110 years ago, on October 17 (30), 1905, the manifesto of Emperor Nicholas II “On the improvement public order", which declared the granting of political freedoms to Russian citizens, personal inviolability, and the expansion of the electoral qualifications for elections to the State Duma. The manifesto of October 17, 1905 was prepared by the Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the Russian Empire S. Yu. Witte, who considered constitutional concessions the only way to defuse the revolutionary atmosphere in Russia.
The Manifesto of 1905 was issued by Emperor Nicholas II under pressure from growing revolutionary situation: mass strikes and armed uprisings. This manifesto satisfied the liberal public, since it was a real step towards the transition to a limited constitutional monarchy. Liberals were given the opportunity to influence the government through parliament. This manifesto is considered the beginning of the Russian monarchy and parliamentarism.
The manifesto enshrined freedom of conscience, speech, assembly and gatherings; attracting broad sections of the population to the elections; mandatory procedure for approval by the State Duma of all laws issued.
It must be said that the idea of “democratizing” the Russian Empire has been floating around in society for a long time. More than once, constitutional projects have been born that were supposed to reform Russia “from above.” Among Westerners (the leading part of Russian educated society) “constitutional dreams” were the leading idea and they gradually became radicalized.
Thus, in the Russian Empire of the period of the 19th - early 20th centuries. There were two main ideas for the “democratization” of Russia. Some emperors, representatives of the ruling dynasty and high dignitaries wanted to change the existing system “from above.” They wanted to arrange in an evolutionary way to Russia constitutional monarchy on the model of England. That is, they also followed the example of the West and were Westerners, but did not want unrest and unrest. While representatives of the pro-Western public dreamed that the main branch of government in Russia would be the legislative one - the parliament. They wanted to eliminate the autocracy. Both the Decembrists and commoners, as well as liberals and socialists, dreamed about this late XIX- beginning of the 20th century This discrepancy in the vision of the future of Russia, moreover, on the basis of Western concepts, ultimately led to the disaster of the Russian Empire and the entire Russian civilization, which was saved only by a new, Soviet project.
Alexander I was the first to think about reform. While still heir to the throne, Alexander was critical of his father’s despotic and paternalistic methods of rule. Alexander's reformist spirit was expressed in attracting government activities M. M. Speransky, who prepared several of his own political notes: “On the fundamental laws of the state”, “Reflections on the state structure of the empire”, “On the gradual improvement of social”, etc. In 1803, on behalf of the emperor, Speransky compiled a “Note on structure of judicial and government institutions in Russia." During its development, he showed himself to be an active supporter of the constitutional monarchy. However, things did not go further than this. In addition, Alexander canceled serfdom in the Baltic provinces, granted a constitutional structure to the Grand Duchy of Finland, and then to the Kingdom of Poland. Alexander took part in the development of the Constitutional Charter of France, which turned it into a constitutional monarchy. In Russia itself, in addition to Speransky, Vorontsov and Novosiltsev worked on constitutional projects, but all their projects were shelved.
By the end of his reign, Alexander was clearly disillusioned with reform activities, seeing that they were leading to the growth of revolutionary sentiment in society, rather than stabilizing it. Thus, speaking in 1818 in Warsaw at the opening of the first Polish Sejm, Alexander I once again returned to constitutional projects and emphasized that the rest of Russia was not yet ripe, like Poland, for constitutional reorganization. It is interesting that Alexander knew about the emergence of the “Decembrist” movement, involved in Westernism and Freemasonry. When in 1821 Prince A.V. Vasilchikov acquainted the tsar with materials about the conspiracy and the programs of the conspirators, Alexander I threw the list of conspirators into the fire, noting that he could not punish them, since “in my youth I shared their views.” The radical program of the Decembrists (especially Pestel) marked a radical, revolutionary challenge to the government, which was wavering in its constitutional plans. Moreover, the government was challenged by the most educated part of society, the basis of whose education was western culture.
Thus, the flirtations of Alexander's government with the liberal public ended badly. The speech of the Decembrists could lead to bloody unrest, and only the decisive actions of Nicholas saved the empire from very serious consequences.
Emperor Nicholas, having suppressed the Decembrists' speech, was cold towards constitutional projects and “froze” Russia. The next experiment in the constitutional field was undertaken by the reformer Tsar Alexander II and ended no less tragically. On April 11, 1880, M. T. Loris-Melikov, the Kharkov governor-general, appointed chairman of the Supreme Administrative Commission of Russia, submitted a report to Emperor Alexander II “On the involvement of representatives of the population in legislative advisory activities.” The talk was about the establishment in St. Petersburg of two preparatory commissions from representatives of zemstvos and largest cities Russia, by analogy with the editorial commissions of 1859 regarding the solution of the peasant question. Essentially, the empire planned to introduce legislative advisory activities of representative institutions. The Emperor imposed a resolution on the project: “Implement.” However, on May 1 the sovereign was mortally wounded. The assassination attempt on the tsar was organized by revolutionary terrorists, fighters for “people's freedom” and a constitutional republic from the “People's Will”. The text of the “Constitution” remained on the emperor’s desk.
Emperor Alexander III, an opponent of reforms and a conservative, who ascended the throne, instructed to discuss the project in the Council of Ministers. It was approved again. And April 29 new emperor issued his famous manifesto, proclaiming the inviolability of the principles of autocracy. On the very first page of M. T. Loris-Melikov’s report, the tsar wrote: “Thank God, this criminal and hasty step towards a constitution was not taken.” The new sovereign set a course for unlimited autocracy. This line was continued after the death of his father by Nicholas II, who, upon ascending the throne in 1894, declared the inviolability of the principles of autocracy.
Alexander III and Nicholas II, at the beginning of their reign, again “frozen” the situation. However, the contradictions in the Russian Empire were fundamental and sooner or later led to the collapse of the empire. The empire could be saved by decisive modernization “from above,” but not along the liberal (Western) path, but along its own, original path. In essence, Nicholas II had to do what Stalin and his “iron commissars” did after the collapse of the Russian Empire.
When Nicholas succumbed to the influence of the pro-Western part of the government (Witte was a typical Westerner and an agent of influence from the “world behind the scenes”), he only made things worse. Concessions to the liberal public could not save old Russia. They only provoked the Westerners and various kinds revolutionaries, increased their ability to destroy the foundations of the empire. Thus, most of the press in the Russian Empire, controlled by liberal parties and movements, worked to destroy the empire. Stolypin was able to put off the collapse of the empire with incredible efforts, but when the empire got involved in the war, it could no longer be saved.
In the first year (1906) that Russia lived under conditions of “civil freedom,” 768 government officials were killed and 820 wounded as a result of terrorist attacks. On August 19, 1906, Stolypin signed a decree on the introduction of military courts, but submitted it to the Duma only in the spring of 1907. During the eight months of the decree, 1,100 people were executed. Trade unions were closed, revolutionary parties were persecuted, and repressions against the press began. Prime Minister Pyotr Stolypin had to dissolve two Dumas before he had a Duma with which he could cooperate. Stolypin brought order to the country with a strong hand.
As a result, the Manifesto of October 17 cannot be considered a happy acquisition for Russia at the beginning of the twentieth century; the opposition used it to intensify the fight against the autocracy, which led to new blood, and the authorities did not know and did not understand what parliamentarism, political parties and public opinion in conditions of freedom of the press. Russian empire entered a qualitatively different state state, being absolutely unprepared for this. The bureaucracy, subordinate only to the tsar, was absolutely incapable of parliamentarism of the European type. European ideas on Russian soil led to perversions and only worsened the situation (this is fully confirmed in modern Russia).
Thus, during this period we very clearly observe the feature historical development Russia. As soon as the power in the person of its supreme bearer practically takes up the democratization of the state and society in a Western manner and “unscrews the screws” of the centralized imperial system, liberal society immediately perceives this as evidence of its weakness and uses its new opportunities not for actions for the benefit of the people, but for in order to politically (or physically) destroy the supreme power (insufficiently democratic, in her opinion), and force unrest.
After much hesitation, caused by the fact that the oath he had taken upon accession to the throne was actually violated, Nicholas II put his signature on the Manifesto prepared by the Council of Justice. Witte and published on October 17, 1905, the Manifesto essentially boiled down to three main elements: 1) the granting of civil liberties to the people on the basis of bourgeois-democratic principles - personal inviolability, freedom of conscience, speech, assembly and organization; 2) ensuring the participation in elections of those sections of the population who, by decree of August 6, 1905, were deprived of the right to vote on the basis of the new electoral law; 3) the introduction as an indispensable rule that no law can come into force without its approval by the State Duma - a way of monitoring the legality of the emperor’s actions.
The manifesto was a step forward compared to the legislative acts of February 18 and August 6, 1905. However, it left many important questions unresolved: about the role and place of autocracy in the new political system, about the powers of the State Duma, about the essence of the constitutional order.
The revolution continued. The high point of the revolution was the December armed uprising of 1905 in Moscow. The tsarist government managed to play on the split in the opposition forces and did not keep most of the promises contained in the Manifesto of October 17, 1905. The defeat of the uprising was the defeat of the social revolution.
The election law, adopted on December 11, 1905, softened the electoral qualifications, but left the elections multi-stage, and the rights of voters unequal and not universal. All voters were divided into four curia: landowners, city owners, workers and peasants. Each of them chose its own electors for constituencies. The election law, very complex and confusing, primarily ensured the rights of landowners. The powers of the Duma were greatly limited in advance.
On the eve of the election campaign, the government carried out reforms State Council, which was transformed from a legislative advisory body, all of whose members had previously been appointed by the tsar, into the upper house of the future parliament, having legislative powers equal to those of the Duma. The composition of the State Council was also changed. The number of members tripled, half of them were still appointed by the king, while the other was elected on the basis of a high property qualification. Thus, the composition of the State Council was dominated by landed nobility and the big bourgeoisie. On October 19, 1905, a unified government was established - the reformed Council of Justice. Witte, the country's highest executive body is the Council of Ministers. As before, the emperor appointed and dismissed ministers responsible only to him and not to the Duma.
The electoral law relied on the monarchical and nationalist feelings of the peasant masses. But in reality, the peasants supported the opposition parties. Most peasants, instead of supporting the landowner or local government officials in the elections, voted for their own candidates or for opposition candidates. The elections dealt a severe blow to the main dogma of the autocracy - the inviolable unity of the tsar and the people. The conflict between the opposition-minded Duma and the emperor, who claims to be the bearer of historical and monarchical legitimacy, became inevitable.
One of the important results of the revolution of 1905-1907. education has become political parties. The right to form unions was one of the most important freedoms introduced by the Manifesto. During the revolution, about 50 parties arose, defending different paths of development of the country. The number of radical socialist parties, previously deep underground, has increased noticeably. The divergence between the branches of Social Democracy clearly manifested itself: the Bolsheviks proclaimed the peasantry to be the main ally of the proletariat in the revolution and envisioned the establishment of a “revolutionary democratic dictatorship” of the working class and peasantry after the overthrow of the autocracy; the Mensheviks, who saw the masses of liberals as their ally, advocated the transfer of power after the revolution to the bourgeoisie
Manifesto
THE HIGHEST MANIFESTO By the grace of God WE, NICHOLAS THE SECOND, Emperor and Autocrat of All Russia, Tsar of Poland, Grand Duke Finnish, and so on, and so on, and so on We announce to all our loyal subjects:Troubles and unrest in the capitals and in many localities of OUR Empire fill OUR heart with great and grave sorrow. The good of the Russian GOVERNMENT is inseparable from the good of the people, and the sorrow of the people is HIS sorrow. The unrest that has now arisen may result in deep disorganization of the people and a threat to the integrity and unity of OUR Power.
The great vow of the Royal service commands US with all the forces of our reason and power to strive for a speedy end to the unrest that is so dangerous for the State. Having commanded the subject authorities to take measures to eliminate direct manifestations of disorder, riots and violence, in order to protect peaceful people striving for the calm fulfillment of everyone’s duty, WE, for the successful implementation of the general measures WE have planned for the pacification of public life, recognized it as necessary to unite the activities of the Supreme Government.
WE entrust the Government with the responsibility of fulfilling OUR unyielding will:1. Grant the population the unshakable foundations of civil freedom on the basis of actual personal inviolability, freedom of conscience, speech, assembly and association.
