STEPNIAK ON MODERN RUSSIA,
THE death of Alexander III., which occurred after some portions of this book had already been written, has now been
followed by the death of its author, and both accused and accuser, Czar and rebellious subject, have passed beyond the tribunal of public opinion. But the quarrel between them is as far from solution as ever. Nicholas II. stands in his father's place as autocratic ruler of All the Russias, and Stepniak leaves behind him hundreds of fellow-workers, some not less able than himself, to carry on the bitter struggle in which he spent his life. How that struggle will end is a question of vital interest to Russia and of no little importance to the rest of Europe, and in this book one of the chief combatants leaves on record not only his version of the war already waged, but also a forecast of the shape it will assume in the future. The forecast is rather a gloomy one, and it is well to remember that its author cannot be accepted as an unbiassed witness. Sergius Stepniak—or, to give him his real name, Serge Michaelovitch Kravchinsky—although only forty-four years old on the day of his death, spent at least half his life in exile. He was little more than a boy, twenty-two years of age, when he was arrested for carrying on a liberal and subversive propaganda in his own country, and, more fortunate than some of his colleagues, succeeded in escaping the general fate of a political prisoner. Still, he was an exile, a condition which, though more easily borne in Switzerland or England than in Siberia, is always an embittered one, and, while his actual ex- perience of his own country was limited to the period of his hot-headed youth, his subsequent knowledge of Russian affairs was derived chiefly from a very prejudiced source. He writes, it is true, with a studied moderation, and makes an evidently sincere effort to put both sides fairly before his readers ; but his fairness to the other side, that of the Russian Government —Czar or bureaucracy—must inevitably be impaired, not only by his utter lack of sympathy, but also by his lack of knowledge as to its real aims and objects. The three principal questions which he set himself to solve in this book are these :—Is Russia ripe for political freedom P Has the Czar power to grant a constitution, or introduce liberal
• King Stork and Xing Log. By Stepniak. London Downer and Co. reforms, if he has a mind to do so P Will the new reign bring a change P While he answers the first two in the
affirmative, he can only indulge in gloomy forebodings with regard to the last.
According to the author, the English critic generally acquiesces in the view that Russia is not yet fit for con- stitutional government from some such reasoning as this. "Autocracy exists in .Russia, consequently it must suit her people, otherwise they would have changed it." He some- what underrates the intelligent and sympathetic interest which English people have taken in the internal affairs of Russia. We know that reforms have to be carried by an educated minority, and also that there exists in Russia to-day an educated minority in favour of constitutional government ; but we do not know that this minority repre- sents anything more than a fraction of the whole educated class, or that the Later, as a body, either understand or care for freedom, or are able and willing to carry on a free government rfor the general good of the nation. Stepniak assures us that such is the case, but he offers little or no proof except of the mere fact of the recent spread of educa- tion. We are tempted to quote a passage on this subject, as it throws an indirect light upon one of the causes of Russian discontent. The author has been protesting that the propor. tion of people with a University education is higher in Russia than in any other country on the Continent :—
" There is an over-production of higher-educated people, to use the expression of the reactionary Press, which clamours for further restrictions of the right of admission to the Universities on the ground that men of high culture. unable to find employ- ment, naturally become disaffected. Indeed, with the present misery of the people, hundreds of scientific agriculturists and technologists cannot find a. use for their capacities, whilst agriculture is at the same stage as it was in the sixteenth century, and out of a hundred people who die, only four have medical attendance of any kind, But this fact speaks against the system, and not against the Russian educated class. Bureaucratic despotism has created an elaborate system of checks and barriers with the object of hindering the access of the educated class to the people as completely as possible, and even of excluding from them altogether that section which is likely to be most devoted to the people, and presumably more useful on account of its enthusiasm for democratic ideas."
As Stepniak says, agriculture is at a standstill, and there is little or no material progress in Russia. But why P Because the educated generation will not turn its attention to agrical- tare and trade. As for the medical profession, there are doctors enough in the towns; it is only in the country districts that they are wanting, because they will not live there. The young man of University education—which means every young man who has been educated—expects to receive a Government post. If he cannot become a tchinovnik and earn his living as a member of the vast machine of bureaucracy, he may con- descend to enter a learned profession,—but only on the con- dition of practising his calling in some populous centre, for he will not consent to bury himself and his talents in the wilds. There is an over-production of highly educated men, but it exists side by side with a most lamentable lack of education in employments which are, perhaps, the most important for the well-being of the country. To say that the Government erects barriers between the educated class and the peasantry is not only untrue, but even palpably absurd. The whole of officialdom is drawn from the educated class. It is true that the Government has tried to limit the output of educated men in one instance. It has attempted to handi- cap the Jews in favour of their orthodox competitors,—a foolish and oppressive policy undoubtedly, but not one which Russian discontent has the right of denouncing. It is impossible to admire the Russian home policy, but one cannot but recognise the enormous difficulties by which it is confronted. This very education which Stepniak vaunts is the first stumbling-block in the way of constitutional government. The machinery of the latter would be im- mediately seized by a body of greedy, disaffected men who have failed hitherto in getting their share of the loaves and fishes of administration. As for the peasantry and the uneducated masses, one is willing to believe that their devotion to the Czar is more a matter of tradition than fact, that they care not a rap what shape their government may take, and that they would prefer good land with the Sultan to rule over them to bad land with the white Czar. But this is hardly an argument in favour of their capacity for self-government. Stepniak further asserts that three years after the emancipation the peasantry gave striking proofs of their qualifications as citizens in their conduct of the village administrations entrusted to their charge. Well, that is one version. Another version is that of Sir Donald Mackenzie Wallace, an authority accepted by the Russians themselves, who has drawn a hopeless picture of the utter futility and incapacity of the village communes,—a picture, by the way, which tallies completely with those furnished by Tolstoi himself. That the Czar has the power of making liberal reforms, may be readily conceded ; though one would be disposed to doubt Stepniak's assurance that the Czar would be absolutely untrammelled by the wishes of the Conservative party. However, we will quote him in full, as in this passage, we think, he nearly touches the truth :—
" There is no material obstacle to prevent the Czar from start- ing constitutional reform, not a shadow of hidden force able to keep him in the ways of reaction. There can be no divided opinion upon this point among those who know anything of the Russian official world. The reader can accept this statement with perfect confidence. But we may as confidently affirm that if these material obstacles and imaginary dangers stood in the way, there would be more chance for the spontaneous resignation of autocratic power than there is now. Bureaucracy has obtained a moral hold over the Czar much more powerful than all the supposed intimida- tions on the part of the dark powers of reaction could ever have. He cannot escape from that bondage, because it is within himself. As the head of the bureaucracy, he has become imbued with the spirit, the habit of thought, and the views permeating that body. From an instrument at the service of the State, bureaucracy has become the embodiment of the State itself. The huge automaton has, in the course of generations, acquired a sort of fictitious vitality, and has cowed the mechanician, who dare not touch it for fear that the world will crumble into ruin with it. The bigger and more complicated the machinery of the State becomes, the less chance there is that any Czar will touch it, and the greater, on the contrary, the temptation to keep at the head of the gigantic machine, in the vain hope of being able to direct its working."
Very likely the monster has acquired a fictitious value, and does inspire a superstitious dread ; at any rate, we can well understand the hesitation with which a responsible autocrat
would meddle with its machinery. Also, if he be an honest, sincere, and well-meaning man—as the late Czar undoubtedly was, and as, we have every reason to suppose, his successor is —we can understand his fixed determination to remain at the head of it. But "temptation" is not the word. The tempta- tion is rather the other way,—to resign the responsibility, and be guilty of a desertion of duty. Still, the introduction of moderate reforms on the side of Liberalism is not incom- patible with a determination to preserve the general lines of the existing government. Stepniak says there is no longer any hope on that score, that the manifesto upon the accession and the answer given to the Zemstvos of Tver and Tula are final, and that everything indicates that the present reign will be closely modelled upon the last. We prefer to- indulge still in the belief that the Czar is prudently waiting his time, and that the rebuff offered to the Zemstvos at the wedding reception merely proved that the Czar's hand was not to be forced.
The agitation for political freedom is split now into two parties,—one peacefully working for liberal reforms which may break the autocratic power of individual officials ; the other seeking to abolish the autocracy of the Czar himself- The members of the latter party—Nihilists, to give them their common name—here assert that they will be content if their more moderate allies receive a fair hearing and some measure of success. But Stepniak gives us to understand that they are not disposed to wait for long, and that if the reign of King Log is to be repeated again the terrorist policy will be resumed. He must have lived long enough in England to know that it is useless to appeal for English sympathy on behalf of terrorist methods. Nor will his recital of the wicked- nesses that were perpetrated during the last reign in the least change English opinion as to the indefensibility of Nihilist re- prisals. And, after all, the indignation of other countries has been stirred rather by the treatment of the Jews in Russia than by that of political prisoners. The whole system of political
imprisonment and exile is bad, no doubt—the butchery at Yakutsk and the outrages of Kara were horrible—and we would not defend it by a single word ; still, it is nothing compared to the hateful persecution of the Jews, the massacre of unorthodox Christians, or the wanton oppression of the harmless Stundists. Would these deeds be impossible under a democratic regime P That is a question which it is difficult
for a foreigner to answer. And, until he has further reason for distrust, the foreigner may also still hope that they will not be repeated under Nicholas IL
Previous page
