Kharitonov A.S.

Law Institute of Vladimir State University of Alexander Grigorievich

and Nikolay Grigorievich Stoletovs, a post-graduate student

Who is the Monarch? (by K.P.Pobedonostsev)

The concept of the organization of the autocratic government of the absolute monarchy K. Pobedonostsev had pronounced formal character, and therefore, the wording of the "concept" can be used with a range of some reservations. The purpose of the Procurator of the Holy Synod, is to design and optimization of the existing order of the existing political system, expressed in a system of interacting organs of state power, but the formulation of the theoretical postulates of absolute monarchy. However, it should be noted that the lack of a single, well-defined concept of the organization of power is not to say that there is no particular set of judgments, K. Pobedonostsev peculiar worldview, in this aspect of the topic are.

Absolute monarchy is for K. Pobedonostsev not only the best form of government, but only applicable to the specific historical conditions of Russia. Public bodies also with this method of organization of power are called to come to the aid of the monarch, but should in no way limit his power. In this understanding of the state are found certain policies and legal principles encountered chief prosecutor.

Thus, the process of reconstructing the concept of governance K. Pobedonostsev based on two main principles. First, it is Pobedonostsev’s reform program of government agencies, proposed by him to Emperor Alexander III, and secondly, the restoration of a special look at the specifics of government in an absolute monarchy subjective idealist views Procurator, who became an ideological foundation of his specific actions, to optimize the structure of government.

Proper organization of the control system not only serves to protect the authority of the autocratic power, as "collateral source and moral force, law and order" [8; 21], the moral-psychological level, because "necessary that the source remains intact, in spite of everything to keep the faith it ... if this faith shaken, moved at all... " [8; 21-22], but the political stability and the protection of the monarch, through direct correspondence to the principles of the organization of power. Consequently, the system of state bodies and institutions designed to protect the political and moral importance of the subject of supreme power - the monarch, building on the principles of organization of monarchical power.

But the main task of the control system of absolute monarchy is the observance of a very fine line, which allows the public authorities and institutions to carry out functions of state government, not encroaching on the unlimited power of the autocratic ruler - the monarch.

Thus, it should be concluded that the main important principles of the concept of the control system of the reconstructed K. Pobedonostsev, largely similar to the basic provisions of the historically formed ways of organizing power in the absolute monarchy.

Under-reform spirit of Representatives was due to the post-reform conservative peasants, land, military, and especially judicial reform in 1864, which became one of the key period of transformation of Alexander II. The legislation embodied in itself the main provisions of the reform of the judiciary, - legal regulations in 1864 were "the direct object of a critical analysis of the Conservative Party, and especially K. Pobedonostsev" [2; 60].

New features of the judicial system, contained in legal statutes, from the point of view of conservatives, have greatly reduced the degree of influence of the supreme authority in the area of administration of justice. So that the problem of determining the position and role of the monarch in building relationships with the judiciary has a special place in the works of the post-reform members of conservatism.

Traditional conservative management concept implied that the judiciary is a special branch of government, headed by a monarch, the supreme power of which must be present in the field of justice. More Metropolitan Filaret, to whose views with particular respected K.P. Pobedonostsev, said: "Judge – is the eye of the supreme power" [9; 13]. Similarly, considering the judiciary itself K.P. Pobedonostsev, who considered a necessary element of the court specialized industry expertise is concentrated in the hands of the monarch, "both administrative and judicial institutions are the organs of the same supreme, autocratic government, acting within the limits, each is inscribed, and were to become seek the same goal, to indicate the monarch" [1; 58]. M.N. Katkov well as K.P. Pobedonostsev, believed that the judiciary "and it certainly depends on the Sovereign" [3; 16].

Thus, the proper organization of the control system not only serves to protect the authority of the autocratic power, as "collateral source and moral force, law and order" [3; 16], the moral-psychological level, because "necessary that the source remains intact, in spite of everything, could maintain faith in him ... if this belief is shaken, moved at all..." [3; 21-22], but the political stability and the protection of the monarch, through direct correspondence to the principles of the organization of power. Consequently, the system of state bodies and institutions designed to protect the political and moral importance of the subject of supreme power - the monarch, building on the principles of organization of monarchical power.

Procurator of the Holy Synod believes that the lack of personal guidance monarch by various authorities will be detrimental not only to the performance and content of government requirements and regulations, but also on implicit and security authorities of the autocrat, as the undisputed authority impersonation. This manifestation of the state and legal ideology K. Pobedonostsev is reflected in his private correspondence with Witte, whom he pays attention to emerging ideas of some conservatives "seek a support order in the Senate, ostensibly on the idea of Peter... But was Peter - and the Senate was a strong power tool. He opted out after him, and again the sense of guns in a monarchy with authority" [4; 108].

Mandatory presence of personal involvement of the monarch in the exercise of power in the management of K. Pobedonostsev voiced in private correspondence with Crown Prince (at the time of writing in 1876) Alexander, "No, never, and especially here in Russia, nothing by itself is not done, no ruling hand, without the supervising eyes, without a master" [5; 60].

The main danger of the independence of the judiciary from the supreme power, in terms of K. Pobedonostsev, was the fact that the court, not being the subject of maintaining the authority of the supreme power, it becomes a "hostage prevailing liberal trends in society" [6; 22], which is especially clearly manifested during the trial the trial of Vera Zasulich. Judicial authority in considering the criminal case "of craven fear to offend though public opinion, from a desire to flaunt the intelligentsia - perhaps to Europe - respect for the jury" [6; 24] ignores "the state interest connected with this case" [6; 24]. The importance of this interest, in terms of K. Pobedonostsev, "was so great and so important that it ought to defend at all costs" [6; 23-24], and he was to safeguarded the public order, because if "private resentment against state power ... will be announced the truth" [10; 116], that is,"what will be to become of society?" [10; 116] - quoted by K. Pobedonostsev V.Fuks.

Thus, from the point of view K. Pobedonostsev, the process of terrorist V.Zasulich particularly clearly emphasized that separated from the supreme power of the Court replaces the basic universal principles of justice rule of power, which is expressed in the pursuit of truth - "compliance forms that believes freedom and equality, and is afraid to step in anything this formal truth" [7; 68] - complains chief prosecutor in a letter addressed to E.F.Tyutcheva.

References

1. Цит. по: Казанский П.Е. Власть всероссийского императора: Очерки действующего права. Одесса: Тип. Техник, 1913. 960 с.

2. Катков М.Н. О самодержавии и конституции. М.: печатня А.И. Снегиревой, 1905. 68 с.

3. Катков М.Н. О современных вопросах России (1879-1887 гг.). М.: Унив. тип., 1898. 42 с.

4. Переписка С.Ю.Витте с К.П.Победоносцевым / С предисл. В.Рейхар-дта // Красный архив. 1928. Т.5 (30). С.89-116.

5. Письма Победоносцева к Александру III / С предисл. М.Н.Покровского: В 2-х т. М.: "Новая Москва", 1925-1926. T.1. М„ 1925. XVI, 448 с.

6. Победоносцев К.П. Гражданское судопроизводство. Лекции проф. Победоносцева. М., 1863. 534 с.

7. Победоносцев К.П. Письма к Е.Ф.Тютчевой. 1881 г. // ОР РГБ. Ф.230. К.4410. Ед. хр. 1.

8. Победоносцев К.П. Письма к И.С.Аксакову (1871-1884 гг.) // OP РНБ. Ф.14 (Аксаков И.С.). Ед. хр. 658.

9. Св. Филарет (Дроздов). О государстве. Тверь: Изд. Общ-вом Правосл. культуры «Благовест» при Твер. отд. Фонда культуры, 1992. 69 с.

10. Фукс В. Суд и полиция: В 2-х ч. М.: Унив. тип, 1889. ч.1. [4], 282 с.