In a dualistic monarchy The head of state has real and extensive political prerogatives.
The “king in parliament” construction is not typical for a dualistic monarchy. On the contrary, parliament has a rather modest status. Sometimes it is regarded as a body operating under the monarch. Parliament is sometimes officially considered an advisory institution, complementing the royal power in making laws - for example, the Legislative Council in Brunei.
Usually in dualistic monarchies they do not mention out loud the presence of an additional source of power - popular sovereignty. The monarch is generally considered to be a sovereign subject. At the same time, the very existence of an elected parliament presupposes that the power of the crowned head of state is not undivided.
In a dualistic monarchy, there may be some political balance between the monarch and parliament. But more likely is the political and legal supremacy of the king, only partially limited by the liberties and liberties of his subjects, the prerogatives of the parliament representing them.
The monarch can hardly be defined as the head of the executive branch. This refers to the fact that the monarch is not an official who ensures the execution of parliamentary decisions. The public administration is subordinate to the monarch, but this does not mean that the activities of the king and the government consist in the simple execution of parliamentary decisions. On the contrary, the holder of the throne himself and his state apparatus primarily ensure the sovereign power of the monarch, although they must take into account the existence of parliament.
In dualistic monarchies, the head of state sometimes retains some judicial prerogatives.
The monarch is endowed with very extensive powers, allowing him to effectively participate in rule-making activities and influence parliament.
Firstly, he and his government have the right to independently issue regulations on issues that are not within the competence of parliament.
Secondly, the competence of parliament is limited to a narrow range of issues. Usually these are decisions related to the budget, taxes, as well as acts that impose duties and responsibilities on subjects. As a rule, parliament does not have the right to pass laws on its own initiative. Its function is to consider royal and government initiatives, which it can approve or reject. Laws look like acts of the monarch approved by parliament.
Thirdly, even if parliament makes a decision contrary to the opinion of the monarch and the government, the head of state can use the veto. In a dualistic monarchy, the veto is usually absolute. A law that is vetoed is not discussed again and does not enter into force.
Fourthly, during the intersessional period, the monarch can issue acts, even those within parliamentary competence. Subsequently, he must submit them for parliamentary approval. Until parliament convenes, these acts actually act as laws.
Fifthly, convening parliament for a session and dissolving it are the prerogatives of the monarch. This right gives the head of state the opportunity for political maneuver and choice of the most favorable conditions for parliamentary work.
Finally, in dualistic monarchies, often a significant part of the deputy corps is not elected, but appointed. This allows the monarch to have his supporters in the parliamentary environment. For example, in Swaziland the king appoints half of the senators and 20% of the lower house; in Thailand, Jordan - the full Senate is appointed. In the kingdom of Tonga, out of 29 seats in parliament, 11 are assigned to the king and members of his government, with another 9 seats occupied by representatives of the nobility and only the remaining 9 deputies representing ordinary citizens.
The monarch is the highest political authority for the government. Ministers are in the service of the monarch. A dualistic monarchy is not characterized by ministerial responsibility to deputies. The monarch independently makes appointments to the government or entrusts the right of appointment to the first minister. Disagreements with parliament do not oblige the government and individual ministers to resign.
In a dualistic monarchy, the institution of countersignature is usually not used, although there are exceptions here. Moreover, the countersignature does not limit the head of state in political decisions, as happens in parliamentary forms of government. In the Kingdom of Jordan, “the monarch is not authorized to issue decrees without the countersignature of members of the government, which does not actually mean binding the will of the king by the government.” Simply, by signing the king’s acts, “the cabinet takes responsibility for the possible negative consequences of the decisions made.
Foreign policy is controlled by the monarch. However, if international treaties involve the establishment of new obligations, restrict the freedoms of citizens, entail the emergence of financial obligations of the state and additional costs, they are usually subject to ratification in parliament.
So, the political dominance of the head of state is obvious. In this case, is there any reason to talk about dualism of power? With all the power of the king, parliamentary powers cannot be considered a mere decoration of the state system. The fact is that financial issues and the rights of subjects are of exclusively political significance.
The monarch can make any decisions he wants, but the most effective and desirable are those that directly oblige the population of the state. Namely, they have to be agreed upon with parliament.
Power becomes real if it has access to material resources and the ability to spend and distribute them. And in matters of budget and taxes, the monarch must come to an agreement with parliament.
In a dualistic monarchy, parliament develops additional, sometimes very effective, ways of participating in politics. If parliament does not have the right of legislative initiative, it can use hidden initiative. Deputies have the right to contact the monarch with an address (message) stating their opinions and requests to make appropriate decisions. The monarch, of course, can ignore the parliamentary address, but then the deputies will refuse to cooperate in it and approve the laws proposed by the monarch.
The government is forced to take into account the sentiments of deputies and often comes into contact with parliament, its committees and factions. As a result, deputies receive the actual opportunity to participate in the development of bills, even if they are formally introduced into parliament by the monarch and the government.
Monapx may have the formal discretion to enter into war, but military success depends on the financing of military operations, which is carried out with the participation of parliament.
The monarch may disregard the deputies and appoint ministers hostile to parliament. But, incapable of compromise, members of the government will encounter such opposition in parliament that their administrative undertakings will be at risk due to lack of finances and sabotage of the bills they propose.
The political claims of such a generally weak parliament may turn out to be so inconvenient for the monarch that he sometimes violates state law, risks his authority, and forcefully dissolves the legislative body for an indefinite period. If parliament could be ignored, the kings of Lesotho, Jordan, Kuwait and the heads of other dualist monarchies would not have had to dissolve it and return to absolutism.
Thus, a dualistic monarchy is a state where, along with the politically dominant monarch, there is a parliament with few but significant powers.
1.3 Dualistic monarchy
In this form of government, power is dual in nature. It is legally and actually divided between the government and the monarch (the government is formed by the monarch), and parliament. This monarchy arises during the transition of society from a feudal formation to a bourgeois one, while “The hereditary monarch expresses the interests of the feudal lords, while parliament represents the interests of the bourgeois class.” Parliament is most often half formed by the monarch (mainly the upper house), while the remaining half is formed by representatives from the people.
Most scientists, for example O.V. Martyshin believe that in a dualistic monarchy, most of the powers belong to the monarch, because he has veto power over legislative acts parliament.
Based on the data obtained above, the following signs of a dualistic monarchy can be identified:
· supreme power is dual in nature, i.e. divided between government and parliament;
· the government is formed by the monarch and is completely subordinate to him;
· part of the parliament is formed by the monarch, and part by the people;
· this form of government takes place during the transition from feudal to bourgeois society.
Examples of modern dualistic monarchies include Morocco, the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, and Kuwait. There is also a position that among modern monarchies there are no dualistic ones, because "they continue to be absolute, and parliaments have purely consultative prerogatives."
1.4 Parliamentary monarchy
This is a form of government in which the power of the monarch is limited in all spheres of public life and activity, and this limitation is not only legal, but also factual. The government is formed by the party that received the majority in parliamentary elections, and the party leader becomes the chairman of the government. This form of monarchy is characteristic of developed capitalist states
A parliamentary monarchy has the following features:
· limiting the power of the monarch in all areas;
· formation of a government by the winning party in the elections;
· exists in developed capitalist countries;
· the monarch is a symbol of the state, its face; he “reigns, but does not rule.” Parliamentary monarchy is the most common form of government in the world. All European monarchies are parliamentary monarchies. For example, UK, Denmark, Netherlands, Sweden, etc.
From the last feature, one more type of monarchy can be distinguished - symbolic. This is a form of parliamentary monarchy in which all the powers of the monarch are reduced to nothing. He only plays a symbolic role, supports the traditions of the state and nothing more; a striking example is Japan, in which the monarch has been deprived of all powers for more than half a century.
Another monarchy found in modern world is a theocratic monarchy, in which the monarch has full state power, but at the same time he is the highest clergy (Vatican).
M.N. Marchenko highlights modern stage there are only two types of monarchies: dualistic and parliamentary; this typology is controversial, since from a legal point of view, all modern monarchies in one way or another have institutions that limit the power of the monarch; but from a factual point of view, in a number of monarchical countries these institutions do not play any role in limiting the power of the monarch. So in Saudi Arabia, for example, there is a constitutional act (the Basic Nizam on Power of 1992), legally establishing a constitutional monarchy, but in practice this act does not limit the powers of the monarch in any way, on the contrary, consolidating the absolutist regime, minimizing the rights of man and citizen.
Thus, it is clear that the topic of the monarchical form of government is relevant today in terms of its essence and characteristic features. But the main thing is that the monarchy is a very flexible form of government, because it has come a very long historical way, it has adapted to every social formation and has survived to this day.
The modern world has a considerable number of monarchies (about 25), and this is very easy to explain, for example, the hereditary nature of power ensures the legitimacy of each new monarch. For the population of monarchies, this form of government becomes traditional and acceptable; it is embedded in the consciousness and legal consciousness of people for life.
Today there are three types of monarchies in the world: dualistic, absolute (with reservations) and parliamentary, as well as symbolic and theocratic, but these types of monarchies are not essential.
Chapter 2. FEATURES OF MODERN MONARCHIES
The peculiarity of the modern monarchy is distinguishing feature of a given form of government, characterizing the individuality of the organization of its authorities and distinguishing modern monarchies from their historical counterparts.
The first, and probably the most main feature is “atypicality”, so successfully highlighted by V.E. Chirkin. He calls the classical parliamentary monarchy a “republican monarchy”, i.e. a monarchy in which the power of the monarch is completely limited in all spheres of government. A striking example of an “atypical” monarchy is England - the Center of the Commonwealth of Independent States, which used to be part of its colonies. The English monarchy is an example of a classic constitutional parliamentary monarchy. The Constitution of the United Kingdom does not actually exist (it is unwritten), but it is replaced by norms of statutory law, among which are the Habeas Corpus Act 1697, the Bill of Rights 1689, the Succession Act 1701. etc. Legally, the Queen of England has a huge amount of powers: she appoints the Prime Minister, members of the government, convenes and dissolves parliament, can veto a bill issued by parliament, is the supreme commander during wars, etc., these facts make the British dualistic monarchy. But in fact, the queen never uses her powers, which is clearly characterized by the aphorism “dead law” or “sleeping English lion.” And all the main powers of the queen are carried out by members of the government. Another striking example of “atypicality” is Japan - a state in East Asia located on four large islands - Hokkaido, Honshu, Shikoku, Kyushu. The head of state is the emperor - “a symbol of the state and the unity of the nation.” Japanese Constitution of 1947 reduces the real power of the emperor to zero. All actions of the emperor: the appointment of the prime minister, the promulgation of amendments to laws, the convening and dissolution of parliament, the appointment and removal of ministers - can be carried out by the emperor only with the approval of the Cabinet of Ministers (government) and Kokkaya (parliament).
