ArticlePDF Available

An imperial community: Difference and inclusionary approaches to Russianness in the State Duma, 1906–1907

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

Focusing on the debates in the First and Second State Duma of the Russian Empire, the article argues that the imperial parliament was the site for articulating and developing multiple approaches to political community. Together with the better studied particularistic discourses, which were based on ethno-national, religious, regional, social estate, class and other differences, many deputies of the State Duma, including those who subscribed to particularistic agendas, appealed to an inclusionary Russian political community. The production of this new, modern political community was part of the global trend of political modernization but often departed from the homogenizing and exclusionary logic of nation-building. It relied on the experience of the composite imperial space, with its fluid and overlapping social categories. Two approaches predominated. The integrative approach foregrounded civil equality. It resembled other cases of modern nation-building but still remained attentive to diversity. The composite approach synthesized particularistic discourses with the broadly circulating ideas of autonomy and federation and, relying on the imperial politics of difference, imagined individual groups as the building blocks of a new differentiated political community. Both approaches stressed loyalty to the Russian state but borrowed from aspirational patriotism, seeking to rebuild it on new principles.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cerh20
European Review of History: Revue européenne
d'histoire
ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cerh20
An imperial community: difference and
inclusionary approaches to Russianness in the
State Duma, 1906–1907
Ivan Sablin
To cite this article: Ivan Sablin (2022) An imperial community: difference and inclusionary
approaches to Russianness in the State Duma, 1906–1907, European Review of History: Revue
européenne d'histoire, 29:5, 819-843, DOI: 10.1080/13507486.2022.2074821
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13507486.2022.2074821
© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Informa
UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group.
Published online: 09 Nov 2022.
Submit your article to this journal
View related articles
View Crossmark data
An imperial community: dierence and inclusionary
approaches to Russianness in the State Duma, 1906–1907
Ivan Sablin
Department of History, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany
ABSTRACT
Focusing on the debates in the First and Second State Duma of the
Russian Empire, the article argues that the imperial parliament was
the site for articulating and developing multiple approaches to
political community. Together with the better studied particularistic
discourses, which were based on ethno-national, religious, regional,
social estate, class and other dierences, many deputies of the State
Duma, including those who subscribed to particularistic agendas,
appealed to an inclusionary Russian political community. The pro-
duction of this new, modern political community was part of the
global trend of political modernization but often departed from the
homogenizing and exclusionary logic of nation-building. It relied
on the experience of the composite imperial space, with its uid
and overlapping social categories. Two approaches predominated.
The integrative approach foregrounded civil equality. It resembled
other cases of modern nation-building but still remained attentive
to diversity. The composite approach synthesized particularistic
discourses with the broadly circulating ideas of autonomy and
federation and, relying on the imperial politics of dierence, ima-
gined individual groups as the building blocks of a new dieren-
tiated political community. Both approaches stressed loyalty to the
Russian state but borrowed from aspirational patriotism, seeking to
rebuild it on new principles.
ARTICLE HISTORY
Received 3 June 2021
Accepted 4 May 2022
KEYWORDS
Russia; empire; nationalism;
parliament; federalism;
autonomy
Introduction
During the imperial transformations of the early twentieth century, which engulfed inter
alia the Russian, Ottoman and Qing empires, parliamentary institutions were built into the
imperial repertoires of governing diverse populations and contributed to the consolidation
of existing political communities and the construction of new ones. Some of these political
communities appealed to particularistic categories of nationality (ethnicity), religion and
class; others sought to include the whole empires, accommodate diverse interest groups,
prevent the shared social space from disintegrating, and reinforce imperial states. These
institutions played a key role in the attempted modernization of empires and the building
of inclusionary and heterogeneous imperial communities. They were supposed to resolve
the paradox between the implied homogeneity of a nation and the inherent heterogeneity
of imperial formations as composite polities based on the differential distribution of rights.
1
CONTACT Ivan Sablin ivan.sablin@zegk.uni-hdeilberg.de Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany
EUROPEAN REVIEW OF HISTORY: REVUE EUROPÉENNE D’HISTOIRE
2022, VOL. 29, NO. 5, 819–843
https://doi.org/10.1080/13507486.2022.2074821
© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any med-
ium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way.
The State Duma of the Russian Empire, which was introduced during the Revolution
of 1905–7 as a legislative parliament, reshaped imperial politics. As noted by Diliara
Usmanova, the first two convocations of the Duma were revolutionary assemblies, and
their deputies addressed a broader imperial audience in the first instance.
2
The deputies
also relied on the revolutionary discourses, which had been channelled in the uncensored
press and other publications, as well as at various rallies and congresses, such as, for
instance, the congresses of zemstvo and municipal activists.
3
The debates in the First and
Second Duma, which were widely publicized through the press, became the amplifiers of
the socialist and liberal discourses, standardized them, and made them into the opposi-
tional mainstream, which was reproduced by a broad array of intellectuals and activists
and did not correspond to clear party divisions.
4
Although the Imperial government attempted to use the Duma for constructing the
‘Russian political nation’ on the principle of loyalty to itself,
5
its first (27 April 1906 to 8
July 1906) and second (20 February 1907 to 3 June 1907) convocations had oppositional
majorities.
6
They became political forums, where difference was articulated and co-
produced, where particularistic claims were formulated, and where different versions
of an imperial community were developed for reassembling Russia on new principles.
The projects of building an imperial community fell into the broader trend of developing
non-essentializing legal philosophies and the notion of empires as both modern and
viable.
7
Difference, formulated in terms of nationality (Polish, Ukrainian, Jewish, Kazakh,
Bashkir and other), class (worker and peasant), social estate (peasant and Cossack),
religion (Muslim, Jewish and other) and region (Baltic region, Siberia, Western
Borderlands and other), played an important role in the self-organization of deputies
and in the parliamentary debates, and its ethnic and religious dimensions are relatively
well studied.
8
The production of the synthetic and ambivalent discourse,
9
which ima-
gined the community
10
of Russia’s overlapping ethnic, religious and social groups,
received much less attention. The parliamentary debates, which were studied on the
basis of the official verbatim reports,
11
did not support the notion of a teleological
transition from a ‘pre-national imperial patriotism’ to secessionist nationalisms, which
missed the discourse of imperial modernization and the building of a modern, inclu-
sionary Russian imperial community. The nationalism of the liberals in the first two
dumas was not assimilative.
12
Many deputies articulated the need to build an inclusion-
ary and internally diverse Russian people or nation.
The dominant strains of the Duma discourse of Russianness were integrative and
composite. The integrative approach was formulated in terms of creating a legally
homogenous civic community through legal equality. At the same time, its suppor-
ters did not advocate cultural assimilation. The widespread homogenizing notion of
the parliament itself, which was described as the ‘people’s representation’ (narodnoe
predstavitel’stvo) and, collectively, as the ‘representatives of the people’ (narodnye
predstaviteli), also contributed to this approach.
13
The composite approach fore-
grounded the heterogeneity of the imperial community and sought to accommodate
particularistic interests by reshaping the existing hierarchies, for instance through
decentralization and autonomous rights.
14
It relied on the imperial politics of
difference and imagined individual groups as the building blocks of a new differ-
entiated political community. This was not a step in the alleged transition from
820 I. SABLIN
empire to nation-state, since for many national movements at the turn of the
century autonomy was not a surrogate for independence but a goal in itself.
15
Both approaches stressed loyalty to the Russian state, and borrowed from aspira-
tional patriotism, seeking to ensure a fairer future.
16
Although they were not
mutually exclusive, there was no agreement on how to combine individual and
group rights.
In a way, the proponents of both approaches attempted to find a balance between
imperial subjecthood and a modern citizenship. In the late Russian Empire, the
subjects were sorted into different categories with distinct rights and duties, which
created the ‘imperial rights regime’, as Jane Burbank calls it. Some progressive
intellectuals and politicians sought to replace heterogeneous subjecthood with a
modern citizenship with uniform, individual and equal rights, which would under-
mine existing privileges. Other progressive intellectuals, including those in some of
the Duma caucuses, however, sought to reconfigure the regime of special treatment
by expanding the rights of their constituencies. In this respect they contributed to
the development of an imperial, that is, differentiated, version of citizenship.
17
As
argued by Mariia Gulakova and Alexander Semyonov, the concept of imperial
citizenship can be traced to the Great Reforms of the 1860s, which combined the
creation of a universalizing framework of norms and institutions and the retention
of particularistic specificity during the integration into this framework.
18
In this respect, the composite approach foregrounded the redistribution of special
rights, which now had to originate in the whole imperial collectivity rather than the
Imperial government, and the elimination of duties in its attempts to create differentiated
citizenship in place of subjecthood. The integrative approach emphasized the need for
legal equality and hence its proponents envisioned a more homogeneous version of
imperial citizenship, insisting, however, that it did not hamper differentiated interests.
The latter became important in the split among the liberals, with the centre-right Union
of October 17 (Octobrists) rejecting any differentiation of the Russian state in their 1906
programme.
19
The debates in the First and Second Duma became somewhat a distillation of the
discourse of the Revolution of 1905–7, which launched mass politics on an empire-
wide scale. On the one hand, the dominant discourse of the revolution was one of
citizenship. The citizen was one who ‘insisted on their equality before the law and
claimed the right to be represented and to participate in the polity on an equal
basis,’ as Stephen A. Smith puts it. The emergence of multiple professional, ethno-
national, regional and religious unions across the empire, which campaigned both
for uniform rights of the citizen and for the group rights of those whom they
claimed to represent, meant that the principle of differentiated treatment often
superseded that of uniformity. The ‘unionism’ of the revolution also brought to
life multiple projects of ethno-national, religious and regional autonomy, and con-
solidated the demands for rights of specific categories of employees or broader social
and economic groups. Some of the unions laid the foundation for caucuses in the
Duma. The term ‘people’ (narod) was widely used during the mobilization cam-
paigns and could refer to the community of all inhabitants of the empire, to the
‘common people’, and to a specific ethno-national or religious group.
20
EUROPEAN REVIEW OF HISTORY: REVUE EUROPÉENNE D’HISTOIRE 821
The appeals to Russia and the ‘people’ were central to the First and Second Duma, while
the term ‘people’s representation’ had been used for parliament since the 1860s, when Boris
Nikolaevich Chicherin wrote the first book on parliamentarism in Russian.
21
As private
letters indicate, the notion of the ‘people’ was not a mere rhetorical device, and played an
important role in the political ontologies of many deputies.
22
The explicit attempts to define
the body of imperial citizens were not central to the Duma debates, but citizenship was
mentioned or implied when the most important issues of civil rights, agrarian reforms and
amnesty were being discussed. The integrative and composite approaches to Russianness
predominated until the Revolution of 1917 and during its first months, but the particular-
istic community-building based on class and nationality ultimately prevailed.
23
It is important to note that in 1906–7 there was no strict division between liberal and
socialist visions of an inclusionary political community. Indeed, the liberals mainly
articulated the notion of civic equality, but some of them also spoke of popular sover-
eignty and narodovlastie (‘people’s power’), just like the socialists.
24
The issue of popular
sovereignty played a major role in the debates among liberal law scholars, most of them
members of the KD Party, and their positions on it did not correspond to party
divisions.
25
As noted by Vasilii Alekseevich Maklakov, a KD leader, in his memoirs,
the public (obshchestvennost’) in general viewed popular sovereignty as the source of the
late imperial reform, while the Tsar traced it to his own sovereignty.
26
Dierence in the State Duma
In the official proceedings of the Duma, the deputies were identified according to their
province, but in the debates, they claimed to represent a great variety of different group
interests. The organizational composition of the State Duma was hybrid and included
both political parties and non-party caucuses, which had overlapping memberships. The
liberal Constitutional Democratic Party (KD) had the largest faction in the First Duma.
The left-leaning Labour Group (Trudoviks) was the second largest. In the Second Duma
the Left were the largest force, which included the Trudoviks and the Faction of the All-
Russian Peasant Union, the Party of Socialists-Revolutionaries (SR), who caucused with
the Trudoviks, and the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party (SD). Unlike the First
Duma, the Second Duma also had a small but vocal right-wing group. The high economic
qualification for most voters did not prevent the first two Dumas from being over-
whelmingly oppositional, which resulted in their dissolution. Only the adoption of an
even more restrictive electoral law on 3 June 1907 allowed for convening a Duma loyal to
the Tsar’s government.
27
According to Rustem Tsiunchuk’s estimate, some 41% of the deputies in the First
Duma were non-Russian.
28
Some non-party caucuses, such as the Polish Koło (‘circle’)
and the Ukrainian Hromada (‘community’), were explicitly ethno-national. The Caucus
of Autonomists also had ethno-national groups within it, while the Group of the Western
Borderlands was strongly associated with the Poles. The rest were defined in religious
(the Muslim Group and Muslim Labour Group, which emerged in the Second Duma),
social estate (the Cossack Group) and regional (the Siberian Group of Progressive
Deputies in the Second Duma) terms.
29
The overlapping between different factions and
caucuses and the lack of a single criteria for faction-building embodied the ‘pluralist
nature of political representation’.
30
822 I. SABLIN
Deputies of different backgrounds opposed Russification, legal inequality and settler
colonialism; defended the right to use native languages and profess their religions freely;
and demanded territorial autonomy for nationalities and regions. Cossacks defended
their social estate rights; Siberians advocated reforms in their region.
31
Peasants and
intellectuals alike appealed to class and social estate differences during the debates on the
agrarian reform, which was seen as the most important task of the Duma. Socialists,
predominately the Georgian SDs, also appealed to a class-based political community
explicitly.
32
The oratorial manifestations of difference were frequent and did not cause any
protests in the First Duma. This changed in the Second Duma where the right deputies
ridiculed the accents of the Georgian SD Iraklii Georgievich Tsereteli, a student, who had
been exiled for his political activities, as well as other non-Russian deputies. The Tatar
Muslim scholar Mukhammedsabir Mukhammedzhanovich Khasanov (Figure 1) had to
endure shouts from the Right when he dismissed the support of death penalty by an
Orthodox priest as non-Christian. When Khasanov was discussing Russification, the
Right shouted that Russian Muslims could move to Turkey. The Right used difference to
attack non-Russians personally and dismiss their political positions. They also explicitly
supported their own particularistic, exclusionary version of Russianness in the Second
Duma.
33
Figure 1. Members of the Muslim Faction of the Second Duma, Saint Petersburg, 1907. Left to right,
seating: Sh. Koshchegulov, M. Khasanov, Kh. Usmanov, Kh. Atlasov, G. Musin; standing: M.
Makhmudov, K. Tevkelev, Z. Zeinalov, G. Badamshin. Source: TsGAKFFD SPb (Central State Archive of
Film and Photographic Documents of Saint Petersburg), E19382; RNB (National Library of Russia), E
AlP/2-187, Ei 25187.
EUROPEAN REVIEW OF HISTORY: REVUE EUROPÉENNE D’HISTOIRE 823
Integrative Russianness
The idea of the Russian nation or people as one inclusionary civic nation was at the centre
of the integrative approach to building an imperial community. Its proponents focused
on civil equality, which involved the elimination of discrimination, based on gender,
nationality, religion and social estate, as well as individual rights and liberties. They also
demanded a responsible cabinet and universal suffrage. The idea of civil equality united
both socialists and liberals, including those who supported particularistic interests. The
idea of a civic nation was central for the First Duma’s address to the Tsar, which reflected
the oppositional consensus on the need of reforms. Given the First Duma’s swift
dissolution, the discussions continued in the Second Duma.
Numerous deputies evoked the idea of a homogenous civic nation explicitly. Some tied
it to the parliament itself, building on the notion of ‘people’s representation’. Ian
Ianovich Tennison (Jaan Tõnisson), a founder of the Estonian Progressive National
Democratic Party, a member of the KD faction, and a member of the Caucus of
Autonomists, urged the Duma to be ‘the reason of the nation’.
34
When the First Duma
discussed its address to the Tsar, one Trudovik deputy stressed that it should overcome
programme differences because it had to be the address of the nation and not an address
of individual parties. Aleksei Fedorovich Alad’in (Figure 2), a political activist of peasant
background and one of the founding leaders of the Labour Group, used the terms nation
and people interchangeably. The idea of ‘people’s representation’ also drove the rejection
of the half-appointed State Council, the de facto upper chamber, as an intermediary
between the monarch and the representatives of the people by both liberals and
Trudoviks. Maksim Maksimovich Kovalevskii (Figure 3), a legal scholar, a historian
and a leader of the minor Party of Democratic Reforms, argued that the State Council
was the supreme administrative body and could not hence be at the same time a
legislative body.
35
After Prime Minister Ivan Logginovich Goremykin rejected the demands of the
Duma’s address, Vladimir Dmitrievich Nabokov (Figure 4), a law scholar and one of
the founding members of the KD Party, demanded the subordination of the executive to
the legislative branch in line with the ‘principle of people’s representation’.
36
In the
Second Duma, the SD Tsereteli took Nabokov’s statement further, demanding the
subordination of the cabinet to the will of the people and claiming that only the organized
force of the people could ensure it: ‘We say, in unity with the people, in contact with the
people, let the legislative power subjugate the executive power.’ Some deputies on the
right interpreted Tsereteli’s words as a call to insurgency.
37
Indeed, many deputies on the left viewed the people as external to the Duma. The
Trudovik Cossack Fedor Dmitrievich Kriukov, a deputy of the First Duma, wrote in a
private letter that if the State Council rejected the agrarian law of the Duma, the Russian
people itself would have to act. The SR Trudovik Mitrofan Kuz’mich Popov, a deputy of
the Second Duma, wrote similar things in another letter, although he cautioned against a
popular rebellion.
38
The Georgian SD Isidor Ivanovich Ramishvili (Figure 5), a teacher,
who had been imprisoned due to his participation in the workers’ movement, maintained
that the all-Russian people was the only master of Russia. The Georgian SD Ivan
Gedevanovich Gomarteli (Figure 5), a medical doctor, called the government the
enemy of the ‘whole Russian people’ in the First Duma.
39
824 I. SABLIN
The idea of the people, however, did not necessarily mean republicanism. The KDs
supported constitutional monarchy. Speaking at the First Duma, the KD Nikolai
Ivanovich Kareev (Figure 6), a historian and a sociologist, asserted that only full unity
of the monarch and the nation could lead the country out of the deadlock. Urging the
avoidance of the horrors of the 1789 French Revolution, Kareev maintained that an
accountable cabinet was the key to this unity, since it established connection between the
monarch and the people’s representatives.
40
The programme of the Muslim Faction in
the Second Duma also spoke of a ‘genuine participation of the people’ in ruling Russia
but supported ‘constitutional parliamentary monarchy’, in which the monarch and the
people shared the supreme authority.
41
Mikhail Aleksandrovich Stakhovich (Figure 3), a zemstvo (rural self-government)
activist and one of the founders of the right liberal Union of 17 October, articulated a
minority opinion against parliamentarism. Stakhovich insisted that the accountability of
the cabinet to the Tsar would eliminate the danger of ‘political passions’.
42
In another
speech, Stakhovich urged the Duma not to ‘offend the Tsar’ and to help him bring peace
to the country, citing his peasant voters.
43
For both the KDs and the Trudoviks, constructing the Russian nation required full
civil equality through the elimination of existing discrimination, based on gender,
nationality, religion and social estate.
44
In the First Duma the KD Fedor Fedorovich
Kokoshkin (Figure 4), a legal scholar, deemed ‘civil equality of all citizens of the
Russian Empire’ necessary and claimed that it became possible, since the masses
Figure 2. Members of the Labour Group of the First Duma, Saint Petersburg, 27 April 1906. Left to
right: A. A. Alad’in, I. V. Zhilkin, S. V. Anikin. Source: TsGAKFFD SPb, E16246.
EUROPEAN REVIEW OF HISTORY: REVUE EUROPÉENNE D’HISTOIRE 825
joined the upper classes on the historical scene. He underscored the need to eliminate
all privileges and limitations of social estates, all national and religious discrimina-
tion, especially that related to the Poles and the Jews, and gender inequality.
45
Kokoshkin used etatist argumentation when advocating the construction of a
Russian nation:
After all, the establishment of civil equality is not only a matter of justice; it is a matter of
state necessity. If we want to really construct a new state building, we must remember that
legally, according to our legislation, at the present time we do not have a people, a nation
in the legal sense of the word; we have only separate groups of the population, separate
tribes, nationalities, and class groups, which are subordinate to one authority, but they do
not constitute one legal whole. [. . .] We do not have a people, a nation in the political
sense of the word. A nation is a necessary foundation for a modern constitutional
[pravovoe] state. It [the nation] is being organized in our country de facto, but we need
to organize and unite it de jure, we need to create the Russian people in the legal sense of
the word, we need to create a nation – and such in our time can only be a union of free,
equal citizens (applause).
46
Fedor Izmailovich Rodichev (Figure 6), a zemstvo activist, lawyer and founding member
of the KD Party, made the same argument, urging ‘put[ting] an end to inequality’ and
‘initiat[ing] the actual creation of a nation’, suggesting that until then the ‘concept
“Russian people”’ was a mere ‘paper concept’.
47
Figure 3. Leaders and members of liberal parties, Saint Petersburg, 1906. Left to right, seating: G. R.
Kilevein, V. D. Kuz’min-Karavaev, M. M. Kovalevskii, M. A. Stakhovich; standing: I. V. Gessen, P. N.
Miliukov, ?, A. V. Vasil’ev, A. A. Kornilov, A. A. Stakhovich. Source: TsGAKFFD SPb, E19109; RNB, E AlP/2-
187, Ei 25187.
826 I. SABLIN
The issue of women’s rights was raised predominately by the Trudoviks. Some of them
argued that the First Duma’s address to the Tsar needed to specify that universal suffrage
included women’s suffrage. Whereas the statements in favour of women’s suffrage were
well received, the patriarchal arguments against it, made by a non-partisan deputy of
peasant background, were also met with applause. Count Petr Aleksandrovich Geiden, a
retired official, a zemstvo activist and one of the leaders of the Union of 17 October,
claimed that universal suffrage was unnecessary, since the Duma needed to get used to
parliamentary activity involving only men first. Most of those who spoke on the matter in
the First Duma, however, supported women’s suffrage. The KD Abussugud
Abdel’khalikovich Akhtiamov (Ufa Province), a leader of the Muslim Faction, opposed
the suggestion that Islam did not support women’s equality, which some Muslim activists
ostensibly communicated to the Trudovik Alad’in, and reaffirmed his caucus’ support for
women’s rights.
48
Multiple deputies focused on the issue of ethnic and religious inequality and
violence. Denouncing the Białystok Pogrom of June 1906, Kovalevskii reaffirmed that
all Russian citizens were ‘brothers’ and stood ‘for each other as one person’.
49
Sergei
Andreevich Kotliarevskii, a historian, a zemstvo activist and a founding member of the
KD Party, argued that full civil equality of all Russian citizens without discrimination
on the basis of nationality and religion was to become the main means against
Figure 4. KD deputies of the First Duma, Saint Petersburg, 1906. Left to right: F. F. Kokoshkin, S. A.
Muromtsev, I. I. Petrunkevich, M. M. Vinaver, V. D. Nabokov. Source: TsGAKFFD SPb, E90.
EUROPEAN REVIEW OF HISTORY: REVUE EUROPÉENNE D’HISTOIRE 827
pogroms. The KD Ivan Il’ich Petrunkevich (Figure 4), a lawyer and zemstvo activist,
decried the official appeals to patriotism when justifying violence against non-Russians,
Jews and Poles in the first place. The Trudovik Alad’in argued that the Russian people
were not complicit in the pogroms, since all of them were organized by the
authorities.
50
The KDs submitted a legislative proposal on the principles of civil equality to the
First Duma. It specified that since inequality was entrenched in Russian law, several
acts were needed to eliminate the privileges and restrictions based on social estate,
nationality, religion and gender. Liberals also submitted proposals on specific rights
and freedoms to the First Duma and, given its dissolution, resubmitted many of them
to the Second Duma. Socialists also submitted proposals on specific rights and free-
doms to the Second Duma.
51
While most socialists supported the idea of a constituent
assembly,
52
many liberal deputies advocated universal suffrage to the State Duma. The
KD Rodichev tied the issue to patriotism, suggesting that ‘a Russian citizen, no matter
how modest his existence’ was, ‘should have the right to call Russia his Fatherland’.
53
The KD legislative proposal, prepared for the First Duma and submitted to the Second
Duma, specified that universal suffrage was the foundation for a modern state, based on
the rule of law.
54
Figure 5. SD deputies of the First Duma, Saint Petersburg, 1906. Left to right, standing: I. G. Gomarteli,
I. F. Savel’ev, I. E. Shuvalov, M. I. Mikhailichenko, V. A. Il’in, N. N. Zhordaniia, P. A. Ershov, S. D.
Dzhaparidze, S. N. Tsereteli; Seating: Z. I. Vyrovoi, V. N. Churiukov, I. I. Antonov, A. I. Smirnov, I. I.
Ramishvili. Source: TsGAKFFD SPb, E19387.
828 I. SABLIN
On 7 July 1906, an ad hoc committee of the First Duma presented its report on equal
rights, but the Tsar dissolved the First Duma on 8 July, before the debate started. It is
noteworthy that the Imperial government did not hamper the introduction of women’s
suffrage in Finland as part of the broader democratic reform, which was passed by the
Finnish Parliament (Eduskunta). In March 1907, when the Second Duma was already in
session, Finland held the first universal parliamentary elections in Europe.
55
Composite Russianness
Although those deputies who advocated particularistic interests also supported the First
Duma’s address to the Tsar and hence the idea of a homogeneous civic nation, the issue
of making a single nation compatible with group interests remained. Some deputies
proposed to legally differentiate ethno-national and regional categories, reconfiguring the
empire.
When Aleksandr Robertovich Lednitskii (Aleksander Lednicki) (Figure 7), a Polish
lawyer, a co-founder of the KD Party, and one of the leaders of the Caucus of
Autonomists, presented the Autonomist programme, he specified that autonomy was
supposed to be the main principle of reforming the state and establishing the ‘organic
connection of individual elements’ into the shared whole. He nevertheless juxtaposed the
Russian people and other nationalities, addressing the Duma as the representatives of the
former and presenting the programme as the demands of the latter.
56
Other supporters of
Figure 6. KD Deputies of the First Duma, Saint Petersburg, 27 April 1906. Left to right: N. I. Kareev, F. I.
Rodichev, V. D. Nabokov. Source: TsGAKFFD SPb, D5040.
EUROPEAN REVIEW OF HISTORY: REVUE EUROPÉENNE D’HISTOIRE 829
autonomy stressed the benefit of the whole Russian state. Boleslav Antonovich Ialovetskii
(Bolesław Jałowiecki), a Polish engineer and a leader of the Group of the Western
Borderlands, differentiated between individuals, societies and peoples, all of which
could understand each other and find the best forms for shared living through their
free agency.
57
Unlike the SRs, who supported autonomy, and the SDs, who supported national self-
determination, the KDs argued that the formation of a parliamentary, constitutional state
had to precede national autonomy. As noted earlier, it was the issue of autonomy which
had split the liberal movement, with its fierce opponents forming the centre-right Union
of October 17, but in the KD Party there were also different opinions on the matter. The
Figure 7. Deputy of the First Duma from the Minsk Province A. R. Lednitskii, Saint Petersburg, 1906.
Source: TsGAKFFD SPb, G9835.
830 I. SABLIN
KD programme was a result of a compromise. It supported cultural self-determination
and the use of native languages, but explicitly it considered Poland the only territory
which could be granted autonomy and its own parliament immediately after the creation
of a democratic parliament, while the autonomous rights of Finland, which had its own
parliament, had to be fully reinstated. At the same time, the passages on extended self-
government left the possibility of autonomization of other groups and territories
58
and
resulted in the popularity of the KD Party among non-Russian politicians and activists.
In the First Duma, the KD Kareev criticized an ethnic, exclusionary understanding of
the Russian nation by Russia’s ruling elites, but also remained cautious about the
juxtaposition of Russians and non-Russians:
They say, ‘Russia is for the Russians.’ I understand this, but I understand this only in the
sense in which one could say, ‘Austria is for the Austrians.’ But, if in this case the formula
‘Russia is for the Russians’ means something different, if in this case it means only one part
of the population, that is, if this formula in Austria sounded like this, ‘Austria is for the
Germans’, then I would naturally protest against this with all the strength of my soul.
Meanwhile, until now, we have definitely not yet got rid of the idea that the future Russia,
which should realize the brotherhood of all peoples inhabiting it, will ostensibly be the
Russia of the [ethnic] Russians alone. Here, from this very rostrum, a representative of one
of the nationalities of the Russian Empire [meaning Lednicki] addressed us as the ‘repre-
sentatives of the Russian people’, juxtaposing himself to us. No! Here we see the represen-
tatives of the peoples of all Russia, and one part of this assembly cannot in this case juxtapose
itself to another part. We are all equal here. We are representatives of the peoples inhabiting
Russia; among us there are representatives of the Polish people, the Jewish people, the Tatar
people, and many other peoples. Some of us are in the majority here, which corresponds to
the numerical composition of the population of the Russian Empire, others are in the
minority, but we are all equal here.
59
Kareev advocated the unification of Russia’s different groups into one community of
Russian citizens but without the assimilation of nationalities. Supporting the self-deter-
mination of Russia’s peoples, Kareev nevertheless viewed the emerging composite com-
munity as asymmetric. He argued that the Russian nationality would not lose its position
due to its size, culture and the position of the Russian language, which was the language
of the ‘the Russian parliament’ and would remain the language of the state. At the same
time, Kareev argued that such an asymmetry could only be based on convenience and
history and not on domination. He also spoke about the love of the new Russia in terms
of aspirational patriotism, since this new Russia would exist for its citizens and represent
‘supreme justice’.
60
Kareev’s speech proved influential for the political discourse of the ensuing years. One
Octobrist politician, for instance, rebuked it in 1909 during his party’s campaign for the
upcoming elections of the Moscow City Duma, claiming that it was a sign of non-Russian
(ethnic) influence on the KD Party.
61
The same year Pavel Nikolaevich Miliukov, a KD
leader, repeated the main points of Kareev’s speech in the Third Duma.
