Continuation. Beginning in N 4, 5 for 1999

The potential for the emergence of a representative form of legislative power in Russia has arisen more than once. In the XVIII century after the death of Peter I. At the beginning of the XIX century under Alexander I. In the second half of the last century, before the assassination of Alexander II, which served as a signal for curtailing any reforms in the field of representative power. But each time the autocracy refrained from taking a decisive step towards democratization, so the system of state administration, in particular the legislative power, lagged more and more behind the requirements of the time, and came into conflict with the objective needs of the country's development.

In the autumn of 1905, Nicholas II decided to take such a step only under the pressure of popular demands, the danger that threatened the monarchy - the democratic revolution. It was with a heavy heart that the Emperor signed a manifesto on October 17 granting civil liberties of conscience, speech, assembly and association, and electoral rights to those segments of the population who had previously been deprived of them. Workers of industrial establishments numbering more than 50 people received the right to vote. At the same time, a significant part of the population - women, students, and military personnel - did not have the right to vote.

The Duma, in accordance with the manifesto, received not only legislative functions: "... so that no law can take effect without the approval of the State Duma, " but also control functions:

"...so that the elected representatives of the people are provided with the opportunity to actually participate in monitoring the regularity of the actions of the authorities appointed by Us."

The Russian Parliament consisted of two equal chambers: the lower - the State Duma and the upper-the State Council. It should be noted that almost a century earlier, exactly such a bicameral structure based on the separation of powers and public participation in elections was proposed by M. M. Speransky in the "General Review of All Transformations" presented to Alexander I by the end of October 1809. And on January 1, 1810, the State Council met for its first meeting and then continued to work until February 1917. But the State Duma then did not have time to start its activities. Court intriguers succeeded in getting the reformer Speransky to resign. The birth of Russian parliamentarism was delayed for almost a century.

At the beginning of the XX century. Russia took as its model the world's most widespread bicameral parliamentary system, which originally originated in the UK. Both chambers-the State Council and the State Duma-were granted the right to issue, amend and repeal laws. The exception was the Basic Laws, the initiative to revise which could belong only to the emperor. It is characteristic that the tsar, like most monarchs, had the right of absolute veto (presidents usually used the right of suspensive veto), which only provided him with the right to approve laws, without which they could not enter into force. This meant that the Russian emperor lost the right of dispensation, that is, the right to cancel the operation of general laws by his decree on a private matter, if they came into conflict with each other. Article 94 of the Basic Laws defined: "As long as the new law does not positively repeal the existing law, it remains in full force." Thus, an attempt was made to establish the rule of law in Russia.

The First State Duma, which lasted only less than three months (April 27-July 8, 1906), was the most democratic of the four convocations of tsarist times in terms of its social composition. By class, the largest group consisted of peasants - 45.5 percent, followed by nobles-36 percent. Members of the Duma were 10 princes, 4 counts and 2 barons.

From the very beginning, the new-born legislative body did not suit either the tsar or his government. The Russian parliament became bicameral because the tsar and his entourage decided to make the State Council a counterweight to the State Duma, designed to" moderate " it. Even before the opening of the Duma session, the tsar issued a decree granting the State Council legislative powers and the right to veto laws passed by the State Duma. However, this measure was not sufficient. From the very first meetings of the Duma, it behaved in no way peaceably towards the tsar and his government. On July 9, 1906, the State Duma was dissolved under the pretext that the deputies had "deviated to an area that did not belong to them." However, too short a period of activity does not detract from the historical significance of the First Duma. As Professor V. F. Zalessky pointed out in 1909, " 1906 was marked by the planting of Western European parliamentarism in Russia."

The Second Duma (February 20-June 2, 1907) also proved to be unruly. Despite a significant refinement of the electoral legislation, which gave all the advantages to the wealthy classes, the second Duma turned out to be even "left" of the first. The Social Democrats, who rejected the boycott tactic, won 65 seats, while the left-wing parties won a total of 222 seats (43 percent). The extreme right suffered a crushing defeat in the elections. For example, the chairman of the Union of Russian People Dubrovin scored only a few dozen votes.

At the first stage of the formation of Russian parliamentary traditions (1906-1907), during the work of the lower house of the first and second convocations, the emperor and the State Duma failed to move from confrontation to constructive interaction. The opposition composition of the first two Dumas, the high level of social tension in the country, and the tsar's blatant unwillingness and inability to take into account the organs of popular representation predetermined the dissolution of the lower house of the Russian parliament. At the same time, the State Duma began to form the basic principles of organization of work in practice, its apparatus was created, and the first parliamentary traditions emerged.

The next stage in the formation of representative bodies (1907-1917) was opened by the so-called "third June coup d'etat": simultaneously with the dissolution of the Second Duma, a new electoral law was issued, and its very appearance without discussion by the Duma was a gross violation of the Basic Laws.

The previous electoral law of December 11, 1905, provided a majority in the Duma for representatives of the peasantry, whose loyalty the authorities counted on. The new electoral law was drafted in such a way as to provide a majority in the Duma to representatives of the so - called "censored public" - large and medium-sized owners. At the same time, the law reduced the representation of the poor in the Duma. The number of deputies from the national suburbs - Poland, the Caucasus, Central Asia and others-also decreased.

Thus, the prerequisites were created for the Third Duma to support the reformist course of the Chairman of the Council of Ministers, P. A. Stolypin, which combined the further development of bourgeois relations (agrarian reform, local government reform projects and the court) with an imperial policy, which was expressed in the government's actions in relation to Finland, the Polish and Western provinces, and the Ukrainian, Armenian, Jewish and other issues.

In the course of the work of the Third Duma (November 1, 1907 - June 9, 1912), traditions of preparation, discussion and implementation of draft laws, relations of the Duma and its working apparatus with state institutions of various ranks were gradually formed, and procedures for the internal activities of the Duma were established. On June 2, 1909, the Duma approved an Order of the State Duma detailing the procedure for the activities of the lower house of Parliament. It was the most stable Russian parliament.

During the years of P. A. Stolypin's premiership, the Third Duma gained considerable influence in the political system of the empire. The primary role was played by the rights granted by the legislation to the Duma in the budgetary sphere. For the first time in the history of the Russian Empire, the bureaucracy lost undivided control over the distribution and expenditure of public finances. The decisions of the Duma and the political sentiments of its majority could no longer be ignored by the authorities.

The further development of Russian parliamentary traditions in the specific conditions of the monarchy depended on the relationship between its two main elements-the supreme power and the legislative chambers.

The results of the elections to the Third Duma allowed the government to maneuver between the right and left wings of the Duma, where it could rely either on the right majority, which included nationalists, moderate right (97) and extreme right (50), or on the left wing, which included progressives (28) and cadets (54 a person). At the same time, the Octobrist faction (154 members of the Duma) played the role of the main government support in any case.

However, the implementation of Stolypin's reforms, despite the support of the pro-government majority in the Duma, met with fierce resistance from the extreme right and court circles. The State Council acted as a brake on reforms. The opposition of the upper house forced Stolypin to obtain the consent of Nicholas II to go to a direct violation of the laws - to interrupt the session of both legislative chambers on March 11, 1911 for 3 days and to pass the bill rejected by the State Council (on the introduction of zemstvo in b western provinces) under Article 87 of the Basic Laws. This step of the authorities demonstrated that the emperor and the Prime Minister are ready to take into account the Duma elected under the new law, not to mention the State Council, only to certain limits.

At the turn of 1911-1912, it became obvious that the reform potential of the Government was exhausted. After the departure from the political arena of P. A. Stolypin, whose decline in public career began long before his death in September 1911, the cabinets of V. N. Kokovtsev (1911-1914) and I. L. Goremykin (1914-1916) considered their main task to preserve stability in the country and did not offer any significant state programs. conversions.

In the Fourth Duma (from November 15, 1912, formally until October 6 (19), 1917), the Octobrists (96 deputies) continued to be the leading faction. Along with it, the most significant groups were nationalists and moderate rightists (88), center groups (33), rightists (64), Cadets (52), and progressives (32 people).

The Government of V. N. Kokovtsev, curtailing its reform activities, followed the path of introducing mostly minor bills to the Fourth Duma, while at the same time widely practicing non-Duma legislation. The replacement of V. N. Kokovtsev as Prime Minister in 1914 by I. L. Goremykin marked the transition to a policy of restricting the rights of the Duma and reducing its role in public administration.

During the First World War, after unsuccessful attempts to cooperate with the government, the majority of the Duma, united in the so-called "Progressive Bloc", put forward the slogan of creating a "ministry of trust", that is, a government that enjoys the confidence of the Duma. In 1915-1916, as the sphere of government was further disorganized, the popularity of the Duma in the broadest circles of the population increased, especially among the army officer corps. The lower House of Parliament becomes the main center of legal opposition to the government, and its actual parliamentary functions fade into the background.

The third and Fourth Dumas proved to be more resilient, mainly due to their composition, loyal to the tsarist government. And loyalty was ensured by such electoral legislation, which blocked all opposition forces and opened all avenues for loyal strata.

The February Revolution of 1917 marked not only the end of the Russian monarchy. In fact, a brief history of the development of Russian parliamentary traditions at the beginning of the XX century has also come to an end. After the February Revolution and the creation of the Provisional Government, the State Duma did not resume its work. On February 27 (March 12, new style), 1917, the Provisional Committee of the State Duma was formed. October 6 (19), 1917 The Duma was dissolved by the Provisional Government in connection with the beginning of elections to the Constituent Assembly. The State Council, which was abolished on December 12, 1917, also ceased to exist.

With the creation of the parliament in Russia, a specific state structure has developed, which still does not have an unambiguous assessment of scientists. There are various points of view on the Russian statehood of this period. In Soviet science, the thesis about Russia at the beginning of the XX century was defended as an absolutist state, and about the State Duma as a powerless institution. Some researchers believe that before 1917 Russia was a constitutional monarchy. There is an opinion that with the creation of the State Duma, the Russian Empire became a dualistic monarchy, which is characterized by the presence of two authorities: the monarch and the parliament. A number of Western researchers assess Russia at the beginning of the XX century. like a police state. Among the Russian emigration, this period was sometimes regarded as the period of the Duma monarchy. An analysis of the literature shows that so far there is no end - to-end study of the state body of Russia covering the entire pre-February period, summarizing from a political point of view the experience of the functioning of the State Duma, the State Council, the head of State-monarch and the Council of Ministers. The need for such a systematic analysis is explained by the controversial and ambiguous assessments in the modern scientific literature of the place of each of these institutions in the general system of state power and management.

Obviously, Russia's parliamentary development should be viewed as a complex, heterogeneous, unified process that combines a number of consistent and mutually influencing reforms and revolutions. In reality, the problem of limiting autocracy and the transition to a constitution in Russia was brought to the political and legal plane during the first Russian revolution of 1905-1907, which became a catalyst for the reform of the state system. It was during this period that the problem of political and legal modernization became possible for practical implementation.

The centuries-old absence of a constitution, parliament, legal parties and, consequently, legal political struggle, the preservation of the autocracy's monopoly on political and state power were characteristic features of the pre-reform state system of Russia. It belonged mainly to the category of states that political, legal and social literature usually defines as "patrimonial" (patrimonial). In such states, power is conceived and sent as an extension of the right of ownership, and the ruler (or rulers) is both the sovereign (bearer of supreme power) of the state and its owner.

The emergence of advisory bodies in the field of legislation and administration indicated that the separation of powers was already beginning to take shape and be translated into certain institutions. However, this did not mean that the state system of Russia was approaching the mechanism of state power based on the separation of powers. Such a legal principle, with which the French educator S. Montesquieu linked the existence of political freedom, Russia has not yet known. The Emperor exercised legislative power in conjunction with legislative institutions and was simultaneously the head of the executive branch. Ministers in their actions were directly subordinate to him, and on issues of their own competence, they went to the monarch with "all-submitted" reports.

Meanwhile, in the 19th century, the evolution of the state system in Russia largely prepared the conditions for the separation of powers in the subsequent historical period. The creation of the main legislative - broadcasting body, the State Council, the publication of a Code of Laws as a result of codification and the consolidation of the principle of legality in it were milestones on the path of political and legal modernization of Russia, which laid the foundation for future representative power in the sphere of state and law.

The history of the tsarist legislative bodies - the State Duma and the State Council-actually ended on October 25, 1917. It provides a number of instructive lessons.

First, the theoretical propositions of the most prominent thinkers of different times (Aristotle, N. Machiavelli, D. Locke, S. Montesquieu, G. Hegel and others) about the inevitability of a confrontation between the legislative and executive branches of government were confirmed. Their warning about the aggressive aspirations of the executive branch was confirmed.

Secondly, the experience of the tsarist legislative bodies confirmed a worldwide pattern - the class character of representative bodies of power, the infringement of the political rights of the most numerous and fundamental layer - the working people.

Third, the lack of a legal framework defining the state status of legislative bodies inevitably pushes them to prioritize the development of laws on their own position in the political system of the state, forcing them to postpone the preparation and consideration of laws affecting the vital interests of the main social groups of society, which causes a negative reaction in the public consciousness to the activities of the legislative body. This is successfully used by the executive authorities that oppose them.

Fourth, the lack of clear legislation on the separation of powers and the experience of their interaction objectively causes an aggravation of relations between them. In conditions of low political culture of the entire society, including the ruling circles, exacerbations usually end with the use of force.

Fifthly, the movement to separate the legislative branch into an independent branch is natural and irresistible. Therefore, it is necessary not to prevent the establishment and strengthening of this trend, but to patiently and persistently seek mutually acceptable solutions for all authorities. The wisdom of statesmen consists in finding compromises, ways of combining contradictions, merging the opposing interests of various social groups into a single national interest, rather than cutting them down in one fell swoop.

As the subsequent fate of representative power in Russia shows, its formation turned out to be closely connected not only with the traditions of Western parliamentarism, but also with Russian traditions.

(To be continued)

Permanent link to this publication: