The article is devoted to the problem of mutual correlation between individual and political freedom in the context of ethical, legal and political legitimation of the state. The method - hermeneutical reconstruction and comparative analysis of the state philosophy by Kant, Hegel and Husserl. As a result of hermeneutic reconstruction of Kant’s state philosophy, there are revealed four constitutional factors: the principle of freedom, republicanism, the principle of membership and legality. Kant makes a distinction between noumenal (moral) and phenomenal (political-legal) freedom, emphasizing that in the sphere of politics and law, nominal freedom cannot become the basis of moral law, since it should not be limited from the outside (heteronomically), but only be relied upon by the individual “from within” (autonomously). For Kant, noumenal freedom is the only right initially given to each person on the basis of his belonging to the human race (natural low). The political community, represented by the state, is authorized only to protect this freedom from external coercion, but has no right to encroach on the restriction of internal (nominal) human freedom. Kant chooses the Republic as preferred form of government, since the law is the final authority. As a result of the comparative analysis of Kant’s and Hegel's state philosophy, the author comes to the conclusion that both thinkers are unanimous in understanding freedom as a basis for state legitimization. At the same time, Hegel “removes” Kant's established distinction between nominal and phenomenal freedom and takes as a basis the collective, universal freedom of the state, which embodies objectivity, truth and morality. The highest ideal and duty of the individual is to renounce autonomy in the name of the state, which is defined as a divine end in itself. Hegel picks up the ethical strategy of Kant's interpretation of the state and complementing it with two others: the understanding of the state as a result of natural teleology (the purpose of nature) and as a result of reasonable teleology (conscious and free choice of human). Hegel prefers monarchy as preferred form of government. Husserl, following Kant, develops and consistently radicalizes ethical and instrumentalist understanding of the state, emphasizing its transitory nature and focusing on the self-realization of a free, phenomenologically reflective individual. However, the freedom of the individual phenomenologist is limited by attachment to the phenomenological and contains rudiments of natural and intelligent teleology in the spirit of Hegel. Although phenomenology, in Husserl's understanding, is neither a “state philosophy” nor a purely personal practice, it acquires the specific nature of the intellectual aristocracy: the phenomenological movement and the community of phenomenologists represent the ideal completion of the political history of European humanity.
The chapter is on Russian Empress Catherine the Great and her methods of administration.
The article is devoted to the development of the institute of the head of state in Spain in 1939-1975. The importance of the analysis is determined by the increased role of the heads of state in domestic and international affairs and the popularity of the term. The Spanish experience seems to be useful for research of this phenomenon. Franco's main post was named "head of state" (Jefe del Estado) legally, and the officially recognized institution with the same name (Jefatura del Estado) formalized his status.
In comparison with the "head of state" in the doctrine of Constant, he did not function in the system of separation of powers, but named a ruler with a personal absolute lifelong power. The legal term "head of state" became a synonym for the political term "dictator". Franco’s experience demonstrated the non-democratic nature of the institute of head of state. It was also emphasized by the title "caudillo", indicating its leadership and its mission to restore the former "greatness" of Spain. Franco’s government was to be characterized by the features of "sovereign dictatorship", described by C. Schmitt. By analyzing features of the institution of the post, formation of the same institute and their development, the author notices the potential of the institute of head of state during Franco's authoritarian regime.
Two periods are distinguished in the history of the institute. During the first, after the Civil War (1939) and before the adoption of the law "On Succession" (1947), Franco's constitutional activity was aimed to create a "new" nationalist state, struggling against internal and external enemies. Unlimited power in a militarized state became the basis for the domination of “decessionism”, and the state itself was identified with its head personally. In the course of the second period, 1947-1975, the constitutional power of the caudillo began the "institutionalization" of a "social and representative" state which was proclaimed as a monarchy again. Franco’s "fundamental" laws not only created a quasi-constitutional facade of the regime, but consolidated the head of state's self-limited powers and its status in the system of established state bodies, a mechanism to transfer his power to the future king.
Spanish state was no longer identified with the head of state. He was declared a representative of the nation and ensured the unity of state power. Franco remained an extraordinary head of state till the end of his life. The mechanism he introduced "worked" after his death in Spain and created the opportunity for a transition from an authoritarian regime to a democratic one, from "institutionalization" to constitutionalism.
In the article the analysis of the situation which developed in Russia at the beginning of the XX century and attempts of the imperial power to prevent the approaching catastrophe which were connected with the realization of the idea of representation of the people is given. The attitude of the last Russian emperor to the idea of formation of representation of the people is shown.
This book deals with the study of the court system during the XVII-XVIII centuries, which is not considered as the beginning of a new era, but as the end of a way of living and understanding the world. With these premises, the crisis of the values that underpinned the court system and the birth of a new social and political order is studied. A new approach to the traditional interpretation of the crisis of the Old Regime and the origin of the Contemporary Age is used.
The article concerns the problem of the Russian absolutist monarchy of the XVIII - the beginning of XX-th centuries in a comparative perspective. The social function of absolutism consisted in national integration, cultural unification and social transformation of traditional society by using of legal and coercive measures. The crucial problem is the changing role of the bureaucracy which could be the main protagonist of reforms or, just the opposite – its main opponent. From this point of view the author summarizes positive and negative aspects of absolutist reforms making outlook on the comparative experience of other absolutist empires of Europe and Asia.
The duty of the patriot prince: Russian manuscript translations and monarchical discourse of the Enlightenment in the third quarter of the XVIII-th century
The article examines three translations made in the 1750s-1760-s from French into Russian. The first is François de Fenelon’s Directions pour la conscience d'un roi, which was translated by prince Mikhail Shcherbatov (1758), the second is the anonymous Pensées politiques sur les devoirs d’un roi citoyen, which was the work of an unknown translator, most likely by the order of Roman or Mikhail Vorontsov (between 1754 and 1756), and the last one is known in two copies and was done from the French translation of Idea of a Patriot King by Henry Bolingbroke (first half of the 1760s) - one of them belonged to the brothers Nikita and Pyotr Panin.
Studying the Russian translations of Western political writings allows us to reconstruct the intellectual context in which a new discourse of power emerged in the third quarter of the XVIII-century. These texts reflected the “state of mind” of the Russian ruling elite, who, under the influence of the Enlightenment ideas, demanded «freedom of the Nobility» and «moderate monarchy». Circulation of these translations in handwritten form showed a limited circle of readers for whom these books were intended. All three texts are characterized by an almost messianic expectation of a perfect monarch, who will improve the morals and manners of his subjects and return their liberties by the establishing of a true «uchrezhdenie» (constitution). The Russian educated nobility had a common way of thinking and it was very similar to the political conceptions of the Western European elite, which actively produced in the Age of Enlightenment an updated monarchical discourse, at the centre of which was the idea of the «king - citizen/patriot», who dedicated himself to society’s good. At the same time, the “common good” in this conception always coincided with the basic interests of the ruling elite.
A collection of essays on female rulers from different countries and historical epocks.