I. GENERAL PROVISIONS
The Orthodox Party of Russia is not an instrument of a handful of party functionaries or state officials in the struggle for power. The Orthodox Party is also not a religious organization, although it treats the church with understanding and respect.
The Orthodox Party of Russia is political mechanism whose main raison d'être is to contribute in every possible way to the formation in Russia of a stable, consistently democratic civil society and a healthy state subordinate to him. The main reference point for the party's activities, the stability of society and the state, is achievable through the establishment of close, full-scale relationships between the people and the authorities. These relations presuppose, on the one hand, the daily participation of the population in monitoring the activities of state institutions and authorities, and, on the other hand, the fulfillment by officials and people's representatives of their obligations to the citizens of Russia. The return of peace and stability, integrity and independence to our Motherland is possible only with the moral unification of the whole people, with a common understanding of good and evil, the border between permissible and unacceptable. The real foundation of a healthy society has always been and remains the recognition by all social, professional, national and other groups of the population, including the highest statesmen, of common life values. In Russia, these vital values have been protected and supported by the Russian Orthodox Church for a whole millennium, thanks to which our country has turned into a mighty world power. The transformation of morality into an instrument of class, and then - competitive struggle, as we see, brought our state close to collapse.
Today, such traditional values as justice, freedom, decency, conscience are still shared by the vast majority Russian population. However, more than ever they need support and protection. As history, including the history of the twentieth century, shows, a single moral and legal foundation for all public life is the main requirement for sustainable development any modern independent nation state. At the same time, for a variety of reasons, the necessity and possibility of protecting the unity of society moved from the religious sphere to the realm of practical politics.
The Orthodox Party of Russia stands for the unity of everything Russian people around the basic life values, rights and freedoms common to both Russian Orthodoxy and consistent democracy.
II. POLITICS
The Orthodox Party of Russia proceeds from the recognition of the already established structure of power. At the same time, it is clear that the existing alienation of power from the population threatens the restoration of the dictatorship, another bloody redistribution of power and property. In any outcome of such a redistribution, the same elite will be the winner, the same population will be the loser. A real overcoming of the alienation of the state from the people is necessary not only to counter the new dictatorship, this is the first and main requirement of any democracy.
The democratic state does not exist apart from the active position of the people, and this activity cannot be reduced to periodic voting for little-known people. The wider the participation of the population in solving problems that the authorities cannot cope with, the sooner the development of democratic skills for the joint management of their state takes place, the more successful is the process of becoming a state subordinate to the needs of citizens, moderating the appetites of the elite. Dictatorship does not begin with tanks on the streets, it begins with apathy, with people's disbelief in their abilities, with the loss of a sense of pride.
Need not replace one ruling group to another, but the subordination of power to the requirements and value orientations of society. The main direction of the party's activity in the field of politics, therefore, is the fullest possible use of the possibilities of the political system existing in Russia and its development in accordance with the laws in force, the values of Orthodoxy and the requirements of consistent democracy. The Orthodox Party stands for close cooperation with any public, state and other organizations that contribute in one way or another to the political, economic stabilization and moral unification of Russia. At the same time, the Party will use all legal methods to counteract the actions and dissemination of views aimed at further disunity of the Russian people.
The party does not support political and spiritual extremism, other deviations from the principles of democracy. One of the most dangerous phenomena for Russia, the party considers various manifestations of domestic and organized Nazism, when a person's nationality is determined by the "principle of blood" and serves as the basis for the emergence of one or another type of inequality. There can be no democracy without morality, without people's respect for themselves and others.
The Orthodox Party of Russia is sympathetic to the religious choice of any person, but believes that certain confessional features cannot and should not serve to divide people. Religions are united in their essence, they all profess unity, brotherhood, love for one's neighbor, and therefore believing citizens of Russia and their associations are natural allies of the Orthodox Party. Of course, it is easier for Christians and people with Christian roots to find mutual language with each other, however, a confidential dialogue is possible and necessary with representatives of other, even the most exotic beliefs, as well as with principled, conscious atheists. The principle of freedom of conscience does not cancel, but presupposes the existence of conscience. none world religion does not profess immorality and misanthropy, they all proceed from humanistic principles. The Orthodox Party intends to unite all Russian citizens who believe in themselves, in their people, in their Motherland.
III. ECONOMY
The Orthodox Party of Russia stands for the economic stability and security of the country. The use of certain economic mechanisms should be subject to this unconditional priority. The key element of the entire Russian economy should be the national Self employed, supporting his family, providing work for less socially active citizens, as well as financing reasonable activities carried out by the state apparatus. State bodies that are unable to fulfill their obligations to entrepreneurs and other groups of the population must take a position in the economic system that corresponds to the benefits they bring.
Foreign capital wishing to participate in the Russian economy must be protected from the irresponsible actions of state officials and from unauthorized receptions in competition. The real master of the country, the Russian people, with the help of political procedures, as well as using other opportunities, must ensure that the rules of hospitality are observed. At the same time, such obligations are inseparable from the observance by the guest of the rules of conduct determined for him.
The Orthodox Party believes that labor, capital and the state are equally important for the prosperity of our country. In addition, these three concepts do not exist on their own, but are embodied in specific people, citizens of Russia, each of which is valuable in itself.
The equal importance of labor, capital and the state, however, does not mean that they are equal. Rights must correspond to duties and responsibilities, to whom much is given, much will be required. As long as states exist, national labor and capital have the same fate as their state, and therefore, in the end, common interests.
Awareness by all three links of the economy of the unity of their destiny and main interests, restoration of the destroyed system social partnership is one of the main guidelines for the activities of the Orthodox Party in the field of economics.
IV. INTERNATIONAL RELATIONSHIPS
In the field of external international relations The Orthodox Party adheres to the same main principles as in domestic politics. Any foreign state, international or national organization that respects the people of Russia and is ready for mutually beneficial cooperation can count on the reciprocal activity of Russians.
Foreign economic, political and military cooperation should be guided primarily by the interests of the Russian people. At the same time, when determining the goals and methods of external cooperation, one cannot ignore the fact that the Russian people are inclined to apply the norms of traditional morality to the assessment of world events. Injustice in relations between any states is regarded as a deviation from the norms of civilized morality, as disrespect for world public opinion and, in part, as disrespect for the opinion of the people of Russia.
Russia has both permanent allies and permanent interests. The Orthodox Party stands for a just world order, in which the use of any force and methods of unfair competition is excluded. The international dictate of one or more countries or organizations is an indicator of the duality of moral standards: for their own citizens and "for export". In other words, this is the beginning of a departure from the principles of democracy. There can be no lasting peace in which people and nations do not respect each other, and the strong, without asking anyone, tries to appropriate additional rights ignoring the duties and responsibilities associated with it.
The Orthodox Party is convinced that all people, all peoples proceed in their actions from the same basic life principles as the Russian people. And if in any state the authorities for some reason ignore the opinion and interests of their people, this circumstance does not make the citizens of this country enemies of Russia.
The Orthodox Party of Russia, like any other party, cannot but raise the question of power. However, unlike the vast majority of domestic political organizations, the Orthodox Party solves it based on the recognition of the priority of morality over momentary gain.
Power is based on the universal recognition of the right to possess this power, and only then is reinforced by force. In turn, the use of force in the name of power is possible only with its legitimate character. In a society that has abandoned the totalitarian system, power is given directly by the people, and only then is confirmed in the course of formal democratic procedures.
The Orthodox Party considers the Russian people to be the source of real power, and the most expedient and fair way to obtain this power is to gain authority in the general public and from each decent citizen of Russia individually. Temporary possession of formal symbols of partial power will not allow fulfilling the statutory tasks, moreover, joint political activities with persons who do not adhere to the principles of Orthodox morality can discredit the idea of modern political Orthodoxy.
The Orthodox Party, which sets one of its main goals to overcome the alienation of power from the people, must conduct daily work with the population, helping them to realize their role in building civil society, to use legal rights and opportunities for realizing the basic interests of Russian citizens. Consultations on problems related to the participation of the people in the government of their state and other assistance should be provided to representatives of all social strata - from the least socially protected to the elite. For the Orthodox Party, it doesn’t matter how wealthy the citizen who turned to her help is, how important his passport nationality, religion, and even Political Views. We are all the people of a country trying to build a democratic state. There is only one way to do this, and this way goes through the creation of a civil society, where everyone is responsible for himself and for his neighbor, where all members of society are helped to overcome ignorance, misunderstanding, distrust and take a worthy place in life.
The Orthodox Party puts its own, Christian content into the concept of the people. Neither social status, nor material security, nor even the attitude to the basic Christian commandments can serve as a basis for not considering this or that person, group or category of the population as a part of the people. The poor and the rich, the prisoner and the prosecutor, the worker, the employee and the entrepreneur, the resident of the Far North and the highest Moscow official - they all make up the people. A real, real people, not a theoretical scheme. Society is made up of all sorts of people, whether one likes it or not.
In full accordance with the precepts of Christianity, the Orthodox Party also does not consider skin color, passport nationality or genealogical roots of a person as a basis for direct or indirect discrimination, derogation of his human dignity, or restriction of his fundamental rights and freedoms.
Even the citizenship of another country does not make a person less worthy of respect. Rather, on the contrary, the real host will be helpful and surround the guest with special care. It is enough for the guest not to forget that in the host country he is subject to the rules of conduct, which may differ from the usual ones.
All citizens of Russia are equal before the law and society. No one can be above public morality, no one is allowed to ignore public opinion. No and cannot be social groups, consisting of citizens of the "first class", "untouchables". Only additional duties and responsibilities give additional scope of rights. The fate of a person must first of all depend on his abilities and perseverance, on his readiness to live in a society of equals.
From the Christian understanding of the value of any individual person follows the basic requirement of democracy: the subordination of the minority to the majority. At the same time, a person opposes society only if she tries to rise above society. Democracy does not deny freedom, however, who wants to live side by side with people and enjoy the fruits of civilization, is obliged to limit his aspirations to a framework that is safe for other citizens and for society as a whole. Everyone is free to make their choice.
The Orthodox Party considers the Russian people to be one and indivisible. There are a huge number of cultural trends in it, each of which, under democracy, has an unconditional right to exist and develop. The vast territory and population implies a wide local government, which, of course, will take into account all the features of a particular region. At the same time, the Orthodox Party considers any division of the Russian people into nationalities, if it is carried out with political and economic goals, extremely dangerous and fraught with large-scale upheavals. After several thousand years cohabitation there are no "pure ethnic groups" in Russia. A people is not a unity of nationality, but a unity of history, territory, destiny.
VII. OUR FUTURE
The Orthodox Party in all its actions proceeds from the firm conviction that the citizens of Russia can count on life success only firmly realizing the unity of their future. Russia is not a country where people survive alone, and the end of the 20th century is not at all the right time for such experiments.
It is difficult not to feel the impending shocks, the result of which will be poverty, hunger, blood. The mutual distrust sown in the souls of people and the general disbelief in the power of good and in one's own forces make any external enemy superfluous: we will soon defeat ourselves, but at the same time we will remain defeated forever. Even the current elite will feel the consequences of the "Russian rebellion" famous for its cruelty and ruthlessness, multiplied by new technological opportunities for expressing popular discontent, on their own fate. Only a few thousand families of high dignitaries and related businessmen will be able to start abroad new life for which they have already prepared, or think they have. The rest of the country's citizens, including almost everyone who considered themselves an elite, will share a common fate.
Calculations for future foreign aid in such a situation are just as groundless as today's hopes for large international loans and Western investments are naive. Everyone has it foreign country which is in a position to provide such assistance, directly or through international organizations, has its own government, which is tightly controlled by its own people, national capital and vociferous media. No one will agree to give us part of their national wealth, even if it is a loan, because there is no extra money. No one has free funds in the volumes that we need right now. Help will not come, since the salvation of drowning people is always the work of the drowning people themselves. No one is going to accept and improve the life new wave refugees from former USSR. "cordon sanitaire" around the remnants of Russia to Civil War did not spread to the west - we can really count on such "help".
If we learn to understand and respect each other, join our efforts and banish lies and corruption from practice government controlled If we assume responsibility not only for ourselves, but also for our country, it is still possible to prevent the impending tragedy and the subsequent decades of national humiliation. And descendants will not curse us during our lifetime.
It seems that the time of stormy party building begins. The law does not allow the creation of parties on religious grounds, but no one will forbid the formation of an "Orthodox" or "Christian" party without a formal mention of this in the name - remember that Christian Democrats in the European Parliament call themselves the European People's Party, and moderate political Muslims in Turkey - Justice and Development Party.
There are no obstacles to the creation of the mentioned parties on the part of the Church either. In its foundations social concept we read: “The existence of Christian (Orthodox) political organizations, as well as Christian (Orthodox) constituent parts broader political associations is perceived by the Church as a positive phenomenon, helping the laity to jointly carry out political and state activities on the basis of Christian spiritual and moral principles. The mentioned organizations, being free in their activities, are simultaneously called to consult with the Church Hierarchy, to coordinate actions in the field of implementing the position of the Church on public issues” (V.4). However, in the same paragraph of the document, the decision of the Council of Bishops of 1997 is quoted, saying that organizations participating in the political process “cannot have the blessing of the Church Hierarchy and act on behalf of the Church. Church blessings cannot be received, and if they are, church-public organizations leading the pre-election struggle and involved in political campaigning are deprived of such.
Other opinions
In spring, the Law on simplifying the registration of political parties comes into force. Obviously, the number of Russian parties will soon increase greatly. Perhaps some of them will be Orthodox. Did the Orthodox historical experience party building? And what came of it? Candidate Tells historical sciences, Associate Professor Fedor Gayda.
