Although beneficial at first glance, the emancipation policy was riddled with problems. The freed serfs had to pay back their freedom in the form of Redemption taxes. This, although not overly harsh since they had to be paid for 49 years so serfs were secure in the knowledge that their lands would safely be passed on to their children, did have flaws – if a “bread-winning” family member fell ill or died and the family fell behind with tax payments, they could stand to loose their land and home to the State. In many cases, the taxes levied was much higher than the value of the land and due to the interest rates of 6%, many peasants found it almost impossible ever to erase the debt. There were over 600 peasant riots when emancipation has taken place!
Also, with the boom in population, arable land became scarce and in short-supply. Peasants often lost much more land than they gained and were worse-off than before emancipation. Nobles, whose land often surrounded that of peasant communities, often cut-off access to wells, rivers and forests so that often local settlements had to pay to reach them. The gentry themselves, who Alexander assumed would be happy with a generous pay-off, also lost money – the decreased revenue they suffered from a reduction in their estates and no longer having the peasants working for them meant that they had to hire labour, which was extremely costly. In addition to this, due to land reallocations, there was no real incentive for peasants to invest in their land since it may at anytime be divided up among other freed serfs – this meant that the Russian peasants farmed using just s archaic and inefficient methods as they always had. This subsistence farming meant that the State could gain very little from the trade in agricultural produce.
This poorly thought out reform meant that the Tsar became criticized and disliked by many, especially the intelligentsia who view the Tsar as incompetent and naïve for not foreseeing the problems that the Emancipation Statute caused.
Another area in which Alexander showed a great energy for reform was the military. After the tragic defeat in the Crimea, the Russian military’s organization and reputation lay in tatters. The army took up over a third of the State’s revenue. It was clear that reform with needed and Alexander set about it with gusto with the aid of Dimitri Milyvtin, the Minister of War.
In 1864, conscription was reorganized and extended to all the classes – in the past the raw conscripts had only be drawn from the serfs but now it was to be extended to the gentry, merchants and other free men. There did remain partial exemptions for the educated – the more educated one was the less service one had to honour. This in turn encouraged education among the lower classes. The length of service was reduced from the “life sentence” of 25 years to only 6 years, plus a further 9 years in a reserve unit. Officer training was also improved and there was a much more open system of promotion so that common men could advance in rank, rather than the military simply being dominated by the nobility. There was also a massive increase in military education – levels of literacy were hugely improved so that the Russian army had one of the best systems of education in the Empire. Military colonies and conscription were also abolished as punishments in the law courts. Similar reforms were made in navy. These sweeping changes in administration, equipment and organization helped to make the Russian military and much more effective political force. However, these reforms had their limitations.
There was considerable noble opposition to the military reforms and the gentry became constant thorn in the side of “Tsar-Liberator” – however, after Prussia’s success in reaching its zenith as the dominant German state from 1866 – 1871, the nobles began to see the benefits of a better trained and more modern army. However, promotions and positions of command still remained heavily dominated by those who were not necessarily better trained, but had bigger purses.
But in general, the reforms created a much better and more effective army. The decrease in size and length of service meant that the military’s role became much more important in foreign policy and reduced the heavy financial burden on the State coffers.
Another area of domestic policy in Imperial Russia which was crying out for reform and change was economic development. Under Alexander II, there was a noticeable, yet slow, increase in industrial development. The factory workforce increased from a mere 86,000 to almost 1.5 million by 1887 since the emancipation of the serfs resulted in a huge, unemployed workforce. Coal production boomed as new deposits of minerals were exploited and this lead to a massive increase in iron and steel production, especially in the Urals and Donets Basin, producing materials necessary to create armaments, infrastructure and the ever-more important railways. The railway network became central to the Russian policy of industrialization. Although begun by Alexander’s father, Nicholas I, railway expansion did not really take off until the great reforming Tsar addressed the issue. During his reign, the track jumped from 1,100 km to over 22,000 km and government subsidies into this expansion was increased. Freight traffic carried by the railways underwent a similar explosion and in the same period it climbed from 3 million tons to 24 million tons. Many foreign investors from Europe established thriving businesses in Russia, including the Swedish Nobel brother, who built a massive oil extraction complex in Baku. Russia became an exporter and less reliant on foreign trade – by 1890, 80% of Russian locomotives were built in Russia itself. The growing population meant that there was a growing demand for manufactured goods. This caused a massive increase in revenue of the State and wealth of the Russian Empire through a steep increase in economic development, brought about by Alexander’s reforms and investment.
However, there was a fragile peasant market since many of the freed serfs were still dependant on the harvest to provide for them. In addition, although they increased massively, the railways were simply not enough to keep up with Russia’s European contemporaries. There was also a general lack of a domestic entrepreneurial spirit in the Empire, often due to the harsh conditions on the people, and so the domestic market in Russia remained limited.
Alexander II sought a much more effective system of local government and it was on this area of domestic affairs that many historians believe he made the greatest headway. Poor communication and lack of industrialization, especially inn the far-flung and much poorer provinces of Russia meant that the power and authority of the Tsar was neither known not respected. There was also a lack of democracy in the Empire which meant that the Tsar was constantly criticized by the Russian parliament, the Duma.
Thus in 1864, the Zemstva were established – these local community bodies were democratically elected and representative of the people. They were made up of townspeople, peasants, gentry and clergy and had almost carte-blanche over local affairs. A majority of districts and provinces had these assemblies and they had power over public health, prisons, roads, agriculture, famine relief and education. Although they were partially restricted, they could also decide local tax rates. Further assemblies were established in large towns which has similar powers. This was seen a victory for democracy and a great achievement for not only the Tsar, but also the people.
