Statehood through the eyes of a conservative

Statehood, historical continuity and development of society in the conservative tradition.

Statehood and the national form of conservatism

A state can be described through its institutions, territory and system of power. Statehood is a broader concept. It includes historical continuity, political culture, a people's self-image, and a society's ability to maintain unity in times of change. In Russian history, the guardian of this continuity was largely the conservative idea.

Russian conservatism is not an ideology of preserving any existing order. This is a way of historical development of statehood, based on continuity, sovereignty, unity and the ability to change without destroying society. This formulation of the question allows us to see in conservatism not only a protective, but also a creative principle.

First of all, let us emphasize that conservatism always exists in those forms that are determined or predetermined by a particular country, culture, civilization. It is closer to its country than any other ideological movement - even in cases where such an ideology or political force receives a name where the term “conservatism” itself does not exist.

Conservatism, if we are talking about more than just an assigned name or a label, as happened with some parties, is always national, patriotic, and full of state values. “Anti-state conservatism” is like “cold sun”; it is something that cannot exist, it is a combination of incompatible things. Both in research and in political statements, both the concept of “Russian conservatism” and the concept of “Russian conservatism” are used - or even simply “conservatism”, and yet it is clear what they are talking about. They could be contrasted if the conservative ideology in our country, in our state, had a racist, chauvinistic character. But she never had such a character.

Moreover, Russian conservatism has always been a force opposing racism and chauvinism. The influence of domestic conservative ideas - sometimes well realized, but sometimes almost unconsciously or not realized at all - on the entire ideological and political spectrum is expressed in the fact that other ideological trends existing and developing in Russia are not chauvinistic. The fact that citizens of our country of different nationalities - citizens of modern Russia, the Soviet Union, pre-revolutionary Russia - were and are called Russians - both in times of peace and in times of war, both by our enemies and our friends - is a well-known fact.

Russia found itself in conditions where it could behave like the Western European colonial powers - but did not behave like that.

The struggle against other cultures for destruction has not become part of our history. But they wanted to destroy Russia, Russian culture, more than once. Great European wars, and especially world wars, were accompanied by this slogan. You cannot change the facts of history. Russian conservatism has historically become an ideology for protecting the right to life. Your right to life and the right to life of other people, other nations. Awareness of this fact is necessary for everyone who wants to understand the history of Russian statehood.

Conservatism - no matter how contradictory it may seem to some opinions - can be called the ideology of faith in a person, but not an abstract person, but a living, real, real person, connected with his people, his culture, religious beliefs and other beliefs. It unites and unites what is important for everyone, and what is important for everyone. And this unity is organic and natural. What do the combinations “libertarian statehood” sound like? or “communist statehood”? Is there any sincerity in these combinations? Are they more from a person, or from a machine, or from some other entity? If we take the standard classification of ideologies presented in many textbooks - liberal, conservative, socialist... - then all of them, perhaps, can be combined with the word “state”. But only conservatism is organically connected with the concept of “statehood”.

Statehood as a historical unity and historical achievement is itself a concept of conservative ideology and, in my opinion, is inextricably linked with conservative values. From the point of view of our conservatism, if some addition is appropriate for the word “statehood,” then this is Russian statehood, Russian statehood, our statehood.

Our conservatism is unthinkable, impossible without the idea of belonging to a great country, a great people. Historically, our country and our people are exactly like that. Historically, our country, within its current borders, is inextricably linked with its neighbors. Historically, our country has had to take responsibility for the fate of the world. And now there is the same level of responsibility.

Over the last stages of history, which turned out to be much more closely connected with the present than many believed - for, perhaps, several centuries - the process of determining the future of the world in those cases when our state was forced out of it for one reason or another, turned out to be unsuccessful. This was the case after the First World War. On the contrary, defining the future when our country played a leading role in it - as was the case in Europe after the Napoleonic wars and in the world after the Second World War - for a long time brought peace, greater security, more sustainable and effective development not only to our state, but to all humanity, all peoples and civilizations.

Not always using a system of concepts in which there is the concept of “civilization,” conservatism cannot but recognize the civilizational dimension of history and modernity, and, moreover, the civilizational dimension of the future. Conservatism is the ideology of the state-civilization.

Conservation, revitalization and historical continuity

The meaning of an object, an object, an idea is understood more deeply and is highlighted more clearly in those moments when we are far from them. For the idea of ​​conservatism in our society, such a moment was the 1990s, a time of, on the one hand, forced, and on the other hand, forced changes. That is why the era that began at the turn of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries became the era of return, the revival of our conservatism, the revival of our statehood.

Conservatism is always associated with faith - in different meanings of this important word for us. And also with self-confidence. It is the return of faith in oneself, in one’s country, in its capabilities, the return of hope in oneself and in Russia that in our time has turned out to be associated with conservative ideology. This redefined the connection with such fundamental concepts of conservatism as conservation and revitalization. Not everyone noticed how and when the imposed and artificial opposition between the concepts of “country” and “state” began to disappear from public consciousness.

Conservatism turned out to be the ideological direction that allowed the state-civilization to overcome the trauma of the collapse of the Soviet Union. It is with him, one might say, that the idea of ​​preserving the best of our history practically identified itself - and not just what is recommended or sanctioned by radical ideological constructs of the right and left. It is impossible not to add here that conservatism finds itself at the center of an ideological or political system simply because it provides stability - and in political storms it can shift from the center only when it is necessary to restore balance, when it is necessary to save the state and statehood.

Conservatism by its nature is national and patriotic. Conservation and protection are patriotic values. Like any ideology, conservatism deals with issues of choice. But unlike other ideologies, it has a built-in understanding that there are values ​​that are not chosen, that cannot be considered as an object of choice. And here it is not only closer to man, but also simply more realistic than alternative ideologies and programs.

Conservatism is associated with such a value as unity - and is associated with it because it recognizes the historical complexity and historical significance of achieving and maintaining unity. Achieving and preserving that without which there is no statehood. Awareness of the sense of unity of statehood, different stages of its history - with its challenges, its opportunities, its achievements.

Opponents of conservative ideas approach unification and unifications in a simpler way: there are situations when it is assessed - precisely situationally - as beneficial, there are situations when it is assessed as unprofitable. And the watershed in this case is the idea of ​​fidelity to one’s word, the idea of ​​fidelity to accepted obligations, and fidelity to oneself. And also about the significance of those forces that guarantee this fidelity. And about the consequences of the violation for yourself and for your friends - be it immediately or not immediately. The historical path of Russia, how it was passed and how it continues today, is connected with milestones that conservatism defines as examples of such fidelity. As examples of feat.

Conservatism is against revolutions. And he is against it precisely because he considers it possible to avoid revolutions, not to allow revolutions (this differs, for example, from communist ideology) - and most certainly not to allow revolutions in his country.

In everyday, ordinary politics, this is due to the high importance of the ability to resolve conflicts and resolve conflict situations. Conservatism perceives people as they are - and therefore values ​​people, their lives, their happiness much higher than its opponents. His anti-revolutionary position is proof of this.

While there is general agreement that conservatism denies the value of revolutionary paths of development and considers it possible to avoid these paths and choose others, there is also a moment of agreement that conservative ideology is not pacifist. While recognizing the possibility of avoiding a certain dangerous situation, conservatism also recognizes the impossibility of avoiding dangerous situations as such. For a person, for a state, for a civilization - in our case, for a state-civilization - and for the whole world, of which our state-civilization sees itself as a part. You have to think in terms of challenges and threats, because challenges and threats are real. And many of them are unpredictable in advance. Almost all of them are challenges and threats to the future of statehood.

Russian conservatism has both features that can already be called civilizational - entrenched over centuries, and features associated with relatively recent stages of the country's historical and political development. To create the largest country in the world, to maintain it as the largest country in the world, is impossible without the ability to find a common language with people of different nationalities and different faiths. The ideology of our conservatism is complex and multifaceted - just as our history is complex and multifaceted.

