‘1905 represented the final chance for the Tsarist system to reform itself successfully.’ Discuss.

The Tsarist system was an archaic, semi medieval political system that was unable to deal persuasively with the rapidly changing economic, social and ideological aspirations of the Russian educated, ie middle classes. Agitations for reform, and in some cases revolution had placed immense political pressure upon the various Tsars following the authoritarian rule of Nicholas I. Perhaps the most Liberal Tsar of all time, Alexander II, met an untimely end with a successful assassination by Nihilists in 1881. Alexander’s reforms (Such as the abolition of serfdom in 1861 and imposition of local government in 1864 and 1870) had now been retarded by the accession of his son Alexander who had watched his father die with horror, and was now determined to save the institution of the Tsar with a tightening of autocratic rule personified by his famous slogan, “Orthodoxy-Autocracy-Nationality”. Undoing much of the constitutional progress of his father, he would set up his successor, Nicholas II for a series of political challenges (That the Tsarist system was unable to deal with) that would culminate in the 1905 and 1917 Revolutions.

Essay Body
Alexander II was remarkably progressive. Coming to power at the latter stages of the Crimean War, he realized that the humiliation Russia received in that conflict was largely down to its horribly corrupt military, which reflected the stagnant economic and social conditions of Russia at the time. The abolition of serfdom was looked upon as a political inevitability, but at the same time had been postponed several times until its final abolition in 1861. Even with its abolition it created numerous problems. The government managed to redistribute land to the peasants from its aristocratic owners; in return it demanded a yearly payment that often was more expensive than the rates the serf had to pay to his local Lord. Usually the local village community split the land up, with the most infertile and roughest land redistributed amongst the peasantry while the local nobleman more often than not kept the most fertile third for himself. This created a problematic paradox – the emancipation of the serfs caused huge land inequalities, arguably worse than that already pre-existent under the previous feudal system of land ownership. The question of serfdom had dominated Russian intellectuals for many years before their emancipation. In 1812, the Free Economic Society of St. Petersburg held a competition on the subject, ‘Is Serfdom an economic proposition?’ and found that the authors of the fourteen manuscripts submitted were equally divided on the issue. With Alexander II abolishing serfdom in 1861 and therefore settling one of the greatest economic and moral issues of the time (agricultural production had been stagnant under serfdom), he set in motion a desire for more reforms not met under subsequent Tsars. This of course ensured that reformers now thought that the only way to institute reforms necessary to the future of the nation was through terrorism and insubordination. Alexander III and Nicholas II made huge mistakes in this manner, since their inability to countenance the necessity of reform ensured discontents had no other avenue to vent their grievances other than through violence, a violence that had already cost one Tsar (Alexander II) his life. Alexander II instituted various reforms that if followed through with by his successors, may have saved the institution of Tsarism from the encroaching threat of Socialist revolutionaries. Alexander improved communication in government organs and the railway lines significantly. At Alexander’s accession there was barely six hundred miles of track. Upon his death in 1881, some 14,000 miles of railroad track was in operation. This accommodated a quickening economic life in a hitherto feudal agricultural economy. Companies, banks and credit institutions developed. The new railway lines allowed a vast increase in grain exportation, Russia’s primary export. Other reforms, such as the Judicial Statute of 1864 gave Russia a judicial system that could for the first time compete with the likes of France and England. Local government was fostered with another 1864 reform, with the establishment of Zemstva’s. These local authorities assumed control for local welfare and created a democratic tradition invaluable to the struggles of 1905. The military was also reformed. This was a necessity considering the humiliation at Crimea. Dmitry Milyutin (Minister for War) carried through a number of reforms that affected all branches of the military. Most importantly, a conscription act was introduced in 1874, which made young men of all classes liable to military conscription. The aristocratic classes so prevalent beforehand were beginning to wane under Alexander II – much of their antiquated noble privileges were being stripped down and the elements of a more equal state were slowly emerging. All this on its own provided the basis for a strong state. If Russia had of followed the British model of constitutional Monarchy (It is important to remember that constitutional reform in Britain did not come overnight; it was the product of centuries of parliamentary evolution and a bloody Civil War between monarchy and Parliament in the seventeenth century), it undoubtedly would have had a greater chance of success than it had in perpetuating an outdated form of autocracy. With the revolution of 1905, Nicholas II promised a number of reforms in his October manifesto. This pleased some Liberals and moderates, and enough people were swayed by his promise to weaken the revolutionary movement from within. Nicholas, with the revolt crushed, reneged on his promise, offering an insight to what is arguably the most catastrophic mistake of the Tsar in his reign. The benign promise for constitutional monarchy allowed the formation of the Duma, which in reality had little powers. The Status Quo largely remained the same. It did however allow political parties and organizations to congregate legally, and provided a platform for these voices to speak their minds lawfully and rationally. Liberals and the recently returned Count Witte (the man who led the peace talks in Portsmouth and got an honourable peace with Japan) drafted a memorandum that was intended for the Tsar’s ears on 9th October 1905. The great statesman was calling for a Russian constitution in this document. Constitution was here defined as ‘the contact of Tsar and people on the grounds of shared legislative authority, budget rights, and control over the administration’  Although even the most Liberal amongst the new political class would surely have dreamed of a British type parliamentary system, with the monarchy strongly and firmly within the grasp of the elected government, they must have realized that this was a fools errand. Despite their aspirations, they were willing to compromise with the Tsar, a respectable enough trait within itself and if this spirit of compromise had have been returned by the Tsar, serious constitutional progress may just have been possible. As much as the Tsar may have liked, he did not face his biggest opposition from Liberals. While Liberals were preoccupied with constitutional and ideological questions concerning the role of the individual in the state, radical socialists and anarchists were talking the language of the common man on the street. The rise of the Social democrats and Social Revolutionary Party was testament to this. Lenin regarded the Revolution of 1905 as the great dress rehearsal for 1917. In a lecture first printed in Pravda on January 22nd, 1925, Lenin said, “It is in this awakening of tremendous masses of the people to political consciousness and revolutionary struggle that the historic significance of January 22, 1905 lies.”  In this, Lenin is correct. There is simply no doubting the significance of 1905 as a ‘trial run’ for 1917, so to speak. In many parts of Russia during the revolt, the workers assumed control and organization of the strike by themselves with little or no input from social agitators at times. The failure of the overwhelmingly incompetent Nicholas II to address the grievances of the social revolutionaries ensured that the wake up call of 1905 would be lost on him. The last chance for the sick Tsarist system to heal itself was squandered, and it was eventually the Bolsheviks who exploited this reality. With all this taken into account, it is not hard to see that if Alexander III had of had even a handful of his father’s insight, the institution of Tsarism may have survived longer than it did. Importantly though, it must be remembered that despite his important reforms, Alexander II still met a cruel end through assassination by the ‘People’s Will’, a Nihilist group. This left a paradox to succeeding rulers; Reform, and face the potentiality of assassination. Don’t reform, and face the potentiality of assassination. With this logical conundrum in place, it seemed desirable almost not to reform; to maintain the status quo. With this mindset in both Alexander III and Nicholas II, the Tsarist system was able to take a reactionary, conservative outlook, which would eventually cause its downfall.