How far did the policies pursued by the government between 1906 and 1914 bring stability to Russia?

        The Duma was reformist policy to appease the liberals in the 1905 revolution. However the Tsar intensely disliked the Duma because it compromised his the amount of power he had over Russia.  In April 1906 he issued new set of fundamental principles which limited duma’s power for example “interpellation” ministers were responsible to Nicholas even though they could be questioned. He dismissed Witte and blamed him for the Duma even though Witte like Stolypin was loyal to the Tsar and trying to save the Tsar.  The Duma has some importance was improvement and did stabilize Russia however it the stability it promised only lasted for two months and therefore was short term. The most significance of the Duma is that is played a part in creating other factors which attempted to stabilize Russia. Social advances was actually caused due to the Duma even though they were short lived.  

        Due to parliamentary pressures of the Duma rather than willingness of Tsar education was starting to increase and well under way by 1914 with  expenditure by zemstva and literacy increasing. However some members of the government were suspicious of the effects of education. The unwillingness of education by the government was expressed in the withdrawal of greater university autonomy and repression which followed such as banning of non-academic meetings. The unrest and strikes by students caused by this which made Russia unstable was used by Stolypin for mass expulsion of students  This showed that this policy only brought short term stability and fuelled the rising instability in Russia as now this would have forced more young people to revolutionary groups however opposition still remained weak in limited membership. It is not the most important reason however with the linking of these reasons together they start to come more significant. On their own they did little to stabilize or worsen the situation of Russia, but together they were a thorn in Russia’s  side.        

  There was  a increase in Revolutionary and opposition groups in 1908-9 because of restlessness by troops and industrialists. There was scattered violence by the population in this period. This could have threatened Russia’s stability as revolution looms with unrest. However Stolypin who was appointed in 1906 used sever policy of repression and this was his trademark throughout his time of minister 1906-11. Just as he repressed the students he repressed the revolutionaries.  Martial law was declared and network of courts martial was used to suppress disturbances. The fierceness of his repression is shown by the figures of executions that took place between his stint as minister. From 1906-1911  there were over 2500  and the hangman’s noose throughout Russia became known as “Stoylpin’s necktie.   This is not that important but further evidence of the extremes the Tsar government went to keep in control. However it seems that repression was successful because the revolutionaries caused least threat and damage to Russian stability as there was limited membership and many factions of revolutionaries. Although this would have cause bitterness and greater resentment maybe forcing more people to overthrow government.

        Stolypins aims from his land reforms was to produce a prosperous conservative peasantry.  It is hard to assess its success. The peasantry were very traditional and found it hard to break away from the communal life were they believed the land belonged to the tillers. The period of 1909-1914 saw vast movements away from commune by peasants but it varied in regions. The reforms would have brought stability but they were stopped in their tracks by the outbreak of war.  It is more important because Stolypin reforms are seen by many as the last chance of the Tsar surviving. This factor links in with the next reason which is Nicholas the II himself. With his incompetence he disliked Stolypin and his ideas even though Nicholas cleared the redemptive payments he thought Stolypin was going to far and could well have dismissed him if he had not been assassinated. Nicholas. His lack of support for ministers such as Witte and Stolypin meant he hindered rather than helped in their reforms. The Tsar wanted to rule how as previous Tsar’s had done and he possessed little vision for change. His stubborn belief in upholding belief in upholding autocracy and military adventurism was partly to blame for Russia’s entry into World war one and his incompetence to deal with diplomatic side of politics.  For Stolypins reforms to work he estimated 20 years of peace had to follow but this was not the case.

        This is partly why Nicholas II is the most important reason for the state of  stability in Russia during 1906-14. His lack of competence created in the foreign policy and diplomatic side of politics left Russia humiliated which then later play a part in him giving the go ahead to mobilization as to retain pride. He was the one man with the power and authority to stabilize Russia yet he hindered its stabilization and made it worse. With his lack of competence and inadequacies for ruling he needed those who were very clever and loyal to help overcome problems and make Russia stable. This came in the form of Witte and Stolypin however he was reluctant to support them and he did not trust them that reform was the way forward for Russia. The Duma which could of brought stability to Russia was intensely dislike by him because of his stubborn autocratic rule unwilling to compromise power. He countered is straight away and dissolved is only after two months. He made sure the following Dumas were very weak and that the extreme right wing which he openly supported held full sway. He saw all revolutionaries as evil and failed to see it was his style of rule and his weaknesses and neglect of Russia which caused such opposition. By failing to see the problem he could never amend it but yet he further worsened it with repression and ignoring the fact that revolutionaries were a threat and eventually would be the end of him and his family and the Tsarist government.

   Some of the factors are more important because they are more influential than others and trigger others. Nicholas II is the most important reason as the source of all the reasons why Russia’s policies and reforms failed to stabilize Russia in the 1906-14 period