MONARCHY, a form of government characterized by autocracy, usually hereditary. At the tribal stage of development in many primitive societies known to anthropologists today, the monarchical principle is expressed in the institution of leaders. Any kind of individual leadership among the people has some degree of monarchical nature, but in practice one must distinguish between a freely chosen leader whose influence is based on the ability to express the consent of the group, and a leader whose power is based on custom, tradition, law, the support of the clergy, or any basis other than voluntary cooperation. Only the second kind of power is monarchical; the decisive difference lies in how exactly the dominance of the individual is recognized, whether it is accepted spontaneously (leadership) or an institutional establishment (monarchy) that allows an individual to exercise power regardless of his personal qualities. Thus, one of the main criteria is whether the ruler should deserve his seat or throne.

Almost all monarchies in history have been hereditary, to the extent that applicants are not tested for suitability to rule, but for legitimacy, i.e. to descent in a straight line from the formerly ruling family. This does not contradict the fact that new dynasties usually resort to seizing power, because then, as a rule, appropriate genealogical documents are then carefully fabricated or a connection is established, through marriage or adoption, with the old dynasty. By its very nature, the monarchy seems to be extremely adapted to the needs of a society closely associated with traditions, and this is confirmed by the fact that the kings often performed, in addition to the duties of leadership and management, various priestly and symbolic functions. Most monarchs sought to approve and support folk faith to the divine origin of the throne and their families. The recent decline in the prestige and power of monarchs partly reflects the rise in the worldly orientation of modern civilization.

In the 19th, 20th and 21st centuries many monarchies managed to adapt to the changed conditions and become symbolic embodiments of the cultural unity of their peoples. The religious sanction was to some extent replaced by a powerful psychological imperative of national feeling.

As for the possibility of supporting monarchical institutions, which stems from loyalty to economic and social dogmas, there are no convincing examples so far. Modern totalitarian dictatorships show something close, but they are based on the personal qualities of an attractive leader. In addition, here the problem of establishing legitimacy is solved in a new way, completely unrelated to the appeal to historical precedent, which is essential for the monarchy. Inheritance is another important criterion for the existence of monarchical institutions, and there is also a lack of experience on it, which could justify a judgment about the possibility of regular inheritance in a modern dictatorship. Finally, a regime where everyone who occupies the highest office is a usurper, as it has been until now, can hardly meet the principle of legitimacy.

Origin of the monarchy

The origins of the monarchy are found in the distant past, before the emergence of writing and chronicle history. The mythology and folklore of all countries speak of kings, attributing to them legendary acts of valor, piety, foresight, and justice, or—quite often—deeds of the opposite kind. The stereotypes of the warrior king, the sinless monarch, the royal legislator, and the supreme judge testify to the various roles that kings were called to fulfill.

Which of these roles can be distinguished as primary or decisive in the emergence of prehistoric monarchy is the subject of much debate. Some believed that the military function acted as a catalyst, and leadership in the war, once the fighting stopped, usually led to the appropriation of priestly, judicial, economic and other functions. Some confirmation of this point of view can be found both among ancient and modern primitive peoples in a certain tendency to transfer emergency power to individual leaders or rulers in times of crisis - for example, when there is a threat of an internal split or an external attack. Such was the reign ancient Sparta, and the dictatorship in the Roman Republic, and the wartime powers of contemporary democratic leaders, reveal this trend.

On the other hand, the example suggests that in a relatively peaceful life, kingship is more directly related to the maintenance of social discipline through an elaborate system of religious sanctions centered on the divine person of the monarch. History also provides additional examples of relatively isolated and non-belligerent societies in which the military function was either not of paramount importance to the royal office, or was completely separated from it. In kings, apparently, only from time to time they were endowed with priestly and military functions, their primary roles being ruler and judge. There is also a theory that the complex legislation and jurisprudence that grew out of the elaborate system of artificial irrigation in Mesopotamia could give a special character to the institutions of power that developed here.

Although the monarchy probably had different origins in different conditions, a certain form of it appears everywhere with the establishment of a settled way of life and growth. Ancient kingdoms seem to have been connected mainly with cities - economic and political centers, from where quite extensive regions could be taxed, protected and effectively organized for external expansion. Maritime cities (for example, Athens, Carthage, Venice, Amsterdam, and London) seem to have been exceptions, since in them we find the earliest germs of a democratic system. Big cities distant from the sea, such as Babylon, Jerusalem, Memphis, Sparta, Rome, Madrid, Vienna, Berlin, Paris and Moscow, showed a particular inclination towards monarchy, probably because, in conditions of slow overland communications, only a system of concentration of power and responsibility in one The face has proven the ability to act with the energy needed to overcome the obstacles of time and space.

Monarchy restrictions.

Not all who owned the throne could cope with their task; some were forced to abdicate, overthrown or killed, others were forced to share power with the nobility or the bureaucracy. All monarchs were more or less dependent on their servants and subjects, and only by being able to intimidate them or convince them to support their policies, they achieved effective and absolute government. Power under a monarchy, therefore, is, as it were, the resultant individual will of the ruler and the agreement between the richest and most strategically dominant classes of his subjects. Some monarchs have come to the conclusion that even powerful subjects can be brought into obedience by appealing over their heads to the common people, who often see them as natural enemies and exploiters. Such monarchs (the prototype, apparently, was the first emperor of Rome) sometimes achieved practically unlimited power for limited periods of time. This idea was the main one outlined in the Sovereign's section on the "civil principality".

Full text search:

Home > Abstract >State and Law

Introduction ……………………………………………………………….6

The history of development and the essence of the monarchy …………………………… 8

Classification of varieties of monarchies ………………………… 11

Conclusion ……………………………………………………………19

References ………………………………………………………25

Appendix A …………………………………………………………26

Introduction

In this paper, the topic is considered: "Types of monarchies in the modern world." Its relevance lies in the fact that our state has recently been at the final stage of the formation of its independence, so the question of the form of government and the organization of supreme power is still relevant today.

Within the framework of this topic, the following issues are considered: the history of development and the essence of the monarchy, the classification of varieties of monarchies.

Today, there is a mass of different literature, after reading which you can notice a large number of points of view and opinions regarding the classification of monarchies. Many scientists worked on this problem: V.N. Kartashov, V.K. Babaev, M.I. Baitin, A.V. Melekhin, V.V. Lazarev, S.S. Alekseev, M.N. Marchenko, A.S. Pigolkin. Science does not stand still, especially legal science, it develops all the time, and therefore needs to be analyzed, corrected, supplemented and improved. This implies another most important task of the course work - to present a variety of statements about understanding the types of monarchies.

For several centuries, many prominent people have described the forms of state power. One of the first was Aristotle, who, following Plato, faced the most different forms organization and exercise of state power in the ancient world, tried to develop a classification. Defining the concept - the form of government, it is necessary to answer the question of who and how governs, exercises state power in a state-organized society, how state-power structures are arranged, organized and operate in it. He singled out several forms of government: the republic, the monarchy and despotism, putting the methods of formation of state bodies as the basis for the classification.

Monarchy is one of the most ancient forms of government. It can be rightfully asserted that up to early XIX centuries, the monarchy was the rule for all state-organized peoples. Even in modern world, despite the fact that the republic is historically a more progressive form of government, the dispute between it and the monarchy continues.

Based on the foregoing, the purpose of my work is to consider the issues of the history of development, the essence of the monarchy and the development of a classification scheme that defines and characterizes the monarchical form of government.

In this work, a number of tasks are solved: the monarchical form of government is considered, the origins of its appearance, a definition is given and common features are highlighted, a historical classification of varieties of monarchies is developed and given. This is necessary because classification is a powerful tool in the methodology of the theory of state and law, and therefore the monarchy, as a form of government, is very heterogeneous and has shown its flexibility and diversity in historical development.

CHAPTER 1. The history of development and the essence of the monarchy

The form of government means the organization of the supreme state power (especially its highest and central bodies), the structure, competence, the procedure for the formation of these bodies, the duration of their powers, relations with the population, the degree of participation of the latter in their formation. The form of government is the leading element in the form of the state, interpreted in a broad sense.

At one time, Aristotle distinguished between forms of government depending on whether the supreme power is exercised individually (monarchy), a limited number of persons (aristocracy) or the entire population (democracy).

Monarchy (from the Greek monarhia - autocracy, monocracy) is a form of government in which the supreme power is exercised alone (or almost alone) and, as a rule, is inherited. No wonder the King of France Louis XIV(1643 - 1715) allowed himself the following expression, which later became a winged aphorism: "The state is me."

As a state institution, the monarchy arose in the conditions of a slave-owning society. Under feudalism, it has already become the main form of government in different societies and at different times. The oldest monarchy in the world is the Japanese dynasty.

According to the legend officially canonized in the country, she traces her pedigree from the sun goddess Amaterasu. Its founder is considered to be a direct descendant of the goddess Emperor Jimmu, who ascended the throne on February 11, 660 BC. February 11 is considered a public holiday in Japan and is celebrated as the founding day of the state. During the entire existence of the Japanese monarchical dynasty, 125 people were replaced as emperor.

Subsequently, under the influence of the characteristics of internal and external factors, many states, using various methods of transition from one type of state to another, considered it necessary to choose other forms of state government. Of the currently existing 220 states of the world (of which only 191 are members of the UN), today 28 have retained a monarchical form of government. one

Monarchy (from the Greek monarchia - autocracy) is a form of government in which power is fully or partially concentrated in the hands of the sole head of state (monarch): king, king, shah, emperor, etc. 2

The main features of the classical monarchical form of government are:

The existence of a sole head of state, using his power for life (king, king, emperor, shah, emir, rajah, sultan, pharaoh);

hereditary order of succession of supreme power;

The legal irresponsibility of the monarch (the impossibility of applying the process of impeachment to him). However, the history of the vast majority of states knows numerous examples of "successful" conspiracies against them and revolutionary situations. Suffice it to recall the fate of some Russian tsars (Paul I, Alexander II, Nicholas II...).

At the same time, deviations from the established classical canons are also possible. For example, the institution of the monarchy in Cambodia is different from that which exists in Europe. Royal power is not necessarily hereditary. As in Europe, its legal status is largely ceremonial. The king's throne does not pass to the eldest heir. The new monarch is appointed by the nine members of the throne council. In October 2004, the King of Cambodia, Norodom Sihanouk, who had been in power for more than 60 years, voluntarily resigned the throne citing health reasons. His authority was not inherited (the eldest son), but as a result of the appointment was received by one of his sons - Norodom Sihamoni.