62
Furthermore,
this speech was recorded by Miliukov before or after the session and remains the only
known recording of a speech, which had been delivered in the Duma.
63
Some non-Russian deputies recognized the importance of the Russian language but
also advocated an unrestrained use of native languages.
64
Sadretdin Nizametdinovich
Maksudov (Figure 8), a Tatar jurist and a leader of the liberal Muslim Union (Ittifaq al-
Muslimin), summarized such a position:
EUROPEAN REVIEW OF HISTORY: REVUE EUROPÉENNE D’HISTOIRE 831
We have never shied away from the Russian language, and our intelligentsia will always try
to spread the Russian language. After all, the Russian language is necessary for us not only as
the state language but as the source of science and civilization. Until now, the government
tried not to spread the Russian language, but to destroy native dialects [languages]. This is a
huge difference. [. . .] When promulgating laws on public education, we must never, gentle-
men, lose sight of the diversity of our great Empire.
65
The Muslim Faction as a whole supported such an approach. Recognizing the need to
know Russian as the state language, it demanded that the official regulations, which
fostered Russification, were abolished. According to the Muslim Faction, the free use of
native languages in education would also bring the non-Russians ‘closer to the Russian
Figure 8. Deputy of the Second and Third Duma from the Kazan Province S. N. Maksudov, [1907–
1912]. Source: TsGAKFFD SPb, G10000.
832 I. SABLIN
people on the basis of love for a common Fatherland’.
66
Its programme also stressed the
religious dimension of diversity, by including the equality of all religions, the abolition of
a state religion, and the right to have religious education.
67
The etatist and patriotic ideas of love and solidarity for the benefit of whole Russia was
a popular motif among non-Russian deputies. Maksim Moiseevich Vinaver (Figure 4), a
lawyer and one of the founding members of the KD Party, defined himself as a Jew, a
representative of ‘one of the most tormented nationalities in the country’.
68
When
advocating legal equality, he envisioned a diversified yet coherent Russian political
community:
Gentlemen, Russia is dear to all nationalities inhabiting it. [. . .] And I have no doubt that the
hour will come when they, rallying all together, bound by the bonds of love, will defend the
common interests of a single Fatherland. Then it will be clear that the state is not at all
interested in squeezing and smoothing the originality of individual parts, that the preserva-
tion and development of these specificities is only for the benefit of the whole.
69
The KD Rabbi Shmar’ia Khaimovich Levin (Shmaryahu Levin) argued that ‘the happi-
ness of a country’ which included ‘different nationalities and nations’ could only be built
on ‘reciprocity’: ‘Therefore, it is in our interests to see Russia as really powerful, to see
Russia as really strong, to see that solidarity between different nationalities flourishes in
it.’
70
Lednicki seemed to agree with Kareev that the non-Russians were also ‘the sons and
citizens of Russia’, but still differentiated the representatives of different nationalities and
regions. He argued that these representatives united ‘with the Russian people’ in order ‘to
strengthen, to create a powerful whole’, on which autonomous nationality life depended
as well, but at the same time claimed that they would ‘never give up’ their ‘rights’.
71
The Trudovik Cossack Timofei Ivanovich Sedel’nikov pointed to the reciprocity of
cultural adaptation and tolerance as important elements of community-building. He
cited the peaceful coexistence of the forced Russian settlers in Central Asia with the
Kazakhs and their respect for Islam. Although he denounced Russification and settler
colonialism, he claimed that the situation in the Russian Empire was better than in the
colonies of the European powers in Africa, Asia and elsewhere. He concluded that if the
Russian people took the power, it would not allow oppression of individuals and
nationalities.
72
The composite and integrative approaches to Russianness intersected, but there was
no agreement on the degree of integration, which also reflected in the difficulties with the
use of the word ‘people’. Kareev suggested avoiding the terms ‘Russian land’ and ‘Russian
people’ in the First Duma’s address to the Tsar due to the plurality of lands and peoples in
Russia. The discussion that followed, however, demonstrated that there was no single
definition of the imperial nation. When the words ‘all the people’ were discussed as an
alternative to ‘the Russian people’, Kareev suggested explaining that different peoples
lived in Russia. Prince Dmitrii Ivanovich Shakhovskoi, a zemstvo activist and a founding
member of the KD Party, however, insisted on keeping the words ‘all the people’, since
this would show ‘the complete unity’.
73
The address kept the words ‘Russian Land’ but
replaced ‘Russian people’ with ‘all the people’. It also specified that Russia was ‘a state
inhabited by diverse tribes and nationalities’ and that their ‘spiritual unification’ was
‘possible only if the need of each of them to preserve and develop their originality in
separate aspects of life’ was satisfied.
74
EUROPEAN REVIEW OF HISTORY: REVUE EUROPÉENNE D’HISTOIRE 833
Aspirational patriotism and the attention to nationalities nurtured new imperial
ambitions. Although the idea of exporting democracy would loom large only in 1917,
Kovalevskii had already started formulating such a civilizing discourse in the First Duma.
He argued that ‘the renewed Russia’, which would be reconstructed ‘on the principles of
freedom and self-determination of both individuals and whole national groups’, would
remain a great power and, in addition to keeping its own integrity, would take care of
‘justice in the relations of all nations and especially in their relations to the Slavdom’.
Kovalevskii connected the Tsar’s supposed aspiration to ensure international peace to
domestic affairs and the need to stop enmity and unrest at home. At the same time, his
suggestion was meant to allow Russia to define the principles of international peace,
which was to rely on the inviolability of borders and the nations’ right to independent
development. Furthermore, Kovalevskii’s suggestion of including special care for Slavic
peoples, ensuring their freedom and self-determination, in the Duma’s address was
directly connected to pan-Slavic expansionism.
75
Kovalevskii’s suggestion was opposed by several KD deputies. Nabokov voiced prac-
tical considerations, suggesting that the mention of foreign policy would weaken the
address’ other points. Another KD claimed that the Duma was a domestic institution and
hence not qualified to discuss the complexities of international law.
76
Kareev was critical
of Slav-centrism even before Kovalevskii made his suggestion, but at the same time
supported the empire’s potential role in global progress. He argued that Russia had many
non-Slavic inhabitants and urged ‘look[ing] for special friendship not among those who
speak languages related to the Russian language, but among those who go ahead of other
peoples on the path of progress towards happiness and freedom of all mankind’.
77
Although the SDs had an exclusionary vision of the Russian people in terms of class,
they envisioned an internationalist political community, both in Russia and beyond.
Ramishvili denounced colonialism and Russification and spoke of the bad stereotypes of
the Russians in the Caucasus, which nurtured separatism. He also celebrated the newly
found unity in class, since the Russian proletarians were also oppressed:
The worker and peasant of the Caucasus, together with the Russian proletariat and peasan-
try, say, ‘We are breaking with the autocratic regime, with the system from which we
endured oppression together with our comrades. No separation of Georgia from Russia!
One great organism – Russia – that is our salvation, the salvation of the oppressed classes,
the salvation of all aliens [a legal term used for non-Russians], the salvation of individual
nations.’ [. . .] We are happy to prove together with the Russian proletariat to all oppressors
that it is not so easy to torture the people. Gentlemen, there is no tribal strife in Georgia,
because a powerful proletariat stands there between the bureaucracy and the people. The
proletariat has shown its strength and says, ‘We are here without distinction of nations
Georgians, Armenians, Tatars – all together under one common banner of the great Russian
proletariat. The international slogan is written on this banner in large letters, ‘Proletarians of
all countries, unite!’
78
In the Second Duma, Tsereteli reaffirmed the importance of class and underscored the
leading role of the proletariat in the all-Russian liberation.
79
The composite approach to the building of an imperial political community reflected
in legislative proposals as well. Trudovik proposals included the use of native languages
in education, while the KD proposal on universal parliamentary elections allowed the use
of all languages in official documents.
80
834 I. SABLIN
The exclusion of Finland, which had its own parliament, from the representation
in the Duma was not seen as a problem. In fact, when the Second Duma discussed a
telegram to the Finnish Parliament, it addressed the ‘people of Finland’, including
different nationalities, as a different political community than the rest of Russia.
81
Interestingly, the response mentioned ‘Finnish people’ and spoke of the Duma’s
efforts towards the political freedom and economic welfare of the ‘people’ in
general.
82
Deputies on the right were vocal in their opposition to the inclusionary approaches
of a Russian political community in the Second Duma. In the First Duma, however,
Avdei Vasil’evich Kontsevich, an Orthodox priest of Ukrainian background and a
member of the Union of 17 October, proposed a contemptuous amendment to the
Duma’s address to the Tsar, rejecting the attempts to redefine Russia in a differentiated
manner: ‘The State Duma will take care of the broad satisfaction of these needs so that
Russia, inhabited by numerous tribes and nationalities, will lose its originality and even
its very name.’
83
The Right also criticized inclusionary Russianness outside parliament. The conserva-
tive philosopher Vasilii Vasil’evich Rozanov, for instance, expressed hope that the Third
Duma would be a ‘national Russian’ representation and personally attacked the
Armenian SD Arshak Gerasimivoch Zurabov and the Georgian SD Ramishvili. What
the opposition saw as non-Russians finally gaining a voice through the Duma, for
Rozanov was a clear indication that the Russian state and the ethnic Russians could
become subaltern, as he claimed that the ‘grey-haired old Rus’, represented by the people
of ‘serious positions and professions’, had to listen to the ‘nonsense’ of the deputies from
the Caucasus.
84
Conclusion
The State Duma was not simply a collective of deputies, representing distinct particular-
istic interests. It was a site for articulating and constructing a broader imperial commu-
nity. The two approaches to constructing an inclusionary Russian community were
intertwined. The idea of integrating the empire’s population into a single civic nation
foregrounded the elimination of discrimination and privilege, but its supporters did not
oppose cultural specificity; many of them also allowed for the establishment of legally
autonomous territories. In contrast to the disagreements on the land question, with the
Left demanding nationalization and liberals and many non-Russian deputies defending
private property, there was almost complete unity in the matter of building a political
Russian nation. The multi-layered diversity of the empire and the lack of agreement on
the degree of integration, however, prevented a similar unity in the matter of the exact
forms of a differentiated political nation. Many deputies of the first two Dumas, however,
seemed to agree that the composite imperial space needed a composite imperial nation,
which could join the dynasty or take over its place as the political basis of the Russian
Empire.
