The Fall Of Tsarism Essay, Research Paper
It was clear by this stage, that it
needed a revolution in order to reform the Russian autocratic Tsarist
system.? ????? I
would therefore conclude that it is extremely clear that the autocratic system
of government would not change despite any amount of pressure from the middle
classes or the peasant masses.? In short
it is clear from my examination of the previous Tsars, who have been
disinterested in reforming to improve, only in reforming to preserve the
autocratic system.? It is clear that the
only real way to alter the Russian system of government dramatically was
through revolution.? ??
?? Similarly, with Nicholas I the reforms during his reign were
very limited, and amounted to a streamlining of the Tsarist system of
government, but no real change.? Although
one can argue that Nicholas was not prepared to be Tsar, and Alexander?s
accession to the throne was unfortunate, this does not alter the fact that both
Tsars turned their backs on reform and turned their attention instead to bitter
repression.? This effective was
particularly effective on the part of Nicholas I and his notorious third
section. ??????????? One should
now ask: ?Why did neither Tsar attempt any major government reforms during this
period?? In response to this, one must look at Russian society during the
period 1801 and 1855 and discuss the reasons for the lack of reforms in this
period.? The first question that must be
addressed is was there any pressure on the government during this period? The
answer to this question must be no, as the serfs were still slaves with little
interest in political affairs at this time.?
Whilst they were serfs, it seems that the serfs saw the Tsar as an
almost God-like figure who constantly had their best wishes at heart.? In this belief they were mistaken, however, this
meant that the masses in the Russian countryside at this point had no desire to
alter the Tsarist system, and consequently the Tsar was under very little
pressure from this portion of society.?
As their was no danger of mass revolution involving serfs and middle
classes alike, the Tsar had little difficulty in repressing the liberal and
nationalist elements in the middle and working classes.? This was accomplished particularly
effectively by Nicholas I?s notorious third section. ??????????? Therefore,
the effective repression during this period under Tsars Paul, Alexander I and
Nicholas I, little actual governmental reform took place.? This was due to the effective repression of
these Tsars and the lack of any real political pressure being exerted by the
revolutionary elements in the Russian society during this time.? This may also constitute one of the many
reasons for the survival of serfdom in Russia, the Tsars were genuinely scared
of the masses becoming politically aware of the Tsarist system. ????? The
way in which the Tsars governed during this period shows a conservative
aristocracy.? It is clear that even from
this point, the Tsars were intent upon clinging to the absolute power that they
held.? The repression and lack of reform
during this period simply demonstrates this point. ????? The
only real example of a Tsarist government reforming is that of Alexander
II.? This Tsar had been well equipped
for the rigours of Tsardom as his father had had him tutored for the job.? Some may argue that the spark that ignited
Alexander II?s reforms was the war in the Crimea and the humiliation of defeat
on their own doorstep by powers fighting hundreds of miles away from their own
shores.? This war not only showed the
incompetancy of the Russian army, but also the backwardness of the Russian
nation in general.? This highlighted the
fact that the serf system was outdated as it led to uneducated masses who were
difficult to train due to lack of education.?
This may well have been one of the reasons for the emancipation of the
serfs, and in this way, foreign war may well have had an impact on the Russian
system of government. ????? However,
one can also attribute Alexander II?s reforms to his intelligent perception of
the situation.? Unlike other Tsars, he
realised Russia?s backwardness (possibly partially through the war in the
Crimea) and consequently, he realised that in order to preserve the Tsarist
system of government and prevent revolutions such as those in throughout the
rest? of Europe in 1848, he must
refor
conditions in Russia, he had to remove some of the repression implemented by
the previous Tsars.? This was the reason
for the increased opposition during the reign of Alexander II.? It must be noted, though, that it is clear
that Alexander was reforming to preserve.?
He did not have any overwhelming reforming zeal.? His reforms did not alter the absolute power
of the Tsar, nor did they alter the position of the Autocracy in Russia, and it
can be noted that the Russian autocracy benefited from reforms such as the
emancipation of the serfs by huge redemption payments.? Alexander II reformed because he felt reform
was what was needed at the time.? It is
true to say, therefore, that Alexander II was influenced by foreign war
demonstrating Russia?s backwardness, and also fear of revolution in bringing in
his reforms.? In this respect therefore,
it can be said that it was due to war or the threat of war that these reforms
took place. ????? Also,
if it is possible to say that Alexander II reformed due to a genuine want to
improve the lives of the serfs, and as a human being it is certain that the
possible humanitarian benefits had occurred to him.? It must also be remembered that when compared to previous Tsars,
indeed, Alexander II accomplished much in the way of reform. On the other hand,
when one compares Alexander II to the rest of Europe, the reforms he introduced
were extremely limited in scope and vision and certainly did not remove
Russia?s backward nature. ????? The
final Tsar in Russian history is perhaps the best illustration of force being
required to provoke action.? Nicholas II
was considered by his father Alexander III to be a joke, and as a consequence
he was never trained to be a Tsar. Alexander III had continued in the vain of
Nicholas I and Alexander I.? He had
taken the assasiniation of Alexander II as a lesson that reforms lead to
problems, discontentment and eventually one?s own downfall.? Consequently, he embarked upon a course of
repression.? Nicholas II, with no ideas
of his own, and without the intellect to be decisive, continued with his
father?s repressive policies.? However,
the repression was ineffective, and by this stage, the Russian industrial
revolution under the effective guidance of Sergei Witte had begun.? This was significant in that the peasants
were now crowded together in the cities.?
This disgusting conditions led to the realisation of their own
exploitation and dissatisfaction with the government who seemed to be doing
nothing to help.? This led to peaceful
demonstrations asking for better conditions.?
These were the beginnings of the 1905 revolutions.? Nicholas II is perhaps the best example we
have of a Tsar, totally obessed with clinging to absolute power and giving no
concessions whatsoever, until he is compelled to do so by war and
revolution.? ????? Even
when Nicholas II is forced to come up with the consitutional monarchy that he
eventually offers in the October manifesto, it is clear that his objective is
to appease and not to reform.? Even the
state Duma which is implemented is limited in power, can be ignored by the Tsar
and dissolved after 2 months.? The Tsar
could also change the electoral law in order to obtain the Duma which he
wanted.? This conditions effectively
meant that there was no change to the Tsar?s absolute autocratic power.? Indeed, even in the Fundamental law of April
1906, it was clearly stated that: ?Supreme autocratic power belongs to the
emporer of all Russia?.? ????? Even
the First World War could not alter the Tsar?s autocratic, non-reforming
ideas.? Although it was clear through
Germany?s thrashing of Russia, Russia still required much reform and
improvement, these signs were ignored by Nicholas in the eventual outcome of
the war.? It was clear by this stage,
that it needed a revolution in order to reform the Russian autocratic Tsarist
system.? ??????????? I would
therefore conclude that it is extremely clear that the autocratic system of
government would not change despite any amount of pressure from the middle
classes or the peasant masses.? In short
it is clear from my examination of the previous Tsars, who have been
disinterested in reforming to improve, only in reforming to preserve the
autocratic system.? It is clear that the
only real way to alter the Russian system of government dramatically was
through revolution