The First State Duma III: The Dissolution of the Duma (After the Duma) (Translated by Irina Efimov)

III

The Dissolution of the Duma

(After the Duma)

The Duma is Dissolved…

The Duma is dissolved! While there are a number of ways to assess the event expressed in these four short words, the extreme seriousness of the situation that has been created by this event cannot be denied or exaggerated… Pointing out that the Duma was dissolved by the simplest, most lawful, and even “constitutional” means is, in fact, as the French say, “faire bonne mine au mauvais jeu.” [Tr. Putting a brave face on it.] To console our contemporaries, there are historical references “from the history of European constitutions” which read as follows: that, for example, “In Germany during the epoch of the 1848 revolutions the dissolution of the House of Representatives was even accompanied by troops aiding in its dispersal” and, equally, the reiteration of Karamzin’s exhortation that “the average citizen must read history; it reconciles him with the imperfection of the present order of things.” Thus, it follows that times have been worse, but the “states did not fall into ruin”… A national misfortune has occurred, one that may be fraught with grave aftershocks which are frightening to think about and which could have been avoided. It has made a stunning impression. Even the newspaper “Novoye Vremya” called the news of the Duma’s dissolution “sad” and admitted that a “difficult period” is now opening up for Russia. At the same time, fright or confusion also forced the paper to declare today, without throwing a single clod of dirt at the State Duma, that the Duma “was honest and without spite”, that “it was trusted”… “Novoye Vremya’s” fright and confusion have increased because it knows that “in the eyes of the people, the entire burden of blame is carried solely by the current Ministry”, and it cannot deny that it will be difficult for people “placed in power” to gain “support and trust.” “Novoye Vremya” seeks “consolation” in the person of the new Head of State, to whom it sings a eulogy. “P.A. Stolypin has been made Head of State. He is sincerely sympathetic to the renewal of Russia, a man still relatively young and possessing a strong will and character. His courage in taking on such a huge responsibility in this historical moment deserves all of our sympathy.” The “sympathy” of “Novoye Vremya” is unlikely to be shared by society and the people who, for some reason, the paper referred to as “the population”. It will be difficult for them to adopt the conviction that in the dismissal of the State Duma — from which this tortured country awaited renewal with such impatience and enthusiasm — that precisely in its dismissal a “sincere sympathy for Russia’s renewal” found expression. The “population” and history will qualify Mr. Stolypin’s “courage” differently than a cynical newspaper. Let the semi-official organ of the new government freely cry out with the triumph of a conqueror: “What the Ministry has done — the Kadets already know”… (“Rossiya”) Rira bien, qui rira le dernier! [tr. He who laughs last, laughs best} The entire nation will find out about the “deeds” of the Ministry. Will “taking on the burden of blame” for the “courage” of these “deeds” not seem unbearable even if, apart from a thirst for “absolute power”, they are truly in possession of “strong will and character”?.. “Novoye Vremya” addresses the new “Cabinet” with an appeal that it help “the heroes of thought and deed” (in the words of the manifesto) “come to the aid of the government from the midst of society.” The “heroes of thought and word” cannot come to the aid of that government which, up until now, has only shown its “sympathy” for renewing the country through anti-national pursuits. The “heroes of thought and word” will come to the aid of the people and, without doubt, the new government will direct all of its “absolute power” against these “heroes.” We are entering a new phase in the struggle between the people and the government, the final result of which we do not doubt for we piously believe that “freedom does not die in the tomb” (L. Berne). But we do not know what kinds of shocks the country will still pass through on its way to freedom. The near future is dark and disquieting. It was not for nothing that on the eve of the Duma’s dissolution, Prince Meshchersky wrote about the rumours of dismissal: “God save us from this hearsay coming true”. It was not for nothing that the English paper, “The Daily News”, wrote: “If the State Duma is dissolved, then the end of the Götterdämmerung will ensue. The result of this will appear not so much as revolution than as a particular sort of cosmic anarchy; it will be unlike anything the world has ever seen since the Roman Empire fell to pieces in a time of confusion and terror.” But these sombre prophecies will not come true and the nation will steer clear of that mortal danger which has been opened before it by the “courage” of the Ministry, that which is deserving of “all of our sympathy” according to “Novoye Vremya”… We will not console ourselves, as did “Novoye Vremya” only two days after its fright and confusion, with the fact that, strictly speaking, nothing of any note had actually happened. We will look the danger in the eye and calmly, conscientiously carry on with our great undertaking of truly freeing the people…

Everyone still holds that bright spring day of 27 April in their memories, everyone still vividly remembers the enthusiasm of the nation, greeting “the best people” — the popular representatives on their way to the Tauride Palace: “the dream became possible and imminent”… And the Duma, with its heavy civic feat of colossal labour, became the single organized centre, the main focus of all of the peoples’ cherished hopes… “They trusted it”… But now… — “The flowers have faded, the fires burnt low”… How can we properly estimate the danger created by that truly “foolhardy bravery” to which “Novoye Vremya” sings its eulogy of “every sympathy”? And let them not point out the 20th of February to us: this far-away date, with the rapidity of ongoing events in the midst of the turbulent sea of reality, is absolutely imponderable and intangible, standing on the other side of any possible foresight. “What the Ministry did” — everyone already knows. But what will come of what has been done — no one knows…

S.-Petersburg, 16 July

The Times are Changing

There was a time not that very long ago when Mr. Menshikov contended, not without talent or wit, that the only way the peaceful progressive development of Russia might be possible lies in the strengthening of parliamentarianism and since the natural, logical extension of the idea of parliamentarianism is a Ministry that is answerable to popular representatives, then it is absolutely necessary that the Ministry be made up of a majority of Duma members. Mr. Menshikov did not wear out the boots he walked in when he developed his constitutional ideas in “Novoye Vremya”. “That was in early spring, the grass was barely sprouting”… Today, Mr. Menshikov, likely holding his nose to the wind because of recent regulations, has delivered a “lesson for the people” (Nov. Vremya” № 10897) and declares that “with the dismissal of the Duma there begins the impartial and severe judgement of history”… “The impartial and severe judgement of history” — this is a little high-flown but gives rise in our memory to the words of the famous fable: “And I kicked him”… “Now, with regards to the future,” Mr. Menshikov predicts, “making allowances for the past appears criminal where there are no grounds for these allowances.” “The judgement of posterity will be stern!” — and he delivers his prophecy among thoughtless, frivolous, traitorous publicists who are already prepared to throw themselves into the dance over the grave of Russia’s first representative institution. But — “The Duma is dead, long live the Duma!”…

These superficial, casual publicists need not hurry to complete their didactic “lessons for the people.”

The people will bear their great, national grief with pride and fortitude and nevertheless will gain a victory over the power of bureaucracy, which still hopes to resist the pressing needs of our time…

A Political Moment

The post-parliament at Viborg remains outside the scope of general discussion and appraisal: a monopoly on the polemic has been given to the semi-official organ “Rossiya” and various Governors. A single published text of the famous Appeal, written by former Duma Deputies and addressed to the people, caused the publication to be suspended and the printing house closed. Doubts may arise as to whether the Appeal will spread widely among the people, especially since local efforts to seize the printing presses intending to publish it have been successful. But Governors stepped forward with their own appeals to notify the inhabitants “of the provinces entrusted to them” of the Viborg Manifesto’s contents. Whether the people will respond to the Governors’ appeals for “patient expectation” or whether the accompanying Appeal contained in the Viborg Manifesto will have a considerably stronger impact on them remains an open question for the time being… At the present moment, without knowing all of the facts, we cannot shed any light on why a certain form of appeal to the people was chosen at the Viborg meeting, and why Mirabeau’s historic phrase: — “…dites a votre maître [tr. tell your master]… could not be uttered and supported by general, unanimous sympathy… But one cannot deny that for such a step it is not enough to have what might be called the resolution to “see it through to the end”. Rather, what is needed is the moral justification given to decisive action by an impulse of national unification and an indissoluble bond of intense, heart-felt solidarity. To those who desire to blame the dismissal of the State Duma on “Kadet tactics”, we counter their claim with this assertion: it was only the failure of these tactics to create that which Dragomanov called “a unanimous rejection of the old order and a distinct demand for new institutions, fully and clearly acknowledged by society” that may have brought us to the dismissal of the Duma and to that turn of events which resulted in the Viborg meeting.

