“Orthodoxy, Autocracy, Nationality constitute a formula in which the consciousness of the Russian historical nationality is expressed. The first two parts constitute its distinctive feature... The third, “nationality”, is inserted into it in order to show that such... is recognized as the basis of any system and all human activity...” (thinker, D. A. Khomyakov (1841-1919)
Historical background that contributed to the birth of the triad “Orthodoxy, Autocracy, Nationality”
- —
Decembrist uprising and its defeat (1825-1826)
— July Revolution in France 1830
— Polish national liberation uprising of 1830-1831
— dissemination of Western European, republican, liberal ideas among the intelligentsia
“at the sight of the social storm that was shaking Europe and the echo of which reached us, threatening us with danger. In the midst of the rapid decline of religious and civil institutions in Europe, with the widespread spread of destructive concepts surrounding us on all sides, it was necessary to strengthen the fatherland on solid foundations on which the prosperity, strength and life of the people are based (Uvarov, November 19, 1833)
- —
the desire of state power to alienate the Russian intelligentsia from influence on the public life of Russia
The meaning of these three sacred words of our motto seems obvious to many, but, as we see in practice, their essence is not obvious to everyone, especially in our crafty and spiritually illiterate times. Let me explain these interconnected concepts that are dear to us.
1. Orthodoxy. It is not “one of many traditional” religions to which we must adhere for the utilitarian purposes of crime prevention or merely out of loyalty to the tradition of our ancestors. Orthodoxy is accurate knowledge about the structure of the world, about the meaning of history and its driving forces, without which even a daily news report will be incomprehensible, not to mention the development of the right strategy.
After all, if there is a God - and we, Black Hundreds, cannot doubt this starting point of all our thinking and self-awareness! - then, creating the world, God had a plan for its proper structure. Having rebelled against God, the creatures created free - first some of the angels who became demons, then, under their influence, some of the people - began in their pride to oppose this proper plan. Demons led by Satan, out of envy, began to confront God for power over the earthly world. For this purpose, Satan stole from God his chosen people for the Old Testament prophecy (John 8:19,44) and, having seduced this people with the national pride of earthly dominion, made them Satan's chosen "syncension of Satan" (Rev. 2:9), the engine of the "mystery of lawlessness" "(2 Thess. 2:7), that is, with his weapon of struggle for world power. And to achieve it, he must destroy, first of all, Orthodoxy as accurate knowledge about the meaning and purpose of the world.
The entire drama of history - from its described beginning in the Old Testament to its current final stage of building a global concentration camp, the kingdom of the Antichrist - is a struggle between the restraining forces of God and the subversive forces of Satan, which by the end of history will achieve temporary success in spiritually weakened humanity. But they are opposed by the forces that hold back (according to the Apostle Paul, 2 Thess. 2:7) the world from the embodiment of this scenario, and here we move on to the second concept in our sacred triad.
2. Autocracy. By the will of God, the mission of keeping the world from the rampant forces of evil was entrusted to the universal state structure, uniting many peoples under one imperial autocratic power, serving the law of God. Ecumenical - means provided as a matter of course for all peoples, even if not all of them will enter it, due to their selfish unreason. Empire means a structure and territory governed by this single legal authority. Autocracy means power, firstly, that restrains peoples from the rival power of the forces of evil, and secondly, power is independent, autocratic, independent of anyone’s political or financial influences, from the selfish desires of the aristocracy or the restless, manipulated masses of the people, but dependent only from God and having appropriate dedication through a church sacrament.
The Russian Orthodox autocratic monarchy (Third Rome) was created as the successor to the universal Eastern Roman Empire (Second Rome) according to the lofty example of the unmerged and indivisible union of the Divine and human in the incarnate Son of God - Jesus Christ: this is an unfused and indivisible symphony (consonance) of spiritual power (the Church) ) and the power of the state (Sovereign) in leading the people through their earthly life into the eternal life of the Kingdom of Heaven. No other political system on earth sets itself such a high goal, surpassing utilitarian earthly measures of benefit.
This is what the Orthodox monarchy means, which our people lost in 1917, because our leading layer ceased to be aware of its meaning and wanted to live according to the Western apostate model of the power of money, and allowed Satan's chosen people to carry out a revolution that continues to this day.
3. Nationality. In the language of modern political science - a nation. This is a value of a lower order than the first two, and to elevate it to the place of God or to place its will in the place of the supreme state power is a sin before God. Moreover, the so-called “will of the people” in the so-called “democracy” is a deceptive manipulation of the masses, purposefully fooled, for the “free” legalization of the power of money, which is controlled by Satan’s chosen people. This is the fundamental law of democracy, no matter how pompous constitutions may be presented to it.
And it was the Russian people who, by the will of God, fell to the greatest extent to embody the Law of God in their statehood and to create the strongest holding universal Empire at its last historical stage - the Third Rome. This was achieved due to the fact that the Russian people united Orthodoxy and the nation in their culture and history - in the same unmerged and indivisible way as in their statehood. Thus, our nationality (nation), having placed itself in the service of God's plan, sanctified its nationality, nationality, putting as the basis of our national values not narrow-tribal selfishness, but universal responsibility before God. This is what the word Russian means.
Thus, a Russian person only by blood, who does not complement his origin by serving this high goal of God’s Plan, is not yet fully Russian. This is still only a biological vessel that needs to be filled with Russian content. And the one who has among his ancestors people from other nations, but inextricably and faithfully united his destiny with the culture, religion and restraining goal of the Russian people, he has become its integral member. These are, for example: Aksakov (a third of the noble noble families in Rus' had Tatar roots), Bagration, Dal, Diterichs, Nilus and many many others.
So, the triad of our main values and our motto: “For Faith, Tsar and Fatherland” is not “archaic”, but the basis of our national identity, our ideology and strategy, all the more important in the current troubled times. We need these ideals given to us by God now as true guidelines by which we determine the right direction of our activities, regardless of whether the ideal of Orthodox monarchical statehood is achievable in our days. The path to its restoration, of course, is incredibly difficult, but the main thing for us should not be when, how and to what extent this ideal is achievable or not, but whether it is true or not. If it is true as God’s Plan for the Russian people (Russian Idea), then there is simply no other way for the life of our people. All others will be the path to death.
The current time of troubles has brought our people very close to the mortal threshold, given those powerful forces chosen by Satan that are actively working from without and from within to destroy both the soul and body of the Russian people. These forces brought their non-Russian proteges to power in our Fatherland, who, even often being Russian by blood, recognized Satan’s chosen people and their global empire of the United States (a prototype of the kingdom of the Antichrist) as their masters and allies and are ready to “mutually benefit and effectively” build their personal well-being in the service of this anti-Russian force, exploiting the Russian people to the point of wear and tear and suppressing the forces of their resistance.
The Union of the Russian People was recreated in 2005 precisely to organize this Russian resistance. In fact, the restoration of historical Russian statehood is now possible only in the form of a “revolution,” as Vyacheslav Mikhailovich Klykov put it in his last testament interview. By this word, he, of course, did not mean street barricade battles, but a radical change in the existing state system and its ideology, a return to the Orthodox autocratic monarchy - through the self-organization of the Russian people at all social levels. In fact, on the scale of the twentieth century, this process is a counter-revolution, as one of the most worthy leaders of the RNC, board member A.S., correctly writes in his book “Reconciliation is Impossible.” Turik [since May 2007, Chairman of the Union].
Let us, following the Law of God as the basis of our national self-awareness and God’s great plan for the Russian people as our task, live according to it, no matter what and without calculating God’s timing. Because, I repeat the obvious, there is simply no other way of salvation: they all lead to death.
Even countries seem to need to define a “common vision” for themselves. For NikolaiI(the youngest son in the family, who was preparing for a military career, and as a result became emperor in 1825), such a concept became “official patriotism,” which his teacher Count Sergei Uvarov saw in the trinity “Orthodoxy, Autocracy, Nationality.”
Nearly two centuries later, this formulation seems to describe the reign of a former spy president as well as a former soldier czar. In any case, Vladimir Putin relies on a very similar ideology.
It should be noted that the meaning of each component of the above-mentioned trinity has changed in detail in the 21st century. However, they almost exactly define the era of “new Putinism” (or, for optimists, “late Putinism”).
Orthodoxy
One of the most striking images of this year's Victory Parade in Moscow was when Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu, by all accounts a Tuvan Buddhist, crossed himself in front of an icon before donning his cap and taking up his duties.
We can interpret this detail as a slight slyness, designed to arouse the sympathy of the crowd, but it seems to me that this would be a mistake in understanding both the personality of Shoigu himself and the role of the Orthodox Church in modern Russia.
Just as before the revolution the ordinary Russian peasant did not separate the concepts of “Orthodox” and “Russian,” now religious identity is becoming the cornerstone of patriotic devotion to the Russian state.
Crossing yourself in front of an icon (or donating to the needs of the church) is not necessarily evidence of a person’s religiosity, but rather an expression of his political loyalty to the current government. The flip side of Caesaropapism (a political system in which secular power controls church affairs; mixednews note) is that the secular leader and the political structure he heads willy-nilly merge with church legality.
So when Shoigu is baptized, or when the FSB Academy gets its own church, or when priests bless the troops heading into Ukraine, this does not mean that we are witnessing manifestations of Russian theocracy.
After all, between five and ten percent of Russia's population is Muslim, and other religious communities make up a significant percentage as well. And even among those who associate themselves with the Russian Orthodox Church, only one in ten actually regularly attends church services.
In 1997, the law “On Freedom of Conscience and Religious Associations” came into force, which stated that Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Judaism and other religions... constitute an integral part of the historical heritage of the peoples of Russia, but at the same time, the special role of Orthodoxy was recognized in the history of Russia, in the formation and development of its spirituality and culture.
This is the very essence: Orthodoxy is not so much a religion or not just a religion. This is, rather, the basis of all Russian identity. The church itself has already been purchased by the Kremlin. According to Stanislav Belkovsky, she “finally turned into an appendage of the state political-ideological machine.”
So Orthodoxy is not just a religious choice, but a demonstration of political loyalty and recognition of the legitimacy (historical and moral) of the current regime.
Autocracy
The easiest way is to say that Putin is as much an autocrat as Tsar Nicholas I. And in a sense, this will be fair. It’s not that Putin considers himself a monarch chosen from above, but that even Nicholas realized (and was tormented by this) the actual limitations of his power. It would be fairer to say that Putin is no more an autocrat than Nikolai.
Of course, there are many differences between them. Putin is the elected head of state, although the true opposition, in fact, was not allowed to participate in the elections (the Communist Party led by Zyuganov does not count - it has long and comfortably integrated into Putin’s political system). Moreover, despite everything, Putin cannot be called an absolute dictator. He is bound in his actions by both public opinion and the expectations of the elite. There are certain limitations to the way the current regime conducts elections (the Bolotnaya protests are proof of this). Hence the efforts of the official media to create and maintain a cult around the personality of Putin himself, to which, ultimately, the head of the Russian state owes his sky-high ratings within the country.
In governing the country, Putin is very dependent on the support of the country's elite, and in this he is similar to Nikolai. Just as Tsar Nicholas I tried to bring German aristocrats closer to him in the hope that they would turn out to be more honest and efficient (they were, but this did not help change the system as a whole), so Putin largely relies on the security forces (who turned out to be no more effective , but even more corrupt). But, be that as it may, for any “autocrat” or “autocrat” the support of the elite is in many ways decisive.
At the heart of every “autocracy” lies the idea of the country’s political superiority. Under the rule of Nicholas, Russia turned into the “gendarme of Europe,” ardently supporting the attempts of other authoritarian regimes to crush the revolutionary processes brewing in them. At the same time, Nicholas's concept of autocracy included the rule of law (no matter how draconian) and the paternal obligations of the ruler towards his subjects.
The modern world is not so easily controlled, but nowadays Putin shows much less tolerance towards the freedoms of society: laws on “foreign agents”, FSB pressure on various kinds of non-governmental organizations, punitive measures against liberal media, etc.
Nationality
In some ways, this concept is both the most crafty and the most familiar. And again, this word should not be understood in the usual ethno-linguistic sense. Even under Nicholas, “narodnost” and “nationality” were defined more as loyalty to the state than as belonging to a particular ethnic group. That is, “Russian nationalism” has more to do with what kind of passport a person has than with his true nationality.
