06.09.2000, Kertman G.
|
Public response to the canonization of Nicholas II was fairly unanmbigous: 21% reported having approved of this decision, 17% disapproved it, with 21% feeling indifferent towards the decision (the question was asked of only those who reported being aware of this event). Among the experts interviewed, slightly two-thirds felt positive about it, with somewhat less one-third having negative attitude towards it.
So, the concerns of the Russian Orthodox Church about split this decision might entail were not groundless. Anyway, this subject generated animated discussion in the focus group sessions.
Opponents of the canonization, doubting fairness of this decision, put forwarded basically two arguments: first, the last Russian Emperor doesn't deserve to be canonized because his policy had tragic repercussions for the nation; and second, his martyrdom is not ground enough for the canonization.
This argumentation is based on a secular conception of canonization. One focus group participant formulated it as follows:
- «Canonization is admittance to the list of saints of the person for his deserts for society.»
«This man did harm to Russia, comparable only with Chingis-Khan, - emotionally remarks one focus group participant in Novosibirsk. This is elementary... It was due to his policy that Russia as empire got into trouble. Killing of a mere 300-400 people would change the avenue of history. Let alone the fact that Russia lost tens millions of people during this perions. The Tsar shouldn't be a good-hearted man. He should pursue the policy, which is useful for the nation.»
At the next twist of discussion, he added:
- «It seems to me, we can recall the emperors who were put in the catalog of saints and see what they were canonozed for. Take, for example Dimitry Donskoy. Only those rulers were regarded as saints who, at the crucial moment, could save the nation from death. And this situation is different... That the people who was the «carrier of Orthodoxy» (as they used to call it) was wiped out by one-third, that the priests were shot, is not clear to me... Russia as an orthodox state was delivered a heavy blow.»
Similar view on the canonization is voiced by another participant:
- «This is wrong, I think. Most people don't know what he did for the church. But as Emperor he did much harm to his nation. If he had been much tougher and stronger, no revolution would have taken place.»
Interestingly, the female respondents who blamed the last Tsar for being insufficient cruel in preventing the revolution, voted for Zyuganov in the last presidential election.
Yet the focus group participants blamed Nicholas II not only of his liberalism in 1917, but also of «The bloody Sunday» and «his involvement in a senseless war».
For the opponents of the canonization, the martyrdom of the Russian Tsar is not a sound ground for his admittance to the list of saint.
- «To canonize him just for his being the Tsar and shot is wrong is a sacrilege.»
This stance is based on a kind of egalitarian approach, according to which it is immoral to focus on the martyrdom of the Emperor with millions of people having «died a mich more awful death.» Opponents of the canonization recall such facts as the Red Terror killings, the Babiy Yar mass killing of Jews and Pavlik Morozov somehow. One of the female participants focuses on the practice of the Orthodox Church as an argument in favor of this egalitarian stance.
- «Life of Tsar is no better than life of any people. From the point of view of the Russian Orthodox Church, when you order a prayer for health or for the resose of the soul, you are not entitled to provide a title except for the person being sick or a child.»
It has to be noted that the proponents of the canonization had great difficulties in finding counter-arguments. None of them defended Nicholas II as a statesman from criticism. One of the proponents of the canonization found the following counter-argument against unfair admittance of the last Tsar to the catalog of saints:
- «The Tsar is a symol of our country. Our tsars symbolized Russia for 300 years. That's why Nicholas was chosen.»
Needless to say, how far is such stance from the Orthodox Church's motives for the canonization.
Other female respondent states that the grounds for the canonization of the last Tsar were exclusively his personal – «inhuman» – qualities.
On the whole, the discussion makes an impression that the proponents of the canonization defend it not so much by virtue of their belief in the soundness of this decision as due to their trust in the church and their committment to support it. As one female respondents put it:
- «This was a very controversial decision to canonize the tsar. I have no opinion whether it was right or wrong. When I begin thinking how they died, how they were shot... But the Tsar was no saint, he had many sins: the Bloody Sunday, collapse of the state. But once it happened, once the Synod made this resolution, let it be so. I agree with it.»
Other respondents periodically shift to monologues and remarks in favor of the church as such rather than its decision, finding exclusively «secular» arguments in favor of the functional usefulness of the church:
- «People need religion, every state needs a kernel.»
- «If at least one person, after visiting church, becomes more sensitive to religion, there will be nothing bad in it.»
Yet the opponents of the canonization continually avoid the subject of the discussion. By disagreeing with this decision is they express clear irritation of the Orthodox Church expansion in the media, and concerns that the canonization of the last Tsar will heighten political influence of the church.
The table below shows the effect the canonization had on the reputation of Nicholas II and that of the Orthodox Churh.
| |
General opinion * |
How did you react to the canonization of Nicholas II...? |
|
approve |
indifferent |
disapprove |
|
Has the canonization of Nicholas II influenced your attitude towards him as a historical figure? If so, would you feel better or worse towards him than before? |
|
It didn't influence my attitude |
49 |
70 |
88 |
81 |
|
Better |
7 |
24 |
4 |
3 |
|
Worse |
1 |
0 |
1 |
6 |
|
Hard to answer |
5 |
6 |
7 |
10 |
|
Has the canonization of Nicholas II influenced your attitude towards the Russian Orthodox Church? If so, would you feel better or worse towards it than before? |
|
It didn't influence my attitude |
48 |
71 |
86 |
69 |
|
Better |
7 |
25 |
5 |
1 |
|
Worse |
5 |
1 |
5 |
21 |
|
Hard to answer |
4 |
3 |
4 |
9 |
|
* Only the respondens aware of the canonization were interviewed.
As the table demonstrate, the canonization of the last Tsar had a minor effect on the church reputation: a gap between those approving and disapproving of this move is not wide. As for the prestige of Nicholas II, it increased substantially: it is quite natural that only a few opponents of the canonization projected their irritation with this action unto the last Tsar, while one in four of the proponents of the canonization felt better about him.
It would be natural to suggest that this will gradually heighten monarchic sentiments: while as recently as three years back the «restoration of the monarchy in Russia» was favored by 10%, now 16% approve of this idea. In the meantime, the proportion of those considering the restoration of the monarchy to be possible, grew from 18% up to 22%.
|
|
