It's probably time to start analyzing a little bit - what happened to the country and with us over the past year. What happens in foreign countries, near and far, we are more or less tracking and aware. About events inside the country - also in the know. And what about us? I offer my point of view on the processes that are currently taking place - not so much on the material, as on the spiritual and spiritual plane.
First, a little about power. About the best form of government. For us the best.
For the present historical two main forms of government are known. The first form is a monarchy, which can be absolute or constitutional. The second form is a republic, which can be presidential and parliamentary. In the presidential republic in the hands of one person the powers of the head of state and government are combined, and in general they, power powers, are very broad. Example: USA, Brazil, Argentina, Mexico. And in the parliamentary republic, the supreme power belongs to the parliament - it forms a government and elects a president (moreover, the president is the head of state, but not the government). Examples: Italy, Germany, Greece, Iceland, India, etc. Some countries are referred to as “semi-presidential”, presidential-parliamentary, republics (for example, France, Finland, Russia.
In fact, there are more varieties of government. Oligarchs can rule the de facto state. Or domestic and foreign policy "rule" financially - banking clans. Or - a powerful industrial lobby (for example, the military - industrial complex). Or the official authorities can constantly look at the strong opposition and always give in to it. Or the authorities are under the powerful influence of outside states. Or, in fact, the state is ruled by a charismatic dictator, even if formally the republic is parliamentary. In the end, there are also “ideal” countries, where the rule is carried out in full compliance with the Constitution, up to a comma, up to a millimeter. There are a lot of options, and all of them, one way or another, are embodied on the globe. But, characteristically, it is very rare to find a country where the population would be quite powerful and supported the power (at least for a long enough period). This statement fully applies to Russia a couple of years ago. What happened now? Why did the popular support of the president (note: it was the PRESIDENT, not the government and the parliament) that reached absolutely “indecent 84%?
In my opinion, because the Russian government for the first time returned its sacredness, lost after the death of Stalin. Do not be nervous, anti-Stalinists and liberals, listen.
“Sacred” is, in a broad sense, “sacred”, referring to the Divine, mystical. Something material, but located above ordinary things, concepts, phenomena. At the same time - the spiritual, the irrational, the unknowable. Sacredness is primarily associated with worship and religious rites, but this is not entirely true. Sacredness is all that flows from God.
Especially for atheists, a different formulation can be used. The sacred are objective socio-historical laws and processes (in the country, on the continent, in the world). For example, sooner or later, the primitive - communal system was to be replaced by a slave system, and the feudal - by the bourgeois - capitalist system. Sooner or later, someone had to invent a wheel, build the first Empire and give a religious sermon. Sometime all this was to happen, the laws of history "are not scolded."
Returning to power. In those periods when the development of the state proceeded in accordance with historical and socio-political laws, the power of the people was perceived as sacred. That is, THIS IS ABOVE. In this case, public administration is greatly facilitated and simplified. Firstly, because every citizen is convinced of the correctness of the decisions and actions of the authorities and trusts it. Secondly, each person is guided not by fear of power or selfish motives, but by conscious civic duty (not conflicting with conscience).
If the power of the people is not perceived as sacred, then it cannot be called completely legitimate (even if democratic elections were held flawlessly). Such a power does not have a so-called. “Credibility”, she is constantly criticized, the opposition. In order for its orders to be carried out, the authorities must constantly convince the population that they are right, waste time on discussion, refute gossip and slander about themselves. In addition, to implement their decisions, the authorities have to overcome the inertia of the population (and even direct sabotage) - either by violence, or by material encouragement, or by deception.
In fact, the sacredness of power, in its current sense, is the utility of power for wide social groups. Plus, the correct understanding of the power of the mentality of the people, their aspirations and dreams, their cumulative nature and sense of self. In addition, the government should offer the people a clear, understandable AIM, to promise DEVELOPMENT in achieving this goal (or to overcome degradation and decline). Moreover, all this should fit into the mainstream of the objective laws of the development of society. Only under these conditions, the people will consider the power sacred and legitimate (in the highest sense of the word), and everything undertaken by it - just and wise. Such power people forgive personal sins, wrong decisions and rash actions. The people will justify such power in any development of the situation, and it will do it quite sincerely.
The roots of this phenomenon lie very deep in the human psyche, at the level of archetypes, and therefore indestructible. This is a program that will be launched by any person when the appropriate conditions and the corresponding personality appear. Therefore, the sacredness of power is a completely objective phenomenon.
It should be particularly noted that a leader who possesses sacredness in the eyes of the people does not necessarily have to have so-called "Charisma." The ability to be expressed in a folded manner, tall, strong figure, courageous face, loud clear speech, physical and mental endurance are optional. People will not pay attention to any personal flaws. And perhaps they will be more respected and loved for them.
However, everything has its limits. The sacredness of power must be confirmed by a good concept of management and the quality of this management. Due to this, the quality of life of a society naturally grows (even if at first it is not accompanied by an improvement in the quality of life of individual citizens). What is a “good management concept”? It is simple - simply management, carried out for the benefit of the people, and not individuals or political forces (for example, parties). If this is not the case, if the people consider and perpetuate a self-interested political show, then the authorities will very quickly lose their sacredness, the opposition will catch it.
