It made Russia became a constitution country like Britain. Between the periods from 1906 to 1917, there were four Dumas in Russia. However, people were still discontent with the government. It’s because the Tsar was not sincere in sharing power with people. The Tsar had dissolved the First and
However there are other reason which just as or more important than Trotsky’s leadership such as the ideas and sacrifices made by Lenin during the year’s 1917-1924 such as signing the harsh treaty of Brest-Litovsk and enforcing the New Economic Policy or NEP, to create economic sacrifices rather than political ones which allowed the Bolsheviks to remain in power. One way and the main way that Trotsky’s leadership of the red army was responsible for the survival of the Bolshevik government was the victory of the Civil war. In 1918 Russia was plunged into civil war when the White army, a group of pro tsarist and pro provisional government supporters attacked the Bolsheviks. However the reds won the war due the work of Leon Trotsky and his leadership of the red army. For example Trotsky organised and disciplined the army very well, he recruited ex tsarist army officers who were experienced in combat also due to his recruitment strategy membership rose from 7000 in March 1918 to 5 million in September 1920 and he also organised key victories such as the last battle between white and red forces between the 7th and 15th of November 1920.
The top-down approach the rulers of Russia had in the period 1855-1964 were superficially different as the communists claimed to represent the people by giving power to the proletariat where as the Tsars were heavily elitist in their ideology. The communists’ efforts to represent the people is corroborated by the introduction of the soviet by the Provisional Government, which was organised as a grassroots effort to practice direct democracy. Although the presence of the Zemstva and Duma, introduced by Alexander II and Nicholas II respectively, presents some evidence the Tsars may have attempted to give Russia a sense of democracy, it was ran by the nobility so it was not representative of the people and thus heavily autocratic in their rule. Conversely, although the communists and the Tsars appear to have ruled differently in their top-down approach, they in fact did not because in practice the communists gave an extremely limited extent of power to the proletariat. The Provisional Government’s vacillating rule on the other hand, from heavily autocratic to democratic led to the governments demise.
In addition, World War II introduced change through industrialisation, which was key to Russia’s success in the war. These key reforming leaders and other factors of change saw Russia grow from a very deprived country in 1856 to an industrial superpower in 1964. Alexander II became known as ‘Alexander the Great Reformer’ and ‘the Tsar Liberator’ which suggests that his work and reforms changed the nature of Russian government and society to a large extent. The emancipation of the Serfs in 1861 initially appeared to have major benefits for the serfs. As Alexander II said: “We vowed in our hearts to fulfil the mission which is entrusted to Us and to surround with Our affection and Our Imperial solicitude all Our faithful subjects of every rank and condition”2.
Peter the Great helped shape the previously unsuccessful nation of Russia into an active European political power by following the examples set by Western European powers at the time. Before the 17th Century Russia was only considered a part of Europe out of courtesy. Geographically and politically, it lay on the periphery. Fortunately for Russia, that all changed when Peter the Great came to power. To do this he set out to accomplish certain general goals for the country which included: reorganizing the administration, developing the economy, building a strong military, and quashing the potential independence of the nobles, guard, and church.
The Tsars believed that they ruled by divine right; so they believed that they were God’s appointed ruler on earth. Lenin did not have a legitimate claim to ruling Russia. The Tsars were brought up knowing that one day they would rule over an empire, whereas Lenin had no training or experience in government. The Tsars inherited the throne when their fathers died whereas Lenin was the leader of a minority party who seized control by force and then forced their will upon the Russian people. This indicates how there would have been a distinct difference in the way the Russian people saw who was governing them.
All of the rulers of Russia had similar priorities, although some were more forceful than others. The main ones were the retention of power, being an autocracy or a dictatorship and crushing opposition. The communist rulers had different priorities however to the Tsars in terms of political ideology and social aims. The Tsars were not uniform in their aims though as each one faced different situations and wanted a different kind of ruling. For example Alexander II was a humanitarian but Nicholas II mainly wanted modernisation for Russia.
Their argument to autocracy was based on the view that it was a practical necessity due to the Empire being so vast and diverse. They did not take advice from an elected parliament and instead, the country was run by the Committee of Ministers (established in 1861) whose membership consisted of around 10 to 13 administrators. The Tsar had the overall power to both appoint and dismiss ministers, which therefore supports the view that repression was a consistent occurrence, as democracy for the people was never allowed. This autocratic style of government was exchanged between rulers in 1917 when the Bolsheviks seized power in the October Revolution, with Vladimir Lenin as their figurehead. The Commissars similarly demonstrated absolute rule during their reigns as Heads of State.
However, throughout his period as leader, Russia saw the dominance of corruption and nepotism. At the beginning of his reign, Brezhnev combined the role of head of state with general secretary, meaning he could assert supreme power and authority. This suggests that his imperial power was of greater concern than maintaining the soviet system. Brezhnev aimed for ‘developed socialism’ as opposed to Khrushchev’s communism in 20 years; again his own personal power appeared to be of great importance as in order to impose these changes and gain utmost support from the politburo, Brezhnev employed his own supporters into leading positions in the government. These appointees greatly opposed significant or radical changes and reforms, giving Brezhnev the support in the side-lining or blocking of many of Kosygin’s attempts at economic reform.
of 1918, 17). The Bolsheviks wrote this to the people to con them to come back on the Bolsheviks side, though the Bolsheviks were not actually going to follow through with it like we seen with the tsar an the October Manifesto. In the 1920s the Bolsheviks were emerging victorious from the Civil War. Though they had recognized the independence of former tsarist territories, they wanted to retain the East Slavic lands, and later reconquer the states of South Caucasus and Central Asia. The question of nationalism then came up due to the fact that most of the people in these states were non-Russian, in which the Constitution took a form of a treaty, ostensibly among a set of independent socialist republics (including the RSFSR), which established a federation or union (Const.