PHILOSOPHICAL VIEWS AND POLITICAL THEORY 219tically, limitation by law is only a formal one: the state should always
act according to the forms of procedure it has established itself and
respect the limits it has imposed on itself. But it can always revoke or
alter these formal prescriptions. Another safeguard, but equally vague
and not determined by any permanent institutions, is the respect for
historical tradition, the spiritual development of the nation.
The only true and effective safeguard against arbitrariness and abuse
of power on the part of state and ruler, in Speransky's opinion, consists
in the existence of a well developed public opinion.^1 Society's opinion
alone can force the government to keep within the legal forms and
fundamental rules it has established itself, and to act in accordance
with the spiritual needs and ideals of the nation. But from Speransky's
writings, public opinion emerges as a rather vague concept, without any
clear institutional contents or form. Public opinion means the people
in general, in a somewhat amorphous way, not any specific group or
class. Although by implication it probably consists only of the educated
and "spiritually advanced" individuals, of the moral elite of the nation.
Even if such "opinion" could be brought into existence under
prevailing Russian conditions, in Speransky's scheme of administration
it could find expression only through the Dumas. But the Dumas did
not provide any way by which public opinion could compel the govern-
ment to listen to its wishes or follow its advice.
True enough, one might argue, had Speransky's system of adminis-
tration been put into effect and maintained by a happy succession of
good rulers for, let us say, a few generations, the Dumas (i.e., public
opinion) might have become a powerful enough force to restrain the
government.^2 To Speransky and many of his contemporaries, England
offered a living testimonial to the success of such an evolution. But they
were forgetting that not only did England have an institutional frame-
work (corporations, classes, estates), but also that her present successful
state had not come about without the help of violent revolutions.
Russia had no such social institutions. As to revolutions, Speransky
recoiled before them in as much horror as Burke or de Maistre. But
did not Speransky's reforms justly aim at creating the conditions for
the development of the social framework for a responsible public
opinion? Speransky himself thought so. But it was a fundamental error
of his approach and bent of mind to believe that this could be done
by administrative changes alone. One might even say, that his predilec-
tion for the methods of enlightened despotism, with their emphasis on
1 Zapiska 1803, pp. 175-176; "Pervyi politicheskii traktat," p. 54.
2 "Pervyi politicheskii traktat," p. 54.