How far do you agree? (Laura Davies)

From 1906, when he became Prime minister of Russia, to his assassination in 1911, right through to the present day, Stolypin, and his attempted salvage of Tsarism in Russia have aroused immense controversy among historians of the Russian revolution. Many believe that Stolypin’s reforms were the beginnings of a programme of change to save Tsarism when in fact, the majority of these reforms came too late, and were failures even before they were given time to attempt to save what was left of the Russian autocracy. One of Stolypin’s main outlooks was that reform should be introduced as a way of reducing the social bitterness that produced opposition.

It was with this in view that he attempted to solve the agrarian problem in Russia. He primarily believed that by creating a class of land owning peasants, known as the kulaks, who would owe their wealth and position in society to the state, he would weaken opposition among the peasants. He went about this by introducing a number of reforms, for example, by allowing householders to opt out of the village commune, making them more independent. Although this seemed like a step in the right direction, it had clearly not taken much effect as by 1915, not many more than 100,000 households had set up independently outside the commune. Furthermore, Stolypin’s idea to consolidate the system of strips in Russian agriculture into large plots did not succeed, as by 1914, a mere 10% of land had been consolidated. On the other hand, some people believe that Stolypin’s agrarian reforms were successful in reducing opposition and in the long run, could have saved Tsarism. For example, the historian Hugh Seton-Watson suggests that moving peasants from overpopulated European Russia to underpopulated Serbia provided the peasants with land, thus solving the problem of land shortage. On the contrary, what seemed like a simple solution to the problem, turned out to be the opposite, when the resettled peasants returned from Serbia because of a lack of accommodation. Although Stolypin did make several efforts to solve the problems of Russian agriculture in an attempt to reduce opposition, the majority of them failed, and, even if they were given time, they were far from the answer that was needed to salvage Tsarism. This attempted transformation of the agrarian problems in Russia was not the only feature of Stolypin’s work.

Stolypin also saw industrialisation as part of Russia’s modernisation and he believed that by achieving this, he would strengthen Tsarism. Although the Stolypin years did see an industry growth at 6% per year from 1906 to 1913, and that the St Petersburg workforce grew by a third between 1907 and 1912, the drawbacks of these ‘improvements’ soon outweighed the advantages. As the size of factories increased, they became more and more like breeding grounds for discontent towards the government. This surely, in the long run, would have increased, not decreased opposition against the autocracy. In addition, the increase in the size of the workforce in St Petersburg meant that the city could not cope and workers had to squeeze into existing shanty dwellings in which the conditions were terrible. Stolypin did legalise trade unions in 1906, but yet again, this was more of a failure than an improvement, as their activities were extremely restricted. Unions were not permitted to have a strike fund, so they could not provide relief for striking members and, as a result, the employers realised that long-term strikes were not feasible so they did not negotiate with the unions. Unions were left impotent and the number of strikes among the industrial workers fell. This gave the impression of industrial calm, when in fact, deep problems remained and this caused many workers to turn to the revolutionary parties for support. By 1914, the problems faced by Russia’s industry had been far from resolved by the Stolypin years and their aftermath.

The minor nationalities within Russia were given far less attention than the industry or the peasants during the Stolypin years. Stolypin was a Russian nationalist in outlook, and although he was prepared to accept the different nationalities within Russia, he quickly moved against the gains made by them in 1905-6. Throughout the third and fourth Dumas, the nationalities had little or no representation after having about 60 representatives in the first Duma. Not only did they gain very little from his agrarian reforms, especially in the Ukraine, but also Russian citizens were dominant to the extent that Russian peasants took priority over Polish landowners in the Polish Zemstva. On the other hand, a few politicians do argue that Stolypin made some advances for the minor nationalities, for example, Baltic Germans became better off due to their loyalty to the Tsar and Muslims were able to reassert themselves in some areas. However, the Baltic Germans were increasingly looking to the new, stronger Germany instead of the autocracy, and Muslims only made advances because of arguments within the Russian Orthodox Church. Moreover, the Jews continued to be scapegoats for government failures, they were persecuted frequently and often had their educational opportunities limited.

This limitation of educational opportunities remained similar for the rest of the population. Although the freedom of universities was introduced in August 1905, after 1908, there was an increasing interference in the running of universities and by 1911, large numbers of students had been expelled. Then again, the Zemstva and the city councils, as well as the government gave grants in an attempt to improve literacy in Russia. This did increase the literacy levels by over 10% from 1900 to 1914, although the majority of the people within Russia were still illiterate. The Stolypin years did see some minor advances in education within Russia, but they were clearly not enough to take part in trying to save Tsarism.

On the other hand, Stolypin’s attempts with the third Duma were slightly more successful than his other reforms. The control of Russia’s budget – which is always a key sign of where power lies – was gradually switching towards the Duma. In 1907, when the third Duma assembled, it oversaw 53% of Russian government expenditure. By 1912, this figure had risen to 62%. In addition, among the 2,571 bills it approved were social reforms that included a scheme of national insurance for industrial workers. However, problems still remained. The Duma had been rendered docile by Stolypin’s introduction of new electoral laws, resulting in the exclusion of tsarist critics and great restrictions on the right to vote. In the election to the third Duma, only one in six of the male population was entitled to vote and the peasants and industrial workers were virtually excluded. Some historians have speculated that, had Stolypin been allowed to continue his work with the Duma, Russia would have gradually changed into a modern state with a working parliamentary system, headed by the monarchy. However, the exclusion of the peasants and industrial workers from the Duma led to more, not less opposition against the monarchy, which certainly would not have allowed this change. Furthermore, the very people he was trying to save viewed Stolypin with suspicion in the Duma. He was disliked by the Tsar because he had grown in status to rival the Tsar while the Tsar preferred to be surrounded by people who posed no threat. Due to the brutality of his repressive measures, Stolypin grew to be hated by all the Revolutionary parties, and it was this hatred, which led to his assassination by a Socialist Revolutionary in 1911.

Although the Stolypin years, from 1906 to 1911, did witness several changes in Tsarist Russia, not all of them were changes for the better, and many did not go far enough. The gains made by nationalities before 1906 were destroyed, industry worsened in many areas and the peasants were barely better off in 1911 than they were in 1906, not to mention the major restrictions made on the right to vote in the third Duma. All of these factors contributed to the increase in opposition to Tsarism, and ultimately the downfall of the Russian monarchy. Stolypin’s work was no doubt an attempt to save Tsarism in Russia, but an attempt is all it was. Even if given time, Stolypin’s measures were far from the solution required to save Tsarism. They were simply too little, too late.