Rescript of February 18, 1905: maneuver of the government and reaction of the society in Siberia

The article raises a question of the extent to which Russian society of 1905 was ready to become a full-right subject in political dialogue with the government. For solving the research task, the author of the article performed the analysis of the public mood spectrum in the largest region of the country - Siberia - in connection with the intention Nicolas II declared to create a consultative assembly. Most of local intellectuals reacted to it by active participation in the preparing of reform projects. Gatherings of cultural and educational societies, city duma commissions developed the main directions of national reorganization such as granting civil rights and establishment of a popular representation body on principles of universal, equal and direct suffrage and secret ballot. But these projects were not supported by broad layers of the population and did not evoke a response from the authorities. Traditionalist legal consciousness of government structures based on the concept of inviolability of the historically formed basis of the national system did not allow any constitutional changes. The government reacted only to those social signals that could jeopardize its existence. The All-Russian political strike became a result of that dialogue, illusory by its nature, between government and society. At the end, it was the wave of social unrest but not the petition campaign that made the Government create and Nicolas II issue the October Manifesto of 1905. The events of 1905 clearly revealed that society had no means to influence the government except for revolutionary actions. In the beginning of the 20th century, Russia had no broad net of self-regulating social organizations and institutions. Financial distress of most Russian people naturally shifted the focus of their interest to the solving of social and economic problems. Issues of political system reforming were interesting mostly for intellectuals. The sharpness of social polarization, multi-directionality of interests and intentions of different social groups made a consolidated will expression impossible and did not allow the society to become a full-right subject in the dialogue with the government. Under such conditions, the rescript of February 18, 1905 did not become (and presumable could not become) a prologue to constructive consensual communication between government and society.

Keywords

Authors

References