Attitude to state power. Attitude to state power P a Stolypin attitude to the monarchy

Left a reply Guest

1.a) Stolypin divided the proposed reforms into two parts. Some had to be implemented immediately, without waiting for the convening of a new Duma, on the basis of Article 87 of the Basic Laws; drafts of others had to be prepared and submitted for discussion and adoption by the State Duma. Among the first are the solution to the issue of land management, some urgent measures in the field of civil equality, freedom of religion and activities related to the Jewish question.
b) Pyotr Arkadyevich Stolypin best personified the real opportunity and forces that rejected revolutionism and Western liberalism
V) Stolypin and the State Duma is a special issue. To his credit, Stolypin was probably the only one from the tsarist government who was not afraid to speak in the Duma with answers to various parliamentary requests. He was a good speaker, he behaved with dignity and correctness on the podium. Sometimes the speaker's speech sounded quite harsh. For example, speaking in the Duma on the issue of measures to combat revolutionary terrorism, Stolypin said: “The government will welcome any open exposure of any disorder... but the government should treat attacks differently, leading to the creation of a mood in the atmosphere of which an open speech should be prepared.
2. The post-revolutionary period was characterized by a sharp decline in both the labor movement and peasant unrest. In the village, Stolypin managed to restore relative order for some time. In addition, the implementation of the agrarian reform inevitably forced the peasants to take up primarily their own economic affairs - those who were richer left the community, securing their allotment lands and purchasing new ones; others, poorer ones, sold their simple belongings and moved to new places.
3.
Main objectives of the reform:
1) transfer of allotment lands into the ownership of peasants;
2) the gradual abolition of the rural community as a collective owner of land;
3) widespread lending to peasants;
4) buying up landowners' lands for resale to peasants on preferential terms;
5) land management, which allows optimizing peasant farming by eliminating striping.

Goals of agrarian reform:
1) creation of new forms of land ownership and land use: farm, cut;
2) state assistance to peasant farms;
3) resettlement of peasants;
4) development of peasant cooperation;
5) destruction of the community. Peasants are private owners of their plots. However, during its activities the following results were achieved:
1) The cooperative movement developed.
2) The number of wealthy peasants has increased.
3) In terms of gross grain harvest, Russia was in first place in the world.
3) The number of livestock increased by 2.5 times.
4) About 2.5 million people moved to new lands.

The highest manifesto of June 3, 1907. Assessment of the political moment: “There is no longer a revolutionary situation.” P. A. Stolypin’s attitude to the monarchy. "Russian Bismarck". Life in the Elagin Palace. Rabinovich, Sinyavsky, Alensky-Bogrov and others. Polemic with L.N. Tolstoy. Foreign policy.

On June 3, 1907, the Highest Manifesto was announced on the dissolution of the second convocation of the State Duma, setting the date for convening the new Duma on November 1, 1907. Here is this historical document, which was compiled personally by P. A. Stolypin:

THE HIGHEST MANIFESTO

“We announce to all Our faithful subjects:

At our behest and instructions, since the dissolution of the State Duma of the first convocation, Our Government has taken a consistent series of measures to calm the country and establish the correct course of state affairs.

The Second Duma, convened by Us, was called upon to promote, in accordance with our Sovereign will, the calming of Russia: first of all, through legislative work, without which the life of the State and the improvement of its system are impossible, then by considering the breakdown of income and expenses, which determines the correctness state economy, and finally, the reasonable exercise of the right of inquiry to the Government, in order to strengthen truth and justice everywhere.

These responsibilities, entrusted by Us to those elected by the population, thereby imposed on them a heavy responsibility and a sacred duty to use their rights for reasonable work for the benefit and strengthening of the Russian Power.

Such were Our thoughts and will when granting the population new foundations of state life.

To Our regret, a significant part of the composition of the second State Duma did not live up to Our expectations.

Not with a pure heart, not with a desire to strengthen Russia and improve its system, many of the people sent from the population began to work, but with a clear desire to increase unrest and contribute to the disintegration of the State.

The activities of these individuals in the State Duma served as an insurmountable obstacle to fruitful work. A spirit of hostility was introduced into the environment of the Duma itself, which prevented a sufficient number of its members who wanted to work for the benefit of their native land from uniting.

