Such unlimited power, which does not take into account the rights of people, but comes from a one-sided idea of \u200b\u200bthe duties of subjects, is called despotism. In contrast to the legal monarchy of the West, a type of despotic state has developed in the East.
A clear example of this was the Ottoman Empire, which at the beginning of the 16th century, during the reign of Sultan Suleiman I, thanks to successful campaigns of conquest, turned into a huge Mediterranean power. The powers of the Turkish Sultan were unlimited. He was both the spiritual head of Muslims and a secular ruler. He united in his hands the legislative, executive and judicial powers. The Sultan disposed of the lives and property of his subjects, while his person was considered sacred and inviolable. He was officially recognized as "the shadow of God on earth." The despotic power of the Sultan was based on the bureaucratic apparatus of government. The highest official of the Ottoman Empire was the Grand Vizier. The most important policy issues were discussed in the state council - the divan. The members of the divan were the largest dignitaries and the highest cleric - the mufti. All land was considered state property. The sultans distributed it in the form of grants of conditional possession to the sipahis, who were obliged to equip a certain number of soldiers in return for the taxes collected from the peasants. The striking force of the Ottoman Empire was the Janissary corps.
The Manchus, who conquered China in the mid-17th century, also established despotic power. The Manchu emperors of the Qing dynasty were unlimited overlords. The basis of their power was an extensive bureaucratic apparatus and the army. The highest government institutions were the State and Military Councils, as well as the State Chancellery. The country was governed by six departments: ranks, taxes, rituals, military, judicial and public works. All candidates for government positions underwent a strict selection process - they passed exams to receive “ scientific degree" The emperors of the Qing dynasty established a comprehensive system of surveillance and espionage. Every resident and his property were registered with the state. The superiors monitored their subordinates, the seniors monitored the juniors. The government sought to control not only every step of the emperor's subjects, but even their thoughts and motives.
Japan's political system was a unique type of despotic rule. The head of state was considered the emperor, but real power belonged to the shogun, the hereditary military ruler. The shogun relied on the class of samurai warriors, who made up a significant proportion of the population. The life of samurai was strictly regulated by laws and customs. The code of honor required them to selflessly serve their overlords. For this they, if necessary, had to give their lives without hesitation. In 1603, as a result of many years of internecine struggle, shogun Ieyasu Tokugawa came to power. His government established a system of four classes - samurai, peasants, artisans and merchants, life and economic activity which were strictly regulated by laws. The peasants were attached to the land and were deprived of the right to leave it. Grade 10 Topic “State in the West and East”
Pedagogical goals:
promote familiarization with the peculiarities of the formation of unified centralized states in Europe;
contribute to the formation of ideas about Western European absolutism;
create conditions for the development of UUD:
navigate the peculiarities of the relationship between society and the state under absolutism and despotism, understand the legal differences between these forms of government;
define the concepts of “absolutism” and “enlightened absolutism”, highlight their characteristic features; structure the text of the textbook, identify changes that occurred in the relations of power and nobility in the 16th-17th centuries,
present the results of the work in the form of a diagram;
participate in a collective discussion of the relationship between the concepts of “absolutism” and “despotism”, formulate your own opinion and give reasons for it;
work in a group, collaborate and build productive interaction in the process of studying absolutist states in Europe, use adequate language means in the process of speaking in front of classmates; carry out an extensive search for information using Internet resources on the problems of absolutism and enlightened absolutism;
independently analyze the conditions and ways to achieve the goal in the process of practical work on studying the absolute monarchy in Europe.
Main content of the topic . Formation of unified centralized states in Europe. Western European absolutism. Enlightened absolutism. Reforms in Prussia, the Habsburg monarchy, Spain and France. Prussian King Frederick P. Co-rulers of the Habsburg monarchy Maria Theresa and Emperor Joseph II. French King Louis XVI.
Basic concepts: absolutism, enlightened absolutism
Type and type of lesson: combined
Educational Resources: 1) textbook “World History. Recent history» authors: Ukolova V.I., Revyakin A.V. edited by Chubaryan A.O., Education 2014
2) Nesmelova M.L. Story. General history. Lesson-based developments. 10th grade: manual for teachers of general education. organizations / M.L.Nesmelova, V.I. Ukolova, A.V. Revyakin. -M.: Education, 2014.
Plan
Org. moment.
Updating students' knowledge.
Learning new material
3) Enlightened absolutism.
4) Absolutism and despotism.
During the classes
I. Org. moment.
II. Updating students' knowledge.
Analysis of test work.
Checking homework.
III. Learning new material.
1) Formation of united centralized states in Europe. Monarchy and nobility.
Working with the map . 1. Complete task 1 of the second level to § 22 of the textbook (p. 266). 2. Draw a conclusion about the scale of the empire of Charles V relative to the entire territory Western Europe. 3. Find on the map all the states named in the table (in the text of the textbook). Define big cities located in their territories. Is it possible to determine the capitals of these states from map 1 on the colored insert of the textbook? Is it possible to do this using map 2? Explain why.
