Provisional Government
The Provisional Government had attempted to keep its power over
Russian affairs during the trouble that followed the abdication of the
tsar in February 1917, and as events would show, they were largely
unsuccessful in doing so. This may have been because of Kerensky's
mistakes, the government's lack of political power, or its failure to
solve the problems of Russia's peasant majority. The Bolsheviks were
quick to take advantage of time of weakness, although whether or not
they succeeded because the Provisional Government failed needs to be
assessed.
The primary weakness of the Provisional Government was that it was
essentially powerless. Primarily this was because the government was
simply a 'provisional' one, meant only as a temporary solution until
the revolution had run its course. When the Soviet drew up Order
Number 1 in March 1917, it effectively limited the power that the
government could have upon the Russian people. The Soviet held the
power over the troops; the railroads, post and telegraphs, and the
Provisional Government could do little to prevent such political
domination. This conflict of 'dual power' was also complemented by the
devolution of power among the rural villages that increasingly desired
'independence' from the capital. The Provisional Government also had
no electoral mandate and the people, which meant that it lacked formal
legitimacy in the eyes of the public, did not elect it. Furthermore,
the Provisional Government laid its hopes in the Constituent Assembly,
which disappeared as soon as it had materialized. The Provisional
Government had waited too long.
The weak governm...
... middle of paper ...
... Russia faced that so
desperately needed attention. It would not be false to say the
popularity of the Bolshevik party largely depended on what the
Provisional Government did. The Provisional Government's weaknesses
and failures increased appeal for the Bolsheviks, especially since the
other socialist parties became identified with the Provisional
Government.
However, it cannot be right to argue that it was only the mistakes of
the Provisional Government that brought the October Revolution (and
the government's demise) about. The Bolsheviks had strengths and
favourable factors that allowed it to maximize its advantage over the
other socialist parties and over the Provisional Government. The role
of Lenin in the party was crucial-his leadership proved very important
amongst the unruly days of the Bolshevik rising.
The essay under critical analysis is entitled, “Philadelphia’s Radical Caucus That Propelled Pennsylvania to Independence and Democracy,” written by Gary B. Nash. This analytical essay consumes the fourth chapter of the book Revolutionary Founders: Rebels, Radicals, and Reformers in the Making of the Nation, edited by Alfred F. Young, Gary B. Nash, and Ray Raphael. His essay, along with the twenty-one other accounts in the book depicting lesser-known individuals, whose contributions in securing independence from Great Britain and creating a new government in America rival that of the nation’s more notorious and beloved founders, such as Thomas Jefferson or James Madison. Dr. Nash focuses his efforts on Philadelphia’s Radical Caucus of the 1770’s and 80’s and the lasting influences of the 1776 constitution it created within American politics as well as several nations around the world. Within his analysis and interpretation of Pennsylvanian politics during the American Revolution, Dr. Nash utilizes a pro-whiggish, radically sympathetic stance to assert the Radical Caucus’ remarkable ability to gain support from and bestow power upon the common working man, take political power from conservatives within Pennsylvania’s public offices, and revolutionize democratic thought through their landmark reformations of the state’s constitution. Respecting the fact that Dr. Nash’s position on this subject required extensive research through first hand accounts, pamphlets, newspapers and the analysis of countless preserved records, indicates that the account he has given is very credible. Complying with his presentation of facts and the significance of the topic within early American history has prevented a well-rounded counter-argument ...
Well you can start off with Russia in 1915 before all the revolutions. Nicholas II, a very incompetent leader, and not the smartest one either during a time of bad economic crisis. So that didn’t help the government at all, not to mention they were fighting in WWI with half of the skilled workers fighting. While fighting in WWI, Nicholas thought that the troops would fight harder if he were leading them. While Nicholas was fighting he left Tsarina Alexandra in charge of Russia. The problem with this is that she made horrible decisions, partly because of Rasputin (a monk, or faith healer), She would hear different sides of the argument and then the last person to talk to her would make her mind up for her. So Rasputin would basically just wait to be the last person to talk to her so that way he could get stuff done in the government. But this earned him a bad reputation and got him assassinated. This would lead to increasing problems and the start of a revolution.
A temporary government was set up to decide on what kind of government Russia was going to set up. Two political parties were set up. The Bolsheviks were one of the two. The leader of the Bolshevik party was a man named Lenin. Lenin was a firm believer in the theories and ideas of Karl Marx.
After the victory over the British, each state had its own Constitution and Bill of Rights, but there were no centralized government. The Continental Government had a number of responsibilities that were not granted to them legitimately. They had created the Continental Army, printed money, managed trade, and dealt with the nation’s debt. They felt that they needed to legitimate their actions and realized that there was a need for a centralized government (Schultz, p115). In this report, I will compare and contrast the Articles of Confederation with the new Constitution of 1787, analyze the drafting of the Constitution and how the states compromised to draft it effectively, compare and contrast the debate over the ratification between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists, and evaluate the success of the Bill of Rights in achieving balance between national and states’ interests.
Fareed Zakaria’s The Rise of Illiberal Democracy expresses the views he has on the differences between liberal democracy and illiberal democracy, and which one causes civil war. He also explains how both types of democracy go hand in hand with other in the formation of the United State government and it constitution. Zakaria also talks about how majority of the countries in the world are democratic, but majority of which are an illiberal democracies. His ideals could also be reflected during the civil rights movement.
The main fact that must not be forgotten when answering this question is that Russia emerged successful from the Second World War, despite its problems. It could not have done this without the achievements and developments of the industrial 1930s. An industrial decade underpinned by the violence of the Great Terror. Without this motivating fear, neither the Five Year Plans nor collectivisation could have succeeded to the extent that they did, and as a consequence the Soviet Union would have been defeated. Politically, dictatorship and the purging of factions created unity and brought tighter control over the party.
