ICCEES World Congress in Makuhari
The Russo-Japanese War, the First Revolution and the Liberal Quest for Civic
Nation-building
Yoshifuru Tsuchiya (Nihon University, College of Humanities and Sciences)
Not to be cited
The “long nineteenth century” was the epoch of industrialization and nation-state
building. Dual revolutions (the industrial revolution and the French revolution) in the
latter half of the eighteenth century in Western Europe forced other regions and/or states,
including Russia and Japan, to respond to trend of the epoch. “The Great Reforms” in
Russia were an attempt by Tsarist autocracy to react to such historical force. The
reforms were launched as a result of the Crimean War, in which Russia was defeated by
an industrialized Britain and France. The Meiji Restoration in Japan took place in the
same historical context.
While industrialization was reached to some extent as a result of the Great Reforms,
the multi-ethnic, heterogeneous nature of the Russian Empire was reinforced in the long
nineteenth century, despite the fact that the point for many states/regions was to build
homogeneous nation-states on the basis of nationalism during that time. As a
consequence of the partition of Poland from 1772 to 1795, Russia acquired 62 percent
of the territory and approximately half of the population (estimated six million people)
of the old Poland-Lithuania. At the Congress of Vienna in 1815, most of the Grand
Duchy of Warsaw, which had been created by Napoleon from Prussian territories
acquired from the partition, became the Kingdom of Poland, of which the sovereign was
Alexander I of Russia. In addition, during the Napoleonic war, Russia acquired Finland
from Sweden. Russia annexed Kokand Khanate in 1865, and Bukhara Khanate and
Khiva Khanate became Russian protectorates in 1868 and 1873 respectively. In the
course of territorial expansion, the proportion of Eastern Slavs (Great Russian,
Ukrainian, and Belorussian) declined from 84 percent of the population in the Empire at
the end of the eighteenth century to 68 percent at the end of the nineteenth century, and
Great Russians accounted for only 46 percent.1
In addition, the imperial structure of rule in Russia persisted in spite of the Great
1
Alexei Miller, translated by Serguei Dobrynin, The Romanov Empire and Nationalism (CEU Press,
Budapest & New York, 2008), p.150. Before the 1917 revolution, the only full national census was
carried out in 1897, so Miller may make an estimate of the population at the end of the eighteenth
century. As for the population of Eastern Slavs during that time, a Japanese book indicates different
percentages; Great Russians – 48.9 percent, Ukrainian – 19.8 percent, and Belorussian – 8.3 percent,
i.e. the percentage of Eastern Slavs 77 percent in sum. Youji Tanaka et al. eds., Roshia-shi (The
History of Russia), Vol.2 (Yamakawa shuppansha, Tokyo, 1994), p.94.
1
ICCEES World Congress in Makuhari
Reforms. Russia lacked legal and administrative system applied uniformly to all the
population and all the regions even at the dawn of the twentieth century. The Soslovie
(estate) system remained untouched, zemstvo was established only in 34 provinces in
European Russia, and peasants were left discriminated against in some points, although
the zemstvo, judicial reform, introduction of universal conscription system and so on in
the Great Reforms were aimed at dissolving discrimination of ranks to some extent and
subsequently making the people something like a nation in Western Europe.
Meanwhile, as the rise of nationalism in Europe might stimulate nationalism of
ethnic groups in the Russian Empire, the Tsarist government needed to put in efforts to
keep the peace throughout the country, turning back the rising tide of nationalism by
ethnic groups. One of the earliest attempts to strengthen the integration of the Empire
was Sergei Uvarov’s (Minister of Education) triad “Autocracy, Orthodoxy and
Nationality”. In the latter half of nineteenth century, the Tsarist government adopted
so-called “Russification” especially in the Ukraine, Poland, Finland and Baltic regions.
In spite of “Russificaiton”, however, it is considered that development of
nationalism and the nation-building process on the basis of nationalism in the Russian
Empire were rather weak. For example, Vera Tolz has stated that Russian state-building
had stood in the way of Russian nation-building, and that the Tsarist government
perpetuated a pre-modern dynastic empire.2 “The Great Reforms” were halfway in
promoting the civic nation-building, though they involved some orientation toward that
process. In addition, what was called “Russification” did not mean the ethnic
nation-building, judging from the recent studies on this problem. Astrid Tuminez claims,
“in the aftermath of Russification, Russia remained a state where the sense of nation
(both ethnic and civic) was weak, and nationalism that effectively bound state and
society did not exist”.3 In Tsarist Russia, much was made not of nation-building but
loyalties to the dynastic Empire and its preservation.
Russo-Japanese war and the Liberals
At the turn of the century from the nineteenth to the twentieth, various political
groups were organized not only by revolutionaries but also liberal activists under the
circumstances in which labor problems accompanied by the rapid industrialization and
2
Vera Tolz, Russia (Arnold, Inventing the Nation series, London, 2001), p.15.See also; Andreas
Kappeler, translated by Alfred Clayton, The Russian Empire: A Multiethnic History (Pearson
Education, Harlow, 2001)
3
Astrid S. Tuminez, Russian Nationalism since 1856: Ideology and the Making of Foreign Policy
(Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham, 2000), p.39.
2
ICCEES World Congress in Makuhari
poor agricultural conditions were more and more overt. Society intensified criticism
toward the Tsarist autocracy, which could not resolve the political and social problems
effectively. The Russian Social Democratic Labor Party was established in 1898 and the
Socialist Revolutionaries Party in 1901. On the liberal side, the “Beseda” circle was
organized at the end of 1899 by six liberal zemstvo activists.4 In June 1902, the first
issue of the illegal liberal journal “Osvobozhdenie (Liberation)”, which was founded by
a group of liberals from the zemstvo movement, was published in Stuttgart. The journal
was edited by Petr Berngartvich Struve. In addition, a conference was held at
Schaffhausen, near Lake Constance, on 20-22 July 1903, as a result of which Soiuz
Osvobozhdeniia (the Union of Liberation) was founded. In November of the same year,
the Union of Zemstvo Constitutionalists was formed in Russia, because it was
considered that moderate zemstvo liberals might evade the illegal Union of Liberation.
The constituent congress of the Union of Liberation was held in St. Petersburg at
the beginning of January 1904, namely just before the outbreak of the Russo-Japanese
war. A program roughly as follows was adopted finally, though participants did not
necessarily agree on the extent and desired course of activities.
Союз освобождения ставит своей первой и главной целью –
политическое освобождение России. Считая политическую свободу даже
в самых минимальных ее пределах совершенно несовместимой с
абсолютным характером русской монархии, Союз будет добиваться,
прежде всего, уничтожения самодержавия и установления в России
конституционного режима. При определении конкретных форм, в которых
конституционный режим может быть осуществленв в России, Союз
освобождения употребит все усилия, чтобы политическая проблема была
решена в духе широкого демократизма и, прежде всего, признает
существенно необходимым положить в основание политической реформы
принцип всеобщей, равной, тайной и прямой подачи голосов.
Ставя на первый план требования политические, Союз освобождения
признает необходимым определить свое принципиально отношение к
социально-экономическим проблемам, выдвигаемым самой жизнью: в
области социально-экономической политики Союз будет руководиться
тем же основым началом демократизма, ставя прямой целью деятельности
4
The number of members increased to fifty-six in 1905. Thirteen of them entered the central
committee of Kadet and ten of them entered that of Octiabrist. K.A. Solov’ev, Kruzhok «Beseda»: V
poiskakh novoi politicheskoi real’nosti 1899-1905 (Moscow, ROSSPEN, 2009), pp.40-52.
3
ICCEES World Congress in Makuhari
защиту интересов трудящихся масс.
В сфере национальных вопросов Союз признает право на
самоопределение за различными народностями, входящими в состав
Российского государства. По отношению к Финляндии Союз
присоединяется к требованию о восстановлении государственно
-правового положения, существовавшего в этой стране до
противозаконных нарушений этого положения.5
Indeed, the liberal movement was not a monolith, and the opinions of radical
intelligentsia differed from those of moderate zemstvo liberals, and among zemstvo
liberals there was no consensus between constitutionalists and Slavophiles on the
problem of representative government. But on the eve of the Russo-Japanese war, they
agreed to cooperate with each other in denying the subsistence of the existent regime.
The establishment of the Union of Liberation was an outcome of such cooperation.
The outbreak of the Russo-Japanese war on 26 January 1904 froze the opposing
movement by the liberals temporarily. In his memoir, D. I. Shakhovskoi, one of the core
members of the Union of Liberation, cited an appeal issued by the zemstvo group of
constitutionalists on 24 February 1904 as the most explicit exhibition of zemstvo
liberals’ feelings at that time.6 In this appeal, which was formulated at the congress of
zemstvo constitutionalists held on 23 February in Moscow, they stated that now to fight
for Russia was a national undertaking (natsional’noe delo), while criticizing the Tsarist
government for its irresponsible shortsighted policy which brought the Russian people
to blood warfare in the Far East and expressing their constitutionalist demand for a
popular representative system.
From the view point of the attitude of liberals toward nationalism, what should be
noted in this appeal is usage of the terms “national undertaking (national’noe delo)”,
“national spirit (narodnyi dukh)” and “Russian citizens (grazhdane Rossii)”. The
zemstvo constitutionalists considered it necessary for the Russian people to fight for
Russia against the enemy in the war, and at the same time expected that a “nation”
would come into existence through the terrible war. We shall return to this question
later.
Patriotic fever in Russian society as a whole, though it differed in degree among
5
«Soiuz osvobozhdeniia».Vospominaniia D. I. Shakhovskoi. In Liberal'noe dvizhenie v Rossii,
1902-1905 gg. (M., ROSSPEN, 2001), p.552.
6
Vospominaniia D. I. Shakhovskoi, pp.558-559. The text of the appeal appears in the pages of
74-75 in Liberal'noedvizhenie v Rossii. The original text was published in Osvobozhdenie, No.22
(46), 1904, p.407.
