Embracing the Concept of Democracy - Essay Example

Embracing the Concept of Democracy Introduction There are eras in which the global trend is impacted profoundly such as that of industrialization and also that of the technology. These deviations take root on a global scale, but it is apparent that the globe is not always one. There are changes that occur to a specific people at a specific time that are of little relevance to other people. The Russian society had to adapt to changes in different ways after the Great Reforms of the 1860s. The uncertainty was immense since it was as a result of drastic changes that summoned the aptitude to equally adapt drastically. The intent of this paper is to lucidly determine these changes that were deemed to embrace the concept of democracy, and whether they actually achieved their intended purpose as expressed by the response of the people. The Transformation An incident that can be viewed as the genesis of the Russian transformation is the defeat in the Crimean War. It resulted in the sought of scenarios where individuals reassess their own status so as to forge a route forward. Russia has expected to win the war with ease seeing that it had the largest army in Europe, but overlooked the morale of the soldiers to fight. The defeat opened channels for reassessments, which were mainly carried out in the 1860s and came to be commonly referred to as the Great Reforms. Realizing the underbelly of the army and the possibility of being attacked in the future, Alexander II initiated a number of reforms.1 Abolishing serfdom One aspect to Russia that stood up in the Crimean War as compared to its enemies was that the country still practiced serfdom. The enemies disliked this fact about Russia and Alexander II saw this as an opportunity to commence the reforms that would transform Russia. Ending selfdom was a move supported by liberal intellectual in the country, but fiercely contested by the land owners. In 1861, Alexander II pushed forward to end the practice, and the country was one of the last to do so in the European continent. “The new democracy,” as Pobedonostsev refers to it, is nonetheless questionable as it still left so many in suffering whilst it was supposed to do the opposite. 2 Local government reforms As a result of the liberation of the peasants, there was a surge in the number of citizens in the local governments. The peasants now had a voice that was recognized by the government, and this required it to be embedded into the government itself. Initially, the local government was run by the sole representation of the landlords who were viewed in turn as representatives of their serfs. A new form of government referred to as the zemstvos was put into place, it required fair elections to be conducted. Pobedonostsev cites this form of government as ’a fatal error, and one of the most remarkable in the history of mankind.’ In the assemblies, there were seats for the peasants, townspeople, and the landlords. Taxes were levied to all and the money collected was used for matters that affected the entire community such as building of bridges, prisons, and hospitals. Democracy One reform that took shape in Russia is the adoption of democracy, and continued deviation away from dictatorship. As exemplified in the case of local governments, elections were the new way leaders were selected. All stakeholders in the society were represented in the assemblies. It was a new way that Russia could run its operations, and one that was more acceptable to the people as it summoned their views. The views expressed by Pobedonostsev regarding the issue of the new found democracy differ considerably. Religion and Ethnicity The Russians acknowledged their failing as a power, and become more conscious of their actions. When Russia Invaded Turkestan in the 1860s and 70s, there was a sense of responsibility and concern over the actions they took, particularly because the people of the land were predominantly Muslim. Their colonization policy used by the Russians in Turkestan was a bit more solicitous and did not draw a stern line that separated them from the Muslims; despite the religion posing a burly threat. The most notable reform in this case is that of its policies. Brower shows clearly how this trend from being ruthless to being considerate came to be.3 Social Responses The most notable response from the society is that Russians become more open to new ideas; free thinkers. The era before this was depicted by mental serfdom to an extent where people inclined themselves to a specific mindset that was not open to alteration. The autocracy mode of leadership had crippled the country’s autonomy to development; an element that played a leading role in the defeat in the Crimean War. Alexander II had realized this and went on a quest to implement a set of reforms aimed at manipulating the crude conceptions that the previous era nurtured within its subjects. The rest of the world had already made such reforms, and now it was the turn of Russia to follow suit. After the liberation of the surfs, which was a surprise to many, the limits to freedom were consequently under attack. The surfs still did not experience total freedom as they now had to make their own way up the ladder. This is the same reason other reforms such as the educational and the local government alterations were made; to enable the former surfs blend into the society. They were still not allowed to roam freely across the country, and what the previous reforms did was that they convinced the surfs that they would attain these privileges if they fought for them. This is why one of the most notable responses to the reforms was continued pressing for more reforms. In fact, most people in the country joined in to the pressing game. The reforms had showed that there was a very high possibility of achieving more. Intellectuals, professionals, and the peasants sought more freedom in a country that had for long taken it from them. It has become a struggle between the citizens and the government. Alexander II had started a fire that he could not control. The small gesture of making minor reforms had exposed all other forms of reforms that needed to be done. The people seemed to be less concerned about the new reforms, and more concerned with the reforms that could be done. The tsarist form of government had run out of time in Russia.4 Populist movements were formed with the goal of forcing the government to provide more freedom, particularly to the former surfs who were not allowed to own land or even travel freely. The technique adopted by these movements was use of clandestine terrorism that aimed to kill Alexander II; a ‘feat’ they managed to accomplish in 1881. This marked the end of an era of modest reforms. Conclusion The 1860s and the subsequent years after the defeat of Russia in the Crimean War were an important eras in the country’s history. The reforms carried out manifested the need for the country to adapt to the global trend, but it was only willing to do so to a certain extent. An extent to which many were not ready to accept. Alexander II provided the people with reforms they did not expect to see since Russia was still one of the most conservative countries in Europe at the time. The emancipation of the slaves still is one of the most significant reforms carried out by Alexander II, but it was still too little too late. The people wanted more changes that the government was not willing to offer. The pace at which the reforms were being executed was not appealing enough and spurred professionals, students, and intellectuals to demand more from their government. Many reforms apart from those discussed above took place, and brought forth different forms of responses. Whichever reforms it may be, one of the most notable collective response by the Russians is that democracy as we know it took root in the country. Ironically, the introduction of the reforms by the government was also the same reason that it was receiving much criticism. The fury of the people to seek more reforms would result into a revolution at the beginning of the 20th century. This is the foundation that some historians use to base the argument that defeat in the Crimean War was the commencement of the Russian Revolution. References Brower, Daniel. n.d. "Islam and Ethnicity: Russian Colonial Policy in Turkestan." In Russia’s Orient: Imperial Borderlands and Peoples, 1700-1917, by Daniel Brower, 115-135. Konstantin Pobedonostsev. Reflections of a Russian Statesman: “The New Democracy” (26- 31); “The Press” (62-74) “Introduction” (xxi-xxviii); documents in Daniel Kaiser and Gary Marker, eds., Reinterpreting Russian History, pp. 428-435. Read More