Top-Rated Free Essay
Preview

The October Manifesto

Better Essays
1102 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
The October Manifesto
Assess the following statement: ‘The October Manifesto marked the formal end of autocratic government; for the first time the Tsar was forced to share his law-making powers’
The October Manifesto was a vague but insincere promise of political reform, issued by Tsar Nicholas II at the height of the 1905 Revolution (J. Llewellyn et al, “The October Manifesto).The Manifesto, a document proposed by Sergei Witte, which demanded civil liberties and the creation of a Duma, was an important stage in the 1905 Revolution, as the revolutionaries thought they had finally gained power and influence over the tsar. Effectively, the Duma would rob the tsar of his autocratic power, have influential legislative powers and successfully mark the formal end of autocratic government. Nonetheless, the tsar’s cunning and devious ways prohibited this from happening. By granting concession and implementing his fundamental laws, the October Manifesto did force the Tsar to temporarily share his law-making powers, but it did not cease autocratic government in Russia.
American philanthropist Howard Hughes once said ‘Once you consent to some concession, you can never cancel it and put things back the way they are’, and when first reviewing the Russian Revolution of 1905 it would seem that this quote would be extremely accurate. In theory, the tsar would have signed the manifesto out of defeat, the Duma would have been created and he would have lost his cherished autocratic power. However, the tsar agreeing to the manifesto was actually him giving the revolutionaries concession. Not only was the tsar giving the people what they wanted, he was correspondingly eliminating their disapproval of him and his autocratic power. Whilst his opposition was distracted by the small concession he had granted them, the tsar was able to plot and plan how he would maintain his power. He took to the throne swearing to ‘protect the principle of autocracy as firmly and unwaveringly as did my late father.’ It is clear that Nicholas’s intentions were to retain his family legacy, something he found exceedingly difficult. He had originally stated that ‘I am not yet ready to be Tsar. I know nothing of the business of ruling.’ However once he was put under pressure, his family legacy and autocratic beliefs paved the way for Nicholas to deceive his opposition and ultimately prevented the end of autocratic government in Russia. With the Duma ready to be inaugurated, the tsar realised he could not retain his autocratic power with The Duma. He needed to demonstrate to not only his followers but his adversaries that he was not willing to be defeated, and with his power he could get around the Manifesto, and that autocracy was the most beneficial option for the future of Russia. “Nicholas believed wholeheartedly in autocracy. He thought that democracy with elections and parliaments would lead to the collapse of Russia’.(GSCE textbook)To achieve, just before the signing of the Manifesto, Nicholas published his fundamental laws. The laws were a set of 124 decrees which categorized individual rights, including religion and changes to the succession of the throne, but they also undermined promises for political reform that were made in the 1905 October Manifesto. (Unknown, Alpha History). The three main laws that denied the Duma of their power and consequently weakened the October Manifesto were:
4. The Emperor of All the Russia’s possesses Supreme Sovereign Power. Obedience to His authority, not only out of fear, but in good conscience, is ordained by God Himself
8. The initiative in all legislative matters belongs to the Sovereign Emperor. Only upon His initiative may the Fundamental Laws be subject to revision by (in) the State Council and the State Duma
86. No new law can be enacted without the ratification of the State Council and the State Duma, and cannot go into effect without being approved by the Sovereign Emperor.
It was clear through this the antagonistic relationship between the Tsar and the First Duma further highlighted the Tsar's unwillingness to relinquish his hold on absolute political authority, which he had so brashly moved to abandon in 1905. (http://cgscrussianrevolution2011.wikispaces.com)
It can conversely be discussed that the October Manifesto and the succeeding events did in-fact end the reign of autocratic government in Russia; and because it was the first time the tsar was involuntary forced into sharing his power, it marked a defining moment in the Romanov dynasty and Russian politics; and although the tsar did eventually counteract the conditions of the Manifesto and regain supremacy, the conception of the Duma put an official end to Tsarist Russia. As the tsar was forced to sign the Manifesto, it officially signified his defeat by the revolutionaries and the end of autocratic government in Russia. A newspaper bulletin published by St Petersburg in 1906 is a useful piece of evidence, a primary source that officially signified and documented the rules of the Manifesto and its imminent impact on the population and Tsarist reign. The Tsar was bullied into creating the Duma; there was no other option if he was to avoid a revolution. Official end of full autocratic government was celebrated by many and history was made as it was the first time in the Romanov dynasty a tsar was required to sacrifice some of law-making power.
The 1905 Revolution was an uprising of the people of Russia calling for a change in their government. (Bowman, the 1905 revolution) The October Manifesto was a defining moment in the revolution and in the history of Russian politics. It marked the first occasion on which the tsar was forced into giving up his autocratic power. Nicholas II made promises of political reform, and once these concessions were given; the revolution was essentially doomed to failure -leaving the Tsarist regime shaken but not brought down.
“Nicholas believed wholeheartedly in autocracy. He thought that democracy with elections and parliaments would lead to the collapse of Russia’’

