01 September 2020
Kerensky briefly led from the democratic centre, neither Fascist nor Communist
Kerensky made regular visits to the WW1 Front, to encourage Russian troops.
WW1Live
In light of the polarisation of many nations’ politics since the 1990s, we all expect left wing and right wing extremists to attack each other. But why can't we expect Socialist Intellectuals (moderately leftist) and Progressive Conservatives (moderately rightist) to cooperate to form solid governments around the Centre? Can we find a centralist leader who tried to protect his Parliamentary democracy from the extreme right and left?
Alexander Kerensky (1881-1970) was born in Simbirsk, son of teacher Fyodor Kerensky who later became Inspector of Public Schools. Alexander moved to Tashkent with his family as a schoolboy. Then he went on to St Petersburg Uni to do history and later law, graduating in 1904. Kerensky soon married Olga Lvovna Baranovskaya, a Russian General’s daughter, and had two sons.
How was Kerensky politicised? Bloody Sunday in 1905 was a protest march in St Petersburg led by a workers’ organisation, the Assembly of Russian Factory and Plant Workers. c200,000 marchers went to the Winter Palace to present petitions to Tsar Nicholas II, but soon 1,000 protestors were shot. Anger spread throughout Russia with more strikes and marches, and in march the universities were shut down by radicals. In July, sailors on the battleship Potemkin mutinied in Odessa. Odessa’s citizens turned out to support the sailors and many were massacred en route to the wharf.
In St Petersburg Leon Trotsky set up a Soviet Workers’ Council to organise opposition to the Tsar, but Trotsky and his supporters were soon imprisoned. A revolutionary spirit arose, but it lacked the necessary central organisation to overthrow the government. After the limited reforms of 1905 when a political amnesty was granted, Vladimir Lenin briefly returned to Russia from Geneva. Then he left again when the Tsarists cracked down on dissidents.
Any protest was met with a brutal response and anti-Semitic pogroms increased. In Odessa in 1905 c2,500 Jews were killed in a single day; Kishinev had two pogroms; in Mariupol had one shocking pogrom.
Tsar Nicholas II, Lenin, Trotsky, Kerensky
Tsar Nicholas II had to deter a revolution. He promised to allow the creation of a State Duma, but the proposed Duma limitations led to further protests. In Oct 1905 a general strike was called. Reluctantly Tsar Nicholas drafted the October Manifesto, reform measures that would grant civil rights, free political parties, universal suffrage and the establishment of the Duma as the national assembly.
Kerensky was clearly politicised by the appalling events of 1905 and, as a young lawyer, keenly defended revolutionaries accused of political offences.
The next big step occurred at the Lena River Goldfields in 1912. Kerensky was asked to report on the Imperial Russian Army’s massacre of hundreds of striking goldfield workers. He took part in heroic organisations eg Aid Committee for the Victims of Bloody Sunday and contributed to the revolutionary socialist press. Across Russia he defended poor and oppressed peasants from Romanov injustices.
In 1912 Kerensky was elected to the Fourth Duma, for the democratic socialist Labour Party. He united the anti-monarchy forces, intending to form a newly democratic Russia. In May 1914, Kerensky asked Tsar Nicholas II to make these vital changes in the domestic policy:
restoring Finland’s Constitution,
declaring an amnesty for political prisoners,
announcing Polish autonomy,
banning restrictions against ethnic minorities,
ensuring religious tolerance and
ending harassment of legal trade union bodies.
Kerensky was a part of the Socialist Revolutionaries, the Petrograd/St Petersburg Soviet, seen as a strong symbol of workers and of soldiers. In the new Duma in Nov 1916, he publicly criticised the Imperial ministers. When the Feb Revolution of 1917 broke out, he publicly advocated the dissolution of the monarchy. He was renowned for his personality, stirring speeches, commitment to coalition government and to Russia’s continued WW1 involvement.
