Features of absolute monarchy as a form of government. Absolute monarchy: what is it? Country examples

In many ways, they differ from their historical predecessors. They take up little space on the planet, but they have a noticeable impact on the state of affairs in the world. There are only six countries in which power entirely belongs to the monarch: one (Vatican) - in Europe, one more - in South Africa (Swaziland) and four - in Asia (Brunei, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Qatar). States with an absolute monarchy located in Asia represent a most interesting phenomenon - the existence of a monarchical form of government in its absolute version in the conditions of modern realities. Each absolute monarchy has its own characteristics, inherent only to it, determined mainly by the place that the monarch occupies in the system of government of his state.

Brunei

A small but rich in oil and gas state on the northwestern coast of Borneo is ruled by a sultan, whose power is inherited. Hassanal Bolkiah is the head of state, minister of defense and finance, prime minister, and Muslim religious leader. The monarch appoints and supervises ministers, members of the Privy and Religious Councils, as well as the Council of Succession to the Throne. The Sultan does not have legislative power, but he appoints members of the Legislative Council. As a rule, countries with an absolute monarchy, located in Asia, are rich. In terms of the standard of living of the population, Brunei belongs to one of the first places in the Asian region.

Oman

One more example Asian country with the monarchy - Oman, whose sultan since 1970 is Qaboos bin Said. Under this ruler, who came to power after the overthrow of his father from the throne, the sultanate from a country that was firmly “settled” in the Middle Ages (the whole country had one small hospital, 3 schools for boys and 10 km of roads), turned into a prosperous modern state. Like other countries with an absolute monarchy, Oman is distinguished by the rigidity of the regime. His Majesty Qaboos bin Said holds in his hands the portfolios of the Minister of Defense, Finance, Foreign Affairs and Head of Government. He was the first of the Arabian sultans to introduce the Constitution in the country. The governing system includes the Council of the State, whose members are appointed by the Sultan, and an elected body - the Shura Council, whose leader is also appointed by Qaboos bin Said. The state of the "poorest" of the Asian absolute monarchs exceeds $ 9 billion.

Saudi Arabia

The largest state on the Arabian Peninsula - Saudi Arabia, which has colossal oil reserves, is ruled by King Abdullah. The ruler of this country with an absolute monarchy is the oldest acting monarch on the planet and will celebrate his 89th birthday on August 1. According to the Basic Law of the Kingdom, the head of state, whose power is limited only by the norms of Sharia, is subject to all branches state power. The country has a kind of parliament - the Constitutional Assembly, whose members are appointed by the king. It's strictly prohibited here. political parties, rallies, any discussion of the political system, alcohol and drugs. The punishment for murder, "witchcraft" and blasphemy is the death penalty. King Abdullah is the richest absolute monarch in the world. His fortune (about 63 billion dollars) is second only to that of the English queen.

The southern neighbor of Saudi Arabia, the state of Qatar, which is a major exporter of gas, oil and oil products, is ruled by Emir Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani. His power is limited solely by the Sharia. There are no political parties in the country, and the right to appoint to key positions in public administration belongs only to the emir.

At a late stage.

Story [ | ]

The concept of absolute monarchy as a form of organization of power goes back to Roman law. So, the formula of a lawyer of the 2nd century AD is known. e. Ulpiana: lat. princeps legibus solutus est ("The sovereign is not bound by laws"). The development of absolutism as a theory by the 15th-17th centuries is associated with the formation of the concept of the state. By this time, a syncretic model based on the teachings of Aristotle dominated Western European political thought - it did not have a clear distinction between the levels of organization of society (legal, religious, political, ethical, social, spiritual). Based on the teachings of Aristotle, the concept of "separate sovereignty" (Philippe de Commines, Claude Seissel, etc.) assumed the priority of strong royal power, opposed to tyranny, and combined the qualities of a monarchy, aristocracy and democracy. In the XV-XVI centuries, the concept of the state also developed, denoting not the "position" of the king, but an abstract entity - the embodiment of public power. A great contribution to the formation of this concept was made by Niccolò Machiavelli (the treatise The Sovereign, 1532).

