barriomulas.com - Breaking Down the Soviets

During the chaos and anarchy that characterized the Russian Revolutions of 1905 and 1917 arose the soviets; popular organs resembling community boards and neighborhood councils. These soviets took hold in each town as common everyday citizens joined them in hoards. In moments where a centralized state had fallen apart such popular organizations were much needed in order to maintain order and the continuation of public policy.

Hanah Arendt in "On Revolution" (read my review) discusses how similar organizations arose during the French and American Revolutions. Much like in Russia, these groups were hi-jacked by proponents of traditional legislators and representative government. The same occurred in even the Spanish War for Independence - which I recently researched in a previous posting. Ever since I was exposed to the Bolivarian Circles of Hugo Chavez's Venezuela and the community cells of Salvador Allende's Chile, I have been fascinated by the organic democracy of pro-active popular groups. It was Arendt's book and the writings of Thomas Jefferson that led me to believe that such groups could minimize the need for a centralized state. Though the Venezuelan and Chilean experiments were products of a personalized revolution, their more natural counterparts that arise during moments of anarchy have never been allowed to continue functioning. Those raised in the comfort of liberal democracy are often apathetic towards the study of revolution, but I argue that one can learn a lot about democracy in general by studying its pattern.

The Russian Revolution of 1917 was one of the few instances where soviets were allowed - and even partially encouraged - by the professional revolutionaries who were to hi-jack the state. Despite such, they were eventually infiltrated and corrupted by the desires and visions of few. It is for that reason that I had decided to read "The Soviet Political System: An Interpretation" by Alfred G. Meyer to identify the exact causes of the degeneration of the soviets.

These soviets arose by surprise and were the product of sporadic grass-roots organization. They represented the "most simple and direct form of democratic rule yet devised," (p. 39) and allowed for even "kitchen help to have a turn at running the state" (p. 41).

Professional full-time bureaucrats were no longer necessary and the division between rulers and ruled was to be eliminated (pp.78, 208). The revolutionaries were so sure that that state was to forever wither away, that they eliminated courts, law schools, and even laws themselves (p. 302).

Community soviets would elect members to regional soviets, who would in turn choose delegates for a higher up soviet, until creation an national soviet composed of representatives chosen organically in a pyramid-like fashion (pp. 39, 267.) The book refers to this as a "multiple screening process through various levels of administration."

At any time soviet members in either of the levels of government could be recalled - something that occurred quite often (pp. 42, 265). Thus, these organizations were quite sensitive to the public opinion (pp. 42, 268) and there existed as many moods and opinions as imaginable (p. 265). Also, once the soviet system was to become organized by the new Bolshevik regime, elections for different levels of soviets were to take place at different times, thus creating an environment of frequent elections (p. 269).

Up until now, the soviets reveal a very empowering and democratic spirit. Despite such, let us look at the problems that plagued it:

With too many members representing too many opinions it was almost impossible for the soviet or organize itself in an efficient manner. These organizations began to operate more and more through committees, commissions, and executive organs (pp. 40, 267). These committees would then further delegate executive power to cabinets (p. 267). "More meaningful debate," as the book states, "and decision making could be carried on by a smaller body meeting more frequently" (p. 40). Bureaus would be created, composed of full-time bureaucrats (p. 267) and a chairman of the soviet would be appointed, acting much like the prime minister of an executive branch (p. 40). Soviets resembled U.S. corporations where their members acted like stock holders who chose the presidency and directors (like corporate management) (p. 198). Though the legislatures of modern day democracies also specialize tasks through commissions and committees, this habit of boards naming boards and so on was contradictory to the very democratic purpose of the soviets.

The soviets were easily swayed by the manipulation of a few key members (p. 268). The Bolsheviks would utilize the recall mechanisms to push out unfriendly deputies and replace them with members of their movement (p. 267). A caucus of the Bolsheviks also existed (p. 43) thus compacting possible differences in opinion among their many members into a sole party platform. Upon consolidating power, non-Bolsheviks were harassed and eventually outlawed (p. 43). The soviets were quickly tamed by the party (p. 269).

The soviets took up the roles of all government branches and represented a tyranny of the majority (p. 268). They often disregarded the rules of politics and legislated with little concern or respect towards present norms (p. 268). Few ideologies will debate the danger that existing within a governing body that legislates, executes, and judges at the same time.

Though the Bolsheviks' aided the revolution with their calls for "all power to the soviets", the Bolsheviks have never seen the masses as instruments for public administration. Even prior to the revolution they pressed the need of a small, closed centralized revolutionary class. They stressed the "need [of] a government staffed with experienced administrators and not kitchen maids or semiliterate representatives of the masses" (p. 166). A "government of wise legislators," states the author (p. 166).

By the time Bolshevik officials were in total control, soviet candidates were nominated by a number of party-controlled organizations and finally screened by the party itself (p. 270). Elections for soviet positions were stocked with only a single candidate and limited to a simple yes or no vote (p. 271).

The soviet's primary weakness was found in the relative ease that manipulators and professional revolutionaries could infiltrate it. These characters would eventually eliminate the soviets as a democratic organism and replace it with a party dictatorship. The constant delegation of authority from committee to committee was also a problem, leading to the centralism and bureaucracy that brought down the previous regime to begin with.

Taking these things into consideration I wonder: the soviets obviously lacked the ability to survive by itself, but what if such a popular democratic pyramid were allowed to exist alongside the traditional three branches of government?