Lakhasly

NATIONAL POLITICAL TRADITIONS To understand the peculiarities of the development of the Russian state-civilization, it is necessary to consider several key definitions of political science concepts.There is also a kind of democratic tradition of judicial proceedings, which can be traced in the Judicial Code of 1497, which forbade the judge to conduct the trial without the participation of "the best people", a kind of rudimentary form of jury trial. Many researchers emphasize that since the middle of the XV century, the issue of expanding the social base of the ruling stratum, i.e., the addition of the aristocracy by the democratic elite, has become relevant, which is clearly observed in the internal politics of Ivan III and his successors. Nevertheless , it is possible to talk about a return to the developed tendencies of self -government only since the middle of the XVI century . Then, in the famous reforms of the Elected Rada, the principles of local self-government are formed. So, the head of the volost self-government becomes a zemstvo headman, elected from the circle of local nobles, and his assistants are zemstvo kissers (they kissed the cross when taking the oath) from wealthy local peasants. The institute of a provincial headman was introduced, who performed police and limited judicial functions on domestic issues. He was also elected from the circle of local nobles, and his assistants, lip kissers - from local peasants. In 1550, a large-scale Zemsky Sobor was also officially assembled for the first time, which forms the tradition of representative democracy, but already on the scale of all Russia. If we compare it with the parliamentary institutions of Western Europe at that time, we can say that as the upper house, the Russian aristocracy formed the Boyar Duma, which had the right to participate in the activities of the Zemsky Sobor. The Consecrated Episcopate Cathedral and the abbots of the largest monasteries adjoined the Boyar Duma. The Zemsky Sobor itself was bicurial and was formed with the help of the institute of electors. The first curia was elected from among the metropolitan and zemstvo nobles, the second - conditionally bourgeois, from representatives of Moscow hundreds and villages, as well as provincial townships. The effectiveness of democratic institutions was greatly enhanced by the element of informality in official social relations. We are talking about the responsibility of the elected to their voters. A remarkable example described by V.O. Klyuchevsky is how one of the deputies of the Zemsky Sobor of 1648-1649 felt responsible. Gavrila Malyshev, who was afraid to return to Kursk two months after the end of the Council, because he did not fulfill the instructions of his constituents. The tsar even had to give him a special security certificate. The Zemsky Sobor had real power. All the most important legislative acts: the Judicial Code of 1550, the Council Code of 1649, the Zemstvo Act on the abolition of Localism of 1682 and smaller-scale laws were developed and approved by Zemstvo councils. Zemstvo councils could elect a sovereign, as they elected 16-year-old Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov, who founded a new dynasty, to reign. The zemstvo councils also had the right to depose the tsars, as in 1610 they deprived Vasily Shuisky of the kingdom, unable to overcome the Turmoil. Zemstvo councils resolved issues of annexation of new territories, war and peace. Thus, the Zemsky Sobor refused Mikhail Fedorovich to accept Azov, captured by the Don Cossacks, into citizenship, and later in 1653 gave consent to Alexei Mikhailovich to accept Hetman Bogdan Khmelnitsky into citizenship with the territories of Little Russia subject to him. In Russian history, there was an example of a sovereign who actually betrayed national interests, but the estates could not legally deprive Peter III of power due to the lack of a legitimate power institution, which led to his physical elimination. The irony is that the sin of regicide was not committed by foreign conspirators or revolutionaries, but by the most patriotic Russian officers. The process of restoring national democratic traditions began with the reforms of Alexander II in 1861. Following the liberation of the peasants (the authorship of the manifesto text belongs to the outstanding church hierarch Metropolitan Filaret (Drozdov)) zemstvo and city reforms have been passed, restoring democracy at the grassroots municipal level. The assassination of Alexander II interrupted the restoration of democratic institutions, but it was continued by the reforms of Nicholas II and, although it was not completed, the trend was very clear empire. One of the most long-suffering terms in the political science field is the concept of "empire".In Russia, even a peasant addressed the tsar with "you". The serious disadvantages of the monarchy obviously include favoritism and the randomness