Can the supreme state power in the countries of Western liberal democracy possess sacredness? Why not, maybe. And in some countries it has, because the population, basically, is satisfied with everything. For this reason, the Anglo-Saxons are so eager to extend their successful experience to the whole world and sincerely do not understand why other countries resist (who are sluggish and who are violently).
And in Russia, for example, all the post-Stalinist liberal rulers (Khrushchev, Gorbachev, Yeltsin), if they were sacred, then they quickly lost it. Moreover, the people of Russia still have not forgiven them. But Stalin, in spite of the whole wave of “revelations”, still remembers. And do not just remember. Its popularity is growing every year. Why? Because the power of Stalin was objectively sacred for that historical period. He answered all the historical challenges facing the country, solved most social problems, built an effective vertical of power, universally introduced a competent management model, brought the country to the frontiers (both territorial and scientific-technical) that corresponded to the imperial self-perception of the people. When people dream of the arrival of the “second Stalin”, they mean the appearance of a sacred politician, and not at all repressions like weapon solving state problems.
The coming to power of V.V. Putin was not at all perceived by the people of Russia as a phenomenon of the sacred ruler. Yes, he persistently and consistently solved problems, one by one, successfully solved. However, the people didn’t pay much attention to this and didn’t sing their hosanna. Moreover, the reasons for criticism, too, was enough. The standard of living has grown quite significantly, the state also gradually accumulated power, was getting on its feet after a long period of degradation. Putin was honored as an effective manager, but only that. As it turns out now, Putin has done a lot for these countries in these 15 years, he was dragged away from the brink of an abyss, for such things would be worn in the West. We have not worn. Why? If a person standing on top of power is not a spokesman for a sacred idea (that is, an idea of development in the interests of the majority), then this person can still win popularity, but worship is not.
Everything changed dramatically after the start of the Ukrainian events, and especially after the annexation of the Crimea. Everywhere conversations began - variations on the theme “Putin is our everything”. Now everyone remembered with a good word: the end of the Chechen war, and the curbing of oligarchs, and a clear “alignment” of the vertical of power, and the Olympics ... As if the masses opened their eyes and suddenly everyone saw what a beautiful ruler we have. There can be only one explanation: our president has acquired sacredness in the eyes of the people.
Does this mean that our external and internal opponents are right? They say, give the people of Russia only to war and seize the territory - and he will be happy. They say that they can’t forget the imperial past in any way, it is itching for the people of the Ruseans in one place, and this itch doesn’t allow to build a normal democratic society. And the other, they say, interferes. Does this mean that we, Russians, are inherently prone to aggression and war (any war, even if it is just, liberation)? What do we miss and dream of past greatness? What do we subconsciously want to return to the times of socialism with a minimum of sausages, but with respect and caution from the rest of the world?
I think that is not entirely true. If the subconscious desires of most members of society were similar to the above, then we would have a different leader, tougher, more decisive and principled.
Capture under the wing of the Crimea, Russia's subsequent responses to sanctions, flexible international policy, import substitution, the rapid "building up" of blocks alternative to the Anglo-Saxons, etc. - this is not a war. And not the desire for war as a means of resolving any disputes. This is a manifestation of DEVELOPMENT. The state moved from the "dead center" and began to gradually gain momentum. Apparently, we lacked precisely this - DEVELOPMENT. Liberal achievements are not ideal for us: a gradual increase in welfare, an increase in tolerance and tolerance in society, multiculturalism, open borders, etc. Putin, until 2007, led the country in that direction, then Medvedev picked up the vector. But the enthusiasm of the people did not show, even on the contrary. Apparently, in our depths we do not consider these “shifts” for real development.
Did Vladimir Vladimirovich set such “long” goals for himself? Did you mean sacrifice to your rule over time? Or did he competently react to circumstances unexpectedly introduced from the outside? I can not know. But, in any case, he provided himself with an honorable sacred place in the history of the country (as Savior, Restorer and, maybe, what else will be ...). True, for the time being the DEVELOPMENT of little by little has gone, but with GOAL - it is unclear. But, I'm sure, and the goal will appear. Perhaps, then, when most of us answer the question: “And what do I really want as a citizen?”. Moreover, he will answer honestly, realizing all the possible sacrifices, efforts and consequences of the choice.
In any case, if the Ukrainian events did not happen, then ... to get out of hibernation, Russia had to come up with them.
PS From this point of view, the celebration of 70 - the anniversary of the Victory was just a great event to strengthen the sacredness of power. Actually, for the first time since Stalin’s time, the country feels the breath of war so closely. The most powerful parade, the mass national procession, the presence next to the podium of a representative of the most numerous state as an ally, plus background, overt hostility toward us from the Anglo-Saxon world - all this, of course, looked very symbolic and impressed through and through.
PPS By the way, a frank anger towards us on the part of the people of Ukraine is explained not so much by the “capture” of the Crimea, as by another circumstance. They, as people mentally close to the Russians, perfectly see what we are talking about - the acquisition by our power of the quality of sacrality and the start of the development of Russia. I think that the Ukrainians cry banal envy. Since they are so far from such a development of events. And why far away - you can think for yourself.