By 1914, the stability of Russia was questionable to say the least. Historians continually argue about what factors mean that Russia was stable or unstable. Some evidence is clear for example the Tsar still being in control of his ministers and other evidence is arguable, for example the increase in population, this could be indicating a prosperous time in Russia and an increase in stability, or it could mean there was a lack of activities to be done, and the increased population meant there were more mouths to feed. There are many factors that contribute to how stable Russia was at this time.

Economically, Russia seemed more unstable: eighty percent of the population were peasant farmers and the gap between the rich and poor was only increasing, making Russia even more unstable than it already was. Autocracy continued to repress the poor and the rich continued to hold most of the country’s finances. The poor struggled to become economically active, the rich fought to keep things the way they were during this time period. Stolypin tried to help the peasants by introducing land reforms – these meant that peasant’s owned the land and had more of an incentive to maintain and produce from it. However Stolypin was not supported in this and a lot of the peasants believed in the commune, they didn’t want privatisation for social and economic reasons. There was a massive pressure on the land and due to the fact that there was no unrest at this time indicates that the stability had increased, nonetheless there was huge land hunger due to the increased population – it had increased by twenty one percent between 1900 and 1910, adding approximately thirty million people to the population, this created a surplus of food, and perhaps this surplus of food was what provoked the exceptional harvests between 1909 and 1913 and agriculture was more efficient . Alone the exceptional harvest would make Russia more stable than it had been in prior years however with all the evidence together we can see that the harvests could merely be masking peasants discontent.

The membership of trade unions had dropped from three hundred thousand in 1907 to forty thousand by 1914, this shows that although the strike level in factories were rising slightly, the people were getting happier with their working conditions, their salary, and their work in general – indicating an increase in the stability of Russia making it more stable than it was seven years earlier. But looking at this from another angle, the decrease in trade union memberships could be due to government oppression, this still shows some increase in stability as the government have control, but it’s also a decrease as the people were not getting what they wanted.

Although the middle-classes were benefitting from the economy they were cross by the constitutional experiment of the Dumas – it was not a complete disaster, there was full support and some useful legislation was passed for example the law of 1908 had eventually led to a huge expansion in the level and advancement in primary school education – so although some were disappointed the constitutional experiment had actually led to an increase in stability with passing some important laws to help stabalise Russia in the long run as opposed to just fixing the present for the people.

The powers that the Duma and Zemstva had were limited. They seemed to give the peasants the illusion that they had a say in what was going on in their own country when in fact they didn’t. The nobility ruled the Zemstva and Duma which did not give the peasants a say in, making Russia no less stable than it was before as the peasants had never previously had any voice in government. The Duma and Zemstva did give a measure of democracy to Russia though, and the nobility were anti – revolutionary, as they had money, this meant it was in their interests to keep the country as stable as possible therefore increasing the stability of Russia as before no one had a saw in government apart from the Tsar and whomever he specifically hired. The middle classes also supported the Tsar as they feared a peasant revolution this indicates instability as they would side with whatever decision the Tsar may make to crush the peasantry even further into poverty as opposed to creating a more equal land for all.

The Tsar Nicholas II fired his ministers and replaced them on a regular basis. This proves he still had control of his ministers and his country creating a more stable country, he changed them to show he was the only one who could make any big decisions as none of the ministers were around long enough to make any decisions themselves. However, this could also be seen as Nicholas being potentially paranoid and narrow minded, he could have distrusted his ministers hence the regular replacement and this would mean that Russia was more unstable than before 1914 as he could not trust his own ministers but was also incapable of making a decision himself.

In conclusion the stability of Russia by 1914 had increased in some ways and decreased in others. The gap between the Kulaks and the peasants was only getting larger; this indicates instability, as there is no equality, however the lack of unrest from the peasants gives a clear indication that the stability of Russia had increased by 1914. Nicholas II constant replacement of ministers could show he is proving that he is in charge and running a stable country or that he is paranoid that one of his ministers will try to undermine him and in fact his country is the most unstable it has ever been. The drop in Trade Union memberships seems to be more of a clue to stability than instability, because if the people weren’t happy they would fight for what they wanted; but perhaps this fall in membership is due to government oppression, and this theory is supported by the increase in strikes in 1914. Overall, Russia had not become any more or less stable than it already was, there were no drastic changes occurring to massively develop Russian society or economy, but the people were still working really hard to keep themselves going. I do not believe that overall Russia had become more stable by 1914, in some aspects it was more stable, for example the peasants not causing any unrest, and the Duma and Zemstva providing some form of democracy but in some aspects it had become more unstable fore example the increasing gap between the rich and the poor and the kulaks and the peasants, and the lack of support for Stolypin’s reforms, which if stuck to and believed in, could have developed Russia into a more stable society rather quickly.