of the birth of an heir. Such shortcomings, as well as the disadvantages of other forms of power, were eliminated in historical reality with the help of composite political systems, when the shortcomings of some forms of power are compensated by the advantages of others. Monarchies with aristocracies or monarchies with democracies are much more common than pure monarchies. The combination of all three forms of power should be attributed to the political traditions of Russia: for Pre-Mongol Russia, which was actually a confederation of sovereign principalities, it was a prince-druzhina-veche scheme within one principality, in the Russian Empire - the tsar-Boyar Duma-Zemsky Sobor. As for tyranny, in Hellenistic society, those who came to power illegally were initially considered tyrants. In Hellas there were even virtuous tyrants who acted as champions of civil rights, such as Pisistratus of Athens. However, Aristotle was one of the first to note the presence of cruelty among tyrants as a systemic principle. It is to Aristotle that the thesis belongs that the legitimate monarch is protected by citizens, and the tyrant is protected by mercenaries. The term "tyrant" in everyday life and often in academic literature is used as a synonym for the term "dictator" (Latin dicto - dictate, prescribe).In Russian history, there is a remarkable example of a democratically appointed dictator who became a national hero - Kozma Minin, who had the unique title of "elected man of the whole earth." As a classic dictator, he appointed Prince D. Pozharsky commander-in-chief and after the liberation of Moscow from the Poles and the calling of Mikhail Romanov to the kingdom, he resigned his powers. George Washington also had extraordinary powers during the American War of Independence and can in some sense be considered a Republican dictator. However, if the dictator does not add up his powers, then, as a rule, he turns into a tyrant. ARISTOCRACY AND OLIGARCHY. In modern everyday life, the aristocracy is often called a community of representatives of the hereditary nobility. The Hellenes called such people Eupatrides, i.e. having a noble origin (Greek. ?? - good, good, glorious; ????? - father). In the political sense, an aristocrat is a eupatrid exercising public power. One of the main advantages of the aristocracy (unlike monarchy and democracy) is the ability to store, reproduce, develop and transmit national culture. This feature is associated with the reproduction of the nobility, in which education plays a special role. The main values of aristocratic upbringing are the ability to obey and command, as well as make decisions and bear responsibility. The serious disadvantages of the aristocracy include the randomness of the birth of heirs, and, unlike the monarchy, this disadvantage has a cumulative effect. Throughout history, various methods have been used to prevent the degeneration of the aristocracy, and all of them are based on the principle of replenishment. For example, the mechanism of "annobling" works according to this principle, i.e. elevation to the dignity of nobility for special merits.In the earliest empires of Iran and Ethiopia , the title of head of state meant "the king of kings." That is, there were kings who were part of empires (with the loss of sovereignty) while retaining their titles, such as the king of Armenia or the king of Lydia were part of the Persian Empire with their kingdoms. Similarly, the king of Bavaria or Wurttemberg retained his powers as part of the German Empire. Russia embarked on the path of forming an imperial organism before it became a unified and independent state. Even during the reign of Ivan III's father, Prince Vasily the Dark, the noble Murza Kasim with relatives and vassals left for Moscow service. He was allocated land and presented with the Gorodets Meshchersky of the Ryazan region, which has since been called the city of Kasimov. Thus, within the Grand Duchy of Moscow, and then the Russian Kingdom, there was the Kasimov kingdom, with the only difference that its monarch was not called the "Kasimov tsar" (for the tsar is the emperor, he was in Moscow), but the "Kasimov tsarevich".When introducing the "individual good", J. Schumpeter appeals to positivism, within which there are only isolated and clearly demonstrated things. Thus, there is confusion in terms of the principle of comparing salty and red, when heterogeneous categories are compared: monarchy (form of power) is compared with the republic (principle of formation of public administration), and democracy (form of power) is compared with authoritarianism (type of political regime). For clarity of presentation, we will use the classical set of definitions. Aristotle in his assessments sympathizes with the principles of aristocracy, but recognizes the monarchy as the best form of power, with the proviso that the most worthy of the aristocrats becomes the monarch. He also