Many people answer the question “Who was the last Russian Tsar?” They will answer “Nicholas II” and be wrong! Nicholas was a tsar, but a Polish tsar, and his full title sounded like "Emperor of All Russia, Tsar of Poland and Grand Duke of Finland". And the last Russian Tsar was Peter I, who proclaimed himself Emperor, and, starting with him, all the rulers of Russia down to Nicholas II they were emperors.

What is the difference between an emperor, a king or a king? Where did these words even come from?

Tsar

The first Russian Tsar Ivan the Terrible.

Ironically, the Russian word « tsar » comes from Latin "Caesar", "Caesar". And ironically, because the first Caesar, who gave his name to the title of all subsequent Roman emperors, was the king (in the Latin meaning rex) I just didn’t want to be! The fact is that the kings in Rome were overthrown 500 years before the reign of Caesar, and their very name was hated by the Romans. The rulers of both Rome and, subsequently, Byzantium who followed Gaius Julius added “Caesar” to their name to emphasize their relationship with the great Caesar and styled themselves emperors.

This word most likely came into the Russian language from German - from the word “Kaiser” (kaisar). And he became the first Russian Tsar, and the last, as already said, Peter I.

King

Despite the fact that in the Russian language it is customary to designate Western, usually European, monarchs with the title king, the word is purely Slavic, and in the Western tradition kings are called differently - king in English and K?nig German tradition and roi in French. The Germanic variant is derived from the Scandinavian "king"- this is how the Viking leaders were called. French (Romance) from the previously mentioned Latin rex.

Where did the word come from? "king"? And it turns out from the modified name of the first European emperor, who literally shaped the appearance of modern Europe - the ruler of the Franks. Name Charles, (in the Latin tradition, sounding like Carolus) and became the basis for the name of Western rulers in Russian.

Emperor

But the king or king who does not dream of becoming an emperor is bad. As a rule, all those rulers who are now commonly called Great were emperors, or became them. This is the first emperor in history Octavian Augustus who inherited the Roman Empire from Guy Julius Caesar. AND Charlemagne, who, 9 centuries later, created an empire in the image and likeness of Rome. And finally, Russian Peter the Great, which made a formidable Russian Empire out of a backward agrarian state.

Translated from Latin the word "emperor" means "ruler", "commander".

Currently, only the ruler of Japan, the Emperor, bears this title. Akihito, who, however, is just a titular ruler, while the prime minister has real power.

Quote: user89673, 05/22/2017 - 18:55

GDP has nothing to do with it, it’s just that the time for the king’s arrival has not yet come. That's all. I am interested in your own claims to supreme power, that is, reasons. Agree that it wouldn’t have occurred to you just like that. It’s just that I’ve already talked to someone and it was very interesting. Bye!

