Теми рефератів
> Реферати > Курсові роботи > Звіти з практики > Курсові проекти > Питання та відповіді > Ессе > Доклади > Учбові матеріали > Контрольні роботи > Методички > Лекції > Твори > Підручники > Статті Контакти
Реферати, твори, дипломи, практика » Новые рефераты » Lessons from Russia's parliamentary early twentieth century

Реферат Lessons from Russia's parliamentary early twentieth century





identified their standards of representation. In multi-stage elections did not take part, women, military, students, many minorities. Dispersed the first I, then II, and the Duma, the autocracy has committed 3 June 1907 constitutional coup, while changing the electoral law - without consideration of its Duma. The new law tightened the requirements of the property qualification, cut the peasant and working-class representation, increased the prerogatives of landlords, sharply reduced the quota for the national regions. This provided the reaction of III and IV of the Duma, practically illegitimate in the eyes of much of the population. p> Thus, the formal legislative and independent Duma and State Council has actually performed the role of "zakonosoveschatelnyh" institutions, and reflect their opinions only propertied of the population of the empire. For all positions, they were dependent on the monarch and the executive branch. At relatively short period (1905 - 1907 gg) Block of public institutions of the empire had lost signs of systemic. It actually restored the June Third coup, but not on the new (liberal democratic) basis, and the old - the authoritarian.

Crisis facing the regime, did not become an incentive to develop thoughtful course of reform and consolidation around the ruling camp. The position of the monarch, dovlevshego all their authority, has not been consistent. Support Nicholas II's reform efforts Witte and Stolypin wore a conditional, limited, autocrat obviously did not realize the need of their proposed reforms. The ruling elite, forced by circumstances to allow the opposition to participate in political life continued to arrogantly ignore it, provoking the process of radicalization of society. Activity even liberals have become more pronounced anti-systemic nature. Already in February 1911 Octobrist Maklakov stated: "The idea of ​​the center, the idea of ​​sharing the renewal of Russia by the Government and the Duma was killed ... "[4, c.57]. Bulgakov painfully wrote: "In essence, the agony of autocracy continued reign of Nicholas II, which was all solid, continuous suicide autocracy ... through all the innumerable zigzags its policies and the latest insanity of war "[5, c.296].

Manifesto of October 17 and the electoral law were the result of not consciously chosen strategy, as a consequence of extraordinary circumstances. Instead of accepting the new conditions of the political game, the ruling elite has consistently sought to restore the status quo, their monopoly on decision-making. The result was the intensification of contradictions, the growth of confrontation, loss of power of legitimacy in the eyes of society, in the end - the forcible removal from the political arena - the collapse in 1917

In the mass of the ruling elite has not grown to awareness of the need of large-scale reforms in all major areas of society. Vlastpriderzhaschie did not understand the need for a holistic policy that implements the reform programs on the basis of civil concord, assignments of the new socio-political forces.

"Huge, transformed into a self-sufficient force, the Russian state was afraid of initiative and activity of the Russian people, it will cease to be human burden of responsibility for the fate of Russia ... The state must become an internal force of the people, his own positive power of his instrument, rather than outside of them beginning, not the master of his "[6, c.66].

Thus, the formal legislative and independent Duma and State Council has actually performed the role of "zakonosoveschatelnyh" institutions, and reflect their opinions only propertied of the population of the empire. For all positions, they were dependent on the monarch and the executive branch. At relatively short period (1905 - 1907 gg) Block of public institutions of the empire had lost signs of systemic. It actually restored the June Third coup, but not on the new (liberal democratic) basis, and the old - the authoritarian.

Crisis facing the regime, did not become an incentive to develop thoughtful course of reform and consolidation around the ruling camp. The position of the monarch, dovlevshego all their authority, has not been consistent. Support Nicholas II's reform efforts Witte and Stolypin wore a conditional, limited, autocrat obviously did not realize the need of their proposed reforms. The ruling elite, forced by circumstances to allow the opposition to participate in political life continued to arrogantly ignore it, provoking the process of radicalization of society. Activity even liberals have become more pronounced anti-systemic nature. Already in February 1911 Octobrist Maklakov stated: "The idea of ​​the center, the idea of ​​sharing the renewal of Russia by the Government and the Duma was killed ... "[4, c.57]. Bulgakov painfully wrote: "In essence, the agony of autocracy continued reign of Nicholas I...


Назад | сторінка 2 з 3 | Наступна сторінка





Схожі реферати:

  • Реферат на тему: Abstract work THE PROBLEM OF PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AS THE MOST IMPORTA ...
  • Реферат на тему: Liberal and democratic political modes in a modern world
  • Реферат на тему: Constitutional bases of ideological and political variety in Russia
  • Реферат на тему: Civil society and the state
  • Реферат на тему: Place and role of political relations in the aggregate of public relations ...