24.04.1997

Duma’s internal enemy

Revolutionary candidates: AY Badayev

The two years just before World War I saw a great upturn in the class struggle in Russia, as the autocracy continued its whittling away of the concessions granted in the aftermath of the 1905 revolution.

The Russian social democrats continued their policy of contesting elections to the Duma, the tsar’s talking shop, even though the electoral system was fixed to ensure an overwhelming reactionary majority. Furthermore repressive laws prevented effective working class political activity, and the Bolsheviks themselves had no legal status. This meant that they were unable to announce the name of their candidates until the last minute for fear of arrest.

Despite this - and in opposition to some small groups like the Socialist Revolutionaries, who argued for a boycott - they agreed to stand for the elections to the fourth Duma in 1912. AY Badayev, writing of his experiences as an elected deputy, explained why: “The Bolsheviks regarded the election campaign ... as an opportunity for far-reaching agitation and propaganda and as one of the means of organising the masses ... The Bolsheviks did not transform the campaign into a mere struggle for a few seats in the Duma” (AY Badayev Bolsheviks in the tsarist Duma London 1987, p20. All quotes are taken from this Socialist Workers Party reprint of Badayev’s 1929 book).

For the purpose of the elections, the population was divided into voting categories based on property qualifications: landlords, houseowners, workers and peasants each had their separate electoral colleges, which were weighted to ensure that workers’ and peasants’ representatives could only form a small minority. Even with this gerrymandering, the authorities did not permit the direct election of deputies by the masses.

In six major urban centres, including St Petersburg and Moscow, workers had the ‘right’ to elect one representative for each city, whereas in the other towns only householders (which included many workers and democrats) could vote. The system for workers in the six cities was three-tiered. Workplace elections were held (to qualify for the right to vote, a worker had to have been employed continuously for six months) which nominated delegates; the delegates then voted for ‘electors’ from amongst themselves, and only the electors actually chose the deputies for the Duma.

During this period Pravda published legally, although it was subject to severe restrictions and was constantly harassed. Here is an example of what groups like the SWP would no doubt consider ‘electoralism’ today:

“Pravda also conducted a great campaign against the absenteeism of the city democratic electors, calling upon them to safeguard their rights and to perform all the formalities required. Every issue of the paper reminded the electors to see to it that their names were not left out of the electoral lists and to make the requisite applications to the electoral commissions” (Badayev, p26).

However, its main role was to constantly stress the three main slogans of the Bolsheviks’ campaign: a democratic republic (this slogan had to be implied, rather than openly stated in legal publications); an eight-hour day; and the confiscation of all landlords’ estates.

Apart from the Bolsheviks, the only other serious contenders for the workers’ vote were the Mensheviks. At this time both wings were formally united in the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party. None of the bourgeois parties had a hope of having their candidates endorsed at workplace elections, and did not attempt to campaign amongst the workers.

Badayev, a worker at a St Petersburg railway car repair shop employing 3,000 men, had been secretly nominated as a Party candidate several months earlier. He and a fellow Bolshevik were overwhelmingly elected, the remaining Menshevik and independent candidates gaining only a handful of votes.

Of the 80 delegates elected to the St Petersburg workers’ electoral college almost all were Social Democrats. But many were still unsure about Party differences. Both wings campaigned vigorously to win over the waverers in their respective papers, Prada and Luch. But of course this propaganda was read by thousands of workers, not just the elected delegates.

The Mensheviks conducted their campaign principally around the need for ‘unity’ and ‘personal candidates’, while the Bolsheviks stressed their programme and the need for a disciplined Social Democratic fraction, working under Party control.

In order to hamper a democratic second-stage election, the college was called only the evening before it was to meet. In addition several delegates were ‘disqualified’ by the governor, including some from the largest workplaces, who were almost all Bolsheviks. This provoked a massive strike wave, which forced the authorities to allow supplementary elections in those workplaces.

The recalled college was called for October 17 1912, and this time the delegates took advantage of the full time for discussion the governor was forced to permit - to engage in revolutionary political debate, normally out of the question in legal gatherings. Lengthy Party resolutions were carried unamended on all aspects of political life. Although these party ‘instructions’ were carried unanimously, the voting resulted in the election of three Bolsheviks, including Badayev, and three Mensheviks.

These six electors representing workers only were elected to the full St Petersburg college - the Gubernia. The remaining 60 had been elected by peasants, landlords and householders, although this last group contained many democrats and workers. All 66 were entitled to take part in the election of four deputies to the Duma. One had to be chosen from each of the four categories.

The bourgeois liberals, the Progressives and the Octobrists, had a majority over the right. The Bolsheviks agreed to support the Progressives on the peasants’ lists and in return received their votes for the workers’ deputy. Badayev was elected with 34 votes, easily beating his Menshevik rival, because of this electoral agreement.

There was nothing unprincipled about this deal. It mattered little which of the bourgeois parties would be represented, but it was essential that the Bolsheviks had the opportunity to take advantage of the parliamentary immunity afforded to deputies, in order to spread their propaganda more freely.

A Bolshevik deputy was elected from each of the six cities where there was a workers’ college. They represented over a million workers. In the remaining districts where workers’ representation was permitted, workers deputies had been selected from among the houseowners’ lists. All seven of these deputies were Mensheviks, but they represented only some 200,000 workers.