It should be noted that among the monarchs, the longest-living monarch in terms of the duration of his reign is the Emperor of Austria-Hungary, Franz Joseph, who was in power for 68 years (1848 - 1916). Japanese emperor Hirohito ruled the country for 63 years (from 1926 to 1989). 3

So in the monarchy there are several systems of succession to the throne. Succession to the throne is the transfer of power of the monarch from one representative of the reigning house (dynasty) to another, in the manner prescribed by law.

There are currently three main systems of succession to the throne:

salic system;

Castilian system;

Austrian system.

Salic the system is reduced to the fact that inheritance is carried out only through the male line. Women from the circle of heirs to the throne are excluded completely (Sweden).

Castilian the system does not exclude women from the line of succession, but favors men: younger brother excludes older sister (UK).

Austrian the system does not exclude women, but gives males and male lines an advantage in all lines and in all degrees of kinship. Women inherit the throne only with the complete suppression of all male offspring and all male lines.

In some Arab countries, there is a so-called "clan" form of succession to the throne, when the ruling family elects the heir.

CHAPTER 2. Classification of varieties of monarchies

1) Patriarchal monarchy (traditional). It is characteristic of traditional societies and directly comes from the development of the family principle (the traditional monarch is perceived as the father of his subjects).

The patriarchal monarchy, as well as the sacred one, has one ancient custom - the offering of a royal sacrifice. The king voluntarily sacrifices himself for the sake of saving his people. The mythological heritage of this kind is set forth in the classic work of R. Graves "Greek Mythology". He writes that the memory of the sacrifice of the king reached the times of the Greek and Roman civilizations, but already in a replaced form (that is, symbolic rites were preserved).

The seriousness of the royal sacrifice, the memory of which has been preserved in the minds of people for thousands of years, is best confirmed by the royal sacrifice brought by Jesus Christ - this is how it is perceived in Christian theology.

2) Sacred monarchy- this is a monarchy, where the primary functions of the monarch are priestly. It is often associated with a patriarchal monarchy. From the biblical and Roman material it is clear that the head of the patriarchal family was also the family priest. Sacred monarchies are often associated with traditional societies. Such is the sacred monarchy in the Ancient and Middle Kingdom of Egypt, where the main function of the pharaoh was the priestly one.

The centuries-old history of sacred monarchies has led to the relative sacralization of any monarchical power: the addition of the principle of sacredness of the person of the king and even royal blood. In the Middle Ages, the French considered royal blood so sacred that even non-legitimate royal descendants were recognized as princes of the blood. And they spawned these princes of the blood apparently-invisibly. However, among them there were also very worthy people. This is not typical for the monarchical tradition.

3) Despotic monarchy. In Greek, the word "despot" means "lord", "ruler". Despotic monarchy takes shape in militarized societies. If a sacred monarch is a priest by origin, then a despotic one is a general. In despotic monarchies, we see really strong monarchical power, combined with the protection of self-esteem and the rights of subjects. As already mentioned, the subjects in such monarchies are the people-army.

The classical despotic monarchs were the Assyrian king, the Armenian king of Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages, as well as the khan of the Turkic or Mongol horde (an elected despotic ruler).

4) Estate-representative monarchy. We see them most often in history. The estate-representative monarchy operates in estate societies, represents the principle of organizing representative power, where closed social groups- the estates from which the deputies are directly elected. IN Western Europe The first estate-representative monarchies appeared in the twelfth century. In many European states, this monarchy lasted until the beginning of the 20th century, when it finally gave way to national representation.

Types of forms of government 5

1. Monarchy 6

History of the monarchy

Monarchy in the modern world

Conclusion

2. Republic 21
History of the Republic 21
Republic in the modern world 27
Conclusion 31
Atypical forms of government 32
Introduction 32
Social and legal foundations of mixed and hybrid forms of government 32
"Monarchic Republic" and "Republican Monarchy" 34
Conclusion 37
List of used literature 38
Introduction

State - special and the main component of the political system that manages society through a system of central and local government bodies, government controlled, courts and prosecutors. Represents the citizens of the country in relations in the international arena.

Includes branches of state power: legislative, executive and judicial. The state is the main institution of power. Through the state, the government implements its policy. In resolving issues of managing society, it relies on its own power structures: the army, the police (militia), state security agencies (bodies of the federal security service), etc.

Mankind could not do without the state as a tool for managing society. Customs, traditions and habits alone were not enough in the conditions of the complication of socio-economic life. A more operational, efficient, mobile force is needed - the force of coercion, of armed influence.

In considering the essence of the state, there are three main theoretical approaches: public, class and political-legal Khropanyuk V.N. Theory of Government and Rights. Reader. - M.: Publishing house "Interstil", 1998.-

.

The meaning of the public: the state is a means of solving common problems and affairs, it regulates the relationship between the rulers and the people.

Representatives of the class approach argue as follows: the state appeared with the division of society into classes and serves as an instrument of class struggle, the suppression of some classes over others.

The essence of the political and legal approach: the state is a source of law that organizes the life of society and the state itself.

The concept of the form of the state refers to its most important characteristics. It allows you to establish how the state is organized, in what forms the functioning of state power is organized, by what bodies it is represented, what is the order of their formation and activity, the term of office and by what methods state power is exercised in the country.
Scheme 1
State shape
form of government political regime
form of territorial (state) structure
The combination of these three elements reveals the form of the state.
The category of the form of the state shows the features of the internal organization of the state, the procedure for the formation and structure of state authorities, the specifics of their territorial isolation, the nature of the relationship with each other and the population, as well as the methods that they use to carry out organizing and management activities.
The form of the state is a direct expression of its essence and content. Whatever the essence and content (functions) of the state, such, ultimately, will be its form.
To explore the state from the point of view of its essence means to identify the will and interests of which sections of society, groups, classes it primarily expresses and protects.
To study the state from the point of view of its form means, first of all, to study its structure, its constituent parts, internal structure, the main methods of establishing and exercising state power.
The forms of the state, as well as its essence and content, have never remained and do not remain once and for all established, unchanged. Under the influence of many economic, socio-political, ideological and other factors, they have always changed and developed. The concept of them has also changed constantly. The statement of L. Gumplovich is fair that "the doctrine of the difference between states or state forms" is an "as shaky and unestablished as the definition of the concept of the state."
To be convinced of this, it is enough to say that in the entire history of the development of the state and law, dozens, if not hundreds, of different thoughts and judgments have been expressed on the question of the forms of the state. A variety of approaches and solutions to this problem have been proposed. Also in Ancient Greece and Rome, philosophers and lawyers expressed various, sometimes very contradictory opinions and judgments about what should be understood as the form of the state, what forms of the state exist, how they differ from each other.
I repeat that the form of the state consists of three interrelated elements: the form of government, the form of the state (territorial) structure, the political (state) regime. In this paper, I would like to consider what is still a form of government.

Forms of government

The form of government is considered as an organization of the state, which includes the formation of higher and local government bodies and the relationship between them. Forms of government vary greatly depending on whether power is exercised by one person or whether it is held by a collective elected body. In the first case, there is a monarchical form of government. The second one is Republican.

Under the monarchical form of government, the source of state power, according to the laws in force, is the monarch. Under the republican - an elected state body.

The main difference between a monarchy and a republic is this: the monarchical form of the state means that the power in the state belongs to the highest bearer of state power on the basis of his own right.

In a monarchy, the monarch is granted final decision on all major state acts. The people here do not have any power, or have it to a very small extent. The people in the monarchy are either completely removed from government, or participate in it only to a limited extent. The situation is different in the republic. A republic is understood as a form of state where power belongs to the people themselves and only to them. Here the people themselves, directly or through their elected representatives, govern the state and decide all the most important state affairs.

This is the main difference between monarchical and republican states.

To summarize what is meant by the form of government:

The form of government is a scientific category that reflects the order of formation of the highest bodies of state power, their structure, competence and the relationship between them.

History and modernity know different types of monarchies and republics. They largely depend on the types of states, as well as on the conditions for their emergence and functioning.

Types of forms of government

Form of government - represents the structure of the highest bodies of state power, the order of their formation and the distribution of competence between them.
Within this concept, there are monarchical and republican form of government.
Scheme 2.
Form of government
monarchy republic

1. Monarchy

Monarchy is a form of government in which the supreme state power is legally vested in one person who holds his position in the established order of succession to the throne.
Monarchy (from the Greekmonos- one,arch- power;monarchia- autocracy) is a form of government in which the powers of supreme power formally or actually belong to one person who occupies the throne by right of succession and, as a rule, for life.

History of the monarchy

The history of the monarchy begins with the history of the state. The institutions of military democracy, which had developed during the period of the disintegration of the tribal system, were used in the creation of the first monarchies.

In ancient times, despotism was often a kind of monarchy. (Despotism - from the Greek word - unlimited power. Aristotle called democracy tyranny. In the Middle Ages, Thomas Aquinas and others called tyranny monarchies, which were given negative assessments. Montesquieu, Mably, Diderot and others used the concept of "despotism" to criticize absolute monarchy, opposing it moderate rule.) It was also called tyranny, an unlimited monarchy. All supreme power belonged to one ruler (as a rule, the monarch who received power by inheritance). The monarch relied on the military-bureaucratic apparatus. This kind of monarchy was characteristic of most slave-owning states. The exercise of power was characterized by complete arbitrariness, lack of rights of citizens. The will of the despot was law. The personality of the monarch was often deified during life and after death. The power of the monarch was unlimited, but actually took into account the interests of the ruling class, primarily the immediate environment, the nobility.

The form of government depends on the characteristics of the economic system. IN ancient countries In the East, the communal system was preserved for a long time, there was no private ownership of land. Such a feature public life appeared in the form of a state. The economic need to create and maintain order in irrigation facilities, so necessary for agriculture - the main type of economic activity in a number of Eastern countries with a communal system, predetermined the need for centralized state power, the use of a despotic form of government.

In the slave-owning and feudal epochs, a special kind of monarchy, theocracy, was formed in a number of countries. This concept and term was first used by Josephus Flavius in his work Against Appon in relation to the political system of the Kingdom of Judah, in which the power of the priests, headed by the high priest, was established in the 6th century. BC. (from Greek - divinity), in which management was carried out mainly by priests or clergy, and the head of the church hierarchy had the highest not only spiritual (church), but also secular power.

The variety of monarchies is not only in the ratio of secular and ecclesiastical power, but also in the titles of the head of state (emperor, king, king, duke, prince, pharaoh, sultan, etc.).

At all stages of the development of feudalism, the monarchy was the most common form of government, but it had features associated with these stages. It is possible to single out the early feudal monarchy, the monarchy of the period of feudal fragmentation, the estate-representative and absolute monarchy.

In the early feudal period, the power of the monarch in the Near and Middle East was exercised under the conditions of its limitation by the tribal aristocracy (tribal leaders). In countries where the great political influence and high social position of the clergy, especially the Muslim one, was established, the power of the monarch was restrained by religious and legal norms.

In an atmosphere of feudal fragmentation, which in a number of countries came as a result of the collapse of large monarchies, a despotic form of government was preserved.

The monarchy of the period of feudal fragmentation was characterized by the fact that, while formally retaining the supreme power of one monarch, it actually broke up into separate semi-independent monarchies. The formation of estates led to a change state formations, to the establishment of a class-representative monarchy - a new form of government with a relatively strong power of the sole head of state in combination with class-representative bodies (in the center and in the field), which, as a rule, had advisory functions. The central government still could not do without the consent of the estates to collect taxes, maintain the state apparatus, and major state events. The names of the bodies of class representation were varied (parliament in England, the Estates General in France, the Riksdag in Scandinavian countries, Seimas in Slavic, Zemsky Sobors in Russia, etc.), their competence and the real division of power between the monarch and the bodies of class representation. The way of picking was also different. Initially, these bodies were not elected, but were an association of persons by virtue of their official position. Then the electoral order was established. The structure of the central bodies of class representation was also varied, including from one to three chambers.

This form of government corresponded to the period of developed feudalism, the formed estates throughout the country, the need to develop the domestic market due to the growth of cities, commodity production and exchange, the intensification of the struggle for power within the class of feudal lords, and the clash of interests of different estates.

Chronologically, the stage of the estate-representative monarchy took about four centuries and did not coincide in time in the history of individual countries.

The estate-representative monarchy is being replaced by an absolute monarchy. Absolute monarchy is usually called the monarchy corresponding to the stage of developed feudalism, although the power of the monarch was often absolute in slave-owning states. There is a convention of vocabulary.

Historians and state scientists sometimes consider an absolute monarchy only taking into account formal legal features, identifying it with any unlimited monarchical power. , which was used in the context of the development of the capitalist mode of the economy, while maintaining the feudal bourgeoisie, which was still dominant at the birth, which was not ready to seize power, but gradually became an increasingly powerful economic force, ripening for such a seizure.

If the estate-representative monarchy was characterized by relations of suzerainty-vassalage with the participation of the feudal and theocratic aristocracy, then the absolute centralization of the bureaucratic apparatus headed by the monarch is typical for an absolute monarchy.

absolute monarchy in different countries did not develop simultaneously and had many features. In its classic form, it was in France. England retained a parliament using royalty in their own interests, and a weak local bureaucracy. In fragmented Germany, an absolute monarchy developed later and within individual territories (principalities). In Russia, in the second half of the 17th century, the convocation of Zemsky Sobors ceased and noble-bureaucratic institutions, a regular army, and a navy were created. The social support of the absolute monarchy in Russia was the nobility and the bureaucracy.

In some countries, absolute monarchy has not developed (for example, in Poland). In a number of countries, in which the form of government was an absolute monarchy, individual reforms were carried out aimed at the destruction of certain class privileges, changing the position of peasants, the church, but feudal-despotic features practically prevailed in them.

In Asian countries, absolute monarchy developed on a different basis. There was no estate-representative monarchy, the development of elements of capitalist relations was slow. Stable feudal relations hindered the process of forming a centralized state.

This kind of form of government is characterized by the fact that the head of state is considered the only source of legislative, executive power with complete dependence of the bureaucracy. The absolute monarch himself established taxes, spent public funds uncontrollably. This is the most complete kind of monarchical form of government for the organization of a centralized state with a powerful, ramified state apparatus, with a standing army, police, intelligence, judicial and fiscal systems. This form of state helped to put an end to the separatism of the feudal nobility, with fragmentation, contributed to the economic unity of the country and the development of capitalist relations.
In those countries in which the early bourgeois revolutions took place, a different attitude towards the monarchy developed. In countries with a slower development of capitalist relations, the bourgeoisie entered into an alliance with the feudal absolute monarchy (Germany, Russia, Japan), and the absolutist monarchy gradually evolved into a bourgeois-landlord monarchy.
The demand for the abolition of the feudal monarchy and the establishment of a republic was one of the most important political demands of the bourgeois-democratic revolution, but the monarchy was preserved under the bourgeois system, and in England it was restored shortly after bourgeois revolution(in 1660); in Spain only recently (in 1977 after its abolition in 1931).
The bourgeoisie makes changes to the monarchical form of government, replacing the absolute monarchy with a constitutional one, in which the powers of the monarch are determined by constitutions and are limited to representative institutions. In some countries, the monarch retains the right to appoint a government, remove ministers, dispose of the armed forces, initiate legislation, issue decrees, and dissolve parliament.
The development of bourgeois parliamentarism is the main trend in improving the form of government, which leads to an increase in the restrictions on the powers of the monarch, reducing him to a nominal head of state.
Parliamentary monarchy - a purely bourgeois form of government - was the political and legal consolidation of the victory of the bourgeoisie. It exists in a number of countries (England, Belgium, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Japan, etc.) without dualism of state power. The power of the monarch is limited, he is deprived of the right to independently exercise his powers. Its acts must be approved by the ministers. Executive power is at the disposal of the government, which is responsible to Parliament. The government is actually formed by the leader of the party that won the election or a party coalition.
In bourgeois states, the monarch, as head of state, has unequal powers.
In the 20th century, there is a tendency to pervert the number of monarchies, although the specific reasons are different.
The fact that the monarch formally crowns the system of state organs proved to be a factor that made this form of government still quite stable in comparison with republics in which political struggles are strong in the struggle for the highest state organs.

Monarchy in the modern world

Scheme 3.

At present, the monarch is the head of state in approximately 50 countries of the world, that is, in 1/4 of modern states. Only in Europe ten Great Britain, Spain, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Liechtenstein, Monaco. countries have a monarchical form of government. In addition, seventeen (including Canada, Australia, New Zealand) recognize the British Queen as their head of state. Seven countries in the Middle East and the Persian Gulf - Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates and Oman - have retained or restored various types of monarchies. In South and Southeast Asia, the monarch is the head of state in Nepal, Bhutan, Cambodia, Thailand, the federation of Malaysia, Brunei. In Japan, imperial power has existed for more than one and a half thousand years. In Africa, the institution of the monarch has been preserved in three countries - Morocco, Lesotho and Swaziland. Peculiar (so-called patriarchal) monarchies in Oceania are the kingdoms of Tonga and Western Samoa.

The historical predecessor of the modern monarchy is the absolute monarchy, which was formed as a political institution in the late period of the development of the Middle Ages. Absolute monarchy (autocracy) is characterized by the absence of any representative institutions, the concentration of all state power in the hands of the monarch.

Constitutional monarchy is divided into two types - dualistic and parliamentary monarchy.

The dualistic monarchy is characterized by certain features. First of all, under this form of government, there are two political institutions at the same time - the monarchy and the parliament, which divide state power among themselves. This duality (dualism) is expressed in the fact that the monarch is legally and actually independent of the parliament in the sphere of executive power. The dualistic monarchy does not know the institution of parliamentary responsibility of the government. The legislative powers of the parliament are severely curtailed by the monarch, who is granted the right to veto, the right to appoint to the upper house, the right to dissolve the parliament.

A parliamentary monarchy currently exists in a number of developed countries whose economies have not retained any significant remnants of feudalism. Great Britain, Belgium, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Canada, Japan, Australia, New Zealand and others.

The power of the monarch is limited not only in the field of legislation, but also in the sphere of state administration and control over the government. If the parliament expresses a vote of no confidence in the government, the latter resigns or dissolves the parliament and calls snap elections.

The legal position of the monarch as head of state is distinguished by the following three features. First, the power of the monarch is legally considered non-derivative from any other power, state body or electoral corps. Secondly, the post of head of state in a monarchy is transferred in the order of succession to the throne. In other words, the position of head of state belongs to the monarch by birthright. Power passes from the monarch to the successor on the basis of biological consanguinity. Thirdly, the power of the monarch is, as a rule, not fixed in time. The monarch holds his post for life and legally cannot be removed, removed from the post of head of state until the end of his days.

The power of the monarch, as already noted, is hereditary. The order of succession to the throne is established by constitutions and special laws, but may be regulated by religious rules and customary law.

There are currently four succession systems in Europe: Salic, Austrian, Castilian and Swedish.

Salic system Belgium, Norway. suggests that succession to the throne is through the male line only.

Austrian Liechtenstein system. suggests that a woman can ascend the throne only if all lines and degrees of male kinship are suppressed.

Castilian system Most common in Europe: Great Britain, Denmark, the Netherlands, Spain. prefers the male sex, although it does not exclude the ascension of a woman to the throne.

The Swedish system stipulates that men and women inherit the throne on an equal footing.

The heir to the throne, the future monarch must also meet a number of requirements, among which the requirement of a certain religious affiliation is one of the most common. Thus, according to the succession law of 1701, only a person belonging to the Anglican Episcopal Church can be the monarch of Great Britain. In Denmark, the monarch must profess the Evangelical Lutheran religion. The common rule for all Arab monarchies is the indispensable confession of Islam by the monarch and the crown prince.

One of the important conditions for the succession to the throne is the condition for the crown prince or monarch to enter into an equal marriage, that is, marriage with a person belonging to a reigning or powerful house. A person who has entered or is entering into a morganatic, that is, unequal marriage, loses, as a rule, the right to the throne. There were precedents of this kind in the political history of the 20th century.

The power of the monarch, as already noted, is lifelong. The reign of many monarchs was distinguished by an enviable duration. Thus, King Gustav V of Sweden was in power for 43 years (from 1907 to 1950). The father of the current head of the Japanese state, Emperor Hirohito, ruled the country from 1926 to 1990, i.e. 64 years old. Queen Elizabeth II has been on the throne since 1952. The removal of the monarch from power by legal means is impossible. However, its physical elimination, overthrow as a result of the revolution, palace coups is a fairly common occurrence. During the period after the Second World War, monarchies were liquidated in more than 30 countries of the world, including Egypt, Greece, Ethiopia, Iran, Afghanistan, Italy and other countries. And this despite the fact that the personality of the monarch is recognized by constitutions or religious norms as sacred and inviolable.