Changing relations between the monarch and the nobility in modern times
Tasks for the scheme. 1. Based on the section “Monarchy and the nobility” (p. 257 of the textbook), draw up a diagram reflecting changes in the relationship between the monarch and the nobility in the period from the Middle Ages to the New Age. 2. Explain why the representatives of each segment of society indicated in the diagram were dissatisfied.
2) Absolutism. Absolute monarchies of Europe
Working with the concept. Based on the paragraph “Absolutism” (p. 258 of the textbook), define the concept of “absolutism” and highlight its characteristic features as a form of government.
Group work. The class is divided into three groups according to the three states being studied: France, the Habsburg possessions and Prussia. Each group studies the material in the textbook (pp. 258-262) and, if necessary, on the Internet, completes the following tasks: a) briefly characterize the political situation of the country being studied; b) complete the task from the “Projects, Research and Creative Works” section (p. 266); c) prove the presence (absence) of signs of absolutism in a given country.
At the end of the work, each group makes a presentation. In the process of discussing the results obtained, additional questions can be used: in which state did absolutism develop in its classical form, i.e., in which manifestations of its most important features are observed? Which king is credited with saying: “I am the state!”? Why did this phrase begin to reflect the essence of absolutism? In which states did absolutism develop under conditions of weak central government? Do these phenomena not contradict each other?
3) Enlightened absolutism.
Enlightened absolutism in Western Europe
State
Names of rulers
Reforms in the spirit of the Enlightenment
Prussia
Frederick II the Great
Prohibition of the sale of serfs without allotment land; creation of a court independent from the authorities (right to defense); prohibition of torture; dissemination of education (network
schools and universities)
Monarchy
Habsburgs
Maria Theresa and Joseph II
Carrying out administrative reform (state council and a unified system of local government); liberation of peasants from personal dependence in a number of regions (Czech Republic, Moravia, Hungary); the closure of most Catholic monasteries (income from the use of church property was directed to the development of education); introduction of freedom of religious worship
France
Louis XVI
Carrying out reforms by J. Turgot (abolition of the guild organization of crafts and trade, introduction of free prices for bread)
Questions and tasks for the table. 1 . Complete the table with information about enlightened absolutism in Russia. 2. Have all European countries followed the path of enlightened absolutism? Think about why.
Student assignment . Study the opinion of the scientist-historian N.N. Kareev in the textbook (p. 262) and answer questions to him.
4) Absolutism and despotism.
Questions and tasks for conversation with students. 1. Remember the structure of ancient Eastern despotism. What was the power of the ruler? What kind of relationship existed between the ruler and his subjects? 2. What do we generally mean by despotism? 3. Answer question 3 of the second level of questions and tasks for § 22 (p. 266 of the textbook). 4. Is it possible to put an equal sign between absolute monarchy and despotic power? Justify your answer. 5. What features of despotism can be traced in management Ottoman Empire described in the textbook? 6. What features of despotism can be seen in the reign of the Manchu Qing dynasty?
IV. Consolidation
Preparing for the Unified State Exam in Social Studies
Concept
Historical examples
Form of government
In modern times, an absolute monarchy (absolutism) began to emerge in Europe, characterized by the unification in the hands of the monarch of all the main functions and branches of state power. French absolutism reached its peak in the 17th-18th centuries, during the reign of the Bourbon dynasty.
The content of the article
ABSOLUTISM, any philosophical system or any belief that asserts the complete certainty and infallibility of knowledge or any other faculty. In political literature the term is used in various senses. According to legal theory, all sovereign states have absolute power (although in practice it is limited). Often the term "absolute" is applied to governments that recognize no legal, traditional, or moral limits to their power. In this sense, the concept of absolutism does not always refer to any specific form of government, since any form can have unlimited power. Moreover, “absolutism” and “unconstitutionality” are not necessarily synonymous, since absolute power can be the result of a constitutional process. In everyday speech, absolutism is usually associated with dictatorship. In the United States, the constitution is seen as a limitation on government power, so “absolutism” and “constitutional government” are opposed concepts.
HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT
The development of the theory of absolutism is closely related to the emergence of modern states at the end of the 15th century. However, as a political reality and a subject of study, absolutism arose a very long time ago, along with the beginning of a systematic discussion of the problems of political philosophy. In the historical development of Western society, justifications for various concepts were put forward, and each time a special terminology was proposed, but the problem of the relationship between limited and unlimited power remained unresolved.
Ancient Greece.
The Greeks knew what absolutism was because they had observed neighboring eastern despotisms and also had their own experience of tyrannical rule in some city-states. Their discussions reflect the deepest interest in the problem. The conflict between obedience to an omnipotent ruler and loyalty to the code of eternal law is main topic Antigones Sophocles. Aristotle devotes considerable space to Politics discussing tyranny, which he distinguishes from a monarchy that rules by law. Aristotle was critical of any form of power that did not take into account legal restrictions. But there was also Plato’s point of view. IN dialogues State And Politician Plato defends the idea of unlimited power of the “best.” In his view, rulers duly selected and trained in the art of government should be allowed to rule without being constrained by a code of laws or the need for popular approval. Reasoning in Laws, however, indicate that Plato did not consider such government to be an immediate practical prospect, and the absence in his philosophy of any theory of law as human will distinguishes him from representatives of modern absolutism.
Ancient Rome.
Roman political thinkers were heavily influenced by the Stoics, with their doctrine of natural law, and did not develop a systematic theory of absolute power. According to the Stoics, there is a universal, eternal and unshakable law that applies to both gods and people. Roman laws, however, allowed for the introduction of a dictatorship in case of emergency, which vested one person with full power. In addition, during the period of imperial rule starting from 27 BC. ideas were put forward to vest the emperor with full legislative power. Although power was theoretically transferred to the emperor by the people - the source of all power, the delegation of powers was not an effective limitation if the power was then supported by the army.
Middle Ages.
Absolutism as a theory of government appears to have fallen into oblivion during the early Middle Ages. Whatever the situation in practice and no matter how weak the institutions of power, the generally accepted principle was the equality of all - both masters and their subjects - before the law. This law, combining Stoic and Christian ideas and the customary law of the Germans, was considered so indisputable and universal that the right of decisions independent of it was denied to any earthly authority, secular or ecclesiastical. Theoretical justifications for this view can be found in the 12th century. in the treatise Polycratic (Polycraticus, 1159) John of Salisbury and in the 13th century. in the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas. Of course, in practice the theory of limited government was implemented inadequately. Examples of this are the discussion of the issue of tyrannicide by John of Salisbury and the means used by the nobility to ensure the implementation of the Magna Carta by the king. All this hindered the development of the theory of absolutism and continued to serve as a source of opposition to centralization and strengthening of power in the modern era.
A period of conflict between church and state.
The end of the Middle Ages and the emergence of the theory of absolutism coincide in time with the beginning of the conflict between church and state. The desire of both state and church to assert their supremacy in resolving controversial issues - for example, in the selection and appointment of bishops or in the removal of a secular ruler - led to the fact that each side began to increasingly assert its independence and, ultimately, its superiority over the other side. This tendency was reinforced by ideas about legislative rights and the legal immunity of the ruler, which were drawn from Roman law. As a result, the concept of power as a collection of subjects with undefined powers, mutually supporting each other, complementary to each other and equal before the law, gave way to the concept of unlimited power of a single subject. Thus, it was argued, in the name and in favor of the papacy, that the position of the pope approaches that of the Roman emperor in that he has power over all laws and at the same time is not subject to anyone except God. Theories of this kind are contained in the works of Innocent III, Boniface VIII, and Manegold of Lautenbach. On the part of the secular authorities they were opposed, for example, by Pierre Dubois and Louis IV of Bavaria, whose writings affirmed the equality of secular and spiritual authorities before their divine source (the doctrine of divine right), and, consequently, the inviolability of secular power, its immunity from the claims of the church. The decline of the Holy Roman Empire and the emergence of nation states moved the discussion of these issues into a new plane. Although the argument itself changed little, its application to the internal issues of each of the new states gave them a significantly different meaning. The divine right of kings ceased to be a weapon in the struggle of monarchs against some outside power and was turned to justify freedom of action in relation to subjects.
Concept by Jean Bodin.
A growing awareness of this process is seen in the work of the French philosopher Jean Bodin (Bodin, Jean) (1530–1596), a lawyer at the royal court. Bodin's task was to justify the king's claims to various public institutions. On the one hand, he developed the idea of the king’s independence from the Holy Roman Emperor, and on the other, his supremacy over feudal and municipal institutions. In my work Six books about the state (Six Livres de la Republique, 1576) Bodin first formulated the typical modern concept of sovereign power, which he defined as “the highest power over citizens and subjects not limited by laws”; State government, according to Bodin, is carried out by a set of families under the control of a “supreme and eternal power.” He further stated: “The force of laws, however just they may be in themselves, depends only on the will of the one who is their creator.” Along with relatively new theses, old views are also expressed in Boden’s writings. Bodin insists that the sovereign is bound by natural law and his promises. The sovereign cannot violate some of the fundamental laws of his own kingdom. Boden sometimes includes the requirement of “reasonableness” in his definition of government power. He draws many examples from church teachings and the practice of exercising papal authority. In essence, Bodin proposed two theories: the theory of supreme power and law, which is one of the foundations of the theory of absolutism, and the theory of restrictions on supreme power, which is medieval in nature. With the development of the theory of the state in modern times, the doctrine of restrictions disappeared, but the theory of absolute supreme power remained.
Hobbes' concept.
