Legal and socio-economic consequences of depriving the nomadic population of voting rights in the territory of East Kazakhstan (1926-1936)

Bulgynbaeva Ayauly Kalymbekovna Senior Lecturer, Department of History of Kazakhstan and Rukhani Zhangyru, S.Amanzholov East Kazakhstan University 070014, Kazakhstan, East Kazakhstan region, Ust-Kamenogorsk, ul. Enthusiasts, 13 bak_ayauly@mail.ru

Relevance of the research topic. Kazakhstan has long been distinguished by its multinational nature, cultural, social, economic and even natural and geographical features, which still affect the legal and socio-economic processes of the republic. He has traditionally occupied a special strategic position in the system of international relations. In this regard, the special practice of disenfranchisement of certain categories of the population of the Kazakh ASSR in the 1920s - the first half of the 1930s remains an urgent and poorly studied problem.

The degree of study of the problem: to date, little attention has been paid in scientific research on the problem of disenfranchisement of certain categories of the population in the region of East Kazakhstan in the context of socio-economic and political processes that took place during the interwar period. 

In general, the study of the phenomenon of "deprivation" took place in several stages. The initial one, dating back to the 1920s and 1930s, became a stage of comprehension and clarification of the restrictive articles of the first Soviet Constitution (1918) and subsequent instructions on holding elections. He was closely associated with the practice of voting rights defeat.

In this context, the work of St. Petersburg researcher A.I. Dobkin, who in 1991 "discovered" this problem as a scientific one, deserves special attention. For the first time, he raised questions concerning the true situation of the "deprived", the dynamics of legislation on them and the consequences of "deprivation". A.I. Dobkin for the first time tried to objectively assess the evolution of legislation regarding the "deprived" and trace the age, national, social structure of the "deprived". The author of the article drew attention to the grave consequences of the institution of "deprivation" ^[1].

Scientist S.A..Krasilnikov devotes one of the sections of his research on the marginal groups of post-revolutionary society to the "deprived."  He believes that "the disenfranchisement was a kind of prologue to direct mass repression (since well-established accounting and control over the "deprived" made it possible to easily identify the object for repression), and, on the other hand, could act as an epilogue, continuation of repression against exiles who had already served their sentences and prisoners." Along with this, S.A. Krasilnikov's work provides a brief analysis of legislation in the field of disenfranchisement, changes in the number of "deprived" in various years, their socio-cultural characteristics and the consequences of the existence of the institution of "deprived" in Soviet society ^[2].

The study of "lishentsev" based on the materials of Western Siberia is conducted by M.S. Salamatova. In her works, "Disenfranchised in Soviet Russia. 1918-1936: The results of the study" ^[3], "The deprived" ^[4] the Soviet legislation regarding the "deprived" is considered, as well as its application in practice to the "deprived" of Western Siberia, the number, composition and structure of rural and urban "deprived" is analyzed. Such a comprehensive presentation made it possible to conduct a comparative analysis of the socio-demographic characteristics of the category of "ministers of religious worship" and indicators of other groups of "deprived". In his works, the author, based on the study of the life strategies of the "deprived", the tactics of their behavior, refers to the category of clergymen.

The source database. Unpublished archival materials of the East Kazakhstan Regional State Archive, the Central State Archive of Almaty, the Documentation Center for Modern History of the East Kazakhstan region, the archive of the President of the Republic of Kazakhstan, representing a certain scientific value, were used in writing the article.

The object of the research is aimed at studying the institution of "deprivation" in East Kazakhstan in connection with the dynamics of socio-economic and political development of the region in the 1920s - the first half of the 1930s.

The subject of the study is the mechanism of formation and implementation of the policy of disenfranchisement in the territory of East Kazakhstan in 1921-1936.

The territorial scope of the study includes the East Kazakhstan region of the republic.

The chronological framework of the article's research covers the period from 1921 to 1936. 

The purpose of the article is to study the mechanisms of restricting the electoral rights of the population of East Kazakhstan and their socio-economic and political consequences.

In accordance with the stated purpose, the objectives of the article are:

– to analyze the socio-political foundations of "deprivation" in East Kazakhstan, the political conditions that influenced their formation and implementation;

– to identify the legal features of the stages of realization of disenfranchisement in East Kazakhstan;

– to compare the main factors of socio-economic development of the region with the practice of disenfranchisement;

– to consider the dynamics of the number of persons excluded from elections in the region, their social composition by individual groups and categories.

