Once again last week, we had two important events on the international scene. The first was Putin’s electoral victory. The second was Xi Jinping’s speech at the end of the National People’s Congress.
Perhaps both these pieces of news are related to the fact that both Putin and Xi Jinping are now destined to be presidents for life. Some international critics are stating that Xi Jinping is imitating Putin. Now that the former has received the accolade reserved for Mao Tse-tung , that of ‘great helmsman’, Xi Jinping is now set out on a political path where he can remain in office for life.
On the other hand, Putin’s results can be described as a public plebiscite. For this reason, I wish to share a reflection posted on Facebook by a friend of mine, Dr. Franco Cuccureddu, an Italian politician and mayor of an important historic town in Italy, Castelsardo in Sardinia. A lawyer by profession, he is not one to be easily impressed by political rhetoric. The value of his comments stems from the fact that he was in Russia on the eve of the election and therefore, obtained firsthand knowledge and shared it with his friends on Facebook. His thoughts, both casual and honest, are worth reproducing in full:
“For the fourth consecutive time, Putin has won the presidential election with a plebiscite vote, getting 75% [of the universal suffrage]. On the eve of the presidential election, I was in Moscow and it was not very easy to find supporters - even diffident ones - of the Opposition. (In this photo, there is the only militant supporter of the opposition [that I saw] demonstrating near the Red Square. She was criticizing Putin for a thousand reasons, mostly for the diffused poverty and rising unemployment). For sure, the Opposition parties do not have an easy life in Russia, but getting 75% of the votes means a significant widespread appreciation [from the public] for Putin’s political capabilities, his statesmanship qualities and for having returned Russia to her role as superpower. In brief, continuity was rewarded.”
This form of unbiased opinion was missing from most of the Western reportage on this election. But what is worrying is the fact that Western media has handled these two events rather differently. It has been continuously accusing Putin of fraudulent practices as well as even possibly vote-rigging. Nevertheless, that same media was rather sheepish in analysing Xi Jinping’s speech and his political achievements to date.
I cannot but observe that the current drive in the West to laud Chinese civilization, even goes as far as to depict it as superior to the Western one. I do not know what those who have embraced this agenda will say now after Xi Jinping’s speech, which was steeped in nationalistic rhetoric and emphasised Chinese unity at the expense of individual freedom and freedom of expression, with particular implications for the people of Hong Kong and Taiwan. The truth is that in the past decade or two, there has been a forceful drive in the West to eradicate Christian culture. This is another reason why Putin is so hated. He has succeeded to revert his country to the Orthodox faith. Whether this is good or not, only history will tell.
What is happening in the West can be interpreted as going against what Samuel Huntington has written. He viewed the clash of civilizations between countries of a Christian tradition against those of a non-Christian matrix; Muslim countries and China. In Huntington’s epistemology, Russia is part of the Western Christian commonwealth. But the way the West is behaving towards Russia is making this Christian commonwealth appear divisive. But in truth, President Trump’s decision to congratulate Putin on his electoral victory can be taken that Huntington’s paradigm is holding today more than in the past.
At conferences abroad, I have met fellow-academics, who expressed their genuine fear of Russia. This was the reason why they wanted Hilary Clinton as president because, in her, they saw the only person capable of standing up to Russia. But with Clinton at the helm, the West could have even risked a military clash with Russia. These same academics believe that Russia is returning with ‘vengeance’ on Europe. The word ‘vengeance’ is not mine but theirs. They fear Russia will be settling her scores with Europe. By their own admission, Western Europe was not always fair towards Russia.
All this means that international relations have now fallen victim of relativism. Western culture and civilization have become victim of that same culture of relativism they created. They used relativism to belittle western civilization in the belief that, in so doing, relativism would destroy Europe’s Christian heritage. From an academic point of view, it made European culture appear inferior to that of China. At least, the current American president is more than ready to reverse this trend.
The end result is that the West is passing through a phase of intellectual uncertainty. Until recently, science was the new god. The tumble came about with the massive movement of people. The only element that appears to be holding its ground is nationalism. Even Communist Xi Jinping has had to rely on nationalistic rhetoric to justify widening his powers.
The failure of Muslim countries to adopt or, at best, adapt to western culture can only boost nationalist spirit in Europe. Islamic communities have stopped being considered victims of Western colonialism. The atmosphere in Europe has now changed. They are being perceived as a threat to Western civilization.
In this new political climate, accusations of political corruption against Putin will not hold water. Our politicians are as corrupt as Putin or perhaps even more. For many people in the West, Putin is being seen as some sort of paterfamilias of the Russian people. He has made Russia great again and defied a concerted international plot to destroy Russia. After Marxist and Liberal attacks on Western Christian culture, Putin is being seen as the last hope to save Europe’s Christian heritage.
To non-believers, Putin appears the man capable of maintaining public order whatever it takes. This is in net contrast with our European politicians. They only pursue the means to avoid civil disorder and they obtain this by accommodating diversity. And here lies the paradox. We are all beginning to hear politicians complain about the excessive use of free speech. Malta is no exception. This means that the days of free speech are numbered in the West.
Nor is the right to life any longer guaranteed. This is also a paradox which in my opinion was brought about by equating the right of abortion to a human right. Again we have Hilary Clinton to thank for this. She was one of those politicians who equated abortion with human rights. But when abortion is equated with a human right, then that same human right is no longer a universal right. Abortion has reduced human rights to individual or particular rights. Western Society is ready to accept this new arbitrary aspect of human rights provided that other rights continue to be guaranteed. In other words, even human rights have now fallen victim of the politics of relativism.
All this has led Europe to a repugnant level of hypocrisy. This is why, when leaders, like Putin, take certain drastic positions, they are starting to be admired in Europe. Europe has gone through a long-term change in what can only be defined as an ‘incorporeal’ culture. This has brought changes to our European sensitivities. In Malta, we are now beginning to feel these changes. As is happening on the continent, the Europe of Cain has started pleasing many of those brought up to hate Soviet Russia. Whether one loves it or not, nationalist rhetoric is destined to be once more the political doctrine of the decades to come.