In case of minority, illness or prolonged absence of the monarch, as well as if the heir to the throne at the time of the death of the ruling head of state did not reach the age determined by the constitution, necessary for ascension to the throne, a regency is established, or rule for the monarch. The regency can be exercised in two forms: individual - by the regent or collegiate - by the regency council. In some monarchical countries of the Arab East, there is no institution of regency. For example, in Kuwait, the Succession to the Throne Law provides that in the event of a vacancy in the throne, the functions of the head of state will be carried out by a council of ministers.

The monarch as the head of state has external attributes or symbols of power - a crown, a mantle, a scepter, orb. He is the bearer of the title (king, emperor, shah, emir, sultan), which usually lists the possessions of the monarch, indicates the sacred nature of his power or emphasizes its divine origin, etc.

The monarch has the right to a residence, he has a staff of officials of the royal court. For the maintenance of the monarch, members of his family and the royal court, appropriations are allocated from the state budget, which he receives according to the civil list adopted by parliament in constitutional monarchies or approved by the monarch himself in absolute and dualistic monarchies. In addition to appropriations under the civil list, the allowance includes income from his personal property.

The constitutional status of the monarch differs from the royal title in less pomp and greater legal specificity. Usually, constitutions fix the place of the monarch in the system of state bodies, his belonging to one or another branch of power (if the constitutional mechanism provides for the principle of separation of powers), his powers and prerogatives.

The formal and real position of the monarch in the mechanism of exercising power, his role in the public administration of society, the range of constitutional and extra-constitutional powers largely depend on the form of government, state structure, political regime, historical features of development, ethno-cultural and religious traditions and customs of a particular country and other socio-political and ideological factors.

Monarchs have the greatest share in the system of power under conditions of absolute monarchies, especially in Muslim countries or in countries with a traditional social order. Thus, in accordance with the constitution of Qatar in 1970, all legislative and executive power is concentrated in the hands of the head of state - the emir. In Saudi Arabia, the king is the head of state, government, the main source of legislation, the supreme commander of the armed forces, and is also proclaimed the holder of the supreme religious authority and the spiritual head of his subjects. In Swaziland, the king combines the status of head of state, chief executive, supreme legislator, supreme judge, priest, supreme guardian of traditions and customs.
However, for some forms of monarchy, the formula that has long since become a reality is applicable: "The monarch reigns, but does not rule."
"In a dualistic and especially in an absolute monarchy, he (the head of state) has real power, in a parliamentary one he reigns, but does not rule" Chirkin V.E. Constitutional law of foreign countries. .
In parliamentary monarchies, the role of the monarch can be reduced to the performance of purely symbolic, ceremonial and representative functions. The Japanese constitution, for example, does not give the emperor any independent powers. The emperor appoints the prime minister, but after a preliminary decision of the parliament. He appoints the chief judge supreme court, but after a preliminary government decision. Moreover, he cannot change these preliminary decisions.
Regardless of the form of government and other factors that determine the status of the head of state in monarchical countries, monarchs have a number of similar powers.
The constitutions or state-legal customs of all monarchical countries give the head of state the right to participate in the formation of the government. The degree of this participation varies considerably in individual countries.
Along with the formation of the government, the monarch, as a rule, actively participates in the formation of the state apparatus. Constitutions establish the right of the monarch to appoint civil and military servants. In the UK, in accordance with constitutional agreements, the king (queen) appoints to the highest government positions, including the positions of governors, diplomats, judges.
In the vast majority of monarchical states, the monarchs are the supreme commanders of the armed forces. This provision is also, as a rule, fixed in the fundamental laws. The real powers of the monarch in the field of leadership of the army can vary greatly depending on the specific socio-political situation in a particular country, on historical traditions, the form of government, and many other factors.
For example, in Great Britain, the English financial oligarchy at one time limited the king's control over the armed forces. He was forbidden to maintain a land army in peacetime. However, it remained within the royal prerogative to regulate the internal organization of the army. The king also has the right to dispose of the naval and air forces and the right to determine their strength. Navy and military aviation called "royal".
In the vast majority of monarchies, kings tend to be military specialists and are brought up from childhood in privileged military schools.
In most parliamentary monarchies, constitutions give the head of state the power to declare war and make peace. The decision of the monarch is placed, as a rule, in dependence on the will of the legislature.
In absolute and dualistic monarchies, the head of state makes decisions about war and peace on his own.
Monarchs in most of the countries under consideration have certain rule-making powers. Usually they are endowed with the right of legislative initiative. The exception is the emperor of Japan and the king of Spain. and the right of veto. In some states, these powers belong to the monarch only nominally. For example, in Great Britain since 1707 there has not been a single case when the king would refuse to sign a bill approved by both houses of parliament, that is, he used the right of veto. In Morocco or Jordan, the king's veto is absolute and cannot be overridden by the country's legislature.
Monarchs may issue legal regulations of various kinds. In parliamentary and some dualistic monarchies, these documents must be countersigned by the head of government or the minister responsible for the implementation of this act of the monarch (the so-called countersignature). In absolute monarchies, where the head of state is the sole bearer of legislative power, the monarch, as a rule, issues regulations independently.
In parliamentary and dualistic monarchies, the head of state has the right to dissolve parliament or its lower house. The implementation of this right varies significantly in individual monarchical countries. B etc............

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Hosted at http://www.allbest.ru/

Monarchy - history and modernity

INTRODUCTION

1.3 Monarchy in Russian history

1.4 Advantages and disadvantages of the monarchy.

Chapter 2. Modern Monarchy

2.1. Monarchic states of modern times - a brief overview

2.2 Trends and mechanisms for the development of the monarchical system

2.3 Legal mechanisms of the monarchical form of government: a comparative analysis

CONCLUSION

LIST OF USED LITERATURE

INTRODUCTION

The monarchical form of government - "the power of one autocracy" - is a very ancient form of government. It first originated in early class societies, state power, in which warlords, representatives of expanded family or neighboring communities, leaders of squads, heads of dynasties, heads of temples, priests, organizers of various social class movements, seized.

The monarchical form of government had its origins in that rather simple socially not too dissected organization of society that appeared at the turn of the 4th-3rd millennium BC. as a result of the Neolithic Revolution.

For several centuries, many eminent thinkers and philosophers have paid special attention in their scientific papers the problem of the functioning of the monarchy as a form of state power. One of the first was Aristotle, who, following Plato, encountered a variety of forms of organization and exercise of state power in the ancient world, tried to develop a classification. Defining the concept - the form of government, it is necessary to answer the question of who and how governs, exercises state power in a state-organized society, how state-power structures are arranged, organized and operate in it. He singled out several forms of government: the republic, the monarchy and despotism, putting the methods of formation of state bodies as the basis for the classification. He also owns various designations of varieties of a particular form of government, for example: “A monarchy differs from an aristocracy, and from democracy in that they require the establishment of a place and time in order to create the opportunity to discuss and make decisions, that is, to actually exercise power , but under a monarchy, such discussion and decision-making is possible at any time and in any place.

To date, the relevance of the work is due to the fact that the institution of the monarchy exists in the world practice of public administration on an equal footing with the republic, while it is much older and in many processes the monarchical form of government has some advantages. It can be rightfully asserted that until the beginning of the 19th century, the monarchy was the rule for all state-organized peoples. Even in the modern world, despite the fact that the republic is historically a more progressive form of government, the dispute between it and the monarchy continues.

The purpose of this work is to analyze the theoretical and practical aspects of the history of development, the essence of the monarchy and the development of a classification scheme that defines and characterizes the monarchical form of government.

The main tasks set in the work on the basis of a specific topic are:

? analysis of the essence of the monarchy as a form of government;

? analysis of the classification of monarchies;

? characterization of the historical preconditions and consequences of the development of the monarchy;

? analysis of the institution of the monarchy in the history of state administration in Russia;

? characteristics of the weak and strong sides of the monarchy.

The object of research is the monarchy as a form of government.

The subject of research in the work is the mechanism of practical implementation of the monarchical form of government.

Chapter 1. general characteristics and the history of the monarchy

1.1 The concept of signs and types of monarchy

When the conversation is usually about monarchy, attention is drawn to the origin of this word, but no attention is paid to the origin of this form of government. Agree, this is not true. For example, in Greek "symposium" is "binge", but no one will accuse pundits of such unworthy behavior at these events.

Monarchy, literally translated from Greek, means the rule of one, and for centuries, from Aristotle to about the 17th century AD, it was compared with democracy (the power of the people) and aristocracy (the power of the best). Although I would immediately like to note that in their pure form, these forms are extremely rare - almost never. Usually there is a combination of different principles, one of which is dominant. It is the primacy of one of the principles in public life that is called the form of government, which will be discussed further.

Author of the most complete explanatory dictionary Russian language Vladimir Dal defined the monarchy as "the government, where the supreme power is in the hands of one person." However, a dictatorship (for example, Stalin) is a sole power, but, you see, a dictatorship and a monarchy are not the same thing. Although, without a doubt, under a monarchy, the Supreme power is really concentrated in the hands of one person! Moreover, it is a necessary and indispensable condition for monarchical power.

Therefore, in order to fully understand the essence of the monarchy, let us compare the structure of different states in their formation from antiquity to the present day.

Egypt is an example of the deification of man. The pharaoh was considered the son of the god Osiris and the brother of the god Horus, "a god on earth." People fell on their faces before him, his orders were not disputed and nothing was restrained. Such power was absolute, omnipotent and all-encompassing. The Egyptians were very careful about their reigning family, as a kind earthly gods. For history ancient egypt from Menes to Cleopatra there were 32 dynasties. The change of dynasties was accompanied by severe social crises in the Egyptian state and society: the invasion of the Hyksos, the capture of the country first by the Persians, then by the Hellenes and, finally, by the Romans. Queen Cleopatra, the last of the Ptolemaic Dynasty, traced her lineage to the ancient dynasties, linking her reign with the reigns of the great Thutmose III and Ramesses II. The royal dynasty is the blood of the state, the connection of heaven and earth, which must therefore be unquestioningly obeyed. The pharaoh is the divine Osiris, the queen is the mother goddess Isis. This approach to the definition of sole power was developed in Ancient Rome after Caesar. Gaius Julius Caesar was in love with Cleopatra and spent a lot of time in Alexandria, therefore the Egyptian ideology was taken by him as the basis for reforming the ideocratic component of the Roman state model. The principate and dominate, which replaced the republic in Rome, deified the ruler, who was called Caesar in honor of the great Gaius. Hence the name of the sole deified power - Caesarism Isaev I.A. History of the state and law of Russia. - M. - 2005..

