[Einherjar]

Frankly, laughs aside, you have a naïve perception on what constitutes a democracy. No democracy has ever been elected in the first place. Democratic systems have always been implemented from above. The same thing happened in post-war Germany. Who the hell voted for the establishment of a republic and democracy? No one, except a liberal elite that was in the course of time able to establish some form of democracy. It does not mean that the initial stages of the Weimar Republic were not democratic in scope.

Further discussion will not be possible if you keep clinging to such a limited perception of democracy and keep using the 'personal interests and bias' rhetoric. If you must know, I am not exactly pro-liberal.

[Maxim Litvinov]

It's a truism that no democracy came into being without being preceded by non-democracy. I don't think anyone's arguing that truism (although you seem to be keen on explaining it again and again).

That does *not* mean that 'democratic' is an appropriate modifier for the February Revolution or the Provisional Government, though. For the PG to be 'democratic', it should demonstrate some reasonably substantial commitment to bringing about democracy and some reasonably substantial elements of democracy in its composition and actions. BUT...

[1] You don't want to contest that the PG essentially had the same faces as were present under tsarist autocracy.
[2] You don't want to contest that the PG was composed of rich, male landowners.
[3] You don't want to contest that it delayed and therefore never held elections.
[4] You don't want to contest that it was extremely unpopular.
[5] You don't want to contest that it failed to implement even the most fundamental reforms in the people's interests (ie. withdrawal from the war).
[6] You don't want to contest that when it finally collapsed and limited elections were finally held, they showed people voting for a revolutionary, rather than liberal democratic, approach.

Further discussion will not be possible if you just want to proclaim things were democratic without actually interacting at all with what happened.

[pikachu]

made up the unelected earlier Duma.

What? Imperial Duma was not elected? If so, who appointed the representatives?

[Maxim Litvinov]

Well, there were elections, but they were simply organised in such a way as to keep the hoi polloi out - the Duma was almost automatically led by Prince Somethingsky and Duke Moneybagsov. Of course, if the Duma didn't do what the tsar wanted it could be (and was) disbanded anyhow.

But Stolypin's reforms basically guaranteed that the Duma was never going to be representative (not that it was before) - and if you compare its composition with the CA elections, it's pretty obvious it wasn't.

[pikachu]

The electoral laws were promulgated in December 1905 and introduced franchise to male citizens over 25 years of age, and electing through four electoral colleges. The elections were therefore not universal as they excluded women, soldiers, and officers. Nor were they equal since the constituencies differed greatly in size.

It wasn't a universal suffrage, that much is clear, but US at the time wasn't one either, so...

As for for manipulating the constituencies - how much of a result can you achieve though gerrymandering?

[Maxim Litvinov]

It wasn't a universal suffrage, that much is clear, but US at the time wasn't one either, so...

It was far from universal suffrage, but that is not really the problem - the Duma simply had no power. Since it was essentially an advisory body to the tsar who might dismiss it at any time, it had no authority anyhow. So not so much like the US as like the great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great (etc.) grandparents of US parliamentarians and the English parliament of the 13th Century or so.

As for for manipulating the constituencies - how much of a result can you achieve though gerrymandering?

Gerrymandering, as I have come to understand it, involves only denying a democratic outcome by playing with the borders of constituencies. The Duma, as well as denying a vote to the majority of Russians, didn't even practice one man one vote. But again, it wasn't the body with ultimate control anyhow - just a talkfest for the tsar.

[pikachu]

the Duma simply had no power

I'm aware of that, but this is not the same thing as saying it was "unelected".

As far as I understand Stolypin basically introduced some sort of "vote by wealth" system which was meant to ensure a conservative slant.

Anyway, the Duma was elected obviously. And regarding the semantics, I think the provisional government is best referred to as "Liberal" (even under Kerensky), but I see no problem with calling it democratic either.

Finland, for instance, did not carry out elections in the midst of fighting against USSR, but it was known as democratic anyway. Provisional government was therefore not obliged to carry out elections with so much of Imperial territory under enemy occupation.

[Maxim Litvinov]

I'm aware of that, but this is not the same thing as saying it was "unelected".

