Stairs. Entry group. Materials. Doors. Locks. Design

slide 6

Examples of modern countries with a theocratic monarchy

Saudi Arabia

Slide 7

Iran

Slide 8

Vatican

Slide 9

The absolute theocratic monarchy of an elective type is a form of government in the Vatican. At the head of the state is the Holy See (the pope and the administrative council - the Roman Curia). The Pope, who is the sovereign of the Holy See, in accordance with his office, exercises legislative, executive, judicial power in the State of the Vatican and in the universal Roman catholic church. Given the multifaceted power of the pope, an administrative structure known as the Roman Curia, whose members are appointed by the authority of the pope, was created to govern within carefully designed categories of power.

Slide 10

Was there a theocracy before?

During the Middle Ages, many monarchies were at least partly theocratic. The decisions of rulers in Catholic countries were often questioned and rejected if the popes did not agree with them. Religious leaders advised the rulers on issues not only of religion, but also of state. The situation began to change when Protestantism and other non-Catholic religions gained influence in certain countries.

View all slides

Let's try to figure out what an absolute monarchy is.

Definition: an absolute monarchy is a system in which all the fullness of state, and in some cases religious power is concentrated in the hands of one person (king, emperor, sultan, emir). The head concentrates the functions of legislative, executive, judicial power, is the commander-in-chief of the army.

Distinctive features and features of absolute monarchy

Distinctive features absolute monarchies are:

• centralization of all powers of authority;
• rigid hierarchical structure government controlled;
• the hereditary nature of the transfer of power;
• The monarch's power cannot be limited.

In Europe, the heyday of absolutism fell on the XIV - XVI centuries. AT modern world several states with unlimited power also survived.

As a form of government, absolute monarchy appeared during the ancient egypt, Ancient China. There, all power was concentrated in the hands of the emperor and pharaoh. They were supreme judges, commanders-in-chief of armies. Some historians believe that the form of government in ancient states can be attributed to despotism, and not to absolutism in its modern sense.

The foundations of absolutism were laid in Ancient Rome. The formula of the Roman jurist Ulpian is known - the Sovereign is not bound by laws (source: Wikipedia). In Europe, Niccolò Machiavelli made a great contribution to the formation of an absolute monarchy. In his writings, he described theoretical basis and features of the unlimited power of the monarch.

A feature of absolutism in the Middle Ages and at the present time, for example, in the Vatican, was the deification of the power of the monarch. This was expressed in the ceremony of approval (coronation) of the king or king in the church. This is due to the fact that at that time the influence of the church was enormous. It dominated all areas of public life.

Absolute monarchy in Europe

The emergence of absolutism in Europe was due to a change in social relations. For example, in France, power actually belonged to large landowners (the king owned only about 30% of the land). Estate-representative bodies had unlimited influence on the king. Landowners could force the king to pass any law that was beneficial to them. With the development of cities, there new class bourgeoisie. Incessant wars lead to increased costs. There was a need for unification, the establishment of a strong government.

Church representatives supported the centralization of power. At that time, the state and the church merged. Almost all positions in government were held by clergy.

Lands become the property of the state, class-representative bodies lose their influence, a new hierarchy of power develops. There is a regular army, law enforcement agencies. The laws issued by the king are binding throughout the country. Cities lose their right to self-government, city governors are appointed by the king.

As economic relations developed, the unlimited monarchy lost its significance and began to hinder further growth welfare of the bourgeoisie. The contradictions that arose led to the change of absolute monarchy to a constitutional one, for example, in Great Britain, and the violent overthrow of the sovereign, for example, in France.

The distinctive features of the unlimited monarchy in Great Britain were the preservation of the functions of Parliament, the absence of a regular army, and an extensive local government apparatus.

In Germany and Italy (because centralized states formed later) unlimited monarchy was expressed in the power of the local prince.

In Russia, absolute monarchy (autocracy) existed until the beginning of the 20th century.