4
ICCEES World Congress in Makuhari
the people, was uplifted at the beginning of the Russo-Japanese war. But excitement did
not last long. S. R. Mintslov, literary critic, wrote in his diary on 4 March 1904 that the
fever from the beginning of the war was fading away.7 Needless to say, such fervor
does not last long in any case, but there were some reasons for the rapid cooling of the
public excitement in Russia. One of reasons was the repressive policy by V. K. Plehve,
Minister of Interior, and another was the military failure of the Russian army.8
The antagonistic attitude of V. K. Plehve toward liberal zemstvos not only made
zemstvo activists stick together against him, but reduced the support for the government
by the various strata of Russian society and resulted in making an enemy of almost all
of society. 9 The authorities oppressed and tried to control zemstvos with liberal
tendencies, and moreover stifled enthusiastic manifestations of loyalty to the Tsar and
the government by the people. The Tsarist government prohibited patriotic mass
demonstrations, apprehending that the movement could evolve beyond the control of
the authorities.10
The progress of the Russo-Japanese war, together with the policies by Plehve,
made hostile accusations against the Tsarist autocracy rise to the surface again and
escalate increasingly. The tide of the war was against Russia from its outbreak, and the
public opinion regarding the outlook of the war became more and more pessimistic. In
the Kingdom of Poland, where the attitude of the population toward the war ranged
from indifference to hostility from the beginning,11 a mass demonstration was held in
Warsaw as early as 1 March 1904, in which such slogans as “Down with Tsarism!”,
“Long live an independent socialist Poland!”, “Down with the war” and “Long live
Japan!” were proclaimed.12 Some clashes between workers and police occurred in
Warsaw in May and June.13
The social tensions and fear, which had grown more and more intensive owing to
7
S. R. Mintslov, Peterburg v 1903-1910 godakh. (Riga, 1931), p.73.
For details on the situation just after the outbreak of war in Russia and a comparison with that of
Japan, see: Yoshifuru Tsuchiya, “Teikoku” no tasogare, mikan no “Kokumin”: Nichiro senso,
daiichijikakumei to Roshia no shakai (The Twilight of the Empire, Unfinished Nation-building:
Russo-Japanese War, First Revolution and the Russian Society) (Seibunsha, Yokohama, 2012),
Chapter 2.
9
I. P. Belokonskii, “Zemskoe dvizhenie do obrazovaniia partii Narodnoi Svobody (Prodolzhenie)”,
Byloe, No.10, 1907, p.267; Edward H. Judge, Plehve: Repression and Reform in Imperial Russia
1902-1904. (Syracuse University Press, 1983), pp.216-217.
10
Iskra, No.60, 25 February 1904, p.4.
11
Robert e. Blobaum, Rewolucija: Russian Poland, 1904-1907. (Cornell University Press, Ithaca
and London, 1995), pp.44ff.
12
Shmuel Galai, The Liberation Movement in Russia 1900-1905. (Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, 1973), p.205.
13
Abraham Ascher, The Revolution of 1905: Russian Disarray. (Stanford University Press, Stanford,
1988), p.55.
8
5
ICCEES World Congress in Makuhari
the unfavorable tide of the war, the repressive policies by the Tsarist government,
economic recession and so on, developed into disorders during the time of conscription
of reservists and frequent occurrence of pogroms against the Jewish people. In addition,
deterioration of social situations led up to political terrorism. In June N. Bobrikov,
Governor-General of Finland, was killed and on 15 July a group of the Battle
Organization of the Socialists-Revolutionaries Party assassinated Plehve by means of a
bomb thrown into his carriage. This incident became a turning point in the domestic
political weather.
Tsar Nikolai II appointed Petr D. Sviatopolk-Mirskii, Governor of Vilno, to be new
Minister of Interior more than one month after the assassination of Plehve, i.e. on 25
August. In an interview with the foreign press, Sviatopolk-Mirskii pledged to cooperate
with the loyal opposition of society, and most sections of society warmly welcomed his
appointment. In this conciliatory atmosphere, the so-called “Mirskii’s spring” or “spring
of liberals” began, and the Union of Liberation utilized the “spring” to carry out the
Zemstvo Congress and the Banquet Campaign.
The Zemstvo Congress was held in St. Petersburg from 6 to 9 November 1904, in
which 105 people from 33 provinces took part.14 According to K. F. Shatsillo, a
Soviet-Russian historian, these people were “the life and soul of zemstvos”.15 The
Congress assumed an informal and private meeting, as the government refused
permission to hold such a gathering formally. However, the fact of the meeting was
widely known to Russian society. The Congress adopted a resolution with eleven
articles as a general political resolution.16 The tenth article was concerned with the
popular representative system and its commission. In this article, both the opinion of the
majority and that of the minority were juxtaposed. While the latter vaguely mentioned
participation by popular representatives in the lawmaking process, the former concretely
stated that the popular representatives must participate in the fulfillment of legislative
power, establishment of national budget, and control over legality of administrative
activities. At this phase of the liberal movement, the majority of zemstvo liberal
activists admitted that the popular representatives should be invested with legislative
power.
The Banquet Campaign, which was proposed at the second congress of the Union
of Liberation on 20-22 October 1904, was launched in commemoration of the fortieth
anniversary of the judicial reform in 1864. During the period from November 1904 to
14
On the details of the discussions at the Congress, see Liberal’noe dvizhenie v Rossii 1902-1905
gg., pp.78-104.
