Assess the extent to which a particular political system was effective in shaping the society/region

When assessing the effectiveness of autocratic tsarism in shaping Russian society, you must take
into account the fact that it was a long established system, with strong support from a number of
institutions, including the Orthodox Church in a strongly religious society. That being said, in the
period of 1900-1914, the tsarist autocracy could only really claim to shaping the society indirectly. I
mean this in that in a country on its way to revolution, in the aforementioned time period, the people
were far more instrumental in shaping the society, being indirectly influenced by the longstanding
policies in place and the governments response to events that occurred.

Tsar Nicholas II wished to continue running society in the same way that it had been run under the
tsars before him. He fully believed in his divine right to rule however he wished, and the continued
neglect of the peoples wishes was steadily breeding discontent. The late industrialisation and the
emancipation of the serfs in the 1860's meant that even in 1900, the peasants and the working class
lived in atrocious conditions. While he personally did not put the people in this position, he made
minimal, if not no changes to their bad wages, terrible working and living conditions, and
widespread poverty. Industrialisation meant that there was a growing middle class, who were
becoming well-educated, thus beginning to understand how backward Russia was, socially,
politically, and economically. The desire for more power and being denied this led to the middle
classes feeling discontent in their position. This was the same in the upper classes; the bourgeoisie,
who with industrialisation had come to communicate more with their Western European
counterparts who enjoyed the political power the Russian aristocracy wished for. All these
components in society were hugely discontent for their own reasons, brought on by the autocratic
lack of care for the individual, and began pushing for reform. Eventually they were able to publicly
protest the system, which resulted in the 1905 'Bloody Sunday' killings. It was the people who were
beginning to shape Russian society, but their desire to do so was caused by the tsarist autocracy in
place.

1905 was a year in which the tsar was at war with his own people. The Bloody Sunday shootings
acted as a catalyst for revolt, and much of 1905 was spent in strikes that spread out through the
cities and the country. Scared, with his military fighting a futile and unpopular war against the
Japanese in the east, the tsar gave in to his people's demands and announced the October Manifesto.
Among other things, it legalised the existence of political parties and established the Duma,
theoretically a representative government. In theory these changes would mean huge social and
political reform for Russia, however the tsar was not yet ready to share his power; he had just
needed to appease his people. When the military returned in earl 1906, once again confident in his
power, he laid out the Fundamental Laws (February 1906), which essentially reclaimed most of the
power given to the people in the October Manifesto. This swing back to conservative tsarist
oppression angered many people, and bred even more discontent. The autocracy had again acted in
a way that could have led to great change, but instead was simply effective in pushing its people
into a position where their actions would become more and more extreme in order to reshape their
society from the oppressive tsarist system.

After the October Manifesto, Tsar Nicholas II allowed the Duma to be put in place. He had hoped
for a conservative group who would continue to support his divine power. However, he wound up
with a group primarily composed of Kadets and peasants who pushed for what he saw as radical
change. He dismissed the Duma after seventy three days. His second Duma was hoped to be more
conservative than the first, but instead ended up with an even more radical group who held Social
Revolutionaries and Social Democrats in its number. They thought that this would be a good
platform to promote change, and soon were elected onto a Duma that was mostly radical, but had
members with hugely differing views; from peasants to monarchs. This Duma was dismissed within
four months. The tsar then appointed a Prime Minister, Stolypin, who was loyal to him, and had him
increase the land requirements to vote. This meant that it was largely only the wealthy conservatives
who ended up in the third Duma. The Duma could have been a revolutionary progressive step,
however the tsar still wanted a strong hold on his power, and quickly reduced the power allows to
his representative government. This again, spawned discontent in the people, and bitterness at his
failed democracy. The only real change he made in establishing the Duma was creating a platform
in the first two, where revolutionaries could share their ideas and become more organised; more
directed. This is an element which would further lead to his downfall through the shaping of Russia
by its peoples.

That is not to say that the tsar was completely ineffective in shaping his society. He lost control of
his people after WWI, but up until then he did actually hold enough power to to effectively maintain
the tsarist autocracy. His power by divine right was a huge factor in his continued control, as was
the late industrialisation of the country. Late industrialisation meant that the middle class had not
had time to grow to a significant number of educated people, which meant that an organised revolt
was difficult to organise and stage. In a way, this did help Nicholas maintain his control, and was
effective in shaping the country to continue to bend to the autocracy. It is debated among historians
whether the tsarist regime could have continued had it not been for the disastrous effects of WWI.

Russian society had long been defined by the autocratic rule, however it was the effects of this rule
that led to the people rising up for change. In the 1900-1914 period, the autocratic rule of Tsar
Nicholas II was instrumental to discontent in the people. His weak responses to the events of 1905
showed his people that he was in a way, petty, and willing to do most anything to maintain his
power. Overall, in this time period, the autocracy was effective in shaping the society, but it was
shaping the society for the change that would come.