The ambiguity of the assessments of the monarchy makes this type of state organization the most controversial and emotionally colored.
Age of Kings
The monarchical system marked the transition of human communities to an organized state. It is customary to endow the ancient Mediterranean democracies with attractive features and contrast them with the surrounding kingdoms. However, history shows that archaic democracies quickly degenerated into despotism and tyranny, yielding in competition to societies formed by monarchical principles.
West and East
With the fall of the Roman Empire, the period of archaic democracies ended. The formation of hierarchical communities, prototypes of future states, began on the territory of Western and Eastern Europe. Their basis was the layer of the military aristocracy, in the midst of which submission to the military leader was an absolute value and was not called into question. Eastern tradition gave priority to tribal leaders who could unite the rest around their clan. Despite interesting differences, the monarchical principle of the organization of society prevailed almost everywhere. Historians call this period the Middle or Dark Ages. However, almost the entire modern aristocracy, which has considerable weight in the politics of the modern enlightened era, comes from those times and bears their imprint.
Russian autocracy
Russian historians put a lot of effort to prove and emphasize the conformity of the Russian monarchy with Western European "standards." Apparently, they believed that this was a service to the royal house. Nevertheless, there is a sense of some significant differences if we compare the autocracy in Russia with the monarchical devices of other states. The need to develop real tools to strengthen the monarchical system in Russia has led to attempts to research. Autocracy - what is contained in this word? The history of Russia gives a complex and contradictory picture of the relationship between the government and the population. The monarchical system was not at all alternatively imposed on the country. On the contrary, there were many forks on which Russia could turn onto the path of a constitutional monarchy or rule through representative institutions.
Uvarov's formula
The first attempt to justify the social significance of the autocracy was made by Count Uvarov. The rebellion, organized by a group of guard officers, known as the Decembrist uprising, demanded the expansion of social support on which the Russian autocracy was based. What is this in his understanding? For many, it was obvious that the ideas introduced through the education system were at stake. However, Uvarov not only made an attempt to introduce a political aspect into the educational process. His formula - "Orthodoxy, autocracy, nationality" - is not addressed to students. It is addressed primarily to the aristocracy itself, which constituted the managerial layer of the empire. It clearly stated the connection between autocracy and nationality. She warned against the temptation of aristocratic despotism through the proclamation of the popular character of the autocratic state.
Leo Tikhomirov
Former prominent Narodovolets Tikhomirov survived a complex political evolution. Liberal values in his mind were defeated by autocracy. What is it that Tikhomirov saw in him that he had not noticed before? He drew attention to the connection of autocracy and statehood, which had previously been ignored. He developed the concept of supreme power, which is a metronome of state life. With the triumph of personal freedom proclaimed by liberalism, the state is given the place of servants. But can such a state withstand international political competition? Is it able to withstand the social passions and interests of groups? Food terror clearly demonstrated the level of threat. The Manifesto of the inviolability of autocracy, announced at the accession to the throne of Alexander the Third , testified to this .
People's Monarchy Solonevich
The idea of autocracy survived the Russian monarchy itself. Ivan Solonevich fell to the comprehension of the course of history, which brought down the autocracy. What happened to a country that suddenly broke from the anchors that held it for hundreds of years? But the triumphant liberalism in the communist guise is incredibly far from the advertised ideals. Should the manifesto of the inviolability of autocracy be seen as a historical joke or foresight? Solonevich rethought the monarchical idea already with the experience of Soviet man. Everything turned to dust before his eyes - Orthodoxy, autocracy. But the lost reality has made the idea itself more visible.
The Soviet antithesis to the autocracy clearly demonstrated the primitiveness and deficiency of the practical and ideological baggage of the winner. Solonevich introduced the understanding of autocracy as a milestone phase in the development of society. Focusing on nationality, autocracy, he realized as the highest form of democracy, in which the confidence of the people in the supreme power is so high that he indefinitely delegates to it the functions of the state structure. But the supreme power itself is so responsible to the people that it has no goals higher than serving it. The practical implementation of even part of Solonevich’s ideas could not have happened during his lifetime. He did not count on this, turning his message to descendants who survived the turmoil that fell on the fate of his generation.
Current situation
The suppression of the direct line of the ruling Romanov dynasty during the Civil War made unconvincing claims on the Russian throne by their relatives. Deprived of the visible image of a possible king, supporters of the restoration of autocracy spend time in squabbles and fake performances. Paradoxically, this did not affect the modern appeal of the idea of autocracy.
After the collapse of the USSR and the cessation of the planting of communist ideology on the territory of the Russian Empire, monarchical sentiments were quite pronounced. They do not have the form of any political movement or recognized social structure. Their prevalence among the population is due to internal motives. The part of the population that feels that they are statesmen or Russian nationalists is affected by them. Autocracy in their understanding is primarily a tool for building or rebuilding the state.
The destructive tendencies left by the predecessors, with great difficulty, are overcome by modern Russian authorities. For Russian nationalists, autocracy means a return to the concept of the Russian national state. So far, modern liberal society is not able to offer them ideas that are comparable in attractiveness with the formula "Orthodoxy, autocracy, nationality."