Does Russia need a monarchy? Poll

Does Russia need a monarchy?

Rather yes than not - 916 (41.75%)
41.75%
Needed, but limited, following the example of the UK - 257 (11.71%)
11.71%
Needed in the long term - 260 (11.85%)
11.85%
Rather no than yes - 130 (5.93%)
5.93%
No, not needed in any form - 592 (26.98%)
26.98%
I do not know - 39 (1.78%)
1.78%
A significant part of the Russian patriots believe that the USSR was the most optimal regime for most of the nation’s powers, but not everyone thinks so. For them, the USSR is the time when the Russian interrupted historical power, the tradition of Russian statehood. In many ways, this position is supported by the current Russian authorities and is oriented toward the powers that be, the intelligentsia. For them, the film "Admiral" is a true historical truth. Some patriots of Russia are monarchists, they believe that Russia should again become a monarchist country. There are several options - some believe that it is simply necessary, following the example of Great Britain, to make monarchical power a symbol of Russia, while others want a real autocratic power.


Moreover, one can notice certain “signals” to society: mostly positive opinions about the pre-revolutionary period of the history of Russia, which were adopted by the intelligentsia serving the government, such as the 1992 film “Russia We Lost” by Stanislav Govorukhin. In Russia, the “heir” of the throne, Georgy Romanov, was received with honor, they treat with great trepidation news associated with the royal dynasty of England.

Consider the pros and cons of an autocratic, unlimited monarchy, since in a limited sense, there is almost no point, just entertain tourists, and other onlookers. In addition, there is an important financial factor - to keep a yard useless to the people is stupid, there is no common sense in this.

Arguments for monarchy (autocratic power)

- The monarch is actually the “father” of the people, the idea of ​​the State-Family is embodied. This will solve many problems when the presidents are inherently temporary workers for whom the time of management is “feeding”. He is the real Master of his land, so he will not destroy it. He will not be a thief - he is already the “master” of everything, so he will not be encouraged to look beyond the theft of others, because his legacy will be stolen. Monarchy is in fact the most honest way to govern, he rules not because he was supported by financial aces (it is common knowledge that in democratic countries, the same USA, he who has invested more finances wins) and lied about his future actions best of all. the will of God and the consent of the people.

- Great savings and stability of the state - endless elections, campaigns, which take a lot of money and forces, stop. Management acquires greater stability - everyone is confident in the future, less disagreement in society. The monarch, after all, is a sacred (sacred) figure, which only by its presence creates a connection with “heaven”. The monarchy contributes to the development of long-term tasks - scientific, technical, military, space, economic, etc.

- The monarch is brought up in the Russian spirit, so it’s hard to imagine that the “best German” like Gorbachev, or the “friend of the French” like Medvedev would be at the head of the state. Interests powers for him above all.

- Russian autocratic power will help the restoration of the Russian Game Rules in Russia, and then on the planet. The word “autocracy” itself speaks about this - the monarch will “hold himself” the power.

- Monarch since childhood to prepare to govern, to rule, so he was initially better prepared for managerial functions than presidents, prime ministers, etc.

- It is easier for the monarch to punish (repress) officials, business representatives, etc., or vice versa, to encourage, reward citizens, as his right is based not only on the basis of the law, but also on the basis of his sacredness.

- Monarchy is the best way to control a multinational and multi-religious power, since only a strong, consecrated central government can extinguish centrifugal processes.

- The aesthetic effect, many are read by combat fantasy and love historical novels, therefore such phenomena as the “imperial guard”, the “imperial fleet” and other romantic aura inherent in the monarchy are positive. That is the monarchy is beautiful.

Против

- In fact, the main disadvantage of the monarchy comes from the personal qualities of the monarch. At the new Zemsky Sobor, citizens of Russia can choose a truly worthy person, a patriot of their history, people, ready for hard work for the good of the Motherland, but unfortunately, children are not always worthy of their parents. As a result, the failure of domestic and foreign policy is possible - to recall at least Peter III, who actually destroyed the brilliant results of the Seven Years War with Prussia (then East Prussia became part of Russia), concluding a separate peace. Possible infertility or severe disease of the monarch.

- A tyrannical propensity, or pathological propensity may develop after the first period of government, a person may degrade over time. The issue of control over the main man of power - the Supreme.

- Degeneration, the distortion of the monarchy, turning it into tyranny. This phenomenon is accompanied by other negative phenomena: abuse of the power of the monarch, or his entourage; personal crimes of the monarch or his retinue; extra people of their rights and freedoms, persecution of dissidents, religious, national oppression; state collapse, revolution, with the connivance or assistance of the ruler.

In general, if we study the issue, it becomes clear that the monarchical system has a lot of merit when a strong, dignified person is at the head of a state. And this system has the right to life, if it is supplemented with some measures of a controlling nature: to create a system of education for the Russian aristocracy (not hereditary, each generation must prove its elitism), the extensive development of self-government, such as zemstvos, bureaucracy radically reduced; the gradual arming of the people - initially the right to weapon people should receive as a reward for any difference (Hero of Russia, Hero of Labor, etc.), then the commanding staff of the Armed Forces, the restored military estate of the Russian people - the Cossacks.

Does Russia need a monarchy? Poll
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

39 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Siberian
    Siberian 27 July 2011 09: 13 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Full * bullshit! At times, Samsonov writes wonderful articles, but sometimes such a *** nude pushes that you wonder. What a monarchy ?! What Zemsky Sobor ?!
  2. Skills 27 July 2011 10: 02 New
    • 14
    • 0
    +14
    Did not the monarchy Russia-Russia-USSR have achieved the most impressive successes in their development? Svyatoslav, Ivan the Terrible, Alexander The third examples of this. Yes, and Stalin can be safely recorded in the red emperors. Just need a good control mechanisms.
    1. Evgan
      Evgan 27 July 2011 11: 23 New
      • -13
      • 0
      -13
      Skill, but was the price of achieving these successes great? I, in particular, about the successes under Stalin.
      1. Skills 27 July 2011 11: 30 New
        • 11
        • 0
        +11
        The price of "democratic" reforms is higher, and the "successes" are almost continuous negative
        1. Evgan
          Evgan 27 July 2011 13: 45 New
          • -5
          • 0
          -5
          Higher? Oh oh
          Although, about the "success" I agree with you.
        2. fantast 28 July 2011 00: 50 New
          • 5
          • 0
          +5
          Skills,
          Totally agree with you!
          Name at least one significant achievement of our country on the world stage over the past 20 years?
          1. smoke
            smoke 5 February 2012 20: 31 New
            • -1
            • 0
            -1
            Russia has not broken up.
            Remember what we ourselves were in 20 years. And then the country after a global catastrophe (decay).
  3. Gur
    Gur 27 July 2011 10: 23 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    What nonsense !!! What kind of monarchy ???? Can you imagine what will begin if you introduce the monarchy ... so many descendants will come out ... not only of the royal family, but of all the Mikhalkovs and so on and so on ... and the return of the lost land .. palaces and so on will begin .. ending dishes. Then these people need to recover their capital lost during the years of Owls. authorities. So I think they will not be up to the state. So to hell with them from Owls. power and not a monarchy. For what the hell did the people suffer .. so that the teracha would return everything ?? We need a normal government, a normal law .. to remove criminal immunity from persons in power ie if the people have a claim to the president after his reign, he should answer and not run over the hill. It should also concern everyone who is responsible for the fate of the country. And I would also enter a link without the right to leave the country. Caught stealing or intentionally causing harm to the state ..
    Siberia with complete confiscation. And the land would be inhabited and raised, unless of course they want to live. And the fact that Skill gives examples here ... it's all bullshit .. theft and embezzlement was with all the kings .. there were ups both under Peter 1 and giving .. after him. Stalin recorded in the red emperors? Maybe he ruled as an emperor .. but nevertheless, I don’t remember deeds or rumors about personal savings in any banks or about any diamonds hidden from the people.
    1. PSih2097 27 July 2011 23: 58 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      No, to Siberia it’s not interesting, to the Red Square against the mausoleum from SKS to the forehead, live. then maybe he will get another bill for the patronage of the family after full compensation of property.
      1. Eric
        Eric 28 July 2011 00: 16 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        I will support, but at the expense of the monarchy - the king makes the retinue!
  4. Superduck
    Superduck 27 July 2011 10: 42 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Do not confuse strong power with absolute power. Absolute power kills a person in a person.
  5. Superduck
    Superduck 27 July 2011 11: 47 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    The question is not what it is called, but what kind of counterbalance system is in the structure. Now the system of transfer of power in Russia from the monarchist is not very different, the people actually do not elect a new president but approve or not the president, for example, in many countries the parliament chooses the prime minister, the president / king gives the candidature (sometimes several times) and the parliament approves or not.
    If we talk about balances ... In Moscow Russia there was an institution of a boyar veche. For example, petitions that the Cossack foreman formed after the Pereyaslav Rada were actually voted by the boyars on points, there is historically evidence. If I'm not mistaken, Peter the Great dispersed this business and became an autocrat in fact, and he had all the qualities to make decisions on his own. As soon as the emperor came to the throne who did not possess the necessary personal qualities, squabbles, regicide, and so on immediately came because there was no one to supplement the power vacuum. But at the same time, the Duma in the 20th century was not able to compensate for the weakness of Nicholas II, probably because he was in opposition for the most part.
    Nevertheless, modern monarchies are considered to be very arbitrary as such, therefore, they should not be considered seriously, however, in the heyday of the same English monarchy, it had serious balances, primarily the House of Commons, while Britain remained an amazingly politically and socially stable country for centuries. Therefore, in England there is a tradition, no one can rise above the nation, neither the monarch nor the prime minister, this tradition is cruel in many respects, but for the British to remove a person who began to feel like a demigod is a matter of honor, to remember at least Sir Winston, who is 45- m with a bang rolled in the elections, and they were at the peak!
    So the monarchy or democracy in itself does not determine anything, everything determines the structure of the balances in society and politics, these are: the army, civil society, the repressive apparatus, parties and parliament, the president. If a compromise between their influence is reached, then snooping about the appearance of democracy is not necessary. Only one thing, as for me, is invariably important - the rule of law, this is the thing that balances everything else; if this is not there, then it makes no sense to depict all kinds of changes, which we are all observing now.
  6. figwam 27 July 2011 12: 55 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    The monarchy is not needed, this will further exacerbate the situation in the country, but it is necessary to change power.
  7. PSih2097 27 July 2011 13: 06 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    The picture pleased, they laughed all over the office ... Although seriously, let there be any form of government, if only the government was strong and responsible for its words, and not as it is now, promised, chose and ultimately sent all tries ... by 4 of the year.
  8. radio operator 27 July 2011 13: 33 New
    • -2
    • 0
    -2
    The monarchy today is rather not.
    Although, the current vertical line of power is more like a monarchy than democracy.
    1. PSih2097 27 July 2011 23: 59 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Plutocracy is called (dr. Greek. - wealth, - rule) ...
  9. svvaulsh
    svvaulsh 27 July 2011 14: 20 New
    • -2
    • 0
    -2
    Meaning? Extra waste of money. Although renaming the police to the police also seemed absurd. So with our leadership and monarchy is possible. I wonder how else Lenin was not taken out of the mausoleum !? Probably after the election, in case of victory they plan. (Personally, I’m on the drum, where it will lie).
  10. Civil 27 July 2011 14: 46 New
    • -1
    • 0
    -1
    absolute power is anarchy,
    tyranny ... like anarchy again
    strong power - anarchy
    authoritarian power - anarchy
    elected power - anarchy
    any political system as a whole, a compromise between nothing and an imaginary transfer of powers and rights to the ruling institution of power

