V. I.

Lenin

The Social-Democrats and the Duma Elections

I

The Conditions Under Which the Social-Democratic
Conference was Convened, and
Its Composition

Theobject of the conference of the St. Petersburg organisation was to adopt a
final decision on the most important political question of the day, namely:
whether or not to enter into agreements with the Cadets at the first stage of the Duma elections.

The Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party is organised on democratic
lines. This means that all the affairs of the Party are conducted, either
directly, or through representatives, by all the members of the

Party.,

all of whom without exception have equal rights; moreover, all officials, all leading
bodies, and all institutions of the Party are subject to election, are
responsible to their constituents, and are subject to recall. The affairs of
the St. Petersburg organisation are managed by an elected body, the
St. Petersburg Committee of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party. The
supreme body of the St. Petersburg organisation, in view of the impossibility of
bringing together all the members of the Party (about 6,000), is the
conference of representatives of the organisation. To this conference
all members of the organisation have a right to send representatives:
one delegate for a definite number of Party members; one delegate for every 50
members, for instance, the ratio that was adopted for the last
conference. These representatives must be elected by all the members of
the Party, and a decision adopted by the representatives is supreme and final
for the whole of the local organisation.

Butthis is not all. In order that the settlement of a question may be really
democratic, it is not enough to call together the elected representatives of
the organisation. It is necessary that all the members of the
organisation, in electing their representatives, should at the same time
independently, and each for himself , express their opinion on the
point at issue before the whole organisation. Democratically organised parties
and unions cannot, on principle, dispense with such a canvass of the opinion of
every member without exception, in the most important cases at any rate, and
especially when it is a question of a political action in which the
masses act independently, e. g., a strike, elections, the boycott of
some important local institution, etc.

Whyis it considered insufficient to send representatives in such cases? Why
must there be a canvass of the opinion of all members of the Party or
what is called a “referendum”? Because the success of mass actions
requires the conscious and voluntary participation of every individual worker.

A strike cannot be conducted with the necessary solidarity, voting at elections
will not be conducted intelligently, unless every worker consciously
and voluntarily decides for himself the question: to strike or not to strike?
to vote or not to vote for the Cadets? It is impossible to decide all political
questions by canvassing the opinion of all members of the Party:

this would involve endless, tiresome and fruitless voting. But the most
important questions, and especially those which are directly connected with some
definite action by the masses themselves , must, for the sake of
democracy, be settled, not only by sending representatives, but also by
canvassing the opinion of all members of the Party.

Thatis why the St. Petersburg Committee resolved that the election of delegates
to the conference should take place only after the members of the Party
had discussed the question of whether to enter into agreements with the Cadets,
only after all members of the Party had voted on that question. An
election is an affair in which the masses take a direct part. Socialists
consider that the political consciousness of the masses is the main
force. Consequently, every member of the Party must express his
considered opinion on the question whether or not to vote for the Cadets at the
elections. Only after this question has been openly discussed by all the Party
members assembled is it possible for each one to adopt an intelligent and firm
decision one way or the other. Only on the basis of such a decision can the
election of representatives to the conference be, not the result of
clannishness, friendship or force of habit (“We will elect our Nikolai
Nikolayevich or Ivan Ivanovich!”), but the result of the considered decision of
the “rank and file” themselves (i.e., of all the members of the Party) as to their own political conduct. [1]

Theelections to the Duma, i. e., the primary and main voting for delegates or
electors, will be carried out, not through representatives, but by every
voter individually. Consequently, if we want to be socialists in deeds and
not only in words, socialists organised in a really democratic workers’ party, then we must see to it that every worker is
clear on the question of whether to vote for the Cadets or not. To entrust
representation to Ivan Ivanovich, who is an acquaintance of ours, or to
Sidor Sidorovich who is a decent fellow, is not enough; the essence
of the question at issue must be intelligently examined by the
“rank and file”. Only when that is done will the democratic
decision be the considered democratic decision of the masses and
not only the decision of representatives elected because “we know
them”.

The St. Petersburg Committee is the elected leader of the whole
Social-Democratic organisation in St. Petersburg and St. Petersburg Gubernia. To
lead the membership in a matter like the Duma elections, it was obliged
(if it recognised democracy not in words only) to seek the conscious
participation of the whole membership in the elections. And in order
that the participation of the whole membership in the elections might be
conscious and united, it was necessary that not only representatives of the
Party, but that every member of the Party should give a definite answer to his
St. Petersburg Committee on the question: Does he or does he not stand for
agreements with the Cadets?

Suchis the significance of the “debate”, that is, of the
discussion that took place on the controversial question itself before
the election of representatives. At every meeting of Party members, before
proceeding to elect representatives to the conference, there had first to be a
discussion of the controversial political question. The opinion had to
be heard of a representative of the St. Petersburg Committee, i.e., of the
leading local body, and also of those who represented other views. After the
discussion all the Party members voted whether or not they were in
favour of agreements with the Cadets. The votes were counted by a committee of
scrutineers, consisting of representatives of both sides (if there were two
sides on this question in the Party unit). Only by this procedure could the
St. Petersburg Committee ascertain the considered opinion of the whole Party membership, and
consequently, be in a position to lead the masses, not blindly, but on the
basis of their full understanding of the question.

Thisexplanation was necessary because at the conference disputes arose
regarding the “discussion” and the canvass of opinion of all the
members of the Party.

Thatthese disputes were uncalled for is the more obvious to Party members for
the reason that the Central Committee’s own letter of November 10 regarding the
settlement of the question (whether to enter into agreements) by the local
organisations definitely recommends “preliminary discussion”
of the question by all members of the Party.

Letus now consider the composition of the conference itself. At first, all the
representatives elected by the respective organisations were admitted without a
verification of the elections (i.e., without verification of
“credentials”). There were in all 71 representatives, or
delegates, of whom 40 were Bolsheviks and 31 Mensheviks, distributed as follows
(by districts).

| | Bolshevik | Menshevik | Total |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Vasilyevsky Ostrov | 7 | 6 | 13 |
| Vyborg | 2 | 5 | 7 |
| City | 5 | 7 | 12 |
| Railway | 1 | 2 | 3 |
| Lettish | 2 | – | 2 |
| Moscow | 4 | 5 | 9 |
| Narva | – | – | – |
| Neva | 2 | 1 | 3 |
| Okruzhnoi | 9 | 2 | 11 |
| Artisans (shop assistants) | 4 | 1 | 5 |
| Petersburg | 3 | 2 | 5 |
| Estonian | – | – | – |
| Military organisation | 1 | – | 1 |
| Total | 40 | 31 | 71 |

Two Estonian delegates (both Bolsheviks) and one Lettish delegate (Menshevik)
were absent. Had they been present, there would have been 42 Bolsheviks and 32
Mensheviks.

Henceit is clear that the Bolsheviks were in the majority from the outset , before the credentials were verified. Consequently, all talk
about the Bolsheviks having an “artificial” majority falls to
the ground. Complaints that the Bolsheviks did not endorse all the
credentials have now been inserted by the Mensheviks even in the bourgeois
press. They forgot to inform that press, however, that the Bolsheviks had a
majority even before the verification of credentials!

Tomake the question of who had the majority at the conference even clearer and
to settle it once and for all, let us take, not the number of credentials, but
the total number of votes cast by members of the Party .

Weshall then get the following figures:

| | For the Bolsheviks | For the Mensheviks |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Unchallenged votes . . . | 1,848 [2] | 787 |
| Challenged votes . . . . | 300 | 946 |
| Total votes | 2,148 | 1,733 |

Thus,in all, about 4,000 (3,881) Party members voted. The Bolshevik majority
is over 400 .

Thus,it is beyond doubt that even if all the challenged votes were
regarded as being in order, the Bolsheviks would still have had a large
majority. Consequently, the disputes over the validity or invalidity of certain
votes had nothing to do with the question of the Bolshevik majority; the
dispute was over the question of how to carry out to the full the principle of
democratic representation.

Whydid the Bolsheviks cancel some of the credentials? Because the
challenged credentials could not be recognised as being in order. And
irregular credentials cannot be placed on the same footing with regular and
unchallenged credentials.

Whichcredentials were challenged? Those that were not regularly issued; for
example, those that were not certified by a committee of scrutineers, those
issued without discussion before the voting, or without voting on
“platforms” (i.e., where they failed to ask all the voters
whether or not they were in favour of agreements with the Cadets). Irregular
credentials cannot be regarded as having been democratically issued.

Nowthe question arises, what was to be done with the challenged credentials? It
was impossible to examine each case separately. This would have entailed sitting
an extra day, and the conference was pressed for time . It was scarcely
able to get through the business by the date on which the workers had
to go to elect the delegates (January 7).

