Although it would appear that Stolypin’s reforms did help to improve internal tension in Russia, not all the reforms were effective. Figures showed a large movement of peasants away from the communes however, many peasants moved back to the communes because they had lost their land due to failure to pay their debts to the land bank. Although ¼ of all Russian peasants owned land outside the communes, this land was still mostly strip farming, therefore primitive techniques were still used because there was not a sufficient amount of land for machinery, and tariffs were still too high. Although there was a rise in food production, the growth in population was greater; this put more pressure on resources, especially land. Statistics have shown that peasant riots decreased from 1905 to 1913, however, there is considerable evidence that Stolypin’s reforms did not bring peace to the Russian countryside. Stolypin hoped his reforms would create a prosperous, conservative peasantry, but in the mean time he reduced peasant representation in the 3rd Duma resulting in an increase in peasants discontent.
Gatrell described the peasants as “conflict-ridden”, as they fostered new bitterness, now directed at the ‘separators’, who took advantage of the reforms and government support to set up as individual farmers. Those peasants remaining in the Mir took out their resentment in various ways, from bullying separators’ children at school to burning down their houses. In conclusion, from this evidence Stolypin was far from solving agrarian problems he had created new ones, he had helped opposition groups to gain support due to the peasant discontent caused by the lack of land and food.
The second factor that created internal tension in Russia was the lack of political and social reforms along with the threat of opposition groups. The Russian people (especially the middle classes-liberals) wanted a zemstva; they wanted more individual freedom and a way to express their grievances to the government. The Tsar had passed these requests off as ‘senseless dreams’. But due to the riots and potential revolution in 1905, Tsar knew that if he didn’t take some action now in order to reduce the discontent amongst the Russian people then there would be a successful revolution. In October 1905, almost immediately after the 1905 revolution, the Duma was set up with legislative powers, this major concession helped split the opposition and stem the tide of revolution.
The Duma might have appeared a positive reform for the people, but it was really only a way to secure the Tsar’s autocratic rule, he never had any intentions to increase the people’s freedom or to improve their rights, he just wanted to prevent his government being overthrown. Because the first Dumas were radical and challenged Tsar’s ruling, he felt threatened and in April 1906 during the calmer atmosphere, he issued the fundamental Principles that limited the powers of the new Duma. With these new principles, the Duma still had the right to question ministers, but it had no real control over them as they were responsible solely to the Tsar; producing a great gulf between the government and the Duma. Nicholas even forbad use to the word ‘constitution’; the Duma’s powers were clipped even before it met. Although the Tsar could dissolve the Duma, he had to call another one. This could have been a good policy but it was exploited because in the new Dumas the Tsar chose the peasant representation, who were usually the nobles that supported the Tsar. This within itself was the cause of more discontent, and tension because the Duma had presented promise to the people and the Tsar had taken this promise away.
In 1907 Stolypin broke the fundamental laws, which said that the Duma and the state council had to approve electoral changes, again making the Duma weaker and causing more tension. The franchise was restricted to favour gentry and urban rich at the expense of peasants, workers, and nationalities. It now took 230 landowners, 1000 rich businessmen, 15,000 lower middle class, 60,000 peasants, and 125,000 urban workers to elect one member of the Duma. These changes to the Duma alienated many liberals by breaking constitution and resulted in only 3.5 million (2.5 % of the population) voting in 1907. These alterations caused more internal tension because the Tsar continued to promise the people change and improvements, but these promises were always taken away. This internal tension also gave way for opposition groups to gain support, especially in the middle classes who were very unhappy about the failure of the Duma.
Industrialisation was another factor that contributed to internal tension in Russia. According to statistics, the period 1906 to 1914 saw tremendous developments industry, however, the low base from which it started made it comparatively easy to achieve large percentage increases. Due to Stolypin’s agricultural reforms there was a growing natural internal and domestic market, this improved the tension because the people saw hope for Russia. However, this development was very much dependant on the foreign investments, this resulted in 2,400 businesses collapsing due to recession in the west. Because of the small middle class compared to the peasant population (82% of the population) there were few entrepreneurs to help industrialisation, therefore the government relied on foreign investments and the money they could get from the peasants as a result of taxation to fund industrialisation. This taxation caused tension because the peasants felt it was unfair that they should be taxed, but the richer classes weren’t. The government did not gain the funds needed for industrialisation from taxation because the peasants had very little money.
“The comparative lack of medium sized factories with large scale works of over 1000 coexisting with a mass of small handicrafts, indicated the unbalanced nature of Russia’s industrialisation and probably contributed to increased social tension”. Although the Duma’s 1912 insurance scheme established some protection from the hardships of industrial life; this rapid development of large-scale industry inevitably produced social tension, due to overcrowding, long hours, low pay, fierce discipline and numerous accidents. These crowded living conditions also resulted in the spread of disease and opposition ideas.
The final factor that helped cause internal tension was the attempted Russification of the national minorities in Russia. The last years of tsarism saw a growth of aggressive nationalist feelings, both amongst large sections of the population and within government circles as well. The Tsar wanted to try and unite the Russian population in an attempted to improve the growing internal tension. However, Russification resulted in the Russians believing themselves to be superior to the national minorities. The Jews, Finns, Poles, Armenians, Baltic Germans and Georgians all became victims of Russian chauvinism. This aggressive national feeling helped the opposition to the Tsar because they gained support from the national minorities. Helping them become stronger in order to overthrow the Tsar in 1917.
In conclusion, although the government did try to set up many reforms in order to stem the increasing internal tension, many of the reforms were not set up to help the people, but to strengthen Tsar’s autocratic rule. This meant that the short-term effects were positive because the people believed the Tsar’s promises of more freedom and a better way of life. But in the long term the Tsar was not creating a wider base of support for him but for the opposition; paving the way for them to overthrow the government in 1917. Instead of helping to improve internal tension, Tsar increased discontent within the people because he took away the promises he had made, making the people loose all faith in their ruler.
