This complex and very important question must be posed with caution and with complete impartiality of thought.
First of all: the state form is not an “abstract concept” and not a “political scheme”, indifferent to the life of peoples, but a structure of life and a living organization of the people. It is necessary for the people to understand their system of life, so that they can do exactly “this way” - to organize so that he respects the laws of this system and puts his will into this organization. In other words: it is the living legal consciousness of the people that gives the state form implementation, life and strength; so that the state form depends primarily on the level of the people's legal consciousness, on the historical political experience acquired by the people, on the strength of their will and on their national character.
It is absurd to put a person at chess who does not understand the game and its rules, who does not know how to conceive a game plan, who does not want to put his thought and his will into the game.
A sports squad that does not play football will fail the competition.
Suvorov prepared each battle, explaining to the soldiers the course and meaning of the upcoming operation; and it was thanks to this that he won fight after fight.
So it is in political life: it is made by living people, their patriotic love, their understanding of the state, their character, their sense of duty, their organizational skills, their respect for the law. All this needs to be brought up. It is absurd to introduce a state form into the country without taking into account the level and skills of the people's legal consciousness.
Further, the state form must take into account the territorial size of the country and the size of its population. In the Republic of San Marino (59 sq. kilometers, 9,000 inhabitants!), executive power still belongs to two “captains” elected by the “Grand Council” (parliament) for 6 months, and one of them is usually chosen from among visiting foreigners... Some , the very small cantons of Switzerland still gather once a year for their “one-day meeting” - in the square, and in case of rain, - under umbrellas... Already in most other cantons of Switzerland - this is impossible.
Further, the state form must take into account the climate and nature of the country. The harsh climate makes it difficult for the entire organization of the people, all communications, all management. Nature influences the character of people, the country's food supply, its industry; it determines its geographical and strategic boundaries, its defenses, the nature and abundance of its wars. All this must be taken into account in the state form.
The multinational composition of the population makes its own demands on the state form. It can become a factor of disintegration and lead to disastrous civil wars. But this danger can be overcome: by the nature of the country and the mountainous love of freedom of the peoples in solidarity (Switzerland); or by the long and free selection of emigrants, the overseas position of the country and the commercial and industrial character of the state (United States); or - finally - the religious-cultural predominance and successful political leadership of the numerically strongest tribe, if it is distinguished by real amiability and kindness (Russia).
Conclusions:
Each people and each country is a living individual with its own special characteristics, with its own unique history, soul and nature.
Therefore, each people is entitled to its own, special, individual state form and constitution, corresponding to it” and only to it. There are no identical peoples and there should not be identical forms and constitutions. Blind borrowing and imitation is absurd, dangerous and can be disastrous.
Plants require individual care. Animals in the zoological garden have - according to their genus and species - individual regimes. Even people have dresses made to measure... Where does this ridiculous idea come from that the state structure can be transferred by mechanical borrowing from country to country? Where does this naive idea come from that the most unique English statehood, nurtured for centuries in a unique country (mixed blood! island! sea! climate! history!), by a most original people (character! temperament! legal consciousness! culture!), can be reproduced by any people with any legal consciousness and character, in any country of any size and with any climate?! One might truly think that educated politicians have not read at all - neither Aristotle, nor Machiavelli, nor Montesquieu, nor Buckle...
What kind of political superficiality is needed in order to impose the state form of monarchy on all peoples, even those who do not have even a shadow of a monarchical sense of justice (for example, the United States, Switzerland or rebellious Mexico, where Emperor Maximilian was killed by rebel republicans three years later). accession in 1867)?! However, it is not equally irresponsible to force into a republican form the life of a people who for many centuries endured a monarchical legal consciousness (for example, England, Germany, Spain, Serbia and Russia)?!... What kind of political doctrinaire was needed in order for in 1917 to compose in Russia some kind of super-democratic, super-republican, super-federative constitution and plunge it with its most individual history, soul and nature into the chaos of senseless and stupid decay, which only could end in the tyranny of unscrupulous internationalists! How right was one of the drafters of the electoral law for the Constituent Assembly, who said three years later (1920) with grief and horror: “What were we thinking then? What did we do? After all, it was just psychosis! We tried to surpass all known constitutions in democracy - and ruined everything!”... Unfortunately, this intelligent, honest and courageous patriot, who died soon after in a Soviet prison, is not at all imitated by emigrant politicians...
Nowadays, almost all emigrant parties, still following their own political doctrinaire and the whispers of their international “patrons,” are again demanding a democratic, federal republic for Russia. They know what came out of the "one-day" Constituent Assembly in 1917; they know that since then the Russian people have been robbed into poverty, trying to turn them into slaves; they know that for thirty years they have been deprived of all correct knowledge of internal and external affairs and turned into political blindness; they know that the Russian people have been systematically weaned from all independent knowledge, judgment and understanding, from independent work and from personal responsibility; that they were humiliated for thirty years, their faith and all the spiritual and moral foundations of life were destroyed, accustoming them to hungry corruption and vile denunciation... They know all this and consider this a suitable condition for the immediate introduction of a democratic republic...
What can we expect from the implementation of these programs, other than new national disasters?
Years of national recollection, settling, calming, understanding, awareness, restoration of elementary legal consciousness, a return to private property, to the principles of honor and honesty, to personal responsibility and loyalty, to self-esteem, to incorruptibility and independent thought will pass - before the Russian people will be able to produce meaningful and sustainable political elections. Until then, it can only be led by a national, patriotic, not at all totalitarian, but authoritarian - educating and reviving - dictatorship.