OCR Specification focus:
‘Changes in government and central administration accompanied reform.’
Alexander II’s domestic reforms reshaped the Russian state’s central administration, balancing autocratic authority with new institutions, legal changes, and bureaucratic expansion to modernise governance after the Crimean War.
The Context of Reform and Governmental Change
Alexander II’s reign (1855–1881) was marked by profound attempts to modernise the Russian Empire following defeat in the Crimean War (1853–1856). The war exposed deep administrative inefficiencies, outdated governance, and a rigid autocracy unable to respond swiftly to military and social crises. Reforming government and central administration was essential to strengthening state capacity, improving coordination, and sustaining imperial authority in a changing world.
The tsar’s commitment to autocracy – the principle of unlimited monarchical power – remained intact.
Autocracy: A system of government in which supreme power is concentrated in the hands of one ruler, whose authority is not restricted by written laws or legislative bodies.
However, within this autocratic framework, Alexander II initiated reforms that aimed to rationalise governance, improve efficiency, and reduce corruption. Central administration became more structured and professional, complementing broader reforms in law, society, and the economy.
Imperial Autocracy and the Tsar’s Authority
The Tsar as Supreme Authority
The emperor continued to be the source of all power within the Russian Empire. His authority derived from divine right and was considered inviolable. Alexander II maintained this ideological foundation while recognising that effective governance required modernisation of the machinery beneath him.
The Imperial Chancellery, which acted as the tsar’s personal administrative office, continued to oversee petitions, legislation, and imperial decrees.
The Council of Ministers, formed in 1861, was tasked with coordinating government departments more efficiently, though it remained subordinate to the tsar’s will.
The State Council, composed of appointed nobles and bureaucrats, continued to serve as an advisory body but gained a more structured role in reviewing legislation.
Ilya Repin’s painting depicts the State Council at a ceremonial sitting, conveying the hierarchy, formality and personnel who framed high-level policy and legislative advice in imperial Russia. Although painted for the 1901 centenary, the institution’s composition and ceremonial procedures visualise the central advisory tier discussed in the notes. Extra historical detail includes late-imperial uniforms and decorations not required by the syllabus. Source
Despite these developments, no constitutional limits were placed on the tsar’s authority. Reforms were intended to enhance autocratic power, not diminish it.
Reform of Central Government Structures
The Council of Ministers and Administrative Coordination
One of Alexander II’s most significant administrative reforms was the creation of the Council of Ministers in 1861. It was designed to improve coordination between ministries, reduce duplication of work, and enable faster decision-making.
Chaired by the tsar or a senior minister, the Council handled inter-ministerial policy questions.
Its remit included reviewing proposed legislation, discussing state finances, and managing cross-departmental issues.
Although the Council lacked independent power, it symbolised a shift toward more collective governance, even within an autocratic state.
This reform marked an attempt to bridge the gap between imperial decision-making and practical governance needs.
Ministries and Bureaucratic Expansion
Alexander II reorganised and expanded the ministerial system to strengthen state control and improve efficiency. Ministries became more specialised and were staffed by a growing class of professional civil servants.
Ministries for finance, interior, justice, war, and education gained clearer remits and more structured bureaucracies.
New ministries and departments were created to oversee reforms in emancipation, judicial administration, and education.
Bureaucratic recruitment became increasingly based on education and merit, reflecting a move towards professionalisation.
However, patronage and nepotism still influenced appointments, and inefficiencies persisted, particularly in provincial administration.
Judicial and Legal Administration
Legal Reforms and the Ministry of Justice
A major administrative innovation came with the Judicial Reforms of 1864, which overhauled Russia’s archaic legal system. These reforms aimed to create a judiciary that was more efficient, impartial, and independent.
The Senate & Synod Building in St Petersburg symbolised the apex of the judicial hierarchy; the Governing Senate acted as the supreme court of cassation overseeing appeals from lower courts. Its monumental classicism reflects the centralised authority underpinning Alexander II’s legal reorganisation. (This architectural context exceeds the syllabus’ minimal detail but clarifies how reforms mapped onto institutions.) Source
The Ministry of Justice gained expanded responsibilities for overseeing courts and legal officials.
New courts of law were established, including district courts and courts of appeal, to provide a structured legal hierarchy.
Judges were given greater security of tenure, and trials became public, with the introduction of trial by jury in certain cases.
These changes not only modernised legal administration but also reflected a broader shift toward rule-based governance.
Central and Local Government Interaction
Central Oversight of Zemstva
In 1864, Alexander II introduced the zemstva – elected local assemblies – as part of his broader reform programme. Although technically part of local government, they were closely supervised by the central administration.
Governors, appointed by the Ministry of the Interior, retained ultimate authority over zemstva decisions.
The Ministry of the Interior monitored local policies and could veto zemstvo actions deemed contrary to imperial interests.
This ensured that local initiatives remained aligned with central objectives, illustrating how reform could be balanced with autocratic control.
The zemstva reflected Alexander II’s willingness to delegate responsibility without relinquishing ultimate authority.
This 1868 lithograph portrays a zemstvo assembly, highlighting composition and debate within elected local bodies created under Alexander II. It complements the notes’ emphasis on how local governance contributed data and implementation capacity while remaining under central supervision. The artistic commentary on social dynamics is additional context beyond the syllabus. Source
The Role of the Secret Police and Internal Security
The Third Section and Its Legacy
The Third Section of His Imperial Majesty’s Own Chancellery, established under Nicholas I, remained active during the early years of Alexander II’s reign. It was responsible for political surveillance, censorship, and the suppression of dissent.
The Third Section monitored revolutionary groups, censored publications, and arrested political opponents.
It played a crucial role in responding to growing opposition movements, including populists and anarchists.
By the 1870s, criticism of the Third Section’s inefficiency and heavy-handedness grew. In 1880, Alexander II replaced it with the Okhrana, a more modern secret police organisation under the Ministry of the Interior, marking a significant change in state security administration.
Impact and Limitations of Administrative Reforms
Achievements in Governance
Alexander II’s reforms transformed the machinery of state in several ways:
Improved coordination through the Council of Ministers and structured ministries.
Modernised legal administration, enhancing the legitimacy and predictability of government actions.
Professionalisation of bureaucracy, fostering a more competent and educated civil service.
Structured interaction with local government, balancing reform with central control.
These changes allowed the Russian state to operate more effectively while maintaining autocratic principles.
Persistent Constraints and Autocratic Continuity
Despite these advances, significant limitations remained:
The tsar retained absolute authority, and institutions lacked independent power.
Bureaucratic inefficiency and corruption continued to undermine state performance.
Administrative reforms were unevenly implemented across Russia’s vast empire, with rural areas often left behind.
Political opposition and revolutionary activity persisted, highlighting the limitations of administrative reform without broader political change.
Administrative Reform and the Survival of Autocracy
Alexander II’s reforms were not intended to dismantle autocracy but to strengthen it by modernising the state apparatus. By enhancing coordination, professionalising administration, and reforming legal structures, the tsar sought to make autocratic rule more efficient and responsive. Yet the inherent tensions between modernisation and autocratic control limited their transformative potential. The evolving structure of central administration under Alexander II laid important foundations for later developments, while also revealing the enduring contradictions of imperial governance in nineteenth-century Russia.
FAQ
The Council of Ministers, created in 1861, differed from previous bodies like the Committee of Ministers by providing a formal structure for inter-ministerial coordination rather than merely reporting to the tsar individually.
It met regularly to discuss cross-departmental issues, proposed legislation, and state finances. Although it had no independent authority, it enabled more coherent decision-making across the expanding bureaucracy.
This shift marked a step towards a more centralised and collaborative form of governance, while still firmly within the framework of autocracy.
Education became increasingly important for civil service recruitment, with emphasis on graduates from universities and specialist schools.
The Ministry of Education expanded secondary and higher education to create a pool of qualified administrators.
Legal training grew in importance following the 1864 judicial reforms, as judges and lawyers required formal qualifications.
Educational reforms aimed to improve bureaucratic competence, though patronage and noble privilege still influenced many appointments.
This reliance on education reflected Alexander II’s desire for a more efficient, merit-based central administration.
Ministries became more specialised and gained clearer remits, a significant departure from the overlapping and poorly defined responsibilities of earlier decades.
The Ministry of Justice was strengthened to oversee the reformed judiciary.
The Ministry of the Interior assumed broader responsibilities for policing, censorship, and local government oversight.
New departments emerged to manage emancipation and economic change.
These developments reflected an effort to rationalise the state apparatus, enabling it to respond more effectively to social, economic, and political challenges.
Despite improving coordination, the Council of Ministers lacked real power because all decisions ultimately depended on the tsar’s approval.
It could not enact legislation independently and served only as an advisory and discussion forum.
Strong-willed ministers often pursued their own agendas, limiting collaboration.
The tsar could bypass the Council entirely, issuing decrees directly through the Imperial Chancellery.
This ensured that, while administrative efficiency improved, autocratic authority remained unchallenged.
The Third Section was increasingly criticised for inefficiency, corruption, and its inability to prevent the growth of revolutionary groups.
Its methods were outdated and often reactive rather than preventative. The rise of more organised opposition, such as Narodnaya Volya, revealed its weaknesses.
The Okhrana was created to modernise internal security, using more systematic surveillance and infiltration. Placed under the Ministry of the Interior, it reflected a shift toward integrating security within the broader administrative structure while maintaining autocratic control.
Practice Questions
Question 1 (2 marks)
Identify two ways in which Alexander II changed the structure of central government in Russia.
Mark Scheme (2 marks total):
Award 1 mark for each correct point identified, up to 2 marks.
Possible answers include:
Establishment of the Council of Ministers in 1861 to improve coordination between ministries. (1)
Reorganisation and expansion of the ministerial system with clearer remits and professionalised civil service. (1)
Expansion of the Ministry of Justice to oversee legal reforms and courts. (1)
Greater structure and role for the State Council in reviewing legislation. (1)
Question 2 (6 marks)
Explain how Alexander II’s reforms of central administration aimed to strengthen autocratic rule.
Mark Scheme (6 marks total):
Award marks according to the quality and depth of explanation:
Level 1 (1–2 marks): Basic description of reforms with limited explanation of their link to autocracy.
E.g. “Alexander II created the Council of Ministers and new ministries.”
Level 2 (3–4 marks): Clear explanation of how reforms improved administration, with some reference to autocracy.
E.g. “Alexander II created the Council of Ministers to coordinate departments, helping the tsar manage the state more effectively.”
Level 3 (5–6 marks): Detailed explanation of how reforms modernised administration while preserving autocratic control, with precise examples.
E.g. “Alexander II’s reforms strengthened autocracy by improving the efficiency of central government without limiting the tsar’s power. The Council of Ministers, created in 1861, coordinated ministries but remained subordinate to the emperor. The expansion of the Ministry of Justice and the reorganisation of the bureaucracy ensured that reforms supported imperial authority. Even elected zemstva were kept under the oversight of governors and the Ministry of the Interior, maintaining central control.”