Main goal and side effects
Politics is a field of activity that involves struggle, often dividing people and inciting passions. Therefore, “political struggle, election campaigning, campaigns in support of certain political parties, public and political leaders” belong to those areas “in which clergy and canonical church structures cannot provide assistance to the state, cooperate with it” (Fundamentals of the Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church. III. 8). However, this does not mean that the Church does not have a political position that she could not express. In addition, the Church does not forbid its members to belong to political parties, movements, unions and other similar organizations created on the basis of various political doctrines and views (see V. 1-2).The main goal of parties is to achieve and retain power. In order for this activity not to degenerate into empty chatter or the pursuit of selfish goals, a Christian must never forget the meaning of his life and the purpose of his activity. More than a century ago, back in 1896, K.P. Pobedonostsev characterized the political life of Russia in this way - words that seemed to be spoken about us today: “Look how people in our society converge - familiar and unfamiliar - for work and without work. As soon as they looked into each other's eyes, as soon as they had time to exchange a word, there was already a shadow between them. From the first word that he said, from the first method of speech that one used, the other already had an afterthought: ah, - what is his opinion, what is his school, what is his conviction (a favorite of the newest terms, and one of the most misleading). He is a liberal, he is a cleric, he is a serf-owner, he is a socialist, he is an anarchist. Take a closer look, listen how, after this first impression, mutual suspicion flares up more and more, how it then turns into irritation, how then any calm exchange of thoughts becomes impossible, how jerky and sharp phrases are replaced in a forced conversation by equally sharp pauses, and how, finally, people disperse without recognizing each other and having already condemned each other from the first meeting. Each immediately placed each other in a certain category, in a certain cell, with which, as he had already decided long ago, he had nothing in common. Why all this pointless strife? Because of beliefs? It can be said for sure in most cases that on both sides there is no meaningful conviction, there is no organized party, but only something that was heard yesterday, read yesterday in the newspapers, yesterday instilled from a conversation with the exact same citizen, who just ate the same children's porridge ... "(Pobedonostsev K.P. Moscow collection. Ch. XI). Do not think that such a situation is harmless. Enmity and distrust are sown in society - and a divided society begins to die. Without trust, the economy does not work, relationships within the family crumble, love and faith become scarce.
Orthodox means "reactionary"?
The Orthodox had rich experience in party building. And not only abroad, but also in Russia itself. Before the revolution of 1917, the parties that declared themselves to be Orthodox were the most massive in the country. These are the same parties that have been branded as "reactionary" - only because they sought to preserve in Russia the historical autocratic power and the dominant position of the Orthodox Church, to which the majority of the country's population belonged. These parties called themselves the Black Hundreds - in honor of the "Black Hundreds", the common townspeople of pre-Petrine Russia. They were also called right-wing because they were conservatives (in the 1990s, for some reason, liberals began to be called “right-wing” in Russia). The most famous such party was the Union of the Russian People (SRN), which arose during the First Russian Revolution.supreme manifesto On October 17, 1905, for the first time in the history of Russia, he allowed the creation of political parties. In addition to numerous socialist and liberal parties, as well as those representing various national minorities, parties began to form that supported historical power and faith. The traditional slogan was adopted: “Orthodoxy. Autocracy. Nationality". According to police data, which is confirmed by the calculations of modern historians, the number of Black Hundreds soon exceeded 400 thousand people (90 million Orthodox in the entire Russian Empire). Only in the Union of the Russian people there were 350 thousand. Any opposition party did not have a hundred thousand. The Black Hundred movement was completely consolidated. In addition to the RNC, there were two more parties (the Union of Russian People and the Russian Monarchist Party) that were close to it in spirit and acted jointly with it. Altogether, before 1917, almost 200 (!) parties arose in Russia (and for the most part managed to sink into oblivion), the vast majority of which were anti-government and anti-Orthodox.
Main cast
The composition of the right-wing parties was very diverse. The majority were peasants, often enlisting in the party as a whole village. However, the most active force was still intellectuals, priests (they were then forbidden to participate only in anti-state parties), merchants, "city dwellers", and workers. At the famous Putilov plant in St. Petersburg there was a powerful NRC cell. In Odessa, port loaders were a stronghold of the Black Hundreds.Membership fees in the RNC were small - 50 kopecks per year. The party existed on donations from wealthy supporters. In addition, tacit financial support was also provided by the state, which mainly went to the maintenance of right-wing newspapers (it was important for the government to create a kind of informational counterbalance for the left-wing press). It cannot be said that the Black Hundreds' relations with the authorities were cloudless. Emperor Nicholas II really favored them and even accepted the badge of the Union from the NRC deputation. But officials were often negatively disposed and were afraid of "overzealous" fighters for a just cause. In addition, the Black Hundreds actively criticized bureaucracy and corruption in the state apparatus, advocated the restoration of a direct connection between the tsar and the people. There was a lot of utopia in this romantic fervor, but there was also truth that irritated the bureaucrats.
Some bishops and priests were active participants in right-wing parties. Archbishop of Volyn and Zhytomyr Anthony (Khrapovitsky) is one of the founders of the RNC. At the Local Council of 1917-1918, he will become one of the candidates for election to the patriarchate and will gain the largest number of votes of the Council participants. Archimandrite of the Pochaev Lavra Vitaly (Maximenko) headed the most active of the local departments of the Union - Pochaev. Father John Vostorgov was also known - a missionary, founder of the Women's Theological Institute in Moscow. In 1907-1913 he headed the Russian Monarchist Party (since 1909 - the Russian Monarchist Union). In 1918, the Bolsheviks shot the priest as a "class enemy." The RNC also included the holy righteous John of Kronstadt, the Hieromartyr Metropolitan Vladimir (Bogoyavlensky), who occupied the Moscow cathedra in 1898-1912, the future Patriarch Metropolitan Tikhon (Bellavin), who was the honorary chairman of the Yaroslavl branch of the RNC.
However, despite this, the Black Hundreds often made claims against the clergy, who were called upon to participate more closely in the activities of right-wing organizations. Along with this, those priests (and there were many of them) who did not share right-wing views were criticized. Liberal priests and socialist priests were openly accused by the right of betraying Russian Orthodox ideals. In 1906, after the dissolution of the First State Duma, priest-deputies Klavdy Afanasiev and Nikolai Ognev, who were members of the faction of the Constitutional Democratic Party (Party of People's Freedom), signed the Vyborg Appeal of deputies calling on the population to peacefully resist the authorities. The signatories were subjected to a three-month arrest and deprivation of political rights, and priests were defrocked. This caused rejoicing in the Black Hundred ranks.
Wrestling
The introduction of the State Duma in Russia forced the right to join the election campaign. The right began to struggle for a presence in parliament. It was no easy task. It was necessary to massively distribute propaganda materials, train competent agitators, and establish contact with various groups of voters. In the 1907 elections to the Third State Duma, they achieved significant success. The faction consisted of 51 deputies (more than 10% of the seats). The original goal of the faction was to achieve the liquidation of the Duma itself. An active role in the Duma of this convocation was played by Bishop Evlogii (Georgievsky) of Kholmsky and Lublin, who was a member of the moderate-right faction and fought for increased state support for parochial schools, for the rights of his Kholmsky flock, who were in a hostile Catholic environment.However, the political struggle in Russia at the beginning of the 20th century had its own peculiarity: the opposition often resorted to forceful methods, to armed struggle. In 1905, at the height of the revolution, many cities in Russia turned into an arena of bloody confrontation. The Black Hundreds were not its initiators - as a rule, they only responded to the actions of the left. RNC fighting squads were created in a dozen cities. Odessa " white guard”(the largest) consisted of 300-350 people. The leftists were more aggressive - it was they who unleashed terrorist activities, the victims of which were many thousands of people, most of them innocent. On the account of the right there were two murders - liberals M. Ya. Gertsenshtein and G. B. Iollos. The inspirer of Gertsenshtein's assassination may have been N. M. Yuskevich-Kraskovsky, a candidate member of the RNC's main council, who then hid from the police for a long time, was finally arrested, convicted of incitement, and amnestied. The murder of Iollos was organized by an ordinary member of the RNC, G. R. Kuznetsov. They acted on their own initiative. The leadership of the NRC was averse to such methods.
In addition to political, the Black Hundreds launched an active social activity. The right-wing parties created savings banks and consumer shops for their members, workshops for the unemployed. Temperance societies developed. Schools, libraries, printing houses were opened, publishing cheap books for the people, tea houses (clubs). Readings, meetings, conversations were arranged, literature and periodicals were distributed. A Society was established to promote the patriotic education of children.
Provided legal advice. During the First World War, right-wing associations and their members actively helped the front by organizing infirmaries.
Damaged reputation
After the end of the First Russian Revolution, the fragmentation of the Black Hundred movement begins. The main enemy of the right went on the defensive - and the danger seemed to be overcome. The Black Hundred movement gradually weakened. There was nothing surprising in this. After 1907 all Russian parties experienced a crisis and collapsed. Coming out of the revolution, they hardly existed during the period of calm. The RNC was split into three parts. In 1908, the Russian People's Union named after Mikhail the Archangel, headed by V. M. Purishkevich, separated from the RNC. Subsequently, Purishkevich became infamous for the murder of G. Rasputin. In 1910-1911, the RNC split into renovationists and supporters of the former course (Dubrovintsy). The renovationists advocated taking into account the new political circumstances, they proposed to intensify activity in the State Duma and stop fighting for its liquidation. Showdown began among the Black Hundreds.In 1912, the authorities tried to use the clergy during the next election campaign for the Duma. Nothing good came of this: relations between officials and the Black Hundreds, on the one hand, and church hierarchy, on the other hand, have seriously deteriorated. The infamous "Beilis Affair" hit hard on the right's reputation. Anti-Semitic views were strong among them, and Jews (even Orthodox) were denied access to the party. Jewish pogroms are world famous, in which the Black Hundreds also took part. We will not develop this topic. Much is said about the reasons for such events and moods in the fundamental and truthful work of A. I. Solzhenitsyn “Two Hundred Years Together” (T. 1. M., 2001).
Ultimately, narrow party goals and personal ambitions became more important for many Black Hundreds than the cause of serving Russia and the Church. They obviously forgot about what they and the whole country of the Victorious once warned them about. Sacred work is not done by unscrupulous means. As a result, the Rights were not only unable to prevent February Revolution, sometimes they, with their inept or erroneous actions, even brought her offensive closer. There is a lot to learn here.
In the last few weeks, on the pages of Pravmir, we have seen a number of publications devoted to the problem of the participation of Orthodox Christians in politics and, more specifically, the possibility and/or necessity of creating an Orthodox (Christian) party.
