Serfdom in Russia was practiced like slavery in the United States. The only difference was that; while Americans enslaved the non-natives, the Russians enslaved their natives. Also, land owners in Russia did not own the serfs like the Americans owned the Negros. Serfs were not completely equal to slaves though. They were living and working in lands that were not theirs, and were almost regarded as property. To provide for their own families, the serfs rented small tracts of land in the big land of the wealthy. The historical event of the emancipation of the serfs took place in 1861 under the reign of Alexander II. Controversy exists over whether the emancipation of serfs benefited them, or not, in the short term. This essay will argue that the short term significance of the emancipation of the serfs was not desirable. The essay will show that the expected goals of emancipation were not achieved in the short term.

Before embarking on the short term significance of emancipation, it is paramount to look at a short history of serfdom in Russia. The development of serfdom in Russia was realized through a series of centuries.  It is traced back to the eleventh century, but it gained roots after being enshrined into law. In 1864, during the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich, Sobornoye Ulozhenie, a law code was enacted, and it set the pace for legal serfdom (Lynch 2003). This enactment brought the serfs into a very low position in Russia. In the year 1723, Peter the great abolished slavery in Russia, though its effect was not widely felt. However, serfdom remained.

The emancipation of the serfs was a historical event in Russia that took place in 1861, under the reign of Alexander II. Alexander was a liberal leader who identified with the feudal system of Europe, though Russia had been looked down upon by the other powers in Europe (Lynch 2003).  After the defeat of Russian in the Crimean war, it dawned to the leader of Russia that the country was weak. Committees were made to look into the issue, and the liberal Alexander published the emancipation of the serfs in the month of March, in 1861. The manifesto was quickly enacted into law, and the serfs were freed. Though controversial, it is very clear from the events that followed, that it was a total failure. The reform of an issue that had become part of culture cannot be implemented in a day. It seems that the liberal Alexander II bit more than he could chew. Nafziger (2013) asserts that, even though the serfs were freed, they remained poor in the short term. Further, they remained landless, and as well, jobless. Even though the serfs were given freedom to buy land, the wealthy land owners remained holding onto the land. The only land that was available for the serfs to buy had hiked prices, making it difficult for the serfs to buy. Further, the serfs would be given loans by the government to buy the land. Going by the fact that land prices were hiked, big loans were needed to buy the lands. To make matters worse for the serfs, the loan was to be paid in a period of forty nine years. This meant a continued life of poverty for the ex-serfs. The redemption of the loans proved hard for the freed serfs. According to Lynch (2003), majority of the serfs lost their land after a while, as they sold it back to their former landlords in order to service the loans. On the same subject, Engelgardt connotes: “cultivation is carried on even less than before” (Frierson, 1993).

Social problems were realized in the cities of Russia as a result of the release of the freed serfs (Lynch 2003). The manner in which the emancipation was carried out was very rapid. The social problems included stigma among the peasants out of the burden of paying for the government debts.Concerning this social problem, Engelgardt observes that, “decay and destruction were everywhere” (Frierson 1993). Further, the surge of the populations in towns as a result of the many freed slaves posed social problems in regard to housing, sanitation and water. The pressure was too much, and it continued to rise, and is associated with the unrest that saw Russia go into a revolution in the year 1905.  This was a further indication that emancipation of serfs in Russia had a negative impact, in the short term.

The other reason explaining why emancipation was not successful in the short term was the fact that, it was carried out as a measure of easing the growing pressure of liberalism in Russia. This was based on an immediate realization of the incompatibility between Russia and its economic system (Sherman and Pearce 2002). The liberal Alexander and his right hand people in the governance also had a fear that; if they didn’t bring reforms, the economy was headed to crumble through a revolution. The defeat of Russia in the Crimean war had also reminded the tsar that he was not an absolute ruler, as he believed. Because of this defeat, the Tsar felt that Russia needed reforms urgently, leading to enactment of this law without first making some necessary considerations. Another source of pressure that facilitated a rapid implementation of the emancipation was the fact that feudalism had long been abandoned in Europe. All the other parts of Europe had transformed to the industrial and commercial age, and they had long left the slavery. Russia looked odd in the face of Europe to continue with its serfdom. These centres of pressure led to a rapid enactment of a law, and the rapid implementation led to its failure in the short term.

The emancipation policy looked attractive to the serfs in the beginning, but it immediately turned a nuisance for them. The law governing emancipation was enacted by a committee of the nobles, who greatly factored their benefit once the law is implemented. While introducing the idea of emancipation of the serfs, the Tsar Alexander had said: “I ask you, gentlemen, to figure out how this can be carried out to completion” (Lynch 2003). Alexander was addressing the nobles, and he wanted them to back the idea of emancipation. After a while when emancipation was implemented, the serfs came to realize the high price they were to pay for it. The beneficiaries were the landlords rather than the serfs. This is because the dvoriane were the ones behind the enacting of the emancipation proposals. By releasing the serfs, the landowners got very high compensation. Further, the nobles had the entitlement of deciding which holdings they would release to the serfs. This shows that even though the serfs were free, they didn’t have rights, or their right to ownership of property was not respected.However, only a third of the land, which was poor quality, was released to the serfs. This land yielded little foods, showing clearly that emancipation was not successful in the short term. To make things even worse for the serfs, the landowners were compensated for the things they gave to the serfs, while the serfs were required to pay for whatever they got, even though they had no savings.

