We continue our series of publications on the development of Russian parliamentarism. Next up is a story about the creative contribution of Boris Nikolayevich Chicherin (1812-1904), the greatest expert on state law in pre-revolutionary Russia, whose thoughts and conclusions continue to attract the attention of scholars and remain relevant today. His views on the possibility of building a constitutional state in Russia are still striking in their accuracy and depth.

B.N. Chicherin was an unconditional supporter of the establishment of political freedom and constitutional government in Russia. He devoted his fundamental work "On Popular Representation" to this issue, which he defended as his doctoral dissertation in 1866. The main content of his research was the development of constitutional institutions as a combination of freedom and order. In other words, he concluded that the introduction of representative government should only occur when the country is ready for political freedom and when certain conditions are met.

Interest in Chicherin's research on the nature and properties of popular representation is still alive and well. Among these, the legal scholar clearly identified both beneficial and detrimental aspects of popular participation in government.

Chicherin emphasizes that "political freedom is useful for nations only in their mature years, when they are in the full bloom of life." He places the "good of the entire union" first, and argues that when discussing the benefits of representative institutions, it is important to consider their significance for the overall interests of the state. Boris Nikolayevich believes that the advantages of political freedom and representative institutions are "obvious."

As a "useful" feature of the people's representation, he cites the fact that the House of Representatives is constantly "on guard," raising its voice in the name of public needs. Additionally, the people's representation provides significant assistance to the executive branch in addressing "misguided situations." This is particularly evident in the realm of legislative affairs.

As the "pros" of introducing a people's representative, Chicherin mentions the function of control, especially in the field of finance. He even expresses a bold idea for his time, stating that "constitutional states enjoy greater credit than autocratic states."

In addition, Chicherin notes, "representative assemblies act on the government not only as a delay, but also as an incentive to action," which is one of the significant benefits of political freedom.

According to Boris Nikolayevich, popular representation "provides the elements for a good government... Here, people are selected, their abilities are developed, and they are shown off." According to Chicherin, representative institutions are an excellent political school for the people, as voters take a "live part" in government affairs.

The scientist's statements on freedom of the press and journalism, or "journalism," as he calls this branch of human activity, are quite interesting.

"Public opinion, nourished by journalism," Chicherin writes, " naturally reflects its shortcomings: it is superficial, one-sided, and impractical." Why? Because " journalism is a profitable trade that can turn into the same routine as clerical activities." Chicherin writes: "The journalist discusses issues, comes up with solutions, directs the fate of the world in his office. And it is not a product of mature and long-term reflection; it is a daily necessity, arising from the need to say something every day, to fill the columns of the newspaper, and to arouse the attention of the readers. How long ago these words were spoken. But how modern they sound...

Speaking about freedom of the press, Chicherin emphasizes that it makes sense only where there is political life: "The cure is not in the freedom of the press, which is now being glorified (...). Freedom of the press, especially the periodical press, which is the only one that has political significance, is necessary where there is political life; without the latter, it becomes empty chatter that mentally corrupts society. Especially in an uneducated environment, an unrestrained press usually becomes a murky stream where all kinds of filth gather, a reservoir of

page 10

of undigested thoughts, vulgar passions, scandals, and slander.

Of course, strictly speaking, based on these words, it is not appropriate to classify B.N. Chicherin as an opponent of freedom of the press and free journalism. The point is that the thinker's assessments are again in line with his philosophical and legal views, which suggest that all social elements and institutions in the state should operate for the common good. Chicherin's logic is simple and straightforward: if freedom of the press only leads to a flood of scandalous news (or, in modern terms, information wars), then it is not beneficial for the state or its citizens.

As a positive feature of representative government, Chicherin also cites the fact that popular representation makes revolutions less likely, since it becomes possible to achieve the goal by peaceful means, "the struggle of thought and speech."

However, there are also significant disadvantages to popular representation. According to B.N. Chicherin, the fundamental and inevitable drawback of political freedom is the difficulty of combining "many separate wills" into a single whole. However, governing a state requires a unified will and authority. In addition to the fact that it is very difficult to form a majority from disparate opinions, the latter does not necessarily mean, as Chicherin defined it, "the dominance of the best opinion; passion plays too significant a role; and the very stability of the union is rarely to be relied upon."

Chicherin was convinced that the representative assembly was "the least capable of creating well-thought-out, mature, and coherent legislation," because "the vast majority of representatives are people who are familiar with practice but have not studied the theory of laws or been involved in government affairs."

The greatest danger to political freedom, the thinker emphasizes, lies in the struggle and dominance of parties, which are nevertheless an indispensable condition for the creation of a constitutional state and the introduction of representative government. For example, Chicherin notes that "a person belonging to a particular party systematically adopts a one-sided point of view. He refuses to engage in an impartial discussion of public issues, loses sight of the common goal, and focuses primarily on what can bring victory to his party... The struggle, which is essentially an inevitable evil, becomes a goal, a pleasure that captivates people and consumes their best efforts. In such a tense state, passions naturally flare up. Mutual irritation drowns out the voice of truth and conscience. Each side tries to portray the other in a negative light... This leads to the terrible development of lies, which penetrate deep into society and become an inevitable and incurable social disease. Chicherin sadly states: "It is impossible to convince people who systematically refuse to know the truth and insist on their own point of view. There is no wrong cause that cannot be supported by brilliant sophistry; there is no fact that cannot be deliberately distorted." And further: "Of course, parties do not neglect any other means to increase their strength and defeat their opponents. In representative states, intrigues, sedition, and even bribery are common occurrences. A government that needs a majority in the chambers is unlikely to succeed if it only uses pure means. In order to gain solid support, it is forced not only to influence the elections in every way possible, but also to attract... more or less influential people in the chamber itself through various private deals and enticements.

Chicherin notes that the "heat of passion" that accompanies the struggle of parties leads to the fact that "division, hostility, mutual hatred penetrate into the depths of society", as a result of which the people break up into hostile camps, which contradicts the strength of the state organism. And this, according to the scientist, should not be allowed.

B.N. Chicherin's creative legacy, which includes a significant number of fundamental works and articles, remains relevant to this day. In light of the changes taking place in our lives and society, studying his works and adapting them to today's conditions is highly interesting and beneficial.

page 11

Permanent link to this publication: