This challenged the implementation of social changes even after the government had learnt the aforementioned lessons.On the other hand, the famine that hit Russia between 1891and 1892 was not necessarily a way for the government to learn all it needed to. Even after the famine problem was solved, the government was still lacking in terms of possible lessons that it could have learnt from the 1891-1892 problem. Concentration of power and authority was still eminent, a situation that it made it harder for various stakeholders in the society to pursue social, economic, and political change. In this respect, mechanisms to avoid future reoccurrences of the same problem could not be effectively undertaken under the Tsar form of government.While the peasants were directly hit by the famine, the government did not engage them in policy making processes that were likely to uplift their welfare. Instead, the government settled at resolving the matter through the means it perceived to be the most functional. On the same note, the fact that such a crisis would repeat itself in future was not a concern for the government. The resolution strategies that were enforced at the time of the crisis were meant to alleviate the effects of famine at the time. As a result, no lessons that pertained to the future seemed to have been learnt by the government.Agrarian and education reforms to benefit the larger public in the Russian community were highly driven by Peter Stolypin and Sergei Wittes (Simms 243). The reforms primarily targeted alleviating social, political, and economic inconsistencies in order to enhance the social welfare of the Russian people. For a long, the educated proportion of the society was independent and led a private life off that of the peasants. In order to mobilize social and economic growth, there was need to bridge the gap between the educated people and the peasants.Stolypin and Sergei critically identified this shortcoming and tried to link the two groups of people. On the same note, they worked towards enhancing social cooperation and collaboration between different members of the society. In so doing, they established a form of relations between the peasants, educated persons, and any other significant group that would potentially revolutionize public welfare in Russia. Over above this, the mode of governance was also at stake. The different levels of governance, even with their relative
Works CitedSimms, J. Y. The Crop Failure of 1891: Soil Exhaustion, Technological Backwardness, and Russias “Agrarian Crisis”. Slavic Review, Vol. 41, No. 2, pp. 236–250.
Please type your essay title, choose your document type, enter your email and we send you essay samples