Democracy and the Prelude to the Russian Revolution - Assignment Example

Section/# Democracy and the Prelude to the Russian Revolution Whereas the Russian Revolution has been studied in great depth by a litany of different historians, the underlying causes for this revolution are not nearly so commonly discussed. As a function of such a reality, the following analysis will engage the reader with a discussion of the manner through which the early Duma of the Russian Empire; following this process from approximately 1906 until 1914 (or the outbreak of the First World War). It is the further hope of this author that by explicating such a phenomena as the early exhibition of movements for greater democracy within the Russian Empire that the reader will be able to integrate more fully with an understanding of why the events of the subsequent Russian Revolution were set in motion by the process that will herein be described; both as a function of its overall levels of success and its overall level of failures. The development of the early Russian Duma began as early as 1905/1906. For instance, the Stolypin reforms, reforms aimed at abolishing the prior system of land ownership and development within the Russian Empire, helped to engage the following key reforms: development of agricultural education, funded by the state, dissemination new methods of land improvement, for the lines of credit for peasants, development of large-scale individual farming, and lastly the somewhat ominous inclusion of introduction of agricultural cooperatives (Steinwedel, 2000). With a taste of the way in which reforms could in fact impact upon all individuals within society to a certain degree, the desire for greater autonomy and integration with the Democratic process was born. Although successful in engaging some key reforms that prompted changes to the Russian Empire, the Duma was ultimately unable to speak to the key failures that existed within the Russian Empire; namely, the fact that the Tsar continued to hold absolute power and although giving the Duma some latitude with regards to the functions it could engage, the final legislative power was still held within the hands of the nobles and the Tsar himself. Historically, many analysts have viewed the initial success and ultimately failure of the Duma as contingent upon the fact that the appetite of the people was whetted with regards to what a degree of democratic choice could portend (Kropotkin, 2008). For instance, under pressure after the horrific loss of territory that the Russian Empire faced after its loss to the Empire of Japan at Port Arthur and other key battles, the Tsar convened the first Duma; largely as an advisory body; but with an understanding that the Tsar would take counsel and be informed by such a group with regards to the affairs of state. Yet, as a result of the demands that the October Revolution stipulated, the Tsar responded by promising to expand and increase the powers of legislation that the Duma could wield. With a taste of how such an advisory body could impact upon policy and the direction of the Empire, a thirst for greater autonomy began to grow among the members of the Duma. However, sensing the threat that existed to total and complete monarchical autocracy, Tsar Nicholas issued the Fundamental Laws of 1906. Although these are long and laborious to relate at any great deal of depth, the most basic understanding that can be presented has to do with the fact that these laws denote the fact that although the Duma had specific powers, it was in fact that Tsar that held the final say. Ultimately, this was rather redundant; however, the Tsar, and those within the nobility that most strongly supported him, found it necessary to state so that an aura of democratic spirit would not sweep the Empire (Thatcher, 2011). By the same token, as a means of lessening the shock that the Fundamental Laws posed to the population, they also stipulated that now law could be passed without the assent of the Duma. Yet, this seemingly democratic level of reform was without any impact; due to the fact that the Russian Tsar already had the power mechanisms in place that suited his best interests and any law put forward by the Duma could easily be vetoed with no further recourse by the Duma to overturn it. In fear of reform and frustration with the increased demands for further power for the Duma, the Tsar dissolved the first Duma only a few scant weeks after the issuance of the Fundamental Laws. The Second Duma was convened shortly thereafter with both Mensheviks and Bolsheviks agreeing that boycotting the process of elections within the Duma was counterproductive. Yet, soon after these elections, infighting between these groups once again broke out; with more conservative elements accusing the more radical social democrats of planning an armed insurrection. As a result of the political upheaval and accusatory tone that the Duma had engendered within its second iteration, the Tsar intervened and dissolved the Second Duma by Imperial Decree. Beyond merely dissolving the Second Duma, together with Stolypin, the Tsar focused a greater level of power on the landowners and a reduced level of representative power to the peasants; rationalizing that the interests of the peasants could better be served by the Tsar. This understanding was due to the fact that both Tsar Nicholas and Stolypin believed that the peasants had been misled by more radical elements within the nation; thereby undermining the entire framework of what the Duma was supposed to provide to the subjects of the Russian Empire; stability and a faint shimmer of democratic reform of the system of autocratic rule (Emmerson, 2013). It was at the dissolution of the Second Duma, at least within the mind of this particular author, that all hope of a democratic solution to the troubles that plagued the ailing autocracy was ultimately lost. Whereas the information that has thus far been presented can be understood to have been impactful with regards to the growth rate of early Russian democracy, the fact of the matter is that the autocratic response that the Czar exhibited when challenged by a further level of democracy within the Duma, and within the Russian population, was one of the core reasons for why the Russian Revolution place. Seeing that the Tsar would not cede power and would actively undermine key Democratic levels of engagement that were taking place within the Duma, radical elements within Russian society were emboldened to take a new course of engagement. Whereas it cannot be fundamentally stated that the failure of the Duma is the ultimate reason for why the Russian revolution took place, it is nonetheless extraordinarily important reason why the Bolsheviks were ultimately able to wrest power from the more moderate elements within society. And just as with so many political movements and actions that it taken place throughout history, the issue of the dissolution of the Russian Duma by the Tsar started the process that was almost impossible to back down from. The subsequent duma, the third Duma, was so greatly controlled by the Czar and the nobles that observers within society quickly labeled it as the Duma of forwards and lackeys. Having lost the respect of society and seeing the third Duma has nothing more than a charade that conferred with and closely followed the expectations that the Tsar put forward, the entire purpose for the existence of Duma was undermined. Such an understanding, it is easy to understand why the relevance of the Democratic process within the Russian Empire soon began to fade in the more radical elements within society were ultimately able to prevail in overthrowing this ineffective and subservient image of democracy. References Emmerson, C. (2013). The Futures Bright, the Futures Russian. History Today, 63(10), 10-18. Kropotkin, G. M. (2008). The Ruling Bureaucracy and the "New Order" of Russian Statehood After the Manifesto of 17 October 1905.Russian Studies In History, 46(4), 6-33. doi:10.2753/RSH1061-1983460401 Steinwedel, C. (2000). The 1905 Revolution in Ufa: Mass Politics, Elections, and Nationality. Russian Review, 59(4), 555. Thatcher, I. D. (2011). THE FIRST STATE DUMA, 1906: THE VIEW FROM THE CONTEMPORARY PAMPHLET AND MONOGRAPH LITERATURE. Canadian Journal Of History, 46(3), 531-561. Read More