The Ethics of Public Administration: The Challenges of Global Governance

14 Ethics in the Russian Tradition

321 Ethics in the Russian Tradition Chapter 14 Compared to the traditions surveyed in this book, the tradition of Russianethicsisdissimilartoboththephilosophical/theological traditions on the one hand and the regional traditions (such as the African tradition) on the other. Unlike the philosophical/religious traditions, Russian thought is not typified by any strictly unified set of ideals, doctrines, or methods, but instead contains a diverse grouping of ideational positions. However, unlike the regional traditions , the Russian tradition is not merely the combination of various concrete problems that result in a unique form of ethical thinking. The Russian tradition is unique, and indeed it is difficult to find any tradition (doctrinal or regional) that shares similar traits to this one.1 Exhibiting an interesting mix of nationalism, conservatism, and radicalism, along with strong currents of pro- and antibureaucratic theories, the Russian tradition holds an intermediary position between doctrine and region. Russian History—Familiar yet Alien The Russian tradition overlaps with Western traditions at various times over the centuries, but the separations that occur lead to vast differences between Russia and the West over the centuries, often giving the Russian tradition a distinctly alien appearance to Westerners . While there are similarities between Western Europe and Russia (discussed below), major historical and cultural differences 322 The Ethics of Public Administration separate the two regions. Russia became Christian comparatively later than Europe, converting under the rule of Prince Vladimir I in 988 C.E., under the influence of Byzantine Orthodoxy and during what is sometimes called the “Kievian” period (approximately 880 C.E. to the early twelfth century), when the Ukrainian region dominated the Slavic world (cf. Hosking 2001, 34–48). Russian history itself is rife with conflicts and wars, but the Russian nation suffered its first major defeat at the hands of the Mongols (the “Golden Horde”): “The sack of Kiev by Mongols occurred in 1240, and Mongol domination over Russia lasted until 1480, when Ivan III renounced allegiance to the Khan . . .” (Copleston 1986, 8).2 During this period, while the political subunits of the Mongol domination fought among themselves, the Orthodox Church provided the social cohesion for the Russian identity and would thus maintain a strong influence in the future, although the church would come under the direct, rather than indirect, control of the state in the reign of Tsar Peter the Great in 1721. While rule during the Kievian period involved both the prince and a council of nobles/knights (sg., boyar), centralization of power to the executive occurred under the rule of the first Russian tsar, Ivan IV “the Terrible” (1547–1584),3 who used this centralization as tool against the nobility and others who might stand in the way of monarchical power. Even from its inception, centralized control in Russia was a brutal affair, both to the nobility as well as to the peasants as the institution of serfdom strengthened during the rule of the tsars. The Romanov dynasty would start with Tsar Michael in 1613 and end with the secret execution of the royal family by the Bolsheviks in 1917. There are marked historical similarities between the Western tradition and the Russian tradition: both were Christian, both looked back to Roman times for inspiration, both had various feudal arrangements during the medieval period, and the like. However, with each similarity come striking differences that must be individually addressed. We will start with Christianity. The most obvious difference between Western and Russian Christianity is their denominations: the West being Catholic (and later Protestant) with Russia holding to Orthodoxy.4 This difference itself shows the early origins of the split between “Western” and “Eastern” ways. While tensions between the Eastern and Western Ethics in the Russian Tradition 323 churches were already evident as early as the Council of Nicaea (325 C.E.), the major break between Western Catholicism (centered in Rome) and Eastern Orthodoxy (its main hub in Constantinople) arose in the middle of the ninth century over the issues of church hierarchy, monasticism, and the filioque portion of the Nicene Creed.5 These differences reflected not only in theology, but also in church hierarchy and in church/state relations.6 Rather than the consistently apprehensive relations between monarchs and church hierarchy in the West, we see the development of a form of caesaropapism in the Byzantium Empire, then in the Russian Empire. Specifically , the ruler (be it the Byzantine emperor or later the Russian tsar) tended to have a...