The History of Liberalism in Russia

Chapter 19

227 Even if several zemstvo representatives were founding members of the Union of Liberation, overall, zemstvo opinion was extremely unsympathetic to the direction that the union was prepared to pursue through an alliance with the revolutionaries . Most zemstvo members preferred the road of peaceful evolution. The representatives of very different political camps saw it as the safest and soundest way to achieve constitutional government. According to this view, a future Russian representative assembly was to develop out of the zemstvo institutions. Witte recalls in his memoirs: As I showed in my memorandum, zemstvo institutions represented a constitution from below that, without doubt, would have led eventually to a constitution from above through the natural course of social development. This was also the most peaceful way. Once zemstvo and urban local government had been granted, they could have been developed gradually. Instead, we had a struggle against them for quarter of a century. We could thus have arrived at a constitution without the excesses of a revolutionary upheaval.1 Liberals too, who regarded the transition to a constitutional system as the natural conclusion and culmination of Alexander II’s reforms, thought the zemstvo institutions were the effective foundation on which a constitutional system could be constructed. Maklakov writes: chapter 19 Liberalism in 1904 The zemstvo as the basis for the constitution— Sviatopolk-mirsky as minister of the interior—The so-called first Zemstvo congress in november 1904—The history of the ukaz of december 12, 1904—Witte’s attitude to a consultative assembly and to constitutional government—Witte’s qualities 228 • liberalism in 1904 In the past, liberals used to believe that a constitution could be achieved via the “evolution” of existing institutions. In Russia, a nucleus existed from which the constitution could grow “spontaneously.” This was local selfgovernment , in other words, the zemstvo. The same general needs as were met by the state came within its sphere of responsibility. Like the state, it was an organization with coercive powers of enforcement, but it also embodied the principle of “democracy.” It was enough to extend this principle downward and upward, and the constitution would ensue by itself.2 Maklakov thought this hope was not unrealistic; in fact, he believed that such a development was inevitable, irrespective of the intentions and ideals of individual zemstvo representatives. In his view, it was even furthered by those who did not want a constitution and remained loyal supporters of the autocracy: “One ‘zemstvo man’ who rejected constitutional government on principle, Shipov, became , despite himself, one of the founders of constitutional government in Russia , simply because he was a genuine ‘zemstvo man’ and promoted its cause.”3 Not only was this approach possible, but it also offered distinct advantages. Maklakov stresses: “It would have been a long road, but along the way cadres could have been trained, who by undertaking practical tasks could have learned about the country’s needs and problems as they encountered them. They would thus have been prepared to take over from the old representatives of the state.”4 It is noteworthy that even Petrunkevich, who thought an alliance with revolutionary forces was necessary in the interests of the struggle against the autocracy , asked, directly following the proclamation of the constitution on October 17, 1905, whether Russia’s failure to arrive at a constitution through peaceful means would not have a detrimental effect on the survival of constitutional government. According to his memoirs: “From now on, Russia would be a constitutional, that is, a free state under the rule of law. The reforms of the 1860s were concluded in 1905, not through the free resolve of the tsar, but thanks to the obdurate struggle of the people. Was this a struggle of all the people, and would such a birth guarantee the stability of the constitution?”5 ———————— After Pleve had fallen victim to a terrorist attack, Prince Sviatopolk-Mirsky was appointed as his successor. This appointment signified a change to a liberal course. Maklakov’s view is that even people in the tsar’s inner circle were beginning to harbor doubts about the policies followed by Pleve.6 Sviatopolk-Mirsky belonged to the most select court society. He was no career civil servant, but a military man. He had received his training in the Corps des Pages, and as a general, he belonged to the General Staff. One rarely encounters anyone who was held in such high regard as Sviatopolk-Mirsky. Witte, who in his memoirs was otherwise always critical, if not...