How successfully did Alexander II deal with the opposition he faced, 1855-1881? Alexander II had opposition during the years 1855-1881 as his reforms had raised hope of the intelligentsia, who wanted further modernisation specifically a constitution and as he failed to deliver they were all disillusioned and angry. Secondly he abandoned his reforms in 1866 which led to more extreme opposition. I feel Alexander II was successful in dealing with opposition as he had support from the serfs which I feel was the most successful way to deal with opposition. The emancipation of the serfs appeared to have strengthened the loyalty of most peasants to the tsarist regime leading the peasants to greet the Populists with hostility due to their loyalty to the tsar.
However, Nicholas II had no choice to create the Duma because of the 1905 revolution; so he reluctantly did so he did not completely lose his position. The Communists were a lot more willing to reform politically. Krushchev, similar to Lenin, was keen to reform politically for example decentralisation; he transferred economic planning to more local
This certainly fights against the view that Alexander II was reluctant in his reforms on the surface – however, once investigated, the limits of emancipation are clear. The 49 year redemption payments were a huge limiting factor in allowing peasants economic freedom to then have social freedom, and class was still a major issue even if it had been reduced. The highly inflated land prices that ensued meant that very few peasants could afford land, and Alexander II did nothing to resolve this. It does lend to the idea of his ‘radical’ reforms being fairly reluctant as he did not go further with them. Alexander III took an even more conservative view during his reign, repealing many of Alexander II’s social
To what extent had the pressing political problems of the 1800s been solved by 1914? After Italy’s unification in 1870 there were immediate political issues facing the new united Italy that needed to be addressed. The government that was formed was incredibly unorganized and not many people knew who was in charge at times, not only this but many of the politicians in power were incredibly corrupt and would happily take bribes, launder money and other underhanded, dishonest actions which would have been frowned upon had people known. The new united Italy was a liberal state which was actually one of the first of its kind, the Liberals had managed to oust the ruling families of each individual state, the old aristocracy and most importantly the pope. However this “liberal” Italy was actually more conservative at heart, the country was a monarchy and not a republic.
How far do you agree that the limited appeal of Mazzini’s ideas was the main reason for the slow progress of national unity in Italy in the years 1815 – 48? National unity is when a nation comes together through sharing the same physical and religious beliefs. During 1815 and 1848 man revolutions took place in Italy, specifically in The Papal states, Piedmont, Sicily, Modena and Parma. The revolutionaries varied from students to soldiers who were all fighting against the Monarchy. The monarchy treated its states people terribly and they were fed up, this is how the revolutionaries came to be, in general the revolutionaries were to an extent successful because they overthrew the monarchies however they were then beaten by the Austrian reinforcements that the monarchy asked help from.
The troops would have felt let down as well, so therefore wanted reform and supported Mussolinis violence tactic. This also links in with the north south divide as the troops would be in the south and it hadnt industrialised as much as the north causeing a huge divide socially and economically. This demobalisation of the troops would have threated the higer classes as the troops could easily over power them for the land. Obviously the 5 million troops would have supported Mussolini and therefore caused a growth in his support. Another reason for Mussolinis success was the weakness of the political system.
This law shows the flaw of Athens and its democracy based government because it infringed on the freedom of speech that most democracies have. The Assembly was made up of all men that were eligible to serve on the council. The Life in Athens may have been sophisticated and nimble. This made Athens a target to other countries since they thought that Athens was a week country. If Athens had more of a military based government then they wouldn’t have been attacked as many of times and maybe never lost their power in Ancient
These critics, including Thucydides, believed that “the democracy had… driven them to sink more and more resources in a losing proposition” because they didn’t want to fail and in turn, an oligarchy was formed in June 411 8 But ultimately this same oligarchy disbanded, was replaced by another form of government, and eventually democracy prevailed. Democracy won out in the end for Athens which caused the other Greek city-states to want this type of government and look to Athens to help them. This proves that Athens was overall the schoolmaster of Greece, and utilized an advanced system to govern their people, despite critics’ complaints about
The launching of the Great Experiment September 9, 2013 Establishing a durable Government in the 18th Century was very difficult because there was no way to please all of the country which all had different opinions. Americans have failed before with the Articles of Confederation because it did not meet the needs of our nation. There remained disputes between the Americans which led to the division of government; one remained for the American people and the other for the thirteen colonies belonging to Great Britain. The Constitution was also created to test Americans and to see if they could govern themselves without being watched by someone. The American people were in need of a government that would make everyone happy and satisfied.
The democratic form of government is most familiar to the modern western citizen. However, there are many forms of communism and dictatorships which exist around the world today. The ancient philosopher Plato protests that a monarchist oligarchy, which calls upon an elite group for governance, is the best possible form of government. However, based on vagueness in terms and overgeneralizations Plato creates a flaw in his argument and weakens its validity. Through the elimination of social class systems and based on the separation between Government and economy it may be seen that the platonic ‘drone’ will not lead to tyranny.