Edexcel A-Level History Russia in Revolution A* Essay
1894-1924
Q: Tsarist government in the years 1894-1905 was fundamentally similar to the Tsarist
government in the years 1906-1914. How far do you agree?
Whilst it could be argued that the Tsarist regime of 1894-1905 was
fundamentally different to the Tsarist regime of 1906-1914 as shown by the
introduction of legal rights through the October Manifesto of 1905. This
enfranchised the Russian population, giving them unprecedented levels of
political freedom. However, this legal advancement was immediately
undermined by the Fundamental Laws of 1906, reducing the legal rights of
citizens by undermining the power of the Duma and emphasising the Tsar’s
preeminent position. Alternatively, it could be argued that the Tsarist regime
remained fundamentally unchanged, as shown by the continuation of its
violent modus operandi of dealing with “dissenters” to minimise outbreaks
against the regime. Thus, ultimately, it is clear that the Tsarist regime
remained fundamentally similar as seen through the continuing violent
repression of the peasantry under Stolypin and Dunorvo which undermined
their ability to dissent against the regime, demonstrating a continuation in
their violent modus operandi and desire to repress its population.
Thus, the introduction of the October Manifesto in 1905 could be seen as
revolutionising the fundamentals of the Tsarist regime in the years 1894-
1905 in comparison to the Fundamental Laws of 1906. The October
Manifesto of 1905 gave individuals the right to freedom of assembly,
associations and speech. This legalised trade unions and political parties for
the first time granting the population widespread political representation and
workers protection from exploitative employers. The creation of political
parties allowed the population to critique the Tsar and their policies for the
first time thus granting them a degree of influence over the running of the
political nation. Therefore, the Tsar was no longer able to enforce the
preeminent oligarchy of Tsarist Russia which saw a widespread exploitation
of the lower classes for the benefits of the few upper classes. This marked a
significant shift in the running of the Tsarist government giving the
population a greater degree of power and influence then they would have
had previously. The regime now had to contend with open criticism and
opposition something which the regime was not accustomed to and did not
welcome. However, what made the October Manifesto of 1905 limited was
that it made no direct provisions to protect individual political parties from
possible attacks by the government or infiltration from the Okhrana thus
limiting their effectiveness and range of critique. On the other hand, when
one considers the limited influence of the October Manifesto, given at it
, Edexcel A-Level History Russia in Revolution A* Essay
1894-1924
practically remained in place for a mere few months signified the
fundamentally similar status of the Tsarist regime. The Fundamental Laws of
1906 sought to directly contrast the freedoms gained by the population in
the October Manifesto. For example, Article 4 of the Fundamental Laws
reinforced the position of the Tsar as the supreme autocratic leader of
Russia, claiming that not only “fear and conscience but God himself
commands obedience to his authority.” This line of argument practically
diminished the idea of bi-cameral Parliament and thus significantly
handicapped both the Duma and the political parties that emerged following
the October Manifesto. This practically meant that the regime could not be
critiqued nor challenged as the Tsar was above question thus limiting the
voice of the opposition and their ability to critique the Tsar as such questions
would be effectively critiquing God and thus seen as socially unacceptable,
especially to a vastly religious nation. Article 87 of the Fundamental Laws
further undermined the power of the Duma by giving the Tsar the ability to
bypass them in a state of emergency and merely allowing the Duma to
rectify such laws following the emergency which in many cases took months
or years. This further diminished the power of the Duma as it granted the
Tsar the ability to exploit a loophole in legislation which reduced the Duma to
a mere talking shop rather than a partner in government. Overall, then, it is
clear that whilst the Tsarist regime underwent a degree of significant change
following the introduction of the October Manifesto in 1905, such influence
and power was limited to a mere few months and thus did not mark a
meaningful change in the structure of Tsarist government. The introduction
of the Fundamental Laws undermined the freedoms gained by the population
in the October Manifesto thus demonstrating the two regimes as remaining
fundamentally similar to one another. Whilst the Manifesto granted them a
Duma and a voice in government, its significant limitation rendered it
practically futile and a mere de jure rather than de facto change.
Furthermore, another reason as to why the Tsarist regime of 1894-1905 and
1906-1914 remained fundamentally similar was as a result of the continuing
violent modus operandi of suppressing workers. For example, the army was
called to deal with worker unrest 300 times in 1901 and 500 times in 1902.
These “uprisings” were brutal affairs that emerged from the workers’ poor
working conditions, low pay, long hours (typically 60 hours or more) and
frequent workplace injuries caused by the appalling standards of health and
safety and horrible lodgings which spread transmissible diseases. This shows
that rather than being concerned with improving the welfare of its workers,
the Tsarist regime was keen on suppressing them through violent means,
1894-1924
Q: Tsarist government in the years 1894-1905 was fundamentally similar to the Tsarist
government in the years 1906-1914. How far do you agree?
Whilst it could be argued that the Tsarist regime of 1894-1905 was
fundamentally different to the Tsarist regime of 1906-1914 as shown by the
introduction of legal rights through the October Manifesto of 1905. This
enfranchised the Russian population, giving them unprecedented levels of
political freedom. However, this legal advancement was immediately
undermined by the Fundamental Laws of 1906, reducing the legal rights of
citizens by undermining the power of the Duma and emphasising the Tsar’s
preeminent position. Alternatively, it could be argued that the Tsarist regime
remained fundamentally unchanged, as shown by the continuation of its
violent modus operandi of dealing with “dissenters” to minimise outbreaks
against the regime. Thus, ultimately, it is clear that the Tsarist regime
remained fundamentally similar as seen through the continuing violent
repression of the peasantry under Stolypin and Dunorvo which undermined
their ability to dissent against the regime, demonstrating a continuation in
their violent modus operandi and desire to repress its population.
Thus, the introduction of the October Manifesto in 1905 could be seen as
revolutionising the fundamentals of the Tsarist regime in the years 1894-
1905 in comparison to the Fundamental Laws of 1906. The October
Manifesto of 1905 gave individuals the right to freedom of assembly,
associations and speech. This legalised trade unions and political parties for
the first time granting the population widespread political representation and
workers protection from exploitative employers. The creation of political
parties allowed the population to critique the Tsar and their policies for the
first time thus granting them a degree of influence over the running of the
political nation. Therefore, the Tsar was no longer able to enforce the
preeminent oligarchy of Tsarist Russia which saw a widespread exploitation
of the lower classes for the benefits of the few upper classes. This marked a
significant shift in the running of the Tsarist government giving the
population a greater degree of power and influence then they would have
had previously. The regime now had to contend with open criticism and
opposition something which the regime was not accustomed to and did not
welcome. However, what made the October Manifesto of 1905 limited was
that it made no direct provisions to protect individual political parties from
possible attacks by the government or infiltration from the Okhrana thus
limiting their effectiveness and range of critique. On the other hand, when
one considers the limited influence of the October Manifesto, given at it
, Edexcel A-Level History Russia in Revolution A* Essay
1894-1924
practically remained in place for a mere few months signified the
fundamentally similar status of the Tsarist regime. The Fundamental Laws of
1906 sought to directly contrast the freedoms gained by the population in
the October Manifesto. For example, Article 4 of the Fundamental Laws
reinforced the position of the Tsar as the supreme autocratic leader of
Russia, claiming that not only “fear and conscience but God himself
commands obedience to his authority.” This line of argument practically
diminished the idea of bi-cameral Parliament and thus significantly
handicapped both the Duma and the political parties that emerged following
the October Manifesto. This practically meant that the regime could not be
critiqued nor challenged as the Tsar was above question thus limiting the
voice of the opposition and their ability to critique the Tsar as such questions
would be effectively critiquing God and thus seen as socially unacceptable,
especially to a vastly religious nation. Article 87 of the Fundamental Laws
further undermined the power of the Duma by giving the Tsar the ability to
bypass them in a state of emergency and merely allowing the Duma to
rectify such laws following the emergency which in many cases took months
or years. This further diminished the power of the Duma as it granted the
Tsar the ability to exploit a loophole in legislation which reduced the Duma to
a mere talking shop rather than a partner in government. Overall, then, it is
clear that whilst the Tsarist regime underwent a degree of significant change
following the introduction of the October Manifesto in 1905, such influence
and power was limited to a mere few months and thus did not mark a
meaningful change in the structure of Tsarist government. The introduction
of the Fundamental Laws undermined the freedoms gained by the population
in the October Manifesto thus demonstrating the two regimes as remaining
fundamentally similar to one another. Whilst the Manifesto granted them a
Duma and a voice in government, its significant limitation rendered it
practically futile and a mere de jure rather than de facto change.
Furthermore, another reason as to why the Tsarist regime of 1894-1905 and
1906-1914 remained fundamentally similar was as a result of the continuing
violent modus operandi of suppressing workers. For example, the army was
called to deal with worker unrest 300 times in 1901 and 500 times in 1902.
These “uprisings” were brutal affairs that emerged from the workers’ poor
working conditions, low pay, long hours (typically 60 hours or more) and
frequent workplace injuries caused by the appalling standards of health and
safety and horrible lodgings which spread transmissible diseases. This shows
that rather than being concerned with improving the welfare of its workers,
the Tsarist regime was keen on suppressing them through violent means,
