Alexander III was the Tsar of Russia from 1881 to 1894 and during his reign, Russia became somewhat stable, and Alexander himself opposed his father’s reforms and stamped out any opposition to his rule.
His father, Alexander II had allowed reformers to be present in the government. This allowed instability and opposition at times when Russia was not in its better stages. Revolts and rebellions has plagued Russian History and opposed the Tsars in the past. From this, Alexander III wanted to keep reformers out of the Government in an attempt to reduce opposition and keep stability. He was somewhat successful, there were fewer rebellions against the Tsar and stability was in order …show more content…
This again allowed Alexander to use force to control his people, stopping opposition by means of force and interference. It was successful for a long period of time. Alexander then changed the Zemsta act in 1890, he gave his favour to the landowners so that they could reduce the impact of the peasants vote. Although this upset the peasants, they had very little power anyway, and so did not create much opposition to his reforms. The landowners were happy, and had more power the peasants and so by keeping them happy he reduced the chance of a rebellion against his rule. He also made it more difficult for the lower classes to get an education by raising education fees. This reduced the chance of the lower class becoming politically educated and standing against the Tsar, and so the chance of opposition was reduced.
In 1889, crimes could be heard without a jury and this undermined trial by Jury. Although this meant opposition could be stopped more efficiently and quickly, it was disliked by many of the people of Russia and many crimes were condemned unfairly. It sparked a lot of dislike and although it did not lead to a rebellion, it did mount upon a stack of Alexander’s reforms and tension rose.
Alexander III also suppressed other religions to the