The methodological foundations of the research imply the integration of formal logical methods and methods of social sciences and humanities. In the course of writing the work, the author sought to comply with the principles of historicism and follow a systematic approach. This circumstance, in turn, led to the need for a comparison of events, their comparative analysis. In recent historical research, this method is increasingly called the method of "comparativism".

The scientific novelty of the research. For the first time, the study conducted a comprehensive comparison of legal norms and practical measures to implement the disenfranchisement of certain categories of the population of East Kazakhstan in the 1920s and the first half of the 1930s. These events were of a socio-economic and political nature, and therefore, the phenomenon of "deprivation" was considered in the broad context of socio-economic and socio-political processes that took place in East Kazakhstan in 1921-1936.

Disenfranchisement was carried out not only by restricting, but also by prohibiting a particular person from participating in elections. Ultimately, his social status and place in the system of socio-economic relations have undergone changes. "In particular, the recognition of a citizen as a dangerous element for the Soviet government, related to his social status, actions and activities, business orientation, and so on, is the main fact determining the deprivation of this citizen's voting rights," wrote one of the largest experts in the field of Soviet construction P. Zaitsev ^[5].

As a result of such actions, a person deprived of the right to vote lost many privileges and rights enjoyed by other citizens. According to M.S. Salamatova, the presence of political and civil rights in society played a decisive role, and not the level of their qualifications or economic status ^{[4, pp. 9-22.]}.

Those deprived of participation in public life were restricted in all spheres of human life, including in the profession, military service, social guarantees and benefits. In fact, in the Soviet state in the mid-1920s and 1930s, "second-class" people appeared, alienated. Among the former disenfranchised Yu. Elagin said: "Among Soviet citizens, the category of "deprived" is a category of inferior citizens of low rank." Their position in Soviet society resembled that of Jews in Nazi Germany ^{[6, pp.13-23]}.  

Secretary of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee A.S. Kiselyov, arguing about the need for closer attention to compiling lists of citizens deprived of voting rights, admitted that "even if the deprived state is temporary, it is very painful for people who have experienced this situation" ^{[7, pp.17-75]}.

The first clear signs of disenfranchisement were the restriction of active human participation in public and political life. Persons deprived of voting rights were prohibited from joining the Komsomol Union and the Communist Party. In addition, the initial instructions on the conduct of elections required strict supervision from election commissions to ensure that people deprived of the right to vote did not attend the re-election. Since the meetings often discussed issues related to the economic, cultural and social life of the local population, for those who are disenfranchised, refusing to participate in these events was a serious blow to the restriction of socio-professional and other public life. Attempts by disenfranchised citizens to participate in repeated electoral meetings were commonplace. To combat such situations, a special provision was introduced into the first Criminal Code of the RSFSR, developed in the spring of 1922, according to article 104 of which states: "a person who does not have the legal right to participate in Soviet elections is punished by forced labor for a period of at least three months" ^{[8, p.18]}.

In addition, such actions were classified as "crimes against the order of government." This article was retained in subsequent editions of all criminal codes adopted until the second half of the 1930s.

As in the national states that were part of the USSR, the people of Kazakhstan had a centuries-old legal, socio-economic path of development. In this regard, the policy of disenfranchisement pursued by the Soviets had its influence and specificity in the Kazakh steppe.

Since 1927, during the local government elections, the bais, clergy, their relatives and families have been disenfranchised. The resolution of the session of the Central Executive Committee of Kazakhstan dated October 1931 states: "... at a time when rich Kazakhs were raided in the village, tension arose between them... The entire peasant tax in the village falls on the share of the "bailiffs", who account for 70% of the tax on their share. The rich, oppressed by various political economic campaigns, trying to get their people to vote in the local council elections, prevented them from working in the elections. Therefore, to organize the poor, farm labourers, the average, to prevent the agitation of the "Bayes", to fulfill the tasks assigned to them again, to strengthen the offensive against the "Bayes". Such a situation, the increasing manifestations of the totalitarian system, and the restriction of citizens' rights caused a legitimate protest ^{[9, l.78]}.

