When examining which Tsar was more autocratic, the role of opposition and how it was dealt with should not be overlooked. Alexander introduced mass repression, which included executions and other forms of torture in order to regain political stability. Similarly, Nicholas introduced continued repression, but combined this with concessions in order to diminish opposition and increase popularity towards his regime. Stolypin’s necktie echoes Alexander’s ruthless suppression of opposition to suggest that both Tsars’ were autocratic. Yet, a deeper analysis of both regimes can lead one to conclude that it was in fact Nicholas who was more autocratic. By transforming Russia into a modern democratic state, he also made his opposition more active and demanding, especially since they saw the power of the monarch decrease gradually in the western countries. Their protests became more politically motivated and some, such as the Bolsheviks even called for the collapse of Tsarism. Alexander responded to this with further repression, for example, the execution of the Vyborg in 1907. The pessimist school of History agrees that revolution was inevitable since Tsar Nicholas became more counter-productive further into his reign.
The impact on the economy and the approach adopted suggests that Nicholas was more autocratic. Alexander, with the help of his able ministers Vyshnegradsky, and later Witte began to transform the Russian economy by opting for a liberal attitude towards the economy. The success can be seen through the rapid increase in railways and industry. Furthermore, the government worked with big business in order to achieve further economic prosperity. Conversely, Nicholas’ government took an active role in economic affairs. The Agrarian reforms encouraged direct cooperation between government and the peasants and allowed Nicholas to regain political stability through a successful economy. Stolypin, unlike Alexander’s ministers, manipulated Alexander’s autocratic rule by coercing many to adhere to his policies. Therefore, Alexander’s approach towards the economy was more autocratic, in comparison to Alexander’s reign.
Nicholas implemented major reforms, which stabilised the Russian state, whilst Alexander limited reform in order to enforce autocracy. Nicholas’ impressive reforms, such as the national insurance act, Duma and success in economy cannot be paralleled with Alexander’s lack of reform. Subsequently, it can be deduced that Alexander was more autocratic than Nicholas. Additionally, Alexander’s program of Russification and hostility towards the Jews suggests he was a vicious and despotic leader, who was bound to be overthrown. Historians have described Alexander’s period as one of counter-reform and when compared with Nicholas, it suggests that Alexander was more autocratic.
In conclusion, Alexander was more autocratic than Nicholas. Interestingly, Alexander announced that he would abolish further reform and maintain autocracy on the day he came to power. Therefore, a reign of ruthlessness and terror, propelled by autocracy was an inevitable consequence.
