5 absolute monarchies. Absolute monarchy

The predominant number of modern states were once subject to one person, recognized as the embodiment of divine power on earth, that is, they were monarchies.

Monarchies that gave their ruler unlimited or absolute power contributed greatly to historical progress. They overcame feudal fragmentation, introduced uniform laws, created a strong centralized state with a developed economy, trade and industry, thereby forming a nation.

Absolutism is a type of monarchical regime in which all power in the country, including legislative, executive, judicial, military and in some cases religious, belongs to one person - the monarch. Therefore, this regime is also called an absolute monarchy.

Autocracy is a form of relationship to power based on the unlimited powers of the ruler. Whereas absolutism often has a number of hidden restrictions on the part of the hereditary aristocracy, etc.

An example of autocracy is the despotic monarchies of the Ancient East.

Authoritarianism is a system of government in which power, concentrated in the hands of one person or governing body, is limited to a certain extent. Unlike a monarchical regime, under authoritarianism the ruler is not determined by hereditary principles, but proclaims himself.

Signs of absolutism

The main features characterizing an absolute monarchy include:

• high degree of centralization state power;
• the presence of an extensive bureaucratic apparatus;
• presence of army and police;
• the social support of the monarch is the nobility;
• ideological support - the thesis about the divine origin of the ruler;

• the possibility of latent restrictions on the power of the monarch:

  • in economics (equality various forms and types of property);
  • in the social sphere (structural diversity of society and the privileges of the aristocracy);
  • in ideology (ideological pluralism).

Absolutism in history

Everyone went through absolutism in their development. European states. Each of them had its own characteristics.

This is how the absolute monarchy manifested itself most clearly in France in the 17th century.

In England, the heyday of absolutism occurred under Elizabeth I (16th century), although it differed significantly from classical definition: the queen shared power with parliament, there was no standing army.

In Germany, due to its territorial fragmentation, absolutism developed not as a unified system for the entire country, but within the framework of individual principalities.

In general, the peak of absolute monarchy in Western Europe occurred in the 17th-18th centuries. Russia lagged behind it by almost two centuries. Absolutism in Russia existed in the form of autocracy, the main distinguishing feature of which was the weakness of the national bourgeoisie.

Modern absolute monarchies

Today in the world there are several states with an absolute monarchy, among them: Bahrain, Brunei, Qatar, Kuwait, UAE, Oman and Saudi Arabia– in Asia, Vatican – in Europe.

It is noteworthy that the monarchy in the Vatican is not only absolute, but also theocratic, that is, it is ruled by a clergyman - the Pope. Absolutism in Saudi Arabia and Brunei is also characterized by a similar situation.

The Principality of Andorra occupies a special place with its own special regime of government. There, for more than 700 years, the state has been headed by two persons (princes), one of whom, according to tradition, is the ruler of France. Thus, Andorra combines feudal and capitalist features.

IN historical retrospective This form of monarchy is the most common. It replaces the class-representative one, but this historical “rule” was not always observed. Exists a whole series countries that did not have an 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 largely advisory in nature. In practice, it turned out that the country was ruled by the caliph, his main state advisers were the sheikhs, that is, representatives of the rich landed aristocracy, and they, in turn, were helped by the elders, who were a kind of local managers. Strictly speaking, there was a strong, tough, centralized government that did not tolerate anyone’s “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 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 enjoys power without restrictions, but also does not share it with anyone. An absolute monarchy is purely hereditary.

What conclusions can be drawn from this definition? What's the point? The point 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 their Master forever and give their lives , if necessary, for Him. After all, as has often happened and continues to happen today, the ruler of any state often exaggerates and abuses his powers, even though this is strictly prohibited by the law that he himself adopted. Now just imagine how great the temptation is to do whatever the “soul desires”, essentially the same person as everyone else, when, roughly speaking, everything is permitted. Can anyone resist the desire to do something that is forbidden for everyone else and at the same time clearly know that nothing will happen for it? It’s a fairly abstract expression, but there’s so much specificity in it.

Let's look at the situation from the other side, or more precisely, what legal powers does the monarch have under an absolute monarchy:

The monarch is the only and undisputed source of power.

The monarch has supreme 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 of the army.

