POWER IN THE PROVINCES: THE EVOLUTION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT PRACTICES IN IMPERIAL RUSSIA, 1825-1917 A Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences of Georgetown University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in History By John M. Corcoran, M.A. Washington, DC May 2, 2012 Copyright 2012 by John M. Corcoran All Rights Reserved ii POWER IN THE PROVINCES: THE EVOLUTION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT PRACTICES IN IMPERIAL RUSSIA, 1825-1917 John M. Corcoran, M.A. Thesis Advisor: Catherine Evtuhov, Ph.D.. ABSTRACT This dissertation is a study of the political of local self-government in Imperial Russia over the course of the period 1825-1917. In particular, I concentrate on the zemstvos, elected bodies established in 1864 at the provincial and district levels to oversee a wide range of public works and social services. The zemstvo reform and other legislation on local self-government established general areas of operation, but left substantial leeway for the individual organizations to set policy priorities. I designed my project as a case study of two provinces: Moscow was urban and relatively wealthy, whereas Penza was poorer and more agrarian. My research focused on three particular areas: the role of leadership, taxation and spending priorities, and the negotiation of jurisdictional prerogatives between different institutions. I make several arguments about the evolution of local government practices and ideals in these particular provinces. First, the structure of elections and the general traditions of deference meant that leaders in the zemstvo and other local organizations could work with relatively limited oversight on the part of voters, assembly delegates, or provincial governors. As a result, leaders were able to rapidly expand their operations into particular areas of their choosing, resulting in significant variations between regions in the evolution of financial priorities. iii However, this independence also meant that leaders’ priorities generally did not remain in place after their departure from office. We see little in the way of institutionalization or rationalization of particular local norms, and these organizations could vary widely in their policy priorities from one year to the next. Also, this particular arrangement of politics and policy encouraged the development of an idealized conception of local self-government. Leaders were insulated from many of the ordinary pressures of day-to-day politics, and conducted their activities in the belief that all were working towards a single goal—the “local mission.” This left them particularly unsuited to resolve the conflicts that inevitably arose when their policies pitted the financial interests of one region against those of another. iv I would like to express my sincere gratitude to all those who helped make this dissertation possible. You are too many to count, but please know you have my thanks. One person, however, deserves special mention. My wife, Hadley, has been this project’s biggest supporter from the very start to the long-anticipated finished. From the first, it was inconceivable that it would be dedicated to anyone but her. v Table of Contents Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1 Part I: Leadership and its Limits .................................................................................................. 32 Chapter 1: The Right Men for the Job? Zemstvo Elections and Leadership Tenure ........ 35 Chapter 2: The Exercise of Local Leadership ................................................................... 65 Chapter 3: Peering Over Their Shoulder? Provincial Governors and Local Oversight ... 89 Part II: Programs and Priorities................................................................................................... 123 Chapter 4: Local Self-Government and Revenue Collection ......................................... 130 Chapter 5: Local Government Spending Distribution .................................................... 165 Part III: Relationships ................................................................................................................. 210 Chapter 6: The “Fourteenth District”? Zemstvos, City Dumas, and the Common Mission ......................................................................................................................................... 213 Chapter 7: Like a Brother or Like a Banker?: Contesting the Relationship between Guberniia and Uezd Zemstvos in Moscow Province, 1899-1900 .................................. 255 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................. 292 Bibliography ............................................................................................................................... 305 vi Introduction Aside from the end of serfdom itself, perhaps no program from among Alexander’s Great Reforms aroused as much discussion and debate as did the reforms of local self-government. The zemstvo legislation of 1864 and the municipal reform of 1870 raised important questions about the Russian state’s responsibility for its subjects, the relationship between central and local authority, and the utility of popular participation in self-government and self-administration. These issues, of course, did not solely arise with the consideration of the proposals themselves, nor were they settled by their passage into law. This discussion continued throughout the zemstvo era, as commentators and practitioners contested the practical relevance and symbolic significance of the new organizations. In fact, the various pieces of authorizing legislation related to local issues established a general framework for action (setting election procedures, lines of authority, areas of oversight, and tax prerogatives), but left many of the particular questions to be resolved by the new bodies themselves. The eventual outcomes were largely dependent on the political culture that developed in each locality—in other words, the implicit assumptions and norms held by the voters, delegates, and administrators of the various organizations. To understand how the zemstvos worked on the ground level, an understanding of this political culture is vital. In my analysis of political culture, I use the definition elucidated by Sidney Verba in his conclusion to Political Culture and Political Development. He defines political culture as “the system of empirical beliefs, expressive symbols, and values which defines the situation in which 1 political action takes place.” Studies of political culture have examined the intersection 1 Sidney Verba, “Conclusion: Comparative Political Culture” in Verba and Pye (eds.), Political Culture and Political Development (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1965), 513. The articles in this volume demonstrate a teleological mindset about political culture, closely tied up with the idea of “political development” of various polities. In his introduction to the volume, Lucian Pye outlines six different modes of analysis of political 1 between political institutions and implicit values and norms within the political community, and have argued that political outcomes can only be explained through an understanding of both these factors. They attempt to assess values and beliefs related to such topics as deference, public trust, and optimism, and then explain how these values have evolved in a tandem negotiation with the existing political structures. Because the formal legislative authority was so vague, the informal norms thus took on paramount importance. Thus, political culture seems to be an ideal mode of analysis for this period in Russian history. Given the particularities of local self-government, I have chosen to focus on three particular areas of investigation for political culture. First, I consider the implicit assumptions surrounding the selection and exercise of leadership, considering questions of deference to authority, levels of trust in leadership, and the desire for comity in political negotiations. Second, I examine the financial records of the various institutions. Because the guidelines for taxation and spending were quite loose, spending levels were largely determined by the implicit assumptions about the appropriate level of governmental activism in social life. Third, I view the debates related to the competing claims of district, provincial, and municipal organs. These claims rested on implicit assumptions about the appropriate size and delimitation of the political community, and with that the appropriate sphere for social care and economic redistribution. This approach will add to our understanding of late Imperial Russia in several ways that add to the existing historiography. First, it will allow us to assess the degree to which we may speak of a national political culture related to local self-government. Many studies of local self- development, identifying the key common elements as “a change from widespread subject status to an increasing number of contributing citizens, with an accompanying spread of mass participation, a greater sensitivity to the principles of equality, and a wider acceptance of universalistic laws.” (Ibid, 12-13). I am skeptical of an overly teleological approach to our study of local self-government in Russia; that notwithstanding, however, one does not need