Such a model was typical for the states of both antiquity and later times in the West and the Middle East: ancient Babylon and Persia, Rome from Augustus to Diocletian, medieval Europe. Caesarism gave birth to absolutism, the essence of which was very accurately expressed by the sun king Louis XIV: L "etatc" estmoi - The state is me.

In China, on the contrary, from ancient times it was not the personality of the ruler that was deified, but the power itself. If in Egypt the pharaoh was inviolable, sacred: neither he nor his heirs could raise not only hands, but even an eye, then the history of China is a history of upheavals. The principle of power did not matter, it only mattered that the one who had the power was right. Power is sacred, it must be obeyed if you cannot challenge it. The greatest monument of architecture ancient east- The Great Wall of China - was built by order of the Bogdy Khan Qin Shi-Huangdi, who seized power during the coup. His dynasty did not last even two generations, the wall is still standing. Chinese dynasties succeeded one another: Qin, Han, Tang, Zhou, Yuan, Ming, Qing. Nothing has changed in the Celestial Empire with the Xinhai Revolution: the dictatorship of the nationalists, approved by the charisma of Sun Yat-sen, was replaced by the dictatorship of the communists, supported by the image of Mao Zedong. And even in "democratic" Taiwan, Chiang Kai-shek reigned supreme for 30 years - until his death. It doesn't matter what the essence of power is, what matters is that power is sacred. This is how the model of Eastern autocracy is based.

However, if for a European from a typical Catholic country monarchy is presented in the form of absolutism, if for an Arab monarchical power is reduced to the autocracy of a local sheikh, then it is unlikely that we had such monarchical power. Where did the monarchist idea come from in Russia? Let's take a look with you into the depths of centuries History of the State and Law of Russia (under the editorship of Yu.P. Titov). - Part 1. - M. - 2008 ..

Ancient Judea 3200 years ago. Moses leads the Jews out of Egypt, and on Mount Sinai God appeared to him, Who gave the laws, in particular, the Ten Commandments. Among the laws were state laws. So, God promised the Jews to give a king. But until then, the chosen people were ruled by judges - those to whom it was given from God to resolve people's disputes fairly. But over time, such power became insufficient. Therefore, about 3,000 years ago, at the behest of God, the prophet Samuel announced to the Jewish people about the anointing of the king. Saul became the first king. As the Bible says, the king was given in order to lead the people according to the commandments of God, for which the king was given a sword - to punish the evil and encourage the good. A king must rule in the fear of God in order to be righteous. The power of the Jewish king is the power of the anointed of God. He is not a god, he is only the first of his earthly servants. That is why Jesus Christ says in response to the tricky question of the Pharisee: Render what is Caesar's to Caesar and what is God's to God.

The shortcomings of the Jewish state, the apostasy of the Jews from God, expressed in the crucifixion of Christ, led to the fact that the Lord exalted Caesar, that is, the ruler of Rome. Through the blood of Christian martyrs, the sins of Roman orgies were atoned for, and a vision was given to Constantine the Great: an image of the Cross and the words “Thus you will conquer!” appeared in heaven. Having put crosses on the helmets of his soldiers, Constantine defeated the pagan Maxentius and became the ruler of Rome. Orthodoxy in 325 became the state religion of Rome.

The Byzantine Empire strengthened the concept of autocratic power - the power of the monarch by the providence of God. The monarch does not answer either to the people or to history, he answers only to God and his own conscience. This is the principle of autocracy - the purest and most complete form of monarchical power.

The power of an autocratic monarch ceases to be self-sufficient, like that of the Egyptian pharaoh, or self-valuable, like that of the ruler of China. It turns into a service, into a duty, into a feat performed by the royal dynasty for the benefit of the Fatherland. History of the state and law of foreign countries: a textbook, Kosarev A.I. 2007, 376s. .

From Byzantium, the autocratic monarchy passed to Russia. The first to try to establish autocracy was Prince Andrei Bogolyubsky of Vladimir, for which he was killed by the boyars. The autocracy was finally approved by Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich the Terrible. He not only actually approved it, but also formulated the main postulates of autocratic power in his correspondence. Terrible points out that his power is given by God and rests only on the strict fulfillment of his duty to Him. The sole purpose and sole purpose of his reign is the fulfillment of this duty. The royal power is one and unlimited by nothing, except for its principle - the principle of serving God and the Fatherland. Hence the popular saying “the king-father”: God is the heavenly Father of every Christian, and the king is the earthly anointed one, that is, the chosen one of God. In the Russian people, it is customary to call priests fathers: as a priest with a prayer, so the tsar with a sword leads the people entrusted to him to God. Tsar Ivan the Terrible pointed out that the right to disobey the power of the tsar begins only where he restricts the freedom of faith, but in earthly matters the tsar is not limited.

From here we can deduce the principle that constitutes the basis of monarchical power, which was only strengthened in Russia from Ivan the Terrible until February 1917.

Monarchy is a power based on a moral ideal. Neither a crowd nor a qualitative advantage can be moral: only a person can be moral. 'Cause the power moral ideal taught by religion and morality, and is expressed in the monarchy. Monarchy is the idea of moral power faithful to God, just as democracy is the power of quantitative power (the power of the majority), and aristocracy is the power of qualitative advantage (the power of the elite). We are forced to submit to democracy because of physical coercion. We submit to the aristocracy, submitting to its wealth and mental advantage. We submit to the sole authority of one person only by believing in it, and this is possible only with our moral predisposition towards such a ruler (monarch). Morality should guide us and be the essence of the power to which we obey. History of the State and Law of Russia: Under. ed. Ave. Yu. P. Titov. - M. - 2005.

At the same time, of course, the monarch must meet certain qualities that the Russian researcher Lev Tikhomirov singled out:

1. self-control;

2. moderation;

3. debt;

4. justice;

5. legality.

The monarchy as a form of government is very heterogeneous and has shown over the centuries its flexibility and variability, thanks to which it managed to “survive” in modern highly developed democratic states. Consider the most ancient varieties of monarchies.

Patriarchal monarchy (traditional). It is characteristic of traditional societies and directly comes from the development of the family principle (the traditional monarch is perceived as the father of his subjects).

The seriousness of the royal sacrifice, the memory of which has been preserved in the minds of people for thousands of years, is best confirmed by the royal sacrifice brought by Jesus Christ - this is how it is perceived in Christian theology Theory of State and Law: a textbook, Borisov G.A. BelGU, 2007, 292p. .

A sacred monarchy is a monarchy where the priestly functions of the monarch are the primary functions. It is often associated with a patriarchal monarchy. From the biblical and Roman material it is clear that the head of the patriarchal family was also the family priest. Sacred monarchies are often associated with traditional societies. Such is the sacred monarchy in the Ancient and Middle Kingdom of Egypt, where the main function of the pharaoh was the priestly one.

despotic monarchy. In Greek, the word "despot" means "lord", "ruler". Despotic monarchy takes shape in militarized societies. If a sacred monarch is a priest by origin, then a despotic one is a general. In despotic monarchies, we see really strong monarchical power, combined with the protection of self-esteem and the rights of subjects. As already mentioned, the subjects in such monarchies are the people-army.

The classical despotic monarchs were the Assyrian king, the Armenian king of Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages, as well as the khan of the Turkic or Mongol horde (an elected despotic ruler).

Estate-representative monarchy. We see them most often in history. The estate-representative monarchy operates in estate societies, it is the principle of organizing representative power, where there are closed social groups - estates, from which deputies are directly elected. In Western Europe, the first class-representative monarchies appeared in the twelfth century. In many European states, this monarchy lasted until the beginning of the 20th century, when it finally gave way to national representation.

The Eastern Aryan societies are characterized by the inclusion of the king in the estate, only not in the highest, but in the second - in the military Kamenskaya G.V. Federalism: mythology and political practice. - M., 1998. .

On the contrary, in the Western tradition of class societies, the monarch was supra-class. It can even be assumed that in the Achaean societies the aristocracy was stronger than the monarchy, and yet the royal family stood out and stood apart.

In the same way, in the tradition of pre-Mongolian Russia, the princes were a peculiarly isolated class, removed from the aristocracy - the boyars.

It should be noted that monarchy is certainly useful for estate societies, because the monarchical principle allows the head of state to be made supra-class, and therefore, to make an arbiter in the event of inter-class conflicts.

In the best periods of our country's history, we can observe an estate monarchy in our country. With the creation of a united Russia, we switched to a class-representative monarchy (in the 16th-17th centuries, the tsar ruled with an aristocratic Boyar Duma and class representation - the Zemsky Sobor).

It is widely believed by historians that estate representation, and thus estate-representative monarchies, take shape in the process of struggle for the unification of states against feudal fragmentation. Often there are references (this is typical for Western Europe) that the kings fought with large feudal lords, relying on the parliament of the petty nobility and townspeople (burghers).

It follows that parliaments appeared in the process of struggle for the unity of the state. The first parliament dated in Western Europe is the Cortes of Castile (1185). The first dated experience of parliamentarism in national history- Zemsky Sobor. Vsevolod III the Big Nest (1211), that is, our parliament is 54 years older than the English one, convened for the first time in 1265. Estate-representative monarchies predominate in Western Europe in the 13th-16th centuries. In Russian history, this form of government lasted from the middle of the 16th to the end of the 17th centuries. However, strictly speaking, a class-representative monarchy is already an integral political system. History of the domestic state and law: tutorial Kudinov O.A. MESI; 2004, 273s. .

The Christian state idea, which came into the world with Constantine, was reflected in the Western European states in the same way as in Byzantium and Moscow Russia. In Western European statehood, the monarchical principle also gained unquestionably the predominant significance. Small centers of the republican system not only constituted an insignificant exception in the development of European statehood, but moreover, they were not ideologically influential, so that the history of European statehood coincides with the evolution of the monarchical beginning. MESI; 2004, 273s. .

But the monarchy in Europe appeared under a special combination of conditions of origin and development, which differs from both Byzantine and Muscovite-Russian conditions.

The main conditions that determined the development of European monarchies are as follows:

1) the mighty social system of the Germanic tribes, who replaced the collapsed Roman Empire with their states. 2) the influence of the Christian idea of the Tsar - God's servant, the guardian of the highest truth. 3) the enormous influence of the Roman imperial doctrine, systematically instilled in the new young states of Europe by all their educated elements. 4) Roman Catholic interpretation of the state-church relationship.

The Roman doctrine of statehood was based on the principle of the absolute power of the state. The bearer of this power in the imperial period was Caesar, but actually as a delegate of the Senate and the people. It was the power of the republic, transferred into the hands of the sole authority. At the very emergence of European monarchies, all the educated organizers of them transferred the same concept to the newly appeared emperors and kings of Europe. But these emperors and kings were actually created by other forces, under the influence of which they were. These princes were created by the tribal system of the Germanic tribes and, as their chiefs, were of a different character. They did not have absolute power, but they carried within themselves some elements of supreme power. The kings (and emperors) had to reckon with the popular social forces that put them forward in all their administration, which was forced to rely on the internal forces of the social system. - Part 1. M., 1996. .

The European nations, at the beginning of their statehood, were imbued with powerful self-government. It could have both a more aristocratic and more democratic character. Due to the rudeness of morals, according to the difference in the interests of different parts of the nation, according to the random conditions of conquest, power and subordination - these diverse organized cells of statehood not only fought among themselves, but could even work out a whole system of enslavement of some by others. But for all that, the new nations were thoroughly imbued with elements of an internal organization that united even enslaved peasants. Outwardly enslaved, even they maintained an internal organization, often entered into contractual relations with the feudal lords, etc. In general, all parts of the new European nations were full of internal forces, living, acting collectively, self-governing.

The power of the king was not great in this seething, self-willed system. But his idea, as the highest tribal lord, the leader in the war, was to protect customary law, the usual concepts of justice. He appeared with the functions of supreme power, the spokesman of popular ideals. In the performance of duties, he involuntarily had to rely on the forces operating in the social system.

The Christian concept of the king - God's servant, supplemented this tribal monarchy with a higher content, imposed on the King the duty to take care of maintaining the highest truth indicated by Christian doctrine. Thus, all these social and moral-religious conditions strove for the development of a monarchy precisely in the sense of the supreme power, guiding everything, controlling from the point of view of the highest truth.

An example of the tendencies of these basic, natural forces of the social system and the spirit of Christianity is the monarchy of Charlemagne, which remained for many centuries the ideal of Western European statehood. ed. Ave. Yu. P. Titov. - M. - 2005.

He was the supreme power, and in the West he represents the heir of the Constantine idea in the state. It cannot be found anywhere in the East except Muscovite Russia, which Charles preceded by several centuries (his time is 768-814). Charlemagne came to the throne by hereditary right. He was titled: "I, Charles, by God's grace and mercy, king and ruler of the kingdom of the Franks, a zealous defender and humble helper of the holy Church..." did not have the character of vassal relations on the part of Charles.

In his reign, Charles was guided by the ideals of the king - God's servant. Both he himself and his peoples looked at him as a universal, almost universal guardian of the truth. He monitors its observance everywhere, including by the Church itself. His "capitularies" equally apply to all departments, including bishops and priests. In the Capitulary on the Church Order, Charles recalls the example of the Israeli king Hosea, who bypassed the state given to him by God, correcting and edifying it and trying to convert it to the worship of the true God. “Therefore,” says Karl, “we ordered all the ranks of spiritual piety and the authorities of secular power to draw several paragraphs so that you take care to keep them in mind ...” In these paragraphs, Karl recalls both the duties of bishops and the duties of priests regarding their power and internal discipline, both in relation to Divine services, and in relation to various questions of morality, being in everything based on the rules and decrees of church councils. There is nowhere even a hint of the emperor playing the role of a papal servant: he is based on his duty as a servant of God, receiving information in the rules of church councils History of the state and law of foreign countries: textbook, Kosarev A.I. 2007, 376s. .

In everything one can see the point of view of the Orthodox Tsar - God's servant. In his secular, civil affairs, Charles reveals the concern of the Supreme Power for the creation of legality, but even here he is a representative of the spirit of his people, since this is possible with the observance of Divine truth. The legislative activity of Charles was carried out through the people's councils or diets. During the 43 years of his reign, these cathedrals met 35 times. Perhaps they were more frequent, because, according to a contemporary, "the custom of that time was to hold two meetings every year." Here the laws proposed by the king were discussed. In Guizot's opinion, the members of the assemblies themselves could make proposals which seemed useful to them.

Thus, the meetings were widely deliberative, and the decisive vote belonged to Charles.

So, we see the continuous communication of the Supreme Power with the subjects, with their information, needs and considerations. This picture has nothing to do with the later times of absolutism and bureaucracy, which strangled the monarchy.

In the very administration of the state, Charles was also closely connected with the popular forces. His administration was twofold. In part, the administrative persons were local: this included dukes, counts, centurions, jurors, who were appointed either by the emperor himself or by his proxies. In the same way, the vassals of the emperor, with the receipt of land, received the rights and obligations of local jurisdiction. In addition to these local people, Charles also had the sovereign's envoys - they were already controller officials who examined everything and reported to the emperor. So, a purely monarchical system was taking shape here, based on the close rapprochement of the Supreme Power with national forces, a system imbued with self-government, which serves as the basis for governance.

But these "natural" foundations, put forward by the spirit of the people's system, for all their preciousness, are not strong until the spirit is fixed in consciousness, does not create a conscious doctrine of politics.

General moods and inspirations are not enough to arrange the state. We need a system that only a consciously thought-out harmonious doctrine gives. History of the state and law of foreign countries: a textbook, Milekhina E.V. 2002 .

And it is clear that the emperors and kings immediately felt the need for it, even more than that: they could not help but obey it.

But the political doctrine they had before them was only the teaching of the Roman-imperial statehood, which, while vesting them with enormous rights, nevertheless included a denial of the supremacy of the power of the monarch.

The need to implement the Christian idea of truth - the need that the kings felt in their conscience and in the conscience of their peoples - set the task of determining the relationship of the state to the Church, the guardian of Christian ideals. But here the Roman Catholic doctrine of the state supremacy of the Church came into play, and this doctrine played an enormous and, generally speaking, very sad role in the evolution of the European monarchy.

In the following, we will not follow the historical picture of the development of state-church relations in Europe: this immensely complex picture would require more space than can be given for the immediate main goal of my work. I will confine myself to describing the two types of state-church relations that the European peoples have come to, in accordance with the forms in which they have developed an understanding of the Church.

In this understanding of the essence of the Church, and in the relations between state and ecclesiastical power arising from this, lies the main difference between Western and Eastern Europe.

1.2 History and traditional structure of the monarchy

So, the monarchy is an idea, a moral idea, that is, the idea of harmony and justice, honesty and decency, trust and respect of people for each other. The monarchy is based on the best qualities of human conscience and strives to maximize the promotion of human self-realization, not as a unit of the electorate, but as a highly spiritual and self-sufficient person.

We must not forget about the people - the subjects of the monarch. What makes a person's mind make a choice in favor of the monarchy?

The Russian jurist of the first half of the last century, Ivan Ilyin, wrote, arguing on the topic of the main qualities of the monarchical consciousness, that it is determined by one key value: honor. Everyone is driven by respect for other people's achievements and striving for their own: “A person demands from himself all the basic spiritual qualities and gradually acquires the appearance of chivalry. Loyalty to this image is his honor. Keep his honor, he is guilty before the Face of God, before the face of his Sovereign, before his people and before himself. The essential thing is not what others think or say about him, but what he is and what he really remains. Here are the basic formulas of honor: "to be, not to seem"; "to serve, not to be served"; "honor, not honors"; "In the right is my victory." And all this is conceived not as inner well-being and inner doing, but as a law of inner life, introduced into the external world, into state building and politics.

This forces us to establish and recognize that the beginning of spiritual dignity and honor is the basis of not a republican, but a monarchical system ”History of the state and law of Russia (edited by Yu.P. Titov). - Part 1. - M. - 2008 ..

From here grows the monarchist's confidence that each person is unique, has his own qualities that are not inherent in others in the same combination and the same degree. Hence respect for rank, because people are unequal not only materially (by height or by the size of the wallet), but also spiritually, in their intellect, qualities: “People by nature and in spirit are not equal to each other, and they will never be equalized. This is opposed by the well-known republican prejudice, according to which people are born equal and by nature equal and equal beings. On the contrary, monarchical legal consciousness tends to recognize that people, both in the face of God and by nature, are of different qualities, different values, and therefore, naturally, should not be equal in their rights.

The monarchist will not agree that the state is run by a cook, he will prefer that this be done by a person trained and educated. The monarchist believes that even if we trust the teeth to a specialist - a dentist, and not to a vote among neighbors, then the state should be left in control of a professional - brought up from childhood to serve the monarch, and not an elected ambitious man. Such a position is based precisely on the moral attitude towards the state, which is understood not as a way to enrich, but as a service and fulfillment of duty to the Fatherland. Hence the monarchical trust in the state, as opposed to the republican fear, when the people, fearing state arbitrariness, seek to limit it to some private institutions.

Having dealt with the essence of the monarchy as a moral authority, and therefore based on faith, duty, justice, honor and trust, it is necessary to formulate what a monarchy is, as a form of government.

Many define monarchy as hereditary power. This definition is not entirely correct. From 1957 to 1988, power in Haiti was hereditary in the Duvalier family, but Haiti was not a monarchy. In the United States, it has repeatedly happened that the president was first the father, and then the son, which does not give grounds to classify the United States as a monarchy.

Defining a monarchy only through the lifetime of the ruler will also fail: the Doge of Venice was elected for life, but medieval Venice was still a republic. VSTU, 2006, 69s. .

The essence of the monarchy is that the power of the monarch is non-derivative - he does not depend on anyone on earth, receiving power from God. This should be included as a generic feature in the definition: “Monarchy is a form of government in which the source of power is God (autocracy) or the bearer of state power (autocracy), and the basis of power is its moral authority in society and tradition, whereby power is hereditary and inseparable.

The organization of republican power is based on its division. In ancient times, this was the power of the Roman consuls. There were two consuls, they were elected for one year, and they ruled not jointly, but alternately: one day at a time. A vivid example of what such an organization leads to was the Battle of Cannae, when Hannibal defeated the Romans after Gaius Varro, having waited for his day, left an unprepared Roman army to defeat the Iberian cavalry of the Carthaginians.

In modern times, a theoretical basis for such a division appeared - the theory of the separation of powers, originally formulated by Locke, and then finalized by Montesquieu. Power was divided between the government, parliament and court, independent of each other, but, nevertheless, interconnected and constituting a single state body.

This principle is laid down in many constitutions, including Russia and our closest neighbors: Poland, Ukraine, Belarus, Lithuania, etc. The developers of this system believed that balance should be born in the struggle, but they did not take into account that the state just appeared, because there was no unity and agreement of wills: there was a constant struggle. In this war of all against all, state power appeared. Her will was placed as an arbiter above all other opinions and positions. This unity is the meaning and significance of state power.

