Politician or statesman
Subconsciously, we distinguish between the concepts of a politician and a statesman. "Statesman" sounds respectful, and "politician" smacks of slight contempt. The explanatory dictionary gives such definitions as “a politician is a person serving the interests of a political party”, “a statesman is a politician of exceptional abilities”.
Definitions can be improved by clarifying the meaning attached to these words in everyday speech. When we say "politician" we mean a person serving private interests. In the worst case, these are the interests of one's own pocket. At best, the interests of the party, class or organization of which he considers himself a representative. We never expect a politician to take into account the interests of all parties involved, because the bias and partisanship that we feel in his actions tell us that he should not be trusted too much.
On the other hand, the expression "statesman" denotes a person who is sufficiently elevated above the conflict of warring parties to choose a course that takes into account more interests in the longer term. This is what Edmund Brooke had in mind when he wrote that the state: “should not be considered as something like a partnership in the trade of pepper, coffee, tobacco and other trifles, dissolving in the bustle of parties ... This is partnership in a higher and eternal sense - partnership in all sciences, in all arts, partnership in every dignity and every perfection. Since the goals of such a partnership cannot be achieved within the lifetime of several generations, it becomes a partnership not only of those living today, but also of generations already gone and not yet born.”
The politician pursues private goals and narrow interests. If he leads a party, he either tries to buy the support of certain groups with specific promises, or, if this is impractical, he resorts to deceit. Under the concept of deceit, I include all the art of propaganda - lies, half-truths, ambiguities, evasiveness, calculated silence, slogans, metaphors, and so on. All of these methods help to undermine an impartial examination of the situation. I do not want to say that anyone can achieve heights in politics without any use of deceit. In modern conditions, to be elected to an elected office, you have to be a politician in order to enlist the support of many people with all sorts of vague and conflicting interests.
When can a leader become a statesman? A person becomes a statesman when he ceases only to satisfy or deceive the momentary desires of his constituents and begins to help them realize their hidden real interests, which are achievable because they correspond to reality and can be harmonized with the interests of their neighbors. The politician says, "I'll give you whatever you want." The statesman says, “You think you want it. This is objectively possible for you, so this is what you really need.” The politician excites followers, the statesman leads them. The politician accepts irresponsible whims as they are and either satisfies them or piles deceit upon deceit. The statesman is engaged in teaching followers, encouraging them to change desires in accordance with reality, harmonizes relations in society for the long term.
The chief element of the art of the statesman in our day is the ability to clarify the confused and misunderstood interests clashing in the government office, the ability to discern behind the naive selfish interests of each group its permanent real interests. This is a difficult undertaking that requires great courage, deep sympathy and a huge amount of information. That is why masters of this art are so rare. But when a statesman manages to direct citizens, instead of childish pursuit of what seems interesting, to achieve real interests, he receives such support that the ordinary politician cannot even dream of. Impartiality is a bitter medicine when first tried, but it brings health, and when a person is given a reputation as a habitual and successful solver of real problems, he receives recognition that is qualitatively different from the popularity of the most successful seeker of public sympathy. His influence on people is long-term because he does not promise anything unattainable. Politics will be exposed sooner or later, because it operates with the unreal. And then he either goes to prison, or he is cynically tolerated as a colorful tame scoundrel, or he resigns and no longer interferes in the fate of people. The statesman's words prove their worth by reflecting not a fleeting whim, but the conditions under which desires can be reconciled with reality. Its projects and policies offer an orderly plan of action in which all affected parties, upon mature reflection, will find it beneficial to cooperate. His projects are realized because they lead to a goal that people really aspire to after they have clarified their desires. His laws are valid because they mobilize the energy of the people, which alone can make the laws effective.
It is not necessary, and even unlikely, that such a policy of a statesman will receive support immediately. It is not necessary for a statesman to wait until he receives full consent. Many people do not understand until they learn from their own experience. Therefore, a great statesman must often act before the ruled mature enough to understand the need for change. When he does this, he contrasts his vision of the future, which people will eventually see as a blessing to what they desire right now. In this ability to act guided by the hidden reality of the situation, in spite of obvious external manifestations, lies the art of the statesman. It consists in giving people not what they want, but what they learn to want. This art requires courage, which is possible only in a mind detached from the hustle and bustle of the current moment. It requires insight, which can only be given by an objective and unbiased knowledge of the facts, and most importantly, high and unshakable disinterestedness.
Walter Lippmann "Preface to Morality" Chapter 13
Formally, a "statesman" is the designation of the most influential officials (president, prime minister, minister, head of the region, etc.), representatives of the country in the international arena. However, in terms of content, the concept of "statesman" forms an idea of a politician who not only solves specific political problems, forms the agenda, makes decisions and bears responsibility for them, but sees his main mission in serving the Motherland, in preserving and developing the country. Ideally, a statesman is a person who puts the interests of the state above personal, party and other corporate goals and needs, capable of "thinking and acting broadly and wisely, on a scale of the entire state" (Ozhegov S.I. Dictionary of the Russian language. M., 1978) . From politicians focused on getting momentary dividends, such a statesman is distinguished by his concern for the long-term prospects for the development of the state, the people, about preserving the country in history. In other words, a politician is someone who is professionally engaged in current politics, and most likely uses power as a means to achieve certain goals. The statesman thinks in historical terms. A meaningful interpretation forms the concept of an outstanding, great statesman. Of course, real life does not always coincide with the ideal.
This section was formed taking into account both substantive and formal approaches to the definition of what a statesman is. Russian civilization took place and exists for centuries, thanks to both outstanding and great statesmen who contributed to the peaceful prosperity of the country, and “powerful rulers of fate” who more than once raised Russia “on its hind legs” (A.S. Pushkin). At the same time, due to a certain historical and political personification of power, the wheel of Russian history sometimes rolled backwards because people without a state-wide and wise vision were at the helm.
However, no matter how great a statesman is - a great one or one who finds himself in a public position by virtue of only a profession, or even just a chance, but not a vocation (recall the interpretation of politics and power proposed by M. Weber) - personalizing the system of power and control, he in a specific the historical period embodies power both in the eyes of society and the world community as a whole.
Thus, a statesman is a living embodiment of power, a figure that concentratedly expresses a certain period in the development of a particular country, its political system. For example, we are talking about Rus' during the time of Ivan the Terrible, about the era of Catherine the Great, about Stalin's five-year plans, about Brezhnev's stagnation.
The attitude to power, identification with it reveals another important characteristic of a statesman: he is a ruler. Throughout the history of Russia, the function of government, ruling for statesmen - heads of state (grand dukes, tsars, emperors, general secretaries, presidents) has been decisive. Clearly secondary, supplementing power, were such functions as structuring society and the power system, organization and management, mobilization, communication and consolidation, articulation and aggregation of the interests of various social groups and classes. In Russia, due to the highly personalized system of power, the role of statesmen has always been disproportionately large, which has become one of the important features of the country's development.
This section, built according to the chronological principle, contains the personalities of the rulers and statesmen of Russia, starting from the period of the formation of the Old Russian statehood and up to the present, who have had a significant (sometimes decisive) impact on the historical, political, socio-cultural and economic development of the Russian state and society.
The section includes five chronological parts: the Old Russian state, Muscovy, the Russian Empire, the Soviet Union and the Russian Federation. Each of them reads an article about the founder of a particular form of statehood, although he himself was part of the previous era. This
K:Wikipedia:Pages on KUL (type: not specified)
Statesman- politician of the state power.
An extended commentary on this expression is given by Walter Lippmann in his book Preface to Morals. A Preface to Morals; ):
Subconsciously, we distinguish between the concepts of "politician" (politician) and "statesman" (statesman). The "statesman" says, "You think you want it. This is objectively possible for you, so this is what you really need.”<…>It is not necessary, and even unlikely, that such a policy of a statesman will receive support immediately. It is not necessary for a statesman to wait until he receives full consent. Many people do not understand until they learn from their own experience. Therefore, a great statesman must often act before the ruled have matured to understand the need for change. When he does this, he is contrasting his vision of the future, which people will eventually see as good, with what they desire right now. In this ability to act, guided by the hidden reality of the situation, in spite of obvious external manifestations, lies the art of the statesman.