It is hard to determine how influential the Duma debates were beyond the educated
public. One indicator of the distance between the politicians and intellectuals on one side
and the general population on the other is the lack of response to the Vyborg Manifesto, a
proclamation primarily signed by KD and Trudovik deputies of the First Duma on 9 July
EUROPEAN REVIEW OF HISTORY: REVUE EUROPÉENNE D’HISTOIRE 835
1906. Titled ‘To the People from the People’s Representatives’, the manifesto urged
citizens to defend the parliament by refusing taxation and conscription. Yet no mass
movement of civil disobedience followed.
85
At the same time, the two inclusionary approaches to Russianness, which consolidated
in the First and Second Duma, proved influential for the political discourse until the
Revolution of 1917. They consolidated the discursive foundation of the strengthening of
‘civil society’, for further politicization of ethno-national, religious and other social
difference as part of a heterogeneous community building, and for the emergence of
aspirational patriotism during the First World War.
86
Opposition deputies continued to
develop the notion of inclusionary yet differentiated imperial citizenship,
87
with one
deputy coining the term ‘all-imperial nationality’
88
to grasp the community of imperial
citizens. The Progressive Bloc of liberals and moderate nationalists, which formed in the
Fourth Duma and the State Council in the summer and autumn of 1915, made imperial
nationalism a political programme. The bloc, which had a majority in the Duma, put
forward a programme of ‘internal peace’ which relied inter alia on protecting the rights of
ethno-national, religious and social groups.
89
Although the discourse of empire-wide
unity subsided during the later months of the Revolution of 1917, it frequently surfaced
in the attempts to stop the Russian Civil War.
90
Notes
1. Burbank and Cooper, Empires in World History: Power and the Politics of Dierence, 8–
9, 11–12; Gerasimov, “The Great Imperial Revolution,” 20–2; Semyonov, “Imperial
Parliament for a Hybrid Empire,” 31; Sablin and Moniz Bandeira, Planting
Parliaments in Eurasia, 1850–1950; Stoler, “Considerations on Imperial Comparisons,”
49. See also Moniz Bandeira, “China and the Political Upheavals in Russia, the Ottoman
Empire, and Persia”; Kayali, “Elections and the Electoral Process in the Ottoman
Empire, 1876–1919.”
2. Usmanova, “Oratorika v Revoliutsionnom Zakonodatel’nom Sobranii.”
3. Shchepkin, Zemskaia i Gorodskaia Rossiia o Narodnom Predstavitel’stve.
4. See, for instance, Sablin, “Democracy in the Russian Far East during the Revolution of 1905–
1907.”
5. Khripachenko, “Modernizing Heterogeneous Empire,” 280.
6. The Council of Ministers was not accountable to the Duma, which meant that the fact that
the majority of the Duma deputies were in opposition to it did not allow it to form its own
cabinet.
7. Prendergast, “The Sociological Idea of the State,” 329, 333, 344; Semyonov, “The Real and
Live Ethnographic Map of Russia,” 212.
8. See, for instance, Chmielewski, The Polish Question in the Russian State Duma; Galai, “The
Jewish Question as a Russian Problem”; Usmanova, Musul’manskie Predstaviteli v
Rossiiskom Parlamente: 1906–1916.
9. Brubaker, “The Manichean Myth,” 55.
10. Anderson, Imagined Communities.
11. The published reports were partially redacted but nevertheless accurately represented most
of the debates, see Kir’ianov and Kornienko, “Stenograficheskie Otchety Gosudarstvennoi
Dumy Nachala XX Veka.”
12. For the discussion of the transition and ‘assimilative’ constitutionalism, see Kappeler, The
Russian Empire, 341–4, 347. See also Berger and Miller, “Introduction,” 4–5.
13. Semyonov, “The Real and Live Ethnographic Map of Russia,” 191–2.
836 I. SABLIN
14. Khripachenko, “Poniatiia Federatsiia, Detsentralizatsiia, Avtonomiia v Sotsialisticheskom i
Liberal’nom Diskursakh Rossiiskoi Imperii (Konets XIX Nachalo XX Veka)”; Ikeda,
“Toward an Empire of Republics,” 122–6.
15. Ikeda, “Autonomous Regions in the Eurasian Borderlands as a Legacy of the First World
War,” 157.
16. Stockdale, Mobilizing the Russian Nation, 11–12.
17. Burbank, “An Imperial Rights Regime,” 400; Lohr, Russian Citizenship; Semyonov, “The Real
and Live Ethnographic Map of Russia,” 221; Stockdale, Mobilizing the Russian Nation, 11–12.
18. Gulakova and Semyonov, “Imperial Citizenship and Political Representation in the Russian
Empire, 1905–1906.”
19. Pavlov and Shelokhaev, Rossiiskie Liberaly, 59–60.
20. Sablin, The Rise and Fall of Russia’s Far Eastern Republic, 1905–1922, 33–8; Semyonov,
“Russian Liberalism and the Problem of Imperial Diversity,” 83; Smith, Russia in Revolution,
62, 138; Steinwedel, “The 1905 Revolution in Ufa”; Holquist, Making War, Forging
Revolution, 63.
21. Chicherin, O Narodnom Predstavitel’stve.
22. Shelokhaev and Solov’ev, Predstavitel’nye Uchrezhdeniia Rossiiskoi Imperii v 1906–1917 Gg.:
Materialy Perliustratsii Departamenta Politsii.
23. Sablin, “The State Conference in Moscow, 1917”; Sablin, “The Democratic Conference and
the Pre-Parliament in Russia, 1917.”
24. Erofeev, Partiia Sotsialistov-Revoliutsionerov: Dokumenty i Materialy, 1900–1925 Gg., 1:
1900–1907 gg.:287, 299; Lezhneva and Shelokhaev, S’ezdy i Konferentsii Konstitutsionno-
Demokraticheskoi Partii, 1905–1920 Gg., 1: 1905–1907 gg.:94; Pavlov, Protokoly
Tsentral’nogo Komiteta i Zagranichnykh Grupp Konstitutsionno-Demokraticheskoi Partii,
1905 – Seredina 1930-Kh Gg., 1: Protokoly Tsentral’nogo Komiteta konstitutsionno-demok-
raticheskoi partii, 1905–1911 gg.:149.
25. The liberal Heidelberg professor Georg Jellinek, who was an authority for many Russian
liberals, supported popular sovereignty, while Vladimir Matveevich Gessen, a leading
Russian scholar and a KD deputy of the Second Duma, rejected it; see Sablin, “Russia in
the Global Parliamentary Moment, 1905–1918,” 258, 261.
26. Maklakov, Pervaia Gosudarstvennaia Duma: Vospominaniia Sovremennika, 27 Aprelia – 8
Iiulia 1906 g., 34.
27. Demin, Gosudarstvennaia Duma Rossii: Mekhanizm Funktsionirovaniia, 37–8.
28. Tsiunchuk, “Peoples, Regions, and Electoral Politics,” 383, 387–8.
29. Demin, Gosudarstvennaia Duma Rossii: Mekhanizm Funktsionirovaniia, 38–9.
30. Semyonov, “The Real and Live Ethnographic Map of Russia,” 213, 215.
31. Gosudarstvennaia duma, I Sozyv, I Sessiia, Tom 1: Zasedaniia 1–18, 27 Aprelia–30 Maia
1906 g.: Stenograficheskie Otchety, 51, 113–14; Gosudarstvennaia duma, II Sozyv, I Sessiia,
Tom 2: Zasedaniia 31–53, 1 Maia–2 Iiunia 1907 g.: Stenograficheskie Otchety, 1427–29;
Pozhigailo, Zakonotvorchestvo Dumskikh Fraktsii, 1906–1917 Gg.: Dokumenty i Materialy,
709–10, 714–19, 721–3.
32. Gosudarstvennaia duma, I Sozyv, I Sessiia, Tom 1: Zasedaniia 1–18, 27 Aprelia–30 Maia
1906 g.: Stenograficheskie Otchety, 90, 102–4, 112–13, 128, 132, 142, 147, 336, 603, 606, 820,
832; Gosudarstvennaia duma, II Sozyv, I Sessiia, Tom 1: Zasedaniia 1–30, 20 Fevralia–30
Aprelia 1907 g.: Stenograficheskie Otchety, 67–8, 124, 624, 638–41, 673–5, 907, 915–16, 1041;
Gosudarstvennaia duma, II Sozyv, I Sessiia, Tom 2: Zasedaniia 31–53, 1 Maia–2 Iiunia
1907 g.: Stenograficheskie Otchety, 1115, 1132, 1427–9.
33. Gosudarstvennaia duma, II Sozyv, I Sessiia, Tom 1: Zasedaniia 1–30, 20 Fevralia–30 Aprelia
1907 g.: Stenograficheskie Otchety, 146, 148–50, 154, 159, 237, 728, 2077; Gosudarstvennaia
duma, II Sozyv, I Sessiia, Tom 2: Zasedaniia 31–53, 1 Maia–2 Iiunia 1907 g.:
Stenograficheskie Otchety, 164, 184–6; Usmanova, “Oratorika v Revoliutsionnom
Zakonodatel’nom Sobranii,” 149–50.
34. Gosudarstvennaia duma, I Sozyv, I Sessiia, Tom 1: Zasedaniia 1–18, 27 Aprelia–30 Maia
1906 g.: Stenograficheskie Otchety, 650.
EUROPEAN REVIEW OF HISTORY: REVUE EUROPÉENNE D’HISTOIRE 837
35. Gosudarstvennaia duma, 79, 106, 115, 175, 214.
36. Gosudarstvennaia duma, 326.
37. Gosudarstvennaia duma, II Sozyv, I Sessiia, Tom 1: Zasedaniia 1–30, 20 Fevralia–30 Aprelia
1907 g.: Stenograficheskie Otchety, 124–6.
38. Shelokhaev and Solov’ev, Predstavitel’nye Uchrezhdeniia Rossiiskoi Imperii v 1906–1917 Gg.,
21, 79.