As in the previous two Dumas, the two wings were organised in a united Social Democratic fraction. In addition the Mensheviks used their one-vote majority to allow a Bund member representing Warsaw workers into the fraction, despite the fact that he had been elected by a bloc of parties in opposition to Polish Social Democrats. All six Bolsheviks were factory floor workers. The 14- strong fraction sat among a total of 442 deputies, among whom the ‘Rights’ were in a majority. The two wings did not split into separate fractions until October 1913. One of the six Bolshevik deputies, Roman Malinovsky, was all along a police spy, who fled abroad in 1914.

In addition to his work in the Duma, Badayev was given a leading coordinating role with Pravda, also based in St Petersburg. In fact both of these responsibilities were closely linked, as the work around the Duma made up a large part of Bolshevik propaganda.

Most groups of workers issued instructions to their deputies, such as this one to the Bolshevik, Muranov, from Kharkov: “In any acute political situation the deputy is bound to consult the workers who elected him to the state Duma and also to establish the closest relations with the St Petersburg proletariat” (Badayev, p47). The Bolsheviks viewed themselves as representatives of the entire working class and constantly received correspondence and deputations from all parts of Russia.

From the beginning the Social Democratic fraction - both Bolshevik and Menshevik - refused to take part in normal ‘parliamentary work’. They declined to participate in the elections for the Duma chairman and to cooperate with the opposition liberals, the Cadets, in drafting bills, only taking joint action from time to time with the peasant Trudoviks.

It was essential for the fraction to put forward as many ‘interpellations’- parliamentary questions - as possible, so that these could then be reported in the Party press. They had to end with the question, “Is the minister aware of this and what steps does he propose to take?” But in this way many questions of vital importance could be placed before the working class, including strikes, police murders, the arrest of revolutionaries, etc.

The usual procedure was for each question to be ‘taken away for examination’ and after several months a reply would be given. Only then were the deputies allowed to speak on the matter. To get round this the Social Democrats would move that the issue be treated as urgent, in support of which they spoke on the substantive question. The minister’s eventual reply was of minor importance. What was necessary was to deal with these matters while they were current. Pravda could legally report speeches in the Duma and use them for agitational purposes. Badayev’s maiden speech was made on December 14 1912 on a procedural point calling for the suppression of trade unions to be urgently discussed.

“A speech in the Duma,” writes Badayev,

“did not resemble in any way those speeches which I had to deliver at various illegal and legal meetings of workers. Here we, the representatives of the workers, stood face to face with the enemy ... We had to express directly and openly, without subterfuges or parliamentary tricks, all that the masses were thinking, to proclaim their needs and to hurl their accusations at the representatives of the existing regime” (Badayev, pp66-67).

Frequently Badayev would demand and be granted an interview with a government official or even a minister to raise questions in his capacity as a workers’ deputy. For example, in the summer of 1913 there were long strikes, lockouts and police repression in the Baltic ports. After his interview with the naval minister, he was able to write a full report in Pravda, not only exposing the minister’s lying replies, but also agitating on behalf of the workers.

The Bolsheviks were able to use their parliamentary immunity to avoid arrest after making agitational speeches, which the police would inevitably try to curtail.

Not even the Bolsheviks were immune from the pressures of parliamentarianism. “It seemed to us,” wrote Badayev, “that our use of the Duma for revolutionary agitation was not enough.” They discussed with Lenin the nature of their work at the RSDLP conference in Austria in September 1913.

“The workers ask, ‘What practical proposals do you make in the Duma? Where are the laws which you put forward?’

“Lenin answered with his usual laugh: ‘The Black Hundred Duma will never pass any laws which improve the lot of the workers. The task of a workers’ deputy is to remind the Black Hundreds, day after day, that the working class is strong and powerful and that the day is not far distant when the revolution will break out and sweep away the Black Hundreds and their government’” (Badayev, pp120-121).

July 1914 saw mass action by workers, which resulted in violent police repression, including the shooting of workers at the giant Putilov works in St Petersburg. Badayev used his position to arouse workers’ anger both in the Duma and through his reports in Pravda, which resulted in the seizure of several issues of the paper. The Black Hundreds’ paper, Russkoye Znamya, replied with the headline, ‘Badayev to the gallows’.

This working class upsurge was abruptly ended by the wave of patriotic fervour when war broke out in 1914. Immediately the Bolshevik fraction members suffered the most intense intimidatory pressure. Their statement in the Duma condemning the war was censored - the first time this had occurred - and there was a mass campaign directed against ‘the internal enemy’.

Badayev reports how the Bolshevik deputies were assailed furiously in the Duma corridors: “What are you doing? You are the representatives of the workers and should lead them, but instead you are dragging the Russian people to the edge of an abyss. You will destroy the nation” (Badayev, p202). These opposition ‘liberals’ now suddenly discovered that it was their duty to defend the ‘democratic’ institutions of tsarist Russia - especially the powerless Duma - against the German ‘autocracy’. From Badayev’s description it is easy to see how all over Europe alleged internationalists succumbed to the all-embracing nationalistic pressure.

The Russian regime struck against the five Bolshevik deputies on November 4, arresting them at a secret conference. They were all sentenced to exile and loss of civil rights and were not released until the February Revolution of 1917.

The war succeeded in smashing the Russian workers’ movement. But the heroic work of Badayev and his comrades laid the foundations for the revolutionary revival, culminating in October 1917.

Peter Manson