Connect with us

Latest

News

Staff Picks

Dial D for Democracy: How Russia is far more democratic than many realise

Russia is actually becoming a more democratic society than is true of many states in the West.

Published

on

2,565 Views

Democracy is to a politically curious man or woman what sex is to a young adolescent. They have all heard the word, they are intrigued by the concept, but only have a cursory idea of what it actually is.  The latter is generally resolved through a natural process of biological and psycho-sexual maturity.

The former is only solved through education, no matter how old the particular student is. I’d like to explore some of the many manifestations of democracy throughout the world,  paying close attention to the modern democratic process in the Russian Federation, a country which is vastly more democratic than many have been led to believe it is.

What is Democracy?

The English word democracy is derived from the ancient Greek word demokratia, itself a word which combined demos (the populace/people) with kratos (rule/strength). At the time this term came about there was no unified Hellenic state but rather multiple city states amongst the Hellenic peoples. Some, though not all were considered democracies, Athens being the most powerful and hence the best remembered. 

Ancient Athens pioneered something called direct democracy whereby citizens actively participate in the construction, amendment and implementation of laws. It wasn’t always like that, the classical Athenian democracy only developed under the reforms of Solon who took power away from the ancient council of elders, the Areopagus and placed power in the Ecclesia, a popular council open to all male Athenian citizens, though women and non-citizens living in Athens were excluded.

Before moving on to more contemporary variants of democracy, it is necessary to clarify some terms.

Direct Democracy: The full participation of citizens in the making, amending and enforcing of laws. In such a system there are no professional politicians.

Suffrage: This simply means the right to vote. It does not mean one has the right to make law, overturn law and crucially it does not mean democracy. One can have suffrage in a non-democratic fashion (when one votes in a non-binding referendum for example).

Universal Suffrage: Many societies throughout history have allowed certain people to vote although the idea that all citizens have an automatic right to vote is historically speaking, a rather recent phenomenon.  Certain qualifications for the eligibility to vote have traditionally applied, the most common being, wealth, property ownership, one’s sex and in more limited cases education and aptitude. Universal Suffrage is the idea that all citizens or in some cases all residents of a state should have the unqualified right to vote.

Petition: Prior to the 18th and 19th centuries, Petition was the most sacred and common expression of democracy. Although petitions to the throne existed in Imperial China, the most well known example is that of England and later all of Britain. The process was affirmed in the Magna Carta of 1215. A petition is when a subject, citizen or group thereof write their grievance to the sovereign and propose how the issue ought to be redressed.    

Representative democracy (sometimes known as Parliamentary Democracy): This is the most common form of democracy in the world today. It involves citizens using their right to the franchise (suffrage) to elected representatives to a legislative body (or bodies).

Referendum: A referendum is a tool of direct democracy. Here those with the right to vote get to decide on pieces of legislation irrespective of the wishes of professional politicians. There is however a caveat to this, some countries have non-binding referenda, whereby those with the right to vote can express their views but these views can be overruled by professional politicians or in some cases judges.

Initiatives: In an initiative, a group of citizens propose a piece of legislation and if it meets certain qualifications (the amount of citizens proposing the legislation, constitutionality etc) it will then be put to all voters in a referendum.

Demonstration: The right to demonstrate is a legal right of citizens to publically assemble, allowing their views to be unmistakably head by a state’s leadership. It is the vocal version of a petition in many ways, though in most cases doesn’t carry the same legal standing.

Social Contract/Will of the People: This is the idea that there is an uncodified law demanding that the leaders of government have a duty to represent the will, desires and needs of the populace without necessitating any form of suffrage. This harkens to the Platonic/Socratic idea of ‘philosopher kings’, a group of esteemed individuals who earn their right to rule through intellect and merit rather than through direct elections or approval.   

Peace: Peace is the antithesis of war and obviously war the antithesis of peace. In no dictionary or language is democracy the antithesis of war. The concepts are not intellectually related. Whether democracy helps create peace is up for debate. I’ll simply mention some popular theories. Plato would say democracy is more likely to lead to war due to the ‘mob mentality’ he associated with it and his fear of demagoguery whipping up a population against a foreign power. Two popular counter arguments state that if people feel they have a direct say in government they will not resort to civil war. Also, if people have the right to participate in either a demonstration, petition or initiate against a government’s desire to go to war, that it may be effective. Of course, the 1 million people demonstrating against Tony Blair and his government’s desire to invade Iraq in 2003 proved ineffective.

So which modern state is the most democratic? That’s an easy one, Switzerland. Switzerland employs constitutional initiatives, popular referenda and indeed demands referenda on the most crucial matters of government. Switzerland’s form of government is the closet of any to a direct democracy.  I did say I would talk about Russia and I will. Russia is much less democratic than Switzerland, but it is quite a bit more democratic than Britain, The United States, Germany, France, Canada and Poland (to name but a few).

The Political System in Russia

The Russian Federation is a representative democracy in which all male and female citizens of adult age cast votes for a political party to represent them according to the proportional representation system of elections which is used throughout much of Europe. In Britain members of the Green Party, Liberal Democratic Party and UKIP have often proposed the implementation of proportional representation, as they feel the so-called ‘first past the post’ system in modern Britain is insufficiently democratic.

The proper way to measure the level of democracy in a representative democracy like Russia’s or for that matter like Britain’s or America’s is by analysing the diversity of opinion amongst the parties which people have elected to a legislative body. In this respect Russia is a clear winner. In what other democratic legislature can one find a party which is the successor to the once most powerful Communist Party in the world and on the other hand a party whose leader has called Lenin a terrorist and has publicly proscribed Communism in the Council of Europe?  It’s hard to frankly compete with such levels of political diversity. In order to better understand this, it is necessary to catalogue the four major parties of Russian politics beginning with the oldest.

Political Parties in Russia

The Communist Party of The Russian Federation: This is the successor party to the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and has traditionally polled a strong second in most elections to the Duma as well as presidential elections. This is a traditional Marxist-Leninist party which under the lengthy leadership of  Gennady Zyuganov has repudiated both the de-Stalinisation of Khrushchev as well as the reforms of Gorbachev. Whilst strictly an atheistic party as the CPSU always had been, Zyuganov offers a conciliatory approach to religion constituting a divergence from early Stalinist views on religion.

The LDPR (formerly Liberal Democratic Party of Russia): This was the second officially registered party in the Soviet Union. Founded and still led by Vladimir Zhirinovsky, the party places a great deal of emphasis on Russia’s historical role in geo-politics as well as traditional Russian culture. Whilst often described as right-wing or even far-right, the domestic policies of the LDPR tend to be a mix of market capitalism and state regulation with an emphasis on the need for cooperation between free individuals and the need of government to facilitate industrial, agricultural and infrastructural development. In terms of overarching ideology it is stridently anti-fascist and anti-nationalist, whilst embracing a uniquely Russian sense of conservatism.  Zhirinovsky himself is a professional historian and a multi-lingual expert in world affairs. Known for a flamboyant and often adversarial rhetoric, his speeches on the importance of foreign affairs in the daily lives of individuals are an instructive viewing.

United Russia: Founded in 2001, United Russia remains the most powerful and politically active party in Russia. Whilst since the 2012 Presidential Election, Vladimir Putin hasn’t been an official member of the party, United Russia openly endorses Putin and is currently chaired by the Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev. The party offers generally centrist policies but on the whole promotes the free market with some mixed economic elements. In foreign affairs United Russia is fully aligned with official Presidential policy.

A Just Russia: Led by Sergey Mironov, A Just Russia is the newest of Russia’s major parties. It is a social democratic party which campaigns on increased social welfare programmes, better treatment of pensioners and has been highly critical of the internal workings of United Russia, presenting itself as a more honest party. Mironov has campaigned for the votes of both United Russia supporters as well as those who traditionally vote Communist, promising the social interventions Communist favour with a more centrist and ‘modern’ approach that tends to appeal to United Russia voters. Although sprung from disorganised beginnings, it is now the third largest party in the State Duma.

Russia’s Duma is indeed diverse, far more so than those challenging Russia’s democratic credentials.

Comparing Democracy: Russia and the West

How could Russia improve its democracy? I would say the same way the United States could do, by allowing for referenda and initiatives at a national level. Apart from that, Russia’s election system is according to all international observers, free and fair, its parties represent diverse views and Russia’s president has a far higher popularity rating amongst his people than his equivalents in most representative democracies.

So if Russia is more rather than less democratic than many of its neighbours let alone its international detractors, why do many in Europe and North America not understand this? For this one must turn to the nature of the media. I would say Russian media offer a much wider breadth of debate than say the BBC or New York Times.

Take for example the recent events in Turkey. The Russian media have published and aired many alternative views, some anti-Ergodan and some pro with many not even willing to take a side at this early stage in what promises to be a season of political turmoil in Turkey.

By contrast, when Russian politics are discussed in western media it is almost always negative or defamatory. Parts of the western media remind me of something else Switzerland is famous for…not its admirable democracy but something filled with holes and when left out in the open for too long, it begins to stink

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of

Latest

Fusion GPS founder trapped in legal jeopardy, bets on Democrat midterm win to bury Russiagate hoax (Video)

The Duran – News in Review – Episode 135.

Alex Christoforou

Published

on

Fusion GPS researcher Nellie Ohr and ex-FBI official James Baker are set to testify before Congress, but Fusion GPS co-founder Glenn Simpson is taking the Fifth.

The man at the center of the Russiagate hoax, Glenn Simpson, headed the espionage/PR smear firm Fusion GPS, which ordered the discredited and fake Trump ‘dossier’, which John McCain handed to the FBI, and which Buzzfeed News published as actual news.

Simpson has a lot of explaining to do, and now appears trapped in his “under oath” lies.

Simpson had previously testified under oath to the House Intelligence Committee that he never met with DOJ official Bruce Ohr, husband to Fusion GPS researcher Nellie Ohr.

Simpson also stated under oath that he never discussed with Bruce Ohr the Steele dossier prior to the October FISA application, which was used to spy on Carter Page and kick off the ‘Russiagate hoax’.

The Duran’s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris discuss the legal jeopardy entangling Fusion GPS co-founder Glenn Simpson. Republicans are close to breaking the ‘Russiagate hoax’ wide open, but Simpson is betting on delay tactics, and a subsequent Democrat midterm House victory, to save his ass from prosecution, and bury his involvement in a brazen attempt to discredit and remove an elected US President.

Remember to Please Subscribe to The Duran’s YouTube Channel.

Follow The Duran Audio Podcast on Soundcloud.

According to Zerohedge, Fusion GPS co-founder Glenn Simpson may be in “real legal jeopardy” over inconsistent testimony given to Congress regarding his involvement in a massive counterintelligence effort against then-candidate Donald Trump, including the infamous Steele dossier.

Speaking with Fox News Maria Bartiromo, John Ratcliffe (R-TX) said…

“I’m not surprised that Glenn Simpson is taking the Fifth.”

“He probably should. He’s in real legal jeopardy. Very clearly someone is not telling the truth.”

Via The Daily Caller… 

Simpson, who investigated the Trump campaign on behalf of the DNC and Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, informed Congress on Thursday that he will plead the Fifth to avoid speaking with members of the House Judiciary and House Oversight & Government Committee in an interview set for Tuesday.

“The reason for that … is that Glenn Simpson had previously testified under oath to the House Intelligence Committee that he never met with Bruce Ohr or discussed with Bruce Ohr the Steele dossier prior to the October FISA application in 2016 or the 2016 presidential election,” said Ratcliffe, a member of the House Judiciary panel.

Via Fox News ‘Sunday Morning Futures’

Via Zerohedge

Ohr told the Judiciary and Oversight & Government Reform Committees in an August 28 interview that he met with Simpson in August and December of 2016 to discuss Fusion GPS’s opposition research into Donald Trump.

Bruce’s wife, Nellie Ohr, was hired by Fusion GPS for the anti-Trump effort at the time.

Simpson, however, told a different story to the House Intelligence Committee on November 14, 2017, when he said that he hadn’t been in contact with anyone from the DOJ or FBI until after the election. While he did acknowledge meeting with Bruce Ohr (meetings which would result in Ohr’s demotion), Simpson never disclosed his wife’s employment.

“Ohr, who has been demoted twice since December, was also in frequent contact with Christopher Steele, the author of the infamous anti-Trump dossier. Steele, a former British spy, was hired by Fusion GPS in June 2016 to investigate the Trump campaign’s possible links to the Kremlin.

Steele met with the Ohrs on July 30, 2016, a day before the FBI opened its counterintelligence investigation into the Trump team. Ohr met just after with FBI deputy Director Andrew McCabe.” – Daily Caller

Following the 2016 election, Steel and Ohr met over a dozen times, despite the FBI having blacklisted Steele for improper media disclosures concerning his work.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

Hillary and Holder are hurting Democrat Party with their rhetoric

Democrat-written opinion piece points out the fact that the party has radicalized so much it has left its own supporters behind.

Seraphim Hanisch

Published

on

Fox News ran an opinion piece written by Douglas E. Schoen early Sunday. It points out how radicalized the Democrat Party has become, and it is noteworthy because Douglas Schoen is a Democrat himself. He writes (emphasis added):

As Democrats campaign for the Nov. 6 midterm elections, they have plenty of legitimate criticisms to level at President Trump and Republicans who control the House and Senate. But Democrats were hurt in recent days by amazing and disgusting comments made by Hillary Clinton and former Attorney General Eric Holder.

As a Democrat, I want my party to win as many seats as possible in the House and Senate and to capture as many governorships and other state offices as it can. But the Clinton and Holder remarks do not advance that effort – they hurt it.

Former Secretary of State and 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Clinton said Tuesday that “you cannot be civil with” the Republican Party because it “wants to destroy what you stand for, what you care about.” She added that “if we are fortunate enough to win back the House and or the Senate, that’s when civility can start again.”

But even worse than Clinton’s comments were those of Eric Holder, who said at a recent campaign event in Georgia that Democrats should abandon the advice of former first lady Michelle Obama, who said at the 2016 Democratic National Convention that her party and mine should respond positively to negative attacks from the GOP.

Mrs. Obama said that “when someone is cruel or acts like a bully, you don’t stoop to their level. No, our motto is, when they go low, we go high.”

Holder argued just the opposite, saying: “When they go low, we kick them. That’s what this new Democratic Party is about.” He later said he wasn’t advocating violence – not literal kicking.

I beg to differ with both Clinton and Holder.

The only way the Democrats can regain the majority in either or both houses of Congress is by being civil, and pointing out the differences between Democrats and Republicans on the issues.

This is the real issue that should govern elections. Rather than the politics of popularity, one needs to consider policy points and which side offers points that are actually achievable, believable, concrete, desirable and specific. Calling President Trump and his administration names does not offer any constructive dialogue on policy matters.

CLICK HERE to Support The Duran >>

Conservatives and Trump supporters know this and it is precisely because of this that Donald Trump won the White House.

While the mainstream media (and here we can include Fox News largely) tried every possible way to ridicule Donald Trump’s candidacy, the people that actually listened to what he had to say found him very impressive on policy as much as his ability to speak as the voice of the people. The recent hysteria around Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination and confirmation to the Supreme Court was hysteria up front, driven by real policy fears from the deep core of liberals, as they know that this Justice is likely to form an effective wall against liberals ramming their agenda through the courts since their efforts fail legislatively so often.

Mr. Schoen continues:

As a centrist Democrat, the issue that strikes me most is the degree to which the national debt and the deficit are now out of control.

America faces uncertain and unstable times financially. Yet we are seeing a Republican-controlled Congress that has largely failed to do anything besides provide tax cuts for major corporations and the wealthiest individuals. This is by no means certain to have fundamentally altered the path of the economy or to provide economic growth.

Put another way, what the Trump administration has failed to do is to fix health care and cover pre-existing conditions more fundamentally; lead America in a fiscally responsible way; and pass tax cuts that help the average American. The Trump tax cuts have driven up the national debt and endangered funding for programs that benefit millions of people in our country.

So, here are policy points. Now we can begin to have a debate. Is Mr. Schoen right, or wrong in his information? This is far different than name-calling!

Democrats have long argued the need for a centrist agenda that focuses on:

  • Providing health-care benefits – whether private or public – to all Americans to cover expansively all pre-existing conditions.
  • Protecting the environment from the policies of the Trump administration that have only encouraged –and I dare say exacerbated – environmental degradation and climate change.
  • Promoting a pro-growth, inclusive agenda that seeks to put working people first, and the interests of Washington insiders and economic elites second. President Trump claims that he is doing this – he calls it “draining the swamp” – but this has not happened.

There is no justification for the angry rhetoric of Clinton and Holder, which only feeds into Republican claims that Democrats are an angry mob that can’t get over Clinton’s loss to Trump two years ago.

And Holder looks particularly bad because he was once the chief law enforcement officer of the United States, yet now sounds like he is effectively advocating what appears to be either illegal activities, or metaphorical initiatives that run counter to our traditions and our politics.

Hillary Clinton has said she won’t run for office again, but Holder has said he may run for president in 2020. Whoever the Democratic candidate turns out to be needs to be a responsible and respectable opponent – not one who calls for kicking the GOP or for incivility.

We should have learned from the Senate confirmation hearing for now-Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh that resisting for the sake of resisting doesn’t work. In fact, Democratic attacks on Kavanaugh may well have backfired, recent polls show.

The Democratic Party itself is lost now, without a message, a direction, a strategy, or agenda to confront a Republican Party that is seen as in many ways as having let the American people down.

We need change – but it must be constructive change. This Democrat believes that the comments that Eric Holder and Hillary Clinton made are wrong, counterproductive, and deserve to be rejected by the leadership of the Democratic Party.

Perhaps Fox News ran this opinion piece because Douglas Schoen is the first rational Democrat contributor to say anything in some time. However, it also appears that Mr. Schoen is a minority in his own party. It is a greatly logical approach to argue policy, as he has and as anyone who really understands American government should. But it is unclear as to whether the bulk of the Democrat Party even has reasonable people remaining.

If they do, it may well be that they are being betrayed by their party’s increasingly leftist and radical positions. The Party apparatus seems focused, but it also seems to have left people like Mr. Schoen behind.

Who knows? Maybe that will bring them into the Trump camp.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

Patriarch Bartholomew lifts anathemas on schismatics in Ukraine (VIDEO)

Most of the Orthodox world is in strong opposition to this move by Patriarch Bartholomew, whose motivations seem not to be of Christ.

Seraphim Hanisch

Published

on

The biggest news in the Eastern Orthodox world in recent times occurred on Thursday, October 11, 2018. The Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, Bartholomew I, lifted the anathemas against two schismatic Ukrainian Churches and their leaders, paving the way to the creation of a fully independent Ukrainian national Orthodox Church.

CLICK HERE to Support The Duran >>

This announcement was given in English and is shown here in video with the textual transcript following:

“Presided by His All Holiness the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, the Holy and Sacred Synod convened for its regular session from October 9 to 11, 2018 in order to examine and discuss items on its agenda. The Holy Synod discussed in particular and at length, the ecclesiastical mater of Ukraine in the presence of His Excellency Archbishop Daniel of Pamphilon and His Grace Bishp Ilarion of Edmonon, Patriarchal Exarchs to Ukraine, and following extensive deliberations decreed (emphasis added):

First, to renew the decision already made, that the Ecumenical Patriarchate proceed to the granting of autocephaly to the Church of Ukraine;

Second, to re-establish at this moment the stavropegion of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in Kiev—one of its many starvorpegion in Ukraine that existed there always;

Third, to accept and review the petitions of appeal of Philaret Denisenko and Makary Maletich and their followers who found themselves in schism not for dogmatic reasons, in accordance with the canonical prerogatives of the Patriarchate of Constantinople to receive such petitions by hierarchs and other clergy of all the autocephalous Churches. Thus, the above mentioned have been canonically reinstated to their hierarchical or priestly rank, and their faithful have been restored to communion with the Church;

Fourth, to revoke the legal binding of the Synodal letter of the year 1686, issued for the circumstances of that time, which granted the right through economia to the Patriarch of Moscow to ordain the Metropolitan of Kiev elected by the clergy-laity assembly of his eparchy, who would commemorate the Ecumenical Patriarch as the first hierarch at any celebration, proclaiming and affirming his canonical dependence to the Mother Church of Constantinople;

Fifth, to appeal to all sides involved that they avoid appropriation of churches, monasteries, and other properties as well as every other act of violence and retaliation so that he peace and love of Christ may prevail.”

There are a few things that must be said about what this declaration is not before we get to the matter of what the points of actually are. The point of reference is the strict letter of the text above itself.

  • This is not a granting of autocephaly (full independent self-rule status) like the fourteen universally canonical Orthodox jurisdictions in the world. However, it is a huge step towards this status.
  • As far as Constantinople is concerned, Filaret Denisenko, the leader and “Patriarch” of the “Kyiv Patriarchate of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church” and Makary, the “Metropolitan” of the “Ukrainian Orthodox Autocephalous Church”, and all their faithful are now restored to communion. The statement says that this applies to “The Church” which may be trying to state that these two men (and all the faithful that they lead), are now in communion with the entirety of canonical Orthodoxy, but more likely, this may be a carefully worded statement to say they now are in communion with Constantinople alone.
  • There is an official call for the cessation of the violence directed against the Moscow Patriarchate parishes and communities, who are the only canonically recognized Orthodox Church in Ukraine, and who are also the largest by far in that country. The Kyiv Patriarchate and Uniate (Roman oriented) Greek Catholics in Ukraine have gone on record for seizing MP church properties, often by force, with neo-Nazi sympathizers and other radical Ukrainian nationalists. So this official call to cease the violence is now a matter of public record.

However, the reaction has been far less civil than the clergy wished for.

Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko: “Expressing his view of the Moscow Patriarchate, Poroshenko added, “This is a great victory of the God-loving Ukrainian people over the Moscow demons, the victory of Good over Evil, the victory of Light over Darkness.”’

Perhaps this is the reason Metropolitan Onuphry of Ukraine (exarch under the Moscow Patriarchate) has been labeled an enemy of Ukraine and is now receiving death threats. Very civil.

Poroshenko’s statement is all the more bizarre, considering that it has been Ukrainian ultra-nationalists that have been violently attacking Moscow – related parishes in Ukraine. This has been corroborated by news sources eager to pin the blame on Russia, such as the U.K. Guardian.

The Union of Orthodox Journalists, based in Kiev and supportive of the Moscow Patriarchate, has been under intense cyber attack since October 11th, when the EP’s announcement was issued.

Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate) Chancellor, Metropolitan Anthony of Boryspil and Brovary: “What happened at the Synod in Istanbul yesterday shocked the entire Orthodox world. It seems the Patriarchate of Constantinople is consciously embarking on a path of schism in world Orthodoxy. Patriarch Bartholomew ignored the calls of the Local Churches to convene a meeting of the primates to work out a common and conciliar solution to the Ukrainian Church issue and unilaterally made very serious but erroneous decisions. I hope the Orthodox world will give this action an objective evaluation… Having received the schismatics into communion, Patriarch Bartholomew did not make them canonical, but has himself embarked on the path of schism. The schismatics remain schismatics. They did not receive any autocephaly or tomos. It seems they have lost even that independence, although non-canonical, that they had and which they always emphasized.”

Metropolitan Rostislav of the Czech Lands and Slovakia:“The Orthodox world recognizes the only canonical primate of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church—His Beatitude Metropolitan Onuphry of Kiev and All Ukraine. This fact was repeatedly mentioned and confirmed by the primate of the Great Church of Christ His Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew on behalf of all present at the Synaxis of the Primates of the Local Orthodox Churches that was held in Chambésy (Switzerland) from January 21 to 27, 2016. Therefore, any attempt to legalize the Ukrainian schismatics by the state authorities should be strongly condemned by all the primates of the Local Orthodox Churches.

Patriarch Irinej of Serbia wrote two letters to the Ecumenical Patriarch, advocating that the provision of a new autocephaly is possible only with the consent of all local Orthodox Churches. According to Sedmitza.ru (Translation by Pravoslavie.ru),

“In these letters, it was very clearly stated that the granting of autocephaly cannot be the prerogative the Patriarchate of Constantinople alone, that new autocephalies must be created only with the consent of all the Local Orthodox Churches, as the Holy Synod of Antioch also said in its recent statement.”

Pat. Irinej also warned the Patriarchate of Constantinople against making such major decisions unilaterally, because “it will not bring harmony and peace to the Ukrainian land, but, on the contrary, will cause new divisions and new schisms.”

The Holy Synod of Antioch, the oldest Orthodox Church, and actually the very first place where the disciples of Christ were even called “Christians” weighed in on the issue as well and they had several things to say:

“The fathers examined the general Orthodox situation. They stressed that the Church of Antioch expresses her deep worries about the attempts to change the boundaries of the Orthodox Churches through a new reading of history. She considers that resorting to a unilateral reading of history does not serve Orthodox unity. It rather contributes to the fueling of the dissensions and quarrels within the one Church. Thus, the Church of Antioch refuses the principle of establishing parallel jurisdictions within the canonical boundaries of the Patriarchates and the autocephalous Churches as a way to solve conflicts, or as a de facto situation in the Orthodox world.

To summarize, this move by Constantinople is not being warmly received by many, many people. Most of the local Churches are on record giving their reaction to this process. In brief, here is the list most of the Local Churches and a one or two word summary of their reactions.

Patriarchate of Georgia: Unilateral action is wrong; Constantinople and Moscow must cooperate and find a solution together.

Patriarchate of Jerusalem: recognizes Ukraine as a canonical territory of the Russian Orthodox Church alone, as do all other local Churches

Patriarchate of Alexandria and all Africa: The Church does not bow to politicians. Moscow-led church is the only canonical Church in Ukraine.

Archbishop of Cyprus: Decries the Ukrainian situation but offered to mediate a discussion between Moscow and Constantinople

Bulgarian Patriarchate: Interference of the State in Church affairs leads to serious and negative consequences for both.

Polish Orthodox Church: Metropolitan Sawa called for a council of Orthodox ruling hierarchs to discuss this situation.

Estonian Orthodox Church: Condemns Constantinople’s actions in Ukraine.

Greek Archdiocese of America: Supports Constantinople’s actions in Ukraine.

The Orthodox Church of Greece (Metropolitan Seraphim of Piraeus quoted): “Schismatics, as we know, are not the Church, and communion with them is forbidden by the Divine and holy canons and the Apostolic and Ecumenical Councils. Why then this persistence of the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew in recognizing schismatics as an autocephalous Church? To provoke schisms and divisions in the one universal and Apostolic Church of Christ?”

Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR): Ceased commemoration of Constantinople, ceased concelebration with Constantinople.

This issue has also rocked the secular geopolitical world.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

JOIN OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Your donations make all the difference. Together we can expose fake news lies and deliver truth.

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Advertisement

Advertisement

Quick Donate

The Duran
EURO
DONATE
Donate a quick 10 spot!
Advertisement
Advertisement

Advertisement

The Duran Newsletter

Trending