15
K. F. Shatsillo, Russkii liberalism nakanune revoliutsii 1905-1907 gg. (Moscow, 1985), p.287.
16
Liberal’noe dvizhenie v Rossii 1902-1905 gg.,pp.135-138.
6
ICCEES World Congress in Makuhari
the Bloody Sunday (9 January 1905), more than one hundred twenty banquets were held
in thirty four cities, and it is estimated that approximately fifty thousand people in total
participated in banquets and meetings.17 In many banquets, the resolutions of the
Zemstvo Congress were accepted, and, moreover, in some cases there appeared such a
demand as instant convocation of the constituent assembly based on the four-tail
formula suffrage, which got beyond the moderate constitutional attitude of the Zemstvo
Congress.
Liberal Movement and the Problem of Nation-Building
The liberal movement was revitalized from the summer of 1904, and the demand
for a popular representative system became widespread unlike the prewar period. In
addition the four-tail formula (universal, equal, direct and secret) suffrage was widely
accepted as a principle of election of popular representatives. Here I would like to
consider this situation in connection with the Russo-Japanese war.
The Russo-Japanese war presented not only military difficulties but also problems
of the Russian political system as a whole, of relationships of the autocratic regime with
the people and of what the people themselves should be. The last point profoundly had
to do with nationalism. It was Petr Struve who had paid attention to this problem just
after the outbreak of the Russo-Japanese war.
After the outbreak of the war, Struve published his “Letter to students” in the first
issue of Listok Osvobozhdeniia, a supplement of Osvobozhdenie, and insisted that the
liberal movement should utilize the uplift of patriotism roused by the war.18 He hoped
that the war would awake patriotic spirit of the people, and that liberal movement would
be combined together with nationalism. It should be kept in mind that Struve perceived
nationalism as the foundation of national unity.
Prior to “Letter to students”, Struve, in the name of the editor, wrote “War jubilee
and the Jubilee war” in Osvobozhdenie published on 5 (18) February 1904.19 In this
essay, he first indicated that the Crimean war, which had broken out just fifty years
before, revealed the political incompetence of the autocratic regime under Nicholas I
and that the major causes of defeat were a false mind insinuated by the arbitrary
17
Shatsillo, Russkii liberalism nakanune revoliutsii 1905-1907 gg., p.294. T. Emmons revealed 38
banquets, 42 political meetings by cultural groups and professional organizations and 12 meetings of
the students as gatherings during this time. Terrence Emmons, “Russia’s Banquet Campaign”,
California Slavic Studies, Vol.10, 1977, pp.45-86.
18
“Pis’mo k studentam”, Listok Osvobozhdeniia, No.1, 11(24) February 1904, pp.1-2.
19
Redaktor, “Voennyi iubilei i iubileinaia voina”, Osvobozhdenie, No.17, 5 (18) February 1904,
pp.297-301.
7
ICCEES World Congress in Makuhari
autocracy and lack of uplift of national spirit. And then he stated the following: they
should realize that national enthusiasm played an important role in Japan in this war, i.e.
the Russo-Japanese war, and Japan, unlike Ottoman Turkey, was a developing state on
the culturally European principles. Finally he concluded, “Russian army and navy must
fight against a very strong, excellently prepared and well organized enemy. Unlike
Turkey this enemy is superior to Russia in the political respect, and its onslaught is a
lesson in state science [urokom gosudarstvennoi nauki] for Russia”. What is remarkable
in this article is firstly the indication of a lack of national spirit in Russia, and secondly
perception that Russia should draw a lesson from its enemy which he considered as
having surpassed Russia.
Following Struve’s article “War jubilee and the Jubilee War”, “The War and
Autocracy” by an author with the penname of S. D. appeared in Osvobozhdenie
published on 2 (15) April 1904.20 While Struve mentioned the difference of Japan from
Turkey, the author, invoking the Boxer Rebellion, pointed out that Japan and Qing
China were unlike, Japan had disciplined and well equipped army, and it had developed
into firmly centralized state. In addition, he claimed that Japan was able to carry out its
state will and strain all the effort for striking a blow. All the latent strength, which now
was rising among the masses of Japan when they were united into the whole of the
nation, was being mobilized against Russia. In contrast, the domestic policy in Russia
could not contribute to intensification of the healthy and lively national spirit, with
which forces of the people would be strengthened ten times in the external conflicts as
well as in efforts at work in peacetime. Like Struve, the author also compared Russia
with Japan, and the author’s awareness of the problem in this article focused on the
national spirit, i.e. nationalism, in each country.
To add to these articles, an article “The War” by prince G. Volkonsii appeared in
Osvobozhdenie No.59 published in 28 October (10 November) 1904.21 The author
stated that it would not be surprising that the war might end in favor of Japan, because
that must be a result of domestic policies of both states during those twenty five years.
