These days we are living in the world in which the future political development of Russia is of great importance to the entire world. Why?
Before the “revolution of October 1917,” Russia had been viewed by those most enlightened in the world as a country of great hope. It is beyond an argument in any enlightened environment that Russian culture, from Dostoyevsky to Chekhov, has much valuable to say concerning the political future of the world.
But let us first see which of its views were valuable to the world. First of all we all believe in the importance of freedom for any politically sound development. This is connected with the word “democracy.” However, even that word is not sufficiently specific and at the same time is not sufficiently broad to express its primary modern needs for all societies.
Yes, all countries should be freed, and this freedom should rely on their concepts of their best future. Our ancestors in Russia have done a great deal to create the worst society possible for human life.
In other words, to what is most essential in the human life which would be as free as possible for everyone it is necessary to add what makes life meaningful for every human being born.
There are many people who are ready to describe what is absolutely necessary for life. But what these people speak for the entire population of today may be actually outside the inner essence of some people, while the necessity is to comprise all people, without leaving some people out.
The choice should be left with every individual — he or she should live as this corresponds with their inner self.
The task we are solving has been by no means easy. Mankind has been trying to solve it for at least a millennium, but it still requires the best minds and the best souls to solve it.
Russia has been endowed with the rich nature and gifted people. But we should not neglect the dark side of its political existence. Autocracy is not the best form of government. The entire population of Russia must have a voice and decision in what is being discussed socially and politically.
Unfortunately, there was a tragic, disastrous turn for the worst known as the Stalin’s era, the ruthless denial of anything human in Russia.
Oddly enough, Stalin’s saturnalia came as a delusion that something called science had brought a scientific paradise in Russia through a “German scientist” such as Marx, who fled from Germany, it being insufficiently free, that is, not sufficiently “scientific” for him.
Hitler did not live longer than Stalin. After Hitler lost his war to Stalin, he committed suicide, while Stalin died only in 1953.
Today there is an argument in Russia as to who is the most intelligent person to be at the top of the government.
In 1922, there appeared a book in the United States which proclaimed that one’s intelligence depends on the intelligence of one’s brain. So the human brain has been studied since the end of the 19th century — the search of a country’s most intelligent person has been going on for over a century.
This approach may lead to a no less dangerous absurdity as to vote for another Stalin, a ruthless dictator, only because Stalin was liked or strongly disliked by Lenin, believed to be the wisest and most intelligent person because he had read Marx.
Therefore, to avoid any ambiguities, the choice of the most intelligent person to lead a country should be based on whether or not that person would above all preserve the democratic rights of the citizens and would obey the rule of law, i.e., the country’s constitution, and not on anyone’s guess whether he or she qualifies as the most intelligent person in the country.
Today, Russia is again confronted with the most important decision of making the right choice — to vote for a person who will defend the basic freedoms of its citizens, who will follow the rule of law, and will abide by the country’s constitution.
Lev Navrozov can be reached by e-mail at email@example.com.