showed interest in the "power of full-fledged citizens" and recommended maintaining the system of access to civil rights in such a state that "average people" (in the modern view, people of average income) were allowed to political life.Gradually, the circle of citizens grew, but in order to preserve from "devaluation", the principle began to operate: the more rights for one's own, the less rights for others. The ancients were well aware that the extension of civil rights to the entire population would lead to the complete disappearance of the concept of citizen. And if more than 90% of the population are citizens in the state, then there is no need to talk about democracy, it is replaced by ochlocracy. In modern society, democracy is separated from ochlocracy by a system of various qualifications: age, educational, property, and the qualification of settlement. Even in class societies, there is a social division into three unequal categories - the elite, the middle class and the social lower classes. And the most important task of society and the state is to counteract the growth of the social grassroots. The reverse trend is a characteristic feature of ochlocracy. Every healthy society has a complex structure, but if simplification processes begin to dominate in it, then, according to the famous formula of K.N. Leontiev, "any simplification is degradation", it rapidly turns into an ochlocratic mass.Vsevolod III The Great Nest for these purposes convenes in 1211 a "meeting of all ranks and ranks of people" from all over Russia, a kind of prototype of the Zemsky Sobor. If we consider this date to be the beginning of domestic parliamentarism, then this event is more than half a century ahead of the convocation of the first English parliament. In the XII century. Russia was so strong that no one wanted a single state. The author of "Words about the Destruction of the Russian Land" bitterly writes about the missed opportunities that at that time "the Polovtsians in the name of Vladimir Monomakh frightened their young children in the cradle, and the Lithuanians did not show up from their swamps, and the Ugrians (Hungarians) strengthened the stone walls of their cities with iron gates, and the Germans rejoiced that they far beyond the Blue Sea."Moreover, there was no slavery in Egypt, but there was a dependent peasantry.????????

NATIONAL POLITICAL TRADITIONS
To understand the peculiarities of the development of the Russian state-civilization, it is necessary to consider several key definitions of political science concepts. The difficulty lies in the widespread use of these terms in everyday life, which leads to a blurring of their meanings. The desire for greater clarity of definitions often leads to a simplification of the concept. To avoid this, we will rely on specific historical examples.
First of all, we are talking about the phenomenon of power, three forms of which were described in Antiquity by Aristotle. The Hellenistic view of the world attached great importance to political life, and Aristotle himself has a famous definition: "man is a political animal." The genius of Aristotle clearly noticed and classified the main trends of social and political organization in their interrelation, which made it possible to distinguish three "correct" forms of power. In his terminology, this is the monarchy (Greek: μόνο – single, single; ἀρχή – the beginning, power, domination), aristocracy (Greek: ἀριστεύ - the noblest; κράτο – might, power, leader) and polity (the power of full-fledged citizens, Greek. πολιτεία – the state). The Greeks understood that each of these forms is neither bad nor good, but Aristotle singled out the principle that unites all the right forms of power: any form of power always acts in the interests of society or, as many thinkers from Cicero to J.J. noted.Rousseau, aimed at the common good. If this principle is violated, and the government begins to act in the interests not of the whole society, but only of its part, this form of power turns into a distortion or deviation. According to Aristotle, there are also three such distortions – tyranny (Greek: τυραννί – arbitrariness), oligarchy (Greek: ὀλίγο – small, short) and democracy (Greek: δῆμο – people).
A little later, under the ancient thinker Polybius, the name "democracy" was fixed for the correct form of power of full–fledged citizens, and for its distortion - ochlocracy (Greek: ὄχλο - crowd). Interestingly, the terms "ethonocracy" (Greek: ἔθνο – nation) or laocracy (Greek: λάο – population) are not found in ancient Greek texts, i.e. democracy is not the power of the people, but the power of citizens.
Any distortion of the form of power from the point of view of ethics is selfish: tyranny acts in the interests of the tyrant or his inner circle; oligarchy – in the interests of the oligarchy and those who are directly connected with it; ochlocracy – in the interests of the social lower classes.