The point is that (a) it had no power and (b) if it did have power, it wasn't about to govern in the people's interest. I acknowledge that, technically speaking, it was elected, but I was just talking in the context of democratic government in Russia - and the Duma was never (prior to 1993) a true democratically elected body.

I think the provisional government is best referred to as "Liberal" (even under Kerensky), but I see no problem with calling it democratic either.

What about the six 'minor' problems I raise? If you haven't been voted in, if you aren't representative of the people and if you don't represent the people's interests how are you seriously 'democratic'?

[pikachu]

[1] You don't want to contest that the PG essentially had the same faces as were present under tsarist autocracy.

No problem with that.

[2] You don't want to contest that the PG was composed of rich, male landowners.
[3] You don't want to contest that it delayed and therefore never held elections.

No problem with that as long as they promised to hold free elections once the conditions were appropriate. See my Finland example.

[4] You don't want to contest that it was extremely unpopular.

This is kind of like saying US is undemocratic since Bush in unpopular. It's ok if the acting government is extremely unpopular, but this is not enough evidence of the state itself being unpopular/undemocratic. Which is what I mean: "Russia under PG was democratic."
Also, I don't think I've ever actually encountered Lvov's and Kerensky's approval ratings to know exactly how unpopular they were.

[5] You don't want to contest that it failed to implement even the most fundamental reforms in the people's interests (ie. withdrawal from the war).

See above. The US government routinely implements policies which are unpopular. US is also a typical liberal democracy - no contradiction there.

[6] You don't want to contest that when it finally collapsed and limited elections were finally held, they showed people voting for a revolutionary, rather than liberal democratic, approach.

As far as I recall, the SRs were NOT in favor of dissolving the Duma. Therefore, they were not revolutionary. Also remember that the CA election was carried out under Bolshevik rule - and this affected the result as well.

[Maxim Litvinov]

No problem with that.

In other words, it wasn't a representative body.

No problem with that as long as they promised to hold free elections once the conditions were appropriate.

That's a pretty naive position, if you don't mind me saying. For every Finland example there tend to be five Zimbabwe examples.

But we can look at what the PG's record was in order to gauge how it might, hypothetically, have acted in the future.

[1] As I've pointed out, it was not a representative body and had in its interests the preservation of the privileges of the upper class - that is one thing to keep in mind.
[2] As has also been pointed out, while it came to power promising that it was going to *immediately* instigate Constituent Assembly elections and that it *wasn't* going to use the war as any sort of excuse, it simply broke its promises here.

The Provisional Government should not only be expected to have hastened in true democracy (which wasn't in the interests of its members), but historically broke its promises to bring about elections. There is simply no good reason to take the ahistorical approach that the PG were somehow bringing about democratic change.

This is kind of like saying US is undemocratic since Bush in unpopular.

That's a pretty bad analogy. For one thing, the PG came into power without any history of democracy in Russia. For another thing, Bush has not done anything to delay or postpone or cancel elections.

The US government routinely implements policies which are unpopular.

Which doesn't really matter too much when we know the government can be voted out as a result. Broadly speaking though, if an administration isn't even trying to respond to the people's concerns, hasn't been elected and doesn't hold elections that basically rules out it being democratic in any meaningful sense of the word.

As far as I recall, the SRs were NOT in favor of dissolving the Duma.

Not while they were in it. But they weren't in the Duma of 1917 anyway. As I said, the PG in its membership was hardly representative of the people's will when the most popular parties in true democratic elections less than a year later weren't present in it.

[Einherjar]

It's a truism that no democracy came into being without being preceded by non-democracy. I don't think anyone's arguing that truism (although you seem to be keen on explaining it again and again).

That is the crux of the argument. A revolution with a liberal democracy in scope should not be expected to hold elections from day 1 if it is to be called democratic. You've reduced this to a battle of semantics. I could have simply used liberal and thereby not giving you ground to march in with the standard of your beloved bolshevism (which is strange for such a seemingly bourgeois character).

That does *not* mean that 'democratic' is an appropriate modifier for the February Revolution or the Provisional Government, though. For the PG to be 'democratic', it should demonstrate some reasonably substantial commitment to bringing about democracy and some reasonably substantial elements of democracy in its composition and actions. BUT...

