Does Russia really need Monarchy?

[BeatrixFan]

Well, I think that it's interesting that both the Imperial system and the Soviet system both had quite a poor human rights record. I think that the Russian people could only accept a new system - whether monarchy or republic, if they knew they were not under threat of being poorly treated.

Russia's Monarchy was extremely different to Denmark's in 1917. The Russian Monarchy was autocratic, excessive, absolute and all powerful. The Danish Monarchy was constitutional, tempered, bound by a parliament and not so lavish so when I said that a Danish model would need to be used, thats what I meant. Also, the Russian monarchy had several layers of aristocrats between the people and the Tsar. The Danes didn't have that to the extreme that the Russians did and I think that modern Russia would never accept layers and layers of people withrestored Russian monarchy would have to be constitutional - could Maria cope with that?

[Black Cat]

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan

I think that modern Russia would never accept layers and layers of people withrestored Russian monarchy would have to be constitutional - could Maria cope with that?

BeatrixFan thanks for your reply, but let's adhere nevertheless to a rule do not mention any names, the purpose of the given discussion to define theoretical preconditions of restoration the Monarchy of Russia and why it is better than presidential power.

By the way, if “She” so appreciate in Russia why “She” is not going to nominate on the future presidential elections in March 2008, and then to restore a monarchy by an example of Napoleon III.

[BeatrixFan]

Maybe because she doesn't want the monarchy to be restored as a political insitution? She'd have to be elected President and then declare herself Empress thus making her political.

[Black Cat]

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan

Russia's Monarchy was extremely different to Denmark's in 1917. The Russian Monarchy was autocratic, excessive, absolute and all powerful. The Danish Monarchy was constitutional, tempered, bound by a parliament and not so lavish so when I said that a Danish model would need to be used, thats what I meant. Also, the Russian monarchy had several layers of aristocrats between the people and the Tsar. The Danes didn't have that to the extreme that the Russians did and I think that modern Russia would never accept layers and layers of people withrestored Russian monarchy would have to be constitutional...

BeatrixFan forgive me a lot, but I think you have no exact enough data obout a state system of Russia during monarchic power.
From the moment when Russia received full independence from the Mongolian empire called "Golden Horde", that was Ivan Groznyj 's government time (25.08.1530-18.03.1584), Russia did have no one aristocratic layer. By the simple reason, Ivan Groznyj cut out all appanage princes. He operated state by government officials - boyars. And only Peter First entered nobiliary titles as encouragements. Actually no one power was behind titles. And by1917 common people could occupy state posts which received nobility after the introduction into a post.
By 1917 Russia had parliament the Duma (name from a word think), though with the limited power, and also local self-management the Zemstvo (name from a word ground).
So, many elements are similar on modern European, namely Denmark monarchy.
Tsar Nicholas II, was very correct and well-mannered person and could in modern time be good King in such countries as Sweden and Denmark.
But revolution, nevertheless was happened! Such it would not be absolutely possible at his father Alexander III time, which held Russia in a strong fist.
We come back to beginning, what form more fits particularly to Russia?

[branchg]

Unfortunately, Russia has a very long history of autocratic rule, including during the reign of the Tsars and up to the present day with the all-powerful President. It would take many years of stability and the building up of parliamentary institutions before Russia could even consider having anything close to a constitutional monarchy.

Anything else would simply be a tragic continuation of the overwhelming state model with the monarchy ruling with the elite.

[Jo of Palatine]

IMHO Russia needs to become a real democracy first. Then they might start to think about their form of organization of that democracy - as a republic or a monarchy.

[Toledo]

Every form of government adapts and evolves to each particular group of people. What works in one place might not work in another one, as we have seen in the current news about other parts of the world. If the monarchy is a stabilizing factor in a democratic society, then is as good as any other form of government.

[lord_rankin]

Considering President Putin holds more constitutional power than Tsar Nicholas II did after 1905 , I would think moving to a constitutional monarchy would be incredibly beneficial and contribute to the stabilization of the political climate there. I have read and learned much about the Russian culture in my life and I have to say that Russians seem to gravitate to a central figure of authority and respect. I believe a monarchy would fulfill that need.

[Black Cat]

That is interesting, how those opinions differ about government power in the Western Europe (not the USA) and Russia. In the Western Europe there was more historically developed a collective form of board where the Supreme governor of the state, carries out control functions more like a chairman, than autocratic management. In Russia (in my opinion the USA too) historically was issued and became stronger autocratic management. If to reject associations connected with the name of posts Presidential management is the form of a monarchy for the limited period, by transfer power from the monarch to the monarch by means of general election. For this reason, after disorder of Communistic board, Russia preferred Presidency. It was reflected in drama events of opposition between a parliament of Russia - "Supreme Assembly" and new (then) president Yeltsin in 1993. Everyone remembered these events by the "White House” tanks execution.
Whether were there in whole Russia history collective forms of management?
Strangely enough, yes and a lot of, but collective management always was replaced for autocratic.
Let's begin from moment of the state formation of Russ (in a consequence, after finding the state sovereignty from Mongols was named Russia). Two Swedish princes, Rurekovichy had introduced the Swedish model of management to Novgorod (it is translated as new city). The Legislature, and carrying out strategic management was by citizens assembly "Veche" (to translate from Old Slavonic is possible like word or call), princes could carry out only current management events. It looks now ridiculously, but the assembly of citizens could put prince for a month into prison because of offences.
That form of management as dominating existed not so long. From time of creation Kiev and carry there capital of Russ became to dominate an autocracy by an example of Byzantium.
However,Ivan Groznyj finished finally Novgorod freedom only in 16 century, by that finished collecting of Russian grounds.
The second historical experience of collective management was made by Bolsheviks from 1918 to (approximately) 1934. Lenin was the active supporter of collective management and created the mechanism excluding capture of authority by one person. And only Stalin put an end to this experiment.
The third case as it was told before, was from 1991 to 1993 on time of transition from communistic to "democratic" (actually “capitalist” because the level of democracy remained at the same level) power.
In all three historical experiments (and also when the monarch by young age could not still execute duties and for him it was made by a board of guardians) collective management did not meet broad support at the population and received a nickname by people as "semibarchina" (translated as seven owners (chiefs)). The reason not love by the population was banal, because of blossoming corruption, refusal by officials to carry out the duties and the most important, between the clan struggles which completely undermining, bases of the state.
Proceeding from above specified, it would be desirable to draw a conclusion:
The question “Does the Russia really need monarchy?” It was not put correctly because it always was in Russia. Names varied only: Grand duke, Tsar whole Russia, the Secretary general of the Central Committee of Communist party of Soviet Union, the President of the Russian Federation.
The question needs to be altered:
“Does the Russia really need the hereditary monarchy?”

[Royal Fan]

I Belive they do need one ,its in their blood. I think it would be good for the Economy as well (i.e. The U.K.) a popular Tourist attraction. :)

[AdmiralSteven]

I believe that Russia does a Monarchy. It can be a stabalizing force, someone who is always there and doesn't change every four years or so.

[tete]

i also it would be good in bringing together many orthodox christians throughout russia.

[BeatrixFan]

Well, surely that would only happen if the restored Royals were practising Orthodox Christians and the Church was given back some kind of political role as well as religious one?

