THE POLITICAL PARTIES
MOSCOW, _March 11th_.
The political parties which are now crystallising themselves are the
result of the Liberal movement which began in the twenties, and
proceeded steadily until the beginning of the war in 1904, when the
Liberal leaders resolved, for patriotic reasons, to mark time and wait.
This cessation of hostilities did not last long, and the disasters
caused by the war produced so universal a feeling of discontent that the
liberation movement was automatically set in motion once more.
On the 19th of June, 1905, a deputation of the United Zemstva, at the
head of which was Prince S. N. Troubetzkoi, was received by the Emperor.
Prince Troubetzkoi, in a historic speech, expressed with the utmost
frankness and directness the imperative need of sweeping reform and of
the introduction of national representation. The coalition of the
Zemstva formed the first political Russian party, but it was not until
after the great strike, and the granting of the Manifesto in October,
that parties of different shades came into existence and took definite
shape. During the month which followed the Manifesto the process of
crystallisation of parties began, and is still continuing, and they can
now roughly be divided into three categories—Right, Centre, and Left,
the Right being the extreme Conservatives, the Centre the Constitutional
Monarchists, and the Left consisting of two wings, the Constitutional
Democrats on the right and the Social Democrats and Social
Revolutionaries on the left. Of these the most important is the party of
the Constitutional Democrats, nicknamed the “Cadets.” “Cadets” means
“K.D.,” the word “Constitutional” being spelt with a “K” in Russian, and
as the letter “K” in the Russian alphabet has the same sound as it has
in French, the result is a word which sounds exactly like the French
word “Cadet.” Similarly, Social Revolutionaries are nicknamed “S.R.’s”
and the Social Democrats “S.D.’s.”
In order to understand the origin of the Constitutional Democrats one
must understand the part played by the Zemstva. In 1876 a group of
County Councillors, or Zemstvoists, under the leadership of M.
Petrunkevitch devoted themselves to the task of introducing reforms in
the economical condition of Russia. In 1894 their representatives,
headed by M. Rodichev, were summarily sent about their business, after
putting forward a few moderate demands. In 1902 these men formed with
others a “League of Liberation.” M. Schipov tried to unite these various
“Zemstva” in a common organisation, and some of the members of the
Liberation League, while co-operating with them, started a separate
organisation called the Zemstvo Constitutionalists. Among the members of
this group were names which are well known in Russia, such as Prince
Dolgoroukov, MM. Stachovitch, Kokoshkin, and Lvov. But these
“Zemstvoists” formed only a small group; what they needed, in order to
represent thinking Russia, was to be united with the professional
classes. In November, 1904, the various professions began to group
themselves together in political bodies. Various political unions were
formed, such as those of the engineers, doctors, lawyers, and
schoolmasters. Then Professor Milioukov, one of the leading pioneers of
the Liberal movement, whose name is well known in Europe and America,
united all professional unions into a great “Union of Unions,” which
represented the great mass of educated Russia. Before the great strike
in October, 1905, he created, together with the best of his colleagues,
a new political party, which united the mass of professional opinion
with the small group of Zemstvo leaders. He had recognised the fact that
the Zemstvoists were the only men who had any political experience, and
that they could do nothing without enrolling the professional class.
Therefore it is owing to Professor Milioukov that the experienced
Zemstvo leaders in October had the whole rank and file of the middle
class behind them, and the Constitutional Democrats, as they are at
present, represent practically the whole “Intelligenzia,” or
professional class, of Russia. This party is the only one which is
seriously and practically organised. This being so, it is the most
important of the political parties.
Those of the Right have not enough followers to give them importance,
and those of the Left have announced their intention of boycotting the
elections. These various parties are now preparing for the elections.
We are experiencing now the suspense of an _entr’acte_ before the
curtain rises once more on the next act of the revolutionary drama. This
will probably occur when the Duma meets in April. People of all parties
seem to be agreed as to one thing, that the present state of things
cannot last. There is at present a reaction against reaction. After the
disorders here in December many people were driven to the Right; now the
reactionary conduct of the Government has driven them back to the Left.
So many people have been arrested lately that there is no longer room
for them in prison. An influential political leader said to me yesterday
that a proof of the incompetence of the police was that they had not
foreseen the armed rising in December, whereas every one else had
foreseen it. “And now,” he said, “they have been, so to speak, let loose
on the paths of repression; old papers and old cases, sometimes of forty
years ago, are raked up, and people are arrested for no reason except
that the old machine, which is broken and thoroughly out of order, has
been set working with renewed energy.” The following conversation is
related to me—if it is not true (and I am convinced that it is not true)
it is typical—as having taken place between a Minister and his
subordinate:—
The Subordinate: There are so many people in prison that there is no
possibility of getting in another man. The prisons are packed, yet
arrests are still being made. What are we to do? Where are these people
to be put?
The Minister: We must let some of the prisoners out.
The Subordinate: How many?
The Minister: Say five thousand.
The Subordinate: Why five thousand?
The Minister: A nice even number.
The Subordinate: But how? Which? How shall we choose them?
The Minister: Let out any five thousand. What does it matter to them?
Any five thousand will be as pleased as any other to be let out.
It is interesting to note that last November the Minister of the
Interior was reported to have said that if he could be given a free hand
to arrest twenty thousand “intellectuals,” he would stop the revolution.
The twenty thousand have been arrested, but the revolution has not been
stopped.
So far, in spite of the many manifestoes, no guarantee of a Constitution
has been granted. The Emperor has, it is true, declared that he will
fulfil the promises made in his declaration of the 17th of October, and
it is true that if these promises were fulfilled, the result would be
Constitutional Government. But at the same time he declared that his
absolute power remained intact. At first sight this appears to be a
contradiction in terms; but, as the Power which granted the Manifesto of
October 17th was autocratic and unlimited, and as it made no mention of
the future limiting of itself, it is now, as a matter of fact, not
proceeding contrarily to any of its promises. The liberties which were
promised may only have been meant to be temporary. They could be
withdrawn at any moment, since the Emperor’s autocratic power remained.
The Manifesto might only have been a sign of goodwill of the Emperor
towards his people. It promised certain things, but gave no guarantee as
to the fulfilment of these promises. The whole of Russia, it is true,
understood it otherwise. The whole of Russia understood when this
Manifesto was published that a Constitution had been promised, and that
autocracy was in future to be limited. What Count Witte understood by
it, it is difficult to say. Whether he foresaw or not that this
Manifesto by its vagueness would one day mean much less than it did
then, or whether he only realised this at the same time that he realised
that the Conservative element was much stronger than it was thought to
be, it is impossible to determine. The fact remains that the Emperor has
not withdrawn anything; he has merely not done what he never said he
would do, namely, voluntarily abdicate his autocratic power.
The Conservatives are opposed to any such proceeding; not in the same
way as the extreme reactionaries, some of whom relegated the portrait of
the Emperor to the scullery on the day of the Manifesto from sheer
Conservative principle, but because they say that if the autocratic
power is destroyed the peasant population will be convulsed, and the
danger will be immense. To this Liberals—all liberal-minded men, not
revolutionaries—reply that this supposed danger is a delusion of the
Conservatives, who have unconsciously invented the fact to support their
theory and have not based their theory on the fact; that many peasants
clearly understand and recognise that there is to be a constitutional
_régime_ in Russia; that if this danger does exist, the risk incurred by
it must be taken; that in any case it is the lesser of two evils, less
dangerous than the maintenance of the autocracy.
Count Witte’s opponents on the Liberal side say that the course of
events up to this moment has been deliberately brought about by Count
Witte; that he disbelieved and disbelieves in Constitutional Government
for Russia; that he provoked disorder in order to crush the
revolutionary element; that the Moderate parties played into his hands
by not meeting him with a united front; that, Duma or no Duma, he
intends everything to remain as before and the power to be in his hands.
What his supporters say I do not know, because I have never seen one in
the flesh, but I have seen many people who say that what has happened so
far has been brought about with infinite skill and knowledge of the
elements with which he had to deal. Further, they add that Count Witte
has no principles and no convictions; that he has always accommodated
himself to the situation of the moment, and worked in harmony with the
men of the moment, whatever they were; that he has no belief in the
force or the stability of any movement in Russia; that he trusts the
Russian character to simmer down after it has violently fizzed; that he
intends to outstay the fizzing period; that he has a great advantage in
the attitude of the Moderate parties, who, although they do not trust
him, play into his hands by disagreeing on small points and not meeting
him with clear and definite opposition. They add, however, that he has
miscalculated and wrongly gauged the situation this time, because the
simmering down period will only be temporary and the fizzing will be
renewed again with increasing violence, until either the cork flies into
space or the bottle is burst. The cork is autocracy, the bottle Russia,
and the mineral water the revolution. The corkscrew was the promise of a
Constitution with which the cork was partially loosened, only to be
screwed down again by Count Witte’s powerful hand.
Among all the parties the most logical seem to be the Extreme
Conservatives and the Extreme Radicals. The Extreme Conservatives have
said all along that the talk of a Constitution was nonsensical, and the
Manifesto of October 17th a great betrayal; that the only result of it
has been disorder, riot, and bloodshed. They are firmly based on a
principle. The Extreme Radicals are equally firmly based on a principle,
namely, that the autocratic _régime_ must be done away with at all
costs, and that until it is swept away and a Constitution based on
universal suffrage takes its place there is no hope for Russia.
Therefore the danger that the Moderate parties may eventually be
submerged and the two extremes be left face to face, still exists. As a
great quantity of the Radicals are in prison they are for the time being
less perceptible; but this era of repression cannot last, and it has
already created a reaction against itself. But then the question arises,
what will happen when it stops? What will happen when the valve on which
the police have been sitting is released?
The influential political leader with whom I dined last night, and who
is one of the leading members of the party of October 17th, said that
there was not a man in Russia who believed in Witte, that Witte was a
man who had no convictions. I asked why he himself and other Zemstvo
leaders had refused to take part in the administration directly after
the Manifesto had been issued, when posts in the Cabinet were offered to
them. He said their terms had been that the Cabinet should be
exclusively formed of Liberal leaders; but they did not choose to serve
in company with a man like Durnovo, with whom he would refuse to shake
hands.
He added that it would not have bettered their position in the country
with regard to the coming Duma, which he was convinced would be Liberal.
Talking of the Constitutional Democrats he said they were really
republicans but did not dare own it.