n system, and censorship of the press.” The governors of the provinces also reported to Plehve, “who also exercised substantial authority over the zemstvos and city councils. Ascher surmises, “hardly any aspect of domestic policy remained outside the jurisdiction of the department.” With such a wealth of power consolidated within few individuals, personal prejudice is prevalent in state legislation and policy. The Minister of the Interior exemplifies this reality. He paid lip service to the winds of reform. In a manifesto of February 26, 1903, Plehve ambiguously promised both decentralization of authority and continued control over national affairs by the Ministry of Internal Affairs. He maintained his opinions that “Both the masses and the educated groups were inadequately trained for any role in government.” As The Minister of the Duchy of Finland, he issued a manifesto in 1899 that turned the Finnish Diet into a mere advisory body and made the Russian state council responsible for legislation in Finland. The Finnish army was abolished and Russian became the official language in the government of Finland. This clumsy policy of Russification smacked on 19th century reaction and was strongly resisted and criticized by Russian liberals. In addition Finnish reaction to this revocation of autonomy led to a protest movement that “developed within six years into a major irritant to the Russian government.” These policies of repression despite the appearance of willingness to reform bred distrust of the Russian government. With the evolution of political and intellectual writings and the Russian wish for reform and representation in government, governmental repression created an environment suited for revolution. In addition to political dissatisfaction, there were increasing problems of an agrarian nature within the peasant community. Despite the rapid expansion of industrializ...
