Russia’s backwardness contributed to changes in which were made however these changes were imposed from above to appease the people. The most fundamental change which occurred under the Tsars was the emancipation of the Serfs in 1861, under Alexander II, caused by his desire to modernise Russia.
Serfdom was increasingly holding Russia back economically and militarily, as exemplified by the defeat at the Crimean war. This change was for the most instigated by Alexander II and not the Serfs; though it can be argued that he was forced into it by the Serfs as their had been 400 strikes in the 10 years prior to his accession, however he could have put these rebellions down if he had seriously not wanted to emancipate the Serfs. The emancipation of the Serfs was mainly from the need to modernise Russia and put her on par with Western Europe who had removed the feudal many years previously, and thus was a change from above. This is further exemplified by the fact that after emancipation there were 647 peasant revolts in Western Russia, due to the mir and redemption taxes; though the peasants demanded a second emancipation, they were instead killed with Alexander II stating “There will be no other emancipation except the one I have given you”.
The humiliation and defeat of the Crimean war influenced change in which was inherited by Russia however these changes were imposed by the Tsar.
However the October Manifesto was a changing point which suggests that not all change was imposed from above. Nicholas II was forced to appoint Russia’s first Prime Minister, Count Witte, and announce his October Manifesto due to mass revolts; peasants were throwing the gentry out of their land and burning their homes and their was a great strike in the cities. This was something Nicholas had not genuinely wanted to do, however he was forced to by mass opposition to his reign, and the peasant revolts.
Furthermore, his abdication in 1917 is a clear example of change not from above, but instigated by the people themselves. Nicholas II believed in absolute monarchy, however he was still forced to resign. During WW1, from 1915 onwards Nicholas II left for the front leaving Russia in chaos, and though the Duma formed a Provisional Government to try to restore order it was impossible to turn the tide of revolutionary change. Already the Duma and the Soviet had formed the Provisional Government and decided that Nicholas must abdicate. Faced with this demand and with his family firmly in the hands of the Provisional Government and fearful of unleashing civil war and opening the way for German conquest, Nicholas had no choice but to submit, which is a clear example of the people controlling Russia, rather then control being above.
The 1905 revolution highlighted many problems in the Tsarist regime, however Alexander III was able to suppress his opponents and appease the masses therefore he imposed changes which were influenced by the people of Russia.
The peasants suffered from the problem of land hunger, the workers had poor working conditions and almost everyone wanted reforms, leading to the outbreak of the 1905 Revolution. Although this revolution posed a threat
Overall, Alexander II was liberal, which was mostly due to the fact he had to be or would have lost power. Alexander II, in face of massive strikes, he was even about to sign Russia’s first constitution. It’s clear that change was often led from the people, rather than from above, however the changes did have to be opposed from above due to the nature of an autocratic regime.
In contrast Alexander III was much firmer. Alexander III was also a man who was generally not swayed by the public, which is evident in the fact he countered many of his fathers reforms. Alexander III’s strict treatment of the people is often attributed to his mentor the holy Synod Pobedonostsev, who was a firm believer in the absolute authority of the monarch. It’s clear that Alexander III was not led by the public, by his refusal to sign the constitution his father had been forced to.
Under Alexander II and Nicholas I the people did have considerable influence in how Russia was led, however under Alexander III this was not the case. The Provisional Government was also led by the people, because they lacked the authority to pass any laws. They were utterly undermined by the Bolsheviks, who organised the masses which countered them, and their inability to organise elections meant they were eventually run out of power. Overall, under Alexander II, Nicholas I, and The Provisional Government, the people of Russia did have considerable leverage over the change they saw in their country. Under Alexander III this was not so much the case, however it’s clear that the statement ‘change was always implemented from above’ is true however the people had a massive amount of influence.