Gradually, since the early 1920s, disenfranchised persons were prohibited from participating not only in electoral meetings, but also in other important public events. In 1927, citizens deprived of voting rights were forbidden to participate in the general meeting of the rural population ^{[10, l. 98]}.

On the outskirts of Semipalatinsk province, the influence of the Bais on the poor was quite significant. Abenov and Tursinkhanov tried to be elected to the volost presidency. They were known in the region as "baillies" and "exploiters". However, in the definition of the authorized volost executive committee for elections, A.Abenov is indicated as "average" in terms of social status. The volost election committee considered this information to be "incorrectly provided". The information also says that they enjoy authority by bribing the poor. Taking into account these circumstances, the county election committee reported on the need to include A. Abenov in the list of disenfranchised and replenish the membership of the volost executive committee, reorganize the erroneous list of representatives and the volost presidium. These measures attempted to limit the illegal participation of the rich in the election campaign and their influence on the electoral process through the poor. However, in rural areas, the influence of the Bais on poor residents was quite strong. The poor strata of the population were subordinated to the bai on the basis of blood kinship, as well as socially ^{[11, L. 27-35]}.

There is an acute hostility in the Berkarinsky parish due to the contradiction of views on the discussion of "article 14" of the Rules. The reputation of the Soviet commissioner of the county Election Committee was undermined, and on January 15, 1925, in order to correct mistakes, a new instructional body of the county election committee was created.

For many citizens deprived of voting rights, the suspension from active public life was a serious blow. One of the common motives of many petitions and complaints about the restoration of electoral rights was the desire of citizens to participate in electoral meetings and socio-political life together with full-fledged citizens.

The complaint of Smakov Aubakir, a resident of Karkaralinsk, Semipalatinsk province, states: "On February 23, 1927, I was disenfranchised. After the Karkarala province rejected my petition, I am writing a complaint to the Semipalatinsk province. Despite the fact that he worked for several years in an institution of Soviet power, he was innocently blacklisted. I am sending my short biography as proof.

I studied at the Karkarala 2nd grade Russian-Kyrgyz college as a graduate (coming from a poor family) and graduated from school in 1916. That year, having no funds to continue his studies, he joined the Kokterek station in Karkaralinsk. He worked in this position from 1921 to 1923. In 1923, he moved to Koktebel in Pavlodar.

Since I have a family and children, I quit my job, unable to continue moving between Pavlodar and Karkaralinsk. After being out of work for almost five months, I got a job at a sales representative office and worked there for almost a year.

A year later, in September 1924, I worked for five months as a secretary in the mutual assistance committee. He quit due to late payment of wages, after which he worked for two years in KARUF with a guarantee from the Kazkommission.

Now I'm unemployed, it doesn't mean that I got rich or committed a crime. This was due to the deterioration of my health. I plan to return to work after my health returns to normal.

I faithfully fulfilled my duty throughout my work, although I worked in trade for a year, but only as a salesman.

In my work, I tried to honestly serve the Soviet government. Despite the fact that I was in a dangerous environment during the reaction against the Soviets, I found myself in the workplace and restored telephone communication, which proves my honesty. I had not been disenfranchised until that time. He was not a member of the tribal groups.

From 1917 to 1923, I was a member of the Soviet People's Communications. To date, I am a member of trade union No. 163. I ask the Semipalatinsk Election Committee to restore my suffrage." A. Smakov was disenfranchised for trading activities ^{[9, l. 116-119]}.

The following are excerpts from the complaint of Mukhamedya Ospanov, a resident of Karkarala province, dated December 29, 1925: "The city election committee, despite my objection, blacklisted me for being a member of the Investigative Committee under Kolchak, and deprived me of voting rights. I do not hide that I was a member of it, but I was under such circumstances: in 1918 I was elected a member of the county and sent to the next commission in order to protect our deputies of the Kazakh Council. Most of the instructions were fulfilled, and for this I resigned from the commission, was prosecuted for participating in the Kyrgyz court under Soviet rule and barely got rid of it.

In 1919, Kolchak himself sent me to a military court for my participation in the organization of the secret Soviet government and land plots in Semipalatinsk. In January 1920, I was arrested by the head of the Special Department of the Kokshetau group and released on December 24, 1920, consisting of 12 people.

