FREE ESSAY ON THE DECEMBRISTS

THE DECEMBRISTS

The Decembrists Revolt of 1825
Russia has had a huge history as a country most of that history has been spread with a
vast range of revolutionary activity, aimed at over throwing the autocratic governments
of Russia. For the most part, the early revolts were provoked by the common folk who
lacked functional knowledge of politics and economic to implement reforms had the
revolutionaries had succeeded. In the early nineteenth century, however, the tides
changed directions as revolutionary ideas began to build in the hearts and minds of young
noblemen if Russia, who having witness the benefits of delivered by the constitutional
governments to the countries in western Europe. The young noble men after having the idea
implanted in there heads decided it would be good idea to free the motherland of its
tyrannical iron fisted autocratic oppression. These men were named after the unsuccessful
uprising of December 14, 1825, these men from now on would be written down in the history
books as Decembrists (Venturi 2). Although the Decembrist mutiny completely failed, it
was none the less the first attempt in modern Russian history to overthrow the absolutory
rule The small group of leader had in mind specific political goals for there motherland:
a reorganization of the government and abolition of serfdom. For the first time in the
entire history of Russia, there existed an influential group of society that held the
conception of Russian state as distinct and separate from the ruler and his
administrative institution. Intoxicated with the progressive ideas of Western
Enlightenment, these young men undertook an onerous task of eradicating the absolutist
regime and backwardness of their country. In the process wrote themselves in to the
history book as the fathers of the revolutionary time in Russia weather they knew it or
not.
Socially, nineteenth century Russia developed along the lines very different from those
of Western Europe. General backwardness of the Russian society, particularly evident in
the dominance of agriculture and enslavement of the peasantry, contrasts sharply with the
rise of modern urban capitalistic state in the countries of Western Europe. The impact of
the delayed progress was not as sadly perceived until the War of 1812 and subsequent
exposure to the Western culture soaked with sentiments of individual rights and freedoms
and fashioned in the manner of a modern industrial state. During the victorious march of
the troops across Europe, many of the latter-day Decembrists became familiar with ideas
of Enlightenment as well as a lifestyle devoid of autocratic repression and degrading
institution of serfdom. Upon their return, however, they were thrust back into the
totalitarian Russian society. A wave of resentment and humiliation began to boil over the
troops in response to the unjust treatment of the people at the hands of Alexander I, who
earlier summoned his subjects to repulse Napoleonic despotism yet imposed a regime more
tyrannical than Napoleon had been. (Zetlin 35) Mikhail Fonvizin reflects on the powerful
impression produced by the Western culture on the minds of his cohorts and the desire to
transform Russian into a liberal, progressive state:
During the campaigns through Germany and France our young men became acquainted with
European civilization, which produced upon them the strongest impression. They were able
to compare all that they had seen abroad with what confronted them at every step at home:
slavery of the majority of Russians, cruel treatment of subordinates by superiors, all
sorts of government abuses, and general tyranny. All this stirred intelligent Russians
and provoked patriotic sentiment. (Mazour 55)
Politically, Russia was pushed to the back burner due to its staunch adherence to
autocratic government structure long abolished by the modernized, constitutional European
countries. While the progressive ideas of Enlightenment were dramatically changing social
and political order of European society, Russia remained firmly unshakable in the ancient
principles of absolutism partly due to tradition and partly due to isolation of the
intellectual strata from the state affairs. Under the traditionally overbearing Russian
monarchs, the nobles were victimized by the arbitrary display of monarch power as much as
the peasants since their social and economic well-being depends on the unusual goodwill
of the czar who controls the economic status of the nobility through regulation of their
estates. As members of nobility began to claim their independence from the czar, a schism
developed between the state and the aristocracy (Raeff, Origins 78). Failure of the
monarchy to take nobility into its confidence resulted in estrangement of the latter from
state affairs producing an irremediable gap between the czar and the nobles. However, the
widening gap between the monarchical and the aristocratic band allowed for the birth of a
new social group within the Russian society known as intelligentsia (Venturi 109).
Comprised of the most intellectually advanced people of the time, intelligentsia issued
its the first challenge to the absolutist authority in the form of the Decembrist
uprising.
Masonic lodges served as a springboard for many Decembrists into a deeper pool of
political action (Ulam 6). Although many of them joined the lodges seeking a place to
vent their liberalism, their interest in the establishments quickly soured as Masonry
proved too narrow a field for the politically ambitious young men. Dissatisfied with
philanthropic formulae of the Masons, Alexander Muraviev organized the Union of Welfare
that attracted the most prominent figures of the movement--Pavel Pestel, Sergei
Trubetskoi and Nikita Muraviev (Mazour 66). Denial of freedom of speech as well as the
perpetual suspicion with which the state viewed any efforts of nobility to consolidate
necessitated establishment of the Union as a secret organization for whereas the
government tolerated mild activities of the Masons, it would not permit an openly
operating political party. The chief goals of the Union consisted of political
reorganization of the government and abolition of serfdom. However, the difficulty to
establish organizational and programmatic continuity within the Union resulted in
cripplingly underdeveloped platforms that are rooted more in political theory than
reality of Russian society and lead to the Union's dissolution in 1820, followed by
establishment of separate political camps in the North and in the South (Mazour 76-77).
Unlike, their French and English revolutionary counterparts, who basked in the political
tradition of participation in the government through assemblies of the Estates General
and Parliamentary meetings, the Decembrists were terribly removed from the political
arena and thus lacked the practical knowledge of political campaigning to implement their
proposals effectively. The Northern Society situated in St. Petersburg consisted of
moderate reformists who lean toward establishment of the constitutional monarchy, modeled
after the English version, and it was headed by Sergei Trubetskoi and Nikita Muraviev
(Mazour 78). By contrast, the Southern Society instituted by Pavel Pestel in Tulchin
gathered under its wings the more radical members of the movement who demanded complete
eradication of the existing system and establishment of a republic upon its ruins (Ulam
27).
In terms of political development, the Northern Society followed the pattern of
nineteenth century liberalism as its members required to protect the person and property
of individual citizens by imposing limitations on the up till now arbitrary power of the
monarch. As a reflection of the views of mild reformists desiring to preserve the
traditional framework of the Russian society with monarch and aristocracy in tact,
Trubetskoi and Muraviev's Constitution rests on the principles of equality before law
rather than equality among classes. Even though Muraviev designates people as the source
of sovereign power (Schapiro 89), he does not imply a democratic composition of the
society since in order to receive franchise, an individual has to satisfy eligibility
requirements consisting of high property qualifications. Essentially, this proposal
limits participation in the government to wealthy landowners, as with aristocracy
preserved, Russian peasant cannot hope to accrue the wealth required to subsidize his
participation in the election process. Composed primarily of men of ancient noble origin,
who rarely contacted with the populace, the members of the Northern Society were mostly
concerned with the aristocratic elite and improvement of its social status hence
neglecting the lower class, leaving it dependent on the wealthy proprietors as under the
czarist regime. In its attempt to augment nobility's influence in the affairs of the
state, the Northern Society is striving to compress the gap of political alienation
created by centuries of autocratic rule. Removed from the political arena for a
significant portion of its existence, the nobility was now essaying to establish itself
as the dominant ruling force consequently subjugating the monarch to its will, as it had
previously been subordinated to his rule. The composition of the government outlined by
Muraviev in the document is distinctly influenced by Montesquieu's political theory of
division of powers as it introduces the system of bicameral legislation and
checks-and-balances (Agnew 223). The sentiment of nobility's dominance over the monarch
is clearly established through the system of checks-and balances whereby the veto of the
executive power may be overridden by sufficient vote of the legislative branch. Reversal
of the roles is unmistakable for nobility ceases to be a plaything of the whimsical ruler
and assumes the domineering part itself stripping the monarch of his powers and reducing
him to a game piece in the hands of victorious gentility. The blatant naivete of the
Northerners is depicted in their sincere belief that the traditionally absolute monarch
would willfully acquiesce to the limitations on his power introduced by the Constitution.
Although the Northerners desired to eliminate autocracy, they nonetheless harbored a
belief in the benevolence and broadminded of their monarch. Muraviev, as did his
adherents, sincerely credited Alexander with submission to constitutional government once
he became acquainted with its enlightened principles.
The members of the Southern Society, led by the Russian Jacobin Pavel Pestel, perceived
the political situation more clearly and less naively that their Northern counterparts
(Venturi 384). Composed primarily of impoverished nobility with the exclusion of Pestel
and Muraviev-Apostol, the Southerners discarded the rose-tinted view of the benevolent
czar, sheltered by Trubetskoi and Muraviev, pointing to the despotic rule of Alexander I
as the source of wide spread decadence and misery. Therefore, Pestel's constitution
offers a less liberal and more radical method for eviction of autocratic rule--physical
extermination of the royal family. Cooperation with the tyrant as well as the concept of
constitutional monarchy appalled Pestel who insisted it to be a clever means to deceive
and lull people into obedience through democratic masquerade of equality in the
parliament. Pestel's argument bears significant weight when considering Muraviev's
proposal for property franchise which would launch the wealthy elite on the path to
becoming the ruling clique of the state, working exclusively toward its own social and
economic betterment, while allowing the peasantry to remain in political obscurity.
However, although Pestel extended universal male suffrage to all men exceeding age 21,
there was no equality in Pestel's Russia due to his intention to establish authoritarian
government (Venturi 110). Whereas Muraviev advocates government rule through people yet
restricts franchise to the wealthy aristocracy, Pestel in extending unrestricted male
suffrage proposes a government that governs in the name of the people but is not
controlled by their votes. In actuality, both platforms fall considerably short of their
high-soaring aspirations as notions of freedom and equality become nebulous and are
transformed into a privilege or are obliterated altogether (Venturi 69,105).
Locke's theory of social contract, consisting of a pact between the government and the
people, figures prominently in Pestel's vision of the government structure and his
division of society into two distinct groups: those who command and those who obey. Says
Pestel in his testimony, This distinction is unavoidable, for it is derived from human
nature and consequently exists and should exist everywhere. The former is the government
the latter is people. Government's role is to secure the welfare of people and for this
reason it has the right to demand obedience from the people. People have the duty to obey
the government and the right to demand it serves them without fail. (Raeff Decembrist
125)
Furthermore, Pestel's entire constitution is strongly permeated with socialistic spirit
apparent in the proposals for a classless society, total annihilation of aristocracy and
the merchant guilds as well as partial nationalization of land. According to Nechkina,
Pestel's political doctrine is somewhat reminiscent of Lenin's political ideals and
methods (Nechkina 175). Both men exhibit a striking degree of similarity in the approach
to reconstruction of the government through regicide, attainment of the equality in
society by liquidation of the class system and subsequent establishment of a classless
society and introduction of a dictatorial government that would insure a smooth
transition from one political system into another. Whereas the naivete of the Northerners
resided in their belief in a benevolent czar, the blindness of the Southerners is located
in the conviction that dictatorship is capable of instituting equality in the society.
Such political ambition proved to be of chimerical quality when in 1917 Lenin's
Provisional Government became the ruling clique of Russia and merely replaced one form of
empire with another. Lenin, however, takes into notice the cardinal miscue of
Decembrists--failure to cooperate with the masses. Writes Lenin,
...We see three generations, three classes at work in the Russian revolution. First, come
the gentry and landowners, the Decembrists. The circle of these revolutionaries is
narrow. They are terribly far from the people. (Yarmolinsky 102)
The partial source of the Decembrists' failure is to be located precisely in their
removal from the populace whose alleviation they were campaigning. Although the
Decembrists sincerely desired allayment of the yoke of serfdom from the necks of the
peasantry, the idea of cooperation with the mob was repugnant even to the most liberal
Decembrists. As they confined themselves to the intellectual circle, the Decembrists
developed erroneous perceptions of what freedom means to the Russian peasant. Although
they have lived side by side with the serfs from childhood, none of the Decembrists truly
understands the mind of the peasant. Consequently, inability to identify with him,
vividly illustrated by the emancipation projects, and involves him into the revolutionary
process results in the absence of popular support to produce a successful large-scale
revolution.
