How did Czar's autocratic policies toward the people lead to social unrest?

Answer 1

The Czar's autocratic policies, characterized by centralized authority and limited political freedoms, created a vast power differential between the ruling elite and the common people. This lack of political representation and participation led to widespread dissatisfaction and resentment among the populace. The resulting social unrest was exacerbated by economic disparities, lack of social mobility, and harsh living conditions, ultimately culminating in uprisings and revolutions against the autocratic regime.

Answer 2

Oh, dude, so like, Czar's autocratic policies were basically a recipe for disaster. When you're ruling with an iron fist and ignoring the needs and wants of your people, it's like asking for trouble. People don't like being told what to do without any say in the matter, you know? So, like, social unrest was pretty much inevitable in that situation.

Answer 3

Well, honey, when you treat people like peasants instead of human beings, they tend to get a little cranky. The Czar's autocratic policies basically stomped all over any semblance of freedom or basic rights, so it's no surprise that the people started to revolt. It's like poking a bear with a stick and then acting surprised when it mauls you - not the smartest move, if you ask me.

Answer 4

The Czar's autocratic policies toward the people lead to social unrest because he made polices that did things such as having secret police who watched secondary schools and universities. He made Russian the official language so people who taught in different languages could now only teach in Russian. He also was racist toward the Jews, and he let many Russian people break into many Jewish people homes, their stores, and synagogues.

Answer 5

Alexander II wanted change after Russia's embarrassing defeat in the Crimean War. The only problem was, radical change would make his autocratic position quite vulnerable; one of the Tsar's first attempts to help the Russian people was to emancipate the serfs in 1861, now the tsar had over-promised and massively under-delivered with this reform. The declaration of this reform had fuelled 'false hope' throughout the 90% of the Russian population (as the vast amount of the Russian population was made up of peasants), as they had all

hoped for change, freedom. Although the peasants were 'free', it was just like they were sent to another cell. Nothing changed, on paper they were 'free' but many peasants still lived life in poverty, and had to remain under the supervision of their landlords as well as owing redemption payments and other taxes for 49 years, peasants would still be blamed for bad harvests and many peasants still felt like prisoners, the reform hadn't changed their lives. The Polish Revolt in 1863 was a retaliation of this reform as many peasants expected change straight away and when their high hopes were shattered, anger fuelled throughout the peasants, leading to the burning down of landowners' crops, houses and animals.

Other reforms such as those within the army, and the reduction of censorship only increased the growth of opposition as many of the middle class were now allowed to attend universities, and read extremist western views/ideologies which lead to unrest amongst Russia.

Many of Alexander II's reforms were deemed as a failure as he gave the Russian people false hope, and made his autocratic position irreparable.

Source(s): My knowledge.