Duma Dbq

INTRODUCTION
Investigating the question of ‘to what extent did the failed implementation of the State Duma beginning in 1906 result in a successful 1917 revolution’, requires looking at the purpose of the Duma, compared to its actual result. By looking specifically at the makeup of each of the four Dumas, and examining the political standpoints of each of the members, there is a trend apparent where more conservative people were placed as representatives. These representatives became more and more revolutionary and liberal as each Duma passed. This trend of increased support for revolution rather than reform did not only hold true for the State Dumas, but it accurately represented the overall atmosphere within Russia at the time. Whereas the

1905 revolution was more supported by reformists, by the time 1917 arrived, there were few calls for a reformed Czarist power but rather a new form of government brought about by revolution. The contrast between the Czar agreeing to a State Duma as part of the (1905) October Manifesto, and how it became more and more regulated and restricted was the last blow to the hopes of reformists within Russia. It resulted in the majority moving to support the more radical leaders within Russia. Though the Duma ultimately became what it was meant to be; which was to be a representation of what the people of Russia were feeling and what they wanted; it was initially restricted and oppressed by the Monarch. Similarly the people of Russia were being held down and oppressed by the existing autocratic government in power. The conclusion is that the Czar’s failure to commit to the reforms that he agreed to after the 1905 uprising, was the leading factor in the manner that the events in 1917 happened. The key points of concession in the October Manifesto were contradicted by the 1906 Constitution which caused a growth in support for revolutionary thought as opposed to basic reform.

INVESTIGATION
1905 REVOLUTION
There is an ongoing debate on whether the events that occurred in 1905 deserve the title of revolution, especially due to it preceding the successful revolution in 1917. The reason being that the events of 1905 were not planned by any political group, or radical leader, but rather they were a group of events that fell into place almost coincidentally, which lead to mass strikes and opposition to the Czar. Bloody Sunday refers to Sunday January 22, 1905 when a peaceful group of reformists marched to the Winter Palace, in order to present a proposal to the Czar, which included requests such as universal suffrage. This procession was led by Father Gapon, who was a figurehead for peaceful reform at the level of the Monarchy. Father Gapon created a union that was known as ‘the Assembly’ based in St. Petersburg, which fought for better working conditions and worker rights in Russia. His ideas were based on the assumption that Tsar Nicholas II would agree to certain reforms that would change the country from an autocratic monarchy to a monarchy that shared control with elected representatives that could fight to better the lives of the common people of Russia on their behalf. The reaction of the Imperial Soldiers guarding the Winter Palace was one example of how separated the people of Russia were from their government. The soldiers began firing upon the peaceful march, and led to a death toll that is believed to be around 1000, approximately one third of the marching presence. The soldiers were told not to allow the marchers to proceed to the Winter Palace, and if they did not follow directions to disperse, then they were to begin to shoot without warning into the crowd. This type of reaction to moderate reformers in Russia showed the stance the Czar had on any kind of reform to his government. In fact, the march led by Father Gapon was not supported by many parties in Russia because of how much it stressed reform rather than revolution. Even though the actions and beliefs of the marchers were too reformist for most opposition parties, the government reacted hastily and without hesitation. The extreme reactions to the marchers on Bloody Sunday let us to understand why the Czar did not commit to reforms he agreed to later, and why over time he increased his autocratic power and decreased the Duma’s legislative power. As a result of the Czar’s reluctance to give limited reform, the people of Russia began to look for more radical options for change, thus leading to an increase in support for political parties such as the Social Democrats, or the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks.

STATE DUMA
The very first elected assembly in Russia was a result of the 1905 revolution. These newly created state assemblies were called Gosudarstvennaya Dumas, which are often referred to as simply the Dumas. At the time of the creation of the Duma, there was still a ruling Czar, Nicholas II, who did not want to relinquish any of his power to an elected assembly. As a result there were four Dumas in total due to the fact that after every controversial topic was discussed, the Czar would dissolve the Duma until another one was reelected.
The first Duma was elected in March of 1906 after the 1905 revolution. The majority of the members of this Duma were part of a political party the Kadets, who while liberal and pro-reform, were not as radical as requiring a new government and complete revolution. These member did however have strong views on agriculture and land distribution. The Kadets believed in agricultural reform that “included the transfer of all agricultural land to the peasants as well as further changes to the constitution” (Waller 126). Czar Nicholas II did not believe the Duma should have this power so he rejected to proposal and dissolved the entire state assembly in its entirety. The reason the Czar was able to do this, was because of a law that was passed intentionally at the same time of the election for the first Duma in March 1906.
The reaction to the dissolution of the first Duma was very important, as it showed how people were feeling in Russia at that period. The Kadets led the member of the first Duma to Vyborg, where they wrote an appeal to the citizens of Russia on July 10th, 1906 (“Vyborg Appeal”). The appeal was based on passive rebellion, and not an outright revolution, which is what 1917 became. The appeal in 1906 asked the peasants of Russia not to hand over “a single kopeck to the treasury, nor one soldier to the army.” (“Vyborg Appeal”) It did not, at this point, call for revolution. The very first Duma is the most important of the four state Dumas because it was the first time the people had been represented in any form. As a response to the events in 1905 against the government, the people were granted the right to an elected assembly. The Czarist government and its advisors were misguided in believing that the sole presence of an assembly would be enough to appease the growing opposition to the Czar. The inability for the Czar to understand the times, and the general mood of the people led to further dissatisfaction, and ultimately increased radicalization and inevitable revolution.