Let me state my position. It may seem eclectic to some, but it seems important to me to say more clearly some of the things that have already been said in the publications of my colleagues. Abstract:
1. What Orthodox Christian can participate in politics, - in my opinion, the thing is obvious.
Yes, we all remember well the ban on the clergy from participating in the political struggle. (However, we remember just as well those times when the metropolitans sat in the Supreme Soviet of the USSR.) But this is not the point. It's about active life position- including in the political arena - should be occupied by the laity.
To use the terminology of transactional analysis, the Orthodox lay people of our country (as well as the majority of the population, by the way) are predominantly in the ego-state of the Child. Accordingly, the authorities (both church and state) choose the position of the Parent.
Isn't it time to grow up? An Adult-to-Adult dialogue here would be much more productive. That is why the laity (of course, not everyone, but those who feel a taste and vocation for this) can and should go into politics - instead of complaining about insults and misunderstanding on the part of society and the state.
2. But “go into politics” is too vague a wording. There are two main options for action for each specific Orthodox layman.
Option one: using existing institutions (incl. political parties), to strive to achieve the goals set for itself, without sticking out its Orthodoxy, but guided in their socio-political activities by Christian moral norms. Such politicians certainly exist, but they are scattered across a large part of the political spectrum and interact very little (if at all) with each other.
Option two: create some purely Orthodox (Christian) socio-political institution. For example, the Christian party.
3. The current legislation of the Russian Federation contains a direct ban on the creation of parties on confessional(or, note, national) basis(“Federal Law on Political Parties”, Article 9, paragraph 3). The expediency of this ban can be disputed, but this is the current reality.
Our duumvirate promises to change the legal norms in this area. Such a step seems to me populist and short-sighted.
It is clear that now is the time for promises. But one must realize that the Orthodox (Christian) party will be followed by the creation of an Islamic party. And then the political alignment can change decisively, which will entail far-reaching consequences in the most different areas our life.
4. Thus, the creation of a party that would be called Orthodox or Christian seems undesirable. However, this does not cancel the need for a party that would in fact be Christian (Orthodox).
Here we should immediately make a reservation: yes, participation in political life in broad sense this word is possible not only for parties. Many rightly consider the very institution of political parties to be outdated and ineffective. But the state of affairs is such that, for example, a deputy State Duma currently can not become non-partisan. Consequently, the participants of various kinds of public associations, movements, clubs, etc., if they can influence the legislative process, then only indirectly.
You can make an apology for our deeds as much as you like, but the fact remains: many of our fellow citizens (primarily the intelligentsia) perceive the ROC as an organization that has compromised itself by active cooperation with state power. And if in Soviet time was bad for everyone, and cooperation was forced, then the current warm embrace with the mighty of the world This leaves an unsightly impression and can hardly be justified by anything.
Therefore, the Orthodox party must be a movement from below; it should arise as a result of a lay initiative, to a certain extent distancing itself from the ROC MP.
As a matter of fact, such the distance is dictated by the interests of the Church itself. It says:
“lay people participating in state or political activities individually or within the framework of various organizations do it on their own, without identifying their political work with the position of the ecclesiastical Plenitude or any canonical ecclesiastical institutions and without speaking on their behalf. At the same time, the highest church authority does not give a special blessing to political activity laity” (p. V.4).
6. Thus, I believe (contrary to) that the Orthodox (Christian) party should not set as its main goal(or one of the main goals) protection of the interests of the Russian Orthodox Church.
First of all, this would be an unjustified multiplication of entities: the ROC is a fairly powerful organization in itself. But this organization (from a legal point of view) consists of people; and besides, there are people who share some of the values (including ideological, ethical, cultural) that are important for the ROC. And it is necessary to protect and defend the interests (in the broadest sense of the word) precisely of people and not organizations.
And sometimes - we know it happens - to protect people from ROC as an economic entity. I think many can give examples when church structures, wanting to return real estate that once belonged to the Russian Orthodox Church, stepped over human fates, hypocritically hiding behind the demagoguery of the Bolshevik expropriation.
One more thing: recently, from some officials (more precisely, a very specific person) one has heard such statements, after which each time one has to explain to one’s unbelieving or non-church relatives and acquaintances that not all Orthodox are such, that this is not a generally accepted and even especially the official position of the ROC.
The Orthodox (Christian) party can become a kind of counterbalance to such newsmakers. It seems that this will serve the benefit of the Church itself, and society, and the party.
7. Next question- about the name. However, we agreed that the name should not reflect the confessional specifics of the party ideology. Let it be, say, the Conservative Party, or the Union of Zemstvos, or something else. But “for internal use” you still need to decide: is this an Orthodox or Christian party?
Contrasting these two concepts may seem artificial or even provocative. Meanwhile, each of them has its own trail of associations. Orthodoxy is, first of all, something Russian, traditional; the cultural and historical component is very important here. As you know, you can be an atheist and, moreover, Orthodox. Orthodoxy in this sense is not a worldview, but a worldview.