These definitions were so successful that they became generally accepted for more than two thousand years, and attempts to revise them began to be made only in the second half of the XX century. The desire for a new content of terms is rooted in the ideologists of the French and American revolutions of the late XVIII century. and is reduced to the opposition of the monarchy and the republic, in which (higher) bodies are elected by citizens for a certain period. It should be noted that monarchy in this context refers to two late forms of monarchies common in Western Europe: absolute (implemented in Europe only since the XVI century) and constitutional (implemented only since the XVII century). In Western European literature, this trend of reinterpretation led to the replacement of the term "democracy" with the concept of "liberal democracy" (parliamentary constitutional regime), and this "new democracy" began to be opposed to the concept of "authoritarianism". Such a Western European "democracy", according to the famous Austrian-American economist and political scientist J. Schumpeter (1883-1950), has nothing to do with the people (or, in the ancient sense, with citizens), since the concept of ancient democracy was based on the principle of the common good, the existence of which, unlike the individual good, is not recognized by the ideologists of liberal democracy. When introducing the "individual good", J. Schumpeter appeals to positivism, within which there are only isolated and clearly demonstrated things. Thus, there is confusion in terms of the principle of comparing salty and red, when heterogeneous categories are compared: monarchy (form of power) is compared with the republic (principle of formation of public administration), and democracy (form of power) is compared with authoritarianism (type of political regime). For clarity of presentation, we will use the classical set of definitions.
Aristotle in his assessments sympathizes with the principles of aristocracy, but recognizes the monarchy as the best form of power, with the proviso that the most worthy of the aristocrats becomes the monarch. He also showed interest in the "power of full-fledged citizens" and recommended maintaining the system of access to civil rights in such a state that "average people" (in the modern view, people of average income) were allowed to political life. Its rationale is curious. Aristotle writes that, unlike the rich, the "average" are forced to work and thus deprived of the opportunity to devote their entire lives to dangerous political games for society; and unlike the poor, they are not inclined to encroach on other people's property. Another ancient thinker orator Isocrates gives a similar thought: "The rich are so disgusting that only the poor can be worse than them." The Russian philosopher I.A. Ilyin points out that society is not interested in cultivating the rich, but in having the largest number of citizens as owners.

MONARCHY AND TYRANNY.
World history knows a large number of forms of monarchy, they are divided according to the principle of inheritance of power or according to the principle of origin. For Russia, the historically established political tradition is a class-representative form.
Like any form of government, the monarchy has both advantages and disadvantages. The advantages of the monarchy are described in detail by many Russian thinkers, among whom B.N. Chicherin and L.A. Tikhomirov stand out. This is, of course, the ability to effectively nominate the most talented people for leadership positions. Any outstanding general or minister does not represent political competition for the monarch, which means he can safely realize his potential for the benefit of society. Another advantage is the possibility of making an operational decision in cases when there is no time for discussion.

The monarchy introduces exceptionally noble principles into the canvas of social relations, the first of which is loyalty. The word "loyal subject" is characteristic of monarchical states. According to I.A. Ilyin, "it is inherent in the monarchical legal consciousness to trust the head of state (the pathos of trust), and it is inherent in the republican legal consciousness to seek and establish guarantees against the head of state in laws and institutions (the pathos of guarantees)." The monarchy is an important and universal instrument of unification, especially in multinational States. Due to its supra-conditionality, the monarchy can also be a symbol of the unity of the nation and a factor of social stability.
Another important feature of the monarchy is its ability to maintain the informality of relations between the monarch and subjects in large states. In Russia, even a peasant addressed the tsar with "you".
The serious disadvantages of the monarchy obviously include favoritism and the randomness of the birth of an heir. Such shortcomings, as well as the disadvantages of other forms of power, were eliminated in historical reality with the help of composite political systems, when the shortcomings of some forms of power are compensated by the advantages of others. Monarchies with aristocracies or monarchies with democracies are much more common than pure monarchies. The combination of all three forms of power should be attributed to the political traditions of Russia: for Pre-Mongol Russia, which was actually a confederation of sovereign principalities, it was a prince-druzhina–veche scheme within one principality, in the Russian Empire - the tsar-Boyar Duma-Zemsky Sobor.
As for tyranny, in Hellenistic society, those who came to power illegally were initially considered tyrants. In Hellas there were even virtuous tyrants who acted as champions of civil rights, such as Pisistratus of Athens. However, Aristotle was one of the first to note the presence of cruelty among tyrants as a systemic principle. It is to Aristotle that the thesis belongs that the legitimate monarch is protected by citizens, and the tyrant is protected by mercenaries. The term "tyrant" in everyday life and often in academic literature is used as a synonym for the term "dictator" (Latin dicto – dictate, prescribe). Dictatorship is a Roman invention and a concept that always means extraordinary power. The dictator was appointed by the Roman Senate for a period of 6 months in cases when the republic was in a very difficult situation. He united in his hands all the supreme power, replacing two consuls, as well as the right of a military commander to pass a death sentence within the walls of the city. The most famous Roman dictator was a poor farmer Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus, who performed this function two (according to some estimates, three) times. In Russian history, there is a remarkable example of a democratically appointed dictator who became a national hero – Kozma Minin, who had the unique title of "elected man of the whole earth." As a classic dictator, he appointed Prince D. Pozharsky commander-in-chief and after the liberation of Moscow from the Poles and the calling of Mikhail Romanov to the kingdom, he resigned his powers. George Washington also had extraordinary powers during the American War of Independence and can in some sense be considered a Republican dictator. However, if the dictator does not add up his powers, then, as a rule, he turns into a tyrant.

ARISTOCRACY AND OLIGARCHY.
In modern everyday life, the aristocracy is often called a community of representatives of the hereditary nobility. The Hellenes called such people Eupatrides, i.e. having a noble origin (Greek. εὖ – good, good, glorious; πατήρ – father). In the political sense, an aristocrat is a eupatrid exercising public power.
One of the main advantages of the aristocracy (unlike monarchy and democracy) is the ability to store, reproduce, develop and transmit national culture. This feature is associated with the reproduction of the nobility, in which education plays a special role. The main values of aristocratic upbringing are the ability to obey and command, as well as make decisions and bear responsibility.
The serious disadvantages of the aristocracy include the randomness of the birth of heirs, and, unlike the monarchy, this disadvantage has a cumulative effect. Throughout history, various methods have been used to prevent the degeneration of the aristocracy, and all of them are based on the principle of replenishment. For example, the mechanism of "annobling" works according to this principle, i.e. elevation to the dignity of nobility for special merits. In the Russian Empire, the nobility turned out to be a service, most often a military one, and in the UK a complex system of annoubling functions to this day.

As for the oligarchy, it can take a variety of forms, but with the preservation of one feature: unlike the public nature of the power of the aristocracy, the oligarchy, as a rule, carries it out behind the scenes. In this context, the phenomenon of bureaucracy becomes clear, which in Modern societies is a category of professional administrators and managers. Officials can join the ranks of both the aristocratic and democratic elite, but individually, i.e. for outstanding services. But if officials as a bureaucratic mass want to realize themselves in power, they can do it only in one way – by turning into an oligarchy.

DEMOCRACY AND OCHLOCRACY.
Aristotle had the least sympathy for democracy due to the latter's susceptibility to various forms of manipulation. However, he recognized the unique dignity of democracy, which neither the monarchy nor the aristocracy can boast of. – the ability to awaken civic initiative in society.
In ancient Hellas, and later in the Roman Empire, citizenship was of great importance. It gave significant social and political rights and served as a powerful motivating factor. At the same time, there were several stages of citizenship with different amounts of rights (Latin, Italian, Roman).
The basic values of democracy have always included the concepts of family and property. It was postulated that citizens are family householders who own property. Gradually, the circle of citizens grew, but in order to preserve from "devaluation", the principle began to operate: the more rights for one's own, the less rights for others. The ancients were well aware that the extension of civil rights to the entire population would lead to the complete disappearance of the concept of citizen. And if more than 90% of the population are citizens in the state, then there is no need to talk about democracy, it is replaced by ochlocracy.
In modern society, democracy is separated from ochlocracy by a system of various qualifications: age, educational, property, and the qualification of settlement. Even in class societies, there is a social division into three unequal categories – the elite, the middle class and the social lower classes. And the most important task of society and the state is to counteract the growth of the social grassroots.
