-Democracy with Russian Characteristics-

After all, those who vote decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything...)

　Emperor Nicholas II mistook "the expansion of the right to vote" for democracy, and while he promoted mass mobilization, he also promoted the centralization of state institutions with the cooperation of the "national unity war cabinet," and, under the pretext of war, he went on to build an authoritarian regime based on "emergency powers."

　Having experienced the Russian Revolution, Stalin also realized that the tsarist regime could not be maintained by traditional authority alone.

　Stalin's new idea Emperor The statues are closer to those of the Second French Empire under Napoleon III, the German Empire, and the Empire of Japan.

In short, it was a combination of militarism and Bonapartism, and the country was united through the power of the military and the authority of the emperor, and the country was driven by developmental dictatorship methods to "enrich the country and strengthen its military."

　Particular emphasis was placed on the military industry in order to win the war, and a powerful military-industrial complex was created under state leadership through cooperation with large conglomerates and state-sponsored companies.

　In addition to this "unification from above," Tsar Nicholas II was also steadily pushing ahead with "unification from below" by mobilizing the masses.

(In the Russian Revolution, it was mainly the urban proletariat and some highly educated elites who actively sought to overthrow the tsarist government; not the conservative peasants, aristocrats, military or big bourgeoisie.)

　Tsar Nicholas II promised the people expanded voting rights and, under the pretext of "everyone's participation," tried to wrest real power in parliament from the elite.

(The guy with the moustache understood the psychology of the masses very well. Those who want a "weak leader" are basically the elites, while the masses want a "strong leader.")

　The term "independent individuals" only applies to a select few elites. Most of the general public are "individuals who cannot be independent" and cannot survive without the protection of the state in the face of disasters or depression.

　---Mutual help is better than self-help, and public help is better than mutual help. Unity is power!

　---There is no freedom greater than order. Cooperation over competition!

　---Let's all join forces and overcome this national crisis!

　Tsar Nicholas II, aka Stalin, also put a lot of effort into propaganda.

Using the emergency of war as a justification, they rejected "liberalism" and "individualism" and preached "authoritarianism" and "collectivism," inciting the masses to believe that community service, self-sacrifice, and maintaining public order are the keys to victory and prosperity.

　The Holy Synod, which governs the Russian Orthodox Church, played an important role here. The Russian Orthodox Church has close ties to the imperial family, and unlike in Western Europe, the Russian emperor is also a religious leader.

　Nicholas II won over the poor by supporting the poor relief activities of the Russian Orthodox Church, and the religious right was transformed into a voting bloc of ardent supporters of the tsar.

　This propaganda was effective, and the number of people joining the Right Bloc, which supported the emperor, increased dramatically.

　This has alarmed the existing elites. They criticize the right-wing bloc as "populism," but are instead met with counterarguments such as "isn't that the very essence of democracy?", "If the public prefers stability over freedom, then restricting freedom is democracy," and "Don't deny the public will."

"Just because you won the election doesn't mean you can do whatever you want."

　Nikolai Mikhailovsky, a leading figure in the Narodnik movement, a democratic social movement led by intellectuals, criticized this trend of equating majority rule with democracy, but the uneducated masses hardly understood the difference.

　This was countered by Alexander Kerensky, a popular member of the State Duma.

"If you are dissatisfied with the policies, you can just win the next election legally. The right to vote comes with the obligation to take responsibility for the election results."

　Kerensky was once a leading anti-imperial leader, but he became awakened to patriotism during World War I and became devoted to Tsar Nicholas II, who had exiled Rasputin and expanded voting rights, and is now beginning to stand out in the "Grand Coalition" government.

Kerensky was a democrat, but not a liberal democrat. He was dissatisfied with the tsarist government because political leadership was held by the vested interests of the imperial family and other elites.

　If the masses participate in politics and, under their leadership, favor support for the imperial regime or a centralized system, then even if the result is an authoritarian regime, it is not a problem because "public opinion is reflected in the procedures."

