Hegel and the Russian Constitutional Tradition

The last Tsar Nicholas II ascended the throne in 1894 and was faced with a country that was trying to free itself from its autocratic regime. The serfs had recently been emancipated, the industry and economy was just starting to develop and opposition to the Tsar was building up. Russia was still behind Europe in terms of the political regime, the social conditions and the economy. Nicholas II who was a weak and very influenced by his mother and his wife had to deal with Russia’s troubles during his reign. In order to ascertain how successfully Russia dealt with its problems by 1914, this essay will examine the October Manifesto and the split of the opposition, how the Tsar became more reactionary after the 1905 revolution, Stolypin’s

A comparison between the U.S. constitution and Russian constitution is interesting due to the fact that America is often regarded (at least from the view of most Americans) as the pinnacle of freedom and democracy. The Russian Federation on the other hand has a much more complex image. The Russian Federation was formerly a country known as the Soviet Union, which was the pinnacle of communism throughout the 1900’s. Communism is a polar governmental structure compared to the U.S. The Russian Federation is today classified as a democracy, however, there are still remnants of the communist structure seen among leaders as a result of the way that the constitution is constructed.

The first of these tsars, Ivan III, also known as “Ivan the Great”, defied Mongol control and declared the autonomy of Moscow. Ivan III was soon followed by Ivan IV, also known as “Ivan the Terrible”, who declared his power by pushing aside his advisors, crowning himself tsar and crushing boyars, who were Russian nobles. At first, Ivan’s reign was successful as he added vast new territories to the Russian empire. Later, after his wife’s death, Ivan’s power and prosperity declined because he started persecuting those whom he believed opposed him. This resulted in the execution of many nobles and their families, friends, servants and peasants, in which he replaced with a new service nobility, whose loyalty was “guaranteed by their dependent on the state for land and titles.” [1] Ivan the Terrible nor Ivan III were never absolute rulers- their ways of ruling just helped lay the foundation for Russian absolutism. After Ivan IV and his successor died, Russia entered a “Time of Troubles”, which lasted from 1598-1613, in which the peasant warrior bands known as Cossacks, rebelled against their nobles who fought back and defeated the Cossacks. Ivan’s grand-nephew, Michael Romanov, was soon elected by the Zensky Sober- a body of nobles, and placed efforts toward state-building. He was succeeded by “Peter the Great”, the Russian king that truly consolidated Russian

On December 5, 1936, the Soviet Union adopted a new constitution to reform the government. It replaced the 1924 constitution that was ratified shortly after the death of Vladimir Lenin. The 1936 constitution lasted until 1977, when a new constitution was adopted. According to a former kulak named Andrei Arzhilovsky, people celebrated on the streets when the constitution was ratified, and everyone called it the “Stalin Constitution”. Rightfully so, it deserved the name because Josef Stalin was heavily involved in the creation of the new constitution. Indeed there were good reasons for Soviet citizens to celebrate the adoption of the new constitution, because it granted rights that were previously denied to the people. Among the rights that were provided were: (1) universal rights for all Soviet citizens including kulaks (2) freedom of religion (3) preservation of the rights of all ethnic groups. In this paper, I will argue that the 1936 Soviet Constitution did not achieve its goal of providing universal rights to all Soviet citizens,

In 1700 in Eastern Europe, the Russia tsar Peter the Great was the head figure in the government, and this continued up until Russia’s last tsar Nicholas II. In the 1700s, the tsars of Russia practiced absolutism, claiming divine right and having complete authority over their subjects. However, by the 1850s after the embarrassing losses in the Crimean War, due to the fact that Russia was far behind the West in technology, opposition against the tsar began to grow. In the 1860s, when

As the most powerful Orthodox Christian state, even under the thumb of the Mongols, Moscow was viewed as a successor to Constantinople. By this time, Constantinople had been under the very real threat of Turkish conquest. In 1453, this fear came true as Ottoman Turks took over the city. With that, the most powerful Orthodox Christian city in the world became Moscow. As a result, it was soon called the __Third Rome__, due to the fact that the original Rome had fallen to Catholic heretics and the Second Rome, Constantinople, had been defeated by the Turks. As such, Moscow gained significant cultural prestige throughout the Orthodox world, helping to consolidate its territorial gains throughout the

“I pity the Tsar. I pity Russia. He is a poor and unhappy sovereign…He is obviously a good and quite intelligent man, but he lacks will power, and it is from that character that his state defects developed, that is, his

In this lesson we explore the life and reign of one of Russia’s most reactionary monarchs of all time, Nikolai I, who had to quell a rebellion immediately upon his accession in 1825.