In 1576, the French philosopher Jean Bodin, in his work “Six Books on the Republic”, presented the theory of the inseparability of sovereignty: the highest state power belongs entirely to the monarch, but the absolute monarchy could not encroach on the rights and freedoms of subjects, their property (as opposed to the eastern [ where?] despotism, where the monarch could arbitrarily dispose of the life and property of his subjects). At the same time, the theory of “state interest” was being formed (it was followed, in particular, by Cardinal Richelieu, an adherent of absolute monarchy), according to which the monarch can violate the rights of his subjects in the most extreme cases in the name of saving the state. At the same time, in addition to rationalistic theories, an important role in the ideological aspect of absolutism was played by the idea of ​​the divine origin of the institution of state power. This idea fit into the way of thinking characteristic of the era: the king and the elite formed a continuum, the human will is limited by the framework of the divinely established order. The exaltation of the person of the sovereign was served by magnificent and sophisticated palace etiquette. Remarkably formulated the meaning of the absolute monarchy, Louis XIV in his aphoristic phrase "The state is me".

Absolute monarchies in some countries inherited representative bodies from the previous form of monarchy: the Cortes in Spain, the States General in France, the Parliament in England, the Zemsky Sobor in Russia, etc.). Thanks to the system of estate representation, the monarchy could get the support of the nobility, the church of cities in those issues that it could not solve on its own (in accordance with the principle of estate-representative monarchy "everything that concerns everyone must be approved by everyone"). The strengthening of royal power occurred at the end of the XV-beginning of the XVI century, especially brightly [ as?] this manifested itself in France, England and Spain. European absolutism was practically formed as a system of emergency government, which was associated with wars that demanded an increase in taxes. However, even where, during the transition to an absolute monarchy, representative bodies were eliminated (Zemsky Sobors in Russia), the sovereigns had to somehow reckon with the opinion of their subjects, often expressed through the recommendations of advisers, popular uprisings, threats palace coups and regicide. Even in the New Age, opposition to absolutism also arose. political theories. According to the religious opposition (mainly Protestant), the observance of property rights and adherence to the true religion form a social contract, the violation of which by the monarch gives subjects the right to rebel. There were consistent opponents of the idea of ​​the divine origin of power. For example, according to Cardinal Bellarmine, the king does not receive power from God, but from a people led by wise shepherds. TO XVII century there was an idea that public order primary in relation to fidelity to religion. This idea was reflected in the work of the English philosopher Thomas Hobbes "Leviathan". Hobbes developed the idea of ​​absolute individuals who are in a state of "war of all against all" ("Man is a wolf to man") and, under pain of death, transfer absolute power to the state. Thus, Hobbes gave absolutism a radical justification, but at the same time destroyed the image of the universe as an ideal entity - the intellectual basis of absolutism (using the works of Hobbes, at the end of the 17th century, John Locke formulated the foundations of the constitutional order).

As capitalism developed and strengthened in European countries, the principles of the existence of an absolute monarchy began to come into conflict with the needs of a changed society. The rigid framework of protectionism and mercantilism limited the economic freedom of entrepreneurs, who were forced to produce only goods that were beneficial to the royal treasury. Dramatic changes are taking place within the estates. An economically powerful, educated, entrepreneurial class of capitalists is growing out of the depths of the third estate, having its own idea of ​​the role and tasks of state power. In the Netherlands, England and France, these contradictions were resolved in a revolutionary way, in other countries there was a gradual transformation of the absolute monarchy into a limited, constitutional one. However, this process was uneven, for example, in Russia and Turkey, absolute monarchy lasted until the 20th century.

