Tsarist Russia Challenge- " Russia, light of the free world"

Straha

Banned
Now as we all know, Russia has come close to seeing prosperity on the level of the west(right before WWI) at a few points but never quite made it. Now it also saw some periods of reform, but those didn't make it.

With that said... your challenge is to create a world where Tsarist russia is alive and well in 2005 as a global superpower and a rich democratic nation. Bonus points if you make it the world leader and a nation that's the model for the rest of the world.
 
Forum Lurker said:
Tsarist Russia cannot be a democracy and remain Tsarist. I take it that a constitutional monarchy is in order?
Well, the Constitutional Monarch can still be called a Tsar, can't he? :p
 
Does it matter how it comes about?

I have been planning a timeline for a long time on this subject. It drastically alters World War II and the years following that conflict.
 
Imajin said:
Well, the Constitutional Monarch can still be called a Tsar, can't he? :p

Certainly, but a democracy is not a constitutional monarchy. One is rule by the people, the other is rule by the people with an arcane set of laws which give a varying degree of actual power, but a fair degree of nominal respect, to a hereditary position.
 
Democratic

Forum Lurker said:
Certainly, but a democracy is not a constitutional monarchy. One is rule by the people, the other is rule by the people with an arcane set of laws which give a varying degree of actual power, but a fair degree of nominal respect, to a hereditary position.


Ah, but Constitutional monarchies can be democratic. My proposed POD is in the nineteenth century.
 
Forum Lurker said:
Certainly, but a democracy is not a constitutional monarchy. One is rule by the people, the other is rule by the people with an arcane set of laws which give a varying degree of actual power, but a fair degree of nominal respect, to a hereditary position.

Democracy and monarchy are not opposites. Monarchy is the opposite of a republic. You can have a democratic monarchy, such as lots of monarchies with written constitutions (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, to pick a few in the Anglosphere - and yes, I know Canada isn't entirely within the Anglosphere) or democratic monarchies without a written constitution (the UK). And you can have democratic republics or undemocratic republics too, come to that.

Cheers,
Kaiser Wilhelm III
 

Molobo

Banned
Democracy and monarchy are not opposites. Monarchy is the opposite of a republic.
Well monarchy comes in many ways also.The Russian one was very absolutic and influenced by asiatic despotism/the root being Tatar rulership of Russia for a long period of time/
Another problem is that Russian Empire consisted of several conquered countries and nations which resented being in it and fought rather determined to get away.
 
Could you not tackle this the other way by having the Tsars institute democratic reforms, whilst the rest of the world goes reactionary and authoritarian?
 
or democratic monarchies without a written constitution (the UK).

The UK does have a written constitution. It is not codified however.
 
Molobo said:
Another problem is that Russian Empire consisted of several conquered countries and nations which resented being in it and fought rather determined to get away.
Well all we need is either 1) Russia gets less at Vienna- If most of Poland remains as autonomous under Prussia, the Poles, who I believe were the most unruly of the minorities, or 2) More autonomous regions, which aren't wiped out by the Czar (I know there was a Grand Duchy of Finland and a Kingdom of Poland in OTL)
 
I think that a sharp blow to Nikolai II's head would give Russia the best opportunity to become a liberal and open society by the end of the 20th century. If one could tweak Nikolai's personality just a bit, as I once mentioned in another looong (winded) Russia-thread, we could marry him off to somebody with a more realistic, and saner, image of what it meant to be the ruler of Russia. Or have him travel more in Europe - I think he went to Denmark a few times, mayby he caught on to the idea that ruling wasn't the same as being a heavy handed dictator...

Russia at the beginning of the 20th century had a lot of potential to become the Light of the Free World, but was basically ruined by Tsar Nikolai II's - and his croonies - ineptitude and their intense dislike of anything that would undermine the absolute monarchy.

Best regards!

- Mr.Bluenote.
 
It's a stretch to claim that Russia was "almost on par with the West" in 1914 - it was really quite far behind. As for politically, it was considerably LESS democratic than even the Ottoman Empire.

A liberal democratic Tsarist Russia would almost certainly fragment - probably not as much as the USSR did, but I don't see the Baltics, Caucasians, and Central Asians, and Poles staying in short of force.
 
It's a stretch to claim that Russia was "almost on par with the West" in 1914 - it was really quite far behind. As for politically, it was considerably LESS democratic than even the Ottoman Empire.

Russia in 1914 had the same GDP as the UK and Germany
(obviously not on a per capita basis)

ah, the wondrous "democratic" Ottoman parliament
election to the Ottoman parliament was indirect
it was such a liberal body that within 3 years it had its first debate on the danger of zionism (1911)
this merry state of affairs was so liberal that the Ottoman governor only had to execute 21 dissident intellectuals in Beirut and Damascus in 1913

the wonders of Ottoman democracy were such that the the 1st Arab National Congress was held in the traditional bedouin town of... Paris in the same year.

Russia meanwhile had ABOLISHED THE DEALTH PENALTY because it was such an awful tyranny...
 
Abdul Hadi Pasha said:
It's a stretch to claim that Russia was "almost on par with the West" in 1914 - it was really quite far behind. As for politically, it was considerably LESS democratic than even the Ottoman Empire.

A liberal democratic Tsarist Russia would almost certainly fragment - probably not as much as the USSR did, but I don't see the Baltics, Caucasians, and Central Asians, and Poles staying in short of force.

Maybe with a more gradual change, such as starting the liberal movements in the Russian heartland proper, and creating something akin to "dominion" status for the other states, with a promise of eventual full rights after however many years. After a generation or two where Russia proper is being democratized (is it a right word?) the military control could be somewhat relaxed, and a federation of sorts could be established. I am sure that eventually down the line there would have been an influential political thinker/leader in Russia who would have looked at the United States model of dividing the country into "states" and thought it could be made to work, with certain changes for the Russian psyche and culture...

Poland, however, would be likely to go away, simply because it has long tradition of independence, and never really wanted to be in with Russia. The -Stans, well, they would not really have the institutions or organization necessary at the time to go off on their own, and not to fall into another empire's sphere of influence - the British, or the Ottomans, should they survive, are two prime candidates for this. Rather, Russia could do what it (and USSR) did historically in OTL - integrate the local ruling class into the Russian elite, give them wealth and power, and use them to quietly rule the provinces under Russian sovereignty. The only difference would be that instead of being "Prince" of You-Name-It, or the local Communist Party leader, they would be called "the governor of...".

I do however agree that any sort of democratization would be a slow process, and is not likely to immediately have any effect in outlying provinces - rather, the provinces could only get the benefits of democratization after several generations, if not more. Then again, considering that the US is pretty much the world power everyone looks at these days, it is noteworthy that we had very discriminatory laws, and our rights did not extend to all the citizens as recently as 1960s - and we still see ourselves as "light of the free world", to an extent. Therefore, if a POD is around 1900, give or take few years, Russia may not become the truly democratic, egalitarian society until 1960s or 1970s - but one has to keep in mind that very few truly democratic and egalitarian societies existed until that time in OTL - even the countries we think of as democratic right now had not acquired many of the traits we currently associate with democracy until that time.
 

Xen

Banned
Wozza said:
It's a stretch to claim that Russia was "almost on par with the West" in 1914 - it was really quite far behind. As for politically, it was considerably LESS democratic than even the Ottoman Empire.

Russia in 1914 had the same GDP as the UK and Germany
(obviously not on a per capita basis)

ah, the wondrous "democratic" Ottoman parliament
election to the Ottoman parliament was indirect
it was such a liberal body that within 3 years it had its first debate on the danger of zionism (1911)
this merry state of affairs was so liberal that the Ottoman governor only had to execute 21 dissident intellectuals in Beirut and Damascus in 1913

the wonders of Ottoman democracy were such that the the 1st Arab National Congress was held in the traditional bedouin town of... Paris in the same year.

Russia meanwhile had ABOLISHED THE DEALTH PENALTY because it was such an awful tyranny...


I might be wrong, but I believe you misinterpret what he was saying. He said Russia in 1914 was less democratic than even the Ottoman Empire. I dont think he was saying that the Ottomans were by any means the shining example of a democracy in 1914.

And what does the Death Penalty have to do with anything? By your logic, West Virigina is more democratic than Virginia because it abolished the Death Penalty in the 1960s.
 
I might be wrong, but I believe you misinterpret what he was saying. He said Russia in 1914 was less democratic than even the Ottoman Empire. I dont think he was saying that the Ottomans were by any means the shining example of a democracy in 1914.

And what does the Death Penalty have to do with anything? By your logic, West Virigina is more democratic than Virginia because it abolished the Death Penalty in the 1960s.


I have shifted the debate from democracy to liberalism to democracy I concur.
However the fact that one could be executed as a dissident in the Ottoman but not the Tsarist empire is a clear sign of the level of political development.

This debate is however about Russia as a progressive society. This is a good example of its potential in this regard. Communist propaganda has steadily crushed this story to justify its own brutality and to make it look less exceptional in the context of Russian history
 
Top