Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

Coursework

The monarchy. Concept and kinds

Introduction

There are always shades of gray in any government. Even the most liberal democracies limit rival political activity to one extent or another, and even the most tyrannical dictator must organize a broad base of support. In every State there is a supreme organ, in which power is concentrated and to which all other organs are subordinate. The form of this organ stamps a peculiar mark upon the State, and it is natural therefore to make it the basis of a division of States.Johann Caspar Bluntschli. The theory of state, second edition, oxford, 1992, p.329 Four different forms of State are specifically divided, as Aristotle recognized, by the different conceptions of the distinction between government and subjects, especially by the quality of the ruler.

In Monarchy the distinction between government and subjects is complete, but it is again human. The government is concentrated in an individual, who is merely a ruler, and not at the same time a subject, but who belongs altogether to the State, and personifies the unity of the nation. Monarchy glorifies the unity of humanity in Man ' as an individual: the ruler represents the collective State, the national unity is personified in its prince. Manava Dharma Sastra. Laws of Manu (trans, by Sir W. Jones), v. 96, 97 ; vii. 3-8.

The currency of the topic, which I chose is that even in the modern world, despite the fact that the republic is historically more progressive form of government, the dispute between it and the monarchy continues. The number of monarchies in the world is quite large, and occasionally disputes arise, whether the monarchy has a right to exist, whether it is a progressive form of government or restricts the development of democracy.

The aim of this work is to consider the organization of the monarchy and its historical and modern kinds.

The object of this work is the social relations arising in connection with the operation of the monarchical form of the government.

Based on the aim, the tasks of the work are:

- to disclose the concept of a monarchy and its characteristic features;

- to study the varieties of the monarchy in a modern world;

- to disclose the concept of succession;

- to consider the advantages and disadvantages of the monarchy as a form of government;

- to study the historical forms of the monarchy.

In my coursework I mainly used educational and monographic literature, made by leading experts in this sphere, namely the works of such authors as: Dante Alighieri, Jennifer Fandel, Johann Caspar Bluntschli, Katy Schiel, Венгеров А.Б., Скакун О.Ф., Матузов Н.И, Марченко Н.М., Ирхин Ю.В.

1. The concept and the essence of the Monarchy

Monarchy is the most widely recognized form of State in the world. It is found in all continents, in Asia and Europe it is almost universal, and it has been so from the beginning of history to the present day. The word monarch comes from the Greek ???????? (from ?????, «one/singular,» and ?????, «leader/ruler/chief») which referred to a single, at least nominally absolute ruler.

The government is, indeed, made up of a minority, but a minority as superior in power as it is inferior in numbers. The selfish interest of the monarch multiplies itself, and occupies the bosom of every subordinate; not only commanding the numerical force of all, but also all their means of private and personal influence. George Sidney Camp, Democracy, BiblioLife, 2009, p.122

Monarchy - a government in which the supreme power is lodged in the hands of a person engaged in reigning who reigns over a state or territory, usually for life and by hereditary right. Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary, Washington, 1906 p. 163 The monarch may be either a sole absolute ruler or a sovereign - such as a king, queen, or prince - with constitutionally limited authority. The World Factbook 2009. Washington, DC: Central Intelligence Agency, 2009.

The notions «Sovereign» (or «Monarch») and the «Crown» are related, but have separate meanings:

· the Sovereign is the person in whom the Crown is constitutionally conferred;

· the Crown, which represents both the Sovereign and the Government, is the symbol of supreme executive power. The Crown is vested in the King (Queen) but in practice its functions are carried out by ministers responsible to Parliament. For example, Britain is therefore governed by Her Majesty's Government in the name of the Queen, although the Queen's involvement is still required in many important acts of government.

Thus, the main features of classical monarchical forms of government are:

1. the existence of the sole head of state using his power during the life (king, duke, emperor, Shah);

2. hereditary (according to the law of succession) the order of succession of the supreme power;

3. monarch personifies the unity of the nation, the historical continuity of tradition, represents the state in the international arena;

4. legal immunity and independence of the monarch.

The best reason why Monarchy is a strong government is, that it is an intelligible government. The mass of mankind understand it, and they hardly anywhere in the world understand any other. It is often said that men are ruled by their imaginations; but it would be true to say that they are governed by the weakness of their imaginations.

