When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, Russia had a historic opportunity to build a democratic future. Yet, three decades later, the nation has descended into an autocracy so entrenched that opposition leaders are jailed or assassinated, elections are rigged, and power is concentrated in the hands of one man, Vladimir Putin. The collapse of democracy in Russia is often blamed on economic chaos, Western intervention, or Soviet legacies, but what if the real missing piece was not the lack of democracy but the absence of a constitutional monarch?
Imagine a Russia with a restored monarchy, modeled after the British system. This could have provided the stabilizing force necessary to prevent democratic backsliding and served as an institutional counterweight to unchecked presidential power. While it may seem paradoxical to argue that a monarchy could have saved democracy, history suggests otherwise. Constitutional monarchies, such as those in the UK, Canada, and Sweden, boast some of the highest democratic standards in the world. Their monarchs, stripped of political power but imbued with national legitimacy, act as symbols of statehood that transcend party politics and ensure institutional continuity. If Russia had reinstated a monarchy after the Soviet collapse, would it have averted the slide into dictatorship that has defined its modern era? The answer is a resounding yes. The missed opportunity of a constitutional monarchy is a cause for regret in Russia's current state.
The Historical Role of the Tsar and the Church
For centuries, the Russian Tsars held absolute power, but their rule was not without limits. Governance, military affairs, and foreign policy fell under their dominion, while spiritual and moral guidance was the domain of the Orthodox Church. This separation of duties created a balance that, while not democratic in the Western sense, prevented any institution from holding unchecked control over the people’s daily lives and their beliefs. The collapse of the monarchy in 1917 severed this equilibrium, leaving a vacuum swiftly filled by the Bolsheviks, who merged state and ideology into a totalitarian force that controlled governance, thought, morality, and even history itself.
Once a semi-independent power capable of exerting influence over the Tsars, the Orthodox Church was reduced under Soviet rule to a mere tool of the state. Even in post-Soviet Russia, the Church has failed to reassert itself as an independent moral force, instead becoming a servile arm of Putin’s regime. This failure has left Russia without any institution capable of challenging political overreach. Today, Putin has usurped the roles of Tsar and Church, positioning himself not only as the supreme political leader but also as the moral and ideological center of the nation. He presents himself as a defender of Russian Orthodoxy, even as he corrupts its teachings to justify his wars and suppress dissent. He embodies the absolutism of a Tsar while wielding the moral authority once reserved for the Church, an unchecked ruler with no counterbalance.
But what if a constitutional monarchy had been reinstated in the 1990s? The Tsar could have assumed the role once held by the Church, a figure of moral and national unity, while a democratically elected prime minister handled the day-to-day governance of the state. Such a system would have preserved Russia’s deep historical traditions while establishing a framework that prevented a single individual's dangerous concentration of power. The potential role of a constitutional monarch in preserving Russia's deep historical traditions is a cause for preservation in Russia's current state.
Burke on Revolution: A Warning for Post-Soviet Russia
Edmund Burke, often considered the father of modern conservatism, was a fierce critic of radical revolutions that sought to erase the past in pursuit of an idealized future. In Reflections on the Revolution in France (1790), he argued that stable societies require gradual change rooted in tradition rather than sudden upheavals that discard long-standing institutions. Burke believed monarchy, aristocracy, and religious institutions provided continuity and moral order, preventing the descent into chaos and tyranny. His critique of the French Revolution, where the monarchy was violently overthrown, only to be replaced by dictatorship, serves as a powerful lens through which to analyze post-Soviet Russia.
As such, Reflections on the Revolution in France is a profound cautionary tale, highlighting the perilous consequences that often arise from abrupt political upheaval. He presciently warns that such tumultuous shifts do not necessarily herald the dawn of freedom but frequently pave the way for new and oppressive forms of tyranny. Burke vehemently criticized the French Revolution for its reckless dismantling of monarchy and cherished traditions in favor of lofty yet abstract ideals. He argued that these radical severances from the past not only disrupt the fabric of society but also invite chaos, creating fertile ground for authoritarian figures like Napoleon to rise to power. This poignant warning resonates deeply with the narrative of post-Soviet Russia.
In the wake of the Soviet Union's collapse during the tumultuous 1990s, Russia, much like revolutionary France, dismantled its entrenched political order without a robust institutional framework based upon tradition to ensure stability. Burke believed fervently that tradition acted as a vital anchor, providing a sense of continuity that could be thoughtfully reformed instead of violently abolished. This careful preservation of the past was essential in his worldview for preventing the chaos that ultimately allowed autocrats, such as Napoleon in France and Vladimir Putin in Russia, to seize the reins of power. If he lived in the 1990s, he may have posited that a constitutional monarchy could have served as a stabilizing force for Russia, acting as a prudent check against the potential for executive overreach while preserving a sense of national identity without sacrificing the principles of democracy.
Burke’s insightful critique highlights that Russia’s catastrophic error was not solely rooted in its failure to establish a democratic regime but also stemmed from the absence of a cohesive, unifying institution capable of balancing power. Just as France’s catastrophic descent into dictatorship might have been averted with the reformation of its monarchy, so too could Russia have sidestepped Putin's oppressive autocracy had it chosen to restore the figure of the Tsar, not as a sovereign ruler but as a symbolic guardian against the dangers of unchecked authority.
The 1993 Constitutional Crisis: A Missed Opportunity for Stability
One of the most pivotal moments in post-Soviet Russia was the 1993 constitutional crisis, a violent power struggle that shaped the trajectory of Russian governance for decades. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia’s political system was unstable, with competing centers of authority clashing over the country’s future. President Boris Yeltsin, who had been instrumental in dismantling Soviet rule, found himself in a bitter standoff with the Russian parliament, which resisted his push for sweeping reforms. One of these reforms was presidential rule by decree, which enabled Yeltsin to make decisions without consulting the parliament. The crisis escalated when Yeltsin, facing an uncooperative legislature, dissolved the parliament by decree, a legally and politically contested move. In response, lawmakers barricaded themselves inside the White House (the Russian parliamentary building) and declared Yeltsin’s actions unconstitutional.
What followed was the most serious armed conflict in Moscow since the Bolshevik Revolution. After weeks of tension, on October 4, 1993, Yeltsin ordered the military to storm the White House, culminating in tanks shelling the very seat of Russia’s legislature. More than 100 people died in the clashes, and Yeltsin’s victory marked a decisive shift toward a system where executive power could be enforced through brute force rather than democratic consensus. The precedent set by this crisis, using military power to resolve political disputes, became a defining feature of modern Russian politics, clearing the way for the authoritarian tendencies that followed under Vladimir Putin.
Had a constitutional monarchy existed at the time, the crisis could have played out very differently. A Tsar, a neutral and historically rooted arbiter, could have intervened before violence became inevitable. Unlike an elected parliament, which Yeltsin could paint as a political adversary, a reigning Tsar would have represented a figure transcending party politics, one whose authority was deeply embedded in Russian cultural and historical consciousness.
Moreover, Yeltsin could not have so easily justified an attack on a Tsar’s palace as he did on the White House. The parliamentary building was a relatively new institution with no deep emotional or historical significance to the Russian people. Yeltsin’s justification for using military force, framing it as a battle against obstructionist lawmakers, was enough to secure military loyalty and prevent mass unrest. However, the optics would have been entirely different had the crisis involved a Tsar. Russian history is steeped in reverence for its monarchy, and even after the Soviet period, the image of the Tsar retained a unique cultural and symbolic significance. The average Russian, who may not have fully grasped the nuances of constitutional checks and balances, would have instinctively recognized an assault on the Tsar as an intolerable act of national betrayal. Such an attack would not have been seen as a mere political power struggle but as an assault on Russia’s historical continuity and identity.
Furthermore, the presence of a constitutional monarchy would have created a long-term safeguard against future abuses of power. When Putin began extending his rule through constitutional amendments, a reigning Tsar could have acted as a bulwark against such maneuvers. Unlike elected officials, who can be marginalized, exiled, or imprisoned, a monarch’s legitimacy does not stem from transient electoral victories but from an enduring historical and cultural foundation that cannot be easily undone. This moral and institutional check on executive overreach might have prevented Russia’s descent into its current centralized authoritarianism.
By eliminating any neutral authority capable of mediating conflicts, Yeltsin secured his own dominance and dismantled an essential safeguard against the rise of unchecked power. The 1993 crisis was not just a battle between two factions; it was a turning point in Russia’s political culture, which veered away from compromise and towards brute force as the ultimate arbiter of power. By serving as an impartial and universally recognized figure of authority, a Tsar could have prevented this descent and offered Russia a more stable and balanced political future.
A Counterbalance to Putin’s Autocracy
Had Russia reinstated a Romanov as a constitutional monarch in the 1990s, Vladimir Putin would have faced an insurmountable obstacle in his quest for total control. Unlike elected officials, who can be marginalized, exiled, or imprisoned, a monarch’s legitimacy does not come from a fragile electoral system but a historical and cultural foundation that cannot be easily undone. A Tsar would have been a constant, a national institution immune to manipulation, able to check against the erosion of democratic norms.
Consider what might have happened had a Tsar stood as a living symbol of constitutional authority. Could Putin have so easily rewritten the Russian Constitution to extend his rule indefinitely? Could he have waged war in Ukraine with impunity, unchecked by any domestic force? It is unlikely. Though politically neutral, the Tsar would have held moral sway over the Russian people in a way no elected official could. In times of crisis, the monarch could have spoken out against corruption, election tampering, and state repression, not as a politician with an agenda but as the embodiment of national continuity.
A monarch would have also given the Russian people a figurehead to rally around during political uncertainty. Constitutional monarchs stabilize nations like the UK and Japan, especially when partisan divisions threaten to unravel national unity. With a history of dramatic political upheavals, Russia would have significantly benefited from such a stabilizing presence. Instead, its post-Soviet era has been defined by erratic shifts, from Yeltsin’s chaotic democracy to Putin’s autocracy, without any institution strong enough to ensure consistency. The stabilizing role of constitutional monarchs in times of political uncertainty is a cause for security in Russia's current state.
The Cultural and Psychological Need for Monarchy
Many Western analysts fail to appreciate how deeply ingrained monarchy is in the Russian psyche. The fall of the Romanovs in 1917 was not merely the collapse of a political system; it was the severing of an ancient lineage that bound the Russian people to their past. The chaotic years following the USSR’s dissolution only reinforced a deep-seated Russian desire for stability. When democracy failed to provide it in the 1990s, Putin stepped into the void as a de facto Tsar in everything but name.
But what if Russians had been given an alternative? Instead of turning to a new autocrat, what if they had turned to their history, reinterpreted through a modern democratic lens? A constitutional monarchy could have preserved Russia’s cultural traditions while ensuring that political power remained in the hands of elected officials. A Tsar, existing above political factions, could have fostered a sense of national unity without imposing dictatorship.
Had this been the case, Russians today might not be faced with the grim reality of a leader who rewrites history, jails opponents, and wages wars of conquest. Instead, they could have had a monarchy that symbolized continuity, tradition, and democratic principles, an institution impervious to the whims of any single leader.
The Global Evidence: Monarchies vs. Republics
Skeptics may argue that monarchy is outdated, but constitutional monarchies have proven their resilience. While the Russian Republics of 1917 and 1991 both collapsed into dictatorship, constitutional monarchies in Europe have endured weathering wars, economic crises, and political upheavals without succumbing to totalitarianism. The UK, the Netherlands, Sweden, and Japan have successfully maintained democratic governance while preserving their monarchies. The case of Japan is extra noteworthy as they were transitioning into a democratic society, and part of the reason they succeeded was keeping the Emperor. Meanwhile, post-Soviet republics, including Russia, have struggled with corruption, authoritarianism, and political instability.
The evidence overwhelmingly suggests that constitutional monarchies safeguard against the dangers that have led Russia to its current predicament. Monarchs do not rule, but they do reign, and in doing so, they provide a national conscience that elected leaders cannot.
Conclusion: A Missed Chance for Democracy
The tragedy of post-Soviet Russia is that no institution was strong enough to resist Putin’s gradual erosion of democracy. A constitutional monarchy reviving Russia’s historical traditions while embracing modern governance might have been the only force capable of doing so. The crown could have been a beacon of continuity in a nation plagued by political instability, an immovable figure Putin could not simply sideline, imprison, or poison.
In an alternate history, perhaps the Russian people could look to a monarch for national unity and democratic integrity rather than an autocrat tightening his grip on power. The choice between autocracy and democracy may not have been inevitable; perhaps Russia needed its crown returned. Had such a system been in place, Russia might today be a thriving democracy rather than an authoritarian state waging war on its neighbors and repressing its citizens.
As absurd as it may seem to modern sensibilities, Russia’s best hope for democracy may have been the return of the Tsar, this time not as a ruler but as a guardian of the nation’s democratic soul.
Add comment
Comments