The legislative act, or the Manifesto of October 17, 1905, which was developed by the government and signed by Emperor Nicholas II, still causes controversy.
Why is the manifest created?
The beginning of the twentieth century was turbulent and unpredictable due to serious changes in the state and society. The country's economy due to the abolition of serfdom has lost free labor. On the other hand, unskilled labor of serfs would not allow them to quickly reorganize into industrial production and market economy. The economy collapsed before our eyes. From a prosperous state under the very weak leadership of Emperor Nicholas II, Russia became dependent on external debt, a starving country. People took to the streets. Small riots were gaining strength, gradually becoming like real revolutionary actions. "Bloody Sunday" was the impetus for the mass protests, which began to control and prepare opposition activists. For the first time during the October speeches, calls began to be made to overthrow the emperor’s autocratic power. Decisive action by the authorities was required. In such conditions, the Manifesto was developed on October 17, 1905.
The reaction of the king and the government to mass protests
More than two million people went on strike in October, during the peak of popular armed uprisings. First, force methods were used against the revolutionaries, then a wave of tsarist mutually exclusive decrees swept through, which further angered the masses. The people were then even more powerless than under serfdom, and deprived of any opportunity to express their wishes, to be heard. As early as May 1905, there was an attempt to limit the power of the emperor and share his powers with the Duma. The king did not sign this document. Under the pressure of revolutionary events, both Nicholas II and the Witte government had to return to this document. The emperor and the government decided to stop the pogroms, bloodshed, mass protests with the help of the Manifesto, which was composed by Witte S.U. and signed by Nicholas II.
The significance of the manifesto on October 17, 1905 is enormous - it was to him that Russia owed the first significant change in the state system, which the autocracy replaced with a constitutional monarchy.
What was the historical document talking about?
The document, known in history as the "Manifesto for the Improvement of Public Order", signed on October 17, 1905 by the Russian autocrat Nicholas II, was supposed to bring positive changes to the state. The manifesto on October 17, 1905 granted:
- The permission to freedom of conscience, speech, unions and assemblies, which immediately gave rise to many political movements and protesting associations.
- Admission to elections of various segments of the population, regardless of class and material status, which was the beginning of the development of a democratic society.
- Mandatory approval by the State Duma of various laws issued in the state. The emperor from that moment ceased to be the sole ruler and legislator of Russia, since his power was controlled by the Duma.
However, the Manifesto of October 17, 1905, the content of which was progressive for the beginning of the twentieth century, did not fundamentally change the situation in the country.
Final innovations of the October legislative act
It was the Manifesto of October 17, 1905 that was able to temporarily suspend the revolutionary movement, but it soon became clear to Russian society that this was a bone thrown by the hungry. No actual changes followed. They were only on paper. The emergence of a modern legislative body, which should have been interested in the opinion of the people, the lowering of the emperor’s role in lawmaking, and certain freedoms made it possible to organize a huge number of opposition movements and parties.
But the inconsistency of actions and party priorities, many ideological calls for various alleged directions in overcoming the economic crisis continued to pull the country down. Nicholas II reserved the right to dissolve the Duma, so the proclaimed Manifesto on October 17, 1905 and his ideas did not receive the necessary development, but only made the situation even more uncontrollable.
Historical implications
Thanks to the preserved correspondence of Nicholas II and eyewitness diaries, many events became known to us. After the Manifesto was signed on October 17, 1905, S.Yu. Witte showed inaction, the government could not normalize the situation in the country. A situation was created of the usual struggle for a place in the sun. Speeches struck with eloquence, but did not contain a solution to the crisis. But most importantly, no one wanted to take full responsibility for further actions to govern the country, legislative changes and effective economic reforms. The principle of criticism of the emperor’s actions on the sidelines and at balls without a fundamental solution to the problem has become familiar. Nobody possessed leadership qualities that would allow ending the crisis. The centuries-old traditions of autocracy did not create at that stage a personality capable of replacing the emperor at least partially.
Actions of the government and S.Yu. Witte
Witte, who had to give orders to shoot demonstrators instead of proclaiming democratic reforms, wanted the blood of all revolutionaries, and instead of making positive proposals in favor of the state he turned into an executioner. But no matter what the Manifesto was called on October 17, 1905, this document was a turning point in the history of the state system and centuries-old traditions of Russia. The emperor’s actions are difficult to evaluate unambiguously.
The manifesto of October 17, 1905 played a significant role in history as the only way to restore stability in the state and ensure the lowest class minimum civil rights.