Probing the Russian and Ukrainian political cultures

At the time of communism's collapse in the Soviet Union and its former client states, some observers believed it was possible that Russia and the other post-Soviet republics would finally adopt democratic forms of government. One such scholar, Nicolai N. Petro, published a book titled, The Rebirth of Russian Democracy: An Interpretation of Political Culture (Harvard, 1997). I used to assign this book when I was teaching Russian politics, not because I found Petro's thesis entirely persuasive, but because the author plausibly focussed on the country's tradition of "constrained autocracy," Orthodox Christianity's "Symphonic Ideal," and the possible role of "Russia's Alternative Political Organizations" in paving the way to democracy. Sad to say, Russia's tradition of less constrained autocracy reasserted itself at the turn of the millennium, with President Vladimir Putin making a concerted effort to rein in and ultimately suppress alternative organizations that might have constrained his authoritarian proclivities. The current war with Ukraine has only increased the power of an autocratic leader—something scarcely surprising to students of Russian history.

With respect to the role of religion in Russia, I published an article in Review of Politics in 1993, titled, "Imaging God and his Kingdom: Eastern Orthodoxy's Iconic Political Ethic," which I recently posted on my academia.edu pages. It provides something of a glimpse into the underlying spiritual motive force of an especially ancient culture, whose embrace of Christianity goes back more than a thousand years. Here is an excerpt:

To sum up the Orthodox argument, the Incarnation brings together matter and spirit in such a way that both are transfigured by the grace of God. In opposition to platonic approaches, the Orthodox affirm that matter is the good creation of God, and it has been sanctified by the fact that God himself has taken flesh. And since God has taken flesh and become truly human, he may be portrayed in images, or icons.

What implications does this approach have for human society? Primarily it means that the kingdom of God cannot be seen as merely a transcendent or future reality. It is not something existing only in the heavens, safely ensconced above the fray of human activities and aspirations. Nor is it merely something we look forward to in the distant eschatological future. Much as God became man in Jesus Christ and much as an icon communicates heavenly realities to the worshipper, so also is the kingdom of God capable of having an earthly manifestation in the form of the Christian empire. This is where the theology of icon intersects with politics. Throughout the history of the Orthodox church two political entities have claimed to be this Christian empire—the Eastern Roman, or Byzantine, Empire centered in Constantinople and the Russian Empire centered in Moscow.

If you have trouble accessing the article, please let me know in the comments, and I will fix the problem. Thanks.