Continued from The Day, no. 22
County and gubernial leaders of the nobility were responsible for the election procedure, which could last up to 15 days. As a representative of the administrative branch, the governor did not have the right to interfere with the noble elections, but were obliged to provide the assembly with information on individuals against whom court proceedings or investigations were instituted. The prosecutor made sure that the elections complied with the laws and regulations, but otherwise did not interfere. In order to enhance the importance of the elections and again remind the nobility of the supreme authorities’ profound trust in it and its responsibility in this area of state administration, elections were held in an atmosphere of a solemn and theatrical public ceremony that followed a detailed scenario.
The governor opened the assembly and, together with all the nobility who had arrived at the gubernial seat for the elections, attended a church liturgy and said a prayer for the good health of the emperor and the royal family. Roman Catholic and Muslim members of the nobility attended services in their own places of worship. The procession to and from the church also took place according to a strict regimen. The governor led the way, followed by the gubernial leader of the nobility, and then by the county leaders with hereditary noblemen grouped according to county, while the secretary brought up the rear.
After the liturgy the governor presided over the oath of loyalty to the state and its monarch and handed the floor over to the gubernial leader. The latter began by announcing the budget of the country services. Then the noblemen were informed about the various changes to the composition of the assembly: who was in attendance, who had failed to come to the assembly and why, who expressed a desire to run for an elected office, etc.
Elections followed a certain order in order to prevent abuses and violations. In the hall where the assembly of the nobility took place all the participating members were seated in chairs according to rank. Noblemen running for offices sat on the left and right of the leader.
The setting was designed in a special way. A box divided into two halves and upholstered inside with cloth to absorb the sound of falling balls stood on green cloth- covered tables, one of which was for the gubernia and the others for the counties. Three sides of the box bore an image of the county emblem, while the fourth contained two holes with the inscriptions “Elect” and “Do not elect.” Next to the box was a dish with wooden balls, each bearing the emblem of the gubernia. The number of balls was equal to the number of noblemen participating in the assembly.
The gubernial leader started the voting process for each candidate, followed by others. In order to hide from view the hole into which the balls were cast, each voter covered it with a cloth. The nominee did not take part in the voting. At the end the county leader counted the number of balls and announced the result in the presence of all the voters. The county leader was elected first and then the county judge, county police officer, deputies from the nobility, assessors at county and gubernial courts, and, finally, the trustee of grain storehouses. If the previously elected leader of the nobility was running, the votes were counted by the highest-ranking nobleman present. If candidates received an equal number of votes (points), the leader had to cast lots. Signed lists of elected officials were then handed over to the governor.
Elections for county seats were followed by elections of the gubernial leader and then the following positions: heads of the criminal and civil chamber (separately), judge of the court of conscience, honorary trustee of gymnasia, assessors at the court chambers and the court of conscience, member of the public nutrition commission, and secretaries of the noble assemblies.
Hence, county and gubernia officials were elected by the nobility of the counties and the gubernia, respectively. The results were announced in the same way: the number of votes cast for each candidate was indicated, and the list of candidates was signed by the voters and handed over to the governor. The nobility in western gubernias, a clause that was mentioned specifically, had to sign in Russian rather than in Polish.
After the elections, the procession again made its way to the church, where the newly elected officials were sworn in, and then everyone returned to the House of Noble Assembly, where the governor proclaimed the termination of the assembly. However, this was not the end of the elections. There now began the official institutionalization, or “bureaucratization,” of the elective offices and their placement in the power hierarchy for the purpose of harmonizing their activities.
First, the “Table of Ranks” was applied to elected officials to confer rather high ranks on them. After three years of service in a post, a nobleman could not subsequently be elected to a lower- ranking position, unless he willingly agreed to this. Time served in elective offices was entered into the service records kept by the gubernial administration. As far as the quality of gubernial and county leaders’ service was concerned, they were attested by the governor, while lists of their names were forwarded to the Inspectorate Department and data on their service, to the Ministry of Internal Affairs.
Candidates for the head of the criminal and civil court chambers and the head of the court of conscience were submitted by the governor and the Senate and approved by the emperor. However, if a candidate for one of these posts did not comply with the legal requirements, a tsarist-appointed official was assigned to his position. Permanent members of construction and road commissions also had to be approved by the Chief of Roads and Public Buildings on governors’ submissions. Likewise, the Minister of Public Education approved one of the two candidates for the honorary trustee of the gubernial gymnasium.
