Why was the head of state forced to address his opponents directly?

This article is devoted to the processes caused by the systemic and institutional crisis of the Anglo-Saxon model of the political regime, which affected various areas of public relations clearly observed in the countries of the “collective West” and for a long historical period personified the statehood of the bourgeois-liberal type, functioning on the basis of relevant principles, values and proce-dures, and positioning itself as a stronghold of democracy to be followed. Based on a critical comparative legal analysis, it is concluded that many of the problems faced by postmodern society whose regression and degradation is already visible to the naked eye, stem directly from the era of formation and development of those relations which are traditionally associated, regardless of gender, skin color or ethnicity, with the constitutional and legal status of a person and citizen. Taking into account the circumstances of this kind, the authors consider the specifics and peculiarities of how the racial and female “issue” were resolved at the time, the discriminatory nature of which does not cause any doubt. Neverthe-less, their relapses have manifested themselves in the context of new stereotypes and rules of behavior, actualized by apologists of tolerance and multiculturalism, obtaining a totalitarian nature in the European Union and the United States. Ex-ploring the trends of recent years, the article emphasizes that in many states, called democratic, ruling elites initiated a process associated with politicization, falsification and perversion of national and global history. The process is primari-ly aimed at transforming the collective and individual consciousness of genera-tions that directly or indirectly did not feel the negative effects of the war, and perceived information mythologems as genuine and an objective view of things. As a result, events, facts and sources that previously did not cause any doubts among the academic community and the general public are being reviewed. The definitions of “liberalism” and “democracy”, introduced into political and collo-quial vocabulary long ago, have lost their original meaning and connotation. Based on that the authors conclude that it is necessary to form a fundamentally different scientific and theoretical foundation than before, since the existing def-initions and terms no longer meet the realities and requirements of today.