For a long time there has been discussion about the conditions and time of the appearance of the absolute monarchy in the West, its relation to social classes, in particular the bourgeoisie, about the different stages of its development, about the similarities and differences between Russian autocracy and Western absolutism, as well as its historical significance.
Absolutism (from the Latin word "absolutus" - "unlimited", "independent"), or absolute monarchy - the last form of the feudal state that arose during the emergence of capitalism and the decomposition of feudal relations.
The features of absolutism can be distinguished as follows. The head of state is considered the main source of legislative and executive power (the latter is carried out by the apparatus subordinate to him). The monarch manages the state treasury, sets taxes.
Other main features of the policy of absolutism are the greatest degree of centralization of the state in conditions of feudalism, a developed bureaucratic apparatus (tax, judicial, etc.). The latter also includes the police and a large army. A characteristic feature of absolutism is the following: the activity of representative bodies characteristic of the estate monarchy under its conditions loses its significance and ceases.
The absolute monarchs, in contrast to the feudal landowners, considered the main nobility to be the serving nobility. However, in order to ensure independence from this class as a whole, they did not neglect the support of the bourgeoisie, which had just appeared at that time, which did not aspire to power, but was economically strong and capable of opposing the interests of the feudal lords of its own.
The meaning of absolutism
The role of absolutism in history is not easy to evaluate. At a certain stage, the kings began to fight the separatism of the feudal nobility, destroyed the remnants of the former political fragmentation, subjugated the church to the state, promoted the development of capitalist relations and the unity of the country in the economic sphere, the process of formation of national states and nations. The policy of mercantilism was carried out, trade wars were fought, a new class was supported - the bourgeoisie.
However, according to some researchers, absolutism acted for the good of the bourgeoisie only as long as it was in the interests of the nobility, which received from the economic development of the state incomes in the form of taxes (feudal rent), which increased greatly, as well as from the revival of economic life in general. But the increase in resources and economic opportunities was mainly used to strengthen the military power of countries. This was necessary in order to suppress large-scale popular movements that arose during that period, as well as for external military expansion.
Features of absolutism in France
Characteristic for most European countries (with various modifications), the features of absolutism are most vividly embodied in France. Here in the late XV - early XVI centuries. the first elements of this form of state appeared. During the time of Richelieu (from 1624 to 1642), the former first minister of King Louis XIII, and especially Louis XIV (1643-1715), the absolute monarchy reached its peak. King Louis XIV expressed the essence of this form of government with the following simple definition: "The state is me!"
Absolutism in other countries
The specific features of absolutism in England (in its classical period, that is, during the reign of Elizabeth Tudor, 1558-1603) are the preservation of the current parliament, the absence of a standing army and the weakness of the bureaucratic apparatus in the field.
In Spain, where elements of bourgeois relations were not able to develop in the 16th century, the main features of the policy of enlightened absolutism gradually degenerated into despotism.
In Germany, which was fragmented at that time, it took shape not on a state scale, but within the specific territories of various principalities (princely absolutism).
The main features of enlightened absolutism, characteristic of some European countries in the second half of the 18th century, are discussed below. This form of government as a whole was not uniform. The features and traits of absolutism in Europe depended in many respects on the correlation of the forces of the bourgeoisie and the nobility, on the degree of influence on the politics of bourgeois elements. So, in Russia, the Austrian monarchy, Germany, the position of the bourgeois elements was significantly lower than in France and in England.
Absolutism in our country
The formation of absolutism in Russia was very interesting. Some researchers believe that the constitution adopted in 1993 vested the president with powers that can be compared with the power of an absolute monarch, and call the current form of government a democratic autocracy. What are the main features of absolutism, and you will see that such thoughts are not unfounded. Although, perhaps, there is some exaggeration.
Russian absolutism did not arise on such a social basis as in Western Europe. Since at the turn of the 17-18 centuries (when the signs of an absolute monarchy finally strengthened) in Russia bourgeois relations were undeveloped, there was no balance between the nobility and the bourgeoisie.
The formation of absolutism in Russia began largely due to the foreign policy factor, and therefore it was supported only by one nobility. This is an important characteristic of absolutism in our country. The external danger, constantly hanging over Russia, required a strong centralized power and quick adoption of important decisions. However, at the same time, a restrictive tendency also acted. The boyars (land aristocracy), possessing strong economic positions, strove to exert their influence on the adoption of certain political decisions, and also, if possible, to participate in this process itself.
It should be noted one more feature of absolutism in Russia. The preserved veche traditions (that is, democracy) continued to operate in the country, the roots of which can be found even during the existence of the Novgorod Republic and the Old Russian State. They found expression in the activities of Zemsky Sobors (from 1549 to 1653).
