The reforms were half hearted concessions from men intent on preserving

the old ways as much as possible.

The Russian reforms were a series of changes Alexander II made to Russia. These included the
emancipation of the serfs, and reforms for the military, local government, education and censorship.
Most of these reforms took place in 1864, however the emancipation of the serfs took place in 1861.
Some of these reforms, such as the emancipation of the serfs were seen to be very important and
helpful to Russia at the time, but others, such as the educational and judiciary reforms can be argued
that they were half hearted. An example of a ‘half hearted’ reform is the military reforms of 1874-
75. Conscription was made compulsory for all classes, but the nobility used substitutes to take their
place. Although this was known, the government made no proper attempts to stop the nobility
doing this, showing that this reform was half hearted as the nobility were never made to serve in the
army before.

Arguably, the most important reform passed by Alexander II was the emancipation of the serfs,
which took place in 1861. This abolished serfdom, and the landowners did not own the surfs
anymore. Previously, around 90% of the population of Russia lived in poverty and worked for a
pittance and were forced to fight in the army if their landowner needed them to. However,
members of the Royal family felt that serfdom was morally and ethically wrong, and writers such as
Turgenev drew attention to the plight of the serfs and the need to improve their conditions. The
defeat in the Crimean War had exposed Russia to be militarily and technologically backward, and it
was widely believed that serfdom was holding the industrial development of Russia back. Although
these reasons for the reform suggest that the emancipation for the serfs was done for moral
reasons, the Emancipation Edict suggests that the moral and economic reasons were not the main
motivation for the emancipation. There had been serious peasant revolts in the past and
disturbances had been increasing since the 1840’s. Also, the army was mainly comprised of serfs, so
there was a fear that a major revolt may be hard for the government to contain; people were
worried about how long the peasants would remain loyal if nothing was done to improve their
conditions. The peasants found the terms of the Emancipation Edict very harsh and strict, and
resented the fact that they had to pay redemption payments for a period of 49 years for the land
they were given as part of the settlement and had to remain on the Mir until their payments were
complete. This was because they could see no reason for paying for it; they believed that the land
should be theirs of right, on the grounds that the person who works on the land should own it. The
ministry of the Interior was concerned that the freed serfs would become vagabonds and undermine
order in rural and urban areas and didn’t want to give them proper freedom. To solve this problem,
the village as a whole was made into the tax-paying body responsible collectively for redemption
payments. The commune was also given control over granting permission to villagers who wanted to
leave, which they were unwilling to do because the commune would have to take on the payments
left behind by any peasant who left. This, in effect, was an indirect way of making sure the serfs did
not get proper freedom. The fear of revolt was a powerful factor leading Alexander II to reform,
suggesting that his action was merely a concession to keep the support of the peasants and remain
autocracy. There is also the fact that there were many weaknesses to the Emancipation Edict, such
as the fact that the land allocations weren’t divided equally and by 1878 only 50% of the peasantry
was producing a surplus. The Emancipation Edict hardly led to a more mobile workforce and the
agricultural methods remained old fashioned. This shows that the welfare of the serfs was not the
main purpose for the emancipation and also suggests that he was more intent on preserving ‘the old
ways’ as not much changed in terms of the economy.
From the Emancipation Edict came more reforms; one of the major ones being the Education
reforms of 1863-64. The abolition of serfdom increased the need for basic literacy among peasants
trying to run their private smallholdings, and the establishment of the zemstva provided an
opportunity for change in the control and funding of education. Many positive things came out of
this reform. For example, in 1863, universities were given more freedom to control their own
teaching and research and were given the opportunity to govern themselves and appoint their own
staff. Even women were permitted to go to these schools and universities, as they were ‘declared
open to all’ regardless of class and sex. The 1864 Secondary Education Statute and the 1865
Elementary Statute reduced restrictions on the Church and the zemstva opening new schools, which
led to dramatic increase in education and attendance. The number of primary schools rose from
8000 to 23,000, and the number of children in primary education rose from 400,000 to over a
million. However, after 1866 the government took control over education again because the
universities were increasing the number of radical and militant thinkers. The primary curriculum was
still restricted, with the aim of ‘strengthening religious and moral notions and spreading basic
knowledge’. At secondary level, students had a choice in what they wanted to study, but this was
mainly for the professional and upper classes. This shows that this reform was made to try and keep
the old ways because it was restricted for only privileged upper classes; something that had been
very common before the reforms. However, after multiple assassination attempts, Alexander went
back on many pf his reforms, including Education, for example he handed back control of schools
back to the Church, and in 1897, the literacy rate of Russia was still just 24%. Compared to Britain’s
of 90%. I do not agree that this reform was half hearted at first however because it had a very
positive impact on Russia; for example, the number of students in the universities grew from 3600 to
10,000 in the 1870’s, and education was available to anyone, regardless of their gender or race, but
from 1871 education was reversed back to largely what it had been before.

Another reform that Alexander II introduced was the Local Government Reforms of 1864-70. A
system of elected local councils, the zemstva, was established to replace the rights and obligations of
the former serf owning gentry. The members of the zemstva were elected, with a certain proportion
of representatives chosen from each social group, and were given power to improve public services,
develop industrial projects and administer poor relief in times of hardship. However, the zemstva
rarely acted in the interests of the peasantry, as the voting procedure was arranged in a way that
allowed the nobility to dominate, taking on average 41% of the seats in the zemstva. The power of
the zemstva was also very limited, as it had no control over state and local taxes. Provincial
governors continued to appoint officials, took responsibility for law, and could even overturn
zemstva decisions if they chose. We can see that this reform was half hearted because the zemstva
only really benefitted the nobility, also showing that they were trying to preserve the old ways
because they didn’t want the peasants to be able to make decisions in the zemstva.

In conclusion, I think some of these reforms, such as the local government reforms can be seen as
half hearted, but other reforms, like the emancipation of the serfs, were very important at the time
and seen to have a big impact on Russia. Alexander II introduced this ‘top down’ change because
people were worried about how long the serfs would remain loyal if nothing was done to improve
their conditions, and as the army was mostly made up of serfs, Alexander wanted to prevent
anything from happening, as a revolt would be very hard to keep under control. We can also see that
these reforms were trying to bring on change while still trying to preserve the old ways, because
although these reforms we introduced to help the peasantry, they indirectly benefitted the nobility
as well, and still kept the peasantry under control. In the long term however, many of Alexander II’s
reforms were reversed by his son, Alexander III, so can be seen as half-hearted as they did not last
very long.