Time to read: 26 minutes(s)

Yuri Fyodorovich Samarin said that Russian life works like this: a man sits in his office in uniform—he's a bureaucrat and a civil servant. And then that evening, he goes home, takes off his uniform, puts on a robe—and he's now a representative of the public.

STUDIO: And not just any member of the public, maybe even a member of the zemstvo assembly. This is the "From Now on, We'll Do It Ourselves" podcast. My name is Andrey Allahverdov. Hello.

The word "zemstvo" has slightly different, yet similar, meanings in various dictionaries: national, national, provincial, auxiliary, local, private, and pertaining to a single social class. It appeared in our podcast in the very first episode, when we discussed the zemstvo elder Kozma Minin. Although the word appears in documents from various centuries, when people talk about "zemstvo," they generally refer to institutions that existed in the Russian Empire from the mid-19th century to the end of 1917. Zemstvo doctor, zemstvo teacher—these are all from that era. And, of course, zemstvo is about self-government. Today, we're speaking with a specialist in this field, Doctor of Historical Sciences Kirill Solovyov. Hello.

KIRILL SOLOVYEV: Hello. It's important to keep in mind that this is, essentially, the first example of full-fledged local self-government in Russia. Some similar systems existed in the 18th century and before. But this was a completely different system. This is local self-government in the most classic sense of the word, where local forces are relied upon, empowering them to address the issues that directly concern them, such as healthcare, education, local infrastructure, and local statistics. The institution existed on two levels: the province and the district. This is crucial because, firstly, there will be no higher-level zemstvo—something that zemstvo members would later talk about and dream about a lot—there will be no regional, and most importantly, no all-Russian zemstvo. And, perhaps even more importantly, there will be no lower-level zemstvo. In other words, it's an unfinished structure. There will be no zemstvo at the volost level, no zemstvo at the village level. There were corresponding projects for this as early as the early 18th century, but they were never implemented, and it's quite clear why. Because the key role of the zemstvo belonged to the landed gentry, or, more simply, the landowners. If a zemstvo were created at the volost or village level, it would naturally be attended by peasants—an institution of a different kind. In fact, we see that the zemstvo was by no means distributed throughout Russia—only where there was a landed gentry. Therefore, there would be no zemstvo in Arkhangelsk or Astrakhan, and for the time being, there would be no zemstvo in Orenburg, and, of course, there is no talk of a zemstvo being established beyond the Urals—that is, a Siberian zemstvo would also not exist before the revolution. And there would be no zemstvo in the outskirts, because the government relied not simply on the landed gentry, but on Russian The landed gentry. Because if you create a zemstvo in the territory of modern-day Belarus, most of modern-day Ukraine, the Polish nobility will set the tone. And the question arose as to whether such a zemstvo was even appropriate. In other words, the zemstvo was widespread in a smaller part of the Russian Empire, but it was highly populated, very important, and, above all, included the interior provinces of the Russian Empire—largely central Russia, part of northwestern Russia, and part of modern-day eastern Ukraine.

From the Regulation on provincial and district zemstvo institutions, January 1, 1864

Having deemed it beneficial to call upon the local population, through persons elected from them, to participate closely in the management of matters relating to the economic benefits and needs of each Province and each district, We have ordered the Minister of Internal Affairs to draw up, on the principles indicated by Us, draft resolutions on the organization of special zemstvo institutions for the management of the aforementioned matters. […]
  The scope of activities of zemstvo institutions is limited to the boundaries of the Province or District, each of these institutions being subordinate to […]
  Zemstvo institutions, in their decrees and orders, cannot go beyond the scope of the matters specified to them; therefore, they do not interfere in matters that fall within the scope of the actions of government, class, and public authorities and institutions. […]

