Overall Alexander II managed to go through this revolutionary transition without upsetting the nobles too much, who were actually advantaged economically by this reform. Moreover the Tsar was now able to reform other critical parts of the system, such as the army, finance and education, which without the emancipation of the serfs couldn’t have been possible. In other words, it opened the door to the modernisation of the country. And just as with the freedom of the press, the reform improved Russia’s image in the world.
Unfortunately, the emancipation caused at least as many problems as it solved. This is mainly due to the fact that it wasn’t a true liberation. The peasant’s landlords were simply replaced by the Mir, and if anything, their situation worsened. The former serfs had to pay redemption payments for 49 years and overall they even lost land. Many who tried to buy more terrain remained buried in debts. And problems continued for the Tsar as well. AgAgriculture didn’t prosper as expected; in fact by 1900 more than ½ of the farms were not self-sufficient. Also, the gentry who felt that they lost power now wanted to become politically involved in the local government, which with time could have threatened the Tsar’s autocracy. The disillusioned peasants caused multiple riots in the countryside and began asking for a ‘Second Emancipation’. The country’s political stability was declining and the Tsar’s wellbeing was endangered as well.
The reform of the Judiciary in 1864 was the next step towards a more civilised society. A new open western structure and system of procedure, with barristers with a British-style jury system were introduced. There was a clear hierarchy and appeals system, and trial proceedings were to be reported accurately in the ‘Russian Courier’ newspaper. However, the peasants still had to use the old system and be content with the justice dispensed by their local courts. Also, the government could still hold ‘special’ courts and ‘closed trials’. Also in 1866 -after the assassination attempt - the Tsar changed the Minister of Justice with a more conservative one and trials of Populists were held.
The initial openness of the system didn’t appeal only to the middle and upper classes, but it was also seen with good eyes by the West, this increasing the chances of some foreign investments in Russia - which would have been very helpful after the Crimean War. Also, the change marked a crucial step in the evolution of a civil society.
However, most of the Russians -the peasants- didn’t benefit from the new system, and this might have increased hostility between the classes and discontent with the Tsar, endangering his position. Putting radical opponents on trials fuelled even more the hatred of the government’s opponents, instead of calming them down. This eventually led to the Tsar’s assassination in 1881.
Another important reform was in the local government, where this time power was given to the localities themselves through elected assemblies. The new assemblies, known as zemstva, were a concession to the gentry, as so the votes heavily favoured them. These operated in two-tier system: the district zemstva sending a proportion of their members to form a higher level provincial zemstva. By 1870 this structure was extended and the eight largest towns were given dumy equal in status with the provincial zemstva.
The zemstva did for the first time allow initiative from below so ending the administrative monopoly of officialdom. These new local organisations were better suited to respond to local needs and in many places they did important work in education and public healthcare, improving the lives of every-day Russians. It also created the ‘Third Element’ by appointing often liberal minded professionals, like scientists and teachers.
However, these reforms endangered the Tsar’s autocracy, as people from the ‘Third Element’ were the ones who could question Alexander’s power and provide alternatives to people. In this way the radical intelligentsia emerged, people dedicated to the idea of creating a fairer, more equal society. Their dedication often expressed itself in uncompromising hatred for the tsarist regime, and in 1881 it led to the Tsar’s assassination. Also, due to the heavily biased voting system, very few or no peasants entered the regional zemstva, this increasing the gap between the two social classes and furthermore dividing Russia. Also, attempt at national organisation was stopped. All these arouse government hostility.
A reform in the army was absolutely necessary after the shameful defeat in the Crimean War. Alexander II extended conscription to all the classes, not only peasants - with partial exemptions for the educated. Service was reduced from 25 to 6 years, plus 9 in reserve, which could be further reduced according to the educational level of the soldier. There was also a new system of army education with better officer training; more open promotion and military colonies and constriction as a punishment were ended.
These encouraged young men to gain more education (as their years in service were reduced). The army itself became more civilised, helping to spread literacy (2-3 million soldiers in 1870s-90s) and it also reduced the costs of the massive and inefficient army - resulting in a more professional army. The reduction of the service years was a great relief for all peasants, and the extension of conscription for everybody was a great move towards weakening class privilege. This new reform supported the Tsar as well, as now he had a stronger army available to defend him and Russia.
However, substitutes could be provided by people conscripted, this increasing the exploitation of the poor (as the nobles could pay a peasant family to send one of its sons in the army instead of the noble’s son). Also the low educational standards or the recruits limited effectiveness of training.
