The History of Liberalism in Russia

Chapter 16

189 in Hauriou’s view, the questions of political liberty and the decentralization of power overlap.1 Thus, political liberty is the liberty enjoyed by the citizen thanks to the separation of powers anchored in the constitution. It is important to recall the difference between political and civil freedom. Although political freedom is an extension (prolongement) of civil liberty, there is nevertheless a fundamental difference between these two forms of freedom. Hauriou writes: The difference between civil and political freedom is that there is no connection between the former and the decentralization of power. After all, a quite considerable degree of civil liberty can coexist with a strongly centralized administrative system; trade and industry can flourish; and the people can devote themselves to their family life and enjoy their property. chapter 16 The History of Political Liberalism in the Reign of alexander ii definition of political liberty—Local self-government as a form of decentralized power—ideas underlying the creation of local self-government in 1864 (zemstvo)—Trends in constitutional thought prior to 1864—granovsky—general widespread condemnation of the bureaucratization of all spheres of life at the start of alexander ii’s reign— basic features of zemstvo organization following the 1864 law (the 1890 zemstvo law)—The zemstvo as the heart of liberal thought and first expressions of constitutionalism in zemstvo assemblies—declarations on a constitution by the assemblies of the gentry— chicherin’s position on the constitutional question in the 1860s—Revival of interest in a constitution after the war of 1877–78—Spread of nihilism and revolutionary terrorism and how this led to disarray in the government—Efforts of the government to engage with moderate public opinion—Secretary of State Peretz’s plan—The Loris-melikov plan— Revision of this project at a meeting chaired by alexander iii on march 8, 1881: arguments for and against 190 • the history of political liberalism in the reign of alexander ii Civil liberty can suffice for the well-being of the people under a good tyrant, a least for a certain period, so long as the bureaucracy is not overdeveloped and does not threaten civil society itself. On the other hand, political freedom is inconceivable without decentralization or without the separation of powers; it is aimed against that dangerous tendency of centralization that accompanies a bureaucratic regime.2 Insofar as the crux of the question of political freedom lies in overcoming the concentration and centralization of the state that arises with the growth of bureaucracy by decentralizing power, it has to be recognized, according to Hauriou, that “decentralized power and administrative decentralisation are two sides of the same constitutional coin. . . . It is quite wrong to imagine that decentralization is a reform that the bureaucracy can carry out by itself. Such a reform is not administrative in origin, and the bureaucracy left to its own devices can only centralize. It stems from the constitution and is closely linked to the development of the constitution.”3 Administrative decentralization can precede or follow the constitutional decentralization of power. In nineteenth-century France, for example, administrative decentralization followed constitutional reform at one moment, but preceded it at another.4 In Russia, administrative decentralization, that is, the creation of institutions of local self-government or zemstvos in 1864, preceded the constitution by several decades. At the same time, those who initiated this reform had no idea it would sow the seeds of a constitutional system on Russian soil. (As will be outlined below, this only dawned on Pobedonostsev in the 1880s, while it was only at the turn of the century that Witte clearly asserted that local self-government and autocracy were incompatible.) On the contrary, it was thought that the organizations being established with the sole purpose of satisfying local economic interests would belong to the private sphere rather than the state. Meshchersky commented in his memoirs: “Valuev’s starting point was that by establishing a self-contained zemstvo sphere in the provinces, that is, a sphere of economic activity (zaboty), he was creating an outlet for people with ability that would occupy and stimulate them and divert them from political ambitions in what could be called the general sphere.”5 In other words, Valuev really thought establishing institutions of local self-government would act as a counterbalance to agitation for a constitution. At that time, constitutional ideas played only a minor role. Overall, people professed a belief in liberal absolutism and thought the autocracy had to adopt the liberal agenda and implement it...