PROVINCE IN THE FEBRUARY REVOLUTION
D.A. Safonov
Orenburg State University (OSU), 18, Pobedy Avenue, Orenburg, 460018, Russia
Keywords: Province, revolution, change, people, power, province, state laws
Abstract
The problem of the interconnection of February Revolution and the province may be considered in two ways: first, as a process, begun in the capital and spread all over the country, and, secondly, as a process of change in the provincial life in the period from February to October 1917. Use of facts from different regions provides a kind of “virtual” province, sort of “non-capital”, however, it has nothing to do with any of the existing provincial governovates. The author believes it can be useful to look at the issue locally, within one single territory - Orenburg province. The author is of the second opinion; no ascendancy of the revolution in the province was observed: no one wanted to replace the authorities forcibly, the “old” power was held firmly enough, and could have been able to repel any attempts. The population of the province apprehended the transition to power of the Provisional Government rather calmly. Transformation of absolute monarchy into a constitutional could not be a revolutionary change as it had been harmonically blended into the existing state system. The changes were limited to renaming - governors to provincial commissioners, the police - the militia, and the removal of certain officials. In general, the information picture of the region was a complex ever-changing mosaic with elements of guessing of the missing elements. Analysis of the evidence and facts of social activity in the region shows that in a few months the provincial life was dominated by (mainly in the countryside) the delusional belief about the disappearance of the state in general, with its management structure and order, law and responsibility for the committed crimes. As the result there was an increase of criminal acts, both quantitative and qualitative. The situation got out of control, the feeling of “inner liberation” strengthened within the masses and it was not about the emancipation of the individual, but more about rudeness, aggressiveness, violence. All these far-reaching effects were especially evident during the civil war.
|