Could the Survival of Tsar Alexander II Have Peacefully Created a Democracy?

In 1882, Alexander Romanov, Tsar of the Russias, was 48 hours away from implementing a constitution limiting his powers, and an elected legislature. Before this happened, however, he was assassinated by anarchists. His heir was a hardline reactionary, and Russian politics was so radicalized that the Bolsheviks gained an opening. If Alexander had lived, could a true parliamentary democracy have been implemented without bloodshed?
 
It is possible. All depends how long Alexander II lives and how he dies. If Alexander II lives ten years longer and dies with natural causes, there is good changes for transition to western democracy. Alexander III not make things easy but leastly he can't easily ruin everything.
 
I believe that had Alexander II lived, Russia would have had some form of reformed, parliamentary monarchy. Certainly he was a reformist, and going to see to a Duma that was a parliament. He was the reformist the Tsarism of Russia needed to survive. Without him, Tsarist Russia continued as an anarchism that could not survived, and lead to the radicalism that produced the Communists. "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable". Alexander III was terrible. He was not the Tsar Russia needed at that time. Had a parliamentary monarchy been in place alongside other reforms, a conservative like Alexander III could have been tolerable. But as it was, he was the continuation of a broken system that was never to be reformed. I see it as one of the saddest things in history that Alexander II was murdered.
 
Well, TBH, Russian history doesn't give me much hope, but it's possible. Would Alexander III have the ability to disolve the Duma and his predecessor's constitution? Or would that be an overreach? I'm kinda sketchy on Russia history.
 
Well, TBH, Russian history doesn't give me much hope, but it's possible. Would Alexander III have the ability to disolve the Duma and his predecessor's constitution? Or would that be an overreach? I'm kinda sketchy on Russia history.

I think had the infrastructure been in place, even if his successor was a conservative, they would not have been able to undue that progress.
 

LordKalvert

Banned
Possible but doubtful. The proposed constitution was really nothing of the sort- it did allow for the zemstvos to send delegates to a national assembly. It would have the power to initiate legislation but it still called for an absolute veto by the Tsar.

Probably Alexander would have grown tired of the whole thing pretty quickly. It would have been a disaster as it would have only increased the powers of the nobility and increased strife in the country

How long Alexander II lives is important. Alexander III only lives another 13 years, so we could easily see his reign just skipped. How that affects Nicholas is anyone's guess. The really bad part of Nicholas' reign is the beginning when he kept hsi father's ministers and followed a course of guessing what his father would have done

A reactionary Tsar would have little trouble dispensing with the constitution as designed. It would have no popular support and Nicholas never had much of a problem rewriting the Duma laws even in his much weakened state after the 1905 upheavals
 
Last edited:
Probably Alexander would have grown tired of the whole thing pretty quickly. It would have been a disaster as it would have only increased the powers of the nobility and increased strife in the country

It's a good point you make. The Russian nobility had a reputation as reactionaries who were definitely prone to actively enforcing their will on occasion (Rasputin, anyone). Let's not forget Tsarist Russia lead the way in Europe for a few centuries in the delicate art of the palace coup. They might again conduct machinations against a liberally-inclined tsar if they feel strong enough...

OP: https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=340953

A discussion from a little while back on the subject
 
Personally I think we overestimate Alexander and the word democracy. Chances are that, if the Emperor really planned to give Russia a constitution, it would be similar to Germany and Austria's. Both made ministers responsible solely to the crown, gave much emergency power to the Monarch and kept the military out of the domain of any Parliament. However, they did allow elections on a national scale, power of the purse to the Parliament and at least some freedom of the press (censorship still existed but in many cases it seemed to be self-censorship similar to the British during the Abdication crisis). It wouldn't be perfect or a complete democracy but it would be a step in the right direction. The key is balancing the Crown's authority and the powers of the Parliament.

Also, remember that Alexander III's death was in no way guaranteed. His doctors believed that his Nephritis came from the Borki train disaster, when he held up part of the crashed train to allow his family to escape. Avoid that disaster and the strain on his kidneys and chances are he'd live longer, at least to his father's age.
 

LordKalvert

Banned
A couple of points on Alexander II and his "democratic leanings"

The institutions he creates are heavily weighted towards the nobility. As an example, let's look at the Municipal Statutes-

Only people who paid direct taxes where entered into the rolls with the largest taxpayers on top. The roll was then divided into three groups each paying 1/3 of the taxes. Each group then elected 1/3 of the Duma.

For Moscow this meant that: of 753,500 residents

222 voters elected 1/3 of the seats

1,360 elected another 1/3

18,310 elected the last 1/3

Furthermore, some of these voters aren't people but institutions and women voted through a male proxy. Essentially, only about 2% of residents had the vote and 1% of them got 1/3 of the seats

Such a system perhaps does result in better managers (the people voting knowing something about such matters) and given the restricted authority of the Cities, it might make sense. But for representative government, its a joke and its not hard to see why such a council enjoyed no mass support

The provincial assemblies and zemstvos are elected in a like matter. They enjoyed no support from the people at all


On the other hand, we must remember that most people lived in the villages and the villages were pretty free to handle their own affairs. They collected the taxes, drafted recruits and ran the communal lands.

Here, we see the anomaly of Russia. For the villages are as democratic a form of government imaginable- everyone who had rights to the communal land voted (by household) and its one household, one vote


Emperor Constantine's note on Alexander III's health is valid. We don't know for sure he will die in 1894 or not. The chance that Nicholas succeeds his grandfather, however, can't be ruled out either.
 
Top