Around Russia

A batch of three shells. Part 1

July 4, 2011 Julia Latynina

Nothing in the world is true in itself,

But all - depending on the circumstances

Nicolo Machiavelli

In the modern world, democracy is considered the best and only correct method of government, and under democracy, of course, universal suffrage. By default, any liberal, humanist, human rights defender and just European parliamentarians implies that universal suffrage is good that any problem of any country can be resolved if you introduce a general vote, and if any country, for example, China, does not provide citizens with such a right, then this is enough so that any respecting liberal is stabbed by the liberal shame.

There is no dispute: at the time when I write, the most prosperous states of the modern world are precisely democracies. But still, to the general will and to the common good, there are a number of questions.

In 1925, the people of Italy voted for Mussolini, in 1933 the people of Germany voted for Hitler, and in 2009 the people of Iran voted for Akhmadinejad. Why do the peoples vote for dictators?

The people of Turkey joyfully cut the Armenians; Tutsi was cut in Rwanda Hutu; The vast majority of the Arabs require the destruction of Jews, and in 2001, after the destruction of the twin towers, 90% of the Egyptians during the survey admired what had happened. Why are nations so prone to Nazism, pogroms and genocide?

Since 1960, a little less than forty African states gained independence, mainly without any previous war, and held democratic elections. As a result of these elections, the vast majority of these countries turned into cannibalistic dictatorships. Why is democracy not working in Africa?

In the 1960s, a wave of revolutions and military coups swept through the countries of the Middle East. Now, after half a century, we can evaluate the result. On average, they are best modernized - and the best retain stability - those countries that remained the monarchies, like Dubai, Qatar or Jordan. Countries like Tunisia, Libya or Syria, where the “leaders of the people” came to power, turned out to be the most monstrous dictatorships. How did it happen that the emir Dubai, whom no one had ever chosen, turned out to be the best ruler than the expression of the “common will” the demoniac colonel Muamar Gaddafi?

Why, finally, in the African, Latin American, in the Middle Eastern, and in any poor states, the coming to power of the people very quickly ends with the coming to power of the dictator?

Liberals and democrats really do not like to recognize this fact that is available to observe and usually discuss that "the people were deceived" and "democracy turned into a dictatorship." The problem is that a significant part of such dictatorships continues to enjoy the support of the majority. Hugo Chavez in Venezuela enjoyed and enjoys the support of the majority. Evo Morales in neighboring Bolivia used and enjoys the support of the majority. Alexander Lukashenko really received a majority of votes in Belarus, although this did not prevent him from attributing his extra. Even Vladimir Putin, despite the total corruption of the regime and the actual collapse of the state, undoubtedly at the moment when I write these lines, enjoys the support of most the Russian population. Democrats explain this by the fact that the people will “deceive” with the help of television, the media, etc., but then another question arises: guys, if these idiots are so easy to deceive, then what makes you endow them with the functions of infallible arbitrators?

There is not a single totalitarian regime that would not come to power without the support of the people. Hitler’s victory in the 1933 elections, which is often loved to refer as an exception, is actually no exception, but a rule. Mussolini in 1924 won a complete victory in quite fair elections. Moreover, he adopted in Italy the law on equal electoral rights for women, trying to maximize the number of voters. The Bolsheviks did not win as a result of the October Revolution. They won as a result of a bloody and terrible civil war, when it turned out that the Red Army supports more people than the White Guard. Mao Zedun did not come to power through a military coup. He came to power because the vast majority of the poor Chinese peasants trusted in the chairman of the Mao.

Surprisingly, the fact that there are democracies that do not flourish, and there are prosperous countries that are not democracies does not bother anyone. Politicians, as scientists to Galileo, do not bother themselves with such a stupid thing as experience and observation. Universal suffrage is a solution to all problems, and that's it.

Is this so - judging by the centuries -old human history?

Interfluve

The very first popular assembly, which is known for certain that it took place, appeared almost five thousand years ago, namely: 2800 years BC. The meeting was bicameral: the upper house consisted of the "Council of Elders", and the lower house - from all men of the city that could wear weapons.

This meeting arose not in Athens and not in Rome, but in the city of Uruk - in Schumer, in the Mesorechye, in Asia, which is then Herodotus, and behind Herodotus and the entire European historical tradition will contrast Europe (in Asia - slavery, in Europe - freedom).