Peculiarities [ | ]

General features of absolute monarchy[ | ]

Under an absolute monarchy, the state reaches the highest degree of centralization. From a formal legal point of view, in an absolute monarchy, in the hands of the head of state - the monarch - all the fullness of the legislative and executive power is concentrated, he independently establishes taxes and manages public finance. Created: an extensive bureaucracy with strictly regulated functions, a standing army and police. Centralization and unification of local government is being achieved. The state actively intervenes in the economy, using the principles of mercantilism to protect national producers. Many absolute monarchies are characterized by the presence of an ideological doctrine in which the state is assigned a special role in the life of society, and the authority of state power is indisputable. The heyday of absolute monarchy in the countries of Western Europe falls on the XVII-XVIII centuries. Absolute monarchy existed in Russia until the beginning of the 20th century.

The social support of various absolute monarchies is not the same. Absolute monarchies in modern Europe were noble states in which a "privileged society" was preserved. In Soviet historiography, the emergence of absolutism was usually associated with the class struggle - the nobility and the bourgeoisie (S. D. Skazkin) or the peasantry and the nobility (B. F. Porshnev). At present, the point of view is widespread, according to which a number of economic, social and cultural processes contributed to the strengthening of absolutism. Thus, the strengthening of state power is associated with frequent wars (there was a need for increased taxation), the development of trade (there was a need for protectionist policies), the growth of cities and social change in them (the collapse of the social unity of the urban community, the rapprochement of the nobility with the monarchy).

Features of absolute monarchies in various countries[ | ]

The features of the absolute monarchy in each individual state were determined by the balance of power between the nobility and the bourgeoisie. In France, and especially in England, the influence of the bourgeois on politics was much greater [ how much?] than in Germany, Austria and Russia. To one degree or another, the features of absolute monarchy, or the desire for it, manifested themselves in all the states of Europe, but they found the most complete embodiment in France, where absolutism manifested itself already at the beginning of the 16th century, and experienced its heyday during the reign of kings Louis XIII and Louis XIV Bourbons (1610-1715). Parliament was completely subordinate to the power of the king [ clarify] ; the state subsidized the construction of manufactories, trade wars were waged.

In England, the peak of absolutism fell on the reign of Elizabeth I Tudor (1558-1603), but in the British Isles it never reached its classical [ which?] forms. Parliament was not entirely subject to the king; the monarch could acquire full power only in cooperation with parliament [ clarify], retained parliamentary control over taxes. Due to the lack of a powerful local bureaucracy, local self-government played a significant role. A powerful army was not created either.

Strong royal power was established in Spain and Portugal (strengthening of absolutism occurred in the second half of the 16th century; in Spain, the most stringent regime was established under King Philip II). The emission, financial nature of the local economy, living off the silver and gold mines in America, did not allow the formation of a class of large entrepreneurs, and Spanish absolutism, based solely on the aristocracy, degenerated into [[Despotism | despotism [ clarify] ]]. At the same time, the fuero system provided a certain [ which?] limiting the power of the king, but only at the local level.

In Germany and Italy, where national states were formed only in the 19th century, absolute monarchies took shape relatively late (since the 17th century) and not on a national scale, but within individual kingdoms, duchies, counties and principalities (“regional” or “princely” absolutism). In the XVII century there was a strengthening of the Brandenburg-Prussian monarchy with a militaristic nature of the economy and social order; a policy of mercantilism was carried out, there were strict regulations for the military service of the nobles and the peasant population. In the state of the Austro-Hungarian Habsburgs, where national formations retained class-representative bodies, an absolute monarchy was established in the second half of the 18th century (under Queen Maria Theresa and her son Joseph II).

In the absolute monarchies of Scandinavia, elements of estate representation were preserved. In some countries (for example, in the Commonwealth), the absolute monarchy was never established (the monarch was elected for life by a class-representative body - the Sejm).

Reminiscent of European absolutism, the regime of absolute monarchy in Russia, which finally took shape in the 18th century, was called autocracy. The establishment of an absolutist regime in Russia was expressed in the termination of the convocation of Zemsky Sobors, the elimination of localism, the establishment of collegiums instead of a system of orders, the creation of a body of state control over the church (Synod), the implementation of a protectionist policy in the economy, the abolition of internal customs, the introduction of a poll tax, the creation regular army and fleet. The features of Russian absolutism were the strengthening of serfdom, the reliance of the monarchy on the aristocracy, the insignificant role of the bourgeoisie, the recruitment of senior and middle officials of the bureaucratic apparatus from representatives of the nobility.

The economic and democratic rise in Europe of the 18th century necessitated reforms, and a characteristic phenomenon for Europe of the second half of XVIII century became enlightened absolutism, closely associated with the ideas and practices of the Enlightenment. Enlightened absolutism was expressed in the abolition of certain royal privileges (the Turgot reforms, France, 1774-1776), sometimes in the abolition of serfdom (by Joseph II in Bohemia and a number of other provinces of the Habsburg empire). However, politics enlightened absolutism did not save absolute monarchies from overthrow as a result of revolutions and constitutional reforms; in Europe, absolutist regimes were replaced

Throughout the 19th century, parliamentary power was actively developing in the world. The lands that had been ruled by royal families for centuries were changing their system of government: citizens were given the opportunity to choose their ruler and parliament.

However, some countries have retained the monarchy. Where absolute monarchy has been preserved today - we will consider examples of countries with this method of government below.

The list is quite extensive - contains 41 states. These are mainly countries of Asia, Europe, Polynesia, Africa. Today there are only 12 absolute monarchies in the world. Most of them are located in the Middle East.

In contact with

Basic provisions of the control system

An absolute or unlimited monarchy is a form of government in which All power is in the hands of one person, which governs the legislative activity, cultural and economic life of the country. If there is any council or parliament in the state, then it is completely controlled by the monarch, or the body consists of direct relatives of the head of state.

The dualistic monarchy is kind of absolutism, in which the activities of the ruler are formally regulated by parliament. However, the monarch retains the power to dissolve parliament and the right to veto, so in fact he rules the state.

History of absolutism

For the first time, states with an absolute monarchy appeared in the era of modern times.

Absolute monarchy in Europe originated in the 16th and 17th centuries when the power of the feudal lords weakened and class meetings ceased to operate.

Unlimited monarchy flourished by the 18th-19th centuries, the end of absolute rule came at the beginning of the 20th century.

The modern world and absolute monarchy

To date, only 7 states have survived, which are ruled by an absolute monarch. Largest number absolute monarchies located in the Middle East.

Oman

• ruler: Sultan Qaboos bin Said;
• religion: Islam;

State in the southeast of the Arabian Peninsula. In Oman, the relatives of the ruler do not take much part in state affairs, which is not typical for Middle Eastern absolutism.

The country has a Consultative Assembly whose members are appointed by the monarch. The Assembly studies draft legislation and makes recommendations for their improvement.

Population: 4 million people(according to 2014), while 1 million are foreigners employed in the oil industry.

United Arab Emirates

• ruler: emir Khalifa en-Nakhinyan;
• religion: Islam;
• the basis of the economy: oil production, tourism.

United Arab Emirates have federal structure, which includes 7 emirates - states with an unlimited monarchy. The head of the UAE is the emir of the largest emirate of Abu Dhabi (the same city is the capital).

Every year, the Supreme Council of the Union gathers in Abu Dhabi, which is attended by the emirs of all seven republics. They are about determine foreign and domestic policy states.

In total, 9.3 million people live in the country, of which 85% are labor migrants.

Qatar

• ruler: emir Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani;
• religion: Islam;
• basis of the economy: oil production.

Qatar is located in the Middle East, neighbors Saudi Arabia, is an emirate. He lives according to the principles of sharia, but this the most open of the Arab communities.

Qatar is one of the richest countries in the world.

Saudi Arabia

• ruler: King Salman ibn Abdul-Aziz ibn Abdurrahman Al Saud;
• religion: Islam;
• basis of the economy: oil production.

The largest state of the Arabian Peninsula. His population - 31.5 million people(according to 2015 data).