Is it possible to imagine a Christian atheist? This is an obvious oxymoron. Christianity is a strict word. It immediately reminds of its Founder. Christianity is (by no means only, but also) definite – quite definite! - moral and ethical values. This is a constant problem of spiritual, conscientious choice. This is a requirement of integrity and honesty. This is the rejection of crafty Byzantinism.
And for the political party of the laity orientation towards Christianity as a concept seems to be the only the right choice . Yes, for some, Christianity is almost swear word, synonymous with Protestantism and ecumenism. But it seems to be a relic Soviet era which will eventually become part of history.
8. However, we must agree that the building of a Christian party presupposes a broader view of things. The Party is not the Church. We do not commune with Catholics, we do not serve with Protestants, but here the closest interaction is possible with both Catholics and "classical" Protestants, and perhaps even with some non-Christian denominations - provided that all these people share the same basic values.
9. What exactly are these values?
Alexander Morozov three main topics that need to be "problematized today in a Christian civil context, in relation to Russia":
- human dignity,
- Justice,
- subsidiarity.
Actually, these are not the values themselves, but the field where they can be found and formulated. Discussion of each of the above three points can become the subject of a whole series of publications, round tables, and so on. I will only indicate what, in my opinion, urgently requires a quick and effective solution and which, as far as I can tell, is not clearly a component of one of the three themes above.
This is, if we use the expression saving the people. Or rather, saving him from extinction.
The need to strengthen the institution of the family, combat drug addiction and alcoholism, counteract tobacco advertising, etc. has been talked about a lot and for a long time. But by and large things are still there.
The reasons are known to all: fusion government agencies in criminal structures, general corruption and so on. And as long as hopes are pinned on the mere improvement of legislation, on tougher punishments, on stricter control over officials, nothing will change until then.
Because the problem of corruption is the problem of dishonesty. After all, if officials and citizens do not have reliable moral guidelines, then no fear of punishment can prevail over a passion for profit - at any cost, even at the cost of human lives.
And the Christian party (probably, I am an idealist) is called upon to introduce this moral dimension into politics. Members of the Christian party must testify with their lives that their social and political activities are not a promising PR project, but a service to God and people.
Another thing is also important: only if Christians (including politicians) manage to at least not convince, but at least make their compatriots seriously think about the fact that life is God's gift, which a person cannot thoughtlessly squander at his own whim, – only in this case, I repeat, we have hope for the physical preservation of our people. For in a different scenario, in a few decades there simply will not be those whose dignity could be defended and who could be called to justice in relation to whom.
10. However, whether a Christian party will be created or not - but already here and now every Christian is called to be the salt of the earth and the light of the world- for their neighbors, and if God wills - then for those far away.
Technical note. Perhaps this publication will go unnoticed (“too many letters”). It is also possible that it will cause a storm of responses - including angry ones. Based on the last assumption - the lowest request to readers: everyone is free to discuss this text on any platform (and above all, of course, on the Pravmir forum), but if you are interested in my response, then you are welcome to me in LiveJournal - so I'm more comfortable technically. Thanks for understanding.
If not the Lord will create house, toiling in vain
Ps. 126.1.
According to Interfax, the head of the Synodal Department for Relations between the Church and Society, Archpriest Vsevolod Chaplin, called for thinking about whether an “Orthodox” party is possible in Russia. “The Church welcomes the prospect of creating Christian or Orthodox parties or intra-party groups, but will not give them exclusive support or blessings. The Church is for everyone, not for supporters of one political force,” Chaplin writes in the collective blog “Orthodox Politics”. “The creation of parties on religious grounds is not allowed by law, but no one will forbid the formation of an “Orthodox” or “Christian” party without a formal mention of this in the name - remember that the Christian Democrats in the European Parliament call themselves the European People's Party, and moderate political Muslims in Turkey - The Justice and Development Party," the author recalls. According to him, there are no obstacles to the creation of the mentioned parties on the part of the Church. The Foundations of its social concept says: “The existence of Christian (Orthodox) political organizations, as well as Christian (Orthodox) components of broader political associations, is perceived by the Church as a positive phenomenon that helps the laity to jointly carry out political and state activities on the basis of Christian spiritual and moral principles” . As the priest recalled, the same document states that the mentioned organizations, being free in their activities, are simultaneously called upon "to coordinate actions in the field of implementing the position of the Church on public issues." http://www.interfax.ru/society/news.asp?id=225537
There has been a discussion about this. Supporting it, let's think, what is a "Christian party" in general? There are numerous Christian parties in the world. Most of them are Protestant, just like the concept of "Christian party" is a product of the Protestant consciousness. Simplifying greatly, it can be noted that Protestantism formally does not know the concept of "Church", and therefore does not recognize any structures that have a monopoly on the Truth. Hence the direct road to "religious democracy", that is, the free search for Truth in the clash of opinions. In confirmation of this, it can be emphasized that if the Catholic and Orthodox social doctrines under the ideal form of government of the state understand the monarchy, autocracy, Protestantism (with some reservations) emphasizes its adherence to democratic principles.
The great importance of the community in Protestantism (people as a universal priesthood, which is not in Orthodoxy and Catholicism), endless discussions over the centuries have led to the fact that Protestant ideas about a just state in which human rights, freedom and independence are respected have formed the basis of political systems very many states - from Germany to the USA. Therefore, the Protestant social doctrine prescribes as the main function of the state: "... to protect the rights of citizens, regardless of their views on life and attitudes towards religion." From the point of view of the Protestant Church, the state is secondary in relation to society. That is why, unlike Orthodoxy, where the value of the human person is based on a soteriological foundation, Protestantism insists that the value of a person is also determined by the social and deterministic component.
Thus, it is necessary to understand that the creation of a Christian party is an attempt to transfer to Russian soil a very specific Western phenomenon that has no points of support in Russia either in the political tradition, or in the confessional, or in the mental sense. Not to mention the fact that it is already clear that the Church will not officially support such a party. In other words, it will not be possible to obtain blessings for the political activities of such a party. Which will automatically make this party in the eyes of millions of Orthodox (even with the formal approval of the Church) a semi-arbitrary gathering. This, in turn, will give rise to a logical question about the need for a separate Orthodox party - after all, in all parties there are Orthodox and churched, and what prevents them from raising their voice against social and political disorder from the rostrum of their party?
Another important detail is the specific orders, customs and rituals that are characteristic of the political life of Russia and, to put it mildly, terribly far from Orthodox piety. Only a Zulu with feathers in his head, a fish bone in his nose and a heavy club in his hand, or a representative of the Church of the Flying Monster from Spaghetti crowned with a colander, who has seen nothing like that, can shout at the public political platform of Zhirinovsky. Any self-respecting Orthodox will only have to tame the violence of Zhirinovsky with silence, caused by pious immersion in prayer, as Father Gregory Palamas did, who did not even notice Emperor Andronicus II in his prayer. By the way, the Internet is a good example… Who determines the topics, social and political agenda on the Internet (Runet), who argues and discusses? Anyone, but not Christians (confessional affiliation in this case does not matter). And the point is by no means in inertia (although it is also in it), but first of all, in the fact that any self-respecting Orthodox Christian will not stoop to those forms, methods and folklore words that are used in these, so to speak, "disputes" by marginal Navalny's cronies and their leader. How to be?
In addition, the deputies of the parties in the Duma are always a clash of political and, often, financial interests of various people. Any party is a huge amount of money invested in development, promotion, support. Since the Church will not, by definition, invest this money, it means that someone else will do it. That is, this “other” will inevitably be tempted to use the party or individual deputies, at least in part, for personal interests. How to get out of this situation? You will not elect monks to it ...
One cannot fail to say that any schisms, squabbles, quarrels in such a party will immediately be perceived by society quite unambiguously: “well, here it is the same thing ...”, which will inevitably affect the general attitude towards the Church and the Orthodox. Will these squabbles and quarrels be avoided? As the little experience already available in Russia in the 1990s shows, it will not succeed. What to do?
Very important point: How can such a party convey its position to society? Through the media, because fortunately it is not customary to acquaint parishioners with the latest news from the life of parties, even Orthodox ones, from the pulpit. As you know, all influential political forces in today's Russia are distributed to varying degrees among the media. Everyone knows about the " United Russia They speak with reverence on Channel One, and Kommersant admires swamp hamsters, and not vice versa. The majority of the media treat the Church with restraint at best, at worst they do not miss the opportunity to amuse the undemanding public with some real or fictional scandal in the church fence. Who will convey the position of the Christian Party to the broad masses? "Thomas"? "JMP"? "Moscow Diocesan Gazette"? "Boring Garden"? To do this, the broad masses should already read them regularly today, which there is some doubt about.
All of the above does not negate the need to raise the question of the concept of the Christian party, its strategy, tactics, and, finally, its creation. But the questions that arise need to be answered. Today, the absence of the opinion of the Church, the people of the Church in the key events of political and public life is acutely felt. I have already written about the fact that everything could have been different at Manezhnaya if the clergy or at least a few dozen Orthodox with crosses and icons had come out there. I am glad that His Holiness Patriarch and Schema-Archimandrite Iliy, Father Dmitry Smirnov and Father Vsevolod Chaplin gave an assessment to the swamp-sugar gatherings, it is good that announcements appeared in some Moscow churches not blessing to be ranked as penguins and hamsters at opposition events. Therefore, if the process of building small parties that unite people around a variety of leaders and ideas begins now, then the Church should use this opportunity. And, quite possibly, as a result of long and difficult work, a political Christian party will arise, which will become an example of a combination of Christian moral principles and modern advanced methods. political struggle for their rights and opportunities. I would like it to work.
