Question: ‘The rulers of Russia preferred repression to reform.’ How far do you
agree?
Repression, as a means of maintaining the obedience of the governed through fear, was a
staple of Russia’s rulers between 1855 and 1964, although reform did take place
sporadically and especially during the reigns of Alexander II and Nicholas II.
The beginning of reform in Imperial Russia can be traced back to the Emancipation of the
Serfs in 1861; Alexander II freed 50 million Russians from private ownership. This had a
consequential impact on the make-up of Russian society, offering autonomy to the peasants
at the expense of the landowning bourgeoisie, which even the repressive Alexander III failed
to reverse. In addition, Alexander II should be credited with bringing an important element of
democracy to Russia at a time when doing so was completely unprecedented due to
autocracy. With the introduction of the Zemstvas in 1864, new local councils represented the
peasants, townspeople and the gentry by way of an electoral college system. This set a key
precedent in Tsarist Russia which Alexander III sought to resist with the implementation of
Land Captains to oust the Zemstvas, although his efforts failed to change the minds of the
Russian people, who increasingly demanded democracy. Indeed, Nicholas II had to develop
Alexander II’s reforms by creating Russia’s first elected Parliament, the Duma, as a
response to the 1905 Revolution. This was an extremely significant step forward for an
Empire which had always been considered ‘backward’ in its autocratic method of
governance, giving power to the majority instead of merely the minority (the ruling classes).
Nevertheless, it must be noted that many of the reforms, in particular those made by
Nicholas II, can be considered reluctant concessions rather than any proactive reforms. For
example, the October Manifesto was followed in 1906 by the Fundamental Laws, which
crucially gave the Tsar the power to veto any decisions by the Duma. As a result, the Duma
was frequently disbanded at the request of Nicholas II and was thus unable to serve its
democratic purpose. Perhaps only the Provisional Government can be seen as genuine
reformers, ridding Russia of the dreaded secret police, the Okhrana, just one month after
taking power. This, combined with the albeit short-lived establishment of democratic suffrage
in Russia, suggests that not all rulers of the nation preferred repression to reform, as the
Provisional Government and arguably Alexander II made significant reforms without being
forced to do so.
On the other hand, we have the undoubtedly repressive rulers of Stalin who in effect undid
the positive changes of their predecessors. Censorship and by extension, the use of
propaganda, became staple tools of repression with Stalin, who equally ruled as if he were
an autocratic Tsar in spite of presenting himself as the ‘people’s man’ as a Communist.
While all of the Communist rulers were skilled propagandists, it was Stalin who most
successfully promoted a cult of personality that guaranteed his grasp on supreme power. His
seemingly benevolent image proved to be completely incongruous with his persecution of all
perceived enemies of the state in a period that came to be known as the Great Terror.
Between 1936 and 1938, it is estimated that 1.2 million Russians perished as a
consequence of Stalin’s purges; the chief targets were far-ranging, including the military,
non-ethnic Russians within the USSR, wealthy landlords, and even peasants as neighbours
were encouraged to report all minor misdemeanours committed by each other to gain favour
of the regime.
agree?
Repression, as a means of maintaining the obedience of the governed through fear, was a
staple of Russia’s rulers between 1855 and 1964, although reform did take place
sporadically and especially during the reigns of Alexander II and Nicholas II.
The beginning of reform in Imperial Russia can be traced back to the Emancipation of the
Serfs in 1861; Alexander II freed 50 million Russians from private ownership. This had a
consequential impact on the make-up of Russian society, offering autonomy to the peasants
at the expense of the landowning bourgeoisie, which even the repressive Alexander III failed
to reverse. In addition, Alexander II should be credited with bringing an important element of
democracy to Russia at a time when doing so was completely unprecedented due to
autocracy. With the introduction of the Zemstvas in 1864, new local councils represented the
peasants, townspeople and the gentry by way of an electoral college system. This set a key
precedent in Tsarist Russia which Alexander III sought to resist with the implementation of
Land Captains to oust the Zemstvas, although his efforts failed to change the minds of the
Russian people, who increasingly demanded democracy. Indeed, Nicholas II had to develop
Alexander II’s reforms by creating Russia’s first elected Parliament, the Duma, as a
response to the 1905 Revolution. This was an extremely significant step forward for an
Empire which had always been considered ‘backward’ in its autocratic method of
governance, giving power to the majority instead of merely the minority (the ruling classes).
Nevertheless, it must be noted that many of the reforms, in particular those made by
Nicholas II, can be considered reluctant concessions rather than any proactive reforms. For
example, the October Manifesto was followed in 1906 by the Fundamental Laws, which
crucially gave the Tsar the power to veto any decisions by the Duma. As a result, the Duma
was frequently disbanded at the request of Nicholas II and was thus unable to serve its
democratic purpose. Perhaps only the Provisional Government can be seen as genuine
reformers, ridding Russia of the dreaded secret police, the Okhrana, just one month after
taking power. This, combined with the albeit short-lived establishment of democratic suffrage
in Russia, suggests that not all rulers of the nation preferred repression to reform, as the
Provisional Government and arguably Alexander II made significant reforms without being
forced to do so.
On the other hand, we have the undoubtedly repressive rulers of Stalin who in effect undid
the positive changes of their predecessors. Censorship and by extension, the use of
propaganda, became staple tools of repression with Stalin, who equally ruled as if he were
an autocratic Tsar in spite of presenting himself as the ‘people’s man’ as a Communist.
While all of the Communist rulers were skilled propagandists, it was Stalin who most
successfully promoted a cult of personality that guaranteed his grasp on supreme power. His
seemingly benevolent image proved to be completely incongruous with his persecution of all
perceived enemies of the state in a period that came to be known as the Great Terror.
Between 1936 and 1938, it is estimated that 1.2 million Russians perished as a
consequence of Stalin’s purges; the chief targets were far-ranging, including the military,
non-ethnic Russians within the USSR, wealthy landlords, and even peasants as neighbours
were encouraged to report all minor misdemeanours committed by each other to gain favour
of the regime.
