Continuation. Beginning in N 4-6 for 1999

During the February Revolution of 1917, a dual power was established in the country: on the one hand, the Provisional Government - the authority of the bourgeoisie and landlords, on the other - the Petrograd Soviet. A power struggle unfolded between them.

The attempt of the Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks to turn the course of events towards parliamentarism, made on October 7, 1917, ended in failure. The democratic Conference (Pre-Parliament), which took place on Kerensky's initiative, found itself on the sidelines of real State power, receiving only the right of an advisory vote.

During the February and October Revolutions, a new system of representative power was formed. After October 1917, the separation of powers was abolished. The legislative and executive branches of government merged into a single body - the Soviets of first Workers 'and Soldiers' Deputies, then workers', soldiers 'and Peasants' deputies, later workers ' and finally People's Deputies. The judiciary remained independent and elective.

The merger of the legislative and executive functions of the Soviets was enshrined in the Constitution of the RSFSR, adopted on July 10, 1918: supreme power belongs to the All - Russian Congress of Soviets, and in the period between congresses-to the All-Russian Central Executive Committee of Soviets, which is the highest legislative, administrative and controlling body of the country. For the general administration of the affairs of the Republic, the Central Executive Committee forms the Council of People's Commissars (SNK) and departments (People's commissariats) for the management of individual branches and departments. Members of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee work in People's commissariats or carry out special assignments of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee. The Council of People's Commissars is fully responsible to the All-Russian Congress of Soviets and the All-Russian Central Executive Committee. Thus, the All-Russian Central Executive Committee was simultaneously a legislative, executive and administrative body of power.

A complete merger of all these power functions took place in the executive body, the All-Russian Central Executive Committee, although it was accountable to the All-Russian Congress of Soviets, which, according to the Constitution, met only twice a year. Full power was given to a body elected not by the people themselves, but by their representatives at the Congress of Soviets. Direct representation was disrupted. The union of powers was further consolidated in the first Union Constitution of 1924. The supreme authority of the USSR is the Congress of Soviets, and in the period between congresses - the Central Executive Committee, consisting of the Union Council and the Council of Nationalities. At first, the congresses of Soviets met annually, then at the Fourth Congress of Soviets they established the convocation of congresses of Soviets once every two years. And since 1931, the congresses began to meet once every 4 years. Full power was transferred to the CEC Presidium. Article 29 of the Constitution states that during the period between sessions of the CEC, it is the highest legislative, executive and administrative authority of the USSR. The Presidium consisted of 21 people, who were given full power in the country.

The Constitution of 1936 seems to have retreated from the rigid connection of the branches of government, its concentration in the hands of a small group of people. We can say that the state has "returned" to the separation of powers. The supreme body of State power, the Supreme Soviet, consisted of the Union Council and the Council of Nationalities. According to the Constitution, they exclusively exercised legislative power. The highest executive and administrative body is the Council of Ministers. Judges are independent and subject only to the law. The dominant position was occupied by the legislative branch. The Council of Ministers is accountable to the Supreme Soviet, which also elected the Supreme Court and appointed the Prosecutor General of the USSR.

The 1936 Constitution could serve as a model for the separation and coordination of powers. But on paper it was one thing, and in real life it was quite another. Affairs in the country were often handled by "troika", "five", "seven", "special meetings", or even just one person. If you read the transcripts of the sessions of the Central Election Commission and the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, you can find out that it rarely passed laws. In most cases - resolutions, decisions, resolutions. And the laws were created by a narrow group of individuals. A typical example is the 2nd session of the CEC of the USSR of the 5th convocation (November 29-December 8, 1929). The agenda includes a report and 3 reports. Resolutions have been adopted for each of them. What about legislative work? The Chairman of the Central Election Commission of the USSR A. S. Yenukidze at the time of approval by the session of previously adopted laws explained: "Any of the laws already adopted earlier by the Council of People's Commissars and the Presidium of the Central Election Commission of the USSR has full force and effect throughout the territory of the USSR, but is subject to final approval by the session. The time period covered by these laws is one year. Just a year ago, the 4th session of the 4th convocation was held, and all laws that have been adopted since the 4th session so far are being submitted for your approval." The same motivation was repeated again at the 3rd session of the CEC of the USSR of the 5th convocation (January 4-12, 1931). In total, 97 laws and resolutions were proposed to be approved. Speaker on this issue Medvedev (initials are not specified in the transcript. - Author's note) explained: "The most important legislative acts submitted for approval to the session of the Central Executive Committee of the USSR cover the period from December 1929 to January 1931." The transcripts do not contain any questions, objections, clarifications, or amendments to previously adopted laws and resolutions. No discussion of the laws was found at all. The approval of the legislative acts adopted by the CEC Presidium two years ago and already in force during that time was purely formal in nature, contrary to article 22 of the Constitution of 1924, which stated:: "Draft laws submitted to the CEC of the U.S.S.R. receive the force of law only if they are adopted by both the Union Council and the Council of Nationalities and are published on behalf of the CEC of the U.S.S.R." In the transcripts of sessions of the Central Election Commission or congresses of Soviets of the USSR, not a single fact of protest against a clear violation of the Constitution is noted. The legislative process took place almost outside the framework of the country's highest legislative body.

