Paul
Goble
Staunton, March 9 – The fundamental if
often unrecognized paradox of Russia under the rule of Vladimir Putin is that the
country has made giant strides in regaining its sovereignty but that at the
same time it has put itself at risk of losing its national identity, according
to influential Eurasianist Aleksandr Dugin.
In a Zavtra commentary, Dugin says
that the recovery of state sovereignty is very important because only “a
sovereign state does what it wants.” And
sovereignty” he continues, “abolishes the idea of international law, the system
of treaties which are constantly changing among sovereign subjects” (zavtra.ru/blogs/russkie_na_grani_poteri_identichnosti).
“Several sovereign states can force
another sovereign state to do or not do something,” he suggests, “but this is a
decision based on force and not on law.” At the same time, Dugin argues, “the
sovereignty of one state ends where the sovereignty of another is in effect.” Only liberals rely on international law and
seek to reduce sovereignty to something as small as possible.
With regard to sovereignty, Putin
has achieved an enormous amount by having decided to pursue “the strengthening
of sovereignty which was lost in the 1990s.”
According to Dugin, “when our rulers have strengthened sovereignty, they
have covered themselves with glory; when they have lost it, shame. This measure
of sovereignty remains in Russia to this day.”
But the situation with regard to
identity is less good, the Eurasianist thinker says. “Identity is the state of
the people, of the popular spirit, and of society which transmits Tradition and
preserves that which was before. We are a Russian and Orthodox people. Culture
in language, faith, and many small elements is what makes Russians Russians.”
According to Dugin, “identity at a
minimum involves three people: the father, the man and the son.” It is
something which is handed down from one generation to another, and with this, “we
now have problems” because identity in our society is ill and we are on the
brink of losing it.”
Sovereignty and identity are
interrelated, of course. For example, “under Peter, we strengthened sovereignty
but lost identity; under Nicholas, we gained enormous sovereignty and began to
restore identity.” But then something fell apart, and Russians lost both until
the Bolsheviks “gradually restored sovereignty and completely changed identity.”
“Now sovereignty is on the rise,”
Dugin continues. That is good, but Russian identity is in trouble and is “degrading.” “We have lost Soviet meanings, the model of
monarchy looks at present like a caricature … and nationalism is flawed and
pathetic.”
Dugin concludes: “this paradox
defines the time in which we live. Let us hope” that having recovered
sovereignty, Russians can now do something similar with identity.
No comments:
Post a Comment