You can’t answer your question in a nutshell; a book about it would be more appropriate. However, I will still try to answer briefly. There is no greater stupidity than waiting for the arrival of a train that has already left. Well, firstly, 2013 was the most successful and richest year for Russia since 1991, so John has nothing to do with it. However, it was after 2013 that God turned his back on Russia and in the end Putin did what he did. Below is an explanation of my idea of ​​why this happened. So, I'll start from the beginning. Naturally, the thought of a tsar, which is crazy to me, would not have simply occurred to me, especially since I could be a candidate for this post. The first bell rang back in 1980, when I was a 5th year student at the Naval School of Radio Electronics. They began to actively ask me to become a KGB officer. At first I thought that they were interested in my small abilities, which were associated with the fact that there were many healers in my family. However, already before graduation in 1980, when I finally refused to join them, a KGB representative said that it was a pity, it would have been much easier. I asked which is easier. He said in response that he knows who I will become, but he has no right to tell me this, so as not to change the future. I asked how he knew. He replied that it was literally written on my forehead. Then he said that he knew what I would be doing in 10 years and later it all came true. It is noteworthy that around the same time, Putin himself asked to join the KGB in 1979, completed courses and became an officer. It's strange though. The KGB did not accept volunteers at that time. A few years later, in 1985, I fell ill (doctors could not diagnose and therefore could not cure) and died in 1988 at the age of 30. Having flown through a dazzling white tunnel, decorated with very beautiful bouquets of flowers, I met someone who knew everything, EVERYTHING about me (outwardly he looked like a person). He mentally said that he regrets my early death and since I have completed everything on Earth, I have the right to go to the next level and he has no right to detain me, however, he said that he has a big request for me to fulfill his order and if I agree, I will have to return to Earth. I refused, saying that millions on earth would gladly carry out his instructions. To which he replied that he had already spent all these millions and I was the only one who could cope with it. In short, no matter how I broke down (I really wanted to go to Heaven), ultimately, out of respect for God, I agreed, although at the time of my death I was an atheist. He explained that my help was needed in working to change the Karma of the Earth in order to prevent the nuclear war that occurred in 1999 from happening and that a person with the maximum abilities of the next race and with absolute mental stability was needed. He also added that since I no longer belong to the earthly level, he cannot simply return me and to return I will have to be born again in my previous body. Which is exactly what happened. A year later, in 1989, God called me into reality (I was at work among people, and I also found myself in another place, where God gave me the necessary knowledge and skills). Most likely, it was precisely this secret knowledge of the future tsar that Vasily Nemchin prophesied. At the beginning of 1991, at the age of 33, I became involved in changing the Karma of the Earth (primarily Russia, as the main state that started the war). So, in essence, from the beginning of 1991, I was responsible for the human element of God’s influence on the Earth, and from the point of view of a simple layman, I began to govern Russia. Let me explain. I had to let God’s impact on Earth pass through me, and if the impact exceeded human capabilities and strength, then I felt bad or got sick. The impact changed and if it changed in the right direction, then I felt better and this was repeated billions of times. Although this is a VERY simplified description of the system. So, I was something like an intellectual fuse or a translator, on whose moral principles the program of influence also depended. For example, if in order to achieve a goal it was necessary, for example, to destroy half of the people, and my beliefs did not allow me to do this, then another, softer path of change was chosen. Looking ahead, I will say that this is what played a cruel joke in 2013. As you understand, in this system of changing Karma, it didn’t cost anything to put anyone in power. However, the people loved Putin and in order to bring God’s chosen tsar to power, it was necessary either to violate the free will of Russians or to destroy those who supported the president. This did not correspond to my moral principles and as a result, Putin went to a third term instead of the tsar. He doesn't have high principles. Let me remind you that most likely the KGB was aware of the tsar back in 1980 and should have put him in power in 2013, but Putin reasoned that he would rule no worse and this is the result of a broken trough. Be that as it may, until 2015 I was blissfully unaware of the Tsar. It was in that year that I deciphered the name of the king, which the monk Abel hid in his prediction BEFORE THE TIME OF EVENTS, and this name turned out to be Nicholas. Out of curiosity, I picked up the materials of all the predictors and the more I found these predictions, the more they all converged with the information about me. There have been so many coincidences that, compared to this, the choice of Dalai - Lama is just randomly pointing a finger at random passers-by. I got the date the Tsar came to power in 2013 and this provided an explanation that I could not find. It was in 2013 that God’s influence on the Earth ceased, but for some reason the connection between the state of Russia and my health remained. Under Putin's crazy management of Russia, this quickly led me to illness. That is, from the executor of God’s instructions, I turned into a scapegoat. I couldn't understand what was happening. I even thought that God simply forgot to remove this connection from me after completing the program. And then everything fell into place. GOD STOPPED HIS CHANGE INFLUENCE IN 2013 BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT FROM THIS YEAR THE GOD-CHOSEN KING WOULD HAVE STARTED RULE, who should have completed the program without miracles. EVERYTHING IS LOGICAL! After all, continued influence would mean supporting a country that abandoned the plans of God and its ruler. Let me explain. Changing the Earth's karma also means making rulers smarter than they really are. So Putin entered his third term only with his own abilities and therefore such a gigantic number of mistakes that made Russia a rogue state. Be that as it may, you cannot step into the same river twice. Since the people of Russia abandoned a tsar who feels the hardships of the people and who would never spend all the money on the army and would not allow a bunch of officials from the ruling party to rob the population into complete poverty, then so be it. Well, you can continue to cherish the hope of the coming of the savior king in the distant future. Maybe this will happen, or maybe not.

One man's hero is often another man's tyrant. This aphorism is often remembered today, not to mention the past - it was very, very ambiguous in the politics of many countries. Everyone knows that history is written by the victors, and even the most cruel of them could be rehabilitated by time and the right ideology.

These rulers and politicians of the past - long ago and not so long ago, built their states at the expense of the lives of many people. And it doesn’t matter how they did it - they were sent to crazy wars or used as labor. In both cases, we can talk about merciless tactics to achieve goals. It is these rulers who are included in our list of the 12 most cruel rulers in human history.

Caligula - Gaius Julius Caesar Augustus Germanicus

Reign: 37-41 AD

Caligula was very popular because he first freed citizens who had been unjustly imprisoned and freed them from a cruel sales tax. But then he went crazy and was never the same again. Caligula eliminated political rivals with sophisticated cruelty, went on wild rampages with people and animals, and generally behaved unrestrainedly.

Genghis Khan

Reign: 1206-1227

Genghis Khan's father was poisoned when the boy was nine. He spent his childhood as a slave, but was able to unite the Mongol tribes and conquer a huge chunk of Central Asia and China. Genghis Khan is called the most cruel ruler because of his massacres, when not just groups, but entire peoples or classes were slaughtered.

