In dualistic monarchies (Kuwait, Bahrain) the king shares his legislative powers with the elected highest representative body.

In the constitutions of these countries, the relationship between the king and legislature authorities are defined quite clearly: for example, the Constitution of Kuwait directly states that legislature belongs to the emir and the National Assembly, the executive belongs to the emir,

Council of Ministers and ministers, and the judiciary - the courts, which exercise it in accordance with and within the limits established by the constitution on behalf of the emir (Article 53). The emir exercises his power through ministers, whom he appoints and dismisses on the recommendation of the prime minister. The prime minister himself is also appointed by the emir “after traditional consultations.” The Prime Minister and ministers are collectively responsible to the Emir for general policy state, and each minister is individually responsible to the emir for the functioning of his ministry. Each minister is also responsible to the National Assembly for those matters that are under the jurisdiction of that ministry. The resignation of a minister is carried out at his personal request or at the request of at least 10 deputies. If the National Assembly expresses no confidence in a minister, he is considered removed from office. In the field of lawmaking, the emir has the right to initiate, approve and promulgate laws. He may return the bill for reconsideration by reasoned decree, but if the National Assembly re-votes the bill by a 2/3 majority of its members, the Emir will promulgate it within 30 days.

According to amendments made to the Bahrain Constitution in 2011, parliament has the right to ask the monarch to resign ministers and the prime minister; demand an account from the head of government and partially monitor the activities of the government for compliance with national interests. The King must consult the heads of the elected Parliament and the appointed Advisory Council before dissolving the legislature. Only the elected chamber has the right to vote on the issue of confidence in the prime minister and submit its decision to the king, who will make the final decision on the resignation of the prime minister.

An example of a dualistic monarchy is Kuwait, where the emir is declared the “head of state” by the 1962 constitution, who takes an oath of office before the National Assembly before taking office. The ruler of Kuwait, bearing the official title of “His Majesty the Emir of the State of Kuwait,” can only be a direct descendant of Mubarak ibn al-Sabah. Belonging to the clan of al-Sabah is mandatory for crown prince(sheikh), who is appointed by decree of the emir with the approval of the National Assembly.

The historical experience of the al-Sabah dynasty is fundamentally different from the Saudi one, since their assertion in power was not directly related to the religious factor, they did not claim family ties with the Prophet Muhammad and did not undertake military campaigns to expand the territory of their state. Therefore, Article 6 of the constitution declares that “the system of government in Kuwait is democratic, sovereignty belongs to the people (al-umma) - the source of all authorities.” The system of government in this state operates on the principle of separation of powers, which “cooperate with each other” and “cannot delegate all or part of their powers as defined in the constitution.”

Legislative power according to the constitution belongs to the emir and the National Assembly (Majlis al-umma), and executive power to the emir and the cabinet of ministers. Judicial power on behalf of the emir is exercised by the courts “within the boundaries established by the constitution.” The emir exercises his power through ministers, whom he appoints and dismisses on the recommendation of the prime minister. The prime minister himself is also appointed by the emir “after traditional consultations.”

The prime minister and ministers are collectively responsible to the emir for the general policy of the state, and each minister is individually responsible to the emir for the functioning of his ministry. Each minister is also responsible to the National Assembly for those matters that are under the jurisdiction of that ministry. The resignation of a minister is carried out at his personal request or at the request of at least 10 deputies. If the National Assembly expresses no confidence in a minister, he is considered removed from office, and ministers who are members of the National Assembly do not participate in voting on the vote of no confidence.

The resignation of the prime minister is carried out by decree of the emir and entails the resignation of the entire cabinet. A question of mistrust to the Prime Minister not subject to debate in the National Assembly. However, if the National Assembly decides that it cannot further cooperate with this Prime Minister, the issue of confidence in the Prime Minister is referred to the head of state. In this case, the emir can either dismiss the prime minister from his post or dissolve the National Assembly. In the event of the dissolution of the National Assembly, if the newly elected National Assembly decides by a majority vote that it also cannot cooperate with the said Prime Minister, then the Emir must dismiss him and form a new cabinet.

The Emir may dissolve the National Assembly by issuing a justified decree, but the National Assembly cannot be dissolved twice for the same reason. In the event of dissolution, elections to a new National Assembly must take place within a period not exceeding two months from the date of its dissolution. Throughout the history of Kuwait's independent development, the parliament was dissolved 4 times: in 1976 (it was restored only in 1981), 1986 (there was no parliament until 1990), 1991 and 1998.

The Emir convenes the National Assembly by decree for a regular session in October of each year, but Article 86 stipulates that if such a decree is not issued before October 1, then the National Assembly meets on the third Sunday in October, at 9.00 am. The Emir may convene the National Assembly for an emergency session and extend the work of the regular or emergency session.

In the field of lawmaking, the emir has the right to initiate, approve and promulgate laws. The Emir may return the bill for reconsideration based on a reasoned decree. If the National Assembly re-votes in favor of the bill by a majority of 2/3 of its members, the emir will promulgate it within 30 days.

The emir appoints governors (usually representatives of the ruling dynasty) in the province and big cities countries whose candidacies are approved by the National Assembly. Municipal councils in provinces and cities are elected, and their chairmen and deputies are appointed by the government.

The emir is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces; he appoints and dismisses senior officers in accordance with the law; declares by his decree a “defensive war”; "offensive war" is prohibited. The Emir declares a state of emergency in the country by issuing a decree, which is submitted to the National Assembly within 15 days after its issuance. If the declaration of a state of emergency occurs while the National Assembly is dissolved, the decree must be submitted to the new assembly at its first session. The extension of the state of emergency can only take place if a majority of the members of the National Assembly vote in favor of it; Moreover, the question of extending the state of emergency is raised every 3 months. If the Emir's decrees are not submitted to the National Assembly, they cease to have effect without further decision on this issue.

The emir concludes treaties by issuing a decree and submits them to the National Assembly. The agreement comes into force after its signature, ratification and publication in the Official Gazette. However, treaties of peace and alliances, treaties relating to the territory of a state, its sovereignty and natural resources, public or private rights of citizens, agreements on trade and navigation, agreements entailing additional expenses not provided for by the state budget, as well as agreements providing for changes in the legislation of Kuwait, come into force only on the basis of specially adopted laws.

There is a certain specificity of the status of the head of state in Qatar and Oman, where there is no parliament, however, the Shura Council (Consultative Council) in Oman has already been transformed into a bicameral body that is elected by its subjects and has the right to initiate legislation, just like in Qatar. This type of monarchy is sometimes defined as “deliberative parliamentarism.”

In Qatar, legislative power is exercised by the Shura Council, which approves the general policies of the government, the country's budget and exercises control over executive branch(Article 76 of the 2003 constitution). The Shura Council consists of 45 members, 30 of whom are elected by direct, universal and secret vote, and 15 are appointed by the emir from among ministers or other persons. The emir is entrusted with executive power, which he exercises with the help of the Council of Ministers.

The emir appoints the prime minister and, at his proposal, the remaining ministers, dismisses them from office and accepts their resignations. The Emir has the power to establish and organize ministries and other government bodies and determine their functions, as well as advisory bodies that will assist him in management and control. Article 121 of the constitution establishes that the Council of Ministers exercises the powers of “the highest executive body and directs all internal and foreign affairs, within its jurisdiction, in accordance with the Basic Law and current legislation." The Emir may require the Prime Minister and Ministers to submit a report on any matter of national importance within the scope of his authority.

The Prime Minister and ministers are collectively responsible to the Emir for the implementation of general government policies, and each of them is individually responsible to the Emir for the exercise of their powers and duties. The Qatari Constitution also provides for a specific role for the Prime Minister, who “presides over meetings of the Council of Ministers, organizes these meetings and supervises the coordination of the work of various ministries with a view to achieving unity and harmony of government bodies” (Article 125).

• Kuwaiti historians claim that the ideas of representative government in the country began to make their way back in the early 1920s of the 20th century, when the first Advisory Council (Majlis al-Shura), consisting of 12 highly respected people in the country, was formed under the emir. In 1938, a Legislative Assembly was formed, similar in its functions to the modern parliament, but this body existed for only 6 months.

Dualistic monarchy. In a dualistic monarchy(from Latin dualis - dual) supreme state power is divided between parliament, which is the legislative body and is elected by the people, and the monarch, who has executive power.
In relation to this form of government (as opposed to an absolute monarchy), one can speak about the separation of powers, however, to the extent that the monarch is, at a minimum, deprived of legislative and judicial prerogatives.
The emergence of a dualistic monarchy is associated with protests against absolutism in the 16th-19th centuries, which resulted in a compromise between the growing bourgeoisie and the still quite strong nobility (for example, the North German Confederation and the German Empire, Austria-Hungary in the 19th-20th centuries).
This form of government is not characterized by a design "king in parliament" Parliament has quite a significant status. Sometimes, however, it is regarded as a body operating under the monarch. However, the very fact that the state has a body of popular representation that has its own powers (including on issues of budget, finance, etc.) is grounds to consider the power of the monarch to be limited.
It is not possible to talk about popular sovereignty in dualistic monarchies. The sovereign subject of sovereignty is the monarch. At the same time, the very existence of a parliament elected by the people suggests that the power of the monarch is not undivided.
In this form of government, there may be some political balance between the monarch and parliament. But more likely is the political and legal supremacy of the king, only partially limited by the freedom of his subjects, the prerogatives of the parliament representing them.
The monarch is endowed with very extensive powers, allowing him to effectively participate in rule-making activities and influence parliament. So:
1) he and the government formed by him have the right to independently publish regulations on issues for which the competence of parliament is not distributed;
2) the competence of parliament is limited to a certain range of issues. At the same time, issues related to the budget, taxes, as well as acts that impose duties and responsibilities on subjects are the exclusive competence of parliament, which gives it the right to resist (to a greater or lesser extent) the policies pursued by the monarch. However, as the practice of most countries with a dualistic form of government shows, parliament does not adopt laws on its own initiative - its function is reduced to considering royal and government initiatives, which it can approve or reject. Thus laws appear to be acts of the monarch approved by Parliament;
3) even if parliament makes a decision contrary to the opinion of the monarch and the government, the head of state can use the veto. In the form of government under consideration, the veto of the monarch is, as a rule, absolute. A vetoed law is not re-debated and does not enter into force;
4) during the intersessional period, the monarch can issue acts, even those within parliamentary competence. He must subsequently submit them to Parliament for approval. Until Parliament convenes, these acts actually act as laws;
5) convening parliament for a session and dissolving it are the prerogatives of the monarch. This right gives the head of state the opportunity for political maneuver and choice of the most favorable conditions for parliamentary work.
Often in dualistic monarchies, a significant part of the deputy corps is not elected, but appointed. This allows the monarch to have his supporters in parliament. For example, in Swaziland the king appoints half of the senators and 20% of the lower house; in Thailand and Jordan, the full Senate is appointed. In Tongo, of the 29 seats in parliament, 11 are reserved for the king and members of his government, with another nine deputies being representatives of the nobility and only the remaining nine representing ordinary subjects.
The monarch in a dualistic monarchy also has significant powers in the formation of other bodies. To govern the country, the monarch forms a government. Ministers are in the service of the monarch. A dualistic monarchy is not characterized by parliamentary responsibility of the government. The government bears political responsibility only to the monarch. Disagreements with parliament do not oblige the government and individual ministers to resign. Thus, in Jordan, the parliament has the right to express no confidence in the government, after which ministers are obliged to resign. However, the decision of no confidence in the government must be approved by the king, in whose hands the fate of the ministers really lies.
In the form of government under consideration, the institution of countersignature is usually not used, although there are exceptions to this rule. Moreover, this institution does not limit the head of state in political decisions, as is usually the case in parliamentary monarchies. In the Kingdom of Jordan, the monarch is not authorized to issue decrees without the countersignature of members of the government, which does not mean that the government is bound by the will of the king. Simply, by signing the king’s acts, “the cabinet takes responsibility for possible Negative consequences decisions made» .
Foreign policy is controlled by the monarch. At the same time, if international treaties involve the establishment of new obligations, restriction of the freedoms of subjects, entail the emergence of financial obligations of the state and additional expenses, they are usually subject to ratification by parliament.
In the same time The dualism of the organization of state power in this form of government means that parliament, in turn, is not a nominal state body. After all, financial issues and the rights of subjects are of exceptional political importance. Power becomes real if it has access to material resources and the ability to spend and distribute them. It is on these issues - the budget and taxes - that the monarch must negotiate with parliament.
In a dualistic monarchy, parliament develops additional, sometimes very effective ways participation in politics. If parliament does not have the right of legislative initiative, then it can use hidden initiative. Deputies have the right to address the monarch with a message outlining their positions and requests for appropriate decisions to be made. Of course, the monarch can ignore the parliamentary address, but then parliamentarians can refuse to ratify the acts proposed by the monarch.
The government is often forced to take into account the positions of deputies and come into contact with parliament, its committees and factions. As a result, deputies have the actual opportunity to participate in the development of bills, even if they are formally introduced into parliament by the monarch and the government.
As the supreme commander of the armed forces, the monarch independently determines military policy states. However, the actions of the head of state in this area always require funding, which is carried out with the participation of parliament.
Thus, dualistic monarchy is a form of government in which, along with a politically sovereign monarch, there is a parliament with few but significant powers. Therefore, this form of government is rightfully considered transitional from absolute to parliamentary. This is a state of the state when the monarch can no longer rule the state alone, and parliament cannot remove him from power.
Obviously, a dualistic monarchy as a form of government is unstable, since each of the coexisting authorities strives to seize all power. The monarchy harbors the hope of regaining what was lost, thereby transforming the form of government into an absolute one, and the parliament is hoping to turn the monarch into a nominal head of state, establishing parliamentarism in the country.

2.2.3. Nominal monarchies

Parliamentary monarchy. The traditions of modern state science allow (depending on the source of power of the monarch) to distinguish two categories of constitutional (parliamentary) monarchy:
1) based on the principle of popular sovereignty (Spain, Portugal, Belgium, Norway, Sweden, countries Balkan Peninsula– Greece, Romania, Serbia, Bulgaria),
2) based on the monarchical principle (German states, Austria, Denmark).
The differences between them are as follows.
In monarchies based on the monarchical principle(German monarchies), constitutions were an act of self-limitation of absolutism, the power of the monarch. They limited the power of the monarch only insofar as such a limitation was established by the text of the constitution. Parliaments had only the rights granted to them by the constitution; therefore, when resolving questions about the scope of the monarch’s powers and conflicts between the monarch and parliament, constitutional practice and theory proceeded from the fact that the presumption was always directed in favor of the unlimited power of the monarch and against the factors limiting it. In this principle lies, according to G. Jellinek, “the entire legal core of the monarchical principle.”
Since the constitution on a number of issues did not require the participation of popular representation, to resolve them, the powers of the government were exercised by the monarch directly or indirectly, in fact, within the framework of the dualistic model of individual rule of the sovereign and parliament.
In monarchies based on the principle of popular sovereignty, all power originally belonged to the people. For example, according to the Belgian Constitution of 1831, “all powers come from the people. The king has no other powers other than those formulated by the Constitution, as well as other laws issued on its basis” (Articles 25 and 78). Moreover, in a controversial issue, the presumption has always been inclined in favor of popular representation and against the crown, which corresponds to a constitutional (parliamentary) monarchy of the modern type.
Parliamentary monarchy is a form of government in which the power of the monarch is limited by representative bodies. In this form of government there is no longer dualism between the legislative and executive powers, since the government is formed not by the monarch, but by parliament from representatives of political parties that have received a majority of seats in parliament, and it is also responsible for its activities to parliament.
This form of government is the most common form of monarchy today and exists in highly developed states, where the transition from an agrarian system to an industrial one was accompanied primarily not by a radical breakdown of the previous institutions of power, but by their gradual transformation and adaptation to new conditions (Great Britain, Japan, the Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark, Spain, etc.).
This form of government has separation of powers while recognizing the principle of the supremacy of parliament over the executive branch.
The supremacy of parliament is expressed in the fact that the government, which is usually appointed by the monarch, must enjoy the confidence of parliament (or its lower house), Consequently, the monarch is forced to appoint as head of government the leader of the party that has a majority of seats in parliament, or the leader of a coalition of parties that has such a majority.
Monarch in a parliamentary monarchy – nominal head of state, i.e. such an official who does not have real powers of authority of any branch of government. The real position of the monarch is reflected by the classical formula: "The monarch reigns, but does not rule."“On behalf of” or “on behalf of” the monarch, the actual powers of the highest bodies of legislative and executive power are exercised by the parliament and the government formed by it. The Constitution formally places a wide range of issues within the competence of the nominal monarch, but the monarch does not have the right to resolve them independently.
As a rule, the monarch is deprived of the opportunity to act independently, and all acts emanating from him are usually prepared by the government and countersigned by its head or the relevant minister, without which these acts have no legal force. Thus, the head of government or minister assumes responsibility for this act of the monarch, since the monarch himself is not responsible (in Great Britain, for example, this is expressed by the principle: “the king cannot be wrong”).
The right of veto in relation to laws passed by parliament, even when it belongs to him, is either not used by the monarch in practice, or is exercised by this right at the direction of the government (for example, the right of absolute veto, which the monarch of Great Britain has, has not been used by him since 1707) .
The main distinguishing feature of a parliamentary monarchy is political responsibility of the government to parliament (or the lower house in a bicameral structure) for its activities. If parliament expresses no confidence in the government or refuses confidence, the government must resign or must be dismissed by the monarch.
However, this power of parliament is balanced by the right of the government to propose to the monarch to dissolve parliament (the lower house) and call new elections in order to the conflict between the legislative and executive powers was resolved by the people: if he supports the government, then as a result of the elections in parliament a majority of his supporters will be formed, but if voters do not agree with the government, then the composition of the parliament will be appropriate, and the government will be replaced.
This system of relations between the monarch, parliament and government is characteristic of a parliamentary regime, or parliamentarism.. However, this state regime operates only on the condition that no one in parliament Political Party does not have an absolute majority and cannot form a one-party government. This situation is traditional, for example, in Denmark, the Netherlands, and in 1993 it also developed in Japan.
The wider the party coalition that formed the government, the less stable this government is, because the more difficult it will be to reach agreement between coalition partners on various political issues. Once a party withdraws its representatives from the government, it loses the necessary majority in parliament and is often forced to resign.
On the contrary, in countries where there is a two-party system (Great Britain, Canada, Australia, etc.) or a multi-party system with one dominant party (Japan in 1955–1993), governments are, in principle, one-party and a parliamentary model of relations between parliament and government practically turns into its opposite.