In March 1917, when the tsar's government collapsed, Duma members set up the Provisional Government. Kerensky took up one of the most important positions, as Minister of Justice. He successfully abolished capital punishment, removed ethnic and religious discriminations, and made reforms in the Tsarist legal code. My family were all delighted!
In May, Kerensky faced severe problems as the war policy created many divisions among the ministers and eventually some made an exit from the Provisional Government. He was then made the Minister of War and was joined by six other socialists for the cause. He openly supported Russia’s continued involvement in WWl.
After the Provisional Government collapsed in July 1917, Kerensky’s oratory skills and popularity became influential, allowing him to replace Georgy Lvov as prime minister.
Prime Minister Kerensky dismissed the Commander in Chief, Gen Kornilov, in Sept 1917 and had him replaced. This created major rifts within the right wing of the government. Then Kerensky refused to implement radical changes in social and economic programmes as demanded by the left wing, thus annoying them as well. As a result, when the Bolsheviks threw him out and seized power in late 1917, he failed to gather any forces to defend his government. The Communist Left and the White Fascist Right were equally anti-democratic.
How much dislike of the Provisional Government in Russia was there then? Apart from the rich and a few senior officers, there was precious little. But the political environment in Russia remained tense and the newly formed government was overthrown by the Lenin-led Bolsheviks in Nov the same year, after the October Revolution.
Prime Minister Kerensky (second from right) and his ministers, 1917
After the Bolsheviks seized government, Kerensky gathered some loyal troops and tried to regain his lost government. When this failed, the ex-prime minister had to stay hidden, until he could flee the country.
How did such an educated, literate and compassionate man last such a short time as a Provisional Government minister? Kerensky promoted legislation that any intelligent centralist would have admired. He owed his position to his embrace of the February Revolution, but for the right, the revolution was too radical; for the left, too bourgeois. He’d wanted to harmonise the interests of landowners and peasants, workers and bosses. Apparently an impossible task.
Kerensky divorced and later re-married an Australian, Lydia Nell Tritton. They lived in Paris until the Nazis occupied the city in 1940, then fled to the USA and Australia. He was buried in London in 1970.
Take note, you countries that have right wing leaders (eg Brasil, USA, Hungary etc) or left wing leaders (Belarus, North Korea etc)!! Only in the centre can a Parliament represent all the population.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
20 comments:
No wonder Kerensky didn't last for long. Look at just a couple of his policies: banning restrictions against ethnic minorities; ensuring religious tolerance; and ending harassment of legal trade union bodies.
Deb
those are minimum policies that you imagine EVERY democrat on earth would agree with.
But somehow Kerensky still managed to offend politicians etc from both sides of politics. He supported the families of those massacred during the Bloody Sunday (1905) and the goldfield workers massacred in 1912. And he advocated the dissolution of the monarchy.
On the other hand, as Minister for War Kerensky pushed for Russia’s continued involvement in WWl. Poor man.
Hello Hels, It is amazing how often history repeats itself. A few extremists not particular about the body count grab power and use hatred to pick up a few supporters, and moderate and intelligent politicians like Kerensky who can give most people what they want in a fair and sustainable manner don't seem to have a chance.
--Jim
Parnassus
although I strongly believe that only centralist politicians from both main parties can create a truly representative Parliament, I am losing hope that:
a] moderate politicians can achieve positions of power and
b] that even if they do, that the extreme right or left wings will take over and imprison or expel them eg Aung San Suu Kyi, Jan Masaryk. Worst of all, I am afraid that
c] even educated, moral politicians can become more extreme as they gain power and never want to lose it eg Fidel Castro originally wanted to save Cuba from the brutal Batista.
Thanks Hels - I enjoyed this article on Merensky ... I don't know a lot about Russian politics, but I'm slow picking up bits and pieces ... but I was happy reading this because I was at least learning a little. Take care - Hilary
A man to admire. I dislike all extremes; politics, religion, that hugely populated country we are so dependant upon and you know who across the Pacific.
