King! King!

King! King!
Three identical opinions


Publication date: May 15, 2002

Editor's note : This is not the Round Table. All participants in the conversation agree with each other both in essence and in some details: the Russian monarchy is necessary to establish stability, while issues of legitimacy are considered the least important. Later we will discuss the topic of monarchy from all sides, but for now this is just a small demonstration of consensus in a narrow circle.

1. The principle of separation of powers is harmful for Russia

Fedor Girenok , Doctor of Philosophy, Head of the Department of Philosophical Anthropology at Moscow State University.

Technologically, the procedure for establishing a monarchy in Russia will be based on the recognition of the following ideological principles:

a) Russia has never been and will never be a functionally successful formation of strange semi-subjects, now called subjects of the Federation. The modern federal structure of Russia was invented by people who are infinitely far from understanding its own interests;
b) Russia has always been and will be an empire due to its territorial enormity, being the quintessence of the Eurasian continent;
c) due to the above guidelines, Russia will never be able to become a democratic country. The principle of separation of powers, invented at one time in Europe, is only effective for governing the Moscow region, but not Russia.

The so-called “parliamentary republic” gave rise to a system of federal entities mired in theft. The interests of federal subjects are doomed to collide one way or another. All this inevitably leads to chaos that engulfs the country. The principle of separation of powers has become the killer of the very principle of power. The “dead” power constantly provokes more and more “divisions”, which leads to state suicide.

On the contrary, under a monarchical system the executive power is practically not limited either by “divisions” or by anything at all. This, at first glance, lack of control is based on the most important principle: a person who is in the conditions of the existence of a monarchy at the top of the hierarchical pyramid is initially not bound by the influence of any material institutions on him. He is not associated with any of the economic groups and at the same time he is the guarantor of material support for the state and citizens. In any other case, when the monarch abandons these principles, he ceases to exist as a monarch (in this case, this is most typical for Russia).

We must not forget the main principle of the monarch’s attitude to his own power: his back to the people and his face to the good . The people do not need to be aware of the issues of political governance of the monarchy. Numerous countries with democratic systems prove to us the opposite: democracy always curries favor with the people through elections and referendums; it faces the people and turns its back to the good. Meanwhile, the existence of a monarchy-empire implies the principle of the identity of the rights and duties of any person, regardless of his position. This is something that democracy cannot provide, even if it is declared in the constitutions.

In order to instill a monarchical structure in Russian society, it is necessary, firstly, to reduce all existing democratic institutions to a minimum, and secondly, to revise legislation in order to abolish the principle of separation of powers. At the same time, the presidential power’s own content should be strengthened. The president must be responsible for everything in the country, and not look like a symbol of political impotence, surrounded by numerous lobbying groups pursuing goals diametrically opposed to the interests of the state.

A much smaller problem that the country will face when establishing a monarchical system is the question of legitimizing the power of the monarch. The specific image that the Russian monarchy will take is not as important as its essence, the meaning of its existence in Russia. This could be either a logical continuation of presidential power, or a candidate from the House of Romanov, or a guest monarch from representatives of the royal courts of Europe.

At the same time, we are not talking about absolutism or a constitutional monarchy. Of course, the Russian sovereign should not be an analogue of the English queen. The sovereign must bear the inevitable burden of responsibility. But the monarch in Russia must have real power, with minimal institutional restrictions.

2. Russia is moving towards a principate

Egor Kholmogorov , editor-in-chief of the online magazine " Tserkovnost "

Of course, the monarchy in Russia has a chance. In any political theory, monarchy is one of the main forms of government in world history. And vice versa, if we turn to historical examples, we will see that democratic and oligarchic systems are much more rare. There is a completely classic scenario for the establishment of a monarchy, which is repeated many times in history - this is a form of the Roman Principate . At one time, Rome moved from republican institutions, which had monarchical elements in their political fabric, to a monarchical system, which, in turn, contained elements of a republic. This is the so-called type of "mixed state", in Cicero's terminology, including democratic, monarchical or aristocratic elements. Under Octavian, the republican system no longer suited any of the dominant classes of Rome. Therefore, the system of principate - the political authority of one person, not necessarily transferring his power (which is extremely important!) in a dynastic way - served as a transitional model.

It is to such a system that Russia is gradually evolving, itself predisposed to a principled type of statehood, being by its nature a super-presidential republic. We could all observe the intermediate form during the evolutionary “succession” method of transfer of power in 1999 from Yeltsin to Putin. If we look even more closely at the behavior and words of the president, we will understand that Putin all the time expresses his personal opinion on a number of government issues. This is no longer quite a republican mechanism of governance (remember that the ancient Roman princeps was a senator who had the right to speak first).

As for the notorious "people's aspirations" in anticipation of the "tsar", they turn out to be not as great as they initially seem. Ultimately, the principle of the monarchical structure of the state machine is needed more by the big government than by the people. Today, legitimizing a “real” autocratic monarch from the House of Romanov is extremely difficult, almost impossible. And the constitutional models of European monarchies turn out to be of no use to anyone here. The radical expectations of the “White Tsar” in Orthodox eschatological literature and in the prophecies of the elders are depicted by the appearance of a “sovereign from nowhere”, who is revealed by God at one of the last moments of the earthly history of Russia. How exactly does this happen? We do not find any specific examples of the legitimization of the monarch there. This is a very important indicator, especially if we take into account that the modern house of the Romanovs in Russia is one of the politically uninteresting factors.

The monarchy in Russia will be, first and foremost, an instrument for resolving crisis situations. The existing political and economic structures of the modern democratic system, political clans and economic lobbying groups will be forced to adapt to new conditions. Some of them will definitely leave, since their interests will stand opposite the scales on which the questions of the survival of Russian society will be placed. However, most lobbyists will understand that their interests cannot conflict with the national interests of the country headed by the monarch.

3. Constitutional monarchy + localism = civil society

Alexey Podberezkin , Doctor of Historical Sciences, Chairman of the Central Council of the Social and Political Movement " Spiritual Heritage ".

Today there is both the possibility and serious arguments for the political expediency of establishing a monarchy in Russia. Briefly they can be listed as follows:

1. The monarch, unlike the president, will not think about his term of office.
2. The monarch is not interested in PR - neither white nor black. He does not fight for power and does not seek to manipulate public consciousness.
3. The monarchical system leads, as a rule, to political stability (Spain as a typical example).
4. The monarch, even in conditions of significant restrictions on his power (the Queen of England), has constitutional rights that he can use in a number of specified cases.

Today we have positive dynamics if we consider the atmosphere of social expectations for the establishment of a monarchy in society. Supporters of the monarchical system are increasing in Russia every day. However, society must mature and understand the urgent need for a monarchy. The problems of the legitimacy of the monarch seem to me not so important here. Restoration of the rights of the monarch can be done in any way. For this purpose, it is possible to convene a National Council or a Constitutional Assembly (whose powers, by the way, are much broader than those of the Federation Council and the State Duma). The Constitutional Assembly unites both members of the Federal Assembly and representatives of local authorities and various classes. It is in vain to think that the chosen tsar “from among the new” will cause laughter in the royal families of Europe and will not be recognized as legitimate. If we recall the history of Russia, almost no one laughed at the tsars, even at Nicholas II, who was not at all a bad tsar, as is now commonly believed, he was too intelligent at the time when it came to punitive and repressive measures to restore order in Russia.

The main advantage we get: an equal sign is put between the monarchy and the empire. Restoring the empire in this sense becomes task number one. Of course, there can be no talk of restoring autocracy. A sovereign who is not limited by anyone or anything in the 21st century will look like political nonsense. We need a constitutional monarchy. At the same time, the sovereign would unite the entire nation, from the teacher to the highest official, through the structures of the authority of the monarchy.

I see the idea of ​​restoring localism as very fruitful: if you serve the sovereign well, then you have the right to “sit” on the social ladder closer to him. Thus, heavy damage will be done to the irresponsible bureaucratic machine. A healthy atmosphere of service to the Motherland will then become the main criterion for career advancement. In addition, the monarchy will make the conditions for the emergence and normal functioning of the notorious civil society in Russia extremely comfortable.