Nationalism and the "public opinion"
Nationalism and the "public opinion"
 |
| Nationalist rally on 14 october in Kyiv |
From time to time you can hear the opinion that the Right Sector should make "more liberal" their ideological principles and party program. Personally, I have seen the rhetoric of the following nature: "I voted for the Right Sector, supports this power, so you have to change". It is clear that people who voiced similar views have rather vague ideas about Ukrainian nationalism, as well, in some cases, many ideological rubbish in the head. Thank God these people a little bit, but it`s worth considered the problem of balance between nationalist ideas and so called "public opinion", at least theoretically.
So, are nationalists must based on "public opinion" by building their own ideology and political program.
Answering the above question, we note firstly that the concept of "public opinion" is rather arbitrary (that`s why we use quotation marks in text for this phrase). Theoretically, the concept of "public opinion" lies complex of opinions on the most (political, ethical, historical, etc.) issues that are inherent to the majority society. However, society has no consensus on a particular issue in many cases. Also, the average member of a society may not have a clear opinion on certain important issues. If a society really has consensus on a particular issue, the majority opinion does not guarantee its truth. The majority can support true and good things. But the same time it can support wrong and harmful things. Majority is not a source of truth, the truth is objective and self-sufficient.
It is important to understand that the majority's opinion could have different origins. It can be spontaneous nature, derived from the objective order of things or be imposed through the manipulation mechanisms. In each of these cases the majority opinion can be both true and false.
For example, set of norms specific to a particular ethnic groups can be good and right. German conservative thinker Wilhelm Staehle used the concept "nomos" to refer completeness of accepted norms, which meant "the natural structure of society, sanctified by customs, habits, attitudes, evaluations, determined by God". However, the basic "norm" can be misleading and harmful. I think few would justify cannibalism of some wild tribe, arguing that the idea of cannibalism are supported by most members of this tribe.
Public opinion and sentiments that arise in response to some crisis situation can be correct and false. Growing people's dissatisfaction regarding to current government in response to social and economic problems in Yanukovych's times was quite fair. Instead, society may be discontent when the state is at war and is forced to provide "unpopular" social policy. Unlike the first case, this discontent is wrong, unfair, harmful (this doesn't apply to nowadays Ukraine, where public dissatisfaction with government actions generally justified).
Finally, consequences of "manipulation" that clear enough in the broadest sense, can be both true and false. Rough manipulation by "public opinion" to get votes in elections is an integral part of today's liberal democracy and can not be evaluated positively. Another negative example of manipulation - the imposition of perverted moral concepts into the society (eg, promotion of sexual perversion). The opposite of these examples is to educate people in the right spirit, by local elites (Christianization of society, nurturing high moral qualities, national revival, national consolidation, etc.). True elite should strive to make their community better as parents should educate children.
Being either true or false, views and sentiments that dominant in society can play, respectively, positive or negative role. When Napoleon`s troops invaded Pyrenees, Spanish society responded by guerrilla war. Part of the Spanish political elite chose the way of collaboration. However, the broad population masses responded by guerrilla actions against occupiers, French were not only the invaders but also atheists according to Spanish "public opinion" (Liberation Guerrilla War was primarily religious in nature). On the other hand, let's look at the situation in many European societies, who become a victim of multiculturalism policy. Healthy, active element of indigenous European people trying to resist for annexation of own land by foreigners. At the same time, brainwashed by propaganda, general population quietly watches the process of the land of their fathers, grandfathers and great-grandfathers becomes a territory inhabited by ethnic-racial "salad".
We can give a local example of the positive or negative role of "public opinion". Thank God, woman who does not fulfill maternal duties, drink, is extremely depraved lifestyle still can receive public condemnation of the community in our country. At the same time, girl who keeps her virginity, can become the object of ridicule from peers and peers in many of youth groups (this in turn may require her to give up its own principles, to become such as "all"). In both cases, "social" lifestyle of deviations from the "norm" is condemned by the majority. However, it plays a positive role in first example, and negative in secondary.
Certain criteria to distinguish true and false "public opinion" is its sustainability. The above mentioned "nomos" or dominant religion in society with its dogma, metaphysics and moral principles are constant. At the same time nowadays liberalism is characterized by a dynamic "public opinion". If the last century different ideologies struggled for consciousness of the masses, religions - more earlier, "public opinion" today just a space for political or commercial marketing. The current social engineering designed primarily for the near future and aims to utilitarian interest - getting votes or money consumers of goods and services. A spiritual degeneration of humanity is the main far-reaching perspective of modern social engineering.
Thus, "public opinion" - a conventional concept. True, good, useful, and false, malicious, harmful can hide under this concept. Absolute and legitimate "public opinion" can be considered only within the paradigm with basic idea of popular sovereignty or democratic "majority rule". These ideas developed within the philosophy of modern times and lived in the works of philosophers educator - first Englishman John Locke and later the French encyclopedists. Thesis of "source of power is the people" - is nonsense, according to authentic Christian worldview because the only source of power is God.
The Apostle Paul teach us In Epistle to the Romans: "Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resist the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves". The apostle doesn't say we have to obey any government in everything. If he was referring to that we have, than he should be surrender to the Roman state authorities and Jewish religious leaders and stop being a Christian. Rivers of Christian blood spilled since apostolic times because of the fact that Christians don`t obey the civil authorities. Speaking on "the power of God" the apostle speaks of the divine origin of the government itself. The main sense of authorities existence is in order to do good and do not let people turn their lives into hell. That is why the authorities "got a sword" and is the "God's servant, to avenge and punish the one who does evil". The phenomenon of power exists in order to harmonize the social life of human communities, to create cosmos, not chaos. This applies to any power, whether is this state power or husbands authority in the family. God is the source of power, and any existing authorities is the servants of His will. If they doesn't, they loses legitimacy, deny their own nature.
The true legitimist criteria of political power is not legal norms or the majority opinion, but compliance with the principles of divinity. The task of any political power is establishment of the God`s power on the Earth - nurturing the faith, Christian morality and the cultivation of virtues, establishing justice, combating evil. Thus, state authority and power of the revolutionaries or insurgents can be legitimate in some cases. For a specific period of the Ukrainian history, the Bolshevik government was not legitimate. But the OUN leaders and the UPA commanders was clearly legitimate. Nationalists Revolutionaries is the most legitimate authorities of contemporary Ukrainian state (but only when they really are nationalists, acting according to the law of God and in the spirit of Ukrainian nationalism). Nationalists reasonably "got a sword" at struggles against security forces (criminal power defenders in fact) during the Maidan. Now nationalists are legitimate at the front as the Eastern Ukraine defenders from Moscow occupiers, insolent officials punishers or destroyers of sodomites rallies.
The nationalists - the ones who got a knowledge, presented by the God specially for called them to fight. Accordingly, the nationalist struggle is not for the "will of the people", but for implementing the ideas in which he believes. Only such a struggle can bring welfare for the Nation. There`s the God as absolute good and source of welfare, there`s objective laws, principles, ideas that are designed to lead people to welfare, there's national interests, objective and comply with the will of God. On the other hand, there is the reality in which we live - the society, the political system, ideas and sentiments prevailing among political and social. Nationalist`s task - be a mediator between first and second, to changing second according to first. We need to work to do this task, to fight, to live the Christian life and, inevitably, be loyal for nationalist ideas.
The whole mechanism of liberal democracy is reduced to the fact that the political and economic elite is spending enormous financial resources to public sentiment manipulation tools, to win elections and creating the illusion of "democracy" to maintain their positions. However,liberal politicians resort to demagoguery, appealing to "stomach interests" or some other fetishes in order to please the public (such as "European integration", "peace", etc.). True nationalists have another way. Their strategy - is not trying to say voters all that they wish to hear but their own ideas promoting to getting its program-maximum in future. Ukrainian people will win a better life, not when will strive to meet the surfaces interest and implement of imposed unnatural ideas, but when start to going by the way of Christianity and nationalism.
Being either true or false, views and sentiments that dominant in society can play, respectively, positive or negative role. When Napoleon`s troops invaded Pyrenees, Spanish society responded by guerrilla war. Part of the Spanish political elite chose the way of collaboration. However, the broad population masses responded by guerrilla actions against occupiers, French were not only the invaders but also atheists according to Spanish "public opinion" (Liberation Guerrilla War was primarily religious in nature). On the other hand, let's look at the situation in many European societies, who become a victim of multiculturalism policy. Healthy, active element of indigenous European people trying to resist for annexation of own land by foreigners. At the same time, brainwashed by propaganda, general population quietly watches the process of the land of their fathers, grandfathers and great-grandfathers becomes a territory inhabited by ethnic-racial "salad".
We can give a local example of the positive or negative role of "public opinion". Thank God, woman who does not fulfill maternal duties, drink, is extremely depraved lifestyle still can receive public condemnation of the community in our country. At the same time, girl who keeps her virginity, can become the object of ridicule from peers and peers in many of youth groups (this in turn may require her to give up its own principles, to become such as "all"). In both cases, "social" lifestyle of deviations from the "norm" is condemned by the majority. However, it plays a positive role in first example, and negative in secondary.
Certain criteria to distinguish true and false "public opinion" is its sustainability. The above mentioned "nomos" or dominant religion in society with its dogma, metaphysics and moral principles are constant. At the same time nowadays liberalism is characterized by a dynamic "public opinion". If the last century different ideologies struggled for consciousness of the masses, religions - more earlier, "public opinion" today just a space for political or commercial marketing. The current social engineering designed primarily for the near future and aims to utilitarian interest - getting votes or money consumers of goods and services. A spiritual degeneration of humanity is the main far-reaching perspective of modern social engineering.
Thus, "public opinion" - a conventional concept. True, good, useful, and false, malicious, harmful can hide under this concept. Absolute and legitimate "public opinion" can be considered only within the paradigm with basic idea of popular sovereignty or democratic "majority rule". These ideas developed within the philosophy of modern times and lived in the works of philosophers educator - first Englishman John Locke and later the French encyclopedists. Thesis of "source of power is the people" - is nonsense, according to authentic Christian worldview because the only source of power is God.
The Apostle Paul teach us In Epistle to the Romans: "Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resist the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves". The apostle doesn't say we have to obey any government in everything. If he was referring to that we have, than he should be surrender to the Roman state authorities and Jewish religious leaders and stop being a Christian. Rivers of Christian blood spilled since apostolic times because of the fact that Christians don`t obey the civil authorities. Speaking on "the power of God" the apostle speaks of the divine origin of the government itself. The main sense of authorities existence is in order to do good and do not let people turn their lives into hell. That is why the authorities "got a sword" and is the "God's servant, to avenge and punish the one who does evil". The phenomenon of power exists in order to harmonize the social life of human communities, to create cosmos, not chaos. This applies to any power, whether is this state power or husbands authority in the family. God is the source of power, and any existing authorities is the servants of His will. If they doesn't, they loses legitimacy, deny their own nature.
The true legitimist criteria of political power is not legal norms or the majority opinion, but compliance with the principles of divinity. The task of any political power is establishment of the God`s power on the Earth - nurturing the faith, Christian morality and the cultivation of virtues, establishing justice, combating evil. Thus, state authority and power of the revolutionaries or insurgents can be legitimate in some cases. For a specific period of the Ukrainian history, the Bolshevik government was not legitimate. But the OUN leaders and the UPA commanders was clearly legitimate. Nationalists Revolutionaries is the most legitimate authorities of contemporary Ukrainian state (but only when they really are nationalists, acting according to the law of God and in the spirit of Ukrainian nationalism). Nationalists reasonably "got a sword" at struggles against security forces (criminal power defenders in fact) during the Maidan. Now nationalists are legitimate at the front as the Eastern Ukraine defenders from Moscow occupiers, insolent officials punishers or destroyers of sodomites rallies.
The nationalists - the ones who got a knowledge, presented by the God specially for called them to fight. Accordingly, the nationalist struggle is not for the "will of the people", but for implementing the ideas in which he believes. Only such a struggle can bring welfare for the Nation. There`s the God as absolute good and source of welfare, there`s objective laws, principles, ideas that are designed to lead people to welfare, there's national interests, objective and comply with the will of God. On the other hand, there is the reality in which we live - the society, the political system, ideas and sentiments prevailing among political and social. Nationalist`s task - be a mediator between first and second, to changing second according to first. We need to work to do this task, to fight, to live the Christian life and, inevitably, be loyal for nationalist ideas.
The whole mechanism of liberal democracy is reduced to the fact that the political and economic elite is spending enormous financial resources to public sentiment manipulation tools, to win elections and creating the illusion of "democracy" to maintain their positions. However,liberal politicians resort to demagoguery, appealing to "stomach interests" or some other fetishes in order to please the public (such as "European integration", "peace", etc.). True nationalists have another way. Their strategy - is not trying to say voters all that they wish to hear but their own ideas promoting to getting its program-maximum in future. Ukrainian people will win a better life, not when will strive to meet the surfaces interest and implement of imposed unnatural ideas, but when start to going by the way of Christianity and nationalism.
by Igor Zahrebelny
Коментарі
Дописати коментар