Local Government Reforms - Alex II - Causes and effects table in A Level and IB History

Created by: Fern
Created on: 08-04-14 14:46


	Local Government Reforms - Alex II
	Causes The local government system prior to the reforms was highly variable in its effectiveness. The "Governors" responsible for each province had no clearly defined responsibilities or powers - and were simply the Tsar's robots.In addition to this, their competence was variable and some did not take their job seriously - even though they chaired 10 committees. Districts (smaller area) were controlled by marshals, who were not only unpaid (and as such prone to lacking motivation or competence), but also had no local officials to help them fulfill their extensive role in chairing 11 committees. This further increased their incompetence. (District = 200,000 people). A lack of coordination meant that conditions in different areas differed drastically - and also a mass of paper work, 100,000 documents issued to provincial governors annually. This made Russia potentially anarchic in its management. The Tsar had few personal staff to help him administer the largest country on earth. This obviously caused problems. He also had total power - the State Council (1806) could not advise him) and as such his personal qualities had a large impact. In the early 1850's - 50 occasions of peasant unrest every year. It was hoped that increased democracy would placate the lower classes and put an end to this unrest, By the late 1850's this was up to 70. As seen above, the system of local government was highly inefficient, and some ministers were completely incompetent in fulfilling their role. The whole country also lacked staff to administer and organise it - their were shortages in this sector throughout every level of government. The purpose of local government reforms was twofold. a) Increase peasant support by providing democratic system of local representation. b) Replace chaotic and inefficient nature of current local government system. This was especially important as the emancipation meant another party was needed to fulfill some of the roles previously occupied by the landowner. Currently. this chaos was so prevalent that tax-collectors often lacked the means to carry out their duties.	Effects In 1864, local elected councils (zemstva) appeared in most parts of European Russia. They were in two levels - district councils and the more powerful provincial councils. This clear organisational structure was useful in order to improve the administration of local government and resolving of local issues. Zemstva were given responsibility for health, education, roads and bridges, and the local economy. They were largely autonomous and independent (though not allowed to work together). They could also raise taxes. This much power to a representative group was highly popular, and also useful administratively as the members of the Zemstva had in-depth personal knowledge of the issues facing their area and were able to act appropriately. It also created a larger base of people to deal with issues. Most councils took their work seriously and their expenditure had rose by 700% by the beginning of the 20th century. Whilst not economically preferable, this can be seen to show the extent of the useful operations carried out by Zemstvas within their respective areas. These reforms were extended to towns in 1870 - a Zemstva for each individual town was set up, further increasing their power and influence - and the extent as to which ordinary people were represented and accounted for within government. However, the extent as to which local government reforms provided democracy is debatable - 70% of provincial and 40% of district Zemstva members were nobles. The whole system was restricted so that nobles remained in primary control. A number of oppositional problems were created by this reform. "Zemstvo liberals" began to be widely viewed as a dangerous form of opposition to the state. As autonomous units they made great use of 'experts'' - employing engineers, lawyers, doctors and agronomists (agricultural scientists). This further expanded the size of the intelligentsia. They also tended to be radicals, and were distrusted by the traditional elites. They became known as the "third element" due to their inclination to demand reform and change at a rate the government was not comfortable with. They had close contact with peasants - often being from this class themselves. This led to them demanding reforms on behalf of the peasantry - again, which were far too revolutionary for the autocratic government. Oppositional elements of the peasantry became influential politically! A direct result was that in the 1870's the Zemstvas decided to take 'matters into their own hands' and made direct demands to the government for reform. A number petitioned for the right of greater involvement in government. In 1879 an illegal congress was held in Moscow - with the representatives of three Zemstva discussing political issues. They had been specifically told not to collaborate in this way - and as such can be seen as directly opposing the Tsarist regime through this action. Despite the fact some support existed in higher circles of government for their ideas; several ministers and even the Tsar's brother suggested that representatives of the Zemstva should sit on the (limited in power) State Council - Alex II refused to accept these suggestions until the late 1870's, where he began to plan to consult with experts from the Zemstva (this never happened as he was assassinated first). The radical activities of the Zemstva outlined here encouraged Alexander III to place restrictions on them following his rise to power.
	Overall summary The local government reforms were largely ineffective as a means of providing democracy - the Zemstvas had to follow the Tsar's orders without debate and also had little power outside the menial maintenance tasks relating to their area. They were also not representative of the peasant population - a large majority, far higher than was proportionally within the Russian population, being nobles. However, on an administrative level it can be argued their local expertise contributed to a better system of local government. They were largely of an oppositional nature in their views and often radical, meaning Alexander III would later restrict their influence and reverse these advancements.

Local Government Reforms - Alex II

Causes

The local government system prior to the reforms was highly variable in its effectiveness. The "Governors" responsible for each province had no clearly defined responsibilities or powers - and were simply the Tsar's robots.In addition to this, their competence was variable and some did not take their job seriously - even though they chaired 10 committees.
Districts (smaller area) were controlled by marshals, who were not only unpaid (and as such prone to lacking motivation or competence), but also had no local officials to help them fulfill their extensive role in chairing 11 committees. This further increased their incompetence. (District = 200,000 people).
A lack of coordination meant that conditions in different areas differed drastically - and also a mass of paper work, 100,000 documents issued to provincial governors annually. This made Russia potentially anarchic in its management.
The Tsar had few personal staff to help him administer the largest country on earth. This obviously caused problems. He also had total power - the State Council (1806) could not advise him) and as such his personal qualities had a large impact.
In the early 1850's - 50 occasions of peasant unrest every year. It was hoped that increased democracy would placate the lower classes and put an end to this unrest, By the late 1850's this was up to 70.
As seen above, the system of local government was highly inefficient, and some ministers were completely incompetent in fulfilling their role. The whole country also lacked staff to administer and organise it - their were shortages in this sector throughout every level of government.
The purpose of local government reforms was twofold.
a) Increase peasant support by providing democratic system of local representation.
b) Replace chaotic and inefficient nature of current local government system. This was especially important as the emancipation meant another party was needed to fulfill some of the roles previously occupied by the landowner. Currently. this chaos was so prevalent that tax-collectors often lacked the means to carry out their duties.

Effects

In 1864, local elected councils (zemstva) appeared in most parts of European Russia. They were in two levels - district councils and the more powerful provincial councils. This clear organisational structure was useful in order to improve the administration of local government and resolving of local issues.
Zemstva were given responsibility for health, education, roads and bridges, and the local economy. They were largely autonomous and independent (though not allowed to work together). They could also raise taxes. This much power to a representative group was highly popular, and also useful administratively as the members of the Zemstva had in-depth personal knowledge of the issues facing their area and were able to act appropriately. It also created a larger base of people to deal with issues.
Most councils took their work seriously and their expenditure had rose by 700% by the beginning of the 20th century. Whilst not economically preferable, this can be seen to show the extent of the useful operations carried out by Zemstvas within their respective areas.
These reforms were extended to towns in 1870 - a Zemstva for each individual town was set up, further increasing their power and influence - and the extent as to which ordinary people were represented and accounted for within government.
However, the extent as to which local government reforms provided democracy is debatable - 70% of provincial and 40% of district Zemstva members were nobles. The whole system was restricted so that nobles remained in primary control.
A number of oppositional problems were created by this reform. "Zemstvo liberals" began to be widely viewed as a dangerous form of opposition to the state.
As autonomous units they made great use of 'experts'' - employing engineers, lawyers, doctors and agronomists (agricultural scientists). This further expanded the size of the intelligentsia.
They also tended to be radicals, and were distrusted by the traditional elites. They became known as the "third element" due to their inclination to demand reform and change at a rate the government was not comfortable with.
They had close contact with peasants - often being from this class themselves. This led to them demanding reforms on behalf of the peasantry - again, which were far too revolutionary for the autocratic government. Oppositional elements of the peasantry became influential politically!
A direct result was that in the 1870's the Zemstvas decided to take 'matters into their own hands' and made direct demands to the government for reform. A number petitioned for the right of greater involvement in government.
In 1879 an illegal congress was held in Moscow - with the representatives of three Zemstva discussing political issues. They had been specifically told not to collaborate in this way - and as such can be seen as directly opposing the Tsarist regime through this action.
Despite the fact some support existed in higher circles of government for their ideas; several ministers and even the Tsar's brother suggested that representatives of the Zemstva should sit on the (limited in power) State Council - Alex II refused to accept these suggestions until the late 1870's, where he began to plan to consult with experts from the Zemstva (this never happened as he was assassinated first).
The radical activities of the Zemstva outlined here encouraged Alexander III to place restrictions on them following his rise to power.

Overall summary

The local government reforms were largely ineffective as a means of providing democracy - the Zemstvas had to follow the Tsar's orders without debate and also had little power outside the menial maintenance tasks relating to their area. They were also not representative of the peasant population - a large majority, far higher than was proportionally within the Russian population, being nobles. However, on an administrative level it can be argued their local expertise contributed to a better system of local government. They were largely of an oppositional nature in their views and often radical, meaning Alexander III would later restrict their influence and reverse these advancements.

Get Revising

Local Government Reforms - Alex II