“ZEMSKY SOBOR OF ALL THE RUSSIAN LAND” IN 1917. REFLECTIONS ON THE LATEST STUDY OF THE HISTORY OF THE 1917 STATE CONFERENCE BY A.B. NIKOLAEV

Abstract

The review examins the monograph by A.B. Nikolaev “State Conference of 1917: Summoning, Composition, Activities”, published in 2022. The preparation and holding of the large-scale all-Russian event in the revolutionary year of 1917 are analyzed in the context of studying parliamentarism in Russia. The Moscow State Conference of 1917 arose from an urgent necessity for the coalition Provisional Government to strengthen its prestige and A.F. Kerensky’s personal power, as well as probably to receive a “tribune”, which could be used to give prompt explanations on all issues that would arise in the event of its transformation from an advisory institution as an ersatz parliament into a body with constituent functions. In addition, the Provisional Government was looking for opportunities on a state level to reconcile revolutionary socialist democracy and bourgeois liberalism movements, which had already completely split by that time. Moscow State Conference of 1917 assumed crucial significance due to the desire to find a way out of the existing revolutionary impasse and to serve as a support for the weak and dependent dual state power. Having ensured this support, it would become a united, strong power, capable of saving the country from internal collapse. In an effort to prevail over the impending political and social anarchy, the Conference became a tense, dramatic episode of the Revolution of 1917. The observers and participants of the State Conference obviously regarded it as the “Zemsky Sobor of all the Russian Land” which met in the former capital of Russia to solve the pressing problems and give state power the physical and spiritual strength it needed. The results of the State Conference proved to be contradictory for all political forces. The Provisional Government was able to obtain majority support at the meeting, but the nature of this support indicated the extremely precarious position of the coalition. As a result of the research, the author of the reviewed monograph comes to the conclusion that the State Conference, while maintaining the coalition, did not strengthen it. Representatives of revolutionary democracy were forced to make concessions to the bourgeoisie, which subsequently led to the loss of revolutionary democracy’s authority among workers and soldiers.