The reverse trend is a characteristic feature of ochlocracy. Every healthy society has a complex structure, but if simplification processes begin to dominate in it, then, according to the famous formula of K.N. Leontiev, "any simplification is degradation", it rapidly turns into an ochlocratic mass. The Romans, like the Hellenes, were extremely interested in increasing their population, which is why they recognized certain civil rights even for persons without property. They were called "proletarians", were not taken into the legion (the Romans did not trust weapons to those who had nothing to defend), and the tribes of the people's Assembly and deprived of the right to elect Roman magistrates. With the increase in the size of the State, direct democracy was replaced by representative or parliamentary democracy. Since 1265, starting with Great Britain, all European countries have acquired their own national estate, and then people's representation.
As for the Russian national political traditions, the beginning of the national statehood is associated with the emergence of the first cities of Ancient Russia. One of the main values of Pre-Mongol Russia was freedom, as, for example, can be judged by the collection of civil and criminal laws "Russian Truth". Russian Pravda did not provide for prisons and corporal punishment, as retribution, exile or a fine, and sometimes the death penalty, were relied on. Exile always entailed the loss of rights, and the system of fines drew a fundamental line between the free and the unfree. The Russian city was significantly different from the European one, being much more connected with agriculture. The service character of the prince in relation to the city is also proved. The prince did not look at all like a European seigneur, rather he resembled the head of the city administration.
Due to this trend in the development of the urban character of Pre-Mongol Russia, the state-forming tradition in ethnic stereotypes was greatly weakened. This led to the fact that Russia, united in ethnic, economic, religious, cultural, legal, geographical and dynastic senses, was not a single state, but was a confederation of independent principalities. Nevertheless, the ethnic stereotypes of the inhabitants of Ancient Russia should include a rather rare quality, which many researchers talk about – the ability to include nomadic peoples in the cultural orbit of settlement.
The degree of political influence of various forms of power varied from principality to principality, but in each principality all three forms of power were present. At the same time, the Veche institute had real power not only in Novgorod or Kiev. As I.Ya. Froyanov proved, the prince could, if he wanted, go to war with his squad, but he had no right to convene a city militia – the city defended itself only by itself.
There were periods of strengthening of the princely power, and sometimes there was a clear desire for political unification of the Russian lands. Vsevolod III The Great Nest for these purposes convenes in 1211 a "meeting of all ranks and ranks of people" from all over Russia, a kind of prototype of the Zemsky Sobor. If we consider this date to be the beginning of domestic parliamentarism, then this event is more than half a century ahead of the convocation of the first English parliament.
In the XII century. Russia was so strong that no one wanted a single state. The author of "Words about the Destruction of the Russian Land" bitterly writes about the missed opportunities that at that time "the Polovtsians in the name of Vladimir Monomakh frightened their young children in the cradle, and the Lithuanians did not show up from their swamps, and the Ugrians (Hungarians) strengthened the stone walls of their cities with iron gates, and the Germans rejoiced that they far beyond the Blue Sea."
Unfortunately, the desire for political unification of Russia was weakened by civil strife, and the Tatar-Mongol invasion put an end to the old way of life. With a decrease in the percentage of the urban population, the democratic component of power decreases. The rural, and possibly even the volost assembly, is preserved, and the cities have their own civil society structures – hundreds and settlements with elected elders.

There is also a kind of democratic tradition of judicial proceedings, which can be traced in the Judicial Code of 1497, which forbade the judge to conduct the trial without the participation of "the best people", a kind of rudimentary form of jury trial.
Many researchers emphasize that since the middle of the XV century, the issue of expanding the social base of the ruling stratum, i.e., the addition of the aristocracy by the democratic elite, has become relevant, which is clearly observed in the internal politics of Ivan III and his successors. Nevertheless , it is possible to talk about a return to the developed tendencies of self -government only since the middle of the XVI century . Then, in the famous reforms of the Elected Rada, the principles of local self-government are formed. So, the head of the volost self–government becomes a zemstvo headman, elected from the circle of local nobles, and his assistants are zemstvo kissers (they kissed the cross when taking the oath) from wealthy local peasants. The institute of a provincial headman was introduced, who performed police and limited judicial functions on domestic issues. He was also elected from the circle of local nobles, and his assistants, lip kissers – from local peasants.