Their interrelation was overlapping rather than sequential although the whole book was written chronologically. The 1912-13 Balkan Wars challenged the imperial rule of Russia, together with other empires, by revealing diverse social dynamics there and Russian Empire’s weakness in controlling its peripheries. Therefore, the Empire applied violence to deal with its borderlands’ unrest and later with the social disorder in metropole. The year of 1917 but only witnessed the culmination of state failure culminated, but also the expanded forms and scope of the social disaster. Although the social disaster dominated the post-1917 Russian Civil War, it initiated in the pre-war period, as the reinforcement of the state rule after the 1905 Revolution showed. Moreover, nationalism did not play that much significant role in the process of decolonization, as many scholars anticipated. The long history of the Russian Empire and its long-term civic relationship with the peripheries in prewar period showed that nationalism did not dominate imperial subjects. While the subsequent fact, the trend toward “state-strengthening” rather than the collapse of the empire after the 1905-1907 crisis, further confirmed that decolonization was not necessarily caused by

Upon consideration, one would imagine that the United States of America’s constitution and the constitution of Russia would not be very similar. Due to the fact that the two nations are around 5,000 miles apart or even the fact that the Unites States Constitution was ratified on September 17, 1787, and Russia’s Constitution was ratified on December 12, 1993, a 206 year difference. Despite these facts, if one were to dig deeper into the Russian’s constitution, the many resemblances within the United States constitution begin to surface. However, due to the fact that the Constitutions were written 206 years apart, the political problems and traditions that the two nations were facing during development of these constitutions were extremely

In 1605 a man claiming to be Dmitri Ivanovich took the Russian throne after a military campaign. Only a year later Tsar Dmitri’s rivals assassinated him; however, there was a persistent myth among his supporters that he had escaped death and would eventually return to rule. In the following years other pretenders emerged claiming to be Dmitri, and to remove support for these false claimants Dmitri’s rivals manufactured a propaganda campaign to discredit Tsar Dimitri. The propaganda produced by Dimitri’s rivals denounced him as a sorcerer and heretic in an attempt to destroy his reputation. This paper will seek to understand how preexisting religious, political ideologies supported the narrative produced by the First False Tsar Dmitri’s rivals

It is therefore the view of this writer that without this concerted ideological shift about the nature of the ruler himself, the reforms would never have come to the fore. Peter’s own influence was then fundamental in transforming the concept of the Russian

Russia’s social problems included those of agriculture, labor, and nationality, socioeconomic inequality, society’s cultural split, and the low standard of living—even though it had risen. These problems were being dealt with successfully, but they had not been solved. Let us remember that the burden of the war that even Germany, which was modernized in all respects, was unable to withstand, proved to be very severe. Russia had the prerequisites for emerging from the war victorious (together with its allies) if it had not been for the increasingly fierce struggle for power between the monarchy and the radical liberal opposition, which, under the conditions of a very difficult war, criminally encouraged the people to overthrow Nicholas II. The Revolution went forward in accordance with the classic scenario: the crisis of the “Old Regime”; the establishment of the power of the “moderates”; the victory of the radicals who created “a kingdom of terror and virtue”; and Thermidor, or the counterrevolutionary coup and post revolution dictatorship. As a result of the irresponsible behavior of the liberal and revolutionary elites the country was plunged into chaos for a number of years. (Mironov 94).

The catastrophes of the past are the foundation of the future, events that occurred in the past cause people to envision a “better life” of not only for themselves but a society as a whole. By envisioning a better future individual rose up, advocated ideas, and policies that they believed would help in advancing their countries. For the purpose of this course, let us discuss the uprising of the Russian government and the European Council; both as single entities have their own goals, but collectively they seek to benefit their country(‘s) and promote prosperity, but through history and the changes of power has that aim been reached? Or if it is already has reached it, will these forms of government fail?

The present day Russian Federation involves a democratic system, given the presence of elections, an independent judiciary, and the supremacy of law. Yet, in democracy, the crux of it involves an inevitable paradox: law limits state power, but the state must have the power to enforce the law. However, finding the balance of the ability to enforce laws, and therefore maintaining order, while not infringing on civil liberties, requires a mutual understanding, a social contract, between the rulers and the ruled. This requirement has not found its place in the Russian political arena, especially since “creating a rule-of-law-based sate out of dictatorship is not easy” (Bressler 2009). In addition, the Russian psyche views authority as a source of force and violence (Yakovlev 1996), an etymological result of a continuity beginning from imperial Russia. Although the Russian Federation, the Union Soviet Socialist Republics, the Russian Empire, and the Tsardom of Russia differ significantly, a strong state remains prevalent in the core of Russian history and politics. In short, the nature of political rule in Russia involves a never ending tug of war between the seemingly undying authoritative soulless entity known as the state and the equally undying Russian people’s hunger for liberty.