A politician is someone who knows how to govern a state. A statesman is a politician who died 15 years ago.
Write a review on the article "Statesman"
Notes
Literature
- Rakityansky N. M. Theory and methodology of psychological portraiture of a politician's personality: Dis. ... Dr. psikhol. Sciences: 19.00.12. - St. Petersburg. , 2004. - 369 p.
- Rakityansky N. M. Politician's Personality: Theory and Methodology of Psychological Portraiture. - M .: Interpress, 2008. - 178 p.
An excerpt characterizing the statesman
- Well, what are you looking for? - said Princess Mary. Why did you come to me?...“No, I’m joking, Pelageushka,” said Pierre. - Princesse, ma parole, je n "ai pas voulu l" offerr, [Princess, I really didn’t want to offend her,] I just did. Don't think, I was joking, - he said, smiling timidly and wanting to make amends for his guilt. - After all, it's me, and he was just joking.
Pelageyushka stopped incredulously, but there was such sincerity of repentance in Pierre’s face, and Prince Andrei looked so meekly at Pelageyushka and then at Pierre that she gradually calmed down.
The wanderer calmed down and, brought back to conversation, then talked for a long time about Father Amphilochius, who was such a holy life that his hand smelled of his hand, and how the monks she knew on her last journey to Kiev gave her the keys to the caves, and how she, taking crackers with her, spent two days in caves with saints. “I will pray to one, I will read, I will go to another. Pine, I’ll go and kiss again; and such, mother, silence, such grace that you don’t even want to go out into the light of God.
Pierre listened to her attentively and seriously. Prince Andrei left the room. And after him, leaving the people of God to finish their tea, Princess Mary led Pierre into the living room.
“You are very kind,” she told him.
“Ah, I really didn’t think to offend her, as I understand and highly appreciate these feelings!
Princess Mary looked at him silently and smiled tenderly. “After all, I have known you for a long time and love you like a brother,” she said. How did you find Andrew? she asked hastily, not giving him time to say anything in response to her kind words. “He worries me a lot. His health is better in winter, but last spring the wound opened, and the doctor said that he must go for treatment. And morally, I'm very afraid for him. He is not a character like us women to suffer and cry out his grief. He carries it inside himself. Today he is cheerful and lively; but it was your arrival that had such an effect on him: he is rarely like that. If you could persuade him to go abroad! He needs activity, and this smooth, quiet life is ruining him. Others do not notice, but I see.
At 10 o'clock the waiters rushed to the porch, hearing the bells of the old prince's carriage approaching. Prince Andrei and Pierre also went out onto the porch.
- Who is this? asked the old prince, getting out of the carriage and guessing Pierre.
– AI is very happy! kiss, - he said, having learned who the unfamiliar young man was.
The old prince was in a good spirit and kindly treated Pierre.
Before dinner, Prince Andrei, returning back to his father's study, found the old prince in a heated argument with Pierre.
Key documents of the era
"The Tale of Bygone Years", "Russian Truth", "Izbornik", "Teachings of Vladimir Monomakh", "The Truth of the Yaroslavichs".
Alexander Nevskiy(1220-1263) - son of Yaroslav Vsevolodovich, grandson of Vsevolod the Big Nest. Prince of Novgorod (1236-1251), Grand Duke of Vladimir (since 1252). After the defeat of the Swedish military detachments of Birger at the mouth of the Neva in 1240, it became known as Nevsky. On April 5, 1242, on the ice of Lake Peipus, he defeated the troops of the Livonian Order, ensuring the independence of North-Western Rus' from foreigners. Being the Grand Duke of Vladimir, he took measures to prevent the devastating raids of the Mongol-Tatars on Rus'. He was canonized by the Russian Orthodox Church as a warrior-deliverer, who also opposed the introduction of Catholicism in the northwestern Russian lands.
