Democracy activists could once again use religion-based messaging to challenge authoritarian governments in Russia, East Europe, and the Caucasus. But most have chosen not to.
Throughout the Cold War, government broadcasters like the Voice of America and Vatican Radio provided a lifeline of religious programming to believers targeted by communism’s official atheism. Religious activists emerged as some of the most courageous members of Soviet bloc dissident movements.
After the collapse of communism, however, the picture flipped completely. With churches open once again, Western governments ended their focus on the issue.
Meanwhile, authoritarians seized on religion. Vladimir Putin coopted the Russian Orthodox Church and made it a pillar of his regime. The head of the church, Patriarch Kirill, is a fervent supporter of Russia’s aggression against Ukraine. He was also a KGB agent codenamed Mikhailov from the age of 25 (link here to academic paper detailing all references to Kirill in the KGB archive.)
From Eastern Europe to the Caucasus, illiberal governments and political parties weaponized religion to promote anti-Western narratives, xenophobia, and repression of ethnic and sexual minorities.
Hungarian leader Viktor Orbán speaks of defending “Christian democracy” against Western licentiousness and tides of refugees from other cultures.
Appeals to religion are powerful because religious institutions, with their splendid churches, intricate rituals, and ancient liturgical languages, are often deeply woven into the national identities of their countries.
Sometimes churches were the only institutions that kept national consciousness alive through decades or centuries of foreign occupation (as in Poland and Georgia.)
Even in countries where church attendance is sparse, many say membership in the dominant church is fundamental to being “true” citizens. In an effort to benefit from a national church’s prestige, governments may richly subsidize it, and offer special legal protection.
Authoritarian use of religion has reached an apogee in the Ukraine conflict. Extremist language and even atrocities are more palatable to populations if respected churches appear to give them moral blessing.
Russian priests and political commentators speak increasingly of Russia fighting the Antichrist in a “holy war” in Ukraine. Russian videos broadcast scenes like troops in prayer before attacking Ukrainians, and an armored vehicle bearing a giant cross.
Religion has also become a vector of Russian political propaganda in the near-abroad. Since the war began, Russian Orthodox priests have been expelled from Estonia, North Macedonia, and Bulgaria for promoting Kremlin political narratives.
Authoritarianism’s use of religion is not invulnerable, however. First, Christian beliefs are sharply at odds with the actions of Russia and its illiberal allies. All traditional understandings of Christianity oppose war and violence and promote mercy for captives, and compassion for refugees. Christian teachings warn against playing God by arrogantly judging other people.
Second, religious institutions’ actions sometimes put their own reputations at risk. Their large landholdings in some countries, and ostentatious displays of wealth like Patriarch Kirill’s taste for expensive watches, leave them open to public censure. Some churches, as in the West, have faced allegations of child abuse.
Third, churches that appear at first glance to be monolithic may not be. Even in tightly controlled Russia, some clerics have opposed the Ukraine war, suffering defrocking or imprisonment. To protest the war, some 50 priests have defected from the Moldovan Orthodox Church, a conservative, Russian-led institution that once dismissed COVID vaccines as an “anti-Christ plot.”
The Georgian Orthodox Church, with its long history of social conservatism and ties to the Russian Orthodox Church, contains a somewhat more liberal wing. The church will face a major choice over its future direction after the reign of Patriarch Ilia II, who is 91.
There is a grist here for democracy activists to work with. Appeals based on religion could be an important means of influence on conservatives, especially in rural areas, who often vote to support illiberal leaders. Activists could take ownership of religion themselves by using Christian symbols when helping refugees, or when intervening against racist or anti-gay violence.
Activists should seek out, and cooperate whenever possible, with liberal movements within churches. It is far better to identify and work with progressively minded priests and lay people than to dismiss the whole church as an enemy.
In any case, activists should avoid ridiculing the church or denigrating it as a national symbol. Any negative messaging should emphasize how the church has been manipulated to pervert its honorable and time-tested principles.
Religion-based campaigning requires much skill. Democracy activists are often urbanized and highly educated, with little religious background personally.
The first instinct of some is to view religious believers as hopelessly brainwashed, rather than ripe for redemption. To seize the opportunities religion offers, activists will need help from progressive religious forces in order to use religious language and imagery in ways that will ring authentic to believers.
If they can do so, they can use the power of religion to democratic ends.
Thomas Kent is a consultant on Russian affairs and the information war, and teaches at Columbia University. His latest book, ‘How Russia Loses: Hubris and Miscalculation in Putin’s Kremlin,’ was published in October 2023.
Europe’s Edge is CEPA’s online journal covering critical topics on the foreign policy docket across Europe and North America. All opinions expressed on Europe’s Edge are those of the author alone and may not represent those of the institutions they represent or the Center for European Policy Analysis. CEPA maintains a strict intellectual independence policy across all its projects and publications.
War Without End
Russia’s Shadow Warfare
CEPA Forum 2025
Explore CEPA’s flagship event.
