The past that should not fall behind

... a century ago

We have a shaky knowledge about that time, Azerbaijan, Baku, May 1918; about those who then: we are short of reminiscences, diary, letters, etc. Nevertheless, it is safe to say that we are aware, first and foremost, of those reliably titled as Founding Fathers of our country.

It is well-known that they were men of idea, men of passion. It was the passion that enabled them, even despite trying conditions, to create the country, create the people if meant not a mere population but humans who closed their ranks under a common idea. It was the Republic that united them; the one that was to identify not only what was meant under the country in the eyes of others but their intentions as well; their attitudes towards each other; what country they would like their children and grandchildren to live in.

They went to considerable lengths. The Republic is not a mere declaration; it is a complex mechanism ruled by the law; the one that calls for a great deal of properly trained people who not only believe in the idea of the Republic but are skillful enough to put these ideas into practice.

They went to considerable lengths. To put it bluntly, they had no time to accomplish their goals, so we can only guess what difficulties they would have to face in order that the Republic had become not only political but civilian reality as well. Difficulties varied but the main one was the people of the Republic, let"s call it "Republican Demos", to constitute 50% of the population, at least, 10%.

They went to considerable lengths. The XI Red Army marched in, and the Soviet period of the history of Azerbaijan began.

... "Homo Soveticus"

There were numerous publications about the Soviet period of country"s development; yet, much has to be written. We have still to think, without any

ideological inventions; about the state of mind in the pre-Soviet years; about ways to squeeze "Homo Soveticus" as a product of the Soviet system out of our consciousness to thus clear the social expanse for filling it with thoughts and acts of "Republican human".

I"m not going to dwell on the complex and special issues; yet, I"d like to take a look at the following.

A recent (February 2018) interview of the Russian poetess and thinker, Olga Sedakova was titled "In search of a new nobleness" with a symptomatic subtitle "Aristocratic minimum".

О. Sedakova argues about ways of restoring senses of honor and dignity following an "anthropological catastrophe " (author quotes to philosopher Merab Mamardashvili"s expression) that took place in the USSR. As viewed by О. Sedakova, "Homo Soveticus" is, as a rule, a worn-out, hesitating and fussy person deprived of inner quietness and confident bearing. Note that the bearing affects not only how a person stands but thinks as well.

Account has to be taken from the fact that views on the Soviet past may differ in Russia, Azerbaijan and, say, Estonia. Suffice it to read "Letters from remote place" by Hasan-bey Zardabi and realize that in pre-Soviet Azerbaijan there were, put it mildly, serious problems of pride, nobility and aristocratic minimum in general. Beyond any doubt, there were noble persons in the country whose aristocratism became apparent not only in their manners but in their self-esteem as well, but all that did not specify morals of the epoch.

This notwithstanding, I"m ready to agree to О. Sedakova and М.Mamardashvili: the Soviet years instilled in a person not inner nobleness but servilism and self-humiliation which forms a person"s "second nature". It is inevitable where one political system with all its imperfection promotes addiction to the public utterances while another political system, with its advantages though, ignites fear to the public utterances. It recurs to me an anecdote of the Soviet times: "that"s my point of view but I strongly disagree with it".

I"m not going to gloat; instead I"m painfully saying: look around, our people are stuck in craftiness and dissimulation where a personal advantage outweighs the whole world, even the most dignified show their true colors. A man of nobility has turned into a marginal called a sucker in public. It is still a question if parents want their child to be noble while the public call him a sucker.

Most disconcertingly is that from time to time I discover "Homo Soveticus" in myself, so I apply efforts to secure myself against this virus" getting into my thoughts and deeds.

... hundred years passed: our power

The Soviet calendars marked the date of May 28 as the Day of Frontier Guard; however, most Azerbaijanis knew nothing of another noteworthy event.

The Soviet Union seemed to be indestructible; the Soviet people as historical reality for centuries. However, this "indestructible" state collapsed unexpectedly, and the Soviet people proved to be a chimera; the pre-Soviet past that seemingly sank into oblivion became apparent from non-existence.

It transpired that we, Azerbaijanis, have not forgotten the May 1918 developments. How could it happen that we have not forgotten even despite bans on writing and speaking? Despite arrests? How could it happen that we have remembered things unknown to us earlier? How could it happen that one historical layer vanished to give way to another under it?

Let"s leave the matter open but agree that the point is not merely about questions of our historical memory. It is much broader.

The question is as follows: what are we in the great historical time?

It emerged that it"s too early to kettle-drum. Sufficed it to change calendars and substitute the Day of Frontier Guard for the Day of Republic. It is more difficult to return to the ideas of the Republic, not in a declarative manner but fundamentally.

We are still to sift a question of May 1918 to the bottom. To make ourselves understood, it is essential to bring the event into correlation with the August 1991 developments and up to the present.

"To sift a question" means to think of who are we today, to identify a vector of our advancement. And, first of all, what is our political power, for it controls practically all administrative resources.

Every time when it comes to our power I try to avoid extremes. Not for the sake of objectivity (regardless of whether we want it or not, we have a say on the matter), but because our power is a continuation of ourselves; should we tolerate something, it means that the power would not go beyond the range of our tolerance. In other words, if we live not in the Republic, hence, we can do without the Republic.

Does it mean, as Hegel argued at one time, that the actual is always rational? I don"t think so.

First, irrespective of "rational" or "irrational", I agree that it is our "actual", for it grew out of us, out of our dissimulation, out of our poor social instincts. It did really grow out because, voluntarily or not, our authorities set off back-door actions and backstairs against the Republican concepts of openness, all these I call an ideology of "Great Dodge". "...Dodge" gave birth to our today"s unbelief both in the world around us and ourselves as well.

Second, we are unaware of what "actual" will be in ten, fifty, even more so, hundred years. Perhaps, the same Republican concepts will become the norm, and many people would, in slavelike manner, say that it does not concern us, that it is impossible.

Finally, I"d like to spell it out the following. I"m confident that many people thought about it after our authorities listlessly and indifferently marked the centenary of the Azerbaijani Republic (they were resolute in arrests only). "How many?" - That"s the question; our "to be or not to be". The future of our country is dependent upon "How many?"

I insist that our authorities have never concealed that it is not related historically, politically and morally to the May 1918 developments. The authorities gave preference to other ideas, dates and personalities. And 2-volume Encyclopedia of the Republic cannot lead astray: "stratagem" remains to be "stratagem".

No illusions remained after May 28, 2018.

That"s our "actual" to decide on our thoughts and actions in the nearest years.

Each of us gets to choose.

... hundred years passed: our morals

The 2000s and the period that preceded the Republic"s centenary call for a special study. These years have been marked by a number of ups and downs, expectation and disenchantment. It"s as if our social energy splashes out in quanta and then runs out for lack of inertia force.

In my view, a new energy quantum has just started flowing out; suffice it to look at various events (cognitive, artistic, tourist, culinary, etc.) we come across every day to witness for ourselves. Perhaps, we are at a new spiral of civil society formation; at least, many things occur in the last years regardless of the power due to the initiative and entrepreneurial spirit of humans, largely the youth.

However, as luck would have it, the centenary of the Azerbaijani Republic saw something new which might be termed as "the lowest of the low" or "much lower than the aristocratic minimum". Obscenity becomes the norm, and the worst of it is that we begin taking to such an obscenity.

Not infrequently, deeds of this sort are stirred up by circles close to the authorities: there is order to defame a certain person and concurrently gain favor with the upper crust, next come yes-men who have long crossed over the limits of propriety.

I understand that Internet has taught us of many things when mud is slung at each other, so nobody is embarrassed with obscene words, even I personally, an old man with conservative habits, reconciled with such a lexicon being aware that

the times of "finishing school" remained in the century before last, if not earlier. It is not possible to establish an ethic code in Internet but every man can establish his own confines titled it is not allowed (it is not allowed to trifle with affections like play the flute) and it is shameful (it is shameful to be the lowest of the low). If not Prophets themselves (probably, their day is gone), humans themselves or a part of them should establish confines of what is not allowed or it is shameful.

It is not allowed; it is shameful to profane graves and accompany this detestable act with showing loyalty to the first person irrespective of causes of the desecration. It is puzzled why were silent senior clansmen of the city where the desecration occurred; where were teachers, physicians, ordinary people that preserved their moral character. Why were and are they silent? Maybe, there are no persons to stand tall?

More details about "Caucasian trio" film that went beyond categories of it is not allowed, it is shameful.

I"m not going to touch upon the film, for it has an indirect relation to the bedlam. It sounds absurd when the public is discussing the film whose author dared to depict negative features of his compatriots and, instead, positive features of "aliens".

... To be frank, I saw nothing of the kind in the film. The film makes it possible to generalize, in a sense that destinies of numerous multinational families contracted as far back as in the Soviet times proved to be tragic, on the one hand, and, phantasmagoric, on the other. It happens that the history keeps away from us for a long time and then, in the changing times falls upon us like an avalanche ...

As for this brouhaha, I lost sleep over a notice in "Bakinskiy rabochiy" (?!) newspaper owned by a man famed not only in our cinema but our culture as well.

I recall that some decades ago he arrived in Baku, got higher cinematographic education in Moscow, broadcasted about movies and the whole city anticipated it eagerly, and this telecast rose to fame in the reviewed period. He was fond of cinema, shared his attainments with others. Later on he began making films, and he never concealed that he took unmatched enjoyment in the process.

And now there is a biased article reminiscent of denunciation rather than a serious critical review that overstepped the same limits of it is not allowed, it is shameful.

I"d not rather gloat about the article; I regret about morals of our society that presses so high payment for the opportunity to pursue one"s favorite profession.

But it concerns all of us.

... hundred years passed: looking into the future

I kindly asked my younger associates to prepare a list of books devoted to the 100-anniversary of the Azerbaijani Republic.

It turned out that there are lots of books on the subject; a group of researchers, including both eminent and younger ones, the latter acting independently of the state. They are successful in finding money, publishing houses, creating Internet-portals to publish documents of the reviewed period.

I can hardly judge to what extent the books can affect the public opinion and specify vectors of our development in the nearest years. But the very fact of their appearance is a healthy sign; the young generation comprehends that the Azerbaijani Republic is not our past only. It is our future as well.

Afterword

Hundred years ago, not only did Founding Fathers of Azerbaijan create the state, the political system and the "Republican Demos" but they also set themselves up as the moral elite of society.

Hundred years have passed, and everything has gone pear shaped in our society. To get out of today"s impasse, we cannot be without the "Republican Demos", nor be without those moving upright whatever happens around them.