There is no need to look for contradictions and splits in the fact that modern Russian conservatism would not support the style of reforms of Peter the Great, but highly values those results, that legacy that would have been impossible without Peter’s era. The return of St. Petersburg to its historical name in 1991, which, of course, was advocated by various political forces, was one example of the embodiment of a conservative idea. And if you look, it has a special connection with other examples. In January 1944, the historical names were returned to Nevsky Prospect, Palace Square, Kazan Square, and a number of other streets and avenues of the northern capital. The ideas of preserving and reviving traditions - the ideas of conservatism - were actualized at turning points in our history. The change in the attitude of the state towards the Church during the Great Patriotic War is, of course, known to everyone who wants to know the past of our country.

Conservative image of the future

Connection with historical experience does not mean abandoning the future. On the contrary, it is experience that makes it possible to distinguish a realistic development project from an abstract design that does not take into account a specific person, culture and established forms of social life.

At the instigation of American political science, the so-called situational approach to defining what conservatism is became known and somewhat popular. And this approach leads to the fact that conservatism is declared to be any set of ideas for preserving any existing order. There is nothing more erroneous for the study of conservatism, for determining the attitude towards conservatism, than such a view of its nature. There is nothing more dangerous for sincere supporters of the conservative idea, supporters of strengthening statehood and its values, than allowing yourself to be convinced that conservatism is just like that. How to allow yourself to be convinced that the word “state” can be hostilely opposed to the word “statehood”.

One of the arguments used by supporters of the situational approach is the absence of a “conservative utopia” - but does this absence, which, by the way, is not equal to the absence of ideals, indicate that conservatism stands for any state order, as long as it exists? Quite the opposite.

The absence of what critics call a “conservative utopia” does not mean that conservatism does not and cannot have ideas about the future, projects aimed at the future. It is precisely conservatism that has given state projects that are not only aimed at the future, but also realistic in comparison with radical utopias, because conservatives rely on existing historical experience, state experience, on real cultural and civilizational foundations.

If we say that in conservatism there are no detailed projects for the future designed for everyone, then this is true. The point is that conservatism does not create projects for abstract, fictitious people and abstract, fictitious societies. He creates projects for states and for citizens of states. There are principles that apply to everyone - peace and security, respect for history and culture. There is no point in talking about respect for “culture in general” and at the same time refusing to see behind these words the diversity of existing cultures, languages, and civilizations. And it is especially dangerous to refuse to see the cultural, historical, civilizational traditions of your country, allies and friends of your country. Refuse to see what unites. What unites us is civilization. Unites - statehood.

The fact that conservatism does not sympathize with utopias, projects divorced from life, from the real interests of people is not its weakness. This is his strength. Conservatives, in principle, are not against those people who want it inventing utopias. But they are against utopias subjugating people. What begins as a utopia divorced from life can take on the appearance of a dystopia being brought to life.

What inspires the political creativity of the conservative idea is not fictitious constructions, but civilizational values, the historical experience of state building, whose creative potential is richer than any utopia.

Conservatism as state realism

The realism of the conservative idea is also manifested in the fact that conservatives consider it utopian to try to build a world in which there will be no need to look for answers to challenges and threats. While conservatism recognizes the existence of opportunities, it also recognizes the existence of challenges. Ideas to construct a world completely devoid of threats are utopian, but worst of all, they mislead people and societies, creating new and more dangerous threats. Reduced attention to how to handle challenges. Security is created, not created out of nothing—forgetting this truth can be very costly, from a conservative point of view. Events after the collapse of the Soviet Union, when society believed, or the idea was imposed on society, that everything would develop for the better by itself - who now can sincerely share those strategic misconceptions? And those misconceptions can be directly related to the lack of conservative participation and conservative ideas in the then domestic politics. Slogans that there should be fewer states have, unfortunately, shown the ability to come true, and in shocking forms for those who thoughtlessly believed in such slogans.

If we touch on the topic of responses to challenges and threats, is there a threat that the conservative Russian party will put too much faith in the word “conservative” and forget that what should be conservative is not the name, but the essence, everyday activities, basic values - and, first of all, the values of statehood? The possibility of such a development of the situation - precisely as a threat, and not only to the future of a particular political force, but also to the future of society and the country - should never be forgotten.

In the West, too often parties of a completely different kind have acted and continue to act under the name of conservative, even those that deserve to be defined as radical, or even more stringent, characteristics.

The mixing of those who are conservatives with those who only call themselves conservatives is a fairly typical situation for political systems whose elites claim to teach others democracy and everything in general and would like to forever look at the jungle from a beautiful walled garden, would like to see the world around them enslaved. It is no coincidence that it is in such political systems that options for the future without sovereign states, options for the future without recognizing the right of civilizations to exist are developed, promoted, and practically tested.

It is difficult not to associate well-known and lesser-known cases of conservative-minded families from Western European countries moving to Russia primarily with the desire to get rid of the lies surrounding them there, with the feeling that the politicians of these countries, who presented themselves as like-minded people, do not at all share your values and are not at all going to fulfill their obligations. They turn out to be not at all who they pretended to be. The myth is dispelled, reality is realized. Solidarity with Russia becomes part of the war against lies, the fight for the truth. In Russia they see both a true state and a true civilization; in the West of Europe they see neither one nor the other.

Conservatism and political diversity

All ideologies - more precisely, political forces expressing one or another ideology - promise a person a better life, a better future. But, ultimately, only conservatism sets out to achieve this for real people - just as they are. For people united in a state, their own state. This does not mean that conservatism does not believe that people, social order and government systems cannot change for the better. But he is convinced that for such a change the starting point is here and now, in the state that exists here and now.

On the other hand, recognizing and defending the right of civilizations to preserve their identity, conservatism in any country has common characteristics - the values of sovereignty are recognized both for their own country and for other sovereign states, the right of people to believe, family values are respected and recognized both for their compatriots and for others.

The ideas of Russian conservatism, Russian conservatism are the same ideas of conservatism in general (we are, of course, talking about true conservatism, and not about the already mentioned label). We cannot help but welcome it if people in other countries share our values ​​and principles - we can simply say that we have common values ​​and principles, while we do not demand that people in other countries give their ideology the same name as ours. Our state is not against others. Our state is for itself and for its own people, for all our people.

Russian conservatism is calm about the presence of different parties in the political system and non-party political competition. He simply recognizes that people are different - in life experience, in beliefs, in interests. And the communities of these interests and beliefs will find their expression in political life. But in addition to what unites different segments of society, there is also something that can and should unite everyone. All of us who live here and now - and everyone we remember. One more thing needs to be added here. It seems that a political party cannot exist for long if it is completely devoid of the conservative element in its program, in its daily activities, in its attitude towards the state. This need to take into account conservative sentiments in society, reflected in the activities of the party, explains why conservative political forces, in principle, find it easier than others to establish working relationships with other political parties. Conservatives, to a lesser extent than liberals or leftists, are guided by the labels that this or that association, party, or movement attaches to themselves, and for other political ideologies such circumstances can be decisive.

This circumstance helps to clarify why the conservative platform is promising as a unifying platform. There are many examples of this, including in recent political history. Political clubs of the leading party of our country, the United Russia party, in the 2000s and 2010s - social, liberal, state-patriotic - organized joint work precisely on the platform of a conservative institute: the Center for Social-Conservative Policy. The result of this work was a number of legislative, internal party, political and managerial decisions that helped the party not only in elections, but also in solving specific socio-economic problems.

Every promising political force has an element that can be called conservative. But this element can be actualized only when there are truly conservative forces in the socio-political field of the state.

Statehood as continuity and responsibility

Thus, statehood is not only a system of institutions, but also a historical connection between generations. Conservatism maintains this connection without prohibiting development: its task is to transform the accumulated state experience into a resource for the future.

Each era in the history of our state has its own tasks and its own responsibility to generations. Each of them gives lessons to the next generations, and each such lesson is the basis for the opportunity to achieve new and better things for the country and people. And, contrary to a fairly widespread opinion, if our state did not know how to effectively draw lessons from its own and others’ experience, if it did not know how to preserve and, while preserving, practically apply this knowledge, it would not exist. The custodian of such state experience is domestic conservatism. For this reason alone, our conservative idea seems to be the most promising and durable unifying basis for changes for the better, for solving the problems of our time, for strengthening, development, and the historical continuation of our statehood.