I wrote this work to consider on historical and modern examples essence and tasks of the Supreme power.

 

No matter, who heads it: monarch, president, chancellor, prime minister, gray cardinal… The main thing that is the person who is actually leading the state[1]. A main purpose of my book is to show that his work, actions and decisions in domestic and foreign policy have a quite concrete logic.

 

In attempt of comprehension of this logic, I addressed to the well-known work "The Prince" of Nicсolo Machiavelli who brought up the same questions 500 years ago.

 

As well as in "The Prince", I consider various countries and rulers, their actions and consequences of these actions to reveal the general, not time-dependent and places of a condition which push the Supreme power to those or another other steps. Moralizing reasonings are for this purpose obviously insufficient.

 

Approaches of the great pragmatist Machiavelli are used to consider working conditions of the president, how there are relations of the government and society. To find the general operating conditions of the Supreme power at which violation work of the ruler becomes inefficient.

 

We live in three times — past, present and future. However, least of all — in the future. This book will give opportunity, expecting political weather, to find the best way to the future among verbal fog and imperious demagogy.

 

One more thing: inserts are added to the book. In one cases inserts confirm idea that is introduced in the main text, in others — disprove. You can decide for yourself what is more exact — confirmation or a disproval.

The states of the modern world can be divided into three types. Distinctions are defined by how strongly their internal processes influence world around, their opportunities to control world financial and information streams are how great.

 

It is simplest to determine type of the country by news of the international media. So, the storm on the American Hawaii, in the country of the first type, will be discussed practically around the world, and here the "Great African war" of 1998–2002 which claimed about four million lives almost didn't find reflection in TV news as it was conducted in the countries of the third type. It is possible to carry those states which internal affairs are only sometimes noticeable for the international community to the second type, infringe on interests of the remote countries. So, change of an economic situation in China has impact on many economies, in difference, let's say, from changes of trade in to the western Africa.

Of course, president can make events in the country important for the whole world — for example, developing or threatening to use nuclear weapon, as it was done it by the head of Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea) in 2013.

 

But, to rise in a world rating, it is not enough. The main thing that the country was in a waterway of movements, financial and technological, which unite and will organize our world.

 

According to position of the countries, their actual rulers, secret and obvious, also can be divided on three types. And the respect for the president, attention for him of his foreign colleagues, financial, political, military circles will depend on what type his country belongs to.

 

The countries of the first type via the presidents can specify to the countries of the second and third that to do to them; the countries of the second type — specify by the third, but only if not against the first; all violations are punished.

 

For example, in 1993 the parliament of Belgium, the country of the first type, allowed to conduct prosecution of citizens of the other and strange states suspected of commission of war crimes. Under distribution the prime minister of Israel Ariel Sharon got even. However, in ten years of action of the law not of races — the crimes occurring in the African colonies of Belgium — Congo (Zaire) and others though their many participants are still living were followed. By the way, it is difficult to present that the present Democratic Republic of Congo, the country of the third type, founded similar tribunal; apparently, her president Joseph Kabila has a self-preservation instinct. The Belgian law was cancelled, as soon as group of human rights activists appealed to court with the claim against the U.S. President. In the state relations both earlier, and now it is impossible to punish strong, but there is a right strong to punish the weak.

 

It can seem that the ruler of the country of the third type should get up in a political wake to the country with more high rank that this action will bring also to him and his state protection and the help. Nevertheless, it's not so. In due time the president of Georgia Shevardnadze made much to drop to the USA as to the hand giving. What is result? There was even more tender and even more faithful Saakashvili who became the new president of Georgia, having displaced Shevardnadze. But also it was not helped by infinite expression of devotion to the suzerain: once he in 2008 tried to intrude in South Ossetia before killed to Georgia as his army reformed on the American sample was disseminated by the Russian troops. Saakashvili did not receive any military aid.

