"One-story" Zemstvo: K. N. Paskhalov's project on the abolition of provincial zemstvo institutions

Polyanina Ol'ga Anatolyevna ORCID: 0000-0001-5668-0904 PhD in History Associate Professor; Institute of History and Public Administration; Ufa University of Science and Technology Office 604, Karl Marx str., 3/1, Ufa, Republic of Bashkortostan, 450076, Russia olga-polyanina@mail.ru

One of the distinctive features of the modern institution of local self-government in Russia is the instability of the territorial organization. After the adoption of amendments to the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the fiercest controversy unfolds over the abandonment of the two-tier model of municipal government, the liquidation of urban and rural settlements. In this context, it is natural to refer to historical experience. A similar public discussion, during which the optimal number of levels of zemstvo self-government was discussed, took place in 1910. The focus was on K. N. Paskhalov's project on the abolition of provincial zemstvo institutions and, as a result, on the transition to a "one-story" zemstvo.

Scientific interest in the leaders of the right-wing movement of late imperial Russia has been most clearly manifested since the early 1990s. Such public figures included Claudius Nikandrovich Paskhalov (1843-1924), a writer, publicist, honorary member of the Russian Monarchist Union, and organizer of monarchist congresses. In the 1990s and 2000s, most of Klavdiy Nikandrovich's articles were republished, as well as a significant part of his epistolary legacy was published ^{[1, pp. 15-40]}. Researchers of conservative socio-political organizations could not ignore the figure of the "patriarch of right-wing journalism." Works on this topic highlight Paskhalov's role in the right-wing movement ^{[1, pp. 355-359; 2, pp. 170-173]}, including during the First World War ^{[3, pp. 86-88]}, his attitude to the land issue and Stolypin agrarian reform ^{[4, pp. 440-444]}.

Paskhalov was also a vowel of the Tarussky district Zemstvo Assembly of the Kaluga province, and the zemstvo theme occupied a prominent place in the journalism of Claudius Nikandrovich. However, this area of his activity was reflected only in a few works of a generalizing nature, in particular, in the monographs of F. A. Gaida ^[5] and M. A. Saevskaya ^[6]. Both authors studied in detail Paskhalov's proposals on changing the electoral legislation and his arguments in favor of abolishing the provincial zemstvo ^{[5, pp. 97-98; 6, pp. 70-71]}.

Within the framework of this article, an attempt is made to consider the mechanism of transition to single-level local self-government developed by Paskhalov, as well as the responses of zemstvos and individual municipal figures to his project. In addition to Paskhalov's works, the source base of the study was made up of regulatory legal acts, office records of individual zemstvos, and materials from the periodical press, primarily the specialized journal Zemstvo Business.

The key principles of interaction between provincial and county local government bodies were fixed in the Zemstvo Regulations of 1864 and 1890. The basis for the division of powers was the scale of management tasks. Provincial zemstvo institutions could make decisions on issues that related to the entire province or several counties, and county offices could make decisions on issues related to each individual county. In the Zemstvo Regulations of 1864, this norm was fixed in articles 61 and 63 (The Most highly approved Regulations on provincial and county zemstvo institutions. January 1, 1864 // PSZRI. The second meeting. Volume XXXIX. Department one. 1864. St. Petersburg: Printing house of the II department of its own E. I. V. chancellery, 1867. pp. 1-14). The 1890 Regulation combined them into one article (Article 3), and also introduced a new article based on the same logic (Article 62).

In addition, both regulations contained lists of cases subordinated to one or another level of government "in particular." Seven subjects of jurisdiction were initially assigned to the counties, including the preparation of "preliminary assumptions" for provincial estimates and the distribution of fees within the county. In the Zemstvo Regulations of 1890, this article (Article 64) was reduced to three paragraphs. Counties have lost the right to determine the status of roads, maintain towpaths, and allow the opening of auctions and bazaars (the highly approved Regulations on provincial and county zemstvo institutions. June 12, 1890 // PSZRI. The third collection. Vol. X. Ed. the first. 1890. St. Petersburg, 1895. pp. 493-511).

The exclusive competence of the provincial assemblies included the opening of new fairs, the establishment of marinas, the issuance of mandatory ordinances, issues of mutual zemstvo insurance, etc. A characteristic feature of the Regulation of 1890 was the restriction of direct contacts between county zemstvos and imperial government authorities. Unlike provincial assemblies, county assemblies were not given the opportunity to "submit petitions to the Government for local benefits and needs." They had such a right only in 1904 by a decision of the State Council (the highly approved opinion of the State Council On changing the procedure for initiating petitions by zemstvo institutions // PSZRI. The third meeting. Volume XXIV. 1904. Department I. St. Petersburg, 1907. p. 116).

In practice, the distribution of the spheres of activity of provincial and county zemstvos in each region was formed "in the process of the work itself ... it is far from always advisable, depending on more or less random circumstances" ^{[7, pp. 421-423]}. Measures similar in purpose and amount of funding were implemented in some provinces by provincial zemstvos, in others by county zemstvos. In the 1890s, this topic began to be widely discussed among the zemstvo leaders, but in the 1900s it faded into the background.

A new stage in the development of relations between the two levels of zemstvo self-government began after the First Russian Revolution. According to B. B. Veselovsky, the period 1906-1909 was characterized by "centrifugal tendencies", when the branches of the local economy one after another passed under the jurisdiction of the counties ^{[8, p. 1555]}. Claudius Nikandrovich Paskhalov was one of the so-called "uyezds" who actively defended the interests of their zemstvo.

Paskhalov had been developing the idea of liquidating the provincial zemstvo for many years. In 1905, he published the pamphlet "The Foundations of Zemstvo Reform," where he outlined the main arguments in favor of a single-tier system of zemstvo self-government. Paskhalov expressed similar views in his personal correspondence. So, in a letter to Count S. D. Sheremetev on February 7, 1905, Claudius Nikandrovich called the provincial zemstvos "purely parasitic institutions" that cost tens of millions of rubles, built themselves palaces and maintained a "horde" of useless specialists ^{[9, pp. 228-229]}. In 1910, several of Paskhalov's articles were combined into a pamphlet entitled "The Necessary Reform of Zemstvo Institutions." The publication was the most consistent presentation of the project to eliminate the provincial level of self-government and gained sufficient popularity among the zemstvo community.

In his publications, Paskhalov repeatedly returned to the idea that the "Zemstvo Regulations" should have clearly delineated the subjects of jurisdiction of provincial and county self-government bodies. The possibility of interference in the "private needs of the counties" inevitably led to an expansion of the range of activities, to the "swelling" of the provincial zemstvo. The right to set up the provincial collection, in turn, became one of the reasons for the "depletion of the county zemstvo purse." According to the publicist, financial bondage has paralyzed the activities of the county zemstvos. The funds transferred by the counties to the budget of the provincial zemstvo were mostly spent on unproductive and overhead expenses, primarily on the maintenance of the administrative apparatus ^{[10, p. 4]}.

For the same reason, Paskhalov vehemently protested against the idea of introducing a small zemstvo unit. The implementation of the "three-storey zemstvo building" project threatened to further increase the cost of maintaining zemstvo officials and premises. The most densely populated counties could be divided into two independent municipalities, but the average municipality would not be able to withstand the costs of maintaining local governments ^{[10, p. 15]}.

