Познание, мораль и политика = Cognition, morality and policy. Учебное пособие

or using definitions like «rogue countries» and the «axis of evil» is unacceptable. It is obvious that this sinister terminology is unable to lead the world toward multipolarity and mutually beneficial cooperation based on international law. Current law should

harmonize national and human interests Kant laid the foundations for1.

Machiavelli's «limited humanism» political philosophy reflected the epoch of formation of national states. It is possible and suitable where and when such formation conditions the survival of a nation; however, it is absolutely unusable in today's globalizing world and international politics. Nowadays, Machiavelli (not to mention Machiavellianism) implies a policy aimed at creating a unipolar world, i.e. a dictate of one sovereign over all nations and peoples. This policy is disastrous for those who imagine themselves as sovereigns; it is disastrous for world peace, too.

In the early 20th century, a number of Russian thinkers warned of a real threat to the endorsement of totalitarian ideology, including its stabilization in the West, the deep crisis of the Euro-Atlantic democracies (N. Berdyaev, S. Frank, G. Fedotov, I. Ilyin, etc.)2. In the end of the previous century, A. Zinoviev spoke of «totalitarian democracy», whose essential features have to be explored yet, but which was already triumphant at that moment.

The Preamble to the Constitution of UNESCO declares, «... the peace must therefore be founded, if it is not to fail, upon the intellectual and moral solidarity of mankind». This is espe-

1Хабермас Ю. Дискуссия о прошлом и будущем международного права // Вестник РФО. № 3 (27), 2003. (Khabermas Yu. A Discussion on the Future and the Past of International Law // Bulleten of the Russian Philosophical Society. No 3 (27), 2003. P. 16).

2Сербиненко В.В. Русская идея и перспективы демократии в России // Метафизика социокультурного бытия в опыте русской философии. Став-

рополь, 2010. (Serbinenko V.V. The Russian Idea and the Prospects of Democracy in Russia // Metaphysics of Social and Cultural Existence in the Experience of Russian Philosophy. Stavropol, 2010. P. 307, 304).

152

cially true in the modern world which is fraught with global catastrophes. All political and social forces, states, and governments should condemn violence. We see how easily terrorists and extremists of all stripes can find common ground. In his day, Leo Tolstoy urged to unite all the good forces, but his voice was not heard by liberals or conservatives in Russia in the beginning of the 20th century. Terror was not convicted, and the “red wheel” swept across the country. Revolution was secretly or openly desired by all the society in Russia at that time, but when it arrived, no one was spared. It must be recognized that not all means are good in the competitive political in-fighting and international struggle. Therefore, violence and invoking it should be excluded. All the actions should be taken only in accordance with the legal framework, morality, and international law.

§5. Civil society in Russia

Apart from being determined by ethnicity, identity can be generated by both authorities and civil society. Let us discuss their role and importance in more detail, taking Russia as an example.

In general, civil society is defined as social institutions and relationships not directly dependent on the state and the political system and providing the conditions for implementing private interests and needs of the people. Aristotle was the first to try to define what civil society is; in the modern era, this concept was developed by Hegel, who defined it as a «system of comprehensive dependence», or a «differentiation which stands between the family and the state». He believed that civil society was created for the first time in the world by his contemporaries, and it combined three basic features: a) the system of needs satisfied through labor; b) justice as a form of property protection; and c) the police and corporations as a form of «care for preventing the accidental manifestations still remaining within these systems». Hegel emphasizes that the development of civil society

153

takes place later than the development of the state does. The state as a unity of various persons is already a civil society, yet only according to the definition, not to the concept. He notes that, in civil society, «the means of sustenance, the benefit of the individual, and his legal determinate existence are intertwined with the means of sustenance, the benefit, and the law for all, they are based on this foundation, and only in this context, they are valid and secured». The subject of civil society is a «citizen in general (as a bourgeois)», that is, according to Hegel, only a man of property can be a citizen in his own right1.

Nowadays, civil society is defined as an organized and internally ordered sphere of human activity free from any direct influence of the state and its officials. In civil society and through it, people implement their private interests and form groups and organizations. The state governing system is dominated by the hierarchical, vertical bonds, whereas civil society is characterized by the horizontal, coordinating ones.

Democracy, the rule of law, and civil society cannot exist without the authorities’ and the people’s mutual responsibility: citizens are also required to obey the law and be responsible for any breaches in accordance with the legislation. «Every nation has the government it deserves» (according to Hegel); still, on the other hand, not every government is worthy of the nation it rules (or, in some cases, the electorate may not be worthy of their government). The authorities are also responsible to the people: they are meant to provide equal opportunities for citizens to enjoy the protection of the law, and recognize the inalienable human rights that no law should breach.

However, there are several persistent myths regarding civil society that are intensely imposed on society. The first one concerns the absence of civil society in Russia. Indeed, it has not yet been developed as a system of independent institutes that can have a significant impact on the state, and exercise effective con-

1 Hegel G.W.F. The Philosophy of Right. Moscow: Mysl, 1990. P. 235.

154

trol over its activity. The country is still at the beginning of this difficult path, and its progress is complicated due to the passivity of the inhabitants, intellectuals’ novolescence and nihilism, and lack of desire for self-government, which must have resulted from centuries of suppressing the people's initiative – first, through serfdom, then, through totalitarianism. However, it should not be said that civil society is completely absent in Russia. Recent years have yielded a number of examples where citizens and their associations successfully protect their rights.

The next myth concerns opposing civil society and the state to each other, as if they had no common goal – creating a wellfunctioning society. On the one hand, civil society should criticize the government where it makes mistakes, preventing it from making them; on the other hand, it should support the authorities' efforts aimed at creation and development. Each and every step taken by the authorities cannot be bad, but we are used to treating even good steps as bad ones. Since Trotsky’s time (or earlier times), the majority of our intellectuals and the media have been living in accordance with the rule saying, «the worse the better», and even, «the better, the worse», i.e. their judgment is a priori based on the fact that we cannot expect anything to be good, especially when it comes from the authorities. This phenomenon well known since the time of Dostoevsky and Vekhi compilation is called nihilism. This is what corrodes our state and prevents us from creating adequate civil society. Often those who vehemently advocate civil society also destroy it by spreading the poison of nihilism in relation to everything that takes place in the country. One can only sympathize with the students: what will they come away with when they are surrounded by this nihilism? How are they supposed to live and build a new country if they are taught to despise it? We are currently in need of consolidating civil society and the state, because they have the same goals and objectives, and the same country, Russia, which is obviously easy to destroy and lose while talking about «democracy» and «civil society». It already happened in 1917, and repeated in 1991.

155

In contrast, K.S. Serdobintsev mentions the development of constructive cooperation between the Russian authorities, state institutions, and public organizations. Such cooperation is a «strategic objective aimed at strengthening the Russian statehood; on reaching it, the acceleration of shaping social institutions themselves largely depends»1. The government cannot solve the problems society faces without being supported by civil society. Today, the Russian authorities realize this and are committed to this goal.

Another myth refers to accusing the authorities of the absence of civil society. In this aspect, we enter the sphere one can describe as a sort of schizophrenia demonstrated by our «advanced» (or «creative», as it is called nowadays) public: on the one hand, the authorities are being criticized for doing nothing to build civil society, on the other hand, every time they take any steps for this sake (organizing the Public Chamber activities, for instance), they are immediately blamed for their attempts to create the institutions they can keep controlling. There is a single way out of this situation: instead of merely talking about civil society at conferences and rallies, intellectuals should at last begin really creating it and working at it every single day. One can start with one’s own communal entrance hallway and a children's playground near the house, a working team, etc. We have developed a habit: if the stairwell light bulb burns out, we blame the president or the prime minister, who must have conjobbled against «democracy». Meanwhile, the well-known opposition leaders can discuss such issues as who must become our next president with senior officials of other countries, asking them who has to be recommended or supported from the point of view of the U.S. Probably no other similar orgy of «democracy» can be found anywhere else in the world. We have the most «democratic» Democrats in the world, but, unfortunately, they do not seem to belong to the Russian people.

1 Serdobintsev K.S. Civil Society and State Rule of Law: Social and Philosophical Analysis. Author’s Ph.D. Dissertation. Moscow, 2013.

156

In addition, there are theoretical problems originating from a specific type of social relations, which are distinctive and coun- try-specific. According to K.S. Serdobintsev, «A non-critical application of conceptual principles and terminology of Western, especially Anglo-Saxon social thought regarding the state and civil society to the Russian reality leads to its inadequate perception and decreases the ability to understand its own challenges different from those in European history»1. Turning to the history of Russian thought, the author identifies two approaches to studying civil society issues: the political and legal one, which develops the concept of the rule of law (B. Chicherin, P. Novgorodtsev, etc.), and the socio-philosophical one (S.L. Frank, L.P. Karsavin, I.A. Ilyin, etc.), which considers civil society within the framework of religious and philosophical tradition. The second approach is characterized by regarding civil society as a social and spiritual phenomenon.

According to I.S. Aksakov (1823–1886), the famous 19thcentury Slavophil, civil society (the one he refers to as the «society») is placed «between the state and the people». It «is neither a class nor a department; it is neither a corporation nor a circle; it is a… joint activity of the living forces provided by the people themselves», it is «self-conscious people», it is the «environment where conscious, mental activity of a certain nation takes place, and it is created by all the spiritual forces of the folk shaping the national self-consciousness». The lack of social activity «makes people powerless and the state impotent». Besides, «The higher mental and moral levels are, the stronger society is»2.

A.S. Panarin (1940–2003), who follows this tradition, understands civil society primarily as «united by certain values or ideas». It cannot be created by «atomized individuals». Civil so-

1Serdobintsev K.S. Civil Society and State Rule of Law: Social and Philosophical Analysis. Author’s Ph.D. Dissertation. Moscow, 2013. P. 5.

2Aksakov I.S. People, State, and Society // Russian Ethos Is Our Banner. Moscow: Russian Civilization Institute, 2008. P. 77, 73–74, 92,78.

157

ciety «is an active, independent society ready to cooperate, unite, and provide mutual assistance, exerting team-minded pressure on the authorities or oligarchic clans»1. It implies that individuals must be ready to sacrifice their private lives for the sake of common values and objectives.

In this regard, Panarin stresses that civil society should not be understood «only in some centrist economic sense – as a multitude of entrepreneurs independent of the state»; it should be understood «as a spiritual community of people based upon the values they share, beliefs, ideals, their readiness to stand for them, and, of course, common interests. This is a collection of groups, not atom-like individuals» [5. P. 15]. It results from this concept that the variegated medley of different «creative class» representatives is far from the concept of civil society; it looks more like a mockery of it, or rather, its degeneration. Civil society is not a mere bunch of «angry citizens»; it consists of responsible citizens striving for solidarity and creation, not destruction. Maximalist goals, irresponsible criticism, and corrosive poison of nihilism do not contribute to development; they only endanger society and the state.

In the liberal interpretation, Panarin continues, civil society is understood as a non-historical phenomenon. It has abstract ideological goals and is more like everyone’s war against everyone than solidarism. In fact, based on the principles of social Darwinism, this «society» may generate a civil war instead of democracy. From the point of view of values, it is a return to the pre-Christian, pagan era. Panarin concludes, «Mankind faces the threat of a colossal failure, falling back in some paleontological depths of history»2. To be shaped, the real and effective civil society needs unifying not only the goals, but also the values that

1Nostalgic People (An Interview with A.S. Panarin) // Logic of Metahistorical Time. Moscow: Sotsialno-Politicheskaya Mysl Publishing House, 2004. P. 14–15.

2Ibid. P. 25.

158

cannot be different from Christian and social (even though secularized) ones, uniting both secular and other religious denominations. All the Russian citizens, regardless of their ethnic origin or religious affiliation, need a strong democratic country dominated by social fairness.

M.K. Mamardashvili (1930–1990), the philosopher of Georgian descent who worked in the Soviet epoch, emphasizes that a simple mechanical combination of people needs a certain kind of connectedness to be transformed into civil society, which is not a society in general, but a «certain quality of society», or a «high-quality society»: a «society brought to a certain state». Without any effort, civil society will disappear the way it happened to the Greeks, «effort was gone, and civil society disappeared even before the barbarians ruined it». The same thing happened to the Germans in the 1920s, when the Weimar Republic with its complex democratic institutions was created. «The single Fuehrer, the single nation» interaction turned out to be much easier to follow; yet such direct democracy led to horrific consequences. In the USSR, the same pattern was observed when the Soviet regime – also actually a «direct popular democracy» – degenerated into the rule of a tyrant and totalitarian partocracy. According to Mamardashvili, 1917 was marked by «collective suicide of society and statehood», and society entered a «zone of disintegration of social connections» which gave rise to an avalanche effect. As a result, we still «have this space rarified to the highest possible degree, an empty space …» where «almost no points where my effort could be generated are to be found» 1, creating civil society by objectification.

Everything in the social world, Mamardashvili states, depends on the efforts of the human personality, therefore, «If a social theory says something I cannot do, I cannot participate in, and

1 Mamardashvili M.K. On Civil Society // Experience of Physical Metaphysics (Vilnius Lectures on Social Philosophy). Moscow: Progress-Traditsiya, 2008. P. 242, 243.

159

understanding it cannot become a part of my action, such theory does not exist». The most important thing about social action is approving the freedom of man, and if it is not present, and even some theory is applied to confirm this determinism, it results in destruction of both freedom and sociality based upon it. «Why do we actually need history?» the thinker asks. He answers that question himself, «time is an effort, an effort of existence». We are given time, both personal and historical, to actualize ourselves, to establish ourselves as citizens, so that on the basis of our actions a «connectivity» called civil society could emerge. There is no other, exterior way to do this. Neither the president nor the prime minister can do it for us. Like Dostoyevsky, Mamardashvili regards the «drama of the soul» as «one of the historical forces in man», «The things that seem to be social responses, social roles in reality... are actually a drama of the soul... Therefore, the work of the soul and freedom, the work of freedom is history itself. Obviously, in the historical sphere, or in the sphere of consciousness (which is the same), only the winding paths are straight (evidently like in non-Euclidean geometry). Nothing can be done while walking in a straight line»1, for «the road to hell is pawed with good intentions». Hence, calls for direct democracy and «civil society» here and now can lead to the collapse of the links which already exist though barely function. The outburst of «democracy», as the Weimar Republic and Russia in 1917 and 1991 demonstrated, may lead to the destruction of sociality instead of constructing a real civil society. All the real things, according to the ancient Chinese wise saying, take place slowly but inevitably.

Civil society in Russia, as in any other country, should be created in accordance with its traditions, standards, and values, and be based on social and cultural heritage, and the dominant mentality. The historical experience of nations is unique; this

1 Mamardashvili M.K. On Civil Society // Experience of Physical Metaphysics (Vilnius Lectures on Social Philosophy). Moscow: Progress-Traditsiya, 2008. P. 244–247.

160

statement is also applied to the Western liberal model of civil society, where the system of property relations serves as the key factor. However, Russian history reveals the priority of noneconomic factors. In this context, «We have to stop considering Russian historical way as a deviant one»1. In Russia, the state has always acted as the main initiator of the development of civil society, especially when it was required to overcome troubled times. As the state acquired despotic totalitarian traits, it certainly could crush all the civil society institutions. Nevertheless, it plays a key part, and it is demanded in today's conditions, «The state should act not as an entity opposed to civil society, but as a necessary institution of public life, preventing or limiting the occurrence of such forms of organization of the population, in which group or private interests are strongly opposed to the public ones»2. One can say about Russia, «The state is all we have».

Any social factors should be analyzed on the basis of «actual normativity», i.e. stereotypes developed in other sociohistorical context should not be imposed on a certain society, for they are not likely to work in a different environment. This principle also applies to the conceptual framework of science: as I.S. Aksakov points out, «All of these concepts borrowed entirely from the sphere of the conditions of political activity of the West and applied to our public life to no avail express nothing at all in our environment, though they are highly valued…»3. Transferred to other types of societies, this framework turns out to be not quite adequate, whereas forced implementation of reforms copied to a tag leads to the destruction of the relations already existing within the community, a regress instead of a progress. Applying these necessary methodological ideas, K.S. Serdobintsev writes, «The main point is that, in Russia, power is not an institutional political expression of the will of civil society, a result of the

1Aksakov I.S. People, State, and Society

2Ibid. P. 11.

3Aksakov I.S. People, State, and Society. P.

161