Monarchy in the modern world of the country. Modern monarchy and its features

The peculiarity of the modern monarchy is a distinctive feature of this form of government, which characterizes the individuality of the organization of its authorities and distinguishes modern monarchies from their historical counterparts.

The first, and probably the most important feature is "atypical", so well identified by V.E. Chirkin. He calls the classical parliamentary monarchy "republican monarchy", i.e. a monarchy in which the power of the monarch is completely limited in all spheres of state power. England, the center of the Commonwealth of Independent States, which used to be part of its colonies, can serve as a striking example of an "atypical" monarchy. The English monarchy is an example of a classic constitutional parliamentary monarchy. The Constitution of the United Kingdom does not actually exist (it is unwritten), but it is replaced by the rules of statutory law, among which are the Habeas Corpus Act 1697, the Bill of Rights 1689, the Succession to the Throne Act 1701. etc. Legally, the Queen of England has a huge amount of power: she appoints the Prime Minister, members of the government, convenes and dissolves Parliament, can veto a bill issued by Parliament, is the Supreme Commander during wars, etc., these facts make the British dualistic monarchy. But in fact, the queen never uses her powers, which vividly characterizes the aphorism "dead right" or "sleeping English lion". But despite this, the process of "republicanization" has slowed down in recent years. States that have monarchs are in no hurry to part with their traditions. On the contrary, in many regions of the world, the restoration of M. is seen as the last chance to achieve national reconciliation. It was for this purpose that M. was restored in Cambodia in 1993. The question was raised about the return of power to the Afghan king in exile, Zahir Shah. In some cases, attempts to restore M. are also made by dictators-adventurers (a classic example is the proclamation of Bokassa in the CAR in 1976 as emperor). Monarchist movements exist in France, Italy, Greece and a number of other countries.

In fact, the emperor was left with only traditional ceremonial functions: addressing parliament with a speech at the opening of the session, representation abroad, signing official documents.

All of the above facts give full reason to call the Japanese monarchy constitutional and parliamentary, as well as, as mentioned earlier, a symbolic monarchy.

Monarchy, a form of government characterized by autocracy, usually inherited. At the tribal stage of development in many primitive societies known to anthropologists today, the monarchical principle is expressed in the institution of leaders. Any kind of individual leadership among the people has some degree of monarchical nature, but in practice one must distinguish between a freely chosen leader whose influence is based on the ability to express the consent of the group, and a leader whose power is based on custom, tradition, law, the support of the clergy, or any basis other than voluntary cooperation. Only the second kind of power is monarchical; the decisive difference lies in how exactly the dominance of the individual is recognized, whether it is accepted spontaneously (leadership) or an institutional establishment (monarchy) that allows an individual to exercise power regardless of his personal qualities. Thus, one of the main criteria is whether the ruler should deserve his seat or throne. Based on the above facts, it follows that, due to the presence of all three levers of power in the Pope, the Vatican monarchy is absolute; the fact of the state church makes it theocratic, and the presence of constitutional acts semi-constitutional. That is, in the Vatican, there is an absolute theocratic semi-constitutional monarchy.

But, listing these facts, it should be borne in mind that the presence of statehood in a country like the Vatican is just a tribute to the medieval traditions of Europe.

Almost all monarchies in history have been hereditary, to the extent that applicants were not tested for suitability to rule, but for legitimacy, i.e. to descent in a straight line from the formerly ruling family. This does not contradict the fact that new dynasties usually resort to seizing power, because then, as a rule, appropriate genealogical documents are then carefully fabricated or a connection is established, through marriage or adoption, with the old dynasty. By its very nature, the monarchy seems to be extremely adapted to the needs of a society closely associated with traditions, and this is confirmed by the fact that the kings often performed, in addition to the duties of leadership and management, various priestly and symbolic functions. Most of the monarchs sought to approve and support the popular belief in the divine origin of the throne and their families. The recent decline in the prestige and power of monarchs partly reflects the rise in the worldly orientation of modern civilization.

Of the southern monarchies, Brunei can be cited as an example. An Asian state with the beginnings of parliamentarism and constitutionality. In 1984, when Brunei gained its independence, power passed into the hands of the Sultan. There are no clearly defined legislative and executive authorities in this country. Only the Constitutional Councils, which are a kind of advisory body under the monarch, can act as legislative bodies.

Power in Brunei is concentrated in the hands of one autocratic monarch. Although at the moment Brunei resembles Russia at the beginning of the 20th century, because. the growth of the Brunei liberation movement is now visible.

That is, the Brunei monarchy is inherently absolute with little rudiments of parliamentarism and democracy.

Another important feature of some modern monarchies is fictitiousness of legislative (legislative bodies) under the monarch. This feature applies to modern absolute Muslim monarchies. In Oman, for example, "the creation of a parliament as contrary to the traditions of Muslim fundamentalism is ruled out." The parliament is replaced by the institution of ash-shura - a legislative advisory body under the monarch, but it has no real powers and is completely dependent on the monarch.

It can also be seen that many non-European monarchies are based on European democratic institutions, this factor is derivative of colonial conquests and protectorates. A striking example of this feature is, for example, Jordan. State in the Middle East in Western Asia. Jordan was under the protectorate of England for a long time, almost until 1952. What affected the formation of a moderately authoritarian political regime in it. The Hashemite Kingdom adopted a lot from England: the proclaimed rule of law, democracy in the "free will of the people." In 1992, the activities of political parties were allowed in Jordan. Legislative power is divided between the National Assembly (parliament) and the king (the institution of the monarch is not called the sultan or emir, but the king, which emphasizes the influence of Western European ideology). The upper house of the Jordanian parliament is also appointed by the king.

As for the possibility of supporting monarchical institutions, which stems from loyalty to economic and social dogmas, there are no convincing examples so far. Modern totalitarian dictatorships show something close, but they are based on the personal qualities of an attractive leader. In addition, here the problem of establishing legitimacy is solved in a new way, completely unrelated to the appeal to historical precedent, which is essential for the monarchy. Inheritance is another important criterion for the existence of monarchical institutions, and there is also a lack of experience on it, which could justify a judgment about the possibility of regular inheritance in a modern dictatorship. Finally, a regime where everyone who occupies the highest office is a usurper, as it has been until now, can hardly be consistent with the principle of legitimacy.

Another bright monarchy that has been under the protectorate is Oman. A state in the southeast of the Arabian Peninsula, which gained its independence only in the second half of the 20th century, and before that for a long time, was under the protectorate of England. And this fact had noticeable imprints on the supreme power of Oman.

The head of Oman is the Sultan of the ruling dynasty. He has all the power: he is the head of the government, fully controls the activities of the legislative body, is the supreme commander in chief, etc.

The role of the Constitution is performed by the basic law of the Sultan of November 6, 1996. Until that time, the Koran was the Constitution of Oman, which emphasizes the theocracy of this Asian state. The Sultan is also the religious head (the religion of Oman is Islam of the Ibadi persuasion). Thus, in the Arabian Peninsula there is an exclusively absolute monarchy with the initial rudiments of constitutionalism and parliamentarism.

Very close to this feature is post-colonial monarchy of some island republics, who have been among the colonies of Great Britain, and are now in the British Commonwealth. To such countries V.E. Chirkin refers, for example, to Antigua, Barbuda, Barbados, Jamaica, and others.

The most important feature is that in most of the monarchies of Europe the institution of the monarch is only a tribute to traditions. The commitment of the population of these countries to the monarch vividly illustrates to us how strongly the realization that the personality of the monarch is sacred, that he is a kind of their protector from all troubles, is deeply embedded in the psyche of people. The origins of the monarchy are found in the distant past, before the emergence of writing and chronicle history. The mythology and folklore of all countries speak of kings, attributing to them legendary acts of valor, piety, foresight, and justice, or—quite often—deeds of the opposite kind. The stereotypes of the warrior king, the sinless monarch, the royal legislator, and the supreme judge testify to the various roles that kings were called to fulfill.

Legally and in fact, the Netherlands is a constitutional parliamentary monarchy, the head of state is the queen, the royal title is inherited.

The legal consolidation of the broad powers of the monarch in fact turns out to be completely different: the queen appoints the prime minister, establishes ministries, and appoints commissioners in the provinces. Every year on the third Tuesday of September, the Queen addresses the joint session of Parliament with a report on the main directions of public policy. She (the queen) directs foreign policy and has the right to pardon. However, all of the above powers are often performed by members of the government instead of the queen.

It turns out that the Dutch monarchy is very close in its essence to the English monarchy, since the monarch is actually the head of state by tradition, as in England.

Absolutely in all monarchies the head of state appears as a symbol the latter, it is the face of its sovereign that is most dear to the population with a monarchical sense of justice than the flag, coat of arms, anthem, etc. And this feature is characteristic even not so much of European monarchies as of African monarchies. For example, Swaziland. A country in southern Africa, also repeatedly influenced by Western ideology. There is no constitution as such in Swaziland, but there are royal constitutional acts that establish the foundations of the constitutional order of this country.

Which of these roles can be distinguished as primary or decisive in the emergence of prehistoric monarchy is the subject of much debate. Some believed that the military function acted as a catalyst, and leadership in the war, once the fighting stopped, usually led to the appropriation of priestly, judicial, economic and other functions. Some confirmation of this point of view can be found both among ancient and modern primitive peoples in a certain tendency to transfer emergency power to individual leaders or rulers in times of crisis - for example, when there is a threat of an internal split or an external attack. Such was the reign in ancient Sparta, and the dictatorship in the Roman Republic, and the wartime powers of modern democratic leaders reveal this trend.

A distinctive feature is election of monarchs in Malaysia and the UAE, this is an absolute phenomenon of the monarchical form of government, which is a kind of "mix" of the monarchy and the republic, although, of course, there are more monarchical and even absolutist in these countries. So Malaysia is a "monarchy of several monarchies" or "United Monarchic States", this is how the world community dubbed this country. It consists of thirteen states, which are headed by hereditary monarchs (sultans, rajas), and two federal territories, which are headed by governors.

The Supreme Ruler of Malaysia is chosen by the heads of states, which form the "Council of Rulers". Under the Constitution of 1957, the Supreme Ruler, elected by an absolute majority, has partial powers in both the legislative and executive spheres of power. With regard to the first, he approves the laws issued by the Parliament, but at the same time he is deprived of the right to veto. With regard to the executive power, the monarch cannot appoint members of the Cabinet of Ministers (government), he can only coordinate the directions of the government's activities with his instructions.

But with all this, the Supreme Ruler of Malaysia retains the exclusive right to appoint judges, represent the country in the international arena, and command the army during hostilities. An interesting fact is that all subjects of the Malaysian Federation have their own Constitutions, as well as broad powers, which makes the Supreme Ruler of Malaysia "first among equals."

Malaysia in its essence is a unique monarchy, as the country is headed by an aristocratic elite, who chooses the head from their midst. That is, the Malaysian monarchy can be described as a poly-constitutional parliamentary monarchy with characteristic aristocratic features.

The situation is similar in the United Arab Emirates. This state is located in the eastern part of the Arabian Peninsula on the coast of the Persian and Oman gulfs. It is impossible to call the Emirates a full-fledged monarchy, since the head of state is the President, and an elected one. However, he is selected from the seven emirs who are the rulers of the emirates, of which there are also seven respectively.

On the other hand, the example of ancient Egypt suggests that, in a relatively peaceful life, kingship is more directly related to the maintenance of social discipline through an elaborate system of religious sanctions centered on the divine person of the monarch. The history of China and Japan provides additional examples of relatively isolated and non-belligerent societies in which the military function was either not of primary importance to the royal office, or was completely separated from it. In ancient Mesopotamia, kings, apparently, only occasionally were endowed with priestly and military functions, their primary roles being ruler and judge. There is also a theory that the complex legislation and jurisprudence that grew out of the elaborate system of artificial irrigation in Mesopotamia could give a special character to the institutions of power that developed here.

The most striking thing about the UAE is that each of the seven emirates has an absolute monarchy, which is also combined with the constitutions of the emirates. The supreme power of the country has no right to interfere in the internal affairs of the emirates.

Thus, in the eastern part of the Arabian Peninsula there is a unique state: a republic with a monarchy (and absolute) at the base or a "monarchical republic". Moreover, it is absolutely impossible in this case to classify this republic as either presidential or parliamentary, because. in the first case, the president's powers are not too great, and in the second, the parliamentary bodies do not have their own clear outline.

Another interesting feature of some modern monarchies is monarchical federalism, and characteristic not only for the UAE and Malaysia, but also, for example, for such a state as Belgium. According to the Belgian Constitution of 1831. this state is unitary, but with the development of this country, problems arose due to the heterogeneity of the national composition of the population. However, federalism in monarchies can be seen as another way to limit the power of the monarch through the decentralization of state leadership of the monarchy.

Among the Arab monarchies there is a special principle of succession to the throne, this is the so-called clan principle when the monarch is chosen by his family. This feature is unique to the Asian monarchies of the Persian Gulf. If we recall the succession to the throne in ancient Egypt, we can find a lot in common. This principle can be seen, for example, in the already considered Qatar.

Thus, among the main features of modern monarchies, ten main ones can be distinguished:

1. "atypical";
2. lack of absolutism among European monarchies;
3. the presence among the monarchies of the principle: "the more south the monarchy, the more it is absolute";
4. the presence of European democratic institutions, the monarchies of Asia and Africa, who have been under the influence of the states of Europe;
5. the presence of the institution of the monarch, in the monarchies of Europe, as a tribute to traditions;
6. the elevation of the monarch to the rank of a symbol, the face of the state, in all monarchies;
7. election of monarchs in Malaysia and the United Arab Emirates;
8. clan principle of choosing a monarch in the Arab monarchies;
9. monarchical federalism as a factor limiting the power of the monarch;
10. fictitiousness of legislative (legislative) bodies in a number of Muslim monarchies.

This list of features is not exhaustive, but it is he who most accurately characterizes the position of modern monarchies as forms of government in the world, their significance and the differences between modern monarchies and their historical predecessors.

In the modern world, there are just over 230 states and self-governing territories with international status. Of these, only 41 states have a monarchical form of government, not counting several dozen territories under the rule of the British crown. It would seem that in the modern world a clear advantage is on the side of the republican states. But upon closer examination, it turns out that these countries mostly belong to the third world and were formed as a result of the collapse of the colonial system. Often established along colonial administrative lines, these states are highly unstable entities. They can be fragmented and modified, which is seen, for example, in Iraq. They are engulfed in ongoing conflicts, like a significant number of countries in Africa. And it is absolutely obvious that they are not included in the category of advanced states.

Today, a monarchy is an extremely flexible and diverse system ranging from a tribal form that successfully operates in the Arab states of the Middle East to a monarchical version of a democratic state in many European countries Nikiforova, N.A. History of the state and law of foreign countries [Text] / N. A. Nikiforova.- M .: Okay-book, 2011.-160s ..

In almost all European republics that have ever been monarchies, monarchist parties exist and have some influence. At the same time, there are strong republican tendencies in European monarchies. In the UK, a number of socialist organizations propose to abolish the offices of King/Queen and Prince of Wales and introduce the office of President, rename the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland into the British Federation.

Since 1997, the incumbent Labor Party has begun reforms that reduce the role of tradition and gradually develop democracy. For this, conservatives accuse them of retreating from the ideas of the monarchy. In Spain, there are also parties that propose to put the question of restoring the republic to a referendum. Republican sentiment is strong in Sweden both on the left and in centrist circles. In many countries that have been republics from the moment of formation to the present (Switzerland, Slovakia, San Marino), the question is raised about the introduction of a monarchical form of government

Here is a list of states with a monarchical system and territories under their crown: state power autocratic monarchy

Europe

* Andorra -- co-princes Nicolas Sarkozy (since 2007) and Joan Enric Vives y Cicilla (since 2003)
* Belgium -- King Albert II (since 1993)
* Vatican - Pope Benedict XVI (since 2005)
* Great Britain - Queen Elizabeth II (since 1952)
* Denmark - Queen Margrethe II (since 1972)
* Spain -- King Juan Carlos I (since 1975)
* Liechtenstein - Prince Hans-Adam II (since 1989)
* Luxembourg -- Grand Duke Henri (since 2000)
* Monaco -- Prince Albert II (since 2005)
* The Netherlands - Queen Beatrix (since 1980)
* Norway -- King Harald V (since 1991)
* Sweden -- King Carl XVI Gustaf (since 1973)

Asia.

* Bahrain - King Hamad ibn Isa al-Khalifa (since 2002, emir in 1999-2002)
* Brunei - Sultan Hassanal Bolkiah (since 1967)
* Bhutan -- King Jigme Khesar Namgyal Wangchuck (since 2006)
* Jordan -- King Abdullah II (since 1999)
* Cambodia - King Norodom Sihamoni (since 2004)
* Qatar - Emir Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani (since 1995)
* Kuwait - Emir of Sabah al-Ahmed al-Jaber al-Sabah (since 2006)
* Malaysia -- King Mizan Zainal Abidin (since 2006)
* United Arab Emirates UAE - President Khalifa bin Zayed al-Nahyan (since 2004)
* Oman -- Sultan Qaboos bin Said (since 1970)
* Saudi Arabia - King Abdullah ibn Abdulaziz al-Saud (since 2005)
* Thailand -- King Bhumibol Adulyadej (since 1946)
* Japan -- Emperor Akihito (since 1989)

Africa

* Lesotho -- King Letsie III (since 1996, first time in 1990-1995)
* Morocco -- King Mohammed VI (since 1999)
* Swaziland -- King Mswati III (since 1986)

Oceania

* Tonga -- King George Tupou V (since 2006)

Dominions

In the dominions, or Commonwealth realms, the head is the monarch of Great Britain, represented by a governor-general.

America

* Antigua and Barbuda Antigua and Barbuda
* Bahamas Bahamas
* Barbados
* Belize
* Grenada
* Canada
* Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
* Saint Kitts and Nevis
* Saint Lucia
* Jamaica

Oceania

* Australia
* New Zealand
* Niue
* Papua New Guinea
* Solomon islands
* Tuvalu

Asia holds the first place in the number of countries with monarchical statehood. This is a progressive and democratic Japan. The leaders of the Muslim world are Saudi Arabia, Brunei, Kuwait, Qatar, Jordan, Bahrain, Oman. Two monarchical confederations - Malaysia and the United Arab Emirates. And also - Thailand, Cambodia, Bhutan.

Second place belongs to Europe. The monarchy is represented here not only in a limited form - in the countries occupying a leading position in the EEC (Great Britain, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, etc.). But also an absolute form of government - in the "dwarf" states: Monaco, Liechtenstein, Vatican.

Third place - for the countries of Polynesia, and fourth for Africa, where at the present time only three full-fledged monarchies have survived: Morocco, Lesotho, Swaziland, plus several hundred "tourist" ones.

Nevertheless, a number of republican countries are forced to put up with the presence of traditional local monarchical or tribal formations on their territory, and even enshrine their rights in the constitution. These include: Uganda, Nigeria, Indonesia, Chad and others. Even such countries as India and Pakistan, which abolished the sovereign rights of local monarchs (khans, sultans, rajas, maharajas) in the early 70s of the 20th century, are often forced to accept the existence of these rights, which is called de facto. Governments turn to the authority of the holders of monarchical rights in resolving regional religious, ethnic, cultural disputes and other conflict situations.

The system of values is a world of meanings, thanks to which a person joins something more important and enduring than his own empirical existence. It is thanks to the familiarization with values that the life of an individual acquires meaning.

However, not all Russians are aware of the role and significance of values, both for the functioning of society and for determining the meaning of their own lives. History confirms that during critical periods in the development of society, one part of values is inevitably deformed, while the other part continues to be the most conservative, not susceptible to the influence of the new reality. The carriers of such values, as a rule, reject new values as unacceptable to them.

The modern system of values of Russian society does not have a holistic character. It preserves and continues to play the role of an essential factor in the integration and self-identification of a significant part of the population, such values as statehood, greatness, collectivism, equality and social justice. In parallel with traditional values, the values generated by the transformations carried out in the country, namely: freedom, individualism, private property, human rights, tolerance, etc. Values such as freedom, the market, democracy, competition, and stability at the level of elite and mass consciousness are also perceived ambiguously. There is no unity in the perception of values by the public consciousness as a whole. This gave rise to a split in Russian society along basic values, which for a long time does not allow ensuring the stability of the political system and society.

A unifying role in Russian society could be played by the assimilation of such a value as tolerance. At the level of power relations, it characterizes the position of political forces, expressing their readiness to allow dissent in their ranks, to allow activities within the framework of the law, and constructive opposition. In the life of an individual, tolerance manifests itself in a willingness to listen to the opinion of political opponents, in an effort to convince them with the help of logical arguments, and finally, in recognizing the correctness of their positions. A developed tolerant consciousness allows one to adequately experience one's defeat in the political struggle and even derive certain benefits from it.

The establishment of a mass tolerant consciousness could help to overcome the confrontation of political forces, the confrontation of ideologies and the elimination of the existing split in Russian society according to basic values, and, consequently, the achievement of agreement and mutual understanding at least on key issues of the present and future of the country.

Unfortunately, it is this value that is the most difficult to assimilate both the mass and the elite consciousness. Intolerance is a quality that was originally formed in the minds of people who are the bearers of the socialist ideology of the Soviet period, and those who suffered for dissent. Intransigence towards one's opponents is overcome with great difficulty, because it is more customary to consider an opponent an enemy than an ally in the search for an optimal solution to an issue or in comprehending the truth.

So, from the above characteristics of values it follows that their content does not remain unchanged. However, the deformation and modernization of values occur in rather long historical periods and depend on the nature of the ongoing changes in the socio-economic and political spheres of society, under the influence of fundamental changes or the state of a protracted war.

Values are also deformed and modernized with the change of generations, since each new generation, while maintaining the continuity of the values of previous generations, at the same time, cannot remain hostage to obsolete stereotypes.

Assimilated new values, it adapts to the changing conditions of life. However, the essence of the problem, in my opinion, lies not in the very ability of values to change, but in what content they are filled with in the course of this process and what ultimately becomes a priority for each subsequent generation.

Since values form the core of the mentality, determine the qualitative state of the political system and are the core of the life of an individual, giving it stability and perspective, it is very important in which direction their modernization will take place and to what extent the values that are relevant for this stage of development of society will be assimilated.

Values fulfill their purpose if they are perceived and assimilated at the level of society, the state and the individual. Assimilation of values is not carried out in a short and specified time. The complexity of this process is associated with the need to reorient people's consciousness. In the socio-political conditions of modern Russia, the assimilation of new and reassessment of traditional values is difficult due to the struggle of multidirectional trends: democracy and authoritarianism, centralization and regionalization, globalization and isolationism. In this process, different political cultures and political trends (radical liberalism, conservatism, communism, national patriotism) also collide.

The perception and assimilation of new values by the mass consciousness is carried out under the influence of many factors that either contribute to their assimilation or cause rejection from them (as was the case with an unsuccessful attempt to impose liberal democratic values on Russians in the early 90s of the 20th century “from above ” and ultimately led to the discrediting of democracy as such).

Among the factors positively influencing the assimilation of democratic values, one should single out the level of education of people. The more educated people are, the faster they master the ability to learn everything new, including values. Hence, the assimilation of democratic values, first of all, at the level of the intellectual elite, is of particular relevance in Russia. But to solve this problem, in addition to intelligence, one also needs political will and a sense of responsibility for the fate of one's country. The innovative development of Russia, and not mobilization modernization, can only be ensured on the basis of a synthesis of the material and spiritual achievements of the entire people.

The assimilation of values is directly dependent on the possibilities of their implementation. Note that the implementation of political values is determined not only by the activities of the political elite, but also by the participation of the masses in the political process. Providing guarantees for the realization of values faces numerous difficulties. First of all, it is necessary to distinguish between declared values and those that are really assimilated by people and encourage them to specific activities. This difference is due to the fact that, firstly, not all people are aware of the role of values in their lives; secondly, contradictory values (the market and centralization, equality in the distribution of benefits and social justice) are constantly mixed in the mass consciousness. All this significantly affects the motivation of human activity and the practical implementation of values. At the level of political institutions, priority is often given to narrow group interests; miscalculations are allowed in assessments of the political and economic situation and prospects for the development of society, although all formally act from the standpoint of universal human goals and universal values.

The degree of guarantee of the realization of values depends on the level of economic development of the country and the improvement of socio-political institutions that manage the socio-political process. Economic well-being in society as a whole contributes to a shift in priorities from material (economic and physical security) to values that characterize the quality of life and the possibility of self-expression of the individual.

In Russia, the implementation of these values is very limited, since people perceive, first of all, those aspects of real life that affect them directly. A significant part of the Russian population is still fighting for survival, which is often accompanied by fierce competition, including the physical destruction of rivals.

Guarantees for the implementation of such values, especially popular among Russian citizens, as social justice and equality are entirely dependent on economic efficiency. At the same time, the rise of the Russian economy cannot be carried out without taking into account the mentality of Russians and their value orientations. Not a single reform, including economic reform, carried out from above, as a rule, is brought to an end without its support “from below”. It is impossible to solve this problem without correlating the tasks of the democratization of society with the peculiarities of the existing system of values and the possibilities of changing it in the direction of democracy.

The existing value differentiation in the mass consciousness turned the socially homogeneous Soviet society into a value-heterogeneous society, and strengthened the value divisions of the elite and mass groups. Such values as education, professionalism, human rights, personal dignity are actively mastered and implemented mainly by representatives of the elites. In the mass consciousness, there is still a commitment to paternalism, when people are not ready and unable to dictate to the state the most important parameters for achieving the necessary order, and therefore give the state full authority in choosing the methods for ensuring it.

It is known that any society cannot be based on a contradictory system of values for a long time. Therefore, purposeful work is needed to familiarize the mass consciousness with democratic values. Otherwise, the contradictions between the goals of the ruling elite and the possibilities of their realization will become aggravated and hold back democratic transformations.

It is also known that the clash of basic values is very dangerous not only for the ruling elite, but also for society as a whole. It inevitably leads to a violation of the stability of the political system and forces politicians to use double standards in their activities.

In general, the deformation and modernization of the value system that meets democratic criteria is the task of the new generation of Russians, who, I would like to hope, are fully aware of the need to assimilate, first of all, such values as education, professionalism, human rights and freedoms, personal dignity, patriotism , collectivism, statehood, etc. This generation must make appropriate adjustments to traditional values, and thus ensure the necessary continuity in the common system of values.

However, even today, the understanding of the content of traditional and the assimilation of new values by the mass consciousness of Russians, as well as the formation of a certain system of their views, should be part of the tasks of advanced information state policy. Most people want to know what the essence of the transformations being carried out in the country is, on what basic values our ruling elite relies, and in what direction the society in which we live is developing.

In our modern world, 41 states have a monarchical form of government. All these countries for the most part belong to the 3rd world and were formed as a result of the collapse of the colonial system. Often established along colonial administrative lines, these states are highly unstable entities. They can be fragmented and modified, which is seen, for example, in Iraq. They are engulfed in ongoing conflicts, like a significant number of countries in Africa. And it is absolutely obvious that they are not included in the category of advanced states. However, I would like to note that the monarchical system has many faces: from tribal forms of government that are used in the Arab states to monarchical forms in many European countries.

List of states with a monarchical system:

Europe
Andorra - co-princes Nicolas Sarkozy (since 2007) and Joan Enric Vives y Cicilla (since 2003)

Belgium - King Albert II (since 1993)

Vatican - Pope Benedict XVI (since 2005)

Great Britain - Queen Elizabeth II (since 1952)

Denmark - Queen Margrethe II (since 1972)

Spain - King Juan Carlos I (since 1975)

Liechtenstein - Prince Hans-Adam II (since 1989)

Luxembourg - Grand Duke Henri (since 2000)

Monaco - Prince Albert II (since 2005)

Netherlands - Queen Beatrix (since 1980)

Norway - King Harald V (since 1991)

Sweden - King Carl XVI Gustaf (since 1973)

Asia
Bahrain - King Hamad ibn Isa al-Khalifa (since 2002, emir in 1999-2002)

Brunei - Sultan Hassanal Bolkiah (since 1967)

Bhutan - King Jigme Khesar Namgyal Wangchuck (since 2006)

Jordan - King Abdullah II (since 1999)

Cambodia - King Norodom Sihamoni (since 2004)

Qatar - Emir Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani (since 1995)

Kuwait - Emir of Sabah al-Ahmed al-Jaber al-Sabah (since 2006)

Malaysia - King Mizan Zainal Abidin (since 2006)

United Arab Emirates UAE - President Khalifa bin Zayed al-Nahyan (since 2004)

Oman - Sultan Qaboos bin Said (since 1970)

Saudi Arabia - King Abdullah ibn Abdulaziz al-Saud (since 2005)

Thailand - King Bhumibol Adulyadej (since 1946)

Japan - Emperor Akihito (since 1989)

Africa
Lesotho - King Letsie III (since 1996, first time in 1990-1995)

Morocco - King Mohammed VI (since 1999)

Swaziland - King Mswati III (since 1986)

Oceania
Tonga - King George Tupou V (since 2006)

A number of republican countries are forced to put up with the presence on their territory of local monarchical or tribal formations. These countries include: Uganda, Nigeria, Indonesia, Chad and others. The government turns to authoritative monarchs if it is necessary to resolve religious, ethnic and cultural disputes.

However, the monarchy is not an attachment to stability and prosperity, but an additional resource thanks to which the country can get out or endure this or that crisis. They are created from time immemorial, their title passes from generation to generation.

African autocrats

Benin. Joseph Langanfen, representative of the Abomi dynasty

Nigeria. Igwe Kenneth Nnaji Onimeke Orizu III. Obi (king) of the Nnevi tribe.

Benin. Agboli-Agbo Dejlani. Abomi King. A former police officer, he had to wait six years for his retirement before he was finally proclaimed in a secret ceremony the head of one of the Abomi clans.

Nigeria. In 1980, Sijuwade became the 50th oni (king) of Ilfa, one of the oldest African dynasties. Today he is the richest businessman, owning extensive property in Nigeria and England.

Cameroon. The background (king) of Banjun is the brother of bold and powerful animals. At night, he can transform into a panther and hunt in a shroud.

Ghana. Osediyo ado Danqua III. A graduate of the University of London and an economic adviser to the Ghanaian government.

Congo. Nyimi Kok Mabintsh III, King of Cuba. Now he is 50.

South Africa. Goodwill Zweletini, king of the Zulus.

Nigeria. Both Joseph Adecola Ogunoi. Tin (king) of the Ovo tribe.

Yuri Kim

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Posted on http://www.allbest.ru/

Sample title page of a term paper

Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia

Moscow University of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia

Moscow regional branch

Moscow University of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia

department _ theories and history of state and law

in the discipline "Theory of State and Law"

Subject: Modern monarchical forms of government

Introduction

1. The concept and features of the monarchy as a form of government

2. Types of monarchies and their features in the modern world

Conclusion

Bibliography

Introduction

This paper deals with the topic "Modern monarchical forms of government". Monarchy (from the Greek monarchia - monopower: mono - one and arhea - power) - a state in which state power belongs to one person and is inherited in the order of succession to the throne. There are the following types of monarchical form of government: absolute (unlimited) monarchy and constitutional (limited monarchy), which, in turn, is divided into dualistic and parliamentary monarchies.

Monarchy is the oldest form of government that has survived to this day. Therefore, its study and analysis seems to be quite relevant. Modern monarchies are, as a rule, nominal, constitutional, when the monarch shares power with the institutions of parliamentary democracy. Recognizing the monarchy as a historical anachronism, one can, nevertheless, single out a number of its attractive features:

1. Stability. Power is extremely concentrated, it relies on the estate, which owes its power to the monarch at the local level, serving him faithfully. monarchy power succession elitism

2. Efficiency. Decisions are made quickly and energetically, and they take effect immediately.

3. Elitism. The monarch is surrounded by people who, in his opinion, have wisdom, education, and energy.

4. From childhood, a monarch is brought up and educated precisely as a supreme ruler, responsible before God and before the country, while a politician who comes to power in adulthood is just beginning to get acquainted with the circle of knowledge and problems where he will work. In addition, some qualities are required to go through the difficult path to power, and completely different qualities are required to govern the country.

The significance of even a parliamentary monarchy should not, however, be reduced to a bare symbol, to a ritual, to convention. In the public mind, the monarchy makes sense, it cannot be ruled out that it can manifest itself in some extreme situations.

Modern monarchies in Europe: Andorra, Belgium, Vatican, Great Britain, Denmark, Spain, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Monaco, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden.

The purpose of the work is to reveal the essence of the monarchical form of government and consider its modern varieties.

The object of research is historical and modern monarchical forms of government.

The subject of the study is the types of monarchies, the features of various types of modern monarchies, the social content of the modern monarchy.

Let us consider in more detail the monarchy as a form of state government and its modern varieties.

1. Concept and recognitionki monarchy as a form of government

The monarchy, along with the republic, is one of the two forms of government known to the theory of state and law. The power of the monarch, as a rule, is for life and is transmitted in the order of succession to the throne.

Succession to the throne - the transfer of power of the monarch from one representative of the reigning house (dynasty) to another in the manner prescribed by law. There are currently three main systems of succession to the throne. The salic system is reduced to the fact that inheritance is carried out only through the male line. Women from the circle of heirs to the throne are excluded completely (Sweden). The Castilian system does not exclude women from the line of succession, but favors men: a younger brother excludes an older sister (UK). The Austrian system does not exclude women, but gives males and male lines an advantage in all lines and in all degrees of kinship. Women inherit the throne only with the complete suppression of all male offspring.

In some Arab countries, there is a so-called "clan" form of succession to the throne, when the ruling family elects the heir.

Another important form of government is the regency, a temporary collegial or sole exercise of the powers of the head of state in monarchies in the event of the monarch's temporary absence, his prolonged illness, or infancy.

Depending on the principle of inheritance of power, the monarchy can be dynastic, tribal and elective.

In a dynastic monarchy, there is a strict principle in accordance with which the throne is transferred from father to son or from brother to brother, as it was in Russia.

Much more often we come across a tribal monarchy, where the principle of belonging to the royal family operated. The king had to come from the royal family, but this did not mean at all that he automatically inherited the throne.

A special kind of monarchy is elective, combining elements of a monarchy and a republic. There was also an elective monarchy in Byzantium. She is not uncommon. In Equatorial Africa, the council of elders still elects tribal kings for a year, and a year later this council reaffirms or does not confirm the powers of the elected king. Currently, an elective monarchy exists in Malaysia, where the head of state is a monarch elected for five years by a special meeting of representatives of the monarchical states that are part of the federation.

The main features of the classical monarchical form of government are:

the presence of a sole life-long head of state (king,

king, emperor, shah);

· hereditary order of succession of supreme power;

legal irresponsibility of the monarch.

Having arisen in the conditions of a slave-owning society, the monarchy becomes the main form of government under feudalism and retains only the traditional, mostly formal features of monarchical government in bourgeois society.

2. Types of monarchies and theirfeatures in the modern world

Like many other concepts, the monarchy has a Greek etymology and means autocracy. In the monarchical form of the state structure, power belongs to one person and is inherited by him. However, there are several variants of government according to the monarchical type, which differ from each other in the degree of authority of the monarch, as well as in the presence or absence of additional independent authorities. The monarchy and its types according to the traditional structure Ancient Eastern. This is not only the very first form of monarchy, but also of state government in general. Here the power of the rulers was controlled by noble estates or popular assemblies, which could influence the decisions made by the monarch.

Feudal. It is also called medieval. Under this form, a policy that emphasizes agricultural production is common, and society is divided into two groups: feudal lords and peasants. It had several stages of its development, the last of which is the main type of monarchy - absolute.

Theocratic. Here the head of the church receives complete power, it is also possible to rule simply by a religious leader. The clergy in this case plays a crucial role in society, and the arguments of certain actions of the head are reduced to their original divine origin: signs, revelations and laws that God sent.

In addition to these three types, the monarchy is distinguished by the degree of restrictions: absolute, constitutional, parliamentary, dualistic.

Types of monarchy: absolute

Here the unconditional rule of the monarch is manifested, all power is actually concentrated in his hands: judicial, legislative and executive, as well as in some cases religious. In the 17th and 18th centuries, absolutism flourished in Western Europe, which eventually ceased to be relevant.

The very rationale for absolute monarchy is interesting here: the head, his predecessors and heirs are supposedly of divine origin, which on earth was accompanied by exaltation and demonstration of this with the help of magnificent palaces and etiquette. The monarchs were supported by the nobles, who were a step below, but at the lowest were slaves or peasants, whose task was to live in poverty and obey. For this, the king allowed them to live.

Types of monarchy: constitutional

Under this form of government, the power of the monarch is somewhat limited, not only legally, but also in fact. He shares it with the parliament, and depending on who the executive remains behind, a dualistic and parliamentary monarchy is distinguished.

Types of monarchy: parliamentary

Here the government has more powers than the monarch, it is responsible for its actions in the first place before the parliament. At the same time, the monarch plays an exclusively ceremonial role and does not actually have executive and legislative powers, which are shared between parliament and government.

Types of monarchy: dualistic

Under this form of government, the monarch is a responsible authority figure whose governmental actions are limited by constitutional clauses. The monarch can dissolve the parliament and form the government, therefore, in fact, his power is preserved, but divided with the parliament according to the formal principle: the monarch implements the executive, and the parliament implements the legislative.

Currently, there are states in which the monarchy reigns. The absolute view is implemented in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Brunei and Oman. The constitutional dualist is represented in Morocco, Liechtenstein, UAE, Luxembourg, Kuwait, Monaco and Jordan. The constitutional parliamentary system is manifested in Nevis, Saint Kitts, the Grenadines, Saint Vincent, Jamaica, Tonga, New Zealand, Great Britain, Belgium, Cambodia, Japan, Denmark, Thailand, Norway, Canada, Sweden, Bhutan, Spain, Andorra, etc. Thus Thus, the monarchy is quite common today, but the tendency towards the predominance of its more democratic form suggests that it is perceived more as a tribute to tradition than an effective form of government in its classical sense.

The first, and probably the most important feature is the “atypicality”, so successfully identified by V.E. Chirkin. He calls the classical parliamentary monarchy a "republican monarchy", i.e. a monarchy in which the power of the monarch is completely limited in all spheres of state power. England, the center of the Commonwealth of Independent States, which used to be part of its colonies, can serve as a striking example of an "atypical" monarchy. The English monarchy is an example of a classic constitutional parliamentary monarchy.

Another distinctive feature is that no monarchy in Europe is absolute, which once again underlines the high level of European democracy. However, the Vatican is legally an absolute monarchy.

In our time, there is a problem of "rich North - poor South", the same trend can be seen to some extent in monarchies, that is, the further south the monarchy is, the more absolute it is. So from the northern monarchy, we can cite the example of Sweden. This is a northern European monarchy, which is even more limited than the English monarchy.

Another important feature of some modern monarchies is the fictitiousness of the legislative (legislative bodies) under the monarch. This feature applies to modern absolute Muslim monarchies. In Oman, for example, "the creation of a parliament as contrary to the traditions of Muslim fundamentalism is excluded." The parliament is replaced by the institution of ash-shura - a legislative advisory body under the monarch, but it has no real powers and is completely dependent on the monarch.

Very close to this feature is the post-colonial monarchy of some island republics that were among the colonies of Great Britain and are now in the British Commonwealth. To such countries V.E. Chirkin refers, for example, to Antigua, Barbuda, Barbados, Jamaica, and others.

The most important feature is that in most of the monarchies of Europe, the institution of the monarch is only a tribute to traditions. The commitment of the population of these countries to the monarch vividly illustrates to us how strongly the realization that the personality of the monarch is sacred, that he is a kind of their protector from all troubles, is deeply embedded in the psyche of people. This feature is vividly illustrated by the examples of the already considered England or the Netherlands. The Netherlands is "a country where everything is allowed!" - this is how the European neighbors call the Netherlands. This country formally has 2 Constitutions: the Statute of the Kingdom of the Netherlands of 1954 (this act resolves issues between the Netherlands themselves and their provinces, since the Netherlands is a unitary decentralized state in the form of government) and the Constitution of the Netherlands of 1815, fixing the foundations of the Dutch constitutional order.

Absolutely in all monarchies, the head of state appears as a symbol of the latter, it is the face of his sovereign that is most dear to the population with a monarchical legal consciousness than the flag, coat of arms, anthem, etc. And this feature is characteristic even not so much of European monarchies as of African monarchies. For example Swaziland. A country in southern Africa, also repeatedly influenced by Western ideology. There is no constitution as such in Swaziland, but there are royal constitutional acts that establish the foundations of the constitutional order of this country.

A distinctive feature is the election of monarchs in Malaysia and the UAE, this is an absolute phenomenon of the monarchical form of government, which is a kind of “mix” of the monarchy and the republic, although, of course, there is more monarchical and even absolutist in these countries. So Malaysia is “a monarchy of several monarchies” or “United Monarchist States”, this is how the world community dubbed this country. It consists of thirteen states, which are headed by hereditary monarchs (sultans, rajas), and two federal territories, which are headed by governors.

Another interesting feature of some modern monarchies is monarchical federalism, which is typical not only for the United Arab Emirates and Malaysia, but also, for example, for such a state as Belgium. According to the Belgian Constitution of 1831. this state is unitary, but with the development of this country, problems arose due to the heterogeneity of the national composition of the population. However, federalism in monarchies can be seen as another way to limit the power of the monarch through the decentralization of state leadership of the monarchy.

Among the Arab monarchies there is a special principle of succession to the throne, this is the so-called clan principle, when the monarch is chosen by his family. This feature is unique to the Asian monarchies of the Persian Gulf. If we recall the succession to the throne in ancient Egypt, we can find a lot in common. Such a principle can be seen, for example, in the already considered Qatar.

Thus, among the main features of modern monarchies, ten main ones can be distinguished:

- "atypical";

Lack of absolutism among European monarchies;

The presence among the monarchies of the principle: "the more south the monarchy, the more absolute it is";

The presence of European democratic institutions in the monarchies of Asia and Africa, which have been under the influence of the states of Europe;

The presence of the institution of the monarch, in the monarchies of Europe, as a tribute to traditions;

The elevation of the monarch to the rank of a symbol, the face of the state, in all monarchies;

Electiveness of monarchs in Malaysia and the United Arab Emirates;

The clan principle of choosing a monarch in Arab monarchies;

Monarchical federalism as a factor limiting the power of the monarch;

Fictitiousness of legislative (legislative) bodies in a number of Muslim monarchies.

Conclusion

In recent years, the process of "republicanization" in the world has noticeably slowed down. States that have monarchs are in no hurry to part with their traditions and institutions.

Modern European monarchies are considered civilized, in contrast to the former, "uncivilized", absolutist ones. In all modern monarchical states, regardless of their forms, it is believed that the monarch has executive power, although in the vast majority of countries he does not really have such power.

In addition, in modern conditions there are such atypical monarchies, where the head of state is not for life and not hereditary, but is elected after a certain period of time. Malaysia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) elect a monarch every five years. This brings the monarch closer to the president, and the form of government approaches the republican. However, both these states are undoubtedly monarchies.

As for the Russian Federation, some politicians believe that the rule of a monarch may be more acceptable in our country at present. The socialist past of our country, when the equality of political and civil rights was proclaimed, social equality was declared, influenced the modern state. The transitional period of the formation of the form of government of our state has ended, power is increasingly centralized in the hands of the head of state, the presence of elected bodies only creates the appearance of a collective decision on significant issues for the country. Numerous appeals of deputies of various levels, prominent politicians who are applying for a constitutional initiative to change the basic law - the Constitution, on the issue of extending the powers of the incumbent president, discussing the candidacy of the president's successor, suggest that Russia has not outlived its desire for a monarchical form of government.

Supporters of the monarchy argue that if the state is ruled by a devoted to Russia and a strong-willed monarch, then the country will be able to be raised to a high level. Perhaps the monarchy could put everything in its place, because the authority of the monarch depends entirely on his state.

However, it should be borne in mind that modern representatives of state law consider a “constitutional” monarchy, supposedly combining various elements in one Supreme Power, is, therefore, in reality nothing more than a democracy that is not yet fully organized. It has already won in the minds of the peoples, it has already become in fact the supreme power, but it has not yet thrown out the remnants of the monarchy and aristocracy from among its delegated authorities, has not yet replaced these fragments of the former structure with a single chamber of people's representatives.

Bibliography

1. Theory of State and Law: Textbook for High Schools / Ed. O.V. Martyshina. - M.: Publishing house NORMA, 2007. - 496 p.

Malakhov V.P., Gorsheneva I.A., Ivanov A.A.

2. Theory of state and law: a textbook for university students studying in the specialty "Jurisprudence". - M.: UNITY-DANA: Law and Law, 2010. - 159 p.

3. Theory of state and law: textbook / Ed. V.Ya. Kikot and V.V. Lazarev. - 3rd ed. per. add. - M.: Publishing House "Forum": INFRA - M.: 2008. - 624 p.

4. Chervonyuk V.I. Theory of state and law: textbook. M.: INFRA - M.: 2007. - 704 p.

5. Ivanov A.A. Theory of State and Law: a textbook for university students studying in the specialty "Jurisprudence". -M.: UNITI-DANA: Law and Law, 2009. - 351 p.

6. Theory of state and law: textbook / Ed. PhD in Law, Associate Professor P.V. Anisimov. - M.: TsOKR of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia, 2005. - 312 p.

7. L.P. Rasskazov. Theory of state and law: a textbook for universities. - 2nd ed. - M.: RIOR, 2009. - 464 p.

Hosted on Allbest.ru

...

Similar Documents

The concept and essence of the monarchy. Features of the monarchy as a form of government, its advantages and disadvantages. Overview of monarchies as a form of government: features of the absolute, limited form. Monarchies in the historical aspect. modern monarchical states.

term paper, added 04/07/2011

The concept and types of monarchy, historical forms of its development. Fundamental systems of succession to the throne. Advantages and disadvantages of the monarchical form of government. modern monarchical states. History of absolute monarchy in France.

term paper, added 02/19/2014

Modern theory of the state. Variety of forms of government. Signs of the monarchy and features of the modern monarchy. Signs of republican forms of government and their varieties from a modern point of view. Forms of government and stability in the state.

abstract, added 06/12/2011

Forms of government in the modern world, state and political regimes. Features of government in a monarchy. The main features of republican forms of government. Classification of republics, functions of parliament in them. Forms of government in the Russian Federation.

term paper, added 05/24/2012

Forms of government. The concept of the monarchy as a state form of government, its advantages and disadvantages. The essence of absolute and dualistic monarchy. Constitutional monarchies and modernity. Non-traditional types of monarchy and their characteristics.

term paper, added 03/13/2014

Monarchy as a form of government in which the head of state receives power in the order of succession to the throne. Characteristics of absolute, constitutional, dualistic and parliamentary monarchy. The concept, types and order of succession to the throne.

term paper, added 02/09/2011

The concept, essence, historical forms of the development of the monarchy, its theoretical foundations, advantages and disadvantages as a form of government. Monarchic states of modernity, their characteristics on the example of the constitutional monarchy of England.

term paper, added 04/26/2009

The concept and features of the monarchy, the history and main stages of development of this form of government, classification and types. Succession systems, Salic, Castilian and Austrian. Forms of implementation of the monarchy, analysis and evaluation of their main advantages and disadvantages.

term paper, added 04/24/2016

Monarchy as a form of government in which the supreme state power is partially or completely owned by one person, its features and types. Monarchic states of the present. The concept, distinctive features and examples of a presidential republic.

presentation, added 05/12/2014

The concept of the form of government, its essence and content. Characteristics, main features and types of modern forms of government: monarchies, republics, atypical (mixed) forms. Historical stages of formation and features of the forms of government of the Russian state.

What is Teplolux cable heating systems, its advantages and amenities can be found by visiting the website of a company specializing in this matter. It was here that I first learned about what a warm roof is and about other anti-icing systems.

In our time, when spaceships plow the expanses of the universe, there are also monarchies on Earth. It would seem an anachronism of the past, but what they are now, what role they play. How many?
In the modern world, there are just over 230 states and self-governing territories with international status. Of these, only 41 states have a monarchical form of government, not counting several dozen territories under the rule of the British crown. It would seem that in the modern world a clear advantage is on the side of the republican states. But upon closer examination, it turns out that these countries mostly belong to the third world and were formed as a result of the collapse of the colonial system. Often established along colonial administrative lines, these states are highly unstable entities. They can be fragmented and modified, which is seen, for example, in Iraq. They are engulfed in ongoing conflicts, like a significant number of countries in Africa. And it is absolutely obvious that they are not included in the category of advanced states.
Today, a monarchy is an extremely flexible and diverse system ranging from a tribal form that successfully operates in the Arab states of the Middle East to a monarchical version of a democratic state in many European countries.

Here is a list of states with a monarchical system and territories under their crown:
Europe
* Andorra - co-princes Nicolas Sarkozy (since 2007) and Joan Enric Vives y Cicilla (since 2003)
* Belgium - King Albert II (since 1993)
* Vatican - Pope Benedict XVI (since 2005)
* Great Britain - Queen Elizabeth II (since 1952)
* Denmark - Queen Margrethe II (since 1972)
* Spain - King Juan Carlos I (since 1975)
* Liechtenstein - Prince Hans-Adam II (since 1989)
* Luxembourg - Grand Duke Henri (since 2000)
* Monaco - Prince Albert II (since 2005)
* The Netherlands - Queen Beatrix (since 1980)
* Norway - King Harald V (since 1991)
* Sweden - King Carl XVI Gustaf (since 1973)
Asia.
* Bahrain - King Hamad ibn Isa al-Khalifa (since 2002, emir in 1999-2002)
* Brunei - Sultan Hassanal Bolkiah (since 1967)
* Bhutan - King Jigme Khesar Namgyal Wangchuck (since 2006)
* Jordan - King Abdullah II (since 1999)
* Cambodia - King Norodom Sihamoni (since 2004)
* Qatar - Emir Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani (since 1995)
* Kuwait - Emir of Sabah al-Ahmed al-Jaber al-Sabah (since 2006)
* Malaysia - King Mizan Zainal Abidin (since 2006)
* United Arab Emirates UAE - President Khalifa bin Zayed al-Nahyan (since 2004)
* Oman - Sultan Qaboos bin Said (since 1970)
* Saudi Arabia - King Abdullah ibn Abdulaziz al-Saud (since 2005)
* Thailand - King Bhumibol Adulyadej (since 1946)
* Japan - Emperor Akihito (since 1989)
Africa
* Lesotho - King Letsie III (since 1996, first time in 1990-1995)
* Morocco - King Mohammed VI (since 1999)
* Swaziland - King Mswati III (since 1986)
Oceania
* Tonga - King George Tupou V (since 2006)
Dominions
In the dominions, or Commonwealth realms, the head is the monarch of Great Britain, represented by a governor-general.
America
* Antigua and Barbuda Antigua and Barbuda
* Bahamas Bahamas
* Barbados
* Belize
* Grenada
* Canada
* Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
* Saint Kitts and Nevis
* Saint Lucia
* Jamaica
Oceania
* Australia
* New Zealand
* Niue
* Papua New Guinea
* Solomon islands
* Tuvalu
Asia holds the first place in the number of countries with monarchical statehood. This is a progressive and democratic Japan. The leaders of the Muslim world are Saudi Arabia, Brunei, Kuwait, Qatar, Jordan, Bahrain, Oman. Two monarchical confederations - Malaysia and the United Arab Emirates. And also - Thailand, Cambodia, Bhutan.
Second place belongs to Europe. The monarchy is represented here not only in a limited form - in the countries occupying a leading position in the EEC (Great Britain, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, etc.). But also an absolute form of government - in the "dwarf" states: Monaco, Liechtenstein, Vatican.
Third place - for the countries of Polynesia, and fourth for Africa, where at the present time only three full-fledged monarchies have survived: Morocco, Lesotho, Swaziland, plus several hundred "tourist" ones.
Nevertheless, a number of republican countries are forced to put up with the presence of traditional local monarchical or tribal formations on their territory, and even enshrine their rights in the constitution. These include: Uganda, Nigeria, Indonesia, Chad and others. Even such countries as India and Pakistan, which abolished the sovereign rights of local monarchs (khans, sultans, rajas, maharajas) in the early 70s of the 20th century, are often forced to accept the existence of these rights, which is called de facto. Governments turn to the authority of the holders of monarchical rights in resolving regional religious, ethnic, cultural disputes and other conflict situations.
stability and well-being
Of course, the monarchy does not automatically solve all social, economic and political problems. But, nevertheless, it can provide a certain amount of stability and balance in the political, social and national structure of society. That is why even those countries where it exists only nominally, say, Canada or Australia, are in no hurry to get rid of the monarchy. For the most part, the political elite of these countries understands how important it is for the balance in society that the supreme power be a priori fixed in the same hands and that political circles do not fight for it, but work in the name of the interests of the entire nation.
Moreover, historical experience shows that the best social security systems in the world are built in monarchical states. And we are talking not only about the monarchies of Scandinavia, where even the Soviet agitprop in monarchical Sweden managed to find a variant of "socialism with a human face." Such a system is built in the modern countries of the Persian Gulf, where there is often much less oil than in some fields of the Russian Federation. Despite this, in the 40-60 years since the independence of the Persian Gulf countries, without revolutions and civil wars, liberalization of everything and everything, without utopian social experiments, in a rigid, sometimes absolutist, political system, in the absence of parliamentarism and constitution, when all the bowels of the country belong to one ruling family, most of the citizens of the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and other neighboring states turned from poor Bedouins grazing camels into quite wealthy citizens.
Without delving into the endless enumeration of the advantages of the Arab social system, only a few strokes can be given. Any citizen of the country has the right to free medical care, including that which is provided in any, even the most expensive, clinic located in any country in the world. Also, any citizen of the country has the right to free education, coupled with free content, in any higher educational institution in the world (Cambridge, Oxford, Yale, Sorbonne). Housing is provided to young families at the expense of the state. The monarchies of the Persian Gulf are truly social states in which all conditions have been created for the progressive growth of the well-being of the population.
Turning from flourishing Kuwait, Bahrain and Qatar to their neighbors in the Persian Gulf and the Arabian Peninsula, who for a number of reasons abandoned the monarchy (Yemen, Iraq, Iran), we will see a striking difference in the internal climate of these states.
Who strengthens the unity of the people?
As historical experience shows, in multinational states, the integrity of the country is primarily associated with the monarchy. We see this in the past, on the example of the Russian Empire, Austria-Hungary, Yugoslavia, Iraq. The coming to replace the monarchical regime, as it was, for example, in Yugoslavia and Iraq, no longer has that authority and is forced to resort to cruelties that were not characteristic of the monarchical system of government. With the slightest weakening of this regime, the state, as a rule, is doomed to disintegration. So it was with Russia (USSR), we see it in Yugoslavia and Iraq. The abolition of the monarchy in a number of modern countries would inevitably lead to the termination of their existence as multinational, united states. This primarily applies to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia. So the year 2007 clearly showed that in the conditions of the parliamentary crisis that arose due to the national contradictions of the Flemish and Walloon politicians, only the authority of King Albert II of the Belgians kept Belgium from disintegrating into two or even more independent state entities. In multilingual Belgium, a joke was even born that the unity of its people is held together by only three things - beer, chocolate and the king. Whereas the abolition of the monarchical system in 2008 in Nepal plunged this state into a chain of political crises and permanent civil confrontation.
The second half of the 20th century provides us with several successful examples of the return of peoples who survived an era of instability, civil wars and other conflicts to a monarchical form of government. The most famous and, undoubtedly, in many respects a successful example is Spain. Having gone through a civil war, an economic crisis and a right-wing dictatorship, it returned to a monarchical form of government, taking its rightful place among the family of European peoples. Cambodia is another example. Also, monarchical regimes at the local level were restored in Uganda, after the fall of the dictatorship of Marshal Idi Amin (1928-2003), and in Indonesia, which, after the departure of General Mohammed-Khoja Sukarto (1921-2008), is experiencing a real monarchical renaissance. One of the local sultanates was restored in this country two centuries later, after it was destroyed by the Dutch.
Restoration ideas are quite strong in Europe, first of all, this applies to the Balkan countries (Serbia, Montenegro, Albania and Bulgaria), where many politicians, public and spiritual figures constantly have to speak out on this issue, and in some cases even support the heads of the Royal Houses, former in exile. This is proved by the experience of King Leka of Albania, who almost carried out an armed coup in his country, and the amazing successes of Tsar Simeon II of Bulgaria, who created his own national movement, named after him, who managed to become the country's prime minister and is currently the leader of the largest opposition party. in the Parliament of Bulgaria, which entered the coalition government.
Among the existing monarchies there are quite a few that are openly absolutist in their essence, although they are forced, bringing tribute to the times, to dress up in the clothes of popular representation and democracy. European monarchs in most cases do not even use the rights given to them by the constitution.
And here the Principality of Liechtenstein occupies a special place on the map of Europe. Sixty years ago, it was a large village that, by an absurd accident, gained independence. However, now, thanks to the activities of Prince Franz Joseph II and his son and successor, Prince Hans Adam II, this is one of the largest business and financial centers that has managed not to succumb to the promises of creating a "single European home", to defend its sovereignty and an independent view of its own state device.
The stability of the political and economic systems of most monarchical countries makes them not only not obsolete, but progressive and attractive, makes them equal to them in a number of ways.
So the monarchy is not an attachment to stability and prosperity, but an additional resource that makes it easier to endure the disease, recover faster from political and economic adversity.
Without a king at the head
The situation is quite common in the world when there is no monarchy in the country, but there are monarchs (sometimes they are outside the country). The heirs of royal families either claim (even formally) the throne lost by their ancestors, or, having lost official power, retain a real influence on the life of the country. Here is a list of such states.
Austria
The monarchy ceased to exist in 1918 after the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. The contender for the throne is Archduke Otto von Habsburg, son of the deposed Emperor Charles.
Albania
The monarchy ceased to exist in 1944 after the communists came to power. The pretender to the throne is Leka, son of the deposed King Zog I.
Andorra Principality, whose nominal co-rulers are the President of France and the Bishop of Urgell (Spain); some observers consider it necessary to classify Andorra as a monarchy.
Afghanistan
The monarchy ceased to exist in 1973 after the overthrow of King Mohammed Zahir Shah, who returned to the country in 2002 after a long stay in Italy, but did not become actively involved in political life.
Benin Republic,
an important role in the life of which is played by traditional kings (ahosu) and tribal leaders. The most famous is the current ruling king (ahosu) of Abomey - Agoli Agbo III, the 17th representative of his dynasty.
Bulgaria
The monarchy ceased to exist after the overthrow of Tsar Simeon II in 1946. The decree on the nationalization of lands belonging to the royal family was repealed in 1997. Since 2001, the former tsar has been the Prime Minister of Bulgaria under the name of Simeon of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha.
Botswana
Republic since independence in 1966. The number of deputies of one of the chambers of the country's parliament - the chamber of leaders - includes the leaders (kgosi) of the eight largest tribes of the country.
Brazil
Republic since the abdication of Emperor Don Pedro II in 1889. The pretender to the throne is the great-great-grandson of the abdicated emperor, Prince Luis Gastao.
Burkina Faso
Republic since independence in 1960. There are a large number of traditional states on the territory of the country, the most significant of which is Vogogogo (on the territory of the country's capital Ouagudugou), where the ruler (moogo-naaba) Baongo II is currently on the throne.
Vatican
Theocracy (some analysts consider it a form of monarchy - an absolute theocratic monarchy - however, it should be borne in mind that it is not and cannot be hereditary).
Hungary
The republic since 1946, before that since 1918 was a nominal monarchy - the regent ruled in the absence of the king. Until 1918, it was part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire (the emperors of Austria were also kings of Hungary), so the potential contender for the Hungarian royal throne is the same as in Austria.
East Timor
Republic since independence in 2002. On the territory of the country there are a number of traditional states, the rulers of which have the titles of rajas.
Vietnam
The monarchy on the territory of the country finally ceased to exist in 1955, when a republic was proclaimed in South Vietnam as a result of a referendum. Previously, in 1945, the last Emperor Bao Dai had already abdicated, but the French authorities returned him to the country in 1949 and gave him the post of head of state. The contender for the throne is the emperor's son, Prince Bao Long.
Gambia
Republic since 1970 (from independence in 1965 until the proclamation of the republic, the head of state was the Queen of Great Britain). In 1995, Yvonne Prior, a Dutch woman from Suriname, was recognized as the reincarnation of one of the kings of antiquity and proclaimed queen of the Mandingo people.
Ghana
Republic since 1960 (from independence in 1957 until the proclamation of the republic, the head of state was the Queen of Great Britain). The Ghanaian constitution guarantees the right of traditional rulers (sometimes called kings, sometimes chiefs) to participate in the management of the affairs of the state.
Germany
Republic since the overthrow of the monarchy in 1918. The pretender to the throne is Prince Georg Friedrich of Prussia, great-great-grandson of Kaiser Wilhelm II.
Greece
The monarchy officially ceased to exist as a result of a referendum in 1974. King Constantine of Greece, who fled the country after a military coup in 1967, currently resides in the UK. In 1994, the Greek government stripped the king of his citizenship and confiscated his property in Greece. The royal family is currently challenging this decision at the International Court of Human Rights.
Georgia
Republic since independence in 1991. The pretender to the throne of the Georgian kingdom, which lost its independence as a result of joining Russia in 1801, is George Iraklievich Bagration-Mukhransky, Prince of Georgia.
Egypt
The monarchy existed until the overthrow of King Ahmad Fuad II of Egypt and Sudan in 1953. Currently, the former king, who at the time of the loss of the throne was just over a year old, lives in France.
Iraq
The monarchy ceased to exist in 1958 as a result of the revolution, during which King Faisal II was assassinated. Claims to the Iraqi throne are made by Prince Ra'ad bin Zeid, brother of King Faisal I of Iraq, and Prince Sharif Ali bin Ali Hussein, great-nephew of the same king.
Iran The monarchy ceased to exist in 1979 after the revolution, which resulted in the overthrow of Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi. The contender for the throne is the son of the deposed Shah, Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi.
Italy
The monarchy ceased to exist in 1946 as a result of a referendum, King Umberto II was forced to leave the country. The pretender to the throne is the son of the last king, Crown Prince Victor Emmanuel, Duke of Savoy.
Yemen
The republic emerged from the unification of North and South Yemen in 1990. On the territory of North Yemen, the monarchy ceased to exist in 1962. The sultanates and principalities on the territory of South Yemen were liquidated after the declaration of its independence in 1967. The pretender to the throne is Prince Ahmad al-Ghani bin Mohammed al-Mutawakkil.
Cameroon
Republic since independence in 1960. There are a large number of traditional sultanates on the territory of the country, the heads of which often hold high government positions. Among the most famous traditional rulers is the Sultan of Bamun, Ibrahim Mbombo Njoya, Sultan (Baba) of the Kingdom of Rey Buba Buba Abdoulaye.
Congo(Democratic Republic of the Congo, formerly Zaire)
Republic since independence in 1960. There are a number of traditional kingdoms throughout the country. The most famous are: the Kingdom of Cuba (King Kwete Mboke is on the throne); the kingdom of Luba (king, sometimes also called emperor, Kabongo Jacques); the state of Ruund (Luunda), headed by the ruler (mwaant yaav) Mbumb II Muteb.
Congo(Republic of the Congo)
Republic since independence in 1960. In 1991, the country's authorities restored the institution of traditional leaders (revising their decision 20 years ago). The most famous among the leaders is the head of the traditional kingdom of Teke - King (oonko) Makoko XI.
Korea
(DPRK and the Republic of Korea) The monarchy ceased to exist in 1945 due to the surrender of Japan, in 1945-1948 the country was under the control of the allied powers that won the Second World War, in 1948 two republics were proclaimed on the territory of the Korean Peninsula. Due to the fact that from 1910 to 1945 the rulers of Korea were vassals of Japan, it is customary to classify them as part of the Japanese imperial family. The pretender to the Korean throne is the representative of this surname Prince Kyu Ri (sometimes his surname is written as Lee). On the territory of the DPRK, there is de facto a hereditary form of government, but de jure it is not stipulated in the legislation of the country.
Ivory Coast
Republic since independence in 1960. On the territory of the country (and partly on the territory of neighboring Ghana) is the traditional kingdom of Abrons (ruled by King Nanan Ajumani Kouassi Adingra).
Laos
The monarchy ceased to exist in 1975 as a result of the communist revolution. In 1977, all members of the royal family were sent to a concentration camp ("re-education camp"). The king's two sons, Prince Sulivong Savang and Prince Danyavong Savang, were able to escape from Laos in 1981-1982. There is no official information about the fate of the king, queen, crown prince and other family members. According to unofficial reports, they all died of starvation in a concentration camp. Prince Sulivong Savang, as the eldest surviving male of the family, is the formal pretender to the throne.
Libya
The monarchy ceased to exist in 1969. After the coup organized by Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, King Idris I, who was abroad during the coup, was forced to abdicate. The pretender to the throne is the official heir to the king (the adopted son of his cousin) Prince Mohammed al-Hasan al-Rida.
Malawi
Republic since 1966 (from the moment of independence in 1964 until the proclamation of the Republic, the head of state was the Queen of Great Britain). An important role in the political life of the country is played by the supreme leader (inkosi i makosi) Mmbelwa IV from the Ngoni dynasty.
Maldives
The monarchy ceased to exist after a referendum in 1968 (during the period of British rule, that is, before independence was declared in 1965, the country once became a republic for a short time). The formal contender for the throne, however, who never declared his claims, is Prince Mohammed Nureddin, son of the Sultan of the Maldives Hassan Nureddin II (reigned 1935-1943).
Mexico
The monarchy ceased to exist in 1867 after the execution by the revolutionaries of the ruler of the empire proclaimed in 1864, Archduke Maximilian of Austria. Earlier, in 1821-1823, the country had already once been an independent state with a monarchical form of structure. Representatives of the Iturbide dynasty, whose ancestor was the Mexican emperor during this period, are pretenders to the Mexican throne. The head of the Iturbide family is Baroness Maria (II) Anna Tankl Iturbide.
Mozambique
Republic since independence in 1975. On the territory of the country is the traditional state of Manyika, whose ruler (mambo) is Mutasa Pafiva.
Myanmar
(until 1989 Burma) Republic since independence in 1948. The monarchy ceased to exist in 1885 after the annexation of Burma to British India. The pretender to the throne is Prince Hteiktin Tau Paya, grandson of the last king Thibau Ming.
Namibia
Republic since independence in 1990. A number of tribes are ruled by traditional rulers. The role of traditional leaders is at least indicated by the fact that Hendrik Witboui served as deputy head of government for several years.
Niger
Republic since independence in 1960. There are a number of traditional states on the territory of the country. Their rulers and tribal elders choose their own political and religious leader, who bears the title of Sultan of Zinder (the title is not hereditary). Currently, the title of the 20th Sultan of Zinder is held by Haji Mamadou Mustafa.
Nigeria
Republic since 1963 (from independence in 1960 until the proclamation of the republic, the head of state was the Queen of Great Britain). There are about 100 traditional states on the territory of the country, the rulers of which carry both the familiar-sounding titles of sultan or emir, as well as more exotic ones: aku uka, olu, igwe, amanyanabo, tortiv, alafin, both, obi, ataoja, oroje, olubaka, ohimege (most often this means in translation "leader" or "supreme leader").
Palau(Belau)
Republic since independence in 1994. Legislative power is exercised by the House of Delegates (council of chiefs), which includes the traditional rulers of the 16 provinces of Palau. Yutaka Gibbons, the paramount chief (ibedul) of Koror, the main city of the country, enjoys the greatest authority.
Portugal
The monarchy ceased to exist in 1910 as a result of the escape from the country of King Manuel II, who feared for his life in connection with an armed uprising. The pretender to the throne is the house of Duarte III Pio, Duke of Braganza.
Russia
The monarchy ceased to exist after the February Revolution of 1917. Although there are several pretenders to the Russian throne, most monarchists recognize Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna, great-great-granddaughter of Emperor Alexander II, as the legitimate heiress.
Romania
The monarchy ceased to exist after the abdication of King Michael I in 1947. After the collapse of communism, the former king visited his native country several times. In 2001, the Romanian parliament granted him the rights of the former head of state - a residence, a private car with a driver and a salary of 50% of the salary of the country's president.
Serbia
Along with Montenegro, it was part of Yugoslavia until 2002 (the rest of the republics seceded from Yugoslavia in 1991). In Yugoslavia, the monarchy finally ceased to exist in 1945 (since 1941, King Peter II was outside the country). After his death, his son, heir to the throne, Prince Alexander (Karageorgievich) became the head of the royal house.
USA
Republic since independence in 1776. The Hawaiian Islands (annexed to the United States in 1898, acquired statehood in 1959) had a monarchy until 1893. The pretender to the Hawaiian throne is Prince Quentin Kuhio Kawananakoa, a direct descendant of the last Hawaiian queen Liliuokalani.
Tanzania
The republic was formed in 1964 as a result of the unification of Tanganyika and Zanzibar. On the island of Zanzibar, shortly before the unification, the monarchy was overthrown. The 10th Sultan of Zanzibar Jamshid bin Abdullah was forced to leave the country. In 2000, the Tanzanian authorities announced the rehabilitation of the monarch and that he has the right to return to his homeland as an ordinary citizen.
Tunisia
The monarchy ceased to exist in 1957, the year after independence was declared. The contender for the throne is Crown Prince Sidi Ali Ibrahim.
Turkey Proclaimed a republic in 1923 (the Sultanate was abolished a year earlier and the Caliphate a year later). The pretender to the throne is Prince Osman VI.
Uganda
Republic since 1963 (from independence in 1962 until the proclamation of the republic, the head of state was the Queen of Great Britain). Some traditional kingdoms on the territory of the country were liquidated in 1966-1967 and almost all were restored in 1993-1994. Others managed to avoid liquidation.
Philippines
Republic since independence in 1946. There are many traditional sultanates on the territory of the country. 28 of them are concentrated in the area of Lake Lanao (Mindanao Island). The Philippine government officially recognizes the confederation of the Sultans of Lanao (Ranao) as a political force representing the interests of certain segments of the island's population. The throne of the Sultanate of Sulu (located on the archipelago of the same name) is claimed by at least six people representing two clans, which is explained by various political and financial benefits.
France
The monarchy was abolished in 1871. Heirs of various families claim the French throne: Prince Henry of Orleans, Count of Paris and Duke of France (Orleanist pretender); Louis Alphonse de Bourbon, Duke of Anjou (Legitimist pretender) and Prince Charles Bonaparte, Prince Napoleon (Bonapartist pretender).
Central African Republic
After gaining independence from France in 1960, a republic was proclaimed. Colonel Jean-Bedel Bokassa, who came to power in 1966 as a result of a military coup, in 1976 proclaimed the country an empire, and himself emperor. In 1979 Bokassa was overthrown and the Central African Empire became the Central African Republic again. The contender for the throne is the son of Bokassa, Crown Prince Jean-Bedel Georges Bokassa.
Chad Republic since independence in 1960. Among the numerous traditional states on the territory of Chad, two should be singled out: the sultanates of Bagirmi and Wadari (both were formally liquidated after the declaration of independence and restored in 1970). Sultan (mbang) Bagirmi - Muhammad Yusuf, Sultan (kolak) Vadari - Ibrahim ibn-Muhammad Urada.
Montenegro See Serbia
Ethiopia
The monarchy ceased to exist in 1975 after the abolition of the post of emperor. The last of the reigning emperors was Haile Selassie I, belonging to the dynasty, the founders of which are considered to be Menelik I, son of Solomon, king of Israel, from the queen of Sheba. In 1988, in a private ceremony in London, Haile Selassie's son, Amha Selassie I, was proclaimed the new Emperor of Ethiopia (in exile).
Republic of South Africa
Since 1961 (from the moment of independence in 1910 until the proclamation of the republic, the Queen of Great Britain was the head of state). Tribal leaders (amakosi), as well as the ruler of the traditional kingdom of KwaZulu, Goodwill Zwelitini KaBekuzulu, play an important role in the life of the country. Separately, it is worth highlighting the supreme leader of the Tembu tribe, Baelekhai Dalindiebo a Sabata, who, in accordance with the customs of the tribe, is considered the nephew of former South African President Nelson Mandela. The leader of the tribe is also a well-known politician, leader of the Inkata Freedom Party Mangosutu Gatshi Buthelezi from the Buthelezi tribe. During the apartheid period, the South African authorities created ten "autonomous" formations on a tribal basis, which were called bantustans (homelands). In 1994
And now a little about the features of the monarchy in African style.
African autocrats.
Benin. Joseph Langanfen, a representative of the Abomi dynasty, is the president of KAFRA, the council of the Abomi royal families.

The offspring of the dynasties that entered the history of Africa until the beginning of the twentieth century are the bearers of the secret power with which "modern governments" must coexist.
Unlike the Indian maharjas, they survived the upheavals of history and exist in a kind of parallel world, which remains very real. However, for some Africans, they are the epitome of a backward, archaic system that succumbed to the onslaught of Western colonization. They are accused of tribal conservatism, which prevents traditional African societies from moving towards the formation of modern-type states.
For others, these kings are the guarantors of the old culture in the face of an uncertain future. Be that as it may, they are still present in different countries, and this reality must be reckoned with.
Nigeria. Igwe Kenneth Nnaji Onimeke Orizu III. Obi (king) of the Nnevi tribe. When he was proclaimed king in 1963, Igwe was a farmer, and his 10 wives bore him 30 children. Located on the east of the Niger River, the main city of the tribe has several millionaires.

Benin. Agboli-Agbo Dejlani. Abomi King. A former police officer, he had to wait six years for his retirement before he was finally proclaimed in a secret ceremony the head of one of the Abomi clans. By nature, the monogamous king had to take two more wives, as it should be by rank.

Nigeria. In 1980, Sijuwade became the 50th oni (king) of Ilfa, one of the oldest African dynasties. Today he is the richest businessman, owning extensive property in Nigeria and England.

Cameroon. Fon (King) Banjuna is the brother of bold and powerful animals. At night, he can transform into a panther and hunt in a shroud. Formerly Chief Administrator and Head of Cabinet of the Minister of Finance of Cameroon, Kamga Joseph is now the 13th Fon of his tribe.

Ghana. Osediyo ado Danqua III. A graduate of the University of London and an economic adviser to the administration of Ghana, the King of Akropong has lived for the last sixteen years in the "holy places" of the Akuarem Asona, one of the seven main clans of the Akan tribe.

Congo. Nyimi Kok Mabintsh III, King of Cuba. Now he is 50, he ascended the throne at the age of 20. He is considered a descendant of the creator god and possessor of supernatural powers. He has no right to sit on the ground and cross cultivated fields. And no one has ever seen him eat.

South Africa. Goodwill Zweletini, king of the Zulus. He is a direct descendant of the legendary Chak Zulu, the founder of the kingdom, whose military genius is sometimes compared to Napoleon.

Nigeria. Both Joseph Adecola Ogunoi. Tin (king) of the Ovo tribe. 600 years ago, the first monarch of the dynasty fell in love with a beautiful girl who turned out to be a goddess. She became his wife, but demanded that every year the people hold festivals in her honor with a sacrifice. This is still happening, but human sacrifices - necessarily a man and a woman - were replaced with a sheep and a goat.

Cameroon. Hapi IV, King of Ban. This royal dynasty is associated with a real tragedy. In the middle of the 12th century, several Bamileke clans settled in small villages around Ban. Legend has it that one of the village elders, Mfenge, was accused of witchcraft. In order to justify himself, he cut off his mother's head, and local shamans studied the corpse. Claims that witchcraft was transmitted through the "womb" were not proven, and Mfenge himself was made king.

These are Their African Majesties. 21st century.