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

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

And now we are ready to make the second most important conclusion about an 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 solely 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 it is precisely at this moment that the essence of the monarch as a person, as an individual who “holds the fate of his people” is revealed. To be clear and understand what I mean, imagine a man sitting on a king's throne. An angel “sits” on one shoulder, and an eternal human demon on the other. internal conflict“good and bad”, “necessary and desirable”. And so the demon says: “You are the King. Do whatever you want. You won't get anything for this. No one will even dare to reproach you for anything, because everyone bows and trembles before you.” And the king thinks, and speaks the truth, who will do what to me. But then the angel says: “You are a 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, for without them you mean nothing.” And here the question arises: “who to believe?” You can say and do whatever you want, but the people don’t even know how much power they have.

Please 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 behind your decisions are the fates of people. Do as you see fit, but all responsibility lies with you. After all, if handled ineptly, freedom will simply “tear apart” any person. Based on this, we can talk about the acceptability of an absolute monarchy in modern world. Maybe that's why there are so few of them left?

Let's look at the situation from the other side. First, let's clarify what absolute monarchies exist today. political map peace. These are: Saudi Arabia, Oman, Kuwait, UAE, Bahrain, Qatar, and 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 other representative body. All public and state life is based on the Koran, and the king is at the same time the highest clergyman. But other countries are not far behind. Although they have constitutions, and a number 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 octroied, that is, granted by monarchs. In addition, the Koran has a significantly larger legal force. Parliaments in these countries are extremely limited in their functions, and are only advisory bodies in nature. But what is noteworthy is that in absolute monarchies such an informal body as the family council can play a large role, since family members and relatives of the monarch often occupy important leadership positions in central and local authorities.

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

Political sphere. About the essence of monarchical policy, L. Tikhomirov writes: “Marchical policy is precisely the policy of the Monarchical Supreme Power in achieving the goals that state policy in general has. A reasonable religious policy therefore requires the union of the Supreme Power with those shoots of the religious consciousness of the people that lead to true religion.” Moreover, an 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 form the basis of government. It was, is and will always be so. A change in even one of them leads to a fairly rapid collapse of the system as a whole. Everything is built precisely on monotony of thinking and unquestioning submission. There can't even be any talk about things like political parties, political dissent, power struggles, etc. Anyone who tries to engage in such things will face a very sad fate. True, the presence of formal governing bodies to ensure the formal rights and freedoms of the population is not denied on paper, and is 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 monarchical statehood in relation mainly to politics.

He considers the following to be beneficial (positive):

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

The monarchy, by its independence, is not involved in the spirit of parties. The monarch stands outside of 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.

Due to the previous, the monarchy best ensures order. The monarch is the most fair arbitrator of social conflicts.

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

In the same way, it is easiest for a large personality to show his high quality precisely in the monarchy.

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

The replacement of power occurs not by ability, but by accident of birth. This makes the fate of the people dependent on chance: a genius may be born, but an incompetent one may also be born.

Unlimited power produces a bad influence on a weak soul. Great soul restrains himself. weak man, on the contrary, becomes exalted 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 temptations of power are complemented by the flattery and courtship of others. The monarch is the source of all benefits, and they try to obtain them through flattery and servility. These qualities become the dominant quality of the court and official 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 external order to internal one. Hence the disorder in management: “from above there is brilliance, from below there is rot.”

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

Personal and public initiative in the monarchy, according to Chicherin, is weakened and initiative disappears. The monarchy “looks after” everything and everyone, and this weakens the development of the people.

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

Economic sphere. Officially, the monarch is the “master 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 well-being of the country and the population. Beautiful words, but, in fact, very substantial personal enrichment occurs at the expense of state-owned resources in cash people close to the ruler. And, naturally, the funds received (not all, of course) are used for personal purposes that are completely unrelated to state interests. This situation is not only in the resource market. This applies to all economic areas, since they are all “busy with their own people,” who control them and regulate relations in them, suppressing any attempts to penetrate “from the 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 “didn’t know it,” they would hardly “last” in their positions for long. However, as L. Tikhomirov notes: “ economic policy The goal of the state is to complete the productive forces of the nation in such a way that it would ensure its independence in meeting its needs.”

Social sphere. L. Tikhomirov focuses on the fact that a healthy state of the social system is especially necessary for a monarchical state. Caring for social order characterizes all eras of prosperity of monarchies, which always treat it with extreme care, try not to break it, but rather build their state structures on it. In this regard, they talk about the natural class of monarchical nations. Despite this, in countries with an absolute monarchy, as a rule, social conflict. The actual inequality of people before the law is clearly expressed (the legal status of a sheikh and an ordinary worker is very different), there is a constant infringement of human rights and freedoms (the words “infringement of rights and freedoms” mean real restrictions on rights and “restraint” of human freedom, and not some these are abstract, idealistic concepts that are intensively promoted in America and Western Europe). However social sphere most strongly affects the economic resonance in society. On the one hand there is the “top” that “has everything”, on the other there is the bulk of people who have nothing. As it was said: “From the common table, only crumbs fall to them, which were accidentally dropped by those sitting at it.” That is, it turns out that the middle class is practically absent. This shows the enormous 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 speaking, tells 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, so raises the morale of the people that they continue to believe in the veracity of what was said.

Due to the division of society into classes, the idea of ​​a single civil system arose. L. Tikhomirov in his book “Monarchical Statehood” defines it as follows: “This idea of ​​a general civil system has currently conquered all minds. He is considered senior management development of the idea of ​​the state and the basis of freedom. The class system has been declared synonymous with the subjugation of citizens and the reactionary nature of its supporters. But the theory of the 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 class system is pronounced to him together with the “unlimited” monarchy.” At the same time, Tikhomirov notes that the class order is a natural part of an unlimited monarchy, where individual interests each have their own organization, and the power that unites them rises above everyone. But it (the class order) is inappropriate in constitutional government, where representation should express not the separate interests of classes, but the common interest of the state.

Spiritual (religious) sphere. “The monarchy arises with this content folk spirit and ends with its destruction. Its first task, therefore, is to help the nation preserve and develop this spiritual content. This constitutes the first task and responsibility 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 transferred to the Supreme Power; drying up in the nation, it just as inevitably dries up in the Supreme Power. Hence the importance of the question of the 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 conclude what this means. The monarch is the spiritual leader of the country. Without exaggeration, he ranks first after God, who endowed him with power, and this is absolutely normal. For only in this case will it be impossible to doubt the correctness and legality of his actions. The entire system of absolute monarchy is built and rests on this. This system is extremely conservative. Changes in it occur very rarely and proceed too slowly. As a rule, such systems ossify and cease to be flexible, and the result of this is the inconsistency of the existing political system realities and needs of society. This, in turn, becomes the preconditions for popular unrest, which people “hungry” for power can take advantage of. As a result, a revolution may “break out,” and as a direct consequence, a change in state power and the establishment of a new system by replacing the old one. To avoid this, the spiritual power of the monarch comes first. He says: “Power has been given to me by God. And what we “have” and what 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 state. The monarch, as has already been said, is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces. In the Middle Ages, the king went into battle with his army, and this greatly increased 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 in the most “acute” and necessary moments exerts significant influence to 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 population’s chances of defending their country and winning 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”. All international treaties concerning his country are concluded only with his consent, that is, the treaties bear his personal signature.

“In its international existence, the state has the goal of preserving and developing itself, the union of its nation (or nations). Its international policy is therefore directed towards realizing the good and interests of its union exclusively.” - L. Tikhomirov from the book “Monarchical Statehood”

I think there is no need to say what influence the ruler has in other areas of society. True, he has practically no “working” time left for them. Control there is given to the monarch's proxies.

In conclusion, I would like to add that, in addition to all other functions, the monarch has one very important public one. It performs a ceremonial function. Not a single event of 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 general, and only then the action itself begins (the opening of a competition, for example). In other words, we can put it this way: the participation of the monarch is a guarantor of the legality and legitimacy of what is happening. If he had not been there, then, roughly speaking, it is unknown how this could have turned out for the organizers.

In this chapter we looked at absolute monarchy as a form of government. We learned its most important features. Considered the role of the monarch in various fields life of society. We made some conclusions about the acceptability of this form of government in modern stage development of society and state.

Throughout the history of monarchical power, there have been several types and variations. Everything depended on how strong the ruler’s power was in each of them. Standing apart from this list is the absolute monarchy, which originated in the 16th century and had both positive aspects (for example, the unification of lands into a centralized state) and negative ones - the unlimited power of the autocrat.

The concept and essence of monarchy

The first beginnings of the monarchy date back to the period of the emergence of the states of the Ancient East - in Mesopotamia, Egypt, India and China. The ruler's dominion was unlimited; all power was concentrated in his hands. The chief judge in the state was the ruler, he was also the commander-in-chief of the troops and, most importantly, was declared the son of some god, most often the Sun. This form of government is called despotism. An absolute monarchy has a number of characteristics that coincide with it.

