| Part of a series on |
| Slavic Native Faith |
|---|
 |
In the Russian intellectual milieu, Slavic Native Faith (Rodnovery) presents itself as a carrier of the political philosophy of nativism/nationalism/populism (narodnichestvo),[1] intrinsically related to the identity of the Slavs and the broader group of populations with Indo-European speaking origins,[2] and intertwined with historiosophical ideas about the past and the future of these populations and their role in eschatology.[3]
The scholar Robert A. Saunders found that Rodnover ideas are very close to those of Eurasianism, the current leading ideology of the Russian state.[4] Others found similarities of Rodnover ideas with those of the Nouvelle Droite (European New Right).[5] Rodnovery typically gives preeminence to the rights of the collectivity over the rights of the individual,[6] and Rodnover social values are conservative.[7] Common themes are the opposition to cosmopolitanism, liberalism, and globalisation,[8] as well as Americanisation and consumerism.[9]
The scholar Kaarina Aitamurto defined Rodnovers' applied political systems as forms of grassroots democracy, or as a samoderzhavie ("self-rule") system, based on the ancient Slavic model of the veche (assembly) of the elders, similar to ancient Greek democracy. They generally propose a political system in which power is entrusted to assemblies of consensually acknowledged wise men, or to a single wise individual.[10] On the level of geopolitics, Rodnovers have proposed the idea of "multipolarity" to oppose the "unipolarity" of the mono-ideologies, that is to say the Abrahamic religions and their ideological products of the Western civilisation.[11]
The historian Marlène Laruelle observed that Rodnovery is in principle a decentralised movement, with hundreds of groups coexisting without submission to a central authority. Therefore, socio-political views can vary greatly from one group to another, from one adherent to another, ranging from apoliticism, to left-wing, to right-wing positions. Nevertheless, Laruelle said that the most politicised right-wing groups are the most popularly known, since they are more vocal in spreading their ideas through the media, organise anti-Christian campaigns, and even engage in violent actions.[12] Aitamurto observed that the different wings of the Rodnover movement "attract different kinds of people approaching the religion from quite diverging points of departure".[13] Aitamurto and Victor Shnirelman also found that the lines between right-wing, left-wing and apolitical Rodnovers is blurry.[14]
In 1997 some Russian Rodnovers published a political declaration, the Russian Pagan Manifesto, which mentions, as sources of inspiration, three figures famous for their strong nationalism and conservatism: Lev Gumilyov, Igor Shafarevich, and the Iranian Ruhollah Khomeini. In 2002, the Bittsa Appeal was promulgated by Rodnovers less political in their orientation, and among other things it explicitly condemned extreme nationalism within Rodnovery. A further Rodnover political declaration, not critical towards nationalism, was the Heathen Tradition Manifest published in 2007.[15]
- ^ Aitamurto 2016, p. 141.
- ^ Simpson & Filip 2013, p. 39; Shnirelman 2017, p. 90.
- ^ Yashin 2016, pp. 36–38.
- ^ Saunders 2019, p. 566.
- ^ Ivakhiv 2005b, p. 235; Aitamurto 2008, p. 6.
- ^ Shnirelman 2013, p. 63.
- ^ Laruelle 2012, p. 308.
- ^ Ivakhiv 2005b, p. 223.
- ^ Aitamurto 2006, p. 189.
- ^ Aitamurto 2008, pp. 2–5.
- ^ Aitamurto 2016, p. 114.
- ^ Laruelle 2012, p. 296.
- ^ Aitamurto 2006, p. 205.
- ^ Shnirelman 2013, p. 63; Aitamurto 2016, pp. 48–49.
- ^ Aitamurto 2016, pp. 48–49.