Dashes and notes
"Things happen only once and never repeat themselves, never come back. Except in memory". (Damon Galgut, "In an Unknown Room")
In the book "Elizabeth Finch", Julian Barnes playfully, and in some passages both philosophically and largely critically, varies the word "mono". In numerous derivatives: monotheism, monogamy, monomania (as perversion, maltene form of uncontrolled madness, urges - examples in kleptomaniacs or pyromaniacs), mononucleosis, monogram, monokini, monopoly, monolingualism, monotony... (p. 19). I would add that "fah-idiotism", monomania and "fixed-idea" have one thing in common: abnormality, exclusivity, and extreme focus. To put it mildly - unusualness, irregularity, one-sidedness, exaggeration, imbalance.
On the other hand, "mono" can be viewed differently, more optimistically: as commitment to something, depth of penetration, i.e. the study of one subject (the phenomenon of electricity, for example) - and as one, unique, unifying, encompassing. Even in the sense of peculiar, non-threatening to others, other individuals. And on the political level, in the rank of monocratic, as the antithesis of autocratic position and actions, although both determinants - both monocratic and autocratic - are in the sphere of individual exercise of a certain lever of power (and not collective action).
Monism is classically taken as a teaching that forces one, original, fundamental, highest, most general principle of the whole, of everything and everything. Is it space, matter, idea, being, spirit, water, air, earth, fire, will? Maybe still - no. And, I believe, neither reason, nor justice, nor even love, nor security, nor humanity are decisive in themselves. Neither the motto of relativity, nor faith and belief, nor god, nor hierarchy, nor force, nor knowledge, nor the unity and connection of (all) phenomena.
The originator of monism, as a philosophical direction, is a versatile German ernst haeckel (1834-1919), promoting the "religion of scientific materialism", with Darwinism as his starting point. However, I suspect that, at least for man, the core of everything is thought (which is close to Plato's and Hegel's "idea"), that is, a spiritual, internal "ripple" that grows into dynamic effectiveness. And it, on the other hand, is the fruit of thought, which is itself the movement of the spirit. Therefore, everything is a pulsating thought, at the same time - a thought (is) about everything and everywhere.
Therefore, I think that it could be named as a crowning, general, universal and starting principle dynamic thought effectiveness (whatever it is, efficiency!): as the root, all-pervading principle of the Planet, the state and society, human life in particular. In terms of movement, change - and consequences. And good, desirable ones, but also ugly, harmful ones. No positive or negative value sign.
Again, monocracy is a sign that a certain person, an individual and not a collective rule, has authority and control in a certain field. In a narrower, political sense, autocracy is a negative value determination of monocratic leadership, in the sense of arbitrariness, absolutist, non-democratic rule by a certain individual. His supremacy, often (i) mala fide behavior towards others. Either by a person in an inherited position, or one appointed, imposed "from the shadows" - or an elected individual, in civil elections or in parliament.
Of course, the realized constitutional legitimacy of the election of a state body - especially in general elections - does not give it any free hand to violate the constitution (the highest legality), by referring to it, supposedly directly transferred state sovereignty. (The same applies to the discretionary magical "transformation" of the constitutionally provided instruction deadlines into allegedly exclusive ones, the expiration of which, by definition, results in the loss of a right.)
When you constitutionally prescribe two legally equal electoral legitimacy - the parliament and the head of state - in practice, by the nature of things, the individual, concentrated, compact one is more powerful, provided that it has a coherent, strong party machinery with it. So, in principle, the legitimacy of a certain individual, and thus the elected head of state, is stronger and more operative than the collective one, the legitimacy of a certain public body, including the parliament, as a body with a standard heterogeneous composition.
I remind you that the structural feature of the state administrative apparatus is its hierarchical organization. There are one or more parallel scales of higher and lower organs. It is about the order of impersonal superiority and subordination. A lower organ - according to its position on the hierarchical ladder - is subordinated, subordinated to an immediately higher one. Subordination extends from the bottom to the top of the administrative organizational chart, pyramidally. In the system of division of power of the holder, the top of the executive function is embodied by the national government. Hierarchical authority, i.e. superiority - belonging to a higher authority - is correlative to the obligation of obedience, subjugation of a lower one. It can be understood narrowly or broadly. More precisely, the mediator only has authority over acts: ordering that an act of a certain content be passed, i.e. prohibiting the adoption of an act - or supervising subordinate acts, with the possibility of changing, revoking and canceling them, including substitution (taking over), and even delegation (transfer to another, subordinate) jurisdiction. More broadly, hierarchical authority also includes authority over the personality of a subordinate body, over its officials. Especially in terms of their appointment, dismissal and disciplinary punishment. And within each state administrative body, there is a hierarchical authority of the head towards the employees of that body. He has a decisive influence on the personnel composition of the authorities, has many and strong disciplinary powers in relation to them, supervises the entire work of officials and gives them orders and instructions. The elder represents the body in external relations, has prerogatives belonging to the body and fulfills its obligations, but is also responsible both for the performance of his function and for the actions of the body as a whole. And in the body itself, as a rule, a chain of subordination and superiors is formed, up to the head elder. It is a classic monocratic leadership: the state administration bodies are the largest of the different, rarely collegial leadership. However, the head of state, although a foreign body, does not belong to the state administrative apparatus.
In connection with the above, I ask the following question in today's legal and political field - bearing in mind everything previously said: are the current heads of state in Montenegro and Serbia monocratic or absolutist power holders? Are they one, special (sub)branch of the executive power or an independent and neutral political category? The answer depends on at least five moments: 1) the method, more precisely the width of the legitimation basis of the election (the widest in both); 2) the constitutional powers of the heads of these states (relatively modest, legally limited, but not ceremonial, in either case); 3) the foreseen constitutional (in Montenegro and elaborated legal) mechanism of responsibility and dismissal of the highest public officials in question due to proven suspicion of violation of the constitution (equally, in Montenegro and Serbia, a long and complex process, in three cumulative successive steps: the first and third are parliamentary, and the other - constitutional-judicial); 4) the party's parliamentary background of the head of state (in Serbia, today, incomparably stronger than in Montenegro) - and, pragmatically speaking - 5) respect for the letter and spirit of the Constitution (related in particular to the level of political culture - relatively low, but already worrying for a long time in both of these states).
Simply put, in Serbia "on the throne" is an absolutist president, and in present-day Montenegro it is predominantly a monocratic, but by no means neutral, with tangible remnants of absolutist "memories", with not inconsiderable party (and popular?) support and influence.
And I believe that the ideal head of state in the Balkans, de constitutione ferenda, was the one characterized by neutrality, an umbrella role. Silent and advisory "moderation". The president who embodies, consolidates and increases the stability of the country, its tradition, reputation. Such a head of state should constitutionally represent, round off the state in a personal way, by no means touching the triple - or quadruple, separately counting the constitutional judiciary - scheme of branches of government. In short: I plead for the typical option of an individual at the head of the state elected in parliament, with reduced powers, without hierarchical charge; ceremonial roles similar to the British head of state, the monarch.
All in all, no matter how we (turn) around, the beginning and the end, life and death remain for us as determinants. And in between - next to another, relatively secondary, thought about them. Monistic.
"In every departure, somewhere deep and tiny, like a black seed there is a fear of death." (Damon Galgut)
The author is a full professor at the Faculty of Law at the University of Belgrade and a visiting professor at FDES in Podgorica for several years
Bonus video:
