Accusing the Ukrainian “fascist junta” the majority of Russians doesn’t notice the growth of fascist moods in their own country, which are becoming more and more obvious.

The tendencies of the phenomenon don’t necessarily mark its approach, assumes the political scientist Vyacheslav Bobrovich. However, even though after the disintegration of the Soviet Union the majority of the former Soviet republics adopted their constitutions on the basis of liberal values, in reality, this liberalism hasn’t been realized.

EuroBelarus Information Service attended a lecture “Ideological confrontation of fascism and liberalism at the post-Soviet area”  that took place in the Flying University within the frames of the “Main question”  series.

The name of the lecture is quite provocative in itself, but it brightly reflects the essence of the processes that are taking place now in the post-Soviet and, in particular, in the Russian society. Comparing two phenomena — fascism and liberalism — we cannot call them extremes. They are a part of one ideological (just ideological, not political) spectrum that is, in fact, much broader and isn’t limited by these two ideologies. In this spectrum fascism will be taking ultra-right place; while liberalism is placed somewhere in the middle. However, these ideologies are based on two absolutely opposite systems of values, on the confrontation of private (liberalism) and civic (fascism) interests in particular. The extreme points there are individualism and collectivism.

Not only now, but also during the whole Soviet history a situation where everything seems to be known about fascism has emerged. However, having overcome fascism in the war, a Soviet person has never really fought ideology and didn’t understand its details, assumes Vyacheslav Bobrovich.

How can we understand ideology? As a theory, of course. Every political party has an ideology that is put in the ideology. We can talk about psychology, or mass consciousness. But if the ideology conquers society and becomes a state ideology, we can already talk about a political regime or a political system.

If we apply this to Russia, according to the social polls there are only 3-5% liberals there; whereas if we take fascism in its narrow meaning, there are few of them in Russia. Nevertheless, the confrontation between these two ideologies at post-Soviet area defines the spirit of today’s era.

Today two oppositions are a legal state and a totalitarian one. The difference in them is that in the totalitarian a spirit of monism (from “mono” — single) prevails, whereas in the sphere of law it is pluralism that prevails.

Pluralistic democracy suggests the diversity of political forces, civic interests, opinions, positions, and competition. Constitutional state means a individualism of a worldview, priority of human rights, supremacy of law, separation of powers, lawfulness, and mutual responsibility of the state and citizens. By individualism we mean, first of all, people’s independence, when they should care about themselves, think independently, and take independent decisions. Liberalism allows to exist all ideologies, which are numerous. This is its main peculiarity and difference from fascism.

Russia is now undergoing through the processes that haven’t yet become systemic, but many factors start hinting at that and cause alarm. Thus, activism, philosophy of struggle, thoughtless execution, and collective responsibility are all features of a totalitarian culture. However, there can be no social medium without collectivism. Though, fascism in Russia becomes apparent in unity (not diversity). In a totalitarian tradition the state represents the whole body, while each individual is its part that cannot exist separately. I.e. each person is subject to the one (the state).

Such political unity is embodied in, for example, the “United Russia” party, which cannot reckon other political forces. “Our” civic organization also plays its role. The name “our” itself emphasizes the separation of “our” from “not our”. The Olympic games in Sochi also emphasized unity, and Crimea’s annexation was the culmination. The last step that hasn’t turned out yet is “Novorussia” project.

How is this unity provided? First, by creation of a common enemy. For that purpose the ideas of anti-Americanism and anti-Westernism are promoted. It is always useful to friend against somebody. Next reason is Ukraine (“fascism” plays here its role as an archetype of unity related to the war) and the 5th column.

We can trace how the attitude towards the authorities changes: idealization appears; the authorities are mystified and loved. Rewriting history, ideological eclecticism, exaggeration of the heroic past — it is enough to look at what forms the Victory Day takes today.

If we talk about the unity of power, it is quite diffused in general in the world: to a certain degree, its bearers are business, mass media, culture, public opinion, and intellectuals… The control exists both from the state and from the society. If we apply all that to Russia and Belarus it won’t work. In a totalitarian state a permissive principle that outlines the scope of what is allowed works. However, the sphere of the “prohibited” made a move to all civic freedoms and rights. The dispersion of power in Russia has been destroyed stage by stage; submission of business has been growing (for example, Khodorkovsky case), and manipulation of public opinion. Over the last decades president terms have increased and laws that contradict the common sense have appeared (the so-called “Dima Yakovlev Law” that prohibits foreigners to adopt Russian kids). The work of NGOs has been limited; an absurd edition of the law on demonstrations has been published. Now even the foreign songs at the radio are limited — these are the “important” things the State Duma is occupied with.

The process of the authorities’ concentration is actively happening — assignation of governors, opposition’s exclusion from the Parliament, destruction of the separation of power, falsification of elections, “political bureau 2.0” — when the power is held by a certain circle of people. However, we can argue with the last point: now we see that the decisions in Russia are made by one person: the Federation Council univocally approves of the events in Ukraine and Syria. Thus, the concentration of power reached its peak.

Are there any demonstrations of fascism in Belarus? In comparison with Russia, what is happening in our country now is rather an attempt to unite people around common history than militarization. What does it save us from? According to Vyacheslav Bobrovich, the mentality that contains more alertness and pragmatism. Geopolitics (the residual imperial syndrome, survival, and craftiness), peasant style of the authorities, which doesn’t rely on the risky projects such as the “Russian World”.

The society doesn’t at all link the fact that the election of governors is abandoned in our eastern neighbor with fascism because there are a lot of missing details for that connection. Thus, there is no fascist regime in Russia yet. Eclecticism of the system, sloppiness (as opposed to Russia, in Hitler’s Germany order was ruling), passive participation (tip-offs, surveillance, and active non-freedom), and “dishonesty” of idiocracy prevent it from taking roots in Russia. The term National Socialism is more suitable for describing the ideology that now rules in Russia. However, the strengthening of unity that we witness today is dangerous because of fascism; and liberalism is an antidote to it. Russia hasn’t overcome fascism yet; however, liberalism hasn’t realized there in practice yet, though in theory, its certain ideas are present in the country. But if something didn’t happen before, it doesn’t mean it will never be possible.