After much hesitation, caused by the fact that the oath he had taken upon accession to the throne was actually violated, Nicholas II put his signature on the Manifesto prepared by the Council of Justice. Witte and published on October 17, 1905, the Manifesto essentially boiled down to three main elements: 1) the granting of civil liberties to the people on the basis of bourgeois-democratic principles - personal inviolability, freedom of conscience, speech, assembly and organization; 2) ensuring the participation in elections of those sections of the population who, by decree of August 6, 1905, were deprived of the right to vote on the basis of the new electoral law; 3) the introduction as an indispensable rule that no law can come into force without its approval by the State Duma - a way of monitoring the legality of the emperor’s actions.
The manifesto was a step forward compared to the legislative acts of February 18 and August 6, 1905. However, many important questions he left unresolved: about the role and place of autocracy in the new political system, about the powers of the State Duma, about the essence of the constitutional order.
The revolution continued. Highest point The revolution was the December armed uprising of 1905 in Moscow. The tsarist government managed to play on the split in the opposition forces and did not keep most of the promises contained in the Manifesto of October 17, 1905. The defeat of the uprising was the defeat of the social revolution.
The election law, adopted on December 11, 1905, softened the electoral qualifications, but left the elections multi-stage, and the rights of voters unequal and not universal. All voters were divided into four curia: landowners, city owners, workers and peasants. Each of them chose its own electors for constituencies. The election law, very complex and confusing, primarily ensured the rights of landowners. The powers of the Duma were greatly limited in advance.
On the eve of the election campaign, the government carried out a reform of the State Council, which was transformed from a legislative advisory body, all of whose members had previously been appointed by the tsar, into the upper house of the future parliament, having legislative powers equal to the Duma. The composition of the State Council was also changed. The number of members tripled, half of them were still appointed by the king, while the other was elected on the basis of a high property qualification. Thus, the composition of the State Council was dominated by landed nobility and the big bourgeoisie. On October 19, 1905, a unified government was established - the reformed Council of Justice. Witte, the country's highest executive body is the Council of Ministers. As before, the emperor appointed and dismissed ministers responsible only to him and not to the Duma.
The electoral law relied on the monarchical and nationalist feelings of the peasant masses. But in reality, the peasants supported the opposition parties. Most peasants, instead of, as expected, supporting the landowner or local government officials in the elections, voted for their own candidates or for opposition candidates. The elections dealt a severe blow to the main dogma of the autocracy - the inviolable unity of the tsar and the people. The conflict between the opposition-minded Duma and the emperor, who claims to be the bearer of historical and monarchical legitimacy, became inevitable.
One of the important results of the revolution of 1905-1907. education has become political parties. The right to form unions was one of the most important freedoms introduced by the Manifesto. During the revolution, about 50 parties arose, defending different paths of development of the country. The number of radical socialist parties, previously deep underground, has increased noticeably. The divergence between the branches of Social Democracy clearly manifested itself: the Bolsheviks proclaimed the peasantry to be the main ally of the proletariat in the revolution and envisioned the establishment of a “revolutionary democratic dictatorship” of the working class and peasantry after the overthrow of the autocracy; the Mensheviks, who saw the masses of liberals as their ally, advocated the transfer of power after the revolution to the bourgeoisie
After much hesitation, caused by the fact that the oath he had taken upon accession to the throne was actually violated, Nicholas II put his signature on the Manifesto prepared by the Council of Justice. Witte and published on October 17, 1905, the Manifesto essentially boiled down to three main elements: 1) the granting of civil liberties to the people on the basis of bourgeois-democratic principles - personal inviolability, freedom of conscience, speech, assembly and organization; 2) ensuring the participation in elections of those sections of the population who, by decree of August 6, 1905, were deprived of the right to vote on the basis of the new electoral law; 3) the introduction as an indispensable rule that no law can come into force without its approval by the State Duma - a way of monitoring the legality of the emperor’s actions.
The manifesto was a step forward compared to the legislative acts of February 18 and August 6, 1905. However, it left many important questions unresolved: about the role and place of autocracy in the new political system, about the powers of the State Duma, about the essence of the constitutional order.
The revolution continued. The high point of the revolution was the December armed uprising of 1905 in Moscow. The tsarist government managed to play on the split in the opposition forces and did not keep most of the promises contained in the Manifesto of October 17, 1905. The defeat of the uprising was the defeat of the social revolution.
The election law, adopted on December 11, 1905, softened the electoral qualifications, but left the elections multi-stage, and the rights of voters unequal and not universal. All voters were divided into four curia: landowners, city owners, workers and peasants. Each of them chose its own electors for constituencies. The election law, very complex and confusing, primarily ensured the rights of landowners. The powers of the Duma were greatly limited in advance.
On the eve of the election campaign, the government carried out a reform of the State Council, which was transformed from a legislative advisory body, all of whose members had previously been appointed by the tsar, into the upper house of the future parliament, having legislative powers equal to the Duma. The composition of the State Council was also changed. The number of members tripled, half of them were still appointed by the king, while the other was elected on the basis of a high property qualification. Thus, the composition of the State Council was dominated by the local nobility and the big bourgeoisie. On October 19, 1905, a unified government was established - the reformed Council of Justice. Witte, the country's highest executive body is the Council of Ministers. As before, the emperor appointed and dismissed ministers responsible only to him and not to the Duma.
The electoral law relied on the monarchical and nationalist feelings of the peasant masses. But in reality, the peasants supported the opposition parties. Most peasants, instead of, as expected, supporting the landowner or local government officials in the elections, voted for their own candidates or for opposition candidates. The elections dealt a severe blow to the main dogma of the autocracy - the inviolable unity of the tsar and the people. The conflict between the opposition-minded Duma and the emperor, who claims to be the bearer of historical and monarchical legitimacy, became inevitable.
One of the important results of the revolution of 1905-1907. was the formation of political parties. The right to form unions was one of the most important freedoms introduced by the Manifesto. During the revolution, about 50 parties arose, defending different paths of development of the country. The number of radical socialist parties, previously deep underground, has increased noticeably. The divergence between the branches of Social Democracy clearly manifested itself: the Bolsheviks proclaimed the peasantry to be the main ally of the proletariat in the revolution and envisioned the establishment of a “revolutionary democratic dictatorship” of the working class and peasantry after the overthrow of the autocracy; The Mensheviks, who saw the masses of liberals as their ally, advocated the transfer of power after the revolution to the bourgeois government.
110 years ago, on October 17 (30), 1905, the manifesto of Emperor Nicholas II “On the improvement public order", who declared the gift to Russian citizens political freedoms, personal integrity, expansion of the electoral qualification for elections to the State Duma. The manifesto of October 17, 1905 was prepared by the Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the Russian Empire S. Yu. Witte, who considered constitutional concessions the only way to defuse the revolutionary atmosphere in Russia.
The 1905 Manifesto was issued by Emperor Nicholas II under pressure from the growing revolutionary situation: mass strikes and armed uprisings. This manifesto satisfied the liberal public, since it was a real step towards the transition to a limited constitutional monarchy. Liberals were able to influence the government through parliament. This manifesto is considered the beginning of the Russian monarchy and parliamentarism.
The manifesto enshrined freedom of conscience, speech, assembly and gatherings; attracting broad sections of the population to the elections; mandatory procedure for approval by the State Duma of all laws issued.
It must be said that the idea of “democratizing” the Russian Empire has been floating around in society for a long time. More than once, constitutional projects have been born that were supposed to reform Russia “from above.” Among Westerners (the leading part of Russian educated society) “constitutional dreams” were the leading idea and they gradually became radicalized.
Thus, in the Russian Empire of the period of the 19th - early 20th centuries. There were two main ideas for the “democratization” of Russia. Some emperors, representatives of the ruling dynasty and high dignitaries wanted to change the existing system “from above.” They wanted to establish in an evolutionary way a constitutional monarchy in Russia modeled on England. That is, they also followed the example of the West and were Westerners, but did not want unrest and unrest. While representatives of the pro-Western public dreamed that the main branch of government in Russia would be the legislative one - the parliament. They wanted to eliminate the autocracy. Both the Decembrists and commoners, as well as liberals and socialists, dreamed about this late XIX- beginning of the 20th century This discrepancy in the vision of the future of Russia, moreover, on the basis of Western concepts, ultimately led to the disaster of the Russian Empire and the entire Russian civilization, which was saved only by a new, Soviet project.
