1) the form of the state; 2) a form of government in which the supreme government concentrated in the hands of one head of state - the monarch and will be inherited.

Great Definition

Incomplete definition ↓

MONARCHY

from the Greek monos - one, arche - beginning) - a form of government in which the functions of the head of state are transferred according to the principle of inheritance.

It is believed that the monarchy as a form of government appeared in the most ancient tribal societies simultaneously with a change in the method of inheritance of the totem sign - the more ancient method of inheritance through the female line was replaced by transmission through the male line, as indicated by some myths, as well as studies of the social structure of some modern tribes standing on the lowest levels of social development.

Monarchy is the oldest form of government. The basis of the monarchical government was originally based on the sacred possibility of communication of the monarch with the other world and other taboo (sacred, forbidden) possibilities, and the oldest monarchical power was not limited to management in the current sense, but to the fulfillment of certain restrictions that were ritual in nature and sometimes very harsh. So, in ancient Egypt during the first dynasties main responsibility the pharaohs were involved in ritual processions, and the main function was to announce the beginning of the Nile flood; in the XI-XIV centuries. the emperor of Japan had to sit in the throne room for several hours every morning, completely motionless, because his slightest movement threatened to disrupt harmony in the state, wars, floods, fires and other disasters. A number of restrictions, especially during hostilities, were also imposed on the Irish kings, and in Cambodia, where there was a king of fire and a king of water, the restrictions imposed on them were so severe that during the 16th-19th centuries. (i.e., all the time while this process was observed by various missionaries-colonizers) monarchs were appointed literally by force. The same thing is happening today in some tribes of equatorial Africa.

It was the exorbitance of the restrictions imposed on the monarch that led to the separation of the sacred and administrative functions, and, moving to the priestly class, the sacred function placed the priests socially higher than the monarchs, as evidenced, for example, by the caste structure of Indian society, where the Brahmin caste stands above the caste. Kshatriyas, or the formal supremacy of the Pope over the kings of medieval Europe.

However, the partially sacred function of monarchical power has survived to this day, as evidenced by the universally defined ritual (protocol) associated with it, originally created to prevent direct communication between ordinary people and monarchs (taboos and a threat to life) and allowing only communication through intermediaries (priests, ministers). Suffice it to recall the way that existed in Russian society of directly addressing the monarch in the form of a “petition”, which was carried out with strict observance of ceremonial (protective) actions, such as: falling to your knees, bowing your head to the ground as a sign of great fear of possible consequences and, in fact, "beating with the forehead".

Depending on the principle of inheritance of power, the monarchy can be dynastic, tribal and elective.

The tribal monarchy is probably one of the most ancient varieties of the monarchical structure, since it carries the largest number of features associated with the archaic sacral function. Its meaning boils down to the fact that only a member of a certain clan, possessing a certain sacred power, that is, actually possessing great authority, can become a monarch. A similar way of life was characteristic of the pre-Columbian states of Central and South America, as well as numerous tribes of Africa, Australia and Oceania. A somewhat similar type of monarchy existed in Ancient Greece, willow Ancient Rus'.

The dynastic monarchy probably originated in ancient Egypt. It is characterized by the transfer of power from father to son or to another close relative (for example, to a brother, as was the case in Ancient Rus'). This is the most common type of monarchy that has survived and still exists, for example, in Great Britain, Monaco, Denmark, Sweden, Japan (where the dynastic branch of the Mikado has not been suppressed even once in more than a thousand years of the country's history) and in some other countries.

The emergence of an elective monarchy is associated with the refusal of applicants to voluntarily take the place of the monarch, in any case, it is in this form (when the monarch is often elected by the council of elders by force) that it exists in some tribes of Africa and Polynesia. However, elective monarchy was practiced from time to time in ancient Greece, in Ancient Rome, in Byzantium, in Poland and even in Rus', where monarchs were elected several times (repeatedly in Novgorod and then twice in troubled times in Moscow).

However this way succession proved to be unviable. Such monarchies, completely devoid of a sacred component, either tend to regain it, acquiring dynastic features (as was the case in ancient Rome, where the consular method of government led to the restoration of the once lost dynastic system), or, conversely, give way to democracy, where the ruler’s belonging to certain blood is not of decisive importance (as in Novgorod, where the monarch was elected mainly for the duration of the war or for other tactical reasons). The France of Napoleon I and Napoleon III is an excellent example of both processes.

The historical varieties of monarchies include patriarchal or traditional monarchies (characteristic of traditional societies); sacred monarchies, or theocracies (where the primary functions of the monarch are priestly or spiritual: for example, Ancient Egypt, the Islamic Caliphate); despotic monarchies emerging in militarized societies (Assyria, Ancient Armenia, Mongolian horde); estate and estate-representative monarchies (for example, pre-Petrine Rus'); absolute monarchies based on the delegation of power to bureaucracy in the absence of aristocratic and democratic institutions (France in the 17th century); constitutional monarchies that implement the principles of the "social contract" and separation of powers and limit the power of the king by the constitution; autocratic or autocratic monarchies, in which the monarch is absolutely sovereign and is the sole source of laws, and the state functions in interaction and commonwealth (symphony) with the Church (Byzantium, Russian Empire).

Like any other form of government, monarchy has its advantages and disadvantages. Among the advantages of the monarchy, one should include the independence of the monarch (after all, in the case of election, the head of state owes his election to a power or financial group, which means that during the reign he will defend the interests of this group, and not the people as a whole, which is not the case under a monarchy). In addition, the special legal position of the monarch, which allows you to quickly make important decisions, for example, quickly repeal a harmful law, pardon a convict, etc. (A. Pushkin said in this regard that “there should be one person in the state who is above even the law ").

The supremacy (sovereignty) of the monarch is a quality especially valuable during periods of wars and other crises. Unity of command is in such cases an unconditional blessing. It should be noted, however, that almost all democratic states have a mechanism for delegating emergency powers to presidents or other authorized persons at such special moments.

The most important advantage of the monarchy is its symbolic component. The monarch, as a symbol of the unity of the nation, as its conscience, redeemer and defender, as a person with the highest authority and trust, carries a huge ideological meaning and thus opens the way for important national achievements, for mass enthusiasm, for patriotism, for feat.

I. A. Ilyin writes about the fundamental basis of the subjects' trust in the monarch - their confidence that the monarch "himself puts himself before the face of God and himself measures his deeds and decisions by the criteria of divine revelation." In this trust, the tsar and the people are united, putting themselves on the judgment of history.

The monarchy is an important instrument of unification and a symbol of unity, among other things, due to its ability to maintain the informality of relations between the monarch and the subject. In Russia, even addressing "you" to the landowner (as required by the introduction at the end of the XVIII - early XIX centuries French form), the Russian peasant continued to address the tsar “on you”. Unlike democracies, which are characterized by frequent changes of power, the monarchy assumes that the person vested with supreme power will be guided in his actions not by concern for the upcoming elections, but by responsibility before God, history and people.

Another important function of the monarch, as a person above the law, is the function of the highest judge, who can punish, but can also pardon, regardless of the severity of the crime. This, at first glance, insignificant function turned out to be so important that the exclusive powers to pardon became the competence of many elected presidents of the republics. Its echoes can be found in the division English law in fact, into 2 branches: the Court of the King and the Court of Honor, which is a consequence of an attempt to oppose the court "by law" (the court of honor) to the court of "justice" (the king's court).

The advantage of the monarchy is the ability to effectively nominate the most talented people to leadership positions. In republican systems, the head of state will inevitably be afraid of competition from a talented minister or general, and therefore hold him back. The monarch, by virtue of his position, does not participate in competitive relations, and besides, he himself is interested in nominating talented people to preserve the dynasty and the country. Moreover, the monarch is also the guarantor of the opposition in society. He has nothing to fear from the "freedoms of the people", since they do not threaten him in any way. If they do not encroach on the change of the monarchical system itself, then criticism of the government can be regarded as an important positive function, and the opposition can always find protection from the monarch against the use of the "administrative resource" by the government.

The monarch is also a measure of the idealized ideas of society about honor and dignity, about loyalty and duty, about the highest values, adherence to which is a sign of a highly spiritual life of a person. Concerning negative traits monarchy, then its main drawback is in itself, in its main principle - the principle of succession to the throne. For if democracy implies at least the theoretical possession of outstanding qualities by the head of state, then the monarch may not necessarily possess them. And this despite the fact that he is invested with supreme power, which turns not only a tyrant and usurper, but also ordinary mediocrity into a great disaster for the people.

The supra-legal and supra-estate position of the monarch, being an indispensable blessing during wars and other upheavals, in a peaceful period can become a source of evil for the citizens of the state. The Byzantine historian Michael Psellos reports that Basil II's half-brother, also Basil, was castrated by his own brother in order to forestall a relative's possible claims to the throne. The historian reports this in such a way that we have no doubt that the actions of the emperor were dictated by the highest state considerations, since there is no most important state consideration for the monarchy than to save the throne.