Evpatty Kolovraty- the legendary hero, the Ryazan boyar. In 1237, with a "regiment" of 1,700 people, he defeated the Mongol-Tatars in Suzdal. Killed in battle. Sung in "The Tale of the Devastation of Ryazan by Batu".
Daniel Alexandrovich(1261-1303) - the youngest son of Alexander Nevsky. Grand Duke of Moscow. Under him, the Moscow principality separated from the Vladimir principality as an independent one, and founded the Danilov Monastery. Canonized by the Russian Orthodox Church.
Ivan Danilovich Kalita(1296-1341) - the son of Daniil Alexandrovich. Grand Duke of Moscow (since 1325) and Grand Duke of Vladimir (since 1328). Having assisted the Horde in suppressing the Tver uprising in 1327, he received a label to reign in Kostroma. In 1332 he received the bulk of the grand ducal possessions. Significantly replenished the treasury. Expanding the territory of the Moscow principality, increasing its influence and authority, Ivan Kalita laid the foundation for the subsequent transformation of Moscow into a center for collecting Russian lands and fighting against the Mongol-Tatar yoke.
Sergius of Radonezh(about 1321-1391) - founder and abbot of the Trinity-Sergius Monastery. The initiator of the introduction of the communal charter in Russian monasteries. He actively supported the unification and national liberation policy of Prince Dmitry Donskoy.
Reseeding. Alexander(? -1380) - monk of the Trinity-Sergius Monastery. Hero of the Battle of Kulikovo. His duel with the Tatar hero Temir-Murza (Chelubey), in which both died, was the beginning of the battle.
Oslyabya Rodion(? -1398) - monk of the Trinity-Sergius Monastery, brother of Peresvet. Hero of the Battle of Kulikovo. In 1398 he traveled with the Moscow embassy to Byzantium.
Dmitry Ivanovich Donskoy(1350-1389) - Grand Duke of Moscow (since 1359). The main thing was to strengthen the positions of the Moscow principality and the struggle for the great reign of Vladimir. From the 1370s, he strengthened resistance to the Horde, including the armed one. In the battle on the Piana River (1377) he was defeated. On the Vozha River (1378) he defeated the Horde army. In September 1380, he showed military leadership talent and defeated the huge Golden Horde army of Mamai. Significantly expanded the boundaries of the Moscow principality at the expense of the Meshchersky, Smolensk, Oka, Belarusian lands. He was the first Russian prince who inherited power in the Grand Duchy of Vladimir to his son without the sanction of the Horde. Canonized by the Russian Orthodox Church.
Vasily II Vasilyevich Dark(1415-1462) - Grand Duke of Moscow (since 1425). In the internecine struggle of 1425-1453, he won. In 1446 he was blinded by his cousin Dmitry Shemyaka. He annexed the Nizhny Novgorod principality, part of the Yaroslavl lands, to Moscow. He took measures to develop the Vyatka, Perm lands, the Pechersk region. Reduced land grants to secular feudal lords. He personally led numerous military campaigns.
Ivan III Vasilievich(1440-1505) - Grand Duke of All Rus' (since 1478). Founder of the united Moscow state. He attached to the Moscow principality Yaroslavl (1463), Rostov (1474) principalities, Novgorod (1477), Tver principality (1485), and a number of other territories. Under Ivan III, the final liberation of Rus' from the Mongol-Tatar yoke took place (1480). Under him, the apparatus of the Russian centralized state took shape and the Sudebnik of 1497 was compiled. He led an active foreign policy.
Vasily III Ivanovich(1479-1533) - Grand Duke of Vladimir and Moscow, sovereign of all Rus' (since 1505). Supporter and continuer of the line to strengthen the Russian centralized state. In 1510 he annexed Pskov, in 1521 - Ryazan. During the Russo-Lithuanian war, Smolensk became part of Russia (1514). To ensure the security of the southern and eastern borders of the state, he ordered the creation of the Great Barrier Line (1521). He sought to limit the monastic land ownership. Under him, the international position of the Moscow state was noticeably strengthened.
Key documents of the era
“Sudebnik” of 1497, “Sudebnik” of 1550, “Stoglav” of 1551, “Chronograph”, “Great Menaia”, Ivan Peresvetov’s First Petition, Correspondence of Ivan the Terrible and Andrei Kurbsky, “Decree on Fugitive Peasants” of 1597 .
historical figures
Ivan IV Vasilyevich the Terrible(1530-1584) - Grand Duke of Moscow and All Rus' (since 1533), Russian Tsar (since 1547). In February 1547 he married Anastasia Romanovna Zakharyina - Yurieva. The first years of rule with the Chosen Rada, whose reforms marked major changes in the country. He led an active foreign policy. In 1565 he established an oprichnina, which he abolished in 1572. The result of the oprichnina was the ruin and devastation of the country, the undermining of the peasant economy, which formed the basis of the country's economy.
Fedor Ivanovich(1557-1598) - Russian tsar. He was married to Irina Godunova. He was humble and religious. At the initial stage of the reign, the Regency Council, appointed by Ivan the Terrible, had real power. Since 1586, Boris Godunov became practically co-ruler of the tsar. He died without leaving an heir. The Rurik dynasty ended with him.
Kurbsky Andrey Mikhailovich(1528-1583) - prince, boyar. Member of the Elected Rada. During the Livonian War - governor. During the period of persecution of members of the Chosen Rada, he preferred to flee to Lithuania. Participated in the war against Russia.
Adashev Alexey Fedorovich(? -1561) - a duma nobleman, okolnichiy, bed-keeper. Since the late 1540s - the head of the Elected Rada. Initiator of a number of reforms. He was the keeper of the state treasury, the press, headed the Petition Order. In 1560 he fell into disgrace and died in Yuriev.
Sylvester(?-around 1566) - priest of the Annunciation Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin. He had a great influence on Ivan IV, being his confessor. Member of the Elected Rada. Author of a special edition of "Domostroy" and other works. Since 1560, in disgrace. Take the monastic vows.
Macarius(1482-1563) - church leader, writer. Metropolitan since 1542. In 1551, he achieved the rejection by Ivan IV of the project for the secularization of church lands. Editor of the "Great Honors of the Menaion" and "The Book of the Powerful Royal Genealogy." With his assistance, a printing house was opened in Moscow.
Peresvetov Ivan Semyonovich- Russian writer-publicist of the XVI century, the ideologist of the nobility. In his petitions, he put forward a holistic and clear concept of a noble state headed by an autocratic tsar.
Key documents of the era
The cross-kissing letter of Tsar Vasily Shuisky (1606), the Cathedral Code of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich (1649), the New Trade Charter (1667), the "Life" of Archpriest Avvakum.
Boris Fyodorovich Godunov(1552-1605) - Russian tsar. Since 1567 - a member of the Oprichny court of Ivan the Terrible. On February 17, 1598, he was elected tsar by the Zemsky Sobor. An outstanding statesman who possessed outstanding abilities and skills in managing a vast country. During the decisive battles with the troops of False Dmitry I died.
False Dmitry I (Tsar Dmitry)(? -1606) - Russian Tsar (June 1605-May 1606). Impostor. Presumably a fugitive monk of the Chudov Monastery in Moscow, Grigory Otrepiev.
Vasily Ivanovich Shuisky(1552-1612) - Russian Tsar from 1606 to 1610. When elected to the kingdom, he gave a cross-kissing record about the boundaries of his power, about loyalty to the people. In September 1610, he was extradited by the government of the Seven Boyars to the Poles, taken to Poland, where he soon died in captivity.
Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov(1596-1645) - the first Russian tsar from the Romanov dynasty. He was elected tsar at the Zemsky Sobor in February 1613. In his reign, the foundations of autocratic power were laid.
Alexey Mikhailovich"The Quietest" (1629-1676) - Russian Tsar from 1645. In the selection of the closest assistants, he was guided primarily by their abilities. He was an active participant in the drafting of the Council Code of 1649, which created the legislative basis for Russian society for many decades.
Filaret(in the world Fedor Nikitich Romanov) (1554-1633) - boyar since 1587. In 1600, for preparing a conspiracy against Boris Godunov, he was forcibly tonsured a monk. Since 1605 - Metropolitan of Rostov. He was taken prisoner by the Poles. In 1619 he was returned to Russia and elected patriarch. He became in fact the co-ruler of his son - Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich.
Nikon(in the world - Nikita Minin) (1605-1681) - Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' (1652-1666). Carried out church and ritual reform. In 1655, he came up with the idea of the primacy of church power over secular power, which led to a conflict with the authorities. In 1666, at the initiative of the tsar, a church council was convened, which condemned Nikon and deprived him of the rank of high priest. He was exiled to a monastery, where he died.
Key documents of the era
Decree on uniform inheritance (1714), Table of ranks, Decree on the purchase of village factories (1721), Customs tariff (1724), "Conditions" of Empress Anna Ioannovna "(1730), Manifesto on granting liberties and freedom to all Russian to the nobility (1762), Letter of commendation to the nobility (1785), Letter of commendation to cities (1785), Manifesto on not forcing peasants to work on Sundays (1797).
Ivan V Alekseevich(1666-1696) - Russian Tsar in 1682-1696. He was in poor health and did not aspire to independent rule. Removed from real power by Sofia Alekseevna, and then by his brother Peter I.
Sofia Alekseevna(in monasticism - Susanna) (1657-1704) - ruler of Russia in 1682-1689. She was an educated, power-hungry and cruel person. After the failure of the conspiracy against Peter I in 1689, she was imprisoned in the Novodevichy Convent, and after a new coup attempt (1698), she was tonsured a nun.
Peter I Alekseevich the Great(1672-1725) - Russian tsar since 1682, emperor since 1721. He was an outstanding statesman who significantly advanced the development of Russia in all areas. He considered the main task of his reign to be Russia's access to non-freezing seas. He died on January 28, 1725, without having time to leave orders about the heir to the throne.
Anna Ioannovna(1693-1740) - Russian Empress (1730-1740). In 1710-1711 she was married to the Duke of Courland, after his death she lived mainly in Mitov. After the death of Peter II, members of the Supreme Privy Council decided to invite Anna to the Russian throne, subject to the restriction of her power. Having agreed to these conditions, Anna soon broke the “conditions” “at the request” of the guards-nobles. Rule the country with the help and support of foreigners.
Elizaveta Petrovna(1709-1761) - Empress (1741-1761), born out of wedlock. By a number of signs, one can say that her course was the first step towards the policy of enlightened absolutism. Led an active foreign policy.
Catherine II the Great(born Sophia Augusta Frederick of Anhalt-Zerbst) (1729-1796) - Russian Empress (1762-1796). Originally from Prussia. In internal affairs, she tried to pursue a policy of enlightened absolutism, but after the Peasant War and the French Revolution, she took a course towards toughening the regime and intensifying repression. In foreign policy - significantly expanded the boundaries of the Russian Empire.
Pavel I(1754-1801) - Russian emperor (1796-1801). Upon accession to the throne, he began a radical breakdown of everything that his mother Catherine II had created. Many of Catherine's closest associates fell into disgrace. At the same time, the general direction of domestic policy has not fundamentally changed.
Alexey Petrovich(1690-1718) - Tsarevich, eldest son of Peter I and Evdokia Lopukhina. He was hostile to Peter's reforms. Fearing persecution by his father, in 1716 he secretly left for Austria, was returned, arrested and an influential politician. A man of great intelligence, rare energy and ability to work.
Menshikov Alexander Danilovich(1673-1729) - Russian statesman and military leader, Generalissimo (since May 1727). He was the closest associate of Peter I. After his death, he led the movement for the enthronement of Catherine I, becoming the de facto ruler of Russia. Then he was compromised in the eyes of Peter II, accused of high treason, arrested, exiled with his family to Berezov, where he soon died.
The statesman is the one to whom the sovereign trusts - under his supervision - the reins of government in whole or in part.An Athenian or Roman citizen would tell us that the duty of a statesman consists solely in caring only for the good of his homeland and devoting himself entirely to it, unwaveringly serving her without any hope of glory, fame, profit, not exalting himself because of any either honor and not be humiliated if he is denied something, always subordinate his own affairs to public affairs, in personal adversity console himself with the prosperity of his country, deal only with how to make her happy, in a word, live and die for her alone.
