William MacFarlane

Following the embarrassing loss of the Crimean War which was concluded in 1856, Alexander faced a serious crisis of legitimacy and it was this problem rather than any humanitarian wish to improve the lot of his people that drove him to reform the existing system.

Serfdom had been highlighted by many as a reason for the lack of military success and was therefore high on the list of institutions to be reformed as military success was essential to the legitimacy and survival of the autocracy. Therefore the process of emancipation was supposed to benefit the Tsar himself above all others and thereby benefit Russia itself as their interests were supposedly one and the same. Although emancipation was overtly aimed to benefit the serfs themselves, the landed nobility usually received redemption payments well in excess of the actual value of the land lost. In many areas the nobility were entitled to choose which land they were to release and were therefore able to keep the best land for themselves. The redemption payments were to be payable to the government over a period of fourty-nine years with interest set at 6%. For the serfs themselves , they were granted their legal freedom and were now allowed to marry and aquire property.

Another reason for the lack of military success in the Crimea was Russia's inability to equip and supply its armed forces and this pointed to the lack of economic and industrial development in Russia at the time. Although one could expect industry to benefit from the new-found 'freedom' of emancipated serfs, the majority were legally bound to their village commune and were therefore just as unable to migrate to urban industrialising areas as before. However, between 1863 and 1872 it is estimated that the nobility received 607 million roubles of compensation from the government and much of this was invested in industry, which can only have contributed to the industrial boom of the 1870s.

Also important was Alexander's reform of local government and the creation of Zemstva in 1864. This was fairly typical as despite a democratic veneer, it was the landed nobility who overwhelming controlled these new institutions. Therefore the image of the emperor benefited as he continued to perpetuate his liberal image while in fact little if anything was being done to change the existing social order. This is illustrated by the fact that the nobility controlled an average of 74% of the seats in provincial zemstva compared with only 10.5% held by the peasantry between 1865 and 1867. In this way the nobility can be seen to be benefiting through its retention of influence despite the establishment of new institutions.

Alexander also presided over cautious educational reform and in the first ten years of his reign, the number of pupils in secondary education doubled. The reform of 1863 increased the freedom of universities from government influence and yet appointments to academic posts were still closely vetted by the government. The setting up of large numbers of new secondary schools in 1864 can only have benefited the youth of Russia. However these reforms were altered by the new minister of education, Dmitry Tolstoy, who split the new schools in 1867 into 'classical' and 'realistic' categories. The study of latin and greek only took place in the 'Classical' schools and it was only pupils from such schools who were allowed to go on to university. Tolstoy also ensured that the fees were much higher for 'Classical' schools and this meant that only the sons of the wealthy nobility could attend, thereby safeguarding against the perceived dangers of educating the lower classes. Once again, although provision for education had been increased, it was the wealthy nobility who benefited most.

Important financial reforms were introduced such as the formation of the State Bank in 1860 and for the first time, there was a separate finance ministry introduced. The government also exploited new forms of income such as the introduction of an excise tax on spirits. Such reforms appeared to strengthen the financial system and this encouraged foreign investment in areas such as railway construction. In the short term such reforms seemed to strengthen the economy even if its continued weakness was highlighted once more by the inflation caused by the Russo-Turkish War of 1877-8.

After the military and economic failure of the Crimean War, Alexander knew that Russia had to modernise if she were to regain her status as a world power. Yet, at the same time it was vital that the power of the autocracy and the existing social order were retained. The reforms were a botched attempt by Alexander to reconcile these two wholly incompatible aims and there were therefore no real beneficiaries. On the one hand the necessary reforms for the modernisation of Russia were so compromised that they were of very little benefit to anyone and on the other the Tsar had weakened the autocracy through encouraging then displeasing both extremes of the political spectrum. The historian W. Mosse decided that through his reforms Alexander 'merely succeeded in proving that a pseudo liberal autocrat is an unhappy hybrid, unlikely to achieve political success.'

Nicholas d'Adhemar

It is often argued that the emancipation of the serfs in 1861 was the single most important act in the history of Russia, although, it can also be said that it was not worth the paper that it was written on. Alexander II felt that this was a reform that was needed after the Crimean War, because it was necessary for the survival of the empire. He was quoted as saying that it was "better that it should be abolished from above, rather than wait until it abolishes itself from below." From the declaration, serfs were said to have legal liberty, they were no longer private property of their masters, were free to trade, marry, litigate, and to acquire property. All of these changes would appear to greatly benefit the serfs, however, that was not always the case. The serfs had to pay a series of 'redemption payments' to the government for the land allotments which had been assigned to them from their previous owner's estate. These 'redemption dues' were set at high levels and were to be paid off over forty-nine years. This meant that the peasants were forced to pay far in excess of the market value for the land, and this was a hidden benefit for the landed nobility that was to replace the loss of their servile labor. In regards to freedom, the peasants were still organized within and legally bound to their village commune or obshchina. The liberty of the peasants was impeded by the fact that the commune had such extensive powers over them in economic and judicial matters. The peasants were not exempt from corporal punishment, taxes, and military conscription, whereas certain other social classes were excused from some of these injunctions. So peasants did not enjoy equal status with other members of Russian society after the implementation of this reform. The full benefits of the emancipation were not instantly realized due to the fact that the edict was over 350 pages long, and the peasants were confused by what they had heard. The confusion arose from the fact that the tsar had tried to reassure the nobility whilst maintaining order, rather than set a clear and concise example of what was to happen to the serfs. Serfdom was not abolished primarily for the benefit of the serfs, but rather it was a compromise between the government, the landed nobility, and lastly the serfs. The serfs were not really asked about what the reforms should entail, and as a result there was a large gulf between what was enacted in 1861, and the hopes and expectations of the serfs.

In order to replace the old style of local government under the old feudal institution, zemstva's had been created. They were essentially local and district councils that organized and ran everything in the community. They were made up from the land owning nobility, and the wealthy urban class, and in terms of representation were pretty non-beneficial to the peasants. In other aspects of village life the zemstva was hugely beneficial, especially in terms of primary education. It ran the majority of schools, and increased their numbers from 8,000 in 1856 to 23,000 in 1880. What the zemstva did for the villages of Russia, the Duma essentially did for the towns, especially in respect to education. The zemstva's were extremely beneficial to the liberal thinkers in Russia at the time. Censorship had been greatly reduced, and now these people were able to speak relatively freely about problems that they had with the government. The zemstvas were also beneficial to the gentry, because they were seen as a means of compensating them for the influence they had lost in 1861.

The new judicial system had been set up because the previous system had been notoriously inefficient, long winded, corrupt, and socially discriminatory. Alexander II was quoted as saying that he wanted justice and mercy to reign throughout, and he tried to achieve this by incorporating west European ideas, training of the judges, and a trial by a jury. A new judicial system was necessary for the peasants to be integrated into society at large due to their new legal entitlements and obligations. However, new courts were introduced called volost, and they only dealt with peasant affairs, and were considered outside the general judicial system of the empire. Again, this was not beneficial to the peasants, because the government was trying to keep them separate from other social classes.

Reforms in higher education, relaxation of censorship regulations, new developments in finance, trade, communications, and reform in the army were all towards the benefit of Russia as a whole, and aiding it to move away from a feudal society into a modern capitalist society. These reforms benefited the revolutionary minds of Russia in that they wanted to take things further, after all, autocracy still remained. This was an era of rising, now more and more radical intelligentsia were becoming attracted to the prospect of popular revolution as the only means to achieve proper 'great reform.'