At that time in question, the Schumer consisted, however, not of the “slave kingdoms”, but of the city-states, where the tsarist authorities were organized by the “assemblies of the elders” and “the men of the city”, as in the current US, the president’s power is limited by the Senate and Congress. At the aforementioned meeting described in the Sumerian poem of 115 lines, the ruler of the city of Uruk Gilgamesh asked his Senate and his Congress permission to defend himself from the ruler of the city of Kish, who went on the Uruk war.

In the aforementioned poem, the opinions of the chambers dispersed: the Senate believed that it was better to obey Kish, and the "men of the city" decided to go into battle.

As in Rome and in Athens, in Uruk, citizens were those who are able to wear weapons. This circumstance is far from accidental. How the army is arranged, so the society is arranged. Cities-states in antiquity are always a foot militia. The extended kingdoms like Persian are aristocracy on horses. Military power was the main factor that determined the fate of the state in antiquity. Unfortunately, the war is characterized by one -manual, and the war was a key factor that destroyed the rule of many in antiquity.

Usually, the war ended either with the victory of the conqueror, or by the fact that the commander who successfully defended his city was in no hurry to part with the authorities. If the reign of many did not fall a victim of successful conquest, then it became a victim of successful defense.

For all centuries, great economic freedom led to prosperity, but in ancient times, the prosperity of states made them only a sweet bait for the-waists. Schumer city-states were won by the Assyrians. The memory of their image of the board was exterminated by the conquerors. Even the new capital of Assyria, Ninevia, was erected in a new place that did not remind that the rulers of the city-states were once destroyed or subordinate to the Assyrians had to discuss their affairs with the “men of the city” and that if the “men of the city” did not like the behavior of the ruler, they could, as in Lagash, overthrow the old ruler and present power to the new, which was illegal of exorbitant taxes. assigned to citizens the former ruler, and "recognized freedom." (Yes, the first declaration of independence, which justifies the right of the people to rebel against the unfair ruler, was written on clay tablets in the 24th century BC)

To VK, when Herodotus wrote, through the efforts of more and more despotistical conquerors, any memory of the cities of the Sumer-states disappeared and Asia was perceived by the Greeks as a pattern of “despotism”, as a counterweight to “free” Europe.

However, ultimately, Greek democracy accurately repeated the path of Sumerian. Greek cities-states, which are not able to withstand long kingdoms for a long time, became partly prey of Persian, then Macedonian, and then Roman conquerors. Passed a thousand years, and "free Greece" has turned into "servile Byzantium."

Greece

From the foregoing, it is clear that Athens were not the first in the history of mankind to a city that ruled (or strengthened) the national assembly. Such cities existed in many ancient cultures, although there are cultures in which they did not exist (for example, China and Egypt). But Athens were the birthplace of the concept of democracy, just like they were the birthplace of the concept of “mathematics”, “physics”, “history”, etc.

The speakers and politicians of prosperous and free Athens constantly emphasized the difference between democratic Athens and the surrounding states - “despotic Persia”, “aristocratic sparta”, “tyrant in siracuse”, etc.

The principles of Athenian democracy, which Fukidid sets out in the second book of the “History” by the lips of Pericles, should be brought here: many of these principles are so invariants in human history that it seems that we are not talking about the confrontation of Athens and Sparta, but about the confrontation of the USA and the USSR.

“Since our city is not controlled by a handful of people, but by the majority of the people, our state system is called people. In private matters, everyone enjoys the same rights under the laws. As for the state’s affairs, they put forward everyone to the honorary government posts, since he distinguished himself with something, not due to belonging to a certain estate, but due to personal valor. Poverty and dark origin do not prevent a person from taking an honorary position if he is able to provide services to the state ... "

“In military care, we are guided by other rules than our opponents. So, for example, we allow everyone to visit our city and never prevent us to get acquainted and inspect it and not send strangers out of fear that the enemy can penetrate our secrets and benefit for themselves. ... Meanwhile, as our opponents, in their method of education, seek from early childhood a brutal discipline to harden the courage of young men, we live freely, without such a severity, and nevertheless we are conducting a brave struggle with an opponent equal to us. ”

“We value wealth only because we use it with benefit, and not for the sake of an empty boast. Recognition of poverty for us is not a shame for anyone, but we see a greater shame in the fact that a person himself does not seek to get rid of her with labor. ”

The problem was that all these wonderful principles of democracy were fully implemented in only one city - in Athens, these ancient US. The same “history” of Fukidida is, among other things, the description of Athens attempts to introduce democracy (in order to create allies against Sparta) in other Greek states, usually with catastrophic results. For almost every introduction of democracy somewhere except Athens ended with the redistribution of land and forgiveness of debts , with the subsequent coming to power of the tyrant.

“Within seven days, while the EUREMEDONT, after his arrival with 60 ships, remained on the island, the Democrats continued to beat the fellow citizens whom they considered enemies, accusing them of attempted democracy, in reality some were killed because of personal hostility, and others because of the money that they had given in debt,” writes Fukidid about the introduction of democracy during the introduction of democracy during the introduction The Peloponese War, and, you must agree, even the USA in Iraq was much better.

In general, every democratic revolution in Greece was accompanied by a radical change in property relations. In Argos in 368, the victorious democracy executed 1200 “conspirators”, in Tehie, after the victory of the Democrats, 800 people escaped from the city, and everywhere the polybius wrote, where “the mass is accustomed to the demagogues of the use of someone else's good, and where she has all her hopes for life for someone else's expense, the case easily reaches murders, exiles and deposits and sections land, since the mass finds ... the leader. "

Under the "democrats", of course, this refers to the party that provides the right to vote to all citizens, under the party of "best people" (which is usually weighed towards Sparta) - the one that provides the right to vote only. It was not surprising that both the batch was headed by representatives of the nobility - if the Party of Arstocrats represented the people from the house of Thebaids in Athens, then people from the House of Alcmeonids represented the Party of Democrats.

The tyrants again rarely came from the poor, but always relied on them. In Corinth, the rich man Timofan, having planned the coup, relied on the poor layers of the population, “attracting the poor, supplying them with complete weapons and keeping the most vile people” (Diodorus). Filomel, who ruled for ten years, from 356 to 346 BC, was one of the richest people of Fokida, which did not put him the rich to ruin taxes, but to attract the poor to his side. The tyrant Evfron in Sikion received power through the support of the people and ruined the noble to please the poor.

Therefore, the Athenian philosophers did not like democracy (this happens: thinkers living in despotism usually praise the despot, but thinkers living with democracy usually reproach democracy), and Plato, as an ideal ruler, saw a tyrant, but one that will combine "the greatest power with reason and judgment."

But even at the Athenian democracy, which never rolled up to the redistribution of the Earth, the situation was not as rosy as it could be judged by the speech of Perikl at Fukidid: it gave freedom to spirit and mind, but it extremely constrained economic freedom.

Athens invented mathematics, physics, geometry and the idea of ​​science in general, but from the point of view of Laisse-Faire, Athens did not look like a bad thing. It was really not shameful to be poor in Athens - but it was unsafe to get rich. In Athens, full citizens did not pay taxes; They were paid only by freedmen and slaves. However, full -fledged citizens carried the liturgy - voluntary duties expressed in the feasible assistance for the equipment of warships (truerchy, the most devastating and severe duty), the structure of feasts, representations, equipment of embassies, etc. As a result, investing money in business was unprofitable, it was beneficial to invest them in folk love. Anyone who is rich without sacrifice could easily be subjected to ostracism or become a victim of the court.

The jury court in Athens consisted of several hundred (up to a thousand) of co -trinkets. The jokes received two, and then three wrappers for participation in the process, and this money was paid from confiscated property. As a result, in the Athenian court it was “more dangerous to be rich than guilty”, as the Orator of Foxes sarcastically remarked.

Prices in Athens were by no means free: special officials, sintofilacs, monitored the “correct” price of wheat brought to the city, and the results of the trial show that the crowd often accused the prices of grain merchants and officials, but never - methods of regulation.

At the time of the heyday of Athens, about 20 thousand Athenian citizens received funds from the state, and these “citizens from the phratria of the three grows” (Aristophanes) had their slogan “Climb into your pockets in which there is something” (Aristotle).

