Thursday 25 November 2010

AQA-Style Question 2a

Explain Why The Moderate Liberal Opposition Grew Stronger Between 1881-1904

The liberal opposition to Tsars Alexander III and Nicholas II grew stronger during this period as a reaction to their increasing emphasis on autocracy.

Following the assassination of his father, Alexander III continued and, indeed, extended the former’s post-1861 reactionary policies. He brought in the Criminal Code (described by one historian as ‘a veritable constitutional charter of an authoritarian state’) as well as other measures to combat the threat of terrorism such as the Temporary Measures, the introduction of Land Commandants, increased powers for the secret police and increased censorship. These policies were likewise extended by his successor Nicholas II who on his inauguration promised to ‘reassert the principles of autocracy’ (a phrase with could have been uttered by his great-grandfather, Nicholas I). Under his rule during this period, autocracy was fiercely defended with the military and army being called upon to quell unrest.

This increasing intransigence and emphasis on autocracy threatened the liberal opposition’s desire to engage in dialogue with the Tsar and bring about reform and explains on one level why their opposition grew during this period. Clearly, a parliamentary system was never going to occur under either Tsar. However, another equally important factor is that many of the reactionary policies implemented by Alexander III in particular would have impacted particularly on those areas of society where the Intelligentsia were based. Limits were placed, for example, on the powers of the Zemstva and the position of Nobles and Landowners within them were increased. This, they would have perceived, as a throwback to the pre-Emancipation Act era. Equally, Universities found themselves placed back under Government control while schools again returned to Church control. Freedom of the press was also curtailed and, no doubt, the Intelligentsia would have found themselves under threat by the secret police.

Moreover, their attempts to enter into a dialogue on reform had been rejected by Nicholas III as a ‘senseless dream’. As his rule went on and it became more and more clear that there was a power vacuum with him being unable to make decisions and that this lack of leadership was exacerbating existing social problems, they would have pressed more and more for reform. This became particularly clear in 1892 following the Government’s inept response to the Great Famine, particularly as Zemstva’s had to step in and provide relief work.

To sum up, the liberal opposition to the rule of Alexander III and Nicholas II during this period grew as a reaction to their increasing emphasis on autocracy coupled with their introduction on counter-reforms that curbed freedoms won under Alexander II; reforms that would have impacted strongly on those areas of life dominated by the intelligentsia.


No comments:

Post a Comment