Russophobia and Democracy
While reading the Marquis de Custine’s account of his travels in Russia I was struck most by two things. First, I found it interesting that the tsar himself complained about western perceptions of Russia. On page 89, while in conversation with Custine, Nicholas remarked that ‘in your country, people have a prejudice against us that is harder to overcome than the passions of a mutinous army.’ ‘Sire,’ Custine responds, ‘we see you from too great a distance. If his majesty were better known, he would be better appreciated and would find many admirers in my country, as he does here.’ Considering modern russophobia in the American news media, it seems to me that little has changed over nearly 200 years. This is especially interesting considering the changes that Russia has experienced over those two centuries: two revolutions, a communist regime, and the current oligarchy headed by Vladimir Putin. Exempting the brief period of WWII when the US and Russia were united by a common enemy, it seems as though perceptions of Russia have remained negative. One wonders whether or not this ‘prejudice’ will ever be overcome.
Second, I though what Custine’s conversation with the tsar about democracy to be fascinating and prophetic. On page 87 the tsar expressed his views on representative monarchy in Russia to Custine, saying that he could imagine Russia as a republic or as an absolute monarchy, but not as a representative monarchy. Custine responded by saying that representative government is ‘the aristocracy of the word replacing the aristocracy of birth, for it is a government of lawyers.’ To the tsar, a representative government consisted of ‘buying votes, corrupting consciences, [and] captivating some to deceive others’ which was ‘debasing no less to those who obey than to him who commands.’ I could not help but recognize the truth of the conversation in the context of modern day politics. Whether we look at Russia, where Putin does exactly what the tsar described, or at the U.S., where we seem to have a very real ‘aristocracy of letters,’ the ideas described seem as relevant now as they were 200 years ago.