The Decembrist Uprising of 1825 in Russia: Updating the Historical and Legal Research Paradigm

In connection with the bicentennial of the Decembrist uprising of 1825 in Russia, an analysis of research positions on the political and legal significance of this historical event was conducted. The main points of view on the phenomenon of Decembrism in Russian historical and legal science are distinguished: conservative (rebellion of officers against state power), revolutionary‑democratic (the first stage of the organized revolutionary movement in Russia) and post‑Soviet, eclectic, containing various private assessments of the historical time, personal motives, psychological characteristics, and worldview features of the leaders and participants of the uprising. It is noted that a characteristic feature of post‑Soviet assessments is the insufficient development of systemic approaches, the predominance of observational empiricism, and attempts to involve additional facts. As part of updating the historical and legal paradigm of the study, an analysis was conducted of the key role of the 19th century in the political and legal history of Russia, and the trends in the development of Russian statehood and law during this period. The ideology of the Decembrists is examined in a comparative context with the French ideology of radicalism of the 18th century, the practice of the European Restoration of the first half of the 19th century, and the cultural and historical tradition of Russia. In the context of updating research methodology, the effectiveness of the political regime in Russia in the first quarter of the 19th century is discussed; the political inconsistency of Alexander I’s policies is noted. The author substantiates the state’s responsibility for the spread of radical and liberal movements in Russia during this period. Aspects of the spiritual and moral consciousness of the Russian state elite at the turn of the 18th and 19th centuries are examined. This article examines aspects of the spiritual and moral consciousness of the Russian state elite at the turn of the 18th and 19th centuries. It concludes that the state’s self‑isolation and the liberal attitude of the state bureaucracy contributed to a rift within the elite and the public consciousness. The general conclusion is that the events of December 14, 1825 require a broad conceptual reassessment from the standpoint of new historical facts and additional methodological approaches in the context of the formation of systemic views on the Russian state and legal tradition.