How Successfully Did Alexander Iii Suppress Opposition?

Table of Content

During his reign from 1881 to 1894, Alexander III, the Tsar of Russia, prioritized achieving stability and actively opposed the reforms introduced by his father, Alexander II. Under Alexander II’s rule, reformers were given a voice in the government, leading to periods of instability and opposition. Throughout Russian history, Tsars have consistently faced revolts and rebellions as a major challenge. In response to this ongoing issue, Alexander III sought to exclude reformers from the government in order to reduce opposition and maintain stability.

Despite some success, Alexander III faced fewer rebellions against the Tsar and brought stability to the nation for extended periods. He also disagreed with his father’s military reforms, altering conscription regulations and downsizing the Russian Army. The populace embraced these changes as they had previously lived in a violent and militaristic society. The Russian people viewed this shift as a significant stride toward becoming a more peaceful nation, resulting in a decrease in opposition from those dissatisfied with Russia’s warlike inclinations.

This essay could be plagiarized. Get your custom essay
“Dirty Pretty Things” Acts of Desperation: The State of Being Desperate
128 writers

ready to help you now

Get original paper

Without paying upfront

However, Alexander III chose not to negotiate peace between Russia and Turkey, opting instead for war. Despite a lack of public support for war, the decision was respected as it demonstrated the new Tsar’s strong stance against any challenges to his country or his position. Consequently, opposition diminished once again. The policies that Alexander II had rejected or aimed to eradicate were reconsidered by the new Tsar, creating a perception that he was more equitable and receptive to the concerns of his citizens.

They believed that the new Alexander was more focused on the well-being of his people, resulting in a decreased opposition to his rule. Previously marginalized individuals felt valued as their opinions were now acknowledged and heard. Additionally, Alexander employed a considerable amount of force in his country. He differed from his father’s perspective on the future of Russia and aimed to suppress any political dissent by implementing an autocratic regime. As a result, he held complete control over Russia and had the final say in any proposed ideas or reforms.

Despite disregarding the opposition to his leadership, the ruler exerted full authority over his nation and its citizens. He strongly opposed Alexander II’s initiative to modernize Russia, arguing that it did not correspond with the peasants’ wishes. He felt a unique bond with the peasants and they finally experienced being listened to and backed by their leader. This was widely embraced by most Russian peasants, as it significantly reduced the chances of an uprising.

Instead of focusing on reform, Alexander’s objective was to modernize Russia and raise it to the level of a major power. By 1881, he had invalidated his father’s reform plans, causing reformist ministers to step down and establishing his autocratic control. Although this approach faced significant criticism, Alexander effectively eliminated any potential for peaceful reforms within the Russian population. Consequently, the chances of opposition decreased as people were unwilling to use violence for their cause.

Alexander utilized a covert police force named the Okhrama to aid in governing Russia and instill fear in those who opposed him. By 1894, over 5000 individuals had been exiled or sentenced to hard labor, significantly diminishing opposition. This approach proved highly effective in controlling the populace, yet it also generated widespread animosity. Additionally, Alexander III enacted the law of exceptional measures, granting him authority to curtail civil liberties, seize property, detain or penalize citizens, establish military tribunals, and possess numerous other powers.

Once again, Alexander utilized force to maintain control over his people, suppressing opposition through the use of force and meddling. This strategy proved effective for an extended duration. Subsequently, in 1890, Alexander altered the Zemsta act, showing favoritism towards the landowners, enabling them to diminish the impact of peasant voting. Despite this causing dissatisfaction among the peasants, their overall influence was minimal, resulting in limited resistance to his reforms. The landowners, on the other hand, were content and possessed greater power than the peasants. By ensuring their satisfaction, Alexander minimized the likelihood of a revolt against his reign.

In addition, the Tsar implemented changes that hindered the lower classes from accessing education by raising fees. As a result, their chances of becoming politically educated and opposing the Tsar were diminished. In 1889, trials could take place without a jury, which undermined the principle of trial by jury. While this expedited the suppression of opposition, it was met with discontent from the Russian population as it led to unfair condemnations in numerous criminal cases.

There was a lot of discontentment stemming from it, despite it not resulting in a revolt. This added to a series of reforms implemented by Alexander III and caused tension to increase. In addition, Alexander III restricted the practice of other religions, favoring the Orthodox Church. Those who were perceived as attempting to convert others or promoting their own religion were at risk of being banished to Siberia. The number of Jews permitted to attend university was restricted, and fewer Jews openly acknowledged their religious affiliation. While this effectively eradicated religious dissent, it did not benefit Alexander.

Religion provoked widespread anger and hatred towards him, contributing to a significant social divide that couldn’t be disregarded or forgotten. In an effort to assist peasants in acquiring more land, the law abolishing ‘Temporary Obligation’ was implemented. This law facilitated negotiations between peasants and local landlords, with the government providing financial support to settle debts with landlords. Alexander’s reform instilled hope in the peasants, who became content with the prospect of a better life. As a result, opposition from the peasants towards Alexander’s governance diminished.

At the start of his reign, Alexander expressed his intention to rule as an autocrat, leading to suppression of various aspects of Russian society under his rule. To strengthen the Tsar’s authority, he implemented numerous counter-reforms, eradicating any political resistance. While Alexander III introduced social reforms that improved the living conditions of peasants and workers, corruption often prevented these laws from being fully enforced.

Alexander attempted to appease all social classes while also maintaining limits on their power, asserting his authority as an autocrat. Overall, he achieved considerable success in this endeavor. However, tensions arose due to his suppression of religion and the terror he inflicted upon numerous individuals. While he dealt with opposition forcefully, dissuading rebellion by creating a hazardous environment, many citizens were content and chose not to revolt. Although Alexander managed to diminish opposition to the Tsar position to a significant extent, it is unquestionable that some opposition still remained.

Cite this page

How Successfully Did Alexander Iii Suppress Opposition?. (2016, Dec 18). Retrieved from

Remember! This essay was written by a student

You can get a custom paper by one of our expert writers

Order custom paper Without paying upfront