Who relied on favor of destiny less, that kept the power for more long.
The essence of presidential work can be explained on the example of control of airplane. If flight is normal, autopilot is turned on (it, by the way, started to be used in large quantities by planes still in the fifties of the last century). More difficult actions where the probability of emergence of emergency situations is great, – take-off and landing, – pilots carry out in the manual mode. These functions of this time are not transferred to automatic equipment in spite of the fact that they are worked on hundreds of thousands of similar maneuvers, – the behavior of the pilot is more difficult than algorithm of the program of the autopilot. Like it in the state – besides laws, numerous rules, the personality with a free will to which control levers are reduced by internal forces of the country is necessary.
The one who wishes to lead the people, is compelled to follow the crowd.
Whether it is possible to replace the dominating ruler (I mean one-man management administrative, not monarchic or dictatorial; any business concern also copes in monocracy) any public council, the parliamentary commission or, at the worst, junta, anyway, to come to collective management? No, it will not turn out. The relations at all levels of the power in the state, in the financial and economic spheres controlled by the state always have to be such that forces operating in society and out of it were counterbalanced. Internal forces most often reflect features of local economic development in society. External forces are coordinated with development of a civilization, world economy, the interstate relations.
Only one-man management can put together these vectors of forces. It is the president's task. Multidirectional vectors will tear apart the state, society, will bring it to decomposition, is not excluded – before civil war if are attached to friable objects and weak subjects of the power. In the situation, the world economic, martial law is more difficult, the Supreme one-man management is more important.
The parliamentary republics, whether it be Bulgaria or Pakistan where the joint body appoints the government, the management of the state bank, generals, all the same is if not the politician, then the financier, if not the businessman, the general, without consultations with which, secret or obvious, no decisions on key questions of foreign and domestic policy are made.
One-man management replacement with cooperation is impossible for one reason. Any pyramid of managers stiffens, as the principles of administrative work are that that everyone is responsible for the site and, having led it to a good indicator, at best supports in such situation. There is a stagnation. However, change now, even unsuccessful, it is better, than stagnation.
Then, maybe, it is worth "shaking up" artificially the Supreme joint body for prevention of stagnation? In Yugoslavia after Josip Broz Tito's death, country's presidential post was abolished, and at the head of the country there was a Presidium. Members of Presidium (the head of federal republics and autonomous regions) annually replaced each other. Such form of governing ended with a total failure and bloody civil war. In other countries constant political instability leads to emergence of force operating society is reserved. An example of that Italy where in 65 post-war years the government was replaced nearly forty times, and the Supreme governing was to some extent conditional. Then the role of mafia, his influence on all public structures and entry into them grew. Really, the weak power – fertilizer for organized crime, the strong power always the competitor mafia[5].
The even developed parliamentarism does not guarantee to the country of equal evolutionary development at all. To that we see proofs in Western Europe. Very important and painful immigration problems, questions connected with destruction of historical relationship in Europe are solved in "manual regime" heads of the countries. In October, 2010 the German chancellor Angela Merkel declared that attempts to construct multicultural society in Germany "completely failed". Then it was recognized by David Cameron, Nicolas Sarkozy. The situation developed so sharp that in Brussels, the capital of the EU and NATO, the local police sometimes does not risk to look in the Arab quarters. I do not claim after these politicians that multiculture it is bad, but I want to emphasize that the hand against one of the most important foundations of modern western society was raised by leaders, but not political structures. Unless did not know in parliaments of the Netherlands, Denmark, Great Britain, Norway, Sweden, Austria, Germany what disgust for idea and policy of multiculturalism grows in Europe? However to call things by their proper names and began to solve the ripened problems only after leaders took the responsibility to declare them. This, by the way, reminds Mass enlightenment after the leader's decisions in totalitarian countries. So, inhabitants of North Koreas begin in large quantities to damn actions the Western countries after performances of Kim Jong Un.
"The ruler is the wind, citizens are the grass: where the wind will blow, there the grass bends"
What distinguishes words, intentions and actions of the person who holds the Supreme post, from words, intentions and actions of the other mortal? Let's remember expression "levers of the power". In equipment the lever allows to lift very big weight. Also and with the power – owning his levers of influences the course of the most serious events in the country and in the international affairs, one person receives economic and political influence, special on the importance, becomes independent political force. Problems arise when levers of the power obediently increase influence of the weak or mistaking ruler.
Give me control over money of the state, and it won't interest me, who in this state writes laws.
Of course, the policy was and remains under power of to economy. But in the last decades there is a reverse dependence – subordination of economical tasks to state policy. It seems president cannot usually change the budget which is under control of parliament, government, bigwigs of business… Nevertheless, he can declare, for example, attraction of the private capital to the solution of national objectives, privatize state ownership. The president can begin war – and to have an opportunity to redistribute millions in departments and the companies of the, and even foreign countries. And that is important even if he discussed these or those actions with owners of economy before the coming to power, very significant trifles in implementation of these decisions depend in many respects on him. "Trifles" can ruin the initiatives declared earlier, change their direction, redirect financial streams and to leave the president the owner of a situation. Deng Xiaoping, working in the Central Committee of a PDA at Maoists, managed slowly, little changes to direct an economic course of China on the most radical modernization. By the way, he – when did not hold a post of the Supreme head, but was the actual ruler of the enormous country since the end of the 1970th to the 1990th years. The history knows a set of examples when the appointee disaccorded with the of the benefactors and passed into other party, adjoined other part of elite or society. Therefore, are as if powerful there were those who nominated the president, brought him into the power or allowed to win it, he starts resisting to dependence from the proteges, and only his conscious decision, his will defines whether he will be it loyal to them or not.
Of course, remembering a sad joke that the fool-commander is more terrible than the enemy, citizens of the country have to have opportunity to influence the commander and to replace it. The power, the more terrible it incorrect decisions is stronger. Democratic institutes of the state are important including for the fortress of the presidential power, they do not allow self-destructive actions of the first person of the country.
However, feedback of the Supreme power and the people exists in all countries, irrespective of, democratic they or totalitarian: and to appoint the president in the totalitarian countries, and it is possible to rake over the coals in the pre-election companies of the countries democratic, only if the president provides to the country good situation in a mainstream. This one of consequences of the First law of governing formulated above. I will explain: speed of changes is felt by simple citizens. The medieval peasant saw less people for all life, than the resident of the modern large city sees