KIRILL SOLOVIEVThe zemstvo, first and foremost, relied on two important institutions. One was representative, the other administrative. This was the zemstvo assembly, which was elected by the local population. Moreover, if we're talking about the situation in 1864, this included the nobility, peasants, and urban dwellers. If we're talking about the situation in 1890, it would seem to be the same groups, but the nobility would significantly outnumber everyone else. They would have a clear numerical superiority over everyone else. And the zemstvo assembly itself would elect the zemstvo council, which would be responsible for administrative activities. If we're talking about the zemstvo, then there are two categories of people who ensure its functioning: the people themselves. zemstvo members, that is, those who participate in the work of zemstvo institutions, zemstvo assemblies and zemstvo councils, and zemstvo employees – this is another category, those hired by the zemstvo. And while there are relatively few zemstvo members within Russia – around 12,000 at the beginning of the 20th century – there are, of course, significantly more zemstvo employees. These include zemstvo doctors, zemstvo teachers, agronomists, statisticians, and many, many other employees who are creating an entirely new, previously unknown infrastructure. For the first time, one might say, a system of rural education is emerging. Not isolated private initiatives or a system of church schools, but a system of secular education supported by local governments. Medicine is emerging, relatively accessible, including to the peasantry. Naturally, this couldn't meet all needs, and if we compare the numbers of medical personnel in Russia and any Western European country, the comparison is clearly not in Russia's favor. But what's important here is progress, a dynamic process. Nothing like this had ever existed before. This, among other things, has an impact on such important issues as reducing infant mortality. By the beginning of the 20th century, it would be catastrophically high, but significantly lower than before. Maternity care, which also became relatively accessible under the zemstvo system, was a significant factor. That is, the zemstvo system wasn't just words, it wasn't just an opportunity to speak out and demonstrate some kind of activism, but, in general, it represented some real social changes that impacted the situation of a significant portion of the population.

There are two important stages in the history of the zemstvo, linked to two legislative acts. The zemstvo was created in 1864 according to one logic, and then transformed in 1890 according to a completely different logic. In 1864, when the zemstvo was established, the so-called public theory of self-government prevailed. The premise was that the zemstvo was a non-governmental institution. It performed public functions. Society had the right to address the issues that concerned it. The state did not interfere in these matters. It could coordinate, adjust, and assist, but it understood perfectly well that in these matters, the public played a leading role. In short, it's not surprising that zemstvo institutions soon found themselves in acute conflict with the provincial administration, simply because the boundaries between one set of prerogatives and another were unclear. By 1890, when the new zemstvo regulations were issued, a different state theory of self-government was already dominant. In addition to the increase in the number of representatives of the landed gentry, relatively strict forms of control over the zemstvo were also established. The governor now had the ability to approve or disapprove the zemstvo leadership and zemstvo decisions, based on the premise that the zemstvo was part of the state system and, in a certain sense, performed state administrative functions. This idea, while perfectly understandable to the administration, was not so obvious to the zemstvo members. And the 1890 reforms did not eliminate conflicts, as had been hoped in St. Petersburg, but, on the contrary, created additional conditions for conflict, which later escalated to the zemstvo becoming a center of gravity for political forces and acquiring a certain political power. And to a certain extent, without understanding what was happening in the zemstvo in the 90s and early 1900s, it is difficult to understand what the first Russian Revolution would be like.

From the Regulation on provincial and district zemstvo institutions, June 12, 1890

To discuss, in appropriate cases, the correctness and legality of the decrees and orders of zemstvo institutions and to resolve other matters specified in this regulation, a Provincial Presence for Zemstvo and City Affairs is formed in each Province […] under the chairmanship of the Governor […]
The Governor, if he does not find it possible to agree with the decision of the majority of the Members of the Presence, shall suspend the execution of the said decision and shall immediately submit the matter to the Minister of Internal Affairs […]
To elect representatives to zemstvo electoral assemblies […] two zemstvo electoral congresses are held. The first congress, chaired by the District Marshal of the Nobility, is attended by hereditary and personal nobles. The second congress, chaired by the Head of the Provincial or District Town […] is comprised of all other persons entitled to participate in zemstvo elections through representatives.
The Governor shall suspend the execution of a resolution of the Zemsky Assembly in cases where he sees that it:
1) is not in accordance with the law or is decided in violation of the scope of the department, the limits of authority, or the procedure for the actions of zemstvo institutions;
2) does not correspond to the general state benefits and needs, or clearly violates the interests of the local population.

KIRILL SOLOVIEVThere were many conflicts between the zemstvo and the bureaucracy, but also many bridges connecting them. To draw such a rigid dichotomy—that there are one and there are the other, or, as they said in the 19th century, there are "us" and "they"—this formula, originally coined by Herzen, isn't entirely accurate. Many officials participated in zemstvo assemblies on entirely legal grounds and performed zemstvo functions just like their colleagues who weren't officials at all. And this didn't apply to just any representatives of the lower, middle, or higher ranks of bureaucracy; ministers indulged in this. Yuri Fyodorovich Samarin, a very prominent publicist and thinker, who himself had experience in government service, said that Russian life works like this: a man sits in his office in a uniform—he's a bureaucrat and a civil servant. And that very evening, he goes home, takes off his uniform, puts on a dressing gown—and he's already a representative of the public. He'll read the same magazines and newspapers as members of the public, he'll discuss the same topics, and what's more, he'll allow himself the same opinions, and often these opinions will be purely oppositional. Nothing will bother him. He'll fulfill different roles. And often, the kind of conflicts we've already discussed—between the governor and the zemstvo member—are a conflict of roles. Because the same person who's now governor, who later resigns, will attend the same zemstvo meetings and say exactly the same things as his zemstvo colleagues.

The Russian bureaucracy, as a social group, not to mention its individual members, was guided, among other things, by its own understanding of its own corporate interests. These corporate interests were not necessarily identical to those of the landowners, even though there were landowners among the bureaucracy's representatives. But this doesn't mean that if a governor owned an estate, he would think in much the same way as the zemstvo members, who also owned estates. The Russian nobility was very diverse: there were small landed gentry and there were aristocrats, often latifundists. Let's take, for example, Leo Tolstoy's characters in War and Peace, the salon of Anna Pavlovna Scherer. This is one nobility that speaks French, and they are perfectly situated in a European intellectual context. They live in St. Petersburg and Moscow. But this is a minority of the Russian nobility. The majority of the Russian nobility are heroes not of Tolstoy, but rather of Nikolai Vasilyevich Gogol. This is Korobochka, aka Korobochka. She's also a noblewoman. But there's no mention of French there.

A minute later the landlady entered, an elderly woman, wearing some kind of sleeping cap, put on hastily, with flannel around her neck, one of those mothers, small landowners, who complain about crop failures and losses, and hold their heads slightly to one side, while they gradually collect money in little motley bags placed in the drawers of their chests of drawers. Into one bag they select only rubles, into another half-rubles, into a third quarters, although to the outside it seems as if there is nothing in the chest of drawers except underwear, and nightgowns, and skeins of thread, and a ripped cloak, destined later to be turned into a dress, if the old one somehow burns during the baking of holiday cakes with all sorts of yarn, or wears out of itself. But the dress will not burn and will not wear out of itself; The old woman is thrifty, and the cloak is destined to lie for a long time in a ripped state, and then, according to the will, to go to the niece of the great-sister along with all sorts of other junk.
Gogol, "Dead Souls"

KIRILL SOLOVIEVThere's a completely different system of coordinates and values ​​there. Naturally, they reason differently, despite representing the same class, but there's a colossal difference between members of that class. Those who went to work for the zemstvos are a very specific, very active representative of the nobility. The vast majority of nobles sat on their estates, or perhaps even in some provincial district towns, and never attended any zemstvo assemblies, seeing no need for them. Those who are not indifferent to the matter do participate. They are very few. Among them, there are some truly astonishing figures, who are remarkable in their own right. For example, Dmitry Ivanovich Shakhovsky, a very important figure in the history of the Russian zemstvos at the turn of the 20th century. The son of a general, his sister is close to the highest circles of the court. He himself is a Rurikovich, Prince Shakhovsky. He has the potential to pursue a professorial career; his teachers at the university are pushing him towards this. But he goes to work in the Tverskoy zemstvo, in the Vesyegonsk district. There, he's hired as a school inspector. He's offered a salary, but he asks for a reduction. He does his job at any time of year, regardless of weather conditions, walking the entire district, often costing him health. He owns estates in his native Yaroslavl province. He formally sells them, but in reality gifts them to neighboring peasants, keeping for himself only the plot of land that allows him to run for zemstvo elections. A completely unique logic of behavior. Of course, one shouldn't think that everyone behaved this way. This is an exception to the rule, because if there were no exception to the rule, we wouldn't be talking about it.

STUDIO: And what was there where there was no zemstvo?

KIRILL SOLOVIEV: These kinds of palliatives were created, sometimes referred to in the press as "margarine zemstvos." That is, forms of public self-government that, nevertheless, bore little resemblance to zemstvos. They were primarily concerned with various forms of consolidation of the local gentry, if any, and they, accordingly, attempted to perform functions close to those that zemstvo institutions should have had. It was perfectly clear that this was better than nothing, but it clearly did not correspond to the capabilities that the zemstvos had. Of course, we should not idealize, because the zemstvos had many problems, obvious problems. The zemstvos also lacked human resources, just as the civil service did. They often encountered a situation where the best people were not always the ones who joined them, because they had little to offer. When a student completed his university studies, if he graduated successfully, he was more likely to end up in civil service than to join the zemstvos. The zemstvos were not always the most decent people. There were plenty of problems. But nevertheless, there was a system. And this system ensured, for better or worse, the functioning of the social environment in the Russian Empire. It's no coincidence that by the 1910s, the question of creating zemstvos arose where they hadn't existed before. This was the goal of Stolypin's policy, introducing zemstvos in the Western Territory, which had previously seemed utterly insane. But you took these inevitable risks because there were no other options. In other words, where zemstvos didn't exist, the issue was resolved, but it was resolved less effectively than where zemstvos did exist.

STUDIO: But we've already said that the term "zemsky" or "zemstvo" appeared long before the time you're talking about, back in the time of Ivan the Terrible, right? Zemstvo reform.

KIRILL SOLOVIEVWell, we're talking about zemstvo elders here. This reform, which was carried out in the 50s during the reign of Ivan Vasilyevich, whom we know as Ivan the Terrible, is what it is. zemstvo reform is already a late historiographical layering.

Because the Slavophile tradition, which was very influential at the time, created the image.

They did not proceed from the experience that existed in Moscow in the 16th-17th centuries, but from the experience that they came up with Regarding Moscow in the 16th and 17th centuries. This rhetoric was very popular. The premise was that there was a special royal principle, but also a special zemstvo principle. And this special zemstvo principle, the Slavophiles reasoned, had been suppressed by Peter the Great. And to revive it, it must be freed from excessive bureaucratic control. What can be considered a zemstvo principle is a specific feature of the organization of the sovereign's court and the overall system of governance in Moscow in the 16th century and, to some extent, in the 17th. We are talking about a large territorial entity, but with a low population density and a small number of those individuals who could be considered the resource for the Grand Duke and then, subsequently, the Tsar. You are building a system of, so to speak, self-government. But this does not happen because life is good, not because you are such a democrat, not because you rely on local forces, but because you have no other resource for controlling the situation except trusting those on the ground. Essentially, these are your own service people. Landowners who primarily perform military functions, but will also perform administrative ones. This model is essentially a palliative for the rigid vertical power structure. The zemstvo we're talking about is something entirely different. You have a more or less local administrative structure. Yes, it's rather poorly organized, and it's also understaffed, but you understand that in addition to police functions, in addition to purely administrative functions, you also need to address social issues. And let society itself address these social issues, based on its understanding of its own interests.

STUDIO: We mostly know—and you mentioned it too—education and medicine. But the zemstvo isn't limited to that. For example, as I understand it, the zemstvo deals with statistics, and that's also an important part of its work?

KIRILL SOLOVIEVThis was important because people in Russia had a very poor understanding of what Russia was. That is, what were the specifics of the daily life of the majority of the population? How was the life of the peasantry organized? What was the Russian commune? How much useful land is there in Russia? How can it be used? How is it used in practice, what is the efficiency of work on the land and not only on the land. In other words, Russia was rather poorly described throughout the 19th century. The authorities made efforts to do this, primarily the Ministry of Internal Affairs. This is very evident in the policies during the reign of Nicholas I. There was an attempt to create at least some kind of cadastre, a land fund. Not much in this direction was successful. Because this requires some understanding of How do this and who This will do it. After all, these specialists need to be trained; it needs to be a relatively widespread profession. In Russia, there was a shortage of this, so these kinds of problems were poorly addressed. To a certain extent, this is why intellectual constructs arise, where something general is described despite a lack of primary description. I've already mentioned one example: the Slavophile understanding of what Russia is. It's based on inventing a peasant community, inventing a peasant way of life, which, in fact, has only an indirect relationship to Russian tradition. But this is a kind of "view from the right." And the "view from the left" is very closely related to it. This is the populist tradition, which also proceeds from the idea that there is a unique Russian peasant way of life, capitalism is completely unacceptable for the Russian village, and many other related considerations. Recently, a series of what I consider remarkable works by Mikhail Abramovich Davydov was published. They essentially argue that in Russia in the second half of the 19th century, a peculiar symbiosis of populist and Slavophile views was developing. This symbiosis is based on the understanding that capitalism is impossible in Russia, that Russia is on a completely unique path, and that the peasantry lacks the capacity for any independent activity, not to mention political activity—it's ridiculous to even mention that—but even legal independence. They are also incapable of economic activity or independence; they require a guardian—probably from the state, or perhaps from someone else.

Such views were largely based on the paucity of empirical data. It was insufficient, despite the fact that many tried to collect it. The zemstvo had the resources for this, which first emerged because each provincial and district zemstvo had a staff of people who were supposed to be able to collect information. And they did. We have at our disposal a vast array of texts from various provinces and districts—in fact, from every province where a zemstvo existed, with survey materials. But two aspects must be kept in mind here. First, this is, of course, a source of astonishing importance. There are sources from the Central Statistical Committee. This is what the government itself, the Ministry of Internal Affairs, was doing. But there is another alternative source—what the zemstvo was doing. Essentially, society, independent of the government and often opposed to what the Ministry of Internal Affairs was doing, has the opportunity to compare and contrast.

From the Statistical Description of the Rzhevsky District of the Tver Province

A statistical survey of Rzhevsky District was conducted in accordance with a resolution of the provincial zemstvo assembly, which expressed its willingness to assist the Rzhevsky zemstvo, which wished to reassess the lands of its district. To this end, in the autumn of 1882, the statistical department conducted a preliminary local survey of two volosts in Rzhevsky District […]. Following this pilot survey, the department developed a plan, program, and research method. It was decided to conduct a study of the value and profitability of Rzhevsky District lands through on-site research, not limiting itself to official data and resorting to the latter only in cases where it provided an undoubted guarantee of reliability. […]
The department entrusted the description of all other villages and farms to […] its agents, for which purpose they were first shown on-site the methods of collecting information, and until they had fully mastered these, they worked under the personal supervision of one of the zemstvo statisticians.

KIRILL SOLOVIEVThere are primary sources that allow us to see how these statistics are compiled and what they consist of. But it's crucial not to go to extremes, not to collect everything that can be found in these zemstvo materials and not to rewrite it in modern texts, taking it for granted, as the ultimate truth. The problem is that different methods were used in attempting to analyze and characterize, first and foremost, the Russian village. And therefore, very often, the data from different provinces are poorly comparable. This is a technical problem, but there is also an ideological one. The fact is that while zemstvo members are in most cases landowners, and sometimes even quite wealthy landowners—this is not necessarily connected to their ideas and views, but in one way or another is connected to their social experience—then zemstvo employees are people who, in their position, experience, and material well-being, are not far removed from the peasants. They live alongside the peasants. Their income level is roughly the same as that of the peasants. Perhaps a little higher, but not much. And, by the way, I'd like to point out that a zemstvo teacher's income will be significantly lower than, say, that of a professional worker. That is, they represent the lower echelons of the Russian intelligentsia. Among the Russian intelligentsia are lawyers, journalists writing for well-known, major publications, well-practiced doctors, and professors, and then there are zemstvo teachers and doctors. It's no coincidence that it is from this milieu that neo-Narodnik political organizations will emerge, first and foremost. First and foremost, the Socialist Revolutionary Party. That's where it comes from. It's not so much drawn from peasants, although there are peasants there, nor from workers, although there are many workers, but primarily from this intelligentsia, the zemstvo intelligentsia. And they inevitably view the peasants from the perspective of the Narodniks. That is, in their statistical research, they try to find what they consider important and necessary. They, therefore, design their questionnaires accordingly. They approach the peasants accordingly and try to elicit an answer from them, which, as you might guess, is often the same answer. And the peasants themselves are generally receptive to this kind of counting, because the tradition, which actually dates back to the early 18th century, is to play it safe. They're not prepared to reveal everything, always expecting a trick from those conducting the inventory or census; they assume it's no accident, probably for fiscal reasons. And the result is a somewhat distorted image of what the Russian village is like. Again, this doesn't mean we should dismiss it all, say it's all lies, and we don't read it; we read and watch it all. But we always need to correct this picture, because it's, to a certain extent, ideologically driven.

STUDIO: You mentioned two levels of zemstvo work, that it didn't exist at the national or grassroots level. And, as I understand it, there were no horizontal connections between zemstvo institutions either. Was this simply an oversight, or was it done intentionally?

KIRILL SOLOVIEVThis was done, of course, entirely intentionally and not by chance. The zemstvo members were trying to organize. They held periodic zemstvo congresses. But in most cases, when they were held, the authorities looked askance at best. And sometimes they resorted to downright repressive policies. And when Vyacheslav Konstantinovich Plehve became Minister of Internal Affairs, the participants of the zemstvo congresses will face a hostile reception in St. Petersburg and a rebuke from the Ministry of Internal Affairs for participating in such gatherings. Meanwhile, the zemstvo members are looking for ways to unite, how to coordinate their decisions, how to lobby for their interests together. Because this isn't just about politics; it's about defending the interests of the zemstvo members against government decisions, which often run counter to their wishes. They're inventing excuses for gathering. Sometimes we're talking about simply illegal forms of association. For example, there's a wonderful group called "Beseda," which I worked on specifically. It brings together zemstvo leaders who meet in Moscow. They deliberately call themselves "Beseda" because they know their correspondence is being monitored and read. And if they were to ask each other, send a letter, "Come for a talk," there's a chance the Ministry of Internal Affairs wouldn't understand what they were talking about. In reality, we're talking about a constantly functioning, illegal association of zemstvo members who wanted to coordinate their positions, and from this, political associations then follow, because it's perfectly clear: following modest demands, comes an understanding of the shared political goals that confront the zemstvo assemblies, among other things.

From the monograph "The Conversation Circle: In Search of a New Political Reality, 1899-1905"

In early January 1895, an event occurred that seriously affected the mood of the zemstvo community. On January 17, 1895, at a reception in the Winter Palace for delegations from the nobility, zemstvos, and cities, the young Tsar Nicholas II uttered his famous words about the "senseless dreams" of local government officials who desired to participate in government decision-making.143 The Tsar's speech was a response to zemstvo addresses from nine provinces, where zemstvo members dared to ask the Tsar to limit the power of the bureaucracy and remove the existing barrier between the throne and the people, so that the voice of society could reach the throne. Thus, the expectations of a fundamental shift in government policy, associated with the beginning of the new reign, from that moment on lost all foundation.

KIRILL SOLOVIEVIt was clear to the government that the all-Russian Zemstvo Assembly was a parliament. And a parliament meant sharing powers. This meant, in fact, a transition to an entirely different system of governance, which, for various reasons, whether ideological or purely pragmatic, seemed completely unacceptable to the Russian Empire. In other words, the authorities saw the Zemstvo Assembly as a political threat, and I think, to a certain extent, rightly so.

Naturally, governance changed with the zemstvo's existence. It's clear that it creates an additional instrument of power, a center of gravity, but, in my view, the most important thing is that it creates a new platform for people willing to engage in active public activity. This platform exists legally; it brings together people who aren't inclined to engage in conspiracy, change their name or appearance, or end up somewhere outside the country. They remain in Russia and have the opportunity to actively participate, including through their connections, sometimes connections to the highest circles. They are financially well-off, sometimes very well-off. But they have the opportunity to consolidate. It's important to keep in mind that the authorities understood the political threat the zemstvo could pose. In the 80s, there was talk of reforming the zemstvo to the point where it would simply become an office for the governor. Similar projects were hatched in the Ministry of Internal Affairs in 80. But nothing came of it. And it didn't work out to a large extent because Russian society itself, the public in the second half, towards the end of the 19th century, was reaching a qualitatively new level of development. It was no longer possible to reverse the situation.

In your country, the zemstvo is defended by people who determine policy in the field of the printed word. In fact, the press is closely connected with the zemstvo institutions. If only because leading publishers, editors, and authors of Russia’s largest magazines and newspapers sit in zemstvo institutions. For example, we can recall all the manuals of the magazine "Vestnik Evropy". People like Kovalevsky, Stasyulevich, Arsenyev - they are all simultaneously included in the system of local government, either zemstvo or city. When various decisions are made at the zemstvo level, they will inevitably be publicized in leading journals. Again, “Vestnik Evropy”, “Russkaya Mysl”. Well, in general, we can still give examples here. There will be even more of them at the beginning of the 20th century. The Zemstvo includes representatives of the legal profession. And the legal profession at the end of the 19th and 20th centuries was more than just highly paid legal specialists. These are the ones who have the ability to speak on behalf of the entire society and to defend the society. Moreover, this was a unique profession at that time, which the Russian Empire had not previously known. The zemstvo employs those who, in general, could be considered among the highest administrative cadres of the Russian Empire. Surprisingly, guards officers also participate in the zemstvo. In most cases, a guards officer did not take an official seriously, and among the officials there were many people of a very “democratic” origin. Pobedonostsev is the grandson of a clergyman, Mikhail Ostrovsky is the grandson of a clergyman. But, let’s say, Krivoshein, the chief manager of land management and agriculture, the minister, he was the grandson of a serf peasant. Nothing like this could have happened among the guards officers. They are representatives of that nobility which can trace its genealogy back to an unknown generation. And here in the zemstvo – they are together, they all collide, they are all ready to cooperate on this platform. The absolute majority of the most prominent representatives of Russian professors participate in the zemstvo. Sergei Andreevich Muromtsev, the future first chairman of the State Duma, was a zemstvo member. The Trubetskoy brothers – Sergei Trubetskoy, Evgeny Trubetskoy – in addition to being famous philosophers and university professors, they were prominent zemstvo figures. Fyodor Fyodorovich Kokoshkin, Vladimir Ivanovich Vernadsky – zemstvo figures, very prominent. This list can be continued. In other words, those who set the agenda at that moment, in the broadest sense of the word, they all gather there. And in the end, the authorities don’t even have the thought of taking and abolishing all of this. How it is? This will not be accepted by any circles - neither conservative, nor liberal, nor socialist, despite the very great conventionality of such an ideological division in relation to the social movement of that time. Therefore, the greatest thing that the zemstvo does is to form a completely new social environment, which ultimately turns out to be quite competitive with respect to state power. That is, the state authorities feel that this factor of the zemstvo must be taken into account, because it is not just an institution, it is, in fact, by and large, infrastructure. An infrastructure that does not fit simply into a set of a few names that can be taken and removed from society. Will not work. You take them out of society, you will have many more. Because the social environment has become much more complex. This is to a large extent the result of the great reforms that will be done in the 60s and 70s of the 19th century.

STUDIOI thank Kirill Solovyov, Doctor of Historical Sciences and specialist in Russian political history of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, for this fascinating story. This was part of the "We'll Take the Next Steps" podcast. Listen in, comment, your opinions are important to us. See you there.