sign in sign up
<<
Home , Autocracy, Tsarist autocracy

Russian 1

Russian Autocracy, Tsarist Rule and February

[Name of Writer]

[Name of Institute]

Russian Autocracy 2

Russian Autocracy, Tsarist Rule and

Introduction

The Russian was ruled by the before the February revolution of

1917. This Tsarist ideology used the autocratic of to enforce authority on .

The oppressive system of autocracy used by to maintain their rule on gave ideas a reason to thrive in public. The Tsarist method of control were oppressive and had immense support from infrastructure. The mammoth of power enjoyed by the regime made it impossible to hope for political change and revolution was on its way long ago. The February revolution was a long-awaited struggle which lead to dissolution of

Tsarist autocracy and has proven to be essential for progression in the Russian political system.

Part 1: Introduction to Autocracy

The Tsar authority in Russian has been favored by various pillars of Autocracy including the government, the judiciary, the Church, the , and the . Therefore, the oppression of general population became much easier for the Tsars and the vast remained in control of a series of Tsarist autocrats for decades. Tsars always believed that they have a divine right to rule the Russian regime by God. This ideology of Tsars was favored by the nobility class who made 10% of the Russian population. The nobility class was powerful as they owned all the land in Russia and also dominated the army and civil services. The irony of the matter is complete dominance of Tsar on this nobility class in-turn manipulating the entire government machinery in their support (Abramovitch, 2017, n.p). As a result, the civil services helped Tsar in running the vast Russian empire and its officials carried out the instructions of Russian Autocracy 3

Tsar without questioning the legitimacy of those decisions. The ministers and government officials were all appointed by Tsars and their loyalty lies with the Tsarist regime.

The judiciary system was designed to support autocracy and did not favor any acts of disobedience. The judicial decisions were aimed at increasing fear among the population and suppress any kind of oppression observed. Therefore, standard judicial punishment given to Tsar

Opponents was exile to remote regions. The common man felt threatened by Tsar Autocracy as many people in Russia were sent to exile in Siberia and viewed as enemies of the State. The

Russian parliament was not elected and thus no constitutional power exist to challenge the

Tsarist power legally. The Okhrana police system was applicable in Russia who are only intended to report suspicious behavior in public regarding the Tsarist regime. This system was also developed to support autocracy and destroy subversive groups without any sense of moral and ethical obligations to the general public. The Tsar regime also had command over the Orthodox Church which propagated a religious doctrine furthermore strengthening the divinity of Tsarists. The church spread the propaganda that any insult to the authority of Tsar will be an insult to God furthermore suppressing any agenda of revolution (Abramovitch, 2017, n.p). The Priest of Orthodox Church preached the Tsar’s agenda on a regular basis and portrayed

Tsar as the regime appointed by God in His land of Russia.

Part 2: Collapse of Tsarist Regime

All the autocratic pillars of Russian government such as the Church, the government, the nobility were not respected by some learned people in the general public. Tsar owned the Church machinery by bribing them with financial rewards for disseminating Tsar Propaganda in general public. One of the weaknesses of general population was their illiteracy which led them to Russian Autocracy 4 believe everything propagated to them by the Church. The peasants who were not powerful started unraveling the corruption and hypocrisy of the nobility who exercised authority through oppression. Therefore, the Church lost its respect and dominance on common public during the rule of a Tsar, Nicholas II. The public became increasingly aware of the politicized policies of

Orthodox Church and became hopeless of the ongoing repression since decades. The Tsar

Nicholas II was observed as a deeply religious man because he was in regular consultation with priests and clergymen who were working like a department of government to strengthen its power. Like the Church played the role of mouthpiece for Russian autocracy, the military served as an iron fist for the government. The Russian army was the most fearful because of its size and illegal harassment of its own people. The low grade military officials were also unhappy about the corruption within the military and were faced with beatings, pay deductions and low quality food. During World War I, one-quarter of the soldiers in Russian army were compelled to fight without a rifle and were not trained fully for mass scale war zones (Rozov, 2017, p.20).The lack of tactical understanding, underestimation of power and inside military conflicts was very much evident in the war with Japan in 1904-05.

The outside influences and inside political scenario of Russia was indicative of corrupt and incompetent Tsar Influence merely on the expanse of a huge empire. The large Russian empire with far- flung corners of the state still left ungoverned was a depiction of poor infrastructure, poverty among masses, and elevating injustice of nobility class. All these inside factors made it more difficult for the common man to oppose the overpowering Tsarist government (Rozov, 2017, p.13).The transport infrastructure including roads and railways was underdeveloped which made the spread of revolutionary ideas among peasants living in suburbs Russian Autocracy 5 of Russia even more difficult. Ironically, consistent acts of and a massive revolution was needed to challenge the unlimited control of Tsarist on government machinery.

The Tsarist regime were so engulfed by their power and supremacy that they put a nail in their coffin by continuous refusal of land and infrastructure reforms. The opposition of Tsar raised among common people who were living in deteriorating conditions with continuous rise in poverty. The middle class in Russia started asking for increased political influence when many western countries adopted constitutional form of . The Liberals in Russia started demanding for their political and citizenship rights which was not possible in an autocratic form of government (Rozov, 2017, p.10). The denial of rights developed a rage among the radical opposition groups who started political assassination in areas with greater majority of peasants.

Another factor stimulating revolution was Russification which was aimed at reinforcing minorities to adopt Russian culture. This russification wave in Russia greatly affected the

Ukranian and Lithunian population (Rozov, 2017, p.13). The nationalist movements supporting

Tsars named as was originated out of this corrupt system which led to assassinations of pro-democratic politicians and created terror among people who were opponents of Tsar.

In late 1880s, a sociologist Karl Marx promoted the idea of in which power lies in the hands of masses. The communist Manifesto given by Marx became a guiding light for the revolutionist and Liberals struggling in Russia. The spreading in Russia was aimed at overthrowing the Tsarist Rule and the still uncoordinated peasants carried out mass political assassinations of about 2000 in number during the 1887-1904 timeline (Rozov, 2017, p.13). The year 1904 is also known as the Year of Red Cockerel in Russia because the peasants seized a huge land of country side and gained financial power by becoming land owners. Russian Autocracy 6

The social democrats and liberals in the middle class did not wholly depend upon peasants to rise for creating agitation in the ruling class. Instead, the liberals started disseminating communism manifesto among the workers and gathered a whole lot of socialist to aid the revolutionary agenda. However, this socialist group split up after some disagreement in

1903 which caused a delay in the movement. The group led by Martov believed that workers shall naturally rise from oppression, whereas, another group led by Linen believed that revolution should start as soon as possible by appreciating leaders who will led the workers on the path of revolution.

At the brink of revolution, the selfishness of civil services machinery also played its role because civil servants were poorly paid by the ruling autocrats (Rodgers, 2019, p.8). The bureaucrats appointed for the most important jobs were incompetent and had little understanding of taxation and industrialization. The income in government jobs was inadequate and the departments had no clue of promoting industrialization in Russia to become economically independent.

The February Revolution in Russia was a nine months of struggle of the working class and was led by Linen. At that point, Russia was an industrially backward nation and was thriving on capitalism which made it difficult for the middle and low social classes to survive. This revolutionary movement has been growing in Russia since 1914 and had the support of 80% workers and backward layers of working class. However, the outbreak of World War I furthermore mobilized the revolutionary movement in Russia. The national unity demonstrated by the Russian autocracy was only a mask at the beginning of World War I (Rodgers, 2019, p.9).

The imperialist regimes of the world including Russia became exposed as the war ensued and exposed the social contradictions which were rotting the civil society. Russian Autocracy 7

This World War postponed the inside struggle within social class of Russia for time- being but eventually became a reason of revolutionary upheaval in Russia. The peasants drafted into the Russian army for facing War with Japan elevated their misery and made them opponents of Tsarist regime more than ever. Hence, the peasants who were farmers living in suburbs and countryside also shook hands with working class to oppose the Russian autocracy. In January of

1916, a strike wave was observed due to food shortages and poverty which resulted into planned murders of Tsar ruling class by opponents. A split in the ruling class occurred when people started taking law in their hands and this split potentiated the revolution movement (Rodgers,

2019, p.10). The growing strikes by masses challenged the political regime and the slogans of the mob enchanted “Down with the ”. The police engagement with the crowd aggravated the struggle and mass killings were reported because of police-mob collisions. The massive collision compelled the government to call troops for dispersing the crowd and a dent on the

1000 year old fell under the hammer blows of revolution. The Marxist manifesto was clearly demonstrated in the worsening opposition of Tsars despite of the defeat of revolutionary workers in 1905 (Mandel, 2017, n.p). In the streets of Russia, the mob coalition with the police, their strikes, and their murders of ruling class were all depicting a picture of power in the hands of common people as stated in Marx Manifesto.

The workers and soldiers who finds revolution adamant to Russia’s industrialization and civil progression immediately organized Soviets movement after their defeat in 1905. The

Soviets committee consisted of workers, soldiers, and sailors who were elected democratically at their workplace and barracks. The delegates appointed by Soviets intensified the movement initiated by masses through their one-place sittings thus representing all classes supporting democratic form of government. These sittings resulted into issuance of Order No. 1 which Russian Autocracy 8 stated that similar soviet committees must be formed by democratic elections in all companies and battalions in Russia. The elected representatives will include people from all ranks and will be subordinates to the . The order also stated that these representatives will not contradict their moral obligations to the masses who elected them and the center of power will be the Soviet committees. The Soviets unity had an overwhelming support of the masses including workers, soldiers and sailors which made them powerful in a well-organized fashion (Mandel,

2017, n.p). The Soviets were linked in the form of elected companies present in entire Russia who demonstrated a declaration of worker leadership and power in the hands of masses.

The February 1917 paradox of masses superiority against the Tsar monarchy was not spontaneous but a product of specific economic and political conditions developed over decades.

The honesty of soviet forces in maintaining the rights of oppressed was the guiding light for taking Russia forward after the February revolution.

This provisional form of Government established by Soviets got recognized as a legitimate governing body in Russia. During the February revolution, was in exile and returned to Russia in April, 1917 when the Tsar regime was destabilized. Lenin’s decisiveness and conscience furthermore strengthened the revolutionary movement and led to

October revolution. The revolutionary movement led by Lenin after the February 1917 revolution became a radical turning point in Russia’s history (Mandel, 2017, n.p). The movement kept growing and powerfully influenced the socioeconomic and cultural cults of Russia. He favored industrialization and the democratic Russia has intellectuals in the ruling class.

Russian Autocracy 9

Part 3: Outcomes of February Revolution

The February Revolution served as a door to industrial progression in Russia. Before

1917, Russia was a backward nation with no industrial development. The European neighbors had been investing vigorously on technological advancements which was pushing Russia backwards on a faster pace. However, the February revolution initiated urban industrialization and gave economic progression a quick start in Russia (Abramovitch, 2017, n.p).The population living in suburbs and country side became affluent and shifted to the cities. Education also had an upswing and literacy rate among masses took a rise.

The did not only influenced progression internally in Russia but also had considerable consequences internationally. Lenin’s democratic government pulled Russia out of the European military alliance because he believed that war was impeding Russia’s internal progression. However, the Soviets Union successfully assisted communist movements around the world for several decades and also played an important role in defeating the Nazi regime in World War II (Abramovitch, 2017, n.p). The ideology of Soviet Union behind supporting and communist movements is to make this world a progressive place to live; where power lies in the hands to common men and oppression is condemned.

A negative consequence of communism rule in Russia was its objection by many countries who find communist rule as a threat to power. The United States possessed a stronger objection on communism and suggested that self-determination of nations is not a realistic model of governance. Hence, USA severed its ties with Russia when the country helped the fall of Nazi

Regime in Germany and countries started multiplying their military power (Abramovitch, 2017, n.p). The resulting disapproval of communism in the international community made it difficult for Russia to thrive in international politics. Russian Autocracy 10

Conclusion

At first instant, it seems that the February revolution was instigated from Nicholas II

Tsarist monarchy. The demonstration of power by Tsars was previously supported by people of

Russia because they used to see them as a divine government. However, the World War I made the peasants and masses understand the hypocrisy of Tsars rule. The feelings of misery, food shortages, and countless forms of oppression increased dissatisfaction among people which furthermore ripen the 1917 revolution.

Russian Autocracy 11

References

Abramovitch, R.R., 2017. The Soviet Revolution: 1917-1938. Routledge.

Mandel, D., 2017. The Petrograd Workers in the Russian Revolution: February 1917-June 1918.

Brill.

Rodgers, J., 2019. ‘Russia is all Right’ British newspaper reporting of the Russian Revolution of

February 1917. Media History, pp.1-13.

Rozov, N.S., 2017. The Vector of Russian 1917 Revolution: Modernization or Counter-

Modernization?. Polis. Political Studies, 2(2), pp.8-25.