Cause Of Reform In Russia 1800-1917 Essay, Research Paper

"Nothing short of war could

have any effect on the Russian system of government." How accurate is this

view of the Tsarist system of government from 1800 to 1917?

I believe that throughout history, the Tsars felt threatened. They then

reformed in order to stay in power, and to stay in for power alone. However,

this mindset only had an effect when the Tsar’s power was threatened.

Nevertheless, I believe that to find the factors that had an effect on the

Russian system of government, one must look for the reason why felt threatened.

Here war was an important factor, however it was not the only factor. Otherwise

reform would not have occurred without war. I believe that if these other

aforementioned factors were important enough to cause political change, then

they must rank alongside war in terms of importance.

However it was not "the locomotive of history". i Together with

discontent in the populace, and its manifestations (strikes, revolutionary

activity, and assassinations), I believe War invariably changed the Russian

political system.

I believe war had an impact for several reasons. Throughout the period

described Russia took part in three wars, in which they were crushed. Firstly,

when a country fails in war, some would see it as being a sign that the country

is less advanced in general. Firstly, the realisation that one’s country was

backward and prone to invasion threatened the Tsar’s power, which then induced

political change. He realised that if something was not done to improve and

modernise that external enemies could be more of a danger than internal ones.

I have chosen an example to illustrate this. After the 1854-6 Crimean War,

Alexander II initiated the emancipation of the Serfs, the creation of the

Zemstvos, the Dumas, and the independent judiciary. He was even compelled to

consider relinquishing a sizeable proportion of his power to the populace, but

died before being able to implement these ideas. This was as a direct result of

Alexander having the aforementioned realisation.

Secondly, war has the inevitable effects on the populace. Unlike Bismark, the

Tsars did not have the political clout necessary to ensure that a war was

properly prepared for. Subsequently, the long drawn out wars slowly demoralised

the Russian people and resulted in discontent. Aside from destroying any pride

they had in the "system", they were subjected to witnessing the death

of their comrades and the draining of their country.

However, war when carried out swiftly and with success can have positive

benefits for the popularity of a ruler. Bismarck’s foreign policy showed this.

But the wars in which Russia was involved in only served to weaken the resolve

of the people, and the power of the Tsar. The floundering war effort was a factor

in the Bloody Sunday, the October Manifesto and the first revolution of 1917.

Yet there were other factors in these political upheavals and others, as I have

said before. The other main factor I believe was important was the discontent

of the populace. Ultimately, the Tsar’s power rested on support from below.

When this support was not there, he had to act to regain it, as he felt

threatened.

The loss of public support came about for a number of reasons. Firstly, I would

like to address the reasons why the Tsar sometime lost the support of the

peasantry, and the effect this had. I believe that the peasants and proletariat

lost faith in the Tsar, very gradually because while "privileged

Russia" had worked tirelessly to become more westernised, the situation of

the "dark masses" had become ossified. The only Russia that had

existed was in the five-mile radius of their shantytown. Beforehand most

peasants were politically unaware. However the effect of factors such as

education, war and poor living conditions was to make them more politically

aware. Under the shiny veneer of a happy, hard-working peasant lay a bitter

hatred of the upper classes. All moves to industrialisation and urbanisation

had been done without regard to him or his expense. He felt useless and was

disenchanted with his country and situation, but did not realise what he could

do about it. However when these factors arose, a political consciousness came

with it. It was ultimately the humble peasant who caused the single most

important political change in this period. The realisation that things could be

better manifested themselves as strikes, revolts, assassinations and

revolutionary activity, which then served to initiate political reform. These

strikes and the spread of revolutionary activity then served to spread these

ideas. This then resulted in the metaphorical vicious circle of strikes, which

subsequently formed more strikes.

The major factor I mentioned in the development of a "class

consciousness" was the poor living standards. If we accept the notion that

"man is an objective, natural, physical, sensitive being, he is a

suffering, dependent and limited being, … that is, the objects of his

instincts exist outside him, independent of him, but are the objects of his

need, indispensable and essential for the realization and confirmation of his

substantial powers… The first historical fact is the production of the means

to satisfy these needs."ii Thus while Russia remained a backward, agrarian

society, with production and efficiency too low to satisfy the demands of the

populace, discontent was likely to be rife. And in the cities where the close

proximity of each worker to the other, combined with Dickensian working

conditions, discontent was likely to have occurred much faster. However, here

ends the parallel with Marx. The fact is that people were unhappy, and realised

that their conditions were worse, inferior to what they could be, as in Western

Europe. Thus they pushed for change, in the form of a revolt.

Education only served to heighten the number of revolts. By educating the

masses, a new intelligentsia formed. The "four-tier system of schools from

primary to the university level"iii, and then subsequently the universal

primary education in 1908 took the "dark masses" from being an

indifferent class to one that was more revolutionary and literate. The massive

support for the leftist revolutionary groups in the 1906 and 1907 Duma

elections, (who managed to receive sixty-four percent of the voteiv despite a

suffrage system weighted against them), showed that the peasants were not

revolutionary. I would argue that education had a role to play in this. My

logic is that because the workers knew that things could be better, and that

they were being exploited, that they could subsequently improve their situation

by pushing for reform, through strikes or even through revolution.

These factors were of paramount importance in the Bloody Sunday rising of 1905

and the subsequent October Manifesto, and later the February revolution.

Because the peasantry had become more revolutionary, they supported the middle

class that had emerged in the push for more power. If

Father Gapon and the Provisional government had not carried with them the

support of the populace, then something similar to the abortive Kapp Putsch in

Germany, 1919 would have occurred. However, the workers and even the soldiers

were behind them, which meant that reform was very necessary to keep the

populace in check.