V. I.

Lenin

Wehave to return once again to the incident that was enacted in the State Duma
in connection with question asked regarding the killings and tortures in Riga
Prison and with the arraignment of seventy-four people before a military
court. This has to be done, we say, because, amongst other things, Narodnaya Duma has for some reason or other seen fit to obscure the real meaning of
the events and thereby to aggravate that extremely unfavourable impression
created by the conduct of the Social-Democratic group in the Duma on this
question.

Itis true that Narodnaya Duma also speaks of this first question day
in the Duma by saying that the first attempt was a failure; it is true that
Narodnaya Duma points out, apropos of this, that “the Duma groups
are still poorly adapted to parliamentary procedure”, but that is not
what matters. It is our opinion that the Social-Democratic group has revealed,
not parliamentary but purely political inexperience in this
matter. It is no misfortune that the Social-Democratic group sometimes gets
caught in some “formal trap” ( Narodnaya Duma’s words) or another; the misfortune is that it sometimes quite unnecessarily
surrenders its positions and does not carry a well-commenced struggle to the
end, does not consolidate victory behind it when there is
every possibility of so doing.

Suchwas the case when a reply was made to the government declaration, and the
Social-Democratic group, for no reason at all, surrendered a good half of its
victory ... to Mr. Stolypin; this is what happened on April 3, in connection
with the question asked about the Riga horrors.

The Cadets are against questions that have to be answered without notice. [2] That is only natural; an urgent question, especially one on
such a matter as that of the government using military courts in their war
against the people, always contains elements of a “demonstrative act”, of
pressure brought to bear on the ministers. An urgent question on such a
matter is undoubtedly one of those “facts”, one of those “acts” on the
part of the Duma that do not come under the heading of “lunch in the
afternoon” or “theatre in the evening”, to which the servile
Rech is so anxious to liken the Duma itself. Is it possible that
this poison, produced by Cadet decomposition, can affect the Left in the
Duma, including even the Social-Democratic group? We are unwilling to admit
this, yet....

“No urgent question is needed,” Mr. Rodichev whines servilely from the rostrum. “An urgent question in the present instance
might wound the ministers’ pride.”

Weare not in the least surprised at such speeches on the lips of a Cadet
Mirabeau, who so painstakingly plays his role of representative of the tas de blagueurs [1] in the Duma.

Deputy Djaparidze (Social-Democrat) gave a splendid answer to
Rodichev. “It is our duty,” he reminded the Cadet flunkeys,
“to say our word when the hand of the executioner is raised over his
victim.”

Then Kuzmin-Karavayev took the floor and read a telegram he had received from
the local satrap in Riga, Meller-Zakomelsky—that same Meller-Zakomelsky
whose name Siberian mothers still use to scare their children with. The telegram
was most insolent, and full of crude jibes: "... in Riga there has been no
reason to arraign either 74, or 70 or even 4 people; so far there is nobody to
save”.

Deputy Alexinsky opposed to this telegram another, received from progressive
Riga electors, which said that the arraignment before a military court was being
arranged.

Deputy Alexinsky, who insisted with good reason on the urgency of the question,
was followed by the Trudovik and the Socialist-Revolutionary groups, which
supported the demand of urgency.

Then the Cadets began to withdraw . Pergament did not even put forward
an argument, but requested the Duma Left not to insist on urgency,
offering on behalf of the Questions Commission to put this question
through the commission within twenty-four hours. Only, he begged, don’t
insist on a reply from the floor.

Bulgakov,the unctuous mystic, then spoke and, to achieve the same rejection of
urgency, asked that no party passion be brought into the question. Mr. Bulgakov
would have done well first to explain to his party colleagues that in such
matters servility is permissible to an even lesser degree than in others, and
will naturally arouse party passions to the paroxysms nobody
desires.

After Bulgakov came Kiesewetter, bringing another step towards the Left, another
minor concession. Kiesewetter proposed passing the question on to the commission
so that it could be handled “ out of turn ”.

Delarovof the Popular Socialists spoke in favour of urgency.

Inother words, the entire Left was against the Cadets with a unanimity rare in
the Duma. It became clearer that the issue would be a political one, and that
the struggle begun against Cadet servility would have to be carried through to
its conclusion. Read A. Stolypin’s “Notes” in Novoye Vremya for April 4. How he showers praises on the Cadet Party! How
he attacks his allies, the “Rights”, to make them realise, at long
last, that in such cases they must not speak so sharply, or scare the Cadets
from the path of conciliation they are now following! “Sincerity and
seriousness”, be pleased to note, were heard by Mr. Stolypin “in the
speeches of the Cadets” on that day!

Andthen, when the Social-Democratic group already had victory within its grasp,
Tsereteli got up and said that the group withdrew its motion of urgency. Why?
What were the motives? There was absolutely no reason to suppose that a question
passed on to a commission would be more effective than a question answered from
the floor. And, of course, nobody will risk saying that it would.

Tseretelihad no grounds whatsoever for his statement. It amounts to lambasting
oneself in the fullest sense of the word. The day of April 3 does not stand to
the credit of the

Social-Democratic group. And, we repeat, this is not a case of
parliamentary inexperience. It is a case of that political
flaccidity, that indecisiveness of the Social-Democratic group, which has
made itself felt on several previous occasions, and has prevented the group
from becoming the real leader of the entire Duma Left. We must not close our
eyes to this, but must strive to get rid of it!

---
Notes:
[1]
Gang of chatterboxes.— Lenin

[2]
Urgent question . In Russian Duma procedure questions were not usually put directly to a minister or submitted for debate
without having first been examined by a commission. The Duma itself, however,
could decide that a question was “urgent” and should be the subject
of an immediate debate. As the reader can see from this article, the debate on
whether a question was sufficiently urgent for a debate could obstruct any real
discussion of it and ensure its relegation to a commission. From this it follows
that no question raised by a small minority in the Duma could ever be voted
“urgent” and discussion on it permitted.