Free The Days Without Monarchy Term Paper Sample

Introduction

The monarchy is a form of government in which the supreme state power is partially or wholly owned by one person - the monarch (king, king, emperor, prince, duke, archduke, sultan, emir, khan, pharaoh, and so on) and, as a rule, passed inherited.

The main features of the classical forms of government are:

the existence of the sole head of state exercises its power for life (king, king, emperor, Shah);
usually hereditary (according to custom or law) the order of succession of the supreme power;
monarch represents the unity of the nation, the historical continuity of tradition, represents the state in the international arena;
legal immunity and independence of the monarch, which emphasizes the Institute countersignature.
In many cases, the state is traditionally considered to be monarchist, do not satisfy the listed criteria. Moreover, in some cases it is difficult to distinguish between a monarchy and a republic. These elective monarchy, as Rome Principate period and Rzeczpospolita retained republican institutions. Emperor originally - Republican Emergency Masters, and the name Rzeczpospolita literally translates as "republic".
Monarchy in terms of the principle of monarchists Supreme Authority, based on the performance of the monarch will of God, and this finds its power. Monarch, in accordance with this concept, receives power from God. On this basis monarchists distinguish monarchy of the country (where the supreme state power is given to a person as a result of consensus - general elections) and aristocracy (where the supreme power is vested in a minority of the most illustrious members of the public). Monarch for a monarchist is primarily a moral authority, not legal. Accordingly, the monarchy is considered "godly" form of government, while often Republic - "an invention of the devil."

Body

500 years have passed since then, as there was a world-famous manuscript Machiavelli, more familiar to our contemporaries as "The Prince". The main provisions do not lose its relevance to this day. Moreover, some of them in modern conditions become more acute and topical. Among them are problems of application and justifies violence, as well as limiting its law to solve problems facing the state.
Repeatedly expressing his admiration for the Romans, their state and rulers, the author of "Emperor" notices that they were able to "predict complications in advance, always deal with them and never gave them accumulate, if only to avoid war. They knew that the war continues, but only postponed to the advantage of the enemy. "Thus affirms the idea that the war as an extreme form of violence was and still is the inevitable companion of human history, laws governing the functioning of the state (Gilbert, A., 1938).
In addition, it is impossible not to draw attention to another fundamentally important detail: to strengthen its power of rulers "have to continually oppress his new subordinates military billeting and endless other violence inseparable from new acquisitions." Undoubtedly, in these words lies a deeper meaning, enabling us to formulate the following provisions:
- Firstly, it contains direct mounting on the fact that violence is natural and is a necessary weapon of public-political affairs;
- Second, violence is seen as permanent, and not some fragmentary or short-term policy tool;
- Thirdly, there are different types of violence used in the policy;
- Fourth, there is clearly manifested first in the field of political science and theory of law and the intention of trying to specifically highlight the role and importance in achieving policy objectives is the military and / or armed violence. This, of course, deserves special attention because, on the one hand, in most cases, Machiavelli simply overemphasizes the role of armed violence, and on the other hand, puts his sharp criticism. Thus, in some cases, he contradicts himself. To make such a statement about his inconsistency, we can base in almost all his works, he does not avoid the attention of many military issues.
- And, finally, fifth, any violence, and armed especially deterministic economic factors. This conclusion follows from the fact that one of the means of asserting their dominance on new, exciting and merging areas is ground in one or two places of military colonies, which "are like the key of the country."
According to Strauss, Leo (1987), in the merit of Machiavelli is impossible not to put the idea that war violence and all military affairs in general can not be occupied by individuals. It was, and is, above all, the prerogative of the state, regardless of the Examples than a form of government and the existing regime in it. In his treatise he bluntly pointed out that "the war - it is such a craft that private individuals cannot live honestly, and it should be the business of the republic or the kingdom."
In "The Prince" in this regard, he observed that "the prince should not have anything to do which would become his profession, except for the war, its institutions and rules, because it is - the only craft rightful ruler. In it a force that not only keeps the power of those who are born princes, but often raises in this dignity of private individuals”. There is an example of the construction of the war as a form of armed violence, military and all those involved in it in a cult. Constructively critical of the views on the above words of Machiavelli makes it possible to formulate the following easily proved and explained by the hypothesis:
1. Any "disregard for the art of war" is the main reason for the loss of the state, as it indicates the thinker himself. At the same time skill in this case is "a condition of purchase of power", the path to success in government.
2. When manning recruits Machiavelli advocates for universal military service. However, realizing that "coercion never to no good leads," he points to the need for volunteerism in this case. And then he proposes "to choose a middle way: people act in the service is not entirely voluntarily and certainly not by force, because of their respect for the prince, anger they fear more than punishment." At first glance it may seem that Machiavelli is not without naivety and utopianism. And at the same time he was right, because the attitude to military service at all times, in our deep conviction, was and still is ambiguous and depends on the level and quality of professed in any state ideas of patriotism.
3. Today, against the background of the fight against various manifestations of modern terrorism exceptional importance is the ratio of the Florentine specialist in military and political affairs in the institution of mercenaries in the armed forces, especially among foreigners. Here he does not skimp on paint and emotions and unequivocally states that "e.g. boron soldiers from foreigners cannot be called a choice, because to choose - means to attract the best people in the host country and have the power to call the same people who want to and who does not want to serve. Otherwise, the volunteers have to be limited. "Those of them who are strangers, "never among the best soldiers, on the contrary, it - scum of the country: brawlers, lazy, unbridled, atheists, ran away from home, blasphemers, players - that's what these hunters".

Conclusion

Thus, five centuries ago, was given an objective and impartial description of the many members of the world's terrorist groups and gangs, which are today one of the real threats to modern realities and security.
An appeal to the creativity of Machiavelli as one of the brightest representatives of the Renaissance convinces infinite contribution that he made to the study of the problems of strengthening the state, the legitimacy of various forms of violence, including armed, and the need for its regulation.
Legitimately be noted that the followers of Machiavelli went already beaten tracks, they sufficiently make it easier to navigate in today for their problems arising from the new times. And it is absolutely non-justified, any attempt to forget that the basis for the strengthening of state and government lies are diverse arsenal of tools and techniques, and above all law.

Works cited

Machiavelli, Niccolò (1958), "The Prince", Machiavelli:The Chief Works and Others 1. Translated by Allan Gilbert
Strauss, Leo (1987), "Niccolo Machiavelli", in Strauss, Leo; Cropsey, Joseph, History of Political Philosophy (3rd ed.), University of Chicago Press
Gilbert, Allan (1938), Machiavelli's Prince and Its Forerunners, Duke University Press