[BorisRom]

Dear Black Cat, BeatrixFan and all participants of discussion of this theme,
I with the big interest and pleasure have read your messages and I agree with the majority of posts. For a long time I am interested in a history of Russia and especially in time of board of Nicholas II (see my posts in other themes of this forum also - “ Nicholas and Alexandra ” and “ OTMAA ’).
__ I think, the Russia really need the hereditary monarchy and I think, that the monarchy in Russia will be restored in 2012-2014.
__ Starting approximately since 2003 in Russian mass-media in increasing frequency there are articles for the benefit of the monarchy. For example, on February, 7, 2004 in the largest newspaper "News (Известия)" the article of the colonel of the Ministry of Internal Affairs R.Zlotnikov «Monarchy - mother of a prosperity» has been published:

___«Earlier at a word "monarchy" I contemptiously bent lips. People, in the modern world seriously concerned to a monarchy, seemed to me "clowns", such played "old teenagers".
But once I saw the directory with a rating of the United Nations on quality and life expectancy. I with surprise have found out, that seven countries from first ten are the monarchies. I tried to explain it by accidental. Then I have thought, that all these countries first of all are democracies. A monarchy there - only the tradition which is not having any practical value. Is it possible to count Canada or Australia as the monarchic states? In fact where are they, and where are the British queen?! But this question has touched me to the quick, and I started "to dig". And I have come to the conclusions which have struck me.
First, the monarchy is not one of forms of board, but more likely the most successful form of the organization of the nation. I understand under "the nation" not the certain limited ethnos, but all set of peoples, which managed to create a strong and steady state, irrespective of the sizes of this state.
Let's tell, Flamand-Wallon nation in due time has managed to create the Kingdom Belgium, Austria-Hungary-Czeho-Slovakia - mighty Austria-Hungary, and Serbo-Croatian - Yugoslavia.
___ Interesting law: in case of the multinational state an integrity of the country is kept only at safety of a monarchy. And where a monarchy had been lost, there such state had been destroyed.
Today a monarchy is extremely flexible and many-sided system in a range from ancient forms (successfully working in the Arabian states of the Near East), up to a monarchic variant of the democratic state in many European countries.
Russia in Europe has "country - twin" which has passed through the revolution, and through the civil war, and through the variant of totalitarianism. It is Spain. And so, when the monarchy there has revived, in this country there were no steady political parties. Spain hardly left the totalitarian past. Spaniards had the putsch, and the Chechens - Basques. However they have done without execution of parliament and without «antiterrorist operation», and they have managed thus to develop(unwrap) priorities of all society, that it itself (without the help of militarians) has repulsed terrorism. After only ten years Spaniards already had stable economy and have come in members of European Economic Community...
And now compare it what we (Russians) have on 16-th year of "democratic transformations".
___ Thus, a monarchy is not an appendix to a stability and a prosperity, but it is an additional resource allowing more easy to overcome illness, to recover from political and economic defeats more faster».

You can look my article about restoration of a monarchy in Russia (in Russian):
http://www.petroprognoz.spb.ru/prognostic/mistic/art42-Monarhia2014.html

Boris

I’m sorry for my imperfect English

[branchg]

I do not believe the Russian people are prepared to support a restoration of the monarchy any time soon. While there is a monarchist element present in society, the majority of Russians are not interested in visiting the past and most have no point of reference.

It is irrelevant to wider issues in a weak democracy and dictatorship tendencies in the Kremlin.

[Alison20]

Very interesting posting, BorisRom. (And your English is quite intelligible - and light-years better than most of our Russian!).

I always feel that a constitutional monarchy has the advantage of removing politics from the Head of State. This allows everyone to look to the monarchy in its role of representing the nation, its traditions and aspirations. And this is why, as you state, multicultural/multilingual countries can survive with this form of government.

[HRH Kerry]

Originally Posted by branchg

I do not believe the Russian people are prepared to support a restoration of the monarchy any time soon. While there is a monarchist element present in society, the majority of Russians are not interested in visiting the past and most have no point of reference.

It is irrelevant to wider issues in a weak democracy and dictatorship tendencies in the Kremlin.

I agree. The government itself has someways to go as I feel they aren't as stable as they can be but they are getting there. When will they be ready to accept this change?

[BorisRom]

Dears Branchg, Alison20, Kerry and all

1. I’m agree that a restoration of the monarchy in Russia is irrelevant to wider issues in a weak democracy and dictatorship tendencies in the Kremlin. I’m agree that the majority of Russians are not prepared to support a restoration of the monarchy now. Moreover, the majority of Russians badly understand a foundations and many principles of democracy. Alas, we have the democracy (the week democracy) in March-October 1917 and 1991-1996 (may be 2002) only.
2. However, all these statements were true for Spain and Spaniards in 1970th years also - before coming to power of king Juan Carlos I in 1978. As far as I know, the majority of Spaniards those years have rather critically apprehended a restoration of a monarchy and even the person of Juan Carlos too.

By the way, this year Russian radio station «Echo of Moscow» has carried out an interrogation: Would you like, that such person how Juan Carlos, has headed Russia?
( http://www.echo.msk.ru/cgi-bin/v.cgi?mode=result&poll_id=3081 )
Results of voting on the air:
«Yes» = 95 %
«No» = 5 %
You can open Polls’s List:
<http://www.echo.msk.ru/cgi-bin/v.cgi>
and to find there any leader (under the question “Do you want…” (in Russian)) and to click “See a result ” (in Russian).
For example:
Juan CARLOS: +95%/-5%
Jackues CHIRAC +91%/-9%
Hillari CLINTON: +89%-11%
Toni BLAIR: +82%/-18%
Shimon PERES: +76%/-24%
Hugo CHAVES: +55%/-45%
Silvio BERLUSCONI: +42%/-58%
So, the firsts five Leaders have ratings more than Putin (his rating is about 70-73% )


Boris

[Jo of Palatine]

IMHO one real important problem is that there is no male pretender of the direct line. Head of the House of Romanov as accepted by the Rusian government and European royality is a woman whose son is a Prussian prince - a German. While this was okay with Empress Elisabeth and her German nephew Peter II. I don't see public support for a woman with a German son as heir.

[BorisRom]

Jo of Palatine,
You are right. This real important problem is. I don't know its decision.
___ Frederik Forsyte in the novel "Icon" (1996) rather in detail investigated this problem. He has come to a surprising conclusion. Before the citation, I at once shall tell, that his candidate categorically denies any pretensions for Russian Throne and I think that he absolutely sincerely does it.
____ Further I bring quotation from interview of Frederik Forsyte, published in the newspaper "News (Известия)" (on May, 23 1997г.):
____ «Somehow during the next meeting with members of the London genealogic society I have asked to them a question: to what criteria the competent successor of Russian throne should meet (satisfy)? As they said, there are three the main conditions.
___1. The first: the future monarch should be nee prince.
___2. The second: by birth he should be more than on 50 % Romanov.
___3. The third condition is the most difficult and it excludes 95 % of all nowadays known applicants: his mother should be orthodox till a marriage and till a birth of prince.
It is desirable also that the potential candidate was the former officer, not more senior than 60 years, and had the son. To all these criteria there are satisfied two brothers - descendants of George, prince of Kent, and of Marina, princess of Greece. Princess Marina was on three quarters Romanova as her father was Romanov on half, and her mother was 100% Romanova. Her husband, George, duke Kentsky, through queen Victoria was on a quarter Romanov. So these two brothers are Romanovs on 5\8. Their mother was nee princess and was Orthodoxy till a marriage.
___One of two these brothers has more than 60 years though he is the former officer also has the son. But the younger brother, Michael satisfys all necessary conditions. He is 56 years old [66 now - B.R.], he also is the former officer and he has the son too. The most improbable in all it is that he freely speaks Russian... »

So, His Royal Highness Prince Michael of Kent!

___ Frederik Forsyte has not mentioned (may be, he did not know) that just his ancestor, prince George on April, 29, 1891 has rescued the life of successor Nicholas in Japan!
___ As far as I know, Prince Michael of Kent repeatedly refused to discuss a theme of restoration of a monarchy in Russia, especially - from the participation in this fantastic prospect.

Boris