How successful was the regime in overcoming the opposition to the regime?
Opposition was slowly growing within the Tsars Empire and Alexander II felt threatened and took action that in fact reversed some of his reforms. He was very disgruntled that people were actually going against him, as he considered himself to have done so much for them, the biggest being emancipation. What he did not realise was this made people greedy and gave them a taste for freedom, and gave many the incentive to spur on for further reform. Due to this, he went back on his words and tightened up many reforms in an attempt to clamp down on those who opposed him, succeeding in the process.
The most important measure to overcome growing opposition was tightening up the education reforms he had made. Alexander II saw that student radicals were emerging many were associated with populism. As a result he increased university fees, making it extremely difficult for peasants to receive a higher education. Also, while before he in the past he had given universities the control to appoint professors, Alexander II changed this and instead gave Tolstoy more control over this and Tolstoy made sure to choose the more reserved professors. The Zemstvos powers over schools reduced and churches reasserted control over rural schools, resulting in an education being more centred around religion, as it had been in the past. The tsar discouraged history, literature and modern languages as he felt these encouraged critical thinking or western ideas. In its place he kept subjects like maths, Latin and Greek so as not to discourage talks of a future society. These subjects were looked at as ‘safe’ subjects, and languages like Latin and Greek were predominately spoken by people in power e.g. the nobility, thus this further excluded the peasantry from the education system. Furthermore, students’ bodies and activities were controlled and observed, and censorship was greatly tightened. All this was essential to the success of the regime, as peasants had the most reason to rise up against the regime and by precluding the peasants from education he ostracised them from potential opposition groups.
A further means to overcome opposition was the tightening up and changes implemented in the police and law courts. Alexander II appointed Shuvalov, who sent prisoners to exile, and often the journey there was so harsh that they died on the way. Secret police were assigned to track down trouble makers in Switzerland, and any potential opposition groups. Prisons, which were practically full, had barbarous conditions. Mass executions became more common, with alexander II using it as a method to warn any potential opposition of the consequences. Moreover, because open trials backfired as revolutionaries got publicity due to testimonies being reported in press, Alexander II transferred political cases to military courts which were conducted in secret, away from the public, and away from scrutiny.
However, contrary to this, opposition was not a complete failure, as fundamentally it lay seeds for future movements, as many of these revolutionaries or opponents ended up joining parties such as SD’S or SR’S. Furthermore, political assassinations sparked public sympathy. There was also some cooperation between ‘Land and liberty’ and zemstvos, which was important as it stimulated political activity. Moreover, Populism was formed, the biggest political party of its time, contradicting the fact that opposition was a total failure. Also, although intellectuals were crushed, they later went on to write books and spread awareness, further increasing opposition. Due to alexander resorting to underhanded tactics of tightening up reforms, many argue that this undermined the regime and showed a weakness in the Tsars authority.
To conclude, the regime was largely successful in overcoming opposition. Its nature (secretive) meant that revolutionary opposition could not mobilise peasant discontent, the greatest threat to stability.no practical alternative to existing regime offered - lack of political tradition in Russia, meant that opposition thinking tended to be utopian in character, rather than rooted in realities of governing a state. Moreover, there was no clear united front of opposition - but various different, often conflicting, strands of thought about 'what is to be done.' conservative interests too strong - even if nobility might have been cross with Alexander after the emancipation, they were still not going to support revolutionary opposition against him. Ultimately, The People's Will might have succeeded in killing AII in 1881, but this did not lead to greater reform or revolution - instead it strengthened the resolve of the establishment to clamp down on opposition, as seen with the harsh treatment of revolutionaries during Alexander III's reign.