THREE RUSSIAN LEGITIMATION THEORIES FOR IMPERIAL EXPANSION: ORTHODOXY, PAN SLAVISM, AND COMMUNISM
It is now time to turn to Russia and to ask what kind of legitimation theories were used during the expansion of the Russian empire. As was already mentioned, in the first centuries of Russian expansion no special legitimation theory seemed necessary. Territorial expansion was “the normal way of life” of the Russian state. It was something akin to breathing: you are doing it, but you are not conscious of doing it. This was especially the case when the empire expanded into quasi-empty, sparsely populated territories. However, when the expansion began to take place in territories occupied by foreign populations there emerged a need for legitimation theories. We can distinguish at least three:
1. The Orthodox religion
2. Pan Slavism
3. Communism
Sometimes these legitimation theories overlap. But they will be represented here as different, sequential phases.
The first, Orthodoxy, is a religious legitimation theory, and it resembles, therefore, the religious legitimation theories that played a role in the early colonial expansion of Western Europe, especially of Spain. In Russia religion played an important role from an early stage. That role, however, was different from that in Western Europe, where Protestantism and Catholicism were not the religions of one state, but of groups of states. In 1453, after the fall of Constantinople, Russia had become the only Orthodox country in the world. This led to a deep sense of Russian religious uniqueness. Moscow began to call itself the “Third Rome,” and a specific Russian messianism emerged: Russia considered itself to be the only real source of salvation for mankind. The resemblance here with the young Soviet Union is striking. In 1917 Russia became, again, the only state in the world with its own creed: communism. As the only communist country in the world, it considered itself to be a beacon for mankind. The messianism of the early communist era, expressed in the phrase “socialism in one country” was, in fact, a secularized version of the messianism of tsarist, Orthodox Russia, expressed in the slogan svyataya Rus, “Holy Russia.” To call your country “holy” is an immense pretention. “To see oneself as potentially ‘a holy nation’ is to link chosenness indissolubly with collective sanctification.”[28] But Russia was not the first to call itself “holy.” In the West there existed a precedent—and a competitor—in the Holy Roman Empire, headed by the emperor of Austria.[29] Both the emperor in Vienna and the tsar in Moscow pretended to be the legitimate heirs of the late Christian Roman Empire. The Holy Roman Empire in the heart of Europe, led by the Austrian emperor, however, was a weak and semifederal construction, a conglomerate of German principalities that would finally be dissolved in 1806 under pressure from Napoleon. The tsars, on the contrary, stood at the helm of a centralized and strong military power, and they were able to conduct an uninterrupted policy of territorial annexation.
THE SYMBIOSIS OF CHURCH AND STATE
The Russian Orthodox religion gained in importance as a legitimation theory for Russian expansion, when, in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, Russia began its southward expansion into the territories of the Ottoman Empire. There Russia was no longer confronting “fellow Christians,” such as the Protestant Swedes or the Catholic Poles, but a non-Christian, Muslim power. The peoples over whom the Ottomans ruled, Greeks, Bulgarians, Romanians, and Serbs, shared the Orthodox faith of the Russians, a faith of which the Russian tsar considered himself to be the official defender. Consequently Russian imperialist expansion in the south took place under the banner of a defense of the Orthodox religion. The Crimean War, for instance, started with a conflict with the Ottoman Empire and France over Russia’s role as a protector of the Orthodox Christians and the Holy Places in Jerusalem. The Orthodox religion could play its role of legitimation theory for imperial expansion better than other religions in Europe because it was, in the most literal sense, a state religion. Tsar Peter the Great had subordinated the Church to bureaucratic state control when he introduced the lay function of Ober Procurator (Ober Prokuror) of the Holy Synod, which was a state official who exercised ultimate authority over the episcopal body.[30] Tsar Peter, the Westernizer, wanted to dominate the Church, which he considered, in his heart, a reservoir of primitive beliefs. His successors, however, wanted to use the Church and from the middle of the eighteenth century we can witness a growing symbiosis of the Church and the state. At the end of the eighteenth century, under the enlightened tsarina Catherine the Great, this symbiosis was still progressive in nature: she appointed modern, educated bishops who shared her ideas. But under the rule of the reactionary tsar Nicholas I (1825–1855), who was called the gendarme of Europe, the Church became the instrument of a repressive state. The right hand of Nicholas I, his deputy minister of Public Education, Sergey Uvarov, coined the ideological triad Orthodoxy, Autocracy, Nationhood,[31] which was to become Russia’s official state ideology. Priests were paid by the state and had the status of civil servants. They were spied upon: “The church itself was firmly under the control of the state so that even sermons were vetted by the police.”[32] In their turn the priests themselves were used as informants. They reported irregular behavior and the emergence of subversive ideas in their local parishes to the police, acting as unofficial spies for the state. “The doctrine of the Church provided Tsarism with a powerful ideological justification, and its priests acted as instruments of police rule in rural areas.”[33] They had also “to report confessions which revealed ‘evil intent’ towards the State.”[34] The iron grip of the state on the Church was further strengthened under tsar Alexander III (1881–1894), who made his tutor, the reactionary Pan Slavist Konstantin Pobedonostsev, Ober Procurator of the Holy Synod.
A NEW LEGITIMATION THEORY: PAN SLAVISM
However, with the rise of nationalism in the nineteenth century there emerged, alongside Orthodox religion, a new legitimation theory. National expansion was no longer the exclusive domain of ruling dynasties. It became increasingly a concern for the populations as well. This growing popular interest in national politics found expression in the Pan Movements that aimed to bring peoples of the same language and culture together within the framework of a single nation-state. In Germany this took the form of Pan Germanism. In Russia it led, first, to Slavophilia, a romantic movement that ascribed unique ethnic and spiritual qualities to the Slavic peoples, and, then, to Pan Slavism, a political movement with the goal of uniting all Slavic peoples under the Russian aegis. The reaction of the tsarist government to this movement was in the beginning somewhat reserved. The reason for this was that the movement gave a quasi-mystical importance to narodnost—a word derived from narod, which means “people.” Narodnost is usually translated as “nationality,” but, in fact, it was more. It referred to a supposed quasi-mystical “essence” of the Russian people, its unique character that would express itself in a supposed inborn, natural goodness, in its patience, in its childlike faith, in its capability to suffer, and its quiet subservience to “father” tsar.[35]
28
Anthony D. Smith,
29
Herfried Münkler drew attention to the fact that for Roman authors, such as Virgil and Horace, “empires are of world-historical importance, in a cosmological or salvationist sense, as well as in terms of power politics…. Empires take it upon themselves to shape the course of time. The strongest expression of this is the sacral charge of the imperial mission…. In an age when decline and fall were seen as the natural tendency of history, the world-historical role of empire was to arrest the decline and to prevent the end of the world…. Once Christianity became the state religion, it was necessary to give up some of the sacral components of the imperial mission…. But the sense of sacrality remained so strong that in the eleventh century the Hohenstaufen chancellery began to speak of the
30
Cf. Laura Engelstein,
31
In Russian:
32
Alexander Chubarov,
33
David Beetham,
35
The German equivalent of