Of course, this is explained by the practical necessity of a multinational state. But this also reflects the historical evolution of Russia, where national identity was formed in conditions of close, sometimes hostile, relationships between the central government and local interests and initiatives.
Under the ethnically chauvinistic Russian regime, it is unlikely that a Tuvan would take the post of defense minister, or a Tatar would take the post of head of the central bank. It is unlikely that key posts in the cabinet would go to Jews, etc.
Thus, in Russia, the concepts of “narodnost” or “nationalism” are associated with historical, cultural and political identity and a person’s desire to accept them. If you are ready to tie the St. George ribbon and follow certain rules and rituals, then it does not matter what your name is - Ivan Ivanovich or Gerard Depardieu.
The official ideology of Nikolaev Russia became the “theory of official nationality,” the author of which was the Minister of Education, Count S.S. Uvarov, a highly educated man who set as his goal to combine the protective policy of Nicholas I with the development of education and culture of the state.
The basis of the theory was the “Uvarov trinity”: Orthodoxy – autocracy – nationality.
According to this theory, the Russian people are deeply religious and devoted to the throne, and Orthodox faith And autocracy constitute indispensable conditions for the existence of Russia. Features of the conclusions of S.S. Uvarov was to recognize autocracy as the only possible form of government in the Russian state. Serfdom was seen as an undeniable benefit for the people. The sacred nature of autocracy was emphasized, Orthodoxy was recognized as the only possible religion of the state, which meets all the needs of the people and ensures the inviolability of royal power. These postulates aimed to prove the impossibility and unnecessaryness of fundamental social changes in Russia, to explain the need to strengthen autocracy and serfdom
Nationality was understood as the need to adhere to one's own traditions and reject foreign influence.
Russia, in accordance with the “theory of official nationality,” was supposed to look happy and peaceful.
Benckendorff said: “Russia’s past is amazing, its present is more than magnificent, as for its future, it is above everything that the most ardent imagination can imagine.”
The concept of “nationality” was considered by S. Uvarov as an original feature of the Russian people, as a primordial commitment to tsarist autocracy and serfdom.
The essence of Uvarov’s idea of Russian life was that Russia is a completely special state and a special nationality, unlike the states and nationalities of Europe. On this basis, it is distinguished by all the main features of national and state life: it is impossible to apply the demands and aspirations of European life to it. Russia should not repeat the Western path of development, based on revolutionary upheavals and despotic regimes; it is necessary to look for its own path, based on its own historical past and the characteristics of the current state of Russia. Guided by this principle, in state transformative activities Uvarov acted as a staunch supporter of Russia’s original evolutionary path in the general mainstream of world civilization. Russia has its own special institutions, with an ancient faith, it has preserved patriarchal virtues, little known to the peoples of the West. This concerned popular piety, complete trust of the people in the authorities and obedience, simplicity of morals and needs. Serfdom retained much of what was patriarchal: a good landowner better protects the interests of the peasants than they could themselves, gives them guaranteed housing and food, i.e., according to the theory of S.S. Uvarov’s conclusion is undeniable that the conditions of existence of the Russian peasant are better than the conditions of the Western worker.
The main political task is to curb the influx of new ideas into Russia. “Stable” serf Russia was contrasted with the restless West: “there” – riots and revolutions, “here” – order and peace.
The main thing in Uvarov’s “formula” is an indication of the need for any movement forward, for any reform aimed at further modernization and Europeanization of Russia, to take into account the originality and patriarchal nature of its way of life, the traditions on which the life of the entire people rests, and the indisputability of the power of the monarch.
The theory of official nationality is a designation accepted in literature for the state ideology of the Russian Empire during the reign of Nicholas I. The author of the theory was S. S. Uvarov. It was based on conservative views on education, science, and literature. The basic principles were set out by Uvarov when he took office as Minister of Public Education in his report to the emperor.
Later, this ideology began to be briefly called “Orthodoxy, Autocracy, Nationality” as an antithesis to the motto of the Great French Revolution “Liberty, equality, fraternity.”
According to Uvarov's theory, the Russian people are deeply religious and devoted to the throne, and the Orthodox faith and autocracy constitute the indispensable conditions for the existence of Russia. Nationality was understood as the need to adhere to one’s own traditions and reject foreign influence, as the need to fight Western ideas of freedom of thought, personal freedom, individualism, rationalism, which were considered by Orthodoxy as “freethinking” and “troublemaker.”
Guided by this theory, the head of the III department of the imperial chancellery, Benckendorff, wrote that “Russia’s past is amazing, the present is beautiful, and the future is beyond all imagination.”
The Uvarov triad was the ideological justification for the policies of Nicholas I in the early 1830s, and later served as a kind of banner for the consolidation of political forces advocating an original path for the historical development of Russia.
90. Symbols of the Russian State (before the beginning of 1917): coat of arms, flag, anthem.
State flag
Until the second half of the 17th century, nothing was known about the Russian flag. In 1693, the flag of the “Tsar of Moscow” (white, blue and red with a golden double-headed eagle in the middle) was raised for the first time on the yacht “St. Peter”.
In 1858, the first official “coat of arms” flag (black-yellow-white) appeared. The colors of the flag meant the following: Black color- the color of the Russian double-headed eagle is a symbol of a Great Power in the East, a symbol of sovereignty in general, state stability and strength, historical inviolability. Gold (yellow) color- once the color of the banner of Orthodox Byzantium, perceived as the state banner of Russia by Ivan III, is generally a symbol of spirituality, aspiration for moral improvement and fortitude. For Russians, it is a symbol of continuity and preservation of the purity of Christian Truth - the Orthodox faith. White color- the color of eternity and purity, which in this sense has no discrepancies among the Eurasian peoples. For Russians, this is the color of St. George the Victorious - a symbol of great, selfless and joyful sacrifice for the Fatherland, for “friends,” for the Russian Land
In 1883, Alexander III established the white-blue-red flag.
National emblem
The State Emblem of the Russian Empire is the official state symbol of the Russian Empire. There were three variants of the coat of arms: Large, also considered the personal Great Coat of Arms of the Emperor; The middle one, which was also the Great Coat of Arms of the Heir to the Tsarevich and the Grand Duke; Small, whose image was placed on State credit cards.
Great coat of arms of Russia is a symbol of the unity and power of Russia. Around the double-headed eagle are the coats of arms of the territories that are part of the Russian state. In the center of the Great State Emblem is a French shield with a golden field on which a double-headed eagle is depicted. The eagle itself is black, crowned with three imperial crowns, which are connected by a blue ribbon: two small ones crown the head, the large one is located between the heads and rises above them; in the eagle’s paws are a scepter and an orb; on the chest is depicted “the coat of arms of Moscow: in a scarlet shield with gold edges, the Holy Great Martyr George the Victorious in silver armor and an azure cap on a silver horse.” The shield, which depicts an eagle, is topped with the helmet of the Holy Grand Duke Alexander Nevsky, around the main shield is a chain and the Order of St. Andrew the First-Called. On the sides of the shield there are shield holders: on the right side (to the left of the viewer) is the Holy Archangel Michael, on the left is the Archangel Gabriel. The central part is under the shadow of the large imperial crown and the state banner above it. To the left and right of the state banner, on the same horizontal line with it, are depicted six shields with the connected coats of arms of the principalities and volosts - three to the right and three to the left of the banner, almost creating a semicircle. Nine shields, crowned with crowns with the coats of arms of the Grand Duchies and Kingdoms and the coat of arms of His Imperial Majesty, are a continuation and most of the circle that the united coats of arms of the principalities and volosts began.
The Great State Emblem reflects “the triune essence of the Russian idea: For the Faith, the Tsar and the Fatherland.” Faith is expressed in the symbols of Russian Orthodoxy: many crosses, Saint Archangel Michael and Saint Archangel Gabriel, the motto “God is with us,” the eight-pointed Orthodox cross above the state banner. The idea of an autocrat is expressed in the attributes of power: a large imperial crown, other Russian historical crowns, a scepter, an orb, and a chain of the Order of St. Andrew the First-Called.