Thomas Torquemada

Reign: 1483-1498 (as Grand Inquisitor)

Torquemada was appointed Grand Inquisitor during the Spanish Inquisition. He established tribunals in several cities, drew up a system for other inquisitors, and made torture the main tool for extracting confessions. Historians believe that Torquemada was responsible for two thousand people burned at the stake.

Ivan IV (Ivan the Terrible)

Reign: 1547-1584

Ivan IV began his brutal reign by reorganizing the central government and limiting the power of hereditary aristocrats (princes and boyars). After the death of his first wife, Ivan began a reign of terror, eliminating the main boyar families. He also beat his pregnant daughter and killed his son in a fit of rage.

Queen Mary I (Bloody Mary)

Reign: 1553-1558

The only child of King Henry VIII and Catherine of Aragon, Mary became Queen of England in 1553 and soon established Catholicism (after previous Protestant rulers) as her main religion and married Philip II of Spain. During her cruel reign, Protestants burned at the stake like dry branches, and Mary herself became Bloody.

Countess Elizabeth Bathory

Reign: 1590-1610

This cruel ruler lured young peasant women to her castle, promising them jobs as maids, after which she brutally tortured them to death. According to the popular version, she tortured and killed about 600 young women.

Mehmed Talaat Pasha

Reign: 1913-1918

Historians believe that Talaat Pasha was the most brutal ruler and the leading figure in the Armenian genocide. As Minister of the Interior, he was responsible for the deportations that ultimately led to the deaths of 600,000 Armenians. He was killed in Berlin in 1921. A history buff, Adolf Hitler sent his body back to Istanbul in 1943, hoping to persuade Turkey to cooperate.

Joseph Stalin

Reign: 1922-1953

Stalin became the most brutal ruler in the 1930s, which coincided with mass famine, the imprisonment of millions in Gulag labor camps, and the "Great Purge" of the intelligentsia, government and military.

Adolf Gitler

Years of reign: 1933-1945

By the end of 1941, Hitler stood at the head of the Third Reich, an empire that included almost every country in Europe plus most of North Africa. He became one of the most brutal rulers in human history, developing a plan to create a perfect race by eliminating Jews, Slavs, Gypsies and political opponents, forcing them into concentration camps where they were tortured and worked to death.

Mao Zedong

Reign: 1949-1976

Communist leader Mao founded the People's Republic. Under his leadership, industry was brought under state control and farmers were organized into collectives, following the example of Soviet collective farms. Any opposition was quickly suppressed. Mao's supporters point out that he modernized and unified China and turned it into a global superpower. However, others point out that his policies led to the deaths of as many as 40 million people from starvation, forced labor and executions.

Go Amen

Years of reign: 1971-1979

Amin overthrew the elected government in Uganda with a military coup and declared himself president. Then he brutally, for eight years, exterminated all opposition. Amin completely expelled Asians from Uganda: Indians, Chinese and Pakistanis.

Augusto Pinochet

Years of reign: 1973-1990

Pinochet overthrew the Chilean government in 1973 with a US-backed military coup. Researchers say many people simply "disappeared" while another 35,000 languished in the camps. Pinochet died before he could stand trial on charges of human rights violations.

He introduced free market economic policies that led to lower inflation and even an economic boom in the late 70s. Notably, Chile had one of the best-performing economies in Latin America from the mid-80s to the late 90s.

Don't miss interesting news in photos:

• 
  Drawings by cells for beginners
• 
  Creative ideas for the home using improvised materials

Introduction

2. Basic forms of government

2.1 Monarchical form of government

3. Political regimes

3.2 Types of political regimes

Conclusion

Bibliography

Introduction

To characterize the essence of the state, the philosophical categories content and form are of particular importance. The content is expressed in the main directions of the state’s activities to solve the problems facing it at a particular stage of social development, i.e. in its functions. And form is the external expression of content.

Currently, the form of the state is considered as the unity of three main elements - the form of government, the form of government and the political regime.

The form of government is understood as the organization of the supreme state power, the order of formation of its bodies and their relationship with the population.

A political (state-legal) regime is a set of techniques, methods and methods by which state power is exercised.

The purpose of the test is to consider forms of government and political regimes, their relationship and specificity.

1. Consider general provisions on forms of government;

2. Consider forms of government;

3. Consider the meaning and types of political regimes.

1. General provisions on forms of government

The ancient Greek thinkers Herodotus, Plato and Aristotle, discussing the nature and functions of government, came to the conclusion that it could be of three types:

Rule by one;

Rule by a few;

Rule by many or majority.

Each of these normal types of government can become distorted. The rule of a good king is called a monarchy, and the rule of an evil king is called tyranny (which today is called a dictatorship). The rule of a large number of noble citizens is called aristocracy,(rule by the best), and rule by a group of dishonest citizens - oligarchy. If the majority of the population is in power and it is noble, then power is called democracy. But if this majority is represented by the worst people, then their rule is called ochlocracy(power of the crowd). The Greeks had a low opinion of democracy in principle, calling it mob rule.

