Russia nature of government practice essay 4
'Stalin changed the nature of government more than any other ruler.' How far do you agree?
Given that the only significant difference between the nature of Stalinist and Leninist
government was the level of repression – being considerably higher during the rule of the former – it
seems an exaggeration to suggest that Stalin changed the nature of government more than any
other ruler in the period from 1855 to 1964. Tsarist reforms under Alexander II and Nicholas II to the
existing system also undermine the credibility of the above view.
Nevertheless, Stalin’s increase of the level of repression was certainly an important change
to Russian government. Stalin was able to establish rule by way of one man in one party more
effectively than any other ruler; his secret police force, the NKVD, enabled all threats to his position
to be defeated and made successful opposition to the regime an impossibility. The NKVD gathered
evidence against high-ranking communists such as Bukharin, Kamenev, Zinoviev and Trotsky, all of
whom were executed by 1940 as an indication that anyone who questioned the legitimacy of Stalin’s
rule had no place in the ‘new’ USSR. Although repression was characteristic of the period, this extent
of persecution was unique to Stalin’s rule. Over 40 million people were sent to gulags over the
course of the Stalinist regime, which far outstripped that of any other ruler and thus again suggests
that Stalin made considerable changes to the nature of government. The structure of government
also faced reform as in 1936, a new constitution introduced a degree of federalism in the USSR in the
sense that individual republics were given increased autonomous powers and had the right to
secede from the USSR. The new government was organised into the Supreme Soviet of the USSR,
which was divided into two houses as an indication of the move towards democratic federalism. This
differed considerably from tsarist government; in Alexander III’s reign for example, control of the
Empire’s outlying areas rested with land captains who had sweeping powers, harkening back to a
more medieval system of governance. Alexander III is notable for making few significant changes to
the nature of government. He did, like Stalin, increase the level of repression relative to his
predecessor by centralising the police under the minister for the interior, although his persecution of
Russian citizens and government organs was a far cry from the Great Terror that characterised
Stalinist rule. The Provisional Government also showed themselves to be reluctant reformers,
appearing democratic at first with the establishment of a Constituent Assembly but then continually
delaying free elections to it. The backgrounds of the Provisional Government’s ministers –
originating from the nobility and middle-classes – were very similar to that of the tsars. Viewing their
leader, Kerensky, as just another tsar is supported by his decision to move into Nicholas II’s
apartments at the Winter Palace. Clearly, he was hardly the ‘man of the people’ and intended to
make no changes to the existing order. Likewise, Khrushchev merely continued Stalin’s policies.
Although he expressed a desire to de-Stalinise government, he brought limited relief to his people as
the Stalinist structure of government remained unchanged. Control was still in the hands of one-man
serving one-party during Khrushchev’s era and repressive measures were still taken against
dissidents, as demonstrated by the crushing of the Hungarian rising with tanks and artillery. While
Stalin did not change the nature of government more than any other ruler, it seems to credible
suggest regardless that he did reform the existing system more than Alexander III, the Provisional
Government and Khrushchev.
'Stalin changed the nature of government more than any other ruler.' How far do you agree?
Given that the only significant difference between the nature of Stalinist and Leninist
government was the level of repression – being considerably higher during the rule of the former – it
seems an exaggeration to suggest that Stalin changed the nature of government more than any
other ruler in the period from 1855 to 1964. Tsarist reforms under Alexander II and Nicholas II to the
existing system also undermine the credibility of the above view.
Nevertheless, Stalin’s increase of the level of repression was certainly an important change
to Russian government. Stalin was able to establish rule by way of one man in one party more
effectively than any other ruler; his secret police force, the NKVD, enabled all threats to his position
to be defeated and made successful opposition to the regime an impossibility. The NKVD gathered
evidence against high-ranking communists such as Bukharin, Kamenev, Zinoviev and Trotsky, all of
whom were executed by 1940 as an indication that anyone who questioned the legitimacy of Stalin’s
rule had no place in the ‘new’ USSR. Although repression was characteristic of the period, this extent
of persecution was unique to Stalin’s rule. Over 40 million people were sent to gulags over the
course of the Stalinist regime, which far outstripped that of any other ruler and thus again suggests
that Stalin made considerable changes to the nature of government. The structure of government
also faced reform as in 1936, a new constitution introduced a degree of federalism in the USSR in the
sense that individual republics were given increased autonomous powers and had the right to
secede from the USSR. The new government was organised into the Supreme Soviet of the USSR,
which was divided into two houses as an indication of the move towards democratic federalism. This
differed considerably from tsarist government; in Alexander III’s reign for example, control of the
Empire’s outlying areas rested with land captains who had sweeping powers, harkening back to a
more medieval system of governance. Alexander III is notable for making few significant changes to
the nature of government. He did, like Stalin, increase the level of repression relative to his
predecessor by centralising the police under the minister for the interior, although his persecution of
Russian citizens and government organs was a far cry from the Great Terror that characterised
Stalinist rule. The Provisional Government also showed themselves to be reluctant reformers,
appearing democratic at first with the establishment of a Constituent Assembly but then continually
delaying free elections to it. The backgrounds of the Provisional Government’s ministers –
originating from the nobility and middle-classes – were very similar to that of the tsars. Viewing their
leader, Kerensky, as just another tsar is supported by his decision to move into Nicholas II’s
apartments at the Winter Palace. Clearly, he was hardly the ‘man of the people’ and intended to
make no changes to the existing order. Likewise, Khrushchev merely continued Stalin’s policies.
Although he expressed a desire to de-Stalinise government, he brought limited relief to his people as
the Stalinist structure of government remained unchanged. Control was still in the hands of one-man
serving one-party during Khrushchev’s era and repressive measures were still taken against
dissidents, as demonstrated by the crushing of the Hungarian rising with tanks and artillery. While
Stalin did not change the nature of government more than any other ruler, it seems to credible
suggest regardless that he did reform the existing system more than Alexander III, the Provisional
Government and Khrushchev.
