|
|
|
| Current Issue |
|
|
| Resources |
|
|
|
Russian Democracy's Clouded Future
| Article
# : |
19554 |
|
|
Section : |
CURRENT ISSUES
|
| Issue
Date : |
11 / 1991 |
1,956 Words |
| Author
: |
Andrew C. Goldberg
Andrew C. Goldberg is vice president of crisis communications
at Burson-Marsteller, a public relations firm in New York
City. He is also senior associate at the Center for Strategic
and International Studies in Washington, D.C. |
Central government, in the sense that most states understand the term, is now erased in what was once the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Replacing the short-lived governing legislature of the USSR is a state council made up of representatives from most of the republics; it rules, for the moment, by edict. Almost all observers recognize that this system is transitional, and that something more legitimate must take its place.
The question, of course, is what? Not only Western observers are uncertain; so, too, are the denizens of the erstwhile USSR. Already, the euphoria from having stopped an authoritarian coup in August is starting to dissipate. Each republic faces significant economic and political hardships. While some republics, such as the Baltic states of Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia, seem unequivocally bent on severing all political ties with Moscow, the leaders of some other republics are less certain of the value of going it alone. These sentiments are echoed by many in the West: They fear that if the USSR continues to be racked by separatist unrest, it will export instability and violence westward into an equally fragile Eastern Europe.
The road to disintegration
Ever since Gorbachev launched his perestroika initiatives in the mid-1980s, many observers of the Soviet scene felt that central control would disintegrate rapidly and that only strong military measures could keep the USSR together. This was so for two reasons. First, the political reforms sponsored by Gorbachev, when he was the undisputed leader of the powerful state apparatus of the Communist Party, KGB, and the military, rapidly eroded the power of the central government. The press became freer, especially within Russia and the Ukraine. The military, the KGB, and local police forces became divided by divergent political allegiances--particularly by those of ethnic nationalists and liberals of various stripes--so their confidence and effectiveness sank. Grass-roots political action, and even outright ethnic warfare in certain parts of the empire, such as Armenia and Azerbaijan, replaced the rigid social peace that reigned before Gorbachev's tenure.
Second, five years of economic contraction led to a sharper decline in living standards, even among Moscow's political elite. Especially in the vast Russian republic, which held the lion's share of the USSR'S mineral resources and population, anger mounted as ever-more resources were poured into a moribund economy. This factor spread demoralization and intensified Russian nationalists' belief that they
...
Read Full Article
Look for this article in Ask.com
|
|
