Атипові титули та звання глав держав, як складова культу особи

Талдикін, О.В.; Taldykin, O.V.

Атипові титули та звання глав держав, як складова культу особи

Талдикін, О.В.; Taldykin, O.V.

URI: http://er.dduvs.in.ua/handle/123456789/6590

Date: 2021

Abstract:

В статті розглянуто атипові титули, неофіційні звання глав держав, як ознаку недемократичного політичного режиму, вождізму та складову культу особи. Метою є аналіз атипових офіційних і неофіційних титулів, звань, хвалебних епітетів у глав держав, як невід’ємної складової культу особи, ознаку недемократичного політичного режиму та вождізму. Встановлено, що формування культу особи глави держави або політичного лідера правлячої партії неможливе без певної атрибутики, невід’ємною складовою якої є наявність тих атипових титулів, офіційних і неофіційних хвалебних звань, епітетів, які, в свою чергу, виступають яскравим показником недемократичності сукупності прийомів, способів і методів здійснення вищої державної влади. Акцентовано увагу, що культ особи державного лідера був пов’язаний із затвердженням відповідної форми державного правління та форми державного політичного режиму. Процес становлення культу особи є характерним для деяких історичних, а також окремих сучасних монархічних форм державного правління, таких як: Східна деспотія, теократична монархія та абсолютна монархія. В період новітньої історії поява атипових титулів, офіційних і неофіційних звань глав держав в ХХ столітті пов’язана передусім із політикою вождізму.

Description:

The anti-democratic forms of the state and political regime are characterised by a lack of real participation of the population in the exercise of state power and a violation of the rights and freedoms of citizens and their associations. One of the characteristic features of anti-democratic regimes is that real power is concentrated in the hands of a group of people or one person who are not under the control of the people. The main types of anti-democratic regimes are authoritarian and totalitarian forms. History has shown that the formation of the personality cult of the head of state or the ruling totalitarian party is possible provided that there is a successful symbiosis between these anti-international varieties. At the same time, the formation of the personality cult of the head of state or the political leader of the ruling party is impossible without certain attributes, an integral part of which is the presence of their atypical titles, official and unofficial titles, which, in turn, are a clear indicator of the undemocratic set of methods, techniques and methods of exercising state power. The above issues are essential to understanding all the nuances of the supreme power of autocrats, which makes our research relevant. The aim of the study will be to analyze atypical official and unofficial titles, ranks, laudatory epithets of heads of state, as an integral part of the cult of personality, a sign of undemocratic political regime and leadership. The fact of the deification of the ruler's supreme power as a weighty argument in favor of the centralization of his supreme power is interpreted differently by researchers, depending on the characteristics of this or that civilizational component. In the period of modern history, the existence of atypical titles, official and unofficial titles for heads of state in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries is associated primarily with the policy of chiefdom. The formation of the personality cult of the Head of State or the political leader of the ruling party is impossible without certain attributes, an integral part of which is the presence of atypical titles, official and unofficial titles, which in turn are a clear indicator of the undemocratic set of methods, techniques and methods of exercising public power. The personality cult of the state leader is linked to the approval of the appropriate form of government and the form of state political regime. The process of establishing the personality cult is characteristic of some historical as well as some modern monarchical forms of state government, such as the Eastern Despoty, theocratic monarchy and the absolute monarchy. States with the above form of government had a special legal status as heads of state, which was envisaged: - the religious specificity of legitimising monarchical power; - a combination of secular and spiritual (religious) power, which, in turn, gave rise to the development of sacralisation of the personality of the supreme ruler. Such embodiment of despotic rulers of the East was practiced by authoritative anthropotheism in two ways: soft: monarch is the son of a god, and tough: monarch is a living deity. In the period of modern history, the emergence of atypical titles, official and unofficial titles of heads of state in the twentieth century is primarily connected with the policy of leadership. Leadership is the policy of an authoritarian or totalitarian party in a state that aims to concentrate power in a charismatic undisputed leader. The ideas and actions of such a leader are not subject to criticism and are perceived without appeal. The atypical title or title of leader can be enshrined in legislation. The atypical title or title of its leader may be officially disseminated through state ideology and propaganda through the media when the head of state retains one official traditional title, but unofficial honorary titles and epithets are allowed.

Show full item record