In the famous song of A. Pugacheva there are words: “Kings can do everything”, but is it really so? In some countries, kings have absolute power (absolute monarchy), while in others their title is just a tribute to tradition and real opportunities are very limited (parliamentary monarchy).
There are also mixed versions, in which, on the one hand, there is a representative body exercising legislative power, but the powers of the king or emperor are quite large. Despite the fact that this form of government is considered less democratic than a republic, some monarchical states, such as Great Britain or Japan, are powerful, influential players in the modern political arena. Due to the fact that recently the idea of restoring autocracy has been discussed in Russian society (at least, this idea is being promoted by some priests of the Russian Orthodox Church),Let's take a closer look at the features of each of its types.
Absolute monarchy
As the name says, the head of state is not limited by any other authorities. From a legal point of view, a classical monarchy of this type does not exist in the modern world. Almost every country in the world has one or another representative body of power. However, in some Muslim countries, the monarch actually has absolute and unlimited power. Examples include Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, etc.
Parliamentary Monarchy
The most accurate type of autocracy can be described as follows: "The king reigns, but does not rule." This form of government presupposes the existence of a constitution adopted democratically. All legislative power is in the hands of the representative body. Formally, the monarch remains the head of the country, but in reality his powers are very limited.
For example, the British monarch is obliged to sign laws, but at the same time does not have the right to veto them. It performs only ceremonial and representative functions. And in Japan, the constitution expressly forbids the emperor to interfere in the government of the country. Parliamentary monarchy is a tribute to established traditions. The government in such countries is formed by members of the parliamentary majority, and even if the king or emperor is formally its head, it is still actually responsible only to parliament. With seeming archaism, parliamentary monarchy is present in manycountries, including such developed and influential states as Great Britain, Japan, as well as in Denmark, the Netherlands, Spain, Australia, Jamaica, Canada, etc. This type of power is directly opposite to the previous one.
Dual Monarchy
On the one hand, in such countries there is a legislature, and on the other hand, it is completely subordinate to the head of state. The monarch chooses the government and, if necessary, can dissolve parliament. Usually he himself draws up a constitution, which is called an oktroit, that is, it is granted or bestowed. The power of the monarch in such states is very strong, while his powers are not always described in legal documents. Examples include Morocco and Nepal. In Russia, this form of power was in the period from 1905 to 1917.
Does Russia need a monarchy?
The question is controversial and complex. On the one hand, it gives strong power and unity, and on the other hand, is it possible to entrust the fate of such a huge country into the hands of one person? In a recent vote, a little less than a third of Russians (28%) have nothing against if the monarch again becomes the head of state. But the majority nevertheless spoke in favor of a republic, the key feature of which is electivity. Still, the lessons of history were not in vain.
