Presidential campaign comes to an end, but the debate about how we could improve Russia, only inflames. And louder in this debate is the voice of Russian monarchists. How they see the continuation of the current political trend? On the question “MK” meets well-known entrepreneur, Chairman of the Society for the development of Russian historical education, “double eagle” Konstantin MALOFEYEV.
“The coronation of Nicholas II in the assumption Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin on 14 may 1896”. Artist
Malofeev Konstantin Valerievich, born in 1974 in the city puscino the Moscow region. In 1996 he graduated from the law faculty of Moscow state University. M. V. Lomonosov. In 2005 he founded the investment Fund Marshall Capital Partners, in 2014 the channel “Tsargrad”. In July 2014, the Ministry of internal Affairs of Ukraine opened against Malofeeva criminal proceedings on suspicion of “aiding and abetting illegal armed formations on the territory of Ukraine”. In the same year he was included in the sanctions lists of the USA and the EU. 2015 — Chairman of the Board of Directors of group of companies “Constantinople”. 6 November 2017 elected Chairman of the Society for the development of Russian historical education, “double-Headed eagle”.
— Konstantin V., – led society “double eagle” called recently to the fact “that the upcoming elections were the last to democratic testing is finally over and by 2024, Russia had restored our national monarchical form of government.” How do you assess the likelihood that this scenario will occur in the specified period?
— Chances are, as usual, 50 on 50: or will work out or not. Those who it seems impossible, I remind you that in 1985 no one imagined that six years later the Soviet Union would cease to exist. And a year before the annexation of Crimea also nobody thought that would happen. People tend to imagine the future based on what they know about the past. So constituted our minds. But the logic of the historical process works differently.
But in his previous interview, two, three years ago, you spoke much more cautiously. They say, people are not yet ready for the return of the monarchy, and when it will be ready is unknown. Something has changed over the years?
Yes. Appeared the fear that Putin will leave. According to the Constitution it must do so in 2024. In my opinion, only his personal genius, the scale of his personality, identity and Russia allow to neutralize the systemic weaknesses of democracy. If instead Putin is the identity on a smaller scale — isometric and personality it is difficult today to imagine — I am afraid that the defects will stick out with all ferocity. And instead of developing we get a rebound in the 1990-ies — the chaos, the intrigue, the struggle for power. What I’d really like to avoid.
— But there is much more simple way to extend Putin’s rule is to cancel the restriction on the duration of stay in office. It does not solve the problem?
— In fact, it will be ersatz monarchy. Look at China: according to the proposal of the Central Committee of the Communist party removed restrictions on the term of office of the President of China. It tells about the desire of the Chinese leadership to restore the Empire as the form of government. But why do we have to resort to some surrogate form, if you can directly move to the national restoration of the Orthodox monarchy?
— Does all this mean that Putin do you see the future of the monarchy?
— I, of course, has his own ideas about the identity of the future monarch. But recently, I became the head of the society “double-Headed eagle”, uniting monarchists from different positions, different views on this. So I’m afraid I won’t be able to voice their point of view. Otherwise, monarchists will not be uniform. As they were not unified before. Instead of together to advocate for a strong Russia, for the revival of the Empire, the monarchists had gathered and were arguing about who should be king.
But Putin, if it happened, would be a good monarch?
— Of course. If that happened, Putin would have been a wonderful monarch. He shows us every day. The main difference between the monarch of a democratic ruler is that the latter thinks about his future, about what will happen to him after the expiration of his reign, the monarch is always thinking about the country. And Putin sure thinks about the country: those cars that are declared by our geopolitical opponents, far exceed the risks that could take on the democratic Governor. He behaves like a monarch, fully identifying himself with the country.
— But Vladimir Vladimirovich, as far as we know, no heir. This could be an obstacle?
— The history of the famous different ways of succession of power in the monarchical form of government. So I don’t think you mentioned the fact may be grounds for certain worthy people, including Vladimir Putin, have been excluded from number of applicants.
— Nevertheless, people really, to put it mildly, far from being ready: according to the poll more than two thirds, 68 percent, of the population of Russia speak out against the return of the monarchy.
But 28 percent, and among young people — 35 percent. And 10 years ago, 22 percent were in favor, and in 1990, 14 percent said the Dynamics of the growth of monarchical expectations of the people. If it continues, after 10 years, even without media, campaign support — and I do not know any openly monarchist media, except for the channel “Tsargrad” — the number of supporters of the restoration of the monarchy will be close to half the population.
— And with the support of a much faster?
And support much faster.
— But the President and other members of his team today strongly emphasize commitment to democratic values. It turns out that you and your colleagues are in opposition to the current government.
— In any case. We are happy to live and work during the reign of Vladimir Putin. Support him in everything he does, and how the monarchists are the most loyal subjects. This, indeed, is the essence of monarchy.
Well, his Republican views you get, you still do not support. Or do you want to say that he is insincere in his statements?
— You know, if we asked our ruling elite before the reunification of the Crimea with Russia what they think about the possibility of this, you’ve probably heard the same statements: “we Believe the 1991 borders are inviolable”. Same thing with the form of government. It is understandable that people who have the power, are limited in expressing their thoughts. Yes, the President never in any of his speeches gave no reason to relate it to the supporters to restore the monarchy. At the same time from public sources that Mr Putin called the monarchical idea interesting and beautiful. Including, for example, in his confessional “first-person”, which was published at the beginning of his presidency. And certainly never forbade us monarchists to Express their views.
“17 Oct 1905”. The Artist Ilya Repin. 17 (30) October 1905 was published the Imperial Manifesto on improvement of public order, establish the Parliament and proclaiming political rights and freedoms.
— How many do you have today supporters in the corridors of power?
— Every year there are more. In the “double-Headed eagle” there are deputies and senators. There are plenty of people who sympathize with the monarchical idea, but because of their high positions in the Executive branch are unable to join us officially.
— Not so long ago, the honorary Chairman of the Belgorod regional branch of the double-Headed eagle became the Governor of the Belgorod region Yevgeny Savchenko. He is also a monarchist?
— Of course. He says it in his interviews. Evgeny Stepanovich — the person of outstanding abilities. I think it is the best Governor in Russia. Savchenko knows firsthand the situation in the country, he came to monarchism consciously. As, however, we all do. We are royalists not out of love for a beautiful picture of the past and desire a better future for the country.
— Well, how could look like the return of the monarchy technically? How do you see the algorithm of the change of state device?
— I graduated from the law faculty of Moscow state University on specialty “Public law”, so you can judge it professionally. Like most monarchists, who piously revere the memory of Tsar-Martyr Nicholas II, I think that his abdication was contrary to the Fundamental laws of the Russian Empire. However, in order to stop the situation continuing illegitimacy, suppose that the abdication of the Emperor for himself and the heir in favor of his brother, Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich, and, accordingly, manifest Michael, in which he delayed the adoption of the Supreme power until the decision of the Constituent Assembly was legitimate. The constituent Assembly, as we know, has not been gathered, and once gathered, was almost immediately dispersed by the Bolsheviks. But the current Constitution provides for the possibility of convening a counterpart of the constitutional Assembly.
It is competent to change the basic provisions of the Constitution, and democratic form of government falls into this framework. However, even after the adoption of the Constitution passed 25 years, the law on the constitutional Convention, prescribing the procedure for its formation and convocation, is still not adopted. This legal gap needs to be filled as soon as possible. If convened a Constitutional Convention to declare that it assumes the powers of the Constituent Assembly, disbanded a hundred years ago, the legitimacy of the Russian millennial state will be restored. A constitutional Convention can raise any issue, everything is in its competence — starting with government and ending with the formula of territorial structure. And to take any action. Including a decision on the restoration of our national form of government, the way the Orthodox monarchy.
And to solve the question regarding the identity of the monarch?
— That’s right. It could also do.
But the restoration of monarchical succession involves the return to power of the deposed dynasty. No?
— Again, as the head of the society “double-Headed eagle”, which consist so-called legitimate monarchists who hold exactly the point that you have voiced, and those who believe that we should elect a new dynasty, I can’t Express my personal point of view.
— We can say that the monarchical environment, there is a conflict between, relatively speaking, romanovtsy and Putintsev?
— This is not a conflict, there are just different points of view. This issue is not yet a matter of political debate. That’s when enacted the law on the constitutional Assembly when it is convened, there will be a completely different political agenda, which not had a unifying role.
— In the world there are many varieties of the monarchy, but you are talking about the restoration of “national forms”. We are talking about the sample of autocracy in February 1917? Or maybe even an earlier version?
— I repeat that you are a professional in this field: the history of the monarchy, the history of the political reforms of 1905-1907 was dedicated to my research while studying at the University. So, in my opinion, it is the liberalization of the Russian political life, the emergence of the Duma, giving it broad powers led us eventually to treason during the war. Treason, which was called the February revolution. Try to imagine that during the great Patriotic war, someone used this liberty, which was used by the then opposition politicians. It is simply impossible! One-tenth of those slogans and speeches, which were afforded by Duma members or leaders Sephora, would lead to their immediate death. But the beginning of disaster is, of course, the revolution of 1905-1907, the changes in the state system, which she called.
— So you want to return to the form of government that existed at the time of the announcement of the Tsar’s Manifesto of October 17, 1905, is an absolute monarchy?
— Specify absolute and autocratic: the autocratic monarch is responsible for its activity before God, and the absolute — all to anyone. Yes, it seems to me that autocratic monarchy is the only sensible, traditional and natural state of human society. Not only in Russia. The theory of separation of powers, invented by Montesquieu Mason in the eighteenth century, had no basis in the previous history of mankind. But in Russia, everything else is a religion that assumes the existence of an Orthodox autocratic Tsar and explains how the subjects and their sovereign responsibility before God.
The Parliament, therefore, you consider unnecessary institution?
Is, I emphasize, my personal point of view. There are among us and supporters of other positions. But unlike the question about the identity of the monarch, who can divide the monarchists, on what should be a monarchy, I believe everyone is free to speak freely. It is a question of political process.
The opposition is just going to be in this case, outside the law?
— Depends on what you call opposition. If we are talking about those people who do not agree with the current policy of the state, they will be able to Express their position, for example, through the media. The debate to abolish non-constructive.
— Your position is clear. But notice that the monarchy, at least in the traditional Russian version, is also not devoid of system failures. Her Achilles heel is extremely high dependence on the human factor. “In all this great city it was impossible to find a few hundred people who would be sympathetic to the authorities, wrote about the causes of the February revolution, the then Deputy of the Duma and, among other things, a staunch monarchist Vasily Shulgin. — We no longer understand his Sovereign”. In short, if the man is not in his place — down the drain. Do not risk, we returned to the historical form of government, to get in the end exactly the same historical result?
— Vasily Shulgin was among those who participated in the conspiracy against the Emperor, so it should not be taken as objective witness. In fact, the true throne was very much in the elite and the people. But with the beginning of the war, these faithful are in the majority went to the front. Five million people were at the front! The best people! And who was sitting in the rear? The owners of the “white tickets” and those who earned on the contracts for defense orders. They revolutionized. As for the dependence on the human factor, that in a democracy it is no less. But how to come to power in a democratic policy? Competing in the high morality? No, they go to the government, participating in a ruthless competitive fight, spraying each other with mud. And then a man with such principles, with cynicism, far exceeding the average level begins to lead us! The monarch is brought up from childhood at least average moral climate. At best he’ll make a good man in the worst — good. In any case, the person is spared from having to fight for power, much superior in its moral character of those who are eager for power, cutting into her mouth.
Konstantin Malofeev (second from left) at the meeting of the society “double-Headed eagle”. Photo: rusorel.info
— Monarchs do not always represent examples of the highest morality. Solid warranties, you will agree, not here. But even very good people can be a bad Manager. In a democratic system, if the head is not on top of the situation, change it, and the system remains more or less stable. And the state with the absolute ruler in this case is simply falling apart.
If we look at Russia of the XIX century, where there was no democracy, where power was the Orthodox autocrat, we see the phenomenal prosperity of the state in all its manifestations. And look at the twentieth century, during which virtually the entire world was subjected to different kinds of political experiments. We see the nightmares and the horrors of revolutions, corruption, crises, assassinations… No, I don’t believe that the democratic regime is more stable. Take America, which is often cited as an example of democracy: several presidents have been killed!
— However, the United States has not ceased then to exist. Unlike the Russian Empire, collapsed because he broke the only pillar on which she stood — the Romanov dynasty. And there are a lot of posts.
— We come to the most difficult question — on the causes of the 1917 revolution. In my opinion, the main reason is the discharge from the ideals of Orthodox Kingdom. Which began not in 1917 and not even in 1905, and under Peter. Russian society — not the people, and the elite ceased to be Orthodox. It is because of this in 1917 were so many traitors. For a truly Orthodox person to be loyal impossible.
— You set the bar very high. Think it’s realistic to return to “the pre-Petrine ideal”?
— Well, for the pre-Petrine ideal need pre-Petrine people. I myself do not belong to such Orthodox believers, which are written in the books about the time. About the pre-Petrine ideal we can only dream of. But about the year 1905, on the model of government that existed at the beginning of the first Russian revolution, we can say quite seriously. Modern Russia is not so very different from that.
Democracy, recognize, enough at least that allows you to freely discuss these issues. Before Gorbachev and Yeltsin, it would have been impossible.
— Here I agree with you. I did, in my opinion, not saying that I am a supporter of the Communist way of development. But in tsarist Russia, fortunately or unfortunately, to discuss it was with even greater openness than we will discuss it with you today.
— How then to explain this, and your characterization of Stalin: “Everything he did, how he behaved — a good king is the right king, the harsh”? “Good king,” incidentally, not a single burial ditch filled your peers.
— I have absolutely no reverence to the pre-war Stalin, a revolutionary and a terrorist. But since 1943 he was acting not as a revolutionary building world international, and as sovereign as the Russian Tsar. After the war, we got the Soviet Empire, which was largely a continuation of the Russian Empire. Was the restored Church, back shoulder straps, back pre-revolutionary grammar school… of Course, Stalin’s Empire had a huge number of disadvantages. But there were undeniable achievements, the most important of which is the victory in the great Patriotic war. All the good that was done by Stalin, the result of the fact that he tried to play the role of the monarch.
You say that “the future belongs to the Russian Empire.” The only question is what it will be — “exact copy of the Russian Empire, which we lost in 1917 or will she be somewhat different, like a utopia, similar to the “Star of kings”. Dreams — a good thing, but for some reason, in Russia, whenever someone tries to realize a utopia, to build a Paradise on earth, there is the exact opposite. We do not get the result is “Star kings” Sorokin “Day guardsmen”? Familiar, by the way, with this work?
— Don’t read it, but I know what it is. No, with us, the monarchists, the future will definitely not hell. Hell is where Russia will lead the implementation of liberal or Communist ideas. In the XX century the country has experienced both. And I would not want to experience my grandchildren. In one case, they will go order in the other — are not boys, not girls, and some “it” transformers, transgender, even some muck. The happiest, the brightest period in the history of the Russian people was the time of the monarchy. I think it is the only permanent Harbor for Russia. And for the people of believers — and even the only possible one. In the sky, as you know, there is no democracy. There is a monarchy — the Kingdom of God. Democracy in hell.
— I have to remind you that in 1917 the Russian Church actively supported the overthrow of the king.
The Church was different. Among the bishops were bright and monarchists — such as, for example, Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky). But, of course, there were those who fervently supported the revolution. It is the consequences of the schism, the abandonment of the idea of the Third Rome, which I have already spoken. Peter abolished the Patriarchate and deprived the Church of many of her rights. The Church was discriminated and oppressed in the Synodal period. But if to speak about modern Russia, I have not met a single priest or Bishop, who was not a monarchist.
— You are one of the most unusual, extravagant Russian entrepreneurs. Eccentric multimillionaire. And your social activity gives enough grounds for such characteristics. In one of your interviews you’ve called yourself Agrotechnika, referring, as I understand it, your youthful enthusiasm. But, maybe your monarchy is also a game?
— I just misunderstood. The main thing in me — not that I’m a millionaire, and the fact that I am an Orthodox monarchist. My identity has not changed since the age of 16. However, at some point life turned so that I permanently lost all interest in politics. It happened in October 1993, after the shooting of the White house. I was there all these days. But there is a silver lining: I went into business, whereby I had the money for the implementation of what I believe since his youth.
— Is it that serious?
— Of course. You can ask anyone who knew me 20-25 years ago. I always have been. Just today I Orthodox monarchist money.
Get short formal newsletter the best in the “MK” – subscribe to our Telegram.