The Real Reasons for the Authorities' Decision to Block Telegram

The authorities’ explanation that Telegram’s very existence poses a threat to the state and society is utterly unconvincing.

Let’s focus on the deeper reasons behind this decision: it fully fits into the “confessed” principles of state governance by the “Order of the Ruling Bureaucracy” — excessive administration of all processes in society. For example, the electoral system is fully controlled by the bureaucracy: not a single “independent candidate” can slip through the net. It’s precisely for this purpose that the bureaucracy eliminated the two-tier system of local self-government.

Officials have arrogated to themselves both the right and the duty to manage “everything and everyone”, leaving no room for the citizens’ original creativity and denying them the right to decide on their own living conditions.

But then scientific and technological progress gave rise to the phenomenon of social networks. And people began to unite in communities.

The “Order of the Ruling Bureaucracy” saw a danger in Telegram precisely because it allowed the release of public creative energy in all spheres of people’s life without ITS permission!

Civil society gained the opportunity to monitor in real time what the authorities do or don’t do, and to provide assessments. But, even worse for the bureaucracy, society can publicly make proposals for state governance.

The “institution of direct democracy”, which previously forced people to take to the streets, suddenly gained a completely peaceful outlet. It became possible for the public opinion to be formed by civil society itself: by the authors of Telegram channels and their subscribers’ discussions (comments are deliberately not included here).

For example, an uncomfortable topic for the authorities: why since 2022 we haven’t hit the logistics of arms supplies (bridges, tunnels, wheel-change stations, bridges across the Dnieper), all types of communication nodes, especially the Internet, the notorious “decision-making centers”, etc. — is constantly being discussed. Officials clearly don’t like this. Official TV increasingly looks like a dissonance to the assessments in Telegram.

Therefore, the bureaucracy “accuses” Telegram of being an accomplice of terrorism in order to eliminate the main competitor of its power — civil society itself. But the whole problem for the authorities and all of us is that there are still objective public laws.

The philosophical foundation of civilization, the founder of which can rightly be considered Danilevsky (the author of the world-famous book “Russia and Europe”), states that already at the state level of the historical movement of a Civilization — and State-forming Nation-People, there arises an objective need for the Supreme Power to jointly govern the state. This “need” has the character of an objective law of development.

Due to the increasing complexity of relations in domestic politics (citizens as political units) and in foreign politics (citizens as a national whole in relations with other states), and the ensuing “flowering complexity” of systems, the inability to find correct solutions by the intellectual forces of officials alone, there arises a need to involve the forces of the Nation itself.

This means the need to move from “manual governance” to institutional governance. This is a general law for all Nations-People, that have formed their own Cultural-Historical types (Civilizations). In Russia, at the Civilizational stage of history, without knowledge of this law and its consideration in state governance, officials will inevitably lead us to collapse, just as their colleagues did who governed both Romanov Russia and Soviet Russia, excluding civil society from the system of state governance.

The authorities should see in the phenomenon of Telegram, in which civil society has been institutionalized, an assistant, not an enemy.