Anatoly Batashev. Monarchiya.ru: mysterious paths

Monarchiya.ru: mysterious paths
Anatoly Batashev

Publication date: August 21, 2001

Everyone comes to monarchical beliefs differently. It is given to someone to understand from a purely rationalistic position that the current ruling political regime is not ideal and needs checks and balances, which is what a legitimate monarchy is intended to become. Others think from the perspective of the Orthodox worldview. Still others are sincerely ready to take care of the state. They are confident that it is the monarchy that will save Russia and lead to the revival of the nation, state, morality, economy, legal and social guarantees.

For more than a year, I headed the apparatus of the Interregional Monarchical Movement on a voluntary basis. Many of the people around me were sincerely surprised and said: “Tolya, why do you need this?” Those who knew me by hearsay or didn’t know me at all laughed. After all, in our country the monarchy is clearly not held in high esteem. It all started with the ardent anti-monarchist agitation of commoners. During the years of Soviet power, a bucket of dirt was poured on our history, the previous state structure and the ruling dynasty. And at the beginning of perestroika, various kinds of extremists came under the monarchist banner, various kinds of unbalanced impostors, pseudo-knightly and pseudo-noble organizations began to appear.

However, the word "monarchist" has only one meaning. A monarchist is a supporter of the restoration of the monarchy, the return to the throne of the legitimate Head of the Russian Imperial House. This definition is important because, without going into disputes about who is the true bearer of the monarchical idea and who is false, we immediately cut off a number of forces posing as monarchists, but in fact not being such. We are talking about supporters:

a) impostors;

b) various kinds of Fuhrers, eager to see themselves on the Russian throne;

c) the so-called conciliar ideology, when it is proposed to “choose the most worthy” tsar from a whole range of candidates, ranging from the descendants of the Romanovs, as well as the descendants of outstanding statesmen, right up to pop artists, scientists, politicians, TV presenters, psychics...

These are not monarchists.

The first time I thought about the topic of monarchy was in February 1993. Then I was invited to Moscow to take part in the program “Clever Men and Clever Girls.” I got into a conversation with the host of the program, Yuri Pavlovich Vyazemsky. Vyazemsky, of course, is one of the smartest people in our country. We talked about different topics, sometimes he asked questions, and I had to answer. And one question stuck in my memory. Yuri Pavlovich asked: “What do you think, is the restoration of the monarchy possible in Russia?”

You can probably guess my answer: “Of course not!” What followed was a large set of arguments why not. A lot of time has passed, now there is a different culture and civilization, one person is physically unable to rule the state... Yuri Pavlovich did not say anything, the conversation smoothly moved on to other topics, but the very posing of the question by such a smart and intelligent person made me think. Why did he ask this particular question? Does he really admit the possibility that the monarchy could be restored?

A positive answer contradicted all the logic of my mind. Although by that time I understood a little about politics.

In the early 90s, I was a staunch supporter of the Democrats. But times are changing. I'm tired of living in a mess. There are a lot of thoughts in my head about how to develop Russia, but who needs these thoughts in the era of rampant glasnost? I remember the publication in Literaturka of Solzhenitsyn’s famous article “How can we organize Russia.” His prediction that the USSR would collapse seemed incredible. But he was justified. Now everyone understands why. From the position of a professional political scientist, it is not even difficult for me now to somehow calculate such a situation, but then the tools of political science were available only to a narrow circle of specialists.

At some point, it became clear that our society does not need rabid market liberals, but the most conservative ones . The success of the LDPR and then the communists in the Duma elections was precisely due to the fact that these parties acted from a position of conservatism. But the LDPR remained the party of the Fuhrer; it was never able to outgrow its leader, who turned the party into a tool for making money. The Communist Party of the Russian Federation had superficial conservatism. The ideology of the party has not gone far from Brezhnev’s times, while the pseudo-patriots who clung to it, like polyps to the bottom of a ship, were small cliques, cobbled together under one or another Fuhrer, who did not hesitate to flavor their patriotism with strong anti-Semitic rhetoric.

Primakov's government made up for the lack of conservative ideology at the government level. But the mistake of Luzhkov and Primakov was that both of these undoubtedly talented leaders bet on social democracy. While those who bet specifically on conservatism, or more precisely on the ideology that is usually characterized as neoconservatism, won a crushing victory, without any special prerequisites, if you look at the situation from the point of view of an outside observer.

Two years before the events described, while analyzing the political spectrum, I came to the conclusion that two important political forces were missing on the big Russian political scene - environmentalists and monarchists. But if the ecologists had at least “Cedar”, then the monarchists seemed to have completely laid low. Using the example of the monarchical courts of Europe, it was obvious to me how much the monarchy can do for Russia. Something else was obvious. The older generation did not understand what country they lived in, how to govern in a market economy, or where to lead the country. And here, it seemed to me, the generation of young people, under 25 years old, should play a big role. After all, the bulk of competent, modernly educated lawyers, economists, political scientists, psychologists, historians belong precisely to this generation.

This generation was still too young to have its own leaders. We do not yet have the achievements that people acquire by the age of 35 - 50 - leadership positions, stars on uniform, substantial fortunes. In these conditions, young people must have a leader. And not from the sphere of show business, etc. This should be a natural leader, and perhaps only Tsarevich Georgy Mikhailovich could become one. It was a choice. Conscious choice.

At the same time, a group of like-minded people and I had a desire to create a monarchist party. Events in Russia at that time clearly showed that only a miracle could save the country from destruction. We were slowly sliding into the abyss. The elderly and sick Yeltsin changed governments like gloves. In the south, bandits started a new war. Russia needed hope. For me, the monarchy became such a hope.

November 1999. At the international economic forum in Vladimir, I give a report on the topic of the younger generation in politics. I outline three possibilities for bringing the country out of the crisis - integration with the EU, autonomy for the regions of compatriots in the CIS, restoration of the monarchy. The audience applauds, but the reaction is by no means enthusiastic.

In March 2000, I was introduced to the leader of the Interregional Monarchist Movement, Kirill Kirillovich Nemirovich-Danchenko. I shared with him my thoughts on monarchism, without hiding the fact that I myself was thinking about creating a monarchist party. But since Kirill Kirillovich already had a capable structure, an already created party, I decided to work under his leadership. Nemirovich-Danchenko immediately took the bull (or rather, me) by the horns - and offered to create and lead the apparatus of the Movement.