Another reason that some would suggest that Alexander II was a Tsar liberator is due to the series of reforms that were introduced, however all had their limitations and many lacked effectiveness. Reforms were introduced into the legal system in 1862 where equality before the law was ensured. There was a formation of elected rural local councils called Zemstva’s which had powers to levy taxes, appoint officials and improve the local community. The effectiveness of the Zemstva’s varied between districts, but they could be used to argue that Alexander II was a liberator as it gave power to people outside the central government. Nonetheless the Zemstva’s were nearly always nobility meaning that the power still remained in the hands of those supporting the traditionalist methods of running Russia and they were a way for Alexander II to please the local nobility who had lost land during the emancipation of the serfs, rather than a genuine attempt at a more liberal government. Furthermore the provisional governor could overrule all zemstva decisions, the zemstva were permanently short of money, which limited their practical options, and the voting system was heavily weighted towards local landowners, which made it easy for the conservative nobility to dominate assemblies.
Further reforms were made to the education system. Schools became more available to all classes including women with more schools being opened, and thanks to the power of the zemstva the standard of teaching increased. Important university reforms meant that universities were given much greater power in their affairs: lectures on European law and philosophy were allowed, scholars were allowed to study abroad and liberal professors replaced many of the conservatives that had previously existed. Furthermore, poor students did not have to pay fees, and by 1859 2/3 of students at Moscow University were exempt from fees. However in 1861 many universities were closed as they were prosecuted for criticising the regime and causing the increasing revolutionary activity.
Defeat in the Crimean War demonstrated that economic modernisation was an urgent priority with military failure and inefficiency showing backwardness of the Russian economy in relation to those of the European Great Powers. In particular, the government focused on trying to develop railways and increasing coal and iron production. The Russian railway system developed from 1,600 km in 1861 to over 22,000 in 1878. One area that saw little reform was the government's taxation policies - the peasants were still forced to bear the heavy burden of the poll tax, which the nobility were exempt from, clearly not a liberal policy. This was the beginning of the industrial transformation in Russia which in the long run would have benefited the peasants as well as the nobility.
Alexander II was following a path of liberal reforms during the 1860s, however he opted against any further reform and stayed a firm autocrat for the second part of his reign as Tsar. There was a reactionary turn in his regime following increased opposition to his regime; he wanted to reinstate some conservative measures. Between 1866 and 1881 liberal reforming ministers in his government were replaced with conservative ministers who opposed further reform, including the reactionary Dmitri Tolstoy who as Education Minister clamped down on the universities' independence and introduced tougher entrance requirements. Universities were blamed for the spread of revolutionary ideas with subjects that allowed freedom to think- history and languages- were replaced with subjects like Maths and Church History. A division between schools were created with a split between the classical and modern subject schools, with only those going to classical schools allowed to go to university. This became known as the Shuvalov era who was a reactionary conservative who brought other conservatives into office to support the increased use of military court and a tightening of censorship. These changes clearly show that Alexander II wasn’t a true liberator and cared more about his autocratic powers still existing rather than making improvements to the lives of the peasants.
To conclude, the judgement on whether Alexander II can be seen as a Tsar Liberator would be that fundamentally he was a traditionalist who was pressured into making liberal reforms. The objectives behind all the reforms made by Alexander II were to retain his autocracy, which he felt could only be done if he pleased the growing opposition within Russia, hence the reforms made. The humiliation of the Crimean war had revealed weakness and corruption, and it was clear that something needed to change in order for Russia to keep with the Great European powers, therefore it can be argued that Alexander II isn’t a Tsar liberator and all he cared about was retaining his power. It can’t be denied that the emancipation of the serfs didn’t have an effect on the shaping of Russian history, but it can be argued that it wouldn’t have mattered who was in power, this was the only option Alexander II had in his circumstances, also the other reforms that were introduced all had limitations that made them less liberal, and the following of the reactionary period towards the end of his reign before being assassinated eliminated some of the liberal progress that had been made, overall making it a weak argument to say that Alexander II was a Tsar liberator.