In the Middle Ages, with the origin and development feudal relations, the power of landowners increased, and the power of the ruler, on the contrary, was to some extent infringed. This situation in Europe remained until the 17th century. An absolutely representative monarchy limited the actions of the ruler.

Prerequisites for the emergence of autocracy

The absolute monarchy did not appear out of nowhere, and there were reasons for this. In the developed Middle Ages in Europe there were no states with a strong power of a single ruler. At that time - in the XIV-XV centuries, there was the dominance of feudal lords and the church. In the cradle of absolutism in France, less than half of the state's lands were in the power of the king, and they were called in one word - domain. In some cases, feudal lords could even force the monarch to sign this or that law. As for the power of the church, it was limitless, and the king would not dare to come into conflict with it.

However, it must be said that the developed Middle Ages are the time of the emergence of the bourgeoisie, for the successful activity of which order and strong power of the center were simply necessary.

As a result, an order of things was established in which the old aristocracy wanted to leave everything as before, without losing its power and without giving dominance to the king. The new layers of the bourgeoisie would feel much more confident under the absolute power of the monarch. The church was also on the side of the latter, since it assumed that it and the state apparatus would be intertwined into a single whole, which would further strengthen the position of the first person in society. The absolute monarchy in France represented just such a symbiosis.

The emergence of an absolute monarchy

Before the era of absolutism, there was an estate-representative monarchy. Government bodies with this type of power: in France - the States General, in England - Parliament, in Spain - the Cortes, etc.

The cradle of the absolute monarchy was the Kingdom of France. It was there that in the 16th century the king became a limitless ruler. All lands became state-owned, and the power of Paris became unquestionable. Kings began to be crowned on the throne by the Pope, which meant that the monarch was chosen by God. And in the Middle Ages, religion was an integral part of the life of any citizen. Thus, the subjects considered the king to be God's anointed one.

During the period of absolute monarchy in France, the church and the state merged. From now on, only representatives of the clergy could receive high government positions. And large feudal lords and other wealthy segments of the population sent their children to study primarily in religious educational institutions, because they understood that it was through the church that they would be able to build a career for themselves. The most famous clergyman and at the same time statesman of the era of absolutism was Richelieu, who held more than 30 posts in the French kingdom at the same time, and was not inferior in influence to the king.

Distinctive features of an absolute monarchy

Absolutism arose first in France. This happened during a change of eras: the new industrial bourgeoisie increased its position in society and the state, thus pushing aside the old landowning aristocracy. The king at this time was not at a loss and, in the wake of the confrontation between the two dominant classes, increased his influence. From that moment on, the legislative, fiscal and judicial branches of government were in the hands of one person - the monarch. To maintain his status, the king needed force - a regular army was created, entirely subordinate directly to the king.

If earlier the monarchy was a noble one, that is, the support was the landowning aristocracy, then with the emergence of absolutism the king “stands on two legs”: the feudal lords are joined by the bourgeois class, which includes figures in trade and industry. The established status quo was adopted by the absolute monarchy, whose century began in XVII century and was called the era of “classical absolutism.”

According to the Leviathan principle, absolutism was characterized in the following words: power in the interests of any class is delegated to the hands of the state (in the person of the monarch), and all subjects are left to obey.

State administration apparatus

The absolute monarchy became the point from which the expansion of the administrative apparatus began - the bureaucratization of the state. Before the era of absolutism, most lands were distributed to feudal lords, and were managed by the landowners themselves. The king could only collect taxes.

When all power was concentrated in the hands of the monarch, the need arose for a clear organization of governance throughout the country. That is why bureaus began to appear with a huge amount new positions. Secretaries of all ranks began to play a major role. Cities lost self-government. The positions of mayors, which were previously elected, became appointed. The king, at his discretion, granted the title of city ruler to any rich person, since most often the choice of the monarch depended on the substantial sum offered to him by the candidate for the position of mayor. Only the village was granted self-government, which also did not last long.

The emergence of autocracy in Russia

Russia followed a slightly different path of development of the political system, but this did not prevent it from moving to absolutism at about the same time as in Europe. In the 16th century, Ivan IV, who was given the nickname “The Terrible,” was in power in Moscow. It was he who became the founder of an absolute monarchy in Rus' and the first Russian Tsar. The power of Ivan IV was unlimited. In his activities, he relied only on himself and people devoted to him. Under him, the state strengthened, borders expanded, and the development of the economy and financial system began.

The continuation of the work of strengthening the sole power of the tsar was Peter I. The absolute monarchy in Russia during the reign of Peter acquired its final, formed form, and it was destined to exist practically unchanged for 200 years, until the fall of the autocracy in 1917.

Features of absolutism in Russia

During the reign of Tsar Ivan IV, it was created elected Rada. It included representatives of all classes close to the king. After this, the Zemsky Sobor is created. The purpose of these actions was to weaken the role of the old aristocracy, which was an obstacle to the development of absolutism. New laws were created, a Streltsy army was created, and a taxation system was introduced.

If in the West absolutism arose as a result of contradictions between the old and new orders, then in Russia the reason was the need for unification to protect against external threats. Therefore, the power was despotic, putting the kings on the same level as the rulers of the first civilizations of Egypt and Mesopotamia.

Absolute monarchies in the modern world

At the beginning of 2016, the absolute monarchies in the world are: the Vatican in Europe; Swaziland - in Africa; Qatar, Oman, Brunei, Saudi Arabia - in Asia. These countries are led by rulers with different titles, but they are all united by unlimited power.

Thus, absolute monarchy, which originated in the 16th century as a necessity to ensure economic progress or protection from external factors, has come a long way of development and today takes place in 6 countries of the world.

Story

The concept of absolute monarchy as a form of organization of power dates back to Crimean law. Thus, 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 in 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” ( Philippa de Commines, Claude Seyssel, etc.) assumed the priority of strong royal power, opposed to tyranny, and combined the qualities of monarchy, aristocracy and democracy. In the 15th-16th 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 Niccolo Machiavelli (treatise "Sovereign", 1532).

In 1576 French philosopher Jean Bodin, in his work “Six Books on the Republic,” presented the theory of the indivisibility of sovereignty: the highest state power belongs entirely to the monarch, but an absolute monarchy could not encroach on the rights and freedoms of its subjects, their property (as opposed to eastern despotism, where the monarch could arbitrarily dispose of the lives and property of his subjects ). At the same time, the theory of “state interest” was formed (it was followed, in particular, by an adherent of absolute monarchy, Cardinal Richelieu), 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, the idea of ​​​​the divine origin of the institution of state power played a large role in the ideological aspect of absolutism. This idea fit into the characteristic way of thinking of the era: the king and the elite formed continuum, human will is limited by the framework of the divinely established order. Magnificent and sophisticated palace etiquette served to exalt the person of the sovereign. Louis XIV wonderfully formulated the meaning of absolute monarchy in his aphoristic phrase “ The state is me ».

Absolute monarchies in some countries were inherited from previous form of monarchy representative bodies: Cortes in Spain, states general in France, parliament in England, Zemsky Sobor in Russia, etc.). Thanks to the system of estate representation, the monarchy could receive the support of the nobility, the church of the cities in those issues that it could not resolve on its own (in accordance with the principle of the estate-representative monarchy “everything that concerns everyone must be approved by everyone”). The strengthening of royal power occurred at the end of the 15th and beginning of the 16th centuries, this was especially evident in France, England and Spain. European absolutism was practically formed as a system of emergency management, which was associated with wars that required increased taxes. However, even where, during the transition to an absolute monarchy, representative bodies were eliminated (Zemstvo Councils in Russia), the sovereigns had to somehow take into account the opinion of their subjects, often expressed through the recommendations of advisers, popular uprisings, threats palace coups and regicides. Even in the New Time, opposition to absolutism also arose political theories. According to the religious opposition (mainly Protestant), respect for property rights and loyalty to true religion form a social contract, the violation of which by the monarch gives his subjects the right to revolt. There were also consistent opponents to the idea of ​​the divine origin of power. For example, according to Cardinal Bellarmine, the king receives power not from God, but from the people led by wise shepherds. TO XVII century there was an idea that public order primary 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, on 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 constitutional order) .

With the development and strengthening of capitalism 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 strict framework of protectionism and mercantilism limited the economic freedom of entrepreneurs, who were forced to produce only goods beneficial to the royal treasury. Dramatic changes occur within the classes. From the depths of the third estate grows an economically powerful, educated, enterprising class of capitalists, which has 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 an absolute monarchy into a limited, constitutional one. However, this process was uneven; for example, in Russia and Turkey, the absolute monarchy lasted until the 20th century.

General features of an absolute monarchy

Under an absolute monarchy, the state reaches highest degree centralization. From a formal legal point of view, in an absolute monarchy, the fullness of legislative and executive power is concentrated in the hands of the head of state - the monarch; he independently sets taxes and manages public finances. The following are being created: an extensive bureaucratic apparatus with strictly regulated functions, a standing army and police. Centralization and unification of local government is 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 special role in the life of society, and the authority of state power is indisputable . The rise of absolute monarchy in countries Western Europe falls on the XVII-XVIII centuries. In Russia, an absolute monarchy existed until the beginning of the 20th century.

The social support of different absolute monarchies is not the same. Absolute monarchies in modern Europe were states of the nobility that maintained a “society of privileges” . In Soviet historiography, the emergence of absolutism was usually associated with class struggle- nobility and bourgeoisie (S. D. Skazkin) or peasantry and nobility (B. F. Porshnev). Currently, there is a widespread point of view according to which the strengthening of absolutism was facilitated by a number of economic, social and cultural processes. 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 changes 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 than in Germany, Austria and Russia. To one degree or another, the features of an absolute monarchy, or the desire for it, appeared in all European states, but they found their most complete embodiment in France, where absolutism appeared 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 king's authority; the state subsidized the construction of factories, and trade wars were fought.

In England, the peak of absolutism occurred during the reign of Elizabeth I Tudor (1558–1603), but in the British Isles it never reached its classical form. Parliament was not entirely subject to the king; the monarch could gain full power only in cooperation with parliament, and parliamentary control over taxes was maintained. Due to the absence of a powerful bureaucratic apparatus in the localities, local self-government played a significant role. A powerful army was not created .

Strong royal power was established in Spain and Portugal (the strengthening of absolutism occurred in the second half XVI century, in Spain the harshest 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, which relied exclusively on the aristocracy, degenerated into despotism. At the same time, the system fueros provided a certain limitation on 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 emerged relatively late (from the 17th century) and not on a national scale, but within individual kingdoms, duchies, counties and principalities (“regional” or “princely” absolutism). In the 17th century there was an increase Brandenburg-Prussian Monarchy with the militaristic nature of the economy and social system; a policy of mercantilism was pursued, there were strict regulations on military service for nobles and the peasant population. In the state of the Austro-Hungarian

At a late stage.

Story [ | ]

The concept of absolute monarchy as a form of organization of power goes back to Roman law. Thus, 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 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 concepts of “separate sovereignty” (Philippe de Commines, Claude Seyssel, etc.) assumed the priority of strong royal power, opposed to tyranny, and combined the qualities of monarchy, aristocracy and democracy. In the 15th-16th centuries, the concept of the state also developed, denoting not the “position” of the king, but an abstract entity - the embodiment of public power. Niccolo Machiavelli (treatise “The Prince”, 1532) made a great contribution to the formation of this concept.

In 1576, the French philosopher Jean Bodin, in his work “Six Books on the Republic,” presented the theory of the indivisibility of sovereignty: the highest state power belongs entirely to the monarch, but an absolute monarchy could not encroach on the rights and freedoms of its subjects, their property (as opposed to the eastern [ Where?]despotism, where the monarch could arbitrarily dispose of the lives and property of his subjects). At the same time, the theory of “state interest” was formed (it was followed, in particular, by the adherent of absolute monarchy, Cardinal Richelieu), 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, the idea of ​​​​the divine origin of the institution of state power played a large role in the ideological aspect of absolutism. This idea fit into the characteristic way of thinking of the era: the king and the elite formed a continuum, human will is limited by the framework of the divinely established order. Magnificent and sophisticated palace etiquette served to exalt the person of the sovereign. Louis XIV wonderfully formulated the meaning of absolute monarchy in his aphoristic phrase “The State is I.”

Absolute monarchies in some countries inherited representative bodies from the previous form of monarchy: Cortes in Spain, States General in France, Parliament in England, Zemsky Sobor in Russia, etc.). Thanks to the system of estate representation, the monarchy could receive the support of the nobility, the church of the cities in those issues that it could not resolve on its own (in accordance with the principle of the estate-representative monarchy “everything that concerns everyone must be approved by everyone”). The strengthening of royal power occurred at the end of the 15th and beginning of the 16th centuries, especially vividly [ How?] this manifested itself in France, England and Spain. European absolutism was practically formed as a system of emergency management, which was associated with wars that required increased taxes. However, even where, during the transition to an absolute monarchy, representative bodies were eliminated (Zemstvo Councils in Russia), the sovereigns had to one way or another take into account the opinions of their subjects, often expressed through the recommendations of advisers, popular uprisings, and the threat of palace coups and regicides. Even in modern times, political theories opposing absolutism also arose. According to the religious opposition (mainly Protestant), respect for property rights and loyalty to true religion form a social contract, the violation of which by the monarch gives his subjects the right to rebel. There were also consistent opponents to the idea of ​​the divine origin of power. For example, according to Cardinal Bellarmine, the king receives power not from God, but from the people led by wise shepherds. By the 17th century, the idea had developed that social order was primary to allegiance 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, on 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 system).

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 beneficial to the royal treasury. Dramatic changes occur within the classes. From the depths of the third estate grows an economically powerful, educated, enterprising class of capitalists, which has 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 an absolute monarchy into a limited, constitutional one. However, this process was uneven; for example, in Russia and Turkey, the absolute monarchy lasted until the 20th century.

Peculiarities [ | ]

General features of an 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, the fullness of legislative and executive power is concentrated in the hands of the head of state - the monarch; he independently sets taxes and manages public finances. The following are being created: an extensive bureaucratic apparatus with strictly regulated functions, a standing army and police. Centralization and unification of local government is 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 Western European countries occurred in the 17th-18th centuries. In Russia, an absolute monarchy existed until the beginning of the 20th century.

The social support of different absolute monarchies is not the same. Absolute monarchies in modern Europe were states of the nobility that maintained a “society of privileges.” 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). Currently, there is a widespread point of view 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 city 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 an absolute monarchy, or the desire for it, appeared in all European states, but they found their most complete embodiment in France, where absolutism appeared 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 king's authority [ clarify] ; the state subsidized the construction of manufactories, and trade wars were fought.

In England, the peak of absolutism occurred during the reign of Elizabeth I Tudor (1558-1603), but in the British Isles it never reached its classic [ Which?] forms. Parliament was not entirely subject to the king; the monarch could gain full power only in cooperation with parliament [ clarify], parliamentary control over taxes was maintained. Due to the absence of a powerful bureaucratic apparatus in the localities, local self-government played a significant role. A powerful army was not created either.

Strong royal power was established in Spain and Portugal (the strengthening of absolutism occurred in the second half of the 16th century; in Spain, the strictest 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, which relied exclusively on the aristocracy, degenerated into [[Despotism|despotism [ clarify] ]]. At the same time, the fueros system provided a certain [ which?] limitation of the king's power, but only at the local level.

In Germany and Italy, where national states were formed only in the 19th century, absolute monarchies emerged relatively late (from the 17th century) and not on a national scale, but within individual kingdoms, duchies, counties and principalities (“regional” or “princely” absolutism). In the 17th century, the Brandenburg-Prussian monarchy strengthened with the militaristic nature of the economy and social system; a policy of mercantilism was pursued, there were strict regulations on military service for nobles and the peasant population. In the state of the Austro-Hungarian Habsburgs, where national entities retained estate-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 class representation were preserved. In some countries (for example, in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth) an absolute monarchy was never established (the monarch was elected for life by an estate-representative body - the Sejm).

The regime of absolute monarchy in Russia, reminiscent of European absolutism, 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 convening of Zemsky Sobors, the elimination of localism, the establishment of collegiums instead of the system of orders, the creation of a body of state control over the church (Synod), the implementation of protectionist policies in the economy, the abolition of internal customs, the introduction of a poll tax, the creation regular army and the fleet. The features of Russian absolutism were the strengthening of serfdom, the monarchy's reliance on the aristocracy, the insignificant role of the bourgeoisie, and the recruitment of senior and middle officials of the bureaucratic apparatus from representatives of the nobility.

Economic and democratic rise in Europe XVIII century necessitated the need for reforms, and a characteristic phenomenon for Europe was the second half of the 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 (Turgot's 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, the policy of enlightened absolutism did not save absolute monarchies from being overthrown as a result of revolutions and constitutional reforms; in European countries, absolutist regimes were replaced