Question 1
Evaluate the interpretations in both of the two passages and explain which you think is more
convincing about the consequences of Alexander II’s Great Reforms.
Passage A
The Great Reforms changed the social fabric profoundly…in a manner that the legislators had not planned. The 1860s and 1870s saw a sudden explosion of culture, as towns acquired real meaning as the focus of political, legal and cultural life. The population of small towns doubled. Railroads began slowly to bridge the vast distances of European Russia with the construction of a line from St Petersburg to Warsaw and from Moscow to Nizhny Novgorod. Factories sprouted on the outskirts of towns and on ambitious landowners’ estates: industry flourished in the central industrial region, textiles in Ivanovo; mining and metallurgy underwent a revival. The drab provincial town of Livny, which before the reforms produced agricultural products, boasted eighteen major factories by the 1890s. A serious effort was made to improve the sanitary conditions in the towns and villages as pipelines and sewage systems were installed and roads were paved. The atmosphere of the towns and estates changed, as well, as energetic young scientists, priests, teachers and physicians working the countryside attended the zemstvo. The zemstvo became the cornerstone of a distinctive and original political culture. It gave people experience of politics [and it was] the defining institution of the era that followed the great reforms.
Adapted from C. Evtuhov et al, A History of Russia, published in 2004.
Passage B
It is possible to level criticisms at most of the reforms that ensued [after 1861]. Peasants remained the poorest and most heavily exploited section of the population. Those who engaged in agriculture were not only short of land but also saddled with redemption payments. By retaining the Poll Tax and introducing new courts, the government made it plain that it had no intention of granting the peasantry economic or judicial parity with the nobility.
The zemstvo became the nests of the gentry. The peasantry could have played a larger part in their activities, but the former serfs were unable to rid themselves of the habit of deference. At district level, the new assemblies were too remote from the peasants’ concerns to justify the risk of throwing caution to the wind. Although the chairmen of the zemstvo were elected by the assemblies, they had to be approved by the Ministry of Internal Affairs. In the eyes of the government, the zemstvo were fundraising bodies rather than forums for political discussion yet because zemstvo lacked the power of enforcement they found it difficult to collect taxes.
Indeed, the major drawback of the reforms was the Tsar’s refusal to establish a national assembly. There can be no doubt that this was a decision made by the Tsar himself, for his own brother and a number of highly placed officials recognised the advantages of establishing some sort of central representative body. The Tsar, however, was not to be persuaded. Since the Tsar made law on his own, it may be that the reforms of the 1860s were a grand illusion. The measures enacted by Alexander II were conceptually limited, poorly executed, incomplete, unsustained and insecure.
Adapted from D. Saunders, Russia in the Age of Reaction and Reform 1801–1881, published in 1992.
[30]
Answer
