Paul
Goble
Staunton, April 9 – Archpriest Vsevolod
Chaplin, a close aide to Patriarch Kirill and the head of the Synod’s
Department for Relations between the Church and Society, is pushing the notion
of a popular or even socialist monarchy as the most appropriate form of
government for Russia, an idea that has its roots in the works of Ivan
Solonevich, an émigré thinker.
Chaplin’s suggestion has provoked
much opposition by Russians who view it as an effort to further clericalize the
country (regions.ru/news/2548514/), but it has also attracted support from some who
believe his proposal is less the basis for any immediate action than the
occasion for discussion of Russia’s uniqueness and need for a government that
reflects that fact.
In
a “Svobodnaya pressa” commentary, Vladimir Bondarenko argues that those
criticizing Chaplin now have failed to understand either that the Russian
churchman has not said anything new or that his ideas are not appropriate
subjects for discussion as Russia tries to make its way in the world (svpressa.ru/society/article/117984/).
The idea of a popular or socialist
monarchy as the best form of governance for Russia was developed by émigré thinker
Ivan Solonevich, who is remembered if at all for his book “Russia in a
Concentration Camp” which introduced the term GULAG to a wide audience but who
should be remembered for his role in creating the Popular Monarchy Movement.
Solonevich was attacked on all sides
for this notion, Bondarenko says, but most of those condemning him never paid
attention to the details of his argument or the ways in which his call reflects
Russia’s special historical position.
He quotes the émigré editor as
saying that “the Popular Monarchy Movement starts from the axiom that Russia
has its own path, has worked out its own methods, is proceeding to its own
goals, and that as a result, no political borrowings from outside can lead to
anything except catastrophe.”
Solonevich
(1891-1953) was convinced that Russia by virtue of its size and history can and
must follow its own model and no one else’s.
“It would be completely stupid to convince gypsies in the superiority of
‘functional property’ and Jews in the desirability of building a European
empire.”
“However,
for some reason, an attempt to impose on Russian political orders which grew
out of West European feudalism as equally self-evident stupidity,” he
wrote. Russia can copy others, but it
must choose rather than having others choose for it – and that means, he said,
that it must promote its own unique ideas as well.
“One
would have to be blind,” Bondarenko suggests, “not to see that Russian people
always had strong aspirations to collectivity, a socialist ideal of justice and
also to a strong power and its monarchical form.” That was true in the time of
Ivan the Terrible, true also in the times of Peter the Great. And it was true
as well even under Stalin.
In
one sense, what Chaplin has suggested is nothing more than a revival of the
Uvarov trinity of “Autocracy, Orthodoxy, Nationality.” And it is entirely appropriate to link
socialism with its roots in Christianity to that idea, especially given that in
some socialist countries, a monarchical principle is at work.
Is
there not an inherited dynasty of the Kims in North Korea or the transfer of
power from one brother to another in Cuba? the commentator asks. “The
intermixture of monarchy and socialism did not begin today and it will not end
tomorrow.”
To
speak as Chaplin has, Bondarenko says, does not mean that any steps will be
taken toward a monarchic autocracy in the near term or that there will be a new
move toward Russian socialism. “One need not fear the words.” He is talking about
“a natural selection of elements necessary for the improvement of our state,”
elements of “monarchy and socialism.”
And
Chaplin is right to focus on faith, because “without faith any administration
will be harmful. It will fall into dictatorship,” just as many things suggest “Putin’s
course” is leading. And he is also right to talk about hereditary monarchy
because in such a system, each ruler thinks longer term and not just about
taking care of his own retirement.
Bondarenko
concludes his essay by saying that he “doesn’t expect there will be a
coronation of Tsar Vladimir or any other tsar in the near future. But
reflections about the character of power, one organic for Russia are extremely
useful:” a popular monarchy is would “not
be the worst form of government” for the country.
No comments:
Post a Comment