A few words about the mechanics of power

Because of the excessive costs connected to holding elections, as well as the electorate’s bribability and its foolishness, which verges on indifference, today many Ukrainian citizens think that elections are unnecessary and that something else should play the key role in shaping the powers that be. In the context of these attitudes it is helpful to take a look at the recent past, the first half of the 19th century, to find out whether elections were held in that day and age and if so, in which way.

Every state is based on a specific type of governance. Its historical forms change, and at a certain point it begins to require broader participation of the population than ever before and two approaches — a state-oriented one and civic one — are therefore combined. Their balance is not constant-rather, it is modified by political factors, the social structure of the society, its political culture, and international events.

For a long period of time elections were an important and effective element in shaping the government, strengthening its legitimacy, imparting authority, and fostering social stability. In this perspective, past experience is always interesting, particularly where the adoption and implementation of European patterns and models are concerned.

Before Ukraine became part of the Russian Empire, it had its own government system in which elected officials played a major role. In the Rzeczpospolita (the Polish Commonwealth) the king was elected by the Diet (Sejm), a representative and estate institution. In the Hetman State, the elective approach for the higher echelons of government also predominated, despite being narrowed, limited, and dependent on the Russian monarchs.

Ukrainian hetmans were elected even when they were prohibited from pursuing any kind of foreign policy and their domestic policies were subject to all kinds of checks, ranging from various special institutions to the pledge of allegiance to the Russian tsar. The elective principle was practiced also at the mid-level: colonels and captains were elected by the Ukrainian Cossacks. Most cities in Left-Bank Ukraine received Magdeburg Law or approximated it with an effective elective approach to filling the posts of municipal officials in magistracies and town halls.

When the ethnographic Ukrainian lands, in particular Left-Bank and Right-Bank Ukraine and the Crimea, became part of the Russian Empire, the Russian state’s legal traditions and practices of forming bureaucratic governments spread to these territories. In Russia only local authorities were elected, and this was not unintentional because people’s everyday problems are resolved not so much at the highest level as at the lowest, local, one.

Furthermore, the authority of elected officials was not inferior to that of their appointed counterparts because they encountered the real interests of people on an everyday basis, and the results of their activities had an immediate impact on the quality of people’s lives. Hence, it is worthwhile taking a closer look at the way the highest authorities set up the elective service and its special features in the Ukrainian gubernias of the Russian Empire.

Due to its predominant position, state service was more highly esteemed and deemed more prestigious and influential than elective service. The latter was in the shadows, although significant attention was paid to its regulation. Continuing the feeble attempts of Peter I, Catherine II improved the elective service by according it the status of an estate institution. It was only in the times of Nicholas I that this institution was given full- fledged legal support in the form of the act known as the “Elective Service Statute.”

It is reasonable to begin with those government positions to which officials were elected by the nobility, the ones that played a leading role in society and before which the law set a sizeable, although not very specific, requirement: to be guided by the professional qualities of government officials. Assemblies of the nobility, both in gubernias and counties, had to nominate the worthiest officials. These were to be found, as the highest government authorities believed, among both hereditary and individual noblemen in the gubernias. It was stipulated that noblemen who were still in the military, but were not actively serving in the army because of a wound, transfer to the reserve, or were on open-ended leave, could also be elected.

For the latter, their elective service was counted as active service and equaled military service, which was an incentive for their participation in local government. Ex-convicts also had the right to be elected, provided they had not been stripped of the estate’s privileges or had been released on the basis of a tsarist manifesto. It was allowed to elect those who were already in state service with prior arrangement with both the candidate and his superiors. This was necessary because an elective office required that any state position be abandoned. A state position, as well as municipal and merchant elective service, could not be coupled with elective service for the nobility.

In order to avoid abuses of power, in particular cover-ups of breaches of duty, informal personal contacts were mobilized. Thus, the statute banned the practice of electing members of the same institutions from among close relatives, especially fathers and sons, siblings, uncles and nephews, and fathers-in- law and sons-in-law.

The statute stipulated precisely which positions could be held by officials elected by noble assemblies. In order to staff the courts they elected the heads and assessors of criminal and civil chambers, as well as judges and assessors of county courts and “courts of conscience” (which were guided not only by statutory laws but natural law). Catherine II adopted the idea to introduce the latter kind of court with the appealing name from England, and even though its jurisdiction over personal freedom was far narrower in Russia, this move broke new ground in court practice.

It was permitted to elect two candidates for the heads of the criminal and civil chambers from the local nobility and other gubernias, based on their previous experience as assessors in these chambers, courts of conscience, or county courts. In any case, at least they took into account the duration of service of a particular state or elected official. In contrast to others, court officials were elected for a six-year term.

The elective principle also underpinned the county administrative police system. County police officers, county heads (for a term of six years), and assessors of county courts (term for three years) were elected at assemblies of the gubernial nobility. The honorary trustee of the gubernial gymnasium was also elected. This was a position to which gubernial or county leaders, judges of the “court of conscience,” or deputies from the nobility were elected.