The nature of a constitution, the action of an assembly, the play of parties, the unseen formation of a guiding opinion, are complex facts, difficult to know and easy to mistake. But the actions of a single will, the fiat of a single mind, are easy ideas: anybody can make them out, and no one can ever forget them. When you put before the mass of mankind the question, «Will you be governed by a king, or will you be governed by a constitution?» the inquiry comes out thus - «Will you be governed in a way you understand, or will you be governed in a way you do not understand?» The issue was put to the French people; they were asked, «Will you be governed by Louis Napoleon, or will you be governed by an assembly?» The French people said, «We will be governed by the one man we can imagine, and not by the many people we cannot imagine». Walter Bagehot, The English Constitution, 2009

German encyclopedias of legal science define the monarchy as the absolutism and dictatorship, and consider that the basic characteristic of this form is that state power is concentrated in the hands of one person. Evgeny Pashukanis The Marxist Theory of State and Law 1932 p.65 Power is absolute and is either taken through conquest or passed down to family members without regard for ability or appropriateness. The resources and wealth of a country is generally preserved solely for the hedonistic and self-fulfilling desires of the reigning monarch with little regard for the general population or its welfare. A king is a king, not because he is rich and powerful, not because he is a successful politician, not because he belongs to a particular creed or to a national group. He is King because he is born. Jacques Monet, in "The Canadian Monarchy" in The West and the Nation : Essays in Honour of W. L. Morton (1976), edited by Ramsay Cook, and Carl Berger. p. 324 The inhabitants of a country under a monarch are alive to serve the monarch. In contrast the inhabitants of a republic are served by their leaders. Among his advisers in the early stages of this form of government were a lot of forecasters, prophets, religious ministers.

The original form of government in all the ancient states was, as Aristotle informs us, monarchical. The general prevalence of this form of policy all over the world is easily explained.

Throughout history there were various types of monarchies:

1) Oriental despotism, based on the Asian proceeding;

2) Antique (slavery);

3) feudal:

a) early-feudal, characterized by a high degree of decentralization;

b) a class-representative - power of the monarch combined with the presence of a class-representative body (Spain-Cortes, France - General states, England - Parliament);

c) absolute;

4) constitutional. Скакун О.Ф. Теорія держави і права: Підручник / Пер. з рос. -- Харків: Консум, 2001. C.80

The first thing wanted in all society is unity of action and consistent adherence to a common plan; and as the greatest obstacle to this is the spirit of individualism and the tendency of great masses of men to split into parties, which makes co-operation difficult, the obvious remedy is found in submission to the supreme authority of a single dominant will. This enforced subordination, useful in peace, becomes necessary in war; and as in the early stages of society hostile encounters are so common as to become a recognised part of every man's life, the common type of early governments is monarchical. John Stuart Blackie, Forms of government: a historical review and estimate of the growth of the principal types of political organism in europe, from the greeks and romans down to the present time. London, 1867 p. 47

Thus, the monarchical form of government have been realized in different societies and at different times and gave the whole spectrum of a wide variety of organizations, government, and themselves monarchs entered the history of the state under various names: kings, princes, emirs, Raja, emperors, sultans, kings, pharaohs, the rulers, the Incas, etc.

2. The succession to the throne as the element of the Monarchy

2.1 The definition and types of succession

monarchy throne government

Succession to the throne is the succession of the supreme power in the monarchies. There are 3 types of succession:

o by the election;

o by the appointment of the predecessor;

o by the law - a hereditary monarchy.

An elective monarchy is a monarchy ruled by an elected rather than hereditary monarch. The manner of election, the nature of the candidacy and the electors vary from case to case. Historically it is not uncommon, however, for elective monarchies to transform into hereditary ones after some centuries.

A monarchy may be generally elective, although in a way that the next holder will be elected only after it becomes vacant. Appointment of a successor by the monarch will, or a special law is inconvenience as the election of the monarch. Such a system existed in imperial Rome, currently it is not practiced, although the legislation of some countries doesn't except it. For example, in England, where the «King in Parliament» may appoint any person as successor to the throne. This system seems to be in Russia at the Moscow period of history, although in fact the throne passed almost always from father to son, usually the princes and kings considered themselves free to appoint the successor, and the children saw their power based on the will of their parents, not on their origin.

In history, quite often, but not always, appointments and elections favored, or were limited to, members of a certain dynasty or extended family. There may have been genealogical rules to determine who all are entitled to succeed, and who will be favored. This has led sometimes to an order of succession that balances branches of a dynasty by rotation. For example, Pepin the Short (father of Charlemagne) was elected King of the Franks by an assembly of Frankish leading men; Stanislaw August Poniatowski of Poland was an elected king, as was Frederick I of Denmark. Germanic peoples had elective monarchies, and the Holy Roman Emperors were elected by prince-electors, although this often was merely a formalization of what was, in reality, hereditary rule.

In a hereditary monarchy, election may occasionally be used to fill a vacant throne. For example, the royal family may become extinct; depending on how precisely the succession to the throne is defined in law, several candidates with equally, or almost equally, strong claims could emerge, with an election being held to choose between them. This differs from a formally elective monarchy in that it is an extraordinary measure, and with the new monarch the succession again becomes hereditary. Alternatively, the monarch may be deposed, as in a revolution. While sometimes a monarch may be forced to abdicate in favor of his or her heir, on other occasions the royal family as a whole has been rejected, the throne going to an elected candidate

Three elective monarchies exist today: Malaysia and the United Arab Emirates are twentieth-century creations, while one (the papacy) is ancient.

Many, if not most, kingdoms were officially elective historically, though the candidates were typically only from the family of the deceased monarch. Eventually, however, most elected monarchies introduced hereditary succession, guaranteeing that the title and office stayed within the royal family and specifying, more or less precisely, the order of succession. Hereditary systems probably came into being in order to ensure greater stability and continuity, since the election and the period of interregnum associated with it had often been an opportunity for several ambitious and powerful candidates to «try their chances» in the struggle for the throne, frequently resorting to violent means. In fact, the problem of interregna is typical for monarchy in general, and has only been ameliorated (with a varying degree of success) by the new principle of succession.

Today, almost all monarchies are hereditary monarchies in which the monarchs come from one royal family with the office of sovereign being passed from one family member to another upon the death or abdication of the incumbent.

A hereditary monarchy is the most common type of monarchy and is the form that is used by almost all of the world's existing monarchies. Under a hereditary monarchy, all the monarchs come from the same family, and the crown is passed down from one member to another member of the family. The hereditary system has the advantages of stability, continuity and predictability, as well as the internal stabilizing factors of family affection and loyalty.

Elective monarchy can practically function as a hereditary monarchy, for example in case of eligibility being limited to members of one family (or even further, if allowed by the rules of precedence in the election). This has happened historically, usually slowly, in many past elective monarchies. One method was for the incumbent monarch to have his chosen heir (son, daughter, brother, sister, or other relative) elected during the lifetime of the incumbent, while he was still able to wield his influence to direct the election to the desired result.

2.2 The order of succession

An order of succession is a formula or algorithm that determines who inherits an office upon the death, resignation, or removal of its current occupant.

In hereditary monarchies the order of succession determines who becomes the new monarch when the incumbent sovereign dies or vacates the throne. Such orders of succession generally specify a selection process, by law or tradition, which is applied to indicate which relative of the previous monarch, or other person, has the strongest claim to succeed, and will therefore assume the throne when the vacancy occurs.

Nowadays, the typical order of succession in hereditary monarchies is based on some form of primogeniture. In primogeniture, the monarch's eldest son and his descendants take precedence over his siblings and their descendants. Elder sons take precedence over younger sons, but all sons take precedence over all daughters. Children represent their deceased ancestors, and the senior line of descent always takes precedence over the junior line, within each gender.

The right of succession belongs to the eldest son of the reigning sovereign (see heir apparent), and then to the eldest son of the eldest son. This is the system in the Commonwealth Realms, Spain, and Monaco.

