Russia under the Old regime

298

totality strikingly anticipated the modern police state and even contained some seeds of totalitarianism. Betweeen 1878 and 1881 in Russia the legal and institutional bases were laid for a bureaucratic-police regime with totalitarian overtones that have not been dismantled since. The roots of modern totalitarianism, one may well argue, are sought more properly here than in the ideas of a Rousseau or Hegel or Marx. For while ideas can always beget other ideas, they produce institutional changes only if they fall on a soil well conditioned to receive them.

The imperial government's initial response to terror was to turn for assistance to the military. On 4 August 1878, a terrorist striking in broad daylight on a St Petersburg street knifed to death the Chief of Gendarmes. Five days later, the government issued a 'temporary' ruling - one of the many destined to acquire permanence - that from that time on armed resistance to government organs or assaults on government personnel while in performance of their duties would be tried by courts martial in accord with military statutes operative in wartime. The sentences required only the confirmation of the Chief of the local Military District. Thus, as far as terrorist activities were concerned, Russia was to be treated by its government as if it were occupied enemy territory. Even more far-reaching was a secret circular issued on 1 September 1878 (unpublished so far) detailing stiff preventive measures.14 These empowered members of the Corps of Gendarmes, and, in their absence, regular police officers, to detain and even exile administratively anyone suspected of political crimes. To exile someone under these provisions, the gendarmerie or police required only the approval of the Minister of the Interior and the Chief of Gendarmes; there was no need to request permission of the Procurator (Attorney General). The circular of 1 September marked in several important respects a major advance toward a police regime. Until that time, a Russian citizen actually had to commit a subversive act (verbal or written expression being included in that category) before being liable to exile. From now on, to suffer this fate it was enough for him merely to arouse suspicion. This measure put in place a second pillar of the police state; the first, set in 1845, had made it a criminal offence for a private individual to concern himself with politics; now he was treated as a criminal even if he only appeared likely to do so. Introduced here was the preventive element essential to the proper functioning of every police state. Secondly, die wide latitude granted to bureaucrats and policemen to sentence Russian citizens to exile entailed a diminution of the crown's authority. This was the first of several measures taken during diis critical time which (unintentionally, of course) distributed prerogatives previously exercised exclusively by the monarch among his subordinate officials. Finally, the right of functionaries to exercise judiciary powers without consulting the Procurator marked the