Political Thought of the Ancient World. Plato and Aristotle. Political thought of the Middle Ages. Machiavelli and Enlightenment thinkers. The contribution of T. Hobbes, J. Locke, J. Madison, K. Marx and V.I. Lenin in the development of political thought. Political science of the twentieth century. The main directions of modern political science.

The history of political doctrines is one of the most important, organic parts of the spiritual culture of mankind. It contains the vast experience of many generations of thinkers involved in the study of the problems of politics, power, and the state. This experience belongs not only to history, but also to the present, continuing to influence political processes and ideological movements, the evolution of political theoretical knowledge.

Political thought of the ancient world

The emergence of political thought among ancient peoples goes back to religious and mythological origins. Earthly orders, according to mythological ideas, are part of the global, cosmic. At the same time, myths not only explained, but also proved the legitimacy of the existing social and state structure, streamlined beliefs and rules of conduct. Mythical "political cosmology" substantiated the idea of ​​a divine primary source of social and political orders (such are the myths about the divine origin of the power of the pharaoh in Egypt or the emperor of China, the myths about the gods as the original rulers and legislators in Greece, etc.). Thus, already in antiquity, the idea of ​​the sacred, supernatural nature of politics takes root. This idea has serious arguments and is characteristic of the religious worldview and theological concepts up to the present day. The power that subjugates people belonging to different social groups and ethnic groups must be higher than any earthly authority (including ancestors). The subsequent development of human history and political thought proceeded mainly under the sign of rationalization and secularization (separation of the state from religion), with the exception of the medieval period, Eastern traditional societies and Russia (until 1917).

A certain rationalization of political ideas in the cultural centers of the Ancient World occurs in the 1st millennium BC. This is especially characteristic of the philosophical interpretations of the state in Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome, where the state was considered the highest embodiment of reason. The process of formation of political thought itself was accompanied by an active discussion of social problems, an attempt to explain them, as well as the development of concepts and principles in the field of politics. The most important question then becomes the problem of the best form of government.

A special role in understanding the nature of politics from a philosophical position belongs to Plato (427(?) - 347(?) BC), who proposed an ideal model of the state. The problems he solved have not lost their relevance even today. Plato compares the human soul to a chariot drawn by

white and black horses (noble and low beginning in man), controlled by a charioteer (mind). When the charioteer manages to subdue the base beginning, the soul can rise and, together with the gods, contemplate the true being. The three principles of the soul - lust, ardor and prudence correspond to virtues: sanity, courage and wisdom. Their agreement gives justice both in the individual human soul and in the state, which should be arranged in a similar way. Depending on the beginning prevailing in it, the state can be right (monarchy and aristocracy) or wrong (timocracy, oligarchy, democracy, tyranny).

The main problem with an imperfect political system is that

that it is losing its the ideal goal is to save the immortal soul of man, and people are engaged in a business for which their nature is not intended.

It is obvious that the best should rule. In the first place should be quality, which is inversely related to quantity. There is always less gold (pure and prudent sages) than silver (strong-willed and courageous, but furious people), and even more so copper - the vast majority (mediocrities), in which sensual principles predominate. Therefore, democracy leads to the tyranny of the majority (the power of the mob), where all prudence is expelled, greed, self-will and shamelessness reign, and this, as a rule, ends with individual tyranny. According to Plato, the fair rule of elected philosophers should be considered the best form, since only they have access to true knowledge and virtue. Plato introduces a strict hierarchy of estates: the upper class - rulers (wise men), the middle class - guards and warriors, and, finally, artisans and peasants, which corresponds to their spiritual nature. The part here is subordinated to the whole so that neither the family nor private property exists - everything is common. Abuse of benefits and rights is excluded here. Plato gives a detailed system of punishments and completely denies individual initiative not sanctioned by law (Fig. 2.2).

PERSON QUALITY STATE

		"Gold"	Philosophers
	(wisdom)		(rulers)
		"Silver"
	(ardor and courage)
			Artisans
	(lust and sanity)		and peasants
	AMOUNT		AMOUNT

Rice. 2.2. Plato's ideal state

When the origins of totalitarianism are seen in the political teaching of Plato, it must be remembered that it is impossible in his concept to tear off the outwardly totalitarian forms of organization of society, which are associated in the mind of a contemporary with the suppression of individual freedom, from a deep spiritual content, moral orientation and citizenship of his ideas. In the current period of democratization, Plato's criticism of the reverse option seems particularly relevant, where outwardly free democratic forms are reconciled with the lack of spirituality of the content of politics, when the consent of the majority in the solidary implementation of evil is possible.

The emergence of political science as an independent discipline is largely associated with the name of the ancient Greek thinker Aristotle (384-322 BC). The state, according to Aristotle, arises naturally to achieve the good of the people and is a political organization. Each state has its own form, which is determined by the number of those in power (one, few, majority) and by the quality of the goal (common benefit or private interest). Hence the distinction between right and wrong forms of government. Three correct forms (monarchy, aristocracy and polity) and three incorrect ones (tyranny, oligarchy and democracy) are shown in Fig. 2.3. In the most correct form of the state - polities - the majority of citizens (but not slaves) rules. The principle underlying this or that form of government is important. Thus, "the principle of the aristocracy is virtue, the oligarchies - wealth, democracy - freedom." Politia organically combines these elements. Aristotle expressed a number of profound provisions about the nature of justice and equality and for the first time pointed out the dependence of the form of the state on the state of its elements (social groups). If for Plato the highest criterion of a person and, accordingly, the state is the desire for good, then for Aristotle, a person is a “political animal”, and in this Aristotle’s views are more typical of the Ancient World. As for the priority of the state over the individual (the whole over the part), Aristotle, like Plato, gives the state primacy over the interests of the family and the individual. It is important for rulers to find a measure, a middle ground between the extremes of unity of command (monarchy that can turn into tyranny), majority rule (democracy turning into ochlocracy) and aristocracy (oligarchy turning into plutocracy). Aristotle understood the freedom of citizens only as the opposite of slavery. Moreover, citizens are engaged only in military, legislative and judicial affairs, while slaves are engaged in agricultural production and handicrafts.

The teachings of the ancient Greek thinkers had a noticeable influence on the political views of the ancient Romans. Ancient Rome gave the idea of ​​statehood great rigor and formal civil law significance. In particular, Cicero, distinguishing three simple forms of government: royal power, the power of the aristocracy and the power of the people (democracy), believed that it was reasonable to combine the advantages of all three in a mixed form. Their elements are easy to see in the existing political system of Ancient Rome, which developed from the tsarist period through the republic to the empire, retaining in itself to varying degrees these three forces, designed to balance each other (in the person of senators (patricians), popular tribunes (with the right to "veto ”), consuls and emperors) (Fig. 2.4).

Despotism (limitless power of arbitrariness)

Tyranny (violent power of a dictator)

Monarchy (hereditary autocracy)

Democracy (majority rule)

Anarchy or ochlocracy (mob power)

Oligarchy (rule by a few)

Plutocracy (power of the rich)

Rice. 2.3. "Good" and "bad" forms of government (according to Aristotle)

Emperor (or consul)

principle of unity of command

Rice. 2.4. The idea of ​​organizing power in ancient Rome

Political representations in the Middle Ages

Medieval political theories were dominated by theological (from the Greek "theos" - God and "logos" - word, doctrine) form of thinking. In Western Europe, the official teaching of the Church was the teaching Aurelius Augustine(353-430) iThomas Aquinas (1226-1274). They substantiated the theory of the divine origin of the state and the superiority of spiritual power over secular (Fig. 2.5). In particular, Blessed Augustine in his most famous work “On the City of God” pointed out that the “Earthly City” and “Heavenly City” are a symbolic expression of two types of “love”, egoistic struggle (“love for oneself up to neglect of God” ) and moral (“love for God up to self-forgetfulness”) motives. The ultimate goal of history will not be accomplished on earth: earthly states are “robber gangs”, necessary only in the conditions of human sinfulness. The community of the righteous will become that "City that is not of this world."

God (good)

Pope (holiness and wisdom)

(sanctified Monarch autocracy)

(asceticism, Holy Knight - (aristocracy, service) courage, devotion)

(hard work, obedience)

Rice. 2.5. Organization of power, according to the teachings of Western Christianity (Catholicism)

F. Aquinas developed a peculiar criterion for evaluating the legitimacy of political power (the moral nature of government) and, on the basis of this, built a classification of forms of the state. He considered political science as a field of knowledge related to state administration. The main goals of this science, in the interpretation of Aquinas, are the imitation of nature and the achievement of perfection in human relations. Gradually, the principle of “papism” developed in the West on the basis of the Roman episcopate. The bishops of Rome, who called themselves "pope", obtained from the Roman emperor an edict on the subordination of other bishops to them and, until the Reformation, held power throughout Europe, including secular power. This was a violation of the principle "God is God's, but Caesar's is Caesar's." And as often as extremes converge, so the West, ultimately, rejecting such interference in everything earthly of the Catholic Church, fell into the other extreme - it left the matter of faith exclusively to the inner world of conscience and freedom of personal convictions (starting with the Reformation), laying the foundation for the separation of politics from religion and open atheism.

In Eastern Christianity - Orthodoxy - a different idea was formed about the ideal form of the relationship between church and state. Since church-state relations are a two-way phenomenon, the ideal form could historically be developed only in a state that recognizes the Orthodox Church as the greatest shrine, that is, in an Orthodox state. Attempts to develop such a form were made in Byzantium, where the principles of church-state relations found their expression in the state laws of the empire and were reflected in patristic writings. Taken together, these principles are called symphonies of church and state. Its essence is mutual cooperation, mutual support and mutual responsibility, without intrusion of one side into the sphere

the exclusive competence of the other. The bishop is subject to state authority as a subject, and not because his episcopal authority comes from a representative of state authority. In the same way, a representative of state authority obeys the bishop as a member of the church seeking salvation in it, and not because his authority comes from the authority of the bishop. The state, in symphonic relations with the church, seeks spiritual support from it, prayers for itself and blessings for activities aimed at achieving goals that serve the well-being of citizens, and the church receives assistance from the state in creating conditions favorable for preaching and for the spiritual nourishment of its children, who are simultaneously citizens of the state. The classical Byzantine formula for the relationship between state and ecclesiastical power is contained in the Epanagoge (second half of the 9th century): . The well-being of the state consists in their connection and harmony.

In Russia, the spiritual successor of Byzantium, the idea of ​​a symphony of authorities was developed in the formula “Orthodoxy. Autocracy. Nationality”, developed in the works of Met. Filareta (Drozdova) and formally proclaimed with reference to the entire previous history of Russia in 1834 by the Minister of Public Education, gr. S.S. Uvarov. In the future, it received its development and understanding (philosophical-historical and political-theoretical) in the works

Khomyakova A.S., Tikhomirova L.A., Ilyin I.A., Solonevich I.L., Met. John (Snychev) and others (Fig. 2.6).

Orthodox Church (teaching)

blesses blesses

			Guards
		Protects	State
			Autocratic monarchy

Rice. 2.6. Organization of power, according to the doctrine of Eastern Christianity

In this formula, the sovereignty and autocracy of an Orthodox tsar has nothing in common with political absolutism or papism. The monarch, on the one hand, is bound by the canonical teaching of the Orthodox Church, the holy sacraments and anointing to the kingdom, that is, mystically, and is responsible before God for the whole people, takes care of them and manages state affairs. He is "in symphony" with a church that teaches and prays for all. AT

The great ancient Greek thinker Plato, and after him Aristotle, considered the monarchy the best form of government because the moral principle prevails in it, like in no other possible form. If this principle is violated, then the monarchy can develop into tyranny, just as an aristocracy into an oligarchy, and a democracy into an ochlocracy. From time immemorial, two forms of government fought in Russia - the monarchy and the oligarchy. They determined the vector of history, now plunging the country into turmoil, then taking it out of it. But what is happening today, which of the forms of government is now becoming dominant, does the recent history of Russia confirm the existence of these two antagonisms?

The prince and the retinue, the grand duke and the boyars, the emperor and his favorites, the general secretary and his politburo, the president and his inner circle - the relationship of these centers of power and power determined the difficult paths of development of Russian history.

I did not notice that strengthening the power of the monarch led to the strengthening of the state and, on the contrary, the strengthening of the boyar freemen weakened the state. These were the “rhythms of Russian history”.

For the first time, an attempt to exalt the prince over the boyars in Russia was made back in the 12th century under Andrei Yuryevich Bogolyubsky. The Vladimir-Suzdal principality that arose under him was the most powerful state formation in the north-east of Russia. It was it that subsequently became the core of the modern Russian state.

Andrei Yuryevich was famous for the fact that he sought to subordinate the boyar freemen to his influence. Thanks to the strengthening of princely power, the Vladimir-Suzdal principality reached an unprecedented flourishing. However, the boyars did not tolerate the prince's willfulness for long, and soon a conspiracy arose against Andrei Bogolyubsky, as a result of which he was killed.

Soon after the assassination of Prince Andrei, a struggle began for his inheritance. The struggle was long and eventually led Russia to a state of feudal fragmentation. In such a weakened state, she became an easy prey for the Tatar-Mongol conquerors.

The Tatar-Mongols, in all likelihood, were well aware of the peculiarity of Russian traditions and willingly manipulated the most noble princes and boyars. For example, Prince Michael of Tver was at one time the most powerful ruler in Russia under the Mongols, and Tver was many times superior in wealth and development to neighboring Moscow. But in the Horde, Mikhail was not given a label to rule, and the prince himself was killed. The label went to the less powerful and less worthy Moscow Prince Ivan. He brutally suppressed the uprising in Tver, after which this city could no longer compete with Moscow.

To some extent, the Tatar-Mongol administration used a system of checks and balances, when, on the one hand, it did not allow an individual prince to become stronger, but, on the other, it did not allow the strengthening of boyar power.

The real power of the Grand Duke began to strengthen only after the liberation of Russia from the Tatar-Mongolian dependence.

Ivan III began to strengthen autocratic power most actively. Under him, not only the process of “gathering lands around Moscow” continued, but the struggle against the separatism of the specific princes intensified. It was under Ivan III that a significant strengthening of the monarchical principles of government took place, and the boyar freemen, primarily in the person of the appanage princes, suffered a sensitive blow.

And although by the beginning of the reign of Ivan IV the Terrible, the Russian state was already centralized, the boyar freemen were still very strong. The boyars took advantage of the weakness of the young Ivan Vasilyevich and tried to strengthen their power. A long and fierce struggle began between the boyar oligarchy and the monarch. The struggle was so difficult that Ivan the Terrible even had to divide the Russian state into parts, naming one part zemstvo, and the other oprichnina.

Those who strongly dislike Russia often talk about Ivan IV as a bloody tyrant. But one has only to compare the "deeds and days" of European monarchs, as it becomes clear who, in fact, "thirst for blood." So, for example, a contemporary of Ivan IV, Elizabeth I cut off the head of not only Mary Stuart, she also executed 89 thousand of her subjects. True, unlike Ivan Vasilyevich, Elizaveta Genrikhovna did not repent of her deed either in public or privately. I didn’t write down the murdered in Synodiki, I didn’t send money for the remembrance of the soul to the monasteries. European monarchs did not have such habits at all.

In general, if compared with Europe of that time, then the oprichnina claimed about 5 thousand lives in 6 years, one Bartholomew night - 30 thousand; In the Holy Roman Empire - Charles V executed tens of thousands; in England: Henry VIII - also kept count of those executed by tens of thousands. The Spanish Inquisition sentenced to death all the inhabitants of the Netherlands, during the suppression of uprisings in the Netherlands by Philip II (1556-1598), more than one hundred thousand people were executed in two years.

Due to the “withdrawal” of large landowners from their “patrimonial estates”, their possessions were fragmented and the land was transferred to the conditional use of small service people. By this, Ivan destroyed the old nobility and strengthened the new social stratum - the "children of the boyars", who later became the service class or the nobility.

It was Ivan IV who became the ancestor of that autocratic, monarchical tradition, which would become dominant in Russia after his death. But it is not customary for us to hang out the true ancestor of Russian statehood - Ivan the Terrible in our offices. They prefer the figure of Peter I, who did not strengthen, but undermined the foundations of the Russian state.

But even after the death of Ivan the Terrible, the confrontation between the monarch and the oligarchy did not stop. On the contrary, it became very aggravated, which found its expression in the era that received the name "Time of Troubles".

During this period, Russia was ready to follow the path of Poland, in which the oligarchic principle won, in which not the monarch leads the state, but the gentry (oligarchy). As a result, this principle has led to Poland's loss of its statehood for centuries.

Russia emerged from the era of the Time of Troubles in the 17th century solely due to the strengthening of the monarchical principle of government. Further strengthening of the state - the empire continued until the era of "Palace coups", when the nobility, having received liberties, up to exemption from compulsory public service, tried to rise above the monarch. Few people know that the Decembrist uprising, and not the death of Emperor Pavel Petrovich, was the final act of the era of the "Palace Revolutions".