2. Without stopping the scheduled elections to the State Duma, now attract to participation in the Duma, to the extent possible, corresponding to the shortness of the period remaining before the convening of the Duma, those classes of the population that are now completely deprived of voting rights, thereby allowing for the further development of the beginning of general suffrage again established legislative order.
and 3. Establish as an unshakable rule that no law can take effect without the approval of the State Duma and that those elected from the people are provided with the opportunity to truly participate in monitoring the regularity of the actions of the authorities assigned by US.
We call on all the faithful sons of Russia to remember their duty to their Motherland, to help put an end to this unheard-of unrest and, together with US, to strain all their strength to restore silence and peace in their native land.
Given in Peterhof on the 17th day of October, in the year of the Nativity of Christ one thousand nine hundred and five, and of OUR Reign in the eleventh.
Historical meaning
The historical significance of the Manifesto lay in the distribution of the sole right of the Russian Emperor to legislate between, in fact, the monarch and the legislative (representative) body - the State Duma.
The Manifesto, together with the Manifesto of Nicholas II on August 6, established a parliament, without whose approval no law could come into force. At the same time, the Emperor retained the right to dissolve the Duma and block its decisions with his veto. Subsequently, Nicholas II used these rights more than once.
Also, the Manifesto proclaimed and provided civil rights and freedoms, such as: freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and freedom to form associations.
Thus, the manifesto was the predecessor of the Russian constitution.
Notes
Links
- The most loyal report of the Secretary of State Count Witte (Church Gazette. St. Petersburg, 1905. No. 43). On the site Heritage of Holy Rus'
- L. Trotsky October 18
Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.
- Manitou
- Manifesto of the Communist Party
See what the “October 17 Manifesto” is in other dictionaries:
MANIFESTO October 17- 1905 was promulgated by the Russian autocratic government as a significant concession to the revolutionary movement. The essence of M. is stated on behalf of the monarch in the following paragraphs: “We entrust the government with the responsibility of fulfilling our unyielding will: 1) ... ... Cossack dictionary-reference book
MANIFESTO OCTOBER 17, 1905- MANIFESTO OF OCTOBER 17, 1905 (“On the improvement of state order”), signed by Nicholas II at the time of the highest rise of the October All-Russian political strike. Proclaimed civil liberties, the creation of the State Duma... encyclopedic Dictionary
MANIFESTO OCTOBER 17, 1905- (On the improvement of state order), signed by Nicholas II at the time of the rise of the October All-Russian political strike. He proclaimed civil liberties and the creation of the State Duma. Compiled by S.Yu. Witte... Modern encyclopedia
MANIFESTO OCTOBER 17, 1905- (On improving public order), legislative act. He proclaimed civil liberties and the creation of popular representation in the form of the State Duma. Developed with the participation of Count S. Yu. Witte, published at the time of the highest... ... Russian history
Manifesto October 17, 1905- (“On the improvement of public order”) signed by Nicholas II at the time of the highest rise of the October All-Russian political strike. He proclaimed civil liberties and the creation of the State Duma. Political Science: Dictionary... ... Political science. Dictionary.
Manifesto October 17, 1905- (“On the improvement of state order”), signed by Nicholas II at the time of the rise of the October All-Russian political strike. He proclaimed civil liberties and the creation of the State Duma. Compiled by S.Yu. Witte. ... Illustrated Encyclopedic Dictionary
Manifesto October 17, 1905- This term has other meanings, see Manifesto (meanings). Vedomosti St. Petersburg. city authorities. October 18, 1905 The Highest Manifesto On the improvement of the state ... Wikipedia
MANIFESTO October 17, 1905- “On improvement of public order”, legislative act; proclaimed civil liberties and popular will in the form of the State Duma. “...The unrest that has now arisen may result in deep national unrest and a threat... ... Russian statehood in terms. 9th – early 20th century
MANIFESTO OCTOBER 17, 1905- - an act issued by Nicholas II at the height of the October general political strike that swept Russia. The manifesto was published with the aim of splitting the revolutionary movement and deceiving the masses with the promise of imaginary freedoms. The rapid growth of the first bourgeois... ... Soviet legal dictionary
Manifesto October 17, 1905- “On the improvement of state order”, the manifesto of Nicholas II, published during the October All-Russian political strike of 1905 (See October All-Russian political strike of 1905), when a temporary... ... Great Soviet Encyclopedia
Books
- Manifesto of October 17, 1905 and the political movement that caused it, A.S. Alekseev. Manifesto of October 17, 1905 and political movement, which caused it / A. S. Alekseev V 118/592 U 336/178: Moscow: Type. G. Lissner and D. Sobko, 1915:A. S. Alekseev Reproduced in…
October 30 (October 17, old style) 1905 Russian autocrat adopted the “Manifesto on Improving Public Order.” The manifesto distributed previously individual rights Russian Emperor to legislate between the monarch himself and the legislative (representative) body - State Duma ; a number of civil rights and freedoms were also introduced: proclaimed freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and freedom to form unions and public organizations, freedom of conscience; voting rights were granted to those segments of the population that previously did not have it.
