What Russia ought and ought not imitate according to the ministerial circle

It is important not to believe that the Russian elite, whether in government or in opposition, was uninformed about the political developments in Western Europe. Most of these people had a university education that included an orientation in contemporary society, and most of them had been students at a time when discussion was fervent in university circles about current developments in Russia and abroad. Russian newspapers and periodicals were well-informed and the editors were very often learned men with a burning interest in politics.

Thus it is by no means surprising that the men around the tsar had views on what had happened in Western Europe during the whole nineteenth century and quite recently and to which extent they found these developments good or bad and finally also if conditions in Russia permitted a transfer of experiences from Western Europe to Russia. Obviously this was what the Vice-Minister for State Property A. A. Naryshkin had in mind when he, in the June discussions of the Petergof advisory group, said that the Russian structure would be artificially (iskusstbenno) remodelled to fit into the pattern of a constitutional state with dependence on the volatile outcome of party struggles, if a general suffrage was introduced.³⁹ Naryshkin did not say which country or countries he had in mind, but it seems obvious that Britain must have had a place in this idea of constitutionalism.

What Russia could learn from abroad according to Liberals and Socialists

Was Russia behind its time?

The discussions

The actual reforms

The politicised image of Russia 1905-07

1 R. Putnam, Making Democracy Work. Civic Traditions in Modern Italy, Princeton, N.J.: Princeton U.P., 1993.

2 S. Rokkan, Citizens, Elections, Parties, Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 1970. The following is based on the chapter “Nation-Buildig, Cleavage Formation, and the Structuring of Mass Politics”, pp. 72-144 (see esp. Table 2, pp. 84-5), and “Electoral Systems”, pp. 145-168.

3 The whole of this section is based on handbooks of political science and history plus information of a number of encyclopaedias from different countries.

4 Die Habsburgermonarchie 1848-1918, Bd. 7:1, Verfassung und Parlamentarismus, pp. 148-154.

5 Peter Schöffer, Der Wahlrechtskampf der österreichischen Sozialdemokratie 1888/89-1897, Stuttgart: Steiner, 1986, p. 54, with literature on the question in a footnote.

6 Die Habsburgermorarchie, 7:1, pp. 207-208.

7 Die Habsburgermonarchie, 7:1, pp. 187-188.

8 Die Habsburgermonarchie, 7:1, pp. 208-209.

9 Schöffer 1986, p. 56.

10 Gustav Kolmer, Verfassung und Parlament in Österreich, vol. 8 [1914], Graz: Akademische Druck- und Verlagsanstalt, 1980, pp. 1-14.

11 Kolmer 1980, for the situation during the years in government, see e.g. pp. 334-341; for the concluding crisis, see pp. 498-574 and 596-617.

12 Die Habsburgermonarchie, 7:1, pp. 209-210.

13 K.u.k. = ”königlich und kaiserlich”, i.e. imperial and thus common to the whole Habsburg monarchy.

14 Die Habsburgermonarchie, 7:1, pp. 210-211.

15 Die Habsburgermonarchie, 7:1, pp. 220-221.

16 A succinct account for the “Kurien” system is found in Schöffer 1986, pp. 57-65. See also Die Habsburgermonarchie, 7:1, pp. 216-219.

17 Schöffer 1986, pp. 459-469, 486-499, 537-548,

18 Die Habsburgermonarchie, 7:1, pp. 219-220.

19 Die Habsburgermonarchie, 7:1, pp. 226-235, and Charts 1-4 as appendices to vol 7:1.

20 Gebhardt Handbuch der deutschen Geschichte, 9^th ed., vol. 3, Stuttgart: Union Verlag, 1970, pp. 224-231.

21 For a detailed analysis of the consequences, see Thomas Kühne, Dreiklassenwahrrecht und Wahlkultur in Preussen 1867-1914, Düsseldorf: Droste, 1994, esp. 419-492.

22 See Gebhardt Handbuch der deutschen Geschichte, 9. ed., vol. 3, Stuttgart 1970, pp. 224-231

23 The literature on these matters is vast. I want to mention here H.-U. Wehler, Das deutsche Kaiserreich, ……????, and Th. Nipperdey, “Grundprobleme der deutschen Parteigeschichte im 19. Jahrhundert”, in G.A. Ritter, Die deutschen Parteien vor 1918, Köln, Kiepenheuer & Witsch, 1973. (mer????)

24 Wolfgang J. Mommsen, Der autoritäre Nationalstaat. Verfassung, Gesellschaft und Kultur des deutschen Kaiserreichs, Frankfurt/Main: Fischer, 1990, pp. 39-65.

25 Wehler, Kaiserreich, p. ????

26 Axel Griessmer, Massenverbände und Massenparteien im wilhelminischen Reich. Zum Wandel der Wahlkultur 1903-1912, Düsseldorf: Droste, 2000.

27 Bernhard Mann, ”Zwischen Hegemonie und Partikularismus. Bemerkungen zom Verhältnis von Regierung, Bürokratie und Palament in Preussen 1867-1918”, in G. Ritter (ed.), Regierung, Bürokratie und Parlament in Peussen nd Deutschland von 1848 bis zur Gegenwart, Düsseldorf: Droste, 1983, pp. 76-89

28 Mann, p. 81.

29 Wehler, Bismarckzeit, Wehler Krisenherde, Wehler Das deutsche Kaiserreich ?????????????

30 Wehler himself combined some different theses with the question of the ‘pseudo-constitutional military monarchy’. One was the question of which had primacy in these days, interior policy or foreign policy. Another was the question of the German special path. The discussion has been oscillating between these aspects, and therefore it cannot be developed here. Among those who shared the general views of Wehler in regard to the system of government should be mentioned Volker Berghahn and Hans-Jürgen Puhle.

31 Among critics can be mentioned Thomas Nipperdey (“Wehlers ‘Kaiserreich’. Eine kritische Auseinandersetzung”, in Geschichte und Gesellschaft 1 (1975), 539-560), and Lothar Gall (“Bismarck und der Bonapartismus”, in HZ 223 (1976), 618-637). Mediating standpoints are taken by Gerhand A. Ritter (“Entwicklungsprobleme des deutschen Parlamentarismus”, in G.A. Ritter (ed.), Gesellschaft Parlament und Regierung, Düsseldorf: ??????, 1974) and Dieter Langewiesche (“Das deutsche Kaiserreich. Bemerkungen zur Diskussion über Parlamentarisierung und Demokratisierung Deutschlands”, in Archiv für Sozialgeschichte 19 (1979), 628-642).

32 Konrad von Zwehl, ”Zum verhältnis von Regierung und Reichstag im Kaiserrech (1871-1918)”, in Gerhard A. Ritter (ed.), Regierung, Bürokratie und Parlament in Preussen und Deutschland von 1848 bis zur Gegenwart, Düsseldorf: Droste, 1983, pp. 90-116.

33 Langewiesche ????

34 See ???? P. B. Struve ????????

35 Billington ??????

36 Venturi it ed. ??????

37 Pipes, Struve

38 Stockdale ??????

39 Институт выборов в истории России, p. 506.

45