All ministers are appointed by the king, positions are distributed among his relatives. The monarch also appoints members of parliament and judges.

Saudi Arabia lives according to Sharia law.

Since criminal law is based on these laws, the country has an officially low crime rate (it is forbidden to discuss crimes), while at the same time little respect for human rights human trafficking flourishes.

Saudi Arabia is the world's key oil producer, with 24% oil reserves planets.

Important! Saudi Arabia is one of three countries in the world named after a ruling dynasty.

Brunei

• ruler: Sultan Hassanal Bolkiahom;
• religion: Islam;
• basis of the economy: oil production.

The official name of Brunei is the State of Brunei Darussalam.

Population - 401 890 people(according to 2011 data). One third of Brunei live in the capital, most of the inhabitants are concentrated in the area of ​​oil fields.

Oil production has turned Brunei into richest country in asia. The country actively trades with Japan, Indonesia, South Korea and Australia.

Since 2014, Brunei has been living under Sharia law.

Kingdom of Swaziland

• ruler: king Mswati III;
• religion: Christianity;
• basis of the economy: agriculture.

On the world map, Swaziland can be found in southern Africa.

According to the 2009 estimate, the total in the country 1.2 million people live. Basically, the inhabitants of the state are engaged in agriculture: Sugar cane, corn, cotton, tobacco, rice, citrus fruits and pineapples are grown.

Vatican

• ruler: Pope Francis I;
• religion: Catholicism;
• the basis of the economy: church donations, tourism.

The absolute monarchy in Europe is represented by the Vatican. Vatican city-state with a theocratic monocracy. The Pope is the Ruler, he is elected by the cardinals for life.

In historical retrospect, this form of monarchy is the most common. It comes to replace the class-representative, but this historical "rule" was not always respected. There are a number of countries in which there was no estate-representative monarchy. First of all, these are the countries of the Arabian Peninsula and the Persian Gulf. Of course, they included governing bodies in addition to the monarch (caliph) himself, but they were mostly advisory in nature. In practice, it turned out that the caliph ruled the country, his main state advisers were sheikhs, that is, representatives of the wealthy landed aristocracy, they, in turn, were assisted by elders who were a kind of local managers. As a matter of fact, there was a strong, tough, centralized government that did not tolerate anyone "disobedience". In Europe, in general, absolute monarchy manifested itself in approximately the same form of government.

Accordingly, we can define this species monarchies:

Absolute monarchy is a form state government when all the fullness of state power is concentrated in the hands of the monarch himself, who uses it without any restrictions.

It is important to note that the ruler not only uses power without restrictions, but also does not share it with anyone. Absolute monarchy is exclusively hereditary.

What conclusions can be drawn from this definition? What is the point? The bottom line is that, in addition to the unlimited possibilities of the monarch in his state, under an absolute monarchy, the people are not even subjects of His Majesty, as under a constitutional monarchy, but servants who, at times, turn into slaves, ready to serve forever their Lord and give their lives if need be, for Him. After all, as it often happened and happens to this day, the ruler of any state often exaggerates and abuses his powers, although this is strictly prohibited by the law that he himself adopted. And now just imagine how great the temptation is to do whatever "the soul desires", in fact, the same person as everyone else, when, roughly speaking, everything is allowed. Can anyone resist the desire to do what is forbidden for everyone else and at the same time clearly know that there will be nothing for it. A rather abstract expression, but how much specificity is in it.

Let's look at the situation from the other side, or rather, what legal powers the monarch has under an absolute monarchy:

The monarch is the only and indisputable source of power.

The monarch has the highest executive, legislative and judicial powers.

The monarch has the highest spiritual authority.

The monarch is the bearer of state sovereignty.

The monarch is the commander-in-chief in the army.

Absolutely all people in the state, except for the monarch himself and his family, are his servants.

Now just think how many rights and powers follow from all of the above. I would say that it is difficult to find an action that the monarch would not have the right to perform, or one that he does not have. To put it bluntly, they simply don't exist. So it turns out that he can do everything, and has the right to everything.

And now we are ready to draw the second most important conclusion about the absolute monarchy - the monarch is allowed any, legal or illegal, legal or illegal, "smart or stupid", "good or bad", "necessary or unnecessary" and other "manipulations" with whomever You thought, by the people, and exclusively on a "legal" basis, that is, the personal desire of the monarch. And the most important thing here is that the people are ready and agree to "go along this road." And just at this moment, the essence of the monarch as a person, as a person who "holds the fate of his people" is manifested. For clarity and understanding of what I mean, imagine a person sitting on a royal throne. On one shoulder he "sits" an angel, on the other a demon - an eternal human internal conflict of "bad and good", "needed and desired". And the demon says: “You are the King. Do whatever you want. You won't get anything for it. No one will even dare to reproach you for anything, because everyone bows and trembles before you. And the king thinks, but tells the truth, who will do what to me. But then the angel says: “You are the king. You must do what your people need. Remember, they are not your servants, but you are their servant. You are called by God to serve your people, because without them you mean nothing.” And then the question arises: “whom to believe?”. You can say and do whatever you want, but the people do not even suspect what power they have.

Note that in the words of the demon and the angel, the word "king" is written with different letters. Why? It depends on what importance is attached to the king himself. In this regard, I would like to ask a rhetorical question: “is it easy or hard to be a person who has all the power and absolute freedom?”. Yes and no. Do whatever you want, but the fate of people is behind your decisions. Do as you see fit, but the responsibility lies with you. Indeed, with inept handling, freedom will simply “tear apart” any person. Based on this, we can talk about the acceptability of absolute monarchy in modern world. Maybe that's why there are so few left?

Let's look at the situation from the other side. To begin with, let's clarify what absolute monarchies are today on political map peace. These are: Saudi Arabia, Oman, Kuwait, UAE, Bahrain, Qatar, as well as the Sultanate of Brunei. However, in a relatively "pure" form, the absolute monarchy was preserved only in Oman, where there is no constitution and parliament, or any other representative body. All public and state life is based on the Koran, and the king is at the same time the highest spiritual person. But other countries "gone" not far. Although they have constitutions, and some of them even held parliamentary elections, nevertheless, the absolutist nature of state power has been preserved in its traditional form. The constitutions in them are oktroirovannymi, that is, bestowed by the monarchs. In addition, the Quran has much greater legal force. Parliaments in these countries are extremely limited in their functions, and are only advisory bodies. But what is remarkable is that such an informal body as family council, since often family members and relatives of the monarch occupy important leadership positions in central and local bodies.

It is clear that the monarchy penetrates into all spheres of society. But it is important for us to know and understand how it affects each of them individually.

Political sphere. L. Tikhomirov writes about the essence of monarchist policy as follows: “Monarchist policy is precisely the policy of the Monarchist Supreme Power in achieving the goals that state policy has in general. A reasonable religious policy therefore requires the union of the Supreme Power with those sprouts of the religious consciousness of the people that lead to true religion. At the same time, absolute monarchy in this area can be described as "eternal and unchangeable." Power belongs to the monarch, the monarch received it from God, and no one else can have it. These three links underlie the board. So it was, is and always will be. A change in at least one of them leads to a rather rapid collapse of the system as a whole. Everything is built precisely on the monotony of thinking and unquestioning obedience. Here even there can be no talk of such things as political parties, political dissent, the struggle for power, etc. Everyone who tries to engage in such things is in for a very sad fate. True, the existence of formal governing bodies to ensure the formal rights and freedoms of the population is not denied on paper, and sometimes even welcomed.

In his book, L. Tikhomirov quite often refers to P. Chicherin's research in the field of monarchy. P. Chicherin points out the following positive and negative aspects of monarchical statehood in relation, mainly, to politics.

Beneficial (positive) he refers to:

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

The monarchy, by its independence, is not involved in the spirit of the parties. The monarch stands outside 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 the previous monarchy best ensures order. The monarch is the most just arbiter of social conflicts.