In fact, the emperor retained only traditional ceremonial functions: addressing parliament with a speech at the opening of the session, representation abroad, signing official documents.
All of the above facts give every reason to call the Japanese monarchy a constitutional and parliamentary, and also, as mentioned earlier, a symbolic monarchy.
Another distinctive feature is that not a single monarchy in Europe is absolute, which once again emphasizes high level European democracy. However, the Vatican is, from a legal point of view, an absolute monarchy. This is the most microscopic (territory - 0.44 sq. km, population - about 1000 people) state in Western Europe, with a huge history and an interesting form of government. The head of state is the Pope, who is elected to his position by the College of Cardinals for life. The Pope has full legislative, executive and judicial power. Under him (under the Pope) there is a legislative body (the same College of Cardinals). The most interesting thing is that the Vatican practically has its own Constitution, or more precisely, the Constitutional Acts of the Vatican City State of June 7, 1929.
Based on the above facts, it turns out that due to the presence of all three levers of power by the Pope, the Vatican monarchy is absolute; the fact of a state church makes it theocratic, and the presence of constitutional acts makes it semi-constitutional. That is, in the Vatican there is an absolute theocratic semi-constitutional monarchy.
But when listing these facts, it should be borne in mind that the presence of statehood in a country like the Vatican is just a tribute to the medieval traditions of Europe.
In our time, there is a problem “rich North - poor South”, the same trend can be noticed to one degree or another in monarchies, that is, the further south the monarchy is, the more absolute it is. So from the northern monarchy we can cite the example of Sweden. This is a Northern European monarchy, which is even more limited than the English monarchy. The monarch in Sweden, according to the Constitution of 1974, has practically no powers other than ceremonial ones: to open a meeting of parliament, to congratulate the population of the country on the New Year, etc. Those. the monarch in Sweden is just a symbol of the state on a par with the flag and anthem and nothing more, and according to European principles is a tribute to tradition. Those. The Swedish monarchy can be called super-parliamentary.
Of the southern monarchies, Brunei can be cited as an example. An Asian state with the beginnings of parliamentarism and constitutionality. In 1984, when Brunei gained its independence, power passed into the hands of the Sultan. In this country there are no clearly defined bodies of legislative and executive power. Only Constitutional Councils, which are a kind of advisory body under the monarch, can act as legislative bodies.
Power in Brunei is concentrated in the hands of one autocratic monarch. Although on at the moment Brunei resembles Russia at the beginning of the 20th century, because... The growth of the Brunei liberation movement is now visible.
That is, the Brunei monarchy is essentially absolute with insignificant rudiments of parliamentarism and democracy.
Another important feature of some modern monarchies is the fictitiousness of the legislative (legislative bodies) under the monarch. This feature applies to modern absolute Muslim monarchies. In Oman, for example, “the creation of a parliament as contrary to the traditions of Muslim fundamentalism is excluded.” Parliament is replaced by the institution of al-shura - a legislative body under the monarch, but it has no real powers and is in complete dependence from the monarch.
It can also be noted that many non-European monarchies are based on European democratic institutions; this factor is a derivative of colonial conquests and protectorates. A striking example of this feature is, for example, Jordan. State in the Middle East in Western Asia. Jordan was under British protectorate for a long time, almost until 1952. What affected the formation of a moderately authoritarian political regime in it. The Hashemite Kingdom adopted a lot from England: the proclaimed rule of law, democracy in the “free expression of the people.” In 1992, political parties were allowed to operate in Jordan. Legislative power is divided between the National Assembly (parliament) and the king (the institution of the monarch is called not the sultan or emir, but the king, which emphasizes the influence of Western European ideology). The upper house of the Jordanian parliament is also appointed by the king.
Executive power is exercised by the king and the government, the head of the latter is the monarch. All government decisions are signed exclusively by the monarch; there is no institution of countersignature.
The 1952 Constitution gives the king the right to: declare war and peace, ratify treaties and agreements, call elections to the lower house of parliament, dissolve the latter, appoint members of the upper house and speaker, award titles and awards, cancel court sentences, confirm the death sentence.
The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan is a prime example of a dualistic constitutional monarchy.
Another striking monarchy that has been under a protectorate is Oman. A state in the southeast of the Arabian Peninsula, which gained its independence only in the second half of the 20th century, and before that it was under the protectorate of England for a long time. And this fact had noticeable imprints on the supreme power of Oman.
The head of Oman is the Sultan from the ruling dynasty. He has full power: he is the head of the government, fully controls the activities of the legislative body, is the supreme commander in chief, etc.
The role of the Constitution is fulfilled by the fundamental law of the Sultan of November 6, 1996. Until that time, the Constitution of Oman was the Koran, which emphasizes the theocratic nature of this Asian state. The Sultan is also the religious head (the religion of Oman is Ibadi Islam). Thus, on the Arabian Peninsula there is exclusively an absolute monarchy with the initial rudiments of constitutionalism and parliamentarism.