Bibliography:
J. Llewellyn et al, “The October Manifesto”, Alpha History, accessed [25-5-13], http://www.alphahistory.com/russianrevolution/october-manifesto/
Unknown. (2013). The abdication of Tsar Nicholas II. -. 1 (-), -.
-. (2011). Tsar Nicolas and the October Manifesto. Available: http://cgscrussianrevolution2011.wikispaces.com/Tsar+Nicolas+and+the+October+Manifesto. Last accessed 31st May 2013.
Corianne Bowman. (2003). The 1905 Revolution. Available: http://www.thenagain.info/webchron/easteurope/1905Rev.html. Last accessed 31st May 2013.
Jennifer Llewellyn, John Rae and Steve Thompson. (-). Tsarist reaction to 1905. Available: http://alphahistory.com/russianrevolution/tsarist-reaction/. Last accessed 31st May 2013.
Demetra Sklaviadis. (-). The abdication of Tsar Nicholas II. Available: http://web.mit.edu/Russia1917/papers/0302-AbdicationOfTsarNicholasII.pdf. Last accessed 31st May 2013.

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Good Essays

    Another thing that had changed in Alexander III’s reign to make Russia seem unrecognisable in 1894 compared with 1881 was that the idea of reform was strongly opposed by him so Russia appeared to moving backwards instead of forwards in all aspects. Alexander III introduced a Manifesto that stated that the Tsar would be in charge of all political power. It presented a very conservative Russia where political and social stability was to be controlled and supported by autocracy, Russian nationalism and the Russian Orthodox Church. This shows how Russia had changed to become recognisable in 1894 because any idea of a constitution was rejected by the Tsar and represented Conservative ideas in his decision making. Russia…

    • 824 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    The question is focused on the challenges mounted to Tsarist rule in the given period, and the extent to which divisions among opposition groups contributed to their failure. Answers may consider the four main strands of opposition, their internal divisions and their intolerance of each other. A tradition of revolutionary activity was established by the Populists and their appeal to the peasants, though they were weakened by the assassination of Alexander II and the repression established by Alexander III. The Social Revolutionaries tried to gain support among both peasants and townspeople, but were divided between anarchists and revolutionaries. The Social Democrats split into Bolsheviks and Mensheviks at the 1903 Congress, while the Liberals did not establish distinctive parties until after the 1905 Revolution. A simple description of some of the revolutionary parties will be marked within Levels 1 and 2, and progression will depend on the range and depth of relevant material.…

    • 555 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    All state leaders across the whole period held qualities that didn’t please the whole of the population in Russia. During the reign of Alex II, the government showed some strength with controlling opposition from the peasantry through the emancipation of the serfs in 1861. It was thought that to prevent revolt from below, this was a key movement that had to be made, and therefore prevented future unrest and opposition. However, the new liberated serfs had to deal with more laws concerning land ownership with led to further unrest and repression in the peasantry by the state. The state moreover, appeased the most vocal critics but in such a way that allowed dissenters to express themselves in the knowledge that Tsar’s decision would be final. Compared to Nicholas II’s reign, this showed a decisive leading technique, as Nicholas’s style was more conservative, and showed weakness, relying on others’ advice to fuel his decisions. A key failure throughout his period was the mixed rule attempt with the Duma introduced from 1906 to 1917, it is arguable that Nicholas II made concessions only to keep opposition temporarily at bay and that his aim was to uphold the principle of autocracy.…

    • 1646 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    To a certain extent the divisions among the opponents of the Tsar, such as the Bolshevik and Menshevik split in the Marx party after the 1903 conference, or even the divisions among different revolutionary parties entirely, e.g. Marx and the Social Revolutionaries, was responsible for the survival of Tsarist rule in this period as this led to disorganisation and lack of effectiveness among opposition. However other factors, such as the loyalty of the army, despite mutinies during the 1905, allowed the Tsar to remain in control. Furthermore actions by the Tsar himself, although not that effective, for example the reforms in the October Manifesto and the continuing support of the ruling elite was accredited to securing the Tsarists power.…

    • 2563 Words
    • 11 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    The reforms and policies made during the last Tsarist years were not in the interests of the people but were made simply to maintain the power of the Tsar and his nobles. Most people would argue that during the years 1917-1964 there was more political freedom and less repression than in the Tsarist years. The provisional government did not meet the needs of the Russian people. They were an unstable and temporary government, and many people on the furthest parts of the Russian empire did not know about their existence. This provided them with many issues, such as trying to enforce democracy onto people they did not understand what democracy actually was. Many historians believe that at this point the people of Russia did not know themselves what form of government they wanted and due to the lack of education they did not know what form was best for them. In October 1917 came the Bolshevik revolutions. With their leader, Lenin, the Bolsheviks overthrew the provisional government and came into power. The leadership of Lenin was met with great approval from the people. Lenin promised political freedom unknown to them under the Tsars and Provisional government. In his rule…

    • 1370 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    After the 1905 revolution Russia was in need of reforms both economically and politically, to allow it maintain its role of a great power and to prevent another revolution occurring the answer to this was the October Manifesto. However, due to the stubbornness of the Tsar who was determined not to relinquish his autocratic powers, what may have appeared as reforms were largely superficial making little change in particular to the Russian political system.…

    • 1012 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    October 17 (October 30 NS) - The October Manifesto, issued by Tzar Nicholas II, brings an end to the 1905 Russian Revolution by promising civil liberties and an elected parliament (Duma)…

    • 3824 Words
    • 16 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    The February revolution was a big turning point in Russian history; demolishing the Tsarist autocracy and breaking the Romanov dynasty that had ruled Russia for hundreds of years. Due to many factors, involved in the war or long standing issues before the war, Tsar Nicholas II was forced to abdicate to Grand Duke Michael, desperate to keep the rule of Russia in the Romanov family. Grand Duke Michael stated he did not want to rule, therefore ending the absolute monarchy. This essay will explore the main reason for the February revolution of 1917, questioning whether the war started the revolt among the Russian people or simply acted as a catalyst for a result of long standing issues and opinions dating back to the previous revolution of 1905.…

    • 1389 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Nonetheless, with the release of the “April Theses” by Lenin, the Bolsheviks support grew. The “April Theses” pushed what Lenin thought Russia needed most at that time: ‘Peace, Bread and Land.’ This vastly appealed to masses of the lower working class of Russia; they had been exhausting this for years; the mass famine across Russia, the land controversy’s that exploited the peasant populace, which approximately made up 80% of the Russian population, and the continuation of the war, which…

    • 883 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Essay On Tsarist Autocracy

    • 1209 Words
    • 5 Pages

    The Tsarist autocracy has succeeded for more than three hundred years, but the Russian Revolution that occurred on November 1917 ended the long term autocracy. During this time period, Tsar Nicholas II was the leader of Russia and indeed the last one. He caused Russia’s downfall and made many Russians frustrated about the government. The Tsar did not acknowledge the nation's problems and failed to improve the lives of the citizens. As the Russians struggled with limited rights and lack of help from Nicholas II, they had to make a move. Although peasant unrest led to the Russians protesting and rebelling against the country, the Russian Revolution occurred because of Tsar Nicholas II’s weak leadership, in which he failed to accomplished the Russian’s goals, horribly managed the military, and thought that the system should not change.…

    • 1209 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    unitisation of the left and right wing of the Duma and the apparent cooperation between the…

    • 896 Words
    • 1 Page
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    In the ‘Fundamental Laws of the Empire’, it Is written that “all must bow to the supreme power, not only out of fear but also out of conscience.” This sends a clear message to all that communication with the Tsar is irrefutable and repressive. The social construct of the autocratic system saw the intense disparity of peasants, which made up 82% of the population, and the working class (4%). The Tsarist autocracy gave power to the tsar not only to control all power and wealth, but also control the distribution of it, meaning people were not endorsed by merit. For example, the army’s authority was not assigned based on proficiency or skill, rather on what could be sold or bought. Autocratic Russia was not interested in the improvement of social equity or economic…

    • 478 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    The Romanov Dynasty

    • 1502 Words
    • 7 Pages

    When discussing why public opinion of the tsar was so easily pliable in the lead up to revolution in 1917, we must acknowledge that Russia was evolving rapidly. As modern historians and public spectators, it is simple to map out how Russian society became a pressure cooker of discontent and anger. Mass industrialisation made living for a working, urban class almost unbearable, the class divide was still rigid, revolutionary ideas from the West offered a foundation to base claims for the removal of the autocratic system, and the pressures of World War 1 served to unite the people in one cause to end hardship. These factors stoked a population already vying for change and such an environment made revolution in Petrograd (St Petersburg) in the February of 1917 almost inevitable, foreshadowing the end of the…

    • 1502 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    A Nationwide Revolution

    • 1615 Words
    • 7 Pages

    In 1905 the massacre of innocent people during a peaceful protest outside the winter palace in St Petersburg sparked the start of a nationwide revolution. This mass murder of the innocent protestors became known as ‘Bloody Sunday’. During the revolution strikes occurred across the nation involving more than 400,000 people, peasants attacked and raided the homes of their landlords and the Tsar’s uncle, the Grand Duke Sergei, was assassinated. Although Bloody Sunday was the immediate reason for the revolution, there were several causes which had caused long term grievances towards the Tsarist regime among the population of Russia leading up to 1905. These include the developments in the countryside and the lives of the peasants, the treatment of the inner-city working class and ethnic minorities, the repression and growth of the political opposition and the impact of the Russo Japanese war. Although all these factors contributed to the initiation of a revolution in Russia, I believe that the attitudes towards and treatment of the working class and the peasants was the most prominent reason for the uprising in 1905.…

    • 1615 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    During 1917 the political system of Russia, and the political opinions of its public, began to change. The First World War was deeply taking its toll, with the casualties running into millions, and food shortages were reaching crisis levels across Russia. Presided over by the Provisional Government, who had little support and even less real power, the people of Russia became restless. In October, the animosity between Government and populace came to a head, and a revolution put Lenin’s socialist Bolshevik party in power. This essay will show that, while the Bolshevik party was dedicated and driven in the values they believed in, it was only the seizing of opportunity, and a lot of luck, that they succeeded in taking power.…

    • 1594 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Better Essays