The Fatherland is reflected in the coat of arms of Moscow, the coats of arms of Russian and Russian lands, in the helmet of the Holy Grand Duke Alexander Nevsky. The circular arrangement of the coats of arms symbolizes equality between them, and the central location of the coat of arms of Moscow symbolizes the unity of Rus' around Moscow, the historical center of Russian lands.
The middle state coat of arms was the same as the Great one, but without state banners and six coats of arms above the canopy; Small - the same as the Middle one, but without a canopy, images of saints and the family coat of arms of His Imperial Majesty.
National anthem
“God save the Tsar!”- the national anthem of the Russian Empire from 1833 to 1917, replacing the previous anthem “Russian Prayer”.
In 1833, A.F. Lvov accompanied Nicholas I during his visit to Austria and Prussia, where the emperor was greeted everywhere with the sounds of the English march. The emperor listened to the melody of monarchical solidarity without enthusiasm and upon his return instructed Lvov, as the musician closest to him, to compose a new anthem. The new anthem (music by Prince Lvov, words by Zhukovsky with the participation of Pushkin) was first performed on December 18, 1833 under the title “Prayer of the Russian People.” And on December 31, 1833, it became the official anthem of the Russian Empire under the new name “God Save the Tsar!” and existed until the February Revolution of 1917.
God save the Tsar!
Strong, Sovereign,
Reign for glory, for our glory!
Reign to the fear of your enemies,
Orthodox Tsar!
God save the Tsar!
Only six lines of text and 16 bars of melody were easy to remember and were designed to be repeated three times in a verse.
91. Rationalism. "Natural Law".
Rationalism in law - The doctrine according to which the rational foundations of law can be understood independently of the will of the legislator.
Option 1. In the eras preceding the Renaissance, law was interpreted in essentially two ways: on the one hand, as a manifestation of God's judgment, and therefore it had the character of necessity, absoluteness and eternity (this approach was the norm for the Middle Ages); on the other hand, law was considered as a product of a contract between people, which can change and is relative (many representatives of the ancient world have this approach). However, there is also a third side of the interpretation, according to which law has human origin, but despite this, it is necessary because its essence follows from the general human nature. The concept of “natural” law was already known to the ancient Stoics and to some scholastics in the Middle Ages (in particular, Thomas Aquinas), but it truly developed only on the threshold of a new era.
One of the proponents of this understanding of law was the Dutch lawyer, historian and politician Hugo Grotius (1583-1645), the ideologist of the Dutch bourgeois revolution, the author of the treatises “The Free Sea” and “Three Books on the Law of War and Peace.”
The philosophical basis of his natural law theory is a rationalistic worldview. Ratio is called upon to resolve social and legal conflicts. Reason has a general critical and all-evaluating significance, it is the “light of reason”, and not a divine revelation, it is the supreme judge.
In human law, Grotius distinguishes between civil (ius civile) and natural (ius naturale) law. Civil law arises historically, determined by the political situation; natural law follows from the natural character of man and is not a subject of history, but of philosophy. The essence of natural law lies in the social character of man (as in Aristotle), from which follows the need for a social contract, which people enter into to ensure their interests and thus form a state union.
Option 2. In the 17th century, the revolutionary overthrow of the class-feudal system began in Western Europe. From the beginning of the revolution in England, the New Age is calculated - the period of history that replaced the Middle Ages.
The ideological banner of anti-feudal movements in Holland, England and other countries was Protestantism. On the basis of Calvinism, a special type of personality was formed - the bearer of a new, Protestant ethic, prescribing personal asceticism, hard work and business honesty. Concentrating in the cities, Calvinist workers, united by religion, common interests and business connections, sought to free themselves from oppression and encroachments on their lives and freedom by the Catholic Church and noble-monarchical states.
The first country to successfully carry out a revolution was Holland (Netherlands, Republic of the United Provinces), which endured a long-term (1565-1609) war of liberation against feudal Spain, which tried to eradicate Calvinism, which had spread in the Netherlands, with sword and fire. The second revolution took place in England (the "Great Rebellion" of 1640-1649 and the "Glorious Revolution" of 1688-1689). Their conceptual expression and outcome were the theories of natural law and social contract, based on rationalism.
Rationalism, i.e. assessment of social relations from the standpoint of “common reason”, application of the rules of logic to them (such as: if all people are equal by nature, what is the meaning and justification of class privileges?) were a powerful tool for criticizing feudal relations, the injustice of which became obvious when applied to them a measure of the natural equality of people.
The social basis of the revolutions of the 17th century. there were townspeople and the peasantry oppressed by the feudal lords.
Natural law theory was the classic embodiment of the new worldview. This theory began to take shape in the 17th century. and immediately became widespread. Its ideological origins go back to the works of Renaissance thinkers, especially to their attempts to build a political and legal theory on the study of the nature and passions of man.
The theory of natural law is based on the recognition of all people as equal (by nature) and endowed (by nature) with natural passions, aspirations, and reason. The laws of nature determine the prescriptions of natural law, which must correspond to positive (positive, volitional) law. The anti-feudal nature of the theory of natural law consisted in the fact that all people were recognized as equal, and this (the natural equality of people) was elevated to a mandatory positive principle, i.e. valid, law.
93. “Popular sovereignty and democracy (democracy).”
The doctrine of popular sovereignty was developed in the 18th century. the French thinker Rousseau, who called the sovereign nothing more than a collective being formed from private individuals who collectively received the name of the people.
The essence of popular sovereignty is the supremacy of the people in the state. At the same time, the people are considered as the only legitimate and legitimate bearer of supreme power or as a source of state sovereignty.
Popular sovereignty is the antagonist of the sovereignty of the monarch, in which the monarch is considered not as a member of the people, but as an individual person - the bearer of sovereign (absolutist, autocratic) state power. The concepts of popular sovereignty and state sovereignty are also different, but not opposed to each other, since in the first case the question of the highest power in the state is revealed, and in the second - the question of the supremacy of the power of the state itself
Popular sovereignty, or democracy, means the principle of a constitutional system that characterizes the sovereignty of a multinational people, recognition of its sole source of power, as well as the free exercise of this power in accordance with its sovereign will and fundamental interests. The sovereignty or full power of the people is their possession of political and socio-economic means that comprehensively and fully ensure the real participation of the people in managing the affairs of society and the state. The sovereignty of the people is the expression of the legal and actual ownership of all power by the people. The people are the only source of power and have the exclusive right to dispose of it. The people, under certain conditions, transfer the authority to dispose of power (but not the power itself) and for a certain time (until new elections) to their representatives.
The power of the people also has other, along with the noted, special properties: it is, first of all, public power. Its goal is to achieve the common good or common interest; The public legal nature of power indicates that it has a general social character and is addressed to the entire society and each individual. An individual (personality), independently or through the institutions of civil society, can, to one degree or another, influence the exercise of such power. Democracy presupposes that society as a whole (the people) or part of it exercises power, i.e. carries out directly or through its representatives the management of the affairs of society and the state, thus achieving the satisfaction of general and private interests that do not contradict them.
N.s. has various forms of manifestation: through representative and direct democracy, direct exercise of rights and freedoms. Properties N.s. appear at various levels.
The institutions of representative and direct democracy are effective state and legal channels for the implementation of democracy. Moreover, the combination of representative and direct democracy is the highest manifestation of the sovereignty of the people.
Immediate (direct) democracy is the exercise of power by the people through forms of immediate or direct expression of will.
Direct democracy ensures the fullest participation of the masses in governing the country and complements the permanent centralized (institutional) representative system.
Depending on the legal significance (consequences), institutions of direct democracy can be divided into two groups: imperative and consultative. The peculiarity of imperative forms: decisions made by the people are recognized as final, binding and do not require subsequent legal approval by state bodies or local governments. An example of this is the decision taken in the referendum. The consultative form of direct forms of democracy allows us to identify the will of the people or population of a certain territory on a particular issue, which is then reflected in the act (decision) of a state body or local government.
Free elections are an institution of direct democracy that ensures the participation of the people and citizens in the formation of representative bodies of state power and local self-government and the filling of certain positions in the state. Elections remain the most common institution of direct democracy; they represent an act of expression of the will (self-government) of the people, through which collegial bodies of public power are formed - state institutions (parliament, head of state, senior officials of executive bodies of state power of the constituent entities of the federation, their legislative bodies) and bodies local government (representative, heads of local government, etc.).