Very close to this feature is the post-colonial monarchy of some island republics that were among the colonies of Great Britain and are now part of the British Commonwealth. To such countries V.E. Chirkin includes, for example, Antigua, Barbuda, Barbados, Jamaica, etc.
The most important feature is that in most European monarchies the institution of the monarch is only a tribute to tradition. The commitment of the population of these countries to the monarch clearly illustrates to us how deeply ingrained in people’s psyches is the awareness that the personality of the monarch is sacred, that he is a kind of their protector from all troubles. This feature is clearly illustrated by the examples of England or the Netherlands already discussed. The Netherlands is “a country where everything is allowed!” - this is what the Netherlands is called by its European neighbors. This country formally has 2 Constitutions: the Statute of the Kingdom of the Netherlands from 1954 (this act resolves issues between the Netherlands itself and its provinces, since in terms of the form of government the Netherlands is a unitary decentralized state) and the Constitution of the Netherlands from 1815, establishing the foundations of the Dutch constitutional system.
Legally and in fact, the Netherlands is a constitutional parliamentary monarchy, the head of state is the queen, and the royal title is inherited.
The legal consolidation of the broad powers of the monarch in reality turns out to be completely different: the queen appoints the prime minister, establishes ministries, and appoints commissioners in the provinces. Every year on the third Tuesday in September, the Queen speaks to a joint session of Parliament with a report on the main directions of government policy. She (the queen) is in charge foreign policy and has the right to pardon. However, all of the above powers are often performed by members of the government instead of the queen.
It turns out that the Dutch monarchy is very close in essence to the English monarchy, since the monarch is actually the head of state by tradition, as in England.
In absolutely all monarchies, the head of state appears as a symbol of the latter, it is the face of his sovereign that is most dear to the population with a monarchical legal consciousness than a flag, coat of arms, anthem, etc. And this feature is characteristic not so much of European monarchies as of African monarchies. For example Swaziland. A country in southern Africa that has also been repeatedly influenced by Western ideology. There is no constitution as such in Swaziland, but there are royal constitutional acts that establish the foundations of the constitutional system of this country.
The head of state is the King, in whose hands the executive, partly legislative and judicial powers are concentrated. The monarch in Swaziland is the head of the government (Council of Ministers), appoints its prime minister and all other members of the government. But an interesting fact is that all ministers must also be members of parliament. This gives the King significant legislative advantages.
A distinctive feature is the election of monarchs in Malaysia and the UAE; this is an absolute phenomenon of a monarchical form of government, which is a kind of “mix” of a monarchy and a republic, although, of course, there is more monarchical and even absolutist in these countries. So Malaysia is a “monarchy of several monarchies” or “United Monarchical States”, as the world community has dubbed this country. It consists of thirteen states, which are headed by hereditary monarchs (sultans, rajahs), and two federal territories, which are headed by governors.
The Supreme Ruler of Malaysia is chosen by the heads of states, who form the "Council of Rulers". According to the Constitution of 1957, the Supreme Ruler, elected by an absolute majority, has partial powers in both the legislative and executive spheres of power. In relation to the first, he approves laws issued by Parliament, but at the same time he is deprived of the right of veto. In relation to the executive branch, the monarch cannot appoint members of the Cabinet of Ministers (government); he can only coordinate the directions of government activity with his instructions.
But with all this, the Supreme Ruler of Malaysia retains the exclusive right to appoint judges, represent the country in the international arena, and command the army during military operations. An interesting fact is that all subjects of the Malaysian Federation have their own Constitutions, as well as broad powers, which makes the Supreme Ruler of Malaysia “first among equals.”
Malaysia in its essence is a unique monarchy, since the country is headed by an aristocratic elite who choose the head from among themselves. That is, the Malaysian monarchy can be described as a polyconstitutional parliamentary monarchy with characteristic aristocratic features.
The situation is similar in the United Arab Emirates. This state is located in the eastern part of the Arabian Peninsula on the coast of the Persian and Oman Gulfs. The Emirates cannot be called a full-fledged monarchy, since the head of state is the President, and an elected one. However, he is selected from the seven emirs, who are the rulers of the emirates, of which there are also seven.
The powers of the so-called President are legally and actually very broad: he is the chairman of the government (Cabinet), is part of High Council federation (Arab-style parliament), is also the supreme commander and representative of the Emirates abroad.
A democratic body such as the Federal National Council (FNC) is very important in the United Arab Emirates. It is an advisory body to the government. Its competence includes the adoption of the state budget, as well as the consideration of government regulations. A very interesting fact is that the Federal Tax Service includes representatives of the people from each emirate; Well, of course, these representatives are not simple peasants or workers, they belong to noble families and dynasties.
Great value has a Constitution adopted in 1971, which, however, regulates only the powers of such institutions as the government, parliamentary bodies and the President, as well as partially the fundamental rights and freedoms of citizens.
The most striking thing about the UAE is that each of the seven emirates has an absolute monarchy, which is also combined with the Constitutions of the emirates. The country's highest authority has no right to interfere in the internal affairs of the emirates.
Thus, in the eastern part of the Arabian Peninsula there is a unique state: a republic with a monarchy (and an absolute one) at its core, or a “monarchical republic.” Moreover, in this case it is absolutely impossible to classify this republic as either presidential or parliamentary, because in the first case, the powers of the president are not too great, and in the second, the organs of parliament do not have their own clear outline.
One more interesting feature Some modern monarchies are characterized by monarchical federalism, which is characteristic not only of the UAE and Malaysia, but also, for example, of a state such as Belgium. According to the Belgian Constitution of 1831. This state is unitary, but during the development of this country, problems arose due to the heterogeneity of the national composition of the population. However, federalism in monarchies can be seen as another way of limiting the power of the monarch by decentralizing government leadership of the monarchy.
Among the Arab monarchies there is a special principle of succession to the throne, this is the so-called clan principle, when the monarch is chosen by his family. This feature is unique to the Asian monarchies of the Persian Gulf. If we recall the succession to the throne in Ancient Egypt, we can find a lot in common. This principle can be seen, for example, in Qatar, already discussed.
Thus, among the main features of modern monarchies, ten main ones can be distinguished:
1. “atypicality”;
2. lack of absolutism among European monarchies;
3. the presence among monarchies of the principle: “the further south the monarchy, the more absolute it is”;
4. the presence of European democratic institutions in the monarchies of Asia and Africa that were influenced by European states;
5. the presence of the institution of the monarch, in the monarchies of Europe, as a tribute to traditions;
6. raising the monarch to the rank of symbol, the face of the state, in all monarchies;
7. election of monarchs in Malaysia and the UAE;
8. clan principle of choosing a monarch in Arab monarchies;
9. monarchical federalism as a factor limiting the power of the monarch;
10. fictitiousness of legislative (legislative) bodies in a number of Muslim monarchies.
This list of features is not exhaustive, but it is the one that most accurately characterizes the position of modern monarchies as forms of government in the world, their significance and the differences between modern monarchies and their historical predecessors.
CONCLUSION
When studying modern monarchies as forms of government, the comparative legal method was most often used, with the help of which the most important features of the organization of state power in monarchies were highlighted. There is no doubt that the characteristics of monarchies arise primarily from the position of the personality of the monarch himself in the system of government bodies.
Many modern scientists, considering monarchy as a form of government too great attention pay attention to the historical typology of monarchies. It is very important for understanding that monarchy is the most flexible form of government, capable of adapting to conditions dictated by time. But it is much more important to know exactly those characteristic features, signs and, finally, features of monarchies that characterize the position of such a person as a monarch in the changing system of government bodies.
The modern world has many states with a monarchical form of government. Monarchy is a traditional system of organizing state power among many peoples, and the people of monarchy countries get used to this form of government to such an extent that the monarchy can be changed, restored, but still be the standard for organizing state power.
Studying the monarchies of our time, one cannot help but notice that each of them has its own characteristics, unique to it, which together constitute the characteristics being studied. They show the changes that have occurred with the monarchical form of government as a result of historical development.
List of used literature
1. Vengerov A.B. Theory of state and law: a textbook for law schools. M., 2008. 608 p.
2. Matuzov N.I., Malko A.V. Theory of state and law: Textbook. M., 2005. 541 p.
3. Simonishvili L.R. Forms of government: history and modernity: textbook. allowance. M., 2007. - 280 p.
4. Theory of State and Law: A Course of Lectures / Ed. M.N. Marchenko. M., 1997. 475 p.
5. Theory of state and law: textbook / count. auto; resp. ed. A.V. Malko. M., 2006. 400 p.
6. Theory of state and law: textbook for universities/Under. total ed. prof. O.V. Martyshina. M, 2007. 497 p.
7. Gumilyov L.N. Ethnogynesis and the biosphere of the Earth. L., 1989. 315 p.
8. Ilyin I.A. On the monarchy and the republic: collected works. New York, 1997. 475 p.
9. Kushkhov I.R. Fundamentals of federalism under the modern monarchical form of government//Journal of Russian Law. 2006. No. 11. pp. 108-117.
10. Legal systems of the modern world. Encyclopedic reference book/Ans. ed. – Doctor of Law, Prof. A.Ya. Sukharev. – 2nd ed., rev. and additional M., 2007. 589 p.
11. Seregin A.V. Ancient thinkers about the monarchical form of government//Jurisprudence. 2006. No. 5. P.160-168.
12. Chirkin V.E. Modern state. M., 2001. 432 p.
13. Chirkin V.E. Atypical forms of government in a modern state//State and Law. 1994. No. 1. P.109-115.
...: socio-economic backwardness, territorial disputes and conflicts between different countries, difficulties in determining the geopolitical vector of development, difficulties in determining the state structure and governance. Paradoxically, many of the problems of modern Africa are predetermined by its significant resource potential, which determines the claims of industrialized countries to its...
Mainly because the threat of a new war was in the air, requiring weapons and investment in heavy industry. By 1937, British industry was producing most of the weapons, aircraft and military equipment with financial assistance from the United States. In the twentieth century, the monarchy became even more popular than before. George V, Victoria's grandson, addressed...
Monarchical structure political power has long history development. It is the most popular form of government in human history. Signs of monarchy began to appear in the most ancient states of Mesopotamia on the planet. Over the centuries of human development, the monarchy dominated Asian empires, khanates and sultanates, the states of pre-Columbian America, and many European countries of the Middle Ages, New and Contemporary times.