In 1550, a large-scale Zemsky Sobor was also officially assembled for the first time, which forms the tradition of representative democracy, but already on the scale of all Russia. If we compare it with the parliamentary institutions of Western Europe at that time, we can say that as the upper house, the Russian aristocracy formed the Boyar Duma, which had the right to participate in the activities of the Zemsky Sobor. The Consecrated Episcopate Cathedral and the abbots of the largest monasteries adjoined the Boyar Duma. The Zemsky Sobor itself was bicurial and was formed with the help of the institute of electors. The first curia was elected from among the metropolitan and zemstvo nobles, the second – conditionally bourgeois, from representatives of Moscow hundreds and villages, as well as provincial townships. The effectiveness of democratic institutions was greatly enhanced by the element of informality in official social relations. We are talking about the responsibility of the elected to their voters. A remarkable example described by V.O. Klyuchevsky is how one of the deputies of the Zemsky Sobor of 1648-1649 felt responsible. Gavrila Malyshev, who was afraid to return to Kursk two months after the end of the Council, because he did not fulfill the instructions of his constituents. The tsar even had to give him a special security certificate.
The Zemsky Sobor had real power. All the most important legislative acts: the Judicial Code of 1550, the Council Code of 1649, the Zemstvo Act on the abolition of Localism of 1682 and smaller-scale laws were developed and approved by Zemstvo councils. Zemstvo councils could elect a sovereign, as they elected 16-year-old Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov, who founded a new dynasty, to reign. The zemstvo councils also had the right to depose the tsars, as in 1610 they deprived Vasily Shuisky of the kingdom, unable to overcome the Turmoil.
Zemstvo councils resolved issues of annexation of new territories, war and peace. Thus, the Zemsky Sobor refused Mikhail Fedorovich to accept Azov, captured by the Don Cossacks, into citizenship, and later in 1653 gave consent to Alexei Mikhailovich to accept Hetman Bogdan Khmelnitsky into citizenship with the territories of Little Russia subject to him.
In Russian history, there was an example of a sovereign who actually betrayed national interests, but the estates could not legally deprive Peter III of power due to the lack of a legitimate power institution, which led to his physical elimination. The irony is that the sin of regicide was not committed by foreign conspirators or revolutionaries, but by the most patriotic Russian officers.
The process of restoring national democratic traditions began with the reforms of Alexander II in 1861. Following the liberation of the peasants (the authorship of the manifesto text belongs to the outstanding church hierarch Metropolitan Filaret (Drozdov)) zemstvo and city reforms have been passed, restoring democracy at the grassroots municipal level. The assassination of Alexander II interrupted the restoration of democratic institutions, but it was continued by the reforms of Nicholas II and, although it was not completed, the trend was very clear empire.
One of the most long-suffering terms in the political science field is the concept of "empire". According to one of the modern researchers of this phenomenon, A.F. Filippov, it is a mistake to believe that the empire is simply a large or powerful state pursuing an expansionist, "imperialist" policy. Meanwhile, the confusion came precisely with the introduction of J. P. Blavatsky into public discourse. Hobson and V.I. Lenin's concept of "imperialism" (which had nothing to do with the empire) as the highest stage of the development of capitalism.
An empire is a certain type of state, different from both a federation and a unitary state by definition, by age (often a long-lived empire) and by a historically much smaller number of examples. According to the remark of the modern researcher V.L. Makhnach, the characteristic features of the empire should include a certain structure of relations between the center and the provinces, the presence of a core imperial ethnos, imperial elite, specific polyethnicity. Let's analyze these characteristics in order.
An empire differs from a unitary state by the presence of provinces, i.e. territories inhabited by various ethnic groups, which to one degree or another retain their cultural identity, customs and elements of their own legislation, and sometimes traditional power within the empire. The cultural diversity of the Roman Empire is a well-known fact, even adjusted for Hellenization. The Roman Empire included a kind of Egypt, and Palestine with the culture of the Old Testament prophets, and Syria, in which the heritage of Mesopotamian culture was subjected to Iranian influence, and the Celts, who managed not to lose their identity after coming into contact with antiquity. And in the Russian Empire, in addition to the Eastern Christian majority, there also lived peoples of Western, Islamic culture and the culture of northern Buddhism. Thus, the ethnic groups that were part of the empire differed not only in religious affiliation, but also in belonging to one or another great culture.
