Alexander+II...+'Tsar+Liberator'?

Traditional view

Alexander II was considered in this view as the 'Tsar Liberator', as 'Russia's White Hope': his reign seen as starting purposefully, losing impetus, then going forward again, only to be cut short by assassination before progress and liberalism had really begun. The period presented as a chance missed for Russia to enter the modern world; hence the 'Tsar Liberator' becomes 'an inefficient autocrat' and also a 'disappointing liberal'.

Alexander's authority

Autocratic power must be used to reform the state when necessary- he adopts liberal policies to preserve the Russian autocracy. The state and nobility must be seen to lead, hence the reforms. He justified the emancipation of the serfs by claiming, among other things, that it benefits the nobility. Liberalism was a means to an end, the shoring-up of the power and the prestige of the autocracy (which is identified in Alexander's view with the interests of Russia itself). When unrest continues, Alexander retreats and the liberals are disappointed. But Alexander is not really a Liberal.

A //Liberal Autocracy//?

The progressive bureaucracy was western educated; the belief in benevolent absolutism; hence the emancipation and other reforms. But Liberalism in the fullest sense is not just about administrative measures, but also about the //form// of the administration -i.e. the parliamentary representative form of government. This was rejected by Alexander, who refused, for instance, to contemplate a national assembly. In fact in the circumstances a Russian national assembly would not have been 'liberal' in outlook but a collection of reactionary nobles!