Veche

For Whom the Bell Tolls: A Somewhat Forced Comparison Between the Noble Veche and the Beatific Caucus

February 10th, 2008 by kb

by Max Petrokosky

First the Dodo marked out a race-course, in a sort of circle, (`the exact shape doesn’t matter,’ it said,) and then all the party were placed along the course, here and there. There was no `One, two, three, and away,’ but they began running when they liked, and left off when they liked, so that it was not easy to know when the race was over. However, when they had been running half an hour or so, and were quite dry again, the Dodo suddenly called out `The race is over!’ and they all crowded round it, panting, and asking, `But who has won?’

“That much is obvious”, said the dor­mouse, “Barack in Iowa and Hillary in Nevada.” Lewis Carroll’s rarely printed summation of the caucus race seems at odds with his previ­ous parodic critique. But why should the caucuses, wonderful and rather poetic alternatives to the sterile ‘Pri­maries’, be maligned as asinine? Already this year they have shown that grass-roots participation is very much alive and well. After Super (or is it Duper) Tuesday, tens of millions of Americans with political sensibilities encompassing the whole gamut, will have given up at least one eve­ning of their lives to debate politics. They will have done this sometimes in large community centres, some­times in the houses of dedicated supporters who will provide hospi­tality to partially like-minded strang­ers. Good Show. British commenta­tors have leapt, maybe not without reason, at the chance to compare the diversity of the presidential can­didates and their coalface cam­paigning with the mediocrity and homogeneity of Blighty’s politicos; this pastime will be left to them. For the discerning student of Eastern Eu­rope, there is a far more interesting comparison, and one that has par­ticular resonance with this publica­tion.

Veche (wiec in Polish) is derived from the Slavic word vet meaning ‘talk’ or ‘council’. It was called in many East European towns by ringing a municipal bell, often a sign of civic independence, and citizens responded by gathering at communal area, outside the palace or cathedral for example. Similarly ‘caucus’ has its origins in the Algon­quin for counsel. Coincidence? Ab­solutely, but one that bears further consideration. The Algonquin sys­tem of governance, like most tribal systems, saw a ‘big chief’ autono­mously legislating with the support of clan leaders. This model is well summed up by ‘counsel’ – advice is given, but ultimately a single voice is responsible for all official policy. The veche was a medieval assem­bly that has often been depicted in the historiography as a popular and even proto-democratic institution. In make-up it bore more relation to the Iowa caucus than it did the con­sultations of the Algonquin, as all free men had the right of attendance. Unusually for Europe in the Middle Ages, artisans and merchants were present as well as the clergy and lo­cal elites. It was a ‘council’ of an extraordinarily broad base.

Twelfth century Novgorod saw reforms that created the most dynamic and populist veche system. Two officials governed the city, cur­rently in Northwest Russia, a prince appointed by and related to the imperial Grand Prince in Kiev and a non-dynastic posadnik or gov­ernor. From the eleventh century the posadnik was an appointment of the veche. This was quite a de­velopment in the Europe of William the Conqueror, where counsel over council was very much the order of the day. By the early twelfth cen­tury, the functions of the posadnik had started to overlap and even exceed those of the dynas­tic prince. A popu­lar uprising in 1136 against the Kievan appointee in fa­vour of the local of­ficial was an explicit move in favour of the veche. During the twelfth century the veche assumed greater influence, refusing a legitimate Kievan successor in 1146, and appoint­ing the bishop in Novgorod from 1156. This is serious power. The comparison is hardly relevant, but as a point to ponder, nowhere in the developed world is the spiritual and secular leader of a community elected by the same body. Not in Rome or Tehran, London or Beijing. Today, at least in America, the cau­cus plays only one official role, the election of nominees; the veche, although technically endowed with the ability to influence foreign poli­cy, was in practice only effectual as the elector of officials, who after appointment enjoyed a largely free reign.

Of course the comparisons between the veche and the cau­cus are forced. Similarities could be found in almost any two bodies with some political involvement sim­ply because the primary activities of the official state will always involve the same key elements: official ap­pointment, foreign relations, internal ordering. But they do both invite the average Joe, or Iosef, to place a certain importance on politics. A bell rings or a leaflet is posted and all come running to discuss the matters of the day, sometimes laden with wholesome, freshly baked peanut butter snacks.

Perhaps when Gordon finally calls an election to sanction his grim ineptocracy, he should toll from St Paul’s. Chances are, turnout would be more than 60% if he did. For as the Walrus would no doubt point out, “The time has come to talk of many things”.

Bookmark to: