OCR Specification focus:
‘Limits on personal, political and religious freedom persisted despite change.’
Alexander II’s reforms reshaped Russia between 1855 and 1881, yet significant limits on personal, political and religious freedoms persisted, shaping the nature and impact of overall change.
Autocracy and Political Freedom under Alexander II
Alexander II’s reign, though often labelled the ‘Tsar Liberator’, retained the fundamental principle of autocracy — the absolute power of the tsar over state and society.
Autocracy: A system of government in which a single ruler holds supreme and unrestricted power, often justified by divine right or historical tradition.
Despite reforms aimed at modernisation, political authority remained centralised:
The tsar retained absolute legislative and executive powers, with ministers and officials accountable only to him.
The Council of State and State Chancellery, though slightly restructured, remained advisory, with no legislative independence.
No national representative body existed, and calls for a constitution or elected assembly were consistently rejected.
This ensured that political reform was top-down and limited, designed to strengthen the autocracy rather than dismantle it. Alexander II’s caution stemmed from fears of revolution and instability, as demonstrated by the 1848 revolutions in Europe.
Judicial Reform and Its Limits
One of the most celebrated reforms was the Judicial Reform of 1864, which introduced:
Independent courts and trial by jury for criminal cases
Justices of the Peace, elected by local zemstvos, for minor offences
The principle of equality before the law
However, important limitations remained:
Political crimes and offences against the state were tried in special courts without juries, often under police control.
Military courts retained jurisdiction over soldiers and could bypass standard legal procedures.
Peasants were still subject to volost courts, run by elected officials but lacking professional judges and often biased.
The Okhrana (secret police, established later under Alexander III but rooted in earlier practices) and police retained powers of arbitrary arrest and surveillance.
These restrictions reflected the regime’s determination to prevent judicial independence from threatening state security or tsarist authority.
Local Government: Zemstva and Their Boundaries
The Zemstvo Reform of 1864 established elected local councils responsible for welfare, education, and infrastructure.
Zemstvo Council of Tula Governorate (early 20th century). The photograph shows a provincial zemstvo administration building, the institutional setting for local service provision under Alexander II’s reforms. It illustrates structure and presence rather than decision-making rules; electoral weighting and central oversight are explained in the text. Source
While this was a significant step towards decentralisation, several key limitations curtailed its political potential:
The franchise was heavily weighted in favour of the nobility, giving them disproportionate control.
Zemstva had no power over taxation or law, and their decisions could be overturned by provincial governors appointed by the tsar.
They were barred from discussing political matters, limiting them to administrative functions.
Thus, while zemstvos introduced local self-government, they did not represent a move towards democracy. Their existence depended entirely on the goodwill of the tsar and could not challenge central authority.
Control of the Press and Education
Alexander II relaxed censorship in the early 1860s, recognising the need for intellectual freedom to foster modernisation. However, this liberalisation was partial and reversible:
The Censorship Statute of 1865 eased prior censorship for some publications but maintained strict state oversight.
Critical or radical publications could still be suppressed or banned, and editors faced prosecution for subversive material.
After the 1866 assassination attempt, censorship tightened again, reflecting growing state anxiety about revolutionary ideas.
Similarly, educational reforms expanded access to schooling and university autonomy, but control remained a state priority:
Curriculum content was regulated to promote loyalty to the tsar and the Orthodox Church.
Teachers and professors were monitored, and those suspected of radical sympathies faced dismissal.
Primary education remained limited, particularly for peasants, with literacy rates still low by 1881.
Personal and Religious Freedom
Despite some loosening of social controls, personal and religious freedoms remained tightly constrained.
Orthodoxy: The official religion of the Russian Empire, representing Eastern Orthodox Christianity under the authority of the Russian Orthodox Church and closely linked to the tsarist state.
The state continued to promote Orthodoxy, Autocracy, and Nationality as the ideological pillars of empire. This had significant implications:
Religious minorities — including Catholics, Protestants, Jews, and Muslims — faced legal discrimination, restrictions on worship, and limits on property ownership.
Conversion from Orthodoxy was illegal, while conversion to Orthodoxy was encouraged and rewarded.
The Pale of Settlement confined most Jews to specific western provinces, restricting movement, residence, and economic activity.
Pale of Settlement, c. 1884. This clean, high-resolution map shows the designated area in which most Jews were legally required to reside in the Russian Empire. Percentages indicate Jewish population intensity by locality; these numeric details exceed the syllabus but reinforce the scale of restriction. Source
Censorship of religious texts and state control over church appointments ensured religious institutions supported autocracy.
These policies reflected the state’s belief that religious uniformity reinforced political stability and imperial cohesion.
Peasants and Limits on Social Freedom
The Emancipation Edict of 1861 was a landmark in Russian social history, freeing around 50 million serfs from legal bondage.
Grigoriy Myasoyedov, Reading of the 1861 Manifesto (1873). The painting depicts villagers listening as the emancipation terms are proclaimed, highlighting the event’s ceremonial importance. As an artwork, it includes compositional and emotional detail beyond the syllabus but effectively illustrates the moment students are studying. Source
Serfdom: A system in which peasants were legally bound to the land and subject to the authority of landowners, with obligations of labour or rent.
Yet emancipation brought limited freedom:
Peasants were required to redeem their land through 49 years of payments, often for land of poor quality and insufficient size.
Land was allocated to the mir (village commune), which controlled redistribution and migration, limiting individual mobility and economic freedom.
The state used the mir to collect taxes and maintain social order, reinforcing control over the rural population.
Peasants remained subject to poll taxes, military conscription, and strict surveillance, ensuring their continued subordination despite formal liberation.
Overall Change: Continuity Amid Reform
Alexander II’s reforms undoubtedly modernised aspects of Russian society and governance, introducing new legal principles, local administration, and social mobility. Yet the overall change was constrained by enduring priorities:
Autocracy remained unchallenged, shaping the nature and limits of all reforms.
Security and stability were prioritised over individual rights, especially in response to revolutionary threats.
Social hierarchies and privileges persisted, particularly favouring the nobility and Orthodox Church.
Many reforms were reversed or diluted after 1866, revealing the regime’s unwillingness to embrace sustained liberalisation.
Thus, while Russia changed significantly under Alexander II, limits on personal, political and religious freedom persisted despite change, ensuring that the foundations of the tsarist system remained intact even as elements of modernisation took hold.
FAQ
Alexander II believed that autocracy was essential to maintaining Russia’s unity, security, and imperial integrity. He saw reforms as tools to strengthen the state rather than diminish his authority.
The failure of revolutions in Europe in 1848 reinforced his belief that rapid liberalisation could lead to instability. Reforms like the zemstvos and judicial changes were carefully limited to avoid undermining tsarist control. Alexander often described his actions as “reform from above” to prevent “revolution from below,” illustrating his view that change must serve autocracy, not replace it.
The Orthodox Church was deeply entwined with the tsarist state and acted as a key pillar of ideological control.
It promoted loyalty to the tsar and the empire, teaching obedience as a divine duty.
Non-Orthodox faiths were tolerated but heavily restricted, and proselytising among Orthodox believers was forbidden.
Conversion to Orthodoxy was incentivised with privileges, while apostasy from Orthodoxy was punished.
Through these measures, the Church helped legitimise state authority and suppress religious diversity.
Censorship policy shifted in response to political pressures. Initially, the Censorship Statute of 1865 relaxed pre-publication controls, allowing more open discussion of social and economic issues.
However, following the 1866 assassination attempt on the tsar, censorship tightened again. Revolutionary and liberal publications were suppressed, and editors faced prosecution for promoting dissent.
This oscillation reflected Alexander’s balancing act: encouraging debate to modernise Russia while curbing ideas that might challenge autocracy.
The mir controlled most aspects of rural life, limiting peasants’ autonomy even after emancipation.
It redistributed land periodically, preventing individuals from consolidating or selling property.
Peasants required permission from the mir to leave the village, restricting internal migration.
It was responsible for collecting redeemable payments and taxes, reinforcing state control.
Although the mir offered a form of communal self-governance, it served as an instrument of state oversight and maintained peasant dependency.
Alexander II feared that a national parliament could become a platform for liberal and revolutionary opposition, undermining the foundations of autocracy.
Russia’s vast size and diverse population also made him doubt that a single assembly could govern effectively. He believed existing advisory bodies, such as the Council of State, provided sufficient input without limiting tsarist power.
The rejection reflected a broader theme of his reign: embracing reform to modernise governance and society but rejecting any steps towards constitutional monarchy.
Practice Questions
Question 1 (2 marks):
Identify two ways in which Alexander II limited personal or religious freedom in Russia despite his reforms.
Mark Scheme:
1 mark for each accurate example of a limitation on personal or religious freedom (maximum 2 marks).
Possible answers include:Most Jews were confined to the Pale of Settlement, restricting where they could live.
Conversion from Orthodoxy was illegal, while conversion to Orthodoxy was encouraged.
Religious minorities faced legal discrimination and restrictions on worship.
Censorship of religious texts ensured alignment with state ideology.
Censorship laws limited what could be published, reducing personal freedom of expression.
Question 2 (6 marks):
Explain how Alexander II’s reforms failed to remove key limits on political freedom in Russia.
Mark Scheme:
Level 1 (1–2 marks):
Simple statements or generalised comments with limited detail.
May identify limits but with little or no explanation.
Examples: “The tsar still had power.” / “There was no parliament.”
Level 2 (3–4 marks):
Some explanation with relevant factual support.
Shows awareness of how limits continued but may lack depth or precision.
Examples:“The tsar kept absolute power and could overrule decisions.”
“The zemstvos were local councils but could not make political decisions.”
Level 3 (5–6 marks):
Clear, detailed explanation of how reforms retained political limits, supported by accurate knowledge.
Demonstrates understanding of the tension between reform and autocratic control.
Indicative content:The tsar retained absolute legislative and executive power, and no national representative body was created.
The Council of State remained advisory, and the state refused demands for a constitution.
The zemstvos were elected but had limited powers, and governors could overrule them.
Judicial reforms excluded political crimes from jury trials, ensuring political dissent remained tightly controlled.
Political expression remained restricted through press censorship and police surveillance.
