Latest / The Romanov Dynasty: Rise, Power, and Bloody End — Fexingo History / Nicholas II and the Duma: Russia's Failed Parliament
Transcript
- Lucas: So we've talked a lot about Nicholas II's missteps — Bloody Sunday, the Russo-Japanese War, Rasputin — but one of the most interesting what-ifs of his reign is the Duma. The parliament he was forced to create after the 1905 Revolution. Luna: The Duma — that's the one that kept getting dissolved, right? Lucas: Exactly. There were four Dumas between 1906 and 1917, and Nicholas never really accepted the idea of sharing power. He saw it as a concession, not a partnership. The October Manifesto of 1905 promised civil liberties and a legislative Duma, but then the Fundamental Laws of 1906 basically gave the tsar veto power and the right to dissolve the Duma whenever he wanted. Lucas: The Fundamental Laws were issued in April 1906, just before the First Duma met. They stated that the tsar held 'supreme autocratic power' — which basically contradicted the whole idea of a constitution. So the Duma was a creature with its teeth pulled from the start. Luna: So it was a sham from the beginning? Lucas: Not entirely a sham — the Duma did have real debates, and it became a platform for opposition. But the tsar's ministers weren't responsible to the Duma, only to him. The Duma could propose laws, but the tsar could veto them. And the Duma had no control over the military or foreign policy. Lucas: The First Duma met in May 1906, and it was dominated by the Kadets, the Constitutional Democrats, led by Pavel Milyukov. They were liberals who wanted a genuine constitutional monarchy. They immediately demanded land reform — confiscating noble estates and distributing them to peasants. That was a non-starter for Nicholas. Luna: Land reform was the big issue, wasn't it? Lucas: It was the central issue for the peasantry, which was the vast majority of Russia. The Kadets proposed a bill that would have expropriated private land with compensation. The government rejected it outright. Then the Duma passed a vote of no confidence in the cabinet. In response, Nicholas dissolved the Duma after just 72 days. Lucas: The dissolution sparked protests. Some Kadets and other deputies went to Vyborg, in Finland, and issued the Vyborg Manifesto, calling for tax resistance and non-conscription. But it had little effect. The government simply arrested the signatories and banned them from future Dumas. Luna: So the Second Duma was even more radical? Lucas: Yes. It met in February 1907, and this time the left — Social Democrats and Socialist Revolutionaries — had a strong presence, along with the Kadets. They were even more confrontational, demanding land reform and attacking the government's repression. The Prime Minister, Pyotr Stolypin, tried to work with the Duma, but the atmosphere was toxic. Lucas: Stolypin is a fascinating figure. He was a conservative reformer. He believed in a strong state but also saw the need for change — especially agrarian reform to create a class of prosperous, landowning peasants who would be a bulwark against revolution. He introduced a series of measures that allowed peasants to leave the commune, the obshchina, and own land privately. Luna: Did that work? Lucas: Partially. By 1915, about a quarter of peasant households had taken advantage of the reforms. But it was slow, and it created tensions within villages between those who left and those who stayed. And it didn't solve the land hunger of the poorest peasants. Still, Stolypin's reforms were the most ambitious attempt to modernize rural Russia. Lucas: But back to the Duma. In June 1907, Stolypin accused the Social Democrats of plotting a military uprising. He demanded the Duma expel several deputies. When the Duma refused, he dissolved it — the so-called 'Coup of June 3'. He also changed the electoral law unilaterally, which was illegal, to ensure that future Dumas would be more conservative. Luna: So after the Second Duma, he basically rigged the system. Lucas: Exactly. The Third Duma, which met from 1907 to 1912, was dominated by the Octobrists — a more moderate party that accepted the October Manifesto — and conservative nationalists. It was much more cooperative with the government. Stolypin worked with them to pass his agrarian reforms and other legislation. This Duma actually served its full five-year term. Lucas: But even the Third Duma had its limits. It was still a forum for debate, and nationalist deputies from Poland and other minorities pushed back against Russification policies. And the left, though reduced, still had voices like Alexander Kerensky, who was a lawyer and a member of the Socialist Revolutionary Party. Luna: Kerensky — he'll be the leader of the Provisional Government in 1917. Lucas: Right, he rose to prominence in the Duma, particularly in the Fourth Duma, which met from 1912 to 1917. The Fourth Duma was even more conservative, but as World War I dragged on, it became a focal point of criticism against the government. Deputies formed the Progressive Bloc in 1915, which demanded a government of public confidence — basically a cabinet responsible to the Duma. Lucas: Nicholas refused. He dismissed ministers the Duma trusted and took personal command of the army in 1915, which tied him directly to military failures. By 1916, the Duma was openly denouncing Rasputin's influence. The conservative deputy Vladimir Purishkevich gave a famous speech calling Rasputin a 'evil genius' who was destroying the dynasty. Luna: So the Duma actually played a role in the February Revolution. Lucas: Absolutely. In February 1917, when strikes and protests broke out in Petrograd, the Duma refused to obey Nicholas's order to dissolve. Instead, a group of deputies formed a provisional committee, which became the Provisional Government. The Duma essentially transferred its authority to that government. So the Duma, which Nicholas had created reluctantly, ended up being the vehicle for his abdication. Lucas: It's a tragic irony. The Duma was meant to be a safety valve, but Nicholas never really let it function. If he had worked with it, if he had appointed ministers who had the Duma's confidence, perhaps the monarchy could have survived. Instead, he bypassed it, ignored it, dissolved it, and in the end, it turned against him. Luna: It's like he learned nothing from 1905. Lucas: He didn't. He believed autocracy was his sacred duty. And that belief, more than anything, doomed the dynasty. Luna: You know, it's episodes like this that really bring home how much research goes into every detail. And it's only possible because a small group of listeners chips in to keep the show ad-free. Lucas: That's right. If you've been stepping into history with us episode by episode, and you want to help us keep doing deep dives like this, you can find us at buy me a coffee dot com slash fexingo. It's a really simple way to support the show, and we're grateful for every contribution. Luna: Yeah, it makes a huge difference. And it means we can keep digging into these stories without any ads. Lucas: And we get to bring you the kind of specifics that make history come alive — like Stolypin's land reforms, or the fiery debates in the First Duma. So thanks for listening, and for considering it. Lucas: Anyway, back to the Duma's legacy. After the February Revolution, the Provisional Government that emerged from the Duma tried to establish a democratic republic. But it was weak, torn between the Petrograd Soviet and its own internal divisions. And by October, the Bolsheviks swept it away. Luna: So the Duma experiment ultimately failed. Lucas: It did. But for a decade, it was the closest Russia came to constitutional government before 1917. And it gave a generation of politicians — Milyukov, Guchkov, Kerensky — the experience of parliamentary politics. That experience shaped the brief democratic interlude of 1917. So the Duma wasn't just a footnote; it was a dress rehearsal for revolution.