For centuries consecutive members of the Romanov dynasty had ruled over Russia with the unlimited and arbitrary power they believed God had granted them. However, by the early 20^th century discontent with the system was growing and changes were being called on to end the Tsars reign of autocracy. Revolution was in the air and by 1905 this had shown itself. The 1905 revolution had many repercussions but historians debate whether they had an impact towards the lessening of the Tsars power. This essay argues that some moderate political advances were made towards democracy but they were largely undermined by the Tsar and his government. However this essay also argues that what did arise from the revolution and the following events was a change in people’s attitudes towards the Tsar and this change in attitude fuelled resentment and was detrimental to the Tsar in 1917 when finally autocracy crumbled and therefore the revolution had a fairly large impact of autocracy.

The strikes, peasant uprisings and nationalist revolts that followed Bloody Sunday reached new heights after Russia’s humiliating defeat at the hands of Japan in May 1905. The Tsar was now faced with a dilemma; either to control through a military dictatorship or grant a constitution that would please the majority of people. He decided to be lenient and on the 17^th October 1905 he passed the October Manifesto. This seemed to be a considerable concession on the Tsars part as it granted civil liberties such as freedom of speech but more importantly a legislative government called the Duma was to be set up. This legislative government was an advance on his earlier offer of a consultative assembly. Those who wanted a constitution had won what they had been seeking and the Tsar had been forced to give in to the revolutionaries violence and as a result his authority had been challenged.

There had been high hopes for the Dumas but the obstinate Tsar who was determined to limit any constitutional advance stifled them. The law was a blatant move by the Tsar to claw back any power he had granted under the October Manifesto, "Have I the right before my ancestors, to alter the limits they bequeathed to me?" The law stated that the Duma could not change the fundamental law, could not introduce legislation and the Tsar had the power to dismiss the Duma whenever he saw fit and rule by decree in its absence. Therefore the Tsar totally undermined the Dumas power.

Now that the Fundamental Law was in place the first Dumas could assemble.

Even before the first Duma even came to session it was obvious that it was going to face considerable problems, again caused by the Tsar who viewed the Dumas as merely a collection of elected representatives whose sole purpose was to advise him " I created the Duma, not to be directed by it, but to be advised." On top of the restrictions made in the October Manifesto the Tsar took further measures to limit the hold the Duma had over him such as negotiating a loan from France to make him less financially dependent on the Duma and publishing budgetary rules that placed the army, navy, and Imperial Court expenditure outside the control of the Duma. This combination of restrictions prevented the Duma from challenging his authority.

However, without the Tsar noticing he may have created problems for himself in the future. The restrictions he placed ensured that the mood of the Duma when it finally met was very bitter. The moderates who dominated the first Duma felt betrayed and disappointed in the Tsar and so strident demands were made to extend the Dumas power. In the short time they were in office the first Duma tried to liberalise Russia by getting the death penalty abolished and setting up an amnesty for political prisoners. Sadly the Tsar didn’t think these issues concerned the Duma and after two months he dissolved it. The first Duma was a disappointment to the politicians who had expected so much from it and many of the politicians lost faith in the Tsar which created more problems for the Tsar in the long run.

In protest to the Duma being dissolved 200 frustrated Trudoviks and Kadets reassembled in Vyborg, Finland in an attempt to force the governments hand. They asked people to refuse paying taxes, remove their savings from banks and to refuse to serve in the armed forces. However the appeal did not have the desired effect, infact the exact opposite. Instead of passive resistance, violence broke out in places and was used by the government as an excuse to ban the revolutionaries from participating in future Duma elections as well as an excuse to repress the arrested rebels. Therefore this appeal did not place Tsarist autocracy under any threat infact it may have strengthened it as it provided an opportunity to get rid of the more radical thinkers. The suppression of rebels was to become commonplace in Russia in the following years.

Someone who placed a key role in these suppressions by Petr Akadievich Stolypin, the Chief Minister of the Interior. He was extremely effective in dealing with the opponents of autocracy because he met their violence with violence. His motto if you will was "Suppression first and then, and only then, reform." This was to ring true in the future. He introduced special military courts which had the power to try and execute suspects, he closed down over 1000 newspapers and between 1906 and 1911 600 trade unions were abolished. Stolypin was extremely effective in repressing the revolutionaries; over 2,500 were hanged in five years and the hangman’s noose eventually became known as "Stolypin’s necktie." Therefore Stolypin was extremely effective in limiting opposition the autocracy for several years.

In an attempt to pass his land reforms, that were opposed by the short lived second Duma, Stolypin greatly restricted the franchise during elections for the third Duma. The end result was that the third Duma was dominated by the propertied classes who were loyal to the Tsar and no longer represented the will of people. As well as rigging the elections Stolypin brutally repressed the Tsar’s opponents by executing 5,000 and arresting 200,000 people. From this it can be argued that the third Duma substantially strengthened the Tsars power. However, when looked at from a different perspective it would be wrong to call the third Duma merely a front for re-established autocracy. During its full five years it carried out work in developing education which would have allowed people to become literate and so allowing ideas to spread which could have potentially threatened the Tsars power in the future. Also under the third Duma censorship regulations were relaxed and it provided a forum of debate where expression of opinion of any persuasion was allowed as long as it had a peaceful massage. This is important because these concessions had been granted by autocracy because it had realised that total suppression of opposition could no longer work. This essay argues that this shows that the 1905 revolution and its repercussions did have an, albeit limited, affect on autocracy. However progress made by third Duma was not to be continued by the fourth Duma.

The fourth Duma was marked by the absence of Stolypin. To replace Stolypin after his assassination the Tsar appointed a series of right-wing nonentities who did not know what they were doing. Whilst the third Duma had useful policies to improve education the fourth Duma concentrated on repression especially towards the Jews. Therefore it can be argued that the fourth Duma limited opposition towards autocracy. However, these programmes of repression created civil unrest as shown by the fact that between 1911 and 1914,the number of political motivated strikes rose from 24 to 2401. This clearly shows that people were unhappy with that kind of Duma and also the fact that national minorities were being persecuted it lost the Tsar support by the national minorities which caused problems in the future

In conclusion the time between 1905 and 1917 was turbulent. The 1905 revolution resulted in the Dumas the like of which there had never been before and through them some political progress was made to move Russia to a more democratic future. However the Tsar often undermined the power of the Dumas in order to keep autocracy alive and so restricted what they could have been capable of. This incessant undermining and violent suppression of opponents fuelled resentment and aided those who believed that the Tsarist system was going have to be destroyed rather than altered. Therefore this essay argues that although the Tsar managed to politically restrict his opponents and keep autocracy intact the way in which he did it cost him support of his people which was detrimental as when in 1917 he needed the support of his people the most. In conclusion the 1905 revolution had a fairly large impact of Tsarist autocracy even if the Tsar did not realise.

Red – linking sentence

Blue- topic sentence

Green- evidence to show how autocracy prevailed

Purple- Evidence to show that autocracy was harmed