Continuation. Beginning at No. 4, 1999

The problems of the viability and prospects of parliamentarism in Russian conditions are now in the focus of public attention. This interest is primarily associated with changes in value priorities and the complex processes of the formation of a new political power. For their understanding, it is important to turn to our historical roots, traditions, and peculiarities of the development and functioning of pre-parliamentary forms of legislative power and popular representation in Russia throughout the centuries-old national history-from the emergence of statehood to October 1905.

The formation of representative legislative power in Russia has stretched over several centuries. Its beginnings can be considered an advisory body under the prince, which consisted, as a rule, of boyars and noble vigilantes. Its main function is to advise the prince when discussing mainly military issues related to campaigns, tactics of a particular battle, etc. Economic and legal issues were discussed extremely rarely at the council. According to them, the prince made decisions independently.

There was a form of popular decision - making-veche. Some scholars tend to view the veche as the initial form of legislative power, the first manifestations of Russian parliamentarism. But, I think, the point of view of the authors of the two-volume "Political History" is more convincing, who believe that decisions on specific issues were made at the veche, and not laws. Indeed, historical sources that have come down to our time indicate that at citywide meetings (there were no veche in rural areas), very specific questions were usually raised about campaigns, invitations to reign or expel an objectionable prince, payment of tribute, and others. Legislative acts were developed and approved by the Prince himself. Yaroslav the Wise's Russkaya Pravda , the first set of Russian laws, was not adopted at the veche. In all likelihood, it was developed personally by Yaroslav. Perhaps, the most enlightened and wise close associates of the prince were involved in its compilation. It is reliably known that the prince combined in his person both normative, administrative, and judicial power.

In the Moscow state, Zemsky sobors played an important role in legislative activity. They were especially active in the XVI-XVII centuries-from 1549 (the time of Ivan the Terrible) to 1683-1684. At the councils, detailed decisions were made that had the force of law. Thus, the Church and Zemstvo Council of 1584 under Tsar Fyodor Ioannovich decided to abolish church and monastery tax benefits (tarkhans).

In 1611, the "Council of All the Earth"operated near Moscow for several months. He created a kind of basic law-the" Verdict of the whole Earth", adopted by the Zemsky Sobor. The Zemsky Sobor chose a kind of provisional government headed by boyars and military leaders (D. T. Trubetskoy, I. M. Zarutsky, P. P. Lyapunov), responsible to the Zemsky Sobor. The Council controlled the judicial and administrative activities of the Government. The organization of the central administrative apparatus was provided for, which reproduced the system of higher state institutions - orders: Discharge, Local, Robbery, Palace, Large Parish, which was in charge of the treasury, and orders of territorial competence-Quarters. Administrative activities were to be supervised by representatives elected by the Council. The main attention of legislators is paid to the legal basis for the distribution of land holdings.

It is believed that the zemstvo councils played the most progressive role in the period 1610-1613, when they became the supreme body of power (both legislative and executive), deciding issues of domestic and foreign policy.

A prominent place in history was occupied by the Council of 1613, which elected Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov to the kingdom. Then, until 1622, the cathedrals functioned continuously. The authorities resorted to the help of the Zemsky Sobor to announce new taxes almost every year, regulate relations with the Cossacks, and provide material support for the army. But after 1622 the activity of the Zemsky Sobor weakened. It never received a state-legal status, although in some cases it adopted truly fundamental legal acts. For example, in 1649 he approved a new national legal code-the Cathedral Code. And in 1653, he decided to reunite Ukraine with Russia. The Council of 1682 (one of the last) decided to abolish localism. But in the future, all power was again concentrated in the hands of the head of state - the tsar.

