About author
Short introduction
Offering a title for the discussion moderators proceeded from the base, that Russian society has traditionally participated in the reforms as their object, not a subject, obeying state pragmatics of implementation. Discussion moderators have chosen the chronological period of XVIII–XXI centuries in Russian history, during which the connection between the negative reactions of society to reform and social disasters was especially evident, often affect the fate of the state, almost always turns out to be the initiator of reforms. Repeatedly implementing reforms “from above”, the Russian state at different stages of its history regularly pursued their own goals, in accordance with the principle of “Salus reipublicae – suprema lex” and setting necessary to determine the feasibility and reform strategy for their subjects or citizens. From this point of view a stable attitude in Russia to the reforms to the society (without society?) in the public interest can be attributed. It is important to note that this “traditionalism” by the supreme authorities was insensitive to the repeated change of the political system in Russia, to the rotation of elites, finally (with few exceptions), to the demands of society for change. Probably, such resistance can be explained by the fact that Russian society is by nature a society of state-organized, and that the “social contract” does not refer to its stable value categories. The paradox of the historical situation in Russia is that society needs to change is almost always not served basis, but the result of the reforms, and is widely fueled by discontent and frustration among the population. The alienation reforms from the interests of Russian society manifested in the fact that the overwhelming part of it initially did not know anything about them, did not take part, showed not only a lack of loyalty, but also actively resisted. This negative effect was intensified by the rejection of the society and results of the reforms which were not perceived in terms of “God’s truth”, “real”, “authentic”...
Sovereignty itself permanently felt its share of disappointments in the way of reforming the society and the state, finding it more natural to go to the counter-reform policy and the “crackdown”. Deceptive historical inevitability of the Russian Revolution as the antithesis of its reform was the result of this.
Questions of discussion are following:
1. Do you agree with the statement that the reforms in Russian history XIX–XX centuries. performed as an alternative to the revolution? What reforms and why can be considered in this sense, successful, and what – no?
2. To what extent Russian reform projects respond to public demand for change? How do mechanisms of inclusion of public expectations in the plans of the reformers?
3. What factors and circumstances determine the reputation of a reformer in Russia? What are the patterns built up his image in the collective memory? Who and how to dispose of?
4. How much different outlook on the reform of the provincial capital of prospects? What resources had a Russian province to participate in the reforms or their obstruction?
5. What is an academic interest in reform remain on paper? Which of these searchlights most instructive, and why?
Disputants:
Andrey Baranov – Doctor of Science (History), Doctor of Science (Political Science), Professor, Faculty of Political Science and Political Management, Kuban State University.
Mikhail Karpachev – Doctor of Sciences (History), Professor, Faculty of History, Voronezh State University.
Anatoliy Lubsky – Doctor of Sciences (Philosophy), Professor, Institute of Sociology and Regional Studies, Southern Federal University.
Nikolay Mininkov – Doctor of Sciences (History), Professor, Institute of History and International Relations, Southern Federal University.