The problem of what to compare

Chapter III:3

The birth of democratic institutions and cultures – Russia compared to the rest of Europe

The problem of what to compare

In his path-breaking study of how democracy could be made to work Robert Putnam studied Italy in the post-World War II situation.[1] Democracy had a very weak tradition in the Italian society then, as the country had just come through a 23-year period of Fascist dictatorship. Before that it had only had a brief interlude of full democracy after World War I. After World War II the victors, including the Italians who had actively opposed Mussolini’s dictatorship, had imposed upon the Italian society a full formal democracy. The problem was to make it work.

Putnam was among the first to show that formal legislation is not enough to make democracy work and that there are preconditions for a well-functioning democracy that may be called a democratic culture. In short he showed that when and where Italian society had close networks in the private sphere and on the local level, where people were used to work together and divide responsibilities between each other according to their own decisions in their networks and associations, a democratic culture was easily established. Interconnections in general and associations of a formal character, however local, were shown to be a stimulus for the use of a formal democracy. This means that such networks were the very essence of a democratic culture.

Now, the situation was another in Russia, in Austria, Germany and in all other countries of Western Europe in the years 1905-07. Most important is the fact that in the countries of Europe no fully developed formal democracy existed. Democracy was still in its infancy. It had its advocates in every country, and in many cases these were militant and demanding. These advocates asked for extended franchise, inclusion of women in political decision-making, equality in influence, etc. The four-tailed banner of universal, equal, direct, and secret elections inspired many radicals. By 905 it was however not put into effect anywhere in Europe. The labour movement often was advancing demands of democratic election procedures, but in the programmes of the socialist parties the formalities of government of the state were equally often overshadowed by their demands for social justice. Liberals were not insensitive to social justice but in several countries in Western Europe they strongly advanced formal democracy as a means to achieve a fair type of government. General statements as these about the character of liberal and socialist movements tend to oversimplify matters as do also the efforts to explain differences between them by analysing the average social background of members. Liberals were more individualistic in their solutions to social problems and socialists more willing to find collective remedies for the ills of society, a rather trivial statement that coincides fully with the simple classification of individualism as liberal and collectivism as socialist. However, not every member of parties and organisations did follow the main line of thought in their organisations, which means that not all ‘liberals’ were liberal, nor were all ‘socialists’ socialist.

For and against democracy were rallying cries all over Europe at this time. It is not only tempting but a challenge to look at Russian developments in comparison to most others. However, aside from questions of suffrage there were important differences as to how government was organised between European states. Parliamentarian systems and constitutions that set firm limits to the power of the head of state and/or the government as the executive were well established in some of them and less well in others. Further, monarchy was a living part of the governmental system in some countries but had an utterly limited influence in others and was totally abolished in others. There are good reasons to select as the main comparisons with Russia the two other imperial powers of the European continent, the German Empire (a federative state with a central government and a well developed bureaucracy) and Austria-Hungary (a state federation with a formal division of central powers including the bureaucratic apparatus). Both were strongly tied to their imperial families, the Hohenzollern family of the German Empire and the Habsburg family of the Austrian Empire. The German Emperor Wilhelm II was a close relative (they called each other by pet names and regarded themselves as ‘cousins’) of the Russian Emperor Nikolai II.

What we want to compare includes both the formal characteristics of the system of government in the three empires and the factors that may be decisive for the extent of a democratic culture in these countries. We will also try to compare how democracy was connected with other problems of government, not least the question of the extent of bureaucratic influence in governance. It has to be stressed that the comparison is based on secondary sources and is not the outcome of a self-conducted investigation of primary material.

We will conduct our comparison in three steps. First we make a survey of the situation in Western Europe in regard to franchise and type of government in respect to the list of questions below. The second step is to characterise the governmental situation in Austria-Hungary and Germany with respect primarily to the years 1900-1907 and then go through more closely formal democracy and democratic culture according to the list of questions. Changes after 1907 have not been registered here. The third step is the systematic comparison with Russia in the years 1905-1907, even though occasional comparisons of specific characteristics have already been made. What we want to know and compare deals with:

1. The extension of franchise, and the types of restrictions for franchised groups

2. The role of the head of the state: type of power areas

3. The existence or not of a ‘government’ – the position of ministers

4. The existence of a prime minister

5. The responsibility of ministers: a) juridical and b) political

6. The role of parties a) inside parliament b) outside of parliament c) versus government

7. The acknowledgement of party organisations in society

8. The activities of party organisations in elections

9. The activities of other organisations in elections a) interest groups b) voluntary associations

10. The activities of other organisations than parties in other ‘political’ matters than elections as a school for democracy

11. The role of local self-government and traditional forms of self-regulation in local society for the development of a ‘political mind’ and a sense for equality of influence and conflict resolution

Results regarding points 1-6 are vital for the extent of democracy.

Results regarding points 7-11 are vital for the extent of a democratic culture – they decide the possibilities of involvement of average citizens in political matters and give an indication of their actual involvement.

We will thus ask for the ways and means of dissemination of democratic forms in daily life and within the associations that were connected with election processes in Western Europe and above all in the three empires of the continent. In so far as it is possible we will also discuss other forms of associations and their procedures in order to achieve a wider spectrum of points of comparison focusing on the establishment of a democratic culture. Our comparison includes questions of governance and the relation between formal government and the informal system of governance. We try to analyse how the forces of informal governance were related to demands for democracy. The aim of this comparison is to ascertain if Russia was ‘lagging behind’ Western and Central Europe in the forms of governance and democratic culture, as has often been stated. The comparison may also shed some light on the question if these governmental arrangements had any influence on the fate of the three empires during and after World War I.