This procedure for approving laws adopted by the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR was actually maintained until the end of the 80s. Until that time, legislative activity was actually carried out by the Presidium, which in different years numbered from 40 to 60 people and consisted mainly of the chairmen of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviets of the Union republics, several members of the CPSU Central Committee, as a rule, the first secretaries of regional (regional) party committees and the chairmen of regional (regional) executive committees of Soviets of People's Deputies, and representatives of the working class and the peasantry.

The Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R., which under the Constitution had legislative power, was in fact nothing more than an instrument for approving laws and resolutions adopted by its Presidium. It should be borne in mind that decisions of the Central Committee of the CPSU, the Council of Ministers, and often joint decisions of these two bodies were also binding.

Party and Soviet congresses became mostly meetings of leaders, with each body assigned its own role. The main thing was the party congress, which approved the main instructions for implementation by other bodies. Congresses of Soviets and sessions of the Central Election Commission were called upon to legislatively confirm the decisions taken.

In the field of state-building, the idea of statehood has been rehabilitated. The ideology of a strong state replaces traditional Marxist ideas about the imminent death of the state in the process of transition to socialism. At the XVIII Congress of the CPSU (b), it was declared that the state would be preserved not only under socialism, but also under communism.

The concentration of legislative power in the hands of a small group of people led to the separation of the leadership from the people, developed in people a sense of detachment from power, meekness, submission, and dependent moods. "We are small people, the government decides everything for us, as it decides , so it will be" - such conversations could be heard in labor collectives. These opinions make us recall the theoretical propositions of many philosophers of various countries and times. G. Hegel, I. Kant, T. Jefferson, W. Humboldt, I. Timofeev and others warned the governments that the people who were cut off from power turned into a dependent, a freeloader who only asks, but does not show initiative.

The Constitutions of 1936 and 1977 established the monopoly position of the Communist Party in the political system. During the perestroika period, this constitutional provision was fiercely criticized and repealed. However, I must say directly that this provision fully corresponded to world practice. In all countries of the world, political parties that have come to power occupy a leading position: they form state bodies, change the government, senior personnel, and significantly change attitudes to property. This, for example, is clearly evident in the policy of the British government. It is formed by the majority party of the Parliament. With the change of the "party leadership", the state's policy changes significantly. Labour parties, as a rule, push private property, increase the share of public property, Conservatives seek to" correct " Labor trends, denationalize nationalized industries and industries, and increase pressure on the social rights of workers. Significant changes in politics are everywhere the right and prerogative of the winning party. In the world, this is the norm of political theory and practice. So in the USSR, the problem was not the functions of the ruling party, but its monopolistic dominance in the political system of society, in the absence of real choice among the voters - the people.

In the course of socialist construction, the electoral legislation changed significantly. The Constitutions of 1918 and 1924 contained articles that deprived the strata of society defeated during the revolution of many civil, including electoral, rights. In 1926, the instruction on elections to Soviets was adopted, restricting the electoral rights of well-to-do peasants. The 1936 Constitution did not contain such a clause, since there were practically no pronounced anti-socialist strata left. Their resistance was broken, their strength dispersed. Although that didn't mean they were completely gone.

The legislation of the USSR put on a fundamentally different legal basis economic relations in industry, agriculture, and the exchange of goods between the city and the countryside. It introduced state planning, which made it possible, in the face of severe shortages, in an unprecedented short period of time, to bring an industrially medium - developed country to the number of advanced industrial countries in the world, to achieve tremendous success in the economy and in the spiritual sphere-literature and art, and to end illiteracy.

The greatest achievement of the Soviet system was the broad representation of workers of all ages and professions in government bodies. If in the first years of the USSR there were 12-15% of workers and peasants directly in the CEC, then in the 50s there were already up to 25% of them, and since the 60s the share of workers and collective farmers has steadily exceeded the fifty-percent limit. The composition of the deputy corps reflected the social and national structure of society, the educational level of the population, its distribution by branches of the national economy, professional, regional and demographic characteristics. In 1982, 44.3% of deputies were workers, 24.9% were peasants, and the rest were employees. In the same year, for the first time, more women than men were elected to local councils (50.1%), and the share of young people under the age of 30 rose to 33.9%. All public organizations, labor collectives, and individual citizens worked closely with the Soviets. In 1982, the Soviets alone had an asset of 30 million people. Before that, there had never been such mass authorities in history that enjoyed the trust of the people. An important feature of the deputy corps was that the people's deputies, as a rule, remained in the same labor collectives, in the same areas of work and in the same regions from which they were nominated to the authorities and management. This ensured reliable communication of the masses with all representatives. At the same time, this imposed additional responsibilities on the deputy, who had to become a good parliamentarian and at the same time set an example to others with his daily work activities, everyday behavior and moral character. Millions of Soviet citizens represented the interests of the people in government bodies. At the same time, it should be noted that the majority of deputies from workers and collective farmers behaved passively: they rarely spoke in debates, did not make proposals, did not show any initiatives. But their very presence at the meetings of the country's highest legislative body was a significant controlling factor.

In connection with perestroika, this factor was dropped. Already in the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, which was elected in 1988, there were fewer workers and collective farmers. And in the State Duma, which was elected in 1995, workers were only 10 people, there were no collective farmers. The so-called "theories of elites" and "professional politicians" have prevailed, according to which the people are a dark, ignorant mass, incapable of state administration. But even Aristotle and the Roman consuls considered that the state is durable, in which all segments of the population, including the poorest, are allowed to rule. The Roman senators Horace and Valerius passed a law according to which one of the consuls of Rome was necessarily the chosen one of the poor. History strongly suggests that the myth of the inability of ordinary people to perform great deeds does not correspond to reality. It is enough to recall such names as the famous theologian of the Middle Ages Augustine Aurelius (the son of a simple farmer). Napoleon Bonaparte (son of a laundress), a brilliant Russian scientist, poet, and artist M. V. Lomonosov (son of Pomor), T. Jefferson (son of a farmer), I. V. Stalin (son of a shoemaker), Marshal G. K. Zhukov (peasant son), and J. R. R. Tolkien. Ford (started out as a car washer) and many others. Here is an example of modern developed countries: in the English Parliament, in the House of Commons, in the Labour Party faction, workers make up 33% of its membership. And in the history of Russia? In the Second State Duma (1906) there were about 100 peasants who conducted political discussions on equal terms with eminent professors and tsarist dignitaries.

The concepts of "elites", "political professionals" and the like do not stand up to criticism. We must not forget that it is the people who are the main producers of material and spiritual goods. It generates, preserves and multiplies folk traditions, rites, rituals, spiritual and cultural values, including political ones. The form of popular vote - plebiscite-was born by the plebeians of ancient Rome and is one of the recognized forms of direct popular expression. Novgorod, Pskov, and Tver veche meetings, which in modern times have taken the form of village gatherings, "Cossack circles," and labor collectives, are forms of direct democracy born of the people, carried through the centuries by them, and recognized by many politicians around the world.

Despite the severe limitation of the legislative capacity of the Soviet Parliament and the concentration of legislative activity in the hands of several dozen people, the legislative bodies of the Country of Soviets managed to create legislation that gave the country's development an unprecedented acceleration. Even the grossest violations of the law, senseless repressions of the Stalinist regime could not kill the unprecedented enthusiasm that engulfed many people who realized that they were building a new society, paving the way for the future.

The process of creating the Soviet legislative framework cannot be painted only in rainbow tones. There are many aspects in it that have obscured the historically unique experience of creating legislation unprecedented in the history of mankind from the current generation. After all, no matter how paradoxical it sounds, Stalin's lawlessness and repression were carried out "according to the laws". Here are some of them. On the prohibition of unauthorized transfer from one job to another (1940). According to it, for a slight delay in work, criminal penalties were imposed. On measures to protect collective farm public lands from squandering (1939), which severely curtailed the personal plots of collective farmers. On the taxation of fruit-bearing trees (1939), which left the southern regions of the country without personal gardens. The Law on Treason to the Motherland (1934), which prosecuted not only convicted persons, but also their family members (including children) who were unaware of the activities of a close relative. Decree of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR of December 28, 1940 on the imprisonment in labor colonies for up to one year of students of craft, railway schools and schools of the FZO, guilty of unauthorized departure from the school (school), etc. The Stalinist system that prevailed in the USSR was based on repression, fear, and lawlessness. After the death of J. V. Stalin, the severity of the laws was significantly mitigated, although the "punitive" style of legislation remained.

N. S. Khrushchev's reformist activities in the 50s and 60s did little to change the structure of power, the procedures of lawmaking and punishment. On the one hand, victims of the repressions of the 1930s and 1940s were rehabilitated, and on the other hand, the camps were replenished with new political prisoners.

The diversity of public interests that developed in Soviet society in the 60s required a radical renewal of the political system, the recognition of the theory of separation of powers, the parliamentary nature of democracy, and the elimination of party autocracy. However, attempts to reform the political system were interpreted as an attempt on socialism. The dogmatic attitude about the identity of the political system with the social system prevailed. Therefore, during the years of Leonid Brezhnev, the Soviet political system practically did not change externally. Councils at all levels remained powerless. The Supreme Soviet of the USSR was essentially a body designed to" unanimously " approve decisions and draft laws prepared by the apparatus. Major decisions, such as the deployment of troops to Afghanistan in 1979, were taken without the Supreme Soviet's knowledge. The supreme legislative body practically did not control the government or the financial sector, as is customary in the parliamentary practice of many countries around the world. Since the mid-1970s, the sessions of representative bodies have become increasingly shorter. The Soviets had little impact on the real life of society. Numerous by-laws (instructions, orders, orders, etc.) were in force in the country, which regulated various spheres of society's life.

By the mid-1980s, the possibility of a gradual, painless transition to a new system of public relations was lost. The ineffectiveness of attempts at limited reform of the Soviet political system was obvious. The country has entered a period of deep crisis.

With the beginning of Perestroika, there was a return to the "early Soviet" forms of democracy - congresses of people's deputies, which elected members of the chambers of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR from among their membership. But this return to supposedly more democratic forms of parliamentarism was superficial, almost unmanageable, which led to a weakening of statehood, a loosening of ties between the union republics, the development of national and separatist movements, which eventually led to the destruction of the Soviet Union, the formation of an amorphous and dysfunctional Commonwealth of Independent States, and a sharp weakening of positions on the world stage. The Soviet Union, and then all the CIS countries.

A brief analysis of the activities of legislative bodies in the Soviet period allows us to draw a number of conclusions.

First, in the period 1917-1985, a completely different type of popular representation was put forward - Soviets, which completely rejected the principle of separation of powers. The Soviet period was associated with a complete rejection of the ideas of parliamentarism. Legislative and representative institutions (the All-Russian Central Executive Committee, the Supreme Soviet, and congresses of Soviets) only partially corresponded to the general model of parliament.

Secondly, according to its structure, the system of Soviets - a single one from the Supreme to the rural - can be classified as quasi-parliamentary, since the parliament acted as the upper link of the entire system of representative bodies. There was a noticeable influence of the Supreme Soviet on the activities of local legislative bodies.

Third, the legislative role of the Soviets was limited. The Supreme Soviets were not actually legislative institutions or parliaments. They, as a rule, retroactively approved legislative acts of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet. But if the legislative function was insignificant, the same cannot be said for the representative function. There was a reliable mechanism for direct and feedback communication between deputies and their constituents.

Fourth, elections to Councils at all levels on a non-alternative basis were a significant flaw in Soviet democracy. In the strict sense of the word, this phenomenon cannot be called an election. For there was no choice. You could only vote for the selected and recommended candidate. The voting mechanism almost always worked correctly: "for" from year to year - " 99.99%", at least - " 99.98%".

Formally, full-fledged and autocratic Soviets were in fact secondary elements of the Communist Party's power system. Therefore, in the conditions of monopoly leadership in the society of one party - the CPSU, the legislative bodies could not fully reach their potential and had little influence on the real life of society.

(The ending follows)

Permanent link to this publication: