Notions of order and chaos - The Histrionic Chronicle of Tsarist Russia

 

The Histrionic Chronicle of Tsarist Russia

 

Let us first, now, examine the loftier, more superficial—yet still of paramount importance—theme of divide, or duality, in Fathers and Sons. However, to understand well this difficult phenomenon of Russia’s past, one must have a fleeting understanding of the history of this particular era, from Tsar Alexander II’s rise to the Russian throne in 1855 to the instigation of the revolution proper in 1917.[1] (I use the term ‘proper’ because revolutionary ideals had been circulating in Russia decades before the actual revolution.) The new Tsar was a staunch conservative who saw no hope in Russia’s future lest he implemented drastic change. His new reforms promoted modifications in the education, government, judiciary, and military sectors; his campaign for Russian transformation ultimately led to the emancipation of over two million privately held serfs in 1861. Unfortunately, Alexander’s plan was an outright failure, as the government’s expectations of the reforms were highly unrealistic.

The reform also took into account judiciary restructuring, which included the creation of the district court—the zemsvta­—and a state legislature, or the duma. The new Tsar also decreased censorship; however, after an assassination attempt on the Russian prince in 1866, many of the harsher regulations came back into effect.

The emancipation of the serfs in 1861, however, was more than simply a declaration of generosity—it had military prospects as well, at least in the minds of the arrangers of the Tsar’s modernist reforms. One can almost picture the face of the Tsar as all this planning comes into realization before his vey country; as if he created a wondrous thing for his people… however, this was not to be; in 1881, revolutionaries assassinated Tsar Alexander II. (One may now understand the importance of my previous statement on the existence of revolutionary ideals ex ante[2].) His son, Alexander III, took the decisive role of avenger and created a Russia much harsher than before his father had ever reigned; his attempts to snatch the Motherland away from the hands of ‘modernity’ went so far as to dissolve the zemsvta and the duma, foster anti-Semitic feelings throughout the aristocracy—as well as the peasants—and suppress the autonomy of the universities. This counter reform did backfire even more, in a sense, than the reforms of Alexander II’s had, as the stricter regulations led to the greater development of radical parties against the monarchy.

The aftermath of the Crimean War led to a plethora of nationalistic tendencies, specifically within the more destitute regions of Serbia and the Ukraine. Radical writers influenced the people through various newspaper and journals, with Nikolai Cherneshevsky as their figurative head. His controversial novel, What is to be Done? (1863) promoted the movement towards radical measures and the common belief that revolutionaries were the Neitzschean Ubersmenschs compared to the ‘blue bloods’ of the Russian aristocracy. Nonetheless, the ‘populists’, as they were called, failed to rally the support required to initiate a true revolution, since the peasants themselves decided that Chernyshevsky’s idealistic propositions were a little too extreme for their unworldly tastes.

Eighteen eighty-seven proved a turbulent year of Russia’s weaning final decades of the nineteenth century, particularly with the execution of Aleksandr Ulyanov, attempted assassin to Alexander III and member of the same revolutionary group that assassinated the Tsar’s father. The execution had a lasting effect on the radical’s brother, Vladimir Ulyanov, who later converted to Marxism and led a great tour de force against the monarchy, after changing his last name to Lenin.

Many would most certainly consider Lenin’s story one of tragedy: a brother executed by the harsh, oppressive forces of the monarchy, he virulently spends the remainder of his life avenging his lost comrade not through direct violence, but through intelligent political perception and revolutionary gallantry. However, his popularity with the general population was slow moving, at first. The eighteen-nineties produced an abundance of problems dealing particularly with the growing divide between the radicals and the leftist liberals, as well as the peasants and the bourgeoisies. The political atmosphere was becoming more dynamic, and the peasants were growing in strength; this could be accounted to increased taxes, poverty, and abysmal working conditions, to name a few. Vladimir Lenin’s political party, the United Socialist Revolutionary Party (formed in 1898), promoted a riotous doctrine of violent radicalism, and for his efforts he was exiled to Siberia until 1899, whence he continued his violent toils ad rem[3], gathering supporters throughout the nation. Young Bolsheviks—or Russian communists—such as Joseph Stalin, looked up to Lenin as their leader.

The tragic outcome—for the Muscovites, in any case—of the Russo-Japanese war in 1904 led to increased demand by the radicals for the overthrow of the monarchy, as it seemed they were no longer capable of ruling their land properly. Ultimately, this empire-wide disapproval led to the first of a succession of rebellions, resulting in due course to the great Revolution itself. In 1905, a mass protestation of workers in Petersburg, led by the police agent and Orthodox priest Gerogiy Gapon, collected at Red Square and demanded, through a petition, the Tsarist regime to change their oppressive policies. The alleged ‘Father of Russia’ reacted by ordering his government agents to fire on any and all protesters, women and children included—this incredibly violent suppression of civil rights resulted in massive radical movements throughout Russia; from the ashes of this upheaval rose the Constitutional Democratic Party,— derived mainly from dissidents of the Zemsvta—who became known as the ‘Kadets’.

Tsar Nicholas agreed, after realizing the egregious state of his nation, to a document called the ‘October Manifesto’, which promised political order and civil liberties for all of Russia. The manifesto re-established the Duma, however its power was severely limited; the Tsar legalized trade unions, but ensured that his secret police force harshly combated the various workers’ alliances; he guaranteed press freedom, yet the various newspapers and journals that practiced this right were constantly harassed and arbitrarily fined for their work.

Nonetheless, the Tsar's efforts eventually restored order to the chaotic Russia, despite the fact that assassinations and executions had occurred in equal number on both sides of the political spectrum. Russia elected her first Duma in 1906, and the Kadets dominated—however, a deadlock between the reigning party and the residing government concerning a constitution led to the Tsar’s dissolution of the house almost immediately after it’s inception. The elections for the second Duma resulted differently, however, as the radical leftists participated; consequentially, the communists held a majority of the seats, with the Kadets and representatives of other nationalities making up the smaller political center. Unfortunately, the same impasse occurred, and the Tsar dissolved the Duma for a second time.

A new electoral law passed by Nicholas himself after the dissolution of the second Duma led to a much more conservative voting consortium, permitting mainly nobles, and none of the poorer peasants and radicals, the franchise. The third Duma, therefore, was much more rightist in their policies, although they still clashed with the government on various issues. Nevertheless, Pyotr Stolypin, the prime minister of Russia appointed by the Tsar, used the conservative tendencies of the new Duma ex tempore[4] in forming his new peasant reform program, which established the legal right to private property, in an attempt to create a group of land-based nobles loyal to the Tsar. Stolypin, however, never survived to see his reform in true action, for his life was cut short by the explosion of a bullet within the barrel of a gun before it soars through the air almost imperceptibly, whence it hit the prime minister square in the chest. His death effectively sealed the Tsar’s sombre and taciturn future, as Stolypin’s replacement, Finance Minister Vladimir Kokovtsov, was unsuitable for his position. Russian foreign policy became more audacious, roughly on the same level throughout time as domestic unrest rose—one could conclude through deductive reasoning that surely, Russians were therefore becoming irritated at best by their nation’s bold external relations. This tension was palpable on the Balkan Peninsula, of whom Russia allied them more and more with—particularly in the case of the Kingdom of Serbia. The set of complex political alliances that developed eventually led to the assassination of the archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria, and the commencement of World War I.

Russia suffered severe losses from World War I, particularly at Tannenburg and Masurian Lakes. Nonetheless, they expected a great victory against the Germans, and anticipated a vast amount of gains in return—alas, this was not to be. Blunders on the side of the Tsar’s weak planning appeared, and his flaws were indefinitely exhibited to the world. Nicholas had been eager to enter the war, seeing an impressive display of national unity at the onset—perhaps, he believed, this war would be the end of his domestic trials and difficulties. At the end, regrettably, inept Russian preparation for war, as well as weak economic policies, ended up impairing the empire financially, militarily, and logistically. Nicholas realized this, however, and reversed many initial decisions concerning the initial war plan; at this point, he took charge and assumed the position of leader of the Russian army. This tactic was to no avail, however, as popular unrest ensued—conflicts between the Tsar and the Duma rose, and food shortages resulted in widespread famine; consequentially, riots and strikes plagued the cities. The situation had become unimaginably powerful, and would have seemed almost as a sublime experience for one omnisciently watching the scenes from above: soldiers, who had previously saved the monarchy through unprecedented violence in 1905, instead joined the forces of the public in their fight against the despotic and incompetent Tsarist rule. By 1917, support for Nicholas died out almost as if overnight; most certainly, the air seemed much lighter—albeit forlorn and adrift—once the revolutionaries collectively joined rallied as a single human force for change. Change is indeed what they received.

---

[1] Wikipedia (2008), Russian History, 1855-1892.

[2] “Before the event.”

[3] “Without digression” or, “on focus.”

[4] “Immediately” or, “right away.”