Alexander I was the first to think about reform. While still heir to the throne, Alexander was critical of his father’s despotic and paternalistic methods of rule. Alexander's reformist spirit was expressed in attracting government activities M. M. Speransky, who prepared several of his own political notes: “On the fundamental laws of the state”, “Reflections on state structure empire”, “On the gradual improvement of social”, etc. In 1803, on behalf of the emperor, Speransky compiled a “Note on the structure of judicial and government institutions in Russia”. During its development, he showed himself to be an active supporter of the constitutional monarchy. However, things did not go further than this. In addition, Alexander canceled serfdom in the Baltic provinces, granted a constitutional structure to the Grand Duchy of Finland, and then to the Kingdom of Poland. Alexander took part in the development of the Constitutional Charter of France, which turned it into a constitutional monarchy. In Russia itself, in addition to Speransky, Vorontsov and Novosiltsev worked on constitutional projects, but all their projects were shelved.
By the end of his reign, Alexander was clearly disillusioned with reform activities, seeing that they were leading to the growth of revolutionary sentiment in society, rather than stabilizing it. Thus, speaking in 1818 in Warsaw at the opening of the first Polish Sejm, Alexander I once again returned to constitutional projects and emphasized that the rest of Russia is not yet ripe, like Poland, for constitutional reorganization. It is interesting that Alexander knew about the emergence of the “Decembrist” movement, involved in Westernism and Freemasonry. When in 1821 Prince A.V. Vasilchikov acquainted the tsar with materials about the conspiracy and the programs of the conspirators, Alexander I threw the list of conspirators into the fire, noting that he could not punish them, since “in my youth I shared their views.” The radical program of the Decembrists (especially Pestel) marked a radical, revolutionary challenge to the government, which was wavering in its constitutional plans. Moreover, the government was challenged by the most educated part of society, the basis of whose education was western culture.
Thus, the flirtations of Alexander's government with the liberal public ended badly. The Decembrists' speech could have led to bloody unrest, and only the decisive actions of Nicholas saved the empire from very serious consequences.
Emperor Nicholas, having suppressed the speech of the Decembrists, was cold towards constitutional projects and “froze” Russia. The next experiment in the constitutional field was undertaken by the reformer Tsar Alexander II and ended no less tragically. On April 11, 1880, M. T. Loris-Melikov, the Kharkov governor-general, appointed chairman of the Supreme Administrative Commission of Russia, submitted a report to Emperor Alexander II “On the involvement of representatives of the population in legislative advisory activities.” The talk was about the establishment in St. Petersburg of two preparatory commissions from representatives of zemstvos and largest cities Russia, by analogy with the editorial commissions of 1859 regarding the solution of the peasant question. Essentially, the empire planned to introduce legislative advisory activities of representative institutions. The Emperor imposed a resolution on the project: “Implement.” However, on May 1 the sovereign was mortally wounded. The assassination attempt on the tsar was organized by revolutionary terrorists, fighters for “people's freedom” and a constitutional republic from the “People's Will”. The text of the “Constitution” remained on the emperor’s desk.
Emperor ascended the throne Alexander III, an opponent of reforms and a conservative, instructed to discuss the project in the Council of Ministers. It was approved again. And on April 29, the new emperor issued his famous manifesto, proclaiming the inviolability of the principles of autocracy. On the very first page of M. T. Loris-Melikov’s report, the tsar wrote: “Thank God, this criminal and hasty step towards a constitution was not taken.” The new sovereign set a course for unlimited autocracy. This line was continued after the death of his father by Nicholas II, who, upon ascending the throne in 1894, declared the inviolability of the principles of autocracy.
Alexander III and Nicholas II, at the beginning of their reign, again “froze” the situation. However, the contradictions in the Russian Empire were fundamental and sooner or later led to the collapse of the empire. The empire could be saved by decisive modernization “from above,” but not along the liberal (Western) path, but along its own, original path. In essence, Nicholas II had to do what Stalin and his “iron commissars” did after the collapse of the Russian Empire.
When Nicholas succumbed to the influence of the pro-Western part of the government (Witte was a typical Westerner and an agent of influence from the “world behind the scenes”), he only made things worse. Concessions to the liberal public could not save old Russia. They only incited Westerners and various kinds of revolutionaries, increasing their ability to destroy the foundations of the empire. Thus, most of the press in the Russian Empire, controlled by liberal parties and movements, worked to destroy the empire. Stolypin was able to put off the collapse of the empire with incredible efforts, but when the empire got involved in the war, it could no longer be saved.
In the first year (1906) that Russia lived under conditions of “civil freedom,” 768 government officials were killed and 820 wounded as a result of terrorist attacks. On August 19, 1906, Stolypin signed a decree on the introduction of military courts, but submitted it to the Duma only in the spring of 1907. During the eight months of the decree, 1,100 people were executed. Trade unions were closed, revolutionary parties were persecuted, and repressions against the press began. Prime Minister Pyotr Stolypin had to dissolve two Dumas before he had a Duma with which he could cooperate. Stolypin brought order to the country with a harsh hand.
As a result, the Manifesto of October 17 cannot be considered a happy acquisition for Russia at the beginning of the twentieth century; the opposition used it to intensify the fight against the autocracy, which led to new blood, and the authorities did not know and did not understand what parliamentarism, political parties and public opinion in conditions of freedom of the press. Russian empire entered a qualitatively different state state, being absolutely unprepared for this. The bureaucracy, subordinate only to the tsar, was absolutely incapable of parliamentarism of the European type. European ideas on Russian soil led to perversions and only worsened the situation (this is fully confirmed in modern Russia).
Thus, during this period we very clearly observe the peculiarity of the historical development of Russia. As soon as the power in the person of its supreme bearer practically takes up the democratization of the state and society in a Western manner and “unscrews the screws” of the centralized imperial system, liberal society immediately perceives this as evidence of its weakness and uses its new opportunities not for actions for the benefit of the people, but for in order to politically (or physically) destroy the supreme power (insufficiently democratic, in her opinion), and force unrest.
Manifesto
THE HIGHEST MANIFESTO By the grace of God WE, NICHOLAS THE SECOND, Emperor and Autocrat of All Russia, Tsar of Poland, Grand Duke Finnish, and so on, and so on, and so on We announce to all our loyal subjects:Troubles and unrest in the capitals and in many localities of OUR Empire fill OUR heart with great and grave sorrow. The good of the Russian GOVERNMENT is inseparable from the good of the people, and the sorrow of the people is HIS sorrow. The unrest that has now arisen may result in deep disorganization of the people and a threat to the integrity and unity of OUR Power.
The great vow of the Royal service commands US with all the forces of our reason and power to strive for a speedy end to the unrest that is so dangerous for the State. Having commanded the subject authorities to take measures to eliminate direct manifestations of disorder, riots and violence, to protect peaceful people striving for the calm fulfillment of everyone's duty, WE, for the successful implementation of WE's general plans for pacification state life measures, recognized the need to unite the activities of the supreme Government.
WE entrust the Government with the responsibility of fulfilling OUR unyielding will:1. Grant the population the unshakable foundations of civil freedom on the basis of actual personal inviolability, freedom of conscience, speech, assembly and association.
2. Without stopping the scheduled elections to the State Duma, now attract to participation in the Duma, to the extent possible, corresponding to the brevity of the period remaining before the convocation of the Duma, those classes of the population that are now completely deprived of voting rights, giving them further development the beginning of general suffrage and the newly established legislative order.
and 3. Establish as an inviolable rule that no law can take force without the approval of State Duma and so that those chosen from the people are provided with the opportunity to truly participate in monitoring the regularity of the actions of the authorities assigned by US.
We call on all the faithful sons of Russia to remember their duty to their Motherland, to help put an end to this unheard-of unrest and, together with US, to strain all their strength to restore silence and peace in their native land.
Given in Peterhof on the 17th day of October, in the year of the Nativity of Christ one thousand nine hundred and five, and of OUR Reign in the eleventh.
Historical meaning
The historical significance of the Manifesto lay in the distribution of the sole right of the Russian Emperor to legislate between, in fact, the monarch and the legislative (representative) body - the State Duma.
The Manifesto, together with the Manifesto of Nicholas II on August 6, established a parliament, without whose approval no law could come into force. At the same time, the Emperor retained the right to dissolve the Duma and block its decisions with his veto. Subsequently, Nicholas II used these rights more than once.
Also, the Manifesto proclaimed and provided civil rights and freedoms, such as freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and freedom to form associations.
Thus, the manifesto was the predecessor of the Russian constitution.
Notes
Links
- The most loyal report of the Secretary of State Count Witte (Church Gazette. St. Petersburg, 1905. No. 43). On the site Heritage of Holy Rus'
- L. Trotsky October 18
Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.
- Manitou
- Manifesto of the Communist Party
See what the “October 17 Manifesto” is in other dictionaries:
MANIFESTO October 17- 1905 was promulgated by the Russian autocratic government as a significant concession to the revolutionary movement. The essence of M. is stated on behalf of the monarch in the following paragraphs: “We entrust the government with the responsibility of fulfilling our unyielding will: 1) ... ... Cossack dictionary-reference book
MANIFESTO OCTOBER 17, 1905- MANIFESTO OF OCTOBER 17, 1905 (“On the improvement of state order”), signed by Nicholas II at the time of the highest rise of the October All-Russian political strike. Proclaimed civil liberties, the creation of the State Duma... encyclopedic Dictionary
MANIFESTO OCTOBER 17, 1905- (On the improvement of state order), signed by Nicholas II at the time of the rise of the October All-Russian political strike. He proclaimed civil liberties and the creation of the State Duma. Compiled by S.Yu. Witte... Modern encyclopedia
MANIFESTO OCTOBER 17, 1905- (On improving public order), legislative act. He proclaimed civil liberties and the creation of popular representation in the form of the State Duma. Developed with the participation of Count S. Yu. Witte, published at the time of the highest... ... Russian history
Manifesto October 17, 1905- (“On the Improvement of State Order”) signed by Nicholas II at the time of the highest rise of the October All-Russian political strike. He proclaimed civil liberties and the creation of the State Duma. Political Science: Dictionary... ... Political science. Dictionary.
Manifesto October 17, 1905- (“On the improvement of state order”), signed by Nicholas II at the time of the rise of the October All-Russian political strike. He proclaimed civil liberties and the creation of the State Duma. Compiled by S.Yu. Witte. ... Illustrated Encyclopedic Dictionary
Manifesto October 17, 1905- This term has other meanings, see Manifesto (meanings). Vedomosti St. Petersburg. city authorities. October 18, 1905 The Highest Manifesto On the improvement of the state ... Wikipedia
MANIFESTO October 17, 1905- “On improvement of public order”, legislative act; proclaimed civil liberties and popular will in the form of the State Duma. “...The unrest that has now arisen may result in deep national unrest and a threat... ... Russian statehood in terms. 9th – early 20th century
MANIFESTO OCTOBER 17, 1905- - an act issued by Nicholas II at the height of the October general political strike that swept Russia. The manifesto was published with the aim of splitting revolutionary movement and deceiving the masses with the promise of imaginary freedoms. The rapid growth of the first bourgeois... ... Soviet legal dictionary
Manifesto October 17, 1905- “On the Improvement of State Order,” the manifesto of Nicholas II, published during the October All-Russian Political Strike of 1905 (See October All-Russian Political Strike of 1905), when a temporary... ... Great Soviet Encyclopedia
Books
- Manifesto of October 17, 1905 and the political movement that caused it, A.S. Alekseev. Manifesto of October 17, 1905 and the political movement that caused it / A. S. Alekseev V 118/592 U 336/178: Moscow: Type. G. Lissner and D. Sobko, 1915:A. S. Alekseev Reproduced in…
95 years have passed since the day when Russian citizens gained basic democratic freedoms for the first time in the country's history. This document, although extremely small in volume, in content, was a turning point in the history of the country. In particular, it declared the highest command
- 1. To grant the population the unshakable foundations of civil freedom on the basis of actual personal inviolability, freedom of conscience, speech, assembly and association.
- 3. Establish as an unshakable rule that no law can take effect without the approval of the State Duma and that those elected by the people are provided with the opportunity to truly participate in monitoring the regularity of the actions of the authorities appointed by us.
It seemed not only to the liberal opposition, but also to many of the highest dignitaries of the empire that “now the new life". So, in particular, said the all-powerful at that time favorite of Nicholas II, St. Petersburg Governor-General Trepov, and a prominent figure in political investigation, Rachkovsky, generally believed that “tomorrow they will be christened on the streets of St. Petersburg.” But everything turned out exactly the opposite. Manifesto of 17 October not only did not stop the revolution, but gave it a new impetus. Radicals from the camp of liberals and socialists used the “gift” of Nicholas II to strengthen the fight against the regime. It is significant that it was on October 17 that the prominent liberal Pavel Miliukov told his like-minded people at one of the banquets. that “nothing has changed, the war continues.”
On the other hand, the freedoms promised by the Manifesto of October 17, 1905, turned out to be an empty phrase in the conditions of the revolution. When suspects were being arrested all around, there was no one to talk about personal integrity. Freedom of speech was also minimized by the Law of February 13, 1906, according to which any person could be prosecuted for “anti-government propaganda.” Freedom to strike was sharply curtailed by the Law of December 2, 1905, which prohibited civil servants and workers in enterprises vital to the country's economy from striking. And yet, the Manifesto of October 17 was fulfilled in the main thing - in terms of elections to the State Duma.
Nicholas II himself, assessing the significance of the Manifesto of October 17, wrote that the decision to give Russia civil liberties and a parliament was “terrible” for him, but nevertheless, “he made this decision completely consciously.” Finally, the emperor writes the following: “After such a day, my head became heavy and my thoughts began to get confused. Lord, help us, pacify Russia.” Russia calmed down only for a little over 11 years. But all this time, liberals, socialists, and the government itself demonstrated their inability to working together for the benefit of the country both within the walls of parliament itself and in public policy. Nicholas II's decision to give Russia civil liberties and a parliament turned out to be fatal both for the empire and for him personally. Many negative reviews about the significance of the Manifesto of October 17, 1905 for Russia are widely known. In particular, the emperor's cousin, Grand Duke Alexander Mikhailovich, believed that on October 17, 1905, the Russian Empire ceased to exist. How fair are these types of assessments? This, and many other steps of Emperor Nicholas II in the last few years have become the subject of controversy not only among historians.
Today there is a very real danger of a “new reading” of the history of the reign of Nicholas II in the spirit of unrestrained apologetic assessments of the personality and activities of the last emperor. The canonization of Nicholas II, unfortunately, creates a favorable background for the distortion of his political image. Last Russian Emperor in fact bears enormous responsibility for all the cataclysms that happened to the country in 1917. Many of his decisions, made under pressure from far from state-minded people, of whom there were plenty in the Romanov dynasty itself, turned into a tragedy for the country.
By giving Russia civil rights and a parliament at the very time when almost all sections of the population opposed to the autocracy wanted only one thing - to take away as much as possible from the tsar, and, if possible, all power, Nicholas II either demonstrated a lack of understanding of the political situation, or simply “washed his hands of ", heeding the advice of Prime Minister Witte, who did most of the work preparing the October 17 manifesto. However, Witte offered the tsar an alternative - to introduce a strict dictatorship, but the emperor voluntarily limited his power by agreeing to the convening of the State Duma. Nicholas II himself justified his decision by his reluctance to shed new blood from his subjects, as well as by the consideration that it is better “to give everything at once than to be forced in the near future to give in on trifles and still come to the same thing.”
The October 17 Manifesto cannot clearly be considered a happy acquisition for Russia at the beginning of the twentieth century, and not only because the opposition took advantage of civil liberties to intensify the fight against the autocracy, which only led to new blood (at least during the suppression of the uprising in Moscow in December 1905 ), but also because the government itself did not know and did not understand what parliamentarism, political parties and public opinion are in conditions of freedom of the press. Russia, by the will of Nicholas II, entered a qualitatively different state state, being absolutely unprepared for this. And the emperor did nothing to ensure that his ministers learned to work in the new conditions that he created for them. The bureaucracy, subordinate only to the tsar, was absolutely incapable of parliamentarism of the European type. She not only did not want, but also did not understand what a government report to people's representatives or a discussion with these same representatives of the budget was. Tsarist officials, with rare exceptions, were absolutely unprepared for public politics; deputies drove many ministers into hysterics. “In Russia, thank God, there is no parliament,” this was the saying of Prime Minister Kokovtsov, which outraged the deputies of the Third State Duma to the core, expressing not only the bureaucracy’s rejection of parliamentarism, but also the tsarist dignitaries’ elementary misunderstanding of the new realities that arose with the advent of country of political parties and parliament. The head of the St. Petersburg security department, A. Gerasimov, recalled that when in December 1905 he asked the Minister of Internal Affairs P. Durnovo, “with which parties the government will work in agreement and with which parties it is impossible for the government to cooperate,” the minister replied: “About which parties you say? We won’t allow any parties in the Duma. Each elected person will have to vote according to his own conscience.” “It became clear to me,” Gerasimov further writes, “that Durnovo is even less prepared for the new conditions than I am.”
The authorities are unprepared for political struggle in the conditions of a multi-party system, parliamentarism and freedom of the press, it did not serve it well. The royal dignitaries rushed from one extreme to the other. They flirted with the Cadets, inviting them to create a coalition government. Stolypin carried out all his major bills, overcoming the sharp discontent of deputies both on the left and on the right. Nicholas II himself was forced to dissolve parliament three times ( last time in 1917 he no longer succeeded), which in itself indicated that the parliament “given” to Russia turned out to be in fact the legal center of the struggle against the autocracy. In the end, the confrontation between the State Duma and the imperial power ended in victory for the former. Those who fought for parliamentary mandates turned out to be perfectly prepared for the parliamentary struggle with the authorities. Precisely to fight, not to cooperation. To the Tsar’s call to the deputies of the First State Duma to unite for the sake of the interests of the Fatherland and the people, the deputies responded with a demand to expand the powers of parliament, and the liberal press mocked them in every possible way. In all Dumas, the tone was set by politicians who saw parliament as an exclusively political platform for the fight against the regime. Witte and Stolypin understood perfectly well that the same cadets went to parliament not only in order to meekly sanction the tsar’s decrees, but also in order to move from the seats of deputies to the seats of ministers. In all the negotiations that Witte, Trepov and Stolypin conducted with the leaders of the liberal parties, the demand for ministerial portfolios was the main one on the part of the liberals. Moreover, the liberals did not stand on ceremony. Miliukov, for example, directly told Stolypin that “public opinion” did not approve of his presence as Minister of Internal Affairs.
Of course, in the relationship between the Duma and the imperial government there was not only political confrontation. From time to time, both sides came to agreed upon sober decisions, but still mutual distrust, often turning into a bitter struggle, caused a constant split in society. Nicholas II missed a historic chance to introduce Russian liberalism into a creative state channel when, at the dawn of his reign, under the influence of Chief Prosecutor Pobedonostsev, he rejected the most modest requests of the Russian liberal public to expand the rights of zemstvos. Unwilling to make small concessions, arrogantly bullying the touchy Russian liberals, the emperor demonstrated political blindness, lack of flexibility and himself pushed them into an all-out fight against the autocratic system itself. On the other hand, by giving Russia civil liberties and a parliament at the height of the revolution, when opposition-minded layers of the intelligentsia were no longer thinking about partial reforms of self-government, but at least about seriously limiting the power of the tsar, Nicholas II with his own hands prepared the destruction of the empire. Intoxicated by the successes of the revolution, the opposition intelligentsia regarded the Manifesto of October 17 not only as their victory, but also as the foundation on which to build further plans to seize power. There was every reason for this. In the negotiations that the government conducted with the cadets in 1906, D. Trepov agreed to form a coalition government and even agreed to give the cadets the post of prime minister. It is possible that this was simply a distracting maneuver, but such proposals pushed the Cadets to even more active actions to take power.
Civil liberties and parliament, granted by Nicholas II, came somewhat at the wrong time. In a country engulfed in the fire of revolution, freedom inevitably turns into one of its opposites - dictatorship or anarchy. Because both the authorities and the opposition seek to use this freedom not for creation, but for momentary political goals. The emperor gave freedom and parliament in the naive hope of “pacifying Russia”; the motley opposition used these freedoms to further incite the revolution. All democratic freedoms and institutions became bargaining chips in the fierce struggle between the authorities and the opposition, in which the latter gradually gained more and more points, since it was able to work effectively with public opinion. This opinion became increasingly anti-monarchical. The emperor was gradually left without a capable political elite, the monarchical idea itself began to lose all attractiveness not for common people, but for the educated, thinking layer. Nicholas II, having given society the broadest freedoms, wittingly or unwittingly contributed to the devaluation of the sense of state responsibility among the newly created elite, who settled in parliament and in the editorial offices of newspapers, and was unable to rally a strong layer around himself statesmen capable of working in parliamentary conditions. Having gained civil liberties and parliament on October 17, 1905, Russian state and society did not come to the long-awaited agreement, but to a new round of confrontation. Unprincipled politicking, insinuations and hatred instead of state responsibility and political compromise - this is what the country received as a result of the famous Manifesto of Nicholas II.