This essay will focus on a number of different examples where repression occurred, whilst also considering phases where restraint over the Russian people was relaxed. There were a number of similarities between the Russian leaders in terms of repression which suggests that it was a consistent theme from the end of the Crimean War all the way through to Nikita Khrushchev’s reign. One of these strands of continuity was the constant use of an authoritarian approach displayed by each leader. The late Tsars of Russia claimed that their power was ordained by God, with their authority determined through the ‘divine right of Kings’. Their argument to autocracy was based on the view that it was a practical necessity due to the Empire being so vast and diverse.
For example Alexander II was a humanitarian but Nicholas II mainly wanted modernisation for Russia. Alexander III just wanted to retain his power and keep in control to avoid the same fate as his father. Similarly, the communist rulers were not uniform either as they had different core aims, for example Khruschev’s main aim was destalinisation whereas Stalin’s was to create his own legacy. The Provisional Government and Lenin were alike in their policies in the fact that they both completely changed the system. In the case of the Provisional Government they changed it from autocratic to democratic and Lenin changed it to a one party state; although the result was different the basis was the same.
Politically, each leader during the period 1855-1964 was interested in maintaining authoritarian control. Each of the Tsars ruled autocratically, with the belief that they were accountable only to God. Alexander II promoted autocratic rule as the most appropriate method to rule, under Nicholas I’s slogan of; “Orthodoxy, Autocracy and Nationality.” For this reason, it is unsurprising that when the Tsar implemented the Zemstva, (regional councils which would provide an element of democracy to local government) in 1864, powers and franchise were greatly limited. Similarly, Nicholas II having implemented the Duma following the 1905 Revolution, maintained his autocratic status by the passing of the Fundamental Laws (1906) which stated; “no new law can be legally binding without the approval of the Sovereign Emperor”. Under the Communists, Russia was governed by a form of dictatorship.
Throughout history , there have been many empires ruled by various monarchs , even today we can see that England still uses their monarch , although it is a limited monarch which means that the queen rules ceremonially , and has no political power over her country , the country is ruled by the prime minister , which is James Cameron. There are monarchs that do have control of their nations , these are called absolute monarchs. These are a lot less common in today’s world and can be found in Saudi Arabia , but are nonetheless rare. Monarchs were the only type of government to most of the world just 300 years ago , with rulers such as Louis XIV and Peter The Great. While some attempted to change their empires for the better such as Peter , some didn’t do anything
These men included George Canning, Sir Robert Peel, Frederich Robinson and William Huskisson. However, all these men weren't really 'new'; they had served in Liverpool's government before during the Reaction and Repressive period. If the same people are in charge with the same ideas, the concept of a new government in worthless. Toryism remained the same throughout this whole period. As Gash said, 'Liverpool's object was not to alter course, but to recognise his crew for a voyage that had already started.
Explain why the opponents of the Tsars from 1855 to 1917 were more successful than those who opposed the Communist regime from 1917 to 1964. The opponents of the Tsars were more successful – as they achieved vastly more change – than those of the Communists for a number of reasons, not least because of the legal status of opposition, the strength of the regime, the nature of the opposition, the repression imposed by the leader of the day, and the unity and organisation of the opposition. Indeed, this question is being asked simply because the Romanov dynasty was ousted in February 1917; the Communists, on the other hand, were not. However, this question is slightly misleading: not all of the opponents of the Tsars were in fact successful – the Poles, the Peoples Will and the Narodniks all failed when attempting to attain change in Russia; indeed, it can be seen that, in reality, the only regime in which opposition was truly successful was that of Nicholas II. One reason why the opponents of the Tsars were more successful than those of the Communists was the fact that, under the Tsars, opposition attained a legal status.
The US constitution is commonly described as being very rigid. This stems from the fact that it is codified – laid down in one singular sovereign document, which sets out both the powers and limitations of each distinct branch of government, for instance the fact that each year the President has the power to make the ‘State of the Union’ address, where he outlines what he wants Congress to debate and pass laws on. These enumerated powers have stayed the same ever since the Constitution was drawn up. Furthermore, the US has a notoriously difficult amendment process. First a bill must be passed in both houses of Congress with a super-majority of two-thirds.
One way in which the Communist dictatorship of Lenin and the Tsarist autocracy in the reign of Alexander the III were similar was in the respect of governmental power. In Alexander III's reign the Tsar ruled as an autocrat, which meant he held absolute power and made all the decisions for the country. Lenins' rule echoed this idea in the form of centralization, the political ideology in which power over a country is concentrated into the hands of one group, in this case the ruling Bolshevik party. Therefore, both governments held absolute power over Russia. Where the two governments differ is in the respect of tolerance towards cooperation with others.
These are all still with Westminster. The electoral system for the NIA was a single transferable vote and when there was a vote for devolution, a majority voted yes. Overall, Northern Ireland have gained power to an extent, however, it has been more difficult to form a permanent government. This is because there has been a lack of trust between the main parties therefore direct rule from London was restored. On the other hand, in February 2010, all parties agreed to transfer of law and order and security issues to the Northern Ireland Executive which was seen as a highly significant event.
Analyse the establishment of Soviet control in Bulgaria To begin with, the communism is a system of government. The main fact about it is that in its theory stated that everyone is equal; there is no single person of small group of people who rule the others. There are also no social classes. From the first sight it seems perfect ideology, but, however, it has been demonstrated that this system cannot work properly. It usually becomes a dictatorship and the best example of that was Stalin and USSR.