Elected posts also included members of the public nutrition commission, a state institution that was responsible for storing up grain reserves to be used in case of crop failure. Grain storehouses were set up in landlords’ villages on the state’s initiative, while the replenishment and supervision of storage conditions were entrusted to officials elected by the nobility. These could be local hereditary noblemen without estate who, for the term of their service (six years), were considered assistants to the leader of the county nobility. This position came to be known as a “trustee of grain storehouses.”

In the same fashion, the nobility elected permanent members to such state bodies as construction and road commissions. In addition to such immediate participation, gubernial administrations also relied on the opinions of members of the noble assemblies on issues pertaining to the appointment of county police officers. The assemblies submitted lists of individuals who belonged to their ranks so that the governor could choose and appoint specific officials from among them.

The law clearly specified that its requirements were to be followed in electing candidates. Individual noblemen were allowed, provided their conduct was unimpeachable, and after reaching the age of 21 or older, they could become assessors at county courts. But if hereditary noblemen were not available, they could hold posts as county police officers and members of land courts. The latter position was introduced in every county to foster the friendly demarcation of lands in cases where they were inconveniently located (when one landlord’s lands were scattered among the plots of land belonging to another landowner).

The supreme authorities maintained control over the elections of officials to estate positions because they often had to carry out tasks designated by the state. Estate positions included: gubernial and county leaders, deputies to noble assemblies, secretaries of these assemblies, and deputies, who compiled the list of county services, which was a kind of tax budget. As a rule, gubernial leaders were men who had previously served as heads of law chambers or judges in the “courts of conscience,” and who met the property qualification. Candidates could not be owners of the vynnyi vidkup (the right to levy taxes on wine from the population) in the same gubernia, and in western gubernias, officials elected to these offices were forbidden to participate in the administrative management of state property. This ban was also extended to their wives and children.

Stringent requirements were also established for the post of county leader of the nobility. He could not be a non-ranking nobleman or one without the right to participate in the nobility’s assemblies and elections. It was permitted, however, to ignore the established property qualification (100 peasants or 8,100 acres of land/3,000 desiatynas/ ) provided that the hereditary nobleman enjoyed the respect and trust of the noble assembly.

These officials were elected in Katerynoslav, Poltava, Kharkiv, Kherson, and Chernihiv gubernias, where the local elite’s loyalty to the supreme authorities was beyond doubt. Furthermore, the nobility in Kharkiv, Chernihiv, and Poltava gubernias elected two candidates to head the Kharkiv branch of the commercial bank.

As far as the nobility in Kyiv, Podillia, Volhynia, and other western gubernias is concerned, because of their participation in the November Uprising of 1830 they were stripped of the right to hold important state positions, such as heads of criminal chambers, county police officers, and assessors at county courts. These positions were occupied by government-appointed officials. An exception was made for Count Boleslaw Potocki who, rather than being elected to the position of honorary trustee of Nemyriv Gymnasium, was awarded this title as the owner (since 1838) of the building where the gymnasium was located.

The nobility in Katerynoslav gubernia was also responsible for electing the honorary trustee for the gymnasium in Tahanrih, which was one of the county seats of the gubernia. The nobility on both banks of the Dnipro River also elected two candidates from their ranks from each gubernia to head the Kyiv branch of the commercial bank.

Article 12 of the Statute specifically mentioned elective service in Tavriia gubernia, declaring that Russian laws on elections had been introduced there pursuant to the May 14, 1840, regulation handed down by the Committee of Ministers, and that certain conditions applied. First, officials from the nobility were elected after previously appointed officials left their offices. An exception was made for two counties in Bessarabia oblast — Bessarabia and Akerman — where county judges were also county leaders because the noble class was rather thin on the ground there.

In addition to generally accepted requirements, there was one mandatory requirement for all elected officials — the ability to read and write in Russian. In order to qualify, candidates had to pass a literacy test certified by the gubernial leader of the nobility and the prosecutor.

Elected officials served one three-year term, with the exception of the above-mentioned court positions and the county police officer. In addition, members of housing commissions were elected on an annual basis. Elections were held regularly in December and January throughout the country. Elections could be rescheduled only in extraordinary circumstances and with the consent of the governor and the Minister of Internal Affairs as to the reason for rescheduling and the new date of the elections.

Remarkably, the nobility in Ukrainian gubernias held election assemblies at times that departed from the established pattern: in July in Volhynia gubernia, in August in Podillia gubernia, in September in Katerynoslav, Kherson, Poltava, Kharkiv, Tavriia, and Chernihiv gubernias, and in October in Kyiv gubernia. For most of them it was inconvenient to hold elections in December-January, when grain transactions were taking place.

To be continued in the next Ukraine Incognita column