The word "despotism" is on many lips, but people often do not know the exact meaning of this word and use it appropriately and not quite. Below we will tell what despotism is, how different sources interpret this word, and what are its characteristic features.
What is despotism?
Let's start with the most general definition of a given word. So, despotism is a specific form of state when all power belongs exclusively to the monarch. Such power is not regulated by law, the monarchy is usually hereditary, and the ruler rules based on the military-administrative apparatus.
Most often, despotism was encountered as a
form of government in ancient Eastern empires. For example, in Egypt, Assyria, Persia, Babylonia, China, India. Naturally, in this case the word despot was law and was not discussed. It was during the time of despotism that the most stupid and bloody laws were adopted. And this is not surprising, since the personality of the ruler was deified. A vivid example of this is the Egyptians. Even after death, Pharaoh was equated with God, and he was given appropriate honors. Despite the fact that the power of the despot de jure was unlimited, de facto, this was not so. The activities of the despot were limited and often even subordinated to the interests of a narrow circle of nobles. Thus, despotism is a convenient form of government for elites and often coexists with the oligarchy.
Consider the concept of "ancient Eastern despotism"
The concept of eastern despotism comes from Herodotus, the father of history. He described a situation where rulers not only closed churches, large and small, but also forced the people to build huge, majestic tombs and tombs.
The concept of ancient Eastern despotism had certain features. So, the
head of state, the arbiter of the court and the personification of universal law was the despot ruler. He was worshiped, deified, hated and feared. The form of government was, of course, monarchical, and power was inherited. But the despot could not rule without relying on a powerful, branched administrative apparatus. It was necessary in order to effectively manage a motley society in which various strata have already formed, not to mention the formed inequality of property. Moreover, already in antiquity, the society of the East took shape and acquired those features that can be traced even today. For example, it was differentiated, and each social layer not only had its own place in the hierarchy, but also differed in its organization, rights and obligations. It was on such a foundation that the rudiments of the despotism of the Ancient East could take shape and bloom in a riotous color.
The hierarchy of the ancient Eastern society
Speaking about the society of the Ancient East, we cannot ignore such a social phenomenon as slaves. Most often, this was the so-called domestic slavery, when the slave was the property of a huge family. In addition, slaves worked in temple complexes, in construction, in the fields. Who became a slave?
In principle, anyone could become a slave. Most often, this social stratum was replenished by prisoners of war. But it also happened that a free man could become a slave. This is debt slavery. The larger and stronger the community grew, the greater the scale of debt slavery. If we talk about slavery in general, then in Egypt and China at the turn of the 2nd to 3rd centuries even markets were created where only slaves for every taste were sold. Even a shepherd, a gardener, or an average artisan could afford to buy a slave. This is also part of the despotism. All this indicates the enormous scale of the slave trade.
Characteristic features of eastern despotism
Firstly, this is the religious content of the power of the despot ruler. The monarch under despotism is considered a revived god, his incarnation. Accordingly, his power was given by none other than the Most High himself, and was absolute.
The monarch was considered the only judge, a measure of the legality of any act. Everything spoke about this: from the attitude to the monarch to his title. A similar formulation of the problem of power was to unite society. And she united. After all, if power was given to the monarch from above, if it was given to him by God, then contradicting the ruler is simply useless. This is stupid, since divine power is by definition wise and aimed at the good of the people. Therefore, the power of the despot and held on, the people were simply afraid to go against their ruler. Moreover, he was considered none other than the high priest or the head of the entire priestly hierarchy. Consider the other characteristics of despotism.
The duties of the despot as the head of the priestly hierarchy
He had every right to conduct all religious ceremonies associated with the birth and fertility cycle. In some cases, the ruler could even cancel the veneration of the old gods and establish a completely new cult (as happened in Egypt).
But what the ruling monarch should never have done was to take part in the rituals associated with death. This was partly due to the fact that divine power could only carry good, only win, but not sow death and grief. Moreover, sometimes the rulers introduced their own cult. This created the impression of the inviolability, sacredness of the body of the ruler. Consequently, the attempt could be equated with sacrilege, speaking out against god (or gods) and was punished in the most severe way. For example, an unlucky killer could be executed, expelled, and the like. But not everything was so smooth.
Golden cage for a despot
Despotism is not immunity. The monarch lived in a golden cage, as he was bound by many restrictions. For example, his life was clearly regulated by palace etiquette, conventions and prejudices. Often this was all done in order to secure the holy monarch. However, sometimes the ruler could even be killed simply because, according to the astrologer, his life on earth has expired. It’s not worth explaining why the forecaster was always at court. Any ruler was interested in the astrologer to maximize his life. As a result of this, it was astrologers who played the role of “gray cardinals,” since, paradoxically, the life of the semi-divine ruler depended on them.
We touch on the characteristics of the power of the despotic monarch
His position had nothing to do with the identification of the ruler and the state itself. He simply took his place among other mandatory institutions of power. And yet his power was not so unlimited. For example, the ruler was subject to many laws and regulations established earlier. Yes, the ruler could establish new rules of life by issuing laws and decrees, but at the same time, these laws had some limitations.
In particular, they should not contradict the fundamental foundations of society. A great example of this is India. Although the ruler could issue any decrees, they should in no way concern violation of the caste system and the way of life of people, issues related to faith. A very interesting question is who decides whether this or that law corresponds to the will of the gods or violates it. Even in Babylon, the laws adopted were not supposed to conflict with the traditional principles of law and order. Even the first set of laws was created as an attempt to protect the traditional order from new destructive phenomena in society.
Could a despot judge?
In addition, the power of the despot did not include judicial rights. He was the arbiter of justice by default. He could have mercy on the offender or punish him at his discretion. Sometimes a kind of royal justice appeared, for example, the representative of such a court was Solomon. Thus, despotism is often not what people mean by this word.