The History of Liberalism in Russia

Chapter 23

283 in his book, Maklakov asks what was new or special about the 1906 constitution, a constitution that was well designed and beneficial for Russia.1 Surely, its most valuable aspect was that the liberal concept of the separation of powers occupied a prominent place. Furthermore, the fact that in the Constitution of April 23, 1906, this principle was adapted to suit the circumstances prevailing in Russia at the time is especially important. The constitution met the historical and political needs of 1906 and did not apply liberal theory dogmatically. By basing the constitution on the principle of the separation of powers, it was possible to allocate various roles successfully and to put in place a dividing line between areas of responsibility, which was extremely important not just theoretically but also in practice. This demarcation of areas of responsibility made it possible to give the most important elements active in political life at the time an appropriate sphere of action. Including representatives of public opinion in the legislative process allowed sections of society that had previously been active in local administration, at most, to participate in the affairs of government. By leaving the executive in the hands of the bureaucracy, in other words, those who alone had experience of running the state, the old ruling elite were not excluded from government. Nor were the two spheres wholly insulated from each other. On the one hand, the executive came under the scrutiny of the representative assembly by means of the interpellation procedure. On the other hand, the bureauchapter 23 Witte and Public opinion Political aspects of the constitution of april 23, 1906—its singularity—Russian radicalism’s attitude to the constitution—Witte’s efforts to include representatives of public opinion in his government—The last zemstvo congress in november 1905—Witte’s ultimate failure to secure the support of public opinion—collapse of Witte’s political strategy—Violent repression of the revolution 284 • witte and public opinion cracy was not entirely excluded from the legislative process, as the upper house (the State Council) consisted not only of elected members but also of members appointed by the tsar.2 This last point was one that attracted especially harsh criticism from Russian radicals. They thought that this provision distorted the true nature of the assembly as a directly elected institution. Even if these charges were not entirely unjustified from a theoretical point of view, and the presence of appointees in the upper chamber regarded as an anomaly that had to disappear over time, one cannot possibly deny that this provision was eminently sensible, particularly at a moment when Russia was in transition from absolutism to constitutional government . Maklakov comments: In 1906, the officials serving the old regime did not just represent a considerable political factor; they alone possessed the experience and education for statesmanship. . . . They had, however, no chance at all of being elected—in the eyes of democratic voters they were too tainted by their past. Yet it would have been a form of vandalism, a waste of their skills as statesmen, to exclude them completely from the legislative process. . . . Insofar as what people wanted was not a revolution, but a change from autocracy to constitutional monarchy, the representatives of the old regime with their expert knowledge and experience as statesmen had to be included. It is significant that among the appointed members of the State Council there were not only reactionaries but also men such as Witte, Tagantsev, Koni, and others like them. That by itself shows the real significance and purpose of the appointment system.3 The constitution put in place something even more important than this allocation of functions and the appeal to political leaders to fulfill the roles that suited them best. The Constitution of April 23, 1906, created the legal framework that finally enabled that elusive political aim to be achieved: namely, the monarchy adopting liberalism as its own program and public opinion cooperating with the monarchy’s traditional forces to implement it, thus achieving a climate of real unity. According to Maklakov, this was the fundamental political significance of the 1906 constitution: There were two political forces in Russia. On the one hand, the historical state power with its rich legacy of knowledge and depth of experience was no longer able to govern on its own. On the other hand, there was society, which had understood a great deal correctly and was full of good intentions, but was incapable of ruling anything, let alone itself. Russia...