20世纪早期俄国保守派意识形态中的议会主义

I. Omel’ianchuk
{"title":"20世纪早期俄国保守派意识形态中的议会主义","authors":"I. Omel’ianchuk","doi":"10.1080/10611983.2021.1916320","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The nineteenth century had seen the entrenchment of the parliamentary system in Western civilization. The geographical placement and close contacts between Russia and Europe ensured that parliamentary ideas would also find their way into the Russian Empire, which is why the ideological struggle over the creation of a representative body in Russia was joined long before the tsar’s manifestos of August 6 and October 17, 1905. As far back as 1896, Konstantin Petrovich Pobedonostsev, chief procurator of the Holy Synod, was arguing that popular sovereignty [narodovlastie] was among “the most dishonest political principles” since in reality that power belongs not to the people but to their representatives, whose voters are no more than a “herd” that constitutes their “capital, the foundation of their might and eminence in society” (as if they were “wealthy nomads”). This thesis of Pobedonostsev’s became a key part of the rightists’ ideological constructs and was further developed in works written early in the twentieth century. Lev Aleksandrovich Tikhomirov was of the opinion that in parliamentary democracies, the people have no representation of their own; it has only the representatives of the parties that rule over the people.” Anton Semenovich Budilovich, the famous Slavist and member of the Russian Assembly monarchist group, also “held that nowhere in the constitutional world do we encounter the representation of the entire people, only of ‘classes and interests,’ e.g., of the upper, wealthier, and more unmannerly strata of the population.” Professor Andrei Sergeevich Viazigin, chairman of the Khar’kov division of the Russian Assembly and future leader of the rightist faction in the Third Duma, was of the same mind, asserting that in democratic states, “‘Freedom, equality, fraternity’ have proved to be only a fine-sounding battle-cry, whereas the peoples have fallen into an even worse dependency, having become slaves to a heartless and pitiless","PeriodicalId":89267,"journal":{"name":"Russian studies in history","volume":"59 1","pages":"74 - 99"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-04-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Parliamentarianism in the Ideology of Early Twentieth-Century Russian Conservatives\",\"authors\":\"I. Omel’ianchuk\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/10611983.2021.1916320\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The nineteenth century had seen the entrenchment of the parliamentary system in Western civilization. The geographical placement and close contacts between Russia and Europe ensured that parliamentary ideas would also find their way into the Russian Empire, which is why the ideological struggle over the creation of a representative body in Russia was joined long before the tsar’s manifestos of August 6 and October 17, 1905. As far back as 1896, Konstantin Petrovich Pobedonostsev, chief procurator of the Holy Synod, was arguing that popular sovereignty [narodovlastie] was among “the most dishonest political principles” since in reality that power belongs not to the people but to their representatives, whose voters are no more than a “herd” that constitutes their “capital, the foundation of their might and eminence in society” (as if they were “wealthy nomads”). This thesis of Pobedonostsev’s became a key part of the rightists’ ideological constructs and was further developed in works written early in the twentieth century. Lev Aleksandrovich Tikhomirov was of the opinion that in parliamentary democracies, the people have no representation of their own; it has only the representatives of the parties that rule over the people.” Anton Semenovich Budilovich, the famous Slavist and member of the Russian Assembly monarchist group, also “held that nowhere in the constitutional world do we encounter the representation of the entire people, only of ‘classes and interests,’ e.g., of the upper, wealthier, and more unmannerly strata of the population.” Professor Andrei Sergeevich Viazigin, chairman of the Khar’kov division of the Russian Assembly and future leader of the rightist faction in the Third Duma, was of the same mind, asserting that in democratic states, “‘Freedom, equality, fraternity’ have proved to be only a fine-sounding battle-cry, whereas the peoples have fallen into an even worse dependency, having become slaves to a heartless and pitiless\",\"PeriodicalId\":89267,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Russian studies in history\",\"volume\":\"59 1\",\"pages\":\"74 - 99\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-04-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Russian studies in history\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/10611983.2021.1916320\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Russian studies in history","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10611983.2021.1916320","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

十九世纪见证了西方文明中议会制度的巩固。俄罗斯和欧洲之间的地理位置和密切联系确保了议会思想也会进入俄罗斯帝国,这就是为什么早在1905年8月6日和10月17日沙皇发表宣言之前,就加入了在俄罗斯建立代表机构的意识形态斗争。早在1896年,神圣议会检察长康斯坦丁·彼得罗维奇·波贝多诺舍夫就认为,人民主权是“最不诚实的政治原则”之一,因为事实上,权力不属于人民,而是属于人民的代表,他们的选民只不过是一个“群体”,构成了他们的“资本,他们在社会中的力量和声望的基础”(就好像他们是“富有的游牧民族”一样)。波贝多诺舍夫的这篇论文成为右派思想建构的重要组成部分,并在20世纪初的著作中得到了进一步的发展。Lev Aleksandrovich Tikhomirov认为,在议会民主国家,人民没有自己的代表;它只有统治人民的政党的代表。”著名的斯拉夫主义者、俄罗斯议会君主主义团体成员Anton Semenovich Budilovich也“认为,在宪法世界中,我们在任何地方都不会遇到全体人民的代表,只有‘阶级和利益’的代表,例如上层、富裕和更不受控制的人口阶层的代表。”Andrei Sergeevich Viazigin教授,俄罗斯议会哈尔科夫分部主席、第三杜马右翼派系未来的领导人也持同样的观点,他断言,在民主国家,“事实证明,‘自由、平等、博爱’只是一个听起来很好的战斗口号,而人民却陷入了更严重的依赖,成为无情无情的奴隶
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Parliamentarianism in the Ideology of Early Twentieth-Century Russian Conservatives
The nineteenth century had seen the entrenchment of the parliamentary system in Western civilization. The geographical placement and close contacts between Russia and Europe ensured that parliamentary ideas would also find their way into the Russian Empire, which is why the ideological struggle over the creation of a representative body in Russia was joined long before the tsar’s manifestos of August 6 and October 17, 1905. As far back as 1896, Konstantin Petrovich Pobedonostsev, chief procurator of the Holy Synod, was arguing that popular sovereignty [narodovlastie] was among “the most dishonest political principles” since in reality that power belongs not to the people but to their representatives, whose voters are no more than a “herd” that constitutes their “capital, the foundation of their might and eminence in society” (as if they were “wealthy nomads”). This thesis of Pobedonostsev’s became a key part of the rightists’ ideological constructs and was further developed in works written early in the twentieth century. Lev Aleksandrovich Tikhomirov was of the opinion that in parliamentary democracies, the people have no representation of their own; it has only the representatives of the parties that rule over the people.” Anton Semenovich Budilovich, the famous Slavist and member of the Russian Assembly monarchist group, also “held that nowhere in the constitutional world do we encounter the representation of the entire people, only of ‘classes and interests,’ e.g., of the upper, wealthier, and more unmannerly strata of the population.” Professor Andrei Sergeevich Viazigin, chairman of the Khar’kov division of the Russian Assembly and future leader of the rightist faction in the Third Duma, was of the same mind, asserting that in democratic states, “‘Freedom, equality, fraternity’ have proved to be only a fine-sounding battle-cry, whereas the peoples have fallen into an even worse dependency, having become slaves to a heartless and pitiless
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信