However, the opposition of dynastic interests to the interests of the state had even more serious consequences in history: suffice it to recall the dynastic wars in Ancient China and Ancient Rome, the Fronde and the revolution in France, the revolution and restoration in England (not to mention the Hundred Years' War and the War of the Scarlet and White Roses). ). It was the primacy of dynastic interests over the interests of the people that led to Russia's involvement in World War I and the subsequent fall of the empire.

Monarchy is often compared to "strong presidential power". However, with all the similarities (broad powers, the right to pardon, the supreme command), there are a number of very significant differences between the monarchy and the presidential republic.

The president is not above the law and, being one of the sources of law, theoretically has the same rights as other citizens. The President is not an object of the sacred sphere and therefore, as it were, delegates some of the functions back to the people, creating a field for greater freedom: freedom of activity or freedom of conscience.

The President is not a measure of nobility and morality, leaving the solution of ethical issues to the conscience of every citizen and turning them into personal ones.

The temporality of the president's stay in power, as it were, shifts the focus of his activity from law-making to law-enforcement, implementation. And the opportunity for everyone to become the head of state or, at least, to take part in elections, as well as their regularity, makes political processes not so painful. After all, the only way for the people to get rid of the king is rebellion, and rebellion is the highest disaster for the state.

Probably due to these shortcomings, the monarchy, especially in its absolute manifestations, is now giving way to the republican method of government.

Approximately 40 states of the world (about 20% of all states) are monarchies. However, due to its merits, in constitutional forms, it still exists in many developed countries (including such as Japan, Great Britain, Spain, Denmark, Sweden, the Netherlands, Belgium, etc.), where it takes on the functions lost for many reasons, local religious institutions, i.e., performing a ceremonial and symbolic role, designed to serve as the embodiment of ideal public ideas about morality and non-material values, about patriotism.

In Russia, the number of supporters of the restoration of the monarchy is steadily growing. According to the latest data, about 20% of Russians consider such a measure a boon for the country.

Great Definition

Incomplete definition ↓

Greek - autocracy): a political system based on the exclusive legal power of one person. The monarchy is the oldest and most stable type of political organization in history.

Great Definition

Incomplete definition ↓

MONARCHY

one of the forms of monocracy is unity of rights and the name of the state system, headed by the monarch. Monarchy differs from other forms of monocracy (dictatorship, presidential rule, party leadership) by hereditary (dynamic) succession of power (throne, crown) and family-related filling of the political environment.

The cultural and historical basis of the origin of the monarchy was the socio-biological mechanism of leaderism - the appearance in a human group that lived according to the norms of pack animals, the leader and the hierarchy of his subordinate environment. Subsequently, such a leader led the tribe, then the union of tribes, pre-state and public entities, and gradually there was an idea of ​​the country and the people as the property of the sovereign.

The monarchy is in historical opposition to republican statehood and competes with republican democracy, but can be combined with monarchical democracy, that is, with the most ancient forms of tribal, military, veche (in Russian principalities), city (polis) democracy (mixed government, according to Aristotle) . The historical meaning of the dilemma "monarchy - republican democracy", formulated by the political philosophy of ancient Greece, was explained as the problem of numbers in politics: the movement from 1 to many (Plato. Republic, 291d, 302c). The movement from 1 to functional, all other types of state system are located between the monarchy and democracy, 1 and these are extremes, therefore they either crowded out each other in history, or combined with each other. In the Romanesque and medieval traditions, the tradition of the titularity of the monarchy, that is, the government entrusted to the monarch by the people - the true owner of power and rights, was firmly held. Early feudal monarchies did not yet have full power, which they were forced to share with tribal leaders and communal self-government in cities, often their functions were limited to the management of military operations (elected kings of Germanic tribes, Novgorod princes in Rus'). In the East and in Europe, by the beginning of the New Age, the monarchy gradually absolutely prevailed and took the completed form of absolutism (in Europe) and autocracy (in Russia) in the process of historical concentration and centralization of power. Absolutism received theoretical background in the concept of monarchical sovereignty in the writings of I. Sanin (The Enlightener, 1503) and J. Bodin (Six Books on the Republic, 1576). The monarchy as a form of government gradually fell into decay. This process began with 18th century and continued throughout the 19th and 20th centuries. Monarchies were either replaced by a republican system, or took mixed forms (constitutional, democratic, parliamentary), which significantly limited the power of the monarch, and often reduced the role of the monarch in the state to pure representation.

What is a monarchy? Most often, this word causes people to associate with something magnificent, majestic and absolute. In this article, we will consider not only general concept, but also the types of the monarchy, its purpose and goals both in the centuries-old history of mankind and at the present moment. If we briefly outline the topic of the article, then it can be formulated as follows: "Monarchy: concept, features, types."

What type of government is called a monarchy?

Monarchy is one of the types of government, which involves the sole leadership of the country. In other words, this is political structure when all power is in the hands of one person. Such a ruler is called a monarch, but in different countries you can hear other titles, namely: emperor, shah, king or queen - they are all monarchs, regardless of how they are called in their homeland. Another important feature of monarchical power is that it is inherited without any votes or elections. Naturally, if there are no direct heirs, then the laws that control the succession to the throne in monarchical countries come into force. Thus, power most often passes to the closest relative, but world history knows many other options.

In general, the form of government in the state determines the structure of the highest power in the country, as well as the distribution of functions, responsibilities and duties of the highest legislative bodies. As for the monarchy, then, as already mentioned, all power belongs to a single ruler. The monarch receives it for life, and besides, he does not bear any legal responsibility for his decisions, although it is he who determines how the state should act in a given situation.

How to distinguish a monarchical form of government?

Regardless of what different types monarchies have their own differences, there are also basic features that are common to all. Such characteristics help to quickly and accurately determine that we are really dealing with monarchical power. So, the main features are:

1. There is a sole ruler who is the head of state.
2. The monarch exercises his power from the moment he takes office until his death.
3. The transfer of power occurs by kinship, which is called inheritance.
4. The monarch has every right to govern the state at his own discretion, his decisions are not discussed or questioned.
5. The monarch is not subject to legal responsibility for his actions or decisions.

About the types of monarchy

Like other types of government, monarchy is a fairly broad concept, therefore its subspecies with separate features are also defined. Almost all types and forms of monarchy can be grouped into the following list:

1. Despotism.
2. Absolute monarchy.
3. Constitutional monarchy (dualistic and parliamentary).
4. Estate-representative monarchy.

All of these forms of government retain the basic characteristics of a monarchy, but they have their own unique nuances that create differences between them. Further, it is worth discussing in more detail what types of monarchy and their signs are.

About despotism

Despotism is a variant of the monarchy, where the power of the ruler is generally not limited by anything. In this case, the monarch is called a despot. As a rule, his power comes from the military-bureaucratic apparatus. In other words, he controls subordinates through force, which is mainly expressed in the support of troops or other power structures.

Since absolutely all power is in the hands of a despot, the law that he establishes does not in any way limit his rights or opportunities. Thus, the monarch and his associates can do whatever they want with impunity, and this will not have any negative consequences for them in a legal context.

Interesting fact: the great ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle mentioned despotism in one of his writings. He noted that this form of government is very similar to the situation with the master and his power over the slaves, where the master is an analogue of the despot monarch, and the slaves are the subjects of the ruler.

About absolute monarchy

Types of monarchy include the concept of absolutism. Here the main feature is that all power belongs exclusively to one person. Such a structure of power in the case of an absolute monarchy is dictated by law. It is also worth noting that absolutism and dictatorship are very similar types of power.

The absolute monarchy indicates that in the state all spheres of life are single-handedly controlled by the ruler. That is, it controls the legislative, executive, judicial and military branches. Often even religious or spiritual power is entirely in his hands.

Considering this issue in more detail, we can say that the opinion about such a form of government as an absolute monarchy is rather ambiguous. The concept and types of state leadership are quite broad, but with regards to despotism and absolutism, it is worth noting that the best option is still the second. If literally everything is controlled in a totalitarian country under the leadership of a despot, freedom of thought is destroyed and many people are humiliated. civil rights, then an absolute monarchy can be very favorable to the people. Prosperous Luxembourg can serve as an example, the standard of living of the people in which is the highest in Europe. In addition, at the moment we can observe types of absolute monarchy in countries such as Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Oman and Qatar.

About constitutional monarchy

The difference between this type of government is the limited power of the monarch, established by the constitution, traditions, or sometimes even unwritten law. Here the monarch has no priority in the sphere of state power. It is also important that the restrictions are not just written down in the law, but actually implemented.

Types of constitutional monarchies:

1. dualistic monarchy. Here the power of the monarch is limited as follows: all decisions made by the monarch must be confirmed by a specially appointed minister. Without his resolution, no decision of the ruler will take effect. Another of the differences of the dualistic monarchy is that all executive power remains with the monarch.
2. parliamentary monarchy. It also limits the power of the monarch, and to such an extent that, in fact, he performs only a ceremonial or representative role. The ruler in a parliamentary monarchy has practically no real power left. Here, all executive power belongs to the government, which, in turn, is responsible to parliament.

On the estate-representative monarchy

In this form of monarchy, class representatives are involved, who are directly involved in the drafting of laws and government in general. The power of the monarch is also limited here, and this happens mainly due to the development of monetary and commodity relations. This put an end to the stability of the subsistence economy, which was then closed. Thus, the concept of centralization of power in a political context arose.

This type of monarchy was typical for the countries of Europe in the period from the 12th to the 14th century. Examples include the Parliament in England, the Cortes and Spain, the Estates General in France. In Russia, these were Zemsky Sobors in the period from the 16th to the 17th century.

Examples of monarchical government in the modern world

In addition to these countries, absolute monarchy is established in Brunei and the Vatican. It is worth noting that the United Arab Emirates is, in fact, a federal state, but each of the seven emirates in this association is part of an absolute monarchy.

The clearest example of a parliamentary monarchy is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Holland is also sometimes referred to here.

Many countries belong to the constitutional monarchy, among which we highlight the following: Spain, Belgium, Monaco, Japan, Andorra, Cambodia, Thailand, Morocco and many more.

As far as the dualistic monarchy is concerned, there are three main examples worth mentioning here: Jordan, Morocco and Kuwait. It is worth noting that the latter is sometimes referred to as an absolute monarchy.

Weaknesses of the Monarchy

The monarchy, the concept and types of which were discussed above, is a political device, which, of course, has certain disadvantages.

The main problem is that the ruler and the people are too far from each other due to a kind of layer, it is here that they have weakness monarchy as a form of government. All types of monarchies, without exception, are distinguished by this shortcoming. The ruler is almost completely isolated from his people, which negatively affects both the relationship and the understanding of the real situation by the monarch, and, accordingly, the adoption of important decisions. This is a small fraction of the unpleasant moments that are provoked by this state of affairs.

It is also obvious that when a country is governed in accordance with the preferences and moral principles of only one person, this introduces a certain subjectivity. A monarch is only a human being and, like ordinary citizens, is subject to fits of pride and self-confidence that come from the rapture of unlimited power. If we add to this the impunity of the ruler, then a rather characteristic picture is observed.

Another not entirely successful moment of the monarchical system is the transfer of the title by inheritance. Even if we consider the types of limited monarchy, this aspect is still present. The trouble is that the heirs following the law do not always turn out to be worthy people. This concerns both the general and organizational characteristics of the future monarch (for example, not everyone is strong enough or wise enough to rule the country), and his health (most often mental). So, power can pass into the hands of a mentally unbalanced and stupid older brother, although the royal family has a wiser and more adequate younger heir.

Types of monarchy: pros and cons

History shows that most often in a monarchical form of government, the people did not like the aristocracy. The problem was that people belonging to the upper strata of society were financially and intellectually different from the majority, respectively, this sowed natural enmity and gave rise to mutual hostility. But it is worth noting that if at the court of the monarch a policy was introduced that weakened the positions of the aristocracy, then its place was firmly occupied by the bureaucracy. Naturally, this state of affairs was even worse.

As for the lifetime power of the monarch, this is an ambiguous aspect. On the one hand, having the ability to make decisions for a long time, the monarch could work for the future. That is, counting on the fact that he would rule for several decades, the ruler gradually and consistently implemented his policy. This is not bad for the country, if the vector of development of the state is chosen correctly and for the benefit of the people. On the other hand, holding the post of monarch for more than one decade, bearing the burden of state care on your shoulders, is rather tiring, which may subsequently affect the efficiency of work.

Summing up, we can say that the monarchy is good as follows:

1. A well-established succession to the throne helps keep the country relatively stable.
2. A monarch who rules for life is able to do more than a ruler who is limited in time.
3. All aspects of the life of the country are controlled by one person, so he can see the whole picture very clearly.

Of the shortcomings, it is worth highlighting the following:

1. Hereditary power could doom a country to life under the control of a person who is simply not capable of being a ruler for one reason or another.
2. The distance between the common people and the monarchs is incommensurable. The existence of an aristocracy very sharply divides the people into social strata.

Disadvantages for good

Quite often, the dignity of the monarchy turned out to be a problem in one situation or another. But sometimes everything happened the other way around: the seemingly unacceptable lack of the monarchy unexpectedly helped and acted for the good of the people.

In this section, we will touch on the topic of the injustice of the monarchy. Undoubtedly, many politicians who want to come to power are not satisfied with the fact that the title of the ruler of the country is inherited. The people, in turn, are often dissatisfied with the clear and inexorable stratification of society along class lines. But on the other hand, the hereditary power of the monarch stabilizes many political, social and economic processes in the state. The inevitable inheritance of power levers prevents unconstructive competition between a huge number of candidates claiming the post of ruler. Competition between contenders for the right to rule the country can lead to instability in the state and even military conflict resolution. And since everything is predetermined, peace and prosperity are achieved in the region.

Republic

There is another important point worth discussing are the types of monarchies and republics. Since a lot has been said about the monarchy, we turn to an alternative form of government. A republic is a form of government where all government bodies are formed through elections and exist in this composition for a limited period. It is important to understand this in order to see the fundamental difference between these types of leadership: a monarchical government, where the people are not given a choice, and a republic, the leading representatives of which are elected by the people themselves for a certain period. The elected candidates make up the parliament, which actually governs the country. In other words, the candidates elected by the citizens, and not the heirs of the monarchical dynasty, become the head of the republican state.

The Republic is the most popular form of government in world practice, which has repeatedly proven its effectiveness. An interesting fact: most of the states of the modern world are officially republics. If we talk about numbers, then in 2006 there were 190 states, of which 140 were republics.

Types of republics and their main characteristics

Not only the monarchy, the concepts and types of which we have considered, is divided into structural parts. For example, the main classification of such a form of government as a republic consists of four types:

1. Parliamentary republic. Based on the name, one can understand that here most of the power is in the hands of the parliament. It is this legislature that is the government of the country with this form of government.
2. Presidential republic. Here the main levers of power are concentrated in the hands of the president. Also, its task is to coordinate the actions and relations between all the leading branches of government.
3. Mixed Republic. It is also called semi-presidential. The main characteristic of this form of government is the dual responsibility of the government, which is subordinate to both the parliament and the president.
4. Theocratic Republic. In such a formation, power is mostly or even completely owned by the church hierarchy.

Conclusion

Knowledge of what types of monarchy can be found in modern world, help to understand more deeply the features of government. By studying history, we can observe the triumph or collapse of countries ruled by monarchs. This type of state power was one of the steps on the way to those forms of government that prevail in our time. Therefore, to know what a monarchy is, the concept and types of which we have discussed in detail, is very important for people who are interested in the political processes taking place on the world stage.

The content of the article

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 to some extent a 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 kings often performed, in addition to the duties of leadership and management, various priestly and symbolic functions. Most of the monarchs sought to approve and support the popular belief in 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, stemming 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 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 internal split or external attack. Such was the reign in ancient Sparta, and the dictatorship in the Roman Republic, and the wartime powers of modern democratic leaders reveal this trend.

Since the kings, under the pretext of national defense, had access to new sources of income, they were in no hurry to free themselves from them, returning to civilian life. In France, the first royal standing army appeared after the end of the Hundred Years' War, when roving bands of former soldiers became such a threat that the king had to hire some of them into permanent service to suppress the rest. It was quite logical and natural for monarchs to use new resources, financial and military, to keep their own powerful subjects - feudal magnates - in awe. The urban middle class generally welcomed the increase in royal power because it brought a number of benefits that were especially attractive to them: increased public order and security of person and property; greater uniformity in legal norms, coinage of money, measures and weights; cheaper and more reliable justice; support for merchants in foreign lands; favorable opportunities for commerce (for example, supplying uniforms and equipment to the royal army, equipping the royal fleet, or collecting royal taxes).

For his part, the king was happy to take advantage of the money and intelligence of his middle-class subjects, because in this way he could free himself from traditional restrictions, for example, the feudal idea that "the king should live on the income from his estates." In addition, the new royal civil service needed hundreds of employees, and men trained in the merchants' offices could now supplement or replace the clergy as a source of replenishment for the ranks of competent bureaucrats. Thus, an effective alliance or even symbiosis arose in relations between the kings of the New Age, who sought to increase their power, and their burghers, who were looking for ways to increase their wealth. It was on this cooperation, often spontaneous and unintentional, that the absolutism of monarchies was built at the beginning of modern history. Naturally, other circumstances, sometimes local or personal, also played a role.

Economic factors in Western Europe . Conditions in this region were especially favorable for the consolidation of the monarchy in the 16th and 17th centuries. It was an era of exploration and discovery, expansion and colonization - activities that increased the advantages of countries with a vigorous and concentrated government. Sea expeditions were dangerous and costly, international rivalry was sharp, so the financial support and assistance of the king was vital. Spain, France, and England found that their monarchical institutions were very suitable for promoting the discovery and exploitation of new lands, and the dynasties of these countries benefited greatly from participation in such activities. The Dutch alone turned out to be a people who acquired colonies under a republican form of government, and it is noteworthy that they took advantage of a small territory, commercial efficiency and cultural homogeneity to a much greater extent than any of their monarchical rivals. For the same reasons, the Dutch did not have much need for a policy aimed at building a state economy, which was called variously: mercantilism, statism, cameralism, or - after its greatest French representative Jean-Baptiste Colbert - Colbertism. Although many variations can be found in the aims and methods, the main concern in the mercantilist art of government was to increase the prosperity and wealth of the king's subjects so that the king could collect more taxes.

Military and religious factors in Central Europe . The growth of centralized absolutism here depended less on economic factors than on political, religious, and military ones. The position as a stronghold against the Turks contributed to the consolidation of the monarchy and simplified the transformation of Bohemia into hereditary kingdoms. Absolutism was also strongly promoted by the Protestant and the century-long religious wars. and other leaders of Protestantism transferred the functions of eradicating ecclesiastical abuses to local princes as divinely appointed shepherds, and Luther, in particular, preached complete obedience to princely authority. In Scandinavia, too, kings and princes took advantage of the Reformation to confiscate (“secularize”) the property of churches and monasteries, oppress and feudal opposition in towns and among the nobility, and to replace Catholic bishops with new and more submissive churchmen. In England, he acted in many ways similarly, although he was not so radical.

Absolute monarchy.

In Catholic, as well as in Protestant countries, the most acute conflicts took place in, strongly encouraging the concentration of power in the hands of the monarch. (In passing, it can be noted that after the Council of Trent in the mid-16th century, the papacy sharply strengthened its monarchical power.) The war of extermination in France between Protestant Huguenots and Catholics first brought the monarchy to virtual impotence, but then opposition to religious strife helped to restore royal powers and expand them under the cardinal. (1648), which granted the sovereign rights of peace and war to the German states of the Holy Roman Empire, accelerated the transition from medieval Christendom (Respublica Christiana) to territorial absolutism, which had already become natural in Germany, as well as in the lands of the Habsburgs. Several of the most energetic states, including France and Brandenburg, ended the war not only with increased territory, but also with significant internal structural improvements, prompted by the needs and possibilities of the war.

Theory of absolutism . political theory reflected the new dominant role of territorial overlords. The royal jurists were quick to turn to Roman imperial jurisprudence—especially the language of the Code—to substantiate their masters' claims to "full power" (plenitudo potestatis) and to assert the thesis that "the king is emperor in his dominions" (est imperator in regno suo) . No subject, it was said, could legal grounds resist the will of the king. Similar theories culminated in the absolutist philosophy of Benedict Spinoza, although their extreme views were probably less influential than the more moderate doctrines of Baron von Pufendorf and. The divine right of kings was argued with repulsive pedantry and extraordinary tactlessness in England, and also with great eloquence and success by a bishop in France in the late 17th century, but this approach was no longer a widely accepted justification for monarchy.

Using Roman law, social contract theory, and divine law, kings were slow to discard the generic concept of their rule. According to it, the kingdom and all its wealth belong to the monarch as a patrimonial possession (passing to the descendants of the owner), which he has the right to dispose of at his own discretion, and only by his grace, individuals and corporate associations can enjoy conditional ownership of their property.

Centralized administration . In practice, kings rarely tried to apply this concept literally, nor did they make a systematic effort to destroy all other centers of power in their realms. More often, as in France, the old feudal and corporate institutions were retained, albeit in weakened forms, and used for the king's purposes. This was achieved by their submission to a new centralized administration, the key figure of which was the intendant, sent to his province as the representative of the king and invested with full power. It was significant that the quartermasters were not chosen from the highest nobility, but were “new people”, completely dependent on the favor of the royal power. Many of these officials were enlightened administrators of first-rate ability, and they did much for the prosperity of their districts; this is especially true of France and Prussia.

Despite the authoritarian methods established in the administration, the absolute monarch usually did not introduce fundamental changes in the judiciary, even if, as in the French parliaments, there was strong opposition among judges representing the selfish interests of the privileged classes to royal reform measures. This is partly due to the fact that under the absolute monarchy of pre-revolutionary France, judicial offices were usually bought and inherited, thus creating a property right that the royal power did not dare to violate and did not have the means to repurchase. Monarchs were also restrained by the fear of appearing despotic, and this consideration became more and more powerful with the spread of liberal ideas in the 18th century.

Enlightened Despots . Ironically, some of the most able and devoted monarchs of the Modern Age ruled in the 18th century, at a time when the whole theory and practice of absolute monarchy was under critical scrutiny and attack. England has already set an example by decisively replacing absolutism with a limited monarchy, in which power was concentrated mainly in the upper middle class, which controlled Parliament. The slower development of capitalism on the Continent, especially east of the Rhine, held back the growth of aggressive middle-class movements. So the strongest pressure for modernization came from the royal government. in Prussia and in with increased energy and consistency continued the policy of their predecessors. in Austria and Charles III in Spain also sought to improve the efficiency and honesty of the administration and placed greater emphasis on the welfare of the people.

The goals of the "enlightened despots" (but not always their methods) were generally approved by the French philosophers of the Enlightenment, who, like Plato, believed that the marriage of wisdom with power should produce the greatest good. enthusiastically praised Frederick, and the French physiocrats associated the realization of their economic ideals with the rule of the "legitimate despot". One argued for the restoration of the "intermediate power" of the late Middle Ages. Philosophers reproached them mainly for their failure, through an enlightened exercise of absolute power, to eradicate the abuses, musty anachronisms, and special privileges that hindered the development of the French economy and society.

Monarchy- a form of government where the highest state power belongs solely to the head of state - the monarch (king, tsar, emperor, shah, etc.), who occupies the throne by inheritance and is not responsible to the population.

Monarchic states can be either absolute, or limited.

Absolute monarchies are states in which the supreme power is maximally concentrated in the hands of one person.

The main features of an absolute monarchy:

1) all state power (legislative, executive, judicial) belongs to one person - the monarch;
2) all the fullness of state power is inherited;
3) the monarch rules the country for life, and there are no legal grounds for his voluntary removal;
4) there is no responsibility of the monarch to the population.

Examples of absolute monarchy states are:
seven principalities of the United Arab Emirates; Oman, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Vatican City State.

Most of the monarchies in the modern world are limited by the competence of the representative and judicial bodies of public authority (limited monarchy).
The states with this form of government, in particular, include Australia, Belgium, Great Britain, Denmark, Spain, Canada, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Japan, etc.

In these countries, on the basis of constitutions, formally or in fact, state power is divided into legislative, executive and judicial.

Signs of a limited monarchy:

1) the power of the monarch is limited by the presence and activities (competence) of representative, executive and judicial bodies of state power;
2) the government is formed from representatives of the parties that won the parliamentary elections;
3) executive power is exercised by the government, which is responsible to parliament;
4) the head of government is the leader of the party that has the majority of seats in parliament;
5) laws are adopted by parliament, and their signing by the monarch is a formal act.

Limited monarchies are subdivided into dualistic and parliamentary.
She believes that a dualistic monarchy is characterized by the fact that, along with the legal and de facto independence of the monarch, there are representative bodies with legislative and control powers.

"Dualism consists in the fact, - writes L.A. Morozova, - that the monarch cannot make a political decision without the consent of the parliament, and the parliament without the consent of the monarch."
The scientist explains this by the fact that "although the monarch does not legislate, he is endowed with the right of absolute veto, that is, he has the right to approve or not approve laws adopted by representative bodies." (Bhutan, Jordan, Morocco)

Signs of a parliamentary monarchy:

a) the powers of the monarch are formally and actually limited to the competence of the supreme legislative body;
b) the monarch performs only representative functions as head of state;
c) the government is formed by the parliament and is responsible to it;
d) executive power belongs entirely to the government.
The states of the parliamentary monarchy include: Great Britain, Belgium, Holland, Denmark, Spain, Norway, Sweden, Japan, etc.