The preservation of the features of customary and elements of written law can be observed already in the Roman Empire. For example, in its different provinces there is a different picture of slavery. In Hellas, the patriarchal petty–owning form of slavery was preserved, and in Palestine - Old Testament slavery with the mandatory norm to release slaves to freedom in the jubilee year. Moreover, there was no slavery in Egypt, but there was a dependent peasantry.
As for the Russian Empire, many of its provinces had their own laws, but to the extent that they did not interfere with imperial legislation. For example, in the Baltic (former Order) lands, the statutes of the Livonian Order were in effect, in Lithuania – the statutes of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, the Armenians had the Mkhitar Gosha's judicial code, and all Muslims were guided by Sharia.
At the same time, at the civilizational level, empires sought some unification. For example, the Roman Empire organized the construction of roads and aqueducts, the work of the post office in the provinces. And despite the labor intensity, the provinces very quickly got into the taste and joined the benefits of imperial civilization.
To understand the traditional power in the imperial provinces, it is necessary to take a closer look at the title of the emperor. In the earliest empires of Iran and Ethiopia , the title of head of state meant "the king of kings." That is, there were kings who were part of empires (with the loss of sovereignty) while retaining their titles, such as the king of Armenia or the king of Lydia were part of the Persian Empire with their kingdoms. Similarly, the king of Bavaria or Württemberg retained his powers as part of the German Empire.
Russia embarked on the path of forming an imperial organism before it became a unified and independent state. Even during the reign of Ivan III's father, Prince Vasily the Dark, the noble Murza Kasim with relatives and vassals left for Moscow service. He was allocated land and presented with the Gorodets Meshchersky of the Ryazan region, which has since been called the city of Kasimov. Thus, within the Grand Duchy of Moscow, and then the Russian Kingdom, there was the Kasimov kingdom, with the only difference that its monarch was not called the "Kasimov tsar" (for the tsar is the emperor, he was in Moscow), but the "Kasimov tsarevich". Russian Russian princes had their own army, minted their own coin, were guided by their own laws; some of them distinguished themselves in the Russian service, like the famous general of the XVI century. Shah Ali Khan, mentioned in Russian sources as Shigaley.
The term "emperor" is of Latin origin and was used in the Roman Empire. In Byzantium, the head of state was called "Basileus of the Romans", i.e. the king of the Romans, but in Greek. Ivan III, having married the niece of the last Byzantine emperor, for the first time in Russia added the royal title to his grand ducal title, but precisely in the Byzantine-imperial sense, as further evidenced by the concept of "Moscow – the Third Rome". He used this title in international correspondence, but very carefully.
The empire differs from the federation, which also consists of provinces, in that it is always created around a core (imperial) ethnos and implements a special ethnic balance between the peoples of the empire. This balance consists in taking into account and protecting the interests of a large number of small nations against the background of the development interests of a much smaller number of medium-sized nations. It is for the realization of this principle that the presence of force is necessary for the imperial state.
The presence of a core ethnic group is mandatory for the empire. And it is with him that the lifespan of the empire and its collapse are directly connected. If we assume that the Roman Empire begins its countdown not from August, but from the destruction of Carthage (146 BC), then more than six centuries pass from its birth to its collapse in 476 AD. The Byzantine Empire existed for almost 1000 years before the capture of Constantinople by the Turks in 1453 and the loss of the last territories in 1471, as did the Holy Roman Empire of the German nation from the IX to the XIX centuries. The disintegration of an empire often does not occur due to centrifugal tendencies, when the peoples entering it tear the empire apart. The collapse of the empire is largely due to the behavior of the core ethnic group: this is either an ethnic obscuration, expressed in the terms of L.N. Gumilev, when an ethnic group ceases to exist, and its previously unified components go to the creation of other ethnic groups; or the refusal of the core ethnic group to perform its functions. Examples here are the Ottoman Empire, which in the XIX century. It chose the path of building a national state and squeezing out (often in the literal sense of the word) other peoples and nationalities, as well as the Russian Empire, which, through the revolution of 1917, abandoned the imperial political heritage and turned into a federal state – the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
The specifics of the formation and development of the Russian state-civilization will be discussed below.