In the Duma, any unity in the face of achieving its historic, national task decayed through blind, doctrinaire criticism from various groups who had not been persuaded that the time was inopportune for bringing forward various particular questions and issues, even if they did address the great class interests of the working masses. Across the nation, instead of intense work being done to build up powerful support for the Duma among social forces, the necessity of differentiating the class struggle as a progressive force was pushed forward. As a result — no socio-national unity was created in Viborg, dictating that step which many expected on hearing the news that former members of the State Duma had left for Viborg…

The future is dark. The guarded and restrained former Chairman of the State Duma, S.A. Muromtsev, in conversation with a foreign journalist, said that he “had not yet come to a definitive opinion” regarding the dissolution of the Duma. The same can be said for the Viborg Manifesto, a question about which Muromtsev answered by saying: “That which I did, — I did.”

That which is done — is done, and to make use of Mr. Muromtsev’s words once again, “the Russian people are sluggish”… The Ministry, according to a well-turned phrase in “Rech’”, is busy trying to solve an insoluble task — the squaring of a circle, hoping to attract leading public figures into the ranks of its cabinet. “Peaceful renovators”, if they were to occupy these positions, and were even allowed to receive Ministerial portfolios, instinctively feel that they would cease being social leaders and turn back into common bureaucrats — becoming enemies of the nation’s renewal and the people’s liberation from the moment they entered the ranks of the current Cabinet and joined its fight against popular representation. The claim of the official organ “Rossiya” that “there is no question of any reaction” makes no impression on society, for they well know the value and meaning of similar claims and, moreover, they see daily that the Ministry’s “liberalism” remains a mask, while the business of reaction is in full swing. The state of affairs is so palpably obvious that even foreigners understand it: “There can be no misunderstanding with regards to the new Ministry’s intentions.” writes “The Daily Telegraph”, “The revolutionaries must be routed and the Russian government counts all those who stand for political freedom in Russia as revolutionaries.” In such circumstances, if the rumours prove to be true that some public figure or other is willing to enter the ranks of Stolypin’s Cabinet under certain conditions, no new political perspectives will be opened up by this. The “Cabinet” will gain no popular sympathy, and the public career of the “figure” will be subject to total ruin from which he will never recover. Supporting our present government while it flippantly exposes the country to the dangers of severe tremors is not the right way to calm and renew the nation. The danger lies in the fact that the country will be deprived of an organized centre, as the young popular government was, for a period of seven troubled months; the danger is that instead of newly created citizens, we again have before us crumbling temples, and human dust… The energies of our public figures must be wholly directed to the business of gathering and organizing the strength of the people which must stand up to the degeneration and anarchy that is quickly growing progressively worse. If this task is successfully completed, then it is not inconceivable that a popular government will be reestablished before 20 February. “La Douma est morte, vive la Douma!” — these historic words from the head of the English government must become the slogan of our social leaders, for such a slogan does not lead us to the Ministry, contributing to the premature end of the State Duma, but stands in opposition to the Ministry. Perhaps it is no coincidence that the convocation of the new State Duma is set for 20 February, since this is the anniversary of our “constitution.” It is completely obvious that, within the framework of this “constitution”, the new State Duma will be, from the start, an eye-sore to those who support the preservation of archaic forms of state organization. The opposing force of the new Duma will again place the question, or the satisfaction of its demands, on the agenda — that is, first of all, the formation of a Ministry, the majority of which is made up of Duma members, which is responsible to the Duma, or… the dismissal of the Duma all over again. And since it is unthinkable to repeat the same things ad infinitum, complete deliverance from the determination to resist the voice of popular representation will need to be considered, which would be a coup d’état. And the public figures who had formerly resolved to render assistance to the Stolypin Ministry would see, in the end, that they lent their enlightened aid to such a revolution. Stolypin’s “courage”, celebrated in “Novoye Vremya”, undoubtedly goes before his “statecraft” and one cannot doubt that the task of getting an obedient Duma, which turned out to be overwhelming for Count Witte and was hastened by Messrs. Durnov and Akimov, will be no less impossible even for Mr. Stolypin… But the implementation of such a task would promise little good: an “obedient” Duma would not undermine the idea of popular representation, but only a Duma that was deaf to the voice of the peoples’ needs. The people, having lost hope that their needs will be met with satisfaction through lawful means, may achieve what is essential through “means of desperation”. The dismissal of the Duma has lowered the value of “lawful means” to an extreme degree; it has fallen much lower than the value of state security… It is this that characterizes the current, sharp political moment, regardless of the relative calm.*

*) This article was written before the events of Sveaborg and Kronstadt.

In The Provinces

(Impressions from a Journey)

Two weeks after the State Duma was dissolved, at the height of the strikes that began after the events at Sveaborg and Kronstadt and which were doomed to failure, I had to travel to Chernigov Province. I was attending a special meeting of the Zemstvo which was called in order to elect members for the Land Tenure Commission. A date for this meeting had already been set once for the beginning of July but it had not taken place since there were not enough members in attendance to form a quorum. On the Governor’s suggestion, the meeting was called for a second time. What interested me was not so much the election of members for the Land Tenure Commission from our Zemstvo who, and to me this was entirely obvious, were not up to the task, but how the Duma’s dismissal had impacted the general mood. Again, the required number of members did not attend. Rather than justifying their rejection of this election, most members apparently preferred to avoid any ticklish conversations by simply insuring that they did not take place; thus, they did not grant the meeting its full compliment of members. Among those who did attend were eight members from the peasantry. From its very first words, the debate was concerned with the dismissal of the Duma and revealed the most pessimistic mood among my interlocutors. “Nothing will come from this Duma: they met, they were let go, they will gather again”… All of this conjured up something like a squirrel’s wheel, on which not a single step forward can be made… Everyone was interested in the reasons for the Duma’s dismissal and many had already formed their own explanations, expressed in the most naive formulas. “Here’s what I think.” declared one old man, a member of the Zemstvo for many three-year terms, “That here, like Kokovtsev, no one made any effort: if someone has at least one coin in his possession — then he has no need of the Duma”… Others formulated their thoughts with the usual phrase: “they don’t want to give land and freedom to the muzhiks”… Everyone expressed the most negative attitudes toward the Land Tenure Commission. As someone put it, “You’d have to be blind.” With regards to village life — the gloomiest opinions: — “We only had faith in the Duma.” Police oppression is unbearable, the majority of the district guards have relinquished their duties and Ingush people, spoken of in legends, are being brought in to fill the vacant posts. I was assured by someone who had joined our conversation that the Ingush live on raw meat… What results does police oppression achieve? Concerning this they told me of an interesting incident which took place not that long ago. The punitive detachment of the district police had arrived in a particular village in response to a summons by the Head of the Zemstvo on account of a misunderstanding between a peasant and a land owner. The peasants ran off into the forests and meadows. With difficulty, several dozen peasants were tracked down and gathered together. A reprimand was delivered, strengthened by the fiercest and most violent threats. And on the next day, with the departure of the punitive detachment from the village, a large group gathered and resolved “to bring the Head of the Zemstvo and the land owner to the meeting and hang them”… Smouldering ferment and the most fantastic rumours terrorize the village; the help they are waiting for does not arrive. “A senseless and merciless mutiny” can daily grow out of this unhealthy soil. Enhanced security cannot prevent any of this. It only complicates things, makes the atmosphere heavy, and engenders animosity. The first to fall victim to it were the Zemstvo teachers and other cultural workers: they were, perhaps, people of an extreme turn of mind, but they brought intelligence to an uncultured darkness; they could withstand destructive excesses and organize the population for a lawful struggle in its own interests. The enemies of a “Peasant Union” declare it to be a union of robbers and arsonists, not noticing that Union members used all of their influence in order to restrain the population from arson and robbery. The leaders of the Union are in jail or in exile, and in their place the people are terrorized by hooligans and the riffraff of the village. Was this what they wanted to achieve by persecuting the democratic organization which is so hated by the administration and the landowners? The district intelligentsia, so poor in strength and influence, under the yoke of reinforced security forces, has become self-effacing, moving entirely into the background. But what can they do when, even while the State Duma was in existence, it was enough for them to put together a moderate address to the Duma to cause searches and arrests to be carried out? One of the District Electors, after expressing his regret at the Duma’s dismissal, was sent away from the Province by security forces for attempting to influence public opinion…

Several days later we attended the district Zemstvo meeting in Chernigov, also convened in order to select members for the Land Tenure Commission. It, too, was convening for the second time but with the difference that a first meeting had taken place — but the members had unanimously refused to vote. The Governor proposed that they meet once more to discuss the question of selection with a warning that, in the event that no members were selected, they would be appointed. To everyone’s surprise, even though not so long ago they’d decided unanimously against the selection of members for the Commission, speakers were found at the second gathering who supported the necessity of carrying out the vote. These orators levelled their blows with an absence of argument, using purely philistine psychology. And this philistinism proved stronger than the arguments against the vote, elaborated by the town-councillors Shrag, Sokolovsky, and Khizhnyakov.

