Essay: Collapse of the Soviet Union

In this essay, it will be argued that the collapse of the Soviet Union was inevitable rather than the unintended consequence of Gorbachev’s reform process. The Soviet political system was one that was subject to change and scrutiny ever since its creation in 1917, up until its collapse in 1991 with each leader taking a different approach to Russia’s politics across the period. Gorbachev was faced with the heavy challenge of continuing the legacy of the USSR after his rise to power in the 1980s, after the stagnation of economic and other reforms of previous leaders. Although many obstacles stood in his way, his reform processes left much to be desired. The policies of glasnost and perestroika are fundamental in the collapse of the Soviet Union and then the creation of the Congress of People’s Deputies, the creation of a presidency and his economic reform are some of the few factors that can be discussed when analysing the validity of the collapse of the Soviet Union being a result of his reforms. Through the creation of the policy of glasnost, he had encouraged openness within the Soviet society, in an attempt to gain people’s support for communism. Then the policy of perestroika was introduced in order to restructure the Soviet economy Congress of People’s Deputies, it enabled a vast opposition to form against his reforms including the Conservatives, the radicals and the peoples of Russia. Despite his chances to use reform to his advantage, Gorbachev essentially failed to reform successfully and this led to the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Firstly, perestroika and glasnost, key policies of Gorbachev’s, were key in the eventual breakdown of the USSR in December 1991. Perestroika was aimed at restructuring the soviet economy and loosening the restrictions placed on the media and some other forms of opposition. It was introduced due to Gorbachev’s realisation that rapid change and reform needed to occur within the party and also due to the fact that the economy was in a dire state. With drastic reforms, under the policies of glasnost and perestroika, Gorbachev had hoped to revitalise the poor situation that he was faced with. Gorbachev was determined to introduce more openness (the literal meaning of glasnost) into society and “without glasnost there would have been no perestroika.” With more openness and perestroika loosening the restrictions on the media and literature, Gorbachev essentially allowed the breakdown of the USSR as there was the opportunity for information to pass from one side of the iron curtain to another. This allowed ideas to spread through “imported video cassettes, foreign radio broadcasts (with satellite television on the horizon), samizdat publications, and expanding opportunities for Soviet citizens to make contact with foreigners.”   This now allowed those with dissenting voices, who had been oppressed throughout the soviet period and even under the tsars, to have a voice and come into contact with others with the same views, strengthening opposition against the regime. In fact, glasnost was meant to increase the support for the communist regime but the parameters of it were not confirmed. Although it can be said that there is little doubt that Gorbachev set out to right moral. Gorbachev’s failure to outline his intentions of glasnost, is a failure that can be seen in many of his policies, but also emphasises how the breakdown of the USSR was the unintended consequence of his reforms.
Perestroika, however, focused more on the economic reform of the soviet system and helping to keep the economy alive that Gorbachev and his government inherited from Chernenko. He said that “Perestroika is an urgent necessity arising from the profound pro- cesses of development in our socialist society. This society is ripe for change. It has long been yearning for it.” This shows that Gorbachev believed that it was the will of the mass of the Russian peoples to reform and change the system along with his own recognition of the desperate need for change. Perestroika was described as a “socialist renewal, a deliverance from the Stalinist and post-Stalinist entanglements that bound society” by Yegor Ligachev, which further strengthens the argument that it was necessary for Gorbachev to break away from the traits and ideology of Stalinist Russia, and create a new identity in order for the Soviet Union to move forward. Unlike glasnost, perestroika had a clear aim that was to restructure the economy in order to support its growth. Gorbachev argued that perestroika was created “to put the economy into some kind of order, to tighten up discipline, to raise the level of organization and responsibility, and to catch up areas where [the country was] behind.”  After setting up a committee to analyse the state of the Soviet economy, it was brought to his attention that the system was backward, thus perestroika was an attempt to fix this. Perestroika did manage to rapidly stabilise the economy and this gave the people hope that the Soviet Union would survive. In turn, this supports the idea that the fall of the Soviet Union was not inevitable as Gorbachev’s reform had temporarily managed to control the situation. However, in the next few years, people began to lose hope in perestroika. William Moskoff mentioned the dramatic effects of inflation during the perestroika years by saying “after many years during which nominal prices had been held constant by administrative fiat, a combination of pricing policy changes, very bad monetary policy and structural changes in the goods markets led to considerably higher rates of inflation.” This highlights how Gorbachev’s economic reform only gave temporary economic stability before crashing with inflation rates soaring through the roof, leading to the collapse of the soviet union when inflation rates hit triple figures by the end of the regime. The fact that the aims of this policy had failed and the economy had not stabilized and grown as hoped caused the people to lose faith in the system, which is a deciding factor when reaching the conclusion that the collapse of the soviet system was the unintended consequence of Gorbachev’s reforms.
The years 1989-1991 were very significant in the collapse of the Soviet and can be described as “the beginning of the end.” There are many events during this period that contribute to Gorbachev’s fate as a result of his reforms including the creation of the Congress of People’s Deputies in 1989, the abolition of article 6 in the constitution, his failures at the 28th Party Congress and the draft union treaty. The creation of the Congress of People’s deputies’ “purpose was to expand elective representation in policy debate and decision making, while leaving final power at the disposal of the top party leadership.” There were many advantages to Gorbachev’s new restructured institution. This was the first time in the modern history of Russia, since the provisional government in 1917, that there was a real forum for debate. Coupled with the policy of glasnost, the idea of openness was further enhanced by this after the debates were shown live on TV, reaching the people. Again, similar to perestroika, this started off as something that the public supported as they had the chance to vote in the elections. However, the system did have its drawbacks, that outweigh the benefits, that contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Union. Even though out of the 2250 members of the Congress of People’s deputies roughly 450 of them were non-party members, this system was still largely dominated by communists meaning that it was any changes that came out of congress wouldn’t be a representation of the non-partisan members. Because of the failure to introduce a fairer system, Gorbachev did not create a political system that would save the USSR. The next factor that contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Union was the abolition of article 6 from the constitution – this got rid of the Communist Party’s right to govern legitimately. This now “removed the definition of the CPSU as “the leading and guiding force of society and a core of the political system.” This decision was fundamental in the collapse of Gorbachev’s Soviet Union as “its power and authority were eroded virtually from day to day.”  This in turn lead to the decline in power of the omnipotent Politburo, which was also a grave mistake that Gorbachev made in his reforms. Finally, the Draft Union Treaty meant that his reforms were the reason for the collapse of the Soviet Union rather than the fact that it was inevitable. The treaty was an attempt to avert the collapse of the soviet union by President Gorbachev and it proposed voluntary membership, republican sovereignty, devolved taxation and republican scrutiny of the armed forces. However, it was not well received by the public and stirred up a coup against Gorbachev on 19th August 1991. “As courageous as the defenders were, it was clear from the beginning that the coup leaders lacked resolve” and this was never going to be a prolonged attack especially after Boris Yeltsin denounced the protesters as a gang of bandits. Although this was short-lived, it highlights how much opposition he had gained against his reforms since becoming General Secretary of the Party and then the President of the Soviet Union. Although the official dissolution of the Soviet Union would not take place until December 25, 1991, after August 22nd the USSR existed by name only. When summarizing all of the factors from the “beginning of the end” years, it is clear that the inability of Gorbachev to introduce successful reforms lead to the dissolution of the USSR. Even though these reforms from 1989-91 were an attempt to save the country’s legacy that was in rapid decline, they dealt the final blow to the system.
In conclusion, whilst it can be seen that Gorbachev inherited many problems from the previous leaders of the Soviet Union, it is evident that the failed reforms and processes that he undertook during his reign in charge of the Union, lead to the collapse of it. Even though there is some evidence to suggest that it was inevitable, such as the Soviet Union’s failure to maintain their economy versus the capitalist West throughout the second half of the 20th century, the factors supporting the collapse as the result of reform are overwhelmingly stronger. The strongest piece of evidence that can be used to support this argument is the failure of the policies of perestroika and glasnost because they had the best chance of saving the economy and the legacy of the USSR, but they paved the way to the breakdown of the Soviet political system.