Zemsky sobors did not become full-fledged legislative bodies, but they firmly entered the history of Russia. Their experience has played a positive role and is reflected in the formation of the legislative power in the future. Many researchers (M. V. Klochkov, V. E. Yakushkin, V. O. Klyuchevsky, etc.) considered cathedrals to be the beginning of popular representation. In their development, if desired, one can even see an evolution in the direction of parliamentarism. This is especially true of the Zemstvo Councils of 1613-1649. Naturally, they could not be parliaments in the modern sense. However, under the growing autocracy, they still ensured the representation of certain social forces and specific local interests. Only by the end of the seventeenth century did the autocratic tendency finally gain the upper hand. The institution of zemstvo councils, as well as church councils, which were also a special form of implementing the idea of representation in pre-Petrine Russia, is disappearing from political life, but not from memory. For a long time, until the 1905 revolution, the idea of a Zemsky Sobor remained an important symbol for various political forces in Russia.

The Boyar Duma, the successor of the princely Council, played a prominent role in the political system of the 15th and 16th centuries. With the unification of the appanage Russian principalities into a single state, its composition and status changed significantly. The Boyar Duma included representatives of the former independent principalities, crowding out the Moscow nobility. Status was determined by a special system of guaranteed privileges-parochialism, which the boyars achieved as a result of a stubborn struggle first with the power of the grand duke, and then the tsar. Localism meant a set of hereditary privileges assigned to a specific boyar family and not subject to withdrawal by the tsar. The Boyar Duma, therefore, had considerable independence and political weight. It often found itself in a state of opposition to the tsar and his official bureaucracy. This opposition was especially evident during periods of political crises: the beginning of the reign of Ivan the Terrible, the Troubles of 1598-1613, and the initial period of Peter's reign. For all its significance and weight, the Boyar Duma still had the status of a legislative body, not a legislative body of power, and worked according to the formula "The Sovereign indicated and the boyars sentenced". Modern researchers tend to define the Boyar Duma as the highest advisory body of the Moscow state, the center of the tsarist administration and court. However, this does not detract from its role in the history of the formation of legislative power in Russia. The significance of the experience of the Boyar Duma, perhaps, first of all lies in the fact that it served as an organ that significantly limited the omnipotence of the monarch. It was a kind of instrument of checks and balances that arose naturally in the life of all states of the world. Ancient Russia, the medieval Muscovite state, and modern Russia were no exception. The system of checks and balances in relations between various authorities also received its original development here. The Boyar Duma is one of these forms.

With the accession of Peter I, the Boyar Duma ceased to exist. Legislation was once again in the hands of one person - this time the Emperor. In 1711. Peter I created the Senate , the highest administrative institution that replaced the Boyar Duma. The Senate was also charged with preparing various bills, which, however, did not turn it into a legislative body. Bills were drawn up by departments, considered by groups of senators and officials, and presented to the emperor, who introduced his views and signed the drafts, after which they acquired the force of laws.

In the future, the very idea of the need for a special legislative representative institution did not die out. It was constantly reanimated in numerous projects of state reforms that followed the death of Peter I.

On the eve of the expected but failed accession of Peter II, various variants of the state structure were being hatched in the highest circles of Russian society, as evidenced by the reports of the English, Spanish and Polish ambassadors in St. Petersburg. The Spanish ambassador reported to his King (verbatim):

"They have three ideas about government, in which the king can do nothing without a parliament, and the second is to take an example from the government of Poland, having an elected monarch whose hands would be tied by the republic, and the third is to establish a republic in all its form without a monarch. Which of these three ideas will be followed is not yet known."

Among the discussed projects, the one developed by V. N. Tatishchev and, probably, Kantemir stood out. In the context of the dynastic crisis, Tatishchev proposed the election of the sovereign as a "common people", but by this he meant only the nobility. Lawmaking, he believed, could not be trusted to one person. Therefore, he proposed the creation of a Higher government to help the monarch - a Senate of 21 people. Along with it, a special bicameral body was proposed, divided into the supreme assembly (for consideration of particularly important cases) and the permanent assembly (for additional discussion and execution). However, these good wishes were not allowed to come true.

Catherine II began her activity with the publication of the manifesto on the convocation of deputies to the "Commission for the composition of the draft of the new code" (1767). The Empress prepared a "Mandate", which she addressed to the deputies of the Commission and which contained words unusual for the Russian ear like the following:: "In spite of the petters who daily tell princes that the nations were created for them, We think, and for the sake of glory, we take it upon ourselves to say that We were created for our people." But the Commission expected about the same fate as the Tatishchev project. Having met 203 times over the course of a year and a half, the Commission did not develop any new code of conduct, demonstrating the worst aspects of the activities of a representative government body and giving rise to a persistent allergy to the representative form of government among Russian monarchs and their entourage.

In 1801, the liberal-minded Emperor Alexander I ascended to the throne. Under him, the idea of establishing a legislative body in the form of a parliament was again given the right to discuss. The initiator of the revival of this idea was a well - known Russian reformer, a man of unborn origin ("Popovich", as the eminent nobles contemptuously called him), but of outstanding talents-M. M. Speransky. The emperor instructed him to prepare a general plan of state transformations. In the "General Review of All Transformations", presented to Alexander I by the end of October 1809, it was proposed to govern the country on the basis of the separation of powers and public participation in elections, starting with the smallest volost.

During the year (in order to mark the 10th anniversary of his reign), the State Council (the upper house of the Russian parliament), the reorganized ministries, and the updated "doomsday section"were to appear consecutively. Then deputies to the State Duma were supposed to meet, which would complete the formation of the parliamentary system. The pyramid of state power was crowned by the emperor, who retained the sovereign executive power and legislative initiative. The State Council met for its first meeting on January 1, 1810, and then continued to work until February 1917.The State Duma did not have time to start its activities. The reformer M. M. Speransky was dismissed as a result of court intrigues. The establishment of a representative legislature was again postponed until better times.

However, the development of the foundations of Russian parliamentarism did not stop. It was continued in the revolutionary writings of the Decembrists, especially in N. Muravyov's" Constitution "and P. Pestel's" Russkaya Pravda". The tragic defeat of the Decembrist uprising in 1825 stopped this work for several decades. Nicholas I forbade even thinking about parliament.

The resumption of work on the implementation of the idea of Russian parliamentarism dates back to the 60s of the XIX century. Tsar Alexander II surprisingly consistently and decisively carried out a number of fundamental reforms, which meant the implementation of the principle of separation of powers in practice. In a short time, the following reforms were carried out: peasant (Manifesto and Regulation on the Abolition of serfdom of February 19, 1861), zemstvo (January 1, 1864), school (May 14, 1864), judicial (November 20, 1864), press reform (April 6, 1865). local authorities (at the level of counties and provinces), and judicial reform provided independence and independence to the courts. As for the establishment of legislative power in the form of a parliament at the highest level, here the reformer emperor did not dare to take the final step. At the suggestion of the Minister of Internal Affairs P. A. Valuev developed a bill to create a kind of "lower chamber" under the highest legislative body - the State Council - consisting of representatives of zemstvos elected at provincial zemstvo meetings, as well as deputies from the national suburbs, the largest cities of the country, elected by city dumas or meetings of urban societies. Only a fifth of the total number of members of this Chamber were subject to the principle of appointment by the "highest authority". Along with the" lower house "or" congress of state vowels", the" upper house "- the" general assembly of the State Council " - was supposed to function, acting on the same grounds of appointment. However, this bill met with sharp resistance from the tsar.

The assassination of Alexander II served as a signal for curtailing any reforms in the field of representative legislative power. In 1882, the autocracy finally dissociated itself from any projects of introducing representative principles into the system of central state authorities. Already in 1906, the Nickname. Gervais pointed out that the people's representation, although very modest, would have been the property of the Russian people twenty-five years ago, if not for the assassination of Emperor Alexander II.

Despite the fact that the idea of parliamentarism and representation in the upper echelons of power did not always find attention and even more support, it took root more and more deeply in the public consciousness of Russia. The Zemstvo reform of 1864 generated quite a noticeable surge of enthusiasm among the liberal intelligentsia. Its representatives, with a sense of satisfaction and responsibility, assumed the responsibilities of managing provincial, county, and city affairs. Not finding any tangible support from the imperial authorities, they nevertheless devoted themselves to the new public cause with passion, implementing many important projects on a large scale. Their activities reinforced the belief in the need for local representative power.