During the discussion it was ascertained that the peasants of the district refused to vote, almost to a man. And they were not persuaded by the philistines. It was decided by a majority vote to carry out the selection process. Those who were against the selection refused to participate in the vote, demonstrating, by the way, that the Land Tenure Commission was the result of a programme created by Messrs. Stishinsky and Gurko with the aim of undermining the idea of popular government, and in opposition to the programme passed by the majority of the Duma. Thus, G.l. Shrag announced that he, as a former Duma member, could not in good conscience contribute to what was now underway, such as this counteraction against the Duma which expressed the peoples’ will. With 6 electors refusing to participate in the selection process, the necessary quorum was not represented, and the vote could not be carried out.

In all honesty, with regards to the near future and the forthcoming electoral campaign, the mood in Chernigov is pessimistic: as we know, the Governor of Chernigov, in response to a request from the Ministry, expressed the hope that it would be possible to achieve “favourable” results. By all accounts, this foreshadows future seizures and exiles. An opinion that is evidently not unfounded. Preparations for the election using similar means have already begun. A local paper was forced to shut down following the exile of its editor-publisher beyond the province’s boundaries. After the Duma was dissolved, the elector of the Gorodnyansky district, Mr. Krivtsov, returned to Chernigov after serving in the State Duma offices. It is interesting that voters, on learning that Krivtsov had not been elected to the Duma, asked him to go to Petersburg so that he could provide them with a detailed account of the Duma’s work. The day after his return to Chernigov, Krivtsov was ordered to leave the province within 24 hours. Krivtsov, of peasant origins, had served on the Chernigov provincial Zemstvo Council until his departure for Petersburg. Some low-ranking police agents sent out a rumour among his constituents that Krivtsov had betrayed their interests and joined up with Polish landowners, and that is why he had run away. This is how they show concern for the “calming” of the people and for “favourable” results from the coming elections! The future — is dark…

S.-Petersburg, 9 August

On “Liberal Means”

The Head of the Cabinet told a French journalist that, “reluctantly, he settled on the use of force … in his search for liberal means with which to fight the revolution” [underscored by author]. And so, after these “searches”, the Prime Minister drew the same conclusion as had his “liberal” forerunners who had not undertaken any searches at all — Sipyagin, Plehve, Durnovo… Leaving aside the question of what, exactly, is meant by “liberalism” — the question on which Stolypin “reluctantly settled” — (even in the purely formal sense, the preservation of an internal political system developed long ago must be labelled as conservatism), we are interested in the purely psychological side of the question: Why does Mr. Stolypin think that “liberal force” in the struggle against revolution, so unsuccessful in the hands of his forerunners who led Russia to her present state of anarchy, will give miraculous results and help him bring about “necessary and feasible reforms”? Did not Count Witte himself, urged on by Durnovo, so generous in his use of “liberal methods”, dream of carrying out “necessary and feasible reforms”?..

We do not know whether Mr. Stolypin asked himself similar questions but, based on past experience, we maintain that identical means will bring us to identical results. Mr. Stolypin’s liberal predecessors sowed the seeds of revolution in this country: following behind them, one can sow the seeds of anarchy which are already sprouting bloody shoots before our eyes. The head of our domestic policy asserts that the dark predictions which threatened us before the Duma’s dismissal “have not come true”, and “the country enjoys a relative calm.”

If this were the case, then there would be nothing to say regarding “responsibility for the Duma’s dissolution”. If it is true that dissolving the Duma saved the country from the worst tremors, then the question must be, not whose responsibility was it, but whose great service? Yet Mr. Stolypin speaks of ‘responsibility’… Quite sensibly, he leaves it up to history to “speak to the question” of responsibility. Events are unfolding before our eyes which leave no doubt as to how history will address this question… And how pitiful those words sound — “the country enjoys a relative calm” — uttered, obviously, to quiet himself down. Write the words “relative calm” beneath pictures of plunder, murder, violence and insurrection, and the words will appear to be spiteful sarcasm. We have already heard the assurance in the past that the government does not fight with society, but with the “enemies of society”… Mr. Stolypin was a Governor and one cannot believe that he does not know the effect that “force” has on society, used under the protection of reinforced guards and extraordinary circumstances, supposedly “fighting against revolution.” The facts of provincial life bear witness daily that the entire weight of “liberal force”, in no way impeding the flaring of revolutionary fire, brings down all of its oppression on society, and the imaginary “fight against revolution” is revealed to be a tireless struggle with society. It is said that Mr. Stolypin, in a memo to other governors, recommended that they “act according to the law.” It was already five years ago that we knew one governor who had a rubber stamp - “permitted by law”… And the country staggers under the yoke of brute force, perpetrated “by law”. We include a small characteristic illustration which gives some insight into the governor’s “lawful” actions.

This year, in Chernigov, the newspaper “Desna”, later renamed “Utrennaya Zarya”, began publication in the middle of March. The paper, with its constitutional-democratic leanings, exposed all kinds of lawlessness occurring throughout the province, making things extremely uncomfortable for the local administration. All “legal” means were taken against the publication: from an almost daily confiscation of its copies to the editor being put on trial. Nothing helped, and the paper continued to be published.

Then, the Governor tried to bring pressure on the regional Town Council whose printing press was used to publish the paper: with the force of enhanced security, he threatened to close the press if it continued to print the odious paper.

Presses can be shut down in the name of enhanced security, the threat — is absolutely “legal”!.. The Town Council showed a willingness to fulfill the governor’s wishes, but it did not immediately succeed in stopping the paper from using its press. It was at this time that the State Duma was dismissed: the governor began to act more boldly than he had when acting “according to the law.” Within 24 hours, it was suggested to the editor of “Utrennaya Zarya”, I.V. Ivanov, a man who was never politically compromised, that he remove himself beyond the borders of Chernigov province.

The newspaper was shut down. One after another, confiscated issues are returned to the office: the court finds nothing in them that constitutes a crime. Finally, on 28 July in the Chernigov District Court, two charges of literary offences against the editor of “Desna” were investigated. In both cases, the district court acquitted the editor. Then the Governor, on the basis of enhanced security (according to the law!) removed the editor N.K. Galimsky from fulfilling his duties as the insurance inspector on the District Council. We would add that N.K. Galimsky has served on District Councils in Chernigov and Poltava for more than ten years and was also never politically compromised. And now we ask, do the formally “lawful” acts of the Chernigov Governor not appear to be, in essence, a completely lawless fight against the manifestation of public thought found to be objectionable by the administration? Or is this, too, a struggle against “the enemies of society”?

Our officials are dumbfounded by the fact that society, suffering so much from anarchy, does not wish to believe in the “constitutionalists” of the current Cabinet and is completely disinclined to lend them support in their struggle with revolution… When one familiarizes oneself with “liberal” methods and means, this phenomenon becomes entirely understandable… No matter how monstrously absurd their plans to influence a peaceful society, such as the “hanging of two or three” hostages from that society, plans that are given a place in the publication “Rossiya”, they still represent the logical outcome if “liberal” means are put into practice and thoroughly carried out.

And, if we go any further along this proposed path, we will certainly arrive at such “liberal” means that there will be nowhere further to go, for the degradation of both the state and society will have begun, as will the ruin of culture… “Liberal means” are pushing us toward this abyss, means which the Cabinet believes in.

