The effects of the Great Reforms (for brevity's sake, hereafter referred to as GR) were wide ranging and long lasting, but as a whole they do not support the notion that Alexander II was a progressive autocrat. Many of the GR would erode the strength of the Romanov system and contribute to the fragmentation of society that led to both the Revolutions of 1905 and 17.

The chief act associated with Alexander II was his abolition of serfdom in 1861. This had been a third rail within Russian politics for over fifty years. There was a growing consensus within Russian ruling circles that serfdom was an archaic anomaly that was out of place in the contemporary world. For Russia to be European, this logic held, serfdom would need to be abolished. The problem was one of how to get rid of serfdom without alienating the large rentier class of land owners, many of whom the state relied on as servitors within the large Russian hinterland. The GR decided upon an expedient solution of legal emancipation, but a confusing patchwork of redistribution and repayment of the landowners for the land. The GR emancipation meant little in reality for land ownership for the serf -turned peasant. Few serfs could afford to make the payment for the land outright and the Russian state lacked the resources implement emancipation in a consistent manner. The peasant commune, the mir or obshchina, negotiated with the landlords and ended up owning land and parceled it out collectively.

Coupled with emancipation was a series of localist reforms that granted a degree of autonomy and self-governance. In the Russian countryside, the zemstvo (pl. zemstva) had a very limited franchise but went a long way towards establishing something that resembled a civil society within the Russian countryside. A zemstvo was responsible for local issues and the development and maintenance of the local infrastructure. It also gave peasantry a degree of equal footing towards the nobility (limited, but much higher than prior to the GR). The zemstva were largely limited to the core Russian territories; they were not within the Western Provinces nor in Siberia or Central Asia.

Within Russian cities and towns, Alexander II's reforms gave a degree of autonomy, but the GR laid the foundations for larger social conflicts. Although the GR allowed for elected city council (Duma) which appointed the executive council and the mayor. The franchise was incredibly restricted and based on land ownership and a series of nebulous other restrictions. This made the political governance of the Russian cities very tense as they evolved into metropolises. For example, Moscow had an odd situation as the new money industrialists often could not vote (they rented) and the owners of hovels could.

The most successful of the GR that reflects the notion of Alexander II as a progressive force were the judiciary reforms. The 1864 judiciary reform set up an independent judiciary, a jury system and Russian Bar system that allowed for the professionalization of law. The first generation of Russia's nascent political party's leadership came from the Russian legal system.

One of the contradictions of the GR is that they exemplified the state's desire for Russia to modernize but also arrest the social changes that modernity unleashes. This was partly a function of how the Romanovs saw themselves within the state framework. Throughout the GR, one of the sacrosanct elements was the importance of autocracy; neither Alexander II nor his successors would tolerate any reform that ate away at the political strength of the tsar. Alexander II likened his role as a mediator between the various social groupings. This further fragmented political and social society at the expense of the institution of the tsar. The tsar simply could not be all things to such a heterogeneous polity as the Russian Empire. The historian Alfred Rieber describes late Russian society as a "sedimentary society," in which various social identities coexisted and overlapped with one another. The democratization elements of the GR was one layer of these sediments, but this ultimately prevented any widespread social cohesiveness from evolving under the tsarist state.

Why then does Alexander II have such a reputation as "Tsar Liberator"? His assassination certainly added a counterfactual gloss to him, like JFK and Lincoln. Partly this is also a function of the fact that he came between two very conservative tsars. His father, Nicholas I, was a somewhat eccentric tsar who embraced Metternich's system of reaction with a verve and energy that surprised many. Like his Prussian counterpart Frederick William IV, Nicholas I believed he possessed a mystical connection with the land and its people. Alexander III was unlike his father and embraced Bismarckian archconservative nationalism and sought to transform the monarchy into a bastion for the right. Finally, it should also be remembered that the very idea of reform was daunting for any tsar to undertake. Alexander II was able to use the defeat of the Crimean War to transform the Russian state in a series of massive leaps in a different direction. Alexander II possessed a degree of political realism that his son and grandson both lacked. Given how badly Nicholas II reacted to crises in the twentieth century, some appreciation of Alexander II is warranted even if he does not live up to his popular memory.

sources

Clowes, Edith W., Samuel D. Kassow, and James L. West. Between Tsar and People: Educated Society and the Quest for Public Identity in Late Imperial Russia. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1991.

Lincoln, W. Bruce. The Great Reforms: Autocracy, Bureaucracy, and the Politics of Change in Imperial Russia. DeKalb, Ill: Northern Illinois University Press, 1990.

Weeks, Theodore R. Across the Revolutionary Divide: Russia and the USSR, 1861-1945. Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011.

Wortman, Richard. Scenarios of Power: Myth and Ceremony in Russian Monarchy. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1995.

Ooh, interesting topic. In short, Alexander II’s rule witnessed a series of reforms that has led some historians to praise his progressive approach to Tsarist rule, however in effect little actually changed between the years 1855-1881. It’s difficult to answer your question quickly as the Tsar did a lot during his reign, so I’ll try my best to be concise… Alexander’s main areas of reforms were: Serf Emancipation (1861), legal reforms, local government ‘overhauls’, education reforms, and the modernisation of the military. In addition to this, towards the end of his reign, Alexander took a tougher, more reactionary stance.

In 1861, Alexander II passed legislation officially emancipating the serf population of Russia; overnight, between 18-25 million people were officially freed, constituting to the vast majority of the Russian population. ‘Serfs’ were state- or privately-owned peasants, mostly living in appalling conditions and subjected to the frequently cruel treatment of their masters (nobles). The majority of serfs were farmers who tended to private land, allowed to produce crops; as serfs were not allowed to own property, they had no money and could not afford food, so were frequently forced into subsistence farming – this meant the Tsarist agricultural system was inefficient and famines were common as there were no real stockpiles in case of failed harvests. A minority of serfs were ‘household serfs’; these were servants who lived within a noble’s home and were officially recognised as their master’s property. The horrible conditions these people lived in were written about by writers such as Tolstoy, who criticised their lack of rights (for example, serfs had to get permission from their owners to even marry!). 1861’s legislation was seen by many to be a huge symbolic step; Russia’s maintenance of serfdom set her apart from the rest of the Great Powers and contemporaries often blamed it for the inefficiency of the government. While former serfs were technically free to own land, most had 25% less land to work on, so the problem of starvation was worsened as people did not have enough room to produce a sufficient amount of crops; household serfs were guaranteed no land at all, so were made homeless. To make matters worse, freed serfs were made to pay redemption taxes to their former owners, however with no money they could not pay and the unaffordable inflation rates (around 6%) attached to them meant most did not ever fully pay. By the end of Alexander’s rule, former serfs possessed a mere 20% of Russia’s land; redistribution was not fair and the conditions of the poor were arguably worsened as a result of this. Hence, Russian society arguably remained the same in terms of its hierarchy and the conditions of the poorer socio-economic strata, however it had symbolically begun to develop socially.

Alexander II intended also to modernise the Russian education system. Early on into his reign, he allowed universities to teach ‘liberal’ subjects (e.g. economics), expanded university places, and allocated more money to the expansion of primary and secondary education. Education available in Tsarist Russia improved under Alexander, although it was far from revolutionary; like in other countries at the time, the poor mostly remained illiterate. So, there were educational advances in the period, but these improvements were not felt by all within Russia.

Local government was also reformed during Alexander’s rule. In 1864, the Tsar created the Zemstva system which allowed people to vote for a local council to deal with affairs linked to education, public health, and transport. This was arguably the first instance of any kind of democratic system within Russia up until this point. Then, in 1870, Alexander extended the Zemstva to towns, enabling greater representation within government. That said, the members of these councils were almost entirely dominated by wealthier land owners, so were not truly representative of the masses. Furthermore, the Zemstva had no financial backing so were often mere talking shops and had no say in governmental affairs, meaning there was still no true form of national representation. Hence, while a layer of democratic representation had been created, power still lay in the hands of the same sections of society and, ultimately, in the hands of the Romanov Tsar. On the other hand, in the areas of the military and law, Russia developed considerably. Alexander reformed Russia’s archaic legal system by making the judiciary independent of the government, allowing trial by jury, increasing judges’ salaries to combat corruption, making trials public, and codifying the law. I think it was Hugh Seton-Watson who said that the courts were ironically the only free place in Alexander II’s Russia. In terms of the modernisation of the military, Alexander shortened national service but passed universal conscription (so even the landed nobility had to join the military), increased military funding, created an officer corps, and attempted to decrease nepotism. It’s difficult to judge the success of Russia’s military reforms as she did not fight any major wars during Alexander’s rule, although the steps taken undoubtedly improved the Russian military (to what extent is debateable).

So, in most ways Russian society remained the same during Alexander’s reign, however some developments did take place. Ultimately, the ‘Tsar Liberator’ was assassinated in 1881 by the very people he emancipated 20 years earlier; the fact he failed to sufficiently deal with the very problems that caused instability at the beginning of his reign suggests that little actually changed for the ordinary working man. Still, he succeeded to delay the popular, serf-led revolution that he so openly feared.

I hope this helped answer your question – it’s a very interesting topic and no doubt many people will disagree with my judgement. Still, having studied the period a lot over the past two years, I have come to the conclusion that little changed and Alexander II was primarily concerned with preserving the Romanov autocracy and preventing a revolution. And I think the way he became increasingly reactionary in his later years (such as creating the Okhrana secret police to brutally put down revolutionary attempts and spy on the Russian people) shows that these aims were at the centre of his policy-making and show that little really changed under his rule.

Source: Studied Tsarist Russia extensively over the past 2 years; Hugh Seton-Watson