Therewas only one way out: to raise the “basis of representation”
for all the challenged credentials, i.e., to count them at the rate of
one representative for every 75 votes instead of one for every 50. This method
was adopted for three reasons: (1) it did away with arbitrariness and mutual
irritation in estimating individual challenged credentials; (2) it put the
challenged credentials on both sides on the same footing; (3) it was based on a
decision taken by the St. Petersburg Committee long before the
conference—namely:

the St. Petersburg Committee had decided, in cases where it was quite impossible
to conduct democratic elections to a conference (e.g., where it was impossible
to call meetings owing to police restrictions), to admit representatives who
were elected not quite democratically, but in such cases to raise the
basis of representation, i.e., to allow, not one delegate per 50 members, but
one per 75, per 100, and so on.

Nowtake the number of challenged and unchallenged votes. If we take the
unchallenged votes, counting one delegate per 50 votes, we get 37 Bolsheviks
and 16 Mensheviks. If we take the challenged votes, counting one delegate per 75
votes, we get 4 Bolsheviks and 12 Mensheviks. The total is 41 Bolsheviks (plus
one from the military organisation, where democratic elections were impossible)
and 28 Mensheviks.

The70 credentials finally endorsed were distributed by districts as follows:

| | Bolshevik | Menshevik | Total |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Vasilyevsky Ostrov | 7 | 6 | 13 |
| Vyborg | 2 | 4 | 6 |
| City | 5 | 7 | 12 |
| Railway | 1 | 2 | 3 |
| Lettish | 2 | 1 | 3 |
| Moscow | 4 | 4 | 8 |
| Narva | – | – | – |
| Neva | 2 | 1 | 3 |
| Okruzhnoi | 9 | 1 | 10 |
| Artisans (shop assistants) | 4 | – | 4 |
| Petersburg | 3 | 2 | 5 |
| Estonian | 2 | – | 2 |
| Military organisation | 1 | – | 1 |
| Total | 28 | 42 | 70 |

Henceit is plain that complaints about the composition of the conference are
quite groundless. Of course, if you shout to an uninformed public about the
rejection of the credentials of this person and about the disqualification of
that person, you may for a moment create an impression, if the public does no
consider the matter carefully. But this is mere wrangling, not controversy.

Oneneed only examine all the facts relating to the composition of the
conference to see clearly that there was nothing arbitrary in raising
the basis of representation for all the challenged votes. After all, i
was not by mere chance that 2,635 votes were entirely unchallenged and only
1,246 were challenged! And it cannot be seriously maintained that the
bulk of the challenged votes were challenged at random without any
grounds whatever!

Onlythink, for instance, what it means to vote “with out a
platform”, as the Mensheviks have done so often (which is the very reason
why nearly 1,000 of their votes were challenged). It means that no
all the members of the Party are asked whether they are in favour of
agreements with the Cadets or against them. The election of delegates takes
place without such a canvass of opinion, or without a platform. It means that
the conference has no means of knowing exactly the opinion of the Party
members! It means that the membership itself is not consulted on a
controversial question (involving the action of the rank and file). Can
irregularities be avoided under such circumstances?

Cana sincere advocate of democracy in organisation defend such a
method of voting? Democracy does not mean that the masses must trust their
individual representatives because they know them; it means that the masses
themselves must vote intelligently on the substance of the very important
questions at issue.

Finally,complaints about the composition of the conference must be regarded as
groundless for the additional reason that a number of similar
conferences have been held in St. Petersburg recently. A year ago there was a
conference on the question of the boycott. The Bolsheviks obtained a
majority. In the period of the First Duma there was a conference on the
question of supporting the demand for a Duma (i.e., Cadet) Cabinet. The
Bolsheviks obtained a majority.

Isit not ridiculous to say now that the Bolshevik majority on the question of
electoral agreements with the Cadets could be an accidental one?

---
Notes:
[1]
Some say that the election of a representative can take place on the
basis of knowing the representative’s views , even without a vote
being taken on the question at issue. But this is true only as regards the
totality of the views held by that representative. It cannot apply
when a special question affecting the action of the masses themselves is
involved. The refusal to vote on a platform (for blocs with the Cadets or
against them) would, under such circumstances, imply that the voter’s views
were vague, that he was irresolute, that he was not quite in agreement with
his representative.— Lenin

[2]
This figure includes 185 votes which the conference decided were quite
in order. If these are not counted, the number of unchallenged votes will
he 1,663.— Lenin