To what extent did Alexander Tsar II deserve the title of Tsar Liberator

Question: To what extent did Alexander II deserve his title of ‘Tsar Liberator’?

There is a temptation to explain that the startling developments which took place during the reign of Alexander II came about because the 'Tsar Liberator', as he was nicknamed, recognised the desperate problems of the people and devoted his life to resolving them. The fact that less than six years elapsed between his accession to the throne and the emancipation of the serfs has made it easy for some historians and biographers to paint a glowing picture of the tragic hero struggling against adversary to bring relief to his people, assassinated in a cruel twist of fate the day before he was due to announce more major reforms. On the other hand, modern Western historians have tended to take the opposite view and argue that the 'Tsar Liberator' was an out-and-out autocrat who reluctantly imposed certain measures of change because it was obvious that his position was no longer sustainable unless something was done. It is hard to reach any sort of definitive conclusion as there are various opinions about the reign of Alexander II.

Alexander II came to the throne in 1855, at a time when it was becoming painfully obvious that the Russian system as it was could not survive without change and reform. Serfdom had for half a century hampered and impaired growth and development in Russian society. The growth of the home market slowed down, industry was restricted and it was impossible for Russia to implement the more progressive methods of capitalistic production of other European countries. The economy was not only impeded, it was beginning to suffer. Marx described war as 'the midwife of progress' and in practical terms Russia's humiliating defeat in the Crimean War had destabilized Russia's entire economy and finances as well as exposing the deficiencies and flaws which could no longer be ignored. With the Crimean War a unique movement of self-accusation was evoked and, according to VV Zenkovsky: the young people began to speak a language which had not previously been heard in Russia. A time had come when even the aristocratic bureaucracy realized that a pivotal point in history had been reached because unless they surrendered to the course of reform voluntarily, inevitability would drag them along and take away any aspect of control they might retain over events if they acted of their own will. The need for reforms had been resisted or ignored for too long and now if society was not changed from above it would change itself by means of revolution from below. As Alexander said in his famous speech to the Moscow nobles in April 1856: It is better to abolish serfdom from above then to wait for the time when it will begin to abolish itself from below.

The task which faced Alexander II was horribly complex. He was faced with the prospect of having to completely remodel the enormous state, abolish the age-old order founded on serfdom and with it change the whole structure of the country; the legal system, economic system, administration - the list goes on, and by nature Alexander II was neither a liberal nor a reformer and was not by any account particularly intelligent or innovative.

The first, biggest and by far the most important reform was the emancipation of the serfs, which came in 1861 following consideration and planning by several ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

The first, biggest and by far the most important reform was the emancipation of the serfs, which came in 1861 following consideration and planning by several committees; incidentally, this was later exposed as being inconclusive, ineffective and ill-thought out. It was this reform, the greatest single liberating measure in modern history, which earned Alexander II his nickname of Tsar Liberator. The lateral impact of this reform was huge as it required a complete repair of Russian society. The secondary reforms triggered by emancipation were: the creation of a new system of local government - the zemstva - in 1864 and continued with a reorganization of municipal administration in 1870, a revision of the legal system in 1864 and a military reform in 1874.

The Emancipation Edict actually made conditions worse for the peasants because it was so ill managed. The consequences of such an act had not been fully thought out and the first edict was not followed quickly by others giving the peasants complete personal freedom, outright land ownership or the means to acquire more land and cultivate it effectively. The basic principle of the edict had been that the serf was to be given land when he was freed. However, there was not enough land to allow every serf to support himself and yet the government imposed heavy taxes and debts on the serf; the idea being that the serf could pay for the land in instalments. This was impractical because many could not support themselves and their families on what they cultivated, let alone pay the government taxes. Ironically many were far worse off after emancipation than they had been before. No measures reached the basic problems of the peasantry until Stolypin's reforms in the early twentieth century and the 'mir', or peasant community, an outdated institution which should have been replaced by some form of commune or co-operative, survived until 1906. Indeed, the historian David Saunders says: A severe critic of the statutes of 1861 might respond to the question, 'Why did Alexander II free the serfs?' by saying that he failed to do so. Alexander Herzen, a contemporary writer for The Bell, published in London, was also a severe critic: Serfdom is not abolished at all... the Tsar betrayed his people. Emancipation not only failed the peasants, it angered the nobility from whom it had taken power and it led to bitter criticism of the Tsar concerning injustice in land allocation and compensation for land owners. Some historians have argued that the emancipation of the serfs was a major factor in the later industrial boom. However, skilled labour as a pose to the cheap masses was required, and often workers had to be hired from abroad to meet the needs of the slowly expanding industry.

There were fundamental flaws with the other reforms as well. The system of the zemstva, or local government, was supposedly reasonable but did not work in reality or rather, it worked too well. A scheme had been created whereby there was a zemstvo (local council) for each rural district. Within each zemstvo three classes were represented, the landowners, townspeople and peasants, with a voting system devised so that the lesser gentry would be predominant, thus ensuring that no major decisions would be made by the proletariat. Each zemstvo was to have full responsibility for local roads, bridges, and poor relief and later on primary education and public health. As well as removing some of the heavy burden of governing from the Tsar, this measure of decentralization would allow local agitators for reform some responsibility in areas which were not essentially areas of potential political danger to the government. However, as the zemstva became successful with local government the members began to want a greater share of national power as a pose to merely regional or provincial power. It is said that: the government is bending its every effort to calm the troubled public conscience as quickly as possible with the usual soap bubbles such as the Manifesto of March 25 on “heart felt protection”. Although they did not want to overthrow the national system, the suspicion of some leading figures was aroused and so a lot of reforms or changes however minor which the zemstva wanted to implement were officially blocked so that affairs stagnated. This was the wrong action for the government to take as it increased resentment and led to the zemstvo becoming lively centres of political disturbance. A lot of discontent might have been dissolved if the Tsar had agreed to the establishment of a central representative body in which the problems inherent in every reform could have been publicly addressed. It was not until the end of his reign when he accepted modest proposals for greater public involvement in central government, proposals which were never to become reality because Alexander II was assassinated hours before he was due to announce them and make them law.

The legal measures were perhaps some of the most successful reforms. The entire legal code was revised according to Western principles and equality for all before the law, the right to a public trial and other basic ideas were recognized. However, legal authority still existed and many 'undesirables' were arrested and frequently deported without trial. Before the reforms, there were no lawyers in the courts, and judges only examined written evidence in a closed session. Alexander II punblished the reforms of the legal system in November 1864 stating that: ... to establish in Russia courts of justice that are swifts, fair, merciful and equal for all our subjects, to raise the authority of the judiciary, to give it the independence that befits it. The judges under Alexander II were well paid, and so were more motivated to do their work. The magistrates had the honour of being able to deal with minors when the jury system changed as judiciary became more independent, as it followed the policy of “Justice of the peace” whereby open trials were held.

The military reforms were also largely successful. The Crimean War caused the realization that Russia was no longer a great military power. Russia's serf-based economy and army could not compete with the industrialized nations of Britain and France. As this event marked the beginning of his reign, Alexander’s goal was to improve the Russian army. Military service was in theory compulsory for all classes although in reality the nobility could buy or bribe their way out of it and it was mostly the peasants who served. This was no bad thing however, as the infamous harsh discipline was revised and it was in the army that most peasants learnt to read and write and received the rudiments of an education. Service was reduced from 25 years to 6 years plus 9 years in the reserves and five in the militia. However, it was essential in the army that peasants were exposed to revolutionary ideas and propaganda and that all soldiers were introduced to universal military training when they joined the army.

At the beginning of Alexander II's reign, the ban on foreign travel had been relaxed, foreign passports began to be issued and censorship was lightened. However, throughout Alexander II's reign policy fluctuated to the frustration of the intellectuals and students, with censorship being first relaxed then reimposed, then slightly relaxed again, then reinserted even more strongly. As Saunders says, what the government gave away with one hand, it took back with the other. If there had been outlets for this discontent such as more freedom of the press and speech and opportunity for agreement in political life, then it might have been debauched and posed no threat to the government. As it was, many secret societies were formed, such as the Populists, known also as the Narodniks and the Black Partition. There were many assassination attempts on Alexander II by these revolutionaries, ending in the murder of the Tsar on 1 March 1881.

The two main controversies which surround Tsar Alexander II centre on whether or not he deserves the title 'Tsar Liberator' and if his reign was a success or a failure. It must be pointed out that it is possible that he does merit the nickname 'Liberator' yet his reign was not very successful and it is also possible that although he should not be considered a Liberator he was still successful in what he did. Alexander II was assassinated by revolutionary terrorists who mistakenly believed that his death would trigger more far-reaching reforms, but instead there was a reactionary backlash against reform. Alexander II had a habit of being indecisive and the beginning of depression brought to a stop the steady stream of progress with which his reign opened, yet neither of these facts can detract wholly from the fact that it was his reforms which prolonged the life of the monarchy in Russia and finally dragged Russia into the nineteenth century. With regard to the 'Tsar Liberator' question it must be borne in mind that the modern Western perception of 'liberal' and a 'liberator' differs greatly from what it would have been in Russia nearly a century and a half ago. It could be argued that Alexander II was no more a liberator than was his father. Whether Alexander II was swept along by a tide of reform which he was unable to resist, the fact remains that although the system ultimately failed, in purely practical terms Alexander II was a 'Liberator' because it was he who actually signed the Emancipation Edict. Nevertheless, however great a role circumstances played in forcing him to act, no other Russian ruler in approximately the same period brought or attempted to bring so much relief to the people.