"Given time, Stolypin's work may have saved Tsarism." Discuss.

Laura Coonan

Petr Stolypin, during his time in power between 1906 and 1911, introduced many reforms into Russia. However, it is questionable the extent that these reforms benefited the Russians and the Tsarist autocracy, as it could be said that these policies merely supported the collapse of Tsarism.

Stolypin, the son of an affluent landowner came into power a year after the February Revolution of 1905, when the Tsar's emperorship was threatened by the Russian people. Once in power, he was determined to introduce reforms which would not only appease the Russian citizens, but also secure and maintain the Tsar's monarchy and autocratic rule throughout Russia. He considered the disruption by the peasants and workers rioting against the conservatism of the bureaucracy, to be his first step in creating a modern Russia. He believed he would solve this by "Suppression first and then, and only then, reform".

Although he had practically and carefully thought-out his plan to modernise and economically develop Russia, he claimed it would take "20 years of peace to ensure complete success" from his policies. It can then be said that Stolypin was extremely naïve concerning this disruption across Russia, as surely reforms were needed immediately, not after twenty years dependent on whether Russia was at war or not?

Stolypin firstly won favour of the Tsar and made his own reputation through his policy "Terror for Terrorists", whereby he brutally suppressed opposition to the Tsar. He "met their violence with his violence", that being death by hanging for any person opposing the Tsarist rule, these being; strikers, mutiny in the armed forces and Socialist Revolutionary death squads.

Firstly, he established Military Courts to try and execute suspects. Through these courts between September 1906 and May 1907, 1200 suspected opposers were executed. Secondly, he placed provinces under martial law and so banned the publishing of over 1,000 newspapers and, during his five years in power, 600 Trade Unions were abolished.

This on one hand would seem that Stolypin's "Terror for Terrorists" policy was to a great extent, a successful suppression of opponents to the Tsarist rule. However, on the other hand it is possible that such restrictions on the Russian people's freedom, would only strengthen their anti-Tsarist, conservatism beliefs.

One of Stolypin's key aims was to create a class of land-owning peasants who would then owe their wealth and position to the State and thus, they would no longer revolt against the Tsarist government. R.B MacKean, a historian critical of Stolypin's land reform policy said; "the agrarian reforms stood little chance of developing a conservative, capitalist peasantry". This is because it was simply too hard to impose capitalist ways on the uneducated, backward Russian peasants.

In addition to this problem, there was the lack of a strong bureaucratic structure to implement these agrarian reforms, as much of the gentry opposed and attempted to stop this policy from working, as it would mean themselves giving up parts of their estates to the peasants.

Thus, "Stolypin was undermined by the very people he was trying to save," states Orlando Figes, a historian critical of the agrarian reforms. As a result of this lack of co-operation and assistance, only 10% of land had been converted into farms for peasants by 1911, leaving 90% of Russian peasants living in absolute poverty, the way they were before the five years while Stolypin was Prime Minister.Nevertheless, it could be questioned; had Stolypin been given the support and assistance by the Tsar and his gentry, would this agricultural reform really have successfully modernised Russia, or was it simply too little too late?

Stolypin saw the Industrialisation of Russia as an extremely important factor in its modernisation. However, many problems occurred under Stolypin's industrial policy such as the rapid growth of the workforce, for example in Petrograd, it increased by 250,000men between 1906 and 1912. This caused major housing problems due to a great lack of availability, which resulted in shanty dwellings erected beside the factories. Furthermore, many factory owners greatly exploited the workers and as a result, many workers established trade unions.

This clearly emphasises the lack of practical thought behind this reform, and questions the possibility of such a disorganised, carelessly planned reform policy, ever being successful. Also, the activities of the workers were severely restricted as they were forbidden from having strike funds to relieve strikers and thus, employers refused to negotiate with the workers. The displeased workers then turned to political parties for support.

On the other hand, the number of strikers decreased to 46,000 men during Stolypin's time as Prime Minister. Although, in 1912 only one year after the assassination of Stolypin, the number of strikers had risen rapidly to 725,000 men. This indicates that although the Stolypin years gave the impression of industrial calm, in reality Stolypin was unable to solve any issues concerning the workers and so he merely restricted their freedom to protest.

Moving on to the National Minorities for whom, it seems, Stolypin also did very little. It is even disputable that he "took back the gains made by the nationalities" prior to his time as Prime Minister.These nationalities although having 60 representatives in the First Duma, they had little or no representation in the Third and the Fourth Dumas. Both whose elections were controlled by Stolypin. In addition to this, poor Russian peasants were given priority over rich Polish landlords in city shops. Furthermore, any religions different to Orthodoxy were persecuted, by being blamed for governmental failures and so had their educational opportunities restricted.

Although in Ukrane a little was gained from Stolypin's reforms, it is shown to a great extent that his reforms concerning the national minorities had no positive effect, due to his strong, favourable opinions of Russian pacification. Therefore, these nationalities were clearly looking towards revolutionary tactics against the Tsarist Empire, due to their discontent. How much more of this corrupt and unjust treatment could these nationalities stand?

Nevertheless, it could be said that through the Third Duma, Stolypin was successful. This success was based on his belief that the Russian peasant's ignorance and opposition to the Tsar was due to Russia's social and political distress, that stemming from an uneducated population unable to provide the skilled workforce required for the much needed modernisation. Thus, an improvement in education was of major importance to Stolypin's reform programme, so much so that through the Duma, expenditure on education quadrupled. However, would this not only make the peasants more aware of their desperate position?

During this period, the Duma increased its influence in controlling government expenditure by 62%. Also it greatly influenced Russia's defensive and foreign policy, this shown that the Duma was now a parliamentary organisation, increasing its role in governmental activities. From this it is possible to argue that; had Stolypin not been assassinated and Russia not been involved in the First World War, through Stolypin's ideology Russia would have become a modernised state with a working parliamentary system controlled by a constitutional monarchy.

However, it could be disputed that the Tsar and his advisers regarded Stolypin's programme of reforms with suspicion. They were adamant that Autocracy, Nationality and Orthodoxy were best for Russia, and so greatly disapproved in the Duma's influence in state affairs. By 1911 Stolypin's time as Prime Minister was running out rapidly; "He was politically dead long before his actual death", as a contemporary commentator in Russia had said.

Stolypin's 'political death' occurred because he had lost the support of the Octobrists, whose support was vital as he had altered the elections for the Third Duma so as to maintain an overall majority of right - wing, conservative Octobrists. Once their support was lost along with the Tsar's suspicion over him and his policies, Stolypin's days as Prime Minister were numbered. This itself clearly indicates the weakness of Stolypin's reforms throughout Russia.

Overall, Stolypin's reforms, given time, would not have saved Tsarism. This is because he claimed it would take "20 years of peace" for his reforms to be a success. However, it is extremely unlikely that any country could be guaranteed twenty years of peace far less one with such an obstinate, autocratic ruler. Also, the lack of support from the Tsar and the Russian bureaucracy made work much harder for Stolypin to carry out.