    thus the monarchy is probably a passed stage, however, all unstable countries are likely to return (relatively)
  11. Petrol 27 July 2011 18: 25 New
    • -1
    • 0
    -1
    the strange little article has the impression that ... someone is trying to conduct reconnaissance in battle ... before the attack ... I see that the chain of events taking place in Europe is built to undermine and redistribute the spheres of economic influence, moreover, on a religious subtext ....
  12. Sirius
    Sirius 27 July 2011 21: 58 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    "You cannot enter the same river twice." It will not be possible to recreate either the Russian Empire in the form of a monarchy, or the USSR. If united, then into something new supranational, interethnic community, union, etc. etc. Then there were only conditions, some people. Now the conditions and people are different. There is a saying: "Fedot, but not that one!" We, all in the post-Soviet space, are such "Fedots".
    PS For example: I do not want to live in the same federation with the Balts and Georgians. That may very confederate. But, this is my, I repeat, personal vision.
    1. PSih2097 28 July 2011 00: 01 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      I think the USSR can be revived, RI will not work, because To do this, it will be necessary to destroy everyone who found the Soviet Union.
      1. Evgan
        Evgan 28 July 2011 09: 35 New
        • -3
        • 0
        -3
        However ... How do you imagine the revival of the USSR? Given the fact that neither the Balts, nor the Georgians, nor the Uzbeks, all sorts of people will voluntarily go to it. Or repeat the 1940th?
        1. Ivan35
          Ivan35 28 July 2011 19: 43 New
          • 3
          • 0
          +3
          I quote - Balts Uzbeks and Georgians will not go

