Политико-правовые взгляды классиков евразийства на проблему разделения властей
The objective of the “division of powers” theorists J. Locke and Ch.-L. Montesquieu was to prevent tyranny, concentration of power. However, for the classics of Eurasianism, the most important political and legal problem after the revolutions of 1917 and the First World War was not tyranny, but the existence of the Russia as a state. The purpose of their political and legal projects was to fill the “empty” liberal democratic forms with concrete content.
In this regard, the Eurasianist political theorist Nikolai Alekseev denied the idea of judicial independence. In his view, the judiciary should not be independent from the other branches of power: it is organized to embody the people's and state principles, it should not to be an indifferent arbitrator in the dispute resolution. Judges should strive to find the truth together with other participants in the process. Afterwards, Alekseev, who was impressed by the trials in the USSR during 1930s, favoured the principle of judicial independence, rejecting the idea that judicial reforms in 1864 were harmful to the Russian legal system.
In return for the separation of powers, the Eurasianists advocated the idea of a balance of “demotic” and “ideocratic” powers. In Alekseev's opinion, the “demotic” power would be embodied in a system of councils (“soviets”) formed on the basis of the “principle of intercession”, the “ideocratic” power– in the presence of a “state elite”, selected on the basis of fidelity to the “common idea”, Eurasianism. Nikolai Trubetskoy suggested the concept of “multiparliamentary rule”: in this system party elections would be inappropriate: citizens vote not for parties, but for special organizations representing their interests in a certain sphere of public life. The most powerful of these chambers would consist of “ideologists”.
The views of Eurasianists, on the one hand, can be put in the context of the ideas of “Classical Natural Law” theorists, who depicted political governance primarily in terms of goals and virtues rather than institutions and concrete organizational solutions. On the other hand, Political Eurasianism had similarities with the views of other authors traditionally considered under the “Sonderweg” ideologies and was also in line with Soviet constitutional projects that rejected the usual concepts of the division of powers.