"We must have a government of Russians, for Russians!"

　In addition, Kerensky, who had awakened to patriotism through the war, keenly felt the importance of building a "nation-state," and he felt the need to transform the feudal classes of Cossacks, nobles, and peasants into a unified, homogenous people - a united Russian people.

"For the common good of all Russians!"

　Kerensky's ideas and beliefs were summed up in this phrase, and he was not so different from Stalin in terms of monolithicism based on the premise of a homogenous people.

　"When it comes to social issues, the interests of the Russian people, who are a homogenous people, can ultimately be united! And the parliament elected through universal suffrage represents the public interests of the entire nation, which is a monolith, and promoting them efficiently is the key to a democratic yet centralized government.Russian features...A Democracy..."Yes!"

　In short, it was a denial of diversity.

　Kerensky was a supporter of public opinion, but because it was wartime he believed that "public opinion should be consolidated into one," and was opposed to pluralism, which would mean that "diverse public opinion should be recognized."

　This is a major difference from decentralized systems like those in the United States, where, although it is a democracy in the sense that it "respects public will," there are groups and forces with diverse ethnicities, religions, and ideologies, and the system considers "public will is pluralistic," and seeks to separate and coexist with others by remaining in favor of the general idea but opposed to the specifics.

　In peacetime, there would have been many who would have been sympathetic to pluralism, using "diversity" as a shield, but in wartime, diversity and disagreement are associated with disorder, while monolithism is associated with stability and order.

　Through their experience of World War I, the Russians gained a common enemy in the Central Powers, and for the first time in their history they became united. As momentum grew for the construction of a nation-state that sought to increase homogeneity among the people, they began to seek strong and efficient leadership.

That's not all.

　Leaving the people to decide who their leader will be also means that it is a direct reflection of the people's educational level and literacy.

　At that time, the so-called "level of civility" in Russia was not high enough to be swayed by things like clear short-term benefits, easy-to-understand slogans, cool candidates, and impressive titles.

"--Money! I have plenty of money! When I become a council member, I will give a bonus to all the residents of the district who helped me get elected!"

"I am the true heir to the Russian Imperial family! I will wipe out the corrupt bureaucrats that exist today! Please cast your vote!"

"Our homeland is in danger! We will sacrifice the Jewish traitors, win this war, and extort a huge amount of reparations from the hated Germany! Come together to our Patriotic Knights!"

"We have been exploited by the aristocrats and capitalists up until now! It is time to wipe out the dogs of capitalism, crack down on long working hours, resale and price gouging, double the minimum wage and create a prosperous society! Workers of the world, unite!"

　As expected, Russia's first general elections have been a parade of worthless candidates, including vote-spending candidates, fake royals, Jewish conspiracy theorists, and left-wing populists.

"...If that's the case, wouldn't it have been better to remain an empire?"

"To begin with, I can't read."

"The biggest circle on the ballot is the candidate recommended by the 'grand coalition.'"

"I think I'll vote for the candidate recommended by the Grand Coalition, who is as close to the Imperial government as possible..."

　In times of confusion, when people are unsure what to do, they often tend to choose the safe option of relying on existing authority or tradition.

　＊＊＊

　Thus, in Russia's first general election, just as Emperor Nicholas II had predicted, candidates from the "Grand Coalition" who supported the Emperor and called for the continuation of the existing course were overwhelmingly elected, and the ruling "Grand Coalition" gained complete control of parliament.

In response to this result,Constitutional Democratic Party"or"October Party" became increasingly dependent on the "grand coalition."

　Local Assembly Zemstvo In recent elections, there has been a succession of cases of piggybacking, with many political parties supporting the same government-appointed candidate as a common candidate, resulting in an "all-ruling party" situation.

　In this way, the election was merely a formality. Since there was no rival to the government-appointed candidate, even though the people had the right to vote, they were only given the choice of whether to trust or not trust the single candidate recommended by the "grand coalition." This was a so-called vote of confidence.

