V. I. Lenin

Report on the Right of Recall at a Meeting of the
All-Russia Central Executive Committee

November 21 (December 4), 1917

The question of re-election is one of actually implementing the
democratic principle. ft is the accepted practice in all leading
countries that only the elected are entitled to speak in the
language of state legislation. But having allowed the right of
summons for the conduct of affairs of state, the bourgeoisie
intentionally withheld the right of recall—the right of
actual control.

In all revolutionary periods in history, a prominent feature in
the struggle for constitutional changes has been the fight for
the right of recall.

Democratic representation exists and is accepted under all
parliamentary systems, but this right of representation is
curtailed by the fact that the people have the right to cast
their votes once in every two years, and while it often turns
out that their votes have installed those who help to oppress
them, they are deprived of the democratic right to put a stop to
that by removing these men.

But this democratic right of recall has survived in countries
with old democratic traditions, for instance, in some cantons of
Switzerland and some states of America.

Any great revolution clearly confronts the people not only with
the use of existing statutes but also with the framing of
appropriate new statutes. It is necessary, therefore, in view of
the impending convocation of the Constituent Assembly, to review
the new electoral statutes.

The Soviets have been created by the working people themselves,
by their revolutionary energy and initiative, and that is the
only guarantee of their working entirely to promote the
interests of the masses. The truly popular nature of the Soviets
is evident in the fact that every peasant sends his representatives to the Soviet and is also entitled to recall
them.

Various parties in this country have been in power. The last
time power passed from one party to another there was a
revolution, a rather stormy revolution, but if we had had the
right of recall, a simple vote would have sufficed.

There is this word freedom. In the old days it meant freedom for
the bourgeoisie to manipulate its millions for swindling,
freedom to use its forces through such swindling. We have done
with the bourgeoisie and that kind of freedom. The state is an
institution for coercion. In the old days, it was the coercion
of the whole people by a handful of money-bags. We want to turn
the state into an institution enforcing the will of the
people. We want to institute coercion in the working people’s interests.

Failure to grant the right of recall from the Constituent
Assembly is failure to elicit the revolutionary will of the
people, it is usurpation of the people’s rights. We do have
proportional representation, which is indeed the most democratic. Under this system it may be somewhat difficult to
introduce the right of recall but the difficulties entailed are
purely technical and are fairly easy to overcome. In any case
there is no contradiction between proportional representation
and the right of recall.

The people do not cast their votes for individuals but for
parties. The party spirit is rather strong in Russia, and as far
as the people are concerned each party has a definite political
character. That is why any party split must bring confusion
unless the right of recall is provided for. The
Socialist-Revolutionary Party enjoyed great influence. But a
split occurred after the election lists had been put out. The
lists cannot be altered, nor can the convocation of the
Constituent Assembly be postponed. As a result, the people
actually voted for a party which had ceased to exist. This was
proved by the Left-wing Second Peasant Congress . It turned out that the peasants were not misled
by individuals but by the party split. This state of things
needs to be set right. The direct, consistent and immediate
democratic principle, namely, the right of recall, must be
introduced.

One thing we should be wary of is being faced with an unrepresentative election. Given a high level of mass
consciousness—compare the revolutions of 1905 and
1917—there is nothing to fear from introducing the right of
re-election.

The people were told that the Soviet is a plenipotentiary organ:
they believed it and acted upon that belief. The process of
democratisation must be carried forward and the right of recall
introduced.

The right of recall should be given to the Soviets, as the best
embodiment of the idea of state power, of coercion. The transfer
of power from one party to another may then take place peacefully, by mere re-election.