ANALYSIS OF OTHER STATE MODELS

EMPIRE of the academy of geopolitical problems

Let's extract the essences of the model:

The ideal scheme of a country government, page 40: «Russian empire (before the pro-western reforms of Peter I), combining the spiritual power of clergy, autocratic rule with an active participation of aristocracy and the developed democratic institutes. Such system did not require availability of political parties, moreover, it was natural, integral and perfect».

Political system - Empire, a cover: ‘Contours of a new Russian empire’.

The central task, page 46: ‘… the state objective consists not in creating paradise on the earth, it is not possible. The state objective … to make so that there was no hell on the earth’.

It is proposed the society consisting of 4 estates, page 43:

  1. Estate of priests and philosophers
  2. Estate of soldiers and ‘king’s men’ being at the state service
  3. Estate of businessmen
  4. Public estate

Page 44: ‘… the first and the second estates should have full political rights and a personal property qualification. … the third and the fourth … can be rich … but should be limited in political rights …’

It is supposed that, page 44 ‘… borders of estates are transparent, the pertain is based on free self-determination’.

Political structure of the society, page 45: ‘In the New Russian empire the Emperor should be the head of the state, naturally, selected, as a variant, from the second estate. The aristocratic authority should be formed of elite of 1 and 2 estates and to form up the permanent Duma appointed by the Emperor. The democratic authority is realized by means of a plenipotentiary local government (zemstvo (country council)) and annually assembling the Zemsky Sobor (Assembly of the Land) elected from the estates by zemstvos’.

Page 54: ‘It is the Pobilius’s scheme of authorities correlation of in the empire, assuming simultaneous existence and complementarity of monarchy, aristocracy and democracy’.


Now let’s give this model a complex assessment:

Certainly, within the frames of this model, many would assume a possibility for the person, who has thought up this model, to hold the central place in the state. The central person in the Empire model is the general Ivashov L.G. So it is obvious, that the Emperor will be selected not ‘as a variant’ from the second estate, but from the second estate, solely and unequivocally.

10 years term of board - means a life-long period. We have experienced it repeatedly. And considering that this model does not stipulate anywhere, whether the Emperor can be elected for 2, 3 or 4 terms, the Emperor will be taken out his royal office feet-first only.

Despite the assumption that borders of estates are transparent, it seems to be only a beautiful picture. As soon as the structure of class society is hardened, the right to remain in the ‘supreme’ estate will become hereditary. It would be difficult to rise above the crowd from the estate of ‘businessmen’, nothing to speak of a chance of creeping out from the ‘public’ estate for you, or your children. History has proved it repeatedly, starting with the Roman Empire.

Furthermore another question occurs: what am I supposed to do, if I, being a VERY RICH businessman, wish to take part in government? As a matter of fact, the 2nd estate has a property qualification. It means, I should somehow hide somewhere the money (now, for example, one may write it all over to the wife, children and so forth), I am not going to lose 99 % of the fortune I own for the sake of the right. A horrible corruption scheme is obviously seen here.

The simultaneous existence of monarchy, aristocracy and democracy would be a pure fiction. Local affairs only remained for the democracy, i.e. the model says: ‘Hey you below, you may do whatever you want, but the aristocracy will be looking after you nevertheless. When something goes wrong, our sovereign-father will put things right’. Actually, this model is a classical imperial management scheme, when one person decides everything. Pay attention, this model accurately puts down that the Duma, i.e. the aristocratic power – shall be approved by the Emperor. Certainly, the Emperor cannot physically alone operate the whole country with all his people personally - the vertical of power with a clear split of authorities is needed. Here this vertical … with !a genuine! democracy … looks very beautiful.

The scheme assumes a dreadful corruption from the very beginning, page 32: «business should prosper … but under the control of the elite of military estate». Take a note that ‘king’s men’ from this 2nd estates are already deprived of a food cup.

In spite of the fact that the model assumes equality of all religions, page 43: ‘… at the heart of imperial ideology should lay … a spiritual principle of Traditional society: Orthodoxy and other religions traditional for Russia (Moslem, Buddhism, Judaism)’, actually no other religions in the state, except for the Orthodoxy, may be talked about, page 53: ‘For today the Empire is the best image of fulfilment of precept of Jesus Christ ‘Thy Kingdom come, Thy Will be done,
on Earth, as it is in Heaven’. Actually , the 1st estate will consist ONLY of orthodox priests, thus all other religions should vegetate in oblivion or simply die. The example taken from the brochure poorly enough confirms this assertion, however the following paragraph will convince you of correctness of our assumption.

In spite of the fact that equality of all people is proclaimed, actually only Russians there are supposed to live well, page 45: ‘restoration of the role and the status of Russian as title nation and guarantor of harmonious development of the small and medium peoples’, page 42: ‘For us, I believe it is obvious that Russia either comes back again all mighty and great, or there will be none. Russians were and should be a super ethnos, or there will be none’. It looks rather like a religious and racial bold genocide.

And indeed, so far as the authors are not going to build ‘paradise on the earth’, most likely, in the Empire no bones will be made of its residents.

As it was already said, no model can be ONLY bad, something good may be found always.

What good have we found in this model?

