• Главная страница
• Новости
• Библиотека
• Контакты
• Архив
• English

English

‘…And you, my friends, no matter your positions, Will never be musicians!’

The title – a concluding line from the famous fable by Ivan Krylov – gives a perfect insight into the relations of the society and its government. These relations have historically been problematic. In spite of the efforts taken by many thinkers to explain the essence of the matter, it is far from being clear.

Voltaire... feared and hated by Church, revered by kings and queens. His great contemporaries and followers called him the Teacher of Enlightenment. ‘We haven’t missed anything of what Voltaire wrote for us’, said Jean-Jacques Rousseau who held him in great esteem. Our great poet Aleksandr Pushkin echoed him, calling Voltaire ‘a mastermind and a trend setter’. Voltaire’s God was probably Truth itself otherwise he couldn’t have said, “I detest what you say, but I will give my life defending your right to say it.” What kind of man was Voltaire, one of the greatest minds of the 18th century?

Just like tectonic plates in the Earth crust, the society and its government have periodically collided causing great tensions in the society, though it is the society itself that has always initiated changes of power. Then why does a change in an established state organization in many communities always result in the situation described in the fable? Why does not a reshuffle in the government lead to a qualitative improvement in the whole regime? There is still no scientific theory to create an optimal social administration system – a system to work for the benefit of all the people. Some states do manage to provide a relatively quiet life for their citizens for some periods of time, but even there conflicts continue to crop up – all for different reasons, showing that the truth about the social government is far from being discovered.

Russia is no exception.  The fact that the society and its government are currently in opposition on many an issue shows that social relations are stalled, and any serious research or prospective analysis is next to impossible. There are some points to support that view.

Today, as world practices show, the liberal-democratic principle of separation of powers is well “recognized”. The idea was first put forward in 18th century by a French thinker Charles Montesquieu. After a few other forms of state organization were tried, the above-mentioned principle was established in both federal and unitary states such as the Unites States, the United Kingdom, France and Germany, their state structure being based on the distinct separation of the three branches of power – legislative, executive and judiciary.

One cannot but mention that these communities (unlike many others) have made marked progress in the field of democracy. Their political parties, associations, unions and other social organizations are taking part in political life, exercising their constitutional powers to keep an eye on the morality content of their governments’ work. Such a mechanism of ‘power dispersion’ has been quite of benefit to the citizens mainly because it helped to check attempts at usurping power or establishing individual rule.

At the same time the great importance of public institutions has actually proven that the liberal-democratic idea of state organization has its weak points because it shows that government agencies are to be under continuous and comprehensive public supervision.

A state structure whose elected representatives immediately fall under suspicion as alleged corruptionists or swindlers looks all of absurd, especially when lots of money, including some public funds, is spent to elect the said representatives.

Here one can feel an urgent need to control the public bodies themselves. As the Romans used to say, ‘Who will guard the guards?’  Despite many warnings from philosophers, what we have here is a real vicious cycle: ignorance incessantly breeds more ignorance, and it all ends up in fideism.

Russia is still making its first steps on the way to its liberal-democratic order. When the US was making these steps (well, it was when corruption and immoral attitude towards ordinary people was rife), its citizens came to realize the need for public control. As for Russia, we must admit that a new campaign is already underway to recruit so called nongovernmental noncommercial organizations or NCOs for the purpose. But, first and foremost, NCOs began with a pinpoint attempt at finding out by whom, how and how much they will be paid for their no easy work of controlling the government and promoting civil society principles in Russia. According to the Public Chamber, the plans to finance the NCOs in that respect were made on a really grand scale: the ideas ranged from radical, like getting funds from abroad, to even more radical, like obliging the government itself to pay to be controlled.

We must note here that our government’s clumsy actions in the social sphere really deserve the comparison with the fable by Krylov as it expressly shows the characters’ absolute inadequacy and inability to do what they want. The biggest irony here is the game of politics, where several parties, formally different, but actually with one and the same political platform, help to complete the merger of the legislature and the executive, the judiciary also failing to show its independence. What we are witnessing is obviously the political realization of the Russian national idea, which has been so much spoken of lately and which has finally been realized politically.

As Montesquieu wrote in the distant year of 1748, “to check the abuse of power… it is necessary from the very disposition of things that one power should be a check to the other power. There can be no freedom in a society where the executive and the legislative are both in one body. On the other hand, no freedom can be expected in a society where the judiciary is not separate from the legislative and the executive… And it may all end up one day if one person or body, aristocratic or national in nature, starts representing all the three powers in itself”. That is what all the liberal-democratic states fear most, and their fears are obviously well-grounded.

In the sunset of his life Adam Smith, the architect of the laissez-faire economic theory, who proclaimed the free market principle as a source of public debits at the expense of enterprising capitalists, expressed doubts about the moral grounds of the said idea. The thing is that in his green years Smith had studied human morality and realized that this key social quality is found in every person only to a measure. It is quite obvious that not only some businessmen, but also some minions of the law and law enforcement lack in morality.

Therefore it is quite clear that all the efforts to involve public forces into the creation of a civil society may only lead to a dead end. One may argue that there are some states where the public does represent a force reckoned with by the government, and their ruling officials are no match for many Russian deputies. Their governments are often assisted by the cleverest people including those for many of whom there was no call in their homeland. Their governments also understand that they do need such assistants. Even Winston Churchill, not an expert in natural sciences, was always eager to rub shoulders with prominent scientists and technical specialists, as he thought there was no shame in learning from them. As is known, the US Declaration of Independence was written by Benjamin Franklin, a famous scientist incidentally. May it be the reason why the West is so well to do?

Russian citizens have enjoyed the freedom of expression for 16 years now, and still Russian elections are far from being free and fair, while many Russians, being very poor, are ready to cede their own freedom and that of the others, too. So here we can hardly expect any civic initiatives, like in the developed countries.

At present the new State Duma members do not disclose their ‘intellectual potential’ to the public. Moreover, the public is much more concerned with deputies’ financial, not intellectual standing. However, as the tree, so the fruit – as legislators, so the laws. At the moment a bill ‘On Education and Credit Aid’ is being drafted. But it is not the bill that our talented youth needs to get a necessary education consistent with their abilities. And the government’s obvious inability to quickly create necessary ‘cultivation’ conditions for its would-be scientists to develop causes now no raised eyebrows, but sheer irritation. Neither the government, nor our lawmakers have made an attempt to answer a most important question of how worthy life sustenance is going to be provided. They must really stop telling tales about private business involvement and charity as it is the state that is to care about its citizens.

There are heaps of unfinished documents, like the one mentioned above, their aim being to regulate the life of Russians, their social and economic relations.

And only a simple-minded person may still think that such bureaucracy could be controlled, and its actions could have moral guidance. There should be another way. Considering the ‘elected’ deputies’ intellectual level which makes the present situation hopeless, a new branch of power is to be formed provided the public should to be involved in the formation of its government. What we mean is a legally formalized independent council of public expertise composed of people’s representatives. We could prescribe its electoral procedure, its rights and responsibilities, but its members are to be selected on the basis of morality and intellect. There is a method that could be tested, for example, at the RAS Institute of Philosophy. It could be a most interesting unique experiment reflecting people’s desire for a just life.

The Russian government with its new Chamber of Conscience will become a real beacon of democracy for all the states in the 21th century, while the globalization of morality as a new ethical form of human communication may serve as a check for environmental barbarism and poaching. These initiatives can be realized, however naive and utopical they may seem! But each and every citizen must ask himself what he can personally do to finally make the Duma legislate for the benefit of the people. If the answer is ‘nothing’, which is well expected, we may realize that our social problems have come here to stay for ever, there is no escape, and there’s nobody to turn to. Nevertheless, the major problem of the society is not that its opinion matters only during elections, but that the majority of Russia’s numerous rulers, having found themselves in the false field of very complacency and conceit, have long lost caution and a sense of moderation. Still, human substance represents an ambition for a healthy future and a clear understanding of the fact that the future depends on the present. That is what we call the singularity (or peculiarity) of social existence, and statesmen should always make allowance for it. Yet, as long as they continue changing their positions, the people are bound to fend for themselves.

Arnold Kazmin

Presidium Member

Russian Philosophical Society