V. I.

Lenin

The Campaign for the Elections to the Fourth Duma

IV. CONCLUSIONS BASED ON THE EXPERIENCE
OF THE ELECTIONS TO THE THIRD DUMA

For the purpose of providing a concrete definition of the
duties of working-class democrats in the election campaign, it would be
useful, we believe, to examine, in as great detail as possible, the data
relating to the elections to the Third Duma in a few individual
gubernias. In the first place, such an examination will help us to
understand more clearly and to become more thoroughly familiar with the
intricate and involved electoral system provided by the law of June 3,
1907; and, secondly, it will give all those active in the election campaign
a very real idea of their position as democrats, of the “circumstances”
under which they will have to carry on their work. If the democrats in the
various localities study the data relating to their respective gubernias,
that will add to our data, help to correct errors, and immediately arouse
the interest of everyone who is aware of his duty to participate in the
elections with a view to the political enlightenment of the wage-workers
and the organisation of the forces of democracy.

Take, for example, Kazan Gubernia. It is represented in the Third Duma
by ten deputies, equally divided between the Rights and the
opposition—five Rights (four Octobrists and one Nationalist) and five
liberals (one Progressist, two Cadets, and two Moslems). There are neither
Trudoviks nor Social-Democrats.

And yet, judging by the data on Kazan Gubernia, it must be admitted
that the democrats had a fairly good chance there. Of the Rights, one
(Sazonov) was elected by the assembly of landowners, three Octobrists were
elected by the first and second assemblies of urban voters (including
Mr. Kapustin, an inveterate counter-revolutionary, who was elected at the
second assembly of urban voters), and one Octobrist at the general
assembly of electors. Of the liberals, one was elected by the assembly of
landowners, one from the peasants (the Cadet Lunin) and three at
the general assembly of electors.

Since the general assembly of electors elected three liberals and one
Right, it is obvious that the liberals had a majority in the gubernia
electoral assembly, but it was a precarious majority, otherwise not a
single Right would have been elected by the general assembly. The
precariousness of the liberal majority is also evident from the fact that
the landowners elected one Progressist and one Right; had the liberals had
a stable majority they would have prevented the latter’s election.

Altogether Kazan Gubernia is allowed 117 electors who are divided among
the several curias as follows: peasants 33, landowners 50, first urban
curia 18, second urban curia 14, and workers 2. Consequently, the
landowners together with the first urban curia represent the majority
(50+18==68 out of 117). As we know, the law of June 3, 1907, is so framed
as to guarantee in all gubernias such a majority or an even more
“reliable” one, i.e., a majority made up of landowners alone (the
landowner curia alone to have an absolute majority in the gubernia
electoral assembly).

The liberals won half the seats in the Duma because they were
apparently well represented among the landowners. On the other hand, it
seems that the urban electors were practically all Rights. Unless we assume
this to have been the case, it is hard to explain how it happened that the deputies elected from the two urban assemblies were Rights when the
liberals had a majority in the gubernia electoral assembly. The Cadets were
compelled to vote for Rights. Given the precarious majority of the liberals
among the electors, mentioned above, the working-class democrats would have
a convenient field for action; they could take advantage of the dissensions
among the landowners and capitalists to organise the forces of democracy as
a whole and to get Social-Democrats and, in particular, Trudoviks elected
to the Duma.

If, for instance, there were 57 Rights and as many liberals among the
electors and only three democrats (two worker Social-Democrats, and one
peasant Trudovik), that alone would enable the three democrats to elect one
Social-Democrat to the Duma—not to mention the rewarding task of rallying
the democratic forces which these three could tackle, considering that
there would be 33 peasant electors. We have assumed that there might be
three democrats, be cause three is the minimum required by the law
(Article 125 of the Regulations governing the elections), to nominate
candidates by ballot—a candidate who fails to obtain three nomination
ballots, cannot stand for election. Obviously, the three required by the
law could be made up by two liberals joining a democrat, provided the
liberals do not “progress” (in the Vekhi direction) to the point
where even in the gubernia electoral assembly they prefer an Octobrist to a
Social-Democrat.

In the case of a tie between the Rights and the liberals even one
democrat, by voting now with the flights against the liberals, snow with
the liberals against the Rights, could prevent the election of any
candidate to the Duma and thus (in accordance with Article t19 of the
Regulations governing the elections) bring about an adjournment the
duration of which, according to the same article, is set by the assembly
itself, but may not exceed twelve hours, and arrange for an understanding
between the liberals and the democrats on condition that the latter obtain
seats in the Duma.

The example of Kazan may serve as an illustration of two possible lines
for the workers’ policy in the elections to the Fourth Duma (and,
consequently, lines for the workers’ policy in general , since the
policy pursued in the elections is but the application of the general policy to a specific case). One line
is to vote; as a general rule, for the more progressive candidates, without
going into any further definitions. The other line is to take advantage of
the antagonism between the Rights and the liberals t6 organise the
democrats. The ideological implication of the first line is passive
subordination to the hegemony of the Cadets; the practical result of this
line in case of success would be an increase in the Octobrist-Cadet
majority in the Fourth Duma at the expense of the Right-Octobrist majority
(with a possible decrease in the democratic minority). The
ideological implication of the second line is the waging of a struggle
against the leadership of the Cadets over the peasants and over bourgeois
democracy in general; its practical result in case of success would be the
increase and consolidation, the strengthening of the group of democrats in
the Fourth Duma.

In practice the first line would amount to a liberal labour policy. The
second line represents the Marxist working-class policy. As for a more
detailed explanation of the meaning of these two policies, we shall have
many occasions to revert to that in the future.

---
Notes: