Introduction to the English edition
Written in the 1980's, relevant to today's events..
This article, written in 1957, provides us with a fascinating example of how, by thinking or reasoning about something in quite a new way, we can find a possible solution to what would otherwise be an intractable problem. This ability is rare in our own times and yet, as we can see from those parts of the world that have suffered so grievously in recent years, it is invariably this type of thinking that has allowed us to solve the most difficult questions of our times. We witness this whether it be in Northern Ireland, the Middle East, South Africa, or East Timor. Yet, it remains self evident that these examples of success have occurred in moments of desperation, with problems where the situation has already become so aggrieved that a solution is seen to be necessary simply to prevent the horror of endless bloodshed. These solutions have been effective only to the degree that desperation has overridden prejudice. Recognising this, the great question that faces humanity is, rather than repeat our mistakes which if we are honest, are bound to happen again somewhere, are we yet desperate enough to delve deeply and uncover the hidden monster that is the cause? For the author, it is time for just this. Boris Mouravieff was a Russian Naval Commander – later also Count Mouravieff – who was exiled from Russia at the time of the Revolution. Before the coming Bolsheviks his father, an Admiral, was Kerensky’s Minister for the Admiralty. Boris began the Second World War in France, but fled across the Alps to Switzerland with his family to avoid being forced to take service in the German navy. These circumstances make this article by Boris Mouravieff all the more interesting not as mere theory, but as a comment on recent events. On the one hand it highlights the set pattern of human thinking that allows us to accept, almost without question, those philosophical pillars on which our own society is founded. Democracy, Freedom of Speech, Liberty, Equality, Fraternity are but a few examples. Yet, is there true freedom of speech when the nature of our society, and the values upon which it is grounded, are no longer widely discussed, debated, or questioned within the society at large? When all the societies of today, the richest as well as the poorest, are burdened by vast numbers living in poverty? But this little book does more than criticize theoretically. It also highlights the opportunity that will exist if we manage to break this inertia of thinking that blights us. Mr. Mouravieff, in outlining the possible solution to this problem, demonstrated considerable political foresight. We can say this now, after almost half a century has passed, because his article, important in its own day, has an even greater relevance and urgency today. How can we recognise this? First, in recommending that the UN as a body should be representative of the people of the world – instead of representing the nations themselves as corporate entities - he brings into focus many relevant questions about the nature and running of the body that would not otherwise be debated. Secondly, he highlights the limitations of the nation state as a vehicle to represent the interests of the people at large. The primary interest of nations, he argues, could quite legitimately claim to act not on behalf of human rights but simply for the nations in their own right. And this is not quite the same thing. This is important for us today, because instead of acting for the humanitarian aims it was created for, this collectivising thought oversimplifies our thought about many questions and runs the risk of harming living people in order to preserve organisations whose only purpose for existence is the good of those people. For example, Machiavelli’s evil was the product of necessity, not of evil intent. But that necessity existed in what we would now regard as a wrong solution to the question of government. Our beliefs create our necessities. Today the principles upon which action is taken and who it should be taken by become ever more confused. This is a terrifying situation, because, as events like the Gulf War and Kosovo show us, because of this confusion we run the risk of losing any clear and unbiased view of the life of human society. Careful reading of the 1947 UN Declaration of Human Rights will show us just how far even the democratic West has strayed from the principles on which the UN was founded, and how often we have forgotten those it was founded for. Yet it is around this most beautiful document that the hope of Justice was and still is enshrined. It was in the effort of the US government to place the Gulf War under UN mandate that showed a first willingness to submit international relations to a planetary justice. It isn’t just a question of whether this is morally or religiously wrong anymore. These are the questions of an earlier age, and for this reason the problem is becoming ever more urgent as times and situations change. If we ignore this challenge and reject or side-step the opportunity, to give the body dedicated to the task of ensuring this justice greater authority in the world, instead of asking it to serve the self interest of nations, the results are self evident. It is these issues that Mr. Mouravieff so finely elaborates for us in a practical way, bringing forward a possible solution that provides some real food by which those who have the means might see the problem afresh. Want to read the original article? Click here!
Link to a web-copy of Praxis Monograph No.5 To be added here when the Monograph is installed ©Copyright Praxis Research Institute 1995 PRAXIS INSTITUTE PRESS
a division of PRAXIS RESEARCH INSTITUTE
A non-profit corporation in the USA
Copies of Monograph No.5 are available from the Praxis Institute bookshop - click here for bookshop page | 