BASIC LAWS OF 1906 AND THE OCTOBER MANIFESTO
The Fundamental Laws of 1906 were released at the same time as the 1905 October Manifesto, and outlined the power and relationship between the Czar and the Duma. Article 4 of the Fundamental laws state that “The emperor of all the Russias possesses Supreme Sovereign Power. Obedience to His authority, not only out of fear, but in good conscience, is ordained by God Himself.” as well as in article 9 it says “The Sovereign Emperor ratifies laws and without His ratification (approval) no laws can go into effect.” These specific articles of the Fundamental Laws released in 1906 were in direct contrast to the tone of the October Manifesto, and worried the opposition that arose in 1905 that the autocracy was still not budging on their stance on the position of the Czar in Russian society.
The constitution of 1906 that was agreed upon after the October Manifesto, was the first step toward constitutional monarchy that the Octobrists wanted. The leaders of opposition to the Czar in 1905 did not necessarily demand abdication from the Czar, or complete revolution. They wanted more freedoms in Russia, but were still tied to the idea of a divine monarchy and thus the concept or desire of a ‘constitutional monarchy’ was used to describe Russia at this point.
On the surface of the constitution, it appeared to give to the people of Russia everything they asked for in 1905. However, a closer analysis into the content of the constitution revealed that many of the requests from revolutionaries were met, they then were contradicted by an affirmation of the state’s power. Chapter X of the Fundamental Laws released highlights of these contradictions. “105. Before the five-year term of office expires, the State Duma can be dissolved by decree of the Sovereign Emperor. The same decree sets new elections to the Duma and the time for it to convene. 106. The State Council and the State Duma possess equal rights in legislative matters.” (Royal Russia) Lines 105 and 106 were written next to each other in the fundamental laws of 1906, however they contradict each other. This was written in a misleading way, as only facts are stated but it does not refer to the deeper relationship between the two points. The State Council and State Duma have equal rights in legislative matters, however the Czar (who appointed State Council members) had the power to dissolve the State Duma. Also the State Council had the right to pass legislative measures in the event that the State Duma was dissolved or not in session. This example shows how many of the points of emphasis in the October Manifesto, were contradicted from the start when the constitution of 1906 was written. This led to a flawed system of representation in Russia at the time, something that caused increasing discontent with the government even after 1905.

