C"rlAPTER -
I
ORIGINS. SALIENT FEATURES AND CONCEPTUAL
BASIS OF THE SOVIET FEDERATION
~ALlENT FEI'1TuR.€5 >
ORIGINSsAND CONCEPTUAL BASIS OF THE SOVIET FEDERATION
In political theory, t:he t.ra
been widely dlecuaaed,
~rona
'l'he terwa
1
1
federation• has
Federation• la deriYed
the Latin word •FoeCJua• (covenant, contract, treaty)
and deecribea a voluntary association of .avereiCJD atatea
for
80IBe
coaaon purpose with liaitec! delegation
to a central authority.
o~
power
Essentially, t:he . . in cbaracter-
iatica of a federel. atate an a
(1)
the aupremaey of the conat.itution defining rulea
of the
~ederative
relatioaahip. aDd prov.id!Dq legal
guarantees for all partie. illvol ved'
( 2)
the clear demarcation of powers between tbe
~ederal
goverDment and the member states
guaranteeing a certain degree
o~
ac:wereignty
for tbe constituent. atates (principle of
DOD-
centralisation) 1
(3)
bargaininq and arbitration mechanisms for
resolvi119 constitutional conflicta1 and
( 4)
a bieamerel parliamentary ayatem ensuring direct
representation of the conati tuent state• at the
('
0
11lougb there ia aoma conaellB\la on ita broad
featuJ:es aJDOD9 Soviet and westerD BCholara such u
c!iviaion of power between t:he centre and the UDita, a
written constitution and a supreme court to act as
ouantian, yet, at the same time, the clasa aima behind
the concept of federaliaa as perceived in the west and
in the Soviet Union are widely divergent.
The Soviet
concept of federalism is carved out from the ideoloQical
baaia of right of nationa to self-determination which
provide
for wery national! ty to deter111ine ita State
Political form and unite with other nationa.
Federalism
in the Westem democracy is baaed on largely administrative considerationr which ia not the case with the
SOViet Union wbere national territorial principle and
functional interdependence has been the strategic factor
in working out the foxm of atate conatlN.ction.
1.
ICl.aua Von Beyme, •Federaliam" in C.D. Kernig "Marxism.
CormtUnialll and western Bocieey• -A ~rative Encycl~edfa (New York, 1972), pp. 3101=1
R.7BOWle & C.J • Friedrich, Stuc!ies in Federaliam
(Boaton, 1954), C.J. Friedrich, 'lrenda of Fiderallam
in Theory
&
Preet1ee (New York, 1968}.
'!'he cluaical vritera oD federelima particularly
Dicey, BEYCe, Robert Garren and
K.c.
Wheare were
primarily Meking to evolve suitable defin1tioDa
'federalism'.
ot
In the worda of Dicey, •A federal atat:e
ia a political contrivance intended to reconcile national
2
unity and pow.r with the •tnteoance of state riQhta•.
Prof. Dicey goea on to explain that from the division
of power-a under a
I
~n
eonati tution between the federal
and the constituent atatea there flov
the three leading
charect.eri.Uea of federaliama
( 2)
the distribution among bodies w1 th lbdted and
co-ordinate autbority of the different powen
ot
(3)
govermJ~ent:.
the authority of the
of
the conatitntion.
courts
to
act aa 1ntexpret.ars
3
2.
A.V. Dicey, Introduction t:o t:he Stu~ of t:he Law of
the Conatit:utlOn, (LoDdon, 1959) to
!dn., p. 143.
3.
Ibid., p. 144.
At: the end of tbe 19tb century, Lord Bryce#
iD hia book
1
American Coanonweal th' deacrlbe<l the Federal
and State_ Gcwel."DDD&nt:a u
t:beir action•~
•aistinct aDd aeparate in
The ~ he ~ vaa •111te a great:
faet:ory vberelll tw. M'ta of machJ.Dery are
a~
work,
their revolving wheels appanntly inter111xed. their
banda eroaaing one another, yet each set doing 1 ta own
4
without touehiDO or hampering the other".
Robert
Garren an eminent Auatralian scholar, defined federali81ft
aaz
"A form of Government in which eovereignty or
political power is divided between the central
and local GovertU~enta, so that each of th•
within ita own sphere ia independent of the
otner•.s
A similar view wae reinfoxced
K.c. Wheare.
by
In order
to useaa whether a eoMtltuUon !a federal or not.
Wbeare applied the teat. u
followaa
•The teat which I ~ply for Federal GoverDment
ia then aiq:>ly thi8• Does a system of Government
embody predomnan:r a 41viaion of power between
general and reqlo
aut:borl:tie..-; each of vbich
...
5.
Quoted by Morton Grodsina, •The Federal Syatem•, in
Aaron Wlldavsky (ed.), American J'ederallam in Perspective, (Boston, 1967}, p. 261.
;y;•l
Col'llldaeion oa
, p. 23o.
·
Robert Garran, B r t of the
Australian Coll8_Yo!; ( 192
in 1 u cnm sphere, ia coo¢ !nata vi th the
other and lDC!epeDdent of tblm ? I f ao, the
govermaent ia federal•. 6
'rhia leqel.-:l.DatituUonal
~proach
baa beeJl
criticiaec! •• aufferin9 from 'the •forwaalistic fallacy•.
N .G eS • 1CiDi
•
baa at:ated 1
• .Pormaliatic fallacy oonaiata 1D the belief 1:hat
political behaviour aDd factual operationa of
groupa am levela vithi.D a policy can be adequately Ulkleratood and explained in terma of
formal provialoDa of law and conat:.itutiona
(Political and legal ~) of a political
organi-.tion. 'fhe conventJ.oDal IDOdel did not
go beyond a bare legal description of the
formal properties of a federetion.•7 Riker
ia also critical of •the excesaive legalism
of conventional definitions• while not throwing
away the juristic element entirely. He
rejeeta the traditional definitions which
eq>haaized not only independence of constituent
and central governaenta but more or leas precise
diviaton of functiona.a
Thia cla8aical theory
of federal!- 18 alao rejeet.d by M.J
and D.J. Elanr.9
.c.
VUe
6. K.c. Wbeare, Federal Gcrl'ermDent, (OXford, 1963),
l'ourth Edn., P• 33.
