SAMARA TOWN COUNCIL VS CENTRAL COUNCIL OF RESIDENTIAL QUARTERS: THE FINISHING TOUCHES TO THE FEATURE OF POLITICAL REGIME OF CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE MEMBER

Researchers define the political regime of Komuch as a democracy or a dictatorship that used democratic rhetoric as cover. To have a deep understanding of the problem the article considers a particular topic – a conflict of Samara Central council of residential quarters and Samara Town Council. In historiography, there are some different variants of the conflict events’ description and its interpretation.

In summer 1917, Samara residential quarters emerged, and in spring 1918 they came into conflict with Soviet regime. Samara Central council was organized. After anti-Bolshevist take-over, the Central council of residential quarters got a subsidy from Samara Town Council and the rights to temporary perform some of its functions, but claimed to participate in making decisions on wider range of problems, actively interacted with government and military institutions. Towards the end of July – beginning of August 1918, Samara Town Council limited interference of quarters organizations in its work. Komuch flabbily resisted, then supported the Town Council. The Central council of residential quarters lost the subsidy and self-occupied premises, polled 0,5 votes during city elections, and left the political arena. Society and government referred the Central council of residential quarters to the democratic organizations, evaluating its position, but not lawfulness of its work and legitimacy of its origin.

The author comes to the conclusion that Komuch was not able to develop a clear position concerning the place of voluntary organizations in the government structure, was a hybrid political regime (dictablanda), functioning without any distinct regulatory grounds.