Moving onto the subject of contemporary politics in post-communist Russia, Solzhenitsyn lamented the lack of repentance on the part of former communists. “Repentance is a national Russian trait which developed under Orthodoxy.” It was necessary for an individual to “regret things and feel repentance”.
With all people this repentance should be their integral trait. I thought that in quitting Bolshevism some of the liars and torturers would repent, at least some of them. Not one of them did this. They simply converted into other beliefs and stepped into a new century scot-free, discarding or hiding their Party membership cards. And now they belong to a political class who know very well what is going on, what outrageous things. They do nothing about it. I can only see parties fighting with parties.
Yermolai, the eldest of Solzhenitsyn’s sons, commented toward the end of the documentary that his father was “clearly aware of the end of his life”: “It doesn’t mean he feels he is about to die; it’s simply an objective awareness. He is turning eighty-five soon. I have the impression that during the last several years his mental outlook, the scope of his thinking, has increased and that he has approached very, very deep insight.”
CHAPTER TWENTY-TWO
PESSIMISTIC OPTIMIST
In November 2004, Solzhenitsyn received the highest award of the Serbian Orthodox Church, the Order of St. Sava of the First Degree. It was presented, with the blessing of His Holiness Serbian Patriarch Pavle, by the Metropolitan Amfilohije of Montenegro, who traveled to Solzhenitsyn’s home outside Moscow to make the presentation in person. In his remarks to Solzhenitsyn, Metropolitan Amfilohije stated that the award expressed the deepest respect of the church and the Serbian people to the Russian writer for his “uninterrupted witness to truth, repentance and calm as the only path to salvation”.1 Thanking Metropolitan Amfilohije, Solzhenitsyn stressed that he interpreted the honor bestowed upon him “as a visible sign of the centuries-old shared spirituality of the Russian and Serbian Orthodox Churches, which sprang from the same spiritual roots”. He added that the “communality” of the Russian and Serbian churches was “the source of the mutual love of our two peoples”. Looking back to the bombing of Serbia in spring 1999, he told Metropolitan Amfilohije that he was with the Serbian people “wholeheartedly”, sharing their fears and sorrows. “Our two peoples have passed through difficult challenges, and a time of spiritual confusion; that is why it is important that we endure and preserve our spirit”, he concluded.
In April 2005, following the death of Pope John Paul II, Solzhenitsyn paid his own personal tribute: “Pope John Paul II was a great man. In the centuries-long line of Roman popes, he stands out markedly. He influenced the course of world history; and, on his tireless pastoral visits across the world, he carried the warmth of Christianity to all.”2 Two months later, during his first interview for almost three years, broadcast on Russia’s Channel Two, Solzhenitsyn spoke of the nature of democracy in terms that the late Pope would have wholeheartedly endorsed. In speaking of the necessity of grassroots democracy, Solzhenitsyn was echoing the line of reasoning adopted by John Paul II in his encyclical Centesimus annus, published in 1991, as well as reiterating the argument pursued in his own earlier work, Rebuilding Russia, published in 1990. Having stated emphatically that “we do not have democracy in this country”, Solzhenitsyn differentiated between real grassroots democracy and the pseudo-democracy imposed by the state. “Democracy cannot be imposed from above…. It cannot be capped on society. Democracy can only grow—as everything that grows, as plants—from the roots upward. First, there has to be a small scale democracy, local self-government—all of this is the beginning of democracy. It is only afterward that democracy can begin to develop.”3
In order to illustrate his point, he chose to give some practical examples, offering the Swiss model of democracy as a good example of a country in which the power of the individual’s vote and the use of referenda works “very smoothly and effectively”. He was also encouraged by the example of the referendum in France on the proposed European Constitution. “Their political class has been shaping this Constitution, being fully confident about it, and yet the people said no. They voted no, and that’s the end of the deal. That was the people’s will, and that is a wonderful result.” Having expressed his pleasure at the defeat of the EU Constitution, he lamented that Russia did not employ similar referenda to decide crucial national issues.
In our country, referenda are quite indispensable. And yet the Duma has practically outlawed them by introducing such stumbling blocks and such limitations that it is impossible to hold a referendum…. A referendum concerning national issues is still possible. So why do they hinder the practice of voting here? Well, it’s because they are afraid of people’s opinion, not because organizing referenda is difficult. They are simply afraid to hear the people’s indisputable opinion.4
The extent to which the eighty-seven-year-old was still considered a voice of authority can be gauged by the international media response to the television interview. “Writer Solzhenitsyn Criticizes Russia’s Political System and US Policy” was the headline in a news release by Novosti, the Russian News and Information Agency; “Russia Ripe for a People’s Uprising, Solzhenitsyn Says” was the headline in the Sydney Morning Herald in Australia; “Russia Is Now Ripe for Freedom Revolution, Warns Solzhenitsyn” was the headline in the Times of London.
In July, it was announced that Solzhenitsyn’s complete works were to be published in Russian for the first time. The publishing house, Vremia, had decided to undertake the thirty-volume project in response to “a wellspring of interest in the once-banned and exiled author”. Boris Pasternak, Vremia’s editor-in-chief, emphasized Solzhenitsyn’s enduring importance and relevance: “Russia is going through a decisive period in its history, and those looking for landmarks find them in Solzhenitsyn.”5
In January 2006, billboards featuring Solzhenitsyn’s bearded and benignly beaming face appeared all over Moscow, advertising the forthcoming broadcast on state television of a film adaptation of his novel The First Circle. As his grandfatherly features looked out across the Moscow streets, it seemed that the face of sanity and sagacity had finally replaced the ominous portrait of Big Brother: the face of Lenin, Stalin, Khrushchev, Brezhnev, Andropov, Putin, et cetera ad nauseam, had finally made way for the irrepressible survivor of the Gulag.