| In Russia, under the brand of sovereign democracy, monarchical consciousness is being revived The question of the optimal form and best content of Russian statehood will remain relevant for a long time. Today, as part of an intensive political project, a special, national form of democracy is being sought, about which adherents of classical Western democracy have already expressed their politically correct displeasure.
However, it is worth remembering that this is not the first time Russia has mastered democracy. Even without mentioning the textbook republics (Novgorod and Pskov), it should be noted that democratic procedures played an important role in the state life of the country. Zemsky Sobors (“Council of All the Land”) were direct descendants of the veche of Ancient Rus'. The most important of the councils in terms of the number of deputies were not much inferior to the modern Duma, or even surpassed it - at the council of 1566 there were 374 people (nobles, clergy, boyars, clerks, merchants and other tax people), and at the council of 1613 - more 700 elected.
The most important state affairs were decided at the councils, up to the selection of the sovereign (as in the election of Mikhail Romanov). The population looked at the councils as the only way to overcome the turmoil and strengthen statehood, taking an active part in determining the electors. However, with the calm course of life, the importance of councils in the eyes of people weakened and they were perceived as an annoying duty, which they tried to avoid as far as possible or send the most scoundrels instead of necessary and useful people. Sometimes the governor himself had to look for elected deputies who were hiding from coming to the city.
Nevertheless, one can rightfully assert that the Russian monarchy grew on the soil of ancient Russian democracy.
But if today we are mastering democracy not for the first time, and we are developing capitalism in the country in a hundred years for the second round, the thought involuntarily arises: why shouldn’t the monarchy appear again on the basis of the already modern Russian democracy, especially since today it is called sovereign, that already gives rise to the idea of sovereignty?
This question was asked by the famous sociologist Mikhail Bokov, who published an article in the Monitoring magazine “Does Russia Need a Tsar?” The author argues that today in society, against the backdrop of democratic transformations, monarchical consciousness is being revived.
He sees the following reasons for this. Firstly, the people very easily parted with the idea of building an “earthly city,” which indicates the alienness of this idea to the Russian spirit.
Secondly, the author sees the similarity of our current situation with the situation a century ago in the search for “our own path” and the reluctance to copy Western models of democratic development.
Finally, thirdly, there is a constancy of respect and support for the president of the country against the backdrop of constant criticism of all other branches of government. In this regard, Mikhail Bokov cites the idea of the Russian philosopher Nikolai Berdyaev that in Russia only the power “sanctified from above,” the power of God’s anointed one, is respected, while all other levels of power are perceived as something “unclean” and unworthy.
Therefore, the attitude towards the president today is a manifestation of the resurgent monarchical consciousness in society.
It should be noted here that in democratic communities, even the most developed ones, in general the situation with trust in power is not the best, and Russia is no exception. But there is no doubt that if today we ask society the question: “Would you like the current President of the Russian Federation to become an All-Russian sovereign?” - there is no guarantee that the majority of Russians will not answer something like this: “It is, of course, undemocratic, but it would be great!” (options - “president for life”, “president for 25 years”, etc.).
However, Mikhail Bokov does not consider the modern institution of monarchy as political and domineering. He talks about the moral and consolidating role of the monarchy for society, citing the example of King Juan Carlos I, who acted as the guarantor of constitutional order during the attempted coup in Spain, and Elizabeth II, who heads 700 public organizations and is the commander-in-chief of the British armed forces.
At the same time, the sociologist notes the peculiarity of the Russian monarchical consciousness, in which the religious component has historically been strong. That is why today the restoration of the monarchy in the country is impossible. Bokov writes: “The religious component of monarchical consciousness in society is so weak that the restoration of the monarchy today is out of the question. The modern monarchical consciousness is not that it demands a tsar, but that it perceives the mechanism of existing presidential power as a mechanism of monarchical power.”
On the contrary, Bokov finds a paradox precisely in the fact that “the current monarchical consciousness will protect itself from the imposition of a monarchy, as from deception,” since it is an “atheistic monarchical consciousness.” And any attempt to legitimize the monarchy today in such conditions will turn into a farce.
However, we know that in the country over the past 15 years the number of not only believers, but churchgoers (that is, those who practice religious life according to the dogmas of the faith) has been steadily growing. Today there are about 15% of such people among the adult population of the country, and the growth dynamics of their numbers suggests that in 15-20 years they may be about 35-40% of the total population of the country. On the other hand, the number of atheists in the country is steadily declining, as evidenced by sociological research data.
Is it possible to assume that under these conditions the monarchical consciousness of society, having freed itself from the shackles of atheism, will be prepared for the restoration of the institution of monarchy? In this case, what functions will the monarchy take on, having been reborn on the basis of modern democracy? How will other traditional Russian religions (and above all Islam) react to this revival?
There cannot be answers to these questions today, just as Mikhail Bokov does not answer the question posed in the title of his article. He only states: “The monarchical consciousness, having woken up, prefers to wait.”
Well, we will wait, remembering that in Russia everything is possible and just when no one expects it. Mikhail TARUSIN, head of the sociology sector of the Institute of Public Design |
|