The resignation of Nicholas II March 1917, in union with the organization of a temporary government in Russia built on western values of constitutional moderation, and the capture of control by the Bolsheviks in October is the political crucial opinions of the Russian Revolution of 1917. The actions of that historic year must also be viewed more broadly, however: as aburst of social strains associated with quick development; as a disaster of political modernization, in relations of the tensions sited on old-fashioned traditions by the burdens of Westernization; and as a social disruption in the widest sense, concerning a massive, unprompted expropriation of upper class land by fuming peasants, the devastation of outmoded social patterns and morals, and the scuffle for a new, democratic society.
Throughout the time of the Revolution there was never just one individual revolution. There was a series of revolutions that were set in Russia in 1917. Some were crushed in the making and had no result but, others ended up being made a very big deal. These sequences of revolutions ended up dismantling the Tsarist autocracy which also resulted in the creation of the “Russian SFSR”. As a result of these revolutions “the emperor was forced to resign from his post and the old regime was replaced by a provisional government during the first revolution.”2
By February 1917, discontent within the Tsarist society had risen to such a level that a revolution occurred. Originally, the revolution began as several protests about poverty, crime and the conditions in which Russians were forced to work and live in. These protests soon vilified Tsar Nicholas and turned into brutal and violent riots, although it can be argued that the Tsar acted villainous towards his people and thus deserved his status as an enemy of the people. There were many contributing factors that led to the Spring revolution, chiefly the growing vexation of the public that began many years before the war and the catalysis of the war in fuelling the fire of discontent. This essay will discuss the effects of these factors on the breakdown of the Tsarist society by February 1917 and form a supported conclusion on which factor had the largest impact and was, ultimately, the main reason for the breakdown of society and the subsequent revolutions.
In February of 1917 a group of female factory workers and led a revolt in which the Tsar was dethroned, only to be replaced by a provisionary government composed of the Russian elite. When this government did not live up to its promises of an end to Russian involvement in World War I, the Bolsheviks (“majority”), a revolutionary movement led by Vladimir Lenin, overthrew the provisionary government in what bacame known as the October revolution.
The Russian Revolution was two revolutions. One was in "March of 1917" (Llewellyn, 2012) and the other one was in "October of 1917" (Llewellyn, 2012). The first revolution happened because "the Russian people wanted change" (Llewellyn, 2012). Tsar Nicholas II, the autocratic ruler of Russia. He clung stubbornly to his power and he believed that the power was to be his divine birthright. The people on the other hand would change the future of Russia, not God. The first revolution started as a peaceful march in Russia’s capital city. The march then grew into a torrent of protest. Within a week of the protest, Tsar Nicholas II had been toppled from power and replaced by an interim government. This government was filled with liberals and moderates. The new government lasted barely six months before the government was overthrown and replaced, this time by radical socialists. "This group, known as the Bolsheviks, struggled to keep their power by suppressing dissent and eliminating their opponents" (Llewellyn, 2012) The Bolsheviks also began planning Russia’s transformation which was from a backward economic state organized on medieval principles into a modern industrial and technological superpower. "This transformation alone made the Russian Revolution one of the most significant events in modern history for all countries" (Llewellyn, 2012).
Russian Revolution of October 1917 was the child of the antagonism of classes in contradictory imperialism. It started in poorly ruled environment of Tsarism, prepared by previous revolutions of 1905-6 (Hobsbawm, 1995, p.30). “So ready was Russia for social revolution that masses treated the fall of Tsar as a proclamation of universal freedom, equality and direct democracy. The uncontrolled masses transformed into Bolshevik power” (Hobsbawm, 1995, p.36). Many political parties had arose, however, not many of them knew how to rule the huge country. As country mainly was agrarian with more than eighty per-cent of peasants, who were hungry, landless and tired of the endless wars, Bolsheviks who represente...
The Russian Revolutions of 1917 led to the riddance of the czarist Russia as well as the ushering in of the socialistic Russia. The first of the two revolutions forced Nicolas II to abdicate his throne to a provisional government. Lenin headed the second of the two revolutions in which he overthrew the provisional government.
A filibuster procedure that allows a senator to speak against a bill for as long as he or she can stand and talk. It can become a formidable obstacle or threat against controversial bills near the end of a legislative session. (Gibson, Robinson pg.243) Some of the reasons why the filibuster is regarded an obstacle to legislation starts off with the two-thirds rule which basically requires the approval of at least two-thirds of senators before a bill can be debated on the Senate floor. This type of rule allows minority of senators to block controversial legislation. This rule also gives the senators the opportunity to vote on both sides of an issue. (Gibson, Robinson pg. 243 para 2) A filibuster can become a potent and ever-present threat against controversial legislation near the end of a session. An example of this is when a lieutenant governor may refuse to recognize the sponsor of a controversial bill because of the fear of a filibuster will delay the process for the legislative proposals. Something really interesting about filibuster that happened in the past is when State Senator Bill Meir of Euless was able to speak for forty-three hours in 1977 against a bill with the public reporting of on the job accidents. By doing this he was able to capture the world’s record for the longest filibuster, which he held for years. (Gibson, Robinson, pg. 243, para 5.) In my own aspect of the view of filibustering, I think its abusive power is a threat to legislation because it can become even deadlier when senators decide to use a tag team approach taking turns against a bill. (Gibson, Robinson, pg. 243 para 5) Another great example is recently Texas State Senator ...
“It has been said that one of the greatest political problems of the time is to reconcile representative institutions with good government.” With this problem in mind, the cabinet form of government, which is nearly synonymous with the parliamentary form of government, has been established to lessen the gap between representative institutions and good government or, if possible, make them one in the same through its unification of powers.