The restrictions imposed upon the ex-serfs immediately after emancipation was another indication for its failure (Crisp 1976). When alexander II realized that the emancipation was likely to cause a lot of disruption and disorder, a decree was made that the serfs should stay in their localities. In obedience to this rule, the serf-peasants ended up purchasing land that was granted to the village. They bought at very high prices rendering them to continued poverty.

The imposition of heavy taxes to the freed serfs was not reasonable at all costs. The serfs were like slaves who had nothing of themselves to show. After the government enacted emancipation and implemented it, villages were administratively put under Mirs. These village communes had the mandate of organizing how taxes were collected even from the serfs (Sherman and Pearce 2002). The use of the local authorities and the mirs was also a restrictive mechanism to keep the ex-serfs in the localities. It beats logic how one can be empowered when their freedom of movement is restricted. These serfs were denied the freedom of movement. They could not move to look for fortunes. Since the serfs were now restricted to the village just like they were restricted in the land owner’s field, there was no difference between the serfs and the ex-serfs. This was a negative impact of emancipation.

The immediate post-emancipation period was also characterized by a continued deep distaste and fear for the ex-serfs. It was a culture of the Russians to view the peasantry as a potential threat because of the challenges they went through (Crisp 1976). There was a feeling that empowering the serfs would give them an advantage to revenge to the landowners. This made the status quo for the serfs to remain even after emancipation. This shows that the emancipation did not achieve its goal of liberating the serfs, in the short term.

Although Alexander II instituted some legislation after the emancipation, he is criticized that he was not being liberal just for the sake of being liberal, rather there was an ulterior motive hidden behind emancipation (Lynch 2003). Crisp (1976) observes that state records in Russia indicate that, between the year 1826 and 1854, there were seven hundred and twelve uprisings led by the peasants in Russia. These facts created tension among the royal class. Going by this, emancipation is viewed as a political strategy to keep the peasants calm, rather than for empowering them. Alexander is also accused of having made these rules as a result of calls from the intelligent class, to control the moves of the poor. This explains why the intelligent class sat in the committee that made the proposals for emancipation that was not favorable for the serfs. It is thus evident that the tsar hoped that the peasants would be pleased by the emancipation proposal, and serve generously for Russia’s army to regain its glory.

A closeexamination of the details of the emancipation proposal; one can appreciate that the details of emancipation were far less significant compared to the fact of reform. According to Lynch (2003), this is a programme that just raised expectations that were never realized. The promise of a new dawn that ended up to a tunnel of darkness for the peasants shows a betrayal by the government of Alexander II. Such failure was facilitated by the tsar’s urge to want to achieve immediately, yet a land reform cannot just be done abruptly. Further, after implementing the reform, the tsar did not to struggle to ensure the reform succeeded. Since imperial Russia was characterized by the privileged class and the peasants, the tsar had the urge to introduce reforms to the peasants without denying the nobles their privilege. This proved impossible.

Although the main aim of emancipation was to steer economic and social-political stability of Russia in commerce and industry, this was not realized in the short term (Sherman and Pearce 2002).Ironically, its result in the short term was frightening of the nobles, and an initiation of long-term suffering for the peasants. Although the peasants had very heightened hopes with the results, they ended up a disappointed lot. The tension grew only to take Russia to its 1917 revolution. In agriculture and commerce too, the policy did not work. Engelgardt puts it thus: “for the majority, the system of agriculture remains just the same” (Frierson, 1993). This indicates the negative impact of emancipation and the ineptitude of the tsars to liberate the people of Russia.

In conclusion, the emancipation of the serfs in Russia was of little significance in the short term. The emancipation was presided over by the nobles as the main law policy makers. They made the proposal in such a way that it favored them at the expense of the serfs. The freed serfs were to buy land at very expensive rates, and they were highly taxed. They were also restricted in the localities, so they could not move to better their fortunes. Further, the tsar’s government did not do much to ensure the policy succeeded. The whole process was a total failure, in the short term.                           [2055 words]

REFERENCES

Crisp, O. 1976. Studies in the Russian economy before 1914. London, UK: Macmillan Publishers.

Frierson, C.A. 1993. Aleksandr Nikolaevich Engelgardt’s letters from the country, 1872-1887. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Lynch, M. 2003. The emancipation of the Russian serfs, 1861: A charter of freedom or an act of betrayal? History Today. Retrieved online from http://www.historytoday.com/michael-lynch

Nafziger, S. (2013). Russian serfdom, emancipation and land inequality: New evidence.Retrieved online from http://www.iga.ucdavis.edu/Research/All-UC/conferences/huntington-2013/nafziger-paper

Sherman, R., & Pearce, R. 2002. Russia 1815-1881 (2^nd ed). London, UK: Hodder & Stoughton.

CLICK BUTTON TO ORDER NOW