Paul
Goble
Staunton, July 14 – Vladimir Putin
has positioned himself as a defender of conservative values and won enormous
support from many in Russia and the West who identify as conservatives, but
Putin’s conservatism and the conservatism found in the West are two very
different things, according to Ilya Shablinsky, a specialist on constitutional
law.
In a commentary in today’s “Nezavisimaya
gazeta,” Shablinsky who is a professor of law at Moscow’s Higher School of Economics, says
that the two forms of conservatism on offer are so different it is difficult to
believe that the followers of the one would honestly identify with the
followers of the other (ng.ru/politics/2014-07-14/3_kartblansh.html).
European or Western conservatism, he
writes, “has served as one of the foundations of democratic regimes in a large
number of countries.” But what Putin calls conservatism “is called upon simply
to justify and shape a regime of personal power as the most suitable instrument”
for achieving his goals.
Shablinsky offers examples of this
contrast. Western governments headed by
conservatives long ago stopped being concerned about programs put on by foreign
stars or tightly regulating the cultural life of their societies. Preserving traditional values like the
family, religion and education simply doesn’t require that.
One reason conservatives have for
taking this position is their experience with the three 20th century
totalitarianisms, Soviet, German and Italian, an experience that taught them
that trying to impose the views of the man on top on everyone else is not only
arbitrary and in violation of traditional values but inevitably involves the
use of government force.
Those in Russia today who think that
way, who want to impose their views by banning the views of others and through the
use of force are not conservatives but totalitarians, Shablinsky says.
Another important characteristic of
genuine Western conservatism is a stress on the idea that the rights of the
individual are interconnected with his or her responsibilities. “Conservative
politicians support the value of order, that is, the strict observation of law
and supporting the important role of the police and army in this.”
Conservatives, Shablinsky continues,
are always ready to support the needs of the force structures, but for them “order
in the state is always and only a condition for the realization of freedoms!” No
less than liberals and sometimes more, conservatives support the freedom of the
individual and oppose the tyranny of the majority or of any one-man rule.
Russians who call themselves
conservatives in contrast “are prepared to defend in every possible pay the
one-man character of power.” Freedoms
are important to them “only to the extent that they do not create threats or
even simply discomfort for the unlimited power of the first person.”
Conservatives in the West, the
Moscow scholar says, defend the right of private property as almost an absolute
value. People in Russia who call themselves conservatives see property as
conditional on the relationship between the individual who holds it and the
leader at the top of the political pyramid.
And yet another subject on which the
two groups disagree is nationalism.
Conservatives in the West oppose setting one ethnic or religious group
against each other, especially to the point of violence. They thus regularly condemn “aggressive
nationalism” or indeed “any aggression under nationalist slogans.” Russian “conservatives”
think just the opposite.
Dmitry Rogozin is among those
Russian leaders who likes to call himself a conservative, but his understanding
of conservatism is very much on display when he talks about the support
European conservatives have given to Moscow with regard to Ukraine.
In fact, “all authoritative
conservative parties in Europe” have denounced what Russia has done, the legal
scholar points out. The only people who
are backing the Kremlin are “in the camp of ultra-nationalists,” who sometimes
like their friends in Moscow also misuse the word “conservative.”
No comments:
Post a Comment