THE ZEMSTVOS DURING THE WAR 
bureaucrats and spared no effort to limit the scope of the zemstvo 
work and to prevent its growth. 
The reactionary section represented the majority of the zemstvo 
assemblies, but morally it was weaker than the minority which was 
supported by the progressive members of the gentry, real friends of 
the people, who understood that the happiness of the country lay in 
the principles of equality and freedom. The minority was conscious 
that it was fighting for the right cause. It found support in the con- 
ditions of everyday life and had behind it the whole “third element,” 
that is all men and women who were actually building up the insti- 
tutions of the zemstvos. 
The struggle between the Government, supported by the Right 
Wing of the zemstvo assemblies, and the Left Wing continued 
throughout the reign of Alexander III and Nicholas II. 
Absolutism and bureaucracy saw, in the zemstvos, revolution and 
the germ of a constitutional government, while the liberal workers of 
the zemstvos believed that the happiness of the country depended 
upon the expansion of the functions of local institutions. Both sides 
kept one another under a close observation. The zemstvo work was 
continually interfered with by the governors of the provinces and 
other representatives of the central government. It underwent many 
heavy trials, endured many blows, but patiently and persistently 
moved forward. Generations were brought up in this struggle and 
became champions of the rights of the people. 
As time went on the central government proved more and more 
incapable of following the growth of the country, and the leadership 
of the economic life passed into the hands of the zemstvos. 
The greatest achievements of the zemstvos were the result of their 
work in time of emergency, such as famine and war, when inability 
of the Government to live up to its obligations had become evident, 
and a supreme effort of all vital forces became necessary. The law 
provided that the zemstvos should be in charge of purely local af- 
fairs; they were prohibited from forming associations or unions. 
Their problems, however, were similar and the rational solution of 
these problems often required joint action as, for instance, in the 
case of the building of roads, prevention of epidemics, insurance, 
and relief to farmers in years of famine. The Government took spe- 
cial care that this provision should be strictly enforced, since it 
feared that the formation of an organization might increase the 
B