For this reason, the State Duma either did not consider the extensive measures developed by Our Government at all, or slowed down the discussion, or rejected it, not even stopping to reject the laws that punished the open praise of crimes and especially punished the sowers of trouble in the troops. Having avoided condemning murders and violence, the State Duma did not provide moral assistance to the Government in establishing order, and Russia continues to experience the shame of the criminal hard times.

The slow consideration by the State Duma of the state painting caused difficulties in the timely satisfaction of many urgent needs of the people.

A significant part of the Duma turned the right of inquiries to the Government into a way of fighting the Government and inciting distrust of it among broad sections of the population.

Finally, an act unheard of in the annals of history took place. The judiciary uncovered a conspiracy by an entire part of the State Duma against the State and Royal Power. When Our Government demanded the temporary, until the end of the trial, removal of the fifty-five members of the Duma accused of this crime and the detention of the most incriminated of them, the State Duma did not immediately fulfill the legal demand of the authorities, which did not allow any delay.

All this prompted us, by the Decree given to the Government Senate on June 3rd of this year, to dissolve the State Duma of the second convocation, setting the date for convening the new Duma on November 1st of this year 1907 year.

But believing in love for the Motherland and the state mind of our people,
We see the reason for the two-time failure of the State Duma to be that, due to the novelty of the matter and the imperfection of the electoral law, this legislative institution was replenished with members who were not true exponents of the needs and desires of the people.

Therefore, leaving in force everything granted to our subjects by Our manifesto on October 17th 1905 year and the Basic Laws of Law, We decided to change only the very method of calling elected representatives of the people to the State Duma, so that each part of the people would have its own elected representatives in it.

The State Duma created to strengthen the Russian Statemust be Russian in spirit too.

Other nationalities that are part of Our Power must have representatives of their needs to the State Duma, but should not and will not appear in numbers that give them the opportunity to be arbiters of purely Russian issues (G.S.) .

In the outskirts of the State, where the population has not achieved sufficient development of citizenship, elections to the State Duma should be temporarily suspended.

All these changes in the election procedure cannot be carried out in the usual legislative way through the State Duma, the composition of which We have recognized as unsatisfactory, due to the imperfection of the very method of electing its members. Only the Authority that granted the first electoral law, the historical Authority of the Russian Tsar, has the right to repeal it and replace it with a new one.

From the Lord God the Royal Power over Our people has been entrusted to Us. Before His throne We will give an answer for the fate of the Russian Power.

From this consciousness We draw our firm determination to complete the great work of transforming Russia that We have begun, and we grant it a new electoral law, which we command the Governing Senate to promulgate.

From Our faithful subjects We expect unanimous and vigorous service to the Motherland, along the path indicated by Us, whose sons have at all times been a strong stronghold of its strength and glory.

Given in Peterhof on the 3rd day of June, in the year of the Nativity of Christ one thousand nine hundred and seven, and of Our Reign in the thirteenth» .

AS P. A. STOLYPIN EXPECTED, the population greeted the Decree on the dissolution of the Duma calmly, no unrest, demonstrations or strikes occurred. The garrison troops put on alert were not required. Most of the accused former deputies were detained, but 17 people managed to escape. After bringing all the detainees into the investigation and transferring the case to the Government Senate, 49 people were put on trial.

(end of the fragment. The full text is in the book by G. P. Sidorovnin “P. A. Stolypin. Life for the Fatherland.” Purchase a copy of the book or its updated version via the contact form).

I. Features of the “June Third” political system

1. Emperor

3. Executive power - Council of Ministers

4. Judicial branch: Senate, district courts and judicial chambers

II. Third State Duma (November 1907 - June 1912): Octobrists - 32%, rightists - 30%, Cadets and those who joined them - 21%, leftists (Social Democrats and Trudoviks) - 7%; since 1911, the Octobrists stopped supporting the Government

III. The main tasks of the Government after the revolution:

1. P.A. Stolypin

2. Main tasks: a) suppression of the remnants of the revolutionary movement; b) preventing a new revolution; c) economic and socio-political reforms: agrarian, labor legislation, changes in local government, judicial and educational reforms.

IV. Stolypin's agrarian reform

1. The goals of the reform: a) socio-political: the creation in the village of a social support of power in the form of a strong peasantry (middle peasants and rich), (speech on December 5, 1908 at a meeting of the Duma); weakening and destruction of the community as a social organization of peasant resistance (experience of 1905-1907); b) economic: elimination of the community as a land distribution economic mechanism; modernization of agriculture

2. Approaches to reform before Stolypin: a) “Meeting on the needs of the agricultural industry (1902-1905, leader - Witte); b) projects N.N. Kuglera, V.I. Gurko (1905-1907) about the transformation of peasants into land owners.

3. Stolypin’s reforms: main measures (designed for 20 years)

a) decrees of August 12 and 27 and September 19, 1906 on the transfer of state-owned and appanage agricultural lands to the peasant bank for their sale on preferential terms to peasants in need of land;

b) decree of October 5, 1906 on equalizing civil rights for peasants with persons of other classes;

c) a decree of November 9, 1906, which allowed peasants to leave the community and secure their allotment;

f) the law of 1911 - permission to reduce land into farms and cuts (previously, peasant lands were mainly scattered across different territories - now it was allowed to reduce peasant land into a single piece)

4. Agrarian reform: content

A) change in forms of ownership; b) change in land management (cut and farmstead); c) resettlement of peasants to free lands (Siberia), (about 3.3 million people; about 5 returned, most of the rest remained in Western Siberia); d) sale of land to peasants in installments through a peasant bank; e) development of agricultural cooperation;

5. The specific course of the reform: a) the first stage, 1907-1910. (2.5 million peasants left the community - only 25% of all peasant householders); b) second stage 1910 - 1915. (mainly land management measures, since a strong peasantry cannot arise on multi-lane roads)

6. Results of the reform: a) social (reduction in the number of communities from 135 thousand to 110 thousand; about 30% of peasants left the community;) absence of disintegration of the community in the central and non-black earth lands, negative reaction of peasants to “individual farmers”, growth of social tension in the village); b) socio-political (reduction of peasant uprisings from 1 thousand in 1910 to 82 in 1914; failure to create a social support for the state in the countryside; counterproductiveness of the reform in the medium term - the development of “social dynamite”; return to 1920 . into communal ownership of 99% of land); c) economic (increasing yields in some areas by 30-50%)

V. The labor question and the labor movement in 1907-1917:

1. Labor legislation of 1905 (reduction of the working day to 10 hours)

2. Duma legislation on the labor issue of 1908-1912: the struggle for the adoption of laws of 1905.

3. Repressive measures (closing workers’ newspapers, banning workers’ rallies and meetings, arrests, etc.

4. Labor movement: a) the decline of the labor movement in 1907-1909; b) the rise of the labor movement in 1910-1914, “Lena execution of 1912; c) the decline of the strike movement in 1914-1915; d) a new rise in the strike movement of 1915-1917.

VI. Transformations in the national, educational and managerial spheres

1. National question. Revocation by the Duma of the 1906 bill on the use of national languages ​​in elementary school. Reduction by the electoral law of 1907 of the representation of Poland and the Caucasus in the Duma. Deprivation voting rights foreigners of Central Asia and Siberia;

2. Education. 1909 – project on the introduction of universal primary education. By 1914 - 150 thousand schools (of which 50 thousand were opened under Stolypin, 300 thousand were needed)

VII. Conclusions:

1. “June Third Monarchy” - difficult political regime with a complex composition of social forces supporting it

2. The controversial and historically belated nature of Stolypin’s reforms

3. Aggravation of the internal political situation in 1915-1916.

4. Isolation and crisis of autocracy. The emergence of a revolutionary situation.

The main person of the “June Third” monarchy, besides the tsar, is P.A. Stolypin. In 1905, Stolypin became the governor of the Saratov region and there pursued a tough course both in relation to the peasants and in relation to the pogromists. To fight the revolutionaries, he tightened the methods of repressive struggle against them. On August 19, 1906, a decree was adopted on the introduction of military courts, where legal proceedings were conducted for no more than 48 hours and the sentence was carried out within 24 hours. He was a very courageous and educated man. In July 1906, he became prime minister, but at the same time he was also minister of the interior. Stolypin perfectly understood the need for economic modernization, especially the improvement of the situation in the countryside. However, the main goal of Stolypin's reforms was not economic, but asocial and political. The main goal of the reforms is to destroy the community as the framework of organized peasant resistance to the authorities. On November 9, 1906, a decree was issued that stated that peasants were given the right to freely leave the community with the transfer of the plot to personal ownership. According to the law of 1911, the community was obliged to allocate to a peasant who wanted to run an independent farm a separate plot of land, which became his personal. At the same time, the peasant had the right to demand that his plots be consolidated into one plot - a cut (with leaving the estate in the village) or a farm (with resettlement from the village and the transfer of the estate to his plot). Stolypin's task was made easier by the fact that at the height of the revolutionary movement, the landowners themselves decided to sacrifice the community.

