However, other factors contributed to the instability of Russia in 1904 and why Nicholas found it increasingly difficult to rule Russia. Changes in the world made educated Russians more opposed to Tsarist autocracy. Europe had entered the 20th century at the start of Nicholas’ reign and as a result, Europe had undergone progressive changes since the reign of Nicholas’s father. For example, by the time of Nicholas’s reign, the political systems of western European countries had become more modern. For instance, the people of Britain, France and Germany had gained significant political rights. In stark contrast, The Russian political system was still autocratic and repressive; it was medieval in character. Therefore, inspired by political developments Western Europe educated Russians like the liberals were even less willing to accept Russia’s autocratic form of government and because There was no democracy in Russia in the modern Western sense and this caused great resentment among ordinary people, whether in the cities or in the countryside. Even local government in the form of elected Zemstos had their powers limited by the
Zemstra Act, which meant that they lost any significant powers they might have had before this. The complete lack of a voice in government from the people made many people angry and lead to the alienation of a great number of ordinary people.
Also, changes in Russia created a new class of opponents against the Tsar’s autocracy. During Nicholas’s reign, Russia was rapidly industrialising. This rapid industrialisation created a new class in Russia which was the urban workers. The emergence of urban workers undermined the Tsarist rule. This was because the urban workers lives in squalid conditions in the quickly-built city slums which made then develop grievances that motivated then to become discontent with Tsarist rule. Moreover, the urban workers had greater opportunity than previous generations of Russians to reorganise themselves in common action against the Tsarist government. This was because they were concentrated together in factories and housing estates from which they could much more easily mobilise strikes and protests. These strikes and protests of the urban workers also had a greater impact on the Tsarist government because the workforce lived in cities like, for example, Moscow, where the Tsarist government was physically situated.
The peasantry was also unhappy about the rule of the "Mirs." The Mirs were councils of elders set up in some parts of Russia which decided at a local level how land and the common land should be allocated to the peasants. Many unfair and unproductive decisions were made which made many ordinary Russian peasants very unhappy. The volatility of the decisions of the Mirs left many peasants without security of tenure of their plots. This meant that they did not invest in their land and due to over- cultivation yields decreased, making peasants poorer, hungrier and angrier. The Mirs, until 1906 were also in charge of tax collection at a local level and many cynical peasants thought they were not collecting taxes fairly, and so got angry at the system. Therefore, the system of the Mirs, which helped to keep the countryside in poverty, was a great problem for the Tsarist political system as it alienated peasants that historically were the natural supporters of the Tsarist autocracy.
The Tsarist political system also confronted great economic problems. The Russian economy was very old fashioned and was basically agrarian. There was very little investment in agriculture in Imperial Russia and this lead to small yields and economic volatility when prices rose and fell. Agricultural techniques were medieval (if not pre-medieval) and used very few tools or other capital goods. Small yields and lack of investment in agriculture frequently caused grain prices to rise which caused famines. These famines lead to discontent and civil unrest, which made the political system even more unstable. The aristocracy, who held a lot of power in the Imperial Court, were in most cases absent landlords and did not invest in their land or care about their tenants and workers. For them, it was unfashionable to invest or take any interest into their landholdings as it was regarded as very "middle class." Therefore, increases in population were greater than increases in the food supply leading to famines, starvation and poverty. Repayments of debts for the peasantry's freedom from serfdom also crippled the peasantry and made them angry. It was this poverty which breeds revolutionary activity which caused problems for the Tsarist political system.
In conclusion, there were many contributing problems for the Tsarist political system in 1904 which led to the instability of Russia. Long term economic problems were causing problems, and the stories of working class wealth and social welfare systems which told from the west only showed the Russian people what they were missing. The Tsarist political system itself was collapsing and falling apart due to its inefficiencies and due to crime and terrorism. All this as well as the Tsar himself caused the instability of Russia. However, I think that the factor that contributed the most was the fact the Europe was becoming modern and more democratic with more people gaining political rights and the Russians political system remaining the same as the gave people a motive as to be unhappy with their government.