Fully equal primogeniture (or Absolute Primogeniture) is a law in which the eldest child of the sovereign succeeds to the throne, regardless of gender, and where females (and their descendants) enjoy the same right of succession as males. This is currently the system in Sweden (since 1980), the Netherlands (since 1983), Norway (since 1990), Belgium (since 1991) and Denmark (since 2009).^[1] The Succession to the Crown Bill of 2004 proposed changing the line of succession to the British throne to absolute primogeniture. In Japan, which is the oldest continuing hereditary monarchy in the world, there is an issue of a possible female successor. Takahashi told the session that he believes it is better for the first child - regardless of sex - to ascend the throne. A boy has not been born into the imperial family since the birth of Prince Akishino, the crown prince's brother, in 1965. Up to the current 125th emperor, at least eight women have ruled Japan as empress - the last in 1762. Article, LDP panel debates female succession to imperial throne. , Kyodo News International, Dec 10, 2001

Also, there are some other kinds of hereditary succession. For example, in seniority successions, a monarch's or fief holder's next sibling, actually it means almost always brother, succeeds; not his children. And, if the royal house is more extensive, cousins and so forth succeed, in order of seniority, which may depend upon actual age or upon the seniority between their fathers.

In matrilineal succession, practiced in Kerala by the Nair nobility and royal families, a man's wealth and title is inherited by his sister's children, and his own children receive their inheritance from their own maternal uncles. The Maharajah of Travancore is therefore succeeded by his sister's son, and his own son receives a courtesy title but has no place in the line of succession. Since Indian Independence and the passing of several acts such as the Hindu Succession Act (1956), this form of inheritance is no longer recognized by law. Regardless, the pretender to the Travancore throne is still determined by matrilineal succession.

Agnatic succession refers to systems where females are neither allowed to succeed nor to transmit the succession rights to their male descendants. An agnate is a kinsman with whom one has a common ancestor by descent in unbroken male line. Cognatic succession previously referred to any succession to the throne or other inheritance which allows both males and females to be heirs, although in modern usage it specifically refers to equal succession by seniority regardless of gender. But these methods of hereditary monarchies were much more common in the past.

The Rota System, from the Old Church Slavic word for «ladder» or «staircase», was a system of collateral succession practiced (though imperfectly) in Kievan Rus' and later Appanage and early Muscovite Russia. In this system the throne passed not linearly from father to son, but laterally from brother to brother (usually to the fourth brother) and then to the eldest son of the eldest brother who had held the throne. The system was begun by Yaroslav the Wise, who assigned each of his sons a principality based on seniority. When the Grand Prince died, the next most senior prince moved to Kiev and all others moved to the principality next up the ladder. Janet Martin, Medieval Russia 980-1584 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), p. 27-29.

Proximity of blood is a system wherein the person closest in degree of kinship to the sovereign succeeds, preferring males over females and elder over younger siblings. This is sometimes used as a gloss for «pragmatic» successions in Europe; it had somewhat more standing during the Middle Ages everywhere in Europe.

In Outremer it was often used to choose regents, and it figured in some of the succession disputes over the Kingdom of Jerusalem. It was also recognized in that kingdom for the succession of fiefs, under special circumstances: if a fief was lost to the Saracens and subsequently re-conquered, it was to be assigned to the heir in proximity of blood of the last fief-holder.

Ultimogeniture is an order of succession where the subject is succeeded by the youngest son (or youngest child). This serves the circumstances where the youngest is «keeping the hearth», taking care of the parents and continuing at home, whereas elder children have had time to succeed «out in the world» and provide for themselves. In the German Duchy of Saxe-Altenburg, land-holdings traditionally passed to the youngest son, who might then employ his older brothers as farm workers. In medieval Scandinavia, where partible inheritance was the norm, there are indications that within that partibility tradition, youngest son had a privilege to receive the parent's house, or ancestral seat, or family manor.

Lateral or fraternal system of succession mandates principles of seniority among members of a dynasty or dynastic clan, with a purpose of election a best qualified candidate for the leadership. The leaders are elected as being the most mature elders of the clan, already in possession of military power and competence. Fraternal succession is preferred to ensure that mature leaders are in charge, removing a need for regents. The lateral system of succession may or may not exclude male descendants in the female line from succession. In practice, when no male heir is mature enough, a female heir is usually determined «pragmatically», by proximity to the last monarch, like Boariks of the Caucasian Huns or Tamiris of Massagetes in Middle Asia. The lateral monarch is generally elected after the leadership throne becomes vacant. In the early years of the Mongol empire, the death of the ruling monarchs, Genghis Khan and Ogedei Khan, immediately stopped the Mongol western campaigns because of the upcoming elections.

3. The Monarchy in a modern world

The institution of monarchy, in all its forms, is by far the most ancient of political system. Nearly every country on earth has been ruled by a monarch. Katy Schiel Monarchy: A Primary Source Analysis The Rosen Publishing Group, 2004, p.5 Most monarchies throughout history have fallen into one of two broad categories: absolute monarchy or constitutional monarchy.

