Imperial parliament for a hybrid empire: Representative experiments in the early 20th-century Russian Empire

Abstract

This article argues that the history of Russian constitutional and parliamentary reform in the early 20th century can be cast in a new light in view of the global transformation of political life under the challenge of imperial diversity and mass politics. The article points out that imperial diversity as a challenge to democratic government was not unique to the Russian Empire. The character of the Russian Empire was marked by peculiarities; it was shaped by composite and hybrid imperial space, which placed the challenge of imperial diversity at the center of political practices and imaginaries. The article traces the history of political reform in the Russian Empire in the early 20th century focusing on the reform of the Sejm of the Grand Duchy of Finland and the novel practices and political imaginaries of imperial diversity in the first and second State Duma. The exploration of the history of the constitutional reform in the Russian Empire of early 20th century demonstrates that rather than being absolute antagonists to representative government, Russian imperial politics and traditions of imperial sovereignty nested possibilities of compromise and redefinition of political solidarity in the space of diversity.

A Country of White Lilies: Inter-Imperial Nation-Making and Development from the Russian Empire’s Periphery to Post-Ottoman Turkey

“…On the heels of the Russian Revolution of 1905, in 1906 the Grand Duchy was allowed to form a unicameral parliament, based on universal suffrage with women also standing for election. It was Europe’s most democratic system at that time: “Retained and reshaped in 1906 the traditional logic of [Russian] imperial sovereignty helped quite paradoxically to achieve universal suffrage in the reformed Sejm of the Grand Duchy of Finland” (Semyonov 2020: 32).…”

Parliament and Revolution: Poland, Finland, and the End of Empire in the Early Twentieth Century

“…For example, the socially skewed curial electoral law was not homogenous and there were multiple ethnic-based modifications. 21 The Duma was not a genuine legislative assembly and satisfied neither the constitutional visionaries nor the population at large. 22 However, it did serve to improve imperial rule by mediating interest from various social and ethnic groups no longer effectively governable by the sovereign monarch.…”