octoberman
Banned
what if Zemsky Sobor of 1613 elected a democracy instead of the Romanov monarchy and retained power for itself taking power as the governing body of russia
Last edited:
Chaos.what if Zemsky Sobor of 1613 elected a democracy instead of the Romanov monarchy and retained power for itself taking power as the governing body of russia
IMO, this is a pure anachronism because a notion was not there. Sobor of 1613 was called with the explicit purpose to elect the Tsar and did not have any legitimacy outside this task. Neither did “The Government of All Land” firmed by the 1nd Opolchenie: its task was limited to organization of a military effort against the Poles.
“a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.” In other words, a form which could not be practically implemented outside the small communities. You are talking about a republic. Would not work either except (as was the case in 1613-22) as a purely advisory body: how would you form an elective government in a state with a firmly-set tradition of priority by pedigree? And the government based upon this principle, “7 boyars”, just thoroughly compromised itself.what if Zemsky Sobor of 1613 elected a democracy instead of the Romanov monarchy and retained power for itself taking power as the governing body of russia
Did subjects of the Tsar have a right to petition before the courts of the crown? like for example in the British common law as it was implement here in India during the 18th century, every subject of the crown did have the right to approach the crown courts and these courts passed writs like mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus and other writs under the British common law whenever the Company government behaved in a illegal manner, did the crown courts ( or by whatever name called) have jurisdiction over the executive? or for the civil services ?“a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.” In other words, a form which could not be practically implemented outside the small communities. You are talking about a republic. Would not work either except (as was the case in 1613-22) as a purely advisory body: how would you form an elective government in a state with a firmly-set tradition of priority by pedigree? And the government based upon this principle, “7 boyars”, just thoroughly compromised itself.
A local administrator had both judicial and executive power. His activities could be appealed to his administrative superior and finally to the relevant Prikaz in Moscow.Did subjects of the Tsar have a right to petition before the courts of the crown? like for example in the British common law as it was implement here in India during the 18th century, every subject of the crown did have the right to approach the crown courts and these courts passed writs like mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus and other writs under the British common law whenever the Company government behaved in a illegal manner, did the crown courts ( or by whatever name called) have jurisdiction over the executive? or for the civil services ?
Which “democratic rights” are you talking about? It is Tsardom circa 1613. Most of a contemporary Europe did not have such a notion because it would not fit the class society.In the absence of a independent judiciary that would put a check of the excess of the administrative branch of the government the democratic rights vested in the citizenry is eroded and eventually chaos ensures and people would call for law and order which would at the end result in the election of a Tsar.
There was no notion of the “rights of a citizenry” outside privileges given by the Tsar. Strictly speaking, there was no “citizenry” as a single entity. You are talking early XVII century and Russia is still a”feudal” (term used just for simplicity) society with the numerous social groups having different privileges. As I already said, the whole premise is anachronistic.My question, did Russian or any of it's predecessor states have a history of independent judiciary protecting the rights of a citizenry? if no, then discussing this would be futile
i was trying to play the devils Advocate but in any case my argument is correct, this belongs to ASB.A local administrator had both judicial and executive power. His activities could be appealed to his administrative superior and finally to the relevant Prikaz in Moscow.
The only source of the decisions mandatory for the whole country was Tsar (his decision must be confirmed by Boyar Duma).
Which “democratic rights” are you talking about? It is Tsardom circa 1613. Most of a contemporary Europe did not have such a notion because it would not fit the class society.
There was no notion of the “rights of a citizenry” outside privileges given by the Tsar. Strictly speaking, there was no “citizenry” as a single entity. You are talking early XVII century and Russia is still a”feudal” (term used just for simplicity) society with the numerous social groups having different privileges. As I already said, the whole premise is anachronistic.