Though Nicolas suppressed the uprising, some historians say that it were actually the “Decembrist” who frightened Nicolas I into a conservative and repressive policy.
Possible as Nicolas I imposed a harsh censorship and forbid foreign travel.
He also imposed Russification on the minority groups (e.g. Poles) within the empire and suppressed violently any revolutionary action.
By introducing a secret police and a Personal Chancery he tried to control his Empire.
Therefore the Empire was quite stable though the people probably were not very content, Russia remained a conservative country but the order was not endangered.
However, he failed were his brother succeeded: in foreign policy.
His attempt to get access to the Black Sea by attacking Turkey led to a war with Great Britain and France and ended up in the Crimean defeat.
Nicolas I died of an illness during the War and “handed over his command” to his son Alexander “unfortunately not in as good order as he would have wished”.
The stability was not ensured anymore since the War revealed the weakness of the Russian army as well as his general immense backwardness compared to Western Europe.
The questioning of Tsarism itself seemed to be inevitable.
Alexander II now faced a disastrous defeat and an Empire repressed by his father’s policy, that had been, according to Nikiteno one of his ministers “consisted in the fact that it was all a mistake.”
Nicolas death raised hopes that his son would finally end the repressive times and bring some reforms. As the anarchist Koropotkin reported “intellectuals hugged one another […] telling the good news.”
Alexander II yet found himself in a difficult situation.
He knew that fundamental reforms were inevitable to re-gain stability, but he was no liberal in that sense and wanted to stabilize autocracy rather than to liberalize and therefore endanger it.
However he soon released political prisoners relaxed the harsh censorship and gave some liberties to Poles and Finns.
Next he appointed a liberal minister to deal with the lack of education that had been limited to the rich and was now expand to lower classes; the number of school fourfold during his reign.
Alexander II understood that serfdom prevent Russia’s development such as economic growth or military re-organisation and that tsardom was in danger since the peasantry had great revolutionary potential when they are lacking their freedom, he realised that serfdom was the main factor in the backwardness and needed to be abolished as soon as possible. Unlike his predecessors he was willing to carry out necessary reforms.
In 1861 millions of peasants were given their personal freedom allowing the development of industry such as coal, iron and cotton and the growth of the railway system.
The Emancipation had successfully narrowed the gap between Russia and the West of Europe.
To secure the order, Alexander II introduced the “zemstva” elected local councils with certain powers that carried out local government.
The legal reforms of 1864 replaced the traditional Russian court system by a more western jury system with better trained judges and lawyers. This is considered as one of Alexander II’s greatest successes since it worked out quite well and brought more justice into Russian courts.
Besides these changes in legislative and judicative involved the “mid-class” (doctors, lawyers, nurses etc.) for the first time, since all classes could elect “zemstvo” members or be part of the jury.
Alexander II managed to free the serfs without collapsing on the implications and ending up in a chaotic situation.
The army reform in 1874 that re-organised army and navy and shortened the service length was the last step of responding to the issues of the Crimean defeat.
But did Alexander II handle all issues successfully and stabilized autocracy?
The Emancipation, of course, dissatisfied the nobility and the conservatives but in addition the Emancipation destabilized the society. The majority of the population had been dependent on just a few powerful landowners who had been both legislative as well as judicative. To free them and replacing the ancient system was not easy to replace and was introduced slowly despite the obvious success of the new legal system and the local government.
Besides, there is the question if Alexander II really strengthened autocracy with his reforms, as he intended?
Were not both Legal reforms as well as Education & Censorship reforms dangerous to tsardom?
To allow people to improve their minds means also to make them more critical and the relaxed censorship allowed access to liberal and possible revolutionary lectures.
The increasing number of Western courts created a liberal atmosphere, besides those better trained lawyers is possible opposition, too.
This view can be supported by the fact, that the intellectual opposition under Alexander II grew and nearly all opposition came out of educated classes, the ignorant peasantry was very religious and believed the Tsar was chosen by God.
And the “Zasulich case” of 1878 showed that the new jury system was not loyal to tsarist government and made it possible to release even terrorists.
Since the beginning of Alexander II reign, conservatives feared the loss of influence and privilege due to his planned reforms, whereas the liberals were disappointed by the wanting reforms, that as they felt were not brought to a conclusion.
The political more liberal atmosphere, created by Alexander II’s early reforms, that was the complete opposite of the atmosphere his father once established.
The opposition was not only caused by Alexander II reign but as well by ideological hate of the tsarist regime, so that Alexander II reforms encouraged, as well as enabled the revolutionaries to act more freely.
Regarding that some opposition groups believed nothing is to accept from the existing society and it is necessary to start all over again, supports that there were more that just disappointment about wanting reforms.
Alexander had reacted to the growing opposition in 1866 after a young student, member of as terrorist group, tried to assassinate him.
He re-imposed harsh censorship and replaced the liberal education minister Glovonion by a conservative and restricted the liberties of universities.
In 1864 he already had reacted sharp to the Polish revolt and imposed Russification on Poland after having suppressed the uprising caused by dissatisfaction about military recruit and the desire of national independence.
These steps did not relax to situation, in contrast the students, who formed a big part of the opposition, were now upset about restrictions and the Poles remained potential revolutionary as they were now not only lacking independence but also the name Poland, which Alexander II had taken away as punishment.
In fact, all his attempts to control and persecute opposition were not successful.
He was finally assassinated by members of the terrorist organisation “People’s Will” in 1881.
Only this would be sufficient to tell Russia was less stable by 1881.
Overall the economy was more stable as increasing and further developed though still wide behind Western standards.
The army was better trained and organised as in the Crimean War and was more able to defend Russia.
Russia now had a more Western society since abolished serfdom and introduced elected local councils and modernised courts. But it was still ruled by an absolute monarch; Alexander II had taken away fundamental elements of his autocratic rule but had failed to establish a modernised autocracy.
The main indicator for this lack of stabilisation is the increasing opposition:
Instead of strengthened autocracy he had unwillingly encouraged opposition; conservative by reforming at all and liberal opposition by “half-reforms” that desired for more. And even more, Alexander II enabled his “enemies” to act, by relaxed laws.
The realisation came too late and his more repressive policy after 1866 only increased opposition.
Despite the Crimean defeat it is justifiable that Russia was less stable by 1881 but due to other factors.
Some historians even argue that without Emancipation there had not been a Russian revolution (as the peasantry was rarely involved).
Considerable as Russia was not very stable by 1881.