Modern states with absolute monarchy

At present, several states with this form of government have survived. It:

1. Vatican- a theocratic state, in which all power belongs to the head of the Catholic Church - the Pope.
2. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, according to the basic law of the state, is a theocratic absolute monarchy, although nominally the power of the king can be limited by the norms and rules of sharia.
3. Kingdom of Swaziland The executive power is concentrated in the hands of the king. Nominally, the country's parliament is the highest legislative body, however, in fact, it performs only an advisory function.
4. UAE- a state uniting in the form of a federation, several emirates with the absolute power of the monarch. The President of the Federation is the Emir of Abu Dhabi and the Prime Minister is the Emir of Dubai. Supreme Council, which includes all the emirs of the UAE countries, is the supreme body in the country.
5. Sultanate of Brunei- is also a theocratic state with unlimited powers of the Sultan. The country nominally has a parliament, however, it consists only of relatives of the Sultan.
6. Sultanate of Oman can be described as a classical absolute monarchy. The full power is concentrated in the hands of the Sultan of Oman. He is the Prime Minister, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Finance, Defense and Acting Director of the country's Central Bank.
7. Emirate of Qatar- the state has a constitution, according to which the country is an absolute monarchy. The Emir single-handedly appoints all members of the government and advisory council.

Theocratic monarchy is a form of civil government in which official policy is governed directly by divine guidance, the interpretation of God's will as stated in the religious scriptures, in accordance with the teachings of a particular religion.

In practice, the clergy, as accredited representatives of an invisible deity, real or imagined, proclaim and explain the laws of public policy. In the strictest sense, it means a ruler who considers himself an emissary of God, and all laws are made by him under God's direction. The head of the theocratic government is also the head of a religious institution. Thus, civil laws and functions are part of religion, implying the absorption of the state by the church.

One of the first to use the term "theocracy" was Josephus Flavius, who apparently tried to explain the organization of the Jewish Union by the Greek words "theos" (god) and "krateo" (govern) to pagan readers. Although in this connection, comparing it with other forms of government (monarchy, oligarchy, republic), enters into a long and somewhat confused discussion of the topic, he does not explain what a "theocratic monarchy" is.

Countries on the example of which in modern times one can consider a similar form of government include Saudi Arabia, Iran, the Vatican.

Many states still have certain official religions, civil laws may be influenced by theological or moral concepts, but these conditions do not fall under the condition of theocracy. A secular state can also coexist with a state religion or delegate certain aspects of civil law to religious communities.

During the Middle Ages, many monarchies were at least partly theocratic. The decisions of rulers in Catholic countries were often questioned and rejected if the popes did not agree with them. Religious leaders advised the rulers on issues not only of religion, but also of state. The situation began to change when Protestantism and other non-Catholic religions gained influence in certain countries.

An absolute theocratic elective monarchy is a form of government in the Vatican. In is the Holy See (the Pope and the administrative council - the Roman Curia). who is the sovereign of the Holy See, in accordance with his office, exercises legislative, executive, in the state of the Vatican and in the universal Roman Catholic Church. Given the multifaceted power of the pope, an administrative structure known as the Roman Curia, whose members are appointed by the authority of the pope, was created to govern within carefully designed categories of power.

The new pope, after the death of the previous one, is elected by a conclave consisting only of cardinals.

In states where the state religion is Islam, in particular Sharia, the theocratic monarchy was the only form of government for many centuries. From the time when the Prophet Muhammad established the Arab-Muslim (feudal) state in Medina in the seventh century until the beginning of the twentieth century, when the last caliphate in Turkey collapsed. The caliph (successor) was the head of state, ruling according to Islam) based on the Qur'an and the Sunnah. Although the caliphs did not have instructions directly from Allah, they, like the Prophet, were obliged to justify the decrees they issued in accordance with this set of Divine commands and prohibitions, demonstrating that Allah is the final authority.

The most famous theocratic monarchy in the Islamic world in history is the Arab Caliphate under the caliphs of the Umayyad dynasty or the "Righteous Caliphs" (the first four caliphs after the Prophet Muhammad).

In modern times, the political system of the Islamic Republic of Iran is described as a real theocracy, in any case, as indicated in the US CIA directory.

When Ruhollah Mousavi Khomeini became Iran's leader from 1979 to 1989, the alignment of religious and political forces was dramatically transformed: Shiite Islam became an inseparable element of the political structure of the state. Such was also the stated goal of the 1979 Iranian Revolution - to overthrow the rule of the Shah and restore Islamic ideology in Iranian society.

Shia Islam is official According to the Constitution of 1979 (as amended in 1989), Islamic ideology determines the political, economic, social order Islamic Republic of Iran. The head of state, who establishes the general policy of the country, - supreme leader appointed by the Board of Experts.

There were two top leaders in Iran: the founder of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Ruhollah Mousavi Khomeini, and his successor, Grand Ayatollah Ali Hosseini Khamenei (from 1989 to the present).

The supreme leader appoints the heads of many important state structures. Also, according to the Iranian constitution, he approves the powers of the president, can veto laws passed by the parliament (Majlis), traditionally he gives permission to presidential candidates to declare their candidacy.

Theocratic monarchy of a special kind - a form of government in Saudi Arabia. Rather, it will be said that the state has an absolute monarchy based on the principles of Islam. is the head of state and head of government. However, most decisions are made through consultations between the senior princes of the royal family and the Quran is declared the Constitution of the country, which is governed on the basis of Islamic law (Sharia).

6. Theocratic Monarchy

Saul, David and Solomon.

(1055…953 B.C.)

When Samuel grew old, he appointed two of his sons as judges, probably with the aim of making this dignity hereditary in his family. But the sons did not follow in the footsteps of their father, but they did wrong judgment. This circumstance, and perhaps envy of the tribe of Ephraim, was the reason that the Israelites forced Samuel to continue to assume the judicial dignity. When they were convinced by countless examples of neighboring peoples that the best remedy in public troubles an autocratic ruler or king appears, they turned to Samuel and said: “Give us a king who would lead us out of difficulties when we are at war, and such as all the Gentiles have.” Samuel reluctantly agreed to this desire. He argued that the establishment of royal power would be tantamount to falling away from Jehovah, and with all the fervor of his characteristic eloquence, he tried to convince the people to remain in their former form of government. In his arguments, Samuel relied mainly on the main provision of the Mosaic law, by virtue of which the people of Israel, being the chosen people of God, together with the land of Canaan they occupied, constituted the property of Jehovah himself and therefore had to have only God as their king, and not a man.

But Samuel's arguments failed. The people did not retreat from their intention, and Samuel had to agree to be elected. His choice, of course, not without prudent intent, fell on one person from the weak tribe of Benjamin and, moreover, from the most insignificant family of this tribe. He was called Saul, he was beautiful in appearance, “a whole head above all the people” and extraordinary courage. Sent by his father to find the missing donkeys, Saul, not finding them, came to the prophet Samuel to ask him about them. Samuel received him in a friendly manner and anointed him with holy ointment as king of Israel. Then he told him to return home and said that he would have to appear before the assembly of the prophets. Saul departed and did as Samuel commanded him. The prophets met him and greeted him with their inspired songs. The Spirit of God descended on Saul, and he began to prophesy before them with the words of the ancient prophets. Then all who knew him before exclaimed in amazement: "Is Saul one of the prophets?" But this amazement reached its highest limits when Samuel, in the assembly convened by him after this, of the people, presented this same Saul as their future king. Together with the joyful cries of the people: "Long live the king!" many said, "How can he help us?" He was treated with disdain and no gifts were brought to him. However, Saul, about which he himself had never thought before, thanks to his exploits, became dear to his oppressed fatherland.

Saul waged a whole series of happy wars against the Ammonites under their king Nahash, against the Philistines and the Amalekites. But when he disobeyed the order of Samuel to destroy the Amalekite king Agate with all his people and all his flocks, the spirit of God departed from him, he was rejected, and David was secretly anointed king, by the command of Jehovah. However, David, before all the people recognized him as king, had to experience a lot: endure several persecutions and undergo repeated attempts on his life, and after Saul’s suicide in the battle with the Philistines, wage a stubborn struggle with his commander Abner and Saul’s eldest son Jebosheth.

In the reign of David (1033-993 B.C.) the kingdom of Judah reached its greatest splendor. As a brave commander, David waged repeated wars, in which both he and his people showed extraordinary courage. After a successful campaign against the Syrians, the kingdom of Judah acquired a formidable greatness, and a real and lasting peace came. David extended his power to the mouth of the Euphrates, and the Syrians from Emath, Damascus, and Nisibis paid tribute to him.

David also extended his state to the south. The Moabites and Edomites, who had made an alliance with the ruler of Nisiv and were supported by him and the Assyrians, attacked the Israelites, but were also defeated by David and his brave commander Joab and inhumanly exterminated. These states fell under the rule of David, and, having conquered Idumea, he even received a harbor in the Arabian Gulf. The Philistines were completely subdued. Finally, David managed to wrest from the Jebusites Jerusalem with the fortress of Zion, which they had until then owned. This fortress was fortified so strongly that the Jebusites mockingly answered David's offer to surrender it: But David nevertheless took it, strengthened it even more and made Jerusalem and Zion his residence. Jerusalem became the capital of the state also because David transferred there with extraordinary solemnity the icon-case of the covenant, and he himself danced in front of the icon-case while carrying it to Zion.

The king decided to decorate the city even more. With the help of Phoenician architects, sent to him along with the cedar forest by the king of Tyre, he built the richest and most beautiful palace in Jerusalem. He also wanted to transfer the people's shrine from the tabernacle to a strong and luxurious temple, but he was forbidden to carry out this undertaking by the prophet Nathan.

Being deprived of the opportunity to show his attraction to beauty and grandeur in the construction of the temple, David, with greater freedom, could indulge in the elevation of the national spirit and the divine service, which is closely connected with it in its important significance. It began to cope with great solemnity and splendor, accompanied by music and hymns, in which David himself was very skilled and thus gave the worship service a more enlightened and artistic form. For this purpose, four thousand Levites were chosen, divided into classes and choirs, headed by teachers of choral singing; they were all in luxurious attire. We know the names of the three famous choirmasters, Asaph, Haman and Idifum, and the gentle, full of feeling songs of David himself, contained in the Psalter (book of psalms), have come down to us.

These songs of David, like the songs of other poets, were sung at public festivals. The entire Jewish people, who gathered before the tabernacle of the covenant, experienced an enthusiasm unknown to them until then in the performance of the newly introduced worship. But, on the other hand, luxury and splendor, which appeared due to the wealth acquired by various wars, began to corrupt the people. He gradually got used to the changes that this enlightened and educated sovereign, who combined the talent of a lyric poet with the talent of a winner and a wise ruler, brought to the national spirit and state institutions.

Therefore, it is natural that the character of the people, thanks to the education disseminated by David, moved from patriarchal simplicity and undemanding to mobility and variability. Equality and freedom, supported by ancient institutions, suffered significantly under the new royal, almost despotic power, and the unusually sensitive sense of independence that had existed until then was gradually dulled. The Asiatic spirit of the form of government was not slow to manifest itself here, with all its consequences.

All sorts of intrigues were played out at the court of David; from them came turmoil and strife, casting a gloomy shadow over last years reign of David.

Jewish clothes of the time of David and Solomon

And what severe trials lay ahead for this power-hungry sovereign! This can be judged by the rebellion of his son Absalom and by the crime committed by David against the Hittite Uriah. Falling in love with his wife Bathsheba and wanting to take her as his wife, David killed Uriah. But the memories of David's weaknesses and misdeeds were soon forgotten, and the people saw in him only the creator of the Israeli state, "a man with a divine heart", a great politician. In addition, according to even strict judges, David was an excellent poet. The successor on the throne of Israel was to be the fourth son of David - Adonius, but Bathsheba and the prophet Nathan persuaded the aging king to appoint another. Even during his lifetime, he ordered that his son Solomon, born of Bathsheba, be proclaimed king by the people. Adonijah rebelled, but was killed along with his general, Joab.

Under Solomon, what David had sown sprouted in full splendor, thanks to his courage and energy, and the people could finally enjoy the fruits of previous conquests. “The Jews,” as the Bible says, “lived carelessly, each one under his own vineyard and under his fig tree; they were as numerous as the sand of the sea; they ate, drank, and were merry.”

Therefore, King Solomon was adorned only with peaceful virtues: wisdom, poetic talent, full of living images, an attraction to beauty and splendor, manifested in a variety of expensive buildings and structures; concern for the security of the country, expressed in the strengthening of cities and in the conclusion of alliances with friendly neighbors; and, finally, diligence for the well-being of the people, which arose thanks to peaceful relations with other peoples, navigation and trade. It is these deeds that primarily fill the history of Solomon's reign. At the same time, under him, the initial, established by Moses, state system, which until then had changed only gradually, experienced a radical and comprehensive change.

One of the remarkable deeds of Solomon was the construction of the Temple of Jerusalem, although in doing so he carried out only the will and plan of David, who collected innumerable treasures for this construction. This temple, of course, should not be considered on a par with the artistic examples of Greek architecture, in comparison with which it will seem gloomy, squat and irregular in shape. But in the splendor and strength of the building, it was highly remarkable. Since it was built on Mount Moria, this mountain was torn down on one side and expanded on the other. Even in the time of the Romans, they were amazed at the huge wall, four hundred cubits high, which was made of stones, interconnected with iron fasteners. Following the model of Egyptian buildings, the temple had many wings that served partly for storing tithes, partly for arranging refectory halls during sacrifices, partly for housing priests, etc.

During the construction of this temple, which lasted seven years, Solomon used slaves who were descendants of the undestroyed Canaanite peoples remaining in the country: the Gephites, the Jebusites and others. The architects who supervised the construction were mostly foreigners, mostly residents of the powerful city of Tyre, famous at that time for their art and diligence. The Tirian was an artist who made both huge metal columns and vessels for the temple. The king of Tyre, Hiram, a friend of Solomon, by virtue of an agreement and in exchange for the butter and bread delivered to him by Solomon, sent at his disposal those inhabitants of Tire who cut and trimmed cedar trees in Lebanon and floated them to Jaffa.

There was also gold from Tyre, converted by local craftsmen into decorations for the temple.

Noble Jews of the time of Solomon

For this gold, Solomon ceded twenty-two insignificant cities to the king of Tyre. It is easy to imagine the enormous amount of gold that Solomon expended, if we take into account that the Temple of Jerusalem was not the only building that glorified his reign. So, he built for himself a palace in Jerusalem and not far from the city of Baalbek, at the foot of Lebanon, a summer palace in which all the utensils were gold. In addition, he built a court and a palace for his wife, his daughter Egyptian pharaoh. His throne was also famous. Ivory plated with pure gold; six steps led up to it, on both sides of which stood twelve lions; this throne, the like of which was not in any state, was probably also the work of a foreign master.

From all this it can be seen that luxury was not a consequence of the cultural state of the whole people, but was the need of the court and the king, therefore, between the government and the people's spirit, more and more discrepancy should have been revealed over time.

As for trade, it was also conducted not by the people, but by the king, moreover, at his own expense in alliance with the Tyrian king, with the help of Phoenician sailors, especially from the Gasion-Gaver harbor in the Arabian Gulf. This trade extended to Ophir and Tartessus (in Spain) and delivered gold, silver and other goods to Solomon.

Temple ruins at Baalbek

He also traded in horses, which was one of the pernicious innovations of the king. Until that time, horses were alien to the Israelites, and the breeding of horses was forbidden by Moses, who allowed the election of a king in the future, but with the indispensable condition that he should in no case keep cavalry. The reasons Moses forbade the breeding of horses were partly that the use of horses in agriculture was less convenient than that of donkeys, and partly that Canaan, surrounded by deserts and mountains, needed hardy foot soldiers for its protection. The cavalry could be needed only in distant, aggressive wars, which Moses did not want. But Solomon, contrary to the decree of Moses, brought in a regular cavalry of twelve thousand horsemen and almost fifteen hundred war chariots. This cavalry, for which Solomon maintained a double number of horses, was located in the cities, where stables were built for her after the Egyptian model. Since horses were not yet bred in Arabia at that time, they were brought to Solomon from Egypt, and in such quantity that he resold them to neighboring rulers at a high price arbitrarily set by him.

This land and sea trade, together with the tribute of subject peoples, delivered everything necessary to the king and his court staff, constituted the main source of significant income for the king, about whom they said that he had done cedar tree as common as a fig tree, and silver as ordinary stones.

And the French Monarchy The second example I will briefly describe is the finances of the French monarchy. The efforts of the kings of France XIV-XV centuries. introduce a permanent tax integral part a common attempt to rationalize power, though not crowned with complete success at that time.