But here I will not at all adhere to this lofty judgment, which is inconsistent neither with our manners, nor with our ideas, nor with the nature of the system in which we live. It is enough to demand from a statesman labor, honor and honesty, faithful service to his sovereign, more attention to truth than lies, love for order and peace, respect for laws, lack of desire to oppress the nation and to use its power to the detriment of it.
The common people always presuppose in well-governing statesmen extraordinary intelligence and almost divine gifts; however, success often requires only sound mind, good intentions, diligence, consistency, prudence, and favorable circumstances. But I am convinced that a good minister needs, first of all, one passion - love for the public good. A great statesman is one whose deeds are glorious in posterity and who leaves beautiful traces of his activity useful to his homeland. Cardinal Mazarin was only a powerful minister, but Sully, Richelieu and Colbert were great statesmen1, Alexander2 became a great statesman after proving himself a great general. Alfred3 was all together - the greatest statesman and the greatest king who occupied the throne in the era of Christianity.
CITIZEN (ancient and new history, political law). A citizen is one who is a member of a free association of many families, who shares his rights and enjoys his advantages. Anyone who is in such a society on any business and must leave it at the end of the business is not a citizen of this society. He is only a short-term subject of it. The one for whom it is the usual residence, but who is alienated from all his rights and advantages, is also not its citizen - deprived of them, he ceases to be one. This title is given to women, small children and servants only as members of the citizen's family in the proper sense, but they are not true citizens.
It is possible to distinguish between two kinds of citizens - by origin and naturalized. Citizens by descent are those who are born as such. The naturalized are those with whom the society has shared its rights and its advantages, although these citizens were not born in it.
The Athenians conferred on foreigners the title of citizen of their city with great care, and invested in it much more merit than the Romans. The title of citizen never depreciated among them, but, holding a high opinion of it, they did not deprive themselves of, perhaps, the greatest benefit - to extend this title to those who sought it.
In Athens, only persons born of citizens were citizens. When a young man reached the age of twenty, he was also enrolled A^iapxiKOV TpaiijiaTiov1. The state included him among its members. He was forced in the acceptance ceremony to pronounce the following oath with his face turned to heaven: Agta non dehones tabo; dog aotstan-tem, quisquis ille fuerit, socium relinquam; pugnabo quoque pro focis solua et cum multes; patriam dog turbabo, dog prodam; navigabo contra quamcumcve destinato fuero regionem; solemnitates perpetuasobservabo; receptis consuetu-dinibus parebo et si quis leges susceptas sustulecit nisi comprobaverit, pop permittam; tuebor denique, solus et cum reliquis atqae patria sacra colam (liny-tarch, in Pericl) 2. Here is a prudenter for you, which, leaving each individual to draw up new laws, could cause great confusion. However, this oath is very good and reasonable.
However, in Athens the title of citizen was given by adoption by some citizen and with the consent of the people; but this grace was rare. If a person before the age of twenty was not supposed to be a citizen, then he could not expect to become one later, when old age would not allow him to perform public duties. The same was the case with exiles and exiles, if this was not connected with ostracism. Persons convicted in this way were considered only removed.
To qualify as a Roman citizen, one had to meet three requirements: to have a home in Rome, to be a member of one of the thirty-five tribes, and to be able to hold public office. Persons to whom certain civil rights were granted, and did not belong from birth, were, in fact, only honorary citizens.
There was a big difference between citizen and resident. According to the law de incolis, only birth gave the title of citizen and endowed all the privileges of citizens. These privileges were not acquired by any length of residence. Under the consuls, in this case, the lack of origin could be compensated for by the patronage of the state; and under the emperors - by their will.
The first privilege of a Roman citizen was his jurisdiction over the people alone. It was forbidden by the Portia law to put a citizen to death. Even in the provinces, he was not subject to the arbitrariness of the proconsul or propraetor. The words civis sum immediately curbed these petty tyrants. In Rome, says Mr. Montesquieu in The Spirit of the Laws (Book XI, Chapter XIX), just as in Lacedaemon, the freedom of the citizens and the compulsion of the slaves were expressed in an extremely strong way. However, despite the privileges, strength and size of the citizens, which prompted Cicero to say: "An qui amplissimus Galliac cum infimo cive Romano comparandus est?" (Orat. pro Font.) 7, it seems to me that the concept of a citizen in Rome was less precise than in the canton of Zurich8. To be convinced of this, one need only carefully consider what we will say in the rest of this article.
Hobbes9 makes no distinction between subject and citizen, which is correct if we do not take the term "subject" in its narrow sense, but take the term citizen in its widest sense and imply that the latter is in relation to the laws what the former is in relation to the sovereign. They are both subordinate, but one to a moral being, and the other to a natural person. The title citizen is equally inappropriate for those people who are enslaved and for those who live in solitude. From this it follows that people who live in an absolutely natural state, such as sovereigns, or those who are completely denied this, such as slaves, cannot be considered citizens, unless it is thought that there is no rational society, in in which there would be no moral being, unchanging and rising above the physical personality of the sovereign. Puffendorf10, notwithstanding this exception, divided his work "On Duty" into two parts: one of them deals with the duty of a person, and the other - with the duty of a citizen.
Since the laws of free associations of families are not everywhere the same, and since in most of these associations there is a hierarchical order based on merit, the citizen can be considered only in his relation to the laws of his society and to the step he occupies in the hierarchical order. In the second case there will be some difference between the citizen-official and the citizen-resident of the city, and in the first case between the citizen of Amsterdam and the citizen of Basel11.
Aristotle, recognizing the differences between civil societies and class divisions of citizens in each society, considered true citizens only those who took part in the court and could hope to move from the class of ordinary citizens to the first ranks of bureaucracy, and this is possible only in purely democratic states. It must be agreed that only one who enjoys all these prerogatives can be truly a public person, and there is no other characteristic difference between a citizen and a citizen, except that the latter must be a public person, and the role of the former can only be the role of a private person - quidam.
Puffendorf, limiting the title of citizen to those individuals who, at the initial union of families, founded the state, and their descendants from fathers to sons, introduces an ill-considered distinction that sheds little light on this issue and can bring great confusion to civil society by dividing citizens into born and naturalized on the basis of misunderstood idea of nobility. Citizens as citizens, that is, within their societies, are all equally noble. Nobility does not come from ancestors, but from the common right to the first ranks of the magistracy.
The supreme moral personality is to the citizen what the physical despotic personality is to the subject; but if even a true slave does not give himself completely to his master, how much more does a citizen have rights, which he reserves for himself and from which he never deviates. There are times when he stands on a par, I do not say - with his fellow citizens, but with a moral being that rules them all. This being is expressed in two ways - in the individual and in the social order. In the latter case, it must meet with resistance, and in the former case it may encounter opposition from individuals and even be challenged by them. Since this moral person owns territories, enterprises, farms, farmers, etc., it is necessary, so to speak, to distinguish in him the sovereign and the subject of the supreme power. In these cases, he is both the judge and the defendant. This is no doubt an inconvenience, but it applies to all government in general and characterizes it positively or negatively only according to how often it is found, and not because it occurs at all. Undoubtedly, subjects or citizens will be the less exposed to injustice, the less often the sovereign, as a physical or moral person, acts as a judge and defendant in cases where he is attacked as a private person.
In times of trouble, the citizen will join the people who defend the established system; when the system is destroyed, he will follow the fellow citizens of his city, if they are unanimous; if they are scattered, he will join those who stand for universal equality and freedom.
The closer citizens come to equality in needs and property, the more peaceful the state will be. Among all kinds of government, this advantage seems to belong exclusively to democracy, but even in the most perfect democracy, complete equality of all its members is not possible, and perhaps this is the reason for the disintegration of such states, unless it is eliminated by all the injustices of ostracism. The life of governments is like the life of animals: every step of life is a step towards death. The best form of government is not that which is immortal, but that which has the longest and most peaceful existence.
