To what extent does Alexander III deserve the title “reactionary”?

Although Alexander III enacted some social and economic reforms, most importantly those of industry, he did more to repress the people, strengthen autocracy, and remove the more liberal reforms of his father, so it would be fair to say that Alexander III was a reactionary. This was because fundamentally he was a believer in autocracy and nationality, and so only would only accept reforms that would strengthen these ideals, was necessary to keep up with other countries, or was neutral. So this hindered the social reform and progress, which was clearly wanted by some parts of the population, leading to him being defined as a reactionary. One way, in which it can be seen that Alexander II was a reactionary, was through his policy of Russification. This was a policy that was designed to unite the very diverse Russian empire into a uniform nation, in which everyone could define himself or herself as Russian and would therefore rally behind his ‘great Russian’ administration. This was however implemented forcefully. It involved harassing and repressing minorities such as Poles, Finns and Jews, forcing them to learn Russian by having all official paperwork printed in Russian and even expelling students who spoke their local language in school. This was reactionary behavior, because it stopped minorities creating their own national identities and trying to become politically independent, so here Alexander was clearly trying to hinder reform in order to try and maintain the size of his empire. Most importantly he did it by repression rather than by soft power, ignoring the concerns of the people and thereby showing his reactionary nature. Further evidence for Alexander being deserving of the title reactionary, comes from his policies of political repression. Rather than trying to work with the political opposition, he responded with harsh repression, in 1881 he issued the decree concerning measures for the protection of state security and social order. This gave the government ‘emergency powers’ to deal with the terrorism following his father’s death, these included military tribunals, the removal of suspect officials and the execution and exile of suspects. Thousands were tried and found guilty. Under alexander III censorship was also common, the okhrana was used and between 1882 ad 1889 14 national newspapers were censored, for being too liberal. Moreover he clamped down on universities, which had been centers for trouble, in 1884 they lost self-governance. These measures clearly demonstrate that he was far more inclined to repress those calling for reform than to give in to people’s demands for social and political reform. Alexander II was also completely committed to the idea of autocracy as providing a firm pillar around which the nation could center itself and also to provide unquestionable strong leadership from the top. He was certainly influenced by the likes of Pobedonostsev, an advisor whom he kept close and had helped educate him as a child. Once he got to power he removed many of his father’s more liberal ministers, such as Milyutin, he also reversed and cancelled some of the reforms of his father, such as the one that Alexander II had been on his way to sign when he was assassinated, which would have allowed for a form of national representation for the people. Nicholas was very much against this; he also increased government control, and thereby also his own personal control of the government. He did this through the Zemstvo act of 1890, which gave him complete control of the bureaucracy, and also reduced the electorate of the zemstva. This reaffirmed Alexander III’s principle of autocracy and would help stop people speak out against his system of government, hardly the move of a progressive leader, rather that of a reactionary. However, alexander did introduce some measures that were more progressive, such as the replacement of poll tax by business and income tax. This helped satisfy some of the demands of the peasants for lower taxes, and he also reduced the redemption payments of the peasants. Moreover he created the peasant land bank in 1883, to help peasants buy land, although it was only partially successful. He also introduced reforms on industry that granted workers some protection and rights, such as a factory inspectorate. However it seems more likely that these reforms were based on Alexander’s romantic view of peasants, rather than listening to their demands and responding accordingly. The reforms also did little to help the situation in the countryside, and the great famine of 1891, which displayed the government’s true incompetence was testament to that, in other words more could have been done, but Alexander focused more on other policies that appealed to him more, such as industrialization and military reforms. Apart from these limited social reforms in the countryside, there were Alexander’s industrial reforms through Bunge, Vyshnegradsky and later Witte. These reforms did genuinely help Russia’s economy and even lead to the end of Alexander’s reign being called the great spurt. These reforms focused on industry and railways, the money for these came largely from foreign investors. Under witte oil coal and iron production increased massively and construction of the trans Siberian railway had started, moreover there was a massive influx of workers into the towns which helped with producing industrial production. Moreover there were also reforms to Russia’s military that were desperately needed, especially following the Crimean war a few decades earlier. These reforms would suggest that Alexander was much more future orientated, however these largely came due to Russia lagging behind other European states in both industry and military and Russia had started to lose its status as a ‘great’ power. So although objectively these reforms may have seemed like those of a progressive leader, in fact they were fuelled by a more reactionary desire. In conclusion, Alexander III was a true reactionary autocrat. Uncompromising on his power, removing the liberal reforms of his father, and increasing the power of his police and his own personal control, while harshly repressing those who disagreed with him The limited reforms that did arise during his reign were most likely enacted out of a desire for continued status as a European power, and to compete in the modern world, as opposed to coming about due to social and political pressures from the population. This can be seen because the agricultural reforms could have gone further, and the response to the 1891 famine was far from supportive suggesting that alexander wanted agricultural reform to aid his industrial ambitions.