7. N.o.s. ltin1, •J'ederaliama A. Theoretical critique of
the eoaventional. Model•, (Paper eontributeCI to the
aeminar on Union-State Relations 1D India, SiJala. 1968),
cited in K. VeDkatrangaiya, SOme 'rMGries of l'ederal1811l
(LOJcmanya Tilak Memorial LeCtili'ea, tiiilvers!tY of Poena.
1971). P• 6.
8. WUliam H. Riker, •Federalism• 1n !'red I, Qreenatein and
NeliiOD w. Polaley, Handbook ot :Politic:al·Seience, vol.5,
(Pbil1p1De, Addt.on
weaiey PUb.
co.),
p.
1o3.
9. M.J .c. VUe, !'be StrucW. of Alaerican Pe<!era11~
(OXfor:d, 1961}, Cbapter; aDa b:T. 11azar, Th8
rieall
Pannerahit, (Chiceoo, 1962), Chapter I.
VUe az"9U8d that the interdependence, constitutional
a~
political, of the two levels was u
important
as their independeoc:e, and that more important than
the cooxdiData atat:ua of the two levels waa the require-
ment that neither level aboul.d be 8Ubordinated to the
'
10
other - a rather different eaphasis.
Daniel J. Blasar
baa written that the traditional c:oDCeption of federal lam
as 89'01ving a aba.rp dellarcaidon of respona1b111 tiea
bebfeen two
indepe~ent
seta of aovereigntiea has DeYer
worked in practice in the United States.
According to
him. •at any given u .. in Ataerican political history
the ;reat majority of gOVernment activities vas shared
by all levela of
governmen~
and that cooperative
federalis. vaa the rule in the nineteenth century as
11
well •• in the twentieth".
The claaaical approach ia too much juristic: to
take
into account the convention and u.aqea of extra-
.conati t:ution.al
goverrment&l
char~ter
p~aa
10.
Vile, PP• 198-9.
11.
El.uar,
pp·•
which shape and influence the
in a federal ayatem.
336-7.
An adequate
underataming of the legal atrueture calla for the
exploration of varioua social force• which produce
federaliam.
Aa Willi..
s.
Livingatone observes the
eaaence of federal!• lie DOt 1n the inatitutioDal
or aonati tutional structure but 1D the society 1 tself.
Pederal government is a device by which the federal
qualitiea of the aociety are articulated aDd p.r:otec:t.:t.
Savin Approach
aow.
w
12
Pederaliau
let ua take a aearching look at the SOViet
perception of federal!••
'!be Soviet political dict:J.onuy
defines federaliaa aaa
11
A Union of atatea, formi nq a new union state with
Entering into a federation
the union atatea retain their legal and administrative organa, the activities of which are
ltmited to apeeif1e groups of question. Side
by aide with the orqana of power of the different
atatea belonging to the federation, there are
eatabliahed union (federal) legal, adBdnistrative
and jud ieial orqana, the acta of wh i ch are operative tbxougbout t:he entire tarri tory of the
federal atatea". 13
a ainQie citizenship.
12.
w.s.
Livinc.;Jatone, 11 A note on the nature of .Federaliam.. ,
in Political Science Quarterly, (New York, 1952), vol.
67, PP• 81-951
w.s. Livingstone, .rederali• and Constitutional Change,
(Oxford• 1956), P• 9.
13.
Polit1abea1cy Slovar, 2Dd Edition (Moscow, 1958),
P• 5o7.
1·1
'l'hia appear. to be a Jd.nd of a formaliatic
perception of federal!-.
JUdged by the formal definition
given in the Soviet political dictionary, the concept
of federaliam in both the Soviet onion and Weat appears
to be soMWbat identical but in reality there exist
•harp difference• ewer the nature of these feature•
ard their interre.lationahip amonq Western and Soviet
acholara.
ia nore
'1'o
western scholar• the institutional
import:&~
upect
Whereu to the Soviet acientiat
i
the claaa nature of fec!erali&nn is more important.
well kDOWD Soviet
~iat
The
A.Y. V}'ah!Daky in bia book
•The Law of the Soviet state• baa aptly differentiated
the western and Soviet concept of federal!•··
He wrote s
•Ita diati.l'lg\liahing feature 1• the elasticity of its
fonn. aa applied a
(a)
to
concrete problema of the socialist state in
raiainq the economic-cul. tural level of each
per80n, and
(b)
the conditions of class struggle to eecb
historical phase.
The form of federation banda
14
ex.iStiDCJ in bourgeois federation are alien to 1 t•.
14. A.Y. Vyahinaky,
p;e L&v of the Soviet States
1948), pp. 230-3 •
(New York,
!0 determine the nature of federation from
what:ever
poi~
Soeialiat or W.starn, it ia worthwhile
to qo through ita backgrcND(J.
Generally, two type a of
forces brinq about a federation Da118l y, centrifugal
and centripetal.
In the firat caM, unitary state ia
broken up into a number of units for lk>me IM!minia'trative
purpoaea.
In the Meond ea. ., the hitherto iDdepeoeent
and sovere19fl atatea whieh unite to protect their
national, ecoDODlic and otber intereat by dele9ating acme
'
of ita powers to a Central Govermaent.
Since the foreea
woning behind the formation of a federation have
deciaive bpact on the
~t:ure
of federation. 11: ia more
appropriate to know the theoretical and practical roota
from which sprang the Soviet Union i.e., a federal,
JIIUl tinational
state~
A brief survey of the development
of the concept of federaliam in the writings of Marx.
Engel• and Lenin bringa out the genesis and growth
of Soviet thillking on state structure
in ita proper
perspective.
Marx and Engel a on State Structure
Ma:z:x and Engels closely atudied the unitary
and federal forma of stau structure and described their
positive features and inadequacies UDder different
lb
conditio~.
historical
Discuaaing the question
of forms and orqaniaation of a democratic
ata.te~
MaJ:x and Engels favoured the centralized uniury
fonl of state, because during their life time Europe
had aeen the coq>letion of
d18Uility to
bour~ia
centr~tli•
states.
~e
transition from feudal
i.e.• , creation of centralised
For that period it was a progressive
phenomena since the centrali..tion of bour98Qi• state
objectively helped to develop aociety1 a productive
forces.
'l'hey preferred the centralised unitary atat:.
against politically disunited states vhich did not
aeeonl wi 1:h the intereata of the proletariat and 1ta
taa'k to urd te their atrugvle for socialism.
A uni tuy
centralised bourQeoia atate helped in the then existing
condi tiona, tbe econoadc:
ana
poll tical cohesion of
the working clua and the growth of ita class consciouanesa~
Marx aDd Engel a observed in the
'~esto
of the Coft'llllJliat Party' that •the bourgeoisie keeps,
more ancl
more~·
doing away with the aeatt.ered state of
the population of the mean• of production
It has agglosneratec.t population• c:ent:relised
end property.
meaM
of
production. and baa concentrated property in a f..,
hands.
The necesaary conaequenee of this was political
centralisation.
Independent or but loosely
connec~
province a with separate interests, laws, governmenta
1 'i
and 8Yatela of taxation becllh lUDped together inU»
one nation, vi t:b ooe gcnrertUDent. one code of laws, one
national class interesta, one frontier and one cuatoau
15
tarr1ff•.
Engel a orchestrated the aame idea in • The
civil war in SWit:serland•.
He
wro~,
•'ftlrough ita
induatry, c:oaneree and political institution., the
bourQeeiaie ia
al~y
working everywhere to drag
the aal.l, Mlf contained localities which only live
for
thems~ vea
out of their iaolation, to bring
the~~
into contact. with oDe u:aotber, to merge their intereat.a,
to expand their local horizons, to destroy their local
babita, atrivings and ways of thinking, and to build
up a great nation with common interesta, cuatoms aDd
ideas cnat of many hitherto mutually independent loeali-
1des ed
provincea~
The bourgeoisie is already carrying
out considerable centraliaation.
'l'he proletariat.
far from aufferinq any diaiK!vantage from this, will
aa a reaul t rather be in a poaition to unite, to feel
itself a class to acquire a political point of yiev
1 s. K. Marx and P. Engels, • Manifesto of the Co1811Wliat
Party' Bourgeois and Proletarians in Karl MarX and
P. Bngela, selected Worka, vol. I (Moscow, 1950),
p. 37.
within the democracy and finally to conquer the
bourgeoiate•. 16
He considered the centralised UD.ity of Genany
aa a progreaaive phenomena which could help to sweep
away •a11 the biatorlcally inherited
~1
state jUDk",
which waa blocld.nq the free development of trade Uld
1Dduatry. 17
However. Marx aDd Engels lent their support
to federal state atzucture in sueb countries where 1 t
could historically became the traDaitioDal. pol1t.le8l
form. from .:atteredDeaa to unity of state power,
urdt1D9 the small .Utes into one centraliaed atate •
.,or example, Engel• supported the atruwl• of progresaive
foreea of SWi t.zerland against the Sonderbu.nc! for the
creation of a federation aa a centralised, at.ron9 state.
Hia support to the SWiaa federation vaa aimed at
liquidatino the
f.~al
disunity throuqh the
c~ation
of
16. J'. Engel a, • Civil War in Swi tzerla~•, in Marx aDd
Engels. Collected Worka, vol. 6 (Moscow, 1984), p.372.
17. F. Engela, The Role of Force in History, in JC. Marx
and ' · EJl98la Selected WorJta, vol. 3 (Moscow, 1970),
P• 380.
a centralised federal state.
This idee ia JDOre
clearly reflected in hi a work, "1'be movement of 1847•.
He stated tbat •for the firat time in ita history thia
country baa played a definite part. in the ltw:opeaD
ayatem of Statea, for tba first time it baa dared to
aet 4ac1a1vely and baa bad the courage to enter into
the areDa u
a federal republic instead of •• bere"t»fore
an agglomeration 22 antagoDistic cautona, utter strangers
to one another..... it baa aaaured the aupremacy
of
tbe
central power - in a word, haa become eentraliseCl.
1'he de facto central.iaation vlll have to be legalised
18
through the blpending xeform of the Federal Pact•.
At the aame time, be expressed his atrong oppoaition
to the German federation.
He remarked that
in Germany
"federalisation on the SWisa .:>del would be an eDOrmoua
atep l:Jlckvard•.
In Germany, •The Union state is the
transition to the ca.pletely unified atate, and the
• revolution fraa above• of 1866 aDd 1870 must not be
reveraed but aupplemented by a "IW.:Wement from below•.
19
18. F. Engels. •The Movement of 1847", in K. Marx and ••
Engels, ~llected Korlca, vol. 6 (Moscow, 1976), P• 524.
19. Zngel.a cited 1n LelllD. state and Revolutioa. (Moacov,
n.d. ).
P• 122.
2U
Thua, Engels tried to analyse the transitional form.
vi th the utmoat thoroughness, bearino in mind the
concrete, historical, apeeific features of each separate
state, "from what and
irrb)
what the given transitional
form ia paaa1nga. 20
Appro.:hing tbe aatter from the poiDt of view
of the proletariat aDd the pxoletarian revolution
Enge.la, like Mux. upheld democratic central1.nt. the
I
republic - one aDd 1Dd1viaible.
He regarded the
federal republic either as an exception aDd a hiDd.ranee
to development#' or aa a tral'18itioDal
~orta
monarc}lr tx> a centraliaed republic, u
uDder eertaiD !P!£1al conditiona.
from a
a "atep foxward"
(EIIphaais added)
ADd uaonq these, national question comes to the front.
Marx and Engela fornalated for the first time the
important pxopoai tion that there exists a relationahip
between the federal form of the organisation of the
state and the aolution of the national question.
'Ibis
theaia vea further developed by Lenin. Marx and Engels
arrived at the concluaion that international alliance
20.
Ibid., p. 123.
21.
Ibid.
21
THESIS
321.0230947
82275 Ce
,..__
)l
lllllllllllllllllllllllll
TH3742
between the Enqliab and the Iriah proletarian could
lead to the victory of the working clasa WJder the
apecific c:ooditiona preYalling 1D Britain at that time.
They auggeated t:hat the internatioMl alliance
o~
the workiog claaa aDd their OWD 80Cial . . .ocipatioD
was ilrpoaaible wit:bout aboliabing the wall of eDDI!ty
and iMlation between natiou vbich bad been created
"Ally nation ~at oppreaaed another
by bourgeoisie':
forgea ita own cha!na••
22
In a letter to Engel•- dated November 2, 1867,
F-
Marx stated, "I waed to think the separation of Irelam
from England impossible.
I now think it inevitable,
23
although after the Mparation, there may come federation•.
Again Marx explained that he had been convinced
that the English working class could •never do anything
decisive here in England untU
it separates it. policy
with req&rd to Ireland in the moat definite way from
the policy of the ruling claaaea, until it not only
~~
V 5'"71 .l,._rtJlit--t-l\7
)
)
Nl
22.
K. Marx and P. Enqela, Selected Workf:z vol. II,
{Moscow, 1969), p. 1767 cited lD R.zD.lbuedov,
How· tbe Na'tional Qv.astion vaa .alved ia Soviet
§ntril·A!!~ btoecov, 1973), P• 47.
x. Marx and P. Engela
··Cornponc!enee (Londo~ 19.3) , P• 228.
Marx aDd BogeJ.a, Hew~ 2, 1867 in
selec~
..
) _)
,._,_
JDilltea coBDOn cause with the Iriah, but actually takea
the initiative
in dis80lving the union eatabliahod
24
in 1801 aDd replacing it by a free federal relationabip•.
In a letter entitled • The General Council to
the l'ederal CouncU of Rosaania, SWitzerland•, Marx
wrote 'that • I~ ia a prel.iJiimry condition of the
emancipation of the English working elasa to transform
the preaent forced union into an equal anCI free confederation if possible, or into complete .•paration if
neceaaary". 25
Quoting Marx on the question of Ireland Lenin,
in his work •The Riqht of Nations to Self-determioation",
wrote z "Tbougb iD principle an enemy of federalism_ Marx
26
in this instance granted the posaibil i ty of federal iam•.
EnQe].a alao went on to eq>haaize the same position
•federation would be a atep forward in England where the
'
.. .' , ...
.
24. K. Ma%x aDd P. Engels, •Marx t:o :teugelmann•, Correspoadence 1846-95 (Londana 1934), p. 278.
2 5. The General CouDell of thlt Pir,t IntoraatloDill
Rlnutia IB68-7o (MOscow, 1974~ p. 3i5o.
26. V.I. Lenin, "The Ri9ht of Nationa to self-determ.i.nation
in Collect.d Worlca, vol. 20, (Moscow, 1969), p. 441.
two ialanda are peopled by four nationa ••• •.
27
OUOti119
Bngela, LeDin lrtresMd that the recognition of federation
by hila wu a •plaiD fact that the national queation
wu
DOt yet a thing of the
part.
aDd recognised in
c::onaequeace that the eS'tabliabment of a federal republic
38
woul4 be a step forward• •
I
federal republic and abandoning the most determined
propaganda and atruW}e for a unified and centralised
democratic republic•. 29
Marx and Engels hel4 the view that bourgeois
federations were nothing but forcible union of states.
They found it a harmful form of state construction for
~
proletarian state.
Marx in his work, Civil war in
Prance, analyaing the experience of Paria Comname of
1871, bailed ita centraliazD and remarked that being 1D
essence the state of proletarian diatatorahip, Paria
27 ~ Lenin; fta'te and
RevoluUo~
no. 19, P• 122.
28. V.I. Lenin. •state and Revolution•, Collected ·Works,
vol. 25, (Moseow, 1969), PP• 446-7.
29. Lenin. State aid Revolution, no. 19, P• 124.
commune set itaelf the goal of creatinq a centralised
unitary atat:e ancl not of aubati tuting 1 t vi th federal
union of small proYinoia.l coaa1nea.
He reMrked that •the coltiii.1D8.1 constJ.tution
has been Mistaken for an attempt to break up into a
federaUon of -.11 atatea, u
dreamt up by Monteaquieu
aDd tbe Girond:lu, that UDity of great Dationa, which.
i f originally brought about by political force.- hU nov
become a ;powerful co-efficient of .ocial production•. 30
In 1901, Bdval:d BernateiD asserted that Marx' a
vieva on federation were identical with those of
Proudhon.
Bernstein tried to represent Marx' • crlticinl
of the military, ooreaucratic, bourgeois state machine
as a departure from the principle of centralism in
general, aa giving preference to the federal organisation
of the proletarian atate.
31
In fact Marx in hia work eapecially on the
commune, clearly opposed the •conscious, democratic,
30.
K. Mane, •civil War in France•, in P. Engels and
ffleeted ·WOfkS, (MoSCOVi 1950) i vol. X.
P• 59·e
31.
Vietor Shtwat.ov,
(Moscow, 1982), P•
K. ~·
!bj
state and Natiooa in 'the :usSR,
o.
•J r
(_.)
proletarian centralism to bourgeois, military bureaucratic centralt~
32
In the same context, Lenin wxot.e in hia
work •The State and Revolution•, "There is not a trace
of feder&I.i. . in MaJ:x' • above quoted obaervationa
on the experience of the
CORIDWle.
Marx agreed vi th
Proudbon on the very point that opportunist BernateiJl
failed to see'.
Mar.x diaagxeed both wit:b Proudhon
on the very point on which Bernatein found a aimUari ty
i'Urther, "Marx diaagtaed both with Proudhon
and with Bakunin pxecisely on the question of federalism
(not
to mention the dictatorship of the proletariat).
Federalism as a principle follows logically from the
petty bourgeois view of anarchism.
Marx waa a centralist.
There ia no departure whatever frolll centralism in his
observation just quoted.
Only those who are imbued vi th
the PhUiatine "Superatit:uoua belief• in the state can
mistake the deatruction ot the bourgeoia atate IDilchine
for the destruction of centraliam•. 33
32• Lenin. Sl:!te and Revolutioa, no. 19, p. 92.
33. Ibid., pp. 90-91.
In retroapection, it ia important to
coDClude that Marx and Engels favoured federalism
ei~er
atata
aa an exception, or aa a transitional form of
conBtruction from feudal 8Catteredness to
centralised atron9 union atabe UDder certain apecific
historical conditiona, and amo09 web special conditions
the national question waa al.o included.
the national question u
of the triuq>h
They approached
part of the general queation
of the proletarian dictatcrahip.
Marx
and Engela collBidered federal form of state construction
justified in eases where it helped the free development
.of nations and iq:>rcwed the condition of the oppreaaed
nationa 1n a system of nW. tinational
~ia
atate'.
