LIBERALISM AND NATIONALISM IN RUSSIA. BORIS CHICHERIN AS A MODERNIST NATIONALIST

Abstract

Two important historical events coincided with the development of liberalism inRussia: The death of tsar Nicholas I in 1855 andRussia’s defeat in the Crimean War (1854-56). These events changed the framework for public life and created scope for the reformulation of central concepts and the introduction of new ideas. Most importantly, they created an opportunity for change. The demise of the tsar also meant that the gap between the educated elite and the government that was caused by the Decembrist revolt might be overcome. Nicholas I was a formidable despot who held his country in an iron grip for thirty years. He saw as his mission the elimination of all forms of political opposition. As a consequence of his policies, intellectuals left politics and turned inward to philosophical speculations and abstract thinking (Riasanovsky, 1976; Malia, 1960; Saunders, 1992; Lincoln, 1978; Lieven, 1992). With the accession of the new tsar, Alexander II, freer discussion of social problems became possible. Slowly, these discussions moved out of private salons and secret circles to public institutions, such as the gentry assemblies and the periodic press. Issues that had not been on the agenda since the failed Decembrist revolt were now being brought back to discussion (Lincoln, 1990; 1982; Emmons, 1968; Field, 1976; Polunov, 2005). However, in contrast to the Decembrists, who acted in secret and did not make any efforts to incorporate conservatives, the early liberals wished to address a wider audience, consisting of both conservative and progressive groups, and containing both intellectuals and state officials. Most importantly, they did not wish to alienate the tsar or his reform-inclined ministers by proposing too radical changes (Hamburg, 1992: p. 11).The second event that created conditions for change was the military defeat in the Crimean War. The defeat shocked both the government and the educated elite. In a flash, it seemed,Russialost its great power status and appeared as a weak, backward state. Enlightened bureaucrats and intellectuals alike realised that something had to be done. In order forRussiato keep her prominent position in the European system of states, the government had to introduce modernizing reforms. As usual Russians looked to the West for inspiration. The model that appeared most successful at the time was the European nation-state. This was an era when the nation-state was becoming the most successful political form both in terms of international relations and economic and political development. In the words of the liberal economist, Walter Bagehot, nation-making was the ‘essential content’ of nineteenth-century social evolution (Hobsbawm, 1993: p. 23). All states had to prepare themselves for an emerging world of nations competing not only on the military battlefield but economically as well. The second half of the nineteenth century was thus a fertile era for reform in the structure of governments.