THE LACK OF DIALOGUE BETWEEN EMPEROR NICHOLAS II ANDTHE RUSSIAN SOCIETY TO BE THE REASON FOR THE COLLAPSE OF THE MONARCHY IN FEBRUARY 1917

Debates about the role of Nicholas II in the Russian history bring about an issue of whether the Emperor facilitated or retarded the development of Russia. Emigrants and Soviet historians contemporary with the February Revolution had a prevailing opinion that it was the Emperor's refusal to cooperate with the society and attempts to solve vital problems resorting to “reforms from above” that led to “revolutions from beneath. In the recent years, a number of authors have written that both on the initiative and under the leadership of Nicholas II, modernization of all spheres of the society kept a rapid pace. It was not the Tsar who hindered the development of the country but the society represented by the State Duma and the State Council (too slow to consider the Emperor’s bills).Besides, external and internal cataclysms (wars and revolutions) hindered the transformational activity of Nicholas II and the country's progress. The purpose of the article is to analyze the attitude of Nicholas II to the idea of transferring some of his powers to society, namely, the State Duma.