The desire for representative power was mainly limited to the interests of the wealthy classes. In their minds, the political interests of the people, which they considered mainly the object of their concern, were not reflected in any noticeable way.

The people as a full-fledged subject (participant) of political activity was recognized by supporters of socialist theories, which began to spread in Russia in the second half of the XIX century. Having accepted the Western European socialist theories, the Russian socialists did not follow the path of blindly transferring them to Russian soil. A. I. Herzen expressed this idea succinctly and figuratively. Summing up the differences between the conditions of the West and Russia, Herzen wrote, addressing European liberals:"We followed you, our paths crossed, and we will again follow more than one road - you by the proletariat to socialism, we by socialism to freedom."

Herzen and his successors associated the Russian path to socialism with the peasant community. It also gave confidence in the possibility of introducing the people to public administration and active political life. This idea was especially strengthened after the abolition of serfdom and the zemstvo reform. The liberation of the peasants from the land, Herzen believed, was nothing more than a social upheaval, which led to the fact that "the rural community was for the first time involved in the social development of a huge state", " elders, community judges, rural police-everything is elected, and the rights of the peasant extend far beyond the community, He is its representative The next step should be to convene a "great council", where all segments of the population would be represented without distinction in their social and property status. "Whatever the first Constituent Assembly, the first parliament, we will get freedom of speech, discussion and legal ground under our feet. With this data, we can move forward."

As you can see, Herzen associated the first Russian parliament with the direct and full participation of the people-representatives of the rural community. Although, after carefully observing the activities of the first workers ' organizations in the West, he comes to the conclusion that they can take a step towards creating a kind of parliament of the "fourth" estate.

Popular representation as a form of state government is widely reflected in the writings of representatives of such a socialist trend in Russia as narodism. Its theorists P. L. Lavrov, P. N. Tkachev, N. K. Mikhailovsky, L. G. Deitch, V. I. Zasulich and others, defending the ideas of socialism, saw representative people's power as one of the main forms of its implementation in practice: the People's Duma - at Tkachev, the Congress of representatives of Workers ' Russia - at Lavrov, the Constituent Assembly with the subsequent election of representative bodies of people's power-in Deutsch and others.

The following Marxists also supported the people's representative power: G. V. Plekhanov, the Narodniks L. G. Deitch, V. I. Zasulich, and V. I. Ulyanov (Lenin), who joined the revolutionary movement in the 90s of the last century. Following their great teachers Karl Marx and F. Engels, they proposed a fundamentally new view of the state, power, and legislation, rejecting much of what was developed by their predecessors from previous eras.

Tsardom resisted the introduction of a parliamentary form of legislative power in Russia, as they say, to the last. The Parliament in Russia came into being only under the crushing pressure of the democratic revolution of 1905, when Emperor Nicholas II and his entourage felt that power was slipping out of their hands, and if they did not meet the popular demand for the democratization of power, they would lose everything. Only then, on October 17, 1905, did the tsar sign a manifesto on granting civil liberties. In accordance with it, the population was granted " unshakable foundations of civil freedom on the basis of the actual inviolability of the individual, freedom of conscience, speech, assembly and unions." The Government was instructed "to enlist at once in the Duma, as far as possible in accordance with the brevity of the term remaining until the Duma convocation, those classes of the population who are now almost completely deprived of the right to vote." As a follow-up to this provision of the manifesto, the workers ' curia was formed. Workers of industrial establishments numbering more than 50 people received the right to vote. The Duma acquired not only legislative, but also control functions: "To establish as an unshakable rule that no law can take effect without the approval of the State Duma and that the elected representatives of the people are provided with the opportunity to actually participate in the supervision of the regularity of the actions of the authorities appointed by Us." When signing the manifesto, Nicholas II confessed with a heavy heart that he would grant the constitution.

With the election of the First State Duma in accordance with the Tsar's Manifesto, the centuries-old evolution of pre-parliamentary forms of popular representation in our country has come to an end. Russia has gained a full-fledged parliament in the modern sense of the word.

(To be continued)

Permanent link to this publication: