CHAPTER XII

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.

##