As can be seen from the contents of the previous chapter, absolute monarchy, although it continues to operate as a form of government in some states of the East, is still gradually degenerating. Modern democratic trends penetrate into the depths of the monarchical system and destroy it from the inside. In order not to lose power and an established form of government, rulers are forced to introduce certain restrictions against their own power. The most common methods are the granting or adoption of a constitution: the monarch grants it or the people accept it by referendum. This is how a constitutional monarchy is formed. But here it is important to note that the absence of a constitution as a single document does not exclude the possibility of the existence of a constitutional monarchy. This phrase, first of all, does not mean the formal existence of a constitution, but the actually established and operating constitutional system in the state. A striking example is the UK. The constitution may limit the powers of the monarch to varying degrees. Completely, to the point that the monarch “plays” only a formal role in the state (Great Britain), and formally, where the power of the ruler remains the same (Saudi Arabia).
Constitutional monarchy is a form of government in which the power of the monarch is limited in some or all areas of government in such a way that he does not have supreme authority in these areas.
Based on this, we can say that a constitutional monarchy serves as a kind of antipode to an absolute one. The difference is so great that it is sometimes difficult to distinguish between a monarchy and a republic. For example, recently the same Great Britain has increasingly been called “almost a republic.” However, a true Englishman, hearing such an expression, may be very offended, since the national and religious feelings of people must be “handled” very carefully, and jokes can only be made “with knowledge of the matter.”
Constitutional monarchy is usually divided into two types:
1. Dualistic
2. Parliamentary
Let's look at each type in more detail.
Dualistic monarchy
Historically, this form of monarchy serves as a transitional stage from absolute to parliamentary. The dualistic monarchy appeared in the 18th century as a result of a compromise between the “growing” bourgeoisie and the still ruling feudal elite of society. In this regard, it possesses, to approximately equal extent, the features and characteristics of the other two types of monarchy. It is, figuratively speaking, a synthesis between them. From this it follows that:
A dualistic monarchy is a type of constitutional monarchy that has features of both absolute and parliamentary monarchies.
From the definition it becomes clear: in order to understand and understand the essence of this form of monarchy, you need to find out “whose” features are more in it, which of them predominate.
Let's start with those that have survived and successfully “transitioned” from an absolute monarchy:
The monarch has supremacy in the judiciary.
The monarch has supremacy in the executive branch.
The monarch forms and controls the government.
The monarch issues emergency decrees that have the force of law and do not require parliamentary approval.
The monarch has the right of suspensive veto over parliamentary laws, that is, without his approval the law will not come into force.
The monarch can dissolve parliament.
The monarchy is hereditary.
It turns out that compared to absolutism, not such big changes have occurred. The ruler lost his influence only in the legislative sphere. However, such a limitation, as history has shown, turned out to be very significant.
The features inherent in a parliamentary monarchy are as follows:
The monarch does not have the right to arbitrarily introduce new taxes.
The monarch does not have the right to change old laws or introduce new laws without the consent of parliament.
Legislative power belongs to parliament, which is elected by its citizens.
The introduction of such changes to the system of the absolute monarchy was demanded by the rich bourgeoisie, which sought to strengthen its power in the state and expand its powers. The most important lever of influence of parliament on the actions of the monarch was that parliament approved the state budget. This indicated that the ruler was losing his sole economic power, and also could not spend funds from the state treasury at his personal discretion or, especially, for personal purposes. But since the budget is approved only once a year, the influence of parliament on the monarch is very short-lived.
In other government spheres there is also a division of influence between the monarch and parliament, but they are not so significant.
Thus, we can conclude that in a dualistic monarchy, despite the presence and significant influence of parliamentary features, the characteristic features of absolutism prevail. As a rule, this form of monarchy did not exist in its pure form for a long time. It gradually acquired parliamentary features and, over time, passed into it. However, there are still states in which a pure dualistic monarchy has been established, these are: Jordan, Kuwait (also classified as an absolute monarchy), Luxembourg, Monaco, Liechtenstein, and the United Arab Emirates. There are also a number of individual countries where the dualistic monarchy “mixed” with the parliamentary one, that is, it acquired its characteristic features, but the way of governing the state practically did not change or remained the same. We include such countries as: Morocco, Jordan, Thailand, Nepal, and Malaysia.
If we talk about the role of the monarch, then, in comparison with absolutism, his unshakable authority and state significance have decreased. First of all, this is expressed in the fact that the people have an alternative to the current government in the “person” of parliament. A certain freedom of action appears in cultural and other public spheres. The political regime is characterized as authoritarian. But the main thing that is in the monarchy remains untouched - the monarch remains the “unifying principle” and a symbol of the unity and inviolability of the state.
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 the historical experience of states that failed 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 in Western Europe as dualistic. 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 of the Jordanian armed forces.
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.
Absolute monarchy is a form of government in which all executive, legislative, judicial and military power is concentrated in the hands of the monarch. In this case, the presence of parliament is possible, as well as holding elections to parliament by the residents of the country, but it is only an advisory body to the monarch and cannot go against him in any way.
In the world, in the strict sense, there are only six countries with an absolute monarchy. If we consider it more openly, then a dualistic monarchy can also be equated to an absolute one, and these are six more countries. Thus, there are twelve countries in the world in which power is somehow concentrated in one hand.
Surprisingly, in Europe (so loving to protect human rights and irritated by any dictators) there are already two such countries! But at the same time, it is necessary to distinguish between an absolute and a constitutional monarchy, since there are a lot of kingdoms and principalities in Europe, but most of them are a constitutional monarchy, in which the head of state is the chairman of parliament.
And so, here are these twelve countries with an absolute monarchy:
1. . A small state in the Middle East on the shores of the Persian Gulf. Dualistic monarchy, King Hamad ibn Isa Al Khalifa since 2002.
2. (or Brunei for short). State in Southeast Asia on the island of Kalimantan. Absolute monarchy, Sultan Hassanal Bolkiah since 1967.
3. . The city-state is located entirely in Rome. A theocratic monarchy, the country has been ruled by Pope Francis since 2013.
4. (full name: Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan). Located in the Middle East. A dualist monarchy, the country has been ruled by King Abdullah II bin Hussein al-Hashimi since 1999.
5., a state in the Middle East, an absolute monarchy, the country has been ruled by Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani since 2013.
6. . State in the Middle East. A dualist monarchy, the country has been ruled by Emir Sabah al-Ahmed al-Jaber al-Sabah since 2006.
7. (full name: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg). The state is located in the center of Europe. Luxembourg is a dual monarchy and has been ruled by Grand Duke HRH Henri (Henry) since 2000.
8. (full name: Kingdom of Morocco) is a state located in the northwestern part of Africa. A dualist monarchy, the country has been ruled by King Mohammed VI bin al Hassan since 1999.
9. . A state in the Middle East, on the shores of the Persian Gulf. An absolute monarchy, the country has been ruled by President Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan since 2004.
10. (full name: Sultanate of Oman). State on the Arabian Peninsula. An absolute monarchy, the country has been ruled by Sultan Qaboos bin Said Al Said since 1970.
eleven. . State in the Middle East. An absolute theocratic monarchy, the country has been ruled by King Salman bin Abdulaziz bin Abdulrahman al Saud since 2015.
12. . The state is located in southern Africa. A dual monarchy, the country has been ruled by King Mswati III since 1986.
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.
In the Far East you can call 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 from the political map of the world.
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 towards 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
The Russian Empire also briefly established a dualistic monarchy. 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.
The Austro-Hungarian Empire is considered the most prominent representative of 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.
Looking even further back through the centuries, one finds a similar form of 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.
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; The political regime is authoritarian in nature. The state regime can be characterized as a limited dualism of power.