As above. As I see it, your raison d'être in all of this argument is justifying the bolshevik revolution whereas I am *not* trying to condone or condemn anything.

[1] You don't want to contest that the PG essentially had the same faces as were present under tsarist autocracy.
[2] You don't want to contest that the PG was composed of rich, male landowners.
[3] You don't want to contest that it delayed and therefore never held elections.
[4] You don't want to contest that it was extremely unpopular.
[5] You don't want to contest that it failed to implement even the most fundamental reforms in the people's interests (ie. withdrawal from the war).
[6] You don't want to contest that when it finally collapsed and limited elections were finally held, they showed people voting for a revolutionary, rather than liberal democratic, approach.

I never contested a single one of these. And I hardly think they are remarkable evidence to something in light of the PG's eight months in power. If you consider the WR, it looked more like a proto-fascist regime in the years of Ebert and then went on to become a fairly stable democracy under Scheidemann.

[Maxim Litvinov]

If your only argument is that Russia *could* have been democratic if history had played out differently, then again there's nothing to contest. Russia *could* have been democratic, Hitler *could* have become leader of a democratic Russia, Russia *could* have adopted English as its national language.

Rather than just use the short term of the Provisional Government and some 'lack of evidence' as an excuse to call the revolution and its aftermath democratic, it's far better to actually look at the evidence.

You still want to pretend the PG was somehow working towards democracy - as though it 'wasn't holding elections from day one' but was more like post-Great War Germany than any of many other states which transitioned from one form of authoritarian rule to another. Yet you don't contest any of the points about the PG being ill-equipped to deliver any sort of democracy and manifestly FAILING to even live up to reasonable standards of 'ushering in' democracy - not only was it institutionally not likely to bring about democracy, but it failed in its own commitment to even hold any sort of elections. The PG *said* it was going to hold elections within days despite the difficult times but hadn't after day 1, or day 2, or day 10 or day 30 or day 60 or day 90 or day 100 or day 200.

The failure of the PG really says nothing good about Bolshevism and it hardly brings credit to Bolshevism to note what happened to the Constituent Assembly in Russia's first semi-democratic elections. But to believe in some sort of fantasy world where the Provisional Government was ushering in a new and glorious democratic future for Russia just for the sake of hating the Bolsheviks more makes little sense.

[Einherjar]

*sigh*

I do not see why you keep reverbating the same argument when I have already outlined repeatedly what I meant by 'democratic'. The PG being democratic in SCOPE (we wouldn't be expecting elections in the first place if it wasn't so) does not mean that it was democratic in actuality.

You still want to pretend the PG was somehow working towards democracy - as though it 'wasn't holding elections from day one' but was more like post-Great War Germany than any of many other states which transitioned from one form of authoritarian rule to another. Yet you don't contest any of the points about the PG being ill-equipped to deliver any sort of democracy and manifestly FAILING to even live up to reasonable standards of 'ushering in' democracy - not only was it institutionally not likely to bring about democracy, but it failed in its own commitment to even hold any sort of elections. The PG *said* it was going to hold elections within days despite the difficult times but hadn't after day 1, or day 2, or day 10 or day 30 or day 60 or day 90 or day 100 or day 200.

Of course it failed. Whoever said otherwise? A 'democratic revolution', which is the term that got this debate going, does not necessarily produce democracy. The French Revolutionaries, 'the fathers of modern democracy', never actually succeeded in establishing a proper democracy. In the same manner, a communist revolution, as that of Bolsheviks can be styled, was never able to establish proper communism. Neither after 8 months nor after 80 years. Does that mean that the Bolshevik Revolution was not communistic in scope?

But to believe in some sort of fantasy world where the Provisional Government was ushering in a new and glorious democratic future for Russia just for the sake of hating the Bolsheviks more makes little sense.

[Maxim Litvinov]

The PG being democratic in SCOPE

But SCOPE is meaningless in this context. The mere *potential* that something might have happened had history been different is just something to take for granted - of course the PG might have produced X (but then again, it might have produced Y or Z too).

All we can focus on is probabilities and motivations. You provide us no reason to conclude the PG would probably have led to a democratic outcome and I provided 6 reasons to conclude that the PG was not democratically motivated and not pushing for a democratic outcome.

[noemon]

It's a truism that no democracy came into being without being preceded by non-democracy. I don't think anyone's arguing that truism (although you seem to be keen on explaining it again and again).

That the first revolution was democratic, is not something to be argued, thats what the people requested. "We want democracy and not autocracy" that was its aim(the First revolution), the Czar delivered by abdicating, and forming a provisional government to bring elections, which she never managed to because of the socialists, as illustrated already.

That does *not* mean that 'democratic' is an appropriate modifier for the February Revolution or the Provisional Government, though. For the PG to be 'democratic', it should demonstrate some reasonably substantial commitment to bringing about democracy and some reasonably substantial elements of democracy in its composition and actions. BUT...

There is nothing the PG needs to illustrate, and that is why it is PG, in the first place, the PG cannot run policy, the PG has no prerogative, the PG is there to sustain order, and hold elections, for nothing else, nothing democratic or otherwise. The PG is there to deliver, and the PG illustrated this motivation, by cooperating succesfully with all the parties, and agreeing to hold order all together, it was the Bolshevics who decreed Order 1, and did exactly the opposite, and begun armed offense. The PG illustrated all that(motivation) it needed to illustrate, that is cooperation and correspondence with everybody.

[1] You don't want to contest that the PG essentially had the same faces as were present under tsarist autocracy.
[2] You don't want to contest that the PG was composed of rich, male landowners.
[3] You don't want to contest that it delayed and therefore never held elections.
[4] You don't want to contest that it was extremely unpopular.
[5] You don't want to contest that it failed to implement even the most fundamental reforms in the people's interests (ie. withdrawal from the war).
[6] You don't want to contest that when it finally collapsed and limited elections were finally held, they showed people voting for a revolutionary, rather than liberal democratic, approach.

[1]Normal
[2]Normal
[3]Due to the Bolshevics as illustrated.
[4]False as already illustrated. The Congress was not representative of popularity, and b), all these events have been extremely dramatized in Soviet historiography through make-believe.
[5]Provisional governments do not change policy, fallacy of argument.
[6]Elections were not held(limited or otherwise), and the provisional government did not collapse, it was taken over by force. The elections held inside the soviet congress were not elections at any real sense of the term.

All your arguments are false, and are mere appeals to appearances.
As you said we need to see the motivations of each, and we have already done so.

Motivations of PG: Cooperation, Correspondence, Order.
Motivations of the socialists: Anarchy, Armed offence, Coup.
Promises of the socialists to the PG: Cooperation Correspondence, Order
Reality of the socialists towards the PG and Russia: Anarchy, Armed Offence, Coup.

And its very funny, that you say: "you dont want to contest", the already contested ones, albeit, not by the one you refered to, but contested all-the-same.

What did you think? that you could reset the discussion as if my posts did not exist? By addressing another poster, and creating rhetorical vacuums, in order to fill up the space with further popular Sovietistan make-believe?

Ah, Maxim....

[peter_co]

Maxim, I don't really understand your position. I mean, yes the provisional was not elected and was never able to organize elections, but consider the circumstances: they had less than a year in a time of war when the country was gripped by widespread chaos caused by food riots, Bolshevik agitators, marauding soldiers deserting from the front, etc. Nevertheless, the government in power was essentially a liberal one and there is every indications than within a few months elections would have been held.

On the other hand, the Bolsheviks were openly anti-Democratic. They simply wanted power by any means necessary and if people supported them so much the better, but if not, that didn't trouble them too much. When elections for the Constituent Assembly were held, which were generally free and accepted as such by the Bolsheviks, when the vast majority of the electorate did not support the Bolsheviks (only about 25% did), the Bolsheviks simply dissolved the assembly, start assassinating opposition leaders, and within a short time declared themselves the only legal party.

You might argue that we don't actually know what the PG would have done, but considering what actually did happen, I simply can't imagine a scenario worse than the one where the Communists illegally seized power and then brutally suppressed any hope for democracy for seventy years.

[Maxim Litvinov]

"We want democracy and not autocracy" that was its aim (the First revolution), the Czar delivered by abdicating, and forming a provisional government to bring elections, which she never managed to because of the socialists, as illustrated already.

This is simply bad logic and bad history. You can't keep falling back on "well, given time, the PG would have produced liberal democracy". Rather, you have to look at the historical evidence.

Sure, the PG *said* they were going to bring about a more democratic Russia (as did the Bolsheviks), but they actively failed to do so - they ignored the people, they failed to bring elections as they said they would and they were constituted in such a way that this is not surprising. They did not govern in the people's interest, they were not constituted to govern as such and neither did they usher in a new government that might - that's a triple democratic failure.

but consider the circumstances...

This is essentially what the pro-Provisional Government arguments come down to - that Russia was in a bad way, so we should just assume that the PG had its heart in the right place and was going to bring glorious democracy to the people, but just needed more time. Of course, this is the argument of every authoritarian government in history - "we're going to make things better, but for now you'd better grant us emergency rule and we're going to put off democracy during these tough times".

When the PG came to power it claimed it was following through with "the immediate arrangements" for elections and that "it has no intention whatsoever of taking advantage of the military situation to delay in any way the carrying through of the reforms". Instead, it did not bring about these arrangements at all and carried out policies during its time in power that illustrated it had active contempt for the will of the people. It failed according to objective measures of being democratic (the triple failure above) and failed according to its own measures of its supposed intentions. No wonder it failed as a government and was so unpopular. THIS is why it was not democratic and THIS is why, even without the Bolsheviks, its unlikely this government of princes and noblemen would have survived or ushered in any sort of real democracy.

[noemon]

This is simply bad logic and bad history. You can't keep falling back on "well, given time, the PG would have produced liberal democracy". Rather, you have to look at the historical evidence.

Bad logic is equating "revolution", with the "pg". And calling the first revolution undemocractic because of the bad soviet history around the pg.

Sure, the PG *said* they were going to bring about a more democratic Russia (as did the Bolsheviks), but they actively failed to do so - they ignored the people, they failed to bring elections as they said they would and they were constituted in such a way that this is not surprising. They did not govern in the people's interest, they were not constituted to govern as such and neither did they usher in a new government that might - that's a triple democratic failure

Your simplistic analysis is false, for all the reasons mentioned, you hace no prerogative on judging the pg, towards issues that by definition had no control over, such as policy. The pg was formed to hold elections nothing, else, the Bolshevics did not let them, as simple as that. No rocket science. The pg cooperated with them, they did not cooperate with the pg.

Of course, this is the argument of every authoritarian government in history - "we're going to make things better, but for now you'd better grant us emergency rule and we're going to put off democracy during these tough times".

FAIL: the pg was not a governemnt, it was provisional, for all the reasons mentioned its purpose was not achieved because of force, not by any will of the people, the pg was not allowed to do its job. End of. Instead of trying to create soviet make-believe on why this didnt happen, history has written it already, because of the coup. No rocket science. Anything else, is based on the dramatization that the soviets have given to the events in order to excuse this very fact of history. Apologizing for them, is not something either noble on your part, either logical.

[FallenRaptor]

The pg was formed to hold elections nothing, else, the Bolshevics did not let them, as simple as that.

It is not as simple as that. The provisional government had postponed the elections that were promised to take place in July in order to continue in a war that the majority of the people did not want. It had violated what you believe was the sole purpose of it's existence. Why do you think they were so unpopular to begin with?

And honestly, do you believe that an appointed government composed of the old Tzarist aristocrats and the rich was really going to bring about a free and fair democracy? I think it's rather naive to believe that.

[noemon]

It had violated what you believe was the sole purpose of it's existence. Why do you think they were so unpopular to begin with?

And honestly, do you believe that an appointed government composed of the old Tzarist aristocrats and the rich was really going to bring about a free and fair democracy? I think it's rather naive to believe that.

These are footnotes, that divert the essence. The essence being that the pg cooperated with the parties in an environment that was chaotic. All the blame in any case can be thrown to the chaotic environment.

Whatever the pg would bring, it would be through elections, Bolshevism had a coup, at any rate there is a big substantial and essential difference.