In the early 1900s, the Russian Empire was governed by a tsar (king or emperor). In contrast to other European nations, the Russian state was based on the principle of autocracy. The tsar believed his power was derived from God and was both absolute and unchallengeable. The Russian state was, therefore, modelled on the tsar’s absolutist control, with no effective ministry, no elected assembly and no checks on his power. This made tsarist government a rather outdated system, at odds with 20th-century political thought. In addition, imposing the will of one man across a nation as large, populous and diverse as Russia proved extraordinary difficult.
A backward system
On the eve of revolution, Russia’s political system was one of the most backward in Europe. It was one of few remaining autocracies where all political power and sovereignty belonged to a hereditary monarch. The Russian tsar (a term derived from the Latin ‘Caesar’) was bound by only two restrictions: adherence to the Russian Orthodox Church and the laws of succession. In all other matters, the tsar and his will were considered supreme.
Unlike its fellow nations in the modern era, Russia had no constitution, no elected representative assembly, no democratic processes within the national government, no high court or court of appeal that could examine, amend or override the tsar’s laws. Tsarist government was essentially government by decree: the tsar issued declarations or proclamations and his ministers, governors and bureaucrats implemented them.
Russia had several high-level political bodies or councils, such as the Senate (Russia’s highest court), the Holy Synod (the governing council of the Russian Orthodox Church) and the Imperial Council of Ministers. Their role was only advisory, however – these bodies had no way of checking or limiting the tsar’s power.
Council of Ministers
The Council of Ministers was the highest political organisation in Russia. From the outside, the Council of Ministers gave the appearance of a Westminster-style cabinet. It had 15-20 members, including a chairman or chief minister (Russia’s de facto prime minister) and ministerial portfolios including foreign affairs, finance, justice, agriculture and defence.
The distinction, however, is that these ministers were not elected, not selected on merit and not accountable, either for their portfolios or to the people. They were hand-picked by the tsar and served at his pleasure, chiefly to offer reports or advice. Because the tsar alone could hire and fire Council members, they were prone to sycophancy and told the tsar what he wanted to hear rather than what he needed to know.
The Council of Ministers was frequently utilised by Alexander II but the rigid autocracy of Alexander III made it largely redundant. He ceased summoning the Council in 1882 and his son, Nicholas II, did not revive it until the 1905 Revolution.
Governors and zemsztva
Russia’s vast size meant the tsarist government relied on a second tier of officials and administrators. Beyond the boundaries of Saint Petersburg, the Russian empire was divided into 34 guberniyas (provinces) and oblasts (remote regions). Each was administered by a governor, who had Imperial Army or police units at his disposal.
In theory, Russia’s governors were responsible for promulgating, implementing and enforcing the tsar’s laws in their respective provinces. In reality, Russia’s enormous size and the vast distance of some provinces from the capital allowed governors a significant degree of autonomy.
After reforms implemented in 1864, each guberniya also contained a number of zemstva: local councils that could collect taxes and provide services such as education, public health and transport. Though the zemstva were often dominated by land-owning nobles, they still contained representatives from all classes, including the peasantry. In 1890, Alexander III crippled the zemstva by reducing their autonomy and requiring their decisions to be endorsed by the royal governor.
The bureaucracy
To most Russians, the public face of the government was its bureaucracy. Russia’s huge public service was charged with enforcing laws and regulations, collecting taxes and duties, and maintaining records.
Bureaucrats were a visible presence in cities and large towns, where they wore distinctive uniforms and held one of 14 different ranks, equivalent to those in the military. The majority of bureaucrats were neither well educated or well paid, which made them susceptible to corruption and bribery. Even low-ranking bureaucrats had the capacity to make decisions arbitrarily – from issuing dog licences to approving land titles – so it was common for them to demand bribes or gratuities to facilitate approval. Some abused their position and were no more than petty bullies.
The Imperial Russian bureaucracy imposed itself on the lives of ordinary Russians more than any other arm of the government. The lower classes viewed the bureaucracy as petty, officious, greedy and corrupt; they were seen as obsessed with paperwork and overly fond of wielding power for its own sake. Criticism or condemnation of bureaucrats was a consistent theme in 19th century propaganda and doggerel.
Despite these criticisms and hostility toward the tsarist bureaucracy, it should be noted that Russia was comparatively under-governed when compared to the rest of Europe. At the turn of the century, Russia had approximately four bureaucrats per 1,000 people. This was almost half the number in Britain, one-third the figure in Germany and less than one-quarter that of France.
“The alienation of Russian society from its government grew steadily in the 1860s and 1870s. The intelligentsia defined itself by opposing the Russian state which allowed it no direct political role. The tsarist regime’s unwillingness to introduce even a conservative constitution meant that many middle-class professionals and businessmen could not see the tsarist state as supporting their interests. But the more immediate threat to the status quo came from radicals, mainly young university students who concluded that reform had run its course and failed.”
Theodore R. Weeks, historian
The Black Hundreds
Tsarism was also propped up and supported in more informal ways, such as by the Black Hundreds. Formed around the turn of the 20th century, the Black Hundreds were small chapters of religious conservatives who were fiercely loyal to the tsar and his government.
The composition of the Black Hundreds was diverse: different chapters were made up of aristocrats, businessmen, storekeepers, priests, petty bourgeoisie and loyal peasants. The motto of the group – samoderzhavie, pravoslavie, narodnost (‘autocracy, orthodoxy and nationalism’) was an adaptation of the tsar’s own motto. Their symbols, the Christian cross and the Romanov double-eagle, were similarly reflective of their ideas.
The Black Hundreds demanded devotion to the tsar and, by implication, the aristocracy and tsarist social structures. The criticised and condemned political dissenters and reformists. The ‘Yellow Shirts’, a militant sub-group of the Black Hundreds, was known to perpetrate acts of violence against government opponents.
Unsurprisingly, the Black Hundred received moral and financial support from the tsarist regime itself.
Reactionaries and anti-Semites
Other reactionary and pro-tsarist groups emerged during the first years of the 1900s, when the tsarist regime came under attack from anarchists and reformers.
Formed in 1905, the Union of Russian People was a conservative nationalist group that operated branches, recruited and produced propaganda in more than 900 cities, towns and villages. A breakaway group, the Union of Russian Men, was similar but was markedly less patient: it demanded retribution against anything anti-Russian or hostile to tsarism.
Many of these groups were little more than a front for the frenzied anti-Semitism which had festered in Russia during the 1800s. Russia’s five million Jews, a small but visible minority, were easy scapegoats for the problems of tsarism. Between September 1905 and the following spring, bands of these so-called ‘Russian men’ patrolled the countryside, killing and expelling Jews wherever they could be found. More than 21,000 were murdered in Ukraine alone.
Five key points
1. Tsarist government was predicated on the tsar’s supreme autocratic power, which was inviolable.
2. Tsarism had no democracy, representation or accountability at higher levels. All officials were chosen by the tsar.
3. Beyond the capital, tsarist decrees were implemented and enforced by provincial governors and bureaucrats.
4. The bureaucracy was the public face of the government but was widely despised for its corruption and officiousness.
5. Tsarism was also supported by conservative groups like the Black Hundred that sprang up in the early 1900s.
Quotations
Russian Revolution quotations: tsarism
Citation information
Title: ‘Tsarist government’
Authors: Jennifer Llewellyn, Steve Thompson
Publisher: Alpha History
URL: https://alphahistory.com/russianrevolution/tsarist-government/
Date published: June 14, 2018
Date updated: October 30, 2024
Date accessed: May 7, 2025
Copyright: The content on this page is © Alpha History. It may not be republished without our express permission. For more information on usage, please refer to our Terms of Use.