Out of two candidates elected to the office of gubernial leader of the nobility the emperor approved the one recommended by the governor to the Minister of Internal Affairs. The candidates’ loyalty to the throne was the only criterion used in appointing county and gubernial leaders of the nobility. Previously appointed officials fulfilled their duties until new ones were approved.
After the Dec. 6, 1831, manifesto was issued, the elective service acquired new importance. It was granted full equality with the state service and divided into two categories. The first category of officials included the nobility proper (the leaders of the nobility, honorary trustees of gymnasia, deputies from the nobility, and secretaries). The second one covered all estates and included court and administrative-police offices, as well as trustees of grain storehouses and members of the public nutrition commission. Each elected official could be considered for state awards, such as those for outstanding service and orders. However, it was the governor, rather than noble assemblies, who made submissions for awards.
Heads of court chambers, courts of conscience, and county courts, as well as county police officers, assessors, and other officials received a salary commensurate with their services, as established by the payroll. They were also promoted according to the general rules governing the career ladder of state officials. The law had a way of stimulating people with some experience of state service to run for elective offices: if rankless noblemen were elected to certain positions, they were assigned a state rank but were allowed to use them only for the duration of their service. This group included noblemen in western gubernias who were conferred a rank (starting from the 14th) after two terms in an elective post.
Despite the unequal status of state and nobility-elected officials, they had virtually the same amount of responsibility, and the state, not voters, which had the right to recall officials. Those who were appointed by the supreme authorities were also dismissed by them. Errors committed by incumbents were punished by oral reprimands, warnings, fines, or their cases were submitted to criminal court chambers. The governor had the right to suspend an official without waiting for a court verdict.
Dismissals, however, were made only pursuant to court decisions. County leaders of the nobility were exempted from fines, while reprimands, warnings, and court proceedings against them had to be sanctioned by the Senate. Officials who were approved by the supreme authorities were committed for trial only with the tsar’s consent, whereas charges against gubernial leaders were considered directly by the Senate. Dismissal from elected offices was clearly defined in the legislation and was carried out in cases of illness or other circumstances preventing the official from fulfilling his duties. Permission for dismissals was coordinated with gubernial leaders and governors. Vacant offices were then occupied by runner-ups.
Just like state officials, elected officials had the right to vacations, except for gubernial leaders, who were not allowed even to leave the gubernial seat without the governor’s consent. Less dependent was the county leader, who could leave the county’s seat for a certain period of time. In the case of a long-term absence he had to have his vacation officially sanctioned by the governor, and if its duration exceeded four months, the consent of the Minister of Internal Affairs had to be obtained. The law regulated the duration and the procedure for taking vacations by other officials, as well as the appointment of an individual who had to replace them. For example, heads of court chambers and judges at the court of conscience had 28 days of vacation.
In certain cases, gubernia state administration reserved the right to appoint officials to elected offices, in particular when the gubernia lacked noblemen who could qualify for posts. (The western gubernias included Volhynia and Podillia.) In this case, the candidate was not elected-rather, the leaders of the nobility agreed on the appointee.
Elections in cities and rural self-government positions (villages) followed a different scenario and require separate treatment.
A review of the legal requirements established by the supreme authorities for the estate elective service leads to several conclusions. Despite being in the shadow of the state-appointed service, the elective service occupied a fairly important place in the bureaucratic government system of the Russian empire. Notably, it enabled the imperial authorities to pervade all strata of society and strengthen the government as such.
The numerical parameters of elective service were astonishing: one-third of local officials were elected by noble assemblies. In following European models, the state organized, supervised, and directed elections to estate and local state offices.
However, in contrast to the European tradition, which had developed as a result of the conflict with the royal authorities, in the Russian empire it was the head of state and his government that implemented these models. They skillfully introduced estate institutions and the elective approach in order to involve all strata of society in the affairs of state. Elected officials reported to the state administration rather than to the electorate. Their jurisdiction was focused more on the tasks set by the state rather than on the needs of their estate.
The “Elective Service Statute” makes virtually no mention of meeting corporate needs, suggesting that estates enjoyed little independence. No line was drawn between the affairs of state and local matters; the interests of the state not so much prevailed over all others as were identified with them. The imperial policy of the supreme authorities overcame the disloyalty of the Right-Bank elites by stripping them of the right to elect and hence participate in the formation of local government bodies.
Nonetheless, it may be said that self-government existed, albeit in an embryonic state, and it was manifest, above all, in the elective principle, certain elements of public openness — weak as it was — and the ability to influence the composition of elected officials. However, owing to the low professional level of elected officials, the estate elective service, which was characteristic of the Russian regime in the mid-19th century, was no longer adequate for the needs of the state and the public.
