Did Russia Have a Liberal Leader?
By: Harry Bachofner
Tags: Tsar, Alexander, Reform, History, Russia

Did Russia Have a Liberal Leader?

Russia was synonymous with autocracy and, later, communism. But did they have a liberating Tsar in the nineteenth-century?

A portrait of Alexander II. Source: National Archives of Canada, Wikimedia Commons

The Romanov dynasty began in 1613 with Michael Romanov and ended with the dramatic revolution of 1917. This period is — among other things — is well-known for the nationalism, imperialism, orthodoxy, and autocracy conveyed by the Tsars (leaders of Russia).

However, towards the end of the dynasty (1855–1881), Alexander II was Tsar. Compared to his predecessors — and certainly his successors — he had slightly different aims and intentions for Russia.

Reform

Often called the ‘Tsar Liberator’, Alexander implemented a series of reforms during his time as Tsar.

Local government was reformed in 1864, whereby zemstva (assemblies, or councils) were introduced. The zemstva are credited with being the ‘seedbeds of liberalism’ due to their baby-steps towards democracy. Members were elected, and they were responsible for the maintenance of the local areas. After the introduction of these councils, infrastructure greatly improved, as well as health and education.

There were also reformations in the judicial system. Prior to the reforms of 1864, the judicial system of Russia was vastly corrupt. As a result of a lack of training and pay, judges were open to bribes, thus favoring the wealthy nobles. Naturally, Alexander introduced both good training and salaries for the judges in order to reduce bribery and corruption. In addition, job security and security of tenure were granted to the judges. These amendments kickstarted a much more efficient, as well as fair, judicial system.

A major area of reform at this time was education. Pre-reform, schooling and higher education were aimed towards those at the zenith of society, while women weren’t in the question at all. As you’ve probably guessed, this changed under Alexander. He passed new laws which greatly increased the number of schools (between 1856 and 1878, the number of primary schools rose from 8,000 to 25,000), extended the curriculum to include more modern subjects like mathematics and science, and relaxed constraints on higher education, which included allowing women onto courses and appointing enlightened professors.

In terms of censorship, the restrictions on newspaper and media content were lifted. Newspapers and publications could now discuss government policy and editors were provided with more freedom.

Alexander II circa 1880. Source: Wikimedia Commons

Also noteworthy are his militaristic reforms. A highlight of these reforms — and all of his reforms in general — was the increased representation of all the different social classes. For example, subject to the new militaristic reforms — which were driven forward by Dmitri Milyutin — peasants were able to progress through the ranks, theoretically allowing them to control the nobility or upper-classes.

Emancipation of the serfs

Undoubtedly the most significant of his reforms was the Emancipation of the serfs. At the start of Alexander’s reign, over 90% of Russians (roughly equivalent to sixty-three million people) were peasants and a significant proportion of these peasants were serfs (twenty-three million). Essentially, serfs were slaves for the higher powers. They were tied to their land and given next-to-no civil rights.

On 30 March 1856, the Tsar delivered an iconic speech to the Marshalls of Nobility, saying,

“My intention is to abolish serfdom … you yourself understand that the present order of owning souls [serfs] cannot remain unchanged”

It was clear that serfdom was a treacherous breach of human rights. Alexander had been subject to liberal ideology from a young age — largely through his private tutors and his travels around western Europe — and to him, serfdom was morally wrong.

Over the next five years, Alexander and his government officials — predominantly Nicholas Milyutin — planned how they were going to pull off what was going to be a gargantuan change to Russian society. Historian Terence Emmons claims in his 1994 book The Emancipation and the Nobility:

“The Emancipation was probably the greatest piece of state-directed social engineering in modern European history.”

Tsar Alexander II reading the act of emancipation of the serfs in 1861. Source: Wikimedia Commons

In February 1861, the twenty-two Emancipation Statutes were passed, which, in turn, freed twenty-three million people. Under the new laws, the serfs could now: marry whom they liked, travel, vote in elections, and trade freely. They were also allocated some land.

Assessing Alexander’s reforms

So, most would argue he was liberating, right? Well, while liberating on the face of things, it could be argued his reforms were just a façade.

As mentioned before, a key theme throughout his reforms was the increased representation of the peasants. Legally, peasants (no longer serfs) could do much more. But the question is, did they?

Going back to the zemstva, there was general nepotism towards the nobility, who felt uncompensated for their reduced authority after the great Emancipation. This nepotistic culture remained throughout Russia. The peasants and lower-classes seldom ranked up in the army, with the upper-classes being reluctant to mix with those they deemed inferior.

Then there’s the Emancipation of the serfs. In truth, the serfs felt betrayed by the statutes. While their civil liberties were increased, there were some essential factors beneath the attractive new propositions which heavily reduced the impact of the Emancipation. Incredibly, the serfs were made to pay forty-nine years’ worth of redemption payments to the nobility — a sort-of compensatory tax. Furthermore, ambiguous ‘internal passports’ were introduced which restricted the promised free-movement. Moreover, after the statutes were passed, a government official and key figure in regards to the Emancipation, Nicholas Milyutin, was dismissed from his role. The Tsar did this to appease the aristocratic government officials who disliked Milyutin and his liberal values.

Alexander’s motivations can also be called-into-question. A key debate among historians is about the motives for the emancipation of the serfs. Though moral reason was a decisive factor, it wasn’t the only one. In his iconic speech, he also stated,

“It is better to abolish serfdom from above, than to wait for that time when it starts to abolish itself from below”

Here, the tsar was addressing the concerns of a revolution. Peasant disturbances had been on the rise, and — with the militaristic abilities and sheer numbers they could utilize — a revolution could have been disastrous for the Tsarist regime. The growing intelligentsia (a radical group of intellectuals) also opposed serfdom, and they — influenced by the increased number of books, such as the work of Turgenev who wrote of the plight of the serfs — could have also involved themselves with an organized uprising.

Counter-reforms

The Tsar’s relaxation of Russian society led to a demand for more. The populace was given hope, but they never quite reached the state they all wanted to be in. Particularly in the newly reformed schools and universities, radical opposition groups emerged. The turning point came in 1866 when former student Karakazov narrowly missed the Tsar’s head with a bullet. The people demanded change and had begun a series of assassination attempts on the Tsar’s life.

As a result of the increased tensions (which were also demonstrated through the Polish Revolt of 1863), Alexander — advised by his officials — reverted some of the reforms he had made just years earlier. Some of the changes included a retightening of censorship, reinstation of conservative ministers and officials, and increased constraints on students.

Alexander II’s legacy lives on in Helsinki. Source: Anitsa Molotkova(2007), Wikimedia Commons

‘Tsar Liberator’?

Alexander II’s reign is a complicated one to assess. On the one hand, he introduced a myriad of reforms that appeared to liberalize Russia, yet on the other hand he never truly went all the way through with them.

The tsar simply lacked the required character to be successful. He was constantly trying to please all parties, which, ironically, resulted in the pleasing of no one. His values were a concoction of liberalism and autocracy, his government a messy amalgamation of officials, and Russia was a complex society. He didn’t have the ability to shape the Russia he wanted.