Question

Examine the circumstances responsible for the collapse of Tsarist autocracy in Russia in the year 1917?

Answer 1

The Tsarist autocracy collapsed in 1917 because of public mistrust and a growing dissatisfaction with the Tsar’s policies. The Tsar, Nicholas II imposed restrictions on political activity, changed voting laws and dismissed any questioning of or restrictions on his authority. At the beginning of the First World War, he did not consult the main parties in the Duma. Anti-German sentiments were gaining ground, and Tsarina Alexandra’s German origin, Rasputin and the German name of the city St.Petersburg did nothing to remedy the situation. The Russian army lost battles, but would destroy crops and dwellings on retreat. This led to the presence of 3 million refugees in Russia, which in turn worsened the conditions.

Industry was badly affected by the First World War. Imports were cut off due to German control of the Baltic sea. Industrial equipment started disintegrating and the railway lines were broken by 1916. Due to conscription, able-bodied men went to the army and this resulted in labour shortage. Riots in bread shops became a common sight. On 26February, 1917, the government suspended the duma

Answer 2

Causes of the Russian Revolution

Although the events of the Russian Revolution happened abruptly, the causes may be traced back nearly a century. Prior to 1917 Russian society was undergoing significant changes that resulted in the crisis of the old order. The new social and economic forces generated by these changes had different interests and desires. Therefore, by 1917 there emerged an extreme contradiction and divergence between the old and new Russia. The Russian Revolution represented the democratic ambitions of these new forces. The Russian state on the other hand represented the interests of the old ruling classes. The Russian autocracy remained strong on the support of landed nobility. So there emerged, by 1917, a crisis not only between the old and new forces but also between these new forces and the Russian state. According to Richard Pipes “The Russian Revolution of 1917 was not an event or even a process, but a sequence of disruptive and violent acts that occurred more or less concurrently but involved actors with differing and in some measure contradictory objectives.” So what were the long and short term causes that led to this milestone in history? Let us examine these in detail.

1. Autocratic rule and inefficiency of the Tsar

The government in Russia was autocratic without being efficient. The Tsar’s administration was weak and corrupt. His autocracy had outlived the purpose. The spread of western ideas led to the development of progressive ideas among the people. The demand for truly representative body with adequate powers to satisfy the needs of the people was a gathering force. Instead of fulfilling the demands of the people, Tsar Nicholas II of Romanov dynasty, announced that he would preserve the principles of autocracy as firmly and unwaveringly as his predecessor. He kept Constantine Pobedonostev[2], the evil genius of Russia, in power. Another evil genius who exercised great influence on the administration of the Tsar was Gregory Rasputin.[3]The government was run by the bureaucracy who was inflexible and inefficient. It is true that Russia did come to have its first Parliament (Duma) in 1906. But it did not lead to the establishment of parliamentary institutions on the English model. It did not have full authority over legislation and finance. It had no control over the ministry. Even the budget was safeguarded from parliamentary interference. Due to successive interference of the imperial government in the elections, the Duma became a reactionary body. All kinds of restrictions were placed on the individual freedom as well as the freedom of press.

Another weakness of the autocracy was the personality of the last Russian Tsar Nicholas II himself. Poorly educated, narrow in intellectual perspective, a bad judge of people, isolated from the Russian society at large and in contact only with the most narrow military and bureaucratic circles, intimidated by the ghost of his imposing father and helpless under the destructive influence of his endlessly unfortunate wife: Nicholas II was obviously inadequate to the demands of his high position and this was an inadequacy for which no degree of charm, of courtesy of delicacy of manner, could compensate. He was short-sighted and his lack of grasp of the realities of the life of the country interfering with political process in ways that were for him absolutely suicidal.