Hey! I really want to see everyone else's thoughts on how Russia could become a democratic great power by 1930. Perhaps it could have an isolationist policy while it puts itself back together and reforming itself. Initially, we can start with Constantine, less reactionary, becoming Czar instead of his brother Nicolai around 1825 or all the way back to Peter the Great. Thank you for posting!
WI: Democratic Russia
- Thread starter KMS Hoffnung
- Start date
Of course, democracy wouldn't take root instantly from one of my suggested situations. If there became a far less conservative hierarchy, however, this could result in a far more liberal/democratic vision of the rulers. Similarly to William of Orange during the Glorious Revolution, we could have French, English, or even another Russian leader take the throne but on the conditions of a Russian parliament. Like the Duma in 1905 made by Tsar Nicholas II, but perhaps this could be far more permanent than the Duma.
Does anyone have ideas for a Butterfly Effect of some kind after that? I'm curious to see if Russia can become similar to the U.S in Government type, perhaps more federalized although more like a German type of Politics. I'm not sure but I'd be happy to see anyone else's thoughts.
Does anyone have ideas for a Butterfly Effect of some kind after that? I'm curious to see if Russia can become similar to the U.S in Government type, perhaps more federalized although more like a German type of Politics. I'm not sure but I'd be happy to see anyone else's thoughts.
twovultures
Donor
Perhaps *Russia becomes a Cossack Republic? So instead of the imperial Russian system being imposed on the Cossacks, the Cossacks impose their roughly democratic system on Moscow, perhaps copying the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth's constitution to formalize their normally informal way of doing things. I don't have a single POD for this, but one idea could be Russia collapses during the Time of Troubles, instead of the Romanovs gaining power. Russia goes from empire to a geographic abstraction, pillaged by both Sweden and the PLC. However, the Cossacks in Ukraine secede from the PLC as per OTL, and retake the territories of Ivan the Terrible as part of an Orthodox Crusade.
While someone is probably elected Tsar, this does not have to be someone too invested in retaining the old status quo (I suggest the nouveau-riche Stroganov family, but I will defer to people who know Russian history better than I). Instead, a (relatively) democratic system is put in place, with a co-equal Tsar and parliament. While citizenship is limited (non-Orthodox are excluded from voting, perhaps requirements for property to vote are put in place as a new elite grows) the resulting system is much more democratic than OTL's Tsarist Russia, and has much greater ability to reform than OTL.
While someone is probably elected Tsar, this does not have to be someone too invested in retaining the old status quo (I suggest the nouveau-riche Stroganov family, but I will defer to people who know Russian history better than I). Instead, a (relatively) democratic system is put in place, with a co-equal Tsar and parliament. While citizenship is limited (non-Orthodox are excluded from voting, perhaps requirements for property to vote are put in place as a new elite grows) the resulting system is much more democratic than OTL's Tsarist Russia, and has much greater ability to reform than OTL.
Their plans were numerous and varied within a wild range all the way to a police state dangerously close to the Stalinist SU. Hardly any of them was practical and their revolt (actually, there were two, in St-Petersburg and on the South) had no chances for the success: even the few soldiers they managed to raise were raised under a false pretense.
I love your thinking Two Vultures. The Tsar could be a cultural placeholder as the Queen is in England, almost like a Const. Monarchy. I'll have to look into the Time of Troubles, but a great start.
twovultures
Donor
Oh man, even if you have no interest in Russian history, the Time of Troubles is a fascinating period when everything was up in the air. Definitely worth learning about.
Alexander II is not assassinated. This leads to the creation of a Duma that is initially toothless but later becomes a genuine governing body. Without his father's gruesome death, Alexander III may not be as autocratic as he was IOTL.
The only “Cossack republic” was Zaporizhie and its “system” was not suitable for any functioning state. Not to mention that most of the Cossacks participating as an independent entity in the ToT were those of the Don and they had nothing to do with the PLC. They almost succeeded in establishing their own candidate, Prince Truberskoy, on the throne but, sorry, the rest of the plan does not make too much sense because the ToT ended up with the acting Zemsky Sobor, Russian parliament established by Ivan the Terrible. Unfortunately, this institution was not fit for dealing with the problems that Tsardom was facing, except for the extraordinary occasions like succession crisis or a major reform.
Co-equal Tsar and Parliament system was at that time a rarity and usually did not function well (the PLC being the closest example).
You don't even need to have Alex III come to the throne at all. He wasn't the initial heir that was Nicholas. I am not sure what his personality was like but he probably would be better then his brother.
Having the one Tsar who was willing to reform the empire horrifically blown up by anarchist terrorists would leave a very nasty impression on his heir, no matter who he was. ITTL's Nicholas II might've become a reactionary because of that.
Eh, not so much. I just looked at the ASB guidelines and this doesn't follow that. Thank you for checking though.
I like the thought process Vinization. Perhaps we could go back to Catherine the Great and avoid that mess of a revolt. She would continue to be an Enlightened Absolutist with a reform-minded goal. But with Alexander I think that could be a perfect resolution. If Alexander doesn't walk out of his carriage after the first bomb and they leave instead we would've left that entire mess behind as well. I will look at Alexander II's intentions, however, to see if he was reactionary or not.
The last “democratic” institution in Moscow had been eliminated in mid-XIV century and Novgorodian republic (more oligarchy than a democratic state) ceased to be independent in the XV century with no chance for its system changing one that already existed in Moscow. It is nor even clear if more “democratic” state would be strong enough to create a consolidated state (there is more than one opinion on the subject). As a result, an attempt to create a constitutional monarchy in 1730 failed due to the opposition of the nobility, Legislative Commission of CII turned into a joke and an attempted punch of 1825 was plain pathetic. An idea of the democratic, representative state was not there and you can’t herd people into the Paradise with a stick, which this means that there were two main options:
1st, Russian state (Grand Duchy of Moscow/Tsardom of Moscow/Russian Empire) was seriously different from one of the OTL from the very beginning and even well before its creation. Veche was not well-suited for being anything beyond the city assembly so the only realistic “constitutional” institution would be a much stronger Boyar Duma (not a very good option). A wider representative institution may be Zemsky Sobor - it was first created by Ivan IV and was called from time to time during his reign and then only on the rare occasions. So if there was some practical reason for calling it more regularly and making it more meaningful (not sure what this could be) then by the time of Boris Godunov it may become a part of the system and survive as such due to the reign of the first Romanovs (they were called in 1680s but not on a regular basis). The trick would be to survive reign of Peter I in some meaningful form even if under a different name. How this would be possible with an ultimate absolute monarch I have no idea.
2nd, more realistic, after becoming constitutional monarchy in 1905 Russia avoids major disaster like WWI and the things are developing logically all the way to a more powerful Duma and responsible government: there was noticeable support to this idea even within the imperial family.
Reforms of CII had nothing to do with a democracy or liberalism and it was she who finally turned serfdom into a complete slavery.
AII had little to do with the democracy and this also applies to the proposal of Loris-Melikov. Their liberalism was strictly within framework of the absolute monarchy and by the end of his reign AII was forced to start rolling back some of his reforms due to the explosive growth of revolutionary terrorism.
I was about to ask you to elaborate and you didn't disappoint. I like your second choice, but would the massive change be possible in 25-35 years?
AII did not have any plans to create Duma so this is a pure fantasy.