Tactics in the Duma¶
Core Argument¶
The Bolshevik approach to the Duma was not a simple boycott or a routine participation in bourgeois parliamentarism, but a calculated revolutionary tactic: to transform the tsarist pseudo-parliament into a tribune for exposing the autocracy, the landlords, and the capitalists. The chapter details how the Bolsheviks navigated the Byzantine procedural restrictions designed to silence them. An interpolation required 33 signatures, yet the Social Democratic fraction numbered only 14; even combining with the ten Trudoviks fell short. To introduce these formal denunciations, the Bolsheviks had to ‘borrow’ signatures from the Cadets or Progressives—an episodic, necessary agreement with other parties that did not compromise revolutionary principle. The content of the interpolations was itself a form of exposure: the deputies would denounce some police outrage or act of oppression, ending with the formulaic question, “Is the minister aware of this and what steps does he propose to take?” They knew the ministers were complicit and would do nothing; the sole purpose was to carry the party’s message beyond the censorship barriers to millions of workers.
The chapter argues against a sectarian rigidity that would simply vote against every liberal proposal on principle. Flexible tactics were required: voting only for those parts of a bill that meant genuine improvements for workers, abstaining on measures of doubtful value, and otherwise voting against. The preponderant Bolshevik influence among the masses is demonstrated by the changing composition of the workers’ electoral colleges: in the Second Duma, 12 Mensheviks and 11 Bolsheviks; in the Third, an equal number; in the Fourth, all six deputies were Bolsheviks. By the Fourth Duma, the Bolsheviks had the support of at least three-quarters of the revolutionary workers.
The key to revolutionary utilisation of parliament was the organic link between the Duma fraction and the movement outside. Deputy Badayev describes a voluminous correspondence with workers from all over Russia, daily consultations at his home, and constant travel to factories. The Duma work was inseparable from the strike wave that greeted the opening of the Fourth Duma—demonstrators with red flags and revolutionary songs clashing with police in the streets of Petersburg. The authorities responded with procedural obstruction: the chairman would interrupt speeches, ministers would bury interpolations in bureaucratic red tape until the subject lost its urgency. The chapter concludes that these time-honoured methods of bourgeois parliamentarism have not changed much up to the present day, even in the most ‘democratic’ parliaments.