          But Belarusians and Kazakhs go with their oil - and this is almost 80% of the USSR economy according to the Russian leadership. CES is real - all documents signed are agreed - since 2012 we live in a new country. TS already mastered - the last stage

          But we won’t pull the Baltic states and Uzbeks - even if they don’t go yet
          1. Evgan
            Evgan 29 July 2011 09: 41 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Belarusians and Kazakhs - yes. Ukrainians (if we consider Ukraine in the form in which it is now, with all its contradictions), rather no than yes.
            I had in mind that although the USSR was a confederation under the Constitution, in fact the Union was rather a unitary state. And neither the Kazakhs nor the Belarusians will agree to this. Therefore, the restoration of the USSR in the form in which it existed for 80 years, in my opinion, is impossible. A union state is another matter, but here the degree of “union” will be much lower than in the XNUMXth century.
  13. magirus.75
    magirus.75 28 July 2011 01: 59 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    I read your comments. Thoughts are both good and practical. Just what your thoughts will change in our state without implementation? our people are depraved, always been a thief. Grandfather Stalin, admittedly, was the best transformer and creator. We still need the Iron Curtain, cultural enlightenment and battle with class enemies.
    1. Evgan
      Evgan 28 July 2011 09: 38 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      The converter - yes. The creator is not, for all his creative actions (industrialization, militarization) were based on the destruction of other things - families (repression and exile), peasantry (collectivization), sovereignty of some nations (Baltic States).
      Now I do not give an assessment of whether it was right or wrong, I simply state the facts - what was, was.
  14. Forward 28 July 2011 07: 53 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    In Russia, they have always loved strong rulers. Even those who planted their will with fire and sword. And there are a lot of examples in Russian history. I am also for a strong ruler. And your comments, dear visitors of this site, traced the desire to have one. Well, just think about it, the monarchy in the form in which it existed before the revolution can no longer be. But military democracy may well arise in our country. But it will be painful, frankly. But the country will be possible to resemble the Genghis Khan Empire in its political structure. And as you know in his country, the political system and economic components were the most powerful. Because, although he was called the emperor, he was in fact a president for life who had to reckon with the opinions of those who carried weapons. And his army was multinational and everyone had the right to vote, and there was no interracial feud.
    1. Ivan35
      Ivan35 29 July 2011 20: 15 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      The Russians inherited Eurasia and responsibility for it from the Mongols. In a sense, Russia is the heiress of the Golden Horde. All Eurasia looks at the Russians with hope - they either wake up and remember their greatness - or fall apart.
  15. PSih2097 1 August 2011 22: 37 New
    • -1
    • 0
    -1
    To begin with, I advise all monarchists to listen and ponder the text of the monarchist anthem, “God Save the Tsar,” it will become clear that there can be no talk of any monarchy, that the current royal fragments are not suitable for a number of reasons.
  16. Kazakh 2 August 2011 14: 24 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Samsonov Alexander --- In fact, the main minus of the monarchy comes from the personal qualities of the monarch - and does this not concern the personal qualities of the president and prime minister or general secretary who can also rule for life? everything can be corrupted by uncontrolled power, both the monarchy and democracy, so that the communal system will want
  17. runway 8 August 2011 17: 54 New
    • -2
    • 0
    -2
    This is the number! The whole site is full of Samsonov's ravings! Just run. But I can’t leave you guys alone. I must say right away that I did not participate in this adventure (voting). But I want to say that Samsonov’s preliminary diagnosis, made for an article about mistakes that cannot be made when building a new Samsonov’s empire, was fully confirmed. The author is a great-power chauvinist.
    I appeal to those who still doubt it. Think, would the Great October Revolution take place in our country if the majority of the population supported the tsar?
    Would a hungry and weakly armed Red Army stand against external intervention and internal counter-revolution without the support of its people?
    So why should we now turn our heads to this yoke that our grandfathers dropped and what was bequeathed to us and you?
  18. - = 999 = -
    - = 999 = - 10 August 2011 00: 26 New
    • -3
    • 0
    -3
    Any system wants to take care of a person, but at the head of this system there are always people and people are scum
  19. stas 19 August 2011 08: 37 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    The monarchy is already a past stage in the history of Russia, and even for the former world monarchies. One thing is obvious, we need an honest referendum on the future development of Russia, but DAM and GDP are unlikely to do so. It is easier for them to create a front to create the appearance of supporting their power. Russia has one serious question, which way to go next? capilistic or socialist. And the modern system of governing Russia is the death of Russia, and this is becoming obvious to most people. Two failed lawyers in power, this is a bust.
  20. sirToad
    sirToad 11 October 2011 03: 29 New
    • -1
    • 0
    -1
    monitoring of public opinion - how many people will run to Red Square with flowers when a Kentish misha on NATO bayonets drag a crown
  21. Warfloom
    Warfloom 25 February 2012 10: 54 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    I am for the monarchy. In my opinion, the priority of the monarchy is that in the dynasty, young Tsarevichs knew from childhood that they would ascend the throne in the future. They were "cooked", taught from childhood to be king. From my point of view, this is more wisdom than in the election of the president, an adult, undoubtedly educated, intelligent man, essentially unknown. Indeed, you must admit that we recognize our president not by election campaign, but by his deeds. You’ll give your vote, and you’re afraid later, but what if you confided in the wrong one ?! For me, on the scales, the monarchy outweighs the presidency. Naturally, I am not a political scientist, but I bow to the sovereign with my soul. I agree with the author that the sovereign is the father for the people. I am a patriot of my country, I love its history, and I can’t remember that the monarchy, ever in history, was bad for the state. All the tsars guarded the Russian land, did not attack like Hitler and Napoleon, but defended it during the attack. None of the monarchs was at a loss, but were only for the glory. Will they live to see the restoration of the manarchy in Russia? In any case, I hope so and pray to the Lord for the salvation of Russia!
  22. 12061973
    12061973 25 February 2012 11: 02 New
    • -1
    • 0
    -1
    where to get the monarch. Romanovs somehow became similar to the Armenians, and Putin’s daughter seemed to have foreign boyfriends.
  23. Stasi.
    Stasi. 12 March 2012 23: 05 New
    • -1
    • 0
    -1
    Regarding the Romanov dynasty. This dynasty divided the people into two peoples - the ruling dynasty with the elite and the highest bureaucracy, and the common people who served and fed all this. The whole trouble of the Romanov dynasty, starting from Peter the Great, is that it sought to make Russia a part of the West, so that Russia would be the West. The entire Romanov policy over the course of 380 years was subordinated to this goal. As a result, the dynasty turned out to be bankrupt both politically and militarily. If you revive the monarchy, it means that you will need to accept the claim to the kingdom of the descendants of the Romanov dynasty. But the trouble is that they are completely alien to Russia by blood and spirit and there will be nothing good from them. By 1917, the Russian nobility and the aristocracy had completely degenerated, and now the so-called nobility is no good. The reason for the decomposition of the nobility is the decree of Catherine the Second for which nobles can not serve in the army and they are given all sorts of liberties and privileges. And from this moment begins the degradation of the nobility and the monarchy. Nobles from worthy people turned into the Manilovs and Oblomovs with the Saltychikhs, who dutifully watched as a drunk Rasputin drag their wives and daughters to bed. Nowadays, the idea of ​​the monarchy is becoming obsolete, this is an example of England, where the monarchy is losing its vitality and attractiveness.
  24. general.bnw 3 December 2012 11: 04 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Lord! But we are talking about a MODERN Monarchy! See HOW people live in monarchical Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Japan, Great Britain, etc.!? The monarch there is the SYMBOL of the nation, rallying it, giving a sense of stability, the eternity of your country. And you can choose the prime minister if someone likes * democratic * elections! And yet, very important: neither the monarch, nor his family NEEDS TO STEAL / unlike temporary presidents, regents, etc. / - they already have EVERYTHING forever. Well, we have a monarch, and here many are right, he must also be strong-willed and strong / but not cruel /. As for Stalin, with all the ambiguous attitude towards him, he also reminded the monarch, unlike the previous ones, I apologize for this word, liberals! ...
  25. durko
    durko 21 July 2014 09: 22 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    I am for the monarchy in Russia! We need it, we can use it to become a strong power! Whoever denies its significance, it is nevertheless necessary! This will give us enormous advantages, since under the monarchy it will be done so that everyone is happy, since it is in the king’s interests that everything is good!