We all would prefer to think that Putin and his cronies have imposed this war on the Russian people, many of whom have taken to the streets in protest and signed anti-war manifestos at great risk to themselves and to their families. But most people are not that heroic. To be honest, I am not at all certain I would be among those protesting, given the high cost of so doing. We cannot but be discouraged to read that, as of nearly four weeks ago, 58 percent of Russians support the invasion of Ukraine, and 23 percent oppose it, new poll shows, or that, as of the last day of March, 83% of Russians Approve of Putin’s Actions as President in New Survey. Of course, we cannot be certain that these numbers reflect the true sentiments of ordinary Russians, who have long been accustomed to keeping their true convictions to themselves through exceedingly dark times.
Nevertheless, all of this prompts me to reflect on an important question: to what extent do the Russian people as a whole bear responsibility for what Putin has done in Ukraine and elsewhere? Can we focus guilt on a leader without also implicating the led? The question is a complicated one that might have a clearer answer in a democratic political system. In a democracy, the people, understood as the body of active citizens of a particular state, have the right to vote for their nation's leaders.
Citizens of the Russian Federation have the right to vote, and, as we have noted in a previous post, Russia is on paper a democratic political system. However, in the 22 years that Putin has led his country, he has gradually subverted the constitution, strengthened his own personal position within it, crippled opposition, and suppressed the media of communication. Over the past two years, with the world enduring the COVID-19 pandemic, he has further isolated himself, surrounded at an ostensibly safe distance by sycophants willing to do his bidding. Russians have ample historical experience with brutal autocrats but little if any with enduring political institutions. While in the United States former defence secretaries, without fear of reprisal, could readily warn an aggrieved president not to abuse the military, the same cannot be said of Russia. These are obviously not the signs of a thriving democracy or a healthy political culture.Nevertheless, even in an autocratic political system, the people can be said to bear a certain corporate responsibility for their nation's actions. Victimization does not wholly deprive a person of agency, however difficult the circumstances he or she might face. During evening prayers I have been reading through the major prophets and am currently in the book of Ezekiel. Every time I reread this section, I am struck by the extent to which wicked kings incur God's judgement on an entire nation. The worst ruler of the northern kingdom of Israel was almost certainly Ahab, who, along with his Phoenician consort Jezebel, misled the people into the horrific practices associated with Baal worship. In the southern kingdom of Judah, the worst monarch was the long-reigning Manasseh, righteous Hezekiah's wicked son, who, among his many other crimes, sacrificed his own son (2 Kings 21:6) to a false god.
Although a certain brand of populism would have it that the people retain their righteousness in the face of corrupt elites, the reality is rather more complicated, as the author of the books of the Kings makes clear:
And the Lord said by his servants the prophets, “Because Manasseh king of Judah has committed these abominations, and has done things more wicked than all that the Amorites did, who were before him, and has made Judah also to sin with his idols; therefore thus says the Lord, the God of Israel, Behold, I am bringing upon Jerusalem and Judah such evil that the ears of every one who hears of it will tingle (2 Kings 21:10-12).
The late sociologist Peter Berger observed that “India is the most religious country in the world, Sweden is the most secular country in the world, and America is a country of Indians ruled by Swedes.” If this were true, all that would be necessary to dilute the forces of secularism would be to remove the current elites and allow the apparently religious populace to replace them with new ones. But, as the Bible recognizes, leaders do indeed lead. They do not sit as aliens above the good folks on the ground who work for a living, raise families, and attend church every week. Over time the worldviews of the leaders filter down into the ranks of ordinary people, affecting the ways they live and relate to others. This is why God ultimately judged Samaria and Jerusalem: misled by their kings, the people neglected his Law by oppressing the vulnerable, murdering the innocent, and worshipping the idols of the surrounding peoples.
We should continue to pray that Russian conscripts will decide to abandon their arms and tanks in Ukraine, turn around, and return home to their families; that saner heads in the Kremlin will pluck up the courage to remove Putin from the presidency; that ordinary Russians will come to put their trust in the rule of law rather than of men; that they will break with the political dysfunctions of past centuries and embrace a vision of public justice for the future. For now, however, we need to recognize that Russia as a whole cannot easily be separated from Putin's criminal war. Russians properly boast of their many cultural achievements over the generations. But they must reject the notion, which their leaders have long encouraged, that they are a uniquely "Holy Russia" and instead own up to their responsibility as citizens for holding their leaders to account for their actions.
No comments:
Post a Comment