Hilary
I did a lot of Russian History at school and uni, but that was way back when we were using type writers and carbon paper. Since 1993, I have largely relied on my family's Russian books, translated, and blogs.
Andrew
regardless of how strongly we cling to our political and economic views, we can still be certain that half the population disagrees. Thus there are programmes that everyone can agree on (eg "universal health care"), while negotiating and compromising on programmes on which there is less agreement (eg "banning all guns" in return for "ending inheritance taxes"). It must be possible, surely.
Sadly it seems that the voice of reason is always silenced by extremes from the right or the left. I enjoyed this informative post very much.
Fun60
I agree. Here is a perfect example. Salvador Allende was a moderate, centralist socialist president in Chile who wanted to improve educational standards for all the community, raise minimum wages and improve working families' living standards. But the right-wing parties in Congress and the military took Allende in a coup and had him killed. He had been president for barely 2.5 years :(
I am rereading Orlando Figes' A People's Tragedy and came to different conclusions. The Tzarist Dictatorship and Kerensky and the communists all were convinced there is something good about altruism--so good that using it as a pretext for coercion comes as naturally today to mixed-economy altruists (Allende and Bush) who seek to divide and violate rights as to convinced totalitarians who seek to crush them altogether. Religious altruists answer to "right" and the more pagan collectivists answer to "left"--presumably because the euphemisms conceal and dilute the fascist and communist roots they spring from. For fewer than 50 years there has been a single party seeking to minimize coercion--even altruistic coercion. Here's hoping the idea of a non-aggression principle, formulated while hanging national socialists in Nuremberg before the second year of the nuclear era, catches on.
Boa tarde. Parabéns pela postagem. Grande abraço carioca.
Hank
Thanks for the detailed response. Good government has nothing to do with altruism and everything to do with community development - providing the best resources, security and inclusiveness according to each community's needs and plans. If small groups want to provide private schools, hospitals and old age homes, that is fine but it is outside the government's responsibility.
Luiz
thank you. I love your country :)
As much as my very closest friends in the post-high school years were from Brasil, I am really very anxious about your current president. The fact that he idolised the American-backed military dictatorship which controlled Brasil from the middle 60s to the middle 80s is scary; the fact that he might replicate it now is even scarier.
I can't think of a good example of a country that was successfully governed by an amalgam of moderate left and right-wingers. Or even a poor example!
I wonder if part of the reason is that an electorate (if there is one) likes a government that strongly stands for something. Margaret Thatcher would be a good example of that. Maybe Trump as well. Maybe people would always be fearing the presence of the opposite faction in a coalition? Kerensky would have fallen into that category.
CLICK HERE for Bazza’s cautiously craven Blog ‘To Discover Ice’
bazza
I don't want a Coalition between right and left... I want each main party to move towards the centre. Inclusiveness means that all citizens should feel they are represented by the government.
Can you imagine how excluded Kenosha blacks felt, when the American President supported the the anti-black militia members and armed counter-protesters who travelled across state borders into Kenosha? I just wanted an American President to say that no citizens can be murdered because of his skin colour.
I still can't believe that the Brasilian President knew coronavirus has killed c125,000 citizens, yet he excludes the poor and the indigenous from testing and treatment because they are too stupid to look after themselves properly.
Barbra
Thank you for writing, but I don't accept advertising.
hello Hels a little late to the discussion but I would say that Australia's strengths have included a fairly centrist government . It is certainly under threat from the far right at the moment but I think that we are fundamentally a middle of the road community . What social media does to this state is another issue .
men
Never too late! This is an issue that has been relevant for many nations, over many generations. And largely I would agree with you regarding Australia.
But do you remember the coup by the GG John Kerr in 1975? The government has been voted in by an easy majority in 1972 yet Kerr got rid of them within 3 years. What a nightmare... I was as sick as a dog back then :(
Post a Comment