The theory of absolute supreme power found expression in the works of T. Hobbes. It is generally believed that the events surrounding the struggle between the king and parliament had the greatest influence on his position. The conflict, which resulted in mutual claims between the parties for power, convinced Hobbes that the only way to ensure peace was to introduce absolute supreme power in each country. IN Leviathan(1651) Hobbes justified this conclusion by describing the state of nature, without state, as “a war of all against all.” In a state of nature, a person is free to do whatever he wants, but he can hardly enjoy freedom, since each of the people around him has no less degree of freedom. The only way out is for people to come to an agreement among themselves and submit to an authority that would force a person to live according to the agreement and maintain peace. This hypothetical social contract results in a sovereign with absolute power, whose will is the only source of law, since justice is defined as compliance with the demands of moral obligation. For Hobbes's theory, it does not matter in what number the sovereign acts: the sovereign can be a democratic assembly, or maybe a monarch (Hobbes himself preferred a monarchy). It is important that the sovereign has supreme power, and no one has the right to oppose him. Comparing these ideas with Bodin's theory reveals some interesting differences, but the most important is Hobbes's subordination of moral and natural law to the will of the sovereign. Absolute power, according to Hobbes, is not limited by moral obligations; rather, it creates them itself. Moral considerations are not sacrificed to the goals set, as with N. Machiavelli in his Sovereign, but occupy a subordinate position in relation to the interests of the authorities.
The supremacy of parliament in Great Britain.
Whether we attribute the gloomy picture of society painted by Hobbes, and the alternative he proposes - complete anarchy or unquestioned despotic power - to the circumstances of his life or not, there can be no doubt that during the period Civil War and the English Republic from 1642 to 1660, the ideas of supreme power acquired quite clear outlines. And although the result of the revolution was a return to the idea of balanced government limited by law, in the end the idea of the supreme power of parliament prevailed. From the beginning of the 18th century. The British Parliament exercised supreme power not only de facto, but also in accordance with the law. The 19th century reformers who followed I. Bentham relied on the doctrine of the supremacy of power, whose theory of law obviously continued the ideas of Hobbes.
"Enlightened despotism" in Europe.
On the continent, however, events developed in favor of monarchies rather than institutions of representative power. 17th and 18th centuries witnessed the parallel and mutually influencing political systems of France, Austria, Prussia and Russia - the so-called. enlightened despotism. The good-heartedness of some sovereigns may be disputed, but it is certain that they enjoyed unlimited power. Enlightened despots attracted to their side capable people who were interested in carrying out reforms and needed an instrument of power through which they could achieve their goals. It is instructive that opposition to such governments, especially in France and Russia, was based on the interests of the feudal nobility, and not just the middle strata who defended the ideas of democracy.
The first theories of democracy: Locke and Jefferson.
The emerging democratic movements were based mainly on two theoretical postulates: the good nature of man and the social contract. From Hobbes's point of view, man is a being driven solely by selfish interest, his life in the state of nature is characterized by “loneliness, poverty, dirt, brutality and brevity.” Therefore, a person needs violence to be applied to him. This idea was rejected by the new democratic thinkers, who believed that man is by nature good, or capable of good if taught through suitable institutions. In any case, this is an intelligent creature capable of striving not only for its own good. From this vision of human nature it followed that the only justification for power over a person could be his consent to the exercise of such power. The most common was the conclusion of a “limited contract”, which was proposed by J. Locke (1632–1704) and T. Jefferson (1743–1826). According to this concept, people accept a certain degree of government authority, but at the same time retain a certain degree of power or a set of rights that the government cannot violate. An example is the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments to the Constitution of 1787).
Rousseau's concept of the social contract.
Another logical possibility was to develop the concept of unlimited but democratically controlled power. Government is based on the consent of the people, but is endowed with unlimited rights. As for individuals, their personal rights and power are not specifically stipulated. These ideas were developed in classical form by J. J. Rousseau (1712–1778). It was in the concept of a social contract that new democratic values and the tradition of absolutism were combined, which had a significant influence on the theoretical thought of the 19th century.
Rousseau's position is summarized as follows. If government is necessary at all, then it can only be made legitimate on the basis of popular consent. Having received this kind of consent, the government cannot exercise limited power, since the treaty leaves unresolved the issue of defining and maintaining the boundaries of power. However, if the government enjoys unlimited powers, how can we avoid the extreme consequences that follow from Hobbes's approach? Rousseau saw the solution to the problem in what he called the “general will,” the will of each person in a group, taking into account the good of the group as a whole, and not just his own good. Issues that are important to everyone can be resolved through the general will, which is revealed through the voting procedure. Thus, the majority, insofar as it expresses the general will, in reality also represents the minority, since the minority, while forming part of the group, also strives for the good of the whole group. The majority justifiably imposes its will on the minority. There is no real coercion here: in fact, the minority exerts coercion on itself. Members of a minority are “forced to be free.” By submitting to the general will, each person actually submits to himself and is therefore free.
It is not always clear from Rousseau's works which issues are subject to resolution through the manifestation of the general will; The mechanism by which the general will is determined in specific circumstances also remains unclear. At work On the Social Contract, or Principles of Political Law(1762) Rousseau distinguishes between the sovereign (the embodiment of the general will) and the government - the latter, of course, is limited in power by the sovereign. In other writings he reduces these restrictions to a minimum, giving the government, which must be guided by the interests of the public good, the power to decide on a wide range of issues.
Rousseau's ideas and further development of the philosophy of absolutism.
