In the modern world, there are just over 230 states and self-governing territories with international status. Of these, only 41 states have a monarchical form of government, not counting several dozen territories under the rule of the British crown.
It would seem that in the modern world there is a clear preponderance on the side of the republican states. But upon closer examination, it turns out that these countries for the most part belong to the Third World and were formed as a result of the collapse of the colonial system.
Often created along colonial administrative boundaries, these states are highly volatile entities. They can be fragmented and modified, which can be seen, for example, in Iraq. They are gripped by incessant conflicts, like a significant number of African countries. And it is quite obvious that they are not included in the category of advanced states.
Today monarchy Is an extremely flexible and multifaceted system ranging from the tribal form, successfully operating in the Arab states of the Middle East, to the monarchical version of the democratic state in many European countries.
Here is a list of states with monarchies and territories under their crown:
Europe
Andorra - co-princes Nicolas Sarkozy (since 2007) and Joan Enric Vives y Sicilla (since 2003)
Belgium - King Albert II (since 1993)
Vatican - Pope Benedict XVI (since 2005)
Great Britain - Queen Elizabeth II (since 1952)
Denmark - Queen Margrethe II (since 1972)
Spain - King Juan Carlos I (since 1975)
Liechtenstein - Prince Hans-Adam II (from 1989)
Luxembourg g - Grand Duke Henri (since 2000)
Monaco - Prince Albert II (since 2005)
Netherlands - Queen Beatrix (since 1980)
Norway - King Harald V (from 1991)
Sweden - King Carl XVI Gustaf (from 1973)
Asia
Bahrain - King Hamad Ibn Isa Al-Khalifa (since 2002, Emir 1999-2002)
Brunei - Sultan Hassanal Bolkiah (from 1967)
Bhutan - King Jigme Khesar Namgyal Wangchuck (since 2006)
Jordan - King Abdullah II (since 1999)
Cambodia - King Norodom Sihamoni (since 2004)
Qatar - Emir Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani (from 1995)
Kuwait - Emir Sabah al-Ahmed al-Jaber al-Sabah (from 2006)
Malaysia - King Mizan Zaynal Abidin (since 2006)
United Arab Emirates UAE - President Khalifa bin Zayed al-Nahyan (since 2004)
Oman - Sultan Qaboos bin Said (from 1970)
Saudi Arabia- King Abdullah ibn Abdel Aziz al-Saud (since 2005)
Thailand - King Bhumibol Adulyadej (from 1946)
Japan - Emperor Akihito (since 1989)
Africa
Lesotho - King Letsie III (since 1996, first time 1990-1995)
Morocco - King Mohammed VI (since 1999)
Swaziland - King Mswati III (since 1986)
Oceania
Tonga - King George Tupou V (since 2006)
Dominions
In the dominions, or kingdoms of the Commonwealth, the head is the monarch of Great Britain, represented by the governor-general.
America
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
Saint Kitts and Nevis
Saint Lucia
Antigua and Barbuda Antigua and Barbuda
Bahamas Bahamas
Barbados
Oceania
Australia
New Zealand
Papua New Guinea
Solomon islands
First place
Asia holds the first place in the number of countries with a monarchical statehood. This is a progressive and democratic Japan. The leaders of the Muslim world are Saudi Arabia, Brunei, Kuwait, Qatar, Jordan, Bahrain, Oman. Two monarchical confederations - Malaysia and the United Arab Emirates. And also - Thailand, Cambodia, Bhutan.
Second place
The second place belongs to Europe. The monarchy is represented here not only in a limited form - in the countries occupying a leading position in the EEC (Great Britain, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, etc.). But also the absolute form of government - in the "dwarf" states: Monaco, Liechtenstein, Vatican.
Third place
The third place is for the countries of Polynesia, and the fourth for Africa, where at present there are only three full-fledged monarchies: Morocco, Lesotho, Swaziland, plus several hundred "tourist" ones.
Nevertheless, a number of republican countries are forced to put up with the presence on their territory of traditional local monarchical or tribal formations, and even enshrine their rights in the constitution. These include: Uganda, Nigeria, Indonesia, Chad and others. Even countries such as India and Pakistan, which abolished the sovereign rights of local monarchs (khans, sultans, rajas, maharajas) in the early 70s of the XX century, are often forced to accept the existence of these rights, which is called de facto. Governments turn to the authority of the holders of monarchical rights when resolving regional religious, ethnic, cultural disputes and other conflict situations.
Stability and prosperity
Of course, the monarchy does not automatically solve all social, economic and political problems. But, nevertheless, it can provide a certain share of stability and balance in the political, social and national structure of society. That is why even those countries where it exists exclusively nominally, say, Canada or Australia, are in no hurry to get rid of the monarchy.
The political elite of these countries for the most part understands how important it is for the balance in society that the supreme power is a priori secured in one hand and the political circles do not oppose it, but work in the name of the interests of the entire nation.
Moreover, historical experience shows that the world's best social security systems were built in monarchical states. And this is not only about the monarchies of Scandinavia, where even the Soviet agitprop in monarchical Sweden managed to find a variant of "socialism with a human face." Such a system is built in the modern countries of the Persian Gulf, where oil is often much less than in some fields of the Russian Federation.
Despite this, in the 40-60 years since the Gulf countries gained independence, without revolutions and civil wars, liberalization of everything and everyone, without utopian social experiments, in a tough, sometimes absolutist, political system, in the absence of parliamentarism and a constitution, when all the bowels of the country belong to one ruling family, from poor Bedouins grazing camels, most of the citizens of the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and other neighboring states have turned into quite wealthy citizens.
Without delving into the endless enumeration of the advantages of the Arab social system, you can cite just a few touches. Any citizen of the country has the right to free medical care, including the one that is provided in any, even the most expensive, clinic located in any country in the world.
Also, any citizen of the country has the right to free education, coupled with free content, at any higher educational institution in the world (Cambridge, Oxford, Yale, Sorbonne). Young families are provided with housing at the expense of the state. The monarchies of the Persian Gulf are truly social states in which all conditions have been created for the progressive growth of the population's well-being.
Turning from flourishing Kuwait, Bahrain and Qatar to their neighbors in the Persian Gulf and the Arabian Peninsula, who for a number of reasons refused from the monarchy (Yemen, Iraq, Iran), we will see a striking difference in the internal climate of these states.
