Alexander Iis Reforms example essay topic

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 Alexanders 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 Is 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 IIs 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 incompetency 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 IIs reforms to his intelligent perception of the situation. Unlike other Tsars, he realised Russias 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 reform. However, in order to improve 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 Russias 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 Russias 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 to be a joke, and as a consequence he was never trained to be a Tsar. Alexander 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 ones 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 fathers 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 obsessed 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 constitutional 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 Tsars absolute autocratic power. Indeed, even in the Fundamental law of April 1906, it was clearly stated that: Supreme autocratic power belongs to the empower of all Russia. Even the First World War could not alter the Tsars 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.