An alternative to corruption and politicking: Russia should abandon the American system of governance

By | May 28, 2019

We must look for an alternative to Western democracy. She doesn’t work in Russia. The Imperial machine of Russian statehood is not like the Western republics. The monarchical state organizes the system of government in a different way. The system of national isolation, which we call the institution of the state, should not cultivate the principle of power borrowed from the outside. The modern state power system in Russia cultivates the principles of Western democracy. This “engine” is from another, not our car. It was imposed on us Western “mechanics” advisors when the Communist powerhouse finally did fall over and died in 1991.

In the giant Imperial machine, we slipped the motor from the “Swiss” subcompact. Democracy does not extend our Russian world. No outstanding drivers will help here. The problem is the impotence of democracy itself, the alien nature of its dynamic structure. We must return to the Imperial state mechanics, to the Imperial engines. The Royal prerogative to fill the law with the truth

The monarchical system has always been called autocratic, irresponsible and capable of breaking the written law. This kind of criticism is the stupidest thing you can imagine against any Supreme power.

To whom, for example, is the power of the people responsible in a democracy? Not to anyone. Like any Supreme authority. In theory, the people he creates through the election of all three branches pravitelei power. Above the people in democracy, there is no power, because it is irresponsible. And that is why no one can condemn or hold her accountable.

Similarly, in the monarchy, there is a Supreme power from which laws come and which itself forms the governing power. But in a monarchy, the center, the pinnacle of power is the people and the Sovereign.

But in democracy (the whole population), and in the monarchy (Emperor), the Supreme power, in one case the entire population, in the other – the personality of the Emperor – above the law, autocratic and irresponsible, because above its power on earth is not.

Yes, in the normal course of public life, the monarchy, as well as democracy, is consistent with the law and operates in a system of organized institutions. But in a monarchy, there is a form of extraordinary manifestations of the activities of the monarch “Royal prerogative” (the term Lev Tikhomirov).

The monarch in these special situations does not rule by written law, but by his conscience, in truth. And thus restores justice or supports the viability of the state.

The “Royal prerogative” – direct Imperial management – works when laws or don’t work already on the circumstances which have developed for the state or society, or it is necessary to overcome a certain danger to the state which is impossible to overcome by the established law. Action on the “Royal prerogative” is a constructive, constituent function of power, which at the same time establishes a new legal way to solve such situations.

This is the essential difference between monarchy and democracy. In a democracy, trying to give the Board a form of the dictatorship of the law. But the law has no conscience and is often subject to the corruption flexibility of the people who execute it.

In the monarchy, the law is no higher than the truth. The Monarch himself is above the law, his dictatorship of conscience. His monarch the truth can’t be bought.

With the proper organization of the state, of course, a strong system of laws and state institutions is established, which perform the functions of governing the state in the normal course of public life. But in the monarchy, the Supreme power plays the role of directing and controlling power. Beyond money and corruption. And the sense of truth is not the same thing, that sense of legitimacy. That is why in such cases, the Sovereign, as the power of the ethical principle, and performs the role of the body of “public conscience”, restoring justice.

The sense of legality is lower than the sense of truth and is characteristic of the Republican consciousness. While monarchical inherent belief in the truth. National psychology tells us this easily. Russian low-value pure law, but pay more attention to justice, to the essence. The truth of what is happening, and not formal legality.

Bodies of law – bureaucratic institutions of statehood, the body of truth is the Sovereign and the opportunity to appeal to him with complaints. There is nobody of truth in the Republic, and the rule of law is often subject to degradation under the influence of corruption and politicking.

“The Royal prerogative” is a monarchical possibility of intervention of the Supreme power in the lawful, but ceased to correspond to the true course of Affairs, there is a saving opportunity to restore justice, the truth. And it defends the conviction, the attitude of the monarchical state, that truth is above the law, which is imperfect and at best only a reflection of truth.

The monarchy is the most national principle of power

The nation chooses its own way, but not so much by voting as by its spiritual aspirations, psychological everyday behavior, the mood of its will and the direction of its feelings. The nation itself as a collectivity is a combination of nerves, will, feelings, behavioral stereotypes of a certain number of people belonging to this blood Union.

The nation is a religious and psychological Union, where each member retains his personality, but adjusts his nerves, will, and feelings in a single way unify behavioral stereotypes in this common for all social collectivity.

The nation, in choosing the Supreme power of a certain principle, obeys its choice or collective agreement with that power.

In fact, there is one difference between a monarchy and a Republic – in a monarchy, the people put God’s will above their will, in a democracy – ignore it altogether, relying on the will of politicians. In the monarchy, the nation obeys through the mediation of the King God’s will, agreeing, accepting such a device of Supreme power. And it trusts the people she considered to be her representatives in the government. Both in one and in another case, the submission to authority is voluntary. The conflict with the government begins where this state of Affairs ceases to suit a certain number of people.

People’s self-government should have its place in the state

Usually, the monarchy is accused of the fact that under the sole rule of people’s desires, people’s self-government is suppressed. This is one of the essential myths spreading about the monarchy by its opponents. But in reality, the monarchical system of government makes extensive use of people’s self-government and gives it broad powers where it can benefit the state. Democracy, on the contrary, disorganizes the nation and atomizes its social structure.

The principle of organization of self-government should be the ability of public forces to support the mandatory rules of the state hostel. Where social forces are able to maintain order, there should be popular self-government. Where there is no, their power must organize bureaucratic government institutions. At the same time, it is necessary to support and develop as much as possible the capacity of the nation to independence, i.e. the desire for self-government and self-organization. Any self-government should not be Autonomous from the state. It is part of the system of government, but the method of management is chosen not by bureaucratic and governmental forces, but by the forces of self-government. In the management of the state, a combination of service and self-government forces is necessary. Each at its level of competence.

The Royal role in the system of government should ideally be reduced to the management of subordinate administrative forces. The forces of the Supreme monarchical power should be used in accordance with the main goal of any management process – to achieve the maximum amount of action, the result with the minimum possible amount of effort and cost.

The sovereign – the captain of the state ship, and only in emergency cases it should be engaged in the duties of the lower management, to replace the steering or other members of the ship’s crew.

A good control system is to allow the Monarch to minimize the need for direct, manual, personal involvement in the process of non-verbal control. The division of labor and its hierarchical subordination should be built in accordance with the division of power functions and in accordance with the General vertical of power.

But direct access to control in any of the branches of subordinate control should be absolutely free for the Sovereign, as well as its full control.

In all other respects, the division and specialization of the governing authorities should be supported in every way. According to the method of manifestation of power should be divided into Executive, legislative and judicial. On the subject of management – on the institutions that solve various state problems. And the breadth of action – the division into national, local or specialized.

Self-government in democracy and monarchy

Democracy is virtually incapable of direct government. Citizens in a more or less large state are all unable to communicate directly with each other and must resort to the transfer of their power to elected politicians. And in the absence of a real “people’s will” in most public Affairs, democracy needs a political class that, through parties, deals with public Affairs, effectively removing people from government and committing political usurpation.

Party politicians make representation a kind of professional fiefdom with which to feed. The longer this state of Affairs exists, the more party politicians strive to strengthen their position, and the people as a result of such usurpation become more powerless and powerless. Parties act as cohesive organizations, and the people are gradually turning into an atomized electorate, the object of political manipulation of the ruling class of politicians.

When the monarchy party politicians are not needed. And people’s self-government exists as part of the state system. In which bureaucratic and social forces are combined in different ways, depending on the possibility of their application in a particular area of management.
Professional official efficiency is complemented by public forces. Mutual control is created.

Social forces are always most applicable at the local level of self-government, in small areas or in the area of direct cohesion of social groups. For example, where the same professional activity becomes territorial, or city-forming.

Under the monarchy, self-government is fundamentally based not on the principle of abstractly General civil, but on the principle of social and professional representation, that is, the allocation of representatives to self-government directly from the environment of professionally homogeneous activities. Metallurgists must submit a Metallurgist, not a Communist oilman, and Kostroma – Kostroma, not a United Muscovite.

If the representation of a group in self-government is not elected by its direct representative, then sooner or later self-government is usurped by party politicians who defend their party interests and not the interests of a socio-professional layer.

At the same time, it is necessary to have a representation of all social groups that are available in this area in the local government. And it should be proportional to the real numerical, economic and social importance of a group. Then it will be perceived as fair.

At the same time, any self-government is not Autonomous or hostile to the state and must be in a single system of state administration, under the control of state power. Any groups that consider themselves prejudiced in a decision should have the right to appeal to higher state authorities.

In contrast to the national representation, at the local level, it would be appropriate for the local authorities to represent the clergy from the parishes and from the Diocesan Council of parishes. And local bishops would need to be given the right to monitor the governing institutions operating within them and the right to initiate their entry into them with their views on current Affairs, as well as petitions to the Supreme authority.

The monarchical system of popular representation

Because in a monarchy the Supreme power is absolute Sovereign, then is not required every few years to organize elections, to re-create the Executive and the legislature. But the Monarch is useful and even necessary to know the interests and opinions of representatives of the social strata of society, which is the state, which the rules. But here we are no longer talking, as in democracy, about the representation of the people’s power, but about the representation of the people’s spirit.

Monarchs are often much better able to Express the spirit of a nation than the people themselves. But this requires a close relationship between the Monarch and the people, through socially representative institutions.

The personality of the Monarch is needed to make up for the organic, not removable in other ways the lack of social collectivity of the people. Disadvantage – the impossibility of a national community to Express so clearly your ideal, as it can only do one personality.
In a monarchy, there are two arrangements of popular representation. The direct appeal of the Monarch of a person to be present at his person and elected representatives of the social strata.

And through the appeal of the authorities and through the choice of the population, people’s representatives are equally involved in the performance of public service.

Criticism of the democratic theory

The monarchical system of popular representation is very different from the corresponding democratic system.

In a democracy, representation is loaded with important state functions that are not peculiar to it: law-making and the formation of the legislative branch of power itself. People elected practically from the street are called upon to perform a complex function – lawmaking, which is not capable of about 99% of elected deputies. In parallel, representation is carried out through politicians, through their party sieve. With an enormous outreach impact on the consciousness of the electorate.

The results of elections in a democracy are more like the result of the competition of party propagandists, rather than the free expression of the will of the people.

But the most surprising thing is that the democratic theory wants to assure us that all the Supreme power is mathematically precisely dispersed in equal shares among the entire population of an adult, allowed to vote. At the same time, elections are, in fact, a “gathering” of these “particles of power” into a “majority” of these particles, in order for democracy to solemnly declare that a certain amount of these particles could make up a certain Executive or legislative power.

Party politicians do not trust the people to elect judicial power with the help of this fiction of counting “particles of power”. Why? It is purely a democratic mystery. If every actor can become a President, if every “proletarian” – legislator, why cannot become a judge, for example, a trucker? Deepest secret…

Democracy is always formal and never looks at the quality of an opinion on a particular state issue. This is not the least reason why democratic regimes are so short-lived in human history.

In democratic elections, everything is ridiculous from beginning to end.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

4 + 19 =