Paul
Goble
Staunton, November 27 – When the
Berlin Wall fell and the USSR fell apart, it was widely assumed and even stated
by Francis Fukuyama that there was “no alternative” to liberal democracy; but
the last 30 years have shown that one has emerged, “Feudalism 2.0,” and in
Russia first of all, Yevgeny Gontmakher says.
When communism fell in Eastern
Europe, the elites who came to power there wanted liberal democracy in their
countries, the Moscow social theorist and commentator says. “The Soviet
perestroika intelligentsia …set ‘socialism with a human face’ as its goal (mk.ru/politics/2019/11/27/v-rossii-poyavilas-novaya-model-obshhestvennogo-ustroystva-feodalizm-20.html).
“But
the values of respect for human rights, the creation of a market economy, the
guaranteeing of political competition and media freedom” overwhelmed that
original perestroika-period position in Russia and ensured that “by the end of
1991,” Russian leaders made the achievement of liberal democracy their position
too.
Now
three decades later, it appears that these dreams have dissipated. Eastern
Europe has moved in a populist direction, although most of its members
completed their European choice by joining the European Union and NATO. Russia
in contrast “from the start of the 2000s has slowly but undeviatingly distanced
itself from Europe” in a still unknown direction.
The
system Russia and some others have created shows that there is alternative to
liberal democracy, one in which “an unchangeable power controls or seeks to
control the judicial system, the leading media, relies on strengthening ‘traditional’
values for the particular place, which smacks of primitive nationalism and xenophobia.”
According
to Gontmakher, “in some cases, this model includes state control over the
economy as well as targeted and sometimes even massive repressions against the
political opposition.” And in it, the state has primacy over the individual,
while in liberal democracies, the liberal and his rights have primacy over the
state.
It
thus turns out that “30 years after the end of communism,” competition between
two systems has been renewed, competition between liberal democracy on the one
hand, and something as yet unnamed on the other. None of the proposed terms, including “illiberal
democracy” is satisfactory, he argues.
Picking
up on the recent remark of Valery Zorkin, chief justice of the Russian
Constitutional Court, that serfdom was one of the main supports for “the
internal unity of the nation,” Gontmakher proposes that the competitor of
liberal democracy be called “’Feudalism 2.0.’”
In
this competition, some declare liberal democracy to be dead and even profess to
see advantages to this new feudalism; but people including Russians want not
just stability but freedom, opportunity and dignity – and those are only
possible with liberal democracy, the social commentator argues.
“Liberal
democracy,” he points out, “is built on the basis of political pluralism. As a
result of transparent processes, the left, the conservatives and the
nationalists may come to power … In this consists the spirit of liberal democracy
which of course isn’t reducible to pure liberalism as an ideological trend.”
He
cites the Oxford Manifesto of the 48th Congress of the Liberal
International in 1997 concerning the liberal agenda for the 21st
century which called for the support of values that have far more support than
the feudals do (liberal-international.org/who-we-are/our-mission/landmark-documents/political-manifestos/oxford-manifesto-1997/).
Consequently, Gontmakher continues,
despite all the problems and difficulties of the past three decades in Eastern
Europe and Russia as well, liberalism is fated to win out. Those who want it to
come sooner rather than later must prepare themselves, analyze their own errors
and those of others, and take responsibility.
This won’t be an easy struggle or
even one that will be won once and for all, but for those who believe in freedom,
opportunity and dignity, it is one ever more people are going to join.