This is what distinguishes monarchical power from republican power. The power of the monarch is given by God, and therefore it is one and indivisible. As the Basic State Laws of the Russian Empire said: “The Emperor of All Russia owns the Supreme Autocratic Power. To obey His authority, not only out of fear, but also out of conscience, God Himself commands” History of the state and law of Russia. Cribs. Pashkevich D.A. 2009, 32p. .

The power of the monarch is supreme and unified. It is not limited either in quality or in depth of penetration. Any question can be the subject of personal consideration of the monarch, but not everyone becomes a question of his consideration. Lev Tikhomirov called this quality the royal prerogative - the right of the monarch to resolve any issue in fairness, bypassing the laws given to the administrative authorities. In this lies the supremacy of autocracy. The monarch exists so that the people remember that there is a guarantor of peace, stability, faith and justice. However, the royal prerogative has a predominantly symbolic meaning, rather than a practical one, because it is difficult to imagine that one person could physically resolve a significant part of the disputes and conflicts that arise in society.

The organization of monarchical power is a vertical, and not like a republican power - horizontal - section. This organization is two-tiered: the monarch itself, as a representative of the Supreme Power, is located on the upper tier, and the government, the governing power, is located on the lower tier.

Governs the government, the Emperor only directs and coordinates its work, resolves disputes - reigns. The emperor is a strategist, the chairman of the government is a tactician.

The monarch performs many functions. So, the modern German researcher Rene Heussler identifies 18 main functions of the monarch Theory of State and Law: a textbook, Matuzov N.I. - Malko A.V. 2004, 512p.:

1. The personification of the main principles of the state;

2. Integration function - a symbol of social unity and stability;

3. The king is a stable landmark in society;

4. The king is the guardian of common values;

5. The king is a supra-party guarantor of political authority;

6. The king and queen are the father and mother of the nation;

7. The king as a "shepherd" and guardian of public interests;

8. The king is the national "ombudsman";

9. King-intermediary (for example, during strikes);

10. The function of a public example: the king is a moral authority and the personification of fidelity: the king is a military leader;

11. King as an object of worship;

12. The king is the conscience of the nation;

13. King - the keeper of national traditions and customs;

14. The king is the guardian of the "golden mean";

15. Identification function: the king and his family as an example and ideal;

16. The king as a symbol or "replacement" of God - the monarchy as a "secular religion";

17. King as “avenue of communication with the realm of sacred values”;

18. The king and his family are the personification of social greatness and ideal.

From what has been said, we can conclude that the monarch plays two main social roles in the political life of society: the role of a symbol and the role of an arbiter. A monarch is a role model, so nations allow monarchs to rule over them and judge them. This is possible precisely because monarchical power is perceived as sacred and moral.

However, the question arises why the presidential power in a republican state is not equivalent to the monarchy, because the president acts as the guarantor of the constitution, the rights and freedoms of man and citizen, represents the country, ensures, according to the constitution, the coordinated functioning and interaction of state authorities. At first glance it may seem so, but only at first glance. The fact is that the president is an employee elected for four years, people elect him, he is one of us, appointed by us. Note that the king is a servant of God, the president is a servant of us. Because of this, the tsar stands unconsciously above us, the president is perceived as indebted to us for something. Obviously, this is where our voluntary, faith-based, submission to the tsar and forced, force-based submission to the president follow. We do not submit to the president because of the monarchical principle of morality, but because of the same principle of the quantitative power of the majority as parliament, and therefore the president cannot play the role of a moral arbiter and moral example for society: supporters like it, opponents don't like it - that's all MESI; 2004, 273s. .

We must not forget that in monarchies there is a place for popular opinion, but it is precisely opinion. As Russian folk wisdom emphasizes: God gives the tsar the power of power, and the people - the power of opinion. Throughout the centuries of the existence and systematic development of the autocracy in Russia, there were such popular representations as veche in the pre-Mongolian period, zemsky cathedrals in the Muscovite Kingdom, a laid commission under Catherine the Great, committees under Nicholas I, and finally, the State Duma and the State Council under Nicholas II. At the same time, the main principle of the formation of such bodies was the principle of representation - the elected representatives represented their electors, their estates, guilds, unions. This made it possible to hear not the abstract allegations of a politician, but to hear the voice of a real specialist who came from the field. In this way, an uninterrupted connection was ensured between the reigning monarch and the ruled people.

1.3 Monarchy in Russian history

Describing the period of the existence of the monarchy in Russia, we note that most foreign and domestic historians and theorists in the field of law tend to characterize this period as Russian autocracy, however, Russian sovereigns have never been despots. Some foreign historians share this position. So, Andres Kappeler believes that “the Moscow ruler was not a tyrant: his power was limited by religious norms, dynastic inheritance and traditions (“old times”). In practice, Russian sovereigns ruled most often in agreement with other strata of the elite, primarily with the old boyar and noble families. But no limit royal power, fixed organizationally and legally, was the basis of the political system of Russia ”History of the domestic state and law (under the editorship of O.I. Chistyakov). - Part 1. M., 1996. .

In order to distinguish between despotic and autocratic monarchies, it is necessary to understand the meaning of the term "autocracy". The ambiguity of assessments of Russian absolutism was shown by the discussion of 1968-1971. on the pages of the journals "History of the USSR" and "Soviet state and law". Some authors characterized the tsarist autocracy as a kind of bourgeois legal state, while others called it Asiatic despotism. The state system of Russia in 1905 was terminologically defined as "absolute monarchy", "absolutism", "eastern, Asian despotism" or as "bourgeois legal state".

This question in Russian historiography became the subject of controversy when B.I. Syromyatnikov, criticizing SV. Yushkov, made a statement that in Soviet literature the concepts of "autocracy" and "absolutism" were unduly identified by Klimenko A.V., Rumynina V.V. Theory of Government and Rights. - M. - 2002. .

“The very term and the very concept of autocracy, as well as the title “autocratic”, originated after the liberation of the Russian lands from the Tatar yoke and their unification into a single Russian state. The concept of autocracy in the 15th-16th centuries, notes G.B. Galperin expresses not the scope of power of the Russian monarchs, but its independent character. Autocracy in its original form is indeed interpreted as a kind of sovereignty, as an independent non-derivative power. The term "autocracy", "autocrat", found in the monuments of the 15th - early 16th centuries and included, like the term "tsar", in the title of Moscow princes, has a different meaning than the modern term "autocracy". “The title of the first Autocrat of Russia - Ivan III, - as V.O. Klyuchevsky, "pointed precisely to external, international sovereignty, to external independence."

In this sense, "autocracy" was used in the very late XVIII c., this can be seen from the treaty between Catherine II and Tsar Irakli II (Georgia), where it was said that he does not recognize any other autocracy over himself, except for the power and patronage of the empress, therefore, autocracy is used here not in the sense of absolutism, but precisely in the sense sovereignty. But, on the other hand, Ivan the Terrible interprets autocracy precisely as the undivided concentration of all power in the hands of the monarch, in a letter to A. Kurbsky he declares: “What will the autocrat be called when he does not build himself?” In this sense, autocracy is used in the manifesto of Anna Ioannovna on February 28, 1730, in the Catherine’s Order of the Legislative Commission (Article 9: “the sovereign is autocratic, for no other power than the power united in his person can act akin to the space of such a great state» ), and in the manifesto on April 29, 1881, according to which: “The voice of God commands us to become cheerful in the cause of government with faith in the truth of autocratic power, which we are recognized to assert and protect for the good of the people from any encroachments on it” History of the state and law of Russia :Under. ed. Ave. Yu. P. Titov. - M. - 2005.

Therefore, N.M. Korkunov wrote: “It should be recognized that the concept of autocracy combines the concept of unlimitedness, in the sense of concentrating all the fullness of state power in the hands of the monarch.”

I.T. Tarasov saw the essence of autocracy in the semantic meaning of this word, indicating the highest and unlimited supreme power, “next to which there is and cannot be any other equal power.”

Basic Laws Russian Empire 1892 characterized the Russian sovereign as an autocratic and unlimited monarch (Article 1). The combination in one article of two definitions of the monarch - "autocratic and unlimited" - gave rise to controversy in pre-revolutionary state-legal literature. State scientists of one direction - N.M. Korkunov, N.I. Lazarevsky - proved that both definitions are synonymous. Another trend in state studies, presented by A.D. Gradovsky, A.S. Alekseev, N.I. Palienko, defending the opposite opinion, distinguished between the epithets "autocratic" and "unlimited". The essence of the disagreement boiled down to the fact that Art. 1 of the Basic Laws, the term "autocratic" allegedly emphasized monarchical sovereignty, the supremacy of the monarch in the state system of Russia, while the epithet "unlimited" meant that the emperor also had absolute sovereignty.

A somewhat different approach to autocracy was proposed by I.A. Ilyin, who considered it a kind of law. Therefore, all the axioms of legal consciousness are also valid for the autocracy. A diametrically opposite point of view was defended by P.E. Kazansky: “We must completely leave aside the idea that it would be possible for the authorities of the Russian Emperors to give a purely legal structure, like, say, a bill of exchange or a check. Exclusively legal interpretations in the field of basic issues of public law can hardly give a completely correct understanding of things. After all, “within the boundaries ... of popular concepts, the Tsar is sovereign; but its sovereignty (autocracy) - autocracy - has nothing in common with the absolutism of the Western Caesarian style. The tsar is “the denial of absolutism” precisely because he is bound by the limits of the people’s understanding and worldview, which serves as the framework within which the authorities can and should consider themselves free” Kamenskaya G.V. Federalism: mythology and political practice. - M., 1998. .

The identical thought, within the framework of the formal legal method of cognition, was substantiated by N.I. Palienko: “Autocracy means in the Fundamental Laws not absolutism, unlimited power, but the idea of the supremacy and fullness of the rights of the non-derivative power of the monarch, due to which the monarch is, according to this idea, the bearer of all the supreme powers of state power.” At the same time, the sovereign is limited in exercising his own sovereign rights quo ad exercitium, i.e. establishments of the constitution, forms and legislative provisions of representative bodies of the state.

N.I. Palienko argued that “no matter how the prerogatives of the monarch ... are limited by the powers of popular representation by the force of our Fundamental Laws, it still remains undoubted that, according to the meaning of these laws, Russia, having received popular representation with legislative powers, is now a constitutional state, although and least developed type.

N.I. wrote about autocracy exclusively in ideal tones. Chernyaev: “Russia can be Russia in the full sense of the word; if it belongs to the Russian people, and only as long as it is ruled by autocratic monarchs. Whoever cherishes the nationality of the Russian state must also cherish the Russian autocracy. Parliamentarism is tantamount to the collapse of Russia.

N.I. Chernyaev identified four features of the Russian autocracy:

? autocracy is an organization of supreme power created by the Great Russian people;

? Russian autocracy is the power of Orthodoxy;

? it is the autocracy of the northern latitudes;

? it (the autocracy of the Russian state) did not experience the influence of Western ideas of absolutism, Eastern despotism and Roman Caesarism.

Such an "unlimited monarchy is firmly based only on the free subordination of the people to the ruler", for "autocracy can be vital and strong only where it is approved on the free recognition of the people, on the conviction of its necessity" History of the domestic state and law: textbook Kudinov O. BUT. MESI; 2004, 273s. .

Another pre-revolutionary researcher of the domestic state and law M.F. Vladimirsky-Budanov said the following about this: “The power of the Grand Duke and Tsar is called autocracy, which denotes not only its individuality, but also unlimited fullness of rights.”

Describing power All-Russian Emperor, ON THE. Zakharov wrote: “Autocracy is the unification of all the elements of ruling in the person of one hereditary Russian tsar, personifying a single indivisible Russia, guarding all its historical national traditions and subordinate in the exercise of its sovereign power to the norms of state ethics and awareness of the expediency for the people's good of the measures he uses. This kind of power is based on free independent, as it was seen from the previous presentation, the supremacy of the monarch in the field of legislation, administration and court. This supremacy in the three powers outlined by the constitution gives grounds for the exercise by the monarch of the prerogatives of autocratic power, towering over other types of state authorities. In general, “the Russian monarchy differed from the Western ones both ideologically and legally,” states I.Ya. Froyanov. Ideally, the king served both God and the people. The paternalistic function of autocratic power runs like a red thread through the entire history of the Fatherland. It also determined the specifics of public perception of state power - as paternal. This is our national trait. Protection and help are always expected from the ruler, and Russian sovereigns often lived up to these expectations.

Considering various approaches to the classification of monarchical forms of government, it should be noted that it is impossible to cover this problem from a formal legal point of view, in contrast to the republic, which “seems to be a purer legal relationship” History of the state and law of Russia: Under. ed. Ave. Yu. P. Titov. - M. - 2005.

In order to cut this "Gordian knot", it is necessary to make some convergence of the views of the leading theoreticians of monarchism. Therefore, the classical gradation of monarchical forms of statehood into a limited and unlimited monarchy is quite correct. But within these types, several types should be distinguished, depending on the political and legal status of the crowned head of state. So, in a limited monarchy - constitutional and dualistic, and in an unlimited - despotic, absolute and autocratic. At the same time, there were opponents of such fragmentation even before 1917. A.S. Alekseev wrote in 1907: “The division of modern constitutional monarchies into two types - dualistic and parliamentary - has outlived its time. If the dualistic monarchy, contrary to the basic requirements of the rule of law, never represented a normal type of constitutional state, then the parliamentary monarchy that developed in England in salient feature, which is seen in the appointment by the king of the leader of the parliamentary majority as the first minister, is a historically transitional form of statehood, which has developed relatively recently and is currently experiencing a serious crisis in its homeland, is clearly declining, opening the way for a new political formation that promises to become typical for the rule of law state of the nearest future.

Monarchy power. The monarchy as a form of government is very heterogeneous and has shown over the centuries its flexibility and variability, thanks to which it managed to “survive” in modern highly developed democratic states. Consider the most ancient

Origin of the monarchy

Monarchy restrictions.

Home > Abstract >State and Law

Introduction

Mankind could not do without the state as a tool for managing society. Customs, traditions and habits alone were not enough in the conditions of the complication of socio-economic life. A more operational, efficient, mobile force is needed - the force of coercion, of armed influence.

In considering the essence of the state, there are three main theoretical approaches: public, class and political-legal Khropanyuk V.N. Theory of Government and Rights. Reader. - M.: Publishing house "Interstil", 1998.-

.

The meaning of the public: the state is a means of solving common problems and affairs, it regulates the relationship between the rulers and the people.

Representatives of the class approach argue as follows: the state appeared with the division of society into classes and serves as an instrument of class struggle, the suppression of some classes over others.

The essence of the political and legal approach: the state is a source of law that organizes the life of society and the state itself.

Forms of government

Under the monarchical form of government, the source of state power, according to the laws in force, is the monarch. Under the republican - an elected state body.

The main difference between a monarchy and a republic is this: the monarchical form of the state means that the power in the state belongs to the highest bearer of state power on the basis of his own right.

This is the main difference between monarchical and republican states.

To summarize what is meant by the form of government:

The form of government is a scientific category that reflects the order of formation of the highest bodies of state power, their structure, competence and the relationship between them.

History and modernity know different types of monarchies and republics. They largely depend on the types of states, as well as on the conditions for their emergence and functioning.

Types of forms of government

1. Monarchy

History of the monarchy

The history of the monarchy begins with the history of the state. The institutions of military democracy, which had developed during the period of the disintegration of the tribal system, were used in the creation of the first monarchies.

The variety of monarchies is not only in the ratio of secular and ecclesiastical power, but also in the titles of the head of state (emperor, king, king, duke, prince, pharaoh, sultan, etc.).

In an atmosphere of feudal fragmentation, which in a number of countries came as a result of the collapse of large monarchies, a despotic form of government was preserved.

Chronologically, the stage of the estate-representative monarchy took about four centuries and did not coincide in time in the history of individual countries.

If the estate-representative monarchy was characterized by relations of suzerainty-vassalage with the participation of the feudal and theocratic aristocracy, then the absolute centralization of the bureaucratic apparatus headed by the monarch is typical for an absolute monarchy.

In Asian countries, absolute monarchy developed on a different basis. There was no estate-representative monarchy, the development of elements of capitalist relations was slow. Stable feudal relations hindered the process of forming a centralized state.

Monarchy in the modern world

Scheme 3.

Constitutional monarchy is divided into two types - dualistic and parliamentary monarchy.

A parliamentary monarchy currently exists in a number of developed countries whose economies have not retained any significant remnants of feudalism. Great Britain, Belgium, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Canada, Japan, Australia, New Zealand and others.

The power of the monarch is limited not only in the field of legislation, but also in the sphere of state administration and control over the government. If the parliament expresses a vote of no confidence in the government, the latter resigns or dissolves the parliament and calls snap elections.

The power of the monarch, as already noted, is hereditary. The order of succession to the throne is established by constitutions and special laws, but may be regulated by religious rules and customary law.

There are currently four succession systems in Europe: Salic, Austrian, Castilian and Swedish.

Salic system Belgium, Norway. suggests that succession to the throne is through the male line only.

Austrian Liechtenstein system. suggests that a woman can ascend the throne only if all lines and degrees of male kinship are suppressed.

Castilian system Most common in Europe: Great Britain, Denmark, the Netherlands, Spain. prefers the male sex, although it does not exclude the ascension of a woman to the throne.

The Swedish system stipulates that men and women inherit the throne on an equal footing.

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

INTRODUCTION

1.3 Monarchy in Russian history

1.4 Advantages and disadvantages of the monarchy.

Chapter 2. Modern Monarchy

2.1. Monarchic states of modern times - a brief overview

2.2 Trends and mechanisms for the development of the monarchical system

2.3 Legal mechanisms of the monarchical form of government: a comparative analysis

CONCLUSION

LIST OF USED LITERATURE

INTRODUCTION

The monarchical form of government had its origins in that rather simple socially not too dissected organization of society that appeared at the turn of the 4th-3rd millennium BC. as a result of the Neolithic Revolution.

The purpose of this work is to analyze the theoretical and practical aspects of the history of development, the essence of the monarchy and the development of a classification scheme that defines and characterizes the monarchical form of government.

The main tasks set in the work on the basis of a specific topic are:

? analysis of the essence of the monarchy as a form of government;

? analysis of the classification of monarchies;

? characterization of the historical preconditions and consequences of the development of the monarchy;

? analysis of the institution of the monarchy in the history of state administration in Russia;

? characteristics of the weak and strong sides of the monarchy.

The object of research is the monarchy as a form of government.

The subject of research in the work is the mechanism of practical implementation of the monarchical form of government.

Chapter 1. general characteristics and the history of the monarchy

1.1 The concept of signs and types of monarchy

Therefore, in order to fully understand the essence of the monarchy, let us compare the structure of different states in their formation from antiquity to the present day.

From here we can deduce the principle that constitutes the basis of monarchical power, which was only strengthened in Russia from Ivan the Terrible until February 1917.

At the same time, of course, the monarch must meet certain qualities that the Russian researcher Lev Tikhomirov singled out:

1. self-control;

2. moderation;

3. debt;

4. justice;

5. legality.

The monarchy as a form of government is very heterogeneous and has shown over the centuries its flexibility and variability, thanks to which it managed to “survive” in modern highly developed democratic states. Consider the most ancient varieties of monarchies.

Patriarchal monarchy (traditional). It is characteristic of traditional societies and directly comes from the development of the family principle (the traditional monarch is perceived as the father of his subjects).

The classical despotic monarchs were the Assyrian king, the Armenian king of Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages, as well as the khan of the Turkic or Mongol horde (an elected despotic ruler).

The Eastern Aryan societies are characterized by the inclusion of the king in the estate, only not in the highest, but in the second - in the military Kamenskaya G.V. Federalism: mythology and political practice. - M., 1998. .

On the contrary, in the Western tradition of class societies, the monarch was supra-class. It can even be assumed that in the Achaean societies the aristocracy was stronger than the monarchy, and yet the royal family stood out and stood apart.

In the same way, in the tradition of pre-Mongolian Russia, the princes were a peculiarly isolated class, removed from the aristocracy - the boyars.

It should be noted that monarchy is certainly useful for estate societies, because the monarchical principle allows the head of state to be made supra-class, and therefore, to make an arbiter in the event of inter-class conflicts.

But the monarchy in Europe appeared under a special combination of conditions of origin and development, which differs from both Byzantine and Muscovite-Russian conditions.

The main conditions that determined the development of European monarchies are as follows:

An example of the tendencies of these basic, natural forces of the social system and the spirit of Christianity is the monarchy of Charlemagne, which remained for many centuries the ideal of Western European statehood. ed. Ave. Yu. P. Titov. - M. - 2005.

Thus, the meetings were widely deliberative, and the decisive vote belonged to Charles.