liberal parties. Monarchic states of modern times

Vkontakte is one of the most controversial fields of the questionnaire. And all because you can’t write down your political views: just choose from ready-made options. Here are all the nine options currently available: indifferent, communist, socialist, moderate, liberal, conservative, monarchist, ultraconservative, libertarian.

Well, let's go through the list of preferences, shall we?

1. Indifferent views

Identical to the absence of views. Literally, indifferent.
If you don’t go to the polls and don’t watch political news, feel free to bet.

2. Communist views

Well, who does not know who the communists are? They are the so-called. left.
"an organization of society in which the economy is based on public ownership of the means of production."- wiki.
Lenin alive? Feel free to put this status 🙂

3. Socialist views

Social - public. Wiki: "the process of production and distribution of income is under the control of society." Is private property undeniably wrong? We put socialist political views.

4. Moderate views

Maybe you are a supporter of communism, or maybe socialism? Conservatism? You are not sure, but you follow the news, you have your own assessment of events in the political arena, but you do not have the desire to go to demonstrations, but would you prefer a more useful pastime? Great, put moderate political views, like 🙂

5. Liberal views

In other words, centre-right.
"individual human freedoms are the legal basis of society and the economic order"- wiki. Omg. I will list the terms, and you will understand: freedom, capitalism, market, human rights, rule of law, social contract, equality etc. By the way, also from the wiki.
Freedom, equality? Liberalism, put in your views.

6. Conservative views

Rights.
Commitment to traditions, age-old foundations. State order- the main thing. Reforms? No, no, just not reforms. If everything is so, without reforms, well, declare your views as conservative.

7. Monarchist views

I immediately associate with England. There is a queen. There is a parliamentary monarchy, but you should not go deep.
Let me just say that if you are for a monarch (king, king, emperor, etc.) to rule, then put these views on your page as soon as possible.

8. Ultraconservative views

If you have set yourself conservative views, but do not feel the necessary satisfaction, set ultra-conservative ones. I searched on Google, apparently, you want to return the old foundations and are ready for anything for this, if you have such views on VKontakte.

9. Libertarian views

Libertarian preferences on VKontakte appeared later than the others, a separate post was written about them:.

The End. I tried to paint everything as neutrally as possible.

I would like to hear the opinion of readers, to find out who has set what views, what theses he adheres to when speaking about politics. Feel free to write, I am always glad to any comment, even if it is a one-word unsubscribe! It is better, of course, to write in more detail, you can discuss: after all, not always, almost never, real ones do not fit any of the above nine points. Write 🙂

comments 107 ()

Lord Greydark
Jun 10, 2013 @ 23:43:54

Jun 11, 2013 @ 17:37:59

Julia
Jun 14, 2013 @ 11:56:06

Milena
Jun 14, 2013 @ 17:22:06

Master Lex
Jul 13, 2013 @ 10:12:49

Alyona
Mar 03, 2014 @ 20:58:33

Vlad
Apr 03, 2014 @ 17:45:28

Alexey
Sep 13, 2014 @ 20:47:35

Eugene
Sep 16, 2014 @ 20:31:33

Eugene
Sep 16, 2014 @ 20:32:48

Alyona
Mar 12, 2015 @ 14:42:02

Renat Ibn Rashid
Mar 27, 2015 @ 22:46:14

Nursultan
Apr 28, 2015 @ 21:31:47

Spherical vacuum
Jun 30, 2015 @ 15:55:56

Sabrina
Jul 02, 2015 @ 11:46:24

It has an ideological platform as its main characteristic feature. Monarchist parties proclaim the revival of tsarist power in Russia as their main idea. The existence of such organizations began in the early twentieth century.

What is a monarchical form of government?

The term "monarchy" itself means that the main power in the state belongs to one person - the king, king, emperor, etc. The change of leader occurs according to the rules of succession to the throne. This form of government is either absolute, when power in its entirety belongs only to the monarch, and his decisions are not contested by anyone, or constitutional, when the country has a parliament.

To date, there are countries where monarchical power has been preserved. Mostly as, for example, in England, where the royal house does not take part in government, but only performs a symbolic function, pays tribute to tradition. You can meet the absolute power of the ruler in some eastern countries, for example, in Saudi Arabia.

Monarchy in Russia

There was a monarchy in Russia long years up to the beginning of the 20th century. Initially, it was an absolute monarchy, when nothing limited the power of the sovereign. But during the reign of Nicholas II, the royal power underwent some changes. Beginning in 1905, the State Duma appeared in the country, which meant the emergence of a constitutional order.

In Russia, today it is proclaimed headed by the president. Also in our country there are a large number of political organizations, among which there are monarchist parties.

The emergence of monarchist organizations in Russia

By the end of the 19th century, political movements of a monarchist orientation began to take shape in the Russian Empire. Their main goal was to protect the existing system from various changes and reforms. An example is a society called "Russian conversation", which was founded at the turn of the century, in 1900. Also in this year, the oldest party was founded, whose activities continued illegally even after the Revolution. It was called "Russian Assembly".

Monarchist parties mainly began to appear after the Manifesto was released on October 17, thanks to which the country's population gained democratic rights and freedoms. The State Duma was created, and parties of a monarchist orientation became one of the political forces.

If we talk about the political movements of that time, advocating the preservation of traditional values and royal power, then we can name two largest organizations. They were created in 1905. One was called the Union of the Russian People, and the other was called the Russian Monarchist Party.

Union of the Russian people

This is the largest monarchist party in Russia in the 20th century. It had the largest number of members - about 350 thousand people. Anyone could join the organization, regardless of social status, but representatives of the intelligentsia played a dominant role. Such a wide coverage of all social groups was justified by the goal of the party - to unite all Russian people for the good of the Fatherland for the sake of a single and indivisible country.

Among the program principles of this organization, chauvinistic, nationalist sentiments and radical Orthodoxy were popular. She was also characterized by anti-Semitism - the rejection of persons of Jewish nationality.

Concerning state structure, then the Union of the Russian People is a monarchist party. The form of government is absolutism; parliamentary governing bodies of the country were denied. The only thing that this organization proposed was the creation of a people's deliberative body working for the benefit of the tsarist government.

The movement ceased to exist after the October Revolution. A reconstruction attempt was made in 2005.

Russian Monarchist Party

A political organization called the Russian Monarchist Party was also founded in 1905. Its number was not as huge as that of the Union of the Russian People - only about a hundred thousand people.

Beginning in 1907, the Russian Monarchist Party began to bear a different name, which was associated with the sudden death of its founder and leader, V. A. Gringmuth. The organization began to be called the Russian Monarchist Union, and I. I. Vostrogov, who had previously been Gringmuth's deputy, became the head.

Unlimited autocracy was proclaimed, the church played a special role in the life of the state. It was supposed to play the main role and be the guarantor and stronghold of the moral and spiritual life of people. As for the Duma, it was not rejected by the ideas of the movement, but was supposed to be a conciliar body of power.

"Black Hundreds"

The above parties do not represent the entire spectrum of monarchist organizations and movements of that period of time. The common name for these movements is "Black Hundreds". They are members of patriotic organizations whose common feature is nationalism, anti-Semitism, chauvinism, adherence to Orthodoxy. These are the values that stood guard over the values traditional for that time, the ideological adherents of the absolute royal power.

Among them are such organizations as the Union of Michael the Archangel, the All-Russian Dubrovinsky Union of the Russian People, the Holy Squad, as well as the Union of Russian People and other Black Hundred movements.

Monarchist Party of the Russian Federation

Today, among the most famous parties and movements of the monarchist wing, one can name the Monarchist Party of Russia, founded by political strategist and businessman Anton Bakov. The organization was officially registered by the Ministry of Justice in 2012, at the same time its founding congress was held. The Monarchist Party of Russia is an adherent of the constitutional monarchy, moreover, the text of their own Constitution is posted on the official website of the organization. An interesting point is that for its members this organization issues passports with citizenship of the Russian Empire and is going to take part in the elections. The party leader publishes books, and is also known for statements regarding V.I. Lenin and I.V. Stalin. He is going to arrange for them a public trial for the overthrow of the Romanov dynasty and the destruction of the Russian Empire.

As the heir to the throne, the Monarchist Party of the Russian Federation proposes Nicholas III, who is a descendant of Emperor Alexander II. It is known that this is a German prince who converted to the Orthodox faith.

Monarchist movement today

In modern Russia, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, a large number of different political organizations have appeared, among which there are also monarchist parties. They do not take part in the struggle for power, but are engaged in social activities - they hold various events.

As for the question of who should become the sovereign if Russia returns to tsarist power, many parties and movements have their own opinion on this matter. Some recognize the heirs of the Romanov dynasty, now living abroad, as legitimate contenders for the throne, others believe that the tsar should be a people's choice, and still others generally recognize the current president of Russia as emperor.

People's soul and state form

Most people do not have clear political convictions, and they are guided in political matters no longer by logic, but by intuition and psychological behavioral attitudes, which often go back to much deeper layers of the national type than any intellectual calculations. Let's try to figure out what form of power, based on the realities of our life, is suitable for modern Russia. And who are we, according to our psychological perception of power - monarchists or republicans?

Before embarking on this psycho-sociological journey into our unconscious collective self, one must point out one myth that is often associated in our minds with the monarchy.

It seems to most that the main difference between a monarchy and a republic is a temporary or lifelong stay in power. In practice, this is not the main and even essential difference.

History knows both elected emperors, and monarchs in one state alternating after a certain period, and general secretaries for life (Stalin, Brezhnev), and presidents who ruled for decades, until their death. There is even an example of dynasties of republican rulers (the Aliyevs in Azerbaijan, the Lees in Singapore, the Bushes in the USA, something similar is being considered in Belarus).

Yes, in theory, the monarch rules indefinitely, he is a sovereign for life. But in real life, this idea of "life imprisonment" has significant "limitations" in the will of his enemies. Foreign governments can organize conspiracies, revolutionaries can carry out revolutions, and "tyrant-fighters" can arrange regicides. The more significant differences between a monarchy and a republic are not in the terms of being in power, but in the deep differences between the monarchical and republican ideological and psychological preferences themselves, which in turn are connected or not connected with the popular psychological type formed among the peoples by their national history.

Ivan Ilyin managed to say this figuratively:

Atevery nation has its own special "soul", and apart from it its state form is incomprehensible. That is why it is so absurd to impose the same stamped state form on all peoples.".

Indeed, here, on the one hand, the historical reality that has developed in a particular country is much more important, and on the other hand, those religious and psychological features of the people's mentality that have been formed in these historical realities. It is these popular views that are primary in the choice of the political ideal of ruling in a particular state.

The personification of power. Is it natural for us to have a person at the head of the state, and not a system of institutions?

Monarchist consciousness is necessary, characteristic, in contrast to the republican, to personify power and the state. Christianity, which gave the world the Revelation of the Personal God, greatly increased the need for the personification, personification of the state and power. But that is why the crisis phenomena in European Christianity developed in parallel a crisis in monarchical statehood. As Ivan Ilyin wrote:

PThe process of personification (personification) consists in the fact that something non-personal (in this case, state power), or super-personal (homeland), or many-personal (people united in a state) is experienced as a personal being".

So, the monarchical consciousness is looking for images of heroes, ascetics from the past to personify the nation and the state, and wants to see in the present real people who, in power, would personify the power and the people.

For the republican consciousness, a person in history and a person in power are always under suspicion. The Republican trusts much more institutions, the collective and tries to surround the person in power with legislative restrictions so that the freedom of its manifestation is as small as possible. So that the personality itself is maximally dissolved in a bureaucratic institution, and its preferences would not play any role.

Here, it seems, we are much more monarchists than republicans. Our trust in the individual and the desire to see before us a person in power, and not a soulless bureaucratic machine, a faceless institution is quite clear.

A special connection with Heaven. Do we tend to think about the special purpose of power?

Do we feel today the sacredness of power and the special personality of the Ruler?

The monarchical perception of power is characterized by a special, religious view of power in the state.

A Republican is pragmatically dry and rationally insensitive to power, and even more so to a person in power. To look at power as a sacred beginning, and at a person in power as an "anointed one", destined from above, a special person is completely uncharacteristic of the republican consciousness.

The Christian tradition of imparting special grace for governing the state in the act of holy chrismation, which goes back to the Old Testament, is deeply religiously connected with the monarchical attitude to power. The idea of power by God's Grace, royal majesty, "the heart of Tsarevo is in the hand of God" - all this is a characteristic monarchical understanding of power.

It is clear that this point is directly related to the religiosity of our society.

1. The essence of the monarchy.

When we hear about the monarchy, we form a very definite idea about the subject under discussion: the power of the monarch is hereditary, for life, this power is very broad. But the monarchy is not just a form of government in which the supreme power in the country is hereditary. Monarchy is a special way of development of society.

Since ancient times, logic has known the method of misleading the interlocutor with the help of a skillful substitution of concepts - sophism. A classic example of republican sophism is the assertion that the replacement of monarchies by republics is progress, a transition from an outdated instrument of power to a more perfect one. No, the monarchy and the republic are not identical instruments, they are different paths of development. Turning off the right road, the traveler may rush into the abyss faster or slower, but the result of such a journey will be determined by the depth of the abyss, and not by the speed of the traveler, as the Democrats are trying to assure us.

Literally translated from Greek, "monarchy" means the power of one person. Since Aristotle, monarchy has been compared to aristocracy (rule by the best) and democracy (rule by the people). Aristotle considered these forms of government to be correct, in contrast to the wrong, flawed forms, to which the ancient Greek thinker attributed dictatorship, oligarchy and ochlocracy.

Monarchic power is natural and comes from the very nature of human community: it has the image of the power of the father in the family and the head in the clan. This is the secret essence of monarchical power: it is rooted on a subconscious level in a person, for it is not connected with social sources(the power of brute force or money), but with the categories of family and respect for the authority of wisdom that are natural for a person.

Aristotle considered the monarchy the most natural and the best of all forms of government, for it grows out of the people and for the people. The power of the father of the family is an image for the power of the father of the people - the monarch. Just as we do not choose our father and mother, but accept them from God, so the people accept the monarch from God.

All popular power is based on physical coercion. We submit to the power of democracy, for we remain in the minority. The people submit to the power of the aristocracy due to the lack of knowledge and education. The authorities of the plutocracy obey because of money, and the dictator - from fear. And rough coercion, and the use of other people's weaknesses, and monetary dependence, and fear are unreliable companions for power. You can build a throne out of bayonets, but it's hard to sit on it. But it is on such a shaky foundation that the foundation of a democratic republic is laid. Otherwise, monarchical power is being built.

The monarchy, according to the Russian statesman Lev Tikhomirov, “expresses confidence primarily in moral strength”. For the conquest of this force, coercion as such is not required, only the constant and best possible expression and fulfillment by the monarchy of the moral ideal that we personify is sufficient. The key to the stability of the monarchical state is, at the same time, the people following such a moral guideline, supporting such a moral model. Therefore, the principles of monarchical power are, firstly, the principle of religion; secondly, the presence of a social system, without which statehood is impossible; and, thirdly, the monarchy's awareness of its moral and religious function.

This is the difference between a dictator and a monarch. The dictator, having seized power, is looking for a justification for such a usurpation in fictitious popular approval: remember the elections in the USSR or Nazi Germany, or today's dictatorships, like North Korea, Cuba, China and some others. The monarch does not need such a fiction, because he perceives power not from the people, but from God. And, unlike a dictator, he is not the one who stole power from the people, but the one who conveys God's commands to the people with the help of his power.

Monarchy is a government based on a moral ideal. Neither a crowd nor a qualitative advantage can be moral: only a person can be moral. Therefore, the power of the moral ideal taught by religion and morality is expressed only in the monarchy. As St. Philaret (Drozdov), Metropolitan of Moscow, taught: “The king, according to the true concept of him, is the head and soul of the kingdom. But you will object to me that the soul of the state should be the law. The law is necessary, venerable, blessed; but the law, dead in the book, comes to life in deeds; and the supreme statesman and the activator and inspirer of subordinate figures is the King..

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 must guide us and be the essence of the authority to which we are subject.

In this case, of course, the monarch must meet certain qualities. Lev Tikhomirov singled out among them:

self-control;
moderation;
duty;
Justice;
legitimacy.

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. Monarchy is based on best qualities 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.

Being an idea, being a special way of development of society, the monarchical principle develops in the people a special sense of justice, a special system of values and priorities.

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 the achievements of others and the desire 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 self-feeling and inner doing, but as a law of inner life introduced into the external world, into state building and into 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..

From this grows the monarchist's confidence that each person is unique, has his own qualities, which are not inherent in others in the same combination and to 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 terms of their intellect, qualities: “People by nature and in spirit are not equal to each other, and it will never be possible to equalize them. 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 should be run by a cook, he will prefer that this be done by a person trained and educated to run the state from childhood, from childhood. The monarchist believes that even if we entrust our 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. Dozens of thinkers from Aristotle to the present day have written about this.

This would be idle talk if it were not supported by facts. Looking ahead, I will tell you one of the most striking. After the February coup in 1917, the surviving Romanovs emigrated. From 1938 to 1992, the Russian Imperial House in exile was headed by Grand Duke Vladimir Kirillovich, who lived in Madrid, where an interesting story happened. One day, the son of a South American dictator moved to the street where the Romanov Family lived. His house was strewn with gold, he bathed in luxury. When he found out that the Heirs of the Russian Throne, direct descendants of those who ruled Russia for 300 years, modestly live a couple of houses away from him, he was shocked. He could not understand what the Romanovs were doing, if in 300 years they had not created such accounts in Swiss banks as his father did in 5 years of ruling a small state at the end of the world.

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 put 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, due to which power is hereditary and inseparable.

2. Christian doctrine of the monarchy.

So, the essence of the monarchy is determined by the fact that it is a power that serves the moral ideal. And the highest manifestation of the moral ideal is religion, faith. For centuries, our statehood and the life of society have been inextricably linked with Orthodoxy. Let us turn to the Orthodox doctrine of state power.

Its central idea is the conviction that the king is the anointed of God, the essence of a person endowed by God Himself with the right to power, responsible only to God Himself for how he disposes of this power. This idea was clearly and vividly expressed by our Tsar Ivan the Terrible in a letter to Prince Kurbsky, who had fled to the Poles: “We, humble John, the Tsar and Grand Duke of all Russia, by God’s will, and not by the many-rebellious human desire”.

The Orthodox Church has blessed autocratic power for centuries, sanctifying it as God-given. However, voices are now being heard that the autocracy has outlived itself, that most of the world is subject to democratic institutions. It is unlikely that such an argument is acceptable for Orthodox Christian. As St. Seraphim (Sobolev) wrote about this in his work “Russian Ideology”: This opinion is directed against Holy Scripture in order to destroy its saving influence on us. After all, the tsarist autocratic power in Russia was based on the words of Holy Scripture. And these words are the verbs of the eternal life (John 6:68)". In addition, it is well known that cabbage always grows better in someone else's garden. Therefore, it is unlikely that a reference to foreign experience is sufficient to verify the truth of a statement.

The idea of the God-givenness of royal power was laid down in Old Testament. And we find the first attempt to incarnate it in Ancient Judea, but then the Jewish and Israeli kings departed from the True God, worshiped idols, and the life-giving principle of their power faded away. It has faded away in order to rise with new strength on the basis of the life-giving Word of Christ in the Third Rome.

For the first time, the promise of giving a king to the people of Israel is given on Mount Sinai after the Exodus from Egypt, as narrated in Deuteronomy: When you come to the land which the Lord your God is giving you, and you possess it and dwell in it, and say, “I will set a king over me, like the other nations that are around me,” then set a king over you, whom the Lord your God will choose(Deut. 17:14-15).

This promise was fulfilled by God in the time of the prophet Samuel, the judge of Israel. Saul was anointed with holy oil as the first king of Israel: And Samuel took a vessel of oil and poured it on his [Saul's] head, and kissed him and said, Behold, the Lord anoints you to be the ruler of his inheritance [in Israel, and you will reign over the people of the Lord and save them from the hand of their enemies who surround them, and here is a sign for you, that the Lord has anointed you to be king over his inheritance](1 Sam. 10:1).

The king was given by God. This is not a people's ruler. The people do not elect him, do not control him. As St. Seraphim (Sobolev) wrote: the king receives power “not from the people, and therefore it cannot be limited by the people and is responsible to them. Royal power, as having come from God, is responsible only to Him and can be limited only by the will of God Himself.. The people simply accept royal power, as they accept the true faith in the True God. Being a believer accepts the faithful. Therefore, the authorities of the king do not even submit, they believe her, for she is from God. Therefore, just as a person becomes free, becoming a servant of God, so politically he renounces his own will in order to follow the will of His anointed one: where the king is, there the subject must also be (2 Kings 15:21).

The king was given to the people by God with a specific purpose: to praise the good and punish the evil (Rom. 13:3-4). Hence the biblical statement, which has passed into the very depths of the Orthodox soul of a Russian person: to be faithful to the tsar not out of fear, but out of conscience (Rom. 13:5).

The realization of royal power is carried out by the providence of God. The strengthening of monarchical power is carried out by the fulfillment of the will of the Most High by the king, as the psalmist King David pointed out to Solomon in his dying word: be strong and courageous and keep the covenant of the Lord your God, walking in his ways and keeping his statutes and his commandments and his ordinances and his ordinances, as it is written in the law of Moses, so that you may be prudent in all that you do, and everywhere wherever you go(1 Kings 2:2-3).

But the people of Israel themselves, having rejected God Himself for the sake of the golden calf, were not ready to accept the authority of His anointed. Therefore already King Saul, the first king of Israel, was tempted by the people to transgress the will of the Almighty in the name of vox populi. In the future, all the kings to one degree or another apostatized from God: David, Solomon, and their descendants. Only the king of the Jews, Asa, remained faithful to God.

Even chosen people, the Jewish people, before the arrival of the Savior was not ready for autocratic power.

The Christian doctrine of autocratic power was fully developed and embodied in Byzantium and then reached its peak in Russia. The emperor was the anointed of God, who ruled over his people according to the word of Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition in symphony, that is, unanimity, with the Holy Orthodox Church.

Tsarist power ruled the people and the state in order for the people to live in all godliness and purity as the apostle Paul says (1 Tim. 2:2).

Through the holy anointing to the kingdom, which from the time of Ivan the Terrible to Nicholas II took place in the Assumption Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin, the tsar received not only sacred authority, inaccessible to a democratic elect, but, as the Holy Church teaches, the gifts of the Holy Spirit are communicated to the tsar through anointing, “His divine grace, necessary for the royal government, which has as its goal not only the concern for the earthly welfare of the subjects, but also primarily from the moment of anointing and concern for their eternal salvation”, - St. Seraphim (Sobolev) explained.

It was this perception of autocratic power, its mission and tasks that allowed St. Philaret (Drozdov) to exclaim: “It is good for the people and the state, in which the King stands as a single, universal, bright, strong, all-pervading, all-moving focus, like the sun in the universe, freely limiting his autocracy by the will of the Heavenly King”.

Having analyzed in detail the content of the monarchical principle, let us turn to the consideration of the organization of monarchical power.

3. The device of monarchical power.

The structure 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 appeared theoretical basis for such a division - 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 of today's constitutions: Russia, the USA, Germany, France, Italy. 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 consent 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 main state laws Russian Empire: “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.”.

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 fairly, 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, for it is difficult to imagine that one person could physically resolve significant part disputes and conflicts that arise in society.

The device of monarchical power is a vertical, and not like a republican government - 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 lower tier is the government - the governing power.

The government governs, the Emperor only directs and coordinates its work, resolves disputes - he 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:

1. The personification of the main principles of the state;
2. The integration function is 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 the 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. Intermediary king (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. The king as an object of worship;
12. The king is the conscience of the nation;
13. The king is 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 how“avenue of communication with the realm of sacred values” (English. "the road of communication with the realm of eternal values");
18. The king and his family are the embodiment of social greatness and ideal.

Of these functions, three key ones can be distinguished: firstly, the role of the monarch as an arbiter, supra-party authority; secondly, the role of a symbol of society; thirdly, the role of the monarch as the personification of social values and ideals.

As the current Head of the Russian Imperial House, Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna, emphasizes: “Monarchy is not a political doctrine, but a political system and a system of historically established national values. One of the main advantages of the monarchy is its non-partisan nature, independence, which allows the monarch to be the supreme arbiter".

Monarchy is a kind of projection of the family way of life on the state level. It is the attitude towards the monarch as the father of the nation that allows him to act as an indisputable authority, endowed with divine sanction for power, resolving disputes and contradictions of participants in political and other public life in fairness.

The power of the monarch is based on the religious and family values of the people, that is, on those pillars on which traditions and the succession of generations are held. That is why it is precisely the monarchical power, which is not connected in its basis with the changeable spirit of the times, expresses the loyalty of the people to traditions and foundations, connects the past with the present and is a guarantee that the future of the people will not be lost. A striking example of such service is the activity and role in the life of their society of the British Royal House and personally by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II.

This family structure of monarchical power allows the monarch to be a symbol of the whole people. The President cannot become such a symbol, because there are those who voted for him, those who did not vote, and those who consider his victory illegitimate and power usurped. The President is one of us, and among equals there will always be competition for the right to become primus inter pares. The monarch initially stands above this fight and competition, allowing everyone to equally honor the power given to him by God, as subjects of his crown and see in him a symbol of the state, people, country.

It is especially important to understand why the president is not able to perform these functions, which the very essence of monarchical power assigns to the monarch. Yes, the president, according to the constitution, acts as the guarantor of the constitution, the rights and freedoms of man and citizen, represents the country, ensures the coordinated functioning and interaction of state authorities. However, what is declared by the constitution is at odds with what life presents. The fact is that the president is an employee elected for four years, people elect him, he is one of us, appointed by us. In February of this year, during his annual press conference, President Vladimir Putin bluntly said that he does not rule, but works in office. That is, he is not a ruler, but a worker. He does not fulfill his duty, he fulfills his duties. And this is a fundamentally different attitude to reality, to one's place in it. 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 obey the president because of the monarchical principle of morality, but because of the same principle of the quantitative strength of the majority as the parliament, and therefore the president cannot play the role of a moral arbiter and a moral example for society: supporters like him, opponents do not like him - that's all.

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 king the power of power, and the people - the power of opinion. Over the centuries of the existence and systematic development of autocracy in Russia, there were such popular representations as veche in the pre-Mongolian period, zemstvo councils in the Moscow Kingdom, a 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.

An outstanding thinker of the middle of the last century, a native of the peasants of the Grodno province, Ivan Solonevich, in his work "People's Monarchy" noted that Russia needs “a sufficiently strong monarchy and a sufficiently strong popular representation, and we will measure the strength of one and the other not by their struggle with each other, but by their ability to jointly fulfill the tasks that history will set before the nation and country”.

Solonevich believed that with the revival of the monarchical system in Russia, there would be a technical inevitability, as well as a moral and political need for popular representation. Popular representation is a guarantee that there will be no “mediastination” between the Tsar and the people, it is proof that the monarchy is not plotting anything that would obviously harm the people.

Consequently, the structure of monarchical power consists in the fact that the monarch personally performs the functions of an arbitrator, a symbol of the people and the custodian of its values, has the right to the royal prerogative and personally executes it if necessary, and also approves the government exercising state power, listening to the opinion of the people's representation. All the aforementioned arrangement operates in symphony with the Holy Church and has as its goals the achievement by the subjects of blessings on earth and the eternal salvation of the soul in the future life.

4. Advantages of the monarchy.

Well, we found out what the essence of the monarchy is, how power is arranged under the monarchy. Now it is the turn of such a question as the merits and demerits of the monarchy.

From the school bench, most of you got used to not hearing anything good about the monarchy: the tsars oppressed the people, appointed mediocre officials, Russia was a bastard state. You have been told about this for so long and so much that your obedient lecturer will not be at all surprised if, after the end of our meeting today, you reproach him for not repeating all these tales to you. We will dwell on how true such stories are. Now let's remember the folk wisdom: to judge a person, look at his friends.

Think about it, but after all, everyone I will list now is monarchists: physicist and astronomer Mikhail Lomonosov, chemist Dmitry Mendeleev, radio inventor Alexander Popov, computer inventor Pavel Florensky, tenth world chess champion Boris Spassky, our wonderful writers and poets: Alexander Pushkin, Fyodor Tyutchev, Fyodor Dostoevsky, Mikhail Bulgakov, Vladimir Soloukhin, Boris Vasiliev. But these are only those who actively expressed monarchist views and propagated them! And they are called by the republican masses and the democratic community as fools and ignoramuses...

Outstanding philosophers of different times defended monarchical ideas in their treatises: Socrates, Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, Thomas Hobbes, Jacques Benigne de Bossuet, Benjamin Constant de Rebeck, Joseph de Maistre, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. Monarchists were Honore de Balzac and Stendhal, Johann Wolfgang Goethe and William Shakespeare. In today's Europe, one can cite examples of monarchist statesmen of the Serb Marko Markovic, the Frenchman Henri de Benoit, and the already mentioned German René Heussler.

In Russian state studies and philosophical thought, Prince Mikhail Shcherbatov, Nikolai Karamzin, Count Sergei Uvarov, Konstantin Pobedonostsev, Prince Vladimir Meshchersky, Lev Tikhomirov, Ivan Ilyin, Ivan Solonevich stood on monarchical positions. Today, political scientists Andrei Savelyev and Sergei Pykhtin, legal scholar Andrei Sorokin, historian Alexander Zakatov continue their work.

For centuries, the monarchy has enjoyed the support and approval of both the Orthodox and Catholic churches.

In their theological treatises, the idea of the Divinity of monarchical power was defended by the Orthodox Elder Philotheus, Saint Joseph Volotsky, Saints Philaret (Drozdov) and Seraphim (Sobolev). Saints Sergius of Radonezh and Seraphim of Sarov repeatedly spoke about the need for Tsarist power, who prophesied that after the fall of the monarchy in Russia, it would be restored again.

In their encyclicals, the need to preserve the monarchical thrones was declared on turn of XIX and XX centuries Popes Gregory XVI, who wrote a treatise on this topic, as well as Leo XIII, Benedict XV, Pius XI.

A detailed classification of the advantages of the monarchy in their treatises was given by Hobbes, Tikhomirov, Ilyin, Chicherin. Let's take a look at these benefits.

1. The monarchy best ensures the unity of power, and from the unity of power comes its strength. Its strength is also connected with the unity of power.

We have already noted that the state arose not because of the presence of a joint will, which refutes, in particular, the theory of the social contract, which is the basis of democratic doctrine, but because of the turmoil and confrontation - the war of all against all. The monarchy, based on the unity of the will of the king, allows the best way to balance the multidirectional aspirations of people. It is devoid of such internal conflicts as the inevitable confrontation of factions in parliament under a republic, it can completely direct all its power in favor of the most right decision balancing the mental scales of social life.

2. The monarchy, by its independence, is not involved in the spirit of the parties. The monarch stands above private interests; for him all classes, estates, parties are exactly the same. In relation to the people, he is not a person, but an idea.

By virtue of its individuality - one, by virtue of its Supremeness - two, by virtue of its spirituality - three, the monarchy stands above social trends and trends, it is independent of political groups: the power of the monarch is from God, and the monarch does not depend on the will of politicians, oligarchs or clans. He rules according to his conviction for the good of the Fatherland, guided only by the will of God.

On this occasion, the Empress Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna said in an interview: “The main advantage of the monarchy is the independence of the hereditary supreme power from parties, from moneybags, from any private interests. Thanks to this, the monarch is able to be a representative of the whole nation, to arbitrate, to extinguish conflicts, to reconcile contradictions..

It is also important that the monarch for the people is not a person, but an idea. Human imperfections are hidden by the sacred authority given by the Church. Figuratively speaking, the human is hidden by a mantle, and therefore the monarch is seen as the head of state, and not as a person from a neighboring apartment who temporarily moved to the Kremlin. In a monarchy, therefore, scandals that discredit the authorities are not possible, as was the case in the United States around the relationship between President Bill Clinton and White House intern Monica Lewinsky.

3. Monarchy is the best way to ensure order. The monarch is the most just arbiter of social conflicts.

Being a moral authority in society, the monarch is able to act as an arbiter in social contradictions. Remember, for example, how the Spanish King Juan Carlos I overcame the coup attempt in 1981 with his courageous position.

Standing above all social groups, the monarch is not bound by their interests, and his own interest is inextricably linked with the common interest of the people, which is why he, more than both of the conflicting parties, is interested in a compromise, mutually beneficial solution of social contradictions. After all, it is the monarch who is interested in the common good, like no one else, because the stability of the throne of his heir directly depends on the absence political conflicts in a society threatening revolution.

Perhaps the best confirmation of this thesis is that even the 27th US President William Taft recognized the tsarist Russian labor law as the most humane and honest of its contemporary analogues, which shows how in the age of wholesale exploitation of workers in Western democracies: the USA, France, - in tsarist Russia, they tried to take into account the interests of labor, to reconcile them with the interests of capital.

4. There is no form of government more suitable for major transformations than a monarchy.

Monarchy, we repeat once again, is a one-man power. Of course, it is precisely such a power, concentrating power, that is easiest to carry out the long-awaited, albeit painful, reforms. A Republican politician will never agree to this, because this, being not only profitable, but also necessary in the long term, is unpopular in the short term, that is, pre-election. For the sake of populism and loud promises, republican politicians are ready to sacrifice the future of the country. This is vividly demonstrated to us by the ruling class of today's France: economic decline requires an attack on excessive social payments, requires taking into account not only the position of trade unions, but also the position of employers. Due to high taxes, capital is leaving France, and the country is dying. But under pressure from public opinion, the government of Jacques Shirok did not dare to complete the reforms, which can be called the beginning of the end of French statehood.

A monarch, unlike a politician, is not bound by a four-year term of office, he is not responsible for his actions to his subjects, and therefore can reason from the standpoint of greater expediency. That is why the cardinal reforms of Ivan IV the Terrible, who turned appanage principalities into a single organism, Peter I the Great, who introduced European technology into the Russian house, Catherine II the Great, who streamlined the life of the estates, Alexander II the Liberator, who transformed Russia.

5. It is also the easiest way for a great personality to show his high qualities for the general benefit precisely in the monarchy.

The monarch, not bound by group, caste interests, is forced to look for and find talented professionals in society and bring them closer to him as his closest advisers. In contrast to the republican government, bound by the fetters of nepotism and factionalism. The monarch, unlike the president, needs not an executor, but an adviser, a doer, someone who will creatively realize and implement the general plans of the monarch's will. It is not difficult to find confirmation of this postulate in history. It is enough to look at the reign, at least of Catherine the Great: Prince Potemkin, Prince Rumyantsev, Count Ushakov, Counts Razumovsky, Counts Orlovs, Prince Bezborodko and, of course, Generalissimo Suvorov - all of them were able to realize their talents thanks to the wisdom of the Tsaritsa. And which of today's ministers will go down in history? The question is rhetorical.

Such an approach to the selection of personnel is also associated with such an advantage of the monarchy as deep professionalism: the monarch himself is brought up to lead the country from childhood, and then, not bound by party preferences, he brings wise professional advisers closer. In each area, he, as an arbitrator, makes a decision, guided by the views the best specialists. Of course, this is how much greater transparency and efficiency of governance is achieved than with a popular vote, when an incompetent crowd decides issues that it judges only by sensations and slogans, and not by essence. And it's no secret to anyone how much unenlightened public opinion can be manipulated in private interests.

The king directs all his energy, all his strength to the service of God and the Fatherland. Remember the words of Peter the Great addressed to the Russian soldiers on the Poltava field: “And about Peter, know that life is not dear to him, if only Russia would live in bliss and glory for your well-being!”. For comparison, I will quote the words of the French minister, at whose suggestion the Church was separated from the state in France, Aristide Briand: “I spend 95% of my time fighting for power, and only 5% trying to realize unrealistic promises made before the elections”.

All these advantages combined allowed the Russian Empress Catherine the Great to say that the only goal of the monarchy was to see the people happy, and to her contemporary Spanish King Carlos III - that the soul of the king goes to heaven when the well-being of his subjects is achieved.

The monarchy has in its very nature a guarantee of the everyday realization of these words in deeds.

5. Disadvantages of the monarchy.

The monarchy is not without shortcomings, however, as many thinkers have noted, those shortcomings that a monarchy has, the republic shows through to an even greater extent. That the monarchy has a flaw, the republic has an inevitability. That the monarchy is a mistake, the republic is a pattern.

1. The replacement of power occurs not by ability, but by chance of birth.

This is perhaps the main reproach that the Republicans send to the monarchy. Let us object: after all, it is not the qualities of the monarch as a person that are important for the people, but his qualities, as a symbol and idea of moral power, as a symbol and personification of the power of God. The monarch should not be smarter than everyone else, he should be able to choose, as a person who is above intra-group interests, necessary and correct, and thereby carry out his sanction of power, and not invent penicillin on his own - this is superfluous. The same role, no doubt, is better performed by a person who has been preparing to fulfill it since childhood than by a delightfully talented, but only an ambitious person who, in the struggle for power, could not but become bound by some preferences.

In addition, when Republicans criticize the "accident" of monarchical power, they are clearly resorting to their favorite way to mislead humanity, using a policy of double standards. Is it not by chance that, say, the inheritance of property occurs? However, for some reason, no one is outraged that the son of a billionaire receives the wealth of his father after his death (everyone fears for their millions or thousands).

2. Unlimited power produces a bad influence on a weak soul.

Again, the argument lacks solidity and crumbles like a house of cards if you look at it more closely: an autocratic tsar is a person limited by God and his own conscience. From childhood, he is brought up as the Heir to the Throne, he is inspired and instilled with high morality and the desire for the brightest and best.

3. The flattery and courtship of others joins the temptations of power.

Pointing to such a shortcoming, the Republicans obviously forget that this is not a sign of the monarchy in particular, but a sign of power as such. The monarchy, of all possible forms of state power, is best protected from this shortcoming. From childhood, a monarch is brought up to rule on good examples and principles, while in democracies an ambitious person from the street comes to power, inclined to serve personal interests, and not the glory of the Fatherland. As a child, the heir to the Russian Throne received all the orders, except for the St. George Crosses, which were given exclusively for military exploits. Since childhood, he has been deprived of ambition and self-interest: he does not need them, unlike the republican nominee. The sole concern of the monarch, as the father of his people, is the well-being and happiness of his subjects.

4. Monarchy easily turns into arbitrariness.

Again, in republican states we can observe arbitrariness no less often, but many times more often than in monarchies. I will give modern examples - Zimbabwe, Myanmar, occupied by the champions of "democracy" Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq.

5. The monarchy "patronizes" everything and everyone, and this weakens the development of the people.

Republicans, putting forward such a premise, trace the alleged lack of personal initiative among the people under monarchical power, but this is refuted by the unprecedented development of private entrepreneurship during the period of autocracy: the Morozovs, Ryabushinskys, Prokhorovs became symbols of how, according to Tsar-Martyr Nicholas II, honesty, thrift and life according to the commandments of God can achieve wealth and success. The manifestation of a good initiative is not only not limited in any way, but is encouraged in every possible way by the monarchy.

Of course, the monarchy is not without flaws, but, firstly, these flaws are much less than under a republic, secondly, they are not as significant as those of a republic, and, thirdly, let us make a small analogy. The American psychologist Carl Hess advised, when taking on a task, to think not about the difficulties, but about the opportunities that its successful completion conceals. When embarking on the construction of statehood, one must not think about what will happen if the moon leaves its orbit, but logically reason about what the decisions will lead to. Indeed, should women really stop having children just because they can get a cold during their lives! Just as absurd are appeals to the shortcomings of the monarchy, which are not its shortcomings, since they are absent in the normal and healthy functioning of the monarchical mechanism. If the shortcomings appear, you must agree, they need to be eliminated, and not to destroy the mechanism! After all, the patient is treated, not killed!

Why then, you may ask, perhaps, the monarchy today is a form of government in only 20% of states. Thomas Aquinas gave the answer to your question in The Sum of Theology. He said that although the monarchy brings people innumerably more good and useful than bad and flawed, but a person, due to the sinful nature of his nature, remembers even a small offense longer than the greatest good deed. Machiavelli added: the republic therefore attracts supporters to itself and tears them away from the monarchy, because “deceived by false signs of profit, the people often strive for their own destruction, and it is extremely easy to captivate them with vast hopes and brilliant expectations.” And what-what, but "extensive hopes and brilliant promises" under the republic, an innumerable multitude falls upon the poor electorate. The republic deceives a person with an illusory feeling of some kind of involvement in power. A person allegedly submits only to that authority, of which he is a hundred millionth part. In reality, however, the republic exacerbates intra-social contradictions, bringing them to the absolute or antagonism. Power is concentrated in the hands of oligarchic groups, whose interests are often extremely far from the interests of society. The monarchy, by its nature far from populism and a tendency to make unsubstantiated promises, guarantees a significant advantage in contrast to the republic: it ensures the identity of the interests of society, the state and the ruling elite, which is not and cannot be in the republic in 95% of cases. This is achieved by the fact that a republic is a form of government in which the elite forms power, and a monarchy is a form of government in which power forms the elite.

As Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna, Head of the Russian Imperial House, summed up on this occasion: “A republic is a state built in the image of a joint-stock company. It has a sober calculation, but no soul. The monarchy, for all its shortcomings, is still much more humane

6. Russian monarchy.

Well, finally, we moved on to the most interesting part of our conversation - the fate of the Russian monarchy. When we talk about the Russian monarchy, we must consider three questions: 1) what it was; 2) what it is now; 3) what it can become for us.

What was she? It was the time of the heyday of our Motherland, it was the time of the prosperity of its forces, not only material, but also spiritual. As Nikolai Karamzin wrote: "Russia was founded by victories and unity of command, perished from discord, and was saved by wise autocracy." Our industry, science, culture and education were developing. The people lived better and better.

In February 1917 there was not a revolution - there was a coup. There was a vile stab in the back of our country, a blow that laid the foundation for the destruction of Russia.

Russia was a developed prosperous state, and it was precisely thanks to the monarchy. The country was ruled by kings and the administrative layer created by them - a highly educated and cultured layer. When all this was destroyed, Russia rolled into the abyss, into which it is still rolling. As Ivan Solonevich noted, the social revolution ultimately brings a new bureaucracy to power, which enslaves the people. The same bureaucracy is formed from the lumpen - the dregs of the former society. The reason for the coup ("social revolution") is only that normal people could not defend their normal interests before a meaningful and merciless blow of crime and social scum. So it was in Bolshevik Russia, so it was in Nazi Germany, so it is in occupied Iraq.

As the Arabic proverb says, when a herd of rams turns around, the lame rams are in front.

Under the Tsars, Russia ranked 4th in the world in terms of economic development and first place in terms of economic growth. All leading European economists of the beginning of the last century unanimously said that if Russia is not stopped, then by the 1930s our country will be the leading state in the world both in economic and other indicators. They stopped, but to their own, and not to our and your joy.

For comparison, today Russia ranks 10th in terms of economic development, and 82nd in terms of living standards (in 1994 it was 56th). In terms of economic development - 37th place. That is, in terms of living standards, Russia lagged behind Trinidad and Tobago and only slightly outstripped Botswana.

A simple worker in Tsarist Russia received a salary equivalent in terms of purchasing power parity of the tsarist gold ruble to modern money, 300 euros per month - a simple worker almost a hundred years ago! Today, a hundred years later, the average salary (this figure is higher than the average salary of a simple worker) in Russia is 400 euros. An increase of 33% in a hundred years. In Great Britain, for example, the standard of living since 1914 has increased almost 6 times, in Spain - almost 10 times. On a salary, a Russian worker could rent a three-room apartment in the capital; today he huddles in a communal apartment. Today it is better for a Moscow worker not to think about buying a capital apartment at all. With an average monthly salary, a Moscow worker can buy only 0.2 square meters of housing, while a St. Petersburg worker a hundred years ago could afford 0.8 square meters.

This is the price of abandoning the Tsarist autocracy. This is the price of slander and deceit, with which they tried and are trying to discredit that time.

Lastly, since 1917, Russia has been losing an average of one million people a year. Since 1989 alone, the number of ethnic Russians has decreased by 10 million people - 6.5% of the 1989 population - and continues to decrease.

The Russian monarchy continues to live in exile and lives by faith in returning to the Motherland in order to lead the cause of the revival of the Fatherland. In 1924, he became Emperor of All Russia in exile. cousin Emperor Nicholas II Cyril I. This is the last Russian Emperor. Today, the Heirs to the Throne are the Head of the Russian Imperial House, Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna (granddaughter of Cyril I) and Her August Son, Grand Duke Georgy Mikhailovich. Both the Empress and the Tsesarevich have an excellent education. They graduated from Oxford University: the Empress with a degree in Russian and Spanish culture, and the Tsesarevich in international law. The Empress knows 6 foreign languages, the Tsesarevich - 4.

What will be the monarchy for the future of Russia? No one will answer you for sure, but it will not get worse. Why? Because there is experience before 1917, as well as the experience of modern monarchical states. And people increasingly believe that the traditional way is the most correct. If in 1996 the idea of reviving the monarchy was supported by 3% of the population, and 20% of the population voted for liberals, then by 2010, according to various public opinion polls, from 15 to 20% of the population support the restoration of the monarchy in Russia, and less than 5% want to cast their votes for liberals. % of the population.

Could it have been believed fifteen years ago, but today, during visits to Russia, the Empress is greeted with bread and salt, Cossack patrols and receptions, clergy and high officials rush to meet Her. Leading newspapers and magazines of the country publish interviews with Her Imperial Highness, and TV channels shoot reports about her.

Time has changed and gives us optimism, rooting faith in the future.

7. Today's monarchy.

Today there are 43 monarchical states in the world: from the second largest Canada in the world to the tiny Vatican, Monaco or Bhutan. That is, every fifth country in the world. The UN estimates the standard of living as "above average" in 64% of monarchical states and only in 26.5% of the republics. Among the ten most prosperous countries in the world are eight monarchies: Sweden, Australia, Luxembourg, Norway, Canada, the Netherlands, Japan, Denmark. Among the ten most favorable countries in the world for doing business are seven monarchies: New Zealand, Canada, Norway, Australia, Denmark, Great Britain and Japan.

In terms of standard of living, on average, monarchies surpass republics by 5 times. The average crime rate in republican countries is 5.5 times higher than among monarchies. The three least criminalized countries in the world are monarchies (Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Japan), and among the 40 most criminal countries in the world there are only three monarchies (Jamaica, Thailand and Papua New Guinea), i.e. 7.5%. In terms of innovation development, the first three places in the world are occupied by monarchical states: the Netherlands, Belgium and Japan.

Monarchists have recently won a number of convincing victories in the most various elections. In 1999, in a referendum in Australia, the people supported the preservation of the monarchy by a huge majority. The monarchy was established by Western Samoa. In a referendum in 2003, the inhabitants of Liechtenstein spoke in favor of expanding the powers of their Prince and strengthening the monarchical power.

GOD IS WITH US!
WHO IS A MONARCHIST?

For a long time, many thinkers have tried to answer the question - what is a monarchy? Is it better or worse than the republic? Is it from God or from people? Behind these global issues, a simple question remained in the shadow - what kind of monarchist is he? I would like to emphasize - not a monarch, but a monarchist!

The thinking of most people is stereotyped: that is, they do not develop their views on the basis of some data and their reasoning (three ways of obtaining truth: empiricism, logic, Divine Revelation), but accept them on the basis of the image with which their thinking associates this concept.

To clarify a bit, let me give you an example. Wolf, what is he? Most, for sure, imagined a skinny gray wolf from the memories formed by the cartoons they saw in childhood. Moreover, most likely, the wolf was presented in the forest thicket. Such is the stereotype. It has been developed over the years: through drawings, through cartoons. In reality, the wolf only in the extreme degree of exhaustion looks as thin as it is portrayed. Wolves do not live in forest thickets, but prefer the steppe area, where there is more prey.

Likewise with the monarchist. From books, mostly Soviet, from firmly learned (not conscious, namely memorized) formulations of Marx's scientific-dialectical materialism with his formation-class approach, a certain And denial of a monarchist. Based on the class approach, this is an aristocrat, a representative of a higher, ruling state. Our thinking begins to draw a tall, thin man in his forties, with beautiful hand with long pink nails, seeming even whiter "from the snowy whiteness of the sleeve" (Turgenev), "his hair is gray, he is dressed in all gray, he is a holder of several orders, he has a high forehead, an aquiline nose, and his face is not devoid of a well-known correctness of traits "(Stendhal), mustache, pince-nez, French prononciation ... A sort of Pavel Kirsanov of Turgenev or Mr. de Renal of Stendhal.

On the other hand, opponents of the monarchy could not ignore the multi-million memberships in the monarchist parties of the beginning of the last century. Therefore, it was necessary to hang as many labels as possible, to create an unattractive image: an uneducated pogromist, dressed in tattered and worn clothes, in two words - a drunken rogue (compare with the caricatures of Lansere or Sokolov). A high forehead, narrow and small eyes, blurry facial features, stubble, a small nose are not the ideological enemy of communism or liberalism (depending on the era), but criminals and uneducated proletariat seduced by elements alien to the working people (aristocrats, see the paragraph above).

I would like to especially draw your attention to the fact that in the subconscious of the Russian people, brought up by the Soviet school, precisely such associations arise at the word "monarchist". Why were they created, and why are there two of them? The answer is simple: to alienate the masses from the monarchy already at a subconscious level. It is not so easy to slander a monarch, although this was done in Soviet times (and is still being done) with enviable regularity. Therefore, they act on the proverb embedded in the subcortex of the brain: tell me who your friends are, and I will tell you who you are! It was necessary to discredit the monarchists. Here they are, those who gather around the Throne! Do you, a decent and honest worker, a good family man, want to stand in line with them?

This goal is always achieved in the form of caricatures, speaking images: the caricature from "Crocodile" immediately comes to mind - the tsar sits on the worker's neck, the priest at this time takes money out of his pocket, and the "non-working element" drives with a whip. Such images are remembered for a long time. When they are taken as indisputable, when they are believed, they do not think about their truth or veracity. Therefore, monarchists today are fighting not so much with the ideology of liberalism or communism, but with the labels that liberals and communists have hung on them.

Why are there two images? To reinforce the opposition to the monarchist movement. These images exacerbate the basest feelings of a person: envy and contempt. To the person depicted in the first image, a worker brought up on collectivism feels envy ("Look, the rich got divorced!"), And contempt for the second ("a bunch of lazy parasites!"). At the same time, whether a person wants it or not, his thinking creates a combined stereotype - an association. For example, when Petrov is told that Ivanov is a monarchist, Petrov represents not an aristocrat or a pogromist (unless, of course, he personally knows Ivanov), but a person whom Petrov is used to feeling contempt and dislike, that is, the fruits of the two images we studied. If Petrov knows Ivanov, and knows him from a good side, then Petrov's reaction will be bewilderment, since consciousness will come into conflict with the images drawn in the unconscious. According to Freud, the conflict between ego and id.

With the fact that rejection of the monarchy is not due to conscious arguments that a person has, namely, unconscious associations, one has to agree, based on the practice of monarchist propaganda. The most effective are not aimed at searching positive sides monarchy arguments, but arguments directed against the images we have previously pointed out. Let's say that a non-monarchist interlocutor is simply shocked by the information that Mendeleev and Bulgakov were monarchists. Respect for these personalities generates in Petrov a desire to somehow understand this issue rather than rejection, as was the case with Ivanov, unknown to him.

What exactly is a monarchist?

Let's start with the version of Ivan Solonevich - a Russian peasant: by nature a hard worker and a conservative. As Solonevich writes about this: "The main features of Russian folk psychology are political conservatism and strong-willed obstinacy" ("The Dictatorship of the Layer"). Konstantin Pobedonostsev adhered to the same theory. With all the deep respect for Solonevich and Pobedonostsev, even from their quotations one can see their own wrongness and their substitution of concepts - a confusion of the terms conservatism and traditionalism. Often these concepts are confused. Monarchism is the most consistent, orthodox and pure concept of traditionalism. Monarchism is conservatism only when traditional values reign in society. If the society has left them (as happened here in Russia), then conservatism and traditionalism cease to be synonyms and turn into antonyms.

The historically applied concept of traditionalism originates in Spain during the Carlist wars. The Carlists marched under the slogan: "? Dios y fueros!" - "God and privilege!". Their ideal was the traditional values of the Spanish people: Catholicism, absolute monarchy (Rey netto), traditional privileges (I would like to emphasize that all classes, including peasants, had them in the form of various easements). In 1840, the Carlist wars ended with the defeat of the Carlists, but the process of the formation of two main currents continued: in 1854, the Fourth Revolution began in Spain, which brought General O "Donnel to power. In the period between the Fourth and Fifth revolutions (1856-1868) power alternately was with the liberal government (O "Donnell), then with the traditionalists (General Narvaez).

Thus, an idea was formed of traditionalism as one of the branches of conservatism (Narvaez's party was called Conservative). This is not entirely true, as we have already noted, although the classical approach is exactly that. Neoconservatism, like liberal and social democratic concepts, stands for the progressive modernization of society along the path of establishing liberal values, which we can see in the example of the European Union in the form of Barroso or Peterinck. Traditionalism is an alternative to both conservatism in the sense of blind conservation of the old order, as it was in the Qing Empire, and liberalism, because traditionalism stands for development, progress, but on the basis of fundamentally different values - the traditional values of society. Those values that have been formed in the nation for centuries, those values that every child learns from childhood with mother's milk. These are: the religion traditional for this nation, customs and traditions, way of life.

Conservatism - faith in what is; traditionalism - loyalty to tradition. The peasantry is a conservative community of people. Accustomed to the collective farms, weaned to work with a desire, the peasants are reluctant to give up this bad custom - to rely on someone. A peasant is not a priori a monarchist, because he is a peasant or a Russian peasant. And references to the Chouans of the Vendée or the peasantry that brought Napoleon III to power are unfounded. Then it was true, but for today's Russia it is a fiction, not confirmed by anything. Those men about whom Solonevich wrote are no more.

Therefore, the image of a monarchist in the form of a Russian peasant is incorrect. This is a deep delusion of the soborniks, who are trying to reach the depths of the village soul. Last year, I had to participate in a religious procession organized by the monarchists in the Vladimir region. It took place in a historical place where the village is now. When the monarchist townspeople began to walk under the banners in procession, singing "To the King of Heaven", "It is worthy to eat" and "God save the Tsar!", the faces of the rural inhabitants did not express anything but bewilderment.

I think that when trying to identify the image of a monarchist, we need to proceed not from a class or formational approach, because they are a priori directed against the monarchy, but from a personal approach: to identify the qualities inherent in a real monarchist, and in them to discern his true image. The image of a monarchist, because this is a political category, and it determines the attitude towards: 1) faith; 2) law; 3) the state and the Sovereign; 4) society; 5) personality.

A monarchist is a believer. He believes in God, but he is not a monk. A monarchist is not necessary and cannot even be depicted in a cassock. Priests and monks can, but as St. Martyr Vladimir, Metropolitan of Kyiv (†1918), should even be monarchists, but this is not their main essence. The essence of a monk is dedication to God, the humility of one's will by the will of God. The monk gives himself entirely, striving for perfection. A monarchist is a state category. He does not strive so much to be perfect as he knows where perfection is, in Whom it is contained, and he tries, due to the sinfulness of human nature, not to be an immoral person. He believes, but does not renounce the world. He lives in the world and works for the most favorable arrangement of the earthly kingdom. His element is the desire for progress. But he understands progress the way Dahl described it - spiritual development. The monarchist sees the truth, but he is only a philistine in comparison with a monk. He lives according to the commandments, but, from the point of view of the Church, he does not strive for perfection, for the service of the monarchy is the form of his vocation, the plan that the Lord created for him. Church perfection is impossible without renunciation of the world. Secular persons are glorified incomparably less often than spiritual persons. This is yet another profound delusion of the soborniks. They want to make a monastery out of life, not understanding or not wanting to understand that this is not only senseless, but also contrary to the very essence of Christianity. Christianity is life according to God, life in God, but for everyone it has its own: remember Sts. Constantine, Mauritius, Philaret, Justinian and others.

The monarchist's attitude to law is a long and difficult question. Numerous literature is dedicated to him. The most striking study in this area is Ilyin's On the Monarchy and the Republic. Within the framework of the article, without proof, we present some key aspects of this problem - the problem of monarchical legal consciousness. Let us explain that legal consciousness is what we put into the concept of law, how we see law. The idea of justice is characteristic of monarchical legal consciousness. Suffice it to say that monarchism, as the most natural political ideology, is closely connected with the natural essential characteristics of phenomena. In many languages, the word right comes precisely from the word truth, justice: in Latin, right - ius, and justice - ius titia; in German - Recht and Ge recht igkeit; in Russian - right o and s right fairness, etc. What is important for a monarchist is that he sees justice, which he understands as the essence of law, in rank and reasonable inequality. Special attention should be paid to the word "reasonable". The sense of rank lies in the fact that the monarchist wants the best - the best, opens up scope for him to work and self-realization for the benefit of society and the state. The validity of privileges is a condition for their existence. Privileges are given to people who can use them: And to him I gave five talents, to him two, to him one, to anyone against his strength(Matthew 25:15). The understanding that the Lord divided the nine talents among the three slaves unequally, as the democrats insist, is the essential hallmark of a monarchist. A deep understanding of the justice of this biblical truth is his spiritual fulfillment.

In relation to the state, the monarchist is a creative subject, and not an object of the will of the monarch, as indicated by the same Ilyin, as Solonevich writes in "People's Monarchy", and Tikhomirov in "Monarchic Statehood". The value of a monarchist in relation to the state was most accurately explained by the Minister of Foreign Affairs under Nicholas II, Count Lamzdorf: to tell the monarch what you think until he has made a decision, and to fulfill the order when the order is received. A monarchist is a true helper and comrade for a monarch. Citizenship is the connection between the monarch and the individual, but the essential characteristic of this connection is love. One cannot be a monarchist without feeling love for the monarch, and love is not indulgence, but care. The monarchist cares about the monarchy, because the monarch for him is the personification of the state, the state idea is embodied in him, personified.

The monarchist loves his homeland, because the monarchical idea is purely national. It is impossible to create a "monarchist international" in the long run. The monarchist is focused on his Fatherland, it is dear to him. The concepts of cosmopolitanism and the exaltation of oneself above society are alien to him. The individual realizes himself by acting in his own interests for the benefit of the public interests.

Each person is individual: it needs to be understood and realized. You need to find your own approach to it. It is forbidden interpersonal relationships reduced to empty mathematical formulas. In real life, even mathematics is devoid of significance. The scope of its application in real life is physics and chemistry, and these sciences are full of various correction factors that should smooth out "ideal roughness" mathematical formulas. And so it is even more so in the social sciences. Personality is valuable because it is a personality, that in it, unique and inimitable qualities are connected only to the One God in a known way. In this respect for the individual one can find the whole depth of the monarchist as a person. Honour(the inner moral dignity of a person, valor, honesty of the soul and a clear conscience) and nobility(actions, behavior, concepts and feelings that are consistent with truth and morality) determine the inner world of a monarchist. In essence, if we want to paint a portrait of a monarchist, then we must embody precisely these qualities - honor and nobility. A sense of rank inevitably leads to social differentiation, and rightly so. At the top of the monarchical system of states is the nobility, and the nobility is not a caste, but a quality nobility. The qualities of the nobility are precisely honor and nobility. They cannot exist outside of God, because without God no conscience, morality and, most importantly, Truth. They cannot exist without rank, for rank determines and rewards valor, honesty and decency. They cannot exist without respect for the other - for without it there is no respect for oneself..

Here it is a portrait of a monarchist, a portrait of a theoretical but real monarchist. The reality is that a monarchist is not only one who lives up to these qualities, but also one who strives to live up to them. In everyday assessments, only one feature distinguishes a monarchist from a republican, which is a consequence of the inner world that we have explored today. A monarchist sees in another person a personality, a brother, so society is a family for him. A Republican sees an individual in another person, so society is a collective for him. Dixi.

Anton LUBICH
Companion RIS-O
Minsk
February 2005