“A
passenger must observe the diligence of a good father of a family to
avoid injury to himself.”
Some
time back, a guest was interviewed on t.v. about issues on public
transport, and this was his response. The discussion sounded like
heavy stuff, especially when the parties quoted provisions of the
civil code, but one thing he said there really intrigued me:
“A
good father of a family?” That was new to me – but I later came
to understand that he possibly meant that being a good father
may imply being a good leader.
But what’s the connection? Does the quality of being a good father
at home automatically lead to being a good father figure in an
extended organization, such as a company or a country?
Maybe
we’ll get an answer when we remember the story of a well-known
father in history: Tsar Nicholas II, said to be the last in the long
line of tsars in Russia.
“Tsar”
was the title given to the head of the monarchy in Russia and other
Slavic monarchies in Europe. The word was derived from the Roman
“Caesar” and was the Russian equivalent of “emperor.”
Europeans matched it to a rank between king and emperor, although in
modern times it has been regarded as closer to that of a king. Beyond
the title, though, Nicholas II was perhaps one of the biggest ironies
among the good fathers of his time.
During
his reign, some infamous events took place that changed the history
of Russia. These included the defeat of Russia in the Russo-Japanese
War, the withdrawal of the Russian army during World War I due to the
disintegration of the government, and the so-called Bloody Sunday of
1905, in which hundreds of citizens rallying peacefully were shot and
wounded. These events earned Nicholas immense criticisms and distrust
from the Russian people.
The
irony arises in his personal life – which started out as ideal.
Nicholas II was the kind of father that children would likely be
proud of. As a husband, he was family-oriented and much loved and
trusted by his wife, Tsarina Alexandra. Their story began when they
were just teenagers – when Nicholas was 16 and Alexandra was 12.
They were thought of as the perfect couple despite possessing many
opposite qualities. Nicholas was weaker in character compared to
Alexandra; he disliked confronting other people while Alexandra was
more outspoken. Happily, these opposites levelled what the other
lacked, making them even stronger as individuals. As historical
accounts said, every year during Easter, Nicholas gave Alexandra
expensive Easter eggs created by Peter Carl Fabergé, a renowned
master crafter.
In
the same way he was a loving husband, Nicholas II was considered a
very affectionate father by his children. As a father of five –
Olga, Tatiana, Marie, Anastasia, and Alexei – he brought them to
trips and cruises on the Russian Imperial yacht Standart
and played tennis with them as if he had all the time in the world.
As a good father of his family, he taught his kids about the value of
wealth: unlike other monarchs of his time, he chose to raise his
children in simplicity and humility. He also tried to train his son,
Alexei, about statecraft, or the management of the state, at an early
age. That was something his late father, Tsar Alexander III, failed
to do for him.
As
a young man, Nicholas himself was not trained soon enough on how to
run the country because his father was confident that he would be
able to rule for a long time. As such, he planned to introduce
Nicholas to national administration at a later time, when he was more
mature. Unfortunately for Tsar Alexander, his time came sooner than
he expected. When he died unexpectedly, Nicholas was only 26 and
totally unprepared to rule a vast empire. This is the reason why when
he became tsar, Nicholas wanted to prepare his only son early on the
matter of statecraft to avoid the mistakes that his father committed.
But
their future was to be very different. Nicholas’ son Alexei
suffered from hemophilia, which the boy inherited from his mother’s
family. Hemophilia, also known as the “royal disease” was common
in the ruling houses of Britain, Spain and Russia at that time.
Curiously, this medical disorder struck only the male members of a
particular family, while the female members were the carriers of this
disease. It is a disease where blood cannot clot properly, causing
the patient to bleed to death if he ever suffered an external wound.
Doctors
at that time did not yet have a cure for the disease – and in
desperation, Tsar Nicholas and his wife turned to spirituality and
mysticism. This was how the royal family was led to a peasant named
Grigori Rasputin, who was believed to possess some “blessed and
extraordinary” healing powers. For some reason, Rasputin was said
to have “cured” the boy Alexei. In return, the tsar granted
special regard for Rasputin and brought him into his inner circle.
And
so began the new twist in the lives of the Russian people – both
the elites and the peasants. The cause was Nicholas’ biased
priority of his family over his country. Yes, he was a good father of
a family, but being the good father of his country was something he
was not. Rasputin saw the weakness of the royal family, so as he came
closer to the inner circle, manipulation became easy. He became so
trusted as to be consulted by the family about any issue. And as the
royals would one day learn the hard way, it was this irrational
dependence on Rasputin that led to many blunders in national
governance which eventually angered the Russian people. Those
blunders were characterized by endless excesses and oppressions which
the people opposed, particularly on how the government fell apart
because of Rasputin’s influence on Alexandra. Without the good
government officials who could guide the people and to maintain
order, everyone suffered and fell into poverty.
All
of this triggered a national uprising known as the Bolshevik
Revolution, which eventually ended the monarchy.
There
are many speculations about how the Tsar’s family line ended, just
as there are many lessons to learn from their story. Maybe the fault
lies first in Nicholas’ lack of preparation to manage a huge
empire. Secondly, because Nicholas did not have the good insight and
adequate preparation to rule properly, he totally depended on someone
else for guidance. He trusted and depended on his wife Alexandra, who
in turn depended on Rasputin, who abused his new privileges. Choosing
Rasputin as a source of guidance showed bad judgment of character. In
the many stories prior to the Russian revolution, Rasputin was behind
all the evil that rocked the monarchy and the appointment of
officials incapable of running the government. As it turned out, he
also dismissed all of the officials who disagreed with him, and
replaced them with incompetent officials who were on his side.
The
ultimate result of these was the outbreak of the Russian revolution,
the abolition of the monarchy and the rise of the Communist
government in Russia. The Russian people, desperately wanting for
change, launched a series of revolutions. Based on Nicholas II’s
actions, it is clear that a simple mistake can result to large-scale
trouble.
It
has been a hundred years since this family’s story ended. But it is
fresh in our memory when we think of the impact of that change to the
life of many people in the world today. Had the good father of a
family been a good father to the people of Russia, tragedy might not
have struck that country. And we, who now read their story from a
distance, might be living in a completely different world altogether.
Sources:
Massie,
Robert K. Nicholas
and Alexandra.
New York: Dell Publishing, 1985. Print.
Civil
Code of the Philippines. Chan Robles Virtual Law Library, n.d. Web.
28 May 2014.
Article by Venice
Art by Tim
----
0 comments:
Post a Comment