The ambiguity of assessments of the monarchy makes this type of state organization the most controversial and emotionally colored.
The Age of Kings
The monarchical structure 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 according to monarchical principles.
West and East
With the fall of the Roman Empire, the period of archaic democracies ended. On the territory of Western and Eastern Europe, the formation of hierarchical communities, prototypes of future states, began. Their basis was a layer of the military aristocracy, among whichobedience to the military leader was an unconditional value and was not questioned. Eastern tradition gave priority to tribal leaders who were able to 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 all of the 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 have put a lot of effort into proving and emphasizing the compliance of the Russian monarchy with Western European "standards". Apparently, they believed that they were doing a service to the royal house. Nevertheless, the feeling of some significant differences is present if we compare the autocracy in Russia with the monarchical structures of other states. The need to develop real tools to strengthen the monarchical system in Russia gave rise to research attempts. Autocracy - what is contained in this word? The history of Russia gives a complex and contradictory picture of the relationship between the authorities and the population. The monarchical device was not at all imposed on the country without an alternative. On the contrary, there were many forks in which Russia could turn onto the path of a constitutional monarchy or rule through representative institutions.
Uvarov's formula
First trysubstantiation of the social significance of autocracy was undertaken by Count Uvarov. The rebellion, organized by a group of officers of the guard, known as the Decembrist uprising, demanded the expansion of the social support on which the Russian autocracy was based. What is it in his understanding? For many, it was obvious that the ideas introduced through the education system were a threat. However, Uvarov did not simply attempt to introduce a political aspect into the educational process. His formula - "Orthodoxy, autocracy, nationality" - is not addressed to the students. It is addressed primarily to the aristocracy itself, which constituted the administrative layer of the empire. It clearly states 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.
Lev Tikhomirov
Former prominent Narodnaya Volya member Tikhomirov has gone through a complex political evolution. Liberal values in his mind were defeated by the autocracy. What did Tikhomirov see in him that he had not noticed before? He drew attention to the connection between autocracy and statehood, which had previously been ignored. He developed the concept of supreme power, which is the 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 capable of resisting social passions and the interests of groups? Narodnaya Volya terror clearlyshowed the level of threat. This was also evidenced by the Manifesto on the inviolability of autocracy, announced at the accession to the throne of Alexander III.
Solonevich's People's Monarchy
The idea of autocracy outlived the Russian monarchy itself. It fell to the lot of Ivan Solonevich to comprehend the course of history that brought down the autocracy. What happened to a country that suddenly broke loose from the anchors that had held it for hundreds of years? But the triumphant liberalism in communist guise is incredibly far from the advertised ideals. Should the manifesto about the inviolability of autocracy be regarded as a historical anecdote or a prediction? Solonevich rethought the monarchical idea already with the experience of a Soviet person. Everything turned to dust before his eyes - Orthodoxy, autocracy. But the lost reality made the idea more visible.
The Soviet antithesis to autocracy clearly demonstrated the primitiveness and inferiority of the practical and ideological baggage of the winner. Solonevich introduced an understanding of autocracy as a milestone phase in the development of society. Putting nationality at the forefront, he realized autocracy as the highest form of democracy, in which the people's trust in the supreme power is so high that it indefinitely delegates to it the functions of state organization. But the supreme power itself is so responsible to the people that it has no higher goals than serving them. The practical implementation of even a part of Solonevich's ideas could not have taken place during his lifetime. He did not count on this, addressing his message to the descendants who survived the turmoil thatfell to the fate of his generation.
Current situation
The suppression of the direct line of the ruling Romanov dynasty during the Civil War made their relatives' claims to the Russian throne unconvincing. Deprived of the visible image of a possible king, supporters of the restoration of autocracy spend their time in squabbles and sham representations. Paradoxically, this had no effect on 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, monarchist sentiments were quite pronounced. They do not have the appearance of any political movement or recognized social structure. Their prevalence among the population is due to internal motives. They affect that part of the population that feels like statesmen or Russian nationalists. Autocracy in their understanding is primarily a tool for building or restoring the state.
Destructive tendencies left as a legacy by their predecessors are overcome with great difficulty by the modern Russian authorities. For Russian nationalists, autocracy means a return to the concept of a Russian national state. So far, modern liberal society is not able to offer them an idea comparable in attractiveness to the formula "Orthodoxy, autocracy, nationality".
