'Only Alexander II's policies made significant progress in avoiding revolution in Russia.' How valid is this comment on the government of Russia 1855 - 17?

Ned Roberts 12 – 4 Mr Guy/History

‘Only Alexander II’s policies made significant progress in avoiding revolution in Russia.’

How valid is this comment on the government of Russia 1855 – 17?

It is perhaps rather limited to suggest that it was only the policies under Alexander II which improved Russia’s chances of avoiding a revolution. While his policies can be seen as appeasing the most liberal of opposition, in which case avoiding revolution, in the same instance they unknowingly pushed Russia’s current system closer to one. The policies created the landless proletariat, which would eventually undermine the key industry of Russia, namely agriculture, as people left the land for work in industrial cities necessitated by the need to keep up with industrialisation in other European countries. Furthermore the policies of Witte and Stolypin under Alexander III and Nicholas II cannot be discounted. Witte’s help during the events of 1905 certainly was invaluable to the preservation of the tsarist regime and Stolypin’s repression policies following 1905 were crucial in restoring order.

Alexander II certainly had a liberal outlook on his role as tsar of Russia as once he took over the role in 1855 he immediately began to take steps towards emancipating the serfs. Moreover, once becoming tsar he also gave freedom of the press in 1958, further testament to his liberal approach. Serfdom was the core of the Russian system of society and economy so this was a dramatic decision to make. After Russia’s humiliation in the Crimean War (1953-56) it was clear that something needed to be done to avoid Russia losing its status as a great power. Emancipating the serfs seemed a huge but essential undertaking as the reason for defeat was down to most of the Russian army comprising of untrained serfs. With the emancipation of the serfs more reforms were inevitable, and indeed did occur in the judiciary, education and the military. These measures were successful, as one historian puts it, in the History Review 2000: ‘This reformed autocratic model was surprisingly successful if judged in such terms as economic growth, educational expansion and public health improvements.’

However in doing so Alexander rather unwittingly began to concede some of his political power, as his zemstvo reforms indicate. This led to the problem that many of the revolutionaries were angry that the reforms did not go far enough, yet the reforms in themselves gave them hope that their idea for a revolution would work. These reforms also created great unrest with the Slavophiles of Russia who rejected the Western ideals that the reforms represented. Indeed, as the article in the History Review goes on to say: ‘However, [the reforms were] accompanied by a changing and underlying pattern of social tensions.’

In local government reforms which followed there certainly seems evidence that he did intend to alter Russia system of government ever so slightly. In the reforms he gave power to the localities themselves through elected assemblies, via the introduction of the zemstva. This was certainly a change as previously the tsar himself had complete power, although the actual power of the zemstva was extremely limited. It was a two tier system which gave nobles more power regarding education, road building and medication. This was a precedent for a democratic elected assembly which inevitably led to the Duma, and then finally ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

The reform of the Judiciary was also very liberal. The system was given a very open western style of procedure, contrary to the very corrupt and secretive system beforehand.

However, one has to consider what would have occurred had no reforms been made. Indeed so far it seems that in creating the landless proletariat and the system of local government Alexander II did not make significant progress in avoiding a revolution, his reforms angering the Slavophiles and encouraging revolutionaries that a revolution was possible. It seems the conclusion of events has to be that if Alexander had made no changes to the system when he came into power, serfdom, instead of being a way of controlling the peasants as it had been prior to the Crimean War, would have been far more likely to incite disorder. It seems with the momentum for change after the failure in the Crimean War, for the new tsar to simply do nothing would have brought on a revolution far quicker than if reforms were introduced. Alexander attempted to introduce controlled reforms in order to modernize Russia, which by that time had become essential. However, keeping a reign on these reforms was an incredibly hard task to accomplish.

It seems that whatever Alexander II did, in the end a revolution was unavoidable, for introducing reforms would only leave revolutionaries angry they didn’t go further and Slavophiles still wishing "to preserve the uniqueness of Russian society." However, it was not as though Alexander did not have a choice as to what type of changes he made. For example, in reforming the local government he had other options to choose as opposed to the decidedly liberal approach he took. He could have chosen to use his governors-general to act in the now vacant space of local government, or perhaps create a new body of local bureaucrats. It is clear that Alexander clearly thought a liberal approach was the key to avoiding a revolution, yet the extent to which this was a success is debatable. When in 1881 he was assassinated by members of the small terrorist group, the People’s Will, there were many active revolutionary groups around. This downward spiral of terrorist activities coupled with increased repression from the government meant troubled times for the preservation of autocracy. However, in comparison with before Alexander came to power, Russia was both more stable economically and socially than it had been in 1855. Even the same could be said politically if one discounts the minority terrorist groups.

Alexander II’s reign as tsar was without question a fairly contradictory one. Whilst adamantly refusing to give any hope to the idea that Russia would stop being an autocracy, he introduced very liberal reforms in the shape of the local government with the introduction of the zemstva, and the reform of the Judiciary. However, it seems that if the liberal ideas are tolerated in the long run this is going to bring about a revolution.

Alexander III, who succeeded his father to the throne in 1881, abruptly changed policy. He took the exact opposite approach in attempting to help Russia’s modernisation progress, whilst maintaining autocracy. Using Alexander II’s approach meant that the there was risk of losing control of the reforms, thus the loss of autocracy, yet the conservatism approach taken by Alexander III meant Russia was in danger of grinding to a stand still and losing power. This method could also run the risk of angering the liberal minded into a seemingly inevitable revolution.

Indeed, when Alexander III came to power he introduced what was called a New Conservatism. He did not reverse the reforms put in place but certainly did not encourage any more. Perhaps proof of the changing times in Russia is the fact that it would have simply been impossible for the reforms to be reversed. All that could be done, and certainly was done, was to simply make conservative amendments to the reforms of the 1860’s. However, the idea of an autocracy is that it has ultimate rule and can put in place anything it wishes. This was evidently not the case when Alexander III became tsar, illustrating just how weak the monarchy was becoming. This seems further evidence that a revolution was simply inescapable. Without intention, Alexander II had significantly reduced the autocratic power of the government.

However, this is not to say that Alexander III or Nicholas II after him, were not successful in their policies of repression. Indeed they also managed to continue to modernise whilst keeping a strict autocratic regime. However, though Witte’s rapid and forced industrialisation can be seen as a success in terms of what it set out to accomplish it merely exacerbated the problem caused by the emancipation of the serfs. It encouraged the landless proletariat, which can be argued to have undermined tsarism instead of reinvigorating it.

Perhaps evidence of Alexander II’s policies working better than his successors is the fact there was indeed a revolution of sorts under Nicholas II in 1905. A politically active priest named Father Gapon formed a union and marched towards Palace Square. The 150,000 strong march were campaigning for better conditions for workers, specifically for 8 hour days. However, they were fired upon by troops, leaving 200 or more fatalities. This again illustrates the growing problems with the tsarist regime. It was a police state, yet no policemen were to hand, having to rely on the army for order to be reinforced. This Bloody Sunday event united all protestors and dissidents against the state brutality. For example, the Shidlovskii Commission was set up to investigate the workers' grievances, yet it was not allowed to solve them. In fact the commission was outlived by the elected workers' committees which it had established in the factories. This rather ironically created an organisational basis for the workers' unions which were to play a key role in the revolutionary situation.

The situation was obviously lurching out of control as Nicholas seemed undecided whether to follow a policy of oppression or concession. The Bloody Sunday events led to Nicholas II reappointing Witte to draw up the October Manifesto. The Manifesto gave freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and freedom of the press once more. Witte, effectively, was the saviour of tsarism at this point. Having already extricated Russia from her doomed war with Japan, he also managed to secure unexpectedly favourable terms for Russia in the Treaty of Portsmouth and was rewarded with the title of count. So, Witte certainly helped avoid a more devastating revolution than the one which did occur, even though he perhaps encouraged one with his industrialisation policies.

Even though, to some, 1905 was a revolution, the fact remained that tsarism was still present, even though he Nicholas II no longer held unlimited power. The Duma, which was introduced under the fundamental laws of 1906 illustrate just how much power the tsar still had. Though the Duma appeared to have relative power, the truth was the tsar could dissolve it at any time he wished, and indeed did. As historian Roy Medvedev, rightly explained: ‘Autocracy remained, there was no constitution, all main laws were passed with the approval of the Tsar, and there were no rights of veto and impeachment.’ In fact the Duma was dissolved a second time on 3 June 1907 proving a fairly useless system.

After the so called revolution of 1905, Nicholas appointed a new prime minister Pyotr Stolypin. His incredibly harsh repression policies did appear to restore a certain amount of calm over a confused Russia. For example, General A. Kaulbars, a well-known "Black Hundred" member, sentenced to death two young men who were not even present at the scene of the crime in question. Through these harsh methods he very successfully reduced the number of strikes per year from 1,108,000 in 1906 to just 47,000 in 1910. This brutal effectiveness of Stolypin’s newly introduced courts martial seemed to be repressing the terrorist groups. However, after 1905 Russia was a changed country, the regime having been on the brink of complete destruction, and there was little chance of tsarism gaining back the power it once had, only losing yet more. Indeed a definite revolution did occur in 1917. Numerous military reverses, serious food shortages, and severe misery of the civilian population created a revolutionary climate by 1917. Yet it did not have the effect it was thought, having tragic consequences for all Russian people.

When you look at the facts it does seem that Alexander was more successful than his successors in avoiding a revolution. Discounting the fact that he was indeed assassinated by one of terrorist groups at the time he left Russia in a more positive state than it was when he came to power after the humiliating Crimean defeat. In fact, his assassination seems to provide proof for this not against, as no revolution resulted due to his assassination.

Alexander III and Nicholas II’s conservatism approach seems to have worked less well, demonstrated by the mass protest in 1905. Witte however, managed to lengthen the life of tsarism for a little longer through his shrewd policies, but surely it was only a matter of time before the regime was ended. Judgement is slightly blurred though due to the intervention of WWI, which was the final straw for Nicholas II. Alexander II’s controlled reform appears to have been more effective than New Conservatism’s.

However, though Alexander II’s policies appear more successful than the no reform, yet forced industrialisation approach, they were ultimately wasted, as I believe he simply postponed the inevitable. He simply slowed down the process of revolution as for all Alexander II’s liberal policies he never planned to abolish the tsarist regime. Many countries in Europe had been through a revolution earlier in the century and with a system of government as extreme as autocracy it seems inevitable one would have to occur. Furthermore, in modernising the country, of which few were in any doubt was essential, this bred new social groups, who, with desire for rights and opportunities were bound to challenge the current regime. Indeed with the rest of Western Europe enjoying such freedoms they would see hope for their ideas. The need for modernisation led to an unavoidable revolution.

Bibliography