It is based on lies, can not be right. Institution founded on a false start, can not be other than false. That is the truth, which is justified by the bitter experience of the ages and generations.
One of the most mendacious political principles is the beginning of democracy, that, unfortunately, to approve of the French Revolution, the idea that all power emanates from the people and has a foundation in the will of the people. Hence the theory of parliamentary expires, which is still confusing mass of so-called intellectuals and penetrated, unfortunately, in Russian insane head. She still continues to hold in the mind with the tenacity of a narrow fanaticism, though it lies with each passing day more and more distinctly unmasked before the whole world.
What is the theory of parliamentarism? It is assumed that all the people in the markets creates a law, an elected official, therefore, expresses its will directly and holds it in place. This is the perfect idea. Direct implementation can not be: the historical development of society leads to the fact that local unions are multiplied and become more complex, the separate tribes merge into a whole nation or grouped into multilingual banner under one government, finally, growing without end state territory: direct narodopravlenie under such conditions is impossible. So, people should carry their right vlastitelstva for a number of elected people and clothe their government autonomy. These elected people, in turn, can not govern themselves, but forced to choose an even smaller number of trusted individuals — ministers, whom provided the manufacture and application of laws, the layout and collection of taxes, the appointment of subordinate officers, made the military force.
Mechanism — in the idea of its slim, but in order to act, we need some essential conditions. Machine production has based its calculation on a continuously active and fully equal, therefore, impersonal forces. And this mechanism could operate successfully as a trusted person eliminated from the people at all of his personality, and when would the parliamentary benches were mechanical artists of his punishment, when the ministers were too impersonal, mechanical performers will of the majority, and when, moreover, would be elected by the people's representatives have always been a person that can comprehend exactly, and do this in good faith, and they expressed mathematically precise agenda. It was under these conditions, the virtual machine would work properly and would reach the goal. The law does resist the will of the people, the management actually came to the parliament, the reference point of state buildings would lie really in the collections of voters, and every citizen is clearly and consciously, would participate in the direction of public affairs.
That is the theory. But look at the practice. In the most classic parliamentary countries it does not satisfy any of the conditions vyshepokazannyh. Elections in no way represent the will of the voters. The representatives of the people are not shy of views and opinions of voters, but he had his own arbitrary judgment or expectation, to think with the tactics of the hostile party. Ministers actually autocratic, and more likely, they rape the parliament rather than the parliament of their violence. They come to power and leave power, not because of the will of the people, but because they were put in power or eliminate from her powerful personal influence or the influence of a strong party. They have all the strength and prosperity of the nation, at its discretion, give privileges and favors contain many idle people at the expense of the people — and, moreover, are not afraid of any blame if a majority in parliament, and most support — the distribution of charity with every big meal, which State gave them the order. In fact, the ministers as irresponsible as the people's representatives. Errors, abuse, arbitrary actions — daily phenomenon in the ministerial control, and how often do we hear about the serious responsibility of the Minister? Is it, perhaps, once in fifty years, we hear that the Minister of the court, and most often the result of the court goes insignificant — in comparison with the noise grand production.
If we were to the true definition of Parliament should say that Parliament is an institution that serves to satisfy personal ambition and vanity and self-interest representatives. This institution is not the final proof of self-delusion of the human mind. Experiencing oppression for centuries in the sole autocratic and oligarchic rule and not noticing that the evils of autocracy are the evils of the society that lives under it — the people of reason and science laid the blame disasters on their rulers, and the form of government, and to imagine that with variables that form to a form of democracy and representative government, society will get rid of their distress and tolerance of violence. What happened as a result? Happened that mutato nomine (Latin: under a different name) all remained in effect as before, and the people staying at the weaknesses and vices of his nature, was moved to a new form of all the old habits and inclinations. As before, the rules of personal will and interest of the privileged, only that individual will is not in the person of the monarch, and in the person of the leader of the party, and does not belong to the privileged position of the clan aristocracy and the ruling in Parliament and majority rule.
On the pediment of the building emblazoned inscription: "All for the public good." But it is nothing like the most deceitful formula, parliamentarism is the triumph of selfishness, its highest expression. Everything here is designed for service to me. Within the meaning of the parliamentary faction, a spokesman denied the rank of his personality and should serve as an expression of the will of the voters and thought: but in reality, voters — in the act of election waive all its rights in favor of an elected representative. Before the election, a candidate in its program and in the speeches of their own, constantly refers to the above fiction: he repeats all the public good, it is not nothing but a servant and a sympathizer of the people, he does not think about themselves and forget themselves and their interests for the sake of public interest . And all this — words, words, words alone, the time of the stairs, which he builds to where you want to go up and then drop the unnecessary steps. There is not, he will work for society, and society will become a tool for his purposes. Voters are for him herd — to collect votes, and the owners of these herds truly become like the rich nomads, for whom the stage is the capital base of power and distinction in society. Thus develops, improving, an art play instincts and passions of the masses in order to achieve personal goals and ambitions of power. This mass is then loses all value for its choice of representative as long as you need them to act on it: then set in motion again flattery and false sentences — one in favor of, a threat to others, a long, never-ending chain of homogeneous maneuvers forming mechanics parliamentarism. And such a comedy of elections continues still deceiving mankind and regarded institution crowning public building … sorry humanity! Truly it can be said: mundus vult decipi — decipiatur (Latin: The world wants to be deceived — it let the cheating).
Here's how to practice the principle of election. Ambitious seeker himself speaks to fellow citizens and its best to assure them that he, more than any other, is worthy of their trust. From what motives he acts on it iskatelstvo? It is hard to believe that of disinterested zeal for the public good. Actually, these days few people, imbued with a sense of solidarity with people who are ready to work and sacrifice for the common good: it is — perfect nature, and such a nature are not prone to the contact with the banality of everyday life. Who by nature is capable of selfless service to the public good in the sense of duty, he will not make up to vote, will not sing the praises of himself in elected assemblies, stringing loud and vulgar phrases. Such a man reveals himself and the work force in a corner or in his close circle of like-minded people, but will not seek popularity at a noisy market. Such people are in the crowd if human, then it is not to flatter her and make up for her vulgar desire and instincts, and then perhaps to expose the vices of human life and lies of human customs. The best people, people of honor and duty nasty election procedure: turn away from it not only self-serving, selfish nature, desire to achieve their personal goals. Such a person is not worth the trouble to put on the mask of the desire for the public good, just to gain popularity. It can not and should not be modest — for modesty when it will not notice, will not talk about it. His position and toyu role takes over, he is compelled to lie and dissemble: to people who disgusted him, he must necessarily converge to fraternize, to be nice, to get their location — should make promises, knowing that then do not execute them must make up for the most vulgar inclinations and prejudices weight, to have a majority for himself. What honest nature decides to take on such a role? Draw it in the novel: the reader will be disgusted, but the same reader will vote in elections artist living in the same role.
Elections — business of art, has, like the art of war, its strategy and tactics. The candidate is not in direct relation to their constituents. Between him and the voters a committee, arbitrarily institution, whose power is the main thing — impudence. Seeker of representation, if not yet in itself a known name, begins with the fact that looking for a circle of friends and workers together, then together produce about themselves catching, that is priiskivayut local aristocracy and the wealthy inhabitants of strong mind, and have time to assure them that's their business, their right and advantage of being at the head — the leaders of public opinion. There is always enough stupid or naive people who succumbed to the bait — and that's the signature of them appears in newspapers and pasted on poles ad that attracts a lot, always susceptible to the following of the names, titles and capitals. That is how the committee, the steering and master election — this kind of company in the shares, bringing to life the founders. The committee selected with deliberate art: there are some active force — people are energetic, pursuing what all costs — material or tendentious purpose, others — naive and frivolous extras — make ballast. Organized meetings, speeches: there someone who has a strong voice and knows how to quickly and deftly stringing sentences always makes an impression on the mass, is becoming known, is awarded to a candidate for future elections, or, under the right conditions, he advocates a candidate pushing that for who first came to work with his tongue. Phrase — and that other, as the phrase — prevails in these meetings. The crowd listens to only one who shouts louder and fancier counterfeited vulgarity and flattery by walking in the mass of ideas and tendencies.
On the day of the final selection, only a few of the votes cast your conscious: it is influential individual voters, of which cost persuade singly. Most, that is, weight voters give their voice herd custom for one of the candidates nominated by the Committee. Tickets are spelled the name that only louder natverzheno and ringing in the ears at all lately. Almost no one knows the person does not take the report or the nature of it, nor the abilities, or of direction chosen because many have heard of his name. In vain would join the fight against this gregarious impulse. Suppose some conscientious voters would be willing to act consciously in such an important matter, would not be forced to submit to pressure the committee. He is — or avoid altogether on Election Day, or make a vote for their candidate in their understanding. Whatever he did — did you select will be the one who proclaimed the mass of frivolous, indifferent or persuaded voters.
According to the theory, should be elected by a popular majority of man, and in fact elected izlyublennik minority, sometimes very meager, only a minority is an organized force, while the majority, like sand, no connection, and therefore powerless circle or party. The choice should fall on a reasonable and capable, but in reality falls on the person who agrees insolently forward. It would seem to require the candidate significantly — education, experience, integrity in the work: and, indeed, all these qualities can be and not to be: they are not required in the election campaign, there's the most important thing — courage, self-confidence combined with oratory and even some vulgarity, often acting on the mass. Modesty, combined with the subtlety of feeling and thought — this is no good.
Since being born national representative since sold its power. How he uses it as they use? If his energetic nature, he wants to act and shall form a party, and if he commonplace nature, then he is adjacent to one or the other party. For the leader of the party is required above all a strong will. This property is organic, like physical strength, and therefore does not necessarily implies moral qualities. At the very narrow mind with unlimited development and the most evil of selfishness, meanness and dishonesty in meaning, a man with a strong will can become the leader of the party and then becomes a guiding gospodstvennym head mug or a meeting, even if it belonged to a people far beyond his mental and moral qualities. Such is, by its nature, is the leading force in the parliament. To it is added the other strong force — eloquence. This — also natural ability, does not imply any moral character, no higher spiritual development. You can be a deep thinker, a poet, a skilled military leader, a thin lawyer experienced legislator — and at the same time be deprived of effective words, and you can, at the most ordinary intelligence and knowledge, have a special little gift of eloquence. Connection with the fullness of the gift of spiritual strength — is a rare and exceptional phenomenon in parliamentary life. The most brilliant improvisation, glorified speakers and connected to important decisions, seem pale and miserable in reading, like the description of scenes played out in the old days known actors and singers. Experience shows indisputably that large gatherings decisive action belongs not reasonable, but brisk and brilliant way, that only really the mass — not clear, slender arguments, deeply rooted in the essence, but the big words and phrases cleverly chosen, and vehemently natverzhennye designed for smooth instincts vulgarity, always lurking in the mass. Weight easily enjoys empty recitation and inspiration, influenced impulse, often unconscious, able to come to a sudden decision about whom to deplore, in cold blood discussing the case.
So, when the leader of the party with a strong will and even connects the gift of eloquence — he speaks in his first role out in the open in front of whole world. If he does not have the gift, it is like a director, backstage and sends out the whole course of parliamentary representation, the roles, letting speakers who speak for it, to use discretion in the matter — a thin but vacillating minds of his party: — they think of him.
What is the parliamentary party? The theory is that — a union of like-minded people and joining forces for the total implementation of his views in the law and in the direction of national policy. But there are really only small circles: large, large party in the parliament is formed only under the influence of personal ambition, with the average one ruling party. People, by nature, are divided into two categories: one — do not tolerate any power over them, and therefore must seek to rule themselves, others, by nature, afraid to bear the responsibility, coupled with any decisive action, avoid any decisive act of will These last, as it were born to command and make up of the step that follows the will of the people and solutions in the minority. Thus, the most talented people obey willingly, happily adding the wrong hands the direction of the actions and moral responsibility. They seem to instinctively "looking for a leader" and become obedient to his guns, maintaining the confidence that he is leading them to victory — and, often, to catch. So, all material sent to the leaders of the parliamentary parties: they make decisions, they are fighting and celebrate the victory. Public meetings are nothing more than a representation to the public. Speeches in order to maintain the fiction of parliamentarism: a rare it is, in itself, a parliamentary decision in an important case. Speeches are to glorify the speakers, to the rise of popularity to compile career — but in rare cases to solve choice votes. What should be the majority — it is usually solved by the meeting.
Such is the complex mechanism of parliamentary hypocrisy, is the image of a great political lies, mainstream today. According to the theory of parliamentarism, should dominate most reasonable, in practice dominated by five or six leaders of the party, they are being replaced, seize power. According to the theory, the belief allegedly clear arguments during the parliamentary debate, in practice — it does not depend at all on the debate, but is directed by the will of the leaders and the considerations of personal interest. In theory, the people's representatives have in mind only the people's welfare, in practice — they are, under the pretext of the people's welfare, and to the account of it, keep in mind primarily personal benefit and his friends. According to the theory — they should be of the best, the favorite of citizens in practice — it is the most ambitious and brash citizens. According to the theory — the voter votes cast for a candidate because he knows him and trusts him, in practice — the voter gives a voice for a man who for the most part do not know, but about which he natverzheno speeches and shouts of interested parties. According to the theory — run the affairs of the parliament and move — an experienced intelligence and selfless sense, in practice — the main driving force here — the strong will, self-interest and eloquence.
Such is in fact, is something that exposes — aim and the summit of government. It is painful and sad to think that in the Russian land and there were people who dream of the Establishment of the lies we have, that our professors are preaching his young listeners on Representative Government, as the ideal state institution, that our newspapers and magazines go on about it in the advanced Articles and skits, under the banner of the legal order, hard — not bothering to peer closer, without prejudice, in a parliamentary machine. But even where it has long acts — waning faith in it; yet praise her liberal intellectuals, but people are groaning under the yoke of the machine and detects hidden in her lies. Hardly wait for us — but our children and grandchildren, of course, will wait for the overthrow of the idol, which the modern mind goes back in self-delusion to worship …
Done a lot of harm to mankind school philosophers Jean Rousseau. This philosophy has captured the minds, and yet all of it is built on a false idea of the perfection of human nature and of the full capabilities of each and every comprehend and implement those principles of social organization that preached this philosophy.
At the same false basis and is the prevailing doctrine of the perfection of democracy and democratic governance. These imply perfection — the perfect power of the masses to comprehend subtle features of a political doctrine, clearly and distinctly conscious of its inherent preachers. This clarity of consciousness accessible only to a few minds, constitute an aristocracy of intellectuals and the mass, as always and everywhere, and was composed of the crowd — «vulgus», and it is presented by the need to be "vulgar."
Democratic form of government — the most difficult and the most baffling of all known human history. Here's the reason — why this form everywhere was a passing phenomenon and, with few exceptions, never last long, giving way to other forms. And no wonder. State power is called upon to act and dispose of, its actions are manifestations of a single will, — Without it, no government. But in what sense a lot of people or meeting people can be unified will? Democratic phraseology does not dwell on this issue, in response to a well-known phrases and sayings such as these, for example: "the will of the people", "public opinion," "the supreme decision of the nation," the "voice of the people — the voice of God," etc. All these phrases, of course, should mean that a great many people, in a great many questions may come to the same conclusion and decide in accordance with it the same solution. Perhaps it is possible, but only on the most simple questions. But when the issue is connected at the slightest complication, its solution in numerous meetings possible only by means of people who are able to discuss it in all its complexity, and then convince the masses to take action. Among the most complex includes, for example, political issues that require extreme tension of the mental powers in the most capable and experienced men of the state: in such matters, obviously, there is not the slightest possibility to count on the union of thought and will in a crowded public meeting: — solutions in the mass Questions can only be disastrous for the state. Democracy enthusiasts assure themselves that the people can express their will in the affairs of state: it is an empty theory — in fact, we see that the National Assembly can only adopt — on passion — the view expressed by one person or a certain number of people, for example, the opinion of the well-known the leader of the party, a famous local figure, or an organized association, or, finally, — indifferent opinion of this or that influential body print. Thus, the solution procedure becomes a game occurring on a huge stage set goals and voices, than their more accepted in the score, the more the game gets confused, the more dependent on the random and erratic impulses.
To avoid mistakes and to circumvent these difficulties, invented a means — to rule through representation — means organized before this and proven success in England. Hence, in steady fashion, and passed it to other European countries, but caught on with success, the direct tradition and law, only American United States. However, the home of his in England, representative institutions are stepping into a critical period of its history. The very essence of the idea of this representation has been a change here is a travesty of the original its value. The fact is that from the beginning assembly of electors, closely limited, send away a certain number of parliamentary parties, dolzhenstvovavshih represent the opinion of the country at the meeting, but not bound by a specific statement of the mass of their constituents. Assumed that the elected people who understand the real needs of their country and are able to give the correct direction of public policy. The problem is resolved simply and clearly: required to reduce to the extent possible the difficulty of popular government, limiting the small number of capable people — a meeting designed to address national issues. These people were as free representatives of the people, not of a different opinion, one way or the other party is not bound by any instructions. But over time, little by little, the system has changed under the influence of that fateful prejudice of the great significance of public opinion, educate, though, periodicals and the masses of the people giving the ability to have direct involvement in the policy process. The notion of representation has completely changed its appearance, becoming a concept of the mandate, or a particular order. In this sense, each elected in a different location is revered representative of the views prevailing in the locality, or the party under the banner of this opinion to win the election — it is not representative of the country or the people, but the delegate associated instruction from his Party. This change in the very essence of the idea of representation was the beginning of ulcers, eroding all the systems of representative government, Elections, with the fragmentation of parties, assumed the character of a personal struggle of local interests and views, detached from the main idea of the benefits of the state. At the extreme multiplication of members of the audience most of them, in addition to interest in the fight and the party is infected indifference to public business and becomes a habit to attend all meetings and participate directly in the discussion of all cases. Thus, the case law and the general direction of policy, the most important thing for the state — into a game that consists of conventional formalities, deals and fictions. System of representation itself obolzhivila in practice.
These poor results all the more clearly revealed where the population of the state territory has a solid structure, but encompasses diverse nationalities. Nationality in our time can be called a touchstone, which reveals the falsity and the impracticality of parliamentary government. It is noteworthy that the beginning of nationality to come forward and become a driving force and is irritated by the events at exactly the time that came into contact with new forms of democracy. Is difficult to define the essence of this new force and the purpose to which it is seeking, but it is certain that in her — a source of great and difficult struggle, which is still in the history of mankind, and no one knows what will lead to the outcome. We now see that each individual tribe belonging to the composition of different tribes of the state, possessed a passionate sense of intolerance in public institutions, connecting it to the overall system with other tribes, and the desire to have independent control of his own, often imaginary, culture. And this happens not only with the tribes, which had its own history and, in the last part, a separate political life and culture — but also to those who have never lived in a particular political life. Monarchy unlimited time to resolve or reconcile all these demands and impulses — and not just with one force, but the equation of rights and relations under the same authority. But democracy can not cope with them, and the instincts of nationalism are corrosive element to it: every tribe of their region sends representatives — not the state and the people's ideas, but the representatives of the tribal instincts of breeding irritation, tribal hatred — and to the ruling family, and to other tribes, and to the end, all of the state agency. What kind of dissonant receives such compositions, popular representation and parliamentary government — an obvious example of this is today the Austrian Parliament. Providence has kept our Russia from such disasters, when it is part of divers. It is terrible to think that there would be with us, when fate would have sent us a fatal gift — the All-Russian parliament! Yes there will be.
Point to England, but these instructions may be, it seems to apply the adage, "heard the bell, but do not know where he is." Social science has recently started to reverse the historical and economic keys expire Especially from the Anglo-Saxon institutions and partly Scandinavian race, compared to the other institutions of the European peoples. Anglo-Saxon race with since declared themselves in history, and to this day is different strong development of individual identity, both in the field of political and economic this property to the Anglo-Saxon race and the stability required of their ancient institutions, and a strong organization of family life and local government, and those incomparable successes, of which it reached his energetic activity and its influence in both hemispheres. This energy personality has managed it at the beginning of its history, Norman overpower alien customs of the winners and to approve his life on his principles, which persist to this day. The essential difference between this life is for each citizen to the state. One gets used to his heart to keep his youth, he hold his fate and to earn their daily bread. Parents are not burdened with caring for the device, and the fate of his children to the abandonment of the inheritance. Landowners keep their estates and aspire to lead them farming and fisheries. Local control is kept private and conscious on the debt, the participation of local inhabitants in a public business. Administrative agencies do without the hordes of bureaucrats, consisting in the pay of the state and those who hope from him security and exaltation. Here on what the root of themselves, have grown historically representative institutions of a free England, and this is why it is the parliament of the genuine representatives of local interests that are closely related to the land: — and that's why their voice can be considered to be sufficient, the voice of the earth and the body of national interests .
Other European nations were formed and grown entirely on other grounds, on the basis of community life. Property it is that people are not so much of himself holding as his solidarity with those or other public union to which he belongs. Hence, in the course of social and state development consists Especially man's dependence on a particular family or social union, and, in the end, from the state. These unions were at the beginning of strong institutions — family, political, religious, social, held fast a man in his life and work, and they, in turn, kept the whole social and political system. But these alliances over time or broken up, or have lost their age-old gospodstvennoe value, but people still continue to look for support and the device, and the fate of his wealth — in their family, in their corporation, and finally, in the government (whether monarchical or republican), placing it as the guilt of their distress, when this support, at the request of its own way, is not found. In short, a person tends to one of these authorities to attach himself and his destiny. Hence, in such a state of society, the impoverishment of the people of autonomous and independent, people who keep themselves on their feet, and they know where to go, making the state by serving his arm, and on the contrary, the extreme multiplication of people who are looking for support in the state eating his juices, and not just give him strength as he is required. Hence the extreme development in societies on the one hand, the bureaucracy, the other — the so-called liberal professions. Hence, with the weakening in customs initiative, the extreme complexity of items of state and legislature, takes care of many things, as every man for himself should be taken care of. In this state, the society gradually paving at a fertile ground for the development of socialism, and the habit of holding the State for the wellbeing of everyone turns, finally, in a crazy theory of state socialism. In such and such circumstances its social development all continental states, with the Anglo-Saxon model, established at representative government, some even with universal suffrage. Obviously, with the described part of society and with a light on his case to the public, it can not distinguish itself from the true, true representatives of the land and its direct interests. Hence the sad fate of representative assemblies and heavier desperation of government power, which is inseparably connected with them, and the people whose fates depend on them.
What can I say about the peoples of the Slavic tribe, differing Especially at the development of community life, with the extreme youth of their culture, of Romania, and the unhappy Greece? Here are truly representative institutions have immediately start corrupting people's life, from introducing yourself otherwise pitiful caricature of the West, reminding Krylov's fable "The Monkey and glasses."
The greatest evil of the constitutional order of the Ministry of Education is in the parliamentary and party basis. Each political party obsessed seize government power and it sneaks. The Head of State gives a political party that represents the majority in Parliament, in which case the ministry is formed from members of the party and for the sake of retaining power, begins to fight the opposition, which is enhanced to overthrow him and join in his place. But if the head of state is not inclined to the majority, and the minority, and from it elects its ministry, in this case, the new government dissolved parliament and uses every effort to gain a majority in the new elections and using it to fight the opposition. Supporters of the ministerial party always votes cast for the government, they have to at least stand up for him — not for the sake of power, not because of internal consensus of opinion, and because it is the government itself holds the members of his party in power and in all paired with power advantages, benefits and profit sharing. Generally — a significant motif of each party — to stand up for their at all costs, or because of mutual interest, or simply by virtue of the herd instinct, which encourages people to separate into squads and get into a fight wall to wall. Obviously, the consensus opinion in this case has very little value, and concern for the common good does a cover of alien motives and instincts. This is called an ideal of parliamentary government. People deceive themselves into thinking that it secures freedom. Instead of the absolute power of the monarch we have unlimited power of Parliament, with the difference that in the person of the monarch can imagine the unity of rational will, but in the Parliament is not, because everything depends on chance, as determined by a majority of Parliament's will, but as soon as in most drawn up under the influence of play in the party, there is a minority, the will of the majority is no longer the will of the whole of Parliament: the fact is it still possible to recognize the will of the people, whose healthy weight takes no part in the game parties and even evaded her. On the contrary, it is an unhealthy part of the population gradually put into this game and it has to corrupt: for the main motive of the game is the desire for power and profit. Political freedom is a fallacy to maintain, on paper, paragraphs and sentences of the constitution, the beginning of the monarchy entirely disappears; triumph of liberal democracy reigned confusion and violence in the community, along with the beginnings of unbelief and materialism, declaring liberty, equality and fraternity — where there is no longer no room for freedom or equality. This condition leads irresistibly to anarchy, from which a society with one saved a dictatorship, ie restoration of unity of will and power in a single direction.
The first sample of the national, representative government has identified the newest Europe England. From the middle of the last century French philosophers began to glorify the British establishment and expose them as an example for general imitation. But at that time, not only political freedom attracted French minds as early attracted religious tolerance, or, rather, the beginning of unbelief, which were then in vogue in England and put into circulation by English philosophers of the time. After France, which gave the tone and manners, and literature throughout the Western intelligentsia, the fashion for British institutions spread across the European continent. Meanwhile, there were two great events, of which one the faith, and the other — just was not shaken it. There was the American republic of the United States and its agencies, copied from the English (except for royalty and aristocracy), started on the new soil firmly and efficiently. This produced a delight in the minds, and especially in France. On the other hand — was the French Republic, and soon showed the world all the detestable things, unrest and violence of the revolutionary government. Everywhere there was an explosion of indignation and disgust against the French and, therefore, are against democratic institutions. Hatred of the revolution was reflected even in the domestic policy of the British government. Feeling is beginning to wane in 1815, influenced by the political events of the time in the minds awakened the desire to connect with fresh hope of political freedom and civil order in forms suitable to the English Constitution: become fashionable again political Anglomania. A series of attempts to carry the British ideal, first in France and then in Spain and Portugal, then in Holland and Belgium, finally, more recently, in Germany, Italy and Austria. Faint echo of this movement was reflected here in 1825, in a mad attempt to aristocrats dreamers who did not know any of the people or their history.
It is interesting to trace the history of new democratic institutions: they were a long-lived, each on its soil, compared to the monarchical institutions, of which the continuation of the story finds a number of centuries.
In France, since the introduction of political freedom, the government in all its force the state government was overthrown three times in the Paris street crowd in 1792, in 1830 and in 1848. Three times was overthrown army or military force: in 1797, 4 September (18 Fructidor), when the majority of the directory, with the help of military forces destroyed the elections held in 48 departments and exiled 56-member legislative assembly. On another occasion, in 1797, 9 November (18 Brumaire), the government overthrown by Bonaparte, and finally, in 1851, December 2 other Bonaparte, Jr.. Three times, the government was overthrown external enemy invasion: in 1814, in 1815 and in 1870. So finally, from the beginning of his political experiments in 1870 France had in '44 and 37 years of freedom harsh dictatorship. While still worth to notice a strange phenomenon: the Bourbon monarchs eldest line, leaving plenty of space action of political freedom has never relied on pure beginning of modern democracy, on the contrary, both of Napoleon, declaring course these principles, France ruled despotically.
In Spain, the popular government was proclaimed in the era of the final fall of Napoleon. Extraordinary meeting in Cadiz Cortes approved the constitution, proclaiming in the first article thereof, that the rule of power in the nation. Ferdinand VII, entered Spain through France, canceled the constitution and began to rule autocratically. After 6 years of General Riego led military uprising forced the king to restore the constitution. In 1823, the French army, under the suggestion of the Holy Alliance, came to Spain and restored Ferdinand in autocracy. His widow, as regent, in order to preserve the rights of his daughter Isabella against Don Carlos, the newly adopted constitution. Then begins for Spain consecutive series of riots and rebellions, occasionally interrupted by a brief period of relative calm. Suffice it to say that from 1816 to the accession of Alfonso was in Spain to 40 major military uprisings involving folk crowd. Speaking of Spain, not to mention about the monstrous and instructive spectacle, which represent many of the republic of South America, the Republic of Hispanic and Spanish customs. Their whole history is ceaseless change fierce slaughter between popular crowd and troops interrupted the rule of despots, reminiscent of Commodus or Caligula. Rather give an example though Bolivia, where out of the 14 presidents of the republic thirteen ended his reign of violent death or exile.
Begun, or representative government in Germany and in Austria — not before 1848. It is true that since 1815 lifted a deep murmur young intellectuals on German ruling princes for failure to promises made to the people in the era of the great war of liberation. With only a few, small, exceptions in Germany had no representative institutions until 1847, when the King of Prussia established in his particular form of constitutional government, but it has not stood and one year. But had only the pressure of the Parisian street crowd crush the French Constitutional Charter and depose the king, as raised in Germany, the traffic, with the troops. In Berlin, Vienna and settled in Frankfurt National Assembly, the French pattern. Barely a year has passed, the government dispersed them by force. The latest German and Austrian constitution, all come from the monarchy, and are still waiting for the court of his stories.
Published by Ed.:
Moscow collection. Moscow, 1901