Russian peasants had a desperate need for land and no limitations were put upon the Tsar’s autocratic rule. The land issues weren’t addressed until the appointment of Stolypin and even then the Tsar was hesitant and rejected Stolypin’s advice. The Tsar continued to execute his absolute power and refused to let go, as Trotsky once said: “A constitution is given but autocracy remains.” And described the October Manifesto as the ‘whip wrapped in the parchment of a constitution’. The government practiced a policy of consistent repression and inconsistent reform, neither of which satisfied the conservative or the liberals. The revolt of 1905 was mostly stopped by the intervention of the military which suppressed all the mutinies and many of the uprisings, with the loss of over one thousand rebel lives. In the same year, the Tsar also created the Union of the Russian People, which was a legal political party which attacked known reformists and specialized in anti-Semitic pogroms.
The following year, 1906, Russia began with a radically revised and modernized constitution. However, each element in the constitution was little more than a sham. Although the council of ministers appeared to resemble a cabinet, it did not operate like so. The Tsar remained in complete control, and the ministers at his mercy. The Upper House Council of State was half elected by the Zemstvas, churches, nobles, and university bodies, but the entire other half was elected by the Tsar. The lower Duma was entirely elected but was still at the will of the Tsar. The Duma was unable to control the military expenditures or that of the Tsars. It also had no means of controlling the ministers and the Tsar still retained the power to overrule the Duma and rule by decree.
The left-wings remained far from satisfied and as a result boycotted the first elections, and so the Duma remained largely unrepresentative of the Russian people being dominated by conservatives and supporters of the Social Revolutionaries. Not in any of the four times the Duma met there were every party represented. The method of election was also essentially titled in the favor of the Tsar. The government had the ability to, in essence; ‘rig’ the vote by adjusting the voting power of the electoral colleges.
The Dumas doomed from the start as they never did really work. The task before them was nearly impossible, in the words of G Fishers, it was the “dilemma of attaining complex specifically western objectives in an illiberal, underdeveloped society”. Both the Tsar and the liberals should have made concessions but neither of them did. Many historians see the Tsar as the main source of the failure of the Dumas, however more and more scholars, most notably G Fisher and R Charques, note that the liberal majority in the early Dumas were rigid and persistent on idealistic and impossible demands. The fact that Dumas could not pass any law without it first being passed primarily by the Tsarist-elected Higher Council, and the again by the Tsar, meant that few had any faith in the Duma or any motive to co-operate within the Duma.
The first Duma was elected in March, 1906. The Kadets and their allies dominated it, with the mainly nonparty radical leftists slightly weaker than the Octobrists and the nonparty center-rightists combined. They demanded an increase in rights and power, but were told by the Chief Minister Goremykin that their demands were ‘inadmissible’. After only 73 days, the Tsar dissolved the Duma in frustration. In response many left and liberal party members created an “Appeal” calling on all the people of Russia to defy the government by refusing to pay taxes and refusing conscription orders. The “Appeal” however was not well thought through and the result was extensive aggression instead of the intended widespread passive defiance. The tumult in violence simply gave the administration an excuse to strike back with forces. To help quell dissent Stolypin also hoped to remove some of the causes of grievance amongst the peasantry. Thus, he introduced important land reforms. Stolypin also tried to improve the lives of the urban workers and worked to increase the power of local governments.In many areas, Martial Law was proclaimed, including major cities, and under the repressive policies of Stolypin, the executions and arrests began, known as Stolypin’s necktie, and did not end until his assassination in 1911.
In the Second Duma, many of the liberals were gone as a result of the governments reprisal to the “Appeal.” However, the extreme right and left wing parties which boycotted the first Duma, now decided to participate, but simply used as a means of propaganda. The introduction of the SD and the SR deputies into the Duma resulted in further uproar and unproductive conflicts. After barely three months, the second Duma was dissolved by the Tsar.
In the third and fourth Dumas, Stolypin used the government’s ability to manipulate the electoral colleges in order to create a more agreeable conservative elected Duma. The third Duma was also used as a publicity tool for the Tsar. The Western and European powers were considerably impressed with Russia’s ability to create a Duma and so the Tsar continued his attempt to create a stable and productive one. With a more conservative-dominated Duma, Stolypin easily passed his Land Reforms as well as other policies The Duma, also became more independent as it questioned ministers and discussed the state finances. A committee was set up for modernizing the armed services and a total of 2,571 bills that dealt with many social reforms (such as National Insurance for industrial workers) were approved. The hated Land Commandants were replaced with re-instated Justices of Peace, and compulsory health insurance for industrial workers was introduced. With local co-operation from the Zemstvas, the local educational systems were modernized. However, bills for the extension of the Zemstvas system and for more religious toleration were vetoed by the Council of State and the Tsar.
Problems still existed in Russia in which the Duma failed to address. The situation of the workers and peasants was still destitute and severe. Many of the same demands and rights that were brought forth in the 1905 revolution were still ignored. Shootings and violent outbreaks between workers and the Okhrana became a frequent and serious problem in Russia. The Duma even stated in one report, “It [the Duma] considers pointless to express any new wishes in regard to internal policy. The Ministry’s activities arouse dissatisfaction among the broad masses who have hitherto been peaceful. Such a situation threatens Russia with untold danger.”
Many Soviet historians dubbed the Duma as puppets of the Tsar and simply rubber stamps of government policy, on the other hand, modern scholars agree that the Duma did have a voice of its own and very much protested against the weaknesses of the government but unfortunately was unable to do anything to change the power of the Tsar.
Ultimately, the concessions of the Tsar, in 1905, and the policies that followed there, after only seemed to worsen the situation. The Tsar merely frustrated the liberals and failed to make any real changes to improve Russian situation. The Dumas, though often genuine in what they wished to achieve themselves, were unable to make many of their decisions policy because of the still obstinate and autocratic rule of the Tsar.
In conclusion, the Tsar, indeed, attempted to use the 1905 Constitution as a fig leaf to hide the true autocratic state of Russia from the people; however, it ultimately drastically worsened the state of the nation.
