Russia nature of government practice essay 1
Question
‘The rulers of Russia preferred repression to reform.’ How far do you agree?
Essay
Repression, as a means of maintaining the obedience of the governed through fear, was a
staple of Russia’s rulers between 1855 and 1964, although reform did take place sporadically and
especially during the reigns of Alexander II and Nicholas II. The beginning of reform in Imperial
Russia can be traced back to the Emancipation of the Serfs in 1861; Nicholas II freed 50 million
Russians from private ownership. This had a consequential impact on the make-up of Russian
society, offering autonomy to the peasants at the expense of the landowning bourgeoisie, which
even the repressive Alexander III failed to reverse. In addition, Alexander II should be credited with
bringing an important element of democracy to Russia at a time when doing so was completely
unprecedented due to autocracy. With the introduction of the Zemstvas in 1864, new local councils
represented the peasants, townspeople and the gentry by way of an electoral college system. This
set a key precedent in Tsarist Russia which Alexander III sought to resist with the implementation of
Land Captains to oust the Zemstvas, although his efforts failed to change the minds of the Russian
people, who increasingly demanded democracy. Indeed, Nicholas II had to develop Alexander II’s
reforms by creating Russia’s first elected Parliament, the Duma, as a response to the 1905
Revolution. This was an extremely significant step forward for an Empire which had always been
considered ‘backward’ in its autocratic method of governance, giving power to the majority instead
of merely the minority (the ruling classes). Nevertheless, it must be noted that many of the reforms,
in particular those made by Nicholas II, can be considered reluctant concessions rather than any
proactive reforms. For example, the October Manifesto was followed in 1906 by the Fundamental
Laws, which crucially gave the Tsar the power to veto any decisions by the Duma. As a result, the
Duma was frequently disbanded at the request of Nicholas II and was thus unable to serve its
democratic purpose. Perhaps only the Provisional Government can be seen as genuine reformers,
ridding Russia of the dreaded secret police, the Okhrana, just one month after taking power. This,
combined with the albeit short-lived establishment of democratic suffrage in Russia, suggests that
not all rulers of the nation preferred repression to reform, as the Provisional Government and
arguably Alexander II made significant reforms without being forced to do so.
On the other hand, we have the undoubtedly repressive rulers of Alexander III and Stalin
who in effect undid the positive changes of their predecessors. The clearest example of such
reversals can be seen in the implementation of the Safeguard System in 1881, which enabled
Alexander III to control the threat of radical opposition groups through a permanent state of
emergency. Furthermore, the Zemstvas were closed down, marking a key return to autocracy and an
outright rejection of democracy, subsequently giving rise to further repression of the Russian
peoples. Censorship, which had been relaxed somewhat during Alexander II’s reign, increased
greatly after 1881, effectively creating an echo chamber within the nation that meant only pro-
monarchy material could be published. Censorship and by extension, the use of propaganda,
became staple tools of repression with Stalin, who equally ruled as if he were an autocratic Tsar in
spite of presenting himself as the ‘people’s man’ as a Communist. While all of the Communist rulers
were skilled propagandists, it was Stalin who most successfully promoted a cult of personality that
guaranteed his grasp on supreme power. His seemingly benevolent image proved to be completely
incongruous with his persecution of all perceived enemies of the state in a period that came to be
known as the Great Terror. Between 1936 and 1938, it is estimated that 1.2 million Russians
Question
‘The rulers of Russia preferred repression to reform.’ How far do you agree?
Essay
Repression, as a means of maintaining the obedience of the governed through fear, was a
staple of Russia’s rulers between 1855 and 1964, although reform did take place sporadically and
especially during the reigns of Alexander II and Nicholas II. The beginning of reform in Imperial
Russia can be traced back to the Emancipation of the Serfs in 1861; Nicholas II freed 50 million
Russians from private ownership. This had a consequential impact on the make-up of Russian
society, offering autonomy to the peasants at the expense of the landowning bourgeoisie, which
even the repressive Alexander III failed to reverse. In addition, Alexander II should be credited with
bringing an important element of democracy to Russia at a time when doing so was completely
unprecedented due to autocracy. With the introduction of the Zemstvas in 1864, new local councils
represented the peasants, townspeople and the gentry by way of an electoral college system. This
set a key precedent in Tsarist Russia which Alexander III sought to resist with the implementation of
Land Captains to oust the Zemstvas, although his efforts failed to change the minds of the Russian
people, who increasingly demanded democracy. Indeed, Nicholas II had to develop Alexander II’s
reforms by creating Russia’s first elected Parliament, the Duma, as a response to the 1905
Revolution. This was an extremely significant step forward for an Empire which had always been
considered ‘backward’ in its autocratic method of governance, giving power to the majority instead
of merely the minority (the ruling classes). Nevertheless, it must be noted that many of the reforms,
in particular those made by Nicholas II, can be considered reluctant concessions rather than any
proactive reforms. For example, the October Manifesto was followed in 1906 by the Fundamental
Laws, which crucially gave the Tsar the power to veto any decisions by the Duma. As a result, the
Duma was frequently disbanded at the request of Nicholas II and was thus unable to serve its
democratic purpose. Perhaps only the Provisional Government can be seen as genuine reformers,
ridding Russia of the dreaded secret police, the Okhrana, just one month after taking power. This,
combined with the albeit short-lived establishment of democratic suffrage in Russia, suggests that
not all rulers of the nation preferred repression to reform, as the Provisional Government and
arguably Alexander II made significant reforms without being forced to do so.
On the other hand, we have the undoubtedly repressive rulers of Alexander III and Stalin
who in effect undid the positive changes of their predecessors. The clearest example of such
reversals can be seen in the implementation of the Safeguard System in 1881, which enabled
Alexander III to control the threat of radical opposition groups through a permanent state of
emergency. Furthermore, the Zemstvas were closed down, marking a key return to autocracy and an
outright rejection of democracy, subsequently giving rise to further repression of the Russian
peoples. Censorship, which had been relaxed somewhat during Alexander II’s reign, increased
greatly after 1881, effectively creating an echo chamber within the nation that meant only pro-
monarchy material could be published. Censorship and by extension, the use of propaganda,
became staple tools of repression with Stalin, who equally ruled as if he were an autocratic Tsar in
spite of presenting himself as the ‘people’s man’ as a Communist. While all of the Communist rulers
were skilled propagandists, it was Stalin who most successfully promoted a cult of personality that
guaranteed his grasp on supreme power. His seemingly benevolent image proved to be completely
incongruous with his persecution of all perceived enemies of the state in a period that came to be
known as the Great Terror. Between 1936 and 1938, it is estimated that 1.2 million Russians
