Public Participation In Government And Democracy Between 1906-1917

Public participation in government was almost entirely deficient in the 100 year period apart from the period 1906-1917 where public participation in government and democracy was existent for the first time and possibly the very last time. This is probably owing to ideology and perhaps the leaders’ persistence and devotion to that conviction as well as perhaps the leaders’ stubbornness attributable to their personal benefit of their dictatorship. Also an evaluation of public participation in government is incomplete if it doesn’t realize the indifference of the people concerning the privation of democracy as it is difficult to materialise a change without support of the people. Furthermore the failure of the Dumas’ and the provisional government

Before the revolution it was an aristocratic system and leaders, who like Lenin, adhered to their ideologies, which deprived Russia of a democracy. The only real limit to the power and influence of the Tsar was the sheer vastness of the empire and the scale of corruption on the part of his ministers and officials. It is arguable that Alexander II had a more liberal approach supported by his emancipation of the Serfs in 1861. However in this case it is the assassination of Alexander which prevented public contribution and progress for a generation. Alexander II had signed a draft constitution resuscitate and widen the social reforms he began with the emancipation of the serfs. ‘Alexander’s assassination, by the revolutionaries themselves, put an end to any hopes of progress for a generation’ Although Alexander intended for social reforms it was once social unrest and revolutionary violence was rife that he decided to implement this. This suggests that it is his belief in his ideology that prevented him from these reforms even the reforms of 1861 was opposed and Alexander stated that ‘it is better to liberate the peasants from above rather than wait till they win their freedoms from below’ . However there is a sense that even if his assassination were not to happen the reforms to be made were only going to pacify the public and wouldn’t really satisfy the demands for freedom and democracy. The leading revolutionary Vera Figner contended that ‘tsarist power would never be able to deliver what they were demanding the only solution was revolution’ . Despite this being from a revolutionary it is in all probability the reality as Tsarism and democracy were almost a dichotomy and could by no means co-exist. They could only placate and appease but not in the slightest satisfy the demands for democracy and public participation in government. To add to this futility Alexander’s son was infuriated as