Then he reviewed the domestic reforms in Japan after the Meiji Restoration and their
consequences, pointed out the rising national spirit and national unity that resulted from
free initiatives in Japan and concluded with the remark that social life was in full swing
in Japan. As he referred to the year 1881, he obviously contrasted Russia with Japan. In
1881, as is well known, Tsar Alexander II was killed by bomb-throwing terrorists.
20
S.D., “Voina i samoderzhavie”, Osvobozhdenie, No.21, 2 (15) April 1904, pp.361-363.
Kn. G. Volkonskii, “Voina”, Osvobozhdenie, No.59, 28 October (10 November) 1904,
pp.156-158.
21
8
ICCEES World Congress in Makuhari
Alexander III acceded to the throne, issued the Manifesto on the unshakable institution
of autocracy, and the political program formulated by M. Loris-Melikov was abandoned.
In Japan, the imperial edict was issued in that year, in which it was assured that the
Imperial Diet (Teikoku Gikai) would be summoned in 1890. The year 1881, when
unshakable autocracy was confirmed by the new Tsar, was a starting point of
parliamentary government in Japan.
Thus some liberal activists who contributed articles to Osvobozhdenie contrasted
the lack of national spirit in Russia with the situation in Japan. They considered that the
parliamentary government and constitutionalism lay behind the development of national
spirit in Japan. Struve even claimed that Russia should draw a lesson from Japan, which
surpassed Russia in political respects. As an extension of this understanding, a leaflet
was published by the Union of Liberation in the summer of 1904.
The leaflet “The people and the War” began with the great cost and uselessness of
the war. The Tsar, advised by magnates, grand dukes and ministers, occupied Manchuria
forcibly, which forced Japan into the war with Russia. The Tsar did not know Japanese
military power and national interests. In the war Japan was far stronger and cleverer
than Russian ministers and magnates supposed. The Tsar did not know the needs of
Russian people, either. The Tsar could know it only through the representatives elected
by the people. Thus the leaflet advocated the necessity of the popular representative
system, showing that monarchs ruled their countries together with popular
representatives not only in European countries but also in Japan. In those countries it
was impossible not only to go to war but also to impose taxes without approval by the
national representative assembly. The assembly made efforts to satisfy all the needs of
the country, deliberating new laws and guarding the exchequer from waste of the
people’s fortune. The leaflet said that such a regime was called constitutionalism and
pronounced that now the Russian people must be liberated from the tyranny, demanding
constitutionalism to the Tsar. It was closed with an appeal “Down with autocracy! Long
live constitutionalism!”.22 What is remarkable is that the leaflet referred to the cases not
only of European countries but also of Japan during hostilities.
Under the circumstance that the tide of the war remained unfavorable to Russia,
“unpreparedness for the war” often came up as a reason for the situation. To the people
concerned in those days, “unpreparedness” implied above all that of the military aspect.
However, more substantially “unpreparedness” means the fact itself that the regime in
Russia could not deal with a modern war.
The situation in Russia made a sharp contrast with that of Japan, where “a
22
Liberal’noe dvizhenie v Rossii 1902-1905 gg., pp.510-513.
9
ICCEES World Congress in Makuhari
nation-state as war machine”23 was being established through rising nationalism and
nation-building. In the journal Osvobozhdenie, which provided liberal activists with a
stage for discussion, some opinions paid attention to the political system and national
spirit in Japan from the beginning of the war. A formula “Japan -- solid national spirit -popular representative system” was made and it could become a model of political
regime for the Russian liberal movement. Russia, a very large empire, put up a bad fight
with a small country, Japan. Russian defect seemed to be counter to the strong points of
Japan with reference to national spirit, nationalism, nation-building and representative
government. Indeed, there were many problems in the nation-building in Japan, but
some Russian liberal activists, who aspired to resolve the lack of national unity and split
between the government and society for domestic political reforms, overestimated the
national society in Japan in a sense and regarded the development of Japan as a lesson
to learn.
Unlike radical liberal intelligentsia, it might be impossible for moderate zemstvo
liberals to praise a belligerent nation, so there was not any allusion to Japan in the
Zemstvo Congress. Nevertheless, the necessity of nation-building and the political
system on the basis of the nation was recognized among moderate zemstvo liberals,
which was proven by the fact that they learned to advocate representative government
explicitly in the middle of the revitalized liberal movement.
Russia was an empire where the Tsar ruled the country, which was segmented into
various aggregations such as estates, ethnic group, regions and so on. Zemstvo liberals
shot above all for the transformation of the regime into constitutional polity, which
meant that the imperial polity of Russia would be transformed into a government on the
basis of a nation. The seventh article of the general political resolution adopted in the
Zemstvo Congress provided that all the citizens in the Empire would be equal before the
law. That all the people have the same legal status without discrimination based on
nationality and estate is the most fundamental prerequisite for nation-building. The
eighth article on the equal rights of peasant and other estates and the ninth article on the
extension of zemstvo and urban self-government to the whole Empire had the same
intention as the seventh article. Although there was discord among zemstvo liberals over
what powers the popular representative assembly should have or how the
representatives should be elected, they had agreed with each other by the end of 1904 on
the point that all the people in the Empire should be under the homogeneous legal and
administrative rule and the representatives elected by the people with same rights
23
Kouji Taki, Sensou ron (An essay on war), (Iwanami shinsho, Tokyo, 1999), pp.13-14.
