For most people, the name of Konstantin Pobedonostsev (1827 – 1907) will be unfamiliar at best or detestable at worst. As a tutor and advisor for Tsars Alexander III and Nicholas II, and especially as the ultra-conservative lay Ober-Procurator of the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church from 1880 to 1905, Pobedonostsev received little love from the Russian populace. Certainly many of his actions and advice were, as his critics suggest, reactionary, and very few, if any, could readily accept all of his political views. However, he possessed a rather astute intellect, and he saw many difficulties and dangers with the anarchistic and democratic ideals which were becoming popular in Russia. He challenged them, and dared to suggest that they would not provide the freedom and happiness people seek. Sadly, it is far easier to besmirch someone by an ad hominem than it is to adequately respond their questions; and this truth is no more evident than it is when it comes to the concerns Pobedonostsev wrote upon: people tended to be dismiss them because of who he was; most did not offer any significant logical or rational response.
There is another side to Pobedonostsev which many do not see: he was deeply concerned about the welfare of the Russian populace, and he showed himself to be a man with a profound sense of loyalty to his friends. None other than that Russian genius, Dostoevsky, found in Pobedonostsev a close camaraderie. “Fyodor Mikhailovich loved to visit K.P. Pobedonostsev; he derived keen intellectual enjoyment from conversations with him as an uncommonly subtle, profoundly understanding mind, albeit one of a skeptical bent,” Anna Dostoevsky, Dostoevsky Reminiscences. trans, Beatrice Stillman (New York: Liveright, 1975), 325. Dostoesvky, that great genius, whom Berdyaev described as one of “the most brilliant and keen-minded men of all time,” Nicholas Berdyaev, Dostoevsky. trans. Donald Attwater (New York: The World Publishing Company, 1965), 34, and “able to grasp and present man in all of his passionate exited activity,” (ibid, 21) received much of his insight from his friends, and among the most important of them he felt was Pobedonostsev (see Robert Byrnes, Pobedonostsev: His Life and Thought (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1968),93 – 108).There has been considerable debate as to how much of Dostoevsky’s thought came from Pobedonostsev, because the foundations of it lay before his meeting with Pobedonostsev; nonetheless, it is quite clear, after they met, Pobedonostsev helped develop Dostoevsky’s critical insights. Among those writings which were seen to be the most prophetic, the most insightful, The Possessed and The Brothers Karamazov show varying signs of influence from Pobedonostsev, providing for us the most important example we have this his views continue to influence readers today, albeit indirectly, through the constant readership that Dostoevsky rightfully receives.
Pobedonostsev was a staunch opponent of the revolutionary spirit that permeated Russia. While it manifested itself in many forms, including anarchists, democrats, and socialists, he believed that the reformers did not have the best interests of the Russian populace at heart. They promised the people the world, but could they really deliver what they offered? The central basis of his criticism was the fact that he believed that what was promised could never be delivered, and indeed, these promises were founded upon lies which proved they could not deliver what they offered. “That which is founded on falsehood cannot be right. Institutions founded on false principles cannot be other than false themselves. This truth has been demonstrated by the bitter experience of ages and generations,”Konstantin Pobedonostsev, Reflections of a Russian Statesman. trans. Robert Crozier Long (Ann Arbor, Michigan: The University of Michigan Press, 1973),32. The power to govern and guide a people comes from truth, and truth from God, “Power is a great and terrible thing, because it is a sacred thing. This word sacred (svyatstchennui) in its primitive signification means elect (otyelennui), dedicated to the service of God. Thus power exists not for itself alone, but for the love of God; it is a service to which mean are dedicated,” (ibid, 253-4). When this power is separated from truth, it becomes a corrupt and self-seeking; it is abusive and undignified. More importantly, the populace, ever observant of their leaders, will imitate them, and so a self-seeking leader will result in a self-seeking populace, with the kind of devastation one expects from this. “While preserving the dignity of power, authority must not forget that it serves as a mirror and example for all its subordinates. As the man in authority conducts himself, so those who will succeed him are preparing to conduct themselves in their relations to others, in their methods of work, in their regard for their work, in their tastes, in their standards of propriety and impropriety” (ibid, 259). True power and authority must respect the burden of service imposed by the one who possesses them; power is granted not for the sake of personal gratification but for how one can be of service to others.
But if we return to democratic ideals, Pobedonstsev sees within them nothing which suggests a love for truth, and nothing which indicates the leaders in such societies will get their posts out of self-sacrificing dedication for others. Democratic ideals are founded upon one lie after another. Instead of offering, as democracies suggest, the most moral of leaders, he believed that only the most base, the most manipulative of people can gain the influence needed to attain any rank of authority in a democratic society. Moreover, democracies claim their goodness comes from the fact that they offer liberty and equality to those living within, but he believes that this can be shown to be the first of many lies: “it has undoubtedly been shown that in the attainment of this aim Democracy violates its sacred formula of ‘Freedom indissolubly joined with Equality.’ It is shown that this apparently equal distribution of ‘freedom’ among all involved the total destruction of equality. Each vote, representing an inconsiderable fragment of power, by itself signifies nothing; an aggregation of votes alone has a relative power” (ibid, 26-7). Democracies promise liberty by saying that people within them are given political power. However, what is it that the people are really given? The normal individual continues to be in a democratic system the same as any other system: an individual with insignificant political authority; their vote is meaningless unless it is a part of an aggregate; their desires cannot attain realization unless it is transformed and merges with the desires of others. What guarantee does this offer that to an individual that their freedom will be preserved? Does not the fact that the individual finds themselves either with or against a mob suggest the reality of the situation? “By themselves individuals are ineffective, but he who controls a number of these fragmentary forces is a master of all power, and directs all decisions and dispositions” (ibid, 27). Whence is this liberty and freedom offered in a democracy?
It is often suggested that democracies at least allow the best people to govern; is this true? Pobedonostsev does not think so, and thinks he has an ample amount of evidence from history to show that, instead of being the best, democracies allow for the worst scoundrels to take charge. “In Democracy, the real rulers are the dexterous manipulators of votes, with their placemen, the mechanics who so skillfully operate the hidden springs which move the puppets in the arena of democratic elections. Men of this kind are ever ready with loud speeches lauding equality; in reality, they rule the people as any despot or military dictator might rule it” (ibid, 27). Those who could rule well, those who would do good in office, do good privately, humbly, and do not attract public attention to themselves; this makes it that people most suited to govern are the ones least likely to do so. “He who, in consciousness of duty, is capable of disinterested service of the community does not descend to the soliciting of votes, or the crying of his own praise at election meetings in loud and vulgar phrases. Such men manifest their strength in their own work, in a small circle of congenial friends, and scorn to seek popularity in the noisy marketplace” (ibid, 37). However those most likely to be noticed are those who make themselves noticed; they are glory hounds who want the power of state for dubious reasons. “To acquire popularity such men have little scruple in assuming the mask of ardour for the public good. They cannot and must not be modest, for with modesty they would not be noticed or spoken of. By their positions, and by the parts which they have chosen, they are forced to be hypocrites and liars; they must cultivate, fraternise with, and be amiable to their opponents to gain their suffrages; they must lavish promises, knowing that they cannot fulfil them; and the must pander to the basest tendencies and prejudices of the masses to acquire majorities for themselves” (ibid, 37-8).
Moreover, while it is claimed that the people at least have a part in choosing who is elected, this, Pobedonostsev contends, is far from the truth. It is not the general populace, but the parties from which the candidates come, who determine the leaders of the future; the parties are not run by the general populace, but by a favored few who then encourage the general populace to stand united to their party; after all, if they do not, will they not suffer the consequences of the plans and positions of that other party (which of course is evil, and if its leaders are put in power, grave disasters will follow, because, as we all know, the few political positions we agree with by those in our party are not followed by those of the other!). “They attain power, and lose power, not by virtue of the will of the people, but through immense personal influence, of the influence of a strong party which places them in power, or drives them from it” (ibid, 34). In a Parliamentary or representational system, it is the parties which have power, not the people, because the parties alone have gathered the collective power needed to be in charge. Individuals on their own have no say in the election. Because they join in with a collective voice, these individuals feel they have a voice through their party. In reality they have none, and the will and decision of the party has made people think the good of the party is what individuals want. In the end, people no more have power in a democratic system than in any other; it is just that the kind of people who get in power, and the way they get in power, has changed. Those in power are still a select few, and the ordinary person still has no real power. “As before, they are ruled by personal will, and the interests of privileged persons, but this personal will is no longer embodied in the person of the sovereign, but in the person of the leader of a party…” (ibid, 35).
But it has been said that in a democratic society the people at least have freedom. What does this actually mean? How is this freedom granted? What exactly is this freedom? Do people mean political freedom? This, of course, Pobedonostsev says is a grand illusion and as it is an illusion, it is a lie and cannot be used to justify democratic institutions. Is it, then, in their laws, he asks? No. Here, once again, Pobedonostsev believes people have been mistaken. Laws are not made to give people more freedom, but instead, to control the populace. When the internal moral law is rejected (as in humanistic, secular societies), the only basis of law is for the control of society for their own good. “This deep significance of the law is entirely overlooked in the new theories and practices of legislators. For them the law has but one significance, as the regulation of external action, the preserver of mechanical equilibrium of the diverse operations of human activity in their juridical relations” (ibid, 85-6). Laws do not have the power of “affecting the consciences” (ibid, 85) of modern people when the real basis of morality has been undermined. Laws become objectified rules which must be followed because of someone’s preconceived notion that they will make society better, and not for the internal goodness we perceive in them. “Thus we encumber beyond measure the immense edifice of the law, and live incessantly devising rules and forms and formulas of every kind. In the name of freedom and the rights of man we do this, yet we have gone so far that no man can move in freedom from the network of rules and ordinances extending everywhere, threatening everyone – all in the name of freedom” (ibid, 86). We have forgotten the best law is unstated, and it is manifested in the natural power and draw of goodness; if there is no good, if there is nothing sacred and all we have are human invention, then all we have is human prescriptions, formulas, which can only be used to restrict human activity. “We strive to emancipate the individual, but everywhere we dig pitfalls about his feet, the victims of which more often are the innocent than the guilty” (ibid, 86). In the end, as the laws continue to be prescribed, no one but a select few will know them all; ignorance of the law will be the norm, and so will the use of the courts as a means of controlling the general populace. “The simple man cannot know the law, or vindicate his rights, or defend himself against attacks and accusations; he falls in the hands of attorneys, the sworn mechanics of the machine of justice, whom he pays for every step which his case advances in the courts. Meantime the immense network multiplies its meshes around him” (ibid, 86-7).
Pobedonostsev, while he did not dismiss the need for authority, and the need for government (as is obvious from his own governmental position), thought that government and its policies should be honest with itself and with its people. When this honesty is lost, the moral authority of the government is lost, and it becomes at best an external, manipulative force, used by self-seeking individuals with no real love for the people they rule. It is true, that in other forms of government, we don’t always find rulers who are self-sacrificing for the sake of their people. This problem is a problem in all of human relations, but this problem is only magnified by the way democracies work. With leaders, seeking ever more satisfaction for their insatiable desires, it is only natural that their people will follow suit, and thus find themselves incapable of living satisfactory in the world. “We grow up with infinite expectations, begotten of immeasurable vanity and innumerable artificial needs. In ancient times the number of restful and contented persons was greater, for men expected less of life, and did not hasten to extend their sphere of life” (ibid, 90). Now, with the vain promises we have been given, people believe it is their right to seek after more and more; when they get it, they are not satisfied and so they go looking for the next new thing. Contentment and peace come when we are able to be happy with what we have. Our society, however, can only continue if people are made to believe they cannot be happy, that they constantly have new desires which need to be met. Politicians suggest themselves as the ones who can help us attain this new level of happiness. Yet, this is only a shell game, and as long as we are convinced to keep playing it, we will never find the happiness we seek.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In