The Science Work
History
Site is for sale: mail@thesciencework.com
Category: History

Incorporation of administrative structures of national regions in a control system of the Russian Empire


34 (09)

INCORPORATION of ADMINISTRATIVE STRUCTURES of NATIONAL REGIONS IN the CONTROL SYSTEM of the RUSSIAN EMPIRE

of PROCESS OF INTRODUCING ADMINISTRATIVE STRUCTURES OF NATIONAL REGIONS INTO ADMINISTRATIVE SYSTEM OF THE RUSSIAN EMPIRE

H. I. KRASNYAKOV (n. I. KRASNYAKOV)

Evolution of the imperial state is analyzed by UDK in a combination of civilization and formational approaches to statehood. The attention to the strategy of cooperation of regional elite and traditions of an avtonomizm in state system of Russia by XVIII - the beginnings of the 20th centuries is focused. Are designated specifics of an imperiostroitelstvo in Russia and model of regional government.

of The article analyzes evolution of the imperial state in the combination of civilizational and formation approaches to statehood and gives the author&s view on its characteristics. The attention on the strategy of regional elite&s cooperation and traditions of an autonomizm in public administration of Russia during the period from the XVIII to the beginning of the XX century is emphasized. Specific characteristics of an imperial construction in Russia and models of regional management are specified here.

of Key words: Russia, empire, authority, public administration, ethnos.

the Latest works on imperial history are quite often characterized by a tendency to consideration of the empire as the operating structure of the imperious relations and certain social and cultural hierarchies, generally multiethnic or class, however, on the other hand, the aspiration to establish and other plane - "develops how the empire as space of experience, opening and interaction" arises and remains [1], and therefore we will make an attempt to investigate practice of embedding of the imperial periphery to the uniform state.

of Relationship imperial and regional elite in an imperiostroitelstvo

Since Ivan IV the Russian state, having attached the Kazan and Astrakhan khanates, chose the path of incorporation of the territories occupied by the non-russian population and transformations foreign, and first of all on the basis of religion, political communities within the formed centralized statehood. Gradual changes of the name "Russia" on Russia, acceptance of a title of the tsar, declaration of ideology of the sovereignty of the governor, his sacral power on a sample of Byzantium and submission to themselves the attached territories became expression of this process. Gaining new lands was conceptualized within "royal destiny" and therefore supreme authority already the decision allowed local elite to manage in a certain measure the territory and to keep former traditions, the right and religious views within the internal administrative device, and the further logic of an imperiostroitelstvo usually led to cooptation of local elite in the list of public servants of the empire. So, if to understand as the empire the major, slozhnosostavny power consisting of integrated and subordinates of territories which possessed universal ideology and where the center controlled peripheral territories with culturally inakovy population, then the particularly important becomes an issue of relationship of elite.

© N.I. Krasnyakov, 2013 20

of Tradition and the practician of an imperiostroi-telstvo was led to the fact that much more often the imperial center resorted to cooperation policy with inoetnichny elite by means of which again attached territories were controlled and coped. A prerequisite to that was the loyal relation of the last to supreme authority. The strategy of cooperation and a frame of the avtono-mizm provided to the peripheral territory were defined and changed in each case individually for each certain suburban territory. Changes took place in case peripheral elite refused loyalty of supreme authority, looking for protection at other states, showed to the imperial center armed resistance or were integrated on Wednesday culturally prepotent elite and dissolved in it. Let's note, however, that the shortcoming of competent persons among prepotent central elite did empires dependent on readiness of inoetnichny elite to cooperate in spheres of management and control over the periphery and also partially in military and bureaucratic areas. Therefore, as a rule, behind local elite their rights and privileges (possession of the earth, a local legal system, self-government, freedom of religion) remained. In exchange supreme authority demanded from them execution of military and civil services and also ensuring taxation on places.

of the Logician of process of cooptation included creation of structural prerequisites - formation of the landowners' nobility, then inoetnichny elite irrespective of their faith and language was co-opted in imperial elite or the hereditary nobility. If such conditions were not created (elite acted against), then they lost class management, for example in the Baltics. Generalizing established practices of interaction of the central power with elite of the periphery, we will note that it was formed taking into account political and legal way of the attached territories, and therefore significantly differed in relation to east, southern and western outskirts. Let's allocate the developed types of options of possible alternatives of such cooperation, having noted their dynamic characteristics

in time in connection with a common desire to unification of public administration in the Russian Empire.