The period from the second half of the 16th to the first half of the 17th century was marked by the struggle of these two trends that existed in our country. For a long time, the result of this confrontation was unclear, since one side or the other won the victory alternately. Under Tsar Ivan the Terrible, as well as during the reign of Boris Godunov, it would seem that she was dominated by an absolutist tendency, according to which in the hands of the monarch there were maximum power prerogatives. But during the Time of Troubles and the reign of Mikhail Romanov (1613-1645), the restrictive tendency prevailed, the influence of the Zemsky Sobor and the Boyar Duma intensified, without the support of which Mikhail Romanov did not issue a single law.
Serfdom and absolutism
The establishment of serfdom, which finally took shape in 1649, was a turning point, thanks to which the absolutist tendency prevailed. After it was finally legally entrenched, the nobility turned out to be completely dependent on the central authority represented by the monarch. She alone was able to ensure the rule of the nobles over the peasants, to keep the latter in obedience.
But in exchange for this, the nobility was forced to abandon claims for personal participation in government and recognized itself as a servant of the monarch. Such was the payment for services by the authorities. The nobles received constant income and power over the peasants in exchange for the rejection of claims in public administration. Therefore, it is not surprising that almost immediately after the legal formalization of serfdom, the convocations of Zemsky Sobors ceased. In full force, the last of them took place in 1653.
Thus, a choice was made, and for the sake of economic interests, the nobles sacrificed political. The absolutist tendency prevailed. The execution of serfdom led to another important consequence: since there were no conditions for development (for example, the free labor market disappeared), the formation of bourgeois relations was sharply inhibited. For a long time, the bourgeoisie in the country therefore did not form a separate social class, and, therefore, the social support of absolutism could only be noble.
Attitude to Law and Law in Russia
Another striking feature of the absolute monarchy in the state was its relation to law and law. The choice in the ratio of legal and legal means was clearly made in favor of the former. The personal arbitrariness of the monarch and his close circle became the main method of management. It began as far back as the reign of Ivan the Terrible, and in the 17th century, after the final transition to the absolute monarchy, little has changed.
You can, of course, argue that there was a code of laws - the Council Code. However, in practice, the monarch (Peter I, Alexei Mikhailovich and others) and senior government officials were not guided in their actions by the requirements of the laws, did not consider themselves bound by them.
The main method of governing the country is military force and brutal coercion. It cannot be denied that during the reign of Peter I quite a lot of laws were adopted relating to almost all areas of government of the country (Table of Ranks, Military Code, collegium regulations, General regulations). But they were nevertheless intended exclusively for subjects; the sovereign himself did not consider himself bound by these laws. In fact, the decision-making practice under this king was not much different from that under the reign of Ivan the Terrible. The only source of power was still the will of the monarch.
Attitude to law and law in other countries
This is not to say that in this Russia was so very different from Western countries (name the features of absolutism, and you will see this). Louis XIV in France (he is considered the classic absolute monarch) also used voluntarism and arbitrariness.
But despite all the contradictions, absolutism in Western Europe nevertheless took the path of actively involving legal means in regulating various social relations. Between the law and personal arbitrariness, the ratio gradually began to shift in favor of the former. This was facilitated by a number of factors, the most important of which was the kings' awareness that it was much easier to govern a country when as many spheres as possible were regulated by legal norms.
In addition, the use of voluntarism in the management of a state implies the presence of a monarch of high personal qualities: intellectual level, energy, willpower, determination. However, most of the rulers of that time had little in their qualities reminiscent of Peter I, Frederick II or Louis XIV. That is, they could not successfully apply personal arbitrariness in governing the country.
Having walked the path of increasing application of the law as the main instrument of government, the absolutism of Western Europe embarked on a long crisis, and then completely ceased to exist. Indeed, in essence, he assumed unlimited legal power of the sovereign, and the use of legal controls led to the idea (which was formulated by the Enlightenment) about the rule of law and law, and not the will of the king.
Enlightened absolutism
The features of enlightened absolutism in our country are embodied in the politics of Catherine II. In many European countries in the second half of the 18th century, the idea of a “union of sovereigns and philosophers”, expressed by French philosopher educators, became popular. At this time, abstract categories were transferred to the realm of concrete politics. It was supposed to rule the "sage on the throne, " the benefactor of the nation, the patron of the arts. The enlightened monarchs were the Prussian King Frederick II and the Swedish Gustav III, the Austrian Emperor Joseph II, as well as the Russian Empress Catherine II.
The main features of enlightened absolutism
The main signs of enlightened absolutism in the policies of these rulers were expressed in the implementation of reforms in the spirit of the various ideas of the Enlightenment. The head of state, the monarch, should be able to transform social life in the country on new, reasonable principles.
The main features of enlightened absolutism in different states were common. During the period under review, reforms were carried out that did not affect the foundations of the existing feudal-absolutist system, it was a time when governments liberalized flirting with writers and philosophers. The bourgeois revolution in France destroyed this form of state and the traits of French absolutism, put an end to it throughout Europe.