In 1863 the new Minister of Education, Alexander Golovin freed the universities from their former restrictions and in 1864 produced two Education Statues: the first to regulate and expand elementary schools and the second to increase the number of secondary schools and introduce a new category of intermediate school. However, after a radical student attempted to shoot the Tsar, gloving was replaced by the conservative Dimitrii Tolstoy, and much of the universities’ freedom was restrained.
In this way children from a less advantaged background could be educated, increasing their chances of entering a university or gaining a good job - and therefore contributing in a more useful way to the Russian society.
However, the more educated, lower-class people were the most likely to become radicals and spread their views in University campuses. After the 1867 university clampdown, students were outraged even more and the growth of radical movement increased and remained a feature of the Russian society well into the 20th century, when in 1917 Tsarist rule was finally abolished.
After the defeat in the Crimean War, Alexander II tried to restore Russia’s financial stability and so he put Mikhail van Reutern as Minister of Finance. A vigorous policy of industrialisation and especially of railway building was adopted, encouraging the growth of private companies. Reutern introduced a proper system of public account and replaced the vodka tax farm with an excise tax. Also, new state, municipal and savings banks were founded.
The expanded railway system gave the dissipate empire greater coherence and immediately stimulated internal trade. Railway grew from 1,600km to 22,000km from 1861 till 1978, and traffic increased as well more than fourfold. This resulted in a quicker and more efficient communications system, which benefited every citizen of Russia, especially as the prices between different cities were equalised - for example the price of rye in St Petersburg relative to its price in the rye-growing regions fell by as much as 66%). Also, imports of raw cotton increased by as much as 140,000 tons. Banking and credit facilities improved and Reutern’s reform of taxes resulted in cheaper vodkas for the peasants - probably their single affordable treat… Reutern rationalised treasury and soon the financial stability of the government was re-established after the Crimean defeat.
Between 1860 and 1862 there was a slump of 30% in the production in the metallurgical industry in the Urals due to the loss of workers who were now free. Also, the government still depended heavily on taxing peasants highly, via poll tax, indirect taxes and redemption taxes, all these squeezing the last savings of Russia’s most underprivileged class.
It seems that Alexander II’s rule had a clear pattern of liberalism - which raised people‘s expectations- then conservatism -which infuriated people as their previously granted liberty was taken away. In this sense what historian Hugh Seton-Watson wrote is completely true: ‘The reign of Alexander II, which began with bright promise, and changed to dreary stagnation, ended in tragedy.’ This implies that the “Tsar Liberator’s” reforms caused more problems than it solved, as in the end people revolted against autocracy. W. Moose harshly points out that Alexander was ‘(…) an inefficient autocrat… he merely succeeded in proving that a pseudo-liberal autocrat is an unhappy hybrid unlikely to achieve political success’. The only thing that could be said in response to this portrayal of Alexander is that he was very clear in his own mind. He never considered giving up his autocracy, but firmly believed that he can reform from above. However, as Mosse indicated, this combination couldn’t have succeeded, and thus all his reforms were doomed to fail or arise even more problems.
It is hard to demonstrate the successfulness of Alexander’s reforms, as some of them caused problems for some people, while for others it actually solved some. Therefore we must ask ‘Problems for whom? Solutions for whom?’ It seems that from most of the reforms the peasants benefited little, even after their so called emancipation, they were further flooded in problems as now they even had to pay for their land. However, the nobles gained financially from this reform. The reform of the army and of the education probably brought the peasants some advantages. However, the fact that poorer people could be educated represented a danger for the Tsar, as radical students emerged from campuses. The reform of the local government gave more power to the gentry, but it lessened the Tsar’s control over his people.
Therefore it is very difficult to assess whether Alexander II’s reforms caused or solved more problems. Overall it may seem that Russia was better off, as it reached a certain financial stability, its army and economy improved and there were some important steps made towards a more civilised society. However, politically it was in ruins, the great emancipation was nothing but a reform that changed the lives of the serfs into worse, the army was still defeated in 1905 by Japan and Russia’s agriculture was in deterioration as well. A top on this, from 1866 Alexander II started taking back from the freedoms that he allowed, which ultimately caused his death and the end of the Tsarist Russia. The problems that his reforms caused were more far-reaching than the solutions it solved, and therefore we can conclude that his reform caused more problems than it solved.