Central government
ZHAND P. SHAKIBI
Introduction
A study of the central government of the Russian Empire sheds light on three important issues in the imperial era. How well did the institutions handle the challenge of modernisation from above? How did the autocracy's and bureaucracy's view of their respective roles in society change over time? What were the major challenges related to effective governance from the centre and how did the monarchy and bureaucracy handle them? By extension a solid understanding of the workings of central government helps to determine the extent to which it and its personnel held responsibility for the collapse of the Romanov regime.
Peter the Great's reform of the central government marked the beginning of the imperial bureaucracy's evolution on two different but equally important and mutually linked levels. The ministerial bureaucracy from the early nineteenth century staffed the so-called subordinate organs (podchinen- nye organy), which at least theoretically handled activities in a designated field, such as finance or foreign affairs. The supreme organs (verkhovnye organy) had the responsibility to manage and co-ordinate the activities of the subordinate organs. The effectiveness of government depended on cadres at least as much as institutions. Indeed, Konstantin Pobedonostsev, well-known conservative and tutor to the last two emperors, Alexander III and Nicholas II, frequently stressed, 'Institutions are of no importance. Everything depends on individuals.'[1] Whilst his categorical rejection of the role of institutions is highly debatable, we do need to take into account the dynamic between institutions and human agents, the most important of whom was the emperor, in order to obtain a more coherent understanding of how the central organs actually functioned.[2]
Subordinate organs (podchinennye organy)
For most of his reign Peter the Great (1689-1725), occupied with transforming Russia into a great European power, relied primarily on the form of central government he had inherited. His predecessors, the first Romanovs, governed through some forty chancelleries (prikazy) which constituted the heart of the central governing organs. Noble servitors, often of boyar level, headed the prikazy: underthem served non-noble cadres. Responsibilities and jurisdictions of the prikazy greatly overlapped and frequently contradicted each other, making difficult even relatively efficient government, including the extraction from society of resources needed to support Peter's military campaigns.
Peter, who had acquainted himself with the bureaucratic machines of some of the great powers of Europe, understood that this unwieldy structure could not help him realise his goal of making Russia a major European power. Like many of his fellow monarchs, Peter believed that more effective governing institutions provided the best mechanism for solving economic and societal ills. As a result, in the last seven years of his reign (1718-25) Peter set his sights on introducing radical change in Russia's central governing organs, a process which marked the end of the country's patrimonial state.
His plan on the one hand of founding a system of subordinate organs operating on rational concepts of administration similar to those of Western and Central Europe, and on the other hand of maintenance of the autocracy's establishment of the norms and rules for the bureaucracy remained a goal of Russia's monarchs until the end of the dynasty. However, as time would show, the concentration of absolute power in the hands of the emperor made realisation of this goal difficult. Peter's immediate concern was improvement of the government's taxing mechanism, establishment of budgetary controls and supervision over expenditures. Along with this came greater centralisation of power and increased governmental penetration into society.
The heart of the system of subordinate organs was the colleges. Initially there were Foreign Affairs, War, Navy (which also looked after gun manufacture and the forests), Mining (which was also charged with the minting of money), Manufacture, Revenue, Control, State Expenditure, Commerce and Justice.3 Each college was headed by a president chosen by Peter from his closest associates under whom in turn served a small group often to eleven trained officials who collectively took decisions within the college's purview.4 A poor level of co-ordination between the individual college's various departments characterised the new system. However, the colleges were an improvement on the previous prikaz system. One of the major reasons for the emergence of the Russian Empire as a great power in the eighteenth century was this new administrative structure which proved effective in tax collection and military recruitment.5 At the same time the Ottoman Empire's failure to copy such reforms played a large role in its decline.6 But a great degree of overlapping remained. Frequently one area of activity fell under the jurisdiction of several colleges. That government was not divided into administrative, judicial, legislative and fiscal functions, but rather into blocks of activities helped create the conditions for institutional autonomous existence and also for poor responsiveness to co-ordination and integration from above.
Duringthe remainder ofthe eighteenth century these centrifugaltendencies strengthened. Increasingly, individual heads ofthe colleges in private meetings with the monarch enacted policy in a haphazard manner. However the real power of the colleges and their ability to make policy were dependent to a large degree on the monarch and the influence of various groups around him or her. Not infrequently a college was charged with implementing policies which it had played no part in making. Whether the colleges made policy or the monarch and his or her closest servitors did so, overall co-ordination was poor. Catherine the Great (r. 1762-96) weakened the colleges with her Statute of Provincial Reforms of 1775 which transferred most of the their responsibilities to provincial governors. However, the central bureaucracy
3 Throughout the eighteenth century various colleges appeared and then were abolished according to the needs of the time.
4 Several small departments handling various aspects of a college's portfolio made up each college. Moreover, attached to each college was a chancellery which handled administrative issues.
5 L. Hughes, Russia in the Age of Peter the Great (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1998) pp. 133-5. However, Hughes adds: 'If the grand aim of the exercise was to impose order' and 'to make Russia better governed' Peter's reforms were not very successful.
6 D. Lieven, Empire: The Russian Empire and Its Rivals (London: John Murray, 2000), p. 140.
remained. During the eighteenth century its size increased in conjunction with a growing professionalism, thereby providing a springboard for the next major change in the subordinate organs under Alexander I.
Ministerial government
Alexander I (r. 1801-25) established Russia's ministerial system which lasted until the collapse of the Romanov dynasty in February 1917.7 The young emperor initially toyed with the idea of constitutional change but soon showed a preference for administrative reform which he saw as more essential for effective government and Russia's modernisation and less threatening to his autocratic power.
Alexander replaced what remained of Peter's collegiate system with ministries, a step which reinforced centralised power. He intended the ministries to be the highest subordinate organs headed by individual ministers who were appointed by and responsible to the emperor alone. The initial ministries were War, Navy, Foreign Affairs, Justice, Internal Affairs, Finance, Commerce, and Education. The number of ministries did not differ greatly until the beginning of the twentieth century. The founding of a ministerial system with its relatively clear responsibilities, specialised functions and internal structure represented an important step in the evolution of Russia's subordinate organs. Moreover, unlike the collegiate system where decisions were at least theoretically taken collectively within each college, a single minister directed a ministry, thereby increasing administrative efficiency.
1
P. A. Zaionchkovskii (ed.),
(Moscow: Nauka, 1966) vol. I, p. 315.
2
For good basic reference texts see: A. Turgeva,