Good king. Yaroslav Shimov – about the “herd” and the gifts of unobvious freedom

“Everything for the people, but nothing with the help of the people” - this was the slogan under which the bureaucratic regime of neo-absolutism worked in the Austrian Empire in the mid-19th century, after the suppressed revolution of 1848-49. There was little new in this principle: a century earlier, “enlightened absolutist” rulers throughout Europe, from France to Russia and from Spain to Sweden, had done the same. They sought to benefit their subjects, but in such a way that these subjects themselves would not even think about participating in reforms designed to make their lives a little more comfortable, healthy and prosperous. And so that they thank their benefactors for this, first of all the main one - the good sovereign or empress.

Times have changed, but the model of the “good king” has survived many eras. Even some dictators of the 20th century, who are generally considered to be the embodiment of absolute evil, were able to put on the mask of a benefactor ruler for some time. During at least the first 10 years of his reign, Benito Mussolini was very popular both at home and abroad; leading Western democracies sought an alliance with him. The situation changed only after the Italian dictator launched a brutal colonial war against Abyssinia (Ethiopia), and then entered into an alliance with Hitler. Well, then with all the stops - until the final one, on the square in Milan, where the corpse of Mussolini, killed by the partisans, was hanged upside down.

What a long way to go. According to the widespread version, the safety margin of the Putin regime in today's Russia was ensured by the “zero” years with their social contract: citizens do not interfere in politics in exchange for relative consumer welfare. But then something went wrong...

This is the main catch: the “good king” is a perishable product. And not only because, as has long been known, absolute power corrupts absolutely, and a person is weak, especially if he is not the best person to begin with. There are also specific “technical” reasons. Any period of calm development and stability gives rise to social groups that have something to lose if the political situation changes, and therefore they are interested in having their interests taken into account when forming public policy. Simply put, the people, somewhat unaccustomed to the stick and accustomed to carrots, are beginning to demand democratization.

In Russia in 2011-12, this led to massive “white-ribbon” protests and the end of the presidential career of Dmitry Medvedev, who, according to Putin, played a little too hard at being a “good tsar.” (Reading today’s outpourings of the same Medvedev on Telegram, it is difficult to believe that 15 years ago he was considered almost a symbol of enlightened liberalism). Putin returned to the Kremlin, suppressed the protests, tightened the loose screws, turned public attention to imaginary external threats and turned on complete patriotic hysteria. Two years later, Crimea was annexed and war began in eastern Ukraine. The “Tsar” has lost the last signs of “kindness”.

The liberal democratic world has entered its stage of searching for “good kings”

Crimea and Donbass became for Putin about the same as Abyssinia was for Mussolini, and the full-scale invasion of Ukraine 8 years later was the same as the Duce’s entry into World War II in 1940.

Meanwhile, the liberal-democratic world has entered its stage of searching for “good kings.” By the beginning of the 21st century, democracy in many countries had “pupated”, turning into the power of various groups of oligarchic elites. At least, that's how it came to be perceived by many voters, especially those who had not fared well in the new world of a globalized economy, bureaucratic control, migration waves, and radical progressivism.

The pendulum has swung towards those politicians who - from Donald Trump to Viktor Orban and from Javier Miley to Andrej Babis - offered the masses a return to a more familiar and understandable system of values ​​and themselves as a “good king” capable of quickly and effectively solving the accumulated problems. But the reality, as always, turned out to be more complicated. Behind the new leaders loom the figures of new oligarchs , “close to the body,” and social problems, as it turns out, cannot be dealt with by snapping fingers or signing a dozen decrees.

National-conservative populism, as well as its antipode, radical progressivism, are still on the rise. Just look at the political revolution in Britain, where Nigel Farage's anti-migrant Reform UK party and Zac Polanski's Greens have become the new favorites of voters, while the traditional parties - Labor and the Conservatives - have faced a huge drop in popularity. But another phenomenon is also growing - disappointment in politics as such and distrust of politicians of any color. Under these conditions, part of the not-so-enlightened Western public even began to look sympathetically towards Russia and China: who knows, maybe that’s where the real “good kings” are to be found?

Disillusionment with politics as such and distrust of politicians of any color are growing

Both disappointment in politics and faith in a leader-benefactor have one psychological basis, which liberals often forget about: apoliticality as the natural state of an ordinary person, an ordinary man in the street. I do not attach any contemptuous connotation to the last word: a hard-working, self-confident, calm layman is the support of any social order, and Jaroslav Hasek’s satirical formula “moderate progress within the framework of the rule of law” is the best that human society is capable of.

Pushkin at one time showed himself to be a cynical realist no worse than Machiavelli, writing:

Graze, peaceful peoples!

The cry of honor will not wake you up.

Why do the herds need the gifts of freedom?

They should be cut or trimmed.

Their inheritance from generation to generation

A yoke with rattles and a whip.

But civil freedom and its high principles are not things that are taken for granted. For millions of people, something closer and more understandable is more important. For example, vigorously circulating social elevators that can bring a poor, but ambitious and hardworking person of simple origin a sharp improvement in social status. Or the notorious stability, in which you can hope that your children will live better than you lived. (Current 20-30 year olds in most developed countries are the first generation since the middle of the last century that, apparently, will not succeed). And these things, as history shows, are often possible without democracy.

It is on this that trust in the “good kings”, who are able to finally “restore order,” rests. Sometimes they are really capable of this, but, as the experience of Russia during the Putin era, and not only Russia, shows, only for the time being. Apoliticality, based on the principle “let them up there sort out their politics, and we will live our cozy private lives here,” turns out to be a dangerous mistake. After all, this principle beats another well-known maxim like an ace-six: “If you are not involved in politics, politics will sooner or later deal with you.” After February 24, 2022, the Russians were able to fully verify this.

But the same mistake is the intellectual’s contempt for the “herd.” (In online discussions of liberal liberals, you can also find stronger words, and, for example, Hillary Clinton in 2016 used the expression “basket of deplorables” in relation to Donald Trump voters, which can be roughly translated as “a bunch of wretched people”). The need for freedom is not an axiom, but a theorem that has to be proven continuously. And democracy is just a political mechanism that constantly needs to be filled with content acceptable to both the majority and minorities.

Otherwise, at the next crossroads of history, the figure of one or another “good king” will appear again. And then politics will again come down to the personal preferences, ideas and phobias of the ruler and to palace intrigues. And those who are far from the pinnacle of power can only pray that Augustus, and not Caligula, Alexander II, and not Ivan the Terrible, or, at worst, Brezhnev, and not Stalin, will be at this pinnacle this time.

Yaroslav Shimov – journalist and historian, columnist for Radio Liberty

Opinions expressed in the "Author's Rights" section may not reflect the views of the editors

Read Freedom on Telegram Make Freedom a priority source on Google Install the Mobile application
Radio Liberty