Nurtured by the lofty ideals of natural freedom that deem any infringement on
individual's inalienable rights as degrading, Muraviev proposed emancipation from serfdom
without allocation of land to the liberated peasants. Liberty itself is to be their
greatest reward (Venturi 110). Lack of familiarity with the economic concepts and the
traditional ties of Russian peasants to the land are clearly perceived in the ethereal
foundation of this platform. Implementation of such proposal would yield mass
pauperization, as there was no industry in Russia large enough to absorb the excess rural
population. Under the liberal laissez-faire economy, the emancipated peasants either
would perish from famine or forced to hire themselves out on miserable wages to their
former masters. In either circumstance, the economic condition of the peasant remains as
impecunious as under the czarist regime. Furthermore, liberated without land, the
peasants would inevitably revolt against the government that robbed them of their most
precious attachment. Land represented a life elixir for the Russian peasant who was not
able to picture himself apart from it and hence could not submit to the system that
deprived him of it.
Pestel's emancipation project is equally unbalanced, as it pays more heed to the economic
status of the peasant than his social freedom. While Pestel allocates a plot of land to
the liberated serf, he at the same time traps him within the fences of a centralized
economy whereby the farmer is subjected to the rigid rules of production and is
prohibited from obtaining profit. Both these types of emancipation have one thing in
common: neither gives the serf complete freedom One offers him personal freedom but
limited means to procure living, the other seeks to secure his economic status but denies
personal freedom.
Lack of agreement and coordination between the Northern Society and the Southern Society
as well as paralyzing underdevelopment of the liberation projects and governmental
schemes revealed itself in the hopeless failure of the uprising on the December 14, 1825.
Even though the political confusion within the Russian state, created by Alexander's
death and ensuing dispute pertaining to succession, generated a favorable atmosphere for
a rebellion, the Decembrists were not able to seize the opportunity due to these very
reasons. As a result the only regiment that lend its support to the insurgents was easily
disbanded by a few shots from the Czarist troops followed by the arrest of the leaders.
The revolt in the South, which took place two weeks later, is just as easily suppressed,
its leaders being arrested as well. 
The Decembrist revolt marked a turning point in the history of Russian revolutionary
movement due to its introduction of influential and intellectually advanced individuals
into the battle against autocracy. Unlike their predecessors, who lacked functional
knowledge of politics and economics to implement concrete reforms upon victory,
Decembrists devised definitive platforms outlining the future course of the Russian
state. Although for the most part these platforms were underdeveloped and conflicting in
agenda, their significance lies in their being first concrete political documents in
Russian history proposing a specific reform of government and the opus of society. The
failure of the uprising to eliminate absolutism, does not constitute cheeping of the
revolutionary seed planted by the Decembrists. The Decembrists, in fact, came to be
regarded as the forefathers of the Russian revolutionary movement by the future
insurgent, including Herzen, Petraschevsky and Lenin who looked to the Decembrists as an
inspiration in their fight against the autocracy (Ulam 27). The Decembrist have now
written themselves into the history book as the fathers of moder Russian revolution.
Weather they wanted to or not, did they know an uprising in the middle of December would
write a new page in history for Russia. No but that revolution was like a stoned being
dropped in a pool there ripple effect is still being carried out in the newly democratic
Russia. 
Bibliography
.Mazour, Anatole. The first Russian revolution. Stanford CA: StanUlam, Adam. Russia's
failed Revolutions. New York: Basic Book Inc, 1981ford University Press,1967.