How far do you agree that in the period 1855-1956 the Russian government simply
exchanged one form of autocracy from another?
Autocracy is defined as a system of ‘government by a single person or small group that has
unlimited power or authority, or the power or authority of such a person or group’.1 From the
ascension of Alexander II to the beginning of Khrushchev's dictatorship, it is clear that
despite shifts in power Russia was governed autocratically, either through a one-man state
or a one-party state. The rulers effectively implemented their autocratic powers and control
through the use of terror and secret police, such as the Okhrana, the makeup government
and repression through offices such as censorship, and warfare and effectivde leadership
during war times. Through evaluating these factors they effectively prove that despite the
minimal reductions of power some rulers found themselves forced to undertake, there was
simply a shifting of autocratic power from one ruler to another in 1855-1956, and at no point
was there an honest democratic system in Russia during this time.
There are many different interpretations of Russia and the relationship with autocracy found
in contemporary historian interpretations, most notably the works of Richard Wortman and
Richard Pipes. Richard Wortman’s works follow an argument similar to academics such as
Englestein which suggest that autocracy was not simply exchanged from one ruler to
another, and implements the idea that there was a reluctant autocracy, in which an inability
to create reforms ultimately led to the October revolution and end of the imperial monarchy.
In his book ‘Scenarios of Power’ Wortman further explores this concept, through the crisis of
autocracy, which states that the granting of reforms led to extremist attacks which shredded
the hopes of Alexander II who wished for harmony between an educated society and the
monarchy.2 After the death of Nicholas I, Alexander II immediately began to loosen the
constraints the autocracy implemented in society, however this was made difficult after the
attempted assassination on Alexander II’s life in 1866. Wortman highlights in his book that
this was the clarifying moment for Alexander II in regards to allowing reforms, because it is
as though the more freedom people were given, the more violent extremist acts occurred.
1
"Cambridge English Dictionary: Meanings & Definitions". 2022. Dictionary.Cambridge.Org.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/autocracy Definition of autocracy from the
Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary & Thesaurus © Cambridge University Press.
2
Wortman, Richard S. "Scenarios of power." Scenarios of Power (2013).
1
, Wortman also states in the same book that despite the tightening of police surveillance and
administrational control after the Karakozov attempt, Alexander II, alongside his ministers,
had not given up on the idea of a reformed autocracy.3 This was evidently seen during the
build up to the Russo-Turkish war with Alexander II wanting a peaceful outcome and
attempting to negotiate instead of fight. This idea is further expanded on by Nicholas II, who
promised more reforms and representation for his people after the 1905 revolution. This
included the opening of the State Duma, which represented the lower classes at government
level, and the creation of the Assembly of Land which allowed for the people to meet with the
Tsar directly, without needing to go through state procedures beforehand.In addition to this,
Wortman also states in his work ‘Russian Monarchy’ that under Nicholas II, he and his wife
Tsarina Alexandra withdrew from the Russian court in an effort to help stimulate reforms
within the autocratic circle of power too,4 however this was not effectively carried out and
only created negative repercussions for the royal family. This argument could however be
strengthened by talking about outside factors that had an impact on the court, and is limited
due to the narrow view provided.
Richard Pipes, on the other hand, argues alongside academics such ad Figes and
Fitzpatrick, and states that each ruler wanted the autocratic power for themselves, and used
any method necessary to gain power and keep control over Russia. Pipes states in his book
‘Did the Russian Revolution have to Happen’ that despite the harsh repercussions Nicholas
II put into place to crush revolutionaries, he did not have enough control over the country to
remain ruler by 1917.5 Pipes argues that the problems with autocratic power came from the
Emancipation Act 1861, where by freeing the serfs the government had left them to fend for
themselves, and the only opportunities for serfs was to either become a farmer or join the
army. The problems with the Tsars and the imbalance of power they have is seen once again
at the beginning of World War One, with the Tsar not being able to mobilise public support
for the war. This ended with the Tsar having to share some of his power with other
organisations, and even that was done deceitfully in a way that he would not actually have to
give up any of his autocratic power. In another one of Pipes books ‘The Degaev Affair’, the
repercussions of the Emancipation Act are seen, with the extremist group ‘The People’s Will’
assassinating Alexander II and it being condemned by Alexander III; but with some peasants
secretly approving of the revolutionaries actions.6 This led to an influx of arrests and
3
Wortman, Richard S. "Scenarios of power." Scenarios of Power (2013).
4
Wortman, Richard. "8. Moscow and Petersburg: The Problem of Political Center in Tsarist Russia,
1881-1914." Russian Monarchy (2016): 170-198.
5
Pipes, Richard. "Did the Russian revolution have to happen?." The American Scholar 63, no. 2
(1994): 215-238.
6
Pipes, Richard. "The Degaev Affair: Terror and Treason in Tsarist Russia." (2003).
2
