The other obstacle to liberalization was the intelligentsia, broadly defined as a category of citizens, mostly upper- and middle-class and educated, in permanent opposition to tsarism, who demanded, in the name of the nation, that the Crown and bureaucracy turn over to them the reins of power. The monarchy and its officialdom regarded this intelligentsia as unfit to govern. Indeed, as events would demonstrate, the intelligentsia vastly underestimated the difficulties of administering Russia: it regarded democracy, not as the product of a slow evolution of institutions and habits, but as man’s natural condition, which only the existing despotism prevented from exerting its beneficial influence. Since they had no administrative experience, they tended to confuse governing with legislating. In the eyes of bureaucrats, these professors, lawyers, and publicists, if given access to the levers of power, would promptly let it slip from their hands and unleash anarchy, the only beneficiaries of which would be the radical extremists. Such was the conviction of the Court and its officials. There existed among the intelligentsia sensible, pragmatic individuals, aware of the difficulties of democratizing Russia and willing to cooperate with the establishment, but they were few and under constant assault from the liberals and socialists who dominated public opinion.
The Russian establishment of 1900 believed that the country simply could not afford “politics”: it was too vast, ethnically too heterogeneous, and culturally too primitive to allow for the free play of interests and opinions. Politics had to be reduced to administration carried out under the aegis of an impartial arbiter personified in the absolute ruler.
An autocracy required an autocrat: an autocrat not only in terms of formal prerogatives but also by virtue of personality; barring that, at least a ceremonial monarch content to reign while the bureaucracy ruled. As genetic accident would have it, however, on the eve of the twentieth century Russia had the worst of both worlds: a tsar who lacked the intelligence and character to rule yet insisted on playing the autocrat.
In the nineteenth century, strong rulers succeeded weak and weak strong with unexceptional regularity: the vacillating Alexander I was followed by the martinet Nicholas I, whose successor, Alexander II, had a gentle disposition. His son, Alexander III, personified autocracy: a giant of a man who twisted pewter tankards with bare hands, amused company by crashing through locked doors, loved the circus, and played the tuba, he had no qualms about resorting to force. Growing up in his father’s shadow, the future Nicholas II displayed early all the traits of a “soft” tsar. He had no lust for power and no love of ceremony: his greatest pleasures came from the hours spent in the company of his wife and children and from outdoor exercise. Though cast in the role of an autocrat, he was actually ideally suited for the role of a ceremonial monarch. He had exquisite manners and great charm: Witte thought Nicholas the best-bred person he had ever met.7 Intellectually, however, he was something of a simpleton. He treated autocracy as a sacred trust, viewing himself as the trustee of the patrimony which he had inherited from his father and was duty-bound to pass on to his successor. He enjoyed none of its perquisites, confiding to a minister that if he did not think it would harm Russia, he would gladly be rid of his autocratic powers.8 Indeed, he seemed never as happy as after being compelled in March 1917 to abdicate. He learned early to hide his feelings behind a frozen mask. Although suspicious and even vengeful, he was basically a decent man, simple in his tastes, quiet and shy, disgusted with the ambitions of politicians, the intrigues of officials, and the general morals of the age. He disliked powerful personalities, keeping at arm’s length and sooner or later dismissing his most capable ministers in favor of amiable and deferential nonentities.
Brought up in a very circumscribed Court atmosphere he was given no opportunities to mature either emotionally or intellectually. At the age of twenty-two he impressed one high official as a
rather attractive officer [
Even when Nicholas was twenty-three, according to the same official, Alexander III bullied and treated him as if he were a child. When on one occasion the Tsarevich dared to defy his father by siding with the bureaucratic opposition, Alexander made his displeasure known by pelting him at dinner with bread balls.10 He spoke of his son contemptuously as a “girlie,” with a puerile personality and ideas, entirely unfit for the duties that were awaiting him.11