Thus, ancient philosophers identified three correct forms of state - monarchy, aristocracy and democracy and three wrong, meaning the decline or distortion of the former: unlimited monarchy turns into autocracy (tyranny), unlimited aristocracy into oligarchy, unlimited democracy into ochlocracy and anarchy.

Democracy comes from two Greek words: “demos” - “people” and “kratos” - “power, rule”. Democracy refers to a system in which all citizens control their own lives, determine and influence public life. In a democracy, the people are sovereign, that is, independent of the authorities in choosing a way of life. Sovereignty means that the people are the legitimate source of power.

Democracy is based on the recognition of the people as the source. The main principles of democracy are the power of the majority, equality of citizens, protection of their rights and freedoms, the rule of law, separation of powers, election of the head of state and representative bodies.

In a democracy, people are completely free to decide what is good and what is bad for them. Therefore, if in a society such a right is usurped by a political party or government, deciding what economic structure, what political system, what daily routine is best suited for the people, such a system cannot be considered democratic. Unfortunately, both under the tsarist regime, and under the Soviet regime, and under the new democratic rule, the ability of Russian citizens to control their destinies was limited to one degree or another. Consequently, it is still too early to talk about the democratic structure of our society. In a democracy, the government is a collection of senior leaders elected by the people, who hire a staff of officials to better carry out government affairs. Thus, the people not only choose, but also pay for their leadership. Therefore, democracy means freedom not only in choosing a political regime, but also in determining the amount of tax that is taken from citizens. Through taxes, citizens pay for the services of the administrative apparatus, therefore only they have the right to determine whether the apparatus copes with its task or not. If in some country ordinary people have no influence on where their taxes go, and cannot reduce the state apparatus, then we cannot talk about democracy here.

2. Basic forms of government

2.1 Monarchical form of government

Monarchy (from the Greek monarchia - autocracy, autocracy) is a form of government in which the supreme state power is fully or partially concentrated in the hands of the sole head of state - the monarch (king, king, emperor, pharaoh, shah), and in most cases is lifelong and passed on by inheritance.

Monarchies, in turn, are divided into absolute (unlimited) and dualistic, or constitutional (limited).

An absolute monarchy is characterized by a number of distinctive features.

Firstly, the supreme power belongs entirely to the individual head of state (monarch). It is not limited by anything and is not distributed among other entities. The monarch personally exercises legislative, executive and judicial powers.

Secondly, supreme power is inherited. This is a general rule. Exceptions are possible in two cases: the murder of the monarch and the absence of heirs. Moreover, the first case will be an exception when it is not the heir who becomes the monarch. It is curious that there have been periods in history when exceptions became almost the rule. Thus, in Byzantium, out of one hundred and nine reigning emperors, seventy-four were killed, and in all seventy-four cases the throne passed to the regicide not by inheritance, but by right of seizure. And at the coronation of Emperor Tskhi-miskhias, Patriarch Poluevkt even proclaimed a new dogma: the sacrament of anointing to the throne washes away all sins, including the sin of regicide 1 . In the absence of heirs, the monarch is elected by one or another part of the population, and then the hereditary order of transfer of power comes into effect again.

Thirdly, the power of the monarch is lifelong. This rule is violated in cases where the monarch voluntarily abdicates the throne or is overthrown.

Fourthly, the legal responsibility of the monarch as head of state is completely absent. The irresponsibility of the monarch extends not only to his political activities, but also to his actions that are of a criminal nature, for example, murder in the heat of the moment, causing personal insult. The famous Russian lawyer N.M. Korkunov considered this feature as the main one when dividing the form of government into monarchies and republics. “It is in this difference of responsibility and irresponsibility that the difference between the president of the republic and the monarch lies, and not in the scope or nature of their functions. The President of the United States of America enjoys more power than the Queen of England; but the President is responsible to Congress and is therefore not a monarch; the Queen of England, on the contrary, is irresponsible and therefore, despite all the limitations of her power, she still remains a monarch.”

Of all the above-mentioned features of an absolute monarchy, in a dualistic monarchy in its pure form, the hereditary order of transfer of power and lifelong possession of it are preserved. All other signs undergo more or less significant changes. However, the main difference is that the power of the monarch is limited to some kind of representative body. That is why it is called dualistic. Thus, in an estate-representative monarchy, the power of the monarch was limited by the Zemsky Sobor in Russia (mid-16th century - end of the 17th century), and the States General in France (1302-1789). However, the degree of restriction was low. They were convened by the monarch mainly to obtain consent to resolve certain issues, for example, the collection of taxes. In a dualistic monarchy, the monarch concentrates executive power in his hands, forms a government responsible only to him, and legislative power legally belongs to parliament, subordinate to the monarch (Germany, 1871-1918). Here, as we see, the degree of limitation is much greater. P.A. Sorokin attributed the Russian Empire after 1906 to this form of monarchy. At the same time, a dualistic monarchy still leaves enormous power for the monarch. Limitations on the powers of the monarch concern almost exclusively legislative work. In the division of government, he, as in an absolute monarchy, is unlimited. The king's authority is still considered "God-given" and independent of the people. In our country, according to the “Basic Laws” of 1906, the tsar was still called “autocratic.” His person was considered sacred and inviolable.

A parliamentary (constitutional) monarchy involves maximum limitation of the power of the monarch. The well-known saying: “The king reigns, but does not rule” is quite applicable to a parliamentary monarchy. The specifics of this type of monarchical form of government largely coincides with the distinctive features of a parliamentary republic, which will be discussed below.

Today there are 28 monarchies in the world, and formally more than 40, since in a number of Commonwealth countries led by Great Britain - Canada, New Zealand, Barbados and others - the Queen of Great Britain is formally and legally considered the head of state.

Most countries with this form of government are parliamentary (constitutional) monarchies, where the power of the ruler is limited both by written law and by active legislative and executive bodies. These include Great Britain, Belgium, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Japan, etc. Until recently, Saudi Arabia was an absolute monarchy. In 1992, the Constitution was adopted there and from that moment on it is more correct to consider it as a dualistic monarchy. With certain reservations, Oman today can be classified as an absolute monarchy, although there, too, a Constitution was adopted in 1996.

2.2 Republican form of government

The three correct forms of government: monarchy, aristocracy and democracy - can be combined into one and called a republic.

Republic (Latin respublica, from res - business and publicus - public matter) is a form of government in which the highest bodies of state power are elected by the population or by special electoral colleges.

Unlike a monarchy, a republic has the following features.

Firstly, the source of power is the people (electorate), who, in the process of direct or indirect elections, delegate their power to a representative body. The first republics arose in Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome. Thus, in the Athens Democratic Republic, all full-fledged citizens of Athens took part in the elections of the highest body of state power (the People's Assembly). In aristocratic republics, not all citizens, but only representatives of the military-landed nobility, enjoyed the right to take part in the election (formation) of the highest bodies of the state. History knows a whole series of qualifications, i.e. conditions for obtaining and exercising the right to vote (age, citizenship, literacy, property, education, gender, race, language, etc.). Their presence in the legislation of a particular state led to restrictions on the right to take part in the election of supreme bodies of state power. Currently, in the vast majority of states there are only age qualifications and citizenship qualifications.

Secondly, the highest bodies of state power exercise power on behalf and in the interests of the people or the corresponding social group.

Thirdly, in the republic the term of office of the highest bodies of state power is legally limited; as a rule, it is equal to 4-5 years.

Fourthly, the mandatory presence of legislative, executive and judicial bodies of state power.

Currently, out of 190 states in the world, 150 are republics.

Republics can be classified on various grounds. In particular, N.M. Korkunov and G.F. Shershenevich, depending on the degree of direct participation of the people in the implementation of the functions of state power, distinguished pure, or direct, republics and representative republics. A direct republic is a form of government in which the people have the right to directly participate in the implementation of the legislative function. In representative republics, the direct implementation of all functions of government is granted to institutions authorized by the people, and the people themselves directly have only the right to elect their representatives.

Today, all republics are usually divided into three types: presidential, parliamentary (parliamentary) and mixed. In this case, the first two types are called classic or traditional.

A classic presidential republic is characterized by the following distinctive features: the president is elected by the population of the entire country or by electors; is both the head of state and government; has fairly broad powers in the economic, political and military spheres; independently forms the government; the government is responsible to the president, not to parliament; the president cannot dissolve parliament; relations between the president and parliament are built on the basis of a system of checks and balances. In particular, parliament approves the budget presented by the president.

Today, the United States and Syria can be considered among the classic presidential republics, and not without reservations.

A classic parliamentary republic is characterized by the following features: supreme power belongs to the parliament, which is elected by the entire population of the state; the government is formed by parties with a majority in parliament; the government is headed by the prime minister, who is, as a rule, the leader of the party that won the parliamentary elections; the government is responsible to parliament, which can dismiss it; the existence of the post of president is allowed, who is elected by parliament or by a special electoral college consisting of members of parliament. At the same time, the president in a parliamentary republic does not have real powers.

Currently, classic parliamentary (parliamentary) republics are Italy and Austria.

The forms of government discussed above still retain their importance; they all exist in various states of the world. But on their basis and along with them, through the combination and appearance of new characteristics, previously unknown forms arise, and this trend is gaining strength. Of particular interest in this regard is the analysis of atypical forms of government of modern states, carried out by Professor V.E. Chirkin.

There are fewer and fewer “pure” traditional forms, and the forms of government in newly emerging states (for example, during the collapse of the USSR, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia), as a rule, combine different features. Mixed and “hybrid” forms of government are emerging, characterized by a loss of rigidity of existing classifications on legal grounds: the features of a republic and a monarchy are combined (for example, in Malaysia), an absolute and constitutional monarchy (Kuwait), a presidential and parliamentary republic (Colombia under the Constitution of 1991) “Pure” forms of government, along with their advantages, have disadvantages inherent in the form as such. For example, a presidential republic tends toward presidential authoritarianism. This is clearly evidenced by the emergence of super-presidential republics in a number of Latin American states, in Russia, as well as presidential-monistic republics in certain African states. A parliamentary republic is inherently characterized by government instability, frequent government crises and resignations. Thus, over the fifty post-war years in the parliamentary republic of Italy, more than fifty cabinets of ministers were replaced, and the average duration of their existence was less than a year. The inclusion of elements of a presidential republic into a parliamentary one, and a parliamentary one into a presidential one, and the use of other methods help to overcome the shortcomings of “pure” forms. As a result, fewer and fewer “pure” presidential or parliamentary republics remain, and semi-presidential, semi-parliamentary republics emerge.

The most characteristic feature of a semi-parliamentary republic is the limitation of votes of no confidence. In Germany, for example, a “constructive vote of no confidence” is provided (a significant number of members of parliament must vote for no confidence in the chancellor (prime minister).

The most characteristic feature of a semi-presidential republic is the establishment of responsibility before parliament for individual ministers, but not for the head of government, who in fact, and often legally, remains the president. This trend has found its expression in the constitutional law of a number of Latin American countries - Venezuela, Colombia, Peru, Uruguay, etc.

3. Political regimes

3.1 The significance of the political regime

History knows a variety of political regimes: despotic, theocratic-monarchical, aristocratic (oligarchic), democratic, absolutist, clerical-feudal, militaristic-police, “enlightened absolutism”, Bonapartist, military police, fascist, fascism-like, puppet, authoritarian, totalitarian and a number of others.

In the first meaning, the political regime is completely identified with the form of the state, is its synonym and, from this point of view, includes the form of government and the form of government.

In the second meaning, the political regime is considered not only and not so much as a state science concept, but as a phenomenon that largely predetermines the functioning of the political system of society as a whole.

In the third meaning, the political regime is used to characterize various ways, techniques and methods of exercising state power in society. This is the narrow meaning of this category, in which it is used, first of all, in jurisprudence as a special third element characterizing the form of the state, along with the form of government and the form of government.

The peculiarity of this form of state is that it has a certain independence and does not directly depend on other forms. Thus, in states with a monarchical (except for an absolute monarchy) and a republican form of government, the same political regime can exist. Moreover, in a number of modern limited monarchies there is a much more democratic regime than in individual modern republics. To an even lesser extent, the political regime is determined by one or another form of government.

It is safe to say that absolutely identical political regimes do not exist or have existed in any state in the world. Each of them has its own characteristics, its own specifics, which are determined by the influence of a huge number of socio-economic, socio-political, class, religious, moral and other factors. It should also be noted that the relative stability of these factors leads to the relative stability of the political regime of a particular state in a particular historical period of time. And vice versa, their changes lead to certain modifications of the form of state under consideration.

3.2 Types of political regimes

In educational literature on the theory of state and law, political regimes are usually divided into two main types: democratic and anti-democratic.

A democratic political regime is characterized by: the presence of democracy in the state, i.e. a form of power that is based on the recognition of the people as the source of power; election and turnover of supreme bodies of state power, their accountability to voters; division of state power into legislative, executive and judicial; constitutional recognition, consolidation and real guarantee of fundamental personal, economic, political and other rights and freedoms of man and citizen (restriction of rights and freedoms is allowed only on the basis and in accordance with the law); protection of the individual from arbitrariness and lawlessness, the ability to actually protect one’s rights, freedoms and legitimate interests from any encroachment, including from government bodies and officials; the existence of a number of political, including opposition, parties; non-interference by the state in the private life of citizens; transparency in the activities of the state.

An anti-democratic regime is the opposite of a democratic one and is characterized by the opposite set of features. Of particular importance is the division of this type of political regime into actually anti-democratic and pseudo-democratic. The latter are characterized by formal recognition and constitutional consolidation of the most significant democratic institutions and values, on the one hand, and their complete or partial ignoring, on the other. Typical examples of pseudo-democratic regimes are the regimes that existed in the former USSR and a number of other countries of the socialist community. Similar regimes currently exist in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and Cuba.

Depending on the degree of restriction of democracy, anti-democratic regimes are divided into authoritarian, totalitarian and fascist.

Authoritarian the regime is characterized by a violation of the principle of separation of powers, limiting the role of elected government bodies and strengthening the role of executive bodies, the concentration of enormous power in the hands of the head of state or government, reducing the role of parliament and other government bodies to the position of purely formal institutions and, as a result, illegal restrictions on the rights and freedoms of citizens, the possibility of banning political parties and other organizations.

Totalitarian The regime is characterized by complete (total) state control over all spheres of society, the nationalization of public organizations, state intervention in the private lives of citizens, the dominance of one political party or movement, the prohibition or significant limitation of the activities of opposition parties, the presence of one “official” ideology, and persecution of dissent. , significant restriction of the rights, freedoms and legitimate interests of the individual.

Fascist the regime is totalitarianism in its most overt form. The apparatus of state power reaches enormous proportions and is created like a pyramid, at the top of which stands a sole ruler with unlimited powers. The fascist regime completely eliminates democratic rights and freedoms, destroys all opposition organizations and institutions, and relies in its activities on mass ideological and physical terror. Fascism is a phenomenon of the 20th century. It first arose in 1919 in Italy, where, after the fascists seized power in 1922, a corresponding dictatorship was established that lasted until the 40s. In 1920, the National Socialist Workers' Party was organized in Germany, led by A. Hitler, which in 1933 won the general elections, i.e. gained power democratically and after that established a regime of bloody fascist dictatorship. Currently, openly fascist regimes do not exist, but this does not mean that they cannot arise.

Conclusion

Forms of government are the organization of power characterized by a formal source. In a monarchy, the formal source of power is one person: king, king, pharaoh, etc. In a republic, the source of power is the majority.

There are still ongoing debates in science about how to correctly classify forms of government. They offer a variety of options, but everyone agrees that Aristotle’s typology is the best. He identified three main forms (monarchy, aristocracy, democracy) and three perverted forms (tyranny, oligarchies, ochlocracy).

Since that time, scientific thought has come up with nothing fundamentally new; it has only reshaped what was created before. Why did the progress of science suddenly stop? It is possible that the reason is the pattern of history: it repeats itself in its main features, reproducing the old at each new turn, but in a form changed to suit new conditions. Humanity has been trying out this or that form of government for a long time, changing something in it, improving it, or immediately rejecting an unsuccessful project. Political creativity always continues long and painfully.

The traditional form of government in Russia is considered to be a monarchy. Once upon a time, part of this large country was part of Kievan Rus: the main cities (Moscow, Vladimir, Veliky Novgorod, Smolensk, Ryazan) were founded by princes, descendants of the semi-legendary Rurik. Hence the first ruling dynasty is called the Rurikovichs. But they bore the title of princes; the tsars of Russia appeared much later.

Kievan Rus period

Initially, the ruler of Kyiv was considered the Grand Duke of All Rus'. The appanage princes paid him tribute, obeyed him, and sent squads during the military campaign. Later, when the period of feudal fragmentation began (eleventh to fifteenth centuries), there was no single state. But still, it was the Kiev throne that was most desirable for everyone, although it had lost its former influence. The invasion of the Mongol-Tatar army and the creation of the Golden Horde by Batu deepened the isolation of each principality: separate countries began to form on their territory - Ukraine, Belarus and Russia. On modern Russian territory, the most influential cities were Vladimir and Novgorod (it did not suffer at all from the invasion of nomads).

History of the Tsars of Russia

Prince Ivan Kalita of Vladimir, having secured the support of the Great Khan of Uzbek (with whom he had good relations), moved the political and ecclesiastical capital to Moscow. Over time, the Muscovites united other Russian lands near their city: the Novgorod and Pskov republics became part of a single state. It was then that the kings of Russia appeared - for the first time such a title began to be worn. Although there is a legend that the royal regalia were transferred to the rulers of this land much earlier. It is believed that the 1st Tsar of Russia is Vladimir Monomakh, who was crowned according to Byzantine customs.

Ivan the Terrible - the first autocrat in Russia

So, the first tsars of Russia appeared with the rise to power of Ivan the Terrible (1530-1584). He was the son of Vasily III and Elena Glinskaya. Having become a Moscow prince very early, he began to introduce reforms and encouraged self-government at the local level. However, he abolished the Chosen Rada and began to rule personally. The monarch's rule was very strict, even dictatorial. The defeat of Novgorod, outrages in Tver, Klin and Torzhok, oprichnina, protracted wars led to a socio-political crisis. But the international influence of the new kingdom also increased and its borders expanded.

Transition of the Russian throne

With the death of the son of Ivan the Terrible - Fyodor the First - the Godunov family came to the throne. Boris Godunov, even during the life of Feodor the First, had great influence on the tsar (his sister Irina Fedorovna was the wife of the monarch) and actually ruled the country. But Boris's son, Fyodor II, failed to retain power in his hands. The Time of Troubles began, and the country was ruled for some time by False Dmitry, Vasily Shuisky, the Seven Boyars and the Zemsky Council. Then the Romanovs reigned on the throne.

The great dynasty of kings of Russia - the Romanovs

The beginning of a new royal dynasty was laid by Mikhail Fedorovich, elected to the throne by the Zemsky Sobor. This ends the historical period called the Troubles. The House of Romanov is the descendants of the great Tsar who ruled Russia until 1917 and the overthrow of the monarchy in the country.

Mikhail Fedorovich was from an old Russian noble family, who bore the surname Romanovs from the mid-sixteenth century. Its founder is considered to be a certain Andrei Ivanovich Kobyla, whose father came to Russia either from Lithuania or Prussia. There is an opinion that he came from Novgorod. Five sons founded seventeen noble families. A representative of the family, Anastasia Romanovna Zakharyina, was the wife of Ivan IV the Terrible, of whom the newly-minted monarch was a great-nephew.

The Tsars of Russia from the House of Romanov stopped the Troubles in the country, which earned them the love and respect of the common people. Mikhail Fedorovich was young and inexperienced at the time of his election to the throne. At first, the great eldress Martha helped him rule, and therefore the Orthodox Church significantly strengthened its position. The reign of the first tsar from the Romanov dynasty is characterized by the beginning of progress. The first newspaper appeared in the country (it was published by clerks specifically for the monarch), international ties were strengthened, factories were built and operating (iron smelting, iron making and weapons), and foreign specialists were attracted. Centralized power is strengthened, new territories are annexed to Russia. His wife gave Mikhail Fedorovich ten children, one of whom inherited the throne.

From kings to emperors. Peter the Great

In the eighteenth century he transformed his kingdom into an empire. Therefore, in history, all the names of the kings of Russia who ruled after him were already used with the title emperor.

A great reformer and an outstanding politician, he did a lot for the prosperity of Russia. His reign began with a fierce struggle for the throne: his father, Alexei Mikhailovich, had very numerous offspring. At first he ruled together with his brother Ivan and the regent, but their relationship did not work out. Having eliminated other contenders for the throne, Peter began to rule the state alone. Then he began military campaigns to secure Russia's access to the sea, built the first fleet, reorganized the army, recruiting foreign specialists. If the great tsars of Russia previously did not pay due attention to the education of their subjects, then Emperor Peter the Great personally sent nobles to study abroad, brutally suppressing dissent. He remade his country according to the European model, since he traveled a lot and saw how people lived there.

Nikolai Romanov - the last tsar

The last Russian emperor was Nicholas II. He received a good education and a very strict upbringing. His father, Alexander the Third, was demanding: from his sons he expected not so much obedience as intelligence, strong faith in God, a desire to work, and especially did not put up with children denouncing each other. The future ruler served in the Preobrazhensky Regiment, so he knew well what the army and military affairs were. During his reign, the country actively developed: the economy, industry, and agriculture reached their peak. The last Tsar of Russia actively participated in international politics and carried out reforms in the country, reducing the length of military service. But he also conducted his own military campaigns.

The fall of the monarchy in Russia. October Revolution

In February 1917, unrest began in Russia, in particular in the capital. The country at that time took part in the First World War. Wanting to end the contradictions at home, the emperor, while at the front, abdicated the throne in favor of his young son, and a few days later did the same on behalf of Tsarevich Alexei, entrusting his brother to rule. But Grand Duke Mikhail also refused such an honor: the rebel Bolsheviks were already putting pressure on him. Upon returning to his homeland, the last Tsar of Russia was arrested along with his family and sent into exile. On the night of July 17-18 of the same year, 1917, the royal family, along with the servants who did not want to leave their sovereigns, were shot. All representatives of the Romanov dynasty who remained in the country were also destroyed. Some managed to emigrate to Great Britain, France, America, and their descendants still live there.

Will there be a revival of the monarchy in Russia?

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, many began to talk about the revival of the monarchy in Russia. At the site of the execution of the royal family - where the Ipatiev house used to stand in Yekaterinburg (the death sentence was carried out in the basement of the building) a temple was built dedicated to the memory of the innocent murdered. In August 2000, the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church canonized everyone as saints, establishing the Fourth of July as their day of remembrance. But many believers do not agree with this: voluntary abdication of the throne is considered a sin, since the priests blessed the kingdom.

In 2005, the descendants of Russian autocrats held a council in Madrid. After which they sent a demand to the General Prosecutor's Office of the Russian Federation to rehabilitate the Romanov house. However, they were not recognized as victims of political repression due to a lack of official data. This is a criminal offense, not a political one. But representatives of the Russian imperial house do not agree with this and continue to appeal the verdict, hoping for the restoration of historical justice.

But whether modern Russia needs a monarchy is a question for the people. History will put everything in its place. In the meantime, people honor the memory of members of the royal family who were brutally executed during the Red Terror and say prayers for their souls.