While it may be held that a decision in favor of the general interest will always represent the general will, it does not necessarily follow that the government's view of what is the general interest must necessarily represent the general will. This seriously weakens the position of Rousseau, who believed that with the help of the concept of the general will he was able to overcome the contradiction between freedom and power. However, it was precisely this aspect of Rousseau’s concept that had greatest influence on the development of the theory of absolutism. By deciding to become emperor, Napoleon could believe that he was carrying out the will of the French. Hegel used Rousseau's ideas to argue that the historically determined will of the German people was best represented by a hereditary ruler who understood the demands of a universal "world spirit." Since for Hegel the nation state is the bearer of the world spirit, its will is the most profound expression of the will of its citizens, and its desires are the expression of their desires. Thus, there is no real contradiction between them, and the citizen is in fact free when forced to carry out the will of the state. Some aspects of this idea were reflected in the works of Oxford idealists T. Green (1836–1882), F. Bradley (1846–1924) and B. Bosanquet (1848–1923), who discussed the “ideal” nature of man and the role of the state as an institution, by which this nature is realized. Some thinkers have noted the application (or perversion) of these ideas in fascism. In the 20th century Dictators often pledged allegiance to the idea of "liberating" man.
MODERN PROBLEMS OF ABSOLUTISM
The era after the French Revolution was marked by the development and spread of democracy, but at this time there was no shortage of absolutist regimes. In fact, the 19th and 20th centuries. demonstrated a wide variety of absolutist forms of government - from various types of military dictatorships of the Latin American type and the semi-feudal system of government in Japan to the “dictatorship of the proletariat” in the USSR. During this period, absolutism performed many functions, from the traditional one - as the core of the emerging national state (Japan and Germany in the second half of the 19th century) to the function of the carrier of the world revolution (USSR). The period since 1800 has been marked by the development of new, highly effective methods and techniques of absolutist rule, and the irony of recent history is that some of the fundamental instruments of democracy have been placed at the service of absolutist regimes.
Some feudal absolutist forms of government (in Russia, Germany and Japan) outlived their time and passed into modern times. In each of these forms, the hereditary monarch served as the center of attraction for various forces seeking power. In Imperial Germany and Imperial Japan one could observe a combination of the old type of monarchy with a relatively high development of industry.
"Representative" forms of absolutism.
20th century absolutism, in its forms such as fascism or Nazism, supported certain democratic ideas despite the fact that the absolutist leaders of Italy and Germany passionately rejected the principles of democracy. Unlike older types of absolutism, these regimes insisted on their “representative” character, relying on some kind of “general will” of the people. Unlike Russian tsarism or the Japanese imperial house, which based their legitimacy on the divine will (similar to the British Stuart dynasty in the 17th century), Hitler’s Nazism “rested” on the will of the “German people.” In the USSR, the Communist Party served as a spokesman for the “genuine” interests of the working people, even if these interests did not even occur to a specific “ to the Soviet man" Will, or interest, or historical destiny (as in Italian fascism) belonged, of course, to the category of eternal entities and could not be revealed through the democratic procedure of elections. They received “their true expression” in the Fuhrer, the Duce or the party, “who realized the demands of the historical process.”
One party system.
The use of democratic instruments is also observed in the procedures used by states with a one-party system. A political party historically emerges as a method of mobilizing public opinion and influencing government decision-making. The classic way to use democracy is to achieve government power through elections. Under absolutism, the party performs a completely different function. In situations of unrest and revolution, the party becomes a way to achieve power by any available means, which usually involves violence against competing parties, and, if necessary, revolutionary methods aimed at overthrowing the existing regime. Having gained power, the party takes a monopoly position in the political sphere and becomes a powerful means of controlling people's behavior. By introducing restrictions on membership and various kinds of privileges, she achieves a favorable position for herself in society.
The monopoly power of one party over all political activity makes the election procedure itself meaningless, although elections may be held. They often take the form of plebiscites—an instrument of power perfected by Napoleon and widely used by Hitler—that present society with a fait accompli or offer something empty or dangerous as an alternative to the desired outcome. Elections and plebiscites under the control of a one-party state have suspiciously high rates of electorate unanimity and highly predictable results.
Concentration of power in the hands of officials.
Modern absolutism believes that it is more dynamic and effective way government versus democracy. Regardless of whether these claims are true or false, certain practical consequences follow from them. Thus, the concept of “rule of law” is obviously redundant. A government that claims to be dynamic is hardly suited to the traditional understanding of law as an instrument of control over rulers. On the contrary, the idea of the will of the ruling class as the “only true” expression of the actual will of society is unlikely to suit a government seeking to implement laws. In the system of absolutism, courts continue to exist as a separate social institution, but they perform a purely official role in the hands of officials. Often decisions are made in addition to ordinary courts, through specially created and controlled judicial bodies. Another practical conclusion that governments with an absolutist ideology make is to reduce legislatures to a state of impotence. Without exception, all modern forms of absolutism tend to concentrate power in the hands of executive bodies.
The tendency towards centralization is also manifested in the elimination of traditional institutions of local government. The principles of separation and limitation of power characteristic of federalism also contradict the fundamental requirements of absolutist rule. Local authorities are subordinate to the center and subject to party control. This is especially evident in the activities of the police, which are placed under the control of central authorities; the police system is complemented by the institution of the secret police, one of the main bastions of modern absolutism. None of the absolutist states feels confident enough without security guards, who, in turn, believe that they have the right to inflict limitless police brutality.