We talk with historian Fyodor Gaida about how events developed in Russia after the adoption of the manifesto and how the Church reacted to the manifesto, why such a phenomenon as the revolutionary priest G. Gapon became possible, about the responsibility of the authorities and the lessons of history.
Fyodor Alexandrovich, 110 years ago a manifesto was adopted, which went down in history as the Manifesto of October 17. Almost all history textbooks, reference books and many studies say that the manifesto was accepted by Nicholas II in order to stabilize the situation in the country. The essence of the manifesto was to make concessions to the workers and fulfill a number of their demands: to give civil rights and freedoms, thereby ending the chaos in the country. How did events develop in the country after the adoption of the manifesto? What realities has Russia begun to live in?
The manifesto, in principle, could not lead to stabilization political situation in the country
It is an exaggeration to believe that the Manifesto of October 17 was adopted in order to calm the unrest in the country, that this was a concession to the workers. This is what the main initiator of the manifesto thought, the newly minted Count Sergei Yulievich Witte, who had just concluded the Peace of Portsmouth. He believed that the wave of strikes sweeping across Russia could be brought down by creating a new government on a new basis, which he was supposed to lead - and did. But let's look at the text of the manifesto. It talks about the creation of a legislative body - the State Duma, that is, about limiting autocracy. It was also said that broad sections of the population would be involved in the elections to the State Duma. But nothing was said about the main labor demands, and the main labor demands were of a socio-economic nature. First of all, this is, of course, a reduction in working hours and an increase wages. This is what we had to worry about, first of all, if the main task is to pacify the workers.
Witte, by and large, used the labor movement for his own purposes and for the purposes of the opposition intelligentsia. He assumed that he would achieve this manifesto, then form a coalition government together with radical liberals, become prime minister and thereby be the main political figure in Russia. He received support from Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolaevich, who had great influence on his nephew, Emperor Nicholas II. Together they were able to achieve the signing of the Manifesto. But, as we know, no peace came.
- What really happened?
The manifesto came as a surprise to the entire country. Local authorities did not know that it was being prepared; for practically several days they did not interfere with any events at all, because they did not understand how to react to them.
After signing, the manifesto was distributed throughout the country, came into force from the moment of publication - and immediately demonstrations with red banners appeared on the streets. The intelligentsia rejoiced - they celebrated “freedom”. And a few days later, equally numerous demonstrations appeared, but with banners that advocated unlimited autocracy. Street clashes began, but the authorities did not intervene in any way, because they did not know what they should do. She had no instructions on this matter: freedom had arrived. Later, in December, armed uprisings were attempted in a number of cities. The most famous is the uprising in Moscow, on Presnya. And only after the Moscow events a special act was adopted, according to which the workers received several seats in the State Duma and could choose their representatives. But the significance of their votes for the State Duma was very small.
We must be aware that the Church had no organizational independence. She was part of the state apparatus. The Church was subordinate to the Synod, and the Synod was the body government controlled, and the Church without any state sanction independent steps I couldn’t take action. When the revolution of 1905 began, the Church, represented by the Synod, on the state initiative, issued an appeal condemning revolutionary manifestations, excesses, and violence. How could the Church react to the events of October 1905? She couldn’t criticize the Tsar’s manifesto! And his support was not required.
