RUSSIA'S DEMOCRATS 



221 



arising from the making of freemen out 

 of serfs in such enormous numbers. 



BUT THE PEOPLE'S GREATEST NEED — 

 EDUCATION — WAS DENIED 



What the great mass of the Russian 

 people needed and what should have been 

 put into execution as soon as the emanci- 

 pation of the serfs was effected* was a 

 system of popular education embracing 

 the whole people, in the course of which 

 they should have received the instruction 

 necessary for their first attempts to re- 

 sume any self-government on the new 

 scale. 



Had this course been at once followed 

 and continued until the present time, it 

 is very doubtful if Russia would have 

 had on her hands the terrible tragedies 

 which followed the emancipation. 



The government seemed to be afraid 

 to give the common people any education, 

 even to the extent of allowing them to 

 read and write. It thought, apparently, 

 that with education would come dissatis- 

 faction with the existing form of govern- 

 ment, and that with dissatisfaction would 

 come some attempt to bring about re- 

 forms. 



So the bureaucracy adopted the old 

 expedient of burying its head in the sand 

 and in refusing knowledge to the people. 

 This was naturally only partially success- 

 ful. Education in schools might be lack- 

 ing, but it was impossible to keep a hun- 

 dred and fifty million human beings per- 

 manently in the dark and without knowl- 

 edge as to how the rest of the world was 

 living and progressing. 



The Russian peasants may be illiterate, 

 as, indeed, according to statistics, about 

 70 per cent of them are, but they have 

 the shrewd intelligence of the peasant all 

 over the world, and their sturdy common 

 sense makes up for lack of schooling to a 

 great extent. 



Thus, in spite of all opposition, the 

 rural and urban assemblies retained the 

 germ of local government, and in spite 

 of the dual control, as the result of which 

 much of their influence was nullified, 

 they did have a certain value in airing 

 abuses and suggesting improvements. 

 Their existence was often threatened, but 

 never entirely stopped. 



Note, however, that there was no na- 

 tional congress or assembly of any kind 

 from the eighteenth century down to the 

 foundation of the new Imperial Duma, 

 in 1906. 



THE FIRST NATIONAL CONGRESS IN 280 

 YEARS 



The members of this body were to be 

 chosen by electors from all over the coun- 

 try. The new law gave the suffrage to 

 every man over 25 years of age who had 

 a fixed domicile and a certain property 

 qualification. In rural districts those 

 peasants had votes who were fathers of 

 families, together with the rural land- 

 owners, nobles, merchants, and members 

 of the clergy ; in the cities, State officials, 

 members of the public services, and pro- 

 prietors with certain qualifications. In- 

 dustrial workers who could prove six 

 months' continuous labor in establish- 

 ments having at least fifty employees 

 could also vote. 



The Duma could express views, but 

 was nearly helpless in carrying into effect 

 any reforms. But it had a certain influ- 

 ence for good in its very existence, and 

 after a succession of abortive sessions, 

 the later assemblies developed a courage 

 which was truly remarkable when the 

 forces opposed to it are considered. 



It is not too much to say, in the light 

 of recent events, that the Duma and what 

 it stands for is responsible directly and 

 primarily for the overthrow of the Ro- 

 manoff dynasty and the establishment of 

 a new form of government in Russia. 



The reason for the failure of the revo- 

 lutionary movement which convulsed 

 Russia in the years immediately succeed- 

 ing the Russo-Japanese War is that the 

 methods were too radical and too remi- 

 niscent of the old nihilism to be popular, 

 even with the milder groups of revolu- 

 tionists. 



The arguments of that time consisted 

 in bombs thrown at unpopular ministers 

 or officials who, although not disliked 

 personally, were supposed to embody the 

 principles of the autocratic regime too 

 closely. It is doubtful if these enthusi- 

 asts ever had the support of any large 

 element of the Russian population out- 



