Russia, Monarchy and Restoration

[Mapple]

Originally Posted by Jil

Mapple,
What do the Russians say now about Kerensky (not sure of the spelling of his name) and the Duma? I thought that he had started a democractic government. I heard that he later moved to America and lectured at universities. I am not sure what he lectured on-I assume it was Russian History.

That's correct, he taught Russian politics and history in the US. Kerensky is pretty much forgotten here. It can be argued whether the Russian Provisional Government of 1917 can be called democratic -- it did not wield the full authority, and the country was at war.

[chancellor]

He als lived in Australia for awhile in Queensland, his wife was Australian

The episode that acts as a catalyst for this little known event in Australian history and one of the more compelling, is that of Kerensky, one time prime minister of Russia, used to the luxury of the Waldorf Astoria and the culture of Vienna and Paris, one of the unwilling architects of the Russian Revolution, taking a holiday at a summer cubana at Surfers Paradise With his nerves shattered by Nell's death , Kerensky was invited by Nell's cousin Corbett (later to become private secretary to Robert Menzies) to recover his health at a family holiday cubana at Surfers Paradise. At a party held in his honour, Kerensky amazed his hosts by telling them that he expected to share Trotsky's fate and imagined he was being stalked by assassins. When someone disturbed him at night, he became so distressed that he immediately returned to Clayfield. His lectures at the University of Melbourne were beset by problems and were not a success. Kerensky returned to America six months later where he took up an offer to become a staff member of the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace at Stanford University in California.

A brief but interesting part of his life

[chancellor]

Not really because the Tsar Nicholas had already abdicated in favor of his brother, this would have nullified the Tsarevich's rights. And, along with that, the new Tsar was only in "office" for 1 day, the chances of any monarchy, let alone a constitutional one were almost non-existant

Re Layla

Please refer to the Russian imperial Union Order for a lengthy anaylsis of this by Brian Horan on this subject also Daniel Sargis a Georgian writer on the issue also

[Black Cat]

Does Russia really need Monarchy?
This question seemed absolutely fantastic 20 years ago. The soviet propagandamachine did not leave doubts, that the monarchy is harmful in development of a society and was consequence of violent interclass mutual relations. And all history of a monarchy in Russia was the bloody drama powdered by sex.
After falling Communistic Authority, Russia gradually opened the history. It step by step gets in depth of centuries. Time of undoubted answers finished and appeared various judgments.

I offer following questions to discussion:

1. Really the Monarchy of Russia is necessary?
2. What kinds of the Monarchy more fit to the Russian society?
3. What kind’s mutual relations the Monarchy of Russia should have with the religious organizations (particular with Orthodox Church)?

PLEASE
1. Do not use the given discussion to the purpose of promotion particular nominee to the Russian throne. Russia is not hereditary treasure for which someone has the right in greater or lesser rate, but the country where the people live who are having the right of a free choice.
2. Do not be aggressive and be respect to another's point of view.
3. Observe rules of a forum.

[BeatrixFan]

1. I would say that a Monarchy can benefit Russia just as it has benefitted Britain. But then as a Monarchist, that would be my feeling with any country. When applied to the Russian State, I would say yes - after so many years of oppression by the USSR, Russia does need something that it can all share and a Monarchy would fill that gap IMO. I believe that by having a figurehead who is non-political, the Russian people could begin to heal old wounds and become patriotic again without fears of being beaten down by tales of old regimes.

2. Well, obviously with the poverty rate, the Monarchy of old simply wouldn't work IMO. I think that the monarchy of Russia would have to be more like the Danish model with no aristocracy between the Monarch and the people. The Monarchy would have to be completely non-political and constitutional.

3. The Monarch/Church relationship would have to follow the same relationship Queen Elizabeth II has with the Church of England IMO. I think the popularity of the Orthodox Church would mean it still had a place in Russian society and in a Monarchy.

[Black Cat]

Thanks BeatrixFan for the extensive and detailed explanation, especially you are first.

It is a classical European sight to a monarchy. But I think, it is initially not right conception about Russia (particular the USSR).
The first: People in the USSR did not suffer under excessive authority. I lived in the USSR at «later Soviet time» and I can definitely tell that the ideology practically did not influence a daily life of usual people. Yes, there were ideological actions, such as meetings, assemblies and posters, but people considered it more as a tribute of tradition. Actually few people trusted communistic ideology, and for some it was simply workplace. And it was impossible to enter the university without membership of Komsomol (the youth communistic organization), but membership was required only formal.
There is an opinion inside Russia, that the organization of a public life did not change at all after revolution, names only exchanged. Tsar began to name the General Secretary, and now is the President.

The second: the Monarchy similar to Denmark already was in history of Russia just before 1917 and it led a society to the revolution. Though, the periods of a tyrannical monarchy, Russians consider like successful times.

[Marengo]

1. I think the restauration of a monarchy in Russia can be usefull, in a simular way as Juan-Carlos has been extremely usefull to Spain after the end of the Franco regime. So the monarch can monitor the process of transition to a democracy of the country. Especially now such an authority can be helpfull in Russia.

2. The only (european) monarchies that servived are the democratic monarchies. So that is the one I would wish for Russia to, albeit I think the monarch needs more powers then for example is Sweden, as the process of transforming Russia to a democracy has not ended yet and action from the highest authority in the country may be needed to protect the frail democracy.

3. Though I am in favour of total seperation of church and state, in this particular case it might be helpfull if the Russian monarchy would keep close ties with the Orthodox church, thus strenghtening its claim on the throne and its moral authority AND recognising Russia's past.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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?