of the Politician of centralization of the 17th century caused the first type at which elite new, not having independent political and state experience, possession of Russia was not recognized as equal not only politically, but also socially and as they not equal on the status were not co-opted in imperial elite, were under supervision of the Russian representatives of the center appointed to the territory. Local elite of most of the people of Siberia and Far North culturally and socially differed from the bulk of the population of the region, in particular, privileged not noble groups of the soldiers who had the special status were ranked as them. Here it is possible to carry elite of nomadic Bashkirs and Kazakhs, foremen of the Don and Ukrainian Dnieper Cossacks of the period of 17001764, and after that, with registration of the class organization of a ruling layer of bureaucracy, they begin gradually for a long time with the codified acts concerning management of certain regions, for example on the Siberian establishment of 1822, to acquire "the rights and privileges", first, on all-imperial classification of class accessory and, secondly, according to official situation on "Tables of ranks".

can consider the Following choice of supreme authority the strategy of indirect domination - for the territories which are, as a rule, on the most remote or recently attached periphery which continued to exist as a complete part. The governor coming from local elite kept the powers of authority, at the same time turning into the vassal of the imperial center at whom there was a commissioner of supreme authority of the empire as a sample - the khanates of Central Asia of the second half of the 19th century. The internal relations, and together with them and position of inoetnichny elite in this case did not change, restrictions were introduced only in questions of foreign policy and protection of borders of the empire in the form of imperial troops on the periphery, for example, the power of the hetman and Cossack foremen in Little Russia till 1708

the Third type is caused by the available state and legal traditions of the attached territories and is characteristic of the Central European "compound state" with its guarantees of the class rights and freedoms of regions. At this way of cooptation the center or the deputy put by it controlled peripheral territories, as a rule, without intervention in their internal affairs and the developed local management system. Inoreligiozny elite of this region with their korporativnososlovny device realized the broad autonomistic tradition developing in the Russian Empire from 18th century, their class rights and privileges were guaranteed until it was equitable to the interests of the monarch. The German nobility of Ostzeysky provinces, the nobility of the Kingdom Polish (till 1831) and the Swedish nobility in Finland treat this type.

I, at last, the fourth form of cooperation belonged to loyal elite of new territories of the empire and consisted in politikoadministrativny control over the periphery and its elite population groups which did not have political independence which possessed at best limited class self-government. However representatives of this elite kept cultural and social domination in the region and, as a rule, were co-opted in imperial elite. An example is the Polish nobility of the western provinces (Lithuania, Belarus, Right-bank Ukraine), and after 1831 - the Kingdom the Polish and Muslim nobility of Transcaucasia. For this reason by the beginning of the 20th century on the outskirts the problem of replenishment of the staff of public servants was generally solved, and at revision "rules about advantages of service in the remote areas and in provinces western and the Kingdom Polish" the special government commission in 1910-1911 was seriously asked about abolition of privileges to the officials serving there [2]. Similar practice of cooptation of elite of the periphery - the typical phenomenon for the imperial organization of political community, in particular, in the Ottoman Empire successful deduction of various elite together till 1908 provided mainly flexibility of policy and special

of a measure in relation to local elite and also balance between the center and the periphery [3].

the Class organization of society of the uniform state for the Russian and foreign bureaucracy, as obliges most involved in the main public relations in pieces of property, led to deleting of borders between elite, especially between ispovedyvayushchy one religion. At the same time on the peasants keeping breeding, ethnic and religious identity and the nomadic population, in particular Siberia, Transcaucasia and Asian possession, integration almost or at all did not extend. Let's note that in the context of processes of unification, systematization and centralization of public administration, since

XVIII century, transition to the strategy allowing to tie more strong peripheral elite to the center happened. The similar course was accepted by Peter I to non-Christian elite in the east of the empire and at Catherine II is continued concerning class traditions of Ukrainians and ostzeysky Germans in the western territories. However in the changed geopolitical situation in Europe of the end of the 18th century there is the next return to policy of flexible integration. In the Russian Empire from the beginning of government of Catherine II the center passes to cooperation policy with spiritual elite of not orthodox faiths, seeking for strengthening of own domination on the outskirts and stopping undesirable contacts of the imperial outskirts with neighboring states. If in pre-Pertine Russia the existence of non-Christian communities was allowed, then at Peter I the Lutheran church of ostzeysky provinces gains already official recognition.

Experience of formation of the polyconfessional state and russification of the periphery

In a situation when local management concentrated in other traditional structures - the religious Muslim community taking into account that "the Islamic factor" was for Russia a component of a system of the foreign policy relations with the countries where the Muslim population - Turkey and Iran prevailed, since Ekaterina's time the supreme authority began to include their representatives in various estates and class groups which are available in the monarchy (the nobility, merchants, the Cossacks, etc.) with distribution on them the relevant rights and duties [4]. For management of the Russian Muslims and control over them the empress Catherine II approves "A spiritual meeting" headed by the mufti. As a result at the end of XVIII - the 70th

by

XIX created the main Russian legal framework regulating an all-imperial order of spiritual life of Muslims on which mainly and the local management in the Central Asian possession of Russia was founded century. One of researchers of a national factor in state system of the European empires marked out the following significant property of process: prepotent, legitimating

the power of faith were in the conflict with multiconfessional structure of the empire. According to him, universal violent establishment of the dominating belief as in the Habsburg empire in the attitude towards Protestants and Jews, at the same time he emphasizes that "we will not find almost any case of total and consecutive religious unification of imperial citizens in domoderny Russian and Ottoman empires" [5] was one of possible forms of overcoming the conflict. In Russia the imperial center whenever possible cooperated with spiritual elite of regional and ethnic not prepotent faiths, and hierarches of other religions had to legitimate the sacral power of supreme authority on the periphery.

As we see

>, implementation of imperial policy was closely connected with a problem of forming of the relations of the power from polyconfessional, in many respects Catholic and Muslim, elite. Emphasized value of this condition on definition of approaches, the directions and measures of administrative activity of the state been born and grown in Tiflis S.Yu. Witte: "All error of our multiten-year policy is what we did not realize yet that since Peter the Great and Catherine the Great there is no Russia, and there is the Russian Empire. When about 35% of the population - foreigners, and Russians are divided into members of the party Great Russia, maloross and beloross, it is impossible in the 19th and 20th ages of a message for the politician, ignoring this the historical fact of capital importance, ignoring national properties of other nationalities which entered the Russian Empire - their religion, their language and so forth" [6]. His conviction to distinguish public administration on the confessional structure of the population and regions meant, on our belief, first, preservation by the beginning of the 20th century by the people of the Russian Empire of the religious differences, secondly, existence of traditions and continuity in management at the local and central levels, thirdly, former relevance of such view of regional government. In particular, the Fund of department of spiritual affairs of foreign confessions contains the Note then still Minister of Finance S.Yu. Witte of October 25, 1900 to the Minister of War which is directly reflecting communication of public administration and religion of the foreign population of the attached territories: "The choice and forms of supervision can be very various, and their choice, apparently, has to be caused quite by the nature and features of the environment which is subject to observation. Spiritual life of the followers of Islam who are belonging, as we know, with special jealousy of questions of the religion and not differing in lump in high extent of intellectual development represents in this regard very adverse soil for administrative influence" [7].

we will note

Owing to told that, starting with Catherine II, accession of huge regions with the considerable Catholic and Muslim population forced supreme authority to be engaged, first of all in "the government purposes", establishment of institutes of management of spiritual life of foreigners and body of "the state supervision" behind them. The solution of the last problem led in 1810 to creation of special secular official structure which, eventually, in 1832 was registered in Department of spiritual affairs of foreign confessions of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. Let's emphasize because also the problem of "russification" in the conditions of religious that is

by

of a lerantnost it cannot be reflected unambiguously, for clarity of such perception it is enough even to reflect three of its different values only. For example, during Catherine II's era "obrusevaniye" assumed the public policy directed to administrative unification of imperial management, and the second sense connected more with the word "become Russified" meant spontaneous process of self-adapting of the attached people to norms of life and the dominating empire language in the daily public relations. To the second third of the 19th century this trend promoted familiarizing of foreigners, except for living on the territories attached from Poland, to European civilization. At last, the third historical form of russification in the conditions of raising of nationalist sentiments in regions meaning violently is identified with the concept "become Russified" to turn into Russians in cultural sense of the word.

government circles had no doubts in need of further russification of the outskirts, but methods of its carrying out seemed differently. As opposed to a rigid rusifikatorsky course of Pobedonostsev who had a great influence both on Alexander III, and on Nicholas II, the famous statesman, the Chairman of the Committee of ministers N. of X. Bunge urged to look for new approaches in the solution of national problems. In "political testament" he formulated more liberal principles of national policy: "It is worth to remember that the Russian government should not dominate on the outskirts as the power of the conqueror, and as the power which all population considers the benefit granted to it; that the Russian statehood has to rely on recognition of superiority of the Russian public institutions; that the inoplemenny population has to understand not only need, but also advantage of the use of Russian; that the respect for the dominating church has to have the source spirit of Christian mildness and love, only at observance of these conditions it is possible to count on close connection of the outskirts with all state" [8]. In this context we will emphasize that the claim for correction of ru-socentrichny approach to the Russian history due to introduction of multiethnic prospect can lead to anachronisms in determination of nature of the empire, in particular to revaluation of national phenomena [9].

Can claim

that there was a certain trend in the relations "the state - ethnic groups" when actual "mno-gonarodnost" [10] of the Russian Empire found expression in plurality of ethno-confessional groups therefore since the period of government of Catherine II the lawmaking directed to consolidation of the principle (let and limited) tolerations, was beyond the sphere of religious life. In fact, registration of a class system of such developed "multinational" society of Russia by the empress at the heart of which the religious sign was not defining for century underlay the new principle of public administration putting imperial loyalty above ethnic and religious uniformity forward. Actually, on this basis in the history of Russia as multiethnic and polyregional state education traditions of the centralized and unified public administration with asymmetric the state and territorial device, the asymmetric state and territorial device were flexibly combined with autonomistic regional self-government, imperial regionalism with public and territorial self-government within local management systems.

Reflection of autonomistic tradition of state system of Russia in models of regional government

In the 18th century as a result of territorial expansion of the state develops the imperial form of government connected with association within one state education of various people (with the non-uniform level of development of economy, culture, religious affiliation, administrative and standard systems, etc.), with allocation of the imperial center presented by the uniform (absolutist) system of the government acting through its Supreme carrier with a title of the emperor and in general the centralized public administration and the legislation

taking into account use in the bigger or smaller volume of state and legal traditions and experience of development (at their absence - the developed system of patrimonial management and common law) national and ethnic regions to their inclusion in structure of the empire. Imperiostroitelstvo of the Russian state in comparison with other empires had the specifics - in the Russian option geopolitical reasons prevailed, at the same time territorial expansion had character not colonial as directed to economic exploitation of the attached lands, and essentially kolonizatsionny (though some lines of colonial policy were shown concerning the Siberian region), meaning inclusion of boundary territories for ensuring own external safety or voluntary occurrence of the people under protection of stronger political community - Russia. Need of maintenance of the state unity in evolution of an imperiostroitelstvo strengthened use of legal tools in implementation of ethnopolicy of supreme authority. Development on this basis of various options of inclusion of national and ethnic regions in political and legal space of the Russian Empire defined development of a problem of the "general" political and territorial structure of the state as central Russian and "special", regional status with concrete administrative and standard communication of the government of the center with the non-russian outskirts which found expression, in particular, in such questions: about approaches to ensuring the state unity of the Russian Empire in general; about a combination of the beginnings of the state decentralization, local regional centralization and a dekoncentration of the power; about determination of the status of national and ethnic territories in the general imperial device of Russia; about interrelation, interference and interconditionality of state and legal processes in the administrative relations "the center - regions" in the uniform political and legal structure of the state and creation of effective regional control systems taking into account the median nature of space of the power in the empire.

Investigating further versions of the administrative-territorial device, we will recognize that Russia to the second half of the 19th century when the main approaches and practice of imperial management were already approved, in the general administrative sense included parts which carry names of provinces, areas and lands. And two last names belonged to the few parts, the general device prevailed almost across all territory, as a result there were 57 provinces, 6 areas and 7 lands [11].

Earth the territory of accommodation of Cossacks which had the special original quasi-military, semi-civil management, very considerable independence in business management was defined

by the legislation. Atamans of lands by a civil part were allocated with the rights of governors, but did not consist in the direct relations to the state establishments and the central government agencies but only carried out the public functions by means of interaction through governor generals. Army boards, or offices, used the same powers, as provincial boards and chambers.

the Concept "area" is for the first time mentioned by

in official acts of Catherine II in relation to the beginning of realization of provincial reform in Establishment provinces of 1775, at the same time it matters, equal to the province. Further, after accession of territories according to the decision of the Vienna congress of 1815, application of this designation extended, and the parts equal on value, i.e. in relation to the central power, with the province, but only again attached in which still there were various local resolutions concerning action of internal management and application of the local right began to be called area. Besides, in understanding, close in fact to area, within the empire in the won territories of Central Asia and partially the Caucasus also the hordes though recognizing supremacy of the Russian Empire and therefore, respectively, subject, but the law called fragile citizens were created. They made the parts called areas, and their internal management used still

bigger independence, than Cossack, - in some sources they are identified with vassal lands.

Provincial management which model appeared the Russian Empire which is the most effectively applied on internal provinces was postponed by

for all territory of the state over time, however in border territories and in new possession of the province were integrated under the power of the governor generals entrusted emperors possessing except supervision of the subordinate by the region also powers of the military leader, the subordinate in a certain part of the activity to the Defense Ministry. That is the existing all-imperial system of provincial management was widespread not throughout the Russian state. The attempt of introduction of the unified order of management without local features undertaken by Catherine II did not achieve the objective and resulted in negative results that affected activity of the subsequent governors building relationship between the center and again attached territories on the basis of a combination of the all-imperial principles and regional features of management. Therefore the official status of the governor general for "problem" regions contained also the powers caused by specifics of solvable tasks as political figure that actually made out autonomistic essence of these territories in administrative-territorial division

of the state. In the legislative and territorial relation of the province and area, not being internal and located in the Asian region, coped on the basis of the special provisions issued by the imperial power, therefore, it is possible to speak about their special status on condition of the unitary nature of state system and legislative integrity of the Russian state. At the same time the pluralism of sources of law took place throughout all imperial period of Russia, and own and common law was applied in the parts of the empire which officially had the special status, but at the same time patrimonial, communal, territorial, corporate and class types of self-government did not replace at all,

but only were only supplemented by "core official forms of administration" [12].

Proceeding their approach to the imperial state accepted by us as sets of the power, the population and the territory, we will designate in a general view of an alternative of imperious legal relations of public administration [13], thus that the first element of a formula is expressed in the invariance of unitary nature of state system, and legal status of the population of the periphery and regional administrative units could undergo changes for maintenance of the state unity. Set of such conditions as diversity of society of the attached territory; proximity of the regional power to the emperor as to the monopoly carrier on management and the legislation; existence in the center and in the certain territory of the peripheral region of imperial power institution which is accurately focused on requirements and needs; extent of preservation in ethnopolicy of the structure of the population of the certain territory, polyconfessional and split-level on public way; use in the mechanism of the Russian Empire of the available state and legal past of the attached territory; accounting of the geopolitical neighbourhood of the Russian outskirts with their former partners in the international relations, led to formation of the following models of political and legal unity and the device of the Russian Empire in their projection to public administration by the periphery.

national and autonomistic signs are inherent in

of the First model in general, it is characterized by the maximum preservation of a system of local administration, self-government and some, limited degree of public properties of the local right. Such regional government a long time did not submit to the central government agencies as it was connected directly to the identity of the monarch special institute of the stats-secretariat. It became widespread in the Grand duchy Finnish and the Kingdom Polish till 1831. Respectively, within the isolation of a local management system allowed by supreme authority and also preservation of private and common law of the territory the potential of consolidation of the population in separate independent political community (it is not obligatory in the political nation at all, it can be the ethnic nation) increased here that

the Second design, territorialnoavtonomistsky belongs to the Kingdom Polish after 1832 and to the Grand duchy to the 19th century, Finnish till 80th

, had the essence also special civil management by preservation of insignificant local elements in internal management and the right, but in the limits limited to supreme authority as it is observed in the Ostzeysky region, Little Russia, the western provinces. Feature of such model, in comparison with the first, the resolution of such independence as the imperial center in the form of the "confirmed" rights and privileges will perform with inclusion in full in the mechanism of the Russian state. And therefore for it the perspective empire in the state construction the accurate line of further and almost full unification of management within the provincial organization of vlasteotnosheniye, elimination in general of regional specifics and identity of the population, first of all the class and corporate organization was defined.

the Third model belongs to is long also to constantly extending possession of Russia beyond the Urals, and therefore it developed gradually and organically included in process of development of state system of the empire effective measures from the listed above models, we will call it mixed. The main lines of such choice on management of Siberia were caused to the multiple-factor impacts of the interacting social, confessional, social and economic, space-time, political and legal processes which evolved since the beginning of the 17th century here. This region which underwent considerable administrative-territorial transformations is indicative in terms of features of the legal status as a part of the empire as the territory attached not in the military way and colonized. We will designate set of signs for the mixed model as absence landowner

of land tenure and domination of nobility in management, presence of military and administrative administrative personnel, prevalence of local government of a great number of social groups, attempts of identification of the ethnobreeding population with class structurization of society.

as

As initial option in the Russian state the centralized, ministerial and provincial management relating the region of internal provinces containing the uniform system of public administration and effect of the all-imperial legislation it acted and acted as a sample for determination of effectiveness of the introduced ideas, designs, the directions, methods and means of reforms of management, in this context projection we will allocate also it as a separate look. Let's note that transformation of such management was defined by requirements not only the historically developed public and territorial communities of the Moscow Russia, but was result of expansion of imperial limits, having fully apprehended indirect influence of the progressive ideas of the western regions, and adaptation developed in state and legal measurement to a slozhnosostavny format of statehood.

as a result of the latest, a heel, an alternative in the system of public administration "the center - the periphery", realized concerning the Caucasian and Central Asian territories which are completely attached to the second half of the 19th century, we offer regional and vicegeral. Its essence is reflected in the relation to the territory as to the original civilization which is characterized significantly by the motley structure of the population similar inside the sociocultural, mental features which to change would mean from the very beginning of accession not to carry out a task of this accession for what the regional governor - the deputy - concentrates in the position the big power, than governor generals. Lines of such administrative device are also regional centralization and localization of management at the same time through Defense and civil Ministry; functioning on the place of Council for areas of jurisdiction of Committee of ministers with partial powers of the Senate for a judicial part; essential value of military and national management at which military chiefs at the same time ordered troops and the population; whenever possible the highest concentration of administrative powers as the deputy (we will identify him with a position of the territorial minister uniting local delegatura) in the presence of unconsolidated polietnich-ny society, customs, management which right and customs difficult give in to the analysis and assessment; existence of direct link of the head of the regional power with the emperor; a possibility of limited application in the region of the all-imperial legislation on condition of coordination with the central government agencies.

So, slozhnosostavny the nature of the empire put in a rank of the major principles of public administration a problem of relationship imperial and regional elite therefore supreme authority fixed the strategy of their cooperation and a frame of the avtonomizm in state system provided to the periphery in the volume, individual for each certain outskirts. The class organization of society of the uniform state for the Russian and foreign bureaucracy, as obliges among themselves the most involved in the most significant, land public relations, led to deleting of borders between elite, especially between is-telling one religion. The problem of "russification" cannot be reflected in this context unambiguously, and the existing its various values on a set of the bases give the chance to claim that this natural process was indistinct on time - space, the population - the territory, therefore, requires close attention in historical and political and sociocultural measurement with allocation only of the approximate, nonspecial generalized characteristics. And in general the main thing in an imperiostroitelstvo - registration of a class system of the developed "multinational" society of Russia at the heart of which

was not

defining religious sign - underlay the new principle of public administration putting imperial loyalty above ethnic and religious uniformity.

the Created type of administrative-territorial division in the general administrative sense included parts which carried names of provinces, areas and lands, and two last names belonged to the few parts, the general device prevailed almost across all territory. As a result in the middle

XIX century 57 provinces, 6 areas and 7 lands were available. In Russia the imperial form of government meant allocation of the imperial center presented by the uniform (absolutist) system of the government acting through its Supreme carrier with the emperor's title; in general the centralized public administration and the legislation with elements of an avtonomiz-m; use in the bigger or smaller volume of state and legal traditions and experience of development (at their absence - the developed system of patrimonial management and common law) national and ethnic regions before their inclusion in structure of the empire. At the same time process of an imperiostroitel-stvo in the Russian state in comparison with other empires had the specifics - in the Russian option geopolitical reasons prevailed, territorial expansion had character not colonial as directed to economic exploitation of the attached lands, and essentially kolonizatsionny. As a result of influence of an imperial factor on state system in Russia there were following models of regional government: a) ministerial and provincial, b) territorial and autonomistic, c) national and autonomistic, d) mixed, e) reg?

russia empire vlast upravlenie ethnic group russia empire authority public administration ethnos
Barbara Henry
Other scientific works: