The Position of Russian Provinical Officialdom in the Middle of the 19th Century: Law and Life

The study considered the discrepancy between the official status and real position of Russian provincial officialdom in the middle of the 19th century. The law was not entirely coherent in all aspects of the officials' life and activity, with ordinary deviations from the law being adopted in practice and accepted, albeit not openly, by the public and sometimes even by the authorities. The main law determining the rights and duties of governors was never followed to the letter and in reality governors' activities were determined by the common (unwritten) law existing in the governmental sphere. The volume and nature of the governors' rights depended on a range of factors, with specific regional features and the governor's personal qualities having a particular significance. The standard of living of government clerks was much higher than their official salary would permit and Matkhanova studied the most widespread cases of abuse, identifying those positions in the administration which offered the most opportunities for such abuses. At the start of the period and on the eve of the reforms public opinion towards the bribery of officials underwent a change. From the late 1850s onwards, there appeared among provincial officials a group of young well-educated clerks with liberal ideas and a new system of moral values which did not allow them to accept bribes or infringe the law in any way. There was also a non-official hierarchy side by side with the legally existing one. A significant role in governing the region, and one which has been underestimated by historians, was played by the head of the governor's office, but the reforms of the 1860s contributed to changing this state of affairs.

Legality and Human Rights: Administrative Justice in Russia 1862-1917

The question of how far pre-revolutionary Russia was from the ideal of a lawful state has received little academic attention, particularly as relates to the legal regulation of relations between person, society and state within the state administration. Pravilova explored the methods of settling disputes between individuals and the administration, and the emergence of legal controls of the administration, analysed projects for the organisation of administrative justice and studied the particular nature of concepts from Russian administrative justice. The idea of an organisation of special bodies examining complaints by private persons against the actions of officials and state bureaucratic organs first appeared in the early 1860s. In the 1870s-1890s various projects for the reform of administrative justice (reorganisation of the Senate and local administrative institutions) were proposed by the Ministries of Justice and Finance, but none of these was put into practice, largely due to resistance from the bureaucracy. At the same time, however, the rapid development of private enterprise, the activities of the zemstvo and self-government produced new norms and mechanisms for the regulation of authorities and social relations. Despite the lack of institutional conditions, the Senate did consider complaints from private persons against illegal actions by administrative officials, playing a role similar to that of the supreme administrative courts in France and Germany. The spread of concepts of a 'lawful state' aroused support for a system of administrative justice and the establishment of administrative tribunals was seen as a condition of legality and a guarantee of human rights. The government was forced to understand that measures to maintain legality were vital to preserve the stability of the system of state power, but plans for liberal reforms were pushed into the background by constitutional reforms. The idea of guarantees of human rights in relations with the authorities was in contradiction with the idea of the monarchy and it was only when the Provisional Government took power in 1917 that the liberal programme of legal reforms had any chance of being put into practice. A law passed in June 1917 ordained the organisation of local administrative justice bodies, but its implementation was hampered by the war, the shortage of qualified judges and the existing absolute legal illiteracy, and the few administrative courts that were set up were soon abolished by the new Soviet authorities. Pravilova concluded that the establishment of a lawful state in pre-revolutionary Russia was prevented by a number of factors, particularly the autocratic nature of the supreme authority, which was incompatible with the idea of administrative justice as a guarantee of the rights of citizens in their relations with the state.