Constitutionalism and Political Culture in Imperial Russia (Late 19th - Early 20th Century)

• Author: T. Taranovski
• Position: University of Puget Sound (Tacoma, USA)
• Pages: 22-48

BRICS LAW JOURNAL Volume VI (2019) Issue 3

ConSTITuTIonaLISM anD PoLITICaL CuLTuRE In IMPERIaL RuSSIa

(LaTE 19TH – EaRLY 20TH CEnTuRY)

THEODORE TARANOVSKI,

University of Puget Sound (Tacoma, USA)

https://doi.org/10.21684/2412-2343-2019-6-3-22-48

This article analyzes the possibility of development of liberal constitutionalism in the

Russian Empire during the post-reform period in the late 19th – early 20th century within

the context of European history, of which Russia was an integral component. It argues

that the Russian autocracy had the potential to transform itself into a constitutional

monarchy during the period that followed the Great Reforms of the 1860s (1861–1881)

and, second, during the Revolution of 1905–1906 and in its aftermath. This promising

evolutionary process was cut short by World War I and rejected by the Soviet period

of Russian history that followed. Obstacles to constitutional government were mostly

objective in character, but perhaps the most signicant problem was the fragmentation

and insufficient development of Russian political culture, or better said, cultures

that failed to produce the consensus required for eective creation and functioning

of a constitutional regime. This failure was further exacerbated by an evolutionary

radicalization of revolutions in modern European history that culminated in October

1917. The author concludes that the events of the late 1980s and the Revolution of 1991

changed the character of the Russian historical landscape and provided the potential

for renewed development of a pluralistic political system and a strong civil society that

is its precondition.

Keywords: autocracy; constitutional monarchy; liberal bureaucracy; Polizeistaat;

Rechtsstaat; political culture.

Recommended citation: Theodore Taranovski, Constitutionalism and Political Culture

in Imperial Russia (Late 19th – Early 20th Century), 6(3) BRICS Law Journal 22–48 (2019).

THEODORE TARANOVSKI 23

Table of Contents

Introduction

1. A Comparative Perspective: Liberalism and Constitutionalism in Europe

2. Polizeistaat and Rechtsstaat

3. The Second Chance and Partial Success

Conclusion

Introduction

At the turn of the 20th century, the Russian autocracy, as the last, most durable

and therefore, arguably, most successful absolute monarchy in modern European

history, was rapidly becoming an anachronism in the European state system. Not

unlike other European regimes in the past, it faced major and growing political

challenges to its continuation and even survival. These challenges were exacerbated

by the rapid social and economic growth, starting in the late 1880s–1890s, that was

causally linked with and complicated the resolution of political problems.

On the one hand, the Imperial government was confronted with increasingly

vocal demands for signicant reform. After an era of successful political repression

that lasted some twenty years, the autocracy faced rising agitation for political

liberalization and popular representation in government (constitutional reform)

from within Russian society. These demands originated in the institutions of local

self-administration (the zemstvos and municipal dumas) and were supported by

growing elements of what can be characterized as the Russian urban middle class

(the so-called “free professions” and the politically self-conscious elements within

the business, industrial and commercial communities).

The oppositiona l forces within Russian societ y could have found potential

allies among sympathetic members of the Imperial civil service. Members of the

liberal bureaucracy had long hoped, following the precedent established during

the drafting of the Emancipation Act of 1861, to extend the initiatives of the Great

Reforms and to introduce some form of popular representation in the Council of

State, the supreme institution of the Russian autocracy specically entrusted with

the function of drafting legislation. The members of the Council were mostly chosen

personally by the tsar from the top ocials of the central institutions of the state,

former ministers, senators as well as some governors and military ocials, reaching

the end of distinguished careers, who for all practical purposes held tenure for life

and had little fear of dismissal for incurring the displeasure of the Emperor (only

two individuals were dismissed from the Council during the course of the 19th

century). They were proud of their institution and their status as senior statesmen,

and they took their ocial responsibilities seriously and conscientiously. The political

signicance and legislative role of the Council of State in the system of the Russian