In this way, the election was merely a formality. Since there was no rival to the government-appointed candidate, even though the people had the right to vote, they were only given the choice of whether to trust or not trust the single candidate recommended by the "grand coalition." This was a so-called vote of confidence.

　Of course, there were some courageous independent candidates who ran for office, but the cities and regions that elected such candidates were not only treated poorly, such as by having subsidies cut, but they were also punished one after another legally, with criticism of ruling party politicians or the policies of the ruling party being criminally punished by constituting defamation of individuals or groups, or by charging them with crimes of civil unrest or sedition.

　The final blow was gerrymandering and collusion with vested interests, as well as vote-gathering tactics such as buying off labor and agricultural unions through vested interests such as public works and subsidies.

　At this point, party politics had become mere name, and progressive politicians such as Milyukov, faced with the reality, moved to compromise, saying, "Instead of opposing the system, we should cooperate with it and reform it from within."

　Thus the "grand coalition" became the norm, and with the establishment of the only parliamentary group, the "Great Russia Assistance Association," free discussion and criticism were lost from the parliament, and it was transformed into a "support parliament" that merely formally approved the decisions of the cabinet and state ministers.

　Although it is nominally a multi-party system, due to the normalization of grand coalitions, the Constitutional Democratic Party and the October Party are in reality factions within a single party rather than separate political parties.

　In a sense, this could be seen as a return to the principle of "democratic centralism" from Lenin's time, namely, "freedom of criticism and unity of action."

　In other words, criticism is free at cabinet meetings and in party committees, but discussions cannot be taken outside the government, and no action can be taken that goes against the final cabinet decision.

　Stalin once said, "Within the Party Sect By issuing a decree banning the formation of a new party, the US transformed the "democratic centralism" of the Lenin era into a completely monolithic organizational structure, but this time the situation was different.

This is because, although General Secretary Stalin, who was merely "one of the Communist Party members," and Tsar Nicholas II, who was "God's representative," had the same power, their authority was overwhelmingly different.

　Rather, as the sole and absolute emperor, he could use his authority to mediate between factions, thereby increasing his own power and authority.

(Or rather, to put it bluntly, banning the formation of factions wasn't very meaningful...)

　Looking back, although there were no overt faction meetings, factions such as the Beria faction and the Khrushchev faction did in fact exist in the final days of Stalin's regime.

　Stalin himself had used these infightings among his close associates to maintain his power, so he decided to go back on his tune when it came to the "ban on the formation of factions."

"Criticism is free, but action must be unified. Democratic centralism is what Russia needs right now."

　In this way, the Russian Empire established a de facto "one country, one party" system and mobilized all of its national power for all-out war.

　Separation of powers and separation of authority have essentially been denied, and instead, under the slogan of "breaking down vertical divisions," the trend toward making government more efficient by concentrating power is accelerating.

　Not only was power concentrated in the central government, but existing labor unions and traditional rural communities were also dismantled in the regions, while the Russian people were reorganized into state-led, government-run labor unions and collective farms, establishing a pyramidal, hyper-centralized system.

　The ruling party holds mass rallies across the country, drawing hundreds of thousands of people to its streets in a show of mass power to intimidate its opponents. Right-wing militias take part in parades, their green uniforms easily recognisable in the crowds.

　The topics discussed at the meetings were varied, but the main themes were victory and restoration of glory, complete reform of the empire, and Nicholas II the Living Giant.

　Supporting this is the Orthodox Church, which has a network that spans the entire country of Russia, a technocracy of elite bureaucrats who have passed the rigorous civil service examination, and the military-industrial complex that supports the bloated military.

　Of course, the emperor also had firm control over the actual working forces, the army and the secret police, and supported by these three sacred treasures of the party, the army, and the secret police, the Russian Empire was on the verge of being reborn as a totally streamlined, rational and efficient war machine.