‘Tsarism remained essentially unchanged upon the eve of its destruction’. How far do you agree with this view of Tsarist autocracy between 1855-1917?
At first glance, it would appear that change was the dominant theme in Russian history between 1855-1917—in 1913, Tsar Nicholas and his family celebrated three hundred years of autocratic rule by his family, the Romanovs. Yet, just four years later, he was forced to abdicate and was then executed one year later by the Bolsheviks. Autocracy was replaced by communism – unarguable a huge change in Russian society. It is ture: Russia as a country had change, but Tsarism had not—between 1855-1917, Tsarism as a practive remained essentially unchanged, making it very much a casualty of its own society, which would eventually come to a bloody end.
The Tsar was an absolute autocrat. That is to say, there were no legal or constitutional constraints on his or her exercise of political power, choice of government ministers and officials, or formulation of national policies. A word from the Tsar was sufficient to alter, override or abolish any existing legislation or institution. He was the ‘Little Father’ – the God-like figure who would protect ‘his People’ – the people of Russia. He held his head above Russia, and was dreadfully detached from the People – the very characteristics which led Tsarism to its final destruction.
One thing to consider when thinking of change and continuity is the reforms and reaction: Alexander the Second did not abolish serfdom out of any altruistic desire for an improvement in the lots of the Russia narod. Fear, rather than philanthropy forced him to embark on a process which, following the Crimean debacle, was seen to be essential to the economic and political survival of the Empire: which was ultimately vital in the survival of Tsarism. Perhaps in writing, it looks as though Tsarist autocracy was moving on: adapting to its environment, for in principle, the freeing of roughly half the...