The second argument of Claudius Nikandrovich is confirmed by the materials of almost every zemstvo province. The population could not equally use medical and social institutions located in the provincial center ^{[10, p. 5]}. Most patients of the central zemstvo hospitals lived either in the provincial city itself (from 25-27% in Ufa and Perm to 70% in Samara and Voronezh), or in the adjacent county. The zemstvo officials of Ufa province, discussing the possibility of transferring the provincial hospital to the jurisdiction of the county, recognized that this issue had been "debated for 35 years at both provincial and county meetings of the oldest Russian zemstvos" (Collection of resolutions of the Ufa County Zemstvo Assembly with appendices. XXXV regular County Zemstvo Assembly of 1909. Ufa: Electrical Printing and Lithography by F.G. Solovyov and Co., 1910. pp. 254-259).

Paskhalov was sharply criticized for the organization of the provincial zemstvo's work, in particular, the dominance of the city council, which almost always sought approval of its reports. According to Paskhalov, the provincial vowels were physically unable to study the entire volume of documents considered during the session ^{[10, p. 20]}. Indeed, many contemporaries noted the haste in which provincial zemstvo meetings were held and the lack of a system for considering issues.

The subordination of one elected body (the county zemstvo assembly) to another elected body (the provincial assembly) was also a logical contradiction. Paskhalov noted that the Zemstvo Regulations, on the one hand, consolidated the independence of the county zemstvos, but, on the other hand, limited it, since the counties were not protected from the "fiscal arbitrariness" of the provincial zemstvos. As a result, the provincial zemstvos demonstrated their complete inability to "successfully fulfill practical tasks." First of all, it concerned the condition of dirt roads and the sanitary situation of settlements. According to the publicist, the insurance business and evaluation and statistical work suffered a complete fiasco ^{[10, pp. 17-24]}.

In order to avoid the "ultimate demise" of all spheres of the local economy, Paskhalov proposed, first of all, to abolish provincial zemstvo institutions. The county zemstvos, the "living organs of a living cause," thus gained complete freedom and independence. The right to conclude agreements between counties of both one and several neighboring provinces was separately stipulated.

It is important to note that the proposed reform had to be accompanied by a change in the electoral legislation. Paskhalov recognized the "most perfect" zemstvo assembly as one in which all landowners with property qualifications, as well as all full-fledged payers of other zemstvo taxes, would participate. "Busy, crowded" meetings would be the best protection against "doing business that is not consistent with the interests of the zemstvo" ^{[10, pp. 7-9]}.

A plan for the gradual liquidation of the provincial zemstvo was to be developed by a commission consisting of representatives of the county zemstvos and members of the provincial council. Paskhalov proposed to transfer the temporary management of provincial institutions and special capitals to the county zemstvo located in the provincial city. Subsequently, these capitals could be divided between the counties in proportion to participation in the provincial assembly. The income from the sale or use of provincial zemstvo property would be distributed according to the same logic.

According to Paskhalov, the easiest way was to transform the management system in the field of public education and in the field of road management. Believing that the number of educational institutions maintained by the provincial zemstvo was relatively small, Paskhalov proposed to reorganize them in two stages. At the first stage, schools and scholarship holders of the provincial zemstvo had to be supported by proportional contributions from the counties. These fees were gradually converted into fees for a specific number of students. As for road construction, the "right and simplest" solution was to return roads of national importance to the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Railways. The improvement of local roads should have been entrusted to the county zemstvos ^{[10, pp. 27-31]}.

The reorganization of medical care promised to be a more difficult task. The publicist advocated the destruction of the "grandiose hospitals" of the provincial zemstvo. An exception could be made for specialized institutions (for example, psychiatric ones), which should be transferred to the jurisdiction of one of the county zemstvos. The personnel issue, from Paskhalov's point of view, did not cause any particular difficulties. Ordinary employees of the provincial zemstvo had to find a new place of work in the counties. "Command positions" were to be abolished ^{[10, pp. 32-33]}.

In general, the transition from the "centripetal zemstvo system" to the centrifugal one should not have encountered significant difficulties. Paskhalov was convinced that, having emerged from monetary bondage, the counties would launch broader and more active activities.

A distinctive feature of K. N. Paskhalov's project was its significant public response. The most famous discussion was held in the Smolensk Zemstvo. The initiator of the consideration of the issue was the vowel of the Vyazemsky district, M. F. Pegelau, who almost verbatim repeated Paskhalov's argument. The thesis about the self-sufficiency of the "business" county zemstvo and the "bureaucratic" provincial zemstvo was supported by references to the sad situation of the road and insurance business. As a result of the discussion, the 44th Vyazma District Zemstvo Assembly decided to petition the government for "the complete abolition of the provincial zemstvo due to its utter uselessness and extreme cost to the population" (Journals XLV of the regular Smolensk Provincial Zemstvo Meeting from January 9 to January 18, 1910 with appendices. Smolensk: Electrical Printing and Lithography by J.N. Podrandsky, 1910, p. 45).

In response, the Smolensk provincial council prepared a report in which it tried to prove the need for a provincial link "in the general structure of self-government bodies." At the same time, the authors of the report acknowledged "individual blunders," including the unsuccessful organization of road works. But a "leap" from the unsatisfactory financial situation of a government body to the idea of its liquidation would be "unwise" (Journals XLV of the regular Smolensk Provincial Zemstvo Meeting from January 9 to 18, 1910 with appendices. Smolensk: Electrical Printing and Lithography by J.N. Podrandsky, 1910, p. 51).

As the main reason for the preservation of the provincial zemstvo, the speakers cited the existence of such areas of local economy, the management of which "went beyond the territory, interests and forces of a separate county." In addition, the provincial zemstvo performed a "leading role of the second instance", as well as an "ideological and unifying role" (Journals XLV of the regular Smolensk Provincial Zemstvo Meeting from January 9 to January 18, 1910 with appendices. Smolensk: Electrical Printing and lithography by Ya.N. Podrandsky, 1910. pp. 55-57).

During the autumn of 1910, Paskhalov's project was discussed at county zemstvo meetings in various regions. Basically, the idea did not meet with "much sympathy." The exceptions were certain counties of Kostroma, Pskov and some other provinces (Zemstvo case. 1910. No. 23. P. 2001).

Paskhalov's supporters were also found in the Vladimir province. At the 1910 session, the vowels of the Pereyaslavsky district Zemstvo Assembly, discussing Paskhalov's idea, called for the abolition of the provincial zemstvo. The main argument was the desire of the peasants, who made up the majority of the inhabitants of the county, to be freed from the provincial levy. Further, the issue was referred to the Vladimir Provincial Zemstvo. A paradoxical situation developed: the provincial vowels had to abolish themselves. As a result, the proposal of the Pereyaslavsky Zemstvo was recognized as an "archaeological rarity" and left without consideration (Zemstvo case. 1911. No. 4. pp. 379-381).

Over the next few years, the theoretical understanding of the problem continued in a more constructive manner, without excessive journalistic intensity. The Zemstvo Business magazine became one of the important discussion platforms. As the editorial board recognized, "Paskhalov's report was important not for its direct purposes, but in an indirect sense — the sense of reviewing the activities of provincial zemstvos" (Zemstvo case. 1910. No. 23. P. 2001).

In an article published in June of the same year, 1910, the magazine stated that most spheres of zemstvo activity originated "in the bowels of the county zemstvo." The provincial zemstvo, which became the governing center, united the counties on a federal basis. Later, the provincial zemstvo also assumed an "initiative-demonstration" function in relation to many events, but the autonomy of the counties was inviolable. The exception was veterinary medicine, which originally arose by decision of the provincial zemstvo. Gradually, each branch of veterinary medicine developed its own forms of cooperation with the counties, but the role of the provincial zemstvo remained the leading one. Moreover, contemporaries noted that the proper organization of veterinary care requires two more levels of management — grassroots (district) and nadgubernsky (Zemstvo). 1910. No. 11-12. pp. 931-937).

P. N. Grigoriev, Head of the Department of Public Education of the Ufa Provincial Zemstvo Council, analyzed the relationship between the two levels of zemstvo self-government in a familiar area. Grigoriev confirmed that there were no "general guidelines" in the distribution of functions between provincial and county zemstvos, and plans for joint work had not been developed. However, according to Grigoriev, all these shortcomings could be eliminated by adopting appropriate resolutions. The provincial zemstvo was to remain "a large public union with the ability to regulate and supplement the activities of the county zemstvos." In addition, the provincial administrations had "the best intelligent working forces" ^{[7, pp. 421-423]}.

The author, who hid under the pseudonym G. Zemets, criticized the Novgorod provincial Zemstvo, which handed over to the counties "the whole matter of combating epidemics." The Institute of provincial Epidemic Doctors was abolished. The publication emphasized that most zemstvos, on the contrary, retained this area in the hands of the provincial government, since epidemics required a "general plan of measures" (Zemstvo. 1910. No. 8. pp. 611-614).

Another publication on the topic under study belongs to a well-known specialist in the field of pedagogy, Evgeny Nikolaevich Medinsky. According to his observations, the case of extracurricular education was "at a significant height" where the participation of the provincial zemstvo was organized. At the same time, the author advocated strengthening the role of the provincial zemstvo. The latter was supposed to develop general requirements for the development of a library network, conducting folk readings, etc. Medinsky emphasized that this did not mean "suppressing" one organ by another: "everyone will find a case" ^{[11, pp. 953-961]}.

In early January 1914, on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the introduction of the "Zemstvo Statute", the newspaper Moskovskie Vedomosti published a series of articles by K. N. Paskhalov "Zemstvo jubilee results". In general, the views of the publicist have not undergone significant changes. Paskhalov still considered the main cause of all the problems of local self-government to be the "unsuccessful organization" of zemstvo institutions, as a result of which two equal administrative bodies were created ^[12]. The theses about the "lack of need" for the provincial zemstvo, the overburdening of the population with land taxes and the waste of these funds on the maintenance of a huge staff of employees remained unchanged. Proposals to reorganize the insurance business ^[13] and criticism of the draft law on the volost zemstvo ^[14] became more substantive.

This series of publications has not caused such a public outcry as in 1910. After the outbreak of World War I and the formation of the All-Russian Zemstvo Union, the organizational structure of which included provincial and county units, Paskhalov's ideas became even less relevant. In the spring of 1916, the State Duma Commission on Local Self-government drafted a bill on the reform of the Zemstvo Regulations. The document, based on the legislative assumption of the progressives, aimed to eliminate the administrative guardianship of the governors and "decisively break with the remnants of the estate system in the zemstvo" ^{[15, pp. 17-18]}. The bill significantly "expanded the limits of the department and the scope of power" of local governments, but practically did not address the issue of the distribution of powers between provincial and county zemstvos. It was only planned to return to the counties the right to issue mandatory resolutions ^{[15, pp. 26-28]}.

The analysis confirms that, criticizing the system of local self-government, K. N. Paskhalov pointed out a number of objectively existing problems. The vast majority of zemstvos recognized the need to reorganize medical care, road and insurance business. The theses about the "financial bondage" of the counties and the unfair distribution of the provincial levy also found their supporters. The significant interest shown by zemstvo officials in Paskhalov's idea underscores the relevance of the topic he raised.

Unlike many of his contemporaries, Claudius Nikandrovich believed that it was necessary not only to change the procedure for electing vowels, but also to reform the organizational foundations of zemstvo activities. Paskhalov developed a fairly orderly mechanism for the transition to a "one-story" zemstvo, the only territorial unit of which was to be the county.

At the same time, the publicist's opponents rightly noted that many tasks (combating epidemics, epizootics, etc.) required the combined efforts of several counties. Paskhalov proposed to compensate for the absence of a provincial zemstvo through agreements between the counties. However, he did not analyze the possible formats of such inter-municipal cooperation and the risks involved.