When, after the Korniloff episode, the ruling Soviet parties tried to
smooth over their laxness toward the counter-revolutionary bourgeoisie,
they demanded a speedier convocation of the Constituent Assembly.
Kerensky, whom the Soviets had just saved from the too light embraces of
his ally, Korniloff, found himself compelled to make compromises. The
call for the Constituent Assembly was issued for the end of November. By
that time, however, circumstances had so shaped themselves that there
was no guarantee whatever that the Constituent Assembly would really be
convoked.
The greatest degree of disorganization was taking place at the front.
Desertions were increasing every day; the masses of soldiers threatened
to leave the trenches, whole regiments at a time, and move to the rear,
devastating everything on their way. In the villages, a general seizure
of lands and landholders' utensils was going on. Martial law had been
declared in several provinces. The Germans continued to advance,
captured Riga, and threatened Petrograd. The right wing of the
bourgeoisie was openly rejoicing over the danger that threatened the
revolutionary capital. The government offices at Petrograd were being
evacuated, and Kerensky's government was preparing to move to Moscow.
All this made the actual convocation of the Constituent Assembly not
only doubtful, but hardly even probable. From this point of view, the
October revolution seems to have been the deliverance of the Constituent
Assembly, as it has been the savior of the Revolution generally. When we
were declaring that the road to the Constituent Assembly was not by way
of Tseretelli's Preliminary Parliament, but by way of the seizure of the
reigns of government by the Soviets, we were quite sincere.
But the interminable delay in convoking the Constituent Assembly was not
without effect upon this institution itself. Heralded in the first days
of the revolution, it came into being only after eight or nine months of
bitter class and party struggle. It came too late to play a creative
role. Its internal inadequacy had been predetermined by a single fact--a
fact which might seem unimportant at first, but which subsequently took
on tremendous importance for the fate of the Constituent Assembly.
Numerically, the principal revolutionary party in the first epoch was
the party of Social-Revolutionists. I have already referred to its
formlessness and variegated composition. The revolution led inevitably
to the dismemberment of such of its members as had joined it under the
banner of populism. The left wing, which had a following among part of
the workers and the vast masses of poor peasants, was becoming more and
more alienated from the rest. This wing found itself in uncompromising
opposition to the party and middle bourgeois branches of Social
Revolutionists. But the inertness of party organization and party
tradition held back the inevitable process of cleavage. The proportional
system of elections still holds full sway, as every one knows, in party
lists. Since these lists were made up two or three months before the
October revolution and were not subject to change, the Left and the
Right Social Revolutionists still figured in these lists as one and the
same party. Thus, by the time of the October revolution--that is, the
period when the Right Social Revolutionists were arresting the Left and
then the Left were combining with the Bolsheviki for the overthrow of
Kerensky's ministry, the old lists remained in full force; and in the
elections for the Constituent Assembly the peasants were compelled to
vote for lists of names at the head of which stood Kerensky, followed by
those of Left Social Revolutionists who participated in the plot for his
overthrow.
If the months preceding the October revolution were months of continuous
gain in popular support for the Left--of a general increase in Bolshevik
following among workers, soldiers and peasants--then this process was
reflected within the party of Social Revolutionists in an increase of
the left wing at the expense of the right. Nevertheless, on the party
lists of the Social Revolutionists there was a predominance of three to
one of old leaders of the right wing--of men who had lost all their
revolutionary reputation in the days of coalition with the liberal
bourgeoisie.
To this should be added also the fact that the elections themselves were
held during the first weeks after the October revolution. The news of
the change traveled rather slowly from the capital to the provinces,
from the cities to the villages. The peasantry in many places had but a
very vague idea of what was taking place in Petrograd and Moscow. They
voted for "Land and Liberty," for their representatives in the land
committees, who in most cases gathered under the banner of populism: but
thereby they were voting for Kerensky and Avksentiev, who were
dissolving the land committees, and arresting their members. As a result
of this, there came about the strange political paradox that one of the
two parties which dissolved the Constituent Assembly--the Left
Social-Revolutionists--had won its representation by being on the same
list of names with the party which gave a majority to the Constituent
Assembly. This matter-of-fact phase of the question should give a very
clear idea of the extent to which the Constituent Assembly lagged behind
the course of political events and party groupings.
We must consider the question of principles.