Valery D. Zorkin
1. Let me start by stating that I will speak not about some unique path of Russia, but simply about the Russian reality, and about its correlation with legal regulators. We all know what happens to a vehicle if its regulators or controls fail. If you stop following the rules – the catastrophe is imminent. Is there so much difference between the breach of legal norms in politics and the neglect of the traffic rules? Recent examples fr om different countries show us that disrespect to legal norms in political life leads to blood and nation-wide tragedy. "Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind", as it is well known.
Who is responsible for such extraordinary incidents? Surely, the one who loses ability control – no matter what – be it a car, an airplane, or society. Wh ere the regulators stop working, the society finds itself in a deregulated state, and this state firstly produces bloody incidents, and then extraordinary efforts to overcome these incidents.
With regard to the issue at hand let me recite the verses of Sergey Yesenin about Lenin:
"And those he had left behind
Must now bind with concrete shackles
The country left in raging flood".
This raging flood was the result of systemic deregulation born by the Russian Empire elite"s lack of ability to timely repair the regulators allowing effective control over state and society. It is said that history does not know subjunctive mood. But there is a term "alternative history". Correct interpretation of the events of national history gives a key to understand the logic of legal development of the country that largely determines the events of today.
"People who had forgotten their history are doomed to repeat it". Time and again we are amazed by precision of this phrase. And yet, fr om time to time we "step on the same rakes", as we say in Russia. Why is this so?
More than once in history someone had to "bind a raging flood with concrete shackles". If we do not want for someone to start "binding in concrete shackles", let alone to "steamroll in concrete" (one all too easily turns into another!), we must not allow deregulation, not allow a "raging flood".
But what does it mean "not allow"? This does not mean "hold and not let go", and not even "to chill"! This means – to bring the regulators to concordance with society, to demonstrate gentle care with regard to these regulators, and resoluteness with regard to their timely readjustment, to changing the non-working regulators for the ones corresponding to modern requirements.
There is no need to prove that opposition to "raging floods" and care for correct regulators in principle presuppose unlimited respect to the regulators as such. Of course, here we speak about the regulators compatible with fundamental human ideas about the right and the just. This means something named humanism in the wide and the only correct meaning of this word.
Contemporary society (the society of modernism) faces the triumph of strictly legal type of equality that was proposed to society and accepted by it – the equality of all before law and court. The society of modernism has reverence to law at its very core. The law is transformed into effective secular religion. This means a sort of cult of law, and the based thereupon and constantly supported by society faith into omnipotence of the written law and institutes supporting the law. This is the faith into integrity of judges, into ability of the legal system to ensure effective equality in the eyes of law.
To strengthen this faith as a new cultural basis for modernism, to ensure unity of this faith and effective institutes, to provide certain quality of people forming these institutes, to socially prove the equality of all before the law – this is what means to take the legal barrier and to find oneself in modernism.
With the legal development of humanity, the idea of equality of all before the law has gradually acquired the traits of equality before the lawful law, based upon acceptance of the system of inherent inalienable human rights, not only civil and political, but also social.
Let us take a closer look at some examples that confirm or deny our movement to this goal, that is, and I speak without a trace of irony, glorious and life-saving. Are we close to this goal? If we are, what is this countless evidence of non-equality before law and courts that fill our life?
In society of modernism, at the initial stage there can be flagrant social inequality. But something that utterly should not exist as an accepted fact – is flagrant legal inequality. Inequality of people before law, inequality before courts which dot the i after a legal dispute, and therefore which serve as mouth for the very spirit of Law.
As soon as such inequality is accepted as a fact, modernism finds itself cancelled. There is void. In reality this void will be filled firstly by more or less overtly criminal regulators. If people do not believe they can find honourable and just (i.e. not defined by bribe or a phone call) solution in court, they will still resolve their problems. How? They will turn to thugs to find help, both ordinary and those of the "werewolf" (rogue officer) types, to corrupt officials (including the "unjust judge") and other socially destructive subjects. But the most dangerous for state is when the court itself is corrupted, since in this case arbitrariness presents itself under the guise of law. Then there will be criminal "flood" or modernist "concrete". Then, there is no third indeed!
Flagrant legal inequality before law and court must be overcome, and evidence must be shown to society, such evidence that it will accept, saying: "Yes, now I believe that this is true indeed!" Otherwise there is criminal "flood" waiting, and there is no understanding who and how will bind it with shackles. And what would these shackles be made of.
More precisely, it is clear how such "flood" will be bound in "concrete shackles". Worldwide experience gives a clue in this regard, as well as our national traditions. Such a "flood" cannot be "shackled in concrete" cheaply. And is there any good in finding oneself shackled in "concrete"?
Real life was and always will be the measuring stick for anyone who creates legal watercourse for it, be it made of "concrete", "granite" or something else. One must not create watercourse without understanding what exactly will run through it.
People of my age remember the movie "The meeting place cannot be changed", wh ere Vladimir Vysotsky brilliantly starred as Gleb Zheglov. Zheglov"s catch phrase: "a thief should sit in jail", is also well known. Nothing corresponds more accurately to the request of majority of our citizens now. But we remember another thing! That Zheglov himself would easily break the law. But the very high popularity of the clearly illegal position of Zheglov in Russia has its roots deeply in culture, in the mass mentality.
