This challenged the implementation of social changes even after the government had learnt the aforementioned lessons. O the other hand, te famine that hit Russia between 1891and 1892 was not necessarily a way for the government to learn all it needed to. Een after the famine problem was solved, te government was still lacking in terms of possible lessons that it could have learnt from the 1891-1892 problem. Cncentration of power and authority was still eminent, asituation that it made it harder for various stakeholders in the society social, eonomic, ad political change.
I this respect, mchanisms to avoid future reoccurrences of the same problem could not be effectively undertaken under the Tsar form of government. Wile the peasants were directly hit by the famine, te government did not engage them in policy making processes that were likely to uplift their welfare. Istead, te government settled at resolving the matter through the means it perceived to be the most functional. O the same note, te fact that such a crisis would repeat itself in future was not for the government.
Te resolution strategies that were enforced at the time of the crisis were meant to alleviate the effects of famine at the time. A a result, n lessons that pertained to the future seemed to have been learnt by the government. Ararian and education reforms to benefit the larger public in the Russian community were highly driven by Peter Stolypin and Sergei Wittes (Simms 243). Te reforms primarily targeted alleviating social, plitical, ad economic inconsistencies in order to enhance the social welfare of the Russian Fr long, te educated proportion of the society was independent and led a private life off that of the peasants.
I order to mobilize social and economic growth, tere was need to bridge the gap between the educated people and the peasants. Solypin and Sergei critically identified this shortcoming and tried to link the two groups of people. O the same note, tey worked towards enhancing social cooperation and collaboration between different members of the society. I so doing, tey established a form of relations between the peasants, persons, ad other significant group that would potentially revolutionize public welfare in Russia.
Oer above this, te mode of governance was also at stake. Te different levels of governance, een with their relative. ..
Please type your essay title, choose your document type, enter your email and we send you essay samples