Once again, the authors have confirmed our statement that a full-scale crisis, the one more severe than that of 1991, is likely to burst out in the next 3-4 years, page 30: ‘… the most interesting will take place at the next phase of the severe World crisis, in 2014-2015 …’

The brochure contains many good ideas, which require better apprehension, for example, page 33: ‘the principle of economic and political hierarchy of relations … those aspects of economic life, which by their scale are comparable to the interests of a private person, should be guided by market principles and be based on a private property. In the process of growth of the enterprise significance, the features of collective possession should increase … And, finally, the economic spheres directly connected with the state and its strategic status, should be controlled, subsidized and managed by the state instances, as it is the matter of a higher level interests, than the private property and collective benefit’.

Still, the main thing is something different. The main thing is that the authors have tried to build up a certain model, in which a spiritual component of human life is not left by the state to sink or swim. However, too bad is that this spiritual component has been identified with religion and only with one confession – the Orthodoxy.

Spiritual life of human being is not limited to religion only. It includes a dialogue with the senior generation, and education of children, and acquaintance of a person with masterpieces of classical music, literature and fine arts, and self-education, and tours and excursions, and, certainly, religion.

The state shall take care of the maximum filling of the inner world of its citizens. This is to define the high moral principles of every individual, and the society, as a whole. This is to establish other non-material values in the society. The spiritually filled person is more benevolent, attentive to himself and the persons about him and is certainly happier. This idea needs to be perceived as a component of the state decent model.

There is one more moment not reflected in the brochure. Similar to 4 estates, the authors of the program propose 4 branches of power: executive, legislative, military and spiritual. It is obvious, all that will not work in this model – everything is going to be as the Emperor says. Please pay attention, when the authorities of the military power are not clear, the spiritual power not only incurs a part of authorities of the present judicial branch of power, but also incurs functions of a public morals criterion in the society.

The very idea looks very good, because the person in society should live not only under the registered Laws administrative and criminal right, and also under so-called Laws of morals and conscience. For centuries church has performed the duty of guiding the people to a right way. In the Soviet period this function was passed over to the forums of conscience at the factories.

Sure there should be a structure in the society, which could provide a moral and ethical estimation of some actions of individual persons, groups of people or the society as a whole. In the New philosophy we have tried to assign this function to a ‘jury trial’, but we a going to take into analysis this chapter only after we consider the main chapters.


Conclusion:

Actually, this model of state is a military dictatorship with totalitarian rule of the orthodox Russian Emperor.

Basis of the state - individual rule of the state by one person.

The practice has shown this basis can be strong and stable, only when the ruling Emperor is sure that after his death his business will pass to his close relatives, i.e. there is a ‘family contract’.

Seeing only a minor chance of the power delegation to someone foreign, the governor there and then finds a necessity to hand over ‘a little bit’ to his descendants, and there and then an awful plundering of the state to a personal pocket of the ruler begins.

Thus, we have found out that the proposed base of the state is very unstable.

Moreover, except for the very basis of statehood, there are some more moments, that not only prevent from building of a really legal and decent society, and, most likely, would lead to future serious shocks of the state:

  1. Since the brochure actively emphasizes that the offered ruler should necessarily be Russian and orthodox, most likely, it would mean certain antagonism to other religions and other peoples (except for the Russian in origin, and even then not all), demonstration of negative attitude (including possible sanction) to interreligious and interracial marriages.
  2. Obviously, in the course of time, trying to preserve their authorities, persons from the ‘upper’ estates would undertake more and more attempts to protect themselves from an ingress into their estates of the ‘lowest’ people. It would not only mean a discontent of the people and possible conflicts. First of all, it would mean a barrier for the intellectuals from the ‘lowest’ estates to reach the top of society, i.e. a barrier for the society development.
  3. After all, we are reaching out for a decent civil society with no wars at all. Once we reach such a society, against whom would the 2nd estate ‘soldiers’ be waging war? Certainly, against their own people. And it is obvious, as no person has ever left his supreme power office for no particular reason, and here we see the whole estate!

And the last. Those eager to study the theory of the state construction, will necessarily study the Plato's work ‘The Republic’, because it is one of the first fundamental works in the mankind history on reforming the political structure of society. Some remember, Plato declares the class division of society to be a condition of the state stability. Its theory assumes three estates: philosophers, soldiers (guards) and manufacturers (handicraftsmen and land owners).

Three major moments worth noting:

  1. As a philosopher, Plato considered philosophers to be the wisest persons and, accordingly, the most worthy rulers. The AGP Empire – is a project of the veteran officer, therefore the ruler in the AGP model can be a military man only. ‘All new is well forgotten old’. Apparently, the theory of the Academy of geopolitical problems – is a clear plagiarism, i.e. written from a Plato's copy ‘The Republic’ with of supreme rulers replacement from philosophers to a soldier.
  2. Plato: ‘Justice concerns the proper ordering of things and persons within a society. It means, the interference of these three estates to other people’s affairs and transition from one estate to another is the greatest harm for the state and rightfully can be considered as the maximum crime’. The AGP Empire model also means that transition from one estate to another will become punishable.
  3. The Plato's ‘Republic’ presumes three estates, from them the third one of handicraftsmen and grain-growers - general Ivashov names it the estate of businessmen – is deprived of civil rights absolutely. So where from has the AGP model taken the 4th estate, if Plato in his ‘Republic’ had offered only three estates? The answer is obvious and awful at its core: Aristoteles said that each citizen should be absolutely free, and at that even the poorest should have no less than three slaves. In the model of AGP Empire the 4th estate - the common people, so, as a matter of fact, the model proposes a return to the slaveholding society, practically.

The very model is worth nothing, but the ideas of necessary spiritual filling of society and the leading part of the state in this process will be of good service in the future.