Monopoly control.
Modern absolutism strives not only for the centralization of power, but also for monopoly control over the institutions of society. It is characterized by attempts to involve into its orbit all institutions that are capable of resisting or useful in terms of protecting the state. They help him with this modern technology and communication systems. The control thus established is both negative and positive: first, opposition is suppressed; secondly, existing institutions, together with the reputation they enjoy, begin to serve the regime. Modern absolutism is capable of not only expanding the sphere of control, but also increasing the degree of its intensity.
In this sense, the experience of control over the media accumulated by the Nazis and the Soviet regime is instructive. While the old type of absolutism sought to maintain its dominance by preventing the spread of knowledge, modern absolutism considers it more effective to use literacy and the public education system as tools of control. The means of suggestion are radio, cinema and television.
The usual absolutist policy towards religion is of a similar nature. In this area, at least three methods of control are possible: 1) neutralizing the influence of existing religious organizations; 2) the seizure of religious organizations and the introduction of “our” people into them, after which they begin to serve the state; 3) diversion of religious feelings to other goals. The history of Nazi Germany provides examples of these approaches, and the history of the USSR abounds in them.
The presence of numerous children's and youth organizations in countries where absolutism reigns is another evidence of both the state's monopolization of all aspects of life and the methods and techniques used in this. In such cases, not only are the capabilities of potentially hostile associations weakened, but these organizations themselves become outposts of the regime.
It is unnecessary to remind that control also extends to the economic sphere. It doesn’t matter what the regime’s goal is – to protect or liquidate private property. His own needs force him to come into closest contact with the existing economic mechanism. The desire for control over the economy is reinforced by absolutism's penchant for expansion. Therefore, all forms of absolutism in the 20th century. to some extent they were socialist in nature, although they did not always strive to establish state ownership of the means of production, preferring to establish control over economic activity. Control can take many forms. The transformation of trade unions into an appendage of the state deserves special mention. Monopolization does not bypass those forms of organized activity that must be either completely suppressed or placed under state control.
Symbol of absolutism
“I am the state,” said Louis XIV. However, these words are also attributed to other monarchs. And in essence, it does not matter who the author of this statement is, the main thing is that it accurately characterizes the essence of absolutism.
And if we look in the encyclopedic dictionary, we will find the following more detailed definition of absolutism: “Absolutism (from the Latin absolutus - independent, unlimited), absolute monarchy. Absolutism is characterized by the fact that the head of state, monarch, considered as the main source of legislative and executive power, which is carried out by the apparatus dependent on it; He sets taxes and manages public finances. Under absolutism, the greatest degree of state centralization is achieved, an extensive bureaucratic apparatus is created (judicial, tax, etc.), a large standing army and police; the activities of the class representation bodies typical of a class monarchy either cease or lose their former significance. The social support of absolutism is the nobility.”
Absolutism as a general phenomenon for European countries
Symbols of absolute monarchy
Under absolutism, the entirety of state (legislative, executive, judicial), and sometimes spiritual (religious) power is legally and actually in the hands of the monarch.
Absolute monarchy was characteristic of almost all European countries until the 18th century, except for San Marino and some cantons of Switzerland, which were always republics. Some historians even consider absolutism as a natural phase of historical development.
In the Age of Enlightenment, this form of government was ideologically justified and reinforced for the first time: they remember the Roman jurists who recognized the absolute power of the ancient Roman emperors for the sovereigns, and accepted the theological idea of the divine origin of the supreme power.
After the Great French Revolution There is a process of gradual democratization and limitation of the power of the monarch. But this process was uneven: for example, the heyday of absolutism in Western European countries occurred in the 17th-18th centuries, and in Russia the absolute monarchy existed until the 20th century.
Under absolutism, the state reaches the highest degree of centralization, an extensive bureaucratic apparatus, a standing army and police are created; The activities of class representation bodies, as a rule, continue.
The social support of absolutism is the nobility. Magnificent and sophisticated palace etiquette served to exalt the person of the sovereign. At the first stage, absolutism was progressive in nature: it united the state under uniform laws and eliminated feudal fragmentation. The absolute monarchy is characterized by a policy of protectionism and mercantilism, which contributed to the development national economy, commerce and industry. The military power of the state is strengthened to enable it to wage wars of conquest. These are the features of an absolute monarchy common to all countries.
But in each country, the features of absolutism were determined by the balance of power between the nobility and the bourgeoisie.
Absolutism in Russia
In Russia, the system of power created by Peter I is usually called absolutism. You can read about the absolutism of Peter I on our website:. And although the heyday of absolutism as a type of state power in Russia occurred in the 18th century, the prerequisites for its formation appeared during the reign of Ivan the Terrible (second half of the 16th century), and its fall - in 1917.
