Tweet
NO KING IS ABLE
ANUSH SEDRAKYAN
http://www.lragir.am/src/index.php?id=c omments&pid=15048
14:38:57 - 02/09/2009
We love the word "king" very much. We often say that there is nothing
better than to be a king because you may always eat, drink and have
fun. Our people who forgot the government of king tries to make a
model of its perception of king or maybe its melancholy for failed
kingdom. But the fascination of monarchy is not understandable for
our people because the functions of a king are not perceptional both
for the people and the kings. Historical parallels hint that being a
king is not that easy because each king has a clear system of vantages.
1. The fist vantage is the centralization of power. In Armenia, a
centralization of power seems to be taking place, but it is not true
because the main aim of centralization of power is to set up a powerful
country. The centralization of power supposes also for responsibility
for the results. The European experience hints that a failed monarch
is being decapitated, exiled, or poisoned and a monarch, as a rule,
fails in defense of state interests, lack of centralization of power
and procurement of social minimum for their people. In other words, if
the power is centralized, but those three components are not ensured,
this means that the power has been centralized in vain and here the
precedent of Marie Stuart comes.
2. The main function of a king is to defend the state borders as well
as their broadening. One of the main successful Russian monarchs Peter
the Great used to construct ships with his own hands to open a window
towards Europe. Alongside with construction of ships and fabrics he
led wars too, in other words, he defended the state interests with
the help of constructive and war methods because according to kings'
perception it is a necessary part of their function. Being a powerful
king means to be a governor inside the country and a competitor out
of it.
3. The next function of the king is to establish ideology. For example,
in France, the monarchy built the country with the aim to destroy
church's supreme role. All the struggles for throne in England were
based on people's well-being (perhaps here starts democracy). It is
impossible to build a state or monarchy without ideology.
4. The king supervises the code of the behavior of the leadership. A
kingly etiquette is created. The leadership has an obligatory
level of education and a huge system of limitations. For example,
in the family of king Nikolay, the members wore jewelry only
on holidays. The law on elimination of serfdom forced them to
treat villagers well. Self-limitation becomes a part of the kingly
leadership. The reason is clear: it is easier to change aristocrats
rather than ordinary people.
To affirm that there is monarchy in Armenia is absolutely
impossible. We have (unfortunately) turned the monarchy page, because
state starts from monarchy. We may say, "state is me" on condition
that there is a state. And what would an Armenian monarch say if
appeared such one?
ANUSH SEDRAKYAN
http://www.lragir.am/src/index.php?id=c omments&pid=15048
14:38:57 - 02/09/2009
We love the word "king" very much. We often say that there is nothing
better than to be a king because you may always eat, drink and have
fun. Our people who forgot the government of king tries to make a
model of its perception of king or maybe its melancholy for failed
kingdom. But the fascination of monarchy is not understandable for
our people because the functions of a king are not perceptional both
for the people and the kings. Historical parallels hint that being a
king is not that easy because each king has a clear system of vantages.
1. The fist vantage is the centralization of power. In Armenia, a
centralization of power seems to be taking place, but it is not true
because the main aim of centralization of power is to set up a powerful
country. The centralization of power supposes also for responsibility
for the results. The European experience hints that a failed monarch
is being decapitated, exiled, or poisoned and a monarch, as a rule,
fails in defense of state interests, lack of centralization of power
and procurement of social minimum for their people. In other words, if
the power is centralized, but those three components are not ensured,
this means that the power has been centralized in vain and here the
precedent of Marie Stuart comes.
2. The main function of a king is to defend the state borders as well
as their broadening. One of the main successful Russian monarchs Peter
the Great used to construct ships with his own hands to open a window
towards Europe. Alongside with construction of ships and fabrics he
led wars too, in other words, he defended the state interests with
the help of constructive and war methods because according to kings'
perception it is a necessary part of their function. Being a powerful
king means to be a governor inside the country and a competitor out
of it.
3. The next function of the king is to establish ideology. For example,
in France, the monarchy built the country with the aim to destroy
church's supreme role. All the struggles for throne in England were
based on people's well-being (perhaps here starts democracy). It is
impossible to build a state or monarchy without ideology.
4. The king supervises the code of the behavior of the leadership. A
kingly etiquette is created. The leadership has an obligatory
level of education and a huge system of limitations. For example,
in the family of king Nikolay, the members wore jewelry only
on holidays. The law on elimination of serfdom forced them to
treat villagers well. Self-limitation becomes a part of the kingly
leadership. The reason is clear: it is easier to change aristocrats
rather than ordinary people.
To affirm that there is monarchy in Armenia is absolutely
impossible. We have (unfortunately) turned the monarchy page, because
state starts from monarchy. We may say, "state is me" on condition
that there is a state. And what would an Armenian monarch say if
appeared such one?