The opposition to the autocracy took advantage of the manifesto, and in fact it was an attempt to redistribute government structure Russia, the transformation of an absolute monarchy into a constitutional one. Have the Church hierarchs spoken out on this matter?
The conservative hierarchs of the Church perceived everything that was happening with great skepticism. Of course, in their hearts, someone could hope that the proclaimed rights and freedoms would have a positive impact on the mood in the country.
Among the clergy there were representatives of various political views- from supporters of unlimited autocracy to obvious socialists
It is impossible to say that the clergy, including the episcopate, had a consolidated political position. At the beginning of the twentieth century, among the Russian clergy there were representatives of a wide variety of political views - from supporters of unlimited autocracy, from those who actively supported the “Union of the Russian People”, to obvious socialists. Everything was extremely difficult. And to a large extent, this is a consequence of the position that the Church had in the state and society. We see a complete lack of freedom, the ability to act independently, because the Church is included in the state mechanism. But there is also what is usually called a spiritual crisis. This is a complex phenomenon that does not really mean anything special. The processes took place in different directions. There was, after all, a spiritual revival in part of society.
Precisely because spiritual life was by this time in a kind of transitional state - new questions were raised, the intelligentsia was very keenly interested in religious problems, and therefore many of the hierarchs tried to establish a dialogue with the intellectual part of society - and so, due to these complex processes within the Church the moods were very different. Mostly, of course, conservative, but not everyone.
Speaking about the Church, about its reaction to the Manifesto of October 17, I would like to recall the event that preceded it - January 9, 1905, “Bloody Sunday.” An active organizer of the march to Winter Palace there was Georgy Gapon, a former priest. There are many myths surrounding this historical figure. So who was Gapon - a provocateur or a convinced revolutionary? What did he want? Did he understand what consequences his activities could lead to?
Georgy Gapon was a fairly sincere person, but, as often happens with people who get carried away, he turned out to be subject to the play of passions. He was vain. Despite his humble origins (he is from a simple family, originally from the Poltava province), thanks to his abilities, he ended up in St. Petersburg and was able to establish relationships with the capital’s authorities. He had the gift of an orator, he could inspire his views to the common people- I tried to make a career on this.
The city authorities noticed him and attracted him to the so-called. "Zubatov movement".
- Please remind our readers what kind of movement this was.
The authorities, in order to prevent the spread of revolutionary ideas among the workers, tried to implement their own policies among the workers. Such communities were organized, headed by people who enjoyed authority and influence among the workers and at the same time were secretly connected with the police apparatus. This was the idea of the head of the Moscow security department of the Police Department, Sergei Zubatov. These workers' societies organized leisure time for workers and mutual aid funds, engaged in education, fought against drunkenness... The movement was on a large scale. But when the smell of revolution was in the air, the authorities began to curtail the movement, because they feared that they would no longer be able to control the workers’ associations. In 1903, Zubatov was removed from this activity. But many of his associates continued their activities in the working environment.
Gapon believed: if sacrifices are needed, let there be sacrifices. The most important thing is to achieve “good” goals
One of them was Father Georgy Gapon, who immediately, as soon as the police ceased to control the workers' associations, removed all agents from his organization. He established contacts with the opposition and imagined himself as a significant figure who could influence politics. In fact, he used the workers in the interests of political struggle. They were given demands that the authorities simply could not satisfy in principle. And the plan was to organize a huge demonstration, try to get through to the Winter Palace, and then... He hoped that the authorities would make concessions, and if they didn’t, blood would be shed - and then the authorities would be forced to make concessions. What would happen to the workers did not interest him too much. He believed: if sacrifices are needed, let there be sacrifices. The most important thing is to achieve “good” goals. What are good goals? Universal suffrage, limitation of autocracy, land to peasants, 8-hour working day for workers. This is such a revolutionary program. And he was convinced that by fighting for the interests of the workers, he could use them to his advantage.
