OCR Specification focus:
‘Personal, political and religious limits intersected with economic and social change.’
Between March and October 1917, the Provisional Government faced the dual challenge of managing Russia’s collapsing war effort and steering the country towards democracy. Efforts to modernise the economy and society collided with entrenched limits on personal, political and religious freedom, creating tensions that undermined its authority.
Limits on Freedom under the Provisional Government
The overthrow of Tsar Nicholas II in February 1917 raised expectations of liberty, but the Provisional Government struggled to deliver meaningful freedoms. Its legitimacy rested on temporary authority until a Constituent Assembly could be elected, yet the pressures of war, social unrest and revolutionary agitation constrained its actions.
Personal Freedom
Initially, the Provisional Government appeared committed to liberal reform:
Abolition of censorship allowed freer expression and a flourishing press.
Amnesty for political prisoners symbolised a break from autocratic repression.
Freedom of speech, assembly and association were proclaimed, encouraging public debate.
However, these freedoms soon faced limits:
Continuing martial law in many regions restricted movement and civil rights.
Desertion from the army was treated harshly; soldiers could face severe penalties, undermining claims of personal liberty.
Rising crime and disorder prompted local authorities to curtail public gatherings, limiting the very freedoms initially promised.
Martial Law: The imposition of direct military control over civilian functions, often limiting freedoms such as movement, assembly and speech during crises.
Despite initial liberalisation, the state’s inability to maintain order without coercion revealed the fragile nature of personal freedom during a revolutionary transition.
Political Freedom
The Provisional Government legalised political parties and allowed open political activity, enabling groups like the Bolsheviks, Mensheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries to operate openly. Soviets (workers’ councils), especially the influential Petrograd Soviet, emerged as powerful alternative centres of authority.
Assembly of the Petrograd Soviet, 1917. The soviet’s mass, representative forum exemplified how authority was dispersed beyond the Provisional Government, limiting its capacity to enact and protect new freedoms. This image visually anchors the concept of dual power. Source
Yet political freedom was curtailed by several factors:
Dual power between the Provisional Government and Soviets limited genuine governmental authority.
Attempts to suppress radical groups after events like the July Days (1917) included arrests of Bolshevik leaders and censorship of revolutionary newspapers.
Shooting of demonstrators on Nevsky Prospekt, Petrograd, July 1917. The image illustrates how the Provisional Government answered mass protest with force, narrowing the scope of political freedom. It directly exemplifies the repressive response that followed the July Days. Source
Delays in calling the Constituent Assembly eroded public trust and were seen as a betrayal of democratic promises.
The balance between tolerating opposition and preserving state authority proved elusive. The government’s repressive responses alienated radicals while failing to reassure conservatives, leaving it politically vulnerable.
Religious Freedom
The collapse of tsarist autocracy weakened the dominance of the Russian Orthodox Church, and the Provisional Government proclaimed religious liberty:
Freedom of conscience was guaranteed, allowing minority faiths to practise openly.
Legal discrimination against non-Orthodox communities was formally abolished.
However, practical obstacles remained:
The Orthodox Church retained close ties to the state and continued to receive privileges.
Administrative inertia and war-related disruption slowed reforms, limiting their reach.
Religious tensions persisted in border regions and among national minorities, often intersecting with political unrest.
Thus, while the government declared religious liberty, the extent of change was partial and inconsistent.
Economic Change under the Provisional Government
The Provisional Government inherited a collapsing wartime economy marked by inflation, food shortages and transport breakdowns. Economic policy was shaped by the competing pressures of maintaining the war effort and addressing revolutionary demands for social justice.
Economic Crisis and Government Response
The wartime economy faced severe challenges:
Inflation eroded wages and savings, fuelling discontent among urban workers.
Disruption of railways and supply lines caused chronic shortages of food and fuel.
Industrial output declined as strikes and desertions disrupted production.
Government responses were limited and often ineffective:
Efforts to stabilise the currency and restore supply networks achieved little amid ongoing war.
Attempts to regulate prices and requisition grain provoked resistance from peasants and traders.
Reliance on foreign loans deepened economic dependency without resolving domestic instability.
Land and Peasant Demands
Land reform was central to rural discontent. Peasants, inspired by revolutionary rhetoric, began seizing estates without authorisation. The government refused to sanction redistribution, insisting that the Constituent Assembly must decide the issue.
This cautious stance alienated peasants:
Continued landlord ownership fuelled resentment and violence.
Soviet land decrees, though unofficial, gained popular support and undermined government authority.
The refusal to address land hunger weakened the Provisional Government’s rural base.
Urban Labour and Industrial Control
Urban workers demanded better conditions, higher wages and greater control over production. Factory committees, often aligned with socialist parties, challenged managerial authority.
The government’s responses highlighted the tension between reform and order:
It resisted calls for workers’ control, fearing economic collapse and loss of investment.
Strike action and industrial disputes were met with repression and military intervention.
Relations between workers and the state deteriorated, feeding support for radical alternatives like Bolshevik workers’ soviets.
War and Economic Policy
The decision to continue Russia’s participation in the First World War exacerbated economic problems:
Huge military expenditure drained resources from civilian needs.
Mobilisation of manpower deepened labour shortages in industry and agriculture.
Continued defeats at the front undermined confidence in the government’s competence.
The June Offensive (1917), a failed military campaign, symbolised the destructive link between war policy and economic breakdown. It intensified desertions, sparked mutinies and accelerated the collapse of state authority.
Intersection of Freedom and Economic Change
The Provisional Government’s experience illustrates the deep interconnection between limits on freedom and economic transformation:
Efforts to maintain order amid economic crisis led to the restriction of personal and political freedoms, contradicting revolutionary expectations.
Failure to resolve economic grievances intensified social unrest, prompting more repressive responses.
Promises of religious liberty were constrained by administrative weakness and wartime priorities.
Economic hardship radicalised society, empowering movements like the Bolsheviks that rejected liberal freedoms in favour of revolutionary change.
By October 1917, the government’s inability to reconcile freedom with effective economic reform had fatally eroded its legitimacy. Its fall to the Bolsheviks reflected not only its political weakness but also the unresolved tension between liberty and survival in a state undergoing revolutionary transformation.
FAQ
The decision to continue the war deepened economic collapse and social unrest, forcing the government to prioritise order over liberty. Military defeats and mass desertions led to fears of insurrection, prompting the use of martial law and the suppression of protests.
Censorship of radical publications increased as criticism of the war mounted, and authorities curtailed public gatherings to prevent anti-war demonstrations. These measures, though aimed at maintaining stability, undermined the liberal freedoms proclaimed in March 1917.
Leaders believed that land reform should be decided by the Constituent Assembly, not imposed by an unelected government. They feared that premature redistribution could destabilise the economy, undermine property rights, and alienate conservative landowners and allies.
This inaction, however, eroded support in the countryside. Peasants increasingly turned to soviet decrees and local self-action, highlighting how the government’s cautious stance on economic change fuelled political alienation and weakened its authority.
Factory committees, formed by workers to manage production, emerged as grassroots organisations challenging state and employer authority. They often demanded control over hiring, wages and output, reducing managerial power.
While these committees reflected workers’ push for economic democracy, the Provisional Government saw them as destabilising and refused to legalise their authority. This tension led to clashes, strikes, and occasional use of military force, further narrowing the scope of political and industrial freedom.
Minority faiths such as Jews, Old Believers and Muslims benefited from the abolition of legal discrimination and the proclamation of freedom of conscience. Restrictions on worship, property ownership, and public participation were eased in principle.
However, practical change was limited. War conditions, bureaucratic inertia and Orthodox Church influence meant reforms were inconsistently applied. In rural areas, minority communities still faced prejudice, and state institutions remained closely tied to Orthodox traditions.
Censorship was initially abolished, leading to an explosion of newspapers and political pamphlets across the ideological spectrum. However, as unrest intensified, the government reintroduced controls to suppress revolutionary agitation.
Bolshevik and anarchist presses were targeted, especially after the July Days.
Military censorship persisted to prevent dissemination of sensitive war information.
Regional authorities sometimes imposed stricter controls than the central government.
This oscillation between openness and repression reflected the broader tension between liberal ideals and the need to preserve authority in a volatile environment.
Practice Questions
Question 1 (2 marks):
Give two ways in which the Provisional Government limited political freedom in 1917.
Mark scheme:
Award 1 mark for each valid point identified, up to a maximum of 2 marks.
Possible answers:
Arresting Bolshevik leaders and censoring revolutionary newspapers after the July Days. (1)
Delaying the summoning of the Constituent Assembly, undermining democratic expectations. (1)
Maintaining martial law, which restricted civil liberties and political activities. (1)
Question 2 (6 marks):
Explain how the Provisional Government’s economic policies contributed to limits on personal and political freedom in 1917.
Mark scheme:
Level 1 (1–2 marks):
Basic description of either economic policies or limits on freedom with minimal linkage.
May identify one example, e.g. “Economic problems continued, so freedoms were restricted.”
Level 2 (3–4 marks):
Clear explanation of at least one link between economic policies and restrictions on freedom.
Some detail on how war-related spending, inflation, or food shortages influenced government actions.
Example: “The government continued the war, causing economic strain and food shortages. This led to protests that were suppressed, reducing political freedom.”
Level 3 (5–6 marks):
Detailed explanation of multiple links between economic change and limits on freedom.
Clear understanding of causation and interplay.
May include references to grain requisitioning provoking peasant unrest, repression of strikes and demonstrations, or how wartime mobilisation deepened state control over personal life.
Example: “The Provisional Government’s decision to continue the war worsened inflation and food shortages, leading to strikes and protests. To maintain order, authorities curtailed freedom of assembly and used troops to suppress demonstrations, reducing both personal and political freedoms. Economic dependency on foreign loans also limited policy flexibility, constraining broader social reforms.”
.jpg){kind=link}