LEADING POLITICAL PARTIES IN THE DUMAS
There were different political parties that held majorities in the State dumas from the first one to the last one. The trends in which parties grew in size and popularity as each Duma was elected showed the mindset the people in Russia had as time passed from 1905 to 1917. The major parties in Russia were the Constitutional Democrat Party (Kadets), the Octobrists and the Russian Social Democratic Party. Later as opposition against the monarch intensified, the Russian Social Democratic Party split into two factions, the Mensheviks and Bolsheviks.
The historian John Simpkin states that the Constitutional Democrat Party (Kadets) were one of the leading majorities in the Party. The question arises of why after what seems to be such an important concession on the Czar’s behalf, there were very moderate and liberal deputies leading the newly formed Duma. This is because the other more revolutionary parties boycotted the first Duma, as they realized that the Duma was flawed from its inception. The more liberal parties, such as the Kadets and the Octobrists felt that it was enough, but the majority did not see it as anything significant. Octobrists were “more conservative that the Kadets and generally loyal to tsarism, the Octobrists derived their name from the October Manifesto, a document they enthusiastically endorsed as the solution to Russia’s problems.” (Llewellyn, Rae, Thompson). The lack of significant support and enthusiasm for the October Manifesto and the resulting Constitution of 1906 showed how it was not the solution to Russia’s problems. There were still many parties that represented more people who were displeased with the government. The first state Duma was not an accurate representation of the opposition to the Czar, as it was so liberal and loyal to Tsarism and did not fulfil its purpose.
There is a direct contrast when comparing the first Duma to the last Duma that eventually took power by way of the Provisional Government in February 1917. One key change in the Duma is the rise of the Bolshevik faction of the Russian Social Democrat Party. The Bolshevik faction of the social democrats were more displeased with the pace that change was occurring, and wanted to rely on Marxist thoughts to ignite revolution and take power. Lenin disliked the leader of the Mensheviks of the Social Democrats, and believed that more action needed to take place, rather than just debate between intellectuals within the party. (“The Bolsheviks”) Lenin said “We cannot be guided by the mood of the masses; that is changeable and unaccountable. The masses have given their confidence to the Bolsheviks and ask from them not words but deeds.” (“The Bolsheviks”) Lenin split from the Mensheviks because he believed that actions, rather than words were what the majority of unhappy people in Russia wanted. This opinion is a direct result to the way that the government had carried out the promises of the October Manifesto in the Constitution of 1906. The promises and concessions from the Czar were merely words on paper, and were not put into practice as they should have. One can argue that the reason that the 1917 revolution was ultimately successful was because the parties began to ignite more support from the masses. The people began to unite under similar causes, and thus an environment suitable for revolution was created.
The makeup of the Dumas from 1906 to 1917 showed how the Czar kept control over who was in charge of the Duma. The first two Dumas were very reformist, requesting agricultural and social changes to be implemented, with dissolution the only answer to those requests. There was an increase in Octobrists’ power in the Duma and this is because of the repeated attempts by the State to make the Duma less influential and opposed to the Czar. An example as outlined by the Russian historian Igor Ogorodnev is when the third state Duma was being elected, Prime Minister Stolypin put the vote in control of landowners and property owners. This constant contradiction to the principles of the Duma and the October Manifesto that it is based upon is the primary reason that the Duma failed. It did not allow an atmosphere for the people of Russia to communicate their demands to the government as it was supposed to. This lead to only an increasing dissatisfaction with the way the Czar was handling their demands. The success of the Bolsheviks can be attributed to the growing mass of people who became increasingly dissatisfied with the Czar’s policy and decisions not to share power. Lenin recognized that by uniting this mass of workers, and showing them that they would act rather than talk, they could led to a revolution and could have ignited change.

EXPLORATION
STATE OF RUSSIAN SOCIETY IN 1917
The flawed system of a State Duma that had no real power was the primary reason that discontent grew after the October manifesto was released. Rather than the opposition being appeased, it became unhappy and even more radical after seeing the way the government reacted to their legitimate demands in 1905. By 1917, the opposition to the Czarist monarchy was at its highest, and workers in Russia were not afraid to stand against the Czar. On February 25th, 1916 a telegram was sent to General Alekseev on the state of Petrograd. It said, “I report that, as a result of the bread shortage, a strike broke out in many factories on February 23rd and 24th. On February 24th, around 200,000 workers were out on strike and forced others to quit their jobs. Street-car service was halted by the workers. In the afternoons of February 23rd and 24th, some of the workers broke through to the Nevskii, whence they were dispersed. Violence led to broken windows in several shops and streetcars. Arms were not used by the troops. Four policemen received minor wounds.” (“Telegrams on the Eve of the February Revolution (1917)”).
This report on the conditions in Petrograd show the extent that the people were becoming restless and angry.

There was a shift from discontent regarding the monarchy, to anger and violence. The success of the 1917 revolution was in part attributable to how united the people were now. The flawed Duma united all of the opposition to the Czar, and then gave them a place to debate and discuss the ways in which they would change the system. As the Czar did not allow to Duma to accomplish anything or pass significant legislation that would change the social life, the members of the Duma were left unhappy and angry. The next day another telegram was sent by the same general on the state of the strikes and uprisings. “I report that during the afternoon of February 25th, crowds of workers who had assembled at Znamenskaia Square and near the Kazan’ Cathedral were repeatedly dispersed by the police and the military. About 5pm demonstrators near the Gostinyi Dvor began to sing revolutionary songs and hoisted red flags with the inscriptions “Down with War!” In response to the warning that arms would be used against them, there came from the crowd several revolver shots, one of which wounded a soldier of the Ninth Reserve Cavalry Regiment in the head. A troop of dragoons dismounted and opened fire on the crowd, killing three and wounding ten men. The crowd dispersed immediately. Around 6pm a grenade was thrown at a detail of mounted gendarmes, wounding one gendarme and his horse. The

