Autocracy - what is it? Manifesto on the inviolability of autocracy

Ambiguity in the assessments of the monarchy makes this type of state organization the most controversial and emotionally colored.

The Age of Kings

The monarchical device marked the transition of human communities to an organized state. It is customary to endow ancient Mediterranean democracies with attractive features and contrast them to surrounding kingdoms. However, history shows that archaic democracies quickly degenerated into despotism and tyranny, yielding to competition formed according to monarchical principles to societies.

West and East

With the fall of the Roman Empire, the period of archaic democracies ended. In Western and Eastern Europe, the formation of hierarchical communities, prototypes of future states began. Their basis was the layer of the military aristocracy, in which the subordination to the military leader was an absolute value and was not questioned. Eastern tradition gave priority to tribal leaders, capable of uniting the rest around their clan. Despite interesting differences, the monarchical principle of organizing society almost everywhere prevailed. Historians call this period Middle or Dark Ages. However, almost all the modern aristocracy, which has considerable weight in the politics of the modern enlightened era, comes from those times and bears their imprint.

Russian autocracy

Russian historians have exerted considerable effort to prove and emphasize the conformity of the Russian monarchy to Western European "standards." Apparently, they believed that this is a service to the reigning house. Nevertheless, the sensation of some significant differences is present if we compare the autocracy in Russia with the monarchical arrangements of other states. The need to develop real tools to strengthen the monarchical system in Russia has sparked research attempts. Autocracy - what is the meaning of this word? The history of Russia gives a complex and contradictory picture of the relationship between government and the population. The monarchical order was not at all uncontested to the country. On the contrary, there were many forks, on which Russia could turn to the path of constitutional monarchy or government through representative institutions.

Uvarov's formula

The first attempt to substantiate the social importance of the autocracy was undertaken by Count Uvarov. The rebellion, organized by a group of officers of the Guards, known as the Decembrist uprising, demanded the expansion of the social support on which the Russian autocracy was based. What is this in his understanding? For many, it was clear that the threat posed by ideas, introduced through the education system. However, Uvarov not only made an attempt to introduce a political dimension into the educational process. His formula - "Orthodoxy, autocracy, nationality" - is not addressed to the disciples. It is addressed first of all to the aristocracy, which made up the administrative layer of the empire. It unequivocally declares the connection between the autocracy and the people. She warned against the temptation of aristocratic despotism through the proclamation of the national character of an autocratic state.

Lev Tikhomirov

The former prominent Narodovolnik Tikhomirov experienced a complex political evolution. Liberal values in his mind won the autocracy. What did Tikhomirov see in it, which he had not noticed before? He drew attention to the connection between autocracy and statehood, which had previously been ignored. He developed the notion of supreme power, which is a metronome of state life. At the triumph of personal freedom, proclaimed liberalism, the state is given the place of servants. But can such a state withstand international political competition? Is it able to withstand the social passions and interests of the groups? Narodovolsky terror clearly demonstrated the level of threat. The Manifesto on the inviolability of the autocracy, announced at the accession to the throne of Alexander III , testified about this .

Solonevich's People's Monarchy

The idea of autocracy survived the very Russian monarchy. The share of Ivan Solonevich was a reflection of the course of history that brought down the autocracy. What happened to the country, suddenly ripped off anchors that held it for hundreds of years? But triumphant liberalism in a communist guise is incredibly far from the advertised ideals. The manifesto on the inviolability of the autocracy should be regarded as a historical anecdote or foresight? Solonevich rethought the monarchical idea already with the experience of a Soviet man. Everything turned to dust in his eyes - Orthodoxy, autocracy. But the lost reality made the idea itself more visible.

The Soviet antithesis to the autocracy clearly demonstrated the primitiveness and inferiority of the practical and ideological baggage of the winner. Solonevich introduced the concept of autocracy as a milestone in the development of society. Putting emphasis on the people, the autocracy, he realized as the highest form of democracy, in which the people's trust in the supreme power is so high that he permanently delegates to her the functions of state organization. But the supreme authority itself is so responsible to the people that it has no goals higher than serving it. Practical implementation of even a part of Solonevich's ideas could not have occurred during his lifetime. He did not count on it, turning his message to the descendants who survived the turmoil that fell on the fate of his generation.

Current situation

The suppression of the direct line of the ruling Romanov dynasty during the Civil War made the claims on the Russian throne on the part of their relatives unconvincing. Deprived of the visible image of a possible king, supporters of the restoration of the autocracy spend time in squabbles and sham performances. Paradoxically, this did not affect the modern attractiveness of the idea of autocracy.

After the collapse of the USSR and the cessation of the planting of communist ideology on the territory of the Russian Empire, the monarchical sentiments turned out to be quite pronounced. They do not have the appearance of a political movement or a recognized social structure. Their prevalence among the population is determined by internal motives. They are subject to that part of the population that feels like statemen or Russian nationalists. The autocracy in their understanding is primarily an instrument for building or restoring the state.

The destructive tendencies, left behind by the predecessors, are overcome with great difficulty by the modern Russian authorities. For Russian nationalists, autocracy means a return to the concept of the Russian national state. So far, modern liberal society is not able to offer them an idea that is comparable in attractiveness to the formula "Orthodoxy, autocracy, nationality."