P. Delaroche “Portrait of Peter I”
Ivan the Terrible showed traits of autocracy. He wrote to Andrei Kurbsky: “The sovereign commands that his will be done by God to his guilty servants,” “we are free to favor our slaves, but we are free to execute.” Russian statehood during the time of Ivan the Terrible had many of the features of the system of eastern despotism. Despotism- the possibility of arbitrariness of the highest bearer of power, not limited by any laws and relying directly on force. A person's place in society was determined not by nobility and wealth, but by proximity to the monarch. Social status and wealth came from power. Everyone was equal before the monarch, actually being in a slave state.
But there were also objective prerequisites for this: the historical and geographical conditions of the country, a short agricultural cycle, risky farming, low surplus product. Under these conditions, a rigid mechanism was created for the forced withdrawal of that share of the total surplus product that went to the needs of the state itself - this is one of the determining factors in the tradition of despotic power.
Bank of Russia coin “Historical Series”: “Window to Europe. Acts of Peter I"
Another factor is the presence of collective land ownership of the community. The eastern coloring of state power was stimulated not by objective, but subjective reasons, the main of which was the Horde yoke. The government remained weak and infinitely cruel.
The formation of absolutism in Russia began already in the middle of the 17th century, during the reign of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich:
- Zemsky Sobors were convened less frequently;
- the role of the boyar Duma decreased and the importance of the Middle Duma and the administrative bureaucracy (secretaries and clerks) increased;
- the basic principle of feudal service (localism) was becoming obsolete; the number of soldier and regiment regiments of the foreign system, the harbingers of the regular army, increased;
- the role of secular culture increased;
- By joining the anti-Turkish coalition, Russia tried to enter the system of European states.
In Europe, the classical forms of absolute monarchy arose during a period of relative “balance” between the forces of the bourgeoisie and the nobility. This was not the case in Russia: capitalism and the bourgeoisie had not yet formed. That is why Russian absolutism was different from Western absolutism. Having support primarily in the nobility, like the European, in social terms it represented dictatorship of the serf nobility. The protection of the feudal-serf system was an important task of the state in at this stage, although at the same time vital national tasks were also being solved: overcoming backwardness and creating state security. This required the mobilization of all material and spiritual resources, total control over his subjects. Therefore, in Russia, the absolutist regime seemed to stand above society and forced all classes to serve itself, micromanaging all manifestations of public life. Peter's reforms were carried out on a large scale and harshly. They explain this solely by the peculiarity of the emperor’s character, but often do not take into account the fact that it was impossible to carry them out in any other way in a given country and at a given time. Resistance to Peter's reforms was observed in various circles of society, including among part of the clergy and boyars, who rallied around Peter's son from his first wife (E. Lopukhina), Tsarevich Alexei. The prince's true plans have not yet been clarified. There is an opinion that he was not opposed to reforms in general, but intended to implement them in a more evolutionary way, without breaking old traditions. Due to disagreements with his father, he was forced to flee abroad, but in 1717 he was returned to Russia and executed after an investigation.
In connection with the case of Tsarevich Alexei in 1722, Peter announced a decree on the succession to the throne, which gave the tsar the right to appoint a successor at his own discretion.
Forced shaving of beards. Lubok of the 18th century
But why was there such resistance? Everything new was imposed by harsh methods: the duties of the peasantry and townspeople increased, numerous emergency taxes and fees were introduced, tens of thousands of people died in the construction of roads, canals, fortresses, and cities. Fugitives, Old Believers, and opponents of reforms were persecuted. The state, with the help of a regular army, suppressed the unrest and uprisings of the people, which occurred mainly in the first half of the reign of Peter 1 (1698-1715).
One of the manifestations of Russian absolutism was the desire for complete regulation of all manifestations of society's activities.
In addition, the features of Russian absolutism were formed under the influence personal qualities rulers. The personality of Peter I was of great importance. The Tsar not only realized the crisis, but also completely rejected the old Moscow, traditional way of life. From childhood and adolescence, seeing the Streltsy riots, Peter carried a charge of hatred towards the boyars, Streltsy, and the old way of life, which became an important psychological stimulus in his activities. The trip abroad strengthened Peter's aversion to Russian traditional life. He considered the “old times” not only dangerous and hostile to him personally, but also a dead end for Russia. The Western model of life in all its diversity became for him the model by which he remade his country. Peter did not receive the Orthodox education traditional for Russian tsars, was completely illiterate, until the end of his life he did not know the rules of spelling and wrote many words according to the phonetic principle. The main thing is that Peter did not internalize the overall system of values inherent in traditional Russian culture. Peter was attracted by the typically Protestant model of existence in the real, pragmatic world of competition and personal success. Peter largely followed this model in his activities. He turned to the experience of France, Denmark, and especially Sweden. But foreign models could not always be adapted to Russian reality and Russian custom.
After Peter's reforms, Russia became the Russian Empire, which, with some modifications, existed for almost 200 years.
