V. I.

Lenin

The question of the State Duma’s attitude to the government
and the country is becoming an ever more frequent subject for discussion in
the press and is arousing quite a lot of interest. The June Third election
law created two possible majorities—Right-Octobrist and
Octobrist-Cadet. This latter, the “liberal” majority if you will, was
also formed on a number of occasions in the Third Duma.

In the present Fourth Duma the Octobrist-Cadet majority occurs still
more frequently. It must not be forgotten, however, that this is not only
due to an Octobrist shift to the left but also to a Cadet shift to the right , which is expressed by the secession of part of the Cadets to
the Progressists, on the one hand, and the constant deals between the
Octobrists and the Cadets with the Progressists as intermediaries, on the
other.

There is no doubt that the more frequent oppositionist decisions
carried in the Fourth Duma by the Octobrist-Cadet majority are evidence of
the growing political crisis in Russia, are evidence that the June Third
system has entered a blind alley and has not satisfied even the
bourgeoisie, who were prepared to sacrifice, for the benefit of that
system, for the strengthening of the counter-revolution, their money, their
honour and their conscience.

It is typical that even such an out-and-out, implacable reactionary as
the German historian Schiemann, who knows Russian and writes for the organ
of the German Purishkeviches, comes to the conclusion that the crisis in
Russia is growing—either in the form of a system that is purely
Plehve [2] in spirit (surely we have already entered that “system”?) or
in the form of what this German historian calls upheavals.

What conclusions in practical politics, may we ask, emerge from these
increasingly frequent liberal Duma decisions?

The Cadets have already drawn their conclusion on the Octobrists’
condemnation of the policy pursued by the Ministry of the Interior. Their
conclusion is to demand “the support of the people and society” for the
Fourth Duma, to call upon “public opinion” to “see in the Duma one’s own strength, the direct manifestation of the public will”, etc. (See
Pravda No. 128.)

We have already spoken of the complete ineffectiveness of such a
conclusion. [1]

The voting on the Ministry of Public Education estimates was an exceedingly
clear confirmation of our appraisal.

The Duma adopted three formulations:
(1) a nationalistic, arch-reactionary formulation passed by the votes of
the Rights and the Octobrists, (2) an Octobrist formulation passed by the Cadet vote (it expresses the
wish, disgusting in its hypocrisy and absolutely impermissible for
democrats or even honest liberals, that the Ministry of Public Education
will “not be distracted by irrelevant political considerations”); lastly,
=

(3) the wish of the peasant group, which was most likely passed not only
with the help of the Constitutional-Democrats but of all democrats,
including the Social-Democrats. The wish expressed by the peasants received
137 votes for and 134 against with 4 abstaining.

There can scarcely be any doubt that the error of the Social-Democrats,
if they voted for the peasant formulation, was in not presenting their own
statement or declaration. It was right to vote in favour, but they should
also have added a proviso expressing their disagreement with, for instance,
point five of the peasant formulation. That point speaks of the native
language in elementary schools. Democracy cannot confine itself to
elementary schools. And in general, it cannot be admitted that the wishes
of the peasants are consistently democratic.

It was right to vote in favour, because in the peasant formulation
there are no points in support of the government, and no hypocrisy, but it
was essential to express disagreement with the inconsistency and timidity of peasant democracy. Silence on the
relationship between the school and the church, for instance, is absolutely
impermissible for Social-Democrats, etc.

That, however, is en passant .

The main thing is that the Fourth Duma, after the Cadets’
appeals to support it, adopted the formulation of the nationalists!

Only a blind man could fail to see that support for the Fourth Duma is
support for the wavering Octobrists .

The Cadets boast that they are pushing the Octobrists into opposition
by their support. Let us suppose for a moment that that is so. On what
basis is this Octobrist opposition founded? At best, when they are
in opposition they undoubtedly support the point of view of
counter-revolutionary liberalism. That they continue to depend on
the ministers and to gratify them, was demonstrated even by the
“progressist” N. Lvov, who was surely pursuing a policy of
gratification when he banned Shchepkin from two sittings because
of an expression a hundred times milder than the usual expressions of the
Rights.

When they call on the people to support the wavering Octobrists, the
Cadets are trying to make democrats follow in the wake of the worst of the
liberals.

The democrats, however, have seen from hundreds of more impressive
examples just what our liberals are worth. Democracy would be enfeebled and
deprived of leadership if it were again to follow the liberals.

The clash between the bourgeoisie and the government is not an
accident, it is an indication of the profound crisis that is maturing on
all sides. It is, therefore, imperative to keep a close watch on these
clashes. But democracy will be able to achieve something better for Russia
only if it does not for one moment forget its duty—to do everything to
develop in the population a consciousness of the independent nature of the
tasks of democracy as distinct from liberalism, in contrast to liberalism
and regardless of liberalism’s vacillations.