However, the major flaw was the lack of resources of the Zemstva. They were forced, due to no State-funding, to raise their own moneys and taxes to pay for local improvements. Especially in poorer regions, the assemblies were impotent when it came to local affairs since they simply did not have the funds. Also, Zemstva orders and directives could be countermanded by local and provincial governors and the assemblies themselves became dominated by the local rulers and nobility. They also had no control over the police and had no relation to the national government – this fundamental lack of a vote in the national assembly caused the Tsar more problems still. These assemblies even encouraged hostility to the monarch and an outright hatred of autocratic rule. The liberalism and freedoms that these assemblies encouraged would, in future years, fuel the anti-Tsarist rebellions and demonstrations that would eventually be Alexander’s downfall.
The judiciary was another area of weakness in Russia’s domestic affairs and the Alexander the Reformer wanted change. Corruption was commonplace and there was no real justice for the people of the provinces. The legal system itself was also painfully slow and police had a great influence over the judges. So in 1864, judicial reforms began with the introduction of juries in criminal cases, who were randomly selected from lists of propertied Russians. A hierarchy of courts was also set up and judges became better paid in an attempt to stem the likelihood of bribery. The courts also became open to the public and Justices-of-the-Peace were established in remote and non-urban areas to act as local judges when a magistrate’s court was not an option.
However, there were again limitations to Alexander’s reforms since the secret police, known as the sinister “Third Section”, still operated freely and were outside the jurisdiction of the judges. They continued to arrest people at will and imprison them without trial. Political cases were also exempt from the courts and the Justices-of-the-Peace, although incredibly effective, were abolished soon after their inception by the Tsar. This again damaged the Tsar personally among the people and the educated who viewed his reforms as weak and attempting to stem the inevitable decline of Imperial Russia by the most futile means.
There was a need for a rapid growth in education if industrialization was to take place on the scale that the Empire needed to keep up with the Westerners. There was a rapid growth of primary school already. However, “dangerous” subjects, such as history, were being taught and it was universally agreed, even by the great man of the people, Alexander, that limited education would be better than too much.
In 1870, girls were offered a non-vocational education and the Zemstva invested money and promoted scholastic improvement. By 1914, the local assemblies ran over half the schools in Russia. By 1890, over 30% of the Russian army could read and write and this represented the greatest educational achievement in educational reform. An improved curriculum including philosophy and Western-European law, with opportunities to study abroad, was also introduced. The poor were also exempt from fee payment.
However, lecturers suffered from low moral, poor status and even poorer salaries. Although there was much local investment, the State contributed little to the education and so some of Russia’s greatest minds and thinkers left to study abroad. It was this that again caused the tide of anti-Tsarism as students studying abroad experienced Western democracy and interacted with exiled Russian dissidents and it was the students who would represent the biggest threat to the Tsar’s regime and, indeed, his very life in the years of unrest that ended his reign.
Censorship was an issue that many Tsars had tried to deal with and Alexander was among them. The main reason behind censorship was that the State wanted to educate the people, but not to the extent where the people would question the State. A liberal attitude towards the Press, many felt, lead to such questioning. The 1870s saw the height of State pressure on the Press with many newspapers being banned and their editors arrested as political prisoners. However, under Alexander II, laws became much more relaxed and there was a greater increase in production. By 1894, there were 89 newspapers operating in Russia and by 1895, the Press was permitted to discuss the government and politics in general. This naturally led to criticism resulting in a further restriction on the Press. However, despite the relaxation of rules, a healthy press was not able to develop.
It was in fact the concept of censorship that drove many writers to more liberal European nations, such as Switzerland, which became magnets to dissidents and other non-autocratic thinkers. It was the Tsar’s pressure on the freedom of the Press that helped form anti-governmental and terrorist groups often lead by students, such as The Land and Liberty Movement and The People’s Will, the latter being responsible for Alexander’s assassination in 1881.
In conclusion, it is irrefutable that during Alexander’s reign, he achieved many reforms which often led to great prosperity for the Russian Empire. In economic, social and military policy, he succeeded. Russia’s economy grew to a massive size. Her military was, although still comparatively backward, much better organized and effective. Local government was more powerful and sense of democracy had begun to descend on the people of Russia. It is a fair assessment that Alexander laid the bulwark of future reforms and improvements to the Empire and made the first step towards modernizing the nation.
However, he was fighting a constant running battle among the nobility and gentry – this battle was fought between the Slavophiles, who rejected the ideas of reform and wanted a more conservative policy to exist in Russian domestic affairs, and the Westernizers or Modernizers, who sort a much more reformed and much more democratic Russia. Alexander was a committed reformist, but it seems he lacked the political metal to pursue a virulent policy of improvement and change against the Slavophiles. He instead choose a route of partial reform, no doubt hoping to maintain stability in government and among the gentry and not cause a political split or, even worse, promote civil war. Instead of combating the Slavophiles and forcing them into line, he tried to appease both sides which only undermined him politically and he appeared indecisive and a poor leader. Although celebrated as “Tsar-Liberator”, many historians feel that if Alexander had pushed through his reforms with more force, a stronger and more powerful Russia would have emerged. Alexander’s fear of a Slavophile rebellion caused by his reforms was his major fear in his reign – it is ironic then that it was those who sort greater reform that would eventually assassinate him and end his reign of half-attempted reform.
Bibliography
-
“Russia 1855 – 1991: From Tsars to Commissars” Peter Oxley, Oxford Advanced History
-
“The Reforms of Alexander II” David Murray
-
“The Liberation of the Serfs”