There is no form of government more suitable for making major changes.

In the same way, it is easiest for a great personality to show his high qualities for the general benefit precisely in a monarchy.

The weaknesses of the monarchy, according to Chicherin, are as follows:

The substitution of power is made not by ability, but by chance of birth. This makes the fate of the people dependent on chance: a genius can be born, but a person of little ability can also be born.

Unlimited power produces a bad influence on a weak soul. A great soul restrains itself. A weak person, on the other hand, becomes arrogant or double-minded. It is very difficult to resist the temptations surrounding power, and when a prophet reigns on the throne, says Chicherin, then the subordinate society follows the same example.

The flattery and courtship of others joins the temptations of power. The monarch is the source of all blessings, and they try to get them by flattery and servility. These qualities become the dominant quality of the court and bureaucratic spheres. A mirage of official lies is formed around the monarch, obscuring the true state of affairs.

Monarchy easily turns into arbitrariness.

She easily prefers the outer order to the inner. Hence the unrest in management: "from above - brilliance, from below - rot."

In the case of arbitrariness, the right loses its protection, and Chicherin finds that, even apart from abuses, the monarchy protects the right less than other authorities.

Personal and public initiative in the monarchy, according to Chicherin, is weakened, the initiative disappears. The monarchy "patronizes" everything and everyone, and this weakens the development of the people.

It is important to note that the most fair this characteristic maybe for an absolute monarchy.

Economic sphere. Officially, the monarch is the "owner and owner" of all the natural resources of the state. He has every right to dispose of them at his own discretion in order to improve the welfare of the country and the population. Beautiful words, but, in fact, due to state-owned resources, there is a very solid personal enrichment in cash people close to the ruler. And, of course, the funds received (not all, of course) are used for personal purposes, which do not concern state interests at all. This situation is not only in the resource market. This applies to everyone economic areas, since they are all “busy with their people”, who control them and regulate relations in them, stop any attempts to penetrate “from outside”. As a result, it turns out that we can, in fact, call such countries private. However, to justify the existing order, it should be said that the people who “manage the economy” in these countries “know their business”, because if they “did not know” it, they would hardly “hold out” in their places for a long time. However, as L. Tikhomirov notes: “ economic policy The aim of the state is to complete the productive forces of the nation in such a way as to ensure its independence in satisfying its own needs.

Social sphere. L. Tikhomirov focuses on the fact that a healthy state of the social system is especially necessary for a monarchical state. Concern for the social system characterizes all eras of prosperity of monarchies, which always treat it with extreme care, try not to break it, but to build their state structures on it. On this occasion, they talk about the natural class of monarchical nations. Despite this, in countries with an absolute monarchy, as a rule, it is very strongly manifested social conflict. The actual inequality of people before the law is clearly expressed ( legal status the sheikh and the simple worker are very different), there is a constant infringement of human rights and freedoms (the words “infringement of rights and freedoms” mean real restrictions on the rights and “restraint” of human freedom, and not some abstract, idealistic concepts that are being strongly promoted in America and Western Europe). but social sphere most affected by the economic resonance in society. On the one hand, there is the "top" who "has everything", on the other - the bulk of the people who have nothing. As it was said: “Only crumbs fall to them from the common table, which were accidentally uttered by those sitting at it.” That is, it turns out that the middle class is practically absent. This shows a huge difference between the richest and the poorest. It would seem that such a society will not last long. And here, perhaps, the monarch "plays" his most important role in society and the state. Firstly, it symbolizes and personifies the unity of the people. Secondly, he figuratively says to people: “What difference does it make whether you are rich or poor. You all serve me, for me you are all equal and the same. A phrase like this, uttered from the lips of a ruler, raises the morale of the people so much that they continue to believe in the veracity of what was said.

Due to the division of society into estates, the idea of ​​​​a single general civil system arose. L. Tikhomirov in his book “Monarchic Statehood” defines it as follows: “This idea of ​​a general civil system has now conquered all minds. It is considered the highest link in the development of the idea of ​​the state and the basis of freedom. The estate system was declared synonymous with the servility of citizens and the reactionary nature of their supporters. But the theory of a general civil system does not realize that it was created by the actual struggle of the democratic idea against the monarchical one. Indeed, the condemnation of the estate system is pronounced to him together with the "unlimited" monarchy. At the same time, Tikhomirov notes that the order of estates is a natural affiliation of an unlimited monarchy, where individual interests each have their own organization, and the power that unites them rises above all. But it (the order of estates) is inappropriate in constitutional government, where representation should express not the separate interests of the estates, but the common interest of the state.

Spiritual (religious) sphere. “Monarchy arises with such content of the national spirit and ends with its destruction. Its first task, therefore, is to help the nation to preserve and develop this spiritual content. This constitutes the first task and obligation both in relation to the nation and in relation to the monarchy itself, for the Supreme Power draws its moral content from the nation. When it is in a nation, it is inevitably handed over to the Supreme Power; dries up in the nation, it just as inevitably dries up in the Supreme Power. Hence the importance of the question of right attitude monarchical policy to religious beliefs and to those institutions that they create and unite the religious life of the nation. - L. Tikhomirov.

Let's try to figure out what this means. The monarch is the spiritual leader in the country. Without exaggeration, he ranks first after God, who gave him power, and this is absolutely normal. For only in this case it will be impossible to doubt the correctness and legitimacy of his actions. On this the whole system of absolute monarchy is built and keeps. This system is extremely conservative. Changes in it occur very rarely and go too slowly. As a rule, such systems become ossified and cease to be flexible, and the result of this is the discrepancy between the existing state system and the realities and needs of society. This, in turn, becomes the prerequisite for popular unrest, which can be used by people "hungry" for power. As a result, a revolution may “break out”, and as its direct consequence, a change in state power and the establishment of new system by replacing the old one. To avoid this, the spiritual power of the monarch comes first. He says: “God has given me power. And what we "have" and I do is also God's will." And the people rejoice and rejoice again - they are happy. Among other things, the monarch is the ideal of human morality.

military sphere. One of priority areas development of society and the state. The monarch, as already mentioned, is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces. In the Middle Ages, the king went into battle with his army, and this greatly raised the morale of the soldiers. They joyfully shouted: "For the king!". Now, of course, this is no longer the case. However, during martial law, the monarch is a powerful unifying force, which at the most "acute" and necessary moments has a significant impact on the course of unfolding events. And the most important thing is that the people have a sense of moral duty, that they must protect their master at any cost. But with the loss of the monarch, the chances of the population to defend their country and win the war "fall exponentially", since the meaning of the defense itself will be lost.

international sphere. The ruler is the legal representative of his state in the international "arena". Only with his consent are all international treaties relating to his country concluded, that is, the treaties bear his personal signature.

“In its international existence, the state aims to preserve and develop itself, the union of its nation (or nations). international politics therefore, it is directed to the implementation of the good and interests exclusively of its union. - L. Tikhomirov from the book "Monarchic statehood"

I don't think it's worth saying what influence the ruler has in other spheres of society. True, he practically does not have his “working” time for them. Control there is left to the confidants of the monarch.

In conclusion, I want to add that, in addition to all other functions, the monarch has one very important public function. It performs a ceremonial function. Not a single event of a national scale can take place without his direct participation. As a rule, the ruler first makes a speech in which he says a lot in common, and only then the action itself begins (the opening of the competition, for example). In other words, it can be expressed as follows: the participation of the monarch is the guarantor of the legality and legitimacy of what is happening. If he had not been there, then, roughly speaking, it is not known what this could have turned out to be for the organizers.

In this chapter, we have considered absolute monarchy as a form of government. Learned its most important features. Consider the role of the monarch in various fields the life of society. We made some conclusions about the acceptability of this form of government on present stage development of society and the state.