How far were divisions among its opponents responsible for the survival of the Tsarist regime?

by bonbonceries (student)

How far were divisions among its opponents responsible for the survival of the Tsarist regime in the years 1881-1905

The divisions between the opponents of the Tsarist regime were a key factor in its survival, but other important factors should be considered such as the Tsars dispensations for peasants and the mass oppression of the Russian people.

There were three main opposition groups in Russia at the time: the liberals, socialist revolutionaries and social democrats, each with very different political agendas. The main liberal parties – the Kadets, Octoberists and Progressive Bloc – wanted democracy, freedom of speech, parliament, free elections and to embrace western values. Their methods were mainly non-violent and political; they did not want a mass revolution. The Socialist Revolutionaries, on the other hand, hoped that capitalism would promote the growth of the proletariat who would revolt against their masters. Their support was mainly from the proletariat. Their methods were mainly agitation and terrorism. The two Social Democrat parties – the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks – were Marxists who wanted the development of industry leading to the political triumph of socialism and did not expect revolution, seeing it as unlikely. Their support was mainly from the educated middle classes. These two groups in themselves disagreed on the role of the party in government. Each opposition party has different aims, different methods and a different following which divides Russia making a popular revolution at the time impossible. If the parties had found common ground to combine their supporters, they could have led an organized revolution. Therefore the Tsarist regime was able to continue, since individual factions of opposition are easier to annihilate than a mass revolution.

This is a preview of the whole essay

Another factor key to the survival of the Tsarist regime was the policies of the finance ministers introduced to satisfy the militant classes. The finance minister Nicolai Bunge introduced the Peasant’s Land Bank in 1883. This offered affordable loans to peasants for the purchase of land and agricultural equipment. He also abolished the poll tax for all peasants and offered cash incentives for them to move to Siberia. It was a huge success and had a branch in every Russian province by 1891. This satisfied the peasants as they were then better able to support themselves and their communities, making them less likely to revolt. A later finance minister Sergei Witte aimed to increase industrialization boosting the Russian economy and creating more jobs and wealth for the people. The population of St Petersburg and Moscow increased by over 100% and nearly 50% of workers worked in factories with over 1000 employees. There was a huge increase in coal, oil, iron and cereal industries and an improvement in infrastructure. This boosted the Russian economy and created more wealth for much of the nation. This briefly satisfied many of the middle class and wealthier working classes as they were directly benefitting from increased industrialization.

The Tsar’s repression also contributed to the survival of his regime since it limited any revolutionary group’s ability to mobilize the people. When Alexander III came into power he turned around many of his father’s liberal reforms. With the University Statute of 1887 he limited the powers of the universities to manage their own affairs, and with this replaced many liberal professors with more conservative ones. He also had students questioned about their non-academic activities and raised the tuition fees so that only the very rich could go to university. This limited those who could go to university to mainly the aristocracy and middle classes, preventing the lower classes from becoming educated enough to organize revolution. In 1881 he introduced the Statute of State Security, which centralized the police and allowed them to arrest and trial any opponents to the tsarist regime without a jury, allowing for the police to quickly dispose of revolutionary figures. The Holy Synod was given control of education, teaching orthodoxy and autocracy in schools to help preserve support for the regime. Another of his key actions was the Zemstva Act in 1890 which limited the peasant representation in the zemstva and abolished elections, it also gave power to the provincial governors to monitor zemstva activities and eradicate any suggestions towards furthering democracy or challenging the Tsar’s rule. The Tsar’s repression prevented radical ideas from spreading by quickly disposing of revolutionary individuals, limiting the powers of the peasant councils to cull and signs of democracy in Russia and limiting education to those most likely to support the regime, the upper classes.

The divisions among the Tsar’s opponents were a key reason for the survival of the Tsarist regime, but were not entirely responsible. If all opposition groups had been allowed to meet and openly gain support then middle ground could have been found or a most popular route for the people chosen. However, this was made impossible by the Tsar’s strict censorship on all opposition and press, preventing any ideas from spreading at all. His concessions were also a key, but minor, factor since they satisfied certain groups and prevented them from becoming aggressive too quickly. Overall, it is fair to say that the oppositions between opponents were only partially responsible for the survival of the regime, the Tsar’s oppressions being the most important factor in the long term.