Solzhenitsyn Speaks

Aleksander Solzhenitsyn is one of the great heroes of our times, both for his principled stand against Soviet tyranny, and for his perceptive analysis of the totalitarian implications iherent in Communist ideology, so it is worth noting what he has to say about the current condition of the world.

In a recent interview Solzhenitsyn denounces the Gorbachev and Yeltsin regimes [so much admired in the West] for their failure to preserve the Russian nation. Under them Russia was dismembered and its assets plundered, leaving it a mere shell of its former self. "Saving the nation," he says, numerically, physically, and morally -- is the utmost task for the state. He gives at least tacit approval to the current Putin regime, despite its hostility to liberal democracy, because Putan, at least, is trying to address some of the nation's most pressing problems. All measures to raise living standards – housing, diet, healthcare, education, morality, etc. – are in effect designed to save the nation. This is an overriding priority.

Have you noticed, Solzhenitsyn is by no means a champion of liberal democracy on the western model. He is not a foe of democracy, but feels that the West is not an appropriate model on which to build it. Instead he argues that a true Russian democracy must rise in an organic manner from the ancient and local institutions of Russian society.

A healthy democratic system can only evolve on the grassroots level, from local associations, stepwise, through stage by stage elections. Only this setup can ensure that reasonable and general interests – industrial, professional, occupational, environmental, cultural, educational, etc. – will prevail. This is a very difficult path since it is full of bureaucratic obstacles on many levels. I believe that a democratic system evolving from local government to Supreme Legislative Assembly is the healthiest for Russia and the most consonant with its traditional spirit.

His admiration for the Enlightenment is tempered by its failings.

We have been hearing all this talk about “human rights” ever since the Enlightenment era; they have been secured in a number of countries, but not always within the bounds of moral values and principles. Yet for some reason no one has ever urged us to defend “human obligations.” Even calling for self-restraint is considered to be ludicrous and absurd. Meanwhile, only self-restraint, self-denial can guarantee a moral and reliable resolution of any conflicts.

And here we get to the core of his thought. The exalted principles of human rights and liberal democracy are silent on the matter of moral obligation. He is repulsed, as are billions around the globe, by the secularizing and demoralizing content of Western liberalism.

He looks instead to a restored "conservatism" that seeks to preserve and uphold the best, the most humane and reasonable traditions that have justified themselves throughout centuries-old history. This is not reaction, which is simply a response to current ills and "total license", but a recapturing of the ancient traditions of Russian culture, including, especially, its religious traditions.

And it is not just in Russia that there is a need to recapture the past. Speaking on a global scale he repudiates Huntington's concept of a "clash of civilizations," seeing instead a clash of rich vs. poor and resistance to the secularizing tendencies of modern Western culture.

A more accurate description of this world conflict would probably be this: The Third World vs. the Golden Billion. It has been caused by the global divide between the rich and poor. (Saudi Arabia and some other countries are not an exception here: They are only using the West’s run-away secularism as an easy target. This triumphant secularism in fact arouses the utmost indignation in the Muslim world.

So the real target of his concern is the "Golden Billion" inspired by a "triumphant secularism" and in the vanguard of this world-challenging force is the United States which has been using its military and economic power to expand Western liberal culture and economic into all parts of the world. This, Solzhenitsyn holds, is a real challenge to Russian integrity and must be resisted domestically, although he feels that in its present weakened state Russia is incapable of playing a significant part in the great conflicts of our day. He urges Russia to remain aloof from international controversies, taking no side in any dispute, and instead focusing all its efforts toward restoring its domestic integrity.

Very interesting, and an important dissent from the current enthusiasm in the West for promoting "human rights" globally and for liberalizing the world. Ultimately, he thinks, "total liberalism" had its day and is now "a spent force." Certainly it is provoking strong and persistent opposition both in the West and throughout the world. I wonder what Frank Fukuyana thinks of all this.

Read the whole thing here.