In opposition to this I have heard views expressed which perhaps reflect those of the Government. One man said to me that it was now obvious that the Duma, instead of having a pacifying influence, was merely a cause of disorder; that when it was originally convened he had believed in its pacifying capacities; but now he was convinced of the contrary, and the sooner it was dissolved the better. It may be objected that, though it is after all true that the convening of the Duma did not pacify the country, it is necessary to reflect under what conditions it was convened: its hands were tied; the fundamental laws were altered for this purpose; the Government not only went on governing as before, but actually took active measures to discredit its new Parliament at home and abroad. When a Duma was asked for, the thing meant was Responsible Government. It is over this question of responsibility that the whole struggle is being carried on.
I have also heard the following argument, which is advanced by the newspaper Rossia, a semi-official organ, this morning: “What do we lose by deciding on repressive measures? Even if we fail by giving in now we should be failing; therefore we are exchanging certain failure for problematic failure; it is better to give in after a fight than to surrender without a struggle, and our chances, now that we are certain of at least one part of the Army, are better than they will be a year hence, when we shall be certain of nothing. We are told that we cannot dissolve the Duma without provoking a revolution, but, from our point of view, to give in to the Duma now is equivalent to sanctioning a revolution. Let us try and prove that we can dissolve the Duma, and that they are merely trying to bluff with their threats of revolution.” The logical result of this policy should be civil war.[[3]]
[3]. And it has proved to be civil war; but civil war waged in everyday life and unaccompanied by an armed rising.
All the revolutionary elements in the country would be strengthened by a dissolution, and one can safely predict that the general disorder would be increased. For even now the sporadic anarchy is increasing daily. Will the dissolution of the Duma relieve this tension? I think not. The question then suggests itself: Is there no hope of a peaceful issue?
A Ministry formed from the majority of the Duma is the only hope; but whether it would manage to calm matters is another question. It is true that there is a moderate element, especially among the peasants, who wish to meet the landlords halfway, who consider the demands of the Extreme Left, and especially their agrarian programme, to be absurd. These men would support a Ministry taken from the Duma, but they continually assert that the Government will not meet them half way, and that, on the other hand, they consider the schemes which the Government have put forward to be fundamentally insufficient. Whether a Ministry composed of members taken from the majority of the Duma would succeed in calming the country depends on the nature and intensity of the opposition they would have to encounter, which it is impossible to gauge at present. One thing is certain, that in the event of such a Ministry being given a free hand sympathy would cease to be extended to the throwers of bombs, whose task is now greatly facilitated by the simple fact that popular opinion is with them.
When people, on the other hand, say that the Cadets have no men with whom to form a Ministry—and, to be fair, I have only heard this argument advanced either in England or by some Russian officials here—I have heard it contradicted by intelligent Russian officials—they are talking egregious nonsense. People like Professor Miliukov, MM. Nabokor, Kokoskin, Muromtzeff, and Petradjinski have shown themselves not only to be men with brains but to possess political capacity and tactical ability of no mean order. Even if they were twenty times less capable than they are they would be more capable of governing the country than the present Ministry. But unfortunately it does not seem probable that they will ever win the confidence of the Crown, since most of them in the past have suffered for their political principles, and some of them have been in prison. Therefore, whereas if they had been born in France or England they would by now be occupying exalted positions, they are now looked upon from above as men of the same category as Anarchists and throwers of vitriol. If Mr. Balfour had been born in Russia he would certainly have been requested to confine his energies to golf and metaphysics, but if Mr. Haldane had been born here he would have probably been sent to think about the path to reality in the paths of Transbaikalia. Therefore at the root of the whole matter there is a great misunderstanding between the Crown and the Duma. It is based on the supposition that the Duma is not representative, and that the revolution is an artificial thing.
July 20th.
To-day there are ominous rumours of dissolution in the air. Nazarenko is not going to London. He said he thought Professor Kovolievski was not going, so he had withdrawn his candidature. Now it turned out that Professor Kovolievski was going he was sorry. He said he respected Maxime Maximovitch Kovolievski to such an extent that if he were to tell him to hang himself on a tree he would do so.
July 21st.
Every one is talking of the rumours of dissolution.