Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T20:01:06.075Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Soviet Literature on Electoral Reform: A Review

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 March 2014

Ronald J. Hill
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Review Articles
Information
Government and Opposition , Volume 11 , Issue 4 , 01 October 1976 , pp. 481 - 496
Copyright
Copyright © Government and Opposition Ltd 1976

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Carson, George Barr Jr., Electoral Practices in the USSR, London, 1956 Google Scholar; Mote, Max E., Soviet Local and Republic Elections, Stanford, 1965 Google Scholar; Swearer, Howard R., ‘The Functions of Soviet Local Elections’, Midwest Journal of Political Science, Vol. V, No. 2, 05 1961, pp. 129–149 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Gilison, Jerome M., ‘Soviet Elections as a Measure of Dissent: The Missing One Percent’, American Political Science Review, Vol. LXII, No. 3, 09 1968, pp. 814–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Jacobs, Everett M., ‘Soviet Local Elections: What They Are, and What They Are Not’, Soviet Studies, Vol. XXII, No. 1, 07 1970, pp.61–76 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hill, Ronald J., ‘Continuity and Change in USSR Supreme Soviet Elections’, British Journal of Political Science, Vol. II, No. 1, 01 1972, pp.47–67 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hill, Ronald J., ‘Patterns of Deputy Selection to Local Soviets’, Soviet Studies, Vol. XXV, No. 2, 10 1973, pp.196–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2 Research on this topic was undertaken during a two‐month visit to Moscow in the summer of 1975, under the auspices of the Anglo‐Soviet Cultural Exchange Agreement; I am grateful to the British Council for their sponsorship, and to the Graduate Studies Committee of Trinity College, Dublin, for financial support.

3 The context in which the problems identified here exist is the electoral system as described in the works cited in note 1 above; on the role of the Communist Party in the election campaign, see my forthcoming article, ‘The CPSU in a Soviet Election Campaign’ (to be published in Soviet Studies).

4 Programma KPSS, reprinted in KPSS v rezolyutsiyakh i resheniyakh s’ezdov, konferentsiy i Plenumov TsK, Tom 8, Moscow, 1972, p. 274.

5 Kim, A. I., ‘Teoreticheskiye voprosy dal’neyshego sovershenstvovaniya Sovetskogo izbiratel’nogo prava’, in Petrov, L. A., editor, Nekotoryye voprosy sotsiologii i prava (Materialy nauchnoteoreticheskoy konferentsii “Konkretno‐sotsiologicheskiye issledovaniya pravovykh otnosheniy)”, Irkutsk, 1967, p. 118.Google Scholar

6 Pal’gunova, T., ‘Voprosy organizatsii vyborov v mestnyye Sovety deputatov trudyashchikhsya’, in Farber, I. Ye., editor, Problemy konstitutsionnogo prava, Saratov, 1969, pp. 148–9.Google Scholar

7 Aimbetov, A., Baimakhanov, M. and Imashev, M., Probletny sovershenstvovaniya organizatsii i deyatel’nosti mestnykh Sovetov, Alma‐Ata, 1967, p. 79.Google Scholar The notion of the ‘official literature’ (as opposed to serious scholarly writing) is an interesting one, indicating perhaps an attempt to distinguish the professionalism of political scientists.

8 See, for example, Shabanov, Yu. V., Problemy sovetskoy sotsialisticheskoy demokratii v period stroitel’stva kommunizma, Minsk, 1969, p. 145.Google Scholar Another writer, Kotok, V. F., is aware of this particular bourgeois criticism, but says that ‘this “criticism” has no foundation’: see his Sovetskaya predstavitel’naya sistema, Moscow, 1963, p. 37.Google Scholar

9 See, for example, Kim, A. I., Sovetskoye izbiratel’noye pravo, Moscow, 1965, p.185 Google Scholar; Gorkin, A., O sovetskoy demokratii, Partiinaya zhizn, No. 2, 1957, pp. 13–14.Google Scholar Kotok (op. cit., p. 37) presents an ingenious argument: ‘A tradition has been developed’, he writes, ‘whereby the people views elections not only as an act of electing specific individuals into the body of representative organs, but also as an act of evaluating the activity of Soviet power in the past, and of defining for it a programme for the future. This would be contradicted by an artificial “atomization” of votes in balloting for several candidates’.

