The great challenges of the era of radical transformations, which bizarrely reflect in the Russian world outlook and are important for modern-day “mass societies,” need an adequate response. Among those who are sure of this is Gennady BURBULIS, the “grey eminence” of Russia during Boris Yeltsin’s first presidential term and the most influential figure in his inner circle. It is he, the initiator of the Belavezha Accords, to whom the world owes a bloodless collapse of the “Soviet totalitarian empire.” Burbulis is the one who coined the famous phrase: “The Soviet Union ceases to exist as a subject of international law and a geopolitical reality.” He is now president of the Strategy Humanitarian and Political Science Center, develops, together with his colleagues, a new doctrine, politosophy, and runs the Dostoinstvo (“Dignity”) School of Politosophy which he founded in 2009. Burbulis defines professional politics as the ultimate variety of creative activity and politosophy as political wisdom, the “constitutional and meritocratic humanism of the 21st century,” in which human dignity is a basic value in both ethico-spiritual and politico-legal terms.
The Day began the interview with Mr. Burbulis with the “collapse of the USSR,” the most important and crucial moment in the 21st century.
“THE INEVITABLE DISINTEGRATION OF THE SOVIET SYSTEM WAS PLANTED AT THE VERY MOMENT OF ITS FORMATION”
“The ‘collapse of the USSR’ is a widespread but not an adequate formula. To think and say so is typical of the people who do not possess the culture of memory and take an irresponsible attitude to this day and the future. There was in fact no Soviet empire in December 1991. Still nominally remaining the president, Mikhail Gorbachev did not really govern anything, and none of the Soviet-system bodies of power functioned. The USSR Council of Ministers was abolished, as was the USSR Congress of People’s Deputies on September 5. As the economy remained devastated and ruined, an Inter-Republican Economic Committee was formed, but this and other measures were not so much a well-thought-out plan of the transformation of a disintegrating empire as a forced and hasty action to set up entities that had unclear prospects and absolutely undefined powers.
“As for the historical background, the inevitable disintegration of the Soviet system was originally planted in the years, days, and hours of its formation. For five years, from 1917 until 1922, Russia went through the most terrible ‘referendum’ in its history in the shape of a fratricidal civil war that ended with a bloody victory of the Bolsheviks and the formation of a union of, at first, four Soviet republics on this basis.
BURBULIS ABOUT DEN LIBRARY’S UKRAINE INCOGNITA: “THIS BOOK IS A DISCOVERY FOR ME, A DISCOVERY VERY USEFUL FOR ONE’S WORLD OUTLOOK. IT HAS A SPIRIT AND INTEGRITY, AND IT GIVES AN AMPLE AND MEANINGFUL ACCOUNT OF UKRAINE’S UNIQUE HISTORICAL PATH. I AM SURE IT IS A MUST-READ FOR NOT ONLY UKRAINIANS, BUT ALSO, AND FIRST OF ALL, RUSSIANS” / Photo by the author
“The country suffered from violent rule for decades, and the whole system opposed the basic values of human life and fair world order. The dictatorship of the Communist Party – “the order of sword-bearers” – existed in various forms of outright violence and lawlessness. In the course of years, the totalitarian state was exhausted by the arms race and the struggle for influence on the international arena and proliferation of the communist utopia (a quasi-religion) all over the world at any cost. What is referred to as ‘perestroika’ became essential in the conditions of gerontocracy and physical exhaustion of the empire, for it served the basic interests of most people in Soviet society. Historically, the need for restructuring, reforms, and radical renewal was being formed for decades by many creative and responsible people, including dissidents, fighters against the regime, such as Andrei Sakharov and other worthy people. But ‘perestroika’ failed to save the USSR from collapse, above all because it was inconsistent, compromising, and irresolute. Gorbachev and the Soviet leadership as a whole did not clearly understand that the socialist life philosophy and the related system of power and administration were unviable and the inner content of the Soviet empire, with its heinous crimes against its own people and a primitive and aggressive doctrine of the struggle of two systems, was doomed from the very outset. The undeniable scientific, technological, and cultural achievements of the Soviet empire cannot obliterate the tragic essence of our history which I define, in politosophic terms, as a systemic anthropological catastrophe.
“After all, Gorbachev was deeply and tragically mistaken when he claimed that we ‘will create a true socialism.’ The economic situation was disastrous, and the constituent republics began to see the sprouts of ethnic conflicts. The USSR Congress of People’s Deputies, which we at first viewed as the first ever opportunity in Soviet history for intelligent and responsible people to take real part in public administration, failed to make the decisions, the delay of which was detrimental for the country. This is what I see as historical preconditions for an inevitable collapse of the Soviet Union.”
“IMPERIALNESS IS BEING RESTORED IN THE ABSENCE OF AN EMPIRE AS SUCH”
Imperial ambitions are now blinding the eyes of the Russian political elite. This is in sharp contrast to your policies – you once put emphasis on the right of peoples to self-determination and territorial integrity. Do you think Russia can be modernized?
“I think the term ‘imperial syndrome’ is more suitable than ‘imperial ambitions.’ Having an ambition means that you want to establish your clout and interests on the basis of something of high quality and meaningful, whereas syndrome is a disease. Imperialness is being restored in the absence of an empire as such. Russia is still in the process of a profound and systemic transformation of all vital spheres in the state and society. The most characteristic feature of present-day Russia is that it is an average-developed country that is degrading by many indications and exhibiting irrational behavior in official politics.
“Can Russia modernize? Of course, it can – and this is my constitutional and meritocratic belief. The key responsibility lies today with the so-called intellectual and political elite. I say ‘so-called’ because a true elite is the leading stratum of society and the state, which clearly defines the country’s strategy of development. But we have a ‘self-styled’ elite now, which has failed to form, by many parameters, an image of the near future and continues to make decisions that run counter to the political culture of today and the country’s genuine interests. Why did it happen? It is the question of a restoration tendency and forced loyalty of the majority of the population. The great Hegel once said, which is very useful for understanding our situation: ‘A darned stocking is better than a torn one, but it is not so with consciousness.’ Darned consciousness is a malady and a major woe. It will take long and painstaking work to heal the people’s injured consciousness.
“And we began this necessary and salutary activity 25 years ago. I am convinced that both Russia and Ukraine deserve a better future. New generations capable of qualitatively new transformations have emerged. And let the final maxim in Bulat Okudzhava’s poem inspire us to feel our own dignity: ‘Whatever darkness and evil may prophesy, humankind has not devised anything better to save itself.’”