The economy of Athens was regulated much more than with other tyrants, civil equality was now and then turned into an economic distribution, funds from Lavrion silver mines were shared between citizens, as between Norwegians, agents from oil. Polygraph Polygrandy Sharikov, having fallen into Athens, would undoubtedly be pleased: his dream “divide everything” was performed there a couple of times a year.

As a result, Aristotle and Plato were in Athens, but it was not - and could not be - Bill Gates. The most remarkable thing is that ancient historians and philosophers who wrote so much about freedom and tyranny, simply did not notice this economic lack of freedom. The economy - unlike politics, war, etc. - was simply not part of the interests of Plato, Aristotle or Titus Libya. The ideas of ancient historians about the economy at best came down to the fact that the ideal ruler should forbid people to wear purple and eat from gold and generally enrichment is a shameful thing, appropriate only to those who do not think about fame.

In any textbook of political science, one can read that, in Greece, democracy was “direct”, and in the modern world there was a “representative”, as if there is some kind of fundamental difference between the motives of the people who have gathered to the square and the people choosing a deputy.

In fact, the history of Greek policies amazes with the similarity with the stories of modern democracies. Almost always, the victory of the poor ends with the forgiveness of debts, the antenatal of land and the coming to the power of the tyrant. Almost always a tyrant, “confiscates the good of the rich, which allows him to increase the fee to his mercenaries and distribute their part of wealth to the poor,” as Polybius writes about Apollodor from Cassandrea. And even Athens, this America of antiquity, turns into an endless welfer that is controlled by "citizens from the phrasa of three grows."

The only fundamental difference is that in antiquity the final factor of instability for democracy was always a war. Ancient democracy was a military democracy. Гражданами города-государства были те, кто носил оружие, и обыкновенно городу не хватало ни единоначалия, ни войска, чтобы победить в войне с протяженным царством.

Если же город одерживал одну победу за другой, владения и войско его расширялись. Его многочисленные солдаты переставали быть гражданами и становились подданными. Такова была судьба Рима, историки и мыслители которого — в отличие от своих греческих учителей, заметим — никогда не хаяли свой строй и, наоборот, считали res publica лучшей формой правления. Именно поэтому они продолжали именовать Рим «республикой» даже в V в. N.E. Довольно забавно читать где-нибудь у Требеллия Поллиона, как сенат просит императора Валериана: «Возьми на себя должность цензора, которую возложила на тебя Римская res publica».

Middle Ages

Средневековые коммуны кардинально отличались от греческих полисов: их гражданами были не воины, а ремесленники и торговцы. Они возникли в вакууме власти, который образовался в средневековой Европе в результате борьбы папы и императора — двух сил, война которых, по выражению Грегоровиуса, спасла свободу Европы. Ни Пиза, ни Гент, ни Марсель, ни Флоренция, казалось бы, ничем не напоминали Афины или Фивы, однако после того, как эти города изгнали свою знать или уменьшили ее влияние, самым типичным конфликтом внутри этих городов стал конфликт между зажиточными цехами и цехами бедными, между белой костью и чернью, между popolo grasso и popolo minuto.

Подобно тому, как греческие тираны, отменявшие долги и делившие земли, вовсе не всегда происходили из бедных слоев, а только пытались заручиться их поддержкой, во Флоренции (а «История Флоренции» Макиавелли — это, пожалуй, лучшее пособие по описанию власти народа в Средневековье) в вожаках popolo minuto, перебывали Джованни делла Белла, Вальтер де Бриенн, герцог Афинский и самый богатый итальянский банкир Козимо Медичи.

Фигура герцога Афинского в этом списке особо примечательна тем, что его пригласили в город «высшие гильдии», arti maggiori, испуганные напором простолюдинов. Его официальной миссией была война с Пизой, а неофициальной — усмирение черни. Но герцог Афинский вовсе не хотел поддерживать слабых олигархов, единодушных в своем недоверии к тиранам. Он не читал будущих историков и не знал, что его интересы, интересы знатного человека, требуют поддержки олигархии. Простим ему невольное невежество!

Зато он видел на примере своих современников, как легко добиться абсолютной власти, опираясь на поддержку народа, и понимал, что над десятью тысячами простолюдинов тиранию установить легче, чем над недоверчивыми к тиранам arti maggiori.