S.-Petersburg, 10 August

About the Terror

It is difficult and painful to think about political terror and even harder to write about it: here we enter into the sphere of bloody forces where the power of words and arguments made with the most heartfelt and passionate conviction ends. Despair — this is the single source from which terrorist acts are born, whether in the case of bloody revenge, or appearing as a distinctive means of political struggle. There is no need to dwell on the first category. The instruments of murder can be put into the hands of a person who, only yesterday, was ready to censure killing from both the moral point of view and from the standpoint of political expediency. Violence committed against an individual quite often crushes the victim’s psychology: to return to a balanced condition, to return to life is no longer possible for this person. He either cuts off his own life, ending in suicide, or he moves on to murder. The feeling of honour is, to a significant extent, an irrational feeling. It is difficult to explain why insulted honour seeks to wash away the insult with blood, the blood of the insulter or its own. We must accept it as a fact: human psychology is structured this way. In cases of harsh administrative reprisal, in situations of violence committed against large groups of individuals, the number of those who are able to come forward as avengers is extremely high. Apart from those individuals who suffered directly from the violence, this role is often filled by those close to them and in the end, even those who, although they are outsiders who did not even witness the attack, are nervously impressionable, morbidly sympathetic. Being abroad at the start of the current period of terror following one of the attempts on a member of the government blamed for the most brutish violence against those detained for taking part in a political demonstration, we read an article about the Russian terror in one of the most moderate liberal-bourgeois newspapers. “We are against terror from every point of view — morally and politically,” the article stated. “But when we hear of attempts against administrators such as these, we say — this is not terror!… Place administrators such as these in any cultured European country and they, with their lawless brute force, would be seen as murderers..” If “lawless brute force” is not only happening but goes unpunished, and is even approved of by higher powers, the grounds for terror become most favourable. When human individuality and identity are mocked with impunity, the atmosphere becomes poisoned, oppressive, and the more sympathetic and the young take their places among the avengers, throwing bombs, shooting with revolvers… Terror, as a means of political struggle, is also dictated by desperation, the despair that comes when no other means are left… Some “Novoye Vremya” journalists and other hypocrites like to rail against society for its sympathy with the terrorists. But in social psychology, this “sympathy” is rooted in that same despair found in the face of endless political struggle, in the same moral horror felt in the face of evil deeds left unpunished. This theme was touched upon by as thoughtful a person as the deceased Prince S. Trubetskoi in his article, “Two Paths” (“Pravo”, № 44-1904.) “In spite of the horror of the murder,” he stated, “after the tragic death of Plehve — in clubs and in the streets, in restaurants and hotels, wherever Russian people met — we heard nothing other than a condemnation of the dead minister’s politics”…

They think that terror must be fought with its own means — death. But for most terrorists, it is easier to face the death penalty than it is to commit murder. It has already been stated more than once that, from the moral standpoint, the government must not be allowed to fight using these methods. If the government considers these killers to be criminals, why does it take its place with them on the same platform? Why does it fall back on criminal means? In doing so, it undermines its own authority and, supporting itself only by force, heads toward anarchy and destruction. Those “moral” publicists who are so outraged by the terror refuse to accept the strength of these arguments. It is completely alien to them to see the loathsome hypocrisy with which those who oppose the death penalty respond with: “let the murderers go first.” The growth of terror is a terrible symptom of abnormal, defective political conditions. The only escape from such a defective situation lies in throwing pathways open to lawful socio-political struggle. For us it is entirely obvious that under current conditions, working on the creation of a constitutional order is the only effectual method with which to fight terror. It is precisely those, working to achieve the goal of “unleashing such horrors on the country and on revolutionaries that it will still be remembered by their grandchildren” who are the most dangerous terrorists. From various directions, but most often from the journal “Novoye Vremya”, false accusations are still spread against the State Duma for “not deciding or, more truthfully, not even wanting to express its condemnation of political assassination.”

The State Duma, striving to promulgate and consolidate parliamentarianism, to obtain a Ministry responsible to the Duma, and to gain real control over the actions of the administration, followed precisely that path which leads to the strengthening of government authority and the creation of a lawful state in which there is no place for terror. The Duma understood that such burning questions are not resolved by condemnation. And while the Duma lived and breathed, “Novoye Vremya” publicists understood all too well how necessary those things were which the Duma achieved: Mr. Menshikov wrote of the necessity of parliamentarianism and a responsible ministry… Mr. Rozanov saw the Kadets as champions of culture… We oppose terror from both the moral and the political point of view. We know that in its current stage of development, it would cause principled terrorists, such as Balmashov or Kalyaev, to shudder… In today’s demoralized atmosphere it is already difficult to discern where the terror of despair and political struggle crosses over into the action of hooligans and predators, and touches on provocation… It was not the improvement of the political atmosphere that made it possible for those hopes, connected with the work of the Duma, to come to a sudden end… With poorly disguised gloating, the “moral” opponents of terror do not want to distinguish the killing of the deputy Gertzenshtein from terrorist acts by the left. Not to mention the fact that neither vengeful terror nor the terror that comes from political struggle is accustomed to hiring assassins, and in the killing of Gertzenshtein the hand of a hired killer is evident. And, by the way, one cannot number this killing among other terrorist acts because Gertzenshtein could not inspire any revenge, and there were always a thousand ways and means to oppose his ideas: in all but thought, his opponents were more strongly armed. On the charge that Gertzenshtein’s authority lay only in his ideas, the journal “Novoye Vremya” answers with a question: “If the late Gertzenshtein had been made a Minister, which the Kadets were petitioning for at the time, would this have justified his assassination?” … We respond to the question this way. Gertzenshtein could only have become a Minister in the event that all lawful means were open to his ideological adversaries in order that they could oppose his programme. “The Kadets petitioned” for a Parliamentary Ministry, and would have accepted no other. As for the “justification” of murder, the Kadets are innocent in this: an explanation and analysis of the social psychology which gives rise to terror is far from justifying it… And “Novoye Vremya” does not understand this difference by any score.

“To be rid of a dangerous individual — this, of course, was the clear motive behind the treacherous murder of Professor and Deputy Gertzenshtein. Such a motive has never been behind terrorist acts: terrorists strive to change systems, not replace individuals. Re-read the letter of “The Executive Committee to Alexander III.” Is it not clear that these “Mssrs. Assassins” always cherished the ideal of returning the country “to a path of lawful and peaceful development?” (“Byloe”, № 3) It is difficult and painful to think about terror, and even more difficult to write about it, but “Novoye Vremya” writes, writes almost daily, pursuing issues that are entirely outside the topic — in order to level another “kick” at the Duma, to discover among the Kadets “that very revolutionary” etc.

Human life has lost its value, bloody horror reigns over the country and carries off new victims every day, yet they have turned this nightmare into a weapon to be used in the struggle against their political and literary opponents! With all of their wrath and darkness of soul, which the sweet-spoken Mr. Menshikov loves to expose so much, many terrorists carried that immeasurable horror in their hearts, pushing them to murder. This horror has never been experienced, not even to the smallest degree, by the publicist of “Novoye Vremya”. When one thinks of the terror, impotent tears are ready to pour from one’s eyes because of the dreary, unanswerable question: Can it be that such hopeless blindness and such insuperable reactionary stubbornness mean that, for this country, tired of blood, violence, and tears, there is no peaceful road to the free development of its culture, to a calm and normal life?!

The Immediate Problem

The catastrophe on Aptekarsky Island has riveted society’s attention; it is struck with inexpressible horror. Political terror is taking on unprecedented dimensions and carrying off a huge number of victims. Human thought and human feeling seek some escape from this unbearable atmosphere, saturated with blood. To live this way is impossible! It is absolutely clear that closing all paths to lawful opposition gives rise to despair, leading to sad, bloody outcomes, threatening the very foundations of any public life. In the eyes of those who support all kinds of repression, the bloody acts of the terrorist struggle are sufficient foundations for newer and newer exceptional measures. It would seem that the extraordinary growth of the terrorist struggle itself, even while subject to these exceptional measures, should prove these measures powerless, but reactionaries have their own peculiar, bloodthirsty logic that does not take obvious facts into account and is guided by a thirst for vengeance. The logic of the reactionaries, demanding either dictatorship, or capital punishment and the gallows, is not yet fully identical with the logic of the ruling government. At least the official organ “Rossiya” declares that, in the struggle against revolution, the government will rely on the law and not on dictatorship and, remaining faithful to its programme of reform, it will retain as inviolable that share of freedom which now permits society to display lawful opposition. Of course, that “share of freedom” granted for the expression of “lawful opposition” is currently so minimal that the promise to retain it inviolably does not raise any hope for pacification and reassurance. Any lasting pacification can only be achieved with the provision of guaranteed legal freedom so that society may demonstrate “lawful opposition” — a concept which needs to be broadened. Meanwhile, instead of broadening the notion of “legal opposition”, we see a broadening of the concept of “revolution.” It follows that we must recognize the dispersal of the Duma as a colossal error since it closed the pathways to legal parliamentary struggle for the foreseeable future. Only correcting this error; that is, making an immediate appeal to the country’s creative forces to join the struggle against all of the growing decay and corruption, against the approaching anarchy, can we step back onto the path which promises to bring ongoing horrors to an end. It is also vital that all extraordinary measures, impotent in preventing the spread of anarchy, be revoked and that the new elections are guaranteed to be held without unlawful administrative pressure. Only a true and honest popular government is in a position to guarantee state and social security. In the face of ever-growing anarchy in the internal affairs of this nation, the most urgent immediate problem is pushed into the foreground — the restoration of popular government.

S.-Petersburg, 19 August

A Compromised System

For those versed in the phenomena of anarchic reality, there can be no question as to which path will lead the country out of its current intolerable situation. Only by consciously accepting the fact that dispersing the Duma was the fatal error which created this dangerous situation can we force a return to the one reliable method of pacification — an immediate convening of the State Duma. If one of the main reasons for setting the new elections at such a distant date is the hope that this will achieve the “favourable” results that are wished for by the government, then we predict in advance that this hope will suffer ruin, and the tactless actions of the administration will further compromise state politics in the minds of the broad masses. It is well known that, almost immediately after the dispersal of the Duma, Governors were given the problem of determining what chances the State had in bringing forward desirable candidates in the next elections. The majority of the responses were not optimistic. Among these, however, the response by the Governor of Chernigov sounded a somewhat dissonant note, expressing his full certainty in the possibility of a favourable electoral outcome. And, apparently, the Chernigov Governor was influenced in this neither by the wish to avoid annoying the authorities with his answer, nor by “speaking the truth with a smile” out of fear, but by a steadfast faith in the omnipotence of the administration’s influence. And even though the elections were still, as they say, only “written with pitchforks on water”, the far-sighted administrator already undertook a series of actions in the “province entrusted to him” to prepare for the “favourable” results he had promised. After private newspapers had been eradicated by means of administrative coercion, the newspaper “Chernigovskiya Gubernskiya Vedomosti” began an intense electoral agitation, trying from one day to the next to persuade its readers not to vote for former Duma members, but rather for candidates who were staid and moderate, who would not dare reproach or insolently condemn actions taken by the authorities. But, not trusting too much in the power of “the fervent language of persuasion”, the Governor is not satisfied with this literary agitation in his semi-official publication, one which has long been the echo of the militant Black Hundreds press. It is a good thing that enhanced security, operating in the province, hands him the most effectual “lawful” means!..

These means are aimed against those individuals who, in one way or another, held some influence at the time of the previous elections to the Duma. Several electors were arrested and exiled from the province. Judging from information in the press, an actual attack was arranged against the former Deputy Tarasenko, ending with the arrest of his brother. Characteristic, too, was the incident when the elector from Gorodnya Province, Mr. Krivtsov was exiled. The latter, a peasant by birth, served on the Chernigov Provincial Zemstvo Town Council. With the opening of the Duma he entered into service in its offices, having conceded to the wishes of his electorate who asked him to go to Petersburg so that he might then provide them with a detailed account of the Duma’s work. Mr. Krivtsov returned to Chernigov after the Duma was dismissed. The day after his arrival, he was given 24 hours to leave the province. Another elector of the Gorodnyansky region, the peasant Chugai, was exiled from the province for, as they say, endeavouring to persuade the people to compose a resolution expressing their regret for the closing of the Duma. Such measures are already starting to bring results in the appearance of apathy and indifference toward the Duma. During a recent trip to Chernigov Province, we could already hear the pessimism in the peasants’ view that the Duma and the elections were created with a single goal — to fool the people… And it can hardly be disputed that, because of this shared mood among the masses, a durable pacification will not be reached… If pacification is the government’s aim, to be followed by reforms, however sincere, then before anything else the entire system of internal governance currently based on the authoritarian judgement and arbitrariness of major and minor satraps must be changed. Powerless in its fight against the ever growing anarchy of daily life, this system falls with the full brunt of its weight upon a peaceful population and creates irreconcilable, ruinous dissension between the people and the State while losing all authority, all prestige.

S.-Petersburg, 24 August

The Philosophical Basis of These “Measures”

“Novoye Vremya” assures us that “Rech’” and other similar publications demand death from Russia… The basis for this is that “Rech’” does not believe in the saving power of any extraordinary measures and thinks that only by strengthening lawfulness, civic freedoms and other blessings of a parliamentary constitutional system will the country be led out of its current state of anarchy and onto a path of peaceful progress. True, even “Novoye Vremya” appears to defend constitutional goals: at least it writes, “The politics of Russia in corpore, the government of Russia, the State of Russia — for now and for the foreseeable future can only mean one thing: the consolidation and elaboration of a constitution.” However, the entire question rests on which measures the newspaper recommends to promote the “consolidation and elaboration of the constitution”. If demands for the abolition of extraordinary measures and appeals to the creative forces of the nation in the form of a popular government demand “death”, then what is “effective action” made up of? “Novoye Vremya”, in qualifying “effective action”, recommends a long-standing, tried and true system of “measures” (the quotation marks belong to the talented paper). We must act “namely, by declaring martial law in certain regions.” Seeing as this system has been adopted and widely applied, the journalism of “Novoye Vremya” apparently pursues the goal of encouraging our march along this correct path. And to better achieve this goal, the journal develops a highly mannered “philosophy” of this system: “If you do not wish to be punished, then commit no crimes. If you do not want to be punished quickly, with force, and without delay, commit no crimes that are villainous, unprecedented”… What the burden of martial law falls upon — in the main, an entirely peaceful population which not only does not wish to be “punished” but commits no crimes — the journal does not wish to know and, choking on its own statesmanship, lays down the law: “Only the state possesses the right to bear arms, even the right to shed blood, according to the principle: salus rei publicae seprema(sic) lex [tr. The welfare of the people should be the supreme law] — wherever the Russian language is spoken, and Russian faces are seen. “Hands up” it offers to detain various rascals and ragamuffins while police agents search their pockets for revolvers and bombs”… But, perhaps, the journal knows of no cases where these “agents”, searching for revolvers and bombs, laid waste to pockets no differently than actual robbers would? Or, for example, circumstances when the victims of police suspicion turned out not to be “rascals and ragamuffins” but trustworthy citizens?… We agree, however, to see such cases which, alas, are not that rare, as small “deficiencies in the mechanism”. But the important point is that up until now the most energetic application of such “measures” has not achieved any results anywhere while plunder and violence have reached unbelievable heights precisely in those “certain regions” affected by the most extraordinary measures. As to this, “Novoye Vremya” suggests that “if money falls out of a bad pocket, the pocket must be mended”… “Mending the pocket”, that is, instead of special forces, grant extraordinary ones, in place of the extraordinary — martial law, and in place of the latter — a state of siege? But, you see, this has already been tried many times… We have no basis upon which to dispute the competent opinion of “Novoye Vremya” about “the phenomenal bungling by our police”, but these “talented” publicists should know that all extraordinary measures hand over a peaceful population to the power of this police… Fighting against revolution, they allow robbers to flourish. And in relation to the latter, the population, living under these extraordinary measures, becomes almost defenceless, unprotected: the police do not guarantee their safety, the prohibition against carrying arms under threat of severe punishment deprives them of the means to protect themselves. “Novoye Vremya” and “other similar organs” claim that all violence and crime are entirely due to “revolution.” The consciousness and forethought behind this slander is completely obvious, and “Novoye Vremya” knows full well of multiple cases when “anarchist communists” and others, calling themselves by similar names, turned out to be thieves and robbers well known to the police… We have not known of “anarchism” until quite recently… Incidents of “revolutionary” violence (how often they happen, it is difficult to determine) and purely anarchist acts must be attributed entirely to the effect of extraordinary measures and the seeds of anarchy and animosity that these measures sow. “Novoye Vremya” and “other similar organs” always deliberately mix together acts of terror with anarchist ones. However, with the terrorists, despite how much one disapproves of their methods from both the moral and the political point of view, there always exists the ideal of returning the country to “a path of lawful and peaceful progress.” This was referred to most definitely, for example, in the letter of the “Executive Committee to the Emperor Alexander III” (in “Byloye”, No.3). We — oppose terror and because of that speak with particular zeal against any extraordinary measures that contribute to the psychological foundations of terror, and with equal zeal we defend the “path of lawful and peaceful progress”, taking away any grounds for terror. The system of “measures” defended by “Novoye Vremya” does not lead to the attainment of “an honest life on earth”. Sowing the seeds of tyranny and violence does not mean “training for constitutionalism.”

“Their Goodwill”

Pre-occupied with “the need to adapt the State organism” to the sickness “from which our motherland is suffering”, the government is stepping onto a dangerous path in pursuing quickness of action at any price. A “Government Report” states that “regular court proceedings are not fully suited to current circumstances and do not allow for the possibility of repression coming quickly”… The “possibility of quick repression”, or, to use the language of the “report” — “bringing legal proceedings and the carrying out of sentences closer together”, — goes a long way to meet the demands of the Moscow “patriots” who desire “a broad application of the death penalty by the field courts” etc…. The “patriots”, striving for a cessation of “pernicious nonresistance to evil” of course speak a language incomparably more decisive than the government: in place of the mildness of the government’s statement in the report about justice — “not being fully suited to circumstances”, they energetically declare the “mockery of court proceedings, the procrastination and evident pandering to the traitors — in the court records”… Evidently, indulging their “goodwill” by demanding a thousand executions, the government and its members have found it necessary to “issue provisional laws concerning military-field courts”, creating courts for which, according to the reliable observation of V. Kuzmin-Karavayev, “the competence and the conditions needed for their formation simply do not exist.”… To see “measures necessary for guaranteeing the freedom to live and to work” in such “adaptations of the State organism” to the sickness we suffer from means to completely misunderstand the logic of current events. And this statecraft, expecting an end to current disturbances as a result of such measures, is no higher, morally, than what is found in the call for a thousand executions: “goodwill”… We leave it to Mr. A. Stolypin from “Novoye Vremya” to search here for any service to “tender precepts of ideal freedom” and raptures “of great genius among our bright writers and poets.”… We cannot help but note that the government report speaks of establishing these military-field courts “for the judgement of those accused of the most heinous crimes”, but the law that was published at the same time as the report states that leaders of local administrations are required to hand over to these courts not only the worst crimes, but any criminal acts. Citizens’ lives will depend wholly on the “goodwill” of the highest government administrators and, if hope in this “goodwill” is weak, then expectations of the near future must be even gloomier once the threat in the government report is made against regional authorities, laying a heavy responsibility on them for “hesitating in their treatment of those who disobey the Tsar’s will.” All this gives us grounds to expect that the “goodwill” of the Moscow “patriots” will be converted from a platonic desire into a bloody reality. It is here precisely that service to “tender precepts of ideal freedom” will begin…

Under the flag of “goodwill” terrible apparitions appear.

We will continue to believe that the government programme will prove to be unrealizable and that no new suffering will be brought down on this unfortunate country. We will hold to the belief that there are forces in life and in history that are mightier than “their goodwill.”…

Political Perspectives

The government has published its “liberal” reform programme to “create anew a stable order, based on lawfulness and a reasonable understanding of true freedom.” Already, that the word “freedom” is accompanied by the words “reasonable understanding” and “true” is capable of arousing strong suspicions of the government’s tendency to be very free with the content of the concept denoted by the word “freedom”. And the creation of new courts-martial which accompanies this programme, already christened with the name “the quickly decisive”, raises serious alarm. Not that long ago, in response to the anxious expectations of the people soon after the catastrophe on Aptekarsky Island, the official publication “Rossiya” declared that in the struggle against revolution the government would rest on the law and not on dictatorship. Now the word play inferred in this declaration has been exposed. The law on which the State leans in its struggle with revolution does not create the single-handed dictatorship, rumours of which troubled the people, but a many-headed dictatorship of “governor-generals, supreme commanders or those vested with personal authority”. To each in his region, declared to be under martial law or enhanced security, it is granted that “in those cases when a criminal act committed by a member of the civil service is evident enough that there is no need for an investigation, the accused will be handed over for court-martial, and will be sentenced according to the laws that are applied during war-time”… Even deciding the question of how “evident” the criminal act needs to be in order to remove any “necessity for investigation” is entirely in the hands of the administrators, who also establish the competence of the “quickly decisive” courts. Any individual and any criminal act can be judged by a military-field court, which “quickly sets about its analysis of what’s happened and completes its investigation in no more than 48 hours.” “The sentence, declared by the court, quickly passes into law without delay and, in all cases, is carried out within 24 hours.” It is understandable why this inconceivable law pushes into the background any interest that society might have in the “liberal” reform programme that was published at the same time. In vain, “Rossiya” attempts to prove that the opposition fears liberal reform since it will reconcile society with the Ministry. One does not need to be a prophet in order to predict that the fates of both parts of the Ministry programme: “liberal” reforms and courts-martial will be very different. However, if we were to close our eyes to the “court-martial” part of the Ministry programme and focus our attention on its “liberal” part, then perhaps we would need to name it not only “liberal” but “truly” or “ intelligently-liberal.” There are no guarantees, no certainties given in the “Government Report” that the reforms outlined by the Ministry will satisfy the needs of the people and the times. In the draft laws prepared by the Ministry “for presentation to the future State Duma”, enumerated in 12 points, there is no mention of the maintenance or support of these draft laws which may turn out to be entirely inadequate. Finally, the assertion that is made in the last section of the “Government Report”, that “on its side, the government considers that, without fail, it must not hinder the free expression of social opinion, whether by the printed word or through social gatherings” lies in sharp, one may even say screaming, disparity with observed reality. And it seems that if the government is at all anxious about gaining the peoples’ trust in the sincerity of its reforms, then its first step must be to do away with this stated disparity. However, whether this step will be taken under current conditions is very, very doubtful. And since it is so, no matter how energetically the government opposes “force not hesitating to violence”, it will not succeed in attaining that pacification which is reachable only by abolishing the rupture between the authorities and the people. In order for this rupture, so ruinous for the country, not to exist, the state power must become popular, wherein lies the essence of parliamentarianism, the establishment of which is being fought for by all of conscientious, democratic Russia.

Any government which currently opposes parliamentarianism risks all of its practical activities becoming caught up in opposing “violent force”. And the reform programme, even with every possible “liberalism”, will remain an experiment on paper… “Intelligently understood”, “true” freedom will merge with the “quickly deciding” courts. A regime such as this will not last long!..

But the way out will not be opened up by the “liberalism” of that Ministry which accomplished the dissolution of the Duma in the name of “true” freedom… As L. Berne said: “The people do not free themselves with the help of patience, but with the strength of impatience.” We must hope that the “strength of impatience” will show itself to be a creative, freeing strength in Russian history, too…

Draconian Legislation

(A Historical Inquiry)

The government, having published its “liberal” reform programme, showed its resolve “to create anew a stable order based on lawfulness”… only by establishing courts-martial. It did not display, if it can be put this way, any original legislative psychology. To pacify by means of inspiring fear — in this there is the least novelty. In the early 1880’s, the certainty was expressed that all revolutionary sedition will quickly come to an end — it would only take “the raising of gallows from Petersburg to Moscow”… A readiness to “fill the streets of Petersburg with blood,” in order to preserve the appearance of order, was attributed to Sipyagin. Plehve also did not lack such readiness. This readiness turned into action at the end of the era of “trust” — 9 January, 1905. The “constitutional” Ministries followed the same path. The first “constitutional” Minister of the Interior set himself the task of “unleashing such terror onto the country and against revolutionaries that it would still live on in the memory of their grandchildren”. And is it not this same task that is pursued by the “liberal” resolve to oppose “force not hesitating to violence”, if only in the same monstrous aspect as their provision on courts-martial? When they “unleash terror”, they are not unduly troubled by conforming their “goodwill” to the contemporary sense of justice. When “action” is needed, there is no time for squabbling over things that are “debatable” and “relative”!.. The brutality of a system of State terror is often labelled draconian. In doing so, people rarely allow themselves to see how far this analogy of draconian legislation and State terror goes: in the opinion of A. Guchkov, it does not in the least undermine any belief in the sincerity of the liberal reforms and constitutionalism of Stolypin’s Cabinet. This analogy goes far beyond cruelty to something much deeper. In Giorgy Veber, we encounter the following characteristic of draconian legislation: “Dracon wrote his Code with such a severe spirit that the brutality of his laws became proverbial. It was said that they were written in blood”!.. (G. Veber “Vseobshchaya Istoriya” t.II “Istoriya Ellinskovo Naroda”, pg. 238). “Dracon used fear as the only mainstay of lawful order”*… “It is certain that the goal behind the laws published by Dracon was the prevention of innovation* — strictly preserving the ancient relations between the estates, which had begun to waver, so as to safeguard the former strength of the courts, giving them the terrible power of the death penalty.”* Is Prince E. Trubetskoy not correct when he says: “I think that executions can only be justified by those not guided by arguments based on reason, but by a sense of revenge” and have we not turned back 26 centuries to the source that inspired Dracon’s legislation? Though, for those whose statesmanship is exhausted by this difficult moment in the country’s internal life and who turn to the ancient authority of Dracon, it would be advisable to remember the historical destiny of that authority which inspires them. “The Eupatrids hoped that Dracon’s laws would keep the people obedient, or even force them to desire a return to the old court system in which judges’ decisions were arbitrary”… “But the people did not want to return to life under tyranny. Unrest broke out”…

Robbery and “Revolution”

For some time now, “Novoye Vremya” and similar organs of the press have become accustomed to blaming every robbery and all violence on the “revolution”. If, in fact, a few revolutionary organizations, for the most part very small in number, made up of so-called “deviants” or the green youth from among those who 10 years ago travelled “to Africa — or to America” in such a mood and became occupied with “expropriation”, it is still obvious to any honest publicist that, in general, the excessive increase in robberies and violence has nothing in common with “revolution.”