Who in monarchies strengthens the unity of the people?
As historical experience shows, in multinational states, the integrity of the country is primarily associated with the monarchy. We see this in the past, on the example of the Russian Empire, Austria-Hungary, Yugoslavia, Iraq. The monarchical regime that is replacing the monarchical regime, as was the case, for example, in Yugoslavia and Iraq, no longer possesses that authority and is forced to resort to atrocities that were not characteristic of the monarchical system of government.
At the slightest weakening of this regime, the state, as a rule, is doomed to disintegration. This was the case with Russia (USSR), we see this in Yugoslavia and Iraq. The abolition of the monarchy in a number of modern countries would inevitably lead to the end of their existence as multinational, united states. This primarily applies to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia.
Thus, 2007 clearly showed that in the conditions of the parliamentary crisis, which arose due to national contradictions between Flemish and Walloon politicians, only the authority of King Albert II of Belgium kept Belgium from disintegrating into two or even more independent states. In multilingual Belgium, a joke was even born that the unity of its people is held together by only three things - beer, chocolate and a king. While the abolition of the monarchical system in 2008 in Nepal plunged this state into a chain of political crises and permanent civil confrontation.
The second half of the 20th century gives us several successful examples of the return of peoples that have survived an era of instability, civil wars and other conflicts to a monarchical form of government. The most famous and, undoubtedly, largely successful example is Spain. Having gone through a civil war, an economic crisis and a right-wing dictatorship, it returned to a monarchical form of government, taking its rightful place among the family of European nations.
Cambodia was another example. Also, monarchical regimes at the local level were restored in Uganda, after the fall of the dictatorship of Marshal Idi Amin (1928-2003), and in Indonesia, which, after the departure of General Mohammed-Khoja Sukarto (1921-2008), is experiencing a real monarchical renaissance. One of the local sultanates was restored in this country two centuries later, after it was destroyed by the Dutch.
Restoration ideas are quite strong in Europe, first of all, this applies to the Balkan countries (Serbia, Montenegro, Albania and Bulgaria), where many politicians, public and spiritual leaders constantly have to speak out on this matter, and in some cases also provide support to the heads of the Royal Houses, exiled.
This is proved by the experience of the King of Albania Leki, who almost carried out an armed coup in his country, and the amazing successes of the Tsar of Bulgaria Simeon II, who created his own national movement named after him, who managed to become the Prime Minister of the country and is currently the leader of the largest opposition party in the parliament of Bulgaria, which entered the coalition government.
Among the monarchies that exist today, there are many openly absolutist in nature, although they are forced, bringing tribute to the times, to dress up in the clothes of popular representation and democracy. European monarchs in most cases do not even use the rights given to them by the constitution.
And here the principality of Liechtenstein occupies a special place on the map of Europe. Sixty years ago, it was a large village, which, by an absurd accident, gained independence. However, now, thanks to the activities of Prince Franz Joseph II and his son and successor Prince Hans Adam II, it is one of the largest business and financial centers that has managed not to succumb to promises of creating a "single European home", to defend its sovereignty and independent view of its own state device.
The stability of the political and economic systems of most monarchical countries makes them not only not obsolete, but progressive and attractive, makes them equal in a number of parameters.
So the monarchy is not an application to stability and prosperity, but an additional resource that makes it easier to endure the disease, to recover faster from political and economic adversity.
"Without a king in the head" (former monarchies)
The situation is quite common in the world when there is no monarchy in the country, but there are monarchs (sometimes they are outside the country). The heirs of royal families either claim (even formally) the throne lost by their ancestors, or, having lost official power, retain a real influence on the life of the country. Here is a list of such states.
Austria. The monarchy ceased to exist in 1918 after the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. The contender for the throne is Archduke Otto von Habsburg, son of the ousted Emperor Charles.
Albania. The monarchy ceased to exist in 1944 after the communists came to power. The contender for the throne is Leka, the son of the deposed king Zog I.
Andorra Principality... The nominal co-rulers of which are the President of France and the Bishop of Urgell (Spain); some observers consider it necessary to classify Andorra as a monarchy.
Afghanistan. The monarchy ceased to exist in 1973 after the overthrow of King Mohammed Zahir Shah, who returned to the country in 2002 after a long stay in Italy, but did not become actively involved in political life.
Benin Republic... An important role in the life of which traditional kings (ahosu) and tribal leaders play. The most famous is the now ruling king (ahosu) of Abomey - Agoli Agbo III, the 17th representative of his dynasty.
Bulgaria. The monarchy ceased to exist after the overthrow of Tsar Simeon II in 1946. The decree on the nationalization of lands belonging to the royal family was canceled in 1997. Since 2001, the former Tsar has held the post of Prime Minister of Bulgaria under the name of Simeon of Saxecoburghotsky.
Botswana. Republic since independence in 1966. The number of deputies of one of the chambers of the country's parliament - the chamber of leaders - includes the chiefs (kgosi) of the country's eight largest tribes.
Brazil. Republic since the abdication of Emperor Don Pedro II in 1889. The contender for the throne is the great-great-grandson of the abdicated emperor, Prince Luis Gastao.
Burkina Faso. Republic since independence in 1960. There are a large number of traditional states on the territory of the country, the most significant of which is Vogodogo (on the territory of the capital of the country Ouagudugu), where the ruler (moogo-naaba) Baongo II is currently on the throne.
Vatican. Theocracy (some analysts consider it one of the forms of monarchy - an absolute theocratic monarchy - but it should be borne in mind that it is not and cannot be hereditary).
Hungary. The republic since 1946, before that since 1918 was a nominal monarchy - the regent ruled in the absence of the king. Until 1918, it was part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire (emperors of Austria were also kings of Hungary), so the potential contender for the Hungarian royal throne is the same as in Austria.
East Timor . Republic since the declaration of independence in 2002. On the territory of the country there are a number of traditional states, the rulers of which have the titles of rajah.
Vietnam. The monarchy in the country finally ceased to exist in 1955, when a republic was proclaimed based on the results of a referendum in South Vietnam. Earlier, in 1945, the last Emperor Bao Dai had already abdicated the throne, but the French authorities returned him to the country in 1949 and granted him the post of head of state. The contender for the throne is the son of the emperor, Prince Bao Long.
Gambia. Republic since 1970 (from independence in 1965 until the proclamation of the republic, the Queen of Great Britain was the head of state). In 1995, Yvonne Prior, a Dutch woman from Suriname, was recognized as the reincarnation of one of the kings of antiquity and was proclaimed queen of the Mandingo people.
Ghana. Republic since 1960 (from independence in 1957 until the proclamation of the republic, the Queen of Great Britain was the head of state). Ghana's constitution guarantees the right of traditional rulers (sometimes called kings, sometimes chiefs) to participate in the management of state affairs.
Germany. Republic since the overthrow of the monarchy in 1918. The contender for the throne is Prince George Frederick of Prussia, great-great-grandson of Kaiser Wilhelm II.
Greece. The monarchy officially ceased to exist as a result of the 1974 referendum. After fleeing the country after the 1967 military coup, King Constantine of Greece currently resides in Great Britain. In 1994, the Greek government stripped the king of his citizenship and confiscated his property in Greece. The royal family is currently challenging this decision before the International Court of Human Rights.
Georgia. Republic since independence in 1991. The claimant to the throne of the Georgian kingdom, which lost its independence as a result of annexation to Russia in 1801, is Georgy Iraklievich Bagration-Mukhransky, Prince of Georgia.
Egypt The monarchy existed until the overthrow of King Ahmad Fuad II of Egypt and Sudan in 1953. Currently, the former king, who at the time of the loss of the throne was just over a year old, lives in France.
Iraq. The monarchy ceased to exist in 1958 as a result of the revolution, during which King Faisal II was killed. Claims for the Iraqi throne are expressed by Prince Ra'ad bin Zeid, brother of King Faisal I of Iraq, and Prince Sharif Ali bin Ali Hussein, the great-nephew of the same king.
Iran. The monarchy ceased to exist in 1979 after the revolution that overthrew Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi. The contender for the throne is the son of the ousted shah, Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi.
Italy. The monarchy ceased to exist in 1946 as a result of a referendum, King Umberto II was forced to leave the country. The contender for the throne is the son of the last king, Crown Prince Victor Emmanuel, Duke of Savoy.
Yemen. The republic emerged from the unification of North and South Yemen in 1990. In North Yemen, the monarchy ceased to exist in 1962. Sultanates and principalities in the territory of South Yemen were liquidated after the declaration of its independence in 1967. The contender for the throne is Prince Ahmat al-Ghani bin Mohammed al-Mutawakkil.
Cameroon. Republic since independence in 1960. There are a large number of traditional sultanates on the territory of the country, the heads of which often hold high government positions. Among the most famous traditional rulers are Sultan of Bamun Ibrahim Mbombo Njoya, sultan (baba) of the kingdom of Rei Buba Buba Abdoulaye.
Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo, formerly Zaire)... Republic since independence in 1960. There are a number of traditional kingdoms in the country. The most famous are: the Kingdom of Cuba (on the throne of King Kvete Mboke); kingdom of Luba (king, sometimes also called emperor, Kabongo Jacques); the state of Ruund (Lunda), headed by the ruler (mwaant yav) Mbumb II Muteb.
Congo (Republic of the Congo)... Republic since independence in 1960. In 1991, the country's authorities restored the institution of traditional leaders (having revised their decision 20 years ago). The most famous of the leaders is the head of the traditional Teke kingdom - King (onko) Makoko XI.
Korea. (DPRK and the Republic of Korea) The monarchy ceased to exist in 1945 due to the surrender of Japan, in 1945-1948 the country was under the control of the allied powers that won the Second World War, in 1948 two republics were proclaimed on the territory of the Korean Peninsula. Due to the fact that from 1910 to 1945 the rulers of Korea were vassals of Japan, it is customary to rank them among the Japanese imperial family. The contender for the Korean throne is the representative of this surname Prince Qiu Ri (sometimes his surname is written as Lee). On the territory of the DPRK there is a de facto hereditary form of government, but de jure it is not stipulated in the country's legislation.
Cote d'Ivoire. Republic since independence in 1960. On the territory of the country (and partly on the territory of neighboring Ghana) is the traditional kingdom of Abrons (ruled by King Nanan Ajumani Kuassi Adingra).
Laos. The monarchy ceased to exist in 1975 as a result of the communist revolution. In 1977, all members of the royal family were sent to a concentration camp ("re-education camp"). The king's two sons - Prince Sulivong Sawang and Prince Danyawong Sawang - were able to escape from Laos in 1981-1982. There is no official information about the fate of the king, queen, crown prince and other family members. According to unofficial sources, they all died of starvation in a concentration camp. Prince Sulivong Sawang, as the eldest surviving male of the clan, is a formal contender for the throne.
Libya. The monarchy ceased to exist in 1969. After the coup organized by Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, King Idris I, who was abroad during the coup, was forced to abdicate. The contender for the throne is the king's official heir (adopted son of his cousin), Prince Mohammed al-Hasan al-Rida.
Malawi. Republic since 1966 (from the moment of proclamation of independence in 1964 until the proclamation of the republic, the Queen of Great Britain was the head of state). An important role in the political life of the country is played by the supreme leader (inkosi ya makosi) Mmbelwa IV of the Ngoni dynasty.
Maldives... The monarchy ceased to exist after a referendum in 1968 (during the period of British rule, that is, before the declaration of independence in 1965, the country once already became a republic for a short time). The formal pretender to the throne, though he never announced his claims, is Prince Mohammed Nureddin, son of the Sultan of the Maldives Hasan Nureddin II (reigned 1935-1943).
Mexico. The monarchy ceased to exist in 1867 after the execution by the revolutionaries of the ruler of the empire proclaimed in 1864, Archduke Maximilian of Austria. Earlier, in 1821-1823, the country was once an independent state with a monarchical form of structure. Members of the Iturbide dynasty, whose ancestor was the Mexican emperor during this period, are contenders for the Mexican throne. The head of the Iturbide family is Baroness Maria (II) Anna Tankle Iturbide.
Mozambique. Republic since independence in 1975. On the territory of the country there is the traditional state of Manyika, whose ruler (mambo) is Mutasa Pafiva.
Myanmar (until 1989 Burma)... Republic since independence in 1948. The monarchy ceased to exist in 1885 after Burma was annexed to British India. The contender for the throne is Prince Hteiktin Tau Paya, grandson of the last king, Thibau Ming.
Namibia. Republic since independence in 1990. A number of tribes are ruled by traditional rulers. The role of traditional leaders is evidenced by the fact that Hendrik Witbui served as deputy head of government for several years.
Niger. Republic since independence in 1960. There are a number of traditional states in the country. Their rulers and tribal elders elect their own political and religious leader, who bears the title of Sultan Zinder (title is not inherited). Currently, the title of the 20th Sultan of Zinder is held by Haji Mamadu Mustafa.
Nigeria. Republic since 1963 (from independence in 1960 until the proclamation of the republic, the Queen of Great Britain was the head of state). On the territory of the country there are about 100 traditional states, whose rulers wear both the usual sounding titles of sultan or emir, and more exotic ones: aku uka, olu, igve, amanyanabo, torti tiv, alafin, both, obi, aoja, oroje, olubaka, ohimege (most often this means in translation "leader" or "supreme leader").
Palau (Belau). Republic since independence in 1994. Legislative power is exercised by the House of Delegates (Council of Chiefs), which includes the traditional rulers of the 16 provinces of Palau. The most prestigious is Yutaka Gibbons, the supreme leader (ibedul) of Koror, the country's main city.
Portugal. The monarchy ceased to exist in 1910 as a result of the escape from the country of King Manuel II, who feared for his life in connection with an armed uprising. The contender for the throne is the house of Duarte III Pio, Duke of Bragança.
Russia . The monarchy ceased to exist after the February Revolution of 1917. Although there are several contenders for the Russian throne, most monarchists recognize Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna, the great-great-granddaughter of Emperor Alexander II, as the legal heir.
Romania. The monarchy ceased to exist after the abdication of King Mihai I in 1947. After the collapse of communism, the former king visited his home country several times. In 2001, the Romanian parliament granted him the rights of a former head of state - a residence, a private car with a chauffeur, and a salary equal to 50% of the country's president's salary.
Serbia. Along with Montenegro, it was part of Yugoslavia until 2002 (the rest of the republics seceded from Yugoslavia in 1991). In Yugoslavia, the monarchy finally ceased to exist in 1945 (since 1941, King Peter II was outside the country). After his death, his son, the heir to the throne, Prince Alexander (Karageorgievich), became the head of the royal house.
United States of America... Republic since the declaration of independence in 1776. The Hawaiian Islands (annexed to the United States in 1898, acquired state status in 1959) had a monarchy until 1893. The contender for the Hawaiian throne is Prince Quentin Kuhio Kawananakoa, a direct descendant of the last Hawaiian queen Liliuokalani.
Tanzania. The republic was formed in 1964 as a result of the unification of Tanganyika and Zanzibar. On the island of Zanzibar, shortly before the unification, the monarchy was overthrown. The 10th Sultan of Zanzibar, Jamshid bin Abdullah, was forced to leave the country. In 2000, the Tanzanian authorities announced the rehabilitation of the monarch and that he has the right to return to his homeland as an ordinary citizen.
Tunisia. The monarchy ceased to exist in 1957, the next year after the declaration of independence. The contender for the throne is the Crown Prince Sidi Ali Ibrahim.
Turkey. It was proclaimed a republic in 1923 (the sultanate was abolished a year earlier, and the caliphate was abolished a year later). The contender for the throne is Prince Osman VI.
Uganda. Republic since 1963 (from independence in 1962 until the proclamation of the republic, the Queen of Great Britain was the head of state). Some of the traditional kingdoms in the country were liquidated in 1966-1967 and almost all were restored in 1993-1994. Others managed to avoid liquidation.
Philippines. Republic since independence in 1946. There are many traditional sultanates in the country. 28 of them are concentrated in the area of \u200b\u200bLake Lanao (Mindanao island). The Philippine government officially recognizes the Lanao (Ranao) Sultan Confederation as a political force representing the interests of certain segments of the island's population. The throne of the Sultanate of Sulu (located on the archipelago of the same name) is claimed by at least six people representing two clans, due to various political and financial benefits.
France. The monarchy was abolished in 1871. The heirs of various clans claim the French throne: Prince Henry of Orleans, Count of Paris and Duke of France (Orleanist aspirant); Louis Alphonse de Bourbon, Duke of Anjou (Legitimist challenger) and Prince Carl Bonaparte, Prince Napoleon (Bonapartist challenger).
Central African Republic... After gaining independence from France in 1960, a republic was proclaimed. Colonel Jean-Bedel Bokassa, who came to power in 1966 as a result of a military coup in 1976, proclaimed the country an empire and himself an emperor. In 1979, Bokassa was overthrown and the Central African Empire became the Central African Republic again. The contender for the throne is Bokassa's son, Crown Prince Jean-Bedel Georges Bokassa.
Chad. Republic since independence in 1960. Among the numerous traditional states on the territory of Chad, two should be distinguished: the Baghirmi and Vadari sultanates (both were formally liquidated after the declaration of independence and restored in 1970). Sultan (mbang) Bagirmi - Muhammad Yusuf, Sultan (colak) Vadari - Ibrahim ibn-Muhammad Urada.
Montenegro. See Serbia
Ethiopia. The monarchy ceased to exist in 1975 after the abolition of the post of the emperor. The last of the ruling emperors was Haile Selassie I, belonging to the dynasty, whose founders are considered to be Menelik I, the son of Solomon, king of Israel, from the Queen of Sheba. In 1988, in a private ceremony in London, the son of Haile Selassie, Amha Selassie I, was proclaimed the new emperor of Ethiopia (in exile).
South Africa... Since 1961 (from the moment of independence in 1910 until the proclamation of the republic, the Queen of Great Britain was the head of state). The leaders of the tribes (amakosi), as well as the ruler of the traditional kingdom of KwaZulu Goodwill Zvelitini KaBekuzulu, play an important role in the life of the country. Separately, it is worth highlighting the supreme leader of the Tembu tribe Baelekkhaya Dalindyebo a Sabata, who, in accordance with the customs of the tribe, is considered the nephew of the ex-President of South Africa Nelson Mandela. The leader of the tribe is also a well-known politician, leader of the Inkata Freedom Party, Mangosutu Gatshi Butelezi from the Butelezi tribe. During the apartheid period, the South African authorities created ten "autonomous" tribal entities called bantustans (homelands).
The discussion about Orthodoxy and the state structure, which was started in May on our website by Alexander Shchipkov, Alexey Ulyanov and Alexander Zhuravsky - continues Alexander ZAKATOV, Candidate of Historical Sciences, Associate Professor, Director of the Chancellery of the Russian Imperial House, member of the RAS Scientific Council for the Study and Protection of Cultural and Natural heritage, member of the Writers' Union of Russia:
Monarchy is a form of government established by God
The main principle of monarchy - the God-established royal power - stems from human nature itself. The Lord created man in the image and likeness of His own, and human society, ideally, should be built in the image and likeness of the Kingdom of Heaven. It is unlikely that anyone will turn their tongue to assert that republican relations are possible there.
Temporary earthly life is a preparation for eternal heavenly life. Therefore, it must proceed in the pursuit of conformity with heavenly principles. When we pray with the words of the Lord's Prayer “May come Kingdom Yours "when we confess in the Creed" His Kingdom there will be no end, ”we testify that the Kingdom is an eternal and universal principle established by God.
The Fundamentals of the Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church formulates the current position of the Church on the issue of relations with the secular republican state. And in this document, reflecting the current concrete historical situation, nowhere is it said about the "God-established republic", but contains a quote from the 6th story of the holy emperor Justinian, proclaiming the principle of the God-established royal power: “The greatest blessings bestowed on people by the supreme goodness of God are the priesthood and kingdom, of which the first takes care of divine affairs, and the second directs and takes care of human affairs, and both, coming from the same sourceare the adornment of human life. "
Attempts to present the matter in such a way that any state power is meant by "kingdom" do not stand up to criticism. If we follow such a vicious logic, then we can say that by “priesthood” Saint Justinian does not mean the Church, but any sect. Of course, by "kingdom" we mean exactly the kingdom, that is, the imperial authority established by God, and by "priesthood" - the true priesthood, that is, the hierarchy of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
Contrary to popular belief, which was confirmed as a result of not entirely successful translations of Holy Scripture (including the synodal one), not "all power is from God." The Slavic translation, which is closest to the Greek original, brings to us the true meaning of the words of the holy Apostle Paul: "There is no power, ASHEL not from God" (Rom. 13: 1). The Slavic word "asche" does not mean "which", but "if". If we compare the Greek text: "ου γαρ εστιν εξουσια ει μη απο θεου"; the Latin translation of the Bible (Vulgate): "Omnis anima potestatibus subjecta esto, non enim est potestas nisi a Deo" (Romanos. 13: 1); The Old English translation is the King James Bible: “Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God ”(Romans. 13: 1), one can be sure that in all translations the corresponding phrase means“ if not ”and not“ which ”. The semantic difference is colossal.
Any monarchy, even pagan, not to mention Christian, itself proclaims that it has divine will as its source. And the republic, on the contrary, itself denies the divine origin of power and considers the people, not God, to be the source of power.
Monarchy is not a forced, but a universal principle
The references of the opponents of the monarchy to the description of the establishment of royal power among the Hebrew people (and, by the way, not among people in general) taken out of context are untenable. The conflict situation was in the fact that the Israelis then rejected the principle of Theocracy - direct government of God, which, of course, is higher than all possible systems of power. However, such direct divine leadership took place only in relation to one people and only at a certain stage in its history - from Moses to Samuel. The sin of the Israeli people was not the desire for a monarchy, but the circumstances of the fulfillment of this desire.
If we draw an analogy, then, for example, for any person the desire to have a family, “to be fruitful and multiply,” in itself is not sinful. The denial of the sanctity and divine establishment of marriage is a heresy cursed by the apostles (see 1 Tim. 4: 1-3) and councils. But there may be, and, alas, there are more and more circumstances when a specific attempt to start a family is associated with sinful motives and a lack of understanding of the moral foundations of marriage.
It is easy to be convinced that monarchy is not a “forced form”, but a principle established by God and pleasing to Him, if you read the Holy Scripture not in fragments, but consistently and do not pull out convenient quotations from it. The King of Salem Melchizedek, who also combines the properties of a priest and a prophet, is in the Bible a type of the Savior, when God's chosen people did not exist at all. Among the positive promises given by God to the forefather Abraham, we see the prediction: "... and kings will come from you ..." (Gen. 17: 6). The holy prophet Moses, who himself was the king of Israel during the exodus from Egypt and the wandering in the wilderness (see Deut. 33: 5), commands his fellow tribesmen to put a king over themselves after coming to the promised land (see Deut. 17:14) ). And the absence of a king, Scripture directly links as a cause and effect, with a lack of justice and law. This is stated in the Book of Judges, in its last words, which previously sounded as a refrain when describing various horrific atrocities: “In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what seemed right to him ”(Judges 21:25).
Why monarchy is not a step back
The monarchy has always evolved. As a principle of state structure, it is in no way connected either with feudalism, or with slavery, or with capitalism, or with socialism. The monarchical idea of \u200b\u200bthe state - the family is compatible with any political and economic system. This is a principle of government, not just one form. There is no reason to assume that if there were no revolution, then it would have frozen in some forever given form. Therefore, the restoration of the monarchy, if it takes place, will never be a return to some old reality.
The head of the House of Romanov, Grand Duke Vladimir Kirillovich, answered this question best of all in one of his first interviews: "Monarchy is the only form of government compatible with any political system, since the monarch's mission is to be the supreme arbiter." Curiously, even such an enemy of the monarchy as V. I. Lenin admitted the same: "Monarchy is generally not uniform and unchanging, but a very flexible institution capable of adapting to various class relations of domination." (Lenin V.I. Complete works. - T. 20. - M .: GIPL, 1961. - S. 359). I repeat once again: monarchy is a timeless divine principle of power, and not a form inherent in any particular era.
Is monarchy possible in Russia?
Can we talk about what objective and subjective conditions are necessary for the restoration of the monarchy in Russia? Hundreds of volumes have to be written to answer this question. And then reality will overturn all these assumptions and constructions. If we try to highlight the main thing, then the restoration of the monarchy can occur only by the grace of God and by the will of the people. If these two prerequisites are met, all others will be subjective. The enabling conditions will be achievable and the obstacles surmountable.
What is needed in order for God's mercy and the will of the people to unite? His Holiness Patriarch Kirill, analyzing the reasons for the collapse of the monarchy and the possibility of its revival, irreproachably points out that the implementation of the monarchist idea in practice is inextricably linked with a sufficiently high level of "religious and moral state of society."
Some try to interpret the words of His Holiness the Patriarch in such a way that a true monarchy is supposedly possible only in a perfect society, consisting almost of only saints. This, of course, is a distortion of the thought of the Primate of our Church. If universal holiness were possible, then the need for an earthly state would disappear. The Kingdom of God would just come. But this will not happen until the Last Judgment.
To restore the monarchy, it is required that the religious and moral state of society reaches at least the level of consciousness that atheism and evil should not be justified and cultivated, but eradicated. All cannot become saints, and holiness does not imply, as some mistakenly believe, sinlessness. But the distinction between good and evil, the attraction to good and the desire to move away from evil is available to most people. And then comes the understanding of the need for power "according to God's will, and not according to the many-rebellious human will."
The monarchy unswervingly strives for the ideals of love, faith, hope, loyalty, justice and honor. It does not always work, but it strives, by nature.
The heredity of the royal power plays a huge role in ensuring the real, and not hypothetical, responsibility of the monarchy. The sovereign, who took power from his ancestors and realizes that he will have to pass it on to his children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren, treats the country and the people much more responsibly than a temporary worker, even the most honest and decent.
Is the monarchy hostile to democracy?
The patented "democrats" like to quote W. Churchill, who said that "democracy is a very bad system, but mankind has not come up with anything better." But they forget that these words belong to Her Majesty's Prime Minister, a convinced monarchist. This I mean that the real monarchists are real democrats. And vice versa.
Each nation has its own path of development. I do not consider it possible to condemn the Anglo-Saxon, Dutch or Scandinavian modifications of the monarchy. However, I also cannot recognize any of them as suitable for Russia. We have our own tradition of harmonious combination of management methods.
Some monarchists are convinced that democracy is by definition hostile to the monarchy. In reality, democracy or polythey (democracy, rule of the people), according to the teachings of Aristotle, is one of the forms of government, along with monarchy (autocracy) and aristocracy (the rule of the best).
In life, none of these forms exist in pure form. In any state there are spheres where autocracy and a strict hierarchy (armed forces) cannot be dispensed with, where an elite aristocratic element is needed (armed forces, health care, science, education, art) and where broad popular participation cannot be avoided (local government, organization of economic activity , that is, everything that concerns the daily life of the majority of citizens). There must be a correct balance of these forms of government.
But democracy as the supreme power of an abstract people is a fiction and in practice has never existed anywhere, because power, as a manifestation of will, is always personified. Democracy, declared the supreme power, sadly to realize, is in fact a screen for covering up the power of the oligarchy. It is said very accurately that "democracy is not the rule of the people, but the rule of the democrats." The difference between such "democrats" and monarchists is that the monarchists offer honest relations, while the "democrats" deceive the people, on whom, under their rule, nothing really depends.
Under a legitimate monarchy, democracy as an element of the state system in conjunction with the supreme God-established monarchical power and the technocratic (modern manifestation of aristocracy) power of professionals not only has a full right to exist, but is also necessary.
Most of us regard monarchy as an outdated, obsolete form of government. And the images of monarchs in our minds differ little from the pathetic and ridiculous tsars and kings from Soviet animated films. However, the facts suggest otherwise ...
A relic of the past?
“Monarchy is ... not only an image, a form of government, but also a set of certain ideas of the spiritual, state and social order. Monarchy is characterized by the principles of hereditary power, one-man rule and ... the primacy of the moral principle. The Orthodox consciousness perceived this as a personal service of the Tsar to God and his people, entrusted to him by God. This is not a career, not the pinnacle of power, but a Christian feat, being chosen, not being elected, an everlasting guard, a historical responsibility.
The Russian emperor stands above peoples, classes, tribes and parties. He is the supreme arbiter, the natural head of the country, whom even death does not exempt from debt, because his legacy remains in the family-dynasty. "
This is exactly how, back in 1948, the Russian emigrant Leonid Seversky characterized the monarchy in his article "The essence of the monarchist idea."
To this quote, which is essentially applicable not only to Christian monarchies, but also to most traditional ones, we can add that monarchy is a universal form of organization of a nation, which, in principle, can coexist with most of the known socio-political and socio-economic models.
However, over the decades, left liberals and socialists have systematically and systematically carried out the idea that monarchy is an obsolete and outdated form of government, which must inevitably be replaced by a more perfect form - republican. Traditional regimes are often condescendingly referred to by them as "fragments of feudalism on the ruins of post-industrial society."
Various considerations are put forward to prove this. First, most of the states of the world have either already abandoned the monarchical form of government, or retain it by inertia, due to the imperfection of their political system. Monarchs in such states are only a "beautiful tradition" and do not play any significant role in the foreign and domestic policies of their countries. Secondly, as proof of the "regressiveness" of the monarchy, it is argued that after its fall, not a single nation of the world not only did not return to it, but does not even make such attempts.
Such theses are very popular and tenacious in the public consciousness. However, they are false from start to finish.
Quantity or quality?
In the modern world, there are just over 230 states and self-governing territories with international status. Of these, only 41 states have a monarchical form of government, not counting a few dozen territories under the rule of the British crown. It would seem that in the modern world there is a clear preponderance on the side of the republican states. But upon closer examination, it turns out that these countries for the most part belong to the Third World and were formed as a result of the collapse of the colonial system. Often created along colonial administrative boundaries, these states are highly volatile entities. They can be fragmented and modified, which can be seen, for example, in Iraq. They are gripped by incessant conflicts, like a significant number of African countries. And it is quite obvious that they are not included in the category of advanced states.
Today, the monarchy is an extremely flexible and multifaceted system ranging from the tribal form, successfully operating in the Arab states of the Middle East, to the monarchical version of the democratic state in many European countries.
Asia holds the first place in the number of countries with a monarchical statehood. This is a progressive and democratic Japan. The leaders of the Muslim world are Saudi Arabia, Brunei, Kuwait, Qatar, Jordan, Bahrain, Oman. Two monarchical confederations - Malaysia and the United Arab Emirates. And also - Thailand, Cambodia, Bhutan.
The second place belongs to Europe. The monarchy is presented here not only in a limited form - in countries that occupy a leading position in the EEC (Great Britain, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, etc.). But also the absolute form of government - in the "dwarf" states: Monaco, Liechtenstein, Vatican.
The third place is for the countries of Polynesia, and the fourth for Africa, where only three monarchies are currently preserved: Morocco, Lesotho and Swaziland.
Nevertheless, a number of republican countries are forced to put up with the presence on their territory of traditional local monarchical or tribal formations, and even enshrine their rights in the constitution. These include: Uganda, Nigeria, Indonesia, Chad and others. Even countries such as India and Pakistan, which abolished the sovereign rights of local monarchs (khans, sultans, rajas, maharajas) in the early 70s of the XX century, are often forced to accept the existence of these rights, which is called de facto. Governments turn to the authority of the holders of monarchical rights when resolving regional religious, ethnic, cultural disputes and other conflict situations.
Stability and prosperity
Of course, the monarchy does not automatically solve all social, economic and political problems. But, nevertheless, it can provide a certain share of stability and balance in the political, social and national structure of society. That is why even those countries where it exists exclusively nominally, say, Canada or Australia, are in no hurry to get rid of the monarchy. The political elite of these countries for the most part understands how important it is for the balance in society that the supreme power is a priori secured in one hand and the political circles do not oppose it, but work in the name of the interests of the entire nation.
Moreover, historical experience shows that the world's best social security systems were built in monarchical states. And this is not only about the monarchies of Scandinavia, where even the Soviet agitprop in monarchist Sweden managed to find a variant of "socialism with a human face." Such a system is built in the modern countries of the Persian Gulf, where oil is often much less than in some fields of the Russian Federation. Despite this, in the 40-60 years since the Gulf countries gained independence, without revolutions and civil wars, liberalization of everything and everyone, without utopian social experiments, in a tough, sometimes absolutist, political system, in the absence of parliamentarism and a constitution, when all the bowels of the country belong to one ruling family, from poor Bedouins grazing camels, most of the citizens of the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and other neighboring states have turned into quite wealthy citizens.
Without delving into the endless enumeration of the benefits of the Arab social system, there are just a few touches. Any citizen of the country has the right to free medical care, including that which is provided in any, even the most expensive, clinic located in any country in the world. Also, any citizen of the country has the right to free education, coupled with free content, at any higher educational institution in the world (Cambridge, Oxford, Yale, Sorbonne). Young families are provided with housing at the expense of the state. The monarchies of the Persian Gulf are truly social states in which all conditions have been created for the progressive growth of the population's well-being.
Turning from flourishing Kuwait, Bahrain and Qatar to their neighbors in the Persian Gulf and the Arabian Peninsula, who for a number of reasons refused from the monarchy (Yemen, Iraq, Iran), we will see a striking difference in the internal climate of these states.
Who holds the unity of the people together?
As historical experience shows, in multinational states, the integrity of the country is primarily associated with the monarchy. We see this in the past, on the example of the Russian Empire, Austria-Hungary, Yugoslavia, Iraq. The monarchical regime that is replacing the monarchical regime, as it was, for example, in Yugoslavia and Iraq, no longer has that authority and is forced to resort to cruelties that were not characteristic of the monarchical system of government. At the slightest weakening of this regime, the state, as a rule, is doomed to disintegration. This was the case with Russia (USSR), we see this in Yugoslavia and Iraq. The abolition of the monarchy in a number of modern countries would inevitably lead to the end of their existence as multinational, united states. This primarily applies to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia. Thus, 2007 clearly showed that in the conditions of the parliamentary crisis, which arose due to national contradictions between Flemish and Walloon politicians, only the authority of King Albert II of the Belgians kept Belgium from disintegrating into two or even more independent states. In multilingual Belgium, a joke was even born that the unity of its people is held together by only three things - beer, chocolate and a king. Whereas the abolition of the monarchical system in 2008 in Nepal plunged this state into a chain of political crises and permanent civil confrontation.
The second half of the 20th century gives us several successful examples of the return of peoples that have survived an era of instability, civil wars and other conflicts to a monarchical form of government. The most famous and undoubtedly largely successful example is Spain. Having gone through a civil war, an economic crisis and a right-wing dictatorship, it returned to a monarchical form of government, taking its rightful place among the family of European nations. Cambodia was another example. Also, monarchical regimes at the local level were restored in Uganda, after the fall of the dictatorship of Marshal Idi Amin (1928-2003), and in Indonesia, which, after the departure of General Mohammed-Khoja Sukarto (1921-2008), is experiencing a real monarchical renaissance. One of the local sultanates was restored in this country two centuries later, after it was destroyed by the Dutch.
Restoration ideas are quite strong in Europe, first of all, this applies to the Balkan countries (Serbia, Montenegro, Albania and Bulgaria), where many politicians, public and spiritual leaders constantly have to speak out on this matter, and in some cases also provide support to the heads of the Royal Houses, exiled. This is proved by the experience of the King of Albania Leki, who almost carried out an armed coup in his country, and the amazing successes of the Tsar of Bulgaria Simeon II, who created his own national movement named after him, who managed to become the Prime Minister of the country and is currently the leader of the largest opposition party in the parliament of Bulgaria, which entered the coalition government.
Among the monarchies that exist today, there are many openly absolutist in nature, although they are forced, bringing tribute to the times, to dress up in the clothes of popular representation and democracy. European monarchs in most cases do not even use the rights given to them by the constitution.
And here the principality of Liechtenstein occupies a special place on the map of Europe. Sixty years ago, it was a large village, which, by an absurd accident, gained independence. However, now, thanks to the activities of Prince Franz Joseph II and his son and successor Prince Hans Adam II, it is one of the largest business and financial centers that has managed not to succumb to promises of creating a "single European home", to defend its sovereignty and independent view of its own state device.
The stability of the political and economic systems of most monarchical countries makes them not only not obsolete, but progressive and attractive, makes them equal in a number of parameters.
So the monarchy is not an application to stability and prosperity, but an additional resource that makes it easier to endure the disease, to recover faster from political and economic adversity.
Monarchy is such an instrument of government life, which serves its greatness. The preservation of the monarchy is the guarantee of the preservation of the Fatherland. This was the opinion of the great historian of Russia N.M. Karamzin.
According to the definition of the author of the "English Constitution" Walter Baighot, monarchy is when one person, doing great things, concentrates all the attention of people on himself. And this is in contrast to the republic, when it is divided among many, none of whom does anything memorable.
The most powerful form of government was monarchy in the eyes of the most famous French writer Jean-Jacques Rousseau.
The most natural form of government, the best and most correct, was considered by the Greek philosopher Aristotle. By his definition, it grows out of the people and exists for the people. And translated from Greek, it means the power of a single person. 
The main idea of \u200b\u200bthe monarchy is that a person alone rules, is considered a godly figure and for this reason makes all who believe are supporters of monarchism.
The monarch himself, as the anointed of God, is perceived as a symbol of morality, not at all legally, which contributes to the strengthening of the patriotism of the country's citizens. He rules the people for the good, fully realizes his responsibility. As a rule, he is a rather experienced politician, because he is taught to rule from childhood.
This ideology is close to the supporters of autocracy, as well as absolutism, when the monarch in the country is the sole ruler. Monarchism also has other directions:
- Constitutional, when the government is exercised by parliament, and the monarch's role is almost decorative, for example, as in Spain, Denmark or Great Britain. It serves as a symbol of the country.
- Dualistic, in which the monarch and parliament rule together and there is a division of power into judicial, executive and legislative.
- Parliamentary, with a monarch in control of the judiciary.
The main feature of any monarchy is having a single chapter, which has a lifelong power, inherited. It is he who represents the country in the political arena, and is also the guardian and guarantor of the continuity of traditions. 
Pluses of the monarchy
There are many and all kinds of opinions about this type of government. But no matter what anyone says, there are advantages so obvious that it is rather difficult to dispute them.
- Decisions are made very quickly and are just as quickly implemented. This is the first thing to think about. Actually, everything depends on a single person. No debate-discussion. And this is especially important and effective when a difficult time has come for the country. Even if the power of the monarch is a formality, he can become a symbol of the unity of the state.
- It is easier to carry out long-term transformations in the state. The replacement of leaders with one another in a democracy threatens a change of course, often to a sharply opposite one. And this can threaten the well-being of the country and its citizens. But the monarch is able to implement radical transformations that are unpopular at the present time, but are necessary in the future.
- The monarch does not seek to improve his own welfare at the expense of the state. This is obvious, he himself is a state.
- Unity of power. The monarch is not just one-man power, it is also a solid system of power.
- The coming to power of a random person is excluded.
The monarch, by virtue of his upbringing and circumstances, understands how responsible the place he occupies is. He is not a random person for whom power is only a goal.
Among the undoubted advantages are greater confidence of the monarch in his power, and hence the minimum of political repression. And the political upheavals of the monarchy are not as terrible as the republic, for example, because the successor is usually known. 
Cons of the monarchy
But not everything is so smooth and beautiful. And the disadvantages of the monarchical system of government in some way may overshadow its advantages.
- The succession to the throne is wonderful. But no one can guarantee that the successor will turn out to be a good ruler, that he will be capable of making the right decisions, that he can lead the people, or, on the contrary, that he will not turn out to be a tyrant. And then the monarchy will easily turn into a dictatorship. Moreover, history knows many examples of a bloody struggle for the throne, when the heirs killed both the monarch and other pretenders. And it will hardly be possible to change the monarch.
- The monarch makes decisions quickly, firmly and individually. But he does not bear any responsibility to anyone for this, even if they contradict state interests.
- There is no need to talk about pluralism under a monarchy.
- Monarchy by its very existence contributes to the violation of the principle of equality of people.
- Even if the monarchy is formal, considerable funds are spent from the state budget for its maintenance. This is especially costly for small states.
World history in the past three centuries has not spared the monarchy. A good example is the French Revolution, which was supposed to deal the death blow by executing the king and his wife. But 80 years had to pass, two emperors of Napoleon and two kings by blood had to reign, before the republic finally triumphed in the country.
This form of government as a monarchy has died many times. But over and over she lives. And today the European constitutional monarchies (there are about one and a half dozen), the Japanese, the Middle East monarchies are proof of this.
Until recently, I found it difficult to define my political preferences. By default, I put "liberal". But what about freedom, all things ... Only now I understand what the essence of this so-called freedom is ... But the article is not about that, but about the monarchy.
Previously, I did not hesitate to condemn absolutism and was skeptical about it. She considered him a relic of the past. Until she began to study history. Especially - the history of the Great Russian Empire. And everything somehow immediately fell into place in my head.
So why monarchy?
The answer is much simpler than it sounds. Because the monarch has a lifetime power. Which he passes on to his children.
So what of that - you ask. Here's what.
Answer 3 questions, just honestly:
- Will you make quality repairs in a rented apartment? No? And in your own?
- Will you gently wash your rented car by polishing it to a high shine with expensive products? Or do that only if it's yours?
- And, finally, will you work “for your uncle” as diligently and selflessly as for yourself, for your business?
That's just it. If you know that this is yours. Then you take responsibility for it. You put your strength, time, money and soul into it.
Why would a monarch “do badly” to his country? After all, he will pass it on to his son. And so on. The rule "after us the deluge" will not work here.
And what about the interim ruler? He doesn't care what happens next. The main thing for him is to have time to snatch more money for himself. So that later, when he is removed, he can live for his own pleasure.
Perhaps you will argue - monarchs are also different. There are crazy people. There are tyrants. This is how such a person will ascend the throne - and what to do? Torment until he dies?
No, history says. Let's see some examples.
Peter III
He reigned for only 6 months. At the age of 30, he entertained himself by hanging rats, playing toy soldiers and marching at night in the Winter Palace. He spoke Russian poorly. In the political arena he acted against Russia, in favor of his idol - the king of Prussia. There is evidence that the sovereign suffered from manic-depressive psychosis. The bottom line? A sudden mysterious death in the suburbs of St. Petersburg.
Paul I
He ruled the country for 4 years, 4 months and 4 days. Nervous, capricious and not too adequate, the emperor was pedantic to the point of madness. He found fault with the costumes of the courtiers, kept the officers at bay. He suffered from paranoia - he saw murderers everywhere. Result? A blow to the temple with a snuffbox and suffocation with a scarf in the Mikhailovsky Castle.
My conclusion. A monarchy, or at least a firm and more or less permanent power of one president, is a guarantee that this person will really develop the country with all his might. Instead of "grabbing" money and running away at the first opportunity, knowing that in a year he will still have to give up his "throne" to someone else.