Он даровал доселе бесправным sottoposti право собраться в гильдию, гильдию чернорабочих, промышляющих всякой неквалифицированной работой, как-то: ткачеством, грабежом и революцией, заявил, что должности дожны быть "comuni d'ogni ragione, perche si chiamava Comune", и 8 сентября 1342 года parliamento, всеобщее народное собрание Флоренции, созванное де Бриенном, провозгласило француза-чужака пожизненным владыкой Флоренции.

Правда, герцога Афинского турнули из Флоренции через год, но в 1378-м восстание чомпи, гильдии чесальщиков, требовавших себе тех же привилегий, что и старшие гильдии, вспыхнуло опять, и требования этих добрых людей были с обезоруживащей простотой изложены одним из них некоему Андеа Сали во время встречи в Болонье: «Мы убьем и ограбим всех тех жирных, которые изгнали нас из наших домов, и мы сами получим эту землю, и будем управлять ей как мы хотим, и сами будем богаты».

В X-XIII вв. по городам Италии, Южной Франции и Фландрии прокатилась волна коммунальных революций — повсюду правление знати заменялось правлением торговцев и промышленников. Через век последовала новая волна возмущений — наемных рабочих против правящих цехов.

Сами флорентийские историки, от Виллани до Макиавелли, описывали события в терминах конфликта сначала между знатью и пополанами, а потом между «жирным народом» и «тощим народом», а либеральные историки XIX в., как Мишле, проводили полную аналогию между волной забастовок и бунтов, прокатившихся в X-XIV вв. по городам Италии, Южной Франции и Фландрии, и буржуазными революциями XVIII-XIX в., за которыми начинались восстания пролетариата.

Как я писала выше, в античности распри между «лучшими людьми» и простым народом редко уничтожали сам полис; они обычно ослабляли его, делая легкой добычей для тирана или завоевания. Так СПИД не всегда убивает человека, а просто ослабляет его иммунитет, делая легкой добычей любой заразы. Точно так же в средневековой Европе XI-XIV вв. распри между зажиточными гильдиями и чернорабочими — что в Париже, что в Генте, что во Флоренции — не столько уничтожали город, сколько ослабляли его иммунитет, и в Италии привели к тому, что власть над городскими коммунами стали захватывать наемники-кондотьеры, а в Испании и Франции — к тому, что городское самоуправление не пережило укрепления королевской власти.

При этом, вопреки многим популярным представлениям, короли начали зажимать свободу вовсе не с городов. Напротив, часто они сначала пользовались городами, чтобы приструнить знать. В Испании абсолютная королевская власть опиралась на Santa Hermandadа, городское ополчение, чтобы ограничить власть феодальных вельмож, которые дерзко заключали с королем договоры, в которых обещали повиноваться королю в том случае, «если он сумеет к этому принудить». Внутри же самих городов короли, как и тираны, нередко поддерживали чернь против зажиточного люда, поддерживали популистские лозунги, чтобы сокрушить свободу зажиточной верхушки.

Одним из немногих городов, избегших подобной участи, была Венеция. Ее система сдержек и противовесов была продумана настолько тщательно, что не позволила захватить власть над ней ни популистам, ни кондотьерам. Единственное, против чего оказалась бессильна государственная система, созданная венецианской олигархией — это против самой венецианской олигархии. Изначально правящий класс Венеции состоял из торговцев. Однако по мере того, как гранды укрепляли свою власть, они все чаще и чаще превращали свою собственность в привилегии и законодательно ограничивали конкуренцию со стороны будущих выскочек. Бывшие динамиченые торговцы превратились в застывшее правящее сословие. Они уничтожили конкуренцию внутри городе, но не смогли уничтожить ее снаружи, и по мере экономического окостенения Венеции бывший торговый город сошел с мировой арены.

Несмотря на совершенно другие социальные условия, основная проблема средневековых коммун оставалась той же, что основная проблема античной демократии. Правление, при котором в качестве избирателей выступала зажиточная, отвечающая за свои поступки часть граждан, рождало неизбежную зависть «тощего народа». Приход «тощего народа» к власти кончался дележкой собственности и утратой свободы; в тех редких случаях, когда popolo grasso, как в Венеции, сумел сохранить власть и законодательно закрепить свое первенство, он утратил гибкость, динамичность и способность к лидерству.

Фотография www.novayagazeta.ru