3 Answers

  1. Generally speaking, following Machiavelli, I suggest not to play with completely meaningless and stupid words: “tsar”, “president”, “prime minister”, if you can more accurately represent the essence of the phenomenon-the Ruler.

    That's why I consider” horse racing ” with the obligation to change the president after a certain period of time to be stupid: what is “required” because “who benefits from it”?

    I'm not talking about the fundamental Circus of the US election, when it's not enough that a movie actor and even a businessman can become the country's president! Moreover, they become presidents there according to the laws of Hollywood and in its best traditions, just remember the movie “The Tail wags the Dog”! And I absolutely do not like the very “image-making firms” that I recently described, which are already actively participating in the elections in the Russian Federation! Okay at the municipal level: there, what they want – let them do it, but the governors (?), presidents (?), through outright lies, fraud and theatrical productions??? I'm not just against it, I'm absolutely against it!


    I described how a “dictator” differs from a “democrat”, so I will not stop, but even if he is called” tsar ” today, he will not cease to be democratically elected in any case.

    When an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY votes for the Ruler, it makes him LOOK like a dictator, but this is absolutely not enough for SOCIETY to recognize him as such!

    Last: in the Russian Federation, you can DO (what's the word, maybe then “DECLARE”? – well, at least funnier!) democracy, but it will never cease to be the most democratic country: I REMIND YOU THAT WE HAVE ELECTIONS IN THE STYLE OF “REFERENDUM”, WHEN ABSOLUTELY EVERYONE VOTES!! IS ANYONE WILLING TO EXPLAIN TO ME WHY THIS IS NOT DEMOCRATIC OR NOT DEMOCRATIC ENOUGH?

  2. Russia does not need either a monarchy or a democracy. Monarchy involves the transfer of power by inheritance. Unfortunately, the experience of world history shows that skills and decency are not inherited. Democracy makes sense when people know each other. And then, power corrupts. And modern democracy in countries larger than the Vatican is actually a backhanded game of political strategists who successfully manipulate the deceived crowd.
    Now, let's think a little. If we like a dentist, do we change it every four or five years, just because “the deadline is over”? If we love a particular store, do we limit ourselves to visiting that store for a certain period of time, and then make sure to go to another one? If we like the president, why should any time limits restrict our use of his services? Yes, elections every few years make sense. If you chose the wrong one, you can change it. But to change what you need for a cat in a poke just because a certain deadline has come up is nonsense. The article on mandatory term limits for re – election is nonsense.
    We don't need a monarchy or a democracy, but honesty and generosity. It's not the name of the system of government that matters, but the fact that logic and rhetoric are not taught in school. When people are able to systematize and pass on their thoughts to others, they will not be fooled by empty talk about the changeability of power.

  3. It should be borne in mind that power usually does not belong to one person, but is somehow distributed. In Tsarist Russia, the tsar and the higher nobility had power. I.e., the system was royal-noble, if you call it more precisely. And there was a parallel church, which also had some influence on politics.

    In Soviet Russia, power belonged to the Communist Party and its leaders.

    In today's Russia, power belongs to the United Russia party and the President.

    When people say monarchy, they mean some kind of average pattern: the monarch is not elected, rules for life, and power passes from father to son. But in reality, in different countries and at different times, the monarchical system could be completely different.

    Kings and nobles act as full-fledged owners, because it is assumed that their descendants will inherit them, and therefore they use the riches of the land with a view to the future. And under the current system, some temporary workers are constantly coming to power, whose goal is to quickly get a grip, and then at least the grass does not grow.

    Under the monarchy, everything looks more fair. The king does not need to prove that he is a king, and the nobles that they are nobles, and that they have a right to power.

    And the party-electoral system is by definition more deceitful. After all, party members and elected rulers need to prove their claims to power. This is why such a party system is in dire need of propaganda.

    In theory, the party-election system looks nice, you seem to decide something yourself. But in reality, propaganda is rampant there, and people make decisions under its influence. And the election results are often falsified.

    Hence, the number of discontents increases dramatically. If there are parties, then there will be a struggle between them, accompanied by false and demagogic rhetoric. Therefore, almost all countries with elected positions are shaken by rallies and protests. And in such countries, coups are constantly taking place.

    Ideologists of the party-electoral system, describing it, for some reason do not talk about the shortcomings of such a system. Actually, you should. Because broad propaganda, sharp inter-party struggle, election fraud, protest actions, coups are integral components of such a system. They constantly call it a democratic system. But this is a lie. This is not a democracy, because under such approaches, power belongs to parties and elected rulers, and the people, if they have any influence on politics, then only a little. Yes, under the monarchy, the people also have only a small influence on politics. But here (under the party-electoral system), a false expectation is created. It is not being executed. This leads to discontent, protests and coups, which means that such a system is by definition less stable than the monarchical one. And its advantages are largely illusory.

    If you have set out to restore the monarchy in Russia, then it is not enough to rename the president to the tsar. Not much will change from this renaming. We need to change the system as a whole, i.e. we need to introduce the nobility, and maybe even the boyars. More precisely, not to enter, but they themselves must move forward. Because the general principle here is: whose power, those establish it. The monarchy is established by the monarch. Democracy is established by the demos. The power of the boyars is established by the boyars. The power of the party is established by the party.

    Simply introducing the position of tsar is not enough, because here, among other things, we need an ideology around the figure of the tsar. And this is the main problem. After all, this whole monarchist ideology has been criticized for more than a hundred years, the figure of the tsar has been denigrated and ridiculed.

    So if you want this, then you need to start with the ideology. We need to create, develop, and promote a new monarchist ideology. And when (if) it will spread and strengthen, then change the system in accordance with the situation.

Leave a Reply