On top of these new problems, brought about by the industrial revolution and the modernisation of Russia, there were many long-term problems. Most prominent amongst these was the inefficiency of the government and the systems used by it. There was also a huge bureaucracy of civil servants who took an inordinately long time to do anything of significance. The bureaucracy of the civil service and the ensuing nepotism served to heighten the incompetence of the Tsar’s government. Alexander Herzen described this system as a “kind of civilian priesthood” – privileged, self-seeking and greedy. Once again, the problems within the Tsarist autocracy are plain to see and yet nothing is done about them, illustrating the instability of the Tsarist government at the turn of the twentieth century.
In addition, many people were unhappy with the autocratic system of the tsar, and thus there were many revolutionary groups opposed to the tsar in existence at the turn of the century. One of the most prominent of these were the Social Democrats. Amongst these were non-Russian nationalities that wanted more self-control and resented being controlled by Russia.
Overall, the autocratic system of the Tsar, which had served since the feudal era, was now falling apart due to social, political and economic pressures. The Tsar, Nicholas was doing nothing to help it, in fact his support of Slavophilic policies (e.g. the repression of the dark masses), could have increased the speed at which the system, which he was trying to maintain, fell apart.
Russia had an extremely feudal social system, which had remained largely unchanged for three centuries. This meant that Tsarist Russia was seen as a backward society by much of Europe. 77% of the population were peasants or serfs who were poor and illiterate. This poor quality of life, even at the best of times angered the serfs. Poor harvests led to starvation and uprisings amongst the lower classes, which were outraged by the fact that they starved whilst the aristocracy gorged themselves at lavish banquets and feasts. This created great instability. The government dealt with these problems using force, which, although stopping unrest in the short term, further created hatred for the tsar and his government. An example of one such action is the Bloody Sunday of January 1905. This clearly shows the instability of Nicholas’ government.
Although the majority of the population were peasants, urban workers were on the increase due to modernisation and the industrial revolution. These workers were educated and had revolutionary ideas about how the Russia should be governed. Nicholas II’s belief in Russification meant that other nationalities were treated as inferior, and were forced to speak Russian, wear Russian clothes and adopt Russian culture. This infuriated them and increased their resentment of the Tsar and all that he stood for, thus increasing the instability of his government.
On top of this, people were denied basic freedom of speech. All opposition was forcefully crushed using the Cossacks (the elite of the Russian army). However, this was seen as a positive thing as all opposition was forced to go underground, thus leaving the government and the Tsar free from attack by the media. As a result, there was never any big opposition to the tsar, and this therefore increased the stability of the tsarist government. This denial of freedom of speech, however led to the increasing popularity of extremism and radical ideas, which then increased the political climate for revolution, thus destabilising the Tsarist government.
To help modernisation, Sergei Witte (Russian Finance Minister) squeezed resources from the serfs and kept workers wages low in a desperate attempt to help the Russian economy. Theoretically, this could have worked but poor harvests and economic slumps caused starvation for the peasants and increased dissatisfaction with the tsarist government. The economic slump in 1902 meant that Russia could not sell its products. This showed that the economy was not very stable and was reliant on other countries, for its prosperity. The poor state of the Russian economy heightened the lower classes resentment towards the tsar and his government thus reducing its stability and increasing the chances of revolution.
In conclusion, Russia and its government were not very stable at the turn of the twentieth century. Some problems had been around for centuries, while others were relatively short-term. The social and economic imbalance between the aristocrats and the general population, brought about by the autocratic system of government had been a major problem for centuries, whilst the inefficient and bureaucratic method of government only served to increase the speed at which the tsarist system of government decayed. As with the Roman Empire, once this had begun to happen, it was only a matter of time before revolution or invasion utterly changed the political climate of the country and its empire. The problem of modernisation also contributed to Russia’s problems. Although Witte did his best to help Russia’s economic problems, and the government was able to stop any opposition that would decrease stability in the country.
Overall, in the end Russia was in terrible condition. It was extremely weak in political, social and economic terms, and with the rise in the educated middle class and revolutionaries, the tsarist government had become too unstable to have any hope of continuing as the same political system it currently was. Change was inevitable.
Alistair Hughes 04/11/2008