A new scandal has appeared in Russia’s mass media – public discussion of an internal document of the United Russia party which proposes “Orthodoxy as a moral foundation for modernization”. The authors of the report The Moral Foundation of Modernization, prepared by the National Institute for Development of a Modern Ideology, indicates that the motivation for this is “the objective need for a state ideology”, which is stipulated by the fact that people in the country “cannot feel psychologically comfortable in the absence or diffuseness of a political mythology”. And, in essence, it is proposed that Orthodoxy play the role of this mythology.
The resonance caused by this document has become much greater the event of its appearance. Although the proponents of the report included some visible party members, the institute has already announced that it is only being put forward as material for discussion. Even without an expert review, it is clear that this is a draft document, the reading of which makes one a little uneasy least someone catch you with it.
The paper, which is called an “analytical document”, contains several pages of broken text and is not very well composed. In one sentence it confirms that Russia’s constitution forbids a state ideology while in the next it suggests that such an ideology is necessary. Orthodoxy is only the first thesis. The second ideological pillar should be patriotism, which is declared “the civil religion of modern society” (a term borrowed from Rousseau). They try to tie this “civil religion” to traditional religion, but the result is something similar to mixing water with water. This is all concluded with a discussion of the need to pay worthy salaries to workers, which for some reason is a moral problem and not an economic one. The incongruencies go on and on, but I see no reason to list them all.
The document de facto suggests violating Article 14 of the Constitution. Of course, the principle law of the country is not immune from review, but the attitude of experts of the party, which seeks the support of a majority of Russians, including Muslims, Buddhists, Jews, atheists and agnostics, is bewildering.
It should be understood that the Orthodox Church is not involved in this at all. The authors of the report refer to remarks by Patriarch Kirill on the necessity of modernization, but the patriarch recently made clear the interests the church, calling for a Christianization of culture in a statement published in Expert. It is not clear how the church wants to achieve this, and I won’t try to guess; however, the Vatican has also made this a priority, but the results are not yet evident.
Nonetheless, the main problem with this document is not in the ideological nuances that caused such a scandal. The problem lies in the suggested approach, in which the people are perceived to be some sort of amorphous social group that without the help of an ideology is doomed to be a pitiful existence. The experts call for the creation of a myth for the people, but the document itself was created under the influence of a great ancient myth, although one which has taken root in the Russian social conscience only recently. During the turbulent decade, social struggles in Russia quieted down, and many representatives of the elite began to believe once again that everything in life depends on decisions coming down from the top.
The problem lies in the fact that the aims, tasks and values of society do not come from the top down via an order by the leadership. They are always a response to the real needs that arise in society. The report appears strange because its authors are trying to formulate something that can only be created naturally within society. The proposed scheme of “Orthodoxy, Prosperity, Patriotism” is even worse than the Count Uvarov’s formula “Orthodoxy, Autocracy, Populism”, as he at least tried to consider the actual condition of Russian society at that time. Now we are being offered an ideological template, a form devoid of content.
“The burden of supporting the spirit of the country lies upon the leadership of the state,” the document says. However, this was not true during the time of Catherine the Great, and it is even further from the truth today. Perhaps the best evidence for this can be found in the document itself, compiled from borrowed ideological templates, poorly tied together and in no way connected to real life in modern Russia. It’s too bad that the authors do not see the difference between faith, mythology and ideology, although manipulating the minds of people is not possible without such an understanding. In short, the “spirit of the country” depends on the people and is formed naturally from everyday affairs, concerns and desires. And it only becomes a “burden” when ideologists get involved, tossing to the masses attractive yet useless slogans, with no interest in becoming acquainted with the real problems of the country, whose future they attempt to discuss.
Today the country needs dialog, not myth-making. In essence, the president’s idea of modernization was a part of this dialog – a reaction to the demands of Russians living outside the center of Moscow. And this discourse between the elite and the public must be on equal grounds and with mutual respect for one another. It must also be about practical matters – housing, education, employment, laws, etc. These are the concerns of authorities. Throwing around the word “morality” will unavoidably lead to hypocrisy, which every respectable pastor speaks out against in his sermons. Faith is not an economic instrument. Concern about people’s conscience is the affair of the citizens themselves, their parents and, finally, their spiritual leaders. It is certainly not something for a party functionary – for those who do not remember, we have already been through that in our history.
