Liberals in bad weather. Part 2. Yollos

But Alexander’s Russia was still fundamentally different from Nikolaev’s. It was possible to limit university freedoms, but it was no longer possible to completely destroy them. As well as eliminating all criticism in newspapers. Moreover, the surviving opposition publications were examples of respectability and high quality journalism, among which Russkie Vedomosti stood out, in which many intellectuals critical of the authorities, including teachers of Moscow University, were published (which created for them the image of a “professor’s newspaper” ). A significant place in the newspaper was devoted to international life, which is not surprising - censorship on domestic Russian issues was much more severe, and, in addition, political processes in European countries gave many reasons for comment. The famous emigrant, populist Pyotr Lavrov (of course, under a pseudonym) wrote from London for Russkiye Vedomosti. And from Berlin - Grigory Iollos, who was one of the most influential Russian journalists (an analogy with late Soviet times suggests itself, when reports and texts of qualified international experts attracted much more attention than the “obligation” in the form of official editorials).

Grigory Borisovich Yollos was a Jew by nationality and a Jew by religion - for Russia at the end of the 19th century, this meant the closure of most opportunities for self-realization. A brilliant lawyer, Doctor of Law from Heidelberg and Master of Political Economy from Moscow University, he could not get a chair because of his origin. As a result, he left abroad and changed his profession; the failed professor became a journalist. For a decade and a half, he published his articles in Russkie Vedomosti - Iollos’s materials became a kind of textbook on parliamentary democracy. These articles did not contain momentary sensations - they were about serious analytical materials intended for an “advanced” audience. And at the same time, the presence of a specific informational occasion gave Iollos’s publications relevance, attracting the attention of educated readers who are not ready to accept political science treatises (both in the century before last and now). He offered the audience a kind of case study, based on which it was possible to get an idea of ​​how elections are held, what political parties are doing and what the ideological agenda of European society is.

Yollos contrasted Bismarck's Germany of “iron and blood” with another Germany - a country in which intense intellectual discussions took place. His hero is the famous doctor Virchow, who not only consistently defended liberal values ​​in his public activities, but also for several decades was involved in real projects within the framework of Berlin self-government (opening hospitals, shelters, improvements in public utilities, etc.). Yollos also drew attention to other experiences of local self-government, which in German conditions was much more independent and influential than in Russian ones. But even when he wrote about Bismarck, he focused not on the authoritarian side of his rule, but on the fact that his successes were associated with the chancellor’s pragmatic alliance with the liberal middle class and the ability to rise above the narrow interests of conservatives, solving problems of a national scale.

Yollos also analyzed the activities of Bismarck’s irreconcilable opponents, the Social Democrats, who in his articles were presented not as dangerous troublemakers, but as a political party operating in conditions of parliamentarism and competitive elections. He talked about the struggle of wage workers for their rights, advocating social reforms and giving arguments in their favor, put forward by both the left and representatives of centrist political forces. He wrote about the attempts of the reactionary part of the German government to put pressure on the legal profession - and demonstrated how public opinion countered such attempts (and much more successfully than in Russia). He gave a detailed description of parliamentary procedures - for example, those in force when discussing the budget or communicating between parliamentarians and ministers, who had to explain to deputies the motives for their actions (in contrast to Russia, where the official was a “celestial being”).

“The greatness of a country, its prosperity and significance in the world depend on the degree of participation of the population in deciding their own destinies, on the awareness of their rights and their responsibilities among citizens,” Yollos wrote in the preface to a collection of his publications, published under the title “Letters from Berlin.” in 1904, shortly before the author moved from journalism to political practice. During the revolutionary storm of 1905, he returned to Russia, became one of the leaders of the Cadet Party and was elected to the First State Duma, where he became almost the only parliamentarian who had not only a theoretical, but also a practical understanding of the work of the highest legislative body of power. For the Black Hundreds, Yollos was one of the most hated figures, symbolizing the participation of “Jewry” in political life. Having a negative attitude towards any nationalism, he was opposed to the isolation of Jews in Russian society - but it was precisely such politicians who sought to overcome national barriers that aroused the greatest hostility on the part of the reactionaries.

In 1906, Iollos saw off on his last journey Mikhail Herzenstein, his colleague in the first Russian parliament, who was killed by the ultra-right immediately after signing the Vyborg Appeal protesting the dissolution of the Duma (which also bore Iollos’ autograph). The following year, Yollos himself, who at that time was one of the leaders of Russkie Vedomosti, was killed as a result of a Black Hundred provocation - a member of the Union of Russian People convinced a naive worker that it was necessary to shoot the traitor who had robbed the revolutionaries. He killed - and having learned who Yollos really was, he dealt with the instigator. Russkie Vedomosti was published for another decade - and was closed by the Bolsheviks, who were even less compatible with political freedoms than Alexander III and Pobedonostsev.

The author is first vice-president of the Center for Political Technologies