10 For example, Frolic, Michael B., ‘The Soviet Study of Soviet Cities’, Journal of Politics, Vol. 32, No. 3, 08 1970, p. 688 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Gélard, Patrice, Les Systèmes Politiques des Etats Socialistes: Le Modèle Soviétique, Paris, 1975, p.201.Google Scholar

11 Kudinov, N. A., ‘Politicheskiye obychai v SSSR’, Problemy natsional’no‐gosudarstvennogo stroitel’stva: Tezisy dokladov na nauchnoy konferentsii yuridicheskogo fakul’teta (14 Jevralya 14 Jevralya 1970 g.), Minsk, 1970, p. 155.Google Scholar Another writer on Soviet elections refers to this custom as a ‘tradition’: Shchetinin, B. V., Sovetskaya izbiratel’naya sistema, Moscow, 1974, p.38.Google Scholar

12 N. Arutyunyan, ‘Deputat i ego délo’, Izvestiya, 4 March 1969; Kim, ‘Teoreticheskiye voprosy …’, p.127.

13 Lepeshkin, A. I., ‘Nazrevshiye voprosy razvitiya nauki sovetskogo gosudarstvennogo prava’, Sovetskoye gosiularstvoi pravo (hereafter SGiP), No 2, 1965, p. 12.Google Scholar

14 See in particular the work of Perttsik, Leizerov, and Kazimirchuk: for example, Perttsik, V. A., ‘Puti sovershenstvovaniya deyatel’nosti deputatov mestnykh Sovetov’, SGiP, No. 7, 1967, pp.16–21 Google Scholar: Leizerov, A. T., ‘O vliyanii ryada subyektivnykh i obyektivnykh faktorov na stepen uchastiya deputatov v rabote mestnykh Sovetov’, Probiemy natsional’no—gosudarstvennogo stroitel’stva, pp. 79–107 Google Scholar; Pavlov, I. V. and Kazimirchuk, V. P., editors, Upravieniye, sotsiologiya, pravo, Moscow, 1971, especially pp. 176–206.Google Scholar

15 See Strashun, B. A., ‘Razvitiye izbiratel’nogo prava sotsialisticheskikh stran’, SGiP, No. 7, 1973, p.46.Google Scholar

16 Ibid.

17 Ibid.; Kim, ‘Teoreticheskiye voprosy …’, p. 127.

18 Kim, ‘Teoreticheskiye voprosy …’, pp. 126–7.

19 Pal’gunova, ‘Voprosy organizatsii vyoorov …’, p. 155.

20 Shchetinin, op. cit., pp. 37–9.

21 Kudinov, op. cit., p.155.

22 Shabanov, op. cit., pp.163–4.

23 This phrase, incidentally, carries the implication that the present form of voting does not necessarily evoke this accurate ‘expression of the will’ (voleiz yavlenie): in that case, the election results do not necessarily reflect public opinion—which is rather a startling claim in the Soviet context.

24 Ibid. Here again, Shabanov seems to be admitting rather more than his deadpan style suggests he may wish to reveal. The obvious implication of the last sentence is that the level of activeness of the masses is not high; that citizens by and large do not have a sense of being rulers of the country; they do not feel that their voice is listened to, or that their opinion is taken into account: in other words, as a Western political scientist might express it, Shabanov is implying a very low sense of political efficacy on the part of the Soviet population. The idea that the voters should be asked to mark the ballot paper in some way was also insisted on in relation to the institution of a Referendum on draft bills, another reform which was under discussion in the 19605: see Kotok, V. F., Referendum v sisteme sotsialisticheskoi demokratii, Moscow, 1964, p. 178.Google Scholar

25 Pal’gunova, op. cit., p.151.

26 Kravchuk, S. S., editor, Voprosy razvitiya Sovetov na sovremennom etape, Moscow, 1966, p.10.Google Scholar

27 Kim, ‘Teoreticheskiye voprosy …’, p.125.

28 See, for example, his conference paper ‘K voprosu ob uluchshenii poryadka vydvizheniya kandidatov v deputaty mestnykh Sovetov Belorusskoy SSR’, in Gorbunov, T. S., editor, Materialy k IX konferentsii molodykh uchenykh: obshchestvennyye nauki, Minsk, 1964, pp. 67–74 Google Scholar; also his monograph, Savetskaya vybarchaya sistema, Minsk, 1974, especially pp. 98–110.

29 Kim, ‘Teoreticheskiye voprosy …’, p. 125.

30 Nemtsev, V. A., ‘Neskol’ko zamechaniy k Polozheniyu o vyborakh v mestnyye Sovety deputatov trudyashchikhsya’, in Voprosy gosudarstvennogo prava i sovetskogo stroitel’stva: Seriya yurudicheskaya, vypusk 9, chast 2, Tom LVII, Irkutsk, 1968, p.31.Google Scholar

31 Burlatsky, F., ‘Voprosy gosudarstva v proekte Programmy KPSS’, Kommunist, No. 13, 1961, p.46.Google Scholar

32 Nemtsev, op. cit., p.33.

33 Kim, Sovetskoye izbiratel’noye pravo, pp.179–80; ‘Teoreticheskiye voprosy …’, pp.124–6.

34 This point is made in Pal’gunova, op. cit., p.151.

35 Nemtsev, op. cit., 38.

36 Leizerov, ‘K voprosu ob uluchshenii poryadka vydvizheniya …’, p.72.

37 Ibid., pp.68–9; Savetskaya vybarchaya sistema, pp.101–2.

38 Moshak, A. V., ‘Nakazy izbirateley i status deputata Soveta’, SGiP, No. 2, 1971, p.95.Google Scholar

39 The most thorough discussion of the institution of a referendum was by Kotok: see his Referendum v sisteme sotisialisticheskoy demokratii, op. cit.

40 For example, compare Perttsik’s works, ‘O pervykh opytakh sotsiologicheskogo issledovaniya (na materialakh Vostochnoy Sibiri)’, in Petrov, Nekotoryye voprosy sotsiologii i prava, pp.131–43; ‘Deputat i izbiratell (opyt sotsiologicheskikh issledovaniy)’, inVoprosy gosudarstvennogo prava i sovetskogo stroitel’stva, pp. 3–21; and ‘Puti sovershenstvovaniya deyatel’nosti deputatov …’, loc. cit. Leizerov’s Belorussian language monograph Savetskaya vybarchaya sistema contains data already presented to conferences or published as articles, including those cited in the present essay.

41 Nor, according to some views, are Western political scientists: the radical critique of the essential conservatism of much writing in the functionalist school is too well known to require emphasis here.

42 Lepeshkin, ‘Nazrevshiye voprosy …’, pp.7, 12.

43 For example, the USSR Supreme Soviet issued general directives on 19 March 1971, laying down guidelines for the legal rights and obligations of local Soviets, and empowering the republican Supreme Soviets to introduce corresponding legislation: see Sovety deputatov trudyashchikhsya, No. 4, 1971, pp.16–29; new statutes have been adopted for various Soviets since then. In September 1972, a Statute on the Status of the Deputy was adopted by the USSR Supreme Soviet (for text, see Pravda, 22 September 1972). In his report to the 2501 Party Congress, Leonid Brezhnev indicated that new laws on the competence of territorial, provincial and area Soviets would be introduced: see Pravda, 25 February 1976, p.8.

44 Perttsik, V. A., ‘Sotsiologicheskiye issledovaniya gosudarstvennopravovykh otnosheniy*;, in Problemy sotsiologii prava, vypusk I, Vilnius, 1970, pp. 97–8Google Scholar; see also Zhilin, A. M., then secretary of the Gorky oblast Soviet executive committee, writing in a similar vein in ‘Povysheniye roli mestnykh Sovetov i razvitiye obshchestvennykh nachal v ikh rabote (po materialam Gor’kovskoy oblasti)’, SGiP, No. 5, 1966, p.60.Google Scholar