Under Nicholas I, who suppressed the last palace coup, the Russian Empire reaches the peak of its power. It was during this period that the foundations for the future development of the country were laid.

I emphasize once again that the confrontation between the oligarchic and monarchical principles does not occur because the monarch, at one time, did not “put the reptile down”, i.e. did not kill all the noble boyars (princes and counts), but because the clash of these principles is a peculiar form of movement and development of Russian power. Under Ivan IV, the opponents were the boyars, and under the empresses, the guards. Under Stalin, the “Leninist guard” (or “Leninist oligarchy”), under Gorbachev, the “nomenklatura oligarchy,” and so on.

Today, many have already forgotten the story of who overthrew Nicholas II. But it was not the Bolsheviks, not the Socialist-Revolutionaries, not the anarchists, and not even the revolutionary sailors that overthrew him. He was overthrown by the oligarchy represented by representatives of the royal family, army generals, major capitalists, top officials and politicians. The overthrow of the emperor in February-March 1917 plunged Russia into a new turmoil, which, like the turmoil of the 17th century, lasted at least 10 years.

I have not noticed that whenever the oligarchy strives for power, weakening, if not formal, but the monarchy, confusion sets in in the country. Only the emergence of a strong leader, who, again, professes the monarchical principle, is the restoration of the country.

So it was, for example, under Stalin. Stalin is often compared to Ivan the Terrible. Indeed, there is a lot in common between them, but not so much in characters, but in the challenges they faced. Ivan the Terrible managed to put an end to boyar separatism and the disintegration of the country into specific principalities, and Stalin made a sharp turn from the idea of ​​a world revolution, pushing Russia to the brink of death, to collecting Russian lands and creating a “red empire”.

Under Khrushchev, the "imperial principle" still continued by inertia, but after 10 years of Nikita Sergeevich's rule, the "new oligarchs" in the person of the Leninist Politburo finally seized power and "slowly, in a quiet zigzag" led Russia/USSR to decline.

A new turmoil came when the monarchical principle fell into decay and the oligarchy finally came to power. The same oligarchy that was preparing to seize power and property back in the period when it had power, partly limited by the monarchical principle, but did not have property. After all, it is no longer a secret to anyone that in as a result of the unrest of the late 80s and early 90s, yesterday's party bosses and their associates came to power in the country.

An attempt to limit the boundless appetites of the oligarchy, ready to ruin the whole country for its insane rapture of power, was made under Boris Yeltsin. True, an attempt at a short-term royalist restoration ended sadly. The oligarchs who won in the country “killed Boris” and put forward to the throne "locum tenens of the monarchy".

At this point, I want to emphasize that speaking of the modern Russian oligarchy, I do not mean the so-called "on-duty oligarchs" such as Abramovich, Deripaska, Mordashov, Potanin or Prokhorov. The real oligarchy is that part of the Russian elite that shines less, but has more. This is the part of the establishment that did not participate, but managed, for example, loans-for-shares auctions. This is the part that was not limited to the seizure of property, but seized control of power. What, in fact, was the oligarchy in Russia striving for at all times. We can replace the term "oligarchy" with the term "new boyars"-- it better characterizes the stratum that actually governs the country today.

Chroniclers tell a legend about how in 1613 at the Zemsky Sobor Mikhail Romanov was elected to the kingdom. Shortly before the convocation of the council, the most prominent boyars gathered and "sentenced" that Michael would be the king. Misha at that time was in his 17th year. He was bright and capable, but had no management experience. On his behalf, his mother - Martha and uncles ruled. At the same time, the boyars believed that with the inexperienced Misha, they would be able to manage their affairs. But soon Patriarch Filaret returned from captivity, who took the reins of government upon himself, and soon Michael began to understand that he could rule the country on his own.

Whatever it was, and "locum tenens" often it starts to go beyond what is permitted. In order to strengthen their power and establish the monarchical principle of government, as the dominant “elected monarch”, it is necessary to deal with the oligarchy. One should not think that such a massacre must necessarily be bloody and cruel, as it was, for example, under Ivan the Terrible or under Joseph Stalin. For example, Nikita Khrushchev (the fight against the anti-party group led by Molotov, Malenkov, Kaganovich, Bulganin and Shepilov who joined them) and the Brezhnev-Leninist Politburo (the massacre of Khrushchev himself and his supporters) clearly showed that in order to eliminate objectionable people it is not necessary to engage in bloodletting . But without the isolation of the oligarchs, it is impossible to strengthen the monarchical principle; such a principle under which, as our historical experience shows, the strengthening and development of the Russian state takes place. Let us now turn to the analysis of the current situation.

Let's start with the fact that the oligarchy ("new boyars"), after a period of unrest in the late 80s and early 90s of the last century, having outlived "Tsar Boris", has not gone anywhere. On the contrary, over the past 20-30 years it has significantly strengthened. The new boyars did not experience any repressions or significant disgrace. Except for the minor "children of the boyars", then the main backbone deep The Russian oligarchy retained all its positions.

In 2000, the new boyars nominated from their ranks the "locum tenens" of the informal monarchy. B Luckily taught by experience, this boyars prefer to stay in the shadows and, while making decisions informally, do not formally accept them.

The person acting as monarch is under the control of the "boyars". A vivid proof of this is the lack of real development of the country, for Russia never developed under the oligarchy, but, on the contrary, grew weak, losing its positions.

For loyalty to the oligarchic clan, the "locum tenens" received the right to be re-elected for a second term, while remaining under the control of the "new boyars". Subsequent rotations (replacement of the president by the prime minister and vice versa) had an exclusively formal (within the framework of a legitimate procedure) character.

However, in 2012, when the regular elections of the head of state took place, the newly elected president considered that the period of his stay in the formal role of "locum tenens" was over. He probably considered that in the third term of his reign, he can no longer rely on the oligarchs who once nominated him, but on the will of the people who elected him.

An example of this is the emergence of the so-called All-Russian Popular Front (ONF), which was supposed to play the role of a kind of link between the informal monarch and the people. But through the efforts of the oligarchs, the role of this organization was quickly reduced to the role that such a body as People's Control played during the Soviet era.

Nevertheless, the national leader continued his attempts to strengthen the monarchical principle in spite of the oligarchic one. As we noted above, this is impossible without limiting (and very significant) the influence and power of the “new boyars”. An offensive against the oligarchy began on a number of fronts. This was vital to strengthening the country, which continued to slowly degrade under oligarchic rule.

An example of such a struggle was the so-called "economic crisis". This "crisis" was the result of a clash of two principles - the monarchist and the oligarchic. There were no other, more or less serious reasons for its occurrence. In other words, supporters of the monarchy tried to move the “new boyars” away from power and resources, even by using the crisis in Ukraine, through the annexation of Crimea and revitalizing the situation in the Donbass. The boyars responded to these efforts by organizing a crisis.

The fact that it was artificially provoked is evidenced by the freezing of crisis processes that we can observe today. In this regard, it is logical to assume that our "Western partners" are clearly on the side of the "new boyars", since the object of their attack is not politics, but the national leader, whom they are trying with all their might to classify as outcasts.

Around the beginning of March 2015, a quiet coup took place in the country, putting an end to attempts to restore the monarchical principle of government. The "new boyars" won another victory.

There was a freeze in the economy and in politics. The fact is that the situation has developed in such a way that today any development will clearly show: in which direction the country will begin to move towards the monarchical or oligarchic principle. Recently, it has been possible to observe tendencies of a reversal towards the interests of the "new boyars". What this leads to we already know.

1. The problem of classification of forms of government.

How many and what forms of government existed in the history of mankind? To answer this controversial question, one must correctly select the criteria that distinguish one form of government from another. Comparative analysis of forms of government is a condition for their successful classification. The form of government is the type of structure of the supreme power in the country. From the history of philosophy there are several attempts to make such a classification.

2. Aristotle's classification.

This classification is set forth in Aristotle's Politics. This classification is entirely borrowed by Aristotle from Plato, but Aristotle was able to present it in a more systematic form.

Table 3

Aristotle named six forms of government, which are distinguished in accordance with two criteria :

· The number of ruling persons.

· Evaluation of forms of government.

A kingdom is a form of government in which, in which one prominent person has power, this hero surpasses all those around him and becomes above the law, he is a god among people, he is his own law. Royal power rests on the dignity, beneficence and power of the king. All kings achieved their power thanks to great deeds, for example, King Codrus saved the Athenian state from slavery that threatened him, King Cyrus freed the Persians from the yoke of the Medes, King Alexander the Great conquered the vast territory of the Persian kingdom. An example of a king is Emperor Napoleon, who was a great conqueror, although at the end of his life he lost the war, lost his throne and died in captivity on the distant island of St. Helena.

Tyranny is a form of government in which the power is held by one person who abuses his position for selfish interests. . Most tyrants have come from demagogues who have gained the confidence of the people by vilifying the nobles. In our opinion, Lenin, Trotsky and Hitler can serve as examples of demagogue tyrants. Stalin was a tyrant, but he was not a demagogue; was a poor speaker, spoke Russian poorly and with a large Georgian accent, had a vicious temper and a fear of public speaking due to an inferiority complex. Zhirinovsky is a good demagogue, but, fortunately for us, he failed to become a ruler and a tyrant. Kings can become tyrants if they violate their fatherly covenants and strive for despotic power. Other tyrants assume unlimited power by being first chosen to the highest positions in free elections.

Aristotle compares a king and a tyrant and concludes that tyranny is the most harmful form of government for the subjects. The tyrant seeks to increase his wealth, while the king seeks to increase his glory and honor. The protection of the king is made up of citizens, the protection of the tyrant is made up of mercenaries, With the help of money, the tyrant hires his own bodyguards and leads a luxurious lifestyle. The tyrant fights against the rabble - seizes weapons, removes the rabble from the city by moving to the colony. On the other hand, the tyrant fights against the nobles, because all conspiracies come from them, they themselves want to rule. The tyrant Periander believed that it was necessary to cut off the ears rising above the others - to execute all outstanding people. Coup d'état occurs in tyrannies as a result of the insults and fear of the subjects before the abuses of the tyrant and as a result of the tyrant's encroachments on the property of the subjects. Dion made an attempt on Dionysius the Younger, the tyrant of the city of Syracuse, out of a feeling of contempt for him: he saw that Dionysius was despised by his fellow citizens, and Dionysius was always drunk. Aristotle famously said: "No more honor to the one who kills the thief, but to the one who kills the tyrant." These words became the slogan of all tyrant-fighters and regicides, like Sofya Perovskaya and members of the Narodnaya Volya group, who killed the Russian Tsar Alexander 2, although the latter was a reformer, not a tyrant.

Aristocracy is a form of government in which there is the power of a minority of citizens, the power of the best citizens in terms of virtue . Governors are elected in Senate - legislative assembly of aristocrats . People of noble birth and valor cannot be recruited anywhere and hundreds, and the poor are everywhere. According to Aristotle aristocracy is the best form of government. In our opinion, this conclusion was absolutely correct only for antiquity, when representative democracy had not yet been invented.

Oligarchy is a form of government where power is in the hands of a few and unworthy citizens - the oligarchs. Types of oligarchies:

· When there is a high property qualification for those who wish to occupy a high position. The property qualification is the minimum limit of a person's fortune in monetary terms, which allows him to take this position. For example, to become a Roman senator, the applicant had to have a fortune, the size of which should have been at least 20 thousand sesterces (Roman currency). The Roman Senate had two censors who annually assessed the state of the senators. Only a very rich man could become a Roman senator.

· When senators replenish the lack of officials through co-optation - recruitment at their own discretion For example, it was through co-optation, and not elections, that Stalin first became a member of the Central Committee of the RSDLP (B) in 1912.

· When a son takes office in place of his father, i.e. position is hereditary.

· When it is not the law that rules, but officials.

The disadvantage of the oligarchy is the strife and indignation of the majority of the population, because this majority does not participate in the administration of the state, although it is aware of its strength.

Polis democracy or polity is a form of government in which power is in the hands of the majority of citizens, who govern well. Under the polity, those who carry heavy weapons are full-fledged, i.e. only men who belong to heavily armed infantry (hoplites). Elections are held in people's assembly , positions are sometimes filled by lot. There is no property qualification in elections.

Ochlocracy or, in Aristotle's terminology, extreme democracy is a form of government in which power belongs to the majority of citizens, who govern badly. Ochlocracy (from the Greek ohlos - crowd) is the power of the crowd, rabble, bandits . It has such shortcomings as the disorderly and anarchic state system, which causes contempt for him on the part of wealthy people. When democracy degenerates into ochlocracy, then the common people become like a despot. Demagogues know how to flatter the crowd and turn their selfish proposals into laws. Gradually, the demagogues receive in fact the supreme power. For example, the people's court of Helieus, on a trifling occasion, unjustly condemned the philosopher Socrates to execution, obeying the will of the demagogues Anita and Meletus. The popular opinion is that the crowd is much easier to manipulate than the senate. The crowd is always prone to admiration for the leaders and aggression towards imaginary enemies. Demagogues often raise accusations against officials, and the people willingly accept the accusations, so that the significance of all officials is reduced to zero. And with the inaction of officials, anarchy sets in, which often leads to defeat in the war. Another disadvantage of ochlocracy and polis democracy is that it is difficult to gather people for a popular assembly without monetary compensation, and this in turn requires higher taxes and confiscations. All this has overthrown a considerable number of democracies. In addition, demagogues tend to arrange free distributions of food to the poor, who need distributions again and again, such help from the mob resembles a leaky barrel.

According to Aristotle, the forms of government pass into each other. An oligarchy, where the oligarchs obey one person, becomes a tyranny, and where they are weakened, a democracy. The main drawback of Aristotle's classification is that it is somewhat outdated, because after Aristotle, new forms of government were invented.

3. Sparta as an example of the aristocracy.

According to the testimony of the ancient Greek historian Plutarch (approximate years of life: 45-120 AD), the aristocracy and laws of Sparta were established by Lycurgus, who was the son of the king of Sparta. Lycurgus' father was killed in one of the street clashes. According to custom, the royal power of the father passed first to Polydeuces, the elder brother of Lycurgus, and then to Charilaus, the young son of Polydeuces. And Lycurgus began to rule the state as the guardian of Charilaus. At the right moment, when the weak-willed Harilaus had already begun to rule in Sparta, Lycurgus, with 30 armed aristocrats, occupied the square and offered to start reforms. After the laws came into force, Lycurgus, at a popular assembly, asked the citizens to take an oath not to change anything until his return. And he himself went to Delphi to ask the opinion of the oracle about his laws. The oracle announced that its laws were beautiful, and that as long as Sparta was faithful to these laws, it would flourish and dominate other states. After that, Lycurgus decided not to return to his homeland and commit suicide in order to force the citizens to fulfill their oath. In addition, he is already 85 years old, and he has achieved everything he aspired to. Lycurgus said goodbye to his friends and son, refused to eat and soon died of hunger. He was afraid that his remains would be transferred to Sparta, and the citizens would consider themselves free from the oath, so he bequeathed to burn his remains at the stake and throw the ashes into the sea. Lycurgus was a theoretician by type of personality, as indicated, in particular, by the laconic style of his speech. The laconic style of speech (from the name of the region in Sparta - Laconia) means a short and clear style in expressing thoughts. The Spartans were fluent in this style of speech. Modern students would also do well to master this art.

The following examples of conciseness can be given. Lycurgus spoke briefly and abruptly. When someone began to demand that he introduce democracy in Sparta, he replied: "Introduce democracy first at home." Once the Spartans asked Lycurgus: "How can we prevent neighboring countries from attacking us?" He replied, "Stay poor and don't be richer than your neighbors in any way." The Spartans valued wit. For example, when a person spoke smartly, but inappropriately, the Spartans told him: "You are talking business, but not to the point." Once, in the presence of the Spartan king, a philosopher was scolded for not uttering a word at a dinner party. Protecting him, the king remarked: "Whoever knows how to speak, he knows how to choose the time for this." One man annoyed the king with his questions about who was the best of the Spartans. The king replied: "The one who least resembles you." When the Spartan king was asked if there were many troops in Sparta, he said: "Enough to drive out the cowards."

According to the laws of Lycurgus, the most important state body was gerousia - council of elders (in Greek - gerontes). Gerousia resolved disputes and gave instructions even to kings. Since ancient times, Sparta was headed by two kings from two constantly warring clans. This enmity between the two kings made it possible to avoid tyranny and preserve the supremacy of the supreme power of the aristocracy over the kings. According to the laws of Lycurgus, the kings retained their power and importance only in war. In peacetime, the kings were ordinary members of the gerousia, which included 30 people. The remaining 28 members were elected by the Spartan people for life from among the elderly at least 60 years old from aristocratic families. Elections were called when one of the gerontes died. The Spartan people had the right to assemble at the Evrota River to to accept or reject the decisions proposed by the Gerousia, i.e., the people's assembly had the right to "veto". The aristocrats were dissatisfied with this law and after the death of Lycurgus adopted an addition to the law: "If the people make the wrong decision, the elders and kings can reject it and dissolve the popular assembly." In the open square, not protected from the wind and the hot sun, where there was nowhere even to sit down, the meeting went quickly without long discussions. After listening to a brief speech by the geront or the king, the people shouted to approve or reject the proposal. No one, except for the elders and kings, was allowed to express their opinion. In these ways, the aristocrats fought against the power of the popular assembly and limited democracy. The people did not want to endure injustice, and 130 years after the reign of Lycurgus, the position of ephors was established, who were elected one person from five regions of the country. They administered judgment and reprisal against citizens in the absence of kings and monitored the implementation of laws, in case of their violation, even kings were punished.

Before the reign of Lycurgus, the land accumulated in the hands of aristocrats. On the advice of Lycurgus, a redistribution of the land was made: the aristocrats refused to own land in favor of the state, the land was equally divided between Spartan families, no one could sell or buy land anymore, thus, private ownership of land was replaced by state property. Each plot provided the family only with barley flour and vegetable oil, which, according to Lycurgus, was quite enough for a happy life, but, in the opinion of most people, such a diet is too poor and ascetic. In those ancient times, labor productivity was too low to provide a varied diet for the Spartans. Lycurgus wanted to destroy the enmity and division of the Spartans into rich and poor. This made it possible to rally the Spartans against an external enemy during the war. Lycurgus forbade the use of gold and silver coins and ordered only iron money to be accepted. This iron money was so low-value and cumbersome that for its storage it was necessary to build a separate pantry in each house and carry it on a cart, thus, iron money almost lost its three most important functions - as a medium of circulation, a means of payment and a means of accumulation. As a result, trade, as an exchange of money-goods-money, almost disappeared, and the Spartans began to live in subsistence farming - they confiscated food from the helots. Crime disappeared in Sparta, because a large amount of iron money as booty made it difficult to hide the fact of theft, bribe or robbery. Lycurgus forbade the Spartans to practice craft. Iron money was not accepted for exchange in other states, like the Soviet "wooden" ruble, which was a non-convertible currency, i.e. currency that cannot be exchanged for other world currencies. Visiting artisans only laughed when the Spartans tried to pay them off with iron money. The equality of the Spartans was equality in poverty.

To create the appearance of brotherhood and comradeship, Lycurgus ordered the Spartans to participate daily in joint dinners for 15-20 people who served in the same military detachment. Lycurgus wanted them to be bound by strong friendship and were ready to die for each other. The decision to accept a newcomer as a member of the dining fraternity had to be taken unanimously. The diet at dinner was very meager - lentil stew with bull's blood, barley dishes, some cheese, meat and fruits, wine diluted with water, which the Greeks drank instead of tea, and they considered it a shame to drink undiluted wine. It was forbidden to come to dinner full and leave your portion uneaten, otherwise other diners might think that the guilty one considers the common table not good enough for himself, and they could subject the guilty person first to a fine, and then to exclusion from the members of the dining fraternity. Lycurgus deprived the rich of the opportunity to eat deliciously, so they were so angry with Lycurgus that they once beat him with sticks and gouged out his eye, but the people stood up for the reformer and punished the rich.

Lycurgus legalized in Sparta the selection of healthy offspring and the destruction of sick children in order to obtain the maximum number of healthy and strong warriors. In order to get healthy offspring, girls had to go in for sports and participate in competitions on an equal basis with men - run, wrestle, throw a discus, throw a spear, attend holidays, participate in dances and sing in a choir. Foreigners reproached Spartan women for leading their husbands. It was considered shameful in Sparta to remain single. After the birth of a son, the father brought him to the council of elders. They examined him and decided his fate. If they found him healthy and strong, then they gave him the opportunity to live and allotted him a plot of land. If the child turned out to be weak and sick, then they ordered to throw him into the abyss, because. the Spartan state did not need weak and sick warriors. The Spartan education of children served the same purpose. In infancy, they were not swaddled in order to harden the body with cold. They were weaned from whims and whining, accustomed to a meager diet. At the age of 7, all the boys were taken away from their parents and united in small groups. At the head of the detachment was a man from whom the children took an example, and who had the right to severely punish children. The old men deliberately quarreled with the boys, provoked them into fights among themselves in order to find out which of the children was braver. Boys were taught literacy only to the extent that they needed to read the text of an order or sign their name. Spartan boys had to obey their superiors unconditionally, patiently endure hardships and win battles at any cost. The living conditions of the boys were the most severe: they had to sleep all together on bundles of reeds, they were forced to walk barefoot and play without clothes in any weather. At the age of 12 they were given a raincoat. The boys in the detachment chose their leader, who later became the commander of this detachment. The children were given very meager food in order to force them to get their own firewood and food by stealing from gardens, from dining brotherhoods and by attacking the watchmen. If the watchmen managed to catch the thief, then he was whipped without mercy as an inept thief. The boys tried at all costs to hide their crimes and could even die during the scourging, but not make a sound and not admit their guilt. With the help of all this, Spartan children were taught to fight hardships on their own and brought up clever and cunning people from them. When a young man became a warrior, he was allowed to take care of the beauty of his dress, hair and weapons. Before the battle, the warriors tried especially carefully to decorate themselves, because. they went into battle with songs and music, as if on a holiday. The privilege of the Olympic champion was to go into battle next to the king. The champion did not want to exchange this privilege for any money. Having put the enemy to flight, the Spartans did not pursue him, because. they considered it unworthy to finish off a defeated enemy. The enemies knew that the Spartans only killed those who resisted. The practical benefit of this custom was that enemies often preferred to run away from the Spartans rather than fight.

A lot of attention in Sparta was paid to education and propaganda. This propaganda, in the absence of mass media, was presented in a primitive form - in the form of choral singing and public speeches by speakers. Spartan songs were courageous, simple and instructive. They glorified the fallen for Sparta, condemned the cowards and called for a feat. This is reminiscent of Soviet propaganda and a Soviet song. The Spartans went into battle to the sound of a flute. And in peaceful life, Sparta was like a military camp, where the Spartans observed strict discipline and lived as custom prescribed. Hopes did not deceive Lycurgus. While Sparta adhered to his laws, for several centuries she remained one of the most powerful states in Greece. Only at the end of the 5th century BC, when self-interest and property inequality penetrated Sparta along with gold and silver, the laws of Lycurgus were dealt a mortal blow.

4. Athens as an example of polis democracy.

According to Plutarch, Solon established polis democracy and laws in Athens. He was considered one of the seven greatest ancient sages. He knew how to write poetry. Solon's father was a poor man and did not leave Solon any means of subsistence as a legacy. Therefore, Solon decided, following the example of a few daredevils, to engage in trade and go by ship across the sea with a cargo of Athenian goods. One such successful trip could make a person rich. He went on a voyage not only for profit, but also in order to gain knowledge. Having become rich, he returned home and found in his hometown a fierce struggle between the rich and the poor. The rich issued a law that forbade calling for war for the island of Salamis. This island was owned by the neighboring state of Megara, which managed to defeat Athens in the war for this island. This island blocked the way for ships to Athens, and the Megarians could easily prevent the delivery of grain and other goods to Athens. To circumvent this law, Solon pretended to be a madman and called for a campaign against Salamis. He led this campaign. He went to the military stratagem. He ordered the soldiers to change into women's clothes and go ashore, and then sent a spy to the Megarians with the task of persuading them to attack these supposedly defenseless women. Megarians succumbed to deceit and were defeated. After that, the Athenians captured Salamis. The land in Greece was rocky and unsuitable for agriculture, so poor farmers lost their land and fell into debt slavery to the rich. The only way out was to develop handicrafts and maritime trade. Solon was elected archon (an elected official) so that he would stop internal strife. Thus, he gained the right to introduce new laws. After establishing his laws, Solon left to wander for 10 years, and took an oath from the citizens not to change the laws until his return. In Athens, in the absence of Solon, unrest began. A distant relative of Solon - Pisistratus - began to prepare a coup d'état in order to establish tyranny instead of polis democracy. Peisistratus went on a provocation - he ran to the square of the national assembly, bleeding, although many claimed that he had inflicted these wounds on himself, demanded that a detachment of the poor be provided for his protection, then captured the Athenian fortress and began to rule like the ancient kings (560 BC). BC.). Solon called on citizens in the popular assembly to fight against tyranny, but no one listened to him because of fear of the tyrant. Friends advised him to flee from Athens in order to avoid the revenge of the tyrant, but Solon believed that he was already too old for this. Pisistratus upheld most of Solon's laws and verbally showed his respect for him. Solon died a deep old man. In Athens, the laws of Solon were preserved almost unchanged.

Solon carried out moderate reforms that satisfied both the poor and the rich. He canceled all the debts of the poor and forbade debt slavery. Solon abolished the harsh laws of Draco, which prescribed only one punishment even for petty crimes - the death penalty. Solon abolished the aristocracy and introduced polis democracy. Before these reforms, power in Athens belonged to advice of the nobility (areopagus), and the popular assembly had almost no significance. The court was also in the hands of aristocrats. The Areopagus appointed 9 archons, i.e. members of the executive branch. He divided all citizens into four categories depending on their income. Citizens of the first three categories could hold public office and serve in the army. Citizens of the fourth category, i.e. the poor had the right only to participate in the people's assembly and in the people's courts. They did not have money to purchase weapons, so they were auxiliary detachments in the army and served as rowers in the fleet. The National Assembly in Athens received the highest legislative power. All full-fledged citizens could participate in it, except for slaves, women, children and meteks (non-residents by origin). Solon retained the Areopagus, but entrusted this body with only one function - monitoring the implementation of laws. Solon encouraged the development of the craft. According to the law of Solon, the son could not feed his aged father if the father did not teach his son any craft.

5. Demosthenes as an example of a great orator.

Demosthenes was a theorist by personality type, so he experienced a panic fear of public speaking. But with great difficulty and through hard training, he managed to overcome this fear, because. dreamed of devoting his life to the vocation of a politician. Demosthenes' father left a rich inheritance, but his guardians disinherited him, so Demosthenes learned oratory in order to defend his interests in the people's court. He succeeded in achieving this goal. The first public speech of Demosthenes ended in complete failure, because. he had a very weak voice, spoke indistinctly, stuttered slightly, burred, had a bad habit of twitching his shoulder during a public speech, and in general he did not know how to behave in front of an audience. To correct the shortcomings of his speech, Demosthenes embarked on complex exercises. To correct the vagueness of his pronunciation, Demosthenes put stones in his mouth and tried to speak loudly and clearly. To learn how to pronounce the sound "p", he imitated the growl of a puppy. To learn to speak loudly, he recited poetry when he climbed a mountain or drowning out the sound of waves on the seashore. After long and persistent efforts, Demosthenes achieved his goal and became an excellent orator. However, he never spoke without preparation, but always memorized a speech written in advance: at night, by the light of a lamp, he diligently prepared for the speech, carefully considering each word. All this subsequently gave rise to the opponents of the great orator to reproach him for the lack of inspiration and natural abilities. What can you do, he was a theoretician, not a speaker, but he knew how to speak to the point. In the end, even the enemies recognized the strength and skill of his performances. In his speeches, the extraordinary simplicity of expression was combined with the greatest power of feeling and thought, clarity and persuasiveness. Demosthenes always strictly adhered to the main subject, did not like empty chatter. He either spoke calmly, acting on the minds of his listeners, then he conquered them with the power of feeling, conveying to them his ardent faith in the rightness of the defended cause.

Unfortunately, the theorist Demosthenes with great difficulty was able to master the art of public speaking, but could not become an excellent commander, so he lost the war to the speakers. He led the struggle of the Greek cities against the great commanders - the Macedonian king Philip and his son Alexander. King Philip created a well-armed army and invented the Macedonian phalanx. The Greek states waged constant wars among themselves, which weakened the resistance of the Greeks to the Macedonian aggression. Demosthenes was chosen as the first strategist (commander-in-chief) in Athens. At the head of the embassy, ​​Demosthenes traveled to many Greek states, urging the Greeks to unite their armies against Macedonia. The decisive battle took place at Chaeronea in 338 BC. On the left flank of the Macedonian army, Alexander dealt a crushing blow to the troops of Thebes, on the right flank, the troops of Athens managed to oust the Macedonians, but at the same time the Athenians upset their ranks. King Philip said: "The enemy knows how to fight, but does not know how to win." Then Philip rebuilt his soldiers and rushed at the Athenians, they trembled, and the entire Greek army began to retreat. Demosthenes fought as a simple infantryman and retreated along with everyone, which gave rise to his enemies to accuse him of cowardice. In the midst of preparations for a campaign against Persia, King Philip was unexpectedly killed by his bodyguard. Demosthenes believed that it would be easier for him to cope with Philip's heir, Alexander, the latter he called a boy and a fool, but Demosthenes was mistaken. Alexander managed to conquer the Persian Empire. Fleeing from persecution, Demosthenes was forced to flee Athens. But unexpectedly came the news of Alexander's death in Babylon. Demosthenes arranged a solemn meeting in Athens. He led the Greek resistance against Macedonia. Athens lost the last battle at the city of Kranion. The Macedonian garrison settled in Athens, the Athenian democracy was destroyed. Demosthenes was sentenced to death, but he managed to escape. Fleeing from the chase, Demosthenes swallowed poison and died.

6. Machiavelli classification.

Niccolo Machiavelli was a theorist by personality type, so he was an unsuccessful politician, but became a great political scientist. He lived in Italy during the Renaissance. The years of his life: 1469-1527. He was born in Florence.

In Machiavelli's classification, there are only two forms of government:

· REPUBLIC

· MONARCHY.

Monarchies are either hereditary or new, state power is acquired either by one's own or by someone else's weapons, or by the grace of fate, or by valor. Representative democracy and the principle of separation of powers are described in Montesquieu's book On the Spirit of Laws. In the 20th century in a number of countries there was a regression to the ancient forms of government - to oligarchy or tyranny - in the form of a fascist regime, Soviet power, a fundamentalist-Islamic state.

7. Our point of view on the classification of forms of government.

In our opinion, it is possible to classify five forms of government :

· TYRANNY or KINGDOM.

· ARISTOCRACY or OLIGARCHY.

· DIRECT DEMOCRACY.

· HEREDITARY MONARCHY.

· REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY.

This classification is based on four criteria :

· the number of rulers or electors,

· types of ways to struggle for power,

· types of fighting groups and the place or arena of their struggle,

· the kinds of vices or shortcomings of each form of government.

Of these four criteria, the second criterion is the most important, since the types of social conflict and social control are the main basis for building social structures.

Table 4

The name of the forms of government.	Tyranny. Kingdom.	Aristocracy. Oligarchy.	Immediate democracy. Ochlocracy	hereditary monarchy	representative democracy.
Quantityrulers or electors	Onetyrant.	Privilegesforgedminority.	Majority.	Dynastic family. Impostors.	Allcitizens.
ways to fight for power.	1. Armed seizure of power. 2. Civil war.	Elections in the privilegedassembly.	Popular electionsassembly.	1. Transfer of the throne by inheritance without a fight. 2.Palace coups	Nationalelections. Constitutionally limited conflict between the three branches of government.
Kindsfighting groups andplace, arena of their struggle.	1. Groups of rebels in the army. 2. Cliques within the bureaucracy.	Fractions in the Senate, the Boyar Duma, the Central Committee, the Politburo, at a gathering of criminal authorities.	Groups in the National Assembly,at a community gathering, at a gathering of criminals.	1. Groups of guardsmen led by representatives of the dynasty. 2.Calledtsy.	1. Parties in the elections. 2. Fractions in Parliament.
Kindsvices or shortcomings of each form of government.	1. Arbitrary andabuses of tyrants. 2. Harm from civil wars	1. The degeneration of the oligarchs. 2. Revolt of the disenfranchisedmajority	1. Abuse of demagogues. 2.Cannot be built on a large area	1. Degeneration of the dynasty. 2. Lack of selectionrulers.	1. Too many rulers anddeputies. 2. They take too long to make a decision.

Of the five forms of government, representative democracy is the best, because it has no vices, but only minor flaws. But building a representative democracy is the most difficult task. To overcome these minor shortcomings in case of emergency - war, natural disaster or riots - the president is given emergency powers for a limited period. In case of failure of such construction of representative democracy, society slides into archaic forms of government - tyranny or oligarchy, which happened in 1917 under the Bolsheviks. The worst of the five forms of government are ochlocracy and tyranny, and ochlocracy is even worse than tyranny. An example of ochlocracy is a gathering of criminals or a crowd of villains who are always ready to smash and kill. Tyranny was invented in the countries of the Ancient East, aristocracy - by Lycurgus in Sparta, direct democracy - in Athens, hereditary monarchy in the form of a custom of succession to the throne, the transfer of the throne to the eldest son or elder brother - in the Moscow principality, representative democracy - in England and the USA.

Russia is a unique country where during the 20th century. the authorities tried to introduce all five forms of government in turn. Until 1905, under Nicholas II, Russia had a hereditary monarchy. From 1905 to February 1917, the Russians tried to build a representative democracy, for this purpose a Russian parliament, a multi-party system was created, political freedoms and free elections were guaranteed, but no constitution was adopted, and the right to appoint members of the government remained in the hands of the emperor, and not parliament. From March to November 1917, the dual power of the Provisional Government and the Soviet power was established, elections were held to the Constituent Assembly, which was to choose the form of government. In October 1917, the Bolsheviks seized power, and Lenin built an oligarchy, where the “Leninist guard” instead of the nobility became the privileged layer, the opponents of the Bolshevik oligarchy were physically destroyed during the civil war and the KGB terror. The Bolsheviks destroyed the ochlocracy of Makhno in Ukraine. In the thirties, Stalin built tyranny, while again there was a change of elites - the replacement at the top of power of the "Leninist guard" with the nomenklatura. Khrushchev restored the oligarchy by removing Beria as the new tyrant contender. Gorbachev's merit is that he shook the oligarchy to its foundations. Yeltsin destroyed the oligarchy and established representative democracy. Putin destroyed the ochlocracy and the seat of civil war in Chechnya, and then installed a more conservative and authoritarian version of representative democracy, restored order after Yeltsin's reforms.

USA and Britain as leaders of world development in the 20th century. pursued a policy of overthrowing tyrannical and oligarchic governments and building representative democracies around the world. The overthrow of the tyranny of Saddam Hussein in Iraq is the latest example of such a progressive policy.

Questions for reflection.

1. Name the names of the kings and emperors who managed to seize the throne in Russia
at various times from the 16th to the 19th centuries. through a palace coup.

2. Name the impostors in the history of Russia from the 19th to the 18th centuries.

In the history of Western civilization, a huge role was played by the historical example of the ancient Greek city-states, especially ancient Athens, where the reformers Solon (elected archon in 594 BC) and Cleisthenes (509-507 BC) introduced a new concept into use and legislation : a citizen of the policy is a free person who cannot be enslaved for non-payment of debts. All citizens are equal before the law and are endowed with equal civil rights, as well as duties, for the failure of which punishment is due. Some of the magistrates (state positions) are elected by the people's assembly (voting was open). Others are appointed by lot, so that the majority does not dictate its will to the minority in everything.
The land was given into the ownership of those who wished to cultivate it, but with allotments not exceeding the capabilities of one large family. They were not allowed to be crushed. From time to time, a “court of sherds” (“ostracons”) was held at a national meeting. Citizens threw shards with the name of a person suspected of lust for power (a potential tyrant) into large vessels. The ancient Greeks knew perfectly well: it is much easier to put a tyrant on your neck than to throw it off. Therefore, bright and stubborn politicians were simply expelled from Athens for several years - they were ostracized, sometimes undeservedly.

There's only one thing I don't agree with. With the fact that democracy is an "invention of Solon." In fact, Greek democracy "left" from the temple of Artemis of Ephesus.

The first settlements arose in the area of ​​the future Ephesus as early as 1500-1400. BC e. The Carians and Lycians settled here. Herodotus says that these Carians and Lycians were from Crete. Crete was the center matriarchal Minoan civilization. Ionic Greeks, p Having arrived in these places in the 11th century BC, they discovered here the cult of the ancient Goddess, which the locals called the “Great Mother”. The Ionians called her in Greek Artemis, and after a while they erected a stone temple in her honor, which became one of the wonders of the world.

We know that all ancient laws originated from mothers. The law is the protection of a weak woman. A man does not need a law; he is accustomed to taking what is rightfully his own. And so the Carians with the Lycians, worshipers of the Great Mother, made Ephesus a city with an exemplary socio-political system. It is known that the famous sage Solon, one of the "seven Greek sages", came here to study local legislation in order to write well-known laws for the Athenian state. Now open Wikipedia and read "
The authors - Julius Alexandrovich Labas and Igor Vladimirovich Sedletsky - quite rightly emphasize that democracy is the only form of human relations that has no analogues in the animal world. Democracy is a product of the human intellect, and, therefore, democracy does not appear "naturally", as if by itself. Quite naturally, all sorts of tyrannies appear with bandyuks (kings-anpirators) at the head of a group of dominant males. And here democracy- phenomenon in a sense supernatural. For the weak to dictate their will to the strong and expel them from society, there is no such thing in nature. But also matriarchy- the power of weak women - is also supernatural phenomenon. Therefore, it is quite "natural" that Greek democracy "left" matriarchy.

The most indisputable advantage of the aristocracy - here it is not comparable with anyone - is the ability to obey and give orders(things are connected, because a person who does not know how to follow orders will never learn to give them). For the aristocracy, this skill is traditional and is brought up from infancy. Incidentally, purely aristocratic virtues (including the one mentioned above) are introduced into democratic systems by military service.

aristocracy - guardian of the national and, more broadly, great culture, for he never commits a sharp betrayal of his own tradition. A monarch can change his own culture (no need to go far - Peter I), this can happen with democratic circles, but this will never happen with the aristocracy.

It should be noted that when forming the imperial elite, or the imperial nobility, or the imperial aristocracy (this is not quite the same thing, but one can also talk about the aristocracy), the creators of the empire always include in it representatives of the aristocracy of various peoples and thus cement the empire. This is highly characteristic of Russian history, but not only of it.

However, if the goal is not to create an empire, but to enslave a particular people, any the enslaver strikes the first blow precisely at the aristocracy, trying to destroy it at all costs. Moreover, the methods of destruction can be different. The aristocracy can be exterminated physically. It can be destroyed socially, forcing it into the social ranks (the most difficult way, because both the nobility and the people resist). It can also be assimilated, that is, simply stolen. So they stole, having become Catholic and Polish during the XV-XVII centuries, the Western Russian nobility. As a result, the ancestors of those who are now called Ukrainians and Belarusians entered the New Age without their own nobility at all. In Poland, perhaps, there are more aristocratic surnames of Russian-Lithuanian origin than native Polish ones. It was not the Lithuanians and Russians who benefited from this, but the Poles. Even the greatest Polish poet Mickiewicz was of Belarusian origin, but he felt himself quite a Pole.

One should not expect a stormy initiative from the aristocracy, especially in carrying out reforms. Aristocracy conservative. Initiative democracy, initiative monarchy, and aristocracy is always a stabilizer. It is this function that it successfully performs in composite systems. The history of the Late Middle Ages and the Early Modern Age shows that the royal power and the democratic chambers of the parliaments of Western Europe were the initiative components, the aristocracy always stabilizing.

The extraordinary importance of the role of the aristocracy was understood as early as the 19th century, and perhaps even at the beginning of the 20th. That is why they tried to replace the aristocracy, in its absence, with something. Such is the Italian Senate, which includes a certain number of senators for life. So is the US Senate. In general, the political system of the United States was written off from the three-part polity of Great Britain, but instead of the king, a president was established in it, and instead of the House of Lords, a quasi-aristocratic chamber - the Senate (an unconditional stabilizer, if only because the senator is elected for 6 years, i.e. for a longer period than the president, and the Senate is renewed by 1/3 every 2 years, i.e., it always contains the majority of those who have already entered the Senate tradition).

A special advantage of the aristocracy and, more broadly, the nobility is aristocratic upbringing. So, in Russia in the 17th century, a young man of a noble family was prepared from infancy for the fact that by the age of 15 he, for example, would become a rynda (an honorary bodyguard for the person of the sovereign), and therefore, he would be present at the most important state ceremonies, embassy negotiations and etc. By the age of 17, he, in fact, will enter the service and become a junior officer in the army or a junior member of the embassy, ​​and in this capacity he will be trained for a number of years. Then he will receive the functions of a state official - the crown representative in the field, that is, the city governor. Later, he will begin to command a regiment on his own or will go as a second ambassador, then he will become an ambassador or commander in chief. And the crown of his career is a meeting in the Sovereign Duma.

In families involved in the aristocracy, an unattainable for other families is brought up responsibility of each family member. It is no coincidence that in many countries and among many peoples that retained the aristocracy, it was customary to bring up a child of a noble family in a strange family. There, they did not curry favor with him, because no one was interested in him (after all, he would not be a noble person here), and they did not flirt with him. As a result, he received a courageous upbringing. The heirs to the throne were also often brought up at a foreign court (respect will be maximum, but there will be no search - he will be a foreign king)!