3.1 Absolute Monarchy

In an absolute monarchy, the king or queen makes the laws, enforces the laws, and interprets the laws. The monarch answers to no one. Absolute monarchy is a monarchical form of government where the monarch exercises ultimate governing authority as head of state and head of government, thus wielding political power over the sovereign state and its subject peoples. In an absolute monarchy, the transmission of power is twofold; hereditary and marital. As absolute governor, the monarch's authority is not legally bound or restricted by a constitution as in a limited monarchy.

So, the monarchy has no constitution or limits to their power and they rule by decree and laws that they themselves deem necessary or prudent. They have complete power over their people and the land, usually including the aristocracy and the clergy.

This absolute monarchy is the civilized form corresponding to the barbarous form of despotism, but it differs from it in that the monarch recognizes a judicial organization, and is willing, at any rate as a rule, to respect it. In the Roman Empire this power was more absolute than in modern states, in which it has been restricted even in the middle ages by Christianity and by the development of freedom.

The divine right of kings is a principle guiding factor in the power of an absolute monarchy. This system operates under the belief that the person acting as king or queen has the God-given right to do so and as such has been raised from birth for the position.

This belief in a God-like monarch was very common in ancient Egypt, Greece, and Rome, as well as within some parts of the Middle East and Asia. People prayed to and made sacrifices for their king, hoping that he would bestow goodness upon them. They relied on him for good weather and a plentiful harvest. If things stopped going well, people often look with suspicion at the monarch, believing that the person was no longer chosen by God to lead the nation. In situations such as these, the monarch was often overthrown or sacrificed by the people.

This connection between an individual's power and the belief that that power descends from a deity has led to many abuses of power in many past absolute monarchies.

Absolute monarchies were especially common in the 16^th and 17^th centures, and monarchs often followed a doctrine called divine right. This meant that the monarchs - and often their followers - believed that the decisions they made came straight from God. What the king or queen said was law, whether or not it was in the best interest of the country. Jennifer Fandel, Monarchy, The Creative Company, 2007, p.7 In theory, the absolute monarch exercises total power over the land and its subject peoples.

One of the best proverbial examples of an absolute monarch was Louis XIV of France. His alleged statement, L'Etat, c'est moi (The state, it is me), summarizes the fundamental principle of absolute monarchy (sovereignty being vested in one individual). Although often criticized for his extravagance, such as the Palace of Versailles, he reigned over France for a long period, and some historians consider him a successful absolute monarch. More recently, revisionist historians have questioned whether Louis' reign should be considered 'absolute', given the reality of the balance of power between the monarch and the nobility.

A special kind of absolute monarchy is an absolute theocratic monarchy - a special form of organization of state power, in which the latter belongs to the church hierarchy. An example of such a monarchy is the Vatican, where the legislative, executive and judicial powers belong to the Pope, who was elected by Cardinals for life. Ирхин Ю.В., Зотов В.Д., Зотова Л.В. Политология: Учебник. - М.: Юристъ, 2002. -c.249

In most absolute monarchies, a close staff of nobility carriers out the orders of the monarch. These nobles may serve in high government positions, taking care of their country's finances, foreign relations, defense, law and justice. For example, in the Middle Eastern country of Qatar, relatives of the king ad the country's elite help rule the country.

Many political thinkers (the most glaring of them was Montesquieu), claimed that absolutism was considered as the most modern form of government, because of the indivisibility of the ruling power, its constancy and applicability to the large-sized countries. Венгеров А.Б. Теория государства и права. Учебник - СПб, 2008 - 493с. - с. 59.

Today, there are few absolute monarchs left in existence. Most notable are the Saudi King and the King of Swaziland. These leaders maintain power in the modern era of democracy by balancing their absolute power with the will of their people.

3.2 Constitutional Monarchy

Many absolute monarchs throughout history have allowed their countries to become constitutional monarchies, accepting an elected government while holding on to their money, property, and place in society. Today, the majority of monarchies still in existence are constitutional monarchies.

Constitutional monarchy, system of government in which a monarch shares power with a constitutionally organized government. The monarch may be the de facto head of state or a purely ceremonial leader. The constitution allocates the rest of the government's power to the legislature and judiciary.

Today constitutional monarchies are mostly associated with Western European countries such as the United Kingdom, The Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, Denmark, Spain, Luxembourg, Monaco, Liechtenstein, and Sweden. In such cases it is the prime minister who holds the day-to-day powers of governance, while the King or Queen (or other monarch, such as a Grand Duke, in the case of Luxembourg, or Prince in the case of Monaco and Liechtenstein) retains only minor to no powers. Different nations grant different powers to their monarchs. In the Netherlands, Denmark and in Belgium, for example, the Monarch formally appoints a representative to preside over the creation of a coalition government following a parliamentary election, while in Norway the King chairs special meetings of the cabinet.

The most significant family of constitutional monarchies in the world today are the sixteen realms, all independent parliamentary democracies in a personal union relationship under Elizabeth II.

Unlike some of their continental European counterparts, the Monarch and her Governors-General in the Commonwealth Realms hold significant «reserve» or «prerogative» powers, to be wielded in times of extreme emergency or constitutional crises usually to uphold parliamentary government. An instance of a Governor General exercising his power was during the 1975 Australian constitutional crisis, when the Australian Prime Minister of the time, Gough Whitlam, was effectively fired from his position. This led to much speculation as to whether this use of the Governor General's reserve powers was appropriate, and whether Australia should become a republic.

In both the United Kingdom and elsewhere, a common debate centers around when it is appropriate for a monarch to use his or her political powers. When a monarch does act, political controversy can often ensue, partially because the neutrality of the crown is seen to be compromised in favor of a partisan goal. While political scientists may champion the idea of an «interventionist monarch» as a check against possible illegal action by politicians, the monarchs themselves are often driven by a more pragmatic sense of self-preservation, in which avoiding political controversy can be seen as an important way to retain public legitimacy and popularity.

There also exist today several federal constitutional monarchies. In these countries, each subdivision has a distinct government and head of government, but all subdivisions share a monarch who is head of state of the federation as a united whole.

Constitutional monarchy can be parliamentary and dualistic. Last form almost becomes obsolete.

Most constitutional monarchies employ a parliamentary system in which the monarch may have strictly ceremonial duties or may have reserve powers, depending on the constitution. Under most modern constitutional monarchies there is also a prime minister who is the head of government and exercises effective political power. Frederic P Miller, Agnes F Vandome, Constitutional Monarchy, VDM Publishing House Ltd., 2010, p.5In a parliamentary monarchy power of the monarch in the legislative, executive and judicial spheres is symbolic. Monarch only sign legislative acts passed by the Parliament, and formally retains the status of the head of state - only with representative powers. In fact the Head of State (Prime Minister) is the leader of the party, which has the largest number of seats in parliament. The government formed by the parliament and is accountable only to him.

So, a parliamentary monarchy characterized by the following features:

a) The power of the monarch is limited in all spheres by the government and the dualism is absent;

b) The executive power carry out by the government (by the Constitution) is responsible to the Parliament rather than the monarch;

c) The Government is formed from representatives of the party that won the election;

d) Leader of the party, which has the largest number of deputy seats in parliament, automatically becomes the Head of the state; e) The laws are passed by the Parliament and the signing of the monarch is the formal act. Матузов Н.И., Малько А.В., Теория государства и права: Курс лекций. - М.: Юрист, 1997. c. 244.

The large part of the modern constitutional monarchies is parliamentary (Japan, Spain, Sweden, Denmark and others).

In the Dualistic Monarchy legal and actual power is divided between the government, which is formed by the monarch (or their prime minister) and by the Parliament. The monarch has no legislative power, it went to parliament, but he still concentrated in the hands the executive branch and forms the government, responsible to him, not to parliament. Monarch governs many areas of public relations by his decrees. He has the right to veto laws, created by the Parliament and the right to dissolve parliament.

Dualistic monarchy arises in specific historical circumstances, as an expression of a compromise between the monarch and the people. In this case, the overweight remains for the monarch. This form of government is characterized by an authoritarian political regime. М.Н. Марченко, Теория государства и права: Курс лекций, М.: Зерцало, 1996. - С. 96

Dualistic Monarchy is typical for the transitional period between feudalism and capitalism. It is kind of an attempt to reconcile the interests of feudal lords (they mostly represent the monarch) and the interests of the bourgeoisie (parliament representing them). For example, the dualistic monarchy was in Germany in 1871-1918 pp. It also existed in Tunisia, Thailand, Libya, Ethiopia and other countries. In some advanced countries (Sultanate of Brunei, the Kingdom of Tonga), which retain some features of the Dualistic Monarchy.

Currently, the «classical» dualistic monarchy, when the monarch rules the country with subordinated government, does not exist. However, elements of such form of the government appreciable in countries gravitating to absolute, or to a parliamentary monarchy.

3.3 Advantages and disadvantages of the Monarchy

«The modern democracy has only one enemy - the good monarch.»

Oscar Wilde

In our time, yet there are many supporters of the monarchy. The advantages of monarchy, they are usually named are the following:

1) Know in advance who is the successor, that allows you to prepare him for this role (unfortunately, the stories are almost no examples of this)

2) Hereditary transfer of the power ensure stability (which is valid only for a constitutional monarchy).

3) They have not to elect new person for a new term which reduce a heavy amount of expenditures in election.

4) People have much respect for monarch than for elected person as he or she is for a term only.

5) The king or queen represents a historical authority and symbolize a historical heritage. The monarchy is an effective symbol of unity. Properly arranged monarchy can be a symbol of unity of the multinational state, including Empire. The monarchy may also be a symbol of national unity, social stability. Even formally, constitutional, and actually decorative monarchy (like the modern monarchy in Great Britain) continue to carry out this mission - the symbol and instrument of unity.

6) State is ruled by the professional rulers. (In the case of hereditary monarchy, it is quite obvious. In the case of the election - even less likely, because history chose deliberately weak monarch to control it - an example can be the rule of Mikhail Romanov)

7) Monarchs know that they are not for a term period so they have not lust of money or misuse their authority so there are minimum chances for corruption.

8) Absolutist rule allows the sovereign to implement his plans (an example might be the reforms of Peter I. But these reforms had more negative cosequences than positive, just because of their artificial spreading).

9) Another important advantage of the monarchy is the ability to put the most talented people forward for the high offices. In a monarchical system, this ability is much higher than in the Republican. President or prime minister (even the most decent) will see the competitor in talented minister or general and, therefore, will do its best to retire him. Monarch socially withdrawn from competition and is interested in the promotion of talented people, because the defeat of his country is a threat to the renunciation, and death of the country - the death of a dynasty and likely personal monarch's death. Симонишвили Л.Р., Формы правления история и современность, М.: Флинта: МПСИ, 2007 - 280 с.

10) Also, one of the main advantage of the monarchy is when the country has no time and need a rapid, operative decision, the best rule is the rule of one man.

The main disadvantages of monarchy are the following:

I. The destiny of the whole country depends on the power and qualities of one person. Only if he is strong, wise and energetic emperor, then in the State will be stability and prosperity. The main disadvantage of the dynastic monarchy - an accident of birth. The dynastic succession has no guarantee that mentally defective successor will not born. Very often dynastic successor is the opposite of their parents. Take, for example, the reign of Catherine II and her son Pavel. Catherine reigned and concentrated around herself the greatness. Pavel was the complete opposite of her mother. «Paul brought to the throne ill-considered program without the knowledge of matters and people, and only plentiful reserve of bitter feelings.» В. О. Ключевский. Курс русской истории. М. 1921. Стр. 155

II. The only way out of discontent of the people is to overthrow the government. With increasing riches and economic development the draught for democracy appears. Thus, the Great French Revolution is a consequence not only of the poverty of the lower class, but also the political powerlessness of rich bourgeois.

III. Favoritism. Most of the monarchs had favorites. Potemkin and Orlov, who were Ekaterina's II favorites also were all-powerful people. The richest citizens of Louis XIV (the King of Sun), who was a symbol of absolutism, were his favorites - Valliere, Montespan, Fontange.

IV. There are disputes about the succession, which could outgrow into civil war. (Great Troubles in Russia in the XVII century, War of the Roses in England in the XV century, etc.)

V. A single person rules in a state for a long time (mostly for life time) so peoples have no chance to remove him if he is not ruling properly or according to the will of people. The elected or appointed person lead to generation, who sets him up, does not live under an hereditary government, but under government, of it's own choice and establishment. Thomas Paine, Collected writings, Library of America, 1995, p. 517-518

VI. When a person knows that he has an authority for life time he does not take any tension to work for the betterment of peoples as he knows that he is not responsible to anyone.

VII. Sometime, a huge amount of money spends on king/queen and their family for nothing. (For example, James 1 and Charles 1 attempted to raise extra money, which lead to the failure of royal income, and then it was one of the reason of The English Civil War).

Conclusion

The monarchy as a form of the government is very heterogeneous and for centuries it has shown flexibility in its policy framework.

How can one describe - so that others may understand it - the monarchy of today? How can one explain that a modern, developed state can maintain such an «antiquated» system? In attempting to find an answer we must turn to history, because traditions - as they are learned and perceived - create attitudes, which in turn lead to actions. The monarchy has evolved from absolute personal authority to the present constitutional form. The monarchy is a masterpiece, and it is surely the point of great interest. Dante Alighieri, Prue Shaw, Monarchy, Cambridge University Press, 1996, p.9

The very concept of a monarchy is so ancient, so unlike any other institution in public life, and so inherently, wonderfully illogical that as soon as one attempts to apply today's standards to it one undermines its strongest reason for existence. It is precisely because it is so magnificently atavistic, archaic and irrational - so unlike anything else in society - that it exercises such power over the human imagination.

Today's monarchy is not an impediment for development of a country and it's very efficient and performing. And we benefit from the security provided by a permanent monarch. The Sovereign represents the people toward the government and this one has the responsibility to protect people from abuse of the government. His primary role is as a «focus of national unity».

Monarchy is an institution intended to symbolize a historical heritage and to provide the country's political system with a structure steeped in a historically meaningful tradition of rule. It's serves as a powerful symbol of community and appeals to most people as an unchanging icon.

The list of the used literature

1. Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary, Washington, 1906 p. 163

2. Dante Alighieri, Prue Shaw, Monarchy, Cambridge University Press, 1996, p. 9

3. Evgeny Pashukanis The Marxist Theory of State and Law 1932 p. 65

4. Frederic P Miller, Agnes F Vandome, Constitutional Monarchy, VDM Publishing House Ltd., 2010, p. 5

5. George Sidney Camp, Democracy, BiblioLife, 2009, p. 122

6. Jacques Monet, in «The Canadian Monarchy» in The West and the Nation: Essays in Honour of W.L. Morton (1976), edited by Ramsay Cook, and Carl Berger. p. 324

7. Janet Martin, Medieval Russia 980-1584, Cambridge University Press, 1995), p. 27-29.

8. Jennifer Fandel, Monarchy, The Creative Company, 2007, p. 7

9. Johann Caspar Bluntschli. The theory of state, second edition, oxford, 1992, p. 329

10. John Stuart Blackie, Forms of government: a historical review and estimate of the growth of the principal types of political organism in Europe, from the greeks and romans down to the present time. London, 1867 p. 47

11. Katy Schiel Monarchy: A Primary Source Analysis The Rosen Publishing Group, 2004, p. 5

12. Manava Dharma Sastra. Laws of Manu (trans, by Sir W. Jones), v. 96, 97; vii. 3-8.

13. The World Factbook 2009. Washington, DC: Central Intelligence Agency, 2009.

14. Thomas Paine, Collected writings, Library of America, 1995, p. 517-518

15. Walter Bagehot, The English Constitution, 2009

16. В.О. Ключевский. Курс русской истории. М. 1921. c. 155

17. Венгеров А.Б. Теория государства и права. Учебник - СПб, 2008 - 493 с. - с. 59.

18. Ирхин Ю.В., Зотов В.Д., Зотова Л.В. Политология: Учебник. - М.: Юристъ, 2002. - c. 249

19. М.Н. Марченко, Теория государства и права: Курс лекций, М.: Зерцало, 1996. - С. 96

20. Матузов Н.И., Малько А.В., Теория государства и права: Курс лекций. - М.: Юрист, 1997. c. 244.

21. Симонишвили Л.Р., Формы правления история и современность, М.: Флинта: МПСИ, 2007 - с 196.

22. Скакун О.Ф. Теорія держави і права: Підручник - Харків: Консум, 2001. C.80

23. Article, LDP panel debates female succession to imperial throne., Kyodo News International, Dec 10, 2001

Размещено на Allbest.ru