Suchergebnisse

The article is devoted to the concept of power of the professor of the Imperial Novorossiysk University Pyotr Evgenievich Kazansky (1866–1947), described in the capital study "The Power of the All-Russian Emperor. Essays on the Current Russian Law" (Odessa, 1913).This study was devoted to the supreme power, which, under any political principle, always exists alone in the state. The study deals with the supreme state power, its manifestations in various areas of public administration during the Duma monarchy. The book is devoted to the tradition of Russian state power, the clarification of its historical place in society and the state and its power activities. Professor P.E. Kazansky claims that the emperor possessed not only executive, legislative or judicial power, but also the Supreme Power of the Empire, which directed the activities of all subordinate departments.

As a result of the reforms of 1905–1907, an attempt was made to build a syncretic system — the Duma monarchy with an eye to the schemes of the parliamentary system of European countries, without conforming either to national traditions or to the historical conditions of Russia. The scheme of "right perestroika" proposed by L.A. Tikhomirov can be briefly defined as the introduction of a monarchical people's representation into the state system, the purpose of which is to represent the opinions and needs of the people under the supreme power of the Sovereign Emperor. Representation and legislation in this case should be carried out by two different State institutions in the field of public administration. The monarchical people's representation should be formed from the real-life estate and professional associations, as well as from newly emerging and recognized by the state, with the legitimized dominance of the voice of the Russian people in this representation. To do this, L.A. Tikhomirov proposed a new codification of the Basic Laws, which would consistently carry out the idea of the need for legislative freedom for the supreme power in its activities for the benefit of the Fatherland, which should be guaranteed by the autocracy and unlimited supreme power of the Sovereign Emperor.

At the beginning of the twentieth century, there was an aggressive, brutal political struggle in which the government, the imperial camp put forward a number of ideas. Among the highranking dignitaries were people with a fine sense of state, who understood the difficulty of the situation and were looking for people in society who could find out, write out for the government a number of reform actions to curb the revolutionary movement and a clearer understanding of the positive tasks necessary for the Empire entering the industrial era. Scientists and writers of this camp have shown a very deep understanding of the importance of the ideological struggle against the revolution. There were many who wanted to formulate a complete understanding of the political phenomenon of Tsarist power, but, for the most part, it was an outline of some contours, an attempt to identify a problem or raise a question with a few juicy strokes. In such attempts, there was not the necessary capital, inclusiveness, universality that L.A. Tikhomirov was able to give in "Monarchical statehood".The scientific basis for his sociological reasoning, L.A. Tikhomirov builds on the statement about the immutability of the basic psychological properties of a person as an actor in social relations. The fact of the existence of a thousand-year-old Orthodox Russia was not a boring misunderstanding for him, requiring revolutionary changes or the development of social doctrines for its capital utilization. His amazing mental independence was in stark contrast to the widespread intellectual dependence on the ideological trends of the time.

The French Revolution, having raised the idea of "the people's will" to its banners, for several centuries determined human society itself as the center of the application of human efforts. The European peoples, brought up in Christian idealism, with its absolute moral requirements, were reoriented to the social world, with its extremely limited possibilities for retribution of justice.L.A. Tikhomirov systematically revised the views on democracy that had developed in European political philosophy. His thinking surprisingly combined both a critical perception of other people's conclusions and the ability to build his own positive constructions. He could both introduce doubts into seemingly well-established postulates, and convince of the correctness of his positive political constructions.Considering revolutionary ideas to be largely artificially introduced, L.A. Tikhomirov, argued that their influence in Russia is largely due to the "lack of Russian national intelligentsia". The extreme lack of independence of the social sciences in Russia, unable to study their national political experience and give recommendations on the development of the country for the future. In his understanding of the evolution of social experiences, L.A. Tikhomirov, blamed the "new era" opened by the French Revolution of the 18th century for their futility. It is from her that he sees the violation of the spiritual balance that has put people on the path of fruitless chimeras.Assuming that the hypertrophied individualism of liberalism, as a reaction to it, could be replaced by socialism with its all-consuming collectivism, L.A. Tikhomirov recognized this possibility only through revolutionary upheavals. He saw such a radical upheaval as useless and dangerous, due to the fact that in his criticism of democracy the main point was his denial of the possibility of building a society in which the Supreme Power can really and directly be the people's will.