Legally, parliament exercises control over the activities of the government, but in reality the government, which consists of the leaders of the party with a majority in parliament, through this party faction, completely controls the work of parliament. This government regime is called the cabinet system, or ministerialism.
Hence, With the same form of government - parliamentary monarchy - two state regimes are possible: parliamentarism and ministerialism. It depends on the existing party system in the country.
There are “old” and “new” parliamentary monarchies. In the “old” monarchies, for example in Great Britain, Belgium, Norway, the monarchs lost real state power a very long time ago, but the so-called sleeping powers of the monarch. This means that certain powers of the monarch, which are ordinary life not in demand, can be used in crisis situation, so to speak, “wake up”. A classic example is the right of the king of Great Britain to appoint a prime minister in a situation where seats in parliament (the House of Commons) are split in half after elections and there is no dominant party. One might think that this is an abstraction, but meanwhile the use of “dormant” powers takes place. For example, in the 60s of the XX century. in Great Britain there were several cases when the sympathies of voters were divided in half: the number of parliamentarians from the Conservative and Labor parties turned out to be equal. Queen Elizabeth II then used her dormant powers and appointed Harold Macmillan as Prime Minister. True, the king can make such an appointment only with the knowledge of the Royal Privy Council, which actually determines the candidacy of the future prime minister.
Thus, The parliamentary monarchy is characterized by the following features.
1) monarch – nominal head of state; the power of the monarch is limited in all spheres of state power, there is no dualism of any kind;
2) executive power is exercised by the government, which is responsible to parliament, not the monarch;
3) the government is formed from representatives of the party that won the elections; The head of government becomes the leader of the party with the largest number of seats in parliament;
4) laws are passed by parliament, and their signing by the monarch represents a formal act.
Other types of nominal monarchies. The three varieties discussed above monarchical form boards reflect only the basic classification. However, along with them, there are other types of monarchy in the world today, which can be conditionally defined as atypical monarchies of our time.
Thus, a peculiar form of monarchy exists in a number of Muslim countries. She is connected with the concept of the caliphate fair political system, which, according to legend, was founded by the prophet Muhammad. A special role in filling the post of monarch here belongs to the council ruling family- an unofficial but very important institution. It determines the monarch's successor, who is not always the eldest son, and can also force the monarch to abdicate (as was the case, for example, in Saudi Arabia). In government, the concept of ashur is used, i.e., consultation of the ruler with authoritative people, because in Muslim doctrine it is read that elections are not a very reliable institution: those chosen may not be the most worthy.
Characteristic features of this form of government."
the institution of Majilis is the right of access of any Muslim with his needs to the ruler. Requests are received by a special official, although often the ruler himself or members of his family listen to visitors;
inequality of citizens in appointment to public positions. Some important positions can only be held by devout Muslims. Women in a number of countries are generally limited in political and often personal rights);
Zakat is a mandatory 2.5% tax on the wealth of the rich in favor of the poor.
One of the main goals of these monarchies is to strengthen the unity of the ummah - Muslim community. This is facilitated by the fact that the monarch, as a rule, is the highest cleric of the state - the imam. This form of monarchy is basically a theocratic monarchy.
There is a special kind of monarchy in the countries of Black Africa and Oceania, where vestiges of the patriarchal system are strong (Swaziland, Tonga, etc.). The organization of power there is characterized by the presence advice of the parietal leaders. Although tribal tradition dictates that no one can be heir to the throne by birth, the state-wide tribal council in Swaziland - the Likoko - consisting of 17 other chiefs, usually selects a new monarch from among the many sons of the deceased (in last time- from among more than 100 sons from 80 wives). Due to the remnants of matriarchy, the queen mother plays a special role in determining the politics and activities of the Likoko; many rituals are used that symbolize various transformations of the king (dressing the king in a monster costume, nudity, burning the king’s costume, etc.). Parliaments, if they exist, are decorative institutions that are often dissolved for a long time.
Another type of monarchy exists in some member states British Commonwealth(many of its members are republics). Small island states, former colonies (Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Jamaica, etc.), have as their head the monarch of Great Britain, who is represented in these countries by the governor-general. The latter is in practice appointed not by the UK government, but by the government of this state, although this appointment must be confirmed by the British monarch. Essentially This is a unique form of parliamentary monarchy.
It was already mentioned above elective monarchy in Malaysia, where the post of head of state is elective, but it is actually held in turn in accordance with a special list by the sultans of nine states out of thirteen (four states do not have sultans, and their representatives do not take part in the electoral college).
A somewhat similar order exists in the UAE, but here the head of state is collective monarch - The Council of Rulers (Emirates) of the seven members of the federation, which elect one of them as its chairman for a five-year term. Unlike Malaysia, the ruler of the largest emirate, Abu Dhabi, is constantly elected. According to the Constitution, he is vested only with representative powers, but in real life its role is much more significant if we consider that Abu Dhabi is the largest emirate, it occupies 86% of the territory of the federation. Thus, the UAE is a “collective monarchy” with the dominance of one of the emirates.

Control questions

1. The concept and signs of monarchy.
2. Types of monarchies. Real and nominal monarchies.
3. The development of the monarchical form of government from antiquity to modern times.
4. Features of the organization of state power in absolute monarchy.
5. Features of the organization of state power in a dualistic monarchy.
6. Features of the organization of state power in a parliamentary monarchy.

Chapter 3 The essence and main characteristics of the republican form of government

3.1. General provisions on the republican form of government

Like the monarchy, the republican form of government has a long history. It originated in Ancient world and reached its highest peak in the Athenian Republic. Its highest body was the People's Assembly, elected by the full and free citizens of Athens. The People's Assembly adopted laws, decided issues of war and peace, and acted as a judicial authority. Along with the People's Assembly, there was an elected supreme governing body in Athens - the Council of Five Hundred. His responsibility included management of finances, control over activities officials, implementing the decisions of the People's Assembly.
The republican form of government was preserved in the Middle Ages in cities that had the right to self-government (Novgorod, Pskov, Genoa, Venice, etc.).
In France, the republican form of government was finally established only with the adoption of the Constitution of 1875 after the double restoration of the monarchy.
Switzerland and the state of San Marino have this form of government initially. At the same time, the uniqueness of the organization of state power in San Marino lies in the fact that legislative power belongs to General Council(Generale Consiglio Principe) of 60 life members, of whom 20 belonged to the nobility, 20 to city citizens, 20 to rural landowners. Vacant seats are filled by the Council itself through co-optation. The executive power is vested in two Capitani Regenti, elected for a six-month term by the Council from among themselves, one of them must be a nobleman.
Most modern European republics acquired this form of government after the military and revolutionary upheavals of the 20th century, associated primarily with two world wars. IN South America the successful armed national liberation struggle of the former colonies against the monarchical metropolises also, as a rule, gave rise to a republican form of government. Similarly in Africa and Asia the collapse colonial system in the middle of the 20th century led, with a few exceptions, to the formation of republics.

Historically, the first form of limited, constitutional monarchy, when the king's power was limited by parliament, but the country was governed by the monarch, who appointed ministers responsible only to him and not to parliament. The king had the right to issue normative decrees, the value of which was often equal to the law. In the modern era, constitutions are not talked about, although, in essence, its elements are present in Jordan, Morocco, Nepal, Kuwait (in fact, this is an absolute monarchy, although Kuwait has a Constitution and a parliament elected by a minority of the population). V.E. Chirkin

Excellent definition

Incomplete definition ↓

Dualistic Monarchy

lat. dualis - dual) - a type of constitutional (limited) monarchy, characterized by the separation of legislative power from the executive. Dualistic and parliamentary forms of government are based on the ideas of J.-J. Rousseau about the unity of supreme power, from which flowed the right of the legislative power to control the executive.

The noticeable rise in the authority of parliament gave rise to the political theory of a mixed monarchy, in particular, the teaching of J. Fortesquier about a special form of sovereignty in England, which the king and parliament are vested with jointly: the monarch should not arbitrarily burden his subjects with taxes, change or introduce new laws without the consent of parliament.

D.m. appeared in the 18th century. as a result of a compromise between the growing bourgeoisie and the still ruling feudal elite of society and was a historically transitional form from an absolute monarchy to a parliamentary one. With this form, predominance still remains with the monarch and his entourage. Legislative power belongs to parliament, which is elected by its citizens. The power of the monarch is limited by the constitution, but he is vested with executive power, which he can exercise directly or through the government he appoints; forms the government; issues emergency decrees that have the force of law and do not require parliamentary approval; has the right of suspensive veto in relation to parliamentary laws (without his approval the law will not come into force); may dissolve parliament. Officially, the government bears double responsibility, but in reality it is subordinate to the monarch. Parliament cannot dismiss the government through a vote of no confidence or in any other way. He can influence the government only by using his right to set the state budget. This fairly powerful lever is used only once a year. Deputies, entering into conflict with the government and, through it, with the monarch, cannot help but feel the constant threat of the dissolution of parliament. The judiciary is vested in the monarch, but can be more or less independent. The separation of powers under this form of government is usually reduced; political regime is authoritarian in nature. The state regime can be characterized as a limited dualism of power.

A constitutional monarchy. Its varieties and characteristics.

The constitutional monarchy arises during the formation of bourgeois society. Bourgeois revolutions in the 17th - 18th centuries sought to create more moderate, compared to absolutist, forms of government that limited the absolute power of the monarch. To come to a compromise between the feudal class and the rapidly growing bourgeoisie. In the late Middle Ages, the presence of a monarchy was accompanied by the creation of parliaments (representative institutions of the “third estate”). A certain duality of state power arose. Despite the fact that the monarch was legally and actually independent of parliament in the sphere of executive power, he was often forced to reckon with the activities of parliament. Of course, the monarch had enormous power over parliament: he could veto its laws, appoint deputies to the upper house, and could even dissolve parliament. However, a representative institution in the monarchy acts as a legislative body, with which the monarch was forced to reckon.

A constitutional monarchy is characterized by legal restrictions on the legislative and executive activities of the monarch.

The monarch appointed a government that was responsible to him, but often the activities of this very government were subject to criticism and discussion in parliament. Hence, despite the fact that the ruler appointed the head and ministers in the government, the government was responsible to parliament, and not to the monarch.

All acts created by the monarch acquire legal force only after they are approved by parliament; and they must certainly be based on the constitution.

In a constitutional monarchy, the ruler plays a more symbolic role; is a representative of the nation, people, state. It would be very appropriate to say here that he reigns, but does not rule.

In modern theory, the critical attitude towards such a form of government as the monarchy has significantly decreased. The basis for this was historical experience states that collapsed in the use of new forms of government - military dictatorial, republican. In a word, the monarchy is not at all an outdated, not outdated form of government. Its political potential has not been exhausted.

Depending on how limited the power of the monarch is, they distinguish between dualistic and parliamentary monarchies.

Initially, the form of limited monarchy was dualistic, which was also historically a transitional form from absolute monarchy. It is characterized by the fact that “along with the legal and actual independence of the monarch, there are representative bodies with legislative and control functions.”

Signs of a dualistic monarchy:

Ø According to the constitution, supreme power is divided between the government, which is elected by the people (legislative) and the monarch (executive)

Ø The king has the right to veto decisions of parliament, create laws-decrees that have legal force equal to the laws of parliament

Ø The ruler has the right to dissolve parliament

Ø The monarch appoints prime ministers, governments, heads of local government and self-government, who are responsible only to him

Some scientists classify the class-representative and feudal states that existed in the Middle Ages as dualistic. Western Europe. Currently, classical dualistic monarchies do not exist. Although they often include Bhutan, Jordan, Monaco, Luxembourg, etc. In the Russian Empire, the dualistic monarchy existed from 1905-1917.

In the Jordanian Constitution of 1953. it is said that the supreme power is divided between the king and parliament. Powers of authority prevail with the monarch. The king is the head of state and is not responsible for his actions (Article 30). The title of king is inherited, according to the Constitution, according to the principle of primogeniture (from father to eldest son, in the male line) (Article 28). There are some requirements that a candidate for the throne must have: he must be legitimate and profess Islam.

Legislative power, according to the Jordanian constitution, belongs to the National Assembly, consisting of the Senate and the Chamber of Deputies.

The king is the head of the executive branch. He is proclaimed the country's representative in the international arena: he makes peace, declares war. In other words, he is the Supreme Commander armed forces Jordan.

The judiciary in Jordan is declared independent, but the king has the right to grant forgiveness and toughen punishment. No death penalty is carried out without the approval of the King. The monarch has the right to appoint and remove judges from these positions.

At first glance, we can say that the Jordanian state is very similar to a dualist one, but in fact it is not one hundred percent one. Because the government is responsible not only to its King (Article 49), but also to the Chamber of Deputies (Article 51).

A dualistic monarchy is a transitional form of government, evolving towards a parliamentary monarchy or a republic.

In a dualistic monarchy, the ruler formally coordinates his actions with other government officials, such as parliament. But in practice, he can implement and make any of his decisions alone. Since the monarch chooses all the employees of the ruling apparatus and advisers himself and at the slightest disobedience he can fire them.

This form of government got its name due to the fact that in the country’s power structure, in addition to the monarch, there is another important person - the first minister. The essence of such dual power implies that all orders of the monarch must be confirmed by the minister and only after that put into effect.

However, only the monarch himself can appoint the first minister, and he can also remove him from office at will. Thus, a dualistic monarchy is often reduced to absolute power, passed down from generation to generation through a dynasty.

History of the dualist monarchy

Dualistic monarchy developed historically as a transitional form from absolute to constitutional monarchy. Its structure presupposes the presence of a constitution. Parliament makes laws, and government is in the hands of the monarch. It is he who appoints the executive ministers, who are responsible only to him.

The government usually submits in reality to the will of the monarch, but formally bears double responsibility to parliament and the monarch. The peculiarity of the system of government is that, although the power of the monarch is limited by the constitution, both due to constitutional norms and due to traditions, the sole ruler retains broad powers of power. This puts him at the center of the state's political system.

The prevailing view among historians is that a dualistic monarchy is a kind of compromise between the absolute power of the monarch and the desire of the people to participate in the political life of the state. Often such regimes become an intermediate link between a republic and an absolute monarchy (dictatorship).

In a dualistic monarchy, the ruler has the right of absolute veto, which means that he can block any law and, without his approval, it will not come into force. In addition, the monarch can issue emergency decrees, which have the force of law and even higher, and most importantly, he has the right to dissolve parliament. All this in many ways actually replaces the dualistic monarchy with an absolute one.

Currently, such a state apparatus is almost never found. Most countries have chosen a presidential-parliamentary type of government, supported by the voice of the people.

Countries with dual monarchy

Some states today remain faithful to historically established traditions in the management system. Among them one can find examples of a dualistic monarchy. There are such states on all continents of the Eastern Hemisphere. In particular, in Europe these include:

• Luxembourg,
• Sweden,
• Monaco,
• Denmark,
• Liechtenstein.

In the Middle East:

• Jordan,
• Bahrain,
• Kuwait,
• United Arab Emirates.

On Far East You can call it Japan. Political scientists simultaneously classify a number of these countries as absolute monarchies, where all executive and legislative powers are in the hands of one ruler. It is worth noting that in some states the concepts of constitutional and dualistic monarchy are considered synonymous. For example, these are the countries: Sweden, Denmark, Luxembourg. In the countries of Asia and Africa: Morocco, Nepal and Jordan, there is also a dualistic monarchy.

But still, today a political system in which the power of the sovereign is greater than the parliamentary one can be called a rather rare phenomenon. Monarchies as such either, as in European countries, turned into decoration, or simply disappeared with political map peace.

Historians name several countries where the dualistic principle of government actually existed at the turn of the 19th-20th centuries. This, for example, happened in many important countries: Italy, Prussia, Austria-Hungary. However, such systems of power were swept away by revolutions and world wars.

Even such recognized dualist monarchies as Morocco and Jordan, according to political scientists, rather gravitate toward absolutism. However, this can be explained by the significant role of traditions and customs in a Muslim country. In Jordan, for example, the government is responsible to parliament, but if parliament wants to remove the cabinet, it will need the king's approval to do so. This means that the monarch has all the leverage to, if necessary, not pay attention to the opinion of the legislative branch.

Retrospective

IN Russian Empire A dualistic monarchy was also briefly established. This happened in 1905, when the authority of Emperor Nicholas II fell sharply. The decline in popularity was due to defeat in the war against Japan and armed uprisings among the population, which ended in unprecedented bloodshed. Under public pressure, Nicholas II agreed to give up his absolute power and established a parliament.

The period of dualistic monarchy in Russia lasted until 1917. This was the decade between two revolutions. All this time, conflicts regularly broke out between the legislative and executive powers. Nicholas II, supported by Prime Minister Pyotr Stolypin, dissolved parliament more than once. Only the State Duma of the third convocation worked for the entire period allotted by law until the February Revolution.

Most a prominent representative The Austro-Hungarian Empire is considered a dualistic monarchy in the past. This form of government was established from 1867 until the collapse of the empire. The peculiarity of this state was that it was divided into two autonomous parts with their own rules and laws.

When looking even deeper into the centuries, you can find a similar shape government throughout Europe and Asia. The dualistic monarchy was like a transitional stage from the absolute power of the throne to a parliamentary system that lasted many centuries.

Stability of the system of dualistic monarchy

The stability of the dual monarchy system is based on the division of power. Most often, dualistic and parliamentary monarchies are compared, the features of which are similar. However, if in a parliamentary monarchy the separation of powers is complete, then in a dualistic monarchy it is curtailed. When a monarch interferes in the work of parliament or blocks its decisions, he thereby deprives the people of representation in the political life of the state.

It is precisely this blurring of the dualistic monarchy that violates its stability. Therefore, such regimes usually do not exist for a long time in the historical perspective. With the separation of powers, there is usually a struggle between the freedom-loving part of society and the conservative institution of the monarchy. Such a confrontation ends with the victory of only one of the parties.