|
|
Glasnost: Real Change or Fraud?
| Article
# : |
12638 |
|
|
Section : |
EDITORIAL
|
| Issue
Date : |
6 / 1987 |
1,679 Words |
| Author
: |
Morton A. Kaplan
|
Our special report in Current Issues this month is on the subject of glasnost. There are two errors to be avoided in the interpretation of glasnost. One is to assume that the Soviet Union is moving toward Western-style democracy, and the other is to believe that glasnost is merely a propaganda exercise. Developments in the Soviet Union are not so simple. It would be a Marxist mistake to think that we are witnessing an inevitable development, whether the growth of democracy or the repackaging of dictatorship.
First, we must recognize that the Soviet Union is experiencing a crisis in which its economy has failed. Although the CIA estimates current growth at 4 percent as contrasted with an earlier rate of 2 percent, its record on estimates is not good. The earlier rate was likely under 1 percent - or even negative if inflation is taken into account - and the CIA does not believe a 4 percent rate can be sustained. Many relevant statistics are not published because they are unfavorable. For instance, the Soviet Union has not published infant mortality figures since the early 1970s. Even its own internal statistics are inaccurate for obvious bureaucratic reasons, while some of what is included in production is of no use to anyone.
Only the severity of the crisis, which began to threaten the superpower status of the Soviet Union and which made an accelerated SDI threatening, was sufficient to permit the reforming regimes of Andropov and Gorbachev to come into office. Although Gorbachev has no more intention of undermining the leading role of the Communist Party than does Deng Xaioping - and would be brought down if he did - he is a real reformer, although a less radical one than Deng. Remember that it was Deng who brought about the appointment of Hu Yaobang as party secretary and Hu who supported even more radical reformers, some of whom called for a multiparty democracy. If neither Andropov nor Gorbachev appointed to high office reformers as radical as was Hu, it is good to remember that they never had the power to do so.
The best estimate is that Gorbachev has at most two dependable supporters in the Politburo. He has been given only enough power to institute very cautious economic reforms that do not threaten the central planning authorities. He has been clever enough to remove some of his most untalented foes and to improve his position in the Secretariat. And he has been able to modify some of the most reactionary policies with respect to political prisoners. But his entire policy is on a trial basis, and he can and will be removed if it proves too unsettling.
This, however, does not mean that no real changes are occurring in the Soviet Union. Although Andrei Sakharov has been denounced for supporting Gorbachev's recent measures, such criticism is an ungenerous interpretation of the motives of a man whose courage and independence have been remarkable. Perhaps he is mistaken, but I do not doubt his good faith in believing that there is a genuine opening toward a less repressive regime.
Gorbachev undoubtedly is ambivalent in his own outlook. There is no reason to believe that he has any interest in Western-style democracy. Yet