This in turn requires special efforts fr om the Russian legislative and law-enforcement systems – as well as special caution – in developing and introducing legal norms that should combine modernizing legal adequacy and regulatory effectiveness. In the culture of every society there are stronger and weaker sides, and only due account of them connects law as ideal principles of the right and just with the law as a real normative system (such as "granite" or "concrete" watercourse), meaning something called upon to regulate the movement of precisely our own social, cultural, state, political "stream". Let me underline – our stream, and not a "stream" as such. If we don"t take this into account, the "stream" will break the watercourse.
The Russian state as a guarantor of legal basis of our life must be in optimal state for resolving these problems in terms of correlation between ideal legal principles and the present difficult and troubling reality. The legal norms must not come into violent confrontation with reality.
2. The tragic figure Alexander II – the outstanding Russian reformer rightfully called the Liberator – does not allow discussion of his deeds by way of formal praising. Same is true for equally formal pointing to certain mistakes made by the tsar in realisation of the planned transformations.
History lives not by apologetics or criticisms. It lives for us insofar as we bear the will to truly understand it, and therefore, to understand ourselves. When we look into the well of history, we see our own reflection in its mysterious waters, and gain different understanding of ourselves, but also of something that can and should be called the fate of the people.
The will to understand the past for the sake of the present and the future cannot die as long as our fatherland lives. Today, our goal is to defend the highest and undisputed values. I mean the very same values for the glory of which Alexander II has broken the chains of lawlessness and unfreedom 150 years ago, challenging both the stagnant ruling class and irrational radical intellectuals.
Union of Russian spirituality with the legal order and freedom based upon equality of all before law and courts — this is the great aspiration that is inseparable fr om the name of Alexander II, the Liberator tsar.
In the mid-nineteenth century, a profound crisis of the old social and political-legal structure and the related crisis of identity of the Russian elite emerged, which was perceived as the collapse of the entire customary world order. Fyodor Tyutchev wrote about such subjective perception of tectonic shifts of history in his poem Cicero (1829):
"The Roman orator spoke out
"midst civil war and strife:
"Too long I slumbered, and Rome"s night
Has overtaken me upon my journey!"
True!.. But in parting with Rom"s glory
Fr om the Capitoline heights
You watched in all its grandeur
The setting of her bloody sun!.."
The country moulded by Nikolay I could not answer to new challenges arising fr om the readiness of all the Europe (which at the time meant all West) to lead concerted anti-Russian politics. All the delicacy of the Russian diplomacy, all the courage and talent of our military leaders and soldiers could only serve as components in the new system which was the only one capable of instilling
necessary dynamics in the country.
How to connect the national spirituality, this core of statehood, with novelty allowing to switch fr om static to dynamic, without breaking this spiritualty? This was the problem to which Alexander II searched the answer, having found himself under time crunch not only in terms of politics or economy, but also in terms of history itself.
Tsar and the people … Tsar and intellectuals … Tsar and certain pillars of tsarism … These are the problems requiring solution insofar as we seriously discuss the phenomenon of Alexander II.
Why reformer-tsar was not accepted by those who suffered from the lack of freedom and basis of law, by those who died on scaffolds or perished during penal servitude for the sake of obtaining these values? After all, Alexander II made not one, but several steps towards them. How did they answer?
But were they the only ones to do this after all? Or was it untrue that within nobility whom we would now call "ruling class" there was quiet discontent ripening with regard to the actions of Alexander II? Is it not true that we must consider subtle, obscure moments of union between the radicals and conservatives that brought demise upon the reformer-tsar? Is it not one of the lessons of the tragic irrationality of ruling class and Russian radical intellectuals sharply opposed to it?
Were it not the fruits of this irrationality that eventually turned into bloody cataclysms, the blame for which is until now somehow placed only on a small group of troublemakers? What did the others do during the historical time afforded to them? Destroyed all their saviours – reformers, from Alexander II to Stolypin, and then placed all the blame for rivers of blood spilled solely on the revolutionary rebels?
Is it not so that the lessons of that tragedy that the country suffered after losing Alexander II teach that the responsibility for future turmoil always lies with the ruling class, unable to timely sacrifice even the smallest part of its selfish interests in order to preserve the true bond with the people? The bond outside which there is no, and there cannot be no true sovereign stability.
If the country is not ready to sensitively react to challenges of time …
If the elite resists political leader who has observed these challenges and strives to build a new type of relations between the elite and the people …
If the intellectuals are able only to discredit everything coming from the leader and in the face of critical moment they are incapable of resolving current problems neither through reforms nor through revolution …
Tell me, how can full-scale state catastrophe be avoided in the face of all these dire "ifs"? And who is responsible for it?
At the turn of the 19th-20th centuries, i.e. 40 years after the beginning of the reforms, Boris Chicherin, an outstanding lawyer and statesman, the author of the concept of liberal conservatism ("liberal measures – strong power"), bitterly noted that the country was again facing the threat of a "raging flood". In the poet"s words, he said:
"The courts are black with black untruths,
Which bearing with this sign of slave,
Unholy lies and godless bluff
Inside of it remain".
Boris Chicherin also clearly understood all the difficulties of constitutional reforms in Russia with "the servility entrenched over centuries on the one hand, and frivolous liberalism on the other," wrote the following on the eve of the 1905 Revolution: "Today"s Russia is controlled by the scum of the Russian people, in whom servility prevailed and even what was decent in them from their youth had disappeared". And only a strong reformer, by limiting the arbitrariness of power, can prevent an explosion and "release the healthy elements that hide in the depths of the Russian land."
Is Russia now capable of learning the lessons of the tragedy that we almost relive when we discuss it? Or Russia once again will appear insensitive to anything that can be named its own tragic experience?
First let us accept – even facing the current extremely ugly situation – that we respect historical achievements of the West. That we have learned from the West. That some of its achievements in the sphere of ensuring legal basics are truly admirable. But admiring one thing, we look at the other with concern. The name of this other is of course nihilism, including the nihilism in the sphere of law.
The many faces of anarchy grow precisely from nihilism as the most severe malady of the West that now grows to be catastrophic. By the way this was and is discussed by most prominent thought leaders in the West. These include several Popes and brightest secular minds of the West.
In all times, both anarchical imps and grand inquisitors grow specifically from nihilism. Was Dostoyevsky"s Grand Inquisitor not a nihilist? What else than nihilism was planted by this character seemingly standing against anarchy? It is the union of anarchists and grand inquisitors founded upon nihilism that grows reactionary forces stomping all the reformative impulses. It was such a union of extreme reactionary forces and anarchism that brought Alexander II to his demise. And since the legal anarchism not only remains undefeated but on the contrary is now more massive and dangerous than ever, conditions are still present allowing similar union to appear once again, aiming to destroy the spirit of freedom and law not only in Russia, but worldwide.
We must not be deceived by surface conflicts between extreme reactionaries and anarchy radicals. We must be firmly prepared for the war on two fronts: with the reactionism and with the anarchism – and clearly understand that in reality this is one and the same frontline, to put it figuratively: "one body with two arms". Think about it: in the XXI century we have already lived through two very bitter decades. During these, several times we were on the brink of the state-wide catastrophe. We have paid an exorbitant price for acquisitions in the sphere of freedom and legal order that were extremely needed for Russia.
What"s the result? Even now, we hear irresponsible words of someone calling for full folding up of everything gained, only to return to some alleged Utopia of the soil.
Is it not obvious that the singers of unfreedom and arbitrariness which call for something like that, in reality intend to destroy Russia? And that these singers declining necessity to combine freedom and legal order with their praises of order as such – are reactionary nihilists going hand in hand with the anarchical nihilists?
Indeed, we have lived through something similar during the era of Alexander II, as well as later on. Unfortunately, our historians have not yet given us clear and final evidence showing such a union during Alexander II or Stolypin. We can only guess who was standing behind nihilists-anarchists and controlled their terrorist atrocities. And specifically which reactionary nihilists instigated anarchical nihilists to deeds that were deadly for the country.
But while these strictly historical calamities are not solved, their philosophical and legal meaning is already rather visible. The reactionary legal nihilism preaching to arbitrariness and unfreedom for the sake of phantom order must be declined with the same strictness as anarchical nihilism. No one should be deceived by seemingly religious sentences of reactionary nihilism.
For the XXI century Russia, the Great Inquisitor of Dostoyevsky is not just an artistic image. It is a symbol possessing deep spiritual, legal and political meaning. This is a lesson, and a warning. And this is a toughest religious challenge.
To any thoughtful person it is apparent that a Christian cannot remain Christian in declining law as a measure of freedom – equality of all before law and court, equal rights and justice – since establishing legal freedom as an absolute human core is the whole point of Christian preach, whole point of all the beliefs based on humanistic prominence of a human. Such prominence is unthinkable if freedom of human will is negated.
One should remember that at the end of Dostoyevsky"s parable about the Great Inquisitor the zealot of religious purity confesses to Jesus Christ that he is long united not with God, but with the prince of this world. This is the creature that for any Christian appears to be the true master of legal nihilism.
Who and for what purpose once again acts on behalf of this reactionary nihilism?
Who and for what purpose even now – allegedly for the sake of conservatism – calls for the country to refuse taking the legal barrier?
Is it possible on the basis of legal nihilism to establish "expedient, fair and merciful court equal for all", meaning to establish lawful justice?
Is it possible after terrible lessons of the past that had turned into two state-wide catastrophes in the single XX century to praise precisely those perilous things that gave birth to these catastrophes?
Was there too little heroic deeds and great achievements in our history of the XX century and earlier centuries?
Why then do we often choose as reference point not these deeds and achievements, but the spirit of unfreedom and arbitrariness which had destroyed everything great that was created by our noble ancestors?
To learn from the West about the great tradition of freedom and legal order – is our duty in the face of uncountable sacrifices on the altar of greatness of Russia, our duty before the future generations to whom we must leave a state under the rule of law, and justice.
But accepting such apprenticeship we must not mistake it for the spirit of "blind, servile, stupid mimicking" that was condemned already by Griboyedov in his immortal piece "Woe from Wit". I am speaking not only about the cheap mimicking which comes from the least smart part of our so-called Westernism. And not even about the unbridled anarchic spirit constantly produced by this cheap pseudo-western phenomenon with reference to the West, which has always suppressed any manifestations of political anarchy and chaos.