39. Gosudarstvennaia duma, I Sozyv, I Sessiia, Tom 2: Zasedaniia 19–38, 1 Iiunia–4 Iiulia
1906 g.: Stenograficheskie Otchety, 1284, 1989.
40. Gosudarstvennaia duma, I Sozyv, I Sessiia, Tom 1: Zasedaniia 1–18, 27 Aprelia–30 Maia
1906 g.: Stenograficheskie Otchety, 156–7.
41. Iamaeva, Musul’manskie Deputaty Gosudarstvennoi Dumy Rossii, 1906–1917, 49, 52.
42. Gosudarstvennaia duma, I Sozyv, I Sessiia, Tom 1: Zasedaniia 1–18, 27 Aprelia–30 Maia
1906 g.: Stenograficheskie Otchety, 154.
43. Gosudarstvennaia duma, 227–8.
44. Ruthchild, “Women’s Suffrage and Revolution in the Russian Empire, 1905–1917,” 9.
45. Gosudarstvennaia duma, I Sozyv, I Sessiia, Tom 2: Zasedaniia 19–38, 1 Iiunia–4 Iiulia
1906 g.: Stenograficheskie Otchety, 1006–8.
46. Gosudarstvennaia duma, 1010.
47. Ibid., 1020.
48. Gosudarstvennaia duma, I Sozyv, I Sessiia, Tom 1: Zasedaniia 1–18, 27 Aprelia–30 Maia
1906 g.: Stenograficheskie Otchety, 139–40, 142–4, 147–8; Gosudarstvennaia duma, I Sozyv,
I Sessiia, Tom 2: Zasedaniia 19–38, 1 Iiunia–4 Iiulia 1906 g.: Stenograficheskie Otchety,
1112–13; Ruthchild, “Women’s Suffrage and Revolution in the Russian Empire, 1905–
1917,” 9.
49. Gosudarstvennaia duma, I Sozyv, I Sessiia, Tom 2: Zasedaniia 19–38, 1 Iiunia–4 Iiulia
1906 g.: Stenograficheskie Otchety, 957.
50. Gosudarstvennaia duma, I Sozyv, I Sessiia, Tom 1: Zasedaniia 1–18, 27 Aprelia–30 Maia
1906 g.: Stenograficheskie Otchety, 573; Gosudarstvennaia duma, I Sozyv, I Sessiia, Tom 2:
Zasedaniia 19–38, 1 Iiunia–4 Iiulia 1906 g.: Stenograficheskie Otchety, 957–8.
51. Pozhigailo, Zakonotvorchestvo Dumskikh Fraktsii, 1906–1917 Gg.: Dokumenty i Materialy,
454–5, 457, 460–1, 465–6, 471–3, 475–7, 481–3, 527, 672–3, 681, 685–8.
52. Popova, “Ideia Uchreditel’nogo Sobraniia v Rossiiskoi Istorii i Ego Rol’ v Popytke Sozdaniia
Pravovogo Gosudarstva v 1917–Nachale 1918 g.”
53. Gosudarstvennaia duma, I Sozyv, I Sessiia, Tom 2: Zasedaniia 19–38, 1 Iiunia–4 Iiulia
1906 g.: Stenograficheskie Otchety, 1066.
54. Pozhigailo, Zakonotvorchestvo Dumskikh Fraktsii, 1906–1917 Gg.: Dokumenty i Materialy,
506, 515–17.
55. Ruthchild, “Women’s Suffrage and Revolution in the Russian Empire, 1905–1917,” 4, 9–10.
56. Gosudarstvennaia duma, I Sozyv, I Sessiia, Tom 1: Zasedaniia 1–18, 27 Aprelia–30 Maia
1906 g.: Stenograficheskie Otchety, 102–3.
57. Gosudarstvennaia duma, 606; Gosudarstvennaia duma, I Sozyv, I Sessiia, Tom 2: Zasedaniia
19–38, 1 Iiunia–4 Iiulia 1906 g.: Stenograficheskie Otchety, 985, 991–2.
58. Partiia Sotsialistov-Revoliutsionerov, Nasha Programma: Obshchedostupnoe Izlozhenie, 25;
Programmy Russkikh Politicheskikh Partii, 43–5, 56.
59. Gosudarstvennaia duma, I Sozyv, I Sessiia, Tom 1: Zasedaniia 1–18, 27 Aprelia–30 Maia
1906 g.: Stenograficheskie Otchety, 121–2.
60. Gosudarstvennaia duma, 121–3.
61. Pavlov and Shelokhaev, Partiia ‘Soiuz 17 Oktiabria’: Protokoly s’ezdov, Konferentsii i
Zasedanii TsK, 1905–1915 Gg., 2: Protokoly III s’ezda, konferentsii i zasedanii TsK, 1907–
1915 gg.: 67–8.
62. Gosudarstvennaia duma, III Sozyv, III Sessiia, Chast’ 1: Zasedaniia 1–32, 10 Oktiabria-18
Dekabria 1909 g.: Stenograficheskie Otchety, 2986–9.
63. Miliukov, Speech, Delivered in the State Duma on 4 December 1909.
838 I. SABLIN
64. Gosudarstvennaia duma, I Sozyv, I Sessiia, Tom 2: Zasedaniia 19–38, 1 Iiunia–4 Iiulia
1906 g.: Stenograficheskie Otchety, 1402; Gosudarstvennaia duma, II Sozyv, I Sessiia, Tom
2: Zasedaniia 31–53, 1 Maia–2 Iiunia 1907 g.: Stenograficheskie Otchety, 186.
65. Gosudarstvennaia duma, II Sozyv, I Sessiia, Tom 2: Zasedaniia 31–53, 1 Maia–2 Iiunia
1907 g.: Stenograficheskie Otchety, 553.
66. Iamaeva, Musul’manskie Deputaty Gosudarstvennoi Dumy Rossii, 1906–1917, 81–6.
67. Iamaeva, Musul’manskie Deputaty Gosudarstvennoi Dumy Rossii, 1906–1917, 52, 56.
68. Gosudarstvennaia duma, I Sozyv, I Sessiia, Tom 1: Zasedaniia 1–18, 27 Aprelia–30 Maia
1906 g.: Stenograficheskie Otchety, 339.
69. Gosudarstvennaia duma, 339.
70. Gosudarstvennaia duma, I Sozyv, I Sessiia, Tom 2: Zasedaniia 19–38, 1 Iiunia–4 Iiulia
1906 g.: Stenograficheskie Otchety, 1745.
71. Gosudarstvennaia duma, I Sozyv, I Sessiia, Tom 1: Zasedaniia 1–18, 27 Aprelia–30 Maia
1906 g.: Stenograficheskie Otchety, 329–30.
72. Gosudarstvennaia duma, 113–14; Gosudarstvennaia duma, I Sozyv, I Sessiia, Tom 2:
Zasedaniia 19–38, 1 Iiunia–4 Iiulia 1906 g.: Stenograficheskie Otchety, 1240.
73. Gosudarstvennaia duma, I Sozyv, I Sessiia, Tom 1: Zasedaniia 1–18, 27 Aprelia–30 Maia
1906 g.: Stenograficheskie Otchety, 123, 152.
74. “Otvet Gosudarstvennoi Dumy Na Tronnuiu Rech’, Priniat Gosudarstvennoi Dumoi 5 Maia
1906 g.,” 149.
75. Gosudarstvennaia duma, I Sozyv, I Sessiia, Tom 1: Zasedaniia 1–18, 27 Aprelia–30 Maia
1906 g.: Stenograficheskie Otchety, 220.
76. Gosudarstvennaia duma, 220–1.
77. Ibid., 123.
78. Gosudarstvennaia duma, I Sozyv, I Sessiia, Tom 2: Zasedaniia 19–38, 1 Iiunia–4 Iiulia
1906 g.: Stenograficheskie Otchety, 1238.
79. Gosudarstvennaia duma, II Sozyv, I Sessiia, Tom 1: Zasedaniia 1–30, 20 Fevralia–30 Aprelia
1907 g.: Stenograficheskie Otchety, 129.
80. Pozhigailo, Zakonotvorchestvo Dumskikh Fraktsii, 1906–1917 Gg.: Dokumenty i Materialy,
506, 515–17, 682, 685–8.
81. Gosudarstvennaia duma, II Sozyv, I Sessiia, Tom 2: Zasedaniia 31–53, 1 Maia–2 Iiunia 1907
g.: Stenograficheskie Otchety, 298–9.
82. Gosudarstvennaia duma, 537.
83. Gosudarstvennaia duma, I Sozyv, I Sessiia, Tom 1: Zasedaniia 1–18, 27 Aprelia–30 Maia
1906 g.: Stenograficheskie Otchety, 220.
84. V. V. Rozanov, “Chastnyi i Obshchestvennyi Interes v Gosudarstvennoi Dume [1907],” in
Politicheskie Instituty, Izbiratel’noe Pravo i Protsess v Trudakh Rossiiskikh Myslitelei XIX–XX
Vekov, ed. I.B. Borisov et al., 616–17 (Moscow: Tsentral’naia izbiratel’naia komissiia
Rossiiskoi Federatsii, 2008).
85. Shelokhaev, Gosudarstvennaia Duma Rossiiskoi Imperii, 1906–1917: Entsiklopediia, 114.
86. Smith, Russia in Revolution: An Empire in Crisis, 1890 to 1928, 63–4; Stockdale, Mobilizing
the Russian Nation.
87. For an explicit discussion, see Gosudarstvennaia duma, III Sozyv, II Sessiia, Chast’ 1:
Zasedaniia 1–35, 15 Oktiabria-20 Dekabria 1908 g., 1203, 1243.
88. Gosudarstvennaia duma, III Sozyv, III Sessiia, Chast’ 1: Zasedaniia 1–32, 10 Oktiabria-18
Dekabria 1909 g.: Stenograficheskie Otchety, 596.
89. Grave, Burzhuaziia Nakanune Fevral’skoi Revoliutsii, 26–9.
90. Sablin, The Rise and Fall of Russia’s Far Eastern Republic, 1905–1922, 12.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
EUROPEAN REVIEW OF HISTORY: REVUE EUROPÉENNE D’HISTOIRE 839
Funding
The research for this article was done as part of the ‘ENTPAR: Entangled Parliamentarisms:
Constitutional Practices in Russia, Ukraine, China and Mongolia, 1905–2005’ project, which
received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s
Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (grant agreement No 755504).
Notes on contributor
Ivan Sablin leads the ‘Entangled Parliamentarisms: Constitutional Practices in Russia, Ukraine,
China and Mongolia, 1905–2005’ Research Group, sponsored by the European Research Council,
at Heidelberg University. His research interests include the history of the Russian Empire and the
Soviet Union, with special attention paid to Siberia and the Russian Far East, as well as global
intellectual history. He is the author of two monographs – Governing Post-Imperial Siberia and
Mongolia, 1911–1924 (London: Routledge, 2016) and The Rise and Fall of Russia’s Far Eastern
Republic, 1905–1922 (London: Routledge, 2018) – and research articles in Slavic Review, Europe-
Asia Studies, Nationalities Papers and other journals. Ivan Sablin also co-edited Planting
Parliaments in Eurasia, 1850–1950 (London: Routledge, 2021).
ORCID
Ivan Sablin http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6706-4223
Bibliography
Anderson, B. Imagined Communities: Reections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism.
London: Verso, 1991.
Berger, S., and A. Miller. “Introduction: Building Nations in and with Empires—A Reassessment.”
In Nationalizing Empires, edited by S. Berger and A. Miller, 1–30. Budapest: Central European
University Press, 2015.
Brubaker, R. “The Manichean Myth: Rethinking the Distinction between ‘Civic’ and ‘Ethnic’
Nationalism.” In Nation and National Identity: The European Experience in Comparison, edited
by H.-P. Kriesi, K. Armingeon, H. Siegrist, and A. Wimmer, 55–72. Zurich: Rügger, 1998.
Burbank, J. “An Imperial Rights Regime: Law and Citizenship in the Russian Empire.” Kritika:
Explorations in Russian and Eurasian History 7, no. 3 (2006): 397–431. Doi:10.1353/
kri.2006.0031.
Burbank, J., and F. Cooper. Empires in World History: Power and the Politics of Dierence.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2010.
Chicherin, B. N. O Narodnom Predstavitel’stve. Moscow: Tipografiia Gracheva I Komp, 1866.
Chmielewski, E. The Polish Question in the Russian State Duma. Knoxville: University of
Tennessee Press, 1970.
Demin, V. A. Gosudarstvennaia Duma Rossii: Mekhanizm Funktsionirovaniia. Moscow:
ROSSPEN, 1996.
Erofeev, N. D., ed. Partiia Sotsialistov-Revoliutsionerov: Dokumenty i Materialy, 1900–1925 Gg.
Vol. 1: 1900-1907 gg. Moscow: ROSSPEN, 1996.
“Otvet Gosudarstvennoi Dumy Na Tronnuiu Rech’, Priniat Gosudarstvennoi Dumoi 5 Maia 1906
g.” In Gosudarstvennaia Duma Pervogo Sozyva, edited by N. F. Ezerskii, 146–149. Penza: Tipo-
Litografiia E. M. Grushetskoi, 1907.
Galai, S. “The Jewish Question as a Russian Problem: The Debates in the First State Duma.”
Revolutionary Russia 17, no. 1 (2004): 31–68.
Gerasimov, I. “The Great Imperial Revolution.” Ab Imperio, no. 2 (2017): 21–44.
840 I. SABLIN
Gosudarstvennaia duma. I Sozyv, I Sessiia, Tom 1: Zasedaniia 1–18, 27 Aprelia–30 Maia 1906 g.:
Stenograficheskie Otchety. Saint Petersburg: Gosudarstvennaia tipografiia, 1906a.
Gosudarstvennaia duma. I Sozyv, I Sessiia, Tom 2: Zasedaniia 19–38, 1 Iiunia–4 Iiulia 1906 G.:
Stenograficheskie Otchety. Saint Petersburg: Gosudarstvennaia tipografiia, 1906b.
Gosudarstvennaia duma. II Sozyv, I Sessiia, Tom 1: Zasedaniia 1–30, 20 Fevralia–30 Aprelia 1907
G.: Stenograficheskie Otchety. Saint Petersburg: Gosudarstvennaia tipografiia, 1907a.
Gosudarstvennaia duma. II Sozyv, I Sessiia, Tom 2: Zasedaniia 31–53, 1 Maia–2 Iiunia 1907 G.:
Stenograficheskie Otchety. Saint Petersburg: Gosudarstvennaia tipografiia, 1907b.
Gosudarstvennaia duma. III Sozyv, II Sessiia, Chast’ 1: Zasedaniia 1-35, 15 Oktiabria-20 Dekabria
1908 G. Saint Petersburg: Gosudarstvennaia tipografiia, 1908.
Gosudarstvennaia duma. III Sozyv, III Sessiia, Chast’ 1: Zasedaniia 1-32, 10 Oktiabria-18 Dekabria
1909 g.: Stenograficheskie Otchety. Saint Petersburg: Gosudarstvennaia tipografiia, 1910.
Grave, B. B., ed. Burzhuaziia Nakanune Fevral’skoi Revoliutsii. Moscow: Gosudarstvennoe izda-
tel’stvo, 1927.
Gulakova, M., and A. Semyonov. “Imperial Citizenship and Political Representation in the Russian
Empire, 1905–1906.” Ab Imperio, no. 2 (2021): 139–152.
Holquist, P. Making War, Forging Revolution: Russia’s Continuum of Crisis, 1914–1921.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2002.
Iamaeva, L. A., ed. Musul’manskie Deputaty Gosudarstvennoi Dumy Rossii, 1906–1917: Sbornik
Dokumentov i Materialov. Ufa: KITAP, 1998.
Ikeda, Y. “Autonomous Regions in the Eurasian Borderlands as a Legacy of the First World War.”
In Eurasia’s Regional Powers Compared: China, India, Russia, edited by S. Tabata, 155–170.
London: Routledge, 2015.
Ikeda, Y. “Toward an Empire of Republics: Transformation of Russia in the Age of Total War,
Revolution, and Nationalism.” In Comparing Modern Empires: Imperial Rule and
Decolonization in the Changing World Order, edited by T. Uyama, 119–146. Sapporo: Slavic-
Eurasian Research Center, Hokkaido University, 2018.
Kappeler, A. The Russian Empire: A Multi-Ethnic History. London: Routledge, 2013.
Kayali, H. “Elections and the Electoral Process in the Ottoman Empire, 1876–1919.” International
Journal of Middle East Studies 27, no. 3 (1995): 265–286.
Khripachenko, T. I. “‘Poniatiia Federatsiia, Detsentralizatsiia, Avtonomiia v Sotsialisticheskom i
Liberal’nom Diskursakh Rossiiskoi Imperii (Konets XIX – Nachalo XX Veka)’.” In Poniatiia o
Rossii: K Istoricheskoi Semantike Imperskogo Perioda, edited by A. Miller, D. Sdvizhkov, and I.
Shirle, vol. 2, 98–142. Moscow: Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie, 2012.
Khripachenko, T.I. “Modernizing Heterogeneous Empire: The Russian Fundamental Laws of 1906
and the Incorporation of the Grand Duchy of Finland.” In Constitutionalism, Legitimacy, and
Power: Nineteenth-Century Experiences, edited by K. L. Grotke and M. J. Prutsch, 262–280.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014.
Kir’ianov, I. K., and S. I. Kornienko. “Stenograficheskie Otchety Gosudarstvennoi Dumy Nachala
XX Veka: Ot Traditsionnogo k Komp’iuternomu Istochnikovedeniiu.” Vestnik Cheliabinskogo
Gosudarstvennogo Universiteta 6, no. 144 (2009): 144–148.
Lezhneva, O. N., and V. V. Shelokhaev, eds. S”ezdy i Konferentsii Konstitutsionno-
Demokraticheskoi Partii, 1905–1920 Gg Vol. 1: 1905–1907 gg. Moscow: ROSSPEN, 1997.
Lohr, E. Russian Citizenship: From Empire to Soviet Union. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press, 2012.
Maklakov, V. A. Pervaia Gosudarstvennaia Duma: Vospominaniia Sovremennika, 27 Aprelia - 8
Iiulia 1906 G. Moscow: Tsentrpoligraf, 2006.
Miliukov, P. N. Speech, Delivered in the State Duma on December 4, 1909, 2013. https://www.
youtube.com/watch?v=MPMTY6SU4tY .
Moniz Bandeira, E. “China and the Political Upheavals in Russia, the Ottoman Empire, and Persia:
Non-Western Influences on Constitutional Thinking in Late Imperial China, 1893–1911.”
Transcultural Studies 8, no. 2 (2017): 40–78.
Partiia Sotsialistov-Revoliutsionerov. Nasha Programma: Obshchedostupnoe Izlozhenie. Saint
Petersburg: Partiia Sotsialistov-Revoliutsionerov, 1908.
EUROPEAN REVIEW OF HISTORY: REVUE EUROPÉENNE D’HISTOIRE 841
Pavlov, D. B., ed. Protokoly Tsentral’nogo komiteta i zagranichnykh grupp Konstitutsionno-demok-
raticheskoi partii, 1905—seredina 1930-kh gg. In vol. 1: Protokoly Tsentral’nogo komiteta
konstitutsionno-demokraticheskoi partii, 1905—1911 gg, . Moscow: Progress-Akademiia, 1994.
Pavlov, D. B., and V. V. Shelokhaev, eds. Rossiiskie Liberaly: Kadety i Oktiabristy: Dokumenty,
Vospominaniia, Publitsistika. Moscow: ROSSPEN, 1996.
Pavlov, D. B., and V. V. Shelokhaev, eds. Partiia ‘Soiuz 17 oktiabria’: Protokoly s”ezdov, konferentsii
i zasedanii TsK, 1905—1915 gg. In vol. 2: Protokoly III s”ezda, konferentsii i zasedanii TsK, 1907
—1915 gg. Moscow: ROSSPEN, 2000.
Popova, O. G. “Ideia Uchreditel’nogo Sobraniia v Rossiiskoi Istorii i Ego Rol’ v Popytke Sozdaniia
Pravovogo Gosudarstva v 1917–Nachale 1918 g.” In Problemy Istorii Rossii, 2: Opyt gosudarst-
vennogo stroitel’stva XV–XX, 146–175, vol. vv. Ekaterinburg: Volot, 1998.
Pozhigailo, P. A., ed. Zakonotvorchestvo Dumskikh Fraktsii, 1906–1917 Gg.: Dokumenty i
Materialy. Moscow: ROSSPEN, 2006.
Prendergast, T. R. “The Sociological Idea of the State: Legal Education, Austrian Multinationalism,
and the Future of Continental Empire, 1880–1914.” Comparative Studies in Society and History
62, no. 2 (2020): 327–358.
Programmy Russkikh Politicheskikh Partii. Saint Petersburg: Izdanie V. Kharitonova, 1905.
Rozanov, V. V. “Chastnyi i Obshchestvennyi Interes v Gosudarstvennoi Dume [1907].” In
Politicheskie Instituty, Izbiratel’noe Pravo i Protsess v Trudakh Rossiiskikh Myslitelei XIX–XX
Vekov, edited by I. B. Borisov, I. A. Vedeneev, I. V. Zaitsev, and V. I. Lysenko, 614–617.
Moscow: Tsentral’naia izbiratel’naia komissiia Rossiiskoi Federatsii, 2008.
Ruthchild, R. G. “Women’s Suffrage and Revolution in the Russian Empire, 1905–1917.” Aspasia 1,
no. 1 (2007): 1–35.
Sablin, I. “Democracy in the Russian Far East during the Revolution of 1905–1907.” Russian
History 44, no. 2–3 (2017): 449–475.
Sablin, I. The Rise and Fall of Russia’s Far Eastern Republic, 1905–1922: Nationalisms,
Imperialisms, and Regionalisms in and after the Russian Empire. London: Routledge, 2018.
Sablin, I. “Russia in the Global Parliamentary Moment, 1905–1918: Between a Subaltern Empire
and an Empire of Subalterns.” In Locating the Global: Spaces, Networks and Interactions from the
Seventeenth to the Twentieth Century, and H. Weiss, 257–282. Berlin: De Gruyter Oldenbourg,
2020.
Sablin, I., and E. Moniz Bandeira, eds. Planting Parliaments in Eurasia, 1850–1950: Concepts,
Practices, and Mythologies. London: Routledge, 2021.
Sablin, I. “The Democratic Conference and the Pre-Parliament in Russia, 1917: Class, Nationality,
and the Building of a Postimperial Community.” Nationalities Papers, 2021, 1–23.
Sablin, I. “The State Conference in Moscow, 1917: Class, Nationality, and the Building of a Post-
Imperial Community.” Parliaments, Estates and Representation 42, no. 1 (2022): 38–59.
Semyonov, A.M. “‘The Real and Live Ethnographic Map of Russia’: The Russian Empire in the
Mirror of the State Duma.” In Empire Speaks Out: Languages of Rationalization and Self-
Description in the Russian Empire, edited by I. Gerasimov, J. Kusber, and A. Semyonov, 191–
228. Leiden: Brill, 2009.
Semyonov, A.M. “Russian Liberalism and the Problem of Imperial Diversity.” In Liberal
Imperialism in Europe, edited by M. P. Fitzpatrick, 67–89. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan,
2012.
Semyonov, A. M. “Imperial Parliament for a Hybrid Empire: Representative Experiments in the
Early 20th-Century Russian Empire.” Journal of Eurasian Studies 11, no. 1 (2020): 30–39.
Shchepkin, N. N. Zemskaia I Gorodskaia Rossiia O Narodnom Predstavitel’stve. Rostov-on-Don:
Donskaia Rech’, 1905.
Shelokhaev, V. V., ed. Gosudarstvennaia Duma Rossiiskoi Imperii, 1906–1917: Entsiklopediia.
Moscow: ROSSPEN, 2008.
Shelokhaev, V. V., and K. A. Solov’ev, eds. Predstavitel’nye Uchrezhdeniia Rossiiskoi Imperii v
1906–1917 Gg.: Materialy Perliustratsii Departamenta Politsii. Moscow: ROSSPEN, 2014.
Smith, S. A. Russia in Revolution: An Empire in Crisis, 1890 to 1928. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2017.
842 I. SABLIN
Steinwedel, C. “The 1905 Revolution in Ufa: Mass Politics, Elections, and Nationality.” The
Russian Review 59, no. 4 (2000): 555–576.
Stockdale, M. K. Mobilizing the Russian Nation: Patriotism and Citizenship in the First World War.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016.
Stoler, A. L. “Considerations on Imperial Comparisons.” In Empire Speaks Out: Languages of
Rationalization and Self-Description in the Russian Empire, edited by I. Gerasimov, J. Kusber,
and A. Semyonov, 33–55. Leiden: Brill, 2009.
Tsiunchuk, R. “Peoples, Regions, and Electoral Politics: The State Dumas and the Constitution of
New National Elites.” In Russian Empire: Space, People, Power, 1700–1930, edited by J. Burbank,
M. von Hagen, and A. Remnev, 366–397. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2007.
Usmanova, D. Musul’manskie Predstaviteli v Rossiiskom Parlamente: 1906–1916. Kazan: Fen, 2005.
Usmanova, D. “Oratorika v Revoliutsionnom Zakonodatel’nom Sobranii: Ritoricheskii Portret
Gosudarstvennoi Dumy 1-Go i 2-Go Sozyvov (1906–1907).” Ab Imperio, no. 1 (2014): 127–156.
EUROPEAN REVIEW OF HISTORY: REVUE EUROPÉENNE D’HISTOIRE 843
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Article
Full-text available
The State Conference in Moscow, a one-time quasi-parliamentary assembly of over 2,500 delegates, was intended to help the Provisional Government resolve the military, political, and economic crises of the First World War and the Russian Revolution by building a broad public consensus. Due to the inadequate representation at the conference, its duration and procedure, and the radically divergent platforms of major political forces, the assembly functioned as a political rally rather than a parliament. The attempt to resolve the crises by (re)constituting a Russian political community failed due to the conflicts formulated in terms of class and nationality and the contradictions between coercive discipline and self-organization as the principles of state- and nation-building. Even though the idea of the Russian nation prevailed at the conference, its participants did not agree if a post-imperial political community was to be homogeneous or composite, inclusive or exclusive, and if it was to be organized in a top-down or bottom-up manner.
Article
Full-text available
The article offers a detailed analysis of the debates at the All-Russian Democratic Conference and in the Provisional Council of the Russian Republic (the Pre-Parliament), which followed the proclamation of the republic on September 1, 1917, and predated the Bolshevik-led insurgency on October 25. The two assemblies were supposed to help resolve the multilayered political, economic, and military crises of the First World War and the Revolution by consolidating a Russian postimperial political community and establishing a solid government. The debates demonstrated that grievances and antagonism, which were articulated in terms of class and nationality, made the idea of a broad nationalist coalition unpopular, since it would halt agrarian and other reforms and continue the negligence of non-Russian groups. Furthermore, those who still called for all-Russian national or civic unity split on the issue of community-building. The top-down, homogenizing and bottom-up, composite approaches proved irreconcilable and precluded a compromise between non-socialist and moderate socialist groups. The two assemblies hence failed to ensure a peaceful continuation of the postimperial transformation and did not lead to a broad coalition against right and left radicalism. The divisions, which were articulated in the two assemblies, translated into the main rifts of the Russian Civil War.
Book
Full-text available
Parliaments are often seen as Western European and North American institutions and their establishment in other parts of the world as a derivative and mostly defective process. This book challenges such Eurocentric visions by retracing the evolution of modern institutions of collective decision-making in Eurasia. Breaching the divide between different area studies, the book provides nine case studies covering the area between the eastern edge of Asia and Eastern Europe, including the former Russian, Ottoman, Qing, and Japanese Empires as well as their successor states. In particular, it explores the appeals to concepts of parliamentarism, deliberative decision-making, and constitutionalism; historical practices related to parliamentarism; and political mythologies across Eurasia. It focuses on the historical and “reestablished” institutions of decision-making, which consciously hark back to indigenous traditions and adapt them to the changing circumstances in imperial and postimperial contexts. Thereby, the book explains how representative institutions were needed for the establishment of modernized empires or postimperial states but at the same time offered a connection to the past.
Book
The First World War had a devastating impact on the Russian state, yet relatively little is known about the ways in which ordinary Russians experienced and viewed this conflict. Melissa Kirschke Stockdale presents the first comprehensive study of the Great War's influence on Russian notions of national identity and citizenship. Drawing on a vast array of sources, the book examines the patriotic and nationalist organizations which emerged during the war, the role of the Russian Orthodox Church, the press and the intelligentsia in mobilizing Russian society, the war's impact on the rights of citizens, and the new, democratized ideas of Russian nationhood which emerged both as a result of the war and of the 1917 revolution. Russia's war experience is revealed as a process that helped consolidate in the Russian population a sense of membership in a great national community, rather than being a test of patriotism which they failed.
Article
The introduction to the archival documents published in this issue of Ab Imperio frames the broad context of the political reform of 1905–1906 in the Russian Empire and highlights the imperial dimension in the elabora- tion of the first electoral law (the Bulygin Duma law). The authors explore the multisided and layered nature of political conflicts as well as divergent political imaginaries with regard to the institution of political representation in the ranks of the imperial bureaucracy. In particular, the text explicates the nationalizing and colonializing imaginary of social engineering that guided the work of Sergey Kryzhanovskii on electoral principles and mecha- nisms. That imaginary stood in contradiction to the vision and practice of imperial citizenship that was shared by more senior officials in the central government of the empire such as Count Dmitry Sol’skii and Count Illarion Vorontsov-Dashkov. The concept of imperial citizenship can be traced to the Great Reforms of the 1860s, which created the universalizing framework of norms and institutions for diverse space and groups of population in the empire. At the same time, the political logic of the Great Reforms allowed the incorporation of imperial particularisms into universalizing norms and institutions. Analyzing responses to ministerial proposals of the electoral law by high-ranking officials of various imperial peripheries, the authors demonstrate how the institutions of imperial citizenship framed the campaign of information-gathering marshaled by the imperial center and how the language of imperial citizenship conditioned the approach of local officials to the phenomenon of political representation.