In 1921, he was elected a member of the Karkaraly county Executive Committee, became head of the health department. Then, on December 17 of this year, I voluntarily resigned and moved to the provincial medical pharmacy. Subsequently, he worked as a technical worker, in 1921 he worked in responsible positions of the Soviet government.

At the height of the revolution, I was not disenfranchised, I lived without restrictions. And six years later, the city election committee made such an unreasonable decision. The secretary of the RCP of the provincial committee, Plotnikov T.K., in his report in the newspaper Stepnaya Pravda in issue 234 of December 18, 1921, stated that: those deprived of voting rights under the new law will restore their rights provided that they prove their loyalty to the Soviet government.  I would like to write more, especially about some members, but I'm refraining for now. I believe that the above facts are enough to normalize my right to vote.

Turning to my superiors, I ask you to pay attention to my appeal, to legislation that takes the above facts as seriously as possible and restores my right to vote" ^{[12, l.217-219]}.

Due to the facts of disenfranchisement, the Soviets themselves began to notice that they sometimes allow exaggerations and excesses. The most common facts are related to the national characteristics of the Kazakh people.  The norms and rules of the instruction in the Constitution of the RSFSR did not meet the interests of the regions. At that time, every nation had an established traditional social subsystem and economy. Nevertheless, the Soviets stressed that any issue should be approached taking into account national characteristics. However, in fact, these features were often not taken into account. As a result, the collapse of the centuries-old internal structure of the national state, the creation of a new society. This process took a long time, and, in a way, it paid off.

Taking into account the above, KAZTSIK proposes to the provinces to resolve the issue of granting by the executive committees and provinces to the election commissions of the Kazakh SSR the electoral right to each individual holder of permanent yards within the competence of county (district) election commissions, which are subsequently approved by provincial (regional) election commissions.

When conducting guidelines to local authorities on this issue, the election committees of the KSSR sent the provincial and county election commissions a solution to this issue, in which it is politically possible to carefully individualize each individual case: the social weight of a permanent household, social and property status, the amount of protection of enterprises if the household is mainly engaged in agriculture, and depending on the identified The circumstances of granting or not granting the right to vote are provided for in Article 69 of the Constitution of the RSFSR, the message says ^{[13, l.330-334]}.

Restrictions related to participation in public life have not been stabilized by the ban on participation in the assembly only for persons deprived of voting rights. A person deprived of voting rights was excluded from any public organization. Such persons were prohibited from joining trade unions. This situation, which had existed since the first months of Soviet power, was formulated and clarified in the late 1920s. On March 14, 1929, a special commentary on this issue by the All-Union Central Council of Trade Unions stated: "a person deprived of the right to vote may retain membership in the Union for one year from the time of deprivation of rights if he submits an application for restoration of the right to vote."

Disenfranchisement often amounted not only to exclusion from the trade union, but also to an actual ban on participation in any public associations, such as: voluntary fire companies, hunting organizations, etc. Until the second half of the 1920s, Soviet legislation did not link citizens' membership in various public organizations with the right to vote. For the first time, this restriction was set out in the "Regulations on Voluntary Societies and Trade Unions that do not pursue profit", approved on February 5, 1928 by the Central Executive Committee of the RSFSR and the Council of People's Commissars ^[14]. As a rule, persons who have the right to vote may also have electoral degrees in societies and trade unions. This restriction was also observed in the "Regulation on Voluntary Associations and Trade Unions" of August 30, 1930. On July 10, 1932, the Central Executive Committee of the RSFSR and the Council of People's Commissars approved the "Regulations on Voluntary Communities and Trade Unions" for the third time in a row. According to the Provision, those deprived of voting rights were not allowed to join any voluntary communities and trade unions ^[15].

Conclusions. Disenfranchisement should be considered a major discriminatory act. He contributed to the disruption of the usual way of life and economic structure, family ties and moral foundations within large social groups (wealthy peasants, private traders and entrepreneurs, priests). This, in turn, led to the actual loss or significant reduction of these classes. The experience of disenfranchisement campaigns was used in the organization and conduct of major political repressions of the 1930s.

Along with the above, it is important to note that discrimination on social grounds against a certain part of the country's population continued during the Civil War and the "great turning point" in the establishment of Soviet power.