At the same time, it also had many local variations and peculiar differences. Almost always it was an unlimited monarchy, especially in eastern societies. Europe gave the world such a unique social structure as feudalism, in which the king was actually the highest feudal lord at the top of the suzerain-vassal hierarchy, but did not have full power over his subjects. Unlike eastern states, where viziers and rajahs were instantly deprived of their positions at the will of the ruler. However, the position of the feudal kings strengthened significantly over time in Europe.
Limitation of monarchical power
The Renaissance and Modern Times significantly changed the minds of Europeans. Here there was liberation from the shackles of medieval Christian scholasticism as a result of the religious reformation of Martin Luther. Enlightenment ideas, especially the social contract theories of Locke, Hobbes and Rousseau, significantly undermined the public's understanding that royal power was inevitable. The first royal dynasty to be overthrown in Europe was the Bourbons in France (as a result of the French Revolution of 1789).
The 19th and early 20th centuries became an era, if not of the overthrow of monarchies, then of their significant limitation. Thus, the revolution of 1848-1849, which swept through several European countries at once (called the spring of nations) - France, Austrian Empire, the Polish part of what was then Russia, some German and Italian lands - led to the democratization of public life and the expansion of national rights. A dualistic monarchy was established in Austria, which from now on became formally called Austria-Hungary - a country of two equal peoples. The Hungarians received the right to form their own parliament, significantly limiting the Habsburg dynasty. A similar wave of democratization spread in Europe, and later throughout the world (especially intensely in the next fifty years). The November Revolution in Germany, the October Revolution in Russia, the Xinhai Revolution in China - they all overthrew local rulers, establishing republics.
Modern world
Today, the monarchy is an atavism. However, it has been preserved in a number of states as a traditional relic. Among them are England, Denmark, Japan and so on, although the kings here do not have much power. At the same time, in the modern world the following types are distinguished: dualistic monarchy, parliamentary monarchy.
Parliamentary monarchy
It is the same constitutional monarchy, where the main body of power is parliament. The king either has no practical significance at all (being only a symbol of the nation), or, as in Spain, has rights limited by the constitution, comparable to presidential ones.
The dualistic monarchy of today
The constitutional foundations in the modern world have already been adopted by all states. However, the monarchical system has not yet completely given up its positions everywhere. Thus, in modern Morocco and Kuwait, as well as in Jordan, the dualistic monarchy is well established. State power here it is legally divided between parliament and the monarch. Although the latter influences both the Cabinet of Ministers, which it forms, and the legislative body, where it has the powers of dissolution and veto.
In dualistic monarchies (Kuwait, Bahrain) the king shares his legislative powers with the elected highest representative body.
In the constitutions of these countries, the relationship between the king and the legislative body is defined quite clearly: for example, the Constitution of Kuwait directly states that the legislative power belongs to the emir and the National Assembly, the executive power belongs to the emir,
Council of Ministers and ministers, and the judiciary - the courts, which exercise it in accordance with and within the limits established by the constitution on behalf of the emir (Article 53). The emir exercises his power through ministers, whom he appoints and dismisses on the recommendation of the prime minister. The prime minister himself is also appointed by the emir “after traditional consultations.” The prime minister and ministers are collectively responsible to the emir for the general policy of the state, and each minister is individually responsible to the emir for the functioning of his ministry. Each minister is also responsible to the National Assembly for those matters that are under the jurisdiction of that ministry. The resignation of a minister is carried out at his personal request or at the request of at least 10 deputies. If the National Assembly expresses no confidence in a minister, he is considered removed from office. In the field of lawmaking, the emir has the right to initiate, approve and promulgate laws. He may return the bill for reconsideration by reasoned decree, but if the National Assembly re-votes the bill by a 2/3 majority of its members, the Emir will promulgate it within 30 days.
According to amendments made to the Bahrain Constitution in 2011, parliament has the right to ask the monarch to resign ministers and the prime minister; demand an account from the head of government and partially monitor the activities of the government for compliance with national interests. The King must consult the heads of the elected Parliament and the appointed Advisory Council before dissolving the legislature. Only the elected chamber has the right to vote on the issue of confidence in the prime minister and submit its decision to the king, who will make the final decision on the resignation of the prime minister.
An example of a dualistic monarchy is Kuwait, where the emir is declared the “head of state” by the 1962 constitution, who takes an oath of office before the National Assembly before taking office. The ruler of Kuwait, bearing the official title of “His Majesty the Emir of the State of Kuwait,” can only be a direct descendant of Mubarak ibn al-Sabah. Belonging to the al-Sabah clan is also mandatory for the crown prince (sheikh), who is appointed by decree of the emir with the approval of the National Assembly.
The historical experience of the al-Sabah dynasty is fundamentally different from the Saudi one, since their assertion in power was not directly related to the religious factor, they did not claim family ties with the Prophet Muhammad and did not undertake military campaigns to expand the territory of their state. Therefore, Article 6 of the constitution declares that “the system of government in Kuwait is democratic, sovereignty belongs to the people (al-umma) - the source of all authorities.” The system of government in this state operates on the principle of separation of powers, which “cooperate with each other” and “cannot transfer all or part of their powers as defined in the constitution.”
Legislative power according to the constitution belongs to the emir and the National Assembly (Majlis al-umma), and executive power to the emir and the cabinet of ministers. Judicial power on behalf of the emir is exercised by the courts “within the boundaries established by the constitution.” The emir exercises his power through ministers, whom he appoints and dismisses on the recommendation of the prime minister. The prime minister himself is also appointed by the emir “after traditional consultations.”
