130 PLANS OF REFORM
confusion. What else can be expected from institutions which are the
creations Qf imperial whims, sudden outbursts of anger, or impatience?
The characteristic trait of Russian government is the absence of har-
monious and orderly division of the functions and powers vested in
the various bureaus. There is no administrative body properly
speaking. There is no separate legislative organ. No attempt is made
at differentiating between permanent public law and ad hoc admin-
istrative regulations. In the final analysis, laws, regulations, orders, and
decrees are differentiated merely by the bureaucratic procedure which
has brought them into being. Under such conditions, no government
institution has any real power and responsibility of its own and
everything depends on arbitrary decisions. Clearly, the reformer's first
task is to give unity and order to this chaotic structure. Speransky
suggests five principles as a guide for bringing about the desired
improvement; 1. consistency with the fundamental laws of the state
and of institutions, 2. unity of execution, 3. administrative acts must
be accounted for both as to form and contents, 4. at each level all
government functions must be uniform, 5. consideration of local condi-
tions and regard for the means of execution available. 1
These principles will find their application more readily if each
administrative institution is organized on the basis of a hierarchical
"chain of command," if, in other words, the collegial system disappears
completely. In support of this position, Speransky quotes with appro-
val the words of Bentham, ". ,. l'unite, dis-je, est favorable puisqu'elle
fait peser toute la responsabilite, soit morale soit legale sur la t~te
d'un seul, .. son interet est inseparable de son devoir." 2 Speransky,
himself, as we know, implemented his precept in organizing the
Ministry of the Interior in 1802 and gave it wider application still in
the Statute on the Ministries in 1811. Unity and clarity of executive
political action, as they rest in the hands of the autocratic monarch,
are particularly important in a country without a "good monarchical
constitution" (in Montesquieu's sense, presumably). The absence of
an act embodying the fundamental laws of the realm is to be com-
pensated - in a truly bureaucratic spirit - by the "force of clarityand orderliness in the method of administration." 3 It might be added,
that unity, in Speransky's view, does not necessarily preclude allowance
for differences in applying legislation in deference to special local
conditions, particularly in border provinces. But this seems to have
1 ibid., 170, 182-184.
2 ibid., 156-157. On Speransky's connections with Bentham (via the latter's disciple
Dumont who visited Russia), see chapter 7 infra.
3 Zapiska 1803, p. 171.