Even those societies that are not ruled by aristocracies (I repeat: aristocracy is a rather frequent phenomenon, but it is frequent in composite political systems) tend to preserve a certain range of aristocratic positions. In Athens, with the complete triumph of democracy, the first archon, whose name the year was called, was always eupatris. In the Theban system, more aristocratic, only aristocrats were stratigi (commanders in chief) and beotarchs (representatives of the cities of the Boeotian Union). The great, if not the greatest, commander of the Hellenic world, Epaminondas, was a Theban aristocrat and, by the way, very poor, as his biography reports. In Great Britain until relatively recently, most of the officers of the Royal Navy belonged to noble families, and the Foreign Office to this day is mainly staffed by representatives of the aristocracy, which is so lacking in our diplomatic service.

It has already been said that the aristocracy is highly compatible. Aristocracies with democracies are not uncommon in medieval city-states. Novgorod and Pskov were ruled jointly by the aristocracy and democracy until the inclusion of these cities in the united Russia at the turn of the 15th-16th centuries. The aristocracy is very often tolerant of the rights of both the democratic element of power and the monarchist. The thing is that the aristocracy never doubts its right to govern. And the aristocracy, more than all other citizens, all other fellow tribesmen, considers the state to be theirs, and therefore their fellow tribesmen. But with its high compatibility with other forms of power, it is the aristocracy that is most resistant to deviations among them.

The aristocracy will never allow tyranny, and if the tyrant, as a result of certain circumstances (for example, an uprising of the crowd), nevertheless comes to power, he first of all begins to exterminate the aristocracy. There is such a historical anecdote: the tyrant of Corinth Periander (VI century BC) sent his trusted servant to the tyrant of Miletus Thrasybulus with a request to teach him how to best manage the policy, and Thrasybulus took the servant into the field and silently began to knock down high ears of corn. This is what they did in Hellas. In Russia, the tyrant Ivan IV physically destroyed the aristocracy and destroyed it as much as he had the strength to. And the tyrant Peter I destroyed the aristocracy socially, extremely bureaucratizing the system; with his "Table of Ranks" he reduced the boyar aristocracy to the position of a grassroots service nobility. This is nothing but a manifestation of the fear of the aristocracy and the hatred of the tyrant for her. Similarly, the English aristocracy suffered many losses under the tyranny of Henry VIII. And there are many such examples.

The ochlocracy hates the aristocracy and, if it comes to power (which is rare), seeks to liquidate it immediately in accordance with its main principle: "And I'm no worse than you"! But democracy often tolerates aristocracy. I have already given examples of the preservation of aristocratic traditions in Hellas, and as for national history, the same Novgorodian, a freedom-loving person, could talk with anyone about the merits of his posadnik, could criticize him and even declare that he should be driven in the neck. However, he perfectly understood that he, a slut, could not manage the Lord of Veliky Novgorod, that posadnichestvo was a boyar business. This is a very enduring tradition.

And the oligarchy, which is the most corrosive and manages to hide behind the backs of both the monarchy and the democracy (trying to turn the latter into an ochlocracy), is generally impossible under an aristocracy, even in a composite system, because an aristocracy—the public power of a few—will not tolerate the secret power of a few.

Disadvantages of the aristocracy

The aristocracy, like the monarchy, has one major drawback - accident of birth. However, for a monarchy, this is a one-time phenomenon (an unworthy or incapable monarch is simply born). In the aristocracy, the number of unworthy people can accumulate (i.e., the process of degeneration of the nobility can go on). It is possible to fight this main shortcoming of the aristocracy by replenishing it. Great Britain has used the best method for this for a number of centuries. From ancient times, prominent British annobled, i.e. elevated to noble dignity(they are assigned a knightly rank with the title "sir"). Honored Englishmen who already have the rank of knighthood can be further raised to the baronial dignity and become lords, and therefore members of the House of Lords. Moreover, in English society, the title "sir" is awarded not only to officers, which is natural all over the world, but also to prominent entrepreneurs (like Sir Basil Zakharov, of Russian origin), prominent writers (like Sir Arthur Conan Doyle), prominent scientists (like Sir Ernest Rutherford ), even prominent athletes (like soccer player Sir Stanley Matthews and race car driver Sir Nigel Mansel).

However, in order to form the nobility in English, it is necessary to have an already established democratic elite of society in order to successfully draw from it the replenishment of the aristocracy, as well as the institution of the monarchy, because assigning a rank by parliamentary vote can only cause laughter. In other words, it is necessary to have a real democracy and a real monarchy. Note that annoblement, of course, affects society, but it also affects something else - the model of a gentleman has become an immutable model of behavior in English society. First of all, the bourgeoisie, and quietly all the British, are “pulled up” under this model.

I must say that in Russia there was also an annoble system. The nobility in Russia was obtained by service, most often and most easily military. Officers - the nobles of the soldiers were not uncommon, and there were also generals. There was even one ordinary peasant soldier who rose to the rank of full general (he had only one step left to field marshal) - the first general I. N. Skobelev, the grandfather of the famous "White General" M. D. Skobelev (who was nicknamed "Ak-Pasha" - "White General" when he campaigned in Central Asia in the 80s of the XIX century). The founder of the Skobelev family served for four reigns - having started serving under Catherine II, he retired and soon died under Nicholas I.

In fact, he was Kobelev from the village of Kobeli and served as a soldier under this surname, but when it came time to annoble him, the Department of Heraldry decided that it was inconvenient for a new citizen and founder of the clan to have such a surname and attached the letter “s”, from where the surname came from Skobelev.

Oligarchy

The "distortion" of the aristocracy is the oligarchy(in Greek, "the power of the few", or "the power of the gang"). In history, this "distortion" occurs most frequently. Aristotle describes only one kind of it - the power of the rich (probably characteristic of his era) and treats it disgustingly, while there are many varieties of oligarchy.

An aristocracy can degenerate into an oligarchy, which is rare, but it does happen. To do this, the aristocracy must completely withdraw, become inaccessible. So, in Russia, the Supreme Privy Council, created by Empress Catherine I and Prince. And D. Menshikov. By the way, if access to the aristocracy is too easy, it also ceases to be an aristocracy. The oligarchies nestle behind the scenes in the shadow of the monarchy and even manage to survive tyrannies, although they become very quiet, retaining some minimal influence and preparing to seize power after the death of the tyrant (see, for example, A Avtorkhanov "The Mystery of Stalin's Death"). Oligarchies feel great under an ochlocracy - what better way to think up than pulling the strings of the crowd?! And, finally, democracy is not absolutely oligarch-resistant (A. Kolyev "Rebellion of the nomenklatura").

bureaucracy and oligarchy. Note that the term "bureaucratization" is abusive, not the term "bureaucracy". Presence of bureaucracy- it's just the presence of a category of professional administrators. In many societies, and in the societies of the New Age, there is necessarily (they cannot live without it) a category of professional administrators, and this is completely normal. Representatives of the bureaucracy in the original sense of the word, that is, officials, can join the ranks of the democratic elite (say, be elected somewhere), and the ranks of the aristocracy, if there is one, but, of course, not in a crowd, but one by one, for special merit. Here it is appropriate to recall that the appeal to the Russian officer “Your Honor” meant for everyone that the officer comes from a noble family, and when a soldier became an officer, everyone understood that from that moment he founded a noble family. However, the exceptional danger of the bureaucracy lies in the fact that, constituting itself as a power, it can only become an oligarchic power and no other. Moreover, this is possible both in a monarchical and in a democratic system.

Oligarchies of secret societies. Those, apparently, already existed in Antiquity, but became quite noticeable in the Middle Ages. An anti-system that comes to power always forms an oligarchy. The classic example is the rule of the Fatimids in Egypt, which was, in fact, not a monarchical, but an oligarchic rule.

The press of our time is like an oligarchy. Glasnost and publicity are the natural environment for the existence of any correct form of power - and the monarchy, and the aristocracy, and democracy. Glasnost in itself can to a large extent contribute to the failure of the genesis of the oligarchy, for the latter is most easily formed in a dark corner, and not in bright light. However, relatively recently, the press in the United States began to be called the fourth estate (we are talking about a democratic society where the principle of separation of three powers operates, and the press is called the fourth). Then this approach was introduced in our country. But if the process of formation in democratic societies of the three branches of power is described by law and can be done publicly, then no one chooses an editor or a journalist, except for those who give him the opportunity to be published in one or another publication. Therefore, the press should be considered as one of the varieties of the service sector for citizens. And when the press becomes power, the citizens are threatened by the oligarchy.