Some connection with “revolution” might yet be established through the common disturbance of mental balance among the huge number of uncultured people unsettled by this time of troubles — we mean the numerous cadres of the unemployed, the thousands of victims of strikes who have lost their earnings. But it is not of such a distant and indirect connection between robbery and “revolution” that the reptilian, semi-official publicists speak. They deliberately turn a blind eye to many facts discovered when professional thieves known to the police used the name “anarchist-communist” as a cover. The police, distracted from their usual duties by “politics”, relaxed their vigilance over the criminal underworld. It was enough for several daring thieves to have gotten away with it to bring about an entire epidemic of robbery: their easy success has been demonstrated across the country. But something incredible is happening in Ekaterinoslav which, incidentally, many always suspected in the face of its “successful” daring robberies. The same “Novoye Vremya” which identifies robbery with “revolution” reports: “It turns out that all of the recent robberies in Ekaterinoslav were carried out with the assistance of the Department of Criminal Investigation”… The Chief of Police had to publish the following: “Agents of the Department of Criminal Investigation who carry cards certified by the former head of the department Katsari, and his assistant Knol, must be arrested and handed over to the the Department of Criminal Investigation.” There is no evidence to generalize the Ekaterinoslav incident but, nevertheless, the terrible question unwittingly arises: is it only in Ekaterinoslav that recent robberies have come from such a source? Mssrs. reptilian writers, who uncovered a “revolution” in every robbery and every act of violence, do you still have enough of a conscience to blush?

“Practical” Politics”

Stolypin’s “liberal” Cabinet agenda, consisting of the titles of those bills which concern the Cabinet, could not in itself arouse optimistic expectations while accompanied by the monstrous, draconian law of courts-martial which created a multi-headed dictatorship of Governor-Generals and Chief Commanders. It was only new evidence of the deep discord between the authorities on the one hand, and society on the other. And if the “public figure” A. I. Guchkov considered it necessary to express his approval of the government programme at such a moment, then he only revealed his deep lack of connection with genuine public opinion. Carefully analyzing Guchkov’s “approval”, we are first of all perplexed by what is more likely to arouse the sympathies of a “public figure” — the titles of the bills of concern to the Ministry, or the courts-martial? True, he managed to see “a system of positive measures, undoubtedly of a progressive nature” in these titles, and the courts-martial order, in his opinion, “should not undermine confidence” in the “system”. But Mr. Guchkov does not provide any evidence of the “undoubtedly” progressive nature of the “system of titles”, but says that the courts-martial may turn out to be “necessary”. A phrase that should weaken the impact of such an “opinion” — “the whole point is what kind of practice will be established, and the bearers of this terrible right should be aware of the enormous responsibility assigned to them”, — this phrase, in the mouth of a “public” representative, rings with such naivety as a “real” politician is hardly capable of. One must assume hypocrisy… The “public” figure must be fully aware of what kind of “practice” the country is threatened with under the military “liberalism” of the Stolypin Cabinet…

In his letter in response to Prince E. N. Trubetskoy, who expressed bewilderment at the “approval” of the government’s message by a public figure, Guchkov ends with a purely personal appeal: “One fine day, you may be called to power. And I think that in this harsh school of real political work you will learn to evaluate many things differently; you will experience the power of that iron law of state necessity which, in order to save the state, will require heavy sacrifices in that hour and inflict an incurable wound on a beautiful and sensitive heart”.

To this “practical” politician, with his lightly ironic reference to a “beautiful and sensitive heart”, one can reply that not every call to power should be accepted. Trubetskoy has already renounced power once, not accepting the portfolio of Minister of Public Education from the hands of Count Witte. The “iron law of state necessity”, forcing a reliance on military courts, exists only for representatives of that “realism” of which the Muscovite A. I. Guchkov is a striking example… D. N. Shipov’s withdrawal from the Union of October 17 and the “Union” Committee’s disavowal of Guchkov’s views convince us that such realism does not meet with sympathy in wide public circles. In asserting that the desire to “isolate the government” “is part of the task” of only the radical parties, A. I. Guchkov “isolated” himself.

20 September 1906

D. N. Shipov’s withdrawal from membership in the notorious “Union of 17 October” and the details of the circumstances which caused his withdrawal acquired enormous political significance. There was reason for the foreign embassies in St. Petersburg to telegraph D. N. Shipov’s letter, and Prince E. N. Trubetskoy’s response to A. I. Guchkov, to their governments. D. N. Shipov and Prince E. N. Trubetskoy are known throughout the world both for their moderate socio-political convictions and equally for their elevated socio-political ethics. It is unthinkable to accuse them of either narrow partisanship or secret sympathy for the horrors of anarchist revolution. Their voice offers incorruptible evidence of the mood of the moderate, cultured, middle stratum of society. And concerning the central issue of our time — the issue of society’s attitude toward the current government — this voice clearly and categorically denies any possibility of being in solidarity with the Ministry. In his letter, D. N. Shipov explains the reason for this impossibility: it is that the current Ministry was created “on the basis of a conflict between the bureaucratic regime and popular representation.” This Ministry is responsible for the “spread of demoralization and savagery in society”. It is clear that the voice of such a condemnation is more dangerous for the Stolypin Cabinet than blows from the left: courts-martial are powerless against this voice, the voice of national public opinion. A. I. Guchkov rendered a major service to the liberation movement with his “practical” politics: he discovered, in front of the whole world, how “isolated” the “government that dissolved the State Duma” was. He is being led by the militant “Union of the Russian People” which threatens the country with bloody anarchy. Guchkov’s “statesmanship” in pursuit of “practicality” does not see this terrible danger… Stolypin’s Cabinet had an opportunity to reconcile with public opinion: the shocking tragedy on Aptekarsky Island was horrifying and, if the Cabinet had responded to it with a generous admission that dismissing the Duma had been a mistake, and by restoring a functional popular government, it would have won strong sympathy. But… the “generosity” of the Cabinet gave us court-martial!.. D. N. Shipov is quite right in predicting that “the path of intensifying repression is inevitable for this Ministry”. A. I. Guchkov believes that this is forced by the “iron law of state necessity” no matter what kind of wound it inflicts on “a beautiful and sensitive heart”. D. N. Shipov and A. I. Guchkov, recent allies and leaders of the “Union of 17 October”, speak different languages. There can be no doubt which of these languages conveys the public mood in its truest sense. But this does not mean that society is prone to the doctrinaire and lacks a sense of reality: based on the conclusions he draws from the “iron law” he discovered, Guchkov’s “realism” is a slander against that healthy and necessary realism without which success in politics is unthinkable.

22 September

The “constitutional” Ministry, which is more and more inclined to provide patronage and protection not only to the anti-constitutional but also the anti-social Black Hundred “Union of the Russian People”, still remains completely silent on the timing of the elections to the State Duma. However, the head of the “liberal” and “truly constitutional” (or reasonably-constitutional) Cabinet — Mr. Stolypin, in a recent private conversation, expressed confidence that nothing but an earthquake could prevent the State Duma from meeting on 20 February. Alas, society does not see any guarantees in the Prime Minister’s proud confidence for a stable course for the government, not to mention the fact that it is not inclined to believe in a constitution enforced with the help of military courts. And “Rech’”, not without reason, points out that “the dangerous game” with the overt spread of hooligan-Black Hundred agitation by “true-Russians” threatens things “worse than an earthquake”… Nevertheless, with all the uncertainty of even the very near future, the issue of new elections to the State Duma cannot but attract public attention. This question, by the way, is the subject of an article by M. Slavinsky in the newspaper “Tovarishch”, № 63. Considering the possible election results, based on the assumption that “the election campaign will take place under the previous electoral system and with the maximum amount of “repression” imaginable”, Mr. Slavinsky comes to the conclusion that “the future State Duma will either be oppositional, very left-wing, not to the right of the Kadet Party, or — this may also happen — it will not exist at all”. Such a conclusion, from our point of view, is undeniable and it even seems to us that there are more grounds for it beyond Slavinsky’s calculations. So, Mr. Slavinsky, proceeding from the known fact that Zemstvo circles are turning to the right, thinks that “landowners, presumably, will send a tight mass of electors to the provincial election meetings who are definitely painted in colours no redder than A. I. Guchkov. The landowning curia, without the help of repression, will provide electors pleasing to the government”. Alas, the government cannot hope for this, either. The composition of County Congresses of Landowners for elections to Provincial Electoral Assemblies (during elections to the State Duma according to the law of 11 December, 1905) is far from the composition of those Congresses of Landowners at which Zemstvo counsellors are elected. The estates underlying the Zemstvo electoral system do not know the electoral law of 11 December. And small landowners, sending their delegates to the County Electoral Congresses of Landowners, often decide the outcome of the elections there. This was the case during the elections to the first State Duma, and this should be the case in the upcoming electoral campaign. County Congresses of Landowners sent members of the Constitutional-Democratic Party or those further left as electors to provincial electoral meetings not because the landowners were “more or less scattered” but because at the County Electoral Congresses of Landowners, the majority of votes belonged not to large landowners but to delegates from smaller estates; that is, in most cases, from the peasantry and the so-called “third” element. And there can be no doubt that reforms of the electoral system will aim in this direction, if there is enough “daring” to disregard the “fundamental laws” to the extent that the reptilian publicists of the semi-official “Rossiya” and the always “in service” Novoye Vremya” urge with such zeal. Oh, for success even in the landowning curia, of a colour “not redder than A. I. Guchkov, reforms are still needed which cannot be carried out without violating the “fundamental laws”… The original feature of the current political moment is the fact that now we have to see a guarantee of the Russian constitution in the electoral law of 11 December, and in the “fundamental laws” which evoked such harsh and just criticism from the opposition. All supporters of a coup d’etat from the right vigorously oppose the need to reckon with them — both those who do not hide their intentions and those who still consider it necessary to wear their ill-fitting constitutional masks.

We affirm that without changes to the electoral system, even if repression exceeds anything that has been hitherto experienced by the Russian people, the Duma will be oppositional. And that is precisely why it is necessary to add: “or, — this may also happen, — it will not exist at all”… But the “true-Russian” enemies of the disadvantaged Russian people will not build their triumph on this opportunity: “freedom does not die in the grave”!…

On Tactical Issues

Repeated attempts have been made, by different sides and from various points of view, to prove that the K.-D. Party is devoid of internal unity and that its members, dissimilar in mood and tactical inclination, are only united by the government’s reactionary policy which forces them to forgot about partial, albeit deep, disagreements in the face of a common enemy. Each Party Congress was met with expectations of an inevitable split in the Party, and it was pointed out with certainty that the “provincials” were far to the left of the Party leaders and their oppositional mood could not but break the constraints of tactical opportunism supposedly inherent in the Party Central Committee. When these expectations were not met, some said that the split was averted by the efforts of the government while others were inclined to explain everything by the “dexterity” with which the Central Committee worked around the “naive provincials”… In our view, the danger posed by a reactionary government which overtly patronizes coup d’etat parties from the right is not sufficiently taken into account by the practical work in the struggle for liberation and we will not object to the need for public solidarity and the coordination of Party actions… As for tactical splits in the K.-D. Party and its division into “left” (“provincial”) and “right”, we must admit that we are dealing here mainly with some kind of certainty that “that which is desired and expected becomes, as it were, true”… Such certainty is based on a superficial understanding of tactical problems and a hopelessly confused notion of conformity to a certain degree of oppositional “mood” with its well-known tactical decisiveness, “speed and pressure”, probably according to the principle — “boldness brings success”… For everyone who is more or less familiar with the mood of the provinces in recent years, the degree of opposition does not seem to be critical or even questionable. This mood does not permit any compromises with the autocratic-bureaucratic regime and it is “less costly” to establish a democratic constitutional-parliamentary system — that is, a celebration of the idea of democracy — than to remain unreconciled. Provincial political thought is concerned primarily with questions of tactics, rather than with questions about programmes. How to achieve the ideals of state structure? How to establish freedom? At Party Congresses, the speeches of the provincial delegates can take on a more or less irritated tone, depending on where this or that delegate came from. And as comparatively prosperous regions become relatively rare, it is rare that one hears a calm and even tone… People with broken nerves do not speak calmly! The success and influence of the K.-D. Party originated in its ability to set the struggle for the triumph of a democratic constitutional and legal system on realistic foundations. The Party’s tactical directives ensured its success no less than the ideals that were summed up in its programme. Mutinous feelings of discontent and hatred for the out-dated regime, felt among wide sections of the population, found an accessible and coherent means of expression in the tactics adopted by the Party. When formulating tactical directives, it is impossible not to take attitudes into account but, first of all, tactics, as a form, as a means to success, must be expedient; i.e., they must be strictly weighed. To only repeat — Carthago delenda est! (tr. Carthage must be destroyed) — does not mean that tactics have been formed, does not indicate the means by which Carthage will be destroyed. And everything that obscures the weighing of the tactics’ appropriateness diminishes the chances of success. It cannot be denied that, by surrendering to mood, one can utter an angry philippic denunciation, filled with the beauty of indignation and protest, but it cannot be argued that this in itself ensures a successful choice of tactical means. Tactics based on mood can be very irrational and inappropriate. Naturally, everything that increases impulsive action diminishes the calm weighing of data and can have a very detrimental effect on the expediency of tactics. When discussing tactics and establishing guidelines for Party conduct, it is very dangerous to surrender to the power of “moods”… In the end, this is even inappropriate, to a certain extent, within the calm atmosphere of the Party Congress. Everyone chooses the tactics which correspond to their understanding of expediency. No matter how any party’s tactics are decided, one should think that they are taken on by the party with their greatest expediency in mind; that is, after careful consideration and discussion. This means that everyone who has adopted a certain tactic has had the horrors of reality pass through their consciousness during such discussions, leading to conclusions of one kind or another. In the absence of reason and deduction, in the culminating tension, only the tactic of mood is accepted — the tactic of despair. This means that even the most extreme tactical decisions based on mood are, in principle, equivalent to more moderate decisions — only the assessment of their expediency is different. It cannot be disputed that the most fiery feelings and moods can sometimes find expression in an outwardly moderate tactical decision. After all that has been said, it is clear how little the elevated tone and mood of the provincial delegates’ speeches during the Party Congress can point to their “leftist” sympathies… If we look at the famous Vyborg Proclamation from the standpoint we are developing on conditions for discussing tactical methods, we must first ascertain the irregularity or, one might say, the absolute exceptionality of the circumstances in which the question of how to answer the attempt against the people’s representatives was discussed. In addition, the point at which the Vyborg meeting stopped was not a tactical directive of this or that party. It was an action of the people’s representatives, whether successful or not, — but this is an extraneous question for us at the moment. In contrast, the question of the Vyborg Proclamation directives was raised at the K.-D. Party Congress in Helsingfors. Here, the question was exclusively about Party tactics and, therefore, all the conditions necessary for a correct assessment of tactical methods had to first be met. While we did not attend the Congress in Helsingfors, we had the opportunity to personally find out the mood of the provinces and their attitude to the Vyborg Proclamation before the Congress began (with the stipulation that the circle or, better to say, the space of our observations is relatively limited). The provinces quickly came to a high appreciation of the Vyborg Proclamation’s principles [underscoring by author], that is, the readiness to defend popular representation even by breaking with strictly constitutional means and embarking on the path of passive resistance. But we did not hear any difference of opinion about the practical feasibility of implementing the Vyborg Resolutions at once. And it was obvious to us that the Party Congress had no choice but to recognize that the implementation of the Vyborg Resolutions was unacceptable at the present time. Indeed, any other decision would have caused not a split, but the complete disintegration of the Party. We do not undertake to judge how clearly and completely the provincial delegates at Helsingfors gave a picture of the provincial mood, but living reality speaks to us louder than speeches in conveying various impressions. To many, what was dictated by necessity seemed to be a rejection of something, a retreat, almost a betrayal… The decision could not but be difficult, for there is no easy way out of a difficult situation. But the Party’s plight was only a reflection of the plight of the country. And the latter is not the fault of the Party, which devotes all of its strength to leading the country onto the path of peaceful democratic development. The Helsingfors decision was received with satisfaction by the provinces. They are trying with all of their might to pull the ground out from under the feet of the K.-D. Party; however, everything that has been successfully done in this regard does nothing to benefit our outmoded regime, protected only by “True Russian” enemies of the Russian people’s freedom. The K.-D. Party will not lay down its arms, and will fight confidently for the ultimate victory, saying — Dum spiro spero! [tr. While I breathe, I hope.]