After PeterI
Absolutism continued to strengthen, finding widespread support among the nobility. 60-80 years of the XVIII century. passed under the sign of “enlightened absolutism” of Catherine II. Under it, the “geographical argument” becomes popular, justifying autocracy as the only acceptable form of government for a country of the size of Russia. She managed to adapt the ideas of the Enlightenment to the conditions of Russia. She created the “Order of the Commission on the creation of a new Code.” It was written by the empress herself in 1764-1766, but was a talented compilation of the works of jurists and philosophers of the 18th century. Thanks to the Order, the legal regulation of autocracy was implemented in Russia.
D. Levitsky “Catherine II - legislator in the Temple of Justice”
The main task of Catherine II was the development of the complex legal norms substantiated that the monarch is “the source of all state power.” The idea of enlightening people in general, the idea of progress as a movement from savagery to civilization turned into the idea of educating a “new breed of people”, enlightening society, subjects of an enlightened monarch.
Catherine believed that the law was not written for the monarch. The only limitation on his power can be his own high moral qualities and education. An enlightened monarch cannot act like an uncouth tyrant or a capricious despot.
Catherine II sought to combine the idea of autocracy with the idea of class. By the time of Catherine's reign, the process of formation of estates was underway. To create a class system in Russia, to connect it with autocracy - this was the task Catherine set herself at the beginning of her reign. These ideas were supposed to be realized with the help of a single lever - the state.
Order of Catherine II
But in Catherine’s time, as the empire expanded to the west and south, this policy became imperial: it reflected a stable complex of imperial ideas of domination over other peoples. This is not about politics directed towards the outside world, but about politics within a multinational empire. Its essence is three principles: Russification, centralization and unification, as well as the forced spread of Orthodoxy.
All Russia received unified system local government, built on the basis of strict centralism and bureaucratization. With great religious tolerance, Orthodoxy was the state religion.
In the first half of the nineteenth century. Russian absolutism was distinguished by frequent changes in internal political courses, parallelism in the implementation of conservative and liberal measures, frequent reorganizations of various parts of the state apparatus, and the legal justification of the serfdom. By the mid-40s of the 19th century. It turned out that these attempts were ineffective. Tsarism, having carried out reforms in the 60-70s. XIX century extended its existence. In post-reform times, absolutism retained many of the features of the organization and activities of the state apparatus of the serfdom era. The changes affected mainly the composition of the bureaucracy.
Absolutism in Russia was eliminated on March 2, 1918 as a result of the February Revolution and the abdication of Nicholas II.
By the way…
Currently, there are only five states left in the world whose form of government can be called an absolute monarchy: Vatican City, Brunei, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Qatar. In them, power rests undividedly with the monarch.
The United Arab Emirates is a federal state consisting of seven emirates - absolute monarchies.
The East were located in southern Asia and northern Africa. These include Babylon, Assyria, Iran, Phenicia, Ancient China, Urartu, Egypt, Ancient India and the Hittite state.
Eastern despotism is the main feature that characterizes these states. This term means the unlimited power of one head of state.
The reason why eastern despotism arose is that in ancient countries the land community was preserved for quite a long time and the land did not receive development for a long time. Thus, the rural community became the basis of this state structure. In addition, the emergence of this system was facilitated by traditional rules that village communities could not violate. For example, in Egypt, the importance of despotic power was reinforced by the need to create irrigation structures, without which it was impossible to engage in agriculture. If residents abandoned such a political system, government authorities could destroy important elements of the platinums, and the population would be left without water, and, consequently, mass death would begin.
In addition, Eastern despotism relied on the divine dignity of its rulers. For example, in Egypt, the pharaoh completely controlled the legislative, military and No one could oppose his decision, because. it was believed that he was an intermediary between people and gods. In the Ancient Sumerian state, the head was also the highest power. He was recognized as a priest, so his orders were carried out unquestioningly. In India, despotism was characterized as the complete arbitrariness of the ruling monarch. However, here the ruler was not a priest. All his power rested on the teachings of the Brahmins.
In Ancient China, the ruler was not only a priest, but also a “son of heaven.”
Eastern despotism had characteristic features:
1) The predominance of the state over society to an absolute degree. The state is considered the highest power that stands above man. It regulates all areas of activity and relationships of people not only in society, but also in the family. The head of state shapes tastes and social ideals, can appoint and remove officials at any time, is uncontrollable, and exercises command of the army.
2) Coercive policy. The main task facing the state was to instill fear in every resident. The wards must tremble and believe that the ruler of the country is not a tyrant, but a defender of the people, reigning at every level of power, punishing arbitrariness and evil.
3) to the ground. All of it belonged only to the state; not a single one had freedom in economic terms.
4) Social-hierarchical structure. It resembles a pyramid. At its top was the ruler, then the state bureaucracy, communal farmers, and the lowest level belonged to dependent people.
5) Every civilization Ancient East had an organized apparatus of power. It consisted of three departments: financial, public, and military. Each one was assigned a specific task. The financial department sought funds to maintain the administrative apparatus and the army, the public department was engaged in construction work, creating roads, and the military department was engaged in the supply of foreign slaves.
It is worth noting that despotism was not only negative in nature. Even under such a system, the state provided some guarantees to the population, although not to the same extent. Laws controlled relations between the population and imposed punishments for actions. Thus, a civilized society of the modern type began to take shape.
