The History of Liberalism in Russia

Chapter 4

56 including Karamzin in an account of the development of Russia toward liberalism runs counter to the way he is traditionally viewed. Yet on the other hand, his ideas, his general intellectual outlook, and his personality in general had a positive influence on Russia’s progress in a liberal direction. In the first place, Karamzin did a great deal to build general intellectual links between Russia and the European West. He was effective in widening the channels through which liberal ideas were able to flow, and did indeed flow, into Russia. It has been generally acknowledged, in fact, that Karamzin played a key role in preparing the ground for the liberal era in Russia. It is often readily conceded that Karamzin, as the spokesman for a sort of sentimental humanism, helped articulate many of the premises, rooted in humanism, that underpinned liberalism. Any greater significance for Karamzin in the context of the spread of liberal ideas and for the progress of liberal institutions in Russia, however, is disputed. On the one hand, this is the result of his firm support for absolutism and his belief that liberal principles would only be put into practice in the context of an absolute monarchy. He rejected constitutionalism, that is, an attempt to limit the power of the autocrat . On the other hand, Karamzin’s skeptical position on the emancipation of the serfs is perhaps an even greater reason why many deny his positive influence on chapter 4 Karamzin Karamzin as the spokesman for liberal absolutism— The “Eulogy to catherine”—Karamzin and the peasant question—Karamzin’s traditionalism—The poem “The Liberation of Europe”—Karamzin and the decembrist revolt—Significance of this revolt for the development of liberalism in Russia—Last years of alexander i’s reign karamzin • 57 Russia’s development toward liberalism. Furthermore, the fact that he supported the ideas of the Historical School and spoke for political and legal traditionalism is seen as incompatible with the aims of liberal ideology. In my opinion, none of these objections is valid. I have already shown in the chapter on Catherine that essential elements of a liberal program could be implemented in the context of an absolute monarchy. This was also Karamzin’s view.1 It should therefore be acknowledged that Karamzin’s position—namely that it would be possible for an absolute monarchy to adopt the basic aims of liberalism as a program of government, indeed even as the basis of the state, without at the same time abolishing itself—was a significant factor in encouraging Russian monarchs to embark on liberal reform. According to Karamzin, the adoption of liberal ideas by the absolute monarchy was not just one possibility among others, but a necessity. Implementing liberal reforms and adopting a liberal approach to government were required in the name of justice and thus a moral imperative. As such, this obligation was unconditionally binding on the autocrat. Karamzin was convinced that an absolute monarchy could remain an authentic monarchy and not turn into despotism, provided that it was based on the will of God and the demands of justice prevailed. This conclusion brings us to one of the essential aspects of Karamzin’s worldview. Karamzin can be seen as a political thinker, and his views on issues regarding the state and law only properly understood, if one does not overlook the critical importance he attached to the impact of ethical principles and moral imperatives on the state and on society in general. If Karamzin is in favor of absolute monarchy, of the unlimited power of the sovereign, it is not because he does not sufficiently value liberty or even because he is hostile to liberty in general .2 In Article 13 of Catherine’s Instruction she wrote, “Ultimately, what is the purpose of autocratic government (samoderzhavnogo pravleniia)? Not depriving people of their liberty, but rather leading the people to achieve the greatest good.” Karamzin is convinced that absolute monarchy degenerates into tyranny much less often than other forms of government. In his opinion, history proves this. Over centuries, he says, Russia had only known two tyrants: Ivan IV and Paul I. In contrast, the attempt in France to abolish traditional monarchy and to go over to a republic had led directly to the triumph of tyrannical methods of government . In general, he comments: What else does the history of republics offer us? Can we perceive even one peaceful and happy island in the midst of this stormy sea? I am no less enthusiastic...