OK bearing in mind what I said in my last post about being unsure of how to tackle questions at this level, here is my response to a particular question. According to the AQA book that I’m using, when they ask ‘how successful’, I need to develop argument, show a balanced judgement, supporting what I say with detailed evidence. There should also be a conclusion that “should flow naturally and again provide evidence to support your judgement”.
Tackling the question with limited reference to the notes....
How Successful Were Alexander IIs Reforms in Transforming Russian Society
Between 1855 and his assassination in 1881, Alexander II implemented a series of reforms in an attempt to modernize Russian society. Responding to a wide range of factors such as defeat in the Crimean War, his belief that serfdom was the main factor impeding the process of modernization and his desire that social change should come ‘from above’ rather than ‘from below’, Alexander sought to reform serfdom and other areas of Russian life while simultaneously maintaining his own autocratic power. Alexander’s reforms were concentrated primarily within the areas of agriculture, the military, education and the judiciary, most notably in the emancipation of the serfs in 1861, where serfs were released from the control of landowners, obtained basic rights and ownership of the land. While the reforms did indeed go a great way to transforming Russian society, as I will show below, many of the reforms were tempered with retrograde measures that maintained the status quo. Moreover, despite all the reforms, Russia remained an autocratic society.
The main successes of the reforms in transforming Russian society may be seen in the areas of agriculture, the military, education and the judiciary. In the area of agriculture, serfs were released from control by landlords, gained basic freedoms and control of the land. In the military, the large, under-equipped conscript army was replaced by a smaller, better-equipped professional army with compulsory military service and training schools. In education, primary schools were established, more commoners in cities had access to secondary schooling and university education was expanded and given more autonomy. Education was, in particular, no longer dominated by the Church. In the sphere of judiciary, a court system modeled on the European system was created and the idea of equality before the law was introduced. Taken together, this would support the view that Russian society was transformed by Alexander’s reforms.
However, there is also much evidence to support the alternative view, that Alexander’s reforms, while going in some way the direction of radical reform, actually were not as reforming as they seemed.
For example, in spite of agricultural reforms, some historians have shown that not only did agricultural production fall after the reforms, but the peasants became increasingly demoralized. While they had been freed from the landlords, they had to pay for this freedom and their land through the system of Redemption Payments. Consequently, many still had no incentive to innovate or produce great surplus. Similarly, the village communes to which they were attached (mirs) were conservative and again stifled any peasant innovation. Despite the reforms, most peasants had no access to modern farming equipment or knowledge of modern farming techniques. At the end of the reforms, landowners also still owned 2/3 of the land.
Equally, while there was some degree of political reform, with the creation of local parliaments (Zemstva), Russia did not adopt a parliamentary system and, indeed, remained an autocratic society. In addition, while there was some emphasis on political freedom, free speech was limited (especially within the universities), the Ministry of the Interior could still banish those believed to pose a political threat, political parties and trade unions were still banned, and professional organizations could still find themselves under surveillance, as under the reign of Nicholas II. Moreover, within Zemstvas, there was no equality and nobles and landlowners retained most seats and had more votes.
Also, in spite of the shift from a conscript army to a professional army, there were still a number of problems within the military with continuing poor leadership, serfs still dominating the ranks and continuing problems of supply and poor training.
In conclusion, while Alexander’s reforms were successful in a number of areas, they could have gone further and in some cases arguably were not as reforming as they could have been. Most importantly, if the main driving force for the reforms was the modernization of Russia and the creation of a stronger economy and more efficient agricultural system, then the results are mixed. Despite the changes in agriculture, for example, there was no increase in productivity and serfs in effect swapped one form of bondage for another. Equally, despite the emergence of local parliaments, political power remained centered in the existing elites. Freedom of speech and association also remained curtailed. The economy also remained weak as compared to Western countries. That said, Russia did begin the process of industrialization in this period, helped in no small part by the creation of a railway network. The legal and political forms, while still retaining an element of the ancien regime were also wide ranging and a success.
However, perhaps the best way of answering the question of how successful they were is to examine the reaction of the Russian population at the time.
[which is covered in the next chapter of the coursebook]
No comments:
Post a Comment