The latter is sufficiently obvious. Hardly anyone doubts that any Western authority would undertake adequately severe measures to suppress the anti-legal madness that was created in 2014 in Kiev by people who allegedly stood for Western path and Western values. In the West such outrage would be extinguished with unprecedented cruelty. And this would be done precisely in the name of harmonious combination of the idea of freedom and legal order. In its own territory, the West vigilantly watches for rigorous observance of the balance between these two foundations. It is too obvious wh ere the breach of this balance would lead.
But this is precisely wh ere the problem lies: protecting its own territory as a holy city wh ere the freedom and order are balancing each other, the West demonstrates different behaviour outside this holy city, in the territory wh ere according to it there can only grow barbarism or savagery. Moreover, the West fosters growth of barbarism and savagery outside its own sacred walls. It does this for the sake of establishment of the third of principles that it is guided by.
Apart fr om the principle of freedom which is indeed leading for the West fr om ancient times and seen by the West as a "thing in itself and for itself" (meaning the thing intended only for inter-Western usage), and the principle of legality which under the same terms is seen by the West as a merit which fruits can be tasted only by the West – the West also follows the third principle, the principle of power. According to this principle, in the foreign territory a "civilized" subject of power must deal with the savage and barbaric object, and the subject does not nearly observe the first two principles, the place of which is strictly within western benevolence. Outside the wall of the holy city of civilization, in the territory of savagery and barbarism, the city is allowed anything that contributes to strengthening power of the subject over the object. The method of such exercise of power is known long ago: Divido et Impera...
The more anarchy and reactionarism there is outside the western holy city, the easier it appears for this city to implement the principle of power. This was what the city founders believed. And these are the thoughts of those who presently live in it and direct it.
This is why such zealots of harmony between freedom and legal order are prepared to support even darkest forces of anarchy and reactionarism insofar as it concerns someplace outside their home, in the territory of barbarians and savages. In this territory, solely the principle of power should be implemented, separately from everything else.
Were it not the same "zealots of harmony between two noble causes" from inside the holy city that organised outside of it, in Russia, the union of anarchy and reactionary nihilists incompatible with these causes in the era of Alexander II, Stolypin, and in era of the fall of USSR?
As recently noted very undiplomatically and even simple-mindedly by the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Mr Josep Borrel at the opening of the European diplomatic academy: "Europe is a garden … the rest of the world … is not exactly a garden. Most of the rest of the world is a jungle, and the jungle could invade the garden". While he later added that "surrounding [Europe] with high walls is not going to be a solution … the gardeners have to go to the jungle", this phrase hardly tricked anyone. The perspective of white people ("privileged" as he said) going to the jungle and to the aborigines hardly inspired anyone outside the European garden. The results of such engagement could be seen and still can be seen in Yugoslavia, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan, and now in Ukraine.
This approach detrimental to humanity in the end cannot but turn against those who attempt to use it only outside of their city. The naked principle of power for the sake of power is a beast that will firstly devour everything outside the walls of the city that created it, and then will reign within these walls. There is much to indicate that the beast is now ready to feast not only on savages and barbarians. That the harmony of law and freedom will be devoured in the name of absolute triumph of the principle of power, cleansed of everything at all, and most importantly – from law and morals. I now speak of the global and total domination of this principle.
3. In the present day reality, many facts testify that the current law is indeed not complete. To an extent, there is no denial of a deep rift between ideal of law and our reality. It can be even accepted that this rift is not closing, but growing. And that growing of this rift bring us all omens of ill-fate.
Obviously these misfortunes will not differentiate between the rich and the poor. Having no intention to increase the potential of confrontation, I am only drawing attention to the connection between the state of society and the state of law in this society. It is impossible to move to degeneration, to transformation of society into a primitive pack, and at the same time to lim it oneself to statements, even if those are in any way true, that present situation in the sphere of law is far from perfect. The degradation of social life must be prevented. Such influence must be applied to society so as to prevent its transformation into some similarity of a criminal pack. Only where the negative social tendencies are broken we can count on the narrowing of the rift between the ideal of law and our reality. There is no, and there can be no other method to fight for establishment of an ideal of law.
The basics of social life correspond to the basic social regulators. Ignoring the connections between state of social life and the state of law is the sign of disastrous short-sightedness. This short-sightedness today is demonstrated by those who justly resent shortcomings of our legal life, but categorically refuse to discuss to what extent these are conditioned by the social life. As is the society, so is the law.
So, what society do we have? I think that there is no other equally acute question that is directly and vitally connected to law.
With great interest I have read the article by Leon Aron entitled "Self-restraint of the Authority: On the Moral and Personal Choice in Building the new Russian Statehood" published in the "Independent Gazette" in the end of 2012, soon after the events at Bolotnaya Square. Mr Aron at the time was the director of Russian studies at the American Enterprise institute — quite a solid scientific institution. Please do not view my reasoning as resentment of a Russian loyalist with regard to the point of view of an American westerner. On the contrary, I believe that the article by Mr Aron compares favourably against the articles of our own westerners, since it does not neglect something called ideals.
He states that moral state of society determines the law, and I agree with it.
But after that the author begins to praise the moral state of society that gave birth to Gorbachyov perestroika. He argues: "The moral denial of the old regime – is the specific characteristics of the truly great, classic revolutions of the Modern age: the English, the American, the French". Having drawn attention to this feat of the listed revolutions, the author begins to praise Gorbachyov"s perestroika that was allegedly in every way similar to these great revolutions.
But is this so that the great revolutionary motivation lies solely with the moral denial of the old regime? Is this true that there is no new ideal and new moral passion? Is this not true that the motor of revolution were some understandings of a positive ideal? Of an ideal connecting strict rationalism and dreams of the people about justice? Is this not true that lack of this positive moral contents turns a revolution into a turmoil – into its opposite?
Is all this not obvious? Is it not obvious that praise of perestroika and justification of the Yeltsin"s shelling of his own parliament is addressed not to the past but to the future? That this is the way to model – precisely model – the new wave of absolute moral negativism to that which happens now, and that this wave of total moral negativism is called by many – "perestroika-2".
Comparing the perestroika"s with the truly great revolutions apparently is intended to overcome the deep disgust of Russian society to the past turmoil, the disgust that does not allow declining into the abyss of a new turmoil, and to invite the society to slide into this abyss with loud declarations about moral imperfections of everything present.
I am far from justifying these moral imperfections or even from belittling them. But let us think, on the basis of example offered by Mr Aron, about the difference between turmoil and revolution that brings new hope and new creativity.
I have already said that the first difference between a revolutionary and a troublemaker – is the presence of a positive ideal. An ideal that answers to deep desires of people, that is concordant to new historical tendencies and that is a well-thought one. But a revolutionary brings with him not only moral positivity of the revolutionary goal. He also brings with him personal moral positivity. A revolutionary does not only flail the vices of the rulers brought down by him. He also establishes that he himself is not implicated in these vices.
But after revealing all the ruler"s vices to the masses, a revolutionary does not stop there. He brings to masses no only an ideal text, an ideal preach, and ideal blueprints of a new highly moral life. He also brings himself to masses, as a highly moral person. A true revolutionary quells the pride of his "self" by the message that he brings to life. He puts this ideal message higher than his ambitions. He is prepared to die for this message. And this is why he is a revolutionary and not a mere troublemaker.
What was the morally positive revolutionary message that was brought to the people by Gorbachyov and Shevardnadze, who are put by Mr Aron on the same level with Cromwell and Robespierre?
And since when the great revolutions are led by kings? The great revolutions bring kings down. What kind of revolution is the one wh ere the winners are the highest representatives of the pre-revolutionary class? When, and in what revolution moving force was represented by renegades? I am not speaking about the quality of this defection, but of the obvious defection as such. Gorbachev, Yakovlev, Shevardnadze, Yeltsin – they all are renegades in a strictly scientific meaning of the word. So, these are revolutionaries-kings (or kings-revolutionaries). What is this new phenomenon of Ludovico XVI who does not die on a guillotine, but triumphantly relishes the transfer fr om royalism to a republic? There is no mistake that this phenomenon has nothing in common with the great revolutions mentioned by Mr Aron. But it has striking resemblance to something that is characteristic for turmoil.
Remember the works of Karamzin or the Pushkin"s "Boris Godunov".
Moral critique – and the boyars Shuysky and Vorotynsky who straddle it.
Moral critique – and military traitor Basmanov who owes everything to his patron, and who eliminates the patron"s children mercilessly.
Moral critique – and cynical, false-faced swindler who parasites upon foreign gossip and despair of the people.
Moral critique – and dirty, predatory, merciless occupants from other lands.
We may have different feelings about Robespierre or Cromwell. But they were never propagators of lawlessness, of enrichment by all possible means. They spoke of justice, served justice and established the new moral way of life.
What was the moral code declared and established by Yeltsin? A moral code of predatory oligarchy?
What is the self-restraint of authority that Mr Aron speaks of? To whom he addresses? Does he address the parents of children who died in the parliament shelled from tanks by Yeltsin? How is self-restraint concordant with the desire of Yeltsin to hide all evidence and evade investigation of everything connected to shelling of our parliament? Until now, there is no such investigation! What other motives apart from desire to keep the power and all the merits it brings, could create the Yeltsin"s Decree № 1400?
Crushing moral critique was brought down to communist nomenclature which allegedly lived in unprecedented luxury. Now, society already understands everything. It understands that the moral critique of the time was based on monstrous exaggerations. And that the result of this critique was the evolution of Yeltsin from travelling by trams to unprecedented oligarchy regime with its flagrant orgy of richness. And to the monstrous poverty of everyone.
Maybe this was what launched the frightful processes of increasing social degradation? Maybe this new wave of moral critique, critique that is once again stripped of any positive moral content, also represents an intention to increase the degradation of society? If so, of what law can we speak at all?
I made myself familiar with American works dedicated to controlled chaos. Those are interesting works. After thinking about the article by Mr Aron, I have arrived to a conclusion that I want to share with you. This is this conclusion: there is no moral in chaos.
If turmoil is chaos, there is no moral there. It has no moral core. It has no moral content. It is based upon lies. And it produces lies. This is what differentiates it from true revolutions, which I refuse to praise, but which have this moral content.
In 1993, the Constitutional Court made everything possible to prevent B. Yeltsin from undermining moral grounds of law in society by his Decree 1400 and subsequent bloody actions. It is clear that if moral grounds are undermined, there will be no law. But how many people at the time wished to undermine the moral grounds of law! And later the same people complained about the lack of law in Russia, seeing no connection between this result, and their own words and actions at the time, which created the negatives of the present situation!
In Russia, starting from old times, literature was the most powerful source of morals. Dostoyevsky"s hero Rodion Raskolnikov confesses Sonya Marmeladova that he murdered the old lender woman: "Did I kill the old hag? I killed myself, and not the old woman! With one strike I wasted myself forever!..". This hero is so much higher than all those who killed the moral grounds of Russian democracy, killed the moral grounds of Russian law and later complained that this democracy and this law are imperfect…
However substantial is moral nuancing that is possible in this case, another thing is much more important. Crisis of moral legitimacy of elite as such. And the attempt of elite to replace moral legitimacy with pathos of insincere moral critique. Was it not the same for the elite, for example, during the Khrushchev exposure of Stalin? Was it not the substance of its games during Gorbachev and Yeltsin? Maybe it was doing the same also afterwards?
Understanding all the destructiveness of events of 1993, I must repeat: there is no moral in chaos. Our people had seen it themselves, and had gained bitter experience. And they will drive back chaos, no matter the masks used by it to cover its anti-historical, anti-human, anti-social and anti-legal face.
4. Since the times of A.S. Griboyedov the word "moderation" had acquired certain negative political shade in Russia. Remember, when Chatskiy asks Molchalin what talents he has. And Molchalin answers: "two: accuracy and moderation". In Russia, almost always one pole is the boring dull Molchalin, possessing a lowly talent of moderation. On the other pole there is a bright non-conformist Chatskiy. He was blessed by other talents. Which ones, by the way?
A talent to return to Russia from abroad and disclose poor life in the Fatherland, the smoke of which is "sweet and pleasant"? Well, this can be called a talent. The society needs someone to disclose evil and vice, to strictly answer "no" to bureaucratic arbitrariness. This someone by nature cannot have the talent of moderation.
But why in Russia there was never demand for another moderation, the persevering and non-conformist moderation with regard to anything related to it: culture, politics, social life? Such a moderate man would not flail the vices. He would try to rectify them by some means. He would try at least to not make the situation worse. He would think: maybe the overly often flailing of these vices will make things worse? He would study the nature of these vices. Having studied it, he would work patiently; understanding that fortress of these vices cannot be crushed with a cavalry attack. That here, heavy artillery is needed, along with digging and long siege. Otherwise such fortress cannot be taken.
Finally, such a moderate man would demonstrate specific attitude to vices. Not accepting the vices and fighting them, a moderate kind man will understand that vices cannot be fully purged. That this concerns human nature, the laws according to which eradicating some things takes centuries and something cannot be eradicated at all. Eradication may only force the problem to hide deeper, and later it will take truly horrible forms. Therefore, such a moderate man would correct something, redirect something, create moderate obstacles for something, and strictly prevent something while understanding that the result will be only relative improvement of the situation and not its radical repairment.
So, why here in Russia such moderation was never in demand? Yet, I do not want to search for the answers here. I only want to say: one has to agree, the problem is present.
And also I wanted to say, that of course not all our great culture and not all of our brilliant literature despise moderation. One of such exception is of course Anton Chekhov, who praised heroic moderation. Heroic, no less. Chekhov managed to discover this type of moderation near the other one, the Molchalin"s type. Such heroic moderation is innate to many characters of Chekhov who do not possess the radical sparkling rhetoric of Chatskiy.
Maybe Chekhov praised the Molchalins of his time? Not at all. His heroine in the short story "Lady with the little dog" speaks of her husband: "I don"t know what is he doing there or how he serves, I only know he is a lackey". The antithesis to such high status lackey – Molchalin – is, for Chekhov, not a crusading accuser Chatskiy, but a shy working man. He connects strict principles and despise to any posturing. Such is famous Dymov from the short story "Jumping" (also translated as "Grasshopper") by Chekhov.
I think that my assertion holds no unnecessary exaggeration: Dymov is a true hero. Not only because he honestly and talentedly works all his life, works for the good of people, but also because in the extreme moment he can show self-sacrifice. At that, this sacrifice is also subtle, with no posture. He simply dies to save a patient, and that's all. He is not a lackey, isn"t he? But he is a moderate man.
What is moderation? Let us think about it. The basis of this word is related to measure, "ration". Law is a measure ("ration") of freedom. As known from the ancient times: "Nothing in excess". This measure first of all binds the authority, but it also extends to ordinary citizens. A moderate man is the one who senses the proportion. Can we deem such a man unworthy to be an example for others? But in such a case an example should be made of somebody without the sense of proportion or moderation. Why is it good to have no sense of proportion?
It is possible if we speak of passions in the soul of a great artist. An antithesis to measure (proportion) here would be immensity. What about other situations? In those the antithesis to proportion would be simple frenzy. Is it something that should be followed as an example?
Political Molchalins of our time, as in previous years, swear allegiance to Famusovs. Famusovs demonstrate swaggering and lack of talent, and provoke protest in society. The protest is straddled by Chatskiys. Moderation becomes compromised, since everyone sees that it joins Famusovs. Everyone sees this, and refuses to see Dymovs. And the Dymovs themselves do nothing! Do they not see what such collision would bring?
Chatskiys will get rid of the Famusovs, and after that ... After that they will be either got rid of under the well-known principle "the revolution devours its children" … Or, they will acquire their own guillotines or Mausers, and will start to act. Sooner or later the horrified society will turn away from them. The most rational from among them understanding that this is the time to get things in order will execute their former brothers and call for Dymovs. To heal, to teach, and to fight as well. War is the hard trade of a warrior after all. It needs Dymovs and not Chatskiys.
How all this relates to our Constitution? Rather directly. The Constitution is the law of supreme legal force; it is the ultimate expression of law as measure of freedom expressed in the equality of all before the law and courts. Whomever we refer to: Cant and his categorical imperative, Hegel with his legal rule: "be a person and respect other persons", of Montesquieu with his "Spirit of Law" – we will see that this spirit (related to all legal laws including Constitution as a Basic law) is the spirit of moderation, measure, proportion. There can be no frenzied law. Well, of course there can be such law, but it is not a legal one. This is arbitrariness, hastily covered under the deceitful mask of legality.
Any true law requires moderation. Not the one preached by Molchalin, the lackey type, but the one completely opposite. But still, moderation or proportion. "Seven times measure and cut only once".
A judge ensures proportion. This is his duty. This is the spirit, and not the letter, of his profession. Whoever wants to break the proportion, a judge must oppose it. Therefore a judge tells anybody who addresses him: "Here, you came close to the line, and I warn you. Here, you have crossed the line. I observe this to stop you. And to warn the others".
This very collision appeared in 1993. President B. Yeltsin thought that law can be sacrificed to revolutionary passion, to utopia of bright and near capitalist future. Yeltsin did not understand that the spirit of law and the spirit of capitalism are essentially the same. Ultimately, Yeltsin "messed things up". A bright capitalistic future was not build. The country was dropped into abyss of criminal brawls, ethnic conflicts, destruction, law-dismantling, and at some point it appeared on the verge of non-existence. Why? Because of unbridled revolutionary impulses, frenzy, and posturing of Chatskiys…
I recall this because the fate of the Fatherland is obviously at stake again. Having opposed to arbitrariness of Yeltsin, the Constitutional Court opposed precisely the lack of moderation, the lack of restraint of some of his steps and strategic planning. The Court understood that there was little chance for full-scale political rebuff to this lack of restraint. Unfortunately, then we could not even use the chances we had. Unfortunately, at that moment, society was very drawn to Chatskiys of its time.
Only one thing could be done then: telling "no" to anything that neglected moderation. Calling to the sense of proportion. And thereby, calling also to the sense of law. Discharging, in this sense, both professional duty, and the higher duty. The higher duty that calls to always serve to moderation, not to Famusovs and Molchalins even if they are the majority and the elite, and not to Chatskiys, but to Dymovs. Because they are the salt of Russian soil.
But there comes a moment when Dymovs have no right to use their moderate heroism to bar themselves from the social passions, when they have to firmly say "no" to anything that can bring Russia to demise. When they must stand together and firmly say "no" to swaggering of the Famusovs, servilism of Molchalins and frenzy of Chatskiys.
Alas, in Russia more than once in such moments Dymovs refused to make history and passed this burden to others. And then the others who messed things up turned to Dymovs for help. Is this the fate of Dymovs in our century? If so, the fate of Russia is a sad one. I would like to believe that Dymovs will not turn away from politics, will not once again say "keep away from me!", but will learn something that is taught, unfortunately, with hard labour. I mean the connection of sense of proportion and historical responsibility.
The Constitution as a text is a tableau wh ere the spirit of moderation and law has written its signs. I will not restrain myself – I will say that the 1993 Constitution is one of the major achievements of the post-Soviet era, since it proclaimed this spirit, which it also restates now. On the basis of this Constitution, Russia was able to go through most difficult years of massive, truly revolutionary transformations. She was able to do this and not fall into the chaos of endless conflicts of regions, authorities and ideologies. To go through this – and not to bring down society, without losing the statehood.
But today I observe once again that sombre experience of political fight preceding adoption of our Constitution is timely as ever. So, I would like to recall history of the issue.
After collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia was to adopt a new Constitution already in 1992. The deadly delay in adoption of the new Constitution of Russia was caused by political fight. The clash of clans, forces, groups. The scuffle that had no fundamental and irreplaceable stopper – the acute understanding of value of statehood as such by all fighting groups. In every camp there were their own Chatskiys, and they defined the spirit and style of political struggle.
Specifically, the political frenzy of these Chatskiys who believed that legal insufficiency of the old Soviet Constitution gives them political chances on the post-soviet circumstances hampered the adoption of the new Basic Law.
The constitutional imperfection of state life before our own eyes turned to deadly, unbearable emptiness. This emptiness created by short-sightedness, greed, frenzy of different political Chatskiys and by ill will of intentional destructors, became filled by political radicalism, extremism, anarchism and fascism. There began a disastrous conflict between the branches of power. The conflict was joined by different forces naming themselves "the third ones" or "neutral", that were incompatible with integrity of the Russian state. Blood was spilled. The state found itself on the verge of a civil war.
Then, this war was avoided at the cost of the incredible efforts of the joined Dymovs. But something that could have been obtained otherwise, appeared to be paid for in blood, and in many extremely dangerous consequences for the country, that we feel until now. Including – I believe this to be one of the most painful negatives for Russia – including by the cost of deep fall in the sense of law and observance of law both within the elite and within the masses.
Today, I see this fall in the behaviour of many Famusovs, both close to authorities and standing in opposition, who are prepared to protect their position in society not only by legal means. And I see this fall in the behaviour of many Chatskiys, both close to authorities and standing in opposition, who act to bring opposition protests into riots that boil far beyond the legal field – someone out of unwise frenzy, and someone out of rather calculated provocation. And after riots, as per lineal trait of riots in Russia, which still did not take the legal barrier, there will inevitably be bloody incidents.
Today, unlike in 1993, we have the "tableau" of a living and working Constitution. And we have the legislation based on this Constitution embracing all spheres of life. It is far fr om perfect, but it is there.
Nevertheless, I will repeat: for Russia that did not take the legal barrier, wh ere there is tyranny of Famusovs, and increasing frenzy of Chatskiys, and servilism of Molchalins, the Constitution and laws are not enough. There must be a force always able to prevent transformation of public meetings element into incidents presenting new threat to the very existence of our statehood. The force able to return situation to legal sphere. The raging frenzy must be opposed by smart, but also active and wilful – moderation. Maybe the main art of politics is to correctly combine idea and will, activeness and moderation.
Today, as always in Russia, this is the quest for Dymovs. They are the ones who must not lose their heroic moderation, and demonstrate their smartness and active will. And by joining together they must prevent yet another threat of the country"s decline to a national catastrophe.
5. We can see that modern world is extremely fragile. That if such fragile world is destroyed, then chaos, a long-standing discussion point of theorists who review it fr om various angles, will no longer be a theoretic abstraction, but a harsh reality. The reality that is perfectly able to devour everything we hold valuable and certain, i.e. inalienable from the world we live in.
Indeed, the world we live in cannot be deprived of human rights, standards of humanity and tolerance viewed as a reasonable leniency and readiness for a dialogue or rationality — all these seemingly undisputed achievements of recent centuries. Neither can it be deprived of the legal culture to perfection of which we have devoted our lives and which we view as crucial framework supporting the entire stable structure of modern world.
The problem is that we can simply wake up one day and realise that this familiar world does not exist anymore. Instead, we have a completely different one that denies everything I have mentioned before. The world wh ere stability and order are cancelled. The world wh ere peoples and states survive among the waves of all-encompassing chaos. Such a world was described by the great Russian poet Aleksandr Blok in his prophetic lines:
"We were guarded by no raging dragon,
We endured no Gehenna of torment,
But we drowned in the sea of the time Lord,
Our fate was to last but a moment".
Has it not happened before? Can it not occur again? Have not people woken up before to see outside their windows that the world they used to live in was no longer there?
I am not saying that modern world has been irrevocably broken or that we have been shown the inevitable global chaos. We only face the possibility of such chaos as reality. A few such challenges and a few "symmetrical" responses to these challenges, and Europe becomes a kingdom of chaos, torn apart by nationalist and religious fervour. After Europe, chaos would spread to the rest of the world.
Understanding of the acuteness of the historical moment that the world now lives in created the determination and delicacy of Russia with regard to anything related to solving Syrian, Ukrainian and other issues.
The events of recent years demonstrated visibly that Europe admired by the Russian educated class for so many centuries, with which it felt inner connection and part of which this class wanted to become, is far fr om ready to accept Russia even as a distant relative. In the present reality, the West has in fact unleashed unprecedented hybrid (or, to be more precise, systemic) war against Russia: on the battlefield, in the military industry, economy, politics, culture, sports, science, education, mass media and cyberspace. At that, this war is clearly getting more and more overt Nazi, Russophobic shade.
The reaction of collective West to more than justified actions of Russia aimed to ensuring its security, finally brought it to light that in contemporary world Russia has nothing to count on, except for the endurance of Russian soldiers reinforced by country"s nuclear potential and ability of the nation to find and call to service from its ranks the true elite when the times are hard.
In the last decades we started to forget the primary meaning of the word "elite" (i.e. the best). I want to remind that the duty and purpose of one from the elite – is to serve the Fatherland not under external circumstances or coercion, but out of conscience and honour. Now, not only political elite, but also the spiritual and intellectual elite of Russia, as well as business elite, are subjected to the test of ability to serve the country when she faces extremely hard period. I truly hope that we will pass this ordeal with honour.
Russia believes in such a future for humanity wh ere the great Western humanistic basis will be freed from nihilism and will be opposed to nihilism. The faith in such possibility directed actions of all Russian reformers who did not fall to temptations of blind copying the Western models. This faith still endures, and it continues to inspire those who see duty of Russia and her mission as freeing the principles of freedom and law from the tyranny of the principle of power for the sake of power which looms over humanity as an ominous shadow.
While there is Russia – this shadow will not become a new fourth Reich.
While there is Russia – there is hope for true harmony of law and freedom, which is the symphony in its present Russian understanding.