CC BY
20
Doctor of Philosophical Sciences, Professor, Head of the Chair of Foreign Languages, National
Academy of Sciences, Republic of Armenia
THE FORMS OF GOVERNMENT AND THE STATE MORALS IN THE CONTEMPORARY WORLD
At present there exist three forms of government: republic (representing two types -democratic and socialist), monarchy and timocracy (time honor + krateein to rule). In timocracy ambition for power and glory motivates the rulers and although possession of property is not necessary qualification for holders of offices, love of honor is supported by illegal greedy accumulation of wealth. Rulers are here warriors suited with the name "enemies of man” (Martin Luther). The collapse of the USSR led to the rise of a heap of timocratic states. To talk about these states with precision and understanding, it is necessary to have new names. The fascist terms "authoritarianism” and "totalitarianism” that lead us into error since the Cold War are out of place here.
On the evidence of Giovanni Sartori the word "totalitarianism” first appeared in 1925 and like "authoritarianism” it was an invention of fascism. Authors like Friedrich, Brzezinski and Juan Linz who are believed to become classics of political science in their life-time borrowed these fascist words in order to create a new classification of forms of government: democracy, authoritarianism, totalitarianism. In 1956 the word "totalitarianism” was easily and at will applied to Soviet Union as if this country did not fight during the Second World War on the side of free and democratic mankind. Such cynicism concerning the recent true ally can be explained only as a result of fall of state morals in western countries during the Cold War. As Fichte said: there is no knowledge without conscience (kein Wissen ohne Gewissen). The ignorant classics applied to the Soviet Union one-dimensional terrorist principle of totalitarianism instead of analyzing the twodimensional principle of democratic centralism in which centralism is only a terrorist means of reaching the democracy.
The absurd classification of classics who were hawks of the Cold War pursued the single purpose to destroy the state of democratic centralism which by mistake was taken for totalitarian "empire of evil” (Roland Reagan) and to plunder its wealth. And today their followers (Segert 2012: 46-52) see in Putin’s Russia only an authoritarian regime foretelling its full destruction and incalculable sufferings of the people. But we need the peaceful transition to democracy. We have to develop the democratic elements of timocracy as mixed form of government. Timocracy can be taken for tyranny, for democracy, for oligarchy, for life royal power. Our task is to understand and use the main trend of its dynamics. Already Aristotle had expressed this trend in his famous proposition: Timocracy turns into democracy because it also desires to be the rule of majority.
The basis of the new contemporary classification of forms of government is the teaching of Plato concerning state morals or moral principles that are inherent in every type of state, secure its existence and prevent from transformation into another type. Thus the vital condition of democratic republic is the moral principle of human rights. The principle of socialist republic is democratic centralism.
1. Totalitarianism and democratic centralism have quite different historical roots. In the first case it is signoria of the mediaeval Italian timocratic republics with their deviation to tyranny for tyranny. In the second case it is the ancient Greek tyranny in which Pisistratus trained Athenians to obeying free democratic laws of Solon. Tyranny was here only a means of reaching "beautiful Athenian democracy” (Hegel).
2. Attitude towards democracy. Totalitarianism declares itself to be enemy of democracy. Its aim is unification (Gleichschaltung) of all political, economic and cultural organizations. Democratic centralism promotes trade-unions, cultural revolution and internationalism. Thus it contributes to pluralism and democracy.
3. In both cases there are quite different political parties. Bolsheviks as party and as political type rank with revolutionary Independents of Cromwell and Jacobins. What unites all of them is love of republic. There are two types of republic: democratic and
socialist. Nazis are quite another matter. On the evidence of the best Nazi jurist Ernst Rudolf Huber NSDAP pursued "the education of the people to the idea of Reich” (Huber 1940: 46-47).
4. The difference between republic and monarchy (empire) was ignored by Friedrich and Brzezinski. This allowed them to help together Nazism and communism. But up to now it is essentially important as at time of Montesquieu. His classification of forms of government (republic representing two types: democratic and aristocratic, monarchy and despotism) replaced the traditional classification of Aristotle (monarchy, aristocracy, democracy).
5. Totalitarianism does not see the difference of principle between democracy and democratic centralism. That’s why the Third Reich attacked the Soviet Union in 1941.
6. As leaders of their states Hitler and Stalin were undoubtedly both tyrant. But only the Fuehrer swore his soldiers on his name requiring absolute obedience (unbedingten Gehorsam) and readiness to the self sacrifice at any time and the murder of other peoples. Therefore only Hitler as absolute tyrant was enemy of man (Martin Luther).
REFERENCES
Segert, D. (2012). "Putins Russland als Erfolgsstory. Eine Lektion uber autoritare Regime”.
WELT TRENDS Zeitschrift fur internationale Politik, Nr. 82, Januar/Februar.
Huber, E. R. (1940). "Aufbau und Ausbau der deutschen Reichsverfassung”. “DAS REICH” Deutsche Wochenzeitung. Berlin, 6. Oktober, 1940.
