Dirty Hybrid: Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn on “democracy” and “democrats” in the Russian Federation.

throughout the era post the fall of western Rome, monarchies have a long history of being predominantly effective and only in the minority despotic

I can imagine a bad king here and there, but I am still at a loss why any of them was "despotic". I can certainly name a few anti-royalists that cannot be describe in any other way, e.g.. Cromwell. Do you have a concrete example of a "despotic king" in mind?

Thank you, however, for conceding the larger point: that throughout Christian European history monarchies largely worked and democracies largely failed.

As to the post-Soviet space, the failure to rid of Sovietism (that is, the practical implementation of Communism in the Soviet Union) has many roots. Certainly, it is an impossible task for a democracy to do the job, if by democracy we mean that competitive and free elections are periodically held. To the Russian thinkers like Solzhenitsyn, emerging from the Soviet nightmare, "democracy" came to mean something vaguely associated with the social institutions of the West; I think he uses the word simply as an alternative to a single party rule.

What precisely failed in the post-Soviet space in Russia? Foremost, I think is the failure to cleanly and publicly condemn Communism, ban ex-communists from positions of power and offer an apology to the nations of Western and Central Europe that the Soviet Union annexed or subjugated. If the act of national repentance had happened, the social fabric that we call rule of law: the government that protects rights, -- could have been established, and they would have become the focus of the national pride of the Russian people. Instead, as we know, the cult of the military victories in 1945 was promoted, and the national revival was stillborn in Russia.

The exclusion of former officials was something too impossible to accomplish in their minds. The entire national apparatus would have had to disappear overnight and be replaced with something wholly new staffed with an entire compliment of office holders with no experience or knowledge of what had been in place to avoid former communists.

Solzhenitsyn is saying therefore what happened is the officials that stayed in place from a policeman on up, just said, well we are all democrats now.

By the time of the collapse it was probably true that there were few “believing” communists — the whole system was corrupt and believed bankrupt by those that ran it, that is why it fell away so fast.

Definitions of despotic relate back to Egypt as applied by the Greeks. Mary I of England sure came close in her killing efforts. A whole group of nobles or a people in general could consider a King evil, tyrannical or hated but some good effort can always be picked out in hindsight for that monarch.

We view religious persecution from the American prism. For England in the midst of the reformation it was the matter of national identity, dissent threatened the very existence of the nation and so it was punishable alongside treason. She was not the first, nor the last, only Catholic. By the 1st Amendment standards any random government in history would be despotic, except a scant few in recent history, that seem all heading to oblivion as nations.

The idea that the nomenklatura was somehow useful is of course conceivable, if wrong. A typical communist apparatchik was at best silently consuming his salary, usually a direct hindrance to useful work. What their beliefs were does not matter, really, because the sovietism of the post-war period had little to do with ideas of Marx and Lenin, and everything to do with the nomanklatura’s survival. So they survived.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.