Model Essay by RJ Tarr at www.activehistory.co.

uk / 1
To what extent is it fair to describe Alexander II as a reformer, and Alexander III as a reactionary? Traditionally Alexander II is the great reformer who could have saved Russia, Alexander III a reactionary who started it on the road to revolution After all, on the day of his death Alexander II was on the verge of announcing a newer, more democratic constitution for the Russian people and this was promptly cancelled by Alexander III, who took brutal revenge upon his fathers killers. However, this overall picture is simplistic. There is also evidence that the two Tsars followed much the same policies, and it is even possible to present Alexander III as a greater reformer than his father. Neither is it necessarily correct to argue that reform rather than reaction was the best way forward for Russia at that time. In some respects, Alexander III did indeed reverse the reforms of his father. In terms of agriculture, Alexander II earned his nickname The Tsar Liberator by his Emancipation of the Serfs in 1861, through which serfdom was abolished and the peasants were given the right to own their own land. In contrast, Alexander III had a much more reactionary attitude than his father. Under him, Land Captains were introduced: Tsarist officials who could overrule the Zemstva and impose fines and imprisonment on peasants without trial. He also ordered a massive export of grain to fund industrialisation (in the words of finance minister Vyshnygradsky, We will go hungry, but must export) which directly contributed to the 1891 famine in which up to two million people may have died. In local government Alexander II introduced the Zemstva (in the countryside) and the Dumas (in the cities) to provide political representation for the ordinary people. In contrast, Alexander III restricted the voting system and handed many of their powers to the Ministry of the Interior, who worked through the Land Captains. In law and education too, Alexander II appears to be a reformer: Girls were finally allowed to pursue an academic education, three million men learnt to read, and independent jury trials were established with the most remarkable result being the Zasulich Case, in which a known terrorist was acquitted despite the wishes of the Tsar. In contrast, Alexander III was much more reactionary: immediately upon coming to power he issued the Manifesto on Unshakable Autocracy which rejected calls for democracy and reasserts autocracy (the voice of God orders Us courageously to undertake, in deference to Divine intention, the task of ruling, with faith in the strength and rightness of autocratic power). The reforming ministers Loris-Melikov, Abaza and Milyutin all resigned in protest. He quickly arranged the execution of the five Peoples Will assassins, a nationwide police offensive and 10,000 arrests. Shortly afterwards he introduced the Statute of State Security, which allowed the Okhrana to search premises and imprison individuals without trial. This temporary measure remained in force until the Russian Revolution and was referred to by Lenin as the "de facto constitution of Russia". Also during Alexander IIIs reign, the rights of universities to appoint their own professors was abolished, a censorship law meant that books by "seditious" authors such as Adam Smith and Karl Marx were purged from libraries. In other policies, however, Alexander III continued on the same reforming path. In military terms, defeat in the Crimean War meant that Alexander IIs Minister of War, Milyutin, reduced conscription from 10 years from 25, and extended those liable for military service to all classes. Alexander III respected these reforms and allowed the army to gain strength by keeping Russia out of foreign wars for the duration of his reign. In terms of the economy, both Tsars were reformers. Under Alexander II, railway track grew from 1,000 miles to more than 14,000 miles. His reign also saw a sixteen fold in coal production, a ten fold rise in steel, and a 50% rise in iron in the period from 1860 to 1876. In addition, the the State Bank was founded in 1860, which made it easier to raise money for business enterprises. Under Alexander III, these policies were continued and even accelerated. Laws were introduced by Bunge to improve the treatment of women and children in the factories to "eliminate discord and conflicts of interest" and plans were drawn up to legalise trade unions. Vyshnegradsky increased government income by 50% in ten years through tariffs on imports and increased exports of grain, which in turn helped his successor Witte to organise a French loan to fund further industrialisation. In other respects, Alexander II can also be presented as just as much a reactionary as his son. For example, in education, Alexander II did not allow History to be taught because it was considered too dangerous; Political cases could be tried outside the system by the Tsar. Even more notably, in local government Alexander IIs reforms were limited in practice. The voting system heavily favoured the nobility, who made up 75% of membership, and their powers were limited and depended on Crown

Model Essay by RJ Tarr at www.activehistory.co.uk / 2

officials carrying out their wishes. Ironically, it was under Alexander III that the Zemstva were most effective: under the leadership of famous figures such as Chekhov and Tolstoy, they organized local relief efforts during the 1891 famine. Most notably, both Tsars were reactionary in their relationship with national minorities. Although Alexander II allowed Jews to trade throughout the Empire for economic reasons, he remained anti-Semitic. Jews were still treated badly, and many of their schools were shut down after Polish revolts in 1863 even the university of Warsaw was closed down in 1869. Alexander III simply turned this nationalistic attitude into a formal policy Russification under which everyone had to use a Russian name and learn Russian. The Pogroms against the Jews in 1881 were followed by the 1882 May Laws, which placed harsh restrictions on Jews. Pobedonostsev, Alexander IIIs advisor, openly stated that his hope was that "one-third of the Jews will convert, one-third will die, and one- third will flee the country". Two million Jews eventually emigrated to the USA as a result of this persecution. It is even possible to present Alexander III as a reformer, and Alexander II as the reactionary. For example, in terms of agriculture, Alexanders reforms were considered so moderate by many peasants that they led to revolts: peasants still had to pay an expensive mortgage for the land which tied them to the Mir. In contrast, Alexander III's minister Bunge made it easier for peasants to rent state land, lowered redemption payments and even considered introducing a new Assembly of the Land elected by all classes. In conclusion, in economic terms Alexander was at least as great a reformer as his father. In social and political terms, Alexander III was broadly reactionary, but in this sense he was no different to his father, who had become increasingly disillusioned with reform as his reign progressed. This raises the possibility that maybe reaction rather than reform was indeed the best way forward for Russia at this time, even if to 21st Century sensibilities this is an uncomfortable idea. As Pobedonostsev argued, the democracy of the West either served to dilute the quality of the decision-making process or was merely used to give legitimacy to an established ruling elite, whilst education for the working classes merely raised hopes which Russian society at that time would not be able to fulfill.