is the Emperor (in the person of his representative in court). If the court recognizes the justice of the claim from the Imperial Treasury, the victim is paid the amount of the claim. And the relevant services of the Empire, using their own methods, find the culprit and recover the damage through the courts. Such a mechanism actually provides guarantees of public security in the country;

Establishing the material responsibility of the Emperor to the citizens of Russia: in criminal cases, the damage to the victim is compensated from the Imperial treasury, the Imperial bodies of investigation and inquiry find and return to the treasury the lost, while recovering from the guilty party the costs of the investigation;

A multi-party system as a form and means of expressing public sentiment, a mechanism for shaping the views of the heirs to the throne and all Russian youth, but not a mechanism for the struggle for political power. The essence of political parties is changing: they will move from the struggle for power to the struggle for minds. In any educational institutions, history and social science lessons will be held in the form of a discussion of specially trained representatives of various parties. The teacher leads a discussion on a given topic, and the students prepare essays based on the results of the discussion. The best orators and ideologists of the party are sent to televised debates, in which the heirs to the throne participate;

The system of education of the personality of the heir to the throne, guaranteed against failures: there may be several heirs, they will grow, thanks to the media, in full view of all of Russia. The monarch, like any master, will choose a worthy successor to his cause. The Russian society participates in the upbringing of all heirs through its representatives (read about the new role of parties on the website). The sovereign decides whom to consider as POSSIBLE heirs to the throne: children, grandchildren, bastards or foundlings from an orphanage - and chooses the best;

The heirs of the Romanov dynasty cannot be considered as possible contenders for the Russian throne - this is a dead branch. Any citizen of Russia who lives by her fate and is ready to accept the listed responsibilities will be better than alien heirs who boast of their origin!

A developed system for identifying and shaping public opinion, a controlled confrontation between the individual and the authorities;

The formation of the noble elite not by hereditary law, but through the mechanism of "confirmation" of merit to the Empire;

All the best features of the Western economy can be embodied in a monarchical state: freedom of enterprise, competition in goods, lending to new projects from the Imperial treasury. But above the power of money is the power of the Personality - the Emperor. The only wealth that the Emperor must constantly maintain is Russia and the trust of all its citizens. Russia is the source of his pride, his Cause. (By the way, in the days of Tsarist Russia, it was this word that determined the occupation of our merchants and industrialists.) He has everything else. He will pass on his authority to his heir as the main inheritance. Since, over the power of capital will be the power of Man, such a device is more humane than Western-style democracies!

In Russia, traditionally, the majority of the population believes in a "good ruler" and "bad officials." Therefore, it is proposed to return to the monarchical method of organizing power - as the most suitable for "taming" the official. An official swears allegiance to the Sovereign, any injustice of an official is a stain on the honor of the Sovereign, which the monarch cannot allow. The mechanism of swearing an oath to the Emperor is the most effective way to reduce all kinds of control bodies and local government structures. The oath deprives the employee of the right to go to court. The guarantees of the Agreement on the rights of an official do not apply, the Emperor personally decides on the punishment of imperial employees who cast a shadow on the image of the monarch;

In the field of religious relations, it is necessary to apply the principle known in history as the "phenomenon of the Indian king Ashoka": a) instead of a state religion - a variety of equal concessions; b) the Imperial family has its own - less common - religion". www.forumy.ru/

In my opinion, a rather interesting position, it sounds, in any case, beautiful, but it is not clear what the transition to the monarchy will be like. It is unlikely that the oligarchs, party members will simply watch their places near the tsar be occupied by "some aristocrats", and where can they be recruited now? And who will choose and how? Still, the statement about the fact that the tsar should take care of the people is not convincing, people have never been valued in Russia. The term of the president is 4-8 years, the king - for life. And if the king is not far off? And when the tsar is weak - his entourage rules, there is also little good, and again, no one remembers the little people. Again, the king does not always have an heir born "king", even the appropriate upbringing does not always bear fruit, and if it does, then not always what one would like.

Every form of government has flaws. And they are caused, first of all, by the imperfection of human nature, and not by the state system.

To end with this statement:

"We had an ORTHODOX monarchy in Russia, and in order to understand the essence of the monarchy, first of all, you need to be Orthodox, you need to go to church, observe fasts and other prescriptions and restrictions that the Orthodox faith imposes. Only then can you begin to explain to a person what the essence of the monarchical Democracy is a FORM OF GOVERNMENT, and monarchy is a FORM OF LIFE OF THE PEOPLE, and these are "two big differences" www.forumy.ru/

It is clearly shown here that the monarchy, or rather absolute monarchy, is still a form of government that requires religious principles, a special socio-psychological environment. We have a huge country with many nationalities and religions, and by making the same Christianity the state religion, you can thereby ignite real ethnic conflicts on religious grounds.

At present, autocratic absolute monarchies have survived only in a few countries (Saudi Arabia, Oman, the United Emirates). Perhaps I will not be objective, but it seems to me that this form of government in modern society has simply exhausted itself.

If we talk about the constitutional monarchy that exists in Great Britain, the Netherlands, Belgium, Sweden, Denmark, Spain, Japan, then in these cases the monarch is a symbol and the supreme arbiter of the nation, standing above party fights and ensuring the unity of the country. In general, monarchs under the Constitutional Monarchy do not have any significant political and legislative powers, being a kind of tribute to tradition and distinguished by colorful paraphernalia.

Summing up, I still prefer the Republic. An element of freedom must be present in a person's worldview, even if it is more of an illusion, but people must believe that their opinion really matters. This should spur a person to action, to the desire to change the state of things for the better, which should favorably affect the state of affairs of the state as a whole.

The discussion about Orthodoxy and the state system, started on our website back in May by Alexander Shchipkov, Alexei Ulyanov and Alexander Zhuravsky, is continued by Alexander ZAKATOV, Ph.D. heritage, member of the Writers' Union of Russia:

Monarchy - a form of government established by God
The main principle of the monarchy - the divine establishment of royal power - stems from human nature itself. The Lord created man in His image and likeness, and human society should ideally be organized in the image and likeness of the Kingdom of Heaven. It is unlikely that anyone will dare to say that republican relations are possible there.
Temporary earthly life is preparation for eternal heavenly life. Therefore, it must proceed in the pursuit of conformity to heavenly principles. When we pray the words of the Lord's Prayer "Let kingdom Yours" when we confess in the Creed "His own kingdom there shall be no end,” we testify that the Kingdom is a God-established, eternal and universal principle.
The Fundamentals of the Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church formulated the current position of the Church on the issue of relations with the secular republican state. And in this document, which reflects the current specific historical situation, nowhere is it said about the “God-established republic”, however, there is a quote from the 6th short story of the holy emperor Justinian, proclaiming the principle of God-established royal power: “The greatest blessings bestowed on people by the highest goodness of God are the priesthood and kingdom, of which the first takes care of divine affairs, and the second directs and takes care of human affairs, and both, from the same source constitute the adornment of human life.
Attempts to present the matter in such a way that by "kingdom" is meant any state power do not stand up to scrutiny. If we follow such vicious logic, then we can say that under the "priesthood" St. Justinian does not mean the Church, but any sect. Of course, by "kingdom" is meant precisely the kingdom, that is, God-established royal power, and by "priesthood" - the true priesthood, that is, the hierarchy of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
Contrary to popular belief, which was established as a result of not entirely successful translations of the Holy Scriptures (including the Synodal), not at all "all power is from God." The Slavic translation, which is closest to the Greek original, conveys to us the true meaning of the words of the holy Apostle Paul: “For there is no power except from God” (Rom. 13:1). The Slavic word "asche" does not mean "which", but "if". If we compare the Greek text: "ου γαρ εστιν εξουσια ει μη απο θεου"; Latin translation of the Bible (Vulgate): "Omnis anima potestatibus subjecta esto, non enim est potestas nisi a Deo" (Romanos. 13:1); the Old English translation is the King James Bible: “Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God” (Romans. 13:1), one can be convinced that in all translations the corresponding phrase means “if not”, and not at all “which”. The semantic difference is enormous.
Any monarchy, even pagan, not to mention Christian, itself proclaims that it has the divine will as its source. And the republic, on the contrary, itself denies the divine origin of power and considers the source of power not God, but the people.

Monarchy is not a forced, but a universal principle
The references of opponents of the monarchy to the description of the establishment of royal power among the Hebrew people (and, by the way, not among people in general) taken out of context are untenable. The conflict of the situation lay in the fact that the Israelis then rejected the principle of Theocracy - the direct rule of God, which, of course, is higher than all possible systems of power. However, such direct Divine guidance took place only in relation to one nation and only at a certain stage in its history - from Moses to Samuel. The sin of the people of Israel was not in the desire to have a monarchy, but in the circumstances in which this desire was realized.
If we draw an analogy, then, for example, for any person, the desire to have a family, “to be fruitful and multiply” is not sinful in itself. The denial of the sanctity and divine institution of marriage is heresy, cursed by the apostles (see 1 Tim. 4:1-3) and councils. But there may be, and, alas, more and more often there are circumstances when a specific attempt to start a family is associated with sinful motives and a lack of understanding of the moral foundations of marriage.
It is easy to see that the monarchy is not a “forced form”, but a principle established by God and pleasing to Him, if one reads the Holy Scripture not in fragments, but consistently and does not pull out convenient quotations from it. The king of Salem, Melchizedek, who also combines the properties of a priest and a prophet, is a prototype of the Savior in the Bible when God's chosen people did not yet exist at all. Among the positive promises given by God to the forefather Abraham, we see the prediction: "...and kings will come from you..." (Genesis 17:6). The holy prophet Moses, who himself was the king of Israel during the period of the exodus from Egypt and wandering in the wilderness (see Deut. 33: 5), commands his fellow tribesmen to set “a king over himself” after coming to the promised land (see Deut. 17: 14 ). And the absence of a king, Holy Scripture directly links as cause and effect, with the lack of justice and law. This is stated in the Book of Judges, in its last words, which until then sounded like a refrain in describing various horrific atrocities: “In those days there was no king among Israel; each did what seemed right to him” (Judges 21:25).

Why the monarchy is not a step back
The monarchy has always evolved. As a principle of state structure, it is in no way connected with feudalism, or with slavery, or with capitalism, or with socialism. The monarchical idea of ​​the state-family is compatible with any political and economic system. It is a principle of government, not just a form. There is no reason to suppose that if there had not been a revolution, it would have frozen in some forever predetermined form. Therefore, the restoration of the monarchy, if it takes place, will never be a return to some former reality.
The head of the House of Romanov, Grand Duke Vladimir Kirillovich, answered this question best of all in one of his first interviews: “Monarchy is the only form of government that is compatible with any political system, since the purpose of the monarch is to be the supreme arbiter.” Curiously, even such an enemy of the monarchy as V. I. Lenin admitted the same thing: “The monarchy is generally not a uniform and unchanging institution, but a very flexible institution capable of adapting to various class relations of domination.” (Lenin V.I. Complete works. - T. 20. - M .: GIPL, 1961. - S. 359). I repeat once again: the monarchy is a timeless divine principle of power, and not a form inherent in any particular era.

Is a monarchy possible in Russia?
Can we talk about what objective and subjective conditions are necessary for the restoration of the monarchy in Russia? To answer this question, you need to write hundreds of volumes. And then reality will overturn all these assumptions and constructions. If you try to highlight the main thing, then the restoration of the monarchy can only happen by the grace of God and by the will of the people. If these two mandatory conditions appear, all the rest will be subjective. Facilitating conditions will be achievable, and obstacles - surmountable.
What is needed in order for God's mercy and the people's will to unite? His Holiness Patriarch Kirill, analyzing the causes of the collapse of the monarchy and the possibility of its revival, impeccably points out that the implementation of the monarchical idea in practice is inextricably linked with a fairly high level of "the religious and moral state of society."
Some are trying to interpret the words of His Holiness the Patriarch in such a way that a true monarchy is allegedly possible only in a perfect society, consisting almost entirely of saints. This, of course, is a distortion of the thought of the Primate of our Church. If universal holiness were possible, then the need for an earthly state would disappear. The Kingdom of God would just come. But this will not happen until the Last Judgment.
To restore the monarchy, it is required that the religious and moral state of society reach at least the level of consciousness that godlessness and evil should not be justified and cultivated, but eradicated. Everyone cannot become saints, and holiness does not imply, as some erroneously believe, sinlessness. But the distinction between good and evil, the attraction to good and the desire to move away from evil is accessible to most people. And then comes the understanding of the need for power "according to God's will, and not according to the many-rebellious human desire."
The monarchy is steadily striving for the ideals of love, faith, hope, fidelity, justice and honor. It doesn't always work out, but it strives, by its very nature.
A huge role in ensuring the real, and not hypothetical responsibility of the monarchy is played by the heredity of royal power. The sovereign, who has taken power from his ancestors and is aware that he will have to pass it on to his children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren, treats the country and people much more responsibly than a temporary worker, even the most honest and decent.

Is monarchy hostile to democracy?
Patented "democrats" like to quote W. Churchill, who said that "democracy is a very bad system, but mankind has not come up with anything better." But they forget that these words belong to Her Majesty's Prime Minister, a staunch monarchist. This I mean that real monarchists are real democrats. And vice versa.
Each nation has its own way of development. I do not consider it possible to condemn the Anglo-Saxon, Dutch or Scandinavian modifications of the monarchy. However, I cannot recognize any of them as suitable for Russia. We have our own tradition of harmonious combination of management methods.
Some monarchists are convinced that democracy is, by definition, hostile to monarchy. In fact, democracy or politeia (democracy, people's rule), according to the teachings of Aristotle, is one of the forms of government, along with the monarchy (monocracy) and aristocracy (the power of the best).
In life, none of these forms exists in its pure form. In any state there are areas where autocracy and a strict hierarchy cannot be dispensed with (the armed forces), where an elite aristocratic element is necessary (the armed forces, health care, science, education, art) and where broad popular participation cannot be avoided (local self-government, organization of economic activity). , that is, everything that concerns the daily life of most citizens). There must be a right balance between these forms of government.
But democracy as the supreme power of an abstract people is a fiction and in practice has never existed anywhere, because power, as a manifestation of the will, is always personified. Democracy declared by the supreme power, however sad it may be to realize, is in fact a screen to cover up the power of the oligarchy. It is very accurately said that "democracy is not the power of the people, but the power of the democrats." The difference between such “democrats” and monarchists is that monarchists offer honest relations, while “democrats” deceive the people, on whom nothing really depends under their rule.
Under a legitimate monarchy, democracy as an element of the state system, together with the supreme God-established monarchical power and the technocratic (modern manifestation of the aristocracy) power of professionals, not only has the full right to exist, but is also necessary.