ALEXANDER II REFORMS: LOCAL
GOVERNMENT (1864 - 1870)
The
'ZEMSTVA'
Government
introduced
PROVINCIAL and
DISTRICT councils.
*1864
Assemblies/Councils
were to be ELECTED by
nobles, town dwellers,
the Church and
peasants.
System of separate
ELECTORAL COLLEGES -
peasants, nobles, the Church
and townspeople - to make up
the voting procedure.
- HOWEVER... the
arrangement of
thesystem was rigged to
allow the NOBILITY to
DOMINATE!
- Despite SOME peasant
representation, these 'people
assemblies' typically attracted
doctors, lawyers, teachers and
scientists; who, disappointingly,
became more interested in
criticising and debating about the
government.
- Electoral system
favoured the
NOBILITY!
40% members
of DISTRICT
zemstva
>70%
members of
PROVINCIAL
zemstva.
Provinces where
RUSSIANS formed the
MAJORITY of the
POPULATION and
RULING ELITE.
(1864 = 19
provinces, with
Zemstva)
(1914 = 37
provinces, with
Zemstva)
- NOT massively widespread;
only introduced to a LIMITED
number of provinces and SLOW
to take form; as there were
ONLY 70 PROVINCES in total!
Elected for
3 years.
Each Zemstva
selected a
GOVERNING
BOARD from
their members.
RESPONSIBILITIES
OF THE
'ZEMSTVA'
Health
+ HOSPITALS built
carried lasting
benefits!
Education.
Road and
bridge
maintenance
+ ROADS built
carried lasting
benefits!
Local
economic
affairs.
Played an increasingly
important role in LOCAL
AREAS!
(1870) Extended to
newly elected
'DUMAS' (TOWN
COUNCILS).
POSITIVES
+ Brought
IMPROVEMENTS to
many aspects of LOCAL
AREAS!
Roads.
Health
facilities.
Street
lighting.
Drainage
systems.
Water
supplies.
Primary
schools.
+ Brought a
VALUABLE
addition to LOCAL
government!
+ Those in charge of the councils
gained POLITICAL EXPERIENCE in
managing affairs; many wishing to
take this through to a NATIONAL
LEVEL!
Members of the THIRD ELEMENT
within the Zemstva developed
enough confidence to issue demands
for SOCIAL REFORM and BETTER
LIVING CONDITIONS!
"Believed themselves to
constitute a kind of
'alternative establishment,'
more truly representative of
the Russian nation and more
genuinely able to serve it
than the regime was."
Geoffrey
Hosking
British
Historian.
WEAKNESSES/LIMITATIONS
- RESTRICTIONS were
placed on their powers
of TAXATION; had
trouble RAISING TAXES!
- DOMINATED by the NOBILITY;
many did NOT take their
responsibilities seriously, or took
ADVANTAGE of the opportunity to
operate affairs in their OWN
INTERESTS!
The PEASANTS were
discouraged by the
NOBILITY, and
unfortunately often did
NOT really participate in
local affairs.
- PEASANTS resented
paying the Zemstvo TAX!
- MIXED results! Some more
enterprising Zemstva, but
equally also some lazier,
indolent leadership.
Their POWER was STRICTLY
LIMITED, and so decisions were
NOT ABSOLUTE; the nobility and
local Marshalls were able to veto
their ideas.