The revolution did not start on January 9 - it started earlier. There have already been attempts to make concessions to the liberal movement. And it was clear that these concessions should be O The main thing is that the opposition does not compromise, that it behaves completely destructively. Minister of Internal Affairs P.D. Svyatopolk-Mirsky, who advocated these concessions, realized that his policy had reached a dead end. He resigned. By January 9, the country actually did not have a specific person responsible for ensuring security in the state. Gapon took advantage of this confusion in power. The liberals stirred up the situation, but he fit in well with the general flow and brought the workers out onto the streets. Human lives were sacrificed to the revolution. And this was done completely consciously.
How did the Church react to such activities of a clergyman? And why do you think the clergyman became such a zealous revolutionary?
The Church condemned the revolutionary movement - the Synod condemned it. There was an appeal in which the flock was called upon not to participate in revolutionary excesses. Gapon was deprived of his rank, and he declared that he himself was resigning his rank. He fled abroad, and for about a year the revolutionary emigration considered him the leader of the revolutionary movement in Russia - such was the colossal authority he had in the revolutionary environment. He wanted to unite all revolutionary parties in the fight against autocracy.
Why did the priest join the revolution? Because in the wider public environment it is precisely such a person who will have influence. After all, the working environment was not very accepting of professional revolutionaries. And a persecuted spiritual shepherd could have influence. All revolutionaries understood this. Even Lenin understood and wrote about this.
Who can make demands on the king, God's anointed, sacred figure? - Representative of the clergy
Russia at that time was an illiterate and religious country. Who could lead the broad masses of the people? Priest! A person who seriously claims not only political, but also spiritual authority. He can even lead to death. A political struggle was perceived then as a religious struggle. After all, who can make demands on the king, God's anointed, sacred figure? - Representative of the clergy. Everyone else simply won’t have the charisma to speak to the king. Here's what to consider.
Gapon said: “My goal is sacred - to lead the suffering people out of the impasse and save the workers from oppression.” Many see in these words of his, and in other statements, a claim to messianism.
Absolutely right: the man imagined that such a prophetic ministry was assigned to him that, like Moses, he would lead the people out of the darkness of Egypt and lead them to the Promised Land. In this case, the promised land was understood as a socialist future, where everyone will be well-fed, satisfied, and happy. He thought of himself this way.
It is known that shortly before his death he became an opponent of the revolution and, if not quite a monarchist, then a man who understands how important autocracy is for Russia, for the people. Has his views really changed? Or was it like this political game?
I have already said above that, once abroad, he initially became a popular figure in the revolutionary environment. Then many of the revolutionary leaders began to be afraid of him, perceive him as a competitor, and believe that he was playing some kind of his own game. And Gapon himself revolutionary activities disappointed. Gash. He began to have a mental crisis. And since the government also had its own agents in the revolutionary environment abroad, Gapon’s change of heart became known in Russia - in certain circles. Witte, having become prime minister, attempted to negotiate with Gapon so that he would return to Russia and lead a labor movement that would be loyal to the authorities.
Another question is how serious Gapon’s disappointment in the revolution was and whether he really wanted to play politics according to Witte’s rules. It's a mystery. I'm afraid we won't be able to figure it out. We don't know what was going on in this man's soul. But he came to Russia illegally, declared that he was ready to lead such a labor movement, but as soon as this became clear, the Socialist Revolutionaries killed him.
They say that we should be grateful to our enemies - they teach us a lot. Lenin assessed the Manifesto of October 17 as “a certain moment when the proletarians and peasants, having snatched the manifesto from the tsar, are not yet able to overthrow tsarism, and tsarism can no longer manage only with its previous means and is forced to promise in words civil liberties and a legislative Duma.” How would you comment on these words? And what does this teach us? historical event- adoption of the Manifesto on October 17?
The main historical lesson of this event is this: government is a huge job. What happened in October 1905? The highest echelons of power believed that if they made such a serious concession, they could curtail the revolution. Once - and everything will work out right away.
The opposition regarded concessions to the authorities as weakness of the authorities. And continued the attack on power
Indeed, the concession was serious: the manifesto limited autocracy, a new political system. But what happened in the end? All opposition forces, including liberals, having seen such a concession, considered: if the autocracy is taking such serious measures, this means that it can continue to demand new concessions. The October 17 manifesto caused a storm of enthusiasm, but as soon as the euphoria passed, the opposition launched new offensives.
Witte thought that after the adoption of the manifesto he would immediately come to an agreement with the liberals - but nothing like that happened. He invited the liberals to join the government - they refused. They said: “You must organize elections to the Duma, and after the deputies are elected, you will transfer all power to the State Duma. And the State Duma will decide what kind of constitution to write for Russia, whether to give land to the peasants, etc. The Duma will already carry out all the necessary reforms, and we don’t need you. The old order must go after the Duma elections.” And when the First Duma was elected, the Cadets, that is, radical liberals who dreamed of turning the Duma into a battering ram against the tsarist power, won there. And that is precisely why the government was forced to dissolve the Duma. The government changed, Stolypin became Minister of Internal Affairs, Goremykin became Prime Minister; They came to the conclusion that - nothing can be done - such a Duma must be dissolved.
Then there was the Second Duma, which also had to be dissolved; then we had to change the electoral law, the election procedure, and make the Duma more conservative in its social composition. And besides, carry out reforms. For example, Stolypin's agrarian reform. And only when the authorities pulled themselves together and began to restore order, but at the same time carry out reforms, did the revolution end.
It's about who takes responsibility for the further development of the situation. If no one takes responsibility, then the situation begins to get out of control - and this is a revolution.
- So what conclusion should we draw?
Those opposition forces that snatched the Manifesto of October 17 from the tsar’s hands counted on the fact that after that they would receive everything O bigger and b O greater concessions. And therefore in the situation political crisis You must always make very important decisions for yourself: what concessions to make. If these concessions are perceived as weakness, they will only make the situation worse.
The main historical lesson is this: running a state is a huge responsibility.
Remember how events unfolded in March 1917. The emperor signs the abdication manifesto because he believes that with this step he will stabilize the situation in the country. In his manifesto, he directly states this: if I am an obstacle to victory in the war, if my figure can become a reason civil war, then I'm leaving. But did those who sought renunciation act responsibly? This concession is perceived as weakness of the authorities, and then collapse begins. In 1905-1906, the authorities were able to bring the situation back under control. In 1917 - no longer. Politics is a responsible matter, and it must be carried out responsibly.
The 1905 Manifesto on improving the state order was issued by Emperor Nicholas II on October 17, 1905 under the pressure of growing popular unrest: a general political strike and armed uprisings in Moscow and many other cities. This manifesto satisfied some of the strikers, as it was a real step towards a limited constitutional monarchy.
The manifesto became the first liberal-minded legislative act Tsarist Russia.
The main provisions of the Manifesto: consolidation of freedom of conscience, speech, meetings and gatherings; attracting broad sections of the population to the elections; mandatory procedure for approval by the State Duma of all laws issued.
Under these conditions, the Russian bourgeoisie not only did not lead the revolutionary struggle for bourgeois-democratic transformations, but sought to prevent further development revolution.
The manifesto changed the system of government - Soviets of Workers' Deputies appeared. They were originally strike committees, but gradually turned into organs of political struggle.
Principles of organization and activities of the Councils:
- representative character;
— democratic elections by secret or open voting;
- they could include women;
— they formed executive committees (presidiums) and commissions on certain issues;
— reporting of deputies to voters;
— the possibility of replacing deputies who have not lived up to the trust of voters;
- work according to the instructions of voters;
— wide involvement of workers in meetings.
In 1905-1907 55 Soviets were formed, of which 44 were Bolshevik-minded, so they became the embryonic bodies of the new revolutionary government.
The Soviets had the right to take measures of a revolutionary-democratic nature: to form combat squads and workers' militia. The Soviets opened and took over printing houses, had their own printed publications, and disseminated revolutionary ideas, thereby introducing de facto freedom of the press.
The manifesto preserved the class inequality of the bourgeoisie with the nobility and the restriction of the former’s right to occupy senior positions in the state apparatus.
The main state laws were signed by Nicholas II on April 23, 1906. They were an act of autocracy, which Nicholas II decided on after the suppression of the largest uprisings. These laws could only be changed by the emperor.
The basic state laws of 1906 prohibited the tsar from unilaterally changing the electoral law, but Nicholas II violated this provision and passed a law that limited the voting rights of workers, non-Russian peoples and some other population groups.
The population in Russia was divided into nobility, clergy, urban and rural inhabitants.