evening passed relatively quietly. On February 25th, 240,000 workers were out on strike. I issued a statement forbidding the people to gather in the streets and warning the populace that any manifestation of disorder would be suppressed by force of arms. Today, February 26th, throughout the morning the city has been quiet.” (“Telegrams on the Eve of the February Revolution (1917)”).
The very day after uprisings and strikes were reported in Petrograd, the uprisings became more violent. The firs telegram specifically states that no arms were used. However the next telegram states that in fact later arms had been used, by both the protestors and the military. There was a clear escalation of tension. People began to stand up and fight violently against the government.
In early February, the Duma recognized the critical state that Russia was in, and sent a letter to the Czar regarding the status of Moscow and Petrograd. In the letter it stated that, “From every corner of Russia come reports, each more dismal and miserable than the other. The mayor of Moscow reports in his memorandum presented to the chairman of the Council of Ministers that the situation in Moscow with respect to the food supply is critical. Instead of the required 65 carloads of flour… in December the daily flour supply in Moscow was not more than 50 carloads, and in January it fell to 42 carloads. That is, the supply met only a little more than half the need. If the supply of flour is not brought up to the norm, Moscow will soon have absolutely no reserves of flour. The situation in Petrograd is no better. The January supply of essential commodities was 50 percent of the norm, as established by the Special Conference. The supply of livestock, poultry and butter was 25 percent of the norm, and supply in the first half of January was better than in the second half… The city needed 40 carloads of wheat flour per day, but [in five days] only 12, 10, 35, eight and two carloads were actually brought in…” (“A Duma Report on Russian Cities in February 1917 (1917)”). As the letter states, there were many problems in modern day Russia, including the massive food shortages and fuel shortages. These problems greatly increased tension and discontent within Russia, and they consequently took a stand in February 1917.

SUCCESS IN 1917 REVOLUTION
The question arises of why in 1917, revolution brought about change, and in 1905 it did not.

It is the ‘reforms’ of the 1905 revolution that lead to a successful opposition in 1917. Overall the Duma was a leading factor in causing a successful opposition. Before a state Duma was created, there was no physical place for the political parties of Russia to meet, debate and discuss. This state assembly presented itself as a place where radical and revolutionary parties could gain support and spread their ideas of change.
The Russian Social Democrat Party led by the Bolsheviks in 1917 used the Duma as a place where they could debate and discuss, ultimately leading to the division into Mensheviks and Bolsheviks. It is this division that separated those who wanted to enact change and those who only talked about change. The beginning of the revolutions were very similar when looking at the 1905 and 1917

revolutions.
In June 1905 the battleship Potemkin underwent a mutiny, where the sailors protested the serving of rotten food. The leaders of the protest were shot, and so the rest of the ship staged a massive uproar. According to the historian John Simkin, the opposition spread to other units in the army and navy, and ultimately the industrial workers in Russia went on strike as well. There was also a protest lead by Georgi Gapon which resulted in the military firing upon peaceful protestors. John Simkin says that in this attack over 100 workers were killed and some 300 wounded. This is very comparable to the events witnessed in Petrograd in February 1917 where workers began to strike due to food shortages. Also when workers gathered at Znamenskaia Square to protest the war, a violent fight broke out where shots were fired and grenades were thrown. Seeing how similar these two events from 1905 and 1917 are, it suggests that the problems that caused uproar in 1905 were not solved. If anything the demands of the people for an improved daily life went ignored. The only difference between 1905 and 1917 is that in 1917 the opposition was more united and the people had deemed the Czar and his government as responsible for their daily hardships.

CONCLUSION
After investigating the question of how the failed state duma lead to a successful revolution in 1917, the evidence shows that the State Duma was the main factor which caused the 1917 revolution to be different to the 1905 revolution. Even though the beginning of revolution in each case is very similar, the 1905 revolutionaries were not organized and planned. The people of Russia in 1917 had their State Duma, an assembly that was meant to support them and eventually to take over the weakened Czar. The opposition in 1905 was a result of the majority of the workers in Russia feeling ignored and abandoned, but when they stood up against their oppressors, there was no leading body to move the revolution to the next step and set up an opposing system of government.
Through the 12 years of each political party debating and fighting in the State Duma, by the time the 1917 revolution happened, there were plans in place where the Duma and its supporters could legitimately oppose the Czar.