To what extent did Nicholas uphold his pledge to ‘maintain the principle of autocracy’ from 1894-1914
Nicholas II was the last Tsar of the Russian Empire, reigning from 1894 to 1917. He pledged to uphold the principle of
autocracy, meaning that he believed in maintaining the absolute power of the monarchy. In the years leading up to his reign,
Russia was facing significant challenges, including political unrest, social and economic inequality, and military defeats. As a
result, Nicholas II pledged to keep Russia an autocratic state. He did this through political reforms, agrarian reforms and also
repression. However, he also failed to keep Russia autocratic as there were uprisings and liberal reforms which he brought
forward. In this essay, I will examine the extent to which Nicholas upheld his pledge from 1894-1914 through the methods
presented above.
On one hand, it can be argued that Nicholas did uphold his pledge to ‘maintain the principle of autocracy’ because of his
various political policies between 1984 and 1914. Most importantly, we can see that Nicholas II maintained the means for
repression. This included vast support for the secret police who not only surveillance of suspected enemies, Nicholas II
believed that maintaining order and stability in Russia required a strong and effective secret police force and therefore the
activities of political opponents were heavily under surveillance and therefore he could ensure that Russia became an autocratic
state as people would only be able to obey his political policies. Moreover, the October Manifesto in 1905, was never actually
implemented and as a result he could maintain his principle. The manifesto would have represented a significant departure
from traditional autocratic rule as it would have reduced censorship, the establishment of a legislative assembly and the right
for people to become a part of the local government; clearly, the notion that this was not implemented highlights how Nicholas
was set on keeping Russia autocratic and how he succeeded to do so. Furthermore, the Fundamental Laws in 1906 reinforced
his main principle of autocracy as they highlighted the ‘recognition of the Tsar as the supreme autocrat and absolute monarch
of Russia, with the powers to make laws, enforce them, and interpret them’. Although the Dumas were relatively progressive,
these laws also allowed him to dissolve them whenever he pleased. As a result, Nicholas II was able to maintain his pledge of
autocratic rule because he dissolved the Dumas several times during his reign, effectively rendering the legislative assembly
powerless.
On the other hand, Nicholas may appear not to have upheld his pledge of autocracy because he introduced what
seem like liberal and progressive political reforms. Russia lacked a history of political representation, so Nicholas II’s
establishment of the First Duma, or parliament, in 1905 meant that he distributed some power through the state rather than
controlling the entirety of the state. But this was only introduced because of revolution, and not because Nicholas II believed
in granting powers. The Duma had limited powers and could not appoint Cabinet Ministers, and the Tsar could veto any
legislation and even abolish the Duma as he wished. Although the Duma only lasted 73 days, it was still the first democratically
elected legislative body in Russian history and marked a significant step towards a representative government. The next 3
Dumas were also relatively progressive and opposed his rules. For example, the second Duma was composed of many liberals
and socialists who openly criticised the rule of the Tsar. Moreover, the failure of Nicholas’ personal rule showed that he failed
to uphold his principle of autocracy, as his personal failures such as the Russo-Japanese war and his own corruption and
mismanagement meant that he was unable to keep political opposition at rest. Finally, the October Manifesto, although it was
not implemented, shows how Russia became less autocratic because it aimed to bring forth more liberty and more rights and
power to the people which was the first time since Russia became an autocratic state.
Overall, Nicholas II was able to maintain his pledge of autocracy because he kept tight restrictions on political
opposition and never implemented the October Manifesto and dissolved the Dumas after only a short trial. However, it is
important to note that Russia did become less autocratic at times because Tsar Nicholas allowed some power to the people for
the first time ever.
Nicholas II was the last Tsar of the Russian Empire, reigning from 1894 to 1917. He pledged to uphold the principle of
autocracy, meaning that he believed in maintaining the absolute power of the monarchy. In the years leading up to his reign,
Russia was facing significant challenges, including political unrest, social and economic inequality, and military defeats. As a
result, Nicholas II pledged to keep Russia an autocratic state. He did this through political reforms, agrarian reforms and also
repression. However, he also failed to keep Russia autocratic as there were uprisings and liberal reforms which he brought
forward. In this essay, I will examine the extent to which Nicholas upheld his pledge from 1894-1914 through the methods
presented above.
On one hand, it can be argued that Nicholas did uphold his pledge to ‘maintain the principle of autocracy’ because of his
various political policies between 1984 and 1914. Most importantly, we can see that Nicholas II maintained the means for
repression. This included vast support for the secret police who not only surveillance of suspected enemies, Nicholas II
believed that maintaining order and stability in Russia required a strong and effective secret police force and therefore the
activities of political opponents were heavily under surveillance and therefore he could ensure that Russia became an autocratic
state as people would only be able to obey his political policies. Moreover, the October Manifesto in 1905, was never actually
implemented and as a result he could maintain his principle. The manifesto would have represented a significant departure
from traditional autocratic rule as it would have reduced censorship, the establishment of a legislative assembly and the right
for people to become a part of the local government; clearly, the notion that this was not implemented highlights how Nicholas
was set on keeping Russia autocratic and how he succeeded to do so. Furthermore, the Fundamental Laws in 1906 reinforced
his main principle of autocracy as they highlighted the ‘recognition of the Tsar as the supreme autocrat and absolute monarch
of Russia, with the powers to make laws, enforce them, and interpret them’. Although the Dumas were relatively progressive,
these laws also allowed him to dissolve them whenever he pleased. As a result, Nicholas II was able to maintain his pledge of
autocratic rule because he dissolved the Dumas several times during his reign, effectively rendering the legislative assembly
powerless.
On the other hand, Nicholas may appear not to have upheld his pledge of autocracy because he introduced what
seem like liberal and progressive political reforms. Russia lacked a history of political representation, so Nicholas II’s
establishment of the First Duma, or parliament, in 1905 meant that he distributed some power through the state rather than
controlling the entirety of the state. But this was only introduced because of revolution, and not because Nicholas II believed
in granting powers. The Duma had limited powers and could not appoint Cabinet Ministers, and the Tsar could veto any
legislation and even abolish the Duma as he wished. Although the Duma only lasted 73 days, it was still the first democratically
elected legislative body in Russian history and marked a significant step towards a representative government. The next 3
Dumas were also relatively progressive and opposed his rules. For example, the second Duma was composed of many liberals
and socialists who openly criticised the rule of the Tsar. Moreover, the failure of Nicholas’ personal rule showed that he failed
to uphold his principle of autocracy, as his personal failures such as the Russo-Japanese war and his own corruption and
mismanagement meant that he was unable to keep political opposition at rest. Finally, the October Manifesto, although it was
not implemented, shows how Russia became less autocratic because it aimed to bring forth more liberty and more rights and
power to the people which was the first time since Russia became an autocratic state.
Overall, Nicholas II was able to maintain his pledge of autocracy because he kept tight restrictions on political
opposition and never implemented the October Manifesto and dissolved the Dumas after only a short trial. However, it is
important to note that Russia did become less autocratic at times because Tsar Nicholas allowed some power to the people for
the first time ever.
