In today’s scientific community attention to the problem of Russian civilizational identity, not excluding in view of the problem of democracy in non-Western countries is increased both in Russian and among Western scholars. It makes interesting comparative investigation of classical Russian and Western approaches to such special issue, as ‘Sobornost’, which is one of the main concepts among Russian Orthodox models of public life (thus, Fyodor Dostoevsky defined ‘Sobornost’ as ‘nationwide all-brotherly togetherness’). The main subjects of my article are ideas about possibility of Russian forms of democracy in its correlation with Western one, which have been established in Russian and Western thought in the late 19th early 20th centuries. Using institutional, historical and comparative methods, I analyzed views on democracy possibilities in the Orthodox world expressed by Russian and German thinkers, such as Mark Ostrogorsky and Boris Chicherin, and Walter Schubart respectively. In my article, I show there is reason to consider Russia's traditional model of social life, without opposing them against Western ones (in matters of status of the individual within Russian and Western society). Thus, Sobornost is the qualitative state of a holistic community, in which each individual is as holistic, independent, and valuable, as its environment; within Sobornost, individual is not separated from society, but is united with it, gaining even more importance among his own kind. Schubart says Russian people’s Sobornost is a manifestation of democracy; thus, in the traditional Russian political order, there are those features that Jean-Jacques Rousseau considered as intrinsic collective agreement. The idea of popular representation is a key element in the writings of Boris Chicherin. This idea means the right of citizens to participate in political governance that is both higher degree of personal freedom, and its guarantee simultaneously. For Chicherin, an indispensable condition of political participation is a moral responsibility. Ostrogorsky considers Western democracy is a means of intimidation of citizens. In order to improve the democratic process, thinker proposes to abandon the old parties in favor of new social organizations. They should be free associations of citizens, movements or league, formed to address specific goals. In the process of governance, it is necessary to give priority not to political institutions, but to personalities, Ostrogorsky says. Summarizing Chicherin’s, Ostrogorsky’s and Schubart’s judgments, I suppose characteristic of democratic principles of collective will and the common good are expressed in the specificity of ‘Sobornost’ as spiritual collegiality (or union). I conclude the prospects for the democratization of the Orthodox countries are linked with (i) social ties’ strengthening and expansion through Churches, (ii) both revival of Sobornost’s traditions and parliamentary systems development.

В статье анализируются возможности демократии в православном мире. Обосновывается авторская позиция, согласно которой в соборной специфике выражаются демократические принципы коллективной воли и общего блага, а перспективы демократизации православных стран связаны с укреплением и расширением общественных связей по линии Церквей, возрождением соборной традиции и развитием парламентских систем.