the late 1890's a number of forces rapidly came together and coalesced
under the banners of 'liberation' and 'zemstvo constitutionalism' into a f
nationwide political movement that found expression in the formation of I
the Constitutional rJemocraJic (Cadet) party in 1905.'
The interesting question for those brought up in the liberal democratic tradition of the West is: Why was constitutional liberalism so late in coming to Russia? Basically, of course, the reason lies in the different pattern followed in Russian social and economic development. Russia remained I until the very end of the nineteenth century a relatively backward society still dominated by religious habit and a traditional agricultural economy. J The intelligentsia had fused elements of religious utopianism and of aristocratic snobbery into an attitude of contempt for such partial measures as constitutional reform and representative government. The very term 'liberal-1 ism' was in disrepute throughout the nineteenth century; and the genuinely I liberal movement of the late century carefully avoided using the label 'liberal' in its official titles.
The Russian bourgeoisie had not developed the same interest in political and civil liberties as the bourgeoisie of Western Europe. As late as 1895, the liberal Herald of Europe explained the absence of bourgeois liberalism in Russia by the lack of 'a bourgeoisie in the West European sense of the word.' Much of the native Russian business class was more interested f in commerce than manufacture, and thus was attached to an essentially conservative, agrarian way of life. Russian entrepreneurs seemed generally
more anxious to gain government support for their developmental projects than to limit governmental interference. The involvement of Jews, Germans, 1 and Armenians in Russian trade and the growing influx of foreign capital made laissez-faire liberalism seem synonymous with turning Russia over to foreign masters. Finally-and in many ways most important-there was an' enduring contempt for the bourgeoisie within the intellectual community. Rooted in the traditional distaste of the intelligentsia for meshchanstvo and nourished by aristocratic aestheticism, this prejudice against the bourgeois form of life was confirmed in the late nineteenth century by a tendency to equate the bleak world of Ibsen's plays with bourgeois society as a whole.22
Despite these practical and psychological difficulties, liberalism (both political and economic) had attracted articulate and at times influential spokesmen inside Russia throughout the nineteenth century. Liberalism in the sense of a constitutional rule of law rather than of men dates back to the time of Catherine. The Decembrists had sought constitutional rule, as had many influential advisers to both Alexander I and Alexander II. The idea of a national assembly on the model of the old zemsky sobors had found many advocates, including Herzen and numerous Slavophiles. Liberalism in ' the Manchesterian sense of freeing the economy from government interference and restraint had also found advocates-particularly in the Free! Economic Society which had been founded by Catherine the Great. Adam Smith was known and studied earlier in Russia than in many other countries; a period of almost complete economic laissez faire was enjoyed during the finance ministry of Count Reutern in the early 1860's; and Manchesterian liberalism gained the support of an influential journal, The Herald of Europe, and an articulate pressure group, The Society for the Promotion of Trade with the Fatherland.
A coherent RussianJiberid tradition began not with aristocratic plans for constitutional rule under Alexander II or arguments advanced for laissez {aire under Alexander II, but with the social and economic changes ! of the 1890's: the beginning of the Trans-Siberian railway in 1891; the i famine and accelerated flight to the cities of 1891 -2; the expansion of mining and industry in the Donets Basin; the growth of the Baku oil complex into the largest in the world; and the tremendous general expansion of transportation and communication facilities under the ministry of Count Witte from 1892 to 1903.23
The logic of modernization created the need for uniform laws, of j greater rights for suppressed minorities and nationalities-particularly those with badly needed technical and administrative skills, such as Finns, Baltic Germans, and Jews. Efficiency in economic development required that large I
numbers of people be consulted before embarking on any course of action; and some form of consultative if not legislative body seemed clearly desirable.
Arguments for rational laws and increased popular participation in government were advanced mainly by twjo__rery^different groups in late-nineteenth-century Russia. The first group were those connected with the r ?oymda] zemsfvos, the qrgans_of local administtafon^that'Alexander!II had created in 1864' without ever clearly defining their purpose and authority. Through their involvement in such problems as the supervision of local road- building and conservation projects, the zgmstvos^ almost immediately became involved in broad matters of public policy. Already in the sixties, the aristocratic leaders of several of the zemstvos in relatively Westernized regions like Tver and Chernigov sought to convert the zemstvos into organs of self-government as a kind of federative counter to the authoritarianism and bureaucratic^slotii ofjhe^central government. The Jjsar placed new restrictions and checks on the zemstvos during the generafreac- I tion of the late sixties, but called them back to life in the seventies to help in the mobilization of local resources and opinion first against the Turks and then against terrorism and revolution.
The zemstvos aided the central government in both enterprises but ' sought to exact a price for their aid in the form of a constitution that would protect them from 'terrorism from above' as well as 'terrorism from; below.' Many joined the informal organization of zemstvo constitutionalists organized by Ivan Petrunkevich in 1878-9 and seconded his call for a constitutional assembly. When the new Tsar once more restricted zemstvo activities during the reaction of the early eighties, zemstvo liberals acquired a voice abroad in the journal Free Word, published by the 'Society of Zemstvo Union and Self-Government.' Although this society proved shortlived and nationwide political agitation by the zemstvos was drastically curtailed after the assassination of Alexander II, the zemstvos continued to! grow in importance because of the great increase in their non-aristocraticj) professional staffs (the so-called third element, after the government-appointed and locally elected elements). There were nearly 70,000 zemstvo employees by the late nineties. The zemstvo ceased being an exclusively aristocratic preserve, and the two key organizations of constitutional liberalism at the turn of the century each included professional along with aristocratic 'elements': the Moscow discussion group, 'the Symposium,' and the emigre journal Liberation.
The new generation of educated professional men in the cities provided the real cement for the emerging liberal movement. The growth of professional competence in an increasingly educated and diversified society created
a growing fund of exasperation with what seemed to them an outmoded and irrational legal system. Prophet of this new no-nonsense professionalism / was Vladimir Bezobrazov, an imaginative followerjof gaint-^?? who organized a series-of 'economic dinners' to discuss various hypothetical patterns of future development for Russia. Following his French teacher, he urged the replacement of the old aristocracy of privilege by a new aristocracy of talent. He believed that the hope for Russia lay in the development of a practical, professional attitude toward the solution of its economic problems and attached particular importance to his own Saint-Simonian plan for a network of canals inside Russia. As early as 1867 he argued that the zemstvos were the natural organ for developing in Russia this thirst for 'practical results' {prakticheskie rezul'taty), and that the growing professionalism of the zemstvos must be protected both from the traditionalism of the local aristocracy and the 'bureaucratism' of the central government.2,1
Increased confidence in the 'practical results' being achieved by the [ various professions in Russia led to an