Leain• s ·View on Fec!eralialll
Lenin' a view on federaliSJR were formed
durinq the conditions of aharp atruqgle with views
opposed to Marxism on the national question and on the
state legal form of ita aolution ana their role in the
atruqgle for socialiam and socialist revolution.
is well known that in the •epoch of
imperialia~•
It
and
"Proletarian revolution" the national question became
ineeparable from the question of aocialist revolution
and the dictatorship of the proletariat.
l'.Ami.n care-
fully studied t1w ideaa of Marx and Enqela on the aai4
')
'
r_ :
question and et.resHCI that this ataa! abould become
a IDOdel for proletarian policy fully retaining ita
enorum1a practical importance. 34
Hence analyainq
the different forma of political construction of
socialist Russia, Lenin started from the need for a
democratic .alution of the national queation as a
eoBpOnent of the general question of Socialist
revolution.
Developing thia idea further Lenin advanced
the idea of right of nat!Ona tc aelf-dete.rmination.
including secession and formation of an 1Ddepenclent
state •
Since then. this progr&ftlnl!ltie point on the
national question baa been repeatedly included in all
the iJDportant docrument.a of the party
CODgreSMS~
Lenin
nevertheless did not at any time totally an4 uncoDditionally rejected federatton; 35 He took account of
(a) the stage of 80Cial dnelopment the nation aeeit1nq
political Hparation baa reached, arrl (b) which of ita
34. V.I. Lenin, •The Right of Nations to Self-determination", in ~llected Works, (Moscow, 1969), vol. 20,
p. 442.
35. I. Zenushkina, SOviet Nationalitiezs Policy end Bourgeo-
is
Historians, (Moscow,
1975}.
However, 1n principle LeDin opposed a feeteral
atate system.
He oppoaed the 1d.. of eatabllahinq
a federation in Ruasia but wpported the establiahment.
of the feCJeral S.lltan republic in 1912-19l4. 37
In 1903, he foreeav a ai tuation in which
federation would be a atep forward and wrote,
muat alway•
and
-we
unrese.J:Yedl y work for the very cloaest
unity of the proletariat of all nationalitiea, and
it ia only in isolated and except.looal c:aaea that wa
can advance and actively support demand• conducive
to the establishment of new elaaa state or to the
aubatituUon of a looser federal unity etc·. for the
COIIIPlet.e unity of a state• • 38
LeDin' a later work writ-teD .iB 1916 •!be
di8C'Wiaion of Self-detend.u.tion 8Qim'ed up• paid
special attention to the eritJ.ci• of the •errors• of
Rosa Luxemburq on the national question.
Roaa had
36.
M.s. sanaanval, Political Leadership in Soviet Central
A8ia, (New Delhi, 1998).
37.
v .I. Lenin, Collected Workt (Moscow, 1963), vol. l8,
PP• 349•50, 353,J 54, 368-6 •
38.
v.I. Lenin, •The National Question iD our Pro~·.
in gglltcttc3 Wor1c•· (Moscow, 1964), vol.6, P• '54.
.
oppoaed the
ri~
I)
(J
(..,,
to Mlf-detendnation.
'1'be Poliah
Social Delnoerau vent a atep further, they did not
reco911iH the right of natiou to self-det:andnation
even in the aoeialist condition.
IAtniD al.o
f~
the •oreat Centralised. State• which vaa •t.renandoua
historical step forward from
..cl ieval diauni ty to the
further 80Cialiat unity of the whole world•.
ADd be
further DO'ted 'that "yia auc:h a state (inseparably
connected witll eapital18JI) c:an there be any road to
aoaialt••.39 Thia maana that. firatly, Marxista
alw.ya IM!mit aituationa iD which it is poaaible and
necessary to support federal!-.
secondly, 1t is the
preaenc:e or abseDCe of a natiOraalities probl• vbich
playa an illportaDt role 1D deteraining the -.at
progressive state atruc:ture•~' 0
so tar ae .Ruaaia vae concerned Lenin and the
Bolsbevika considered non-federal centralised state
.,at expec!ient.
Appx:oaching the problema f.rom the
atandpoint of concrete historical conditiona then
39. V.I. Lenin, •critical Remarks on National Question•,
in Collected NOrka, (Moacow, 1964), vol. 20, p. 46.
prevailing in the Ruasian eq)irei LeDiD cu. out:
declaively against tbe aubatit:utiOD of the
al~y
._rqing .Russian centralised unitary state by a
federation.
1'he first: opinion
a~1Mt
the federal
fona of atata construction in Russia waa reflected
in his wor1c1 On the Manifesto of the Armenian Social
DetnOCratie (P\s))liahed in 1903).
Here Lenin noted that
federalisa ia a two fold agreement:.
Hence vi thout
the existence of political autonomy federaliam would
in fact be a fiction.
He further wrote that •The
league abould deleta the de•rd for a federative
npab.lie from ita prograaae, confiDing itself to the
41
demand for a 4enoorauc: republic in general• •
1'he
objection to conatitut:ioDal federal! . . waa most
distinctly expresaed in his work
•• the ·R&Uoil&l'•O\aea~·.
•Qri~ical
·Remark
He wrote& •MarxJ.at are
of cource opposed to federation and decentralisation,
for the aimple
~aaon
that capitalism requires for ita
development the largest and moat centralised possible
atatea•. 42
How firaly he held thia principle ia evident:
from his letter to ShaUDryan in 1913.
41.
v.r.
Leni~ •on Manifesto of Armenian Social Democrats•
in Collected Works, (Moscow, 1964}, vol. 6, p. 328.
42. Lenin. no. 33 , p. 45.
•w.
are opposed to federation in priDciple.·
1 t looaena econolllic 'tie•, aDd is UD8Uitable
for a aingle atate. You want to secede ?
All righ~ go to the devil, if you can break
economic bondal or rather, if the oppreaaion
and friction of •eo-existence• diat.rupt and
ruin ecooom:lc bond •. You do not want to
secede 1 In that ease, excuse • • but do
not decide for me. do ftOt think that you have
a •rtgbt to federation•. 43
·
It should be noted that in the resolution on
the National Question adopt.S by the April Conference
of the Party in 1917, the question of federal structure
waa not even mentioned and t:he re80lution spoke
of
the nation• a ri9ht to aeceaaion. of autoDOmy for
national regions within the framework of the inteqral
(unitary) state. aDd lastly of tbe eD&ctment of a
fUDdament&l. law
prohibi~g
all national privileges
whatsoever, but not a voxd was Aid about the perm144
aa1b111ty of a federal atructw:e of the statea.
Thua, Lenin and Engela supported the atrong centreliaed#
unitary democratic atate and .expresnd oppoaition on
priDCiple to federal form of state conatruct.ion and
regarded federalism only as a traDaitional form
43. V.I. Lenin, •A Letter to S.G. Shahumyan•, in Collected
Works, (Moaeov, 1968), vol. 19, p. 500.
44. J.v. Stalin, "Against Peoeraliam•, Works,
(Moscow, 1953), vol. 3, p. 31.
a) '
I
c...> r:.._,
It ia thus wideztt t:haB that LeD1Il did not
put forth the task of foxmai:ion of a federation
the Party until
the Octcber ·Revolution.
befo~
Nei tber the
Firat Party progra.nne nor the Poron1D Reaolution OD the
nation queation contained the demand for the eatabliahment
of a ·feder!lim.
our
pro~•,
In bis work, •National Question in
Lenin opposed the demanr! of aocial
I
revolutionariea for cre•tion of federation in Russia.
LeDin also rejeet.d fttderalism in Party
constructio~
•• suggested by the BuDd and other partiea.
He gave
tbe importaDee to deDX!ratic organisation of a unitary
atate and advanced the plan for •Bational Territorial
Auto~·
of thoM nations v'hich by their own free wlll
cbooae 1:0 remain :lD the system of a unitary democratic
republic.
He f.voured wide autonomy inaide the state
and wrote.
•we
are in favour of autonomy for all parUI
we are iD ·favour of the right to Meesaion ( and not in
favour of everyoDe1 • aeceding) ·•
Autoaomy ia our plan
for organiaiDCJ a democratic: atate•~ 45
45. V.I. Leni~ Collected
p. SOl.
Wo~a,
(Moscow, 1963), vol. 19,
RecQq!1 tion of Federation
by
Lenin u
a for. of
Soc1eliat Conatructioaa
There is no unanimf.:ty of vieva amc>%19 Soviet
scholars regarding the question u
recogniaecl federation u
of atate
o.v.
CODatructiOD
to vbeD Lenin
a historical necessity fom
iD Rla.saia.
A.&. KaikhaDic!i,
Alikaandreko .xi A. SpaiiCW aasert
unconvincingly
that Lenin alway• preferred tile atate federation ••
I
one of 'the JDaana of a deai:)Cratic aolution to the
nationality problem. 46
Aceo.r:ding to other viewa, Lenin began to
accept: the •PerJnisaibility of federsliam only in
· August 1917 • and merely as a tranait:.ional form.
recent literature on Soviet federalism.
s.s.
In
Batyrov
appeared as the mst out.apoken defender of thia
interpretation. 47 Lepeshkin agrees that LeniD was
erti>hatically againat a federal fo.an of state aystezn
for Rusaia upto April 1917 bat claims
that. while
Lenin in principle alwaya fll'9'0\lrfd a unitary state. •
46. Quoted critically by Tadevoay~ v.I. Lenin (0
Gondaratvennoi J'ederataii) Vopros11 Ist.orii XPSS
1961,
47.
s.a.
no. 2, 49.
Batyrov, Formirovanie i Raavit:.ie Botsialiatichealdlth Jlat:a11Y SSR (Moscow, 1962), pp. 29-30.
even before April 1917, he waa not against federation
in all circuawtam:ea.
After the February Revolution
Lenin concluded that Sovift Russia
~ed
federal
form of
ata~
ayatem and thia was adopted in January
48
1918.
s .s.
Galalio. Yakubakaya and aweral others
hold different oplDion that Lenin recognised federation
as a desirable form of state
,1.,
~
e Oc:tJober Revolution.
co~ll
Thia, they
oDly after
a~triwte
to the
adoption by Third All Russian Congress of SOviet. 1l'
Jazmary 1918 of the declaration o£ Ri;bta of Working
and Exploited
people~ 49
Ill Lepeahk1n1 a view, the a!Ja of determining
the time of the reccl9111tion of federation by Lenin.
two aapec:ta deserve to be differentiated.
(e) 1'he poaaiblli ty of allowing a federation
aa one of the possible forma of political
construction of multinational aoeialiat
Russia.
4S.•The Future of Soviet Federal.t.am•. Cerrtr&l Aaian
Review, (Lofldon. 1961), vol. XI. no. '• p. 333.
4 9. A. I. Lepeahktn. Sovetakii Pedera11811l (Moscow, 1977) •
P• 52.
') [
t.)d
(b) Recoqni tion of federation by Lenin
•• a
hi.torically necessary form of state conetruetion conducive to free urdon of different.
national atatea in a democratic single eocialiat
all tinational state.
It ia noteworthy that: the idea of posaibllity
of allOWing etate UD!on of national republica of
Russia iDto a federal atate vaa already fonulated
by LeDiD 1a the priocl between the two Russian
Revolutions of 191?.
And eo far as the question of the recognition
of federation aa a foJ:'lll of etate construction ia
concerned. Lenin arrived at this conclusion only in
the p.roeesa of accompliahJno the October Socialist
RettOlution and particularly during the first montha
followinq i't.;
Lenin raised the question of admissibi-
lities of federation in hia art:iele • Tae'k of Proletariat
in our Revolution•, written a few days after the
publication of April Thesi•, Lenin pointed
ou~
•Aa
reQU'd the national question, the proletariat party
firat of all,
AIUSt
advocate the proclamation and
iliiiD8diate real.intion of complete freedom of aeeeaaion
from Jtuaeia for all the nation and people wbo were
oppresM4 b:r Tsarl_.. or who were forcibly joiDed
to#· or
kept forci:bl.y vi thin the bouftdariea of the
atate, i.e. annexed"•
50
A little later, Lenin explained that be haa
given a •new formulation of the right of self-deter-
mination which has otven rise to mmeroua lftiainter-
I propose the perfectly precise concept
"the right to the free secession•. 51 'fhia idea waa
pretation.
further developed by Lenin in hia article ":Finland and
Ruaaia• (May, 1917) where he developed the idee of
Yoluntary Uldon of "'l'be Rua81an Proletarian ant!
Peannt Repu.bl.ic alld the Republica of all other
Nations• •
52
He
stated that "wi tbout recognising the
ri9ht of aeeeasion. all phrase
JDOngering about an
ia self-deception and deception of the
so. v .I.
Lenin, "The Taak of the Proletariat in our
Revolution•, 1D tollec:t:ed Works, (Moscow, 1964),
vol. 24, p. 73.
51.
v.I.
Lenin, "Revision of the Party Programme", in
¢0llected WOrks, (Moscow, 1964), vol. 26, P• 175.
52. V.I. Lenin, "Finland & Russia", in Collected Worka,
(Moscow, 1964), vol. 24, p. 338.
53. Ibid., p. 336.
Ill his article •Ma.Ddat4t aDd Deputies of the
SOViets elected at hctories and Regimenta• (Kay.' 1917),
Lenin
VXO"=-
tha~
•'!be Great Rwlaiaa.a offer a frat:.ernal
'at\ioD to all nationa and propose tbe formation
~
a
eoanon state by voluntary consent •••• and all other
nations without except:ion fnely to decide whether they
vlah to live aa a . .parate a'tat:e, or in union vi tb
vboaaOev'er they pleaee•. 54 !'he appeal of Lenin contained
in his apeec:b at Firat All R.uaaia Congress of Soviets of
I
Worker' a and Soldier• a Deputies in
JUDe 1917 -
"Let
Russia be a union of free republica• confirmed Lenin' a
poaition on federation u
the ponible
fo.r~a
of state
unity for future socialist Rusaia. 55
ID all the atat.nenta of Lenin then waa a
reference to the possibility of federation aa a fora of
state unity.
It ia iq:lortant to note that Lenin here
for the first tiJne used the term 'UD1on' State i.e.,
federation (tbougb be did not uH this tenl exactly) '•
.. .
"
...
54. v .I. Lenin. "Mandate to Deputies of the Soviet Elected
at Pactoriea an! Reqiments•,
C::Ollected Worlts,
(Moscow, 1974), .ol. 24, p. 355.
ss.
V.I. Lenin, "Pirat All Russia Conqresa of Soviets of
Wor'kera' and Soldiers• Deputies, June 3-24 (June 16July 7), 1917,
Colleeteel Works, (Moscow, 1964),
vol. 25, p. 37.
')
(
t)O
fro~~
PxoceediDg
the new h1awr1cal conditioM .-r¢119
ia Ruaaia 1D 1917, Party recouid..S ita position
Yi--Yia federa'tioa and recognised fecleratioa aa a
possible fom of atate \UUty for • Socialist Ruasia' •
Later
Lenh~
iD bia bOOk; 1'M State aDd ReVOlution
(Au9ast 1917) outliae4 a aew
a~b
to federatioa•
In Jarmuy 1918. the reeogBiUoa of federal
tom of atate conatruct:ion of the Soviet Republic vaa
I
legally aecuncS in the Declaration of Righta of the
WoaJ.nq aDC! Explolted
Re~tc•,
~plea.
•'!'he Rusaian Soviet
it declared, •ia eatablished on the principle
of a free union of free nations, as a feceration of
Soviet National Republica•.
did not
The
declaratio~
however,
outline the nature of f-'eral relationa,
•leaving it to the wrkers and peasants of each Dation
to decide iDdepeDdelltly at their authoritative congress
ot Sovieta i f tbey wiah to participate 1D tbe federal
oovema.nt and 1Jl the other federal Soviet inatitutiona,
aM
On
wtult
terma•. 56
!'bus;
1~
vu DOt 8\Jddal.y that Lenin and Bolshevik
56. DeveDdra Keuahik, C.ntral Aaia in Modern Tlmea,
(Moacow, 1970), pp. 132-3.
'
Party recognised the need of a federal atructure but
it vaa a gredual d.valopmant of the situation which
made them coDClude that oDl.y a federal form of atate
could un1 te the entire maasea of varioua natioD&l.itiea.
some light
baa beea thrown by the foregoinq
c11acuasion bow the conception of a federation originated
in the Soviet UDioa';
Row the key question ia, 1lby did
LeDiD give up Marxiat coDCept of centralised atate in
favour of f'ec!eration ?
And here a bulo conflict of
opiDion can be di.cerned.
Some Soviet autbora li'ke M.I. !CU11chen1to and
semenov think that basically there was oot change of
views by Lenin on federalism.
But the fact remains
that Lenin had opposed the federal construction of
Rusaia
u~
the October Revolution.
Tadevosyan and
others 57 who diMgree with Kulichenko and Semencw
do not base their explanation wby Lenin wanted a
federative state primar1ly on notions of self-determi-
nation
and
democracy.
A uwaber of more concrete
arguments are advanced by them.
57. A.I. Lepeahld.n. Kur8 ·Sovetalcoi GoS\Idaratveno Prno
(COUrae of Soviet State Liw) (Moscow, 1§61), vol. I,
P• 292.
(a)
Lenin
re~rded
a federal state as a long term
corrmitment to rally the diat.ruatful non-Russian
. . . . . . to the Bolshevik aide.
(b)
Lenin believed that the revolutionary tranaformation of cU.fferent nationa at different atagea
of development iD&Vi tably required a diverai ty
of at&te fora.
(c)
Lenin
NV
i·••
federal atat.e.
the adoption aDd JD&intenanee of a
federal syatent •• one of the means of contairdng
and reaolving the 'then exiatinq and future
political
oonflic~
between the Central
and the national elit•••
le~erahip
58
For the firat t i - , these conditiona were
outlined by J
.v. Stalin in December 1924 in the note
to hia article •Against Pederaliam• published in Pravda
on Mareh 28, 1917.
In Stalin's view this evolution on
the quenion of federaliSJD took place because at t:he
tiJBii of October Revolutionz
(a)
a DUl'llber of nationalitiea of Russia were
58. E.V. Tadevoayan, "V.I. Lenin 0 Goaudarstvennikb Pormukb SocialiaticbeakoQO Razreabeniya Nataionalnogo
Voproae•, (V.I. Lenin, on State forma of Socialist
Solutiowa of National Queationa). Voproa11 PUosoi,
1964, no. 44, pp. 3-35.
11
actually in a state of e011plete isolation from
one another, and in view of thia, federetion
represented a atep forward from the division of
the
wor~ing
masses of these nationalities
to
their closer union, their ualgamation.
(b)
The fact that the yery
forma of
~ederal
Ul'lion
augveated themnlve• in the course of SOViet
development proved 'by
DO
•au
to the aill of clo. .r ecoDOIRle
80
contradictory
unity betweeD
the working - • • • on the nationalitiea of
Ruaaia u
might have a~ fon.rly, and
evan c1icl not contradict thia aiJil at all. u
was aubatarrt1ally Clesnonstrated in practice•
(e)
The national IIOVement prove to be far more
weighty a faetcr, and the process of amalgamation
of nations far .,re complicated a aaatter than
might have appeared formerly, in the period
prior to the war, or in the period to the
October Revolut1on. 59
59.
Stalin, no. 44, pp. 32-3.
M'.I• KulicbeDko mantioiUI following reuoll8
which cauaed Lenin to reviM hia vievs on the
federation.
(1)
The country was on the eve of a socialist
revolution_ Which ahould have seized the
whole country - the centre and the periphery.
1'he national liberation DDVement had reached
( 2)
a high level of Mturity which had placed the
I
creation of ita own independent national
statehood by every nation on the agenda of
60
the day.
Semaoov explains thia change in terma of
inequality of treatment, oppression. economic and
cul tura1 backwaraneas of the non-Russian national! tieae
61
Apart froaa the above factors there were other
factors which provided the basis for re-examination of
ita •tand towards federation by the Party.
TheM
60. KUlichenko, M.I.~ Nataionalnye Othoaheniya v SSR 1
Tendentaiikh Razvitiye, (MOscow, ]g721, p. 173.
-
61. semenov cited in Grey Hodnett_ ''The Debate OVer Soviet
Pederal.iam;' Soviet Studies, (Galagow , 1967), vol. 18,
no. 4, pp. 471-2.
factora have been suanariaed by Lepeahkin as follows.
(1)
62
RecoQDition by Lenin that Soviet Republic wu
dif~erent
from all form.s of bourgeoia atate
not only in its essence but also in the principle
of its organisation.
The federation based on
Sovieta waa in no way contradicto.xy to the
creation of centralised strong democratic state.
The Soviet which erose before the OCtober
Socialist Revolution and became after ita
victory a political basis of the state cultivated
the idea of uniting people by making provisions
for their national sovereignty.
This realisation
by Lenin and the Bolshevik Party made them
re-examine their attitude towards federation.
which vas deemed as a more progressive state
form for enauriDg v.nity for the Soviet mult.i:cational state.
( 2)
The other cause for thia chanoe was that the
relative strength
~
the national movement in
Russia turned out to be more serioua than it
t52.
Lepeshlcin, n. 49, pp. 63-8.
appeared before the OCtober Socialist Revolution.
More tbllD 100 nations with different atage•
of 80CiO•econoll\ic development burst into a big
upaurqe with the February bourgeois danoc:ratic
revolution which was strenqt.bened by the colonial
policy of pxcwiaiooal gcwermnent.
in the aphere of national question.
Particularly
ID the
period of the bourgeois democratic revolution
three baaic tendencies could be noticed in the
national areas of the eountry.
(a)
urge for formation of unitary national repub[ics.
(b)
National federated union.
(c)
Revolutionary democratic movement for the
creation of a aingle strong socialist moltiDational state.
In such a hiatorical aettinq the federal form
of state constl:'uction was potentially more relevant
from the standpoint of unity emong nations and the cauae
of for1nat1on of a single union
state~
The federation
UDder such conditiona prcvided the state with legal
inst.nunent to forve a structure bend on unity and
solidarity iD a syatem of aingle federal aocial.!et state.
Sunadng up the result of state construction during
the firat moDth of the existence of
RSFS~
Lenin wrote
that on the baaia of ita example it shows ua particularly
clearly that
federetio~
which we
will inUoduce ia nov the
lasting UDioJ'l
au~st
are introducing' and
step towarda the most
tbe various natianal.itiea of Ruaaia
63
i:atc a aingle deaaocratic centralised Soviet •uta•.
( 3)
f)f
one of the basic cause a for recogniUon of
federation appeared in
DO
way ccntradiet:o:ry
to the task of forq!nq economic cooperation
of tbe tolling masaea of the various nationalities of Russia;
The 1Oth Congress of the
RCP(B) noted in its resolution
that the Russian
experience in applyinq the federal form of the
state • ..... has fully confi.rnled the suitability
and flexibdlity of federation as a general form
of state union of Soviet Republica".
64
63.
V.I. Lenin, ·~ Immediate ~asks of the Soviet Govern·
ment• • £ollecbd Wotk•• (Moacov, 1964) , vol. 27,
P• 207 •
64.
KPSS V Resolutaia>ch i·Resheniak!l, 1'. 2, P• 251.
{ 4)
Another Hrioua cau.. for change of atand on
f~eretion
vas the faet that 1t guaranteed the
external security of t:he Soviet Republic, IX't
only in polU:ical and eeoDOIIdc spheres but also
in the 11111tary aphere.
In the period before
the October Rwolution the Bolahevi k Party we a
of the
for
v~ew
that federation would be leaa fwouable
illlple~neDtiDq ~
political tallk of the
dictatorship of the proletariat.
But during the
first few .,ntha of the exiatel'lCe of the Scwiet
state. it vas deiiiDDS1:rated that Without atrong
.Uitary c:ooperat:ion among the Soviet Republica.
the oiYil war could DOt be won aDd ~ bxtepe~ence
of every republic:# i f •attacked by tbe !!priali!!
powezt•
c:oul.d not be deferxled.
.Federal form
for the multinational Soviet state under certain
historical conditioD.S was confiJ:"'Ded by the Party
proqranne adopted in March 1919 and in the "'l'heaia
on the National Question", ratified by the Second
Collint•rn
Congre~•
in 1920.
But the federation
which wea to be organised on the Soviet
~rn
wea conceived aa a tranaitional form towards
•complete and full unity".
1'hua it took quite
a long time to create the para.Jnetera of a new
type of federation wbich hac! an
unbu.U t .-chani. .
to respond to the question of ita applicability
DOt oDly u
a tranaitloDAl but •• a durable form.
In the given eircun.taneea, it waa a looieal result
of the tremeDdoua am:>um of political work that wea
undertaken to unite varioua nation. in a aingle
atate on the principle of •tnternationalia.•.
The
coneeptioD of the principle waa almost flawlesa.
However, the historical evolution of ita functional
parametera
l~t
~tara
will be examined in
talCh to be Cleaired.
'!'he functional
cha~
that follow.
© Copyright 2024 ExpyDoc
