Strong Russian State Now ‘Enemy of Russian Conservatives,’ Savvin Says

Paul Goble

            Staunton, December 4 – Many Russians who consider themselves conservatives back the idea of a strong state out of inertial fears of revolution and disintegration, Dimitry Savvin says; but in doing so, they forget that a strong state can be used for causes they abhor and thus do not see that today, a strong Russian state is “the natural enemy” of conservatives.

            One might have thought that the 20^th century in which “anti-Christian regimes” appealed to conservatives by invoking the threat of disorder and revolution only to turn on Christian values would have been enough to cure Russian conservatives of that, the editor of the Riga-based Harbin portal says (harbin.lv/segodnya-silnoe-gosudarstvo-nash-estestvennyy-vrag).

            But unfortunately, Savvin continues, that has not proved to be the case. And Russian conservatives have not yet learned that the stronger the state and the longer its powers are in place, the more destructive of the values conservatives and Christians hold dear such regimes are likely to be. 

            Indeed, “a renaissance of faith and traditional values turns out to be possible only where the totalitarian oppression was comparably weak and not too prolonged,” as in the case of Poland, for example, but not for Russia. Conservatives must recognize this, and also recognize that “a strong state is an instrument which can be used for any ideological program.”

            The explanation for the blindness of many conservatives on this point, Savvin argues, lies in “the most powerful historical inertia that was given birth by the traditions of Christian imperial power, traditions which had been in place for almost 1700 years” before the collapse of empires in 1917-1918.

            When those empires collapsed and with them “the symphony” of a powerful state and a powerful church, a cancer arose with the conservative portion of the population and “the idea of a strong state as a goal in and of itself, with its spread into various ideological spheres gave birth to deformed ideological mutations.”

            To overcome this and to avoid being used by their enemies, Russian conservatives “must look truth in the face and recognize that over the course of the last century, Christian civilization has been fighting rearguard actions.”  Calling for the restoration of conservative values without the restoration of a strong faith won’t lead anywhere.

            That means that conservatives are not now in a position to achieve their goals but must ensure that they don’t support developments that will leave them in an even worse shape. Given where the state is now, they must recognize that “the stronger the state becomes … the greater probability that our life will become extremely uncomfortable.”

            And that leads to “inevitable conclusion that today a strong state is our natural enemy.” Thus, conservatives must back those who work to limit the power of the state, they must oppose any moves toward a new totalitarianism, and they must advance the demands of the liberal movement in the 19^th century, including a free market and liberal political arrangements.

            “This program is not our ideal,” Savvin concedes; but it is the only way conservatives can oppose those who want to use the power of the state against Christianity and conservatism. At present, conservatives are in a minority and on the defensive, but it will be far better if they remain committed to their values than be misused by false allies.