Nation-building of Japan was strongly related with its external wars.
10
ICCEES World Congress in Makuhari
should take part in governing the country.
In such a multi-national empire as Russia, if each ethnic group should claim its
own nationalism, that would result in disruption of the empire. If it is premised that the
empire is indivisible,24 the nation must be built not on the basis of ethnic nationalism
but on the basis of civic nationalism. It was precisely civic nation-building that Russian
liberals advocated to resolve the difficult problems brought by the Russo-Japanese War.
The First Revolution
Sviatopolk-Mirskii presented a report on the domestic reforms to the Tsar in late
November 1904, more or less considering the discussion of the Zemstvo Congress. The
report was discussed among the Tsar, some grand dukes and high officials. Nicholas II
rejected the framework of the popular representative system in the end.
Sviatopolk-Mirskii, whose reform plan was not accepted, offered his resignation to the
Tsar, and was permitted to resign one month after.
Thus the Tsar and the Russian government rejected the popular representative
system the realization of which society considered to be an important step toward
changing Russia into something like a nation-state, and clearly took the position that
they continued to adhere to the absolute autocratic monarchy as a keystone of the
imperial formation. At that moment the state that “the empire” was in opposition to
orientation toward “the nation” had been produced explicitly.
Early in January 1905, the event “Bloody Sunday” took place and matters became
very fluid. In the midst of widespread protest movements to the Bloody Sunday,
Nicholas II was forced to reconsider the popular representative system which he had
rejected two months before, and ordered A.G.Bulygin, Sviatopolk-Mirskii’s successor
as Minister of Interior, on 18 February to make an examination of the representative
system. A secret council, over which Bulygin presided, deliberated that matter and its
bill on the representative assembly (the State Duma) was to be approved by the Tsar on
6 August 1905. The State Duma was not a legislative but a consultative body, and the
suffrage to the State Duma election was limited by various criteria.
Meanwhile, the progress of the war was more and more miserable. More than
20,000 Russians were killed or went missing, about 50,000 were wounded, and more
than 20,000 were taken prisoners in the battle around the front of Mukden in February.
24
Haruki Wada called attention to the fact that separation and independence of the nationalities was
not insisted on in the Paris Conference of Oppositional and Revolutionary Organizations of the
Russian Empire in the autumn of 1904. Haruki Wada, Nikolai Russel: Kokkyowo koeru Narodnik
(Nikolai Russel: A Narodnik beyond the Border) (Chuoukoronsha, Tokyo, 1973), vol.1, p.252.
11
ICCEES World Congress in Makuhari
The Baltic Fleet was annihilated in the battle of Tsushima in May. The article “Save the
country” was published on the opening page of the liberal journal Nedelia on 22 May.
The article said that having heard the news of defeat of the Baltic Fleet, all the people in
Russia were prey to fear, fury and humiliation. It stated that the people felt that it was
necessary to end the war immediately and any delay in decision would be a crime to the
country. Moreover, it claimed that as only the people could save the country, it was
necessary to convoke the popular representatives at once.25 This was an argument
which connected cease-fire with the popular representatives system.
In the spring of 1905, liberal activists developed their demands beyond the
resolutions of the Zemstvo Congress of 1904. For example, a Zemstvo Congress was
held in Moscow from 22 to 26 April, which declared that only the convocation of the
popular representatives who had the right to participate in the legislation could
peacefully and rightly resolve political, social and economic problems of great urgency
in the present Russian life. A majority of participants was in favor of the idea of a
unicameral assembly of the first representatives which would be elected by the four-tail
formula suffrage and the bicameral national legislature in which each chamber would
have equal rights. As for the latter, one chamber would be elected on geographical
criteria by the four-tail formula suffrage, and the other would be elected from the local
self-governments which should be extended all over the country.26
The second Congress of the Union of Unions was held in Moscow on 24 and 25
May. This body was an association of the political unions which were organized by
intelligentsia, professions and others after the Banquet campaign in the autumn of 1904
according to the plan proposed by the Union of Liberation. Against the background of
the defeat at Tsushima, this meeting moved on in a revolutionary atmosphere. It adopted
an appeal on 24 May, and decided to entrust the Central Bureau with handling the
problems of organizing a general strike.27
The appeal declared that any means were now legitimate for the overthrow of the
autocracy, and stated as follows: “if Russia remains silent after the annihilation of the
Baltic fleet, it will show the world that we are not a nation (narod), but an imperfect and
amorphous mass”; “if we want to preserve the right to be called living national organic
whole, we can no more remain silent”; “any means are now legitimate against the
25
Nedelia, No.28, 22 May 1905, pp.1-2.
According to Shatsillo, this was a more radical program than any other programs made by
Zemstvo liberal activists in the recent forty years. K. F. Shatsillo, ““Porozovenie” liberalov v nachale
pervoi rossiiskoi revoliutsii”, Voprosy istorii, 1980, No.4, p.115.
27
Jonathan Sanders, “The Union of Unions: Political, Economic, Civil, and Human Rights
Organizations in the 1905 Russian Revolution” Ph.D. Dissertation, Columbia University, 1985,
pp.873-874.
26
12
ICCEES World Congress in Makuhari
terrible threat which ties in with the fact of continued existence of the present
government. And all means must be tried. We call on everyone to set up a Constituent
Assembly elected by the people on the basis of general, secret, direct and equal suffrage
without discrimination of sex, religion and nationality, in order that we should eliminate
the power of the gang of burglars immediately, finish the war as soon as possible and
put an end to the political regime ruling until today by all forces and all means”.28 This
appeal clearly said that Russian people must be a nation, and, furthermore, that the force
of the nation should be concentrated into the Constituent Assembly elected on the
principle of four-tail formula suffrage without discrimination based on sex, religion and
nationality as the most democratic universal suffrage.
At the same time as the Second Congress of the Union of Unions, zemstvo leaders
held a meeting in Moscow which was to be known as the Coalition Congress, since it
included Slavophiles with D. N. Shipov at the head, some city Dumas representatives
and leaders of Assemblies of Nobilities.29 The meeting decided to petition the Tsar to
change his policies, adopted the address to the Tsar and elected a group of 15 delegates.
The group was presented in Peterhof on 6 June. In the presentation, Sergei Trubetskoi
spoke as follows on the whole: the only way out of the domestic misery was
convocation of the national representatives, and in electing the representatives it was
essential that all the subjects of the Tsar could think themselves to be citizens of Russia
equally and indiscriminately and that each part of the people and social groups should
not be excluded from the popular representation. It was necessary that all the subjects
must see Russia as their own fatherland and the Tsar as their own emperor, even if they
were people unfamiliar to us in their religion and origins. As the Tsar was not a Tsar of
aristocrats, of peasants or of merchants, but a Tsar of the whole of Rus’, so the persons
elected from all the population must serve not estate interests but all national interests.
In concluding his speech, Trubetskoi asked for the freedom of speech, as it was
necessary to open the possibility of the broadest arguments.30 Though Trubetskoi’s
diction was very mild, we can read from it his intentions toward a Russian nation which
would go beyond the differences of nationality and religion.
In addition, an all-Russian congress in which more than two hundred
representatives of zemstvos and city Dumas took part was held in Moscow from 6 to 8
July. During that time, the contents of discussion at the Bulygin council were leaking
out in the newspapers. So participants discussed attitudes toward the Bulygin Duma Bill
28
29
30
Osvobozhdenie, No.72, 8 (21) June 1905, p.367.
Liberal’noedvizhenie v Rossii 1902-1905, pp.222-246.
Liberal’noedvizhenie v Rossii 1902-1905, pp.514-516.
13
ICCEES World Congress in Makuhari
in the meeting. Furthermore, they examined their drafts of the Basic Law of Russia and
electoral law.
The draft of the Basic Law examined in this meeting had been drawn up by Sergei
Muromtsev.31 It was composed of 113 articles in six parts; the first –“on Laws”, the
second –“on the rights of Russian citizens”, the third – on the State Duma, the fourth
–“on ministers”, the fifth –“on the foundations of local self-government”, and sixth
–“on judicial power”. The twelfth article in the first part provided that rescripts and
other regulations issued by the Tsar could not be executed without the countersignature
of the prime minister or one of the ministers who would take responsibility. Thus the
power of the Tsar was limited. The sixteenth article in the second part provided the
equality of all the Russian citizens before law, and the following articles provided the
rights of civil liberties. In the forty-second article in the third part, it was provided that
national representatives should be elected by the four-tail formula suffrage, though the
suffrage would be given only to male adults over 25 years old (according to the
forty-third article). While a draft of the Union of Liberation published in late 1904
provided the Russian Empire in the first part and Finland in the second part,32 the draft
drawn up by Muromtsev didn’t have such a provision. 33 In this sense, it had a
characteristic of stronger tendencies toward a nation-state than the draft of the Union of
Liberation.
Struve, who, being abroad, paid attention to a chain of meetings, wrote a short
piece titled “A nation is being born (Рождается нация)” for Osvobozhdenie.34 This text
seems to be very important to our argument, so here I cite the original text. Stress is also
original.
Москва собирает свободную Россию. Иностранные ежедневные газеты
приносят целый ряд важных телеграфических известий о происходящем в Москве
съезде земских и городских деятелей. Съезд этот представляет дальнейший
крупный шаг вперед в русском освободительном движении. Земцы решили со
своей демократической программой обратиться к народу и начать
освободительную пропаганду и агитацию во всех слоях населения.
Эти заявления и акты многознаменательны. Ими возвещается: рождается
31
The text of the draft is in Liberal’noe dvizhenie v Rossii 1902-1905, pp.315-328.
The text of this draft is in Konstitutsionnye proekty v Rossii XVIII - nachalo XX v. (Moscow,
2000), pp.675-693.
33
Muromtsev took the floor as the author in this meeting, but he did not refer to this point.
Liberal’noe dvizhenie v Rossii 1902-1905, p.274.