The Prime Minister and ministers are collectively responsible to the Emir for the general policy of the state, and each minister is individually responsible to the Emir for the functioning of his ministry. Each minister is also responsible to the National Assembly for those matters that are under the jurisdiction of that ministry. The resignation of a minister is carried out at his personal request or at the request of at least 10 deputies. If the National Assembly expresses no confidence in a minister, he is considered removed from office, and ministers who are members of the National Assembly do not participate in voting on the vote of no confidence.
The resignation of the prime minister is carried out by decree of the emir and entails the resignation of the entire cabinet. A question of mistrust to the Prime Minister not subject to debate in the National Assembly. However, if the National Assembly decides that it cannot further cooperate with this Prime Minister, the issue of confidence in the Prime Minister is referred to the head of state. In this case, the emir can either dismiss the prime minister from his post or dissolve the National Assembly. In the event of the dissolution of the National Assembly, if the newly elected National Assembly decides by a majority vote that it also cannot cooperate with the said Prime Minister, then the Emir must dismiss him and form a new cabinet.
The Emir may dissolve the National Assembly by issuing a justified decree, but the National Assembly cannot be dissolved twice for the same reason. In the event of dissolution, elections to a new National Assembly must take place within a period not exceeding two months from the date of its dissolution. Throughout the history of Kuwait's independent development, the parliament was dissolved 4 times: in 1976 (it was restored only in 1981), 1986 (there was no parliament until 1990), 1991 and 1998.
The Emir convenes the National Assembly by decree for a regular session in October of each year, but Article 86 stipulates that if such a decree is not followed before October 1, then the National Assembly meets on the third Sunday in October, at 9.00 am. The Emir may convene the National Assembly for an emergency session and extend the work of the regular or emergency session.
In the field of lawmaking, the emir has the right to initiate, approve and promulgate laws. The Emir may return the bill for reconsideration based on a reasoned decree. If the National Assembly re-votes in favor of the bill by a majority of 2/3 of its members, the emir will promulgate it within 30 days.
The emir appoints governors (usually representatives of the ruling dynasty) to the provinces and major cities of the country, whose candidacies are approved by the National Assembly. Municipal councils in provinces and cities are elected, and their chairmen and deputies are appointed by the government.
The emir is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces; he appoints and dismisses senior officers in accordance with the law; declares by his decree a “defensive war”; "offensive war" is prohibited. The Emir declares a state of emergency in the country by issuing a decree, which is submitted to the National Assembly within 15 days after its issuance. If the declaration of a state of emergency occurs while the National Assembly is dissolved, the decree must be submitted to the new assembly at its first session. The extension of the state of emergency can only take place if a majority of the members of the National Assembly vote in favor of it; Moreover, the question of extending the state of emergency is raised every 3 months. If the Emir's decrees are not submitted to the National Assembly, they cease to have effect without further decision on this issue.
The emir concludes treaties by issuing a decree and submits them to the National Assembly. The agreement comes into force after its signature, ratification and publication in the Official Gazette. However, treaties of peace and alliances, treaties relating to the territory of a state, its sovereignty and natural resources, public or private rights of citizens, agreements on trade and navigation, agreements entailing additional expenses not provided for by the state budget, as well as agreements providing for changes in the legislation of Kuwait, come into force only on the basis of specially adopted laws.
There is a certain specificity of the status of the head of state in Qatar and Oman, where there is no parliament, however, the Shura Council (Consultative Council) in Oman has already been transformed into a bicameral body that is elected by its subjects and has the right to initiate legislation, just like in Qatar. This type of monarchy is sometimes defined as “deliberative parliamentarism.”
In Qatar, legislative power is exercised by the Shura Council, which approves the general policies of the government, the country's budget and exercises control over the executive branch (Article 76 of the 2003 constitution). The Shura Council consists of 45 members, 30 of whom are elected by direct, universal and secret vote, and 15 are appointed by the emir from among ministers or other persons. The emir is entrusted with executive power, which he exercises with the help of the Council of Ministers.
The emir appoints the prime minister, and, at his proposal, the remaining ministers, dismisses them from office and accepts their resignations. The Emir has the power to establish and organize ministries and other government bodies and determine their functions, as well as advisory bodies that will assist him in management and control. Article 121 of the constitution establishes that the Council of Ministers exercises the powers of “the highest executive body and manages all internal and external affairs within its jurisdiction, in accordance with the Basic Law and current legislation.” The Emir may require the Prime Minister and ministers to submit a report on any matter of national importance within the scope of his authority.
The Prime Minister and ministers are collectively responsible to the Emir for the implementation of general government policies, and each of them is individually responsible to the Emir for the exercise of their powers and duties. The Qatari Constitution also provides for a specific role for the Prime Minister, who “presides over meetings of the Council of Ministers, organizes these meetings and supervises the coordination of the work of various ministries with a view to achieving unity and harmony of government bodies” (Article 125).
- Kuwaiti historians claim that the ideas of representative government in the country began to make their way back in the early 1920s of the 20th century, when the first Advisory Council (Majlis al-Shura), consisting of 12 highly respected people in the country, was formed under the emir. In 1938, a Legislative Assembly was formed, similar in its functions to the modern parliament, but this body existed for only 6 months.
In a dualistic monarchy, the ruler formally coordinates his actions with other government officials, such as parliament. But in practice, he can implement and make any of his decisions alone. Since the monarch chooses all the employees of the ruling apparatus and advisers himself and at the slightest disobedience he can fire them.
This form of government got its name due to the fact that in the country’s power structure, in addition to the monarch, there is another important person - the first minister. The essence of such dual power implies that all orders of the monarch must be confirmed by the minister and only after that put into effect.
However, only the monarch himself can appoint the first minister, and he can also remove him from office at will. Thus, a dualistic monarchy is often reduced to absolute power, passed down from generation to generation through a dynasty.
History of the dualist monarchy
Dualistic monarchy developed historically as a transitional form from absolute to constitutional monarchy. Its structure presupposes the presence of a constitution. Parliament makes laws, and government is in the hands of the monarch. It is he who appoints the executive ministers, who are responsible only to him.
The government usually submits in reality to the will of the monarch, but formally bears double responsibility to parliament and the monarch. The peculiarity of the system of government is that, although the power of the monarch is limited by the constitution, both due to constitutional norms and due to traditions, the sole ruler retains broad powers of power. This puts him at the center of the state’s political system.
The prevailing view among historians is that a dualistic monarchy is a kind of compromise between the absolute power of the monarch and the desire of the people to participate in the political life of the state. Often such regimes become an intermediate link between a republic and an absolute monarchy (dictatorship).
In a dualistic monarchy, the ruler has the right of absolute veto, which means that he can block any law and, without his approval, it will not come into force. In addition, the monarch can issue emergency decrees, which have the force of law and even higher, and most importantly, he has the right to dissolve parliament. All this in many ways actually replaces the dualistic monarchy with an absolute one.
Currently, such a state apparatus is almost never found. Most countries have chosen a presidential-parliamentary type of government, supported by the voice of the people.
Countries with dual monarchy
Some states today remain faithful to historically established traditions in the management system. Among them one can find examples of a dualistic monarchy. There are such states on all continents of the Eastern Hemisphere. In particular, in Europe these include:
- Luxembourg,
- Sweden,
- Monaco,
- Denmark,
- Liechtenstein.
In the Middle East:
- Jordan,
- Bahrain,
- Kuwait,
- United Arab Emirates.
On Far East You can call it Japan. Political scientists simultaneously classify a number of these countries as absolute monarchies, where all executive and legislative powers are in the hands of one ruler. It is worth noting that in some states the concepts of constitutional and dualistic monarchy are considered synonymous. For example, these are the countries: Sweden, Denmark, Luxembourg. In the countries of Asia and Africa: Morocco, Nepal and Jordan, there is also a dualistic monarchy.
But still, today a political system in which the power of the sovereign is greater than the parliamentary one can be called a rather rare phenomenon. Monarchies as such either, as in European countries, turned into decoration, or simply disappeared from the political map of the world.
Historians name several countries where the dualistic principle of government actually existed at the turn of the 19th-20th centuries. This, for example, happened in many important countries: Italy, Prussia, Austria-Hungary. However, such systems of power were swept away by revolutions and world wars.
Even such recognized dualist monarchies as Morocco and Jordan, according to political scientists, rather gravitate towards absolutism. However, this can be explained by the significant role of traditions and customs in a Muslim country. In Jordan, for example, the government is responsible to parliament, but if parliament wants to remove the cabinet, it will need the king's approval to do so. This means that the monarch has all the leverage to, if necessary, not pay attention to the opinion of the legislative branch.
Retrospective
IN Russian Empire A dualistic monarchy was also briefly established. This happened in 1905, when the authority of Emperor Nicholas II fell sharply. The decline in popularity was due to defeat in the war against Japan and armed uprisings among the population, which ended in unprecedented bloodshed. Under public pressure, Nicholas II agreed to give up his absolute power and established a parliament.
The period of dualistic monarchy in Russia lasted until 1917. This was the decade between two revolutions. All this time, conflicts regularly broke out between the legislative and executive powers. Nicholas II, supported by Prime Minister Pyotr Stolypin, dissolved parliament more than once. Only State Duma of the third convocation worked for the entire period allotted by law until the February Revolution.
The Austro-Hungarian Empire is considered the most prominent representative of a dualistic monarchy in the past. This form of government was established from 1867 until the collapse of the empire. The peculiarity of this state was that it was divided into two autonomous parts with their own rules and laws.
Looking even further back through the centuries, one finds a similar form of government throughout Europe and Asia. The dualistic monarchy was like a transitional stage from the absolute power of the throne to a parliamentary system that lasted many centuries.
Stability of the system of dualistic monarchy
The stability of the dual monarchy system is based on the division of power. Most often, dualistic and parliamentary monarchies are compared, the features of which are similar. However, if in a parliamentary monarchy the separation of powers is complete, then in a dualistic monarchy it is curtailed. When a monarch interferes in the work of parliament or blocks its decisions, he thereby deprives the people of representation in the political life of the state.
It is precisely this blurring of the dualistic monarchy that violates its stability. Therefore, such regimes usually do not exist for a long time in historical perspective. With the separation of powers, there is usually a struggle between the freedom-loving part of society and the conservative institution of the monarchy. Such a confrontation ends with the victory of only one of the parties.