 

Even more sadly destiny of the loyal friend of the USA Hosni Mubarak who appeared after revolutionary events in Egypt in life imprisonment. After all, he made the country the best, after Israel, the ally of the USA in the Middle East, in 1991 supported the military operation "Storm in the Desert" and sent for this purpose to a conflict zone the considerable military contingent.

 

Why faithful actions of presidents of the countries of the lowest type are inefficient? It's because from them another is also not waited. It is more favorable to punish the turncoat (presidents of Belarus and Venezuela will be derelicts, will not restrain arrogance yet), than to support the one who will please so. Therefore, irrespective of type, the president always has to count only on himself, the power, the people and the country.

Earlier the ruler often compared to the chess player doing the courses in multidimensional chess external and domestic policy. Work of the modern president is not similar to game any more in the field where only provisions of figures change, and rules are constant. Now during short time both the field, and rules of the game changes. Perhaps, it is better to assimilate the ruler to the surfer. Sliding on the rolled wave, besides the bravery and experience necessary in all centuries, demands ability "to feel a wave", constantly to move and keep stability.

 

The concept of stability too received new sense today. Earlier the situation was considered stable if in the foreseeable future of anything in it does not change or changes will be slightly noticeable: weak actions caused a weak response. In the XXI century stability is a special type of long accident when the country is on the verge of chaos, but this side does not pass. Let's follow the same example with the surfer. His movement on a wave is a continuous falling; but he, changing an inclination, the provision of the governing on a crest, does so that the wave he makes up for all the time and it appears under it. This is also an example of modern stability. If the athlete takes a little aside, will slow down or will be accelerated concerning a wave crest, accident will be inevitable, and accident fast and final. Therefore time of low-active decrepit rulers at a wheel of the state left (unfortunately, as for the state the most serious test is a young initiative leader), now time of those who can head constantly the state ship downwind of changes and keep most.

What changed for the last centuries, what forced to consider as the main force in the state not will of the sovereign disposing of destiny of citizens, and the certain wave forcing the ruler to balance in attempt to keep on a crest? And what it for a wave, what it for the stream subordinating to himself the power?

 

Let's look at changes which happened in societies for the last century. In the XIX century represented that in the future working hours will be shortened till three-five o'clock, physical activity will decrease by the person, there will be more time for free creativity. Passed one and a half eyelids: achievements of a civilization led to labor productivity growth, to reduction of the working day small (on average), to reduction of hard physical work — and to the enormous growth of the competition, mental load of all segments of the population. People began to live better financially, but did not begin to live easier. In a present civilization of people if he wants to live and consume the benefits, has to refuse tranquility. Because the more society gets, the more it requires[2].

 

Whether there are models on which it would be possible to study consequences of such evolution? Yes, there is a mathematical Theory of self-organized criticality; it describes the system which is constantly in a condition of crisis, in result of that there is a seeming stability at continuous accident, it is possible to say — sliding on a chaos edge. The theory of self-organized criticality describes, in particulars, a situation when the condition of rest interrupts flashes of high activity. If to apply these provisions to development of a world civilization, crises, social accidents are an obligatory price for the accelerated development of economy, for material benefits, finally for big life expectancy.

 

Modern production demands from various economies of a adjusting to a uniform world rhythm; for this purpose there is a set of the international funds, banks, associations, the WTO including. Such production cooperation in scales of the whole world — both a consequence, and the motor of world association, general sliding on a chaos edge.

 

Along with acceleration of life there is other process — distinctions between the states, the countries, public groups are washed away. At the beginning of the last century different social classes so differed in education level that hardly understood each other, speaking one language. Also at all outlooks on life at the official who looked for did not coincide, than to take free time, and from the worker who worked 14-hour labor change. In addition, the peasant from a deaf small village, getting to the capital European city, had the stress reaching shock level.

 

Presently new computers, blockbusters, news of the countries — world leaders — almost at the same time reach both Paris, and Kuala Lumpur. Acceleration of development of a civilization is followed by averaging, bigger similarity of the societies making it. Economically and politically the world turns from meeting of various unlike countries into something like "the United States of the World", states-governments of the same type. In this new world association everyone acts for himself, and nobody is going to help the poor "states" to be built in it. Of course, there are interstate unions, but, as a rule, the equal enter into them. Thus the experience of life, survival, traditions acquired in this or that country in former time play the lesser role, at best become in the new world ethnic addition.

 

Our civilization is more and more uniform therefore development of the different countries and, respectively, action of presidents is not chaotic, they remind the movement of cars in rush hour on the street without marking and traffic lights rather. Boor’s drivers on enormous jeeps cut easy mini cars, mopeds keep behind if you wish to survive. In such auto-stream it is impossible to twist sharply a wheel. It is impossible to brake sharply, and at the same time going ahead will not allow to be accelerated. A certain stream — a mainstream of the general movement — is created.

 

The people will allow a lot of things and a lot of things they will forgive to the ruler if they feel stability in the country, including political, will feel that it moves with a good speed in the general race and even leaves behind other countries. For ordinary citizens it means a high standard of living, wider choice of opportunities of self-realization, positive prospects on the future for himself and children. As the rule, people are ready to suffer some inconveniences while the ruler overtakes or cuts ahead or nearby going "cars" if only it was succeeded to take more convenient and more advanced place in the general stream.

 

Perhaps, of course, that this stream attracts us in anywhere that in some decades or even years all of us will be covered by so strong world crisis that the civilization in the development will make a peculiar loop. It already was in the IV century of our era when, after heights of the Greek-Roman civilization, Europe on one thousand years plunged into the Middle Ages. Perhaps. However, the history shows that human society constantly self-organizes and finds way out of seemingly desperate situations. As a rule, everything somehow is arranged, as a last resort, crises and wars free the road for further races. If there's an abyss in front of you, very many people will fall down there, and it is doubtful that some president will be responsible for the world accident. Nevertheless, here tactical lag in current races on a survival does not escape punishment to none of those who is in power.

Need to the ruler in the activity was important to correspond to a vector of development of society and in antiquity, sometimes it was expressed even more accurately, than presently. Genghis Khan, being the dull commander, it was crushed in the first big fight with the joint army Mongolian teyps[3]. But surprise: winners — Uruds and Manguds, the best soldiers of the steppe, — came over to the his side right after defeat. Than it was caused — mass insanity or splash in philanthropy to lost? No, they passed from the one that won fight, but the fateful breeding steppe to a new order. By the end of the XII century, in the conditions of a tribal system, tens of thousands of families of nomads appeared out of the stagnated teyps, without the rights for a cattle pasture, without the rights for the war. In Genghis Khan's army state there were already other relations: all were equal before the head, all could take production on accurate, uniform conditions. For Mongols there were clear prospects of the new power. As a result, Genghis Khan had both right troops, and talented commanders.

 

So, actions of all citizens of this or that country, developing, do not counterbalance each other, and create the general direction of development. It is influenced also by a total vector of development of other people, all our civilization. It is impossible to speak about absolutely independent way for the certain country already. The state will be able to sustain race in the general stream when and if the Supreme power provides successful development of the country and directs this development to a civilization mainstream. Let's call this double condition the First law of governing.

In any society there are people revolting and the people obedient to the power, only their proportion changes. However, in lately around the world the number of those to whom "not all the same", sharply increases, turn out to be consequence of that politicization of society and surge in activity of the population: wars, revolts, change of rulers.

 

In the countries of the first type accumulation of discontent is removed elections or reforms, in the countries of the second type there are also peaceful changes of the power, both deep reforms, and revolutions. Here I will note that revolts and revolutions are too a form of public administration, too a form of the power — only more rigid.

 

Revolt, riot, revolution give the chance to change, regulate the governing which became intolerable. Also this means to fill a lack of the power, having replaced it another meeting the requirements of time. Such uncivilized way of change of rulers in the countries of the second and third type is explained with "backwardness", backwardness of the people, genetic humility, social system and so forth. I will not rely on ethical concepts as I consider that differences between societies have the natural reasons connected with features of their formation, development and current existence.

So, in England at the beginning of the XIII century and in Russia at the beginning of XVII there were similar situations. The monarchy for a number of the internal and external reasons weakened, and the power passed to large feudal lords — barons in England and boyars in Russia. In the first case of the risen barons supported clergy, knights and citizens so almost all segments of the population were interested in outcome of the case. The Great charter of liberties which gave rise to the constitutional acts and in general a parliamentary system was as a result accepted.

 

In Russia by 1614, after the Time of Troubles, population and its most active part — a national militia, having expelled — a neck of Poles from Moscow, demanded not parliament, and the tsar. And it is clear: because of weakening of the central power, going in eight years, the population in the country reduced on a quarter. It is enormous figure if to consider that in 40 years of wars and Ivan the Terrible's repressions this reduction made no more than fifteen percent. In the Time of Troubles because of paralysis of the Supreme power enemy armies passed Russia almost through: the Crimea-Tatar cavalry from the South, Poles and Swedes from the West and North. Transportation of the food, necessary in the conditions of risky agriculture, from one regions in others stopped. Regional barter decayed as traffic on roads because of enormous number of robbers almost stopped, local princes, having stood apart, were engaged in robbery. In this situation the simple person, to keep the life and to remain the resident of Russia, had to be part of the government, the tsar's citizen. Any ethical preferences were given on the last place. The Supreme power in Russia as a fur coat in the winter: and it is inconvenient in it, and it is heavy, and you sweat, and you will remove — you will die. It is felt and now especially as on a global scale we have a certain time of troubles and now.

It should be noted also present high politicization of Russians. In Russia there are a lot of people who can not only tell the names of the former rulers of the country, but also give the characteristic to their actions that is very problematic for citizens The USA and England, and even for rather politized France. Americans can tell more often: "I think of the authorities a little. I mind my own business, and they — their own". In Russia citizens infrequently can dare to "think nothing" of the power as his actions directly influence their everyday life. Here performance against the existing power is a performance also against the existing way, and against the working model of economy, as in other countries the press of counterfeit money.

 

Of course, not everywhere the state is a frame of economic life. Weak or strong dependence of production and trade on the government arises not because of the morals accepted in society, and for the historical and geographical reasons. During the Renaissance epoch, prosperity of England was provided by sale of sheep wool. The country was covered by the stone fences protecting pasture places, — they became a visible embodiment of concept of a private property. Thus, the royalty on places was limited to the power of lords. The state was necessary rather for development and observance of laws, on which misters and simple inhabitants solved the problems independently or at the local level. Approximately matter and in the USA since colonization — without lords, certainly also was. Embedding of the state in private life was not comprehensive.

 

Opposite example — Ancient Egypt. After flood of Nile river there was perfectly fertilized earth, but frequency of floods prevented to create capital stone fences to designate borders of personal fields. For a repeated marking after leaving of Nile water geometry specialists were necessary, and adequately the private peasant could not pay their work. For preservation of water channels and reservoirs — difficult engineering constructions which needed to be built in strictly certain terms were necessary, differently the next flood of Nile threatened to wash away them. The engineering structure of channels could be only uniform, and the farmer had no opportunity rigidly to define the property right to water — the main value in North Africa. Therefore, Egyptians needed the state training and supporting officials and engineers, builders and military. Life, the economic relations forced people to be part of the state. Without it — hunger and death. By the outcome of the New kingdom Egypt became a granary of all antique civilization whereas without irrigational constructions, without the state in general and the Pharaoh in particular, fields along Nile could not support also 200 thousand people.

 

There was a similar situation in China: during the period of anarchy which came after falling of the empire the largest in the world technogenic accident on river Yangtze dams in 1931 claimed the lives of 140 thousand people. 5,5 million houses were destroyed, about 60 million citizens suffered, many of which died of diseases and hunger after destruction of fields. It is unlikely even the weak central power would allow dilapidations of so important dams. However, the tangerines occupied with civil war were anxious only the results of fights. In 1954, already at communists, the situation nearly repeated. But then, at threat of flooding on the appeal of the central government more than 300 thousand people built a dam hundred kilometers long and stopped water; one more national tragedy managed to be prevented.

 

Existence of China is impossible without the pervasive power which is the survival tool for this difficult, overpopulated country. And progress of modern rapid development of China is also impossible without the power which serves as the most important, but not additional mechanism of economy.

 

In his time George Bush Jr. declared that after the tragedy on September 11, 2001 the world changed. Incorrectly: the world changed much earlier for this reason there could be these acts of terrorism. Training of terrorists for fight against the Soviet troops in Afghanistan in which CIA was engaged, led eventually to blows to the American cities. New terrorists were trained in the same camps also by the same Mujahedeen who were prepared by the American advisers. Development of a civilization made both economy, and water resources, and terrorists the uniform global phenomena. The world becomes uniform and at the same time all less steady. Current trends are that that to the individual, "the little person", in any country it is already impossible to sit out behind any stone fences, and it is the extremely important fact — citizens of any country can appear in position of the ancient Egyptians waiting for flood of Nile. Therefore all of us are compelled even more often appeal to forces operating at the highest political level.

I will provide the statement of the American political scientists investigating the modern international situation: "Neither real Existing national governments, nor regional managing can not Provide an effective discipline without speaking about ensuring control over the autonomous financial and economic Universe formed by globalization, "Internetization" and deregulation".

 

Who then can provide "control over … to the Universe" and protect people? If not to hope for a miracle, there are after all national governments which only received for the solution of so complex challenges big, than earlier, the power. I will remind that since crisis of 2008 only in the USA in economy about three trillion "printed" and, generally, provided by nothing dollars were injected[4]. So more and more "an invisible hand of the market" operates the state: orders of its economic departments in general and the president in particular influence millions of residents of the country and the whole world. Importance for citizens of the power, the president increases in all countries, and first of all in the countries of the first type. As a result, politicization of society grows practically everywhere.

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.

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.

* * *

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.

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 for an hour. The international news, world prime ministers, new goods, their availability, production in this country, dynamics of access to the benefits transfers "to places" certain information on, whether the country correctly develops, whether in the necessary direction state machinery moves, whether it is worth changing or supporting the president, his course. All people have some kind of collective intuition. And the president is obliged to feel it and to react to "the general desires" of people, to define according to them the direction of the activity, differently he will not be president. It will be displaced or financial circles, whose representatives lose money on delay of rate of development of the state, or party fellows, to the political movement, junta (an example of that can be events of the last years in Myanmar — Burma).

 

[6]

 

Relative progress of opposition of Venezuela after Hugo Ch #225;vez's death too is clear. Redistribution of the income from richness of the country in favor of the poor majority reduced quantity of underclass sectors of society; citizens to whom already is what to lose, do not want constant alarm because of the intense relations with the USA. They already look for in policy of those who would help the country to take a place not on an edge of revolutionary changes, and some quieter. Perhaps, known expression about constancy of interests of England can be modified like this: "The people have no constant leaders, the people have constant interests".

 

On the one hand, people intuitively tear away all new, in the best case take with caution, being afraid that will be worse. Can seem that I contradict myself, as I noted earlier that society and certain citizens demand continuous changes. Yes, they do — and are still afraid of them. The nature of most of people such is that all want to change something, but thus wish that changed nothing. Let's remember, what furious requirements and promises of reforms sound on any political meetings in any countries, but even more furious and ruthless criticism falls on any steps which are taken for realization of reforms. It is clear: results of changes in the state do not coincide with subjective hopes of people. Everyone waits for the solution of the problems, and receives public changes that are not always pleasant to it. It is good still if eventually does not become worse.

 

From this it is possible to deduce the Second law of governing: a contradiction between public character of the power and private hopes of citizens for its results.