34
“Rozhdaetsia natsiia”, Osvobozhdenie, No.74, 13 (26) July 1905, p.416. The text is also cited in
Shakhovskoi’s memoir. Liberal’noe dvizhenie v Rossii 1902-1905, pp.593-594.
32
14
ICCEES World Congress in Makuhari
нация. Нация не в смысле народности, племени, крови, а в смысле правовом или
государственном, народа, сознавшего себя источником права и на этом основании
утверждающего новое политическое бытие страны. Народ, сознающий свои
державные права, -- только такой народ и может притязать на имя нации.
Рождается державный народ, или нация. Но для того, чтобы ускорить или
облегчить эти великие роды, необходимы согласные усилия всех тех, для кого
рождение нации дороже и выше всех классовых интересов, существеннее всех
социальных и иных делений. Необходима организованная политическая партия,
которая в этом будет видеть в настоящее время весь смысл своего существования
и все содержание своей работы. Такая партия может быть только
конституционной, ибо конституция есть лишь закрепление державных прав
нации. Такая партия может быть только демократической, ибо нацией в наше
время может быть только весь народ.
России нужна конституционно-демократическая партия, нужна как орудие
создания державного народа, как акушер нации.
23 (10) июля 1905
П.С.
As mentioned above, Struve hoped for the rise of the national spirits and nationalism
from the beginning of the war, comparing the situation in Russia with that of Japan. At
the very moment when the war declined toward the end, he arrived at the recognition
that a nation was being born in Russia. Indeed Shakhovskoi situated this text in the
process of establishment of a liberal-democratic political party,35 i.e. Kadet, but we
should read it in the context of an undertaking of nation-building.
Conclusion
Up to here I have presented an overview of the development of the liberal
movement from the outbreak of the Russo-Japanese war to the summer of 1905. The
war with Japan, a small Asian country, made the weaknesses of the autocratic imperial
rule of Tsarist Russia come to the surface. Liberals, who had already been making
criticisms before the outbreak of the war, found that the strength of Japan lay in the
connection of nationalism, constitutionalism and a representative regime, which
influenced their framework on the domestic political reforms on the basis of a nation.
Since the summer of 1904, they had pursued constitutionalism and a popular
35
Liberal’noe dvizhenie v Rossii 1902-1905, pp.593-594.
15
ICCEES World Congress in Makuhari
representative system, which presupposed the equality of all the citizens of the Russian
Empire without any discrimination based on nationality. This showed that their
orientation toward nationalism and nation-building was a civic one.
Struve arrived at the recognition that a nation was being born in Russia. However,
the revolution after the summer of 1905 did not progress in such a way as to realize
Struve’s expectations. Many liberals in zemstvos and city Dumas had accepted the
demands of the four-tail formula suffrage and the constituent assembly since the spring
of 1905, and so they could not basically agree to contents of the Bulygin State Duma
Bill leaked in the newspapers during early summer.36 However, as concrete contents of
the Bill gradually emerged, they were divided on the question whether they should
participate in the State Duma or boycott it.
Meanwhile, the revolutionary movement developed further independently of the
debates on the State Duma among liberals. In late September, the government held a
conference devoted to the problem of railroad employees’ pensions. This meeting was
radicalized by a section of radical delegates and messages sent from all over the country.
When a rumor was going about that some delegates had been arrested, the leaders of the
Union of Railroad Employees and Workers, which had plotted a general strike earlier
than any other organizations of the Union of Unions, attempted to take the opportunity
to organize a railroad general strike. The strike began on 6 October in Moscow, though
its beginning was not necessarily well organized. It extended from Moscow to other
regions and developed into the railroad general strike. Furthermore, factory workers and
other stratum of the population joined it, and it became a political general strike
involving the whole of Russia.37 The situation compelled the Tsar to respond to the
voices of the country with the promulgation of a Manifesto on 17 October, accepting the
advice of Sergei Witte, who had come back recently from the peace conference at
Portsmouth.
While workers continued to pursue their own objectives after the Manifesto on 17
October, liberal activists considered the Manifesto to be an important product of the
movement in that it could put an end to absolute autocracy. Though they were in
sympathy with working-class people, the joint struggle of liberals and workers
gradually diminished and the first revolution resulted in failure in the sense that it could
not overthrow the Tsarist rule. The popular representative system on the basis of
36
Galai, The Liberation Movement in Russia, p.254; K.S. Sivkov, Gorodskaia burzhuaziia 10 let
tomu nazad. (Iz istorii obshchestvennykh dvizhenii 1905 g.), Golos minuvshego, 1915, No12,
pp.85-88, 97.
37
On the detail of the October political strike, see Yoshifuru Tsuchiya, “1905-nen 10-gatsu seiji
zenesuto (The General Strike in October 1905)”, Gendaishi Kenkyu, No.37, 1991, pp.1-20.
16
ICCEES World Congress in Makuhari
four-tail formula suffrage, which liberals saw as a starting point of civic nation-building,
was not satisfied. Yet, the Basic Law and the State Duma, though both were not
necessarily satisfactory, were brought into the Russian Empire, which meant that the
history of Russia had entered a new era. The challenge of nation-building was to be
worked at in the State Duma.
17