Russia nature of government practice essay 2
Question
‘Opposition to Russian government was ineffective in the period from 1855 to 1964.’ How far do you
agree with this view?
Essay
Opposition to Russian government had varying success from 1855 to 1964, arising from all
areas of Russian society including the peasants, the workers, individual rivals and political groups.
Although political movements were essentially prohibited under every ruler (excluding Kerensky’s
Provisional Government) they proved to be one of the greatest sources of opposition, especially
before the conclusion of the Civil War. Firstly, this can be seen by the very fact that Alexander II was
assassinated by The People’s Will terrorist group on 13 th March 1881. Clearly, the success of the
assassination depended on the strength and unity of the opposition, suggesting that the Populist
movement was in fact an effective source of opposition as it achieved its primary objective.
However, it did not procure the overthrow of tsarism, and arguably had the opposite effect of
strengthening the autocracy; Alexander III implemented the Safeguard System in 1881, which
established a permanent state of emergency in Russia and subsequently made the emergence of
radical opposition groups impossible. It could be argued, therefore, that while the Populists secured
short-term success in deposing Alexander II, they endured the consequences of a long-term failure
by effectively enabling the rise of a more repressive Tsar who resisted much-needed reform. It was
the reign of Alexander III’s somewhat more liberal successor, Nicholas II, which contained the most
effective opposition of the period between 1855 and 1964 as political parties such as the Social
Revolutionaries and the Social Democrats grasped the opportunities of opposition created by the
relaxation of political censorship following the 1905 October Manifesto. While the disaster of the
First World War was certainly a great cause of the Tsar’s abdication, it is true also that the SRs and
the SDs (eventually forming the Bolshevik Party) were the catalysts for Revolution given that their
policies appealed to the crucial workers, providing them with the fuel required to overthrow the Tsar
and then the Provisional Government. The Provisional Government were directly deposed by the
Bolsheviks in the October Revolution, thus suggesting that opposition was extremely effective and
successful when sufficient pressure was applied.
The Communists operated a no-tolerance policy towards opposition of any kind and
especially that from political groups. It has been argued by some historians that Lenin welcomed the
Civil War since it provided an excuse to destroy opposition; certainly, the White Armies were
composed of political opponents who had just witnessed Lenin abolish the Constituent Assembly, in
which the Bolsheviks had lost the November 1917 elections by 195 seats to the SRs. Given the
Bolshevik victory in the Civil War, the opposition from the Whites can be deemed ineffective and in
fact they enabled the creation of a more repressive state under Lenin and then even more so under
Stalin, to a great degree more than with the tsars. During the Stalinist era, opposition was
subsequently limited to mere individuals who had virtually no success in curtailing Stalin’s exercise
of dictatorial power. Whereas the tsars preferred removing dissidents from their post, a method that
sometimes failed to counter opposition, Stalin favoured executing prominent rivals including
Trotsky, Zinoviev, Bukharin and Kamenev. Opposition was consequently rendered ineffective as
Stalin simply gained the agreement of a core group of loyal party members to deal with such ‘inside’
threats, meaning that by 1929 all serious challenges to Stalin’s authority were removed, leaving only
imaginary ones that gave way to the Great Terror and the Purges, which in turn made opposition
impossible. Nevertheless, Khrushchev’s policy of de-Stalinisation allowed for an increase in internal
Question
‘Opposition to Russian government was ineffective in the period from 1855 to 1964.’ How far do you
agree with this view?
Essay
Opposition to Russian government had varying success from 1855 to 1964, arising from all
areas of Russian society including the peasants, the workers, individual rivals and political groups.
Although political movements were essentially prohibited under every ruler (excluding Kerensky’s
Provisional Government) they proved to be one of the greatest sources of opposition, especially
before the conclusion of the Civil War. Firstly, this can be seen by the very fact that Alexander II was
assassinated by The People’s Will terrorist group on 13 th March 1881. Clearly, the success of the
assassination depended on the strength and unity of the opposition, suggesting that the Populist
movement was in fact an effective source of opposition as it achieved its primary objective.
However, it did not procure the overthrow of tsarism, and arguably had the opposite effect of
strengthening the autocracy; Alexander III implemented the Safeguard System in 1881, which
established a permanent state of emergency in Russia and subsequently made the emergence of
radical opposition groups impossible. It could be argued, therefore, that while the Populists secured
short-term success in deposing Alexander II, they endured the consequences of a long-term failure
by effectively enabling the rise of a more repressive Tsar who resisted much-needed reform. It was
the reign of Alexander III’s somewhat more liberal successor, Nicholas II, which contained the most
effective opposition of the period between 1855 and 1964 as political parties such as the Social
Revolutionaries and the Social Democrats grasped the opportunities of opposition created by the
relaxation of political censorship following the 1905 October Manifesto. While the disaster of the
First World War was certainly a great cause of the Tsar’s abdication, it is true also that the SRs and
the SDs (eventually forming the Bolshevik Party) were the catalysts for Revolution given that their
policies appealed to the crucial workers, providing them with the fuel required to overthrow the Tsar
and then the Provisional Government. The Provisional Government were directly deposed by the
Bolsheviks in the October Revolution, thus suggesting that opposition was extremely effective and
successful when sufficient pressure was applied.
The Communists operated a no-tolerance policy towards opposition of any kind and
especially that from political groups. It has been argued by some historians that Lenin welcomed the
Civil War since it provided an excuse to destroy opposition; certainly, the White Armies were
composed of political opponents who had just witnessed Lenin abolish the Constituent Assembly, in
which the Bolsheviks had lost the November 1917 elections by 195 seats to the SRs. Given the
Bolshevik victory in the Civil War, the opposition from the Whites can be deemed ineffective and in
fact they enabled the creation of a more repressive state under Lenin and then even more so under
Stalin, to a great degree more than with the tsars. During the Stalinist era, opposition was
subsequently limited to mere individuals who had virtually no success in curtailing Stalin’s exercise
of dictatorial power. Whereas the tsars preferred removing dissidents from their post, a method that
sometimes failed to counter opposition, Stalin favoured executing prominent rivals including
Trotsky, Zinoviev, Bukharin and Kamenev. Opposition was consequently rendered ineffective as
Stalin simply gained the agreement of a core group of loyal party members to deal with such ‘inside’
threats, meaning that by 1929 all serious challenges to Stalin’s authority were removed, leaving only
imaginary ones that gave way to the Great Terror and the Purges, which in turn made opposition
impossible. Nevertheless, Khrushchev’s policy of de-Stalinisation allowed for an increase in internal
