 |
by the start of the twentieth century it became manifestly obvious that
russian absolutism was no longer capable of providing an effective and
competent political leadership of the country in a modern age. under the
russian system of government the emperor was expected to rule as well as
reign. as chairman of the russian government, he had to coordinate and
manage it effectively and bore ultimate responsibility for everything.
|
the russian administration was a large and quite sophisticated
organization carrying out various and complicated tasks.
by the early twentieth century no
human being could have acted as chief executive of the russian
government throughout his adult life. the strain of the job was
crushing.
it is not at all surprising that nicholas ii showed increasing signs
of physical and emotional exhaustion. however, brought up to
believe fully in the divine origin of autocratic power, nicholas was
probably even psychologically unable to contemplate the possibility
of sharing his 慓od-given?duty of safeguarding his country抯
destiny with anybody else. the emperor loved his country and served
it loyally to the best of his abilities. yet he was a hostage to the
system of government he inherited. his refusal to allow any dilution
of his autocratic prerogatives, his rejection of the calls for a
western-style government and a ministry responsible to a majority in
the duma, precipitated a constitutional crisis which cost him his
crown and his empire.
ironically,
it was the government-sponsored modernization that brought into
stark relief the serious limitations of the autocratic form of
government. the tsarist empire抯 ability to accelerate
socio-economic progress was not matched by the desire to modernize
the antiquated political system. as a result of rapid
industrialization, russia抯 educated society had increased
enormously, its composition being augmented by the rapid growth of
new professional and business groups. and yet the country remained
in essence as before an autocratic monarchy with no place for either
a constitution or parliament. the government抯 policy of suppressing
every current of opposition thought and its refusal to engage in any
meaningful political interaction with educated society led to a
deepening socio-political crisis. there was an urgent need for an
institutional framework that would have allowed the educated and
increasingly articulate intelligentsia, landowners, and
professionals to express legally their grievances and aspirations.
democratic institutions would have gradually associated these
classes with the undertakings of the government, given them a sense
of participation, and thus would have provided a school of civic
activities.
in the
absence of such a system, a large mass of educated, progressive
people was pushed into the ranks of the revolutionary movement. by
refusing to grant to its subjects political emancipation, by
denying the main sections of the population a role in government at
an all-russian level, the autocracy absolved them from civic and
political responsibility and delayed the 慶oming of age?of russian
society. the imperial duma, conceded under pressure in 1905, came
too late and failed to alter radically the political structure of
tsarism. by its very nature, the autocracy proved to be incompatible
with modern forms of political life of the state, for its basic
instincts compelled it to suppress and stifle any moves towards a
democratic system of government.
the most
dangerous aspect of the government抯 position was its naive belief
in the loyalty of the masses of the peasants and the conviction that
popular discontent was deliberately provoked by the irresponsible
agitation of the intelligentsia. the truth of the matter, however,
was that the working classes felt increasingly alienated from the
regime and were becoming consumed by anti-government attitudes. the
mass of rural and urban working people felt oppressed by the state,
which imposed heavy economic and fiscal burdens on it, yet was
unable to resolve its age-old problems and to respond to its
elemental hopes and aspirations. the shooting of the peaceful
demonstrators on 9 january 1905 killed russia抯 age-old popular
trust in the tsar as the people抯 protector. the 態loody sunday?
thus struck the final nail in the coffin of the patrimonial state.
yet the
russian empire became neither a nation nor a bourgeois society. the
alienation of the russian population from the tsarist
administration, the weakening of a sense of national identity and
belonging, which unites the government with society, was at the root
of the crisis which crippled imperial russia. the incompetent and
unpopular regime grew increasingly isolated, its base of support
eroding fast from under its feet, until it became completely
慸etached?from its people. the political bankruptcy of tsarism was
starkly and disastrously revealed with the onset of the great war.
the war provided the last mighty push to bring the whole rotten
structure tumbling down.
