“The First Love of the Russian Revolution”: Alexander Kerensky and the Cult of Personality

In his recent book, Dictators (2019), Frank Dikötter places the “cult of personality at the heart of tyranny”. The phrase, “cult of personality”, invoked by Nikita Khrushchev during his 1956 Secret Speech, has been most obviously associated with Stalin. Yet the cult of personality in revolutionary Russia goes back all the way to 1917 and one man, in particular: Alexander Kerensky.

 

The “First Love of the Russian Revolution”

Following the overthrow of Nicholas II, Alexander Kerensky made his mark as a charismatic, well connected socialist politician – and the only man initially to join both the Petrograd Soviet and Provisional Government. Known for his charisma and rhetorical flourishes, Kerensky would become the Prime Minister (“Minister President”) of the Provisional Government in July 1917. By the end of October, he and his government had been overthrown by the Bolsheviks and their allies.

Who was Kerensky?

Before 1917, he had been a high-profile lawyer, active in the defence of political dissidents and revolutionaries. Nominally a member of the Socialist-Revolutionary Party (SRs), he belonged to the very moderate Trudovik faction and in fact appeared closer to left-of-centre liberals for much of 1917.

When revolution broke out in February 1917, Kerensky was the man on the spot, giving speeches to the masses, who adored him. In fact, he probably benefitted more than anything else from not being in exile or emigration, unlike more radical socialists like the Marxists Vladimir Lenin and Julius Martov.

 

Kerensky’s “Cult” in 1917

In a pathbreaking book from 1999, historians Orlando Figes and Boris Kolonitskii argued that Kerensky built up a “cult” during the revolution of 1917. According to them, Kerensky gained in stature in no small part because of his lack of partisanship, which appealed to Russia’s masses:

The cult of Kerensky was a product of the political culture created by the February Revolution. He was precisely the sort of politician who was likely to appeal to the millions of ordinary Russians who were newcomers to political life – soldiers above all. […] Kerensky reflected the non-partisan politics of Russia’s newly enfranchised citizens. He was not a party man. Orlando Figes and Boris Kolonitskii, Interpreting the Russian Revolution: The Language and Symbols of 1917, Yale University Press (1999)

Kerensky’s appeal to the masses was evident from the first days of revolution, when he pledged to serve the people of Russia as their “hostage”, tied to their demands as (at that point) the only socialist in the Provisional Government:

Comrades! But I am not only a minister but also vice chairman of the Soviet of Petrograd soldiers' and workers' deputies. I am an old socialist and democrat, member of the socialist-revolutionary party and believe me that when I stepped forward to join the Provisional Government I will be there as your hostage, a hostage of soldiers, workers, peasants, officers and supporters of the republic, as a guarantor for all of those who desire to create a free republican Russia. (Stormy applause). Do believe me and rest assured that as long as I am the minister of justice no-one can threaten you and no-one dares to rise against the new system and the free Russia. (Stormy applause) Alexander Kerensky speaking to workers, sailors, and soldiers in Helsinki, 1 April 1917

He was acutely aware of the need to cultivate his appeal. Kerensky in 1917 performed astonishing theatrics in front of his audiences during speeches, dressed to impress in a military tunic, and travelled widely – including to Russia’s western front – to address his people. By the summer of 1917, he had begun to see himself as a Russian “Bonaparte”, in imitation of Napoleon.

Teaching Kerensky

The work of Figes and Kolonitskii is, as far as I am aware, not widely used in the classroom for teaching the Russian Revolution. A shame – not least because, when considering their analysis of Kerensky in 1917, they anticipate the cult of personality of Stalin which is followed in the late 1920s and 1930s. In the context of 1917 itself, moreover, Kerensky’s story is remarkable (and hubristic), a tale of the dramatic rise and fall of a self-styled “hostage to democracy” and revolutionary dictator.

Classroom resources, including a narrative of Kerensky in 1917 and a living graph activity analysing his rise and fall, can be found here.