As a result, over 5 years, only 2.5 million peasants left the communities. The reform was most successful in the east and south of the country, where it was then carried out most fiercely Civil war. Well, in 1916-1920 the community took revenge and regained its lands. A very important aspect of the agrarian reform was the resettlement policy, which was not successful (many were stuck in Western Siberia, and many even returned back). Purely economically, the Stolypin reform led to some agricultural success being achieved, but in principle the reform was belated and was “against the grain” of the Russian peasantry. Stolypin did not take into account the moment of peasant cohesion and the desire to live in a community. Stolypin proceeded from the fact that the peasant acts as a rational entrepreneur - and the peasant had his own logic. Unfortunately, Stolypin, being a city dweller, did not know the psychology of the peasantry. Individual entrepreneurship was alien to the Russian peasantry.

Stolypin also sought to carry out other measures, such as school reform. He wanted to introduce compulsory education for children between the ages of 8 and 12. The budget for public education tripled, but this was not enough for Russia. Stolypin also proposed providing rural farms with greater opportunities to participate in the work of zemstvos (local government reform).

Stolypin was criticized both from the left and from the right. At some point he was supported by the Octobrists (Guchkov), but then their paths diverged. Gradually, Stolypin’s relationship with Nicholas II began to deteriorate. In 1911, the State Council rejected the proposal to introduce zemstvos in Polish provinces. After this, Stolypin resigned, but Nikolai did not accept it and dissolved the State Council and the State. Duma for three days. During this time, zemstvos were introduced and the State Council and State Duma were assembled again.

Stolypin's triumph in 1911 marked the beginning of his downfall. In September 1911, Stolypin was killed on the 11th attempt by a certain Mortykhai Bogrov with the connivance of the police. Stolypin was replaced by a man named Kokovtsev. He did not have his own program and continued the policies of Stolypin. But unlike Stolypin, he did not have “Stolypin’s will.” Stolypin was a very strong-willed person who could push through his decisions. And therefore the Stolypin reform continued in a sluggish mode. And in 1915, due to the war, agrarian reform was suspended.

In 1912, the powers of the Third Duma expired and elections to the Fourth Duma were held. The forces of the opposition and the right in this Duma were noticeably equal. The years 1912-1914 were a time of new revolutionary upsurge in Russia, labor unrest and the growth of the strike movement resumed.

Between 1907 and 1917, political parties changed. Left-liberal forces have sharply declined. And in response to all these circumstances, at the beginning of 1912, a group of representatives of the Moscow bourgeoisie tried to create a fundamentally new party, but unsuccessfully. The Cadets came to the conclusion that in Russia the social and political revolution cannot be separated from each other, therefore a revolution is not needed and it is better to carry out reforms (though later they again switched to the ideas of revolution). Revolution 1905-1907 forced liberals to adjust their views and advocate the unification of the bourgeoisie with the intelligentsia.

In the summer of 1914, the political crisis in the country reached its critical point and at that moment the war began and for some time the crisis resolved. But from the summer of 1915, the crisis of power began to become irreversible. The culmination of this crisis was Miliukov's speech on November 1, 1916. He criticized the Government's policies, calling them either stupid or changeable. Miliukov's speech was illegally printed and sent throughout the country, including to the active army. And all this was during wartime for the country. The authorities were so weak that they did not even dare to arrest Miliukov after his sharply critical speech.

Socialist parties also suffered after the revolution of 1905-1907. acute crisis (both Bolsheviks and Mensheviks). Along with the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks, another movement appeared after the revolution - the centrist one, led by Trotsky. The Social Revolutionaries also experienced an ideological crisis. After the outbreak of the war, defencists, pacifists (peace) and defeatists (Lenin) stood out among the Social Democrats.

Related information.

In Russia, the situation at the beginning of the 20th century was difficult - a revolution was brewing. The role of personality in history always has great value, but in times of crisis, turning points, it sometimes becomes almost decisive.

By political views Stolypin was a convinced monarchist, considered autocracy the best form of government for Russia, but was ready to make some concessions to democracy in order to preserve autocracy. At the same time, his policies were subjected to fierce criticism, both from the right and from the left. Stolypin was extremely negatively opposed to the revolution. Stolypin took radical measures to “calm down”. Stolypin was in favor of the immediate refusal of new large loans, with the gradual return of old ones and the receipt of insignificant new ones. As for the railways, he in no way belittled their role in the development of the country.

Thus He considered the main goal: to modernize the country, achieve successful development of the Russian economy, without affecting the fundamental foundations of the political system, without changing anything in public administration.

Stolypin emphasized reform of the agricultural sector, the creation of a “farmer class” and reform public administration. Pyotr Arkadyevich believed that changes should be carried out consistently, step by step... Stolypin was engaged in strengthening the financial side, for him it was the last project in his life. In an attempt to resolve the national question, Stolypin showed himself most clearly. The fact remains: none of the political figures - predecessors - raised the Jewish question or any other related to the infringement of the rights of certain peoples on the territory of Russia, unlike Stolypin. This is explained by the following circumstances: firstly, although their reform activities were separated by several years, during these years a lot has changed in Russia. Unresolved key problems accumulated and led to revolution. That is why, when discontent reached its peak, they listened to Stolypin as the only person capable of finding a solution to the problem.

Such a great personality of that time as Pyotr Arkadyevich Stolypin is often called the “last chance” of the tsarist regime. “The entire appearance of Pyotr Arkadyevich could not have been more consistent with the rare qualities and sides of his soul,” “Often even his enemies admired the fascinating truthfulness of his words, the nobility of his image, the irresistible power of his oratorical talent,” “... avoided all sorts of exhibitions and panache...”, “Everything he did seemed to him only a modest fulfillment of his life’s duty.” This is what one of the researchers of Russian history, N.P., wrote about Stolypin. Shublinskaya. Contemporaries and researchers characterize him as honest, straight man, not tainted by any scandals or gossip, brave, decent to the point of scrupulousness, but quite difficult to communicate due to excessive directness, reaching the point of intolerance.

He was not a professional careerist politician. He accepted power as a heavy cross. He carried it steadfastly. Worked at night. He said, looking at his watch, with annoyance: “Go away, damn you!” The heart failed: the cross of St. Vladimir, which was hit by an assassin’s bullet, saved me from instant death, and for 4 days the doctors had hope. But my heart couldn't stand it.

Stolypin was a reformer - because he tried to break the old structures. Russian - thought only about Russia, thought in imperial categories, on the threshold of death he whispered: “Happy to die for the Tsar.”

There are many enlightened people, they were and are, but Stolypin showed what a highly educated person and patriot can do in a state position if he possesses the most important property of a real statesman - selflessness, ability and desire to put people's interests above personal calculations. Many of his contemporaries recognized that the desire for personal gain was completely alien to his honest and incorruptible nature. “The homeland demands service so sacrificially pure that the slightest thought of personal gain darkens the soul and paralyzes the work,” this phrase by P.A. Stolypin. Stolypin’s main merit was not in agrarian reform, but in energetic actions to suppress revolutionaries, strengthening the state apparatus, and bringing to the forefront government works national interests. In a short time he managed to establish effective system fighting terrorist gangs.

The core of Pyotr Arkadyevich’s government measures was a firm, national policy aimed at giving fair advantages to the indigenous Russian population as the owners of the Russian land. At the same time, Stolypin promotes the consolidation of all active state forces in Russia, meaning the creation of a powerful national Russian party capable of withstanding the onslaught of all opponents of the Russian order. A very important law, adopted on his initiative, limited the possibility of German colonization of the western provinces. He made it possible to stop the purchase of landowners' lands by German colonists.

Possessing tenacity, determination, and patriotism, he defended the only correct way, in his opinion, to preserve the monarchy. Stolypin's desire to rely on the Russian patriotic movement becomes the main element of his policy.

Lev Tikhomirov said well at P.A.’s funeral. Stolypin that he had a difficult task in the shattered state of the country and the state to lead the ship of state. And he led him. Yesterday, still unknown to anyone, he showed incomparable skill. “He was not recognized and denied for a long time. But this was a Russian figure who showed abilities that no one else had shown. He united a set of brilliant qualities necessary at a time when one has to replace ten, a ruler of such selflessness, such intensity of heartfelt love for Russia.”

It wasn't about the danger of death. The very difficulty of the matter was terrible, taking away any hope of success. “In this regard,” said L. Tikhomirov, “Pyotr Arkadyevich had internal supports - this is faith in God and Russia.” Here was, I think, the secret of his confidence, which gave him chances for success in itself.

“He did as his mind told him, he acted in his own way, as he should. Otherwise, he would not have deserved the name of a statesman,” Lev Tikhomirov argues further. This is the ideal of a statesman. Intelligence, courage, culture, patriotism, faith, devotion to the Tsar and the people, inexhaustible energy, perseverance, nobility, honesty, strong sovereign will - all these qualities were in Stolypin - an outstanding Russian person who put the interests of Russia above all his interests.

“Tall, personable, superbly mannered, comprehensively educated; he spoke loudly and convincingly. Great nobility emanated from his words and actions, which endeared him even to his political opponents. In the necessary cases, he acted decisively... Strict with himself and lenient with mistakes subordinates. He was not ambitious, and everything ignoble and unclean was disgusting to his high soul" (Prince A.V. Obolensky, "My Memoirs and Reflections").

“As a person, P.A. Stolypin was distinguished by his straightforwardness, sincerity and selfless devotion to the Sovereign and Russia. He was alien to pride and arrogance thanks to the exceptionally rare qualities of his balanced nature. He always treated other people’s opinions with respect and understanding. The enemy of all ambiguities, suspicions and hypotheses, he shunned intrigues and intrigues. In his political views, P.A. Stolypin did not depend on any party pressures and claims. Firmness, perseverance, resourcefulness and high patriotism were characteristic of his honest, open nature. , bribery and self-interest and pursued them mercilessly; in this regard, he was an ardent supporter of senatorial revisions." (P.A. Stolypin. Obituary published in the newspaper “New Time” on September 6, 1911)

“Behind his words there is never emptiness” (A.F. Kerensky)

In the new system, states were looking for a mechanism that would begin renewal, progressive work, consisting of mutual efforts on the part of the government and people's representatives. This was the main current, next to which moved another, dreaming of becoming a government itself and leading the life of the country.

The spokesman for the first of these groups was P.A. Stolypin, who made her intentions the basis of his political program. Stolypin was a staunch supporter of popular representation in Russia. He wanted his approval and did a lot in this sense. His ideal form of government was a representative monarchy. He recalled that in Russia the dominant force is not the anarchic revolutionary flow, but the centuries-old historical foundations of the country.

With the death of Stolypin, the Russian Empire died. There was no more living force in it, and everything quickly took the path of collapse and revolution. Stolypin's activities were the last outstanding attempt to save the state from an impending disaster, an energetic and powerful push for modernization by the empire. He sought to adapt the archaic, political structures of the state to a rapidly growing economy and dynamic society, free the peasantry from the remnants of serfdom and involve it in creative activities, strengthen the popular foundations of the monarchy and transform Russia into a rule of law state. The course he chose was the only correct one, but apparently the reforms came too late. Stolypin failed to overcome the split between the state and the intelligentsia, which turned into an abyss after 1905, although there was also movement towards him from the intelligentsia. Having lost his possible allies, Stolypin gradually found himself in political isolation and, when he lost the support of the tsar, he died. Immediately after his death, modernization was curtailed, which made a new revolution inevitable.

The assessment of the activities of Pyotr Arkadyevich Stolypin, given by both his contemporaries and historians, was never unambiguous: according to some, Stolypin was a talented statesman who not only proposed a program of reforms unique for his time, but also sought to carry them out by the most “soft means”, according to others, Stolypin is “a strangler and a hangman,” “a proponent of a policy that has gone down in history under the name of the Stolypin reaction.”

Contemporaries, descendants and historians about P.A. Stolypin:

S.Yu. Witte, who meticulously followed political career his successor, noted that Pyotr Arkadyevich “was a man with great temperament, a brave man,” but accused him of lack state culture, imbalance, excessive influence of his wife Olga Borisovna on his political activities, use of his official position to patronize relatives. “Stolypin in the last two or three years of his reign introduced positive terror in Russia, but most importantly, he introduced police arbitrariness and police discretion into all aspects of state life.” In his memoirs, Witte noted the evolution of Stolypin from a liberal prime minister to “a reactionary who would not disdain any means in order to maintain power, and arbitrarily, in violation of all laws, ruled Russia.” “... Stolypin,” he wrote, “had an extremely superficial mind and an almost complete absence of state culture and education. In terms of education and intelligence... Stolypin was a type of bayonet cadet.”

P.N. Miliukov, one of the leaders of the Cadet Party, whom Stolypin, despite seemingly insurmountable differences with them, called “the brain of the nation”: “Stolypin acted in a double guise - a liberal and an extreme nationalist.” Miliukov was very skeptical about the effectiveness of Stolypin’s reform activities, but paid tribute to his originality. “P.A. Stolypin,” wrote Miliukov, “belonged to the number of people who imagined themselves to be the saviors of Russia from its “great upheavals.” He brought his great temperament and his stubborn will to this task. He believed in himself and his appointment. He was, of course, larger than many dignitaries who sat in his place before and after Witte."

One of the first Russian Marxists, Petr Berngardovich Struve, gave the following description of Stolypin’s activities: “No matter how you look at Stolypin’s agrarian policy - you can accept it as the greatest evil, you can bless it as beneficial surgery, - with this policy he made a huge shift in Russian life. And the shift is truly revolutionary both in essence and formally. For there can be no doubt that with the agrarian reform, which abolished the community, in significance economic development Russia can only be put on a par with the liberation of the peasants and the construction of railways."

At the same time, another humanist of the 20th century - V.V. Rozanov- gave a very high assessment of Stolypin, on whom, according to the philosopher, “there was not a single dirty spot: a thing terribly rare and difficult for politician", they "could kill him, but no one could say: he was a deceitful, crooked or self-interested person."

V.I. Lenin, assessing Stolypin as a political figure, wrote that he knew how to cover up his activities with “gloss and phrases, postures and gestures faked as “European”,” he tried to pour new wine into old wineskins, remake the old autocracy into a bourgeois monarchy, and the collapse of Stolypin’s politics is the collapse of tsarism on this useful, last conceivable path for tsarism." Lenin saw in his reforms “the last conceivable path for tsarism,” “the last policy possible for tsarism.”

A.F. Kerensky: “Stolypin’s political insight was inferior to the strength of his character” A.S. Izgoev, member of the Central Committee of the Cadet Party: “At P.A. Stolypin had a strong mind, but it was some kind of second-class mind, truly devoid of both depth and idealistic nobility, a mind mixed with petty cunning and slyness.”

The death of Stolypin caused a lot of responses in the Russian and foreign press. The foreign left-wing press perceived this fact with satisfaction. So, in newspaper Nezavisimaya workers' party England noted:"Stolypin turned the Duma into a farce and a fraudulent trick. He, it was he, who threw thousands of people into infected prisons and sent thousands to the gallows." “He cannot return - and, of course, many thousands of Russians will reverently thank the Lord for this.” Press organ of the French Socialist Party declared: “Stolypin’s death is well-deserved. Before this grave, humanity can only breathe a sigh of relief.”

V.V. Kazarezov: “No one dared to reproach him for dishonor, personal self-interest, cowardice, or lack of principle. Education and intelligence, the ability to think broadly and act, were combined in him with such fundamental, deep-seated qualities as love for his homeland and a willingness to sacrifice everything for its well-being... He was fearless when a real threat to his life was created, and no less courageous and decisive when defended his positions before the Tsar, the State Council, the State Duma, and before the political opposition on the left and right.”

Rodzianko M.M.:“P.A. Stolypin was the embodiment of consciousness of his duty to his homeland and never shied away from responsibility for his actions. What was valued in Stolypin? I think, not a program, but a person... The affairs of his reign were never party, group, class or estate; Of course, if you do not take the Russians as an “estate”, but Russia itself as a party... Stolypin showed the only possible path of parliamentarism in Russia. He pointed out that if parliamentarism is an expression of the people's spirit and the people's image, then there will be no strong protest against it, and it will even become dear to many and finally to everyone.

Stolypin saw his task in constructive work with the warring parties, in the implementation and strengthening of the liberal principles laid down in the Manifesto of October 17 and codified in the Basic Laws. In doing so, he proceeded from the principle he later formulated: existing problems cannot be resolved, they must be resolved. In Russian history at the beginning of the twentieth century, there is no figure who caused great disagreement in assessments. The Populists and Socialist Revolutionaries were condemned for the “collapse of the community” as the original cell of socialism. The monarchists reproached, thinking that the community was a stronghold of autocracy. In bureaucratic circles there was a widespread opinion that Stolypin did not generate ideas at all, but used “blanks” - Kryzhanovsky, Krivoshein, Gurko, Witte. To those closest to the king, he seemed like a dictator, not inclined to take into account court politesse and even the opinion of the emperor himself.

Among his contemporaries, the most objective assessment was given by his colleague at the Ministry of Internal Affairs S.E. Kryzhanovsky. Agreeing that Stolypin was not the initiator of many legislative acts that he put into practice, and found most of the others ready-made or caught in public opinion, Kryzhanovsky emphasized that “the brilliance of his talent, the charm of his personality, the ability to idealize his activities, raise ideas to pedestal... (he) breathed life into the program for the organization of Russia bequeathed by the past, managed to master it and merge it with his personality.

Stolypin P.A.:“Our fatherland, transformed by the will of the Monarch, must turn into a legal state, since until the written law defines the responsibilities and protects the rights of individual Russian subjects, these rights and responsibilities will depend on the interpretation and will of individuals.”

“They need great upheavals, we need a great Russia” - were not an empty phrase, but expressed the quintessence of a fairly coherent and thoughtful concept. Its main provisions were:

• · Creation of civil society and strengthening of its basis - private property,
• · Separation of powers between the executive and legislative,
• · Delineation of the competence of the central government and local self-government,
• · The issue of the rights of the ethnic majority and national minorities.

Power cannot be considered a goal. Power is a means to preserve life, peace and order... We must not forget that the inaction of power leads to anarchy, that the government is not an apparatus of powerlessness and search. Government is an apparatus of power based on laws..."

Stolypin considered any political activity of an official, be it Black Hundred or left-radical, incompatible with public service, which did not mean that he had no political views.

... A strong government must have proven executors on the ground, who are its hands, its ears, its eyes. And no government will ever accomplish a single work, not only repressive, but also creative, if it does not have in its hands a perfect apparatus of executive power. In other words, civil servants must be not only executors of the will, but also allies of the government, whose goal is to move towards a state where “written freedom” will turn into real freedom, which is composed of civil liberties and a sense of statehood and patriotism.

In his speech of March 6, 1907, Stolypin emerged especially clearly as statesman new type:

“With the multitude of novelties being introduced into the life of the people, it is necessary to connect all the individual government proposals with one common thought, to clarify this idea, putting it at the basis of all construction and to defend it, as it manifests itself in this or that bill.”

A feature of Stolypin’s activities was the combination of design and management functions with control and executive ones. An example is the Prime Minister's trip to the Volga region, Siberia and Altai. This working trip set a precedent for a new style of government. Stolypin had the opportunity to compare the official reports of the governors with his personal observations and, on this basis, draw conclusions and make qualified decisions. Stolypin accustomed the Russian public to the Duma, parliamentary style of government.

Maklakov: “Those who lived through this time saw how the constitution began to educate both the government and society itself. One can only marvel at the success if we remember that the constitution lasted normally for only eight years (the war cannot be called a normal time). During this 8-year period, Russia began to rise economically, and society began to form politically. A new generation of bureaucrats appeared who understood the benefits of cooperation with the State Duma, and our politicians learned to do a common cause with the government... The joint participation of government and society in governing the state turned out to be an indispensable school for both, and for Russia the beginning of its revival.”

Stolypin can be judged as a figure of a new type for several reasons:

• 1. A systematic approach was evident in all government actions, in which there was a sense of realism (pragmatism); to implement reforms, careful preparation of both material conditions and the psychological state of society was required.
• 2. Stolypin began to build a new building of Russian statehood not “from the roof”, not from the proclamation of liberal freedoms, but from below, from the arrangement of the most numerous and disadvantaged class of Russia - the peasantry, believing that this is the only way to lay the foundations of civil society in Russia.
• 3. Stolypin was neither a monarchist nor a liberal. He was a statist who put the interests of Russia above the royal favor and “public opinion.” However, he had to act in “given circumstances”: the lack of will of the monarch or the willfulness of the court camarilla pressed over him.
• 4. Stolypin acted as chairman of the Council of Ministers, subordinating the work of all ministries to a single plan, overcoming the resistance of very influential persons. He believed that the government must either act boldly and brightly if it expects to succeed, or resign, opening this opportunity for others.

Stolypin saw three ways for the development of Russia:

• 1. The path to restoration of autocracy
• 2. The path of revolutionary extremism
• 3. The path of liberal reforms

It was the last of them that Stolypin chose and defended to the end, perhaps not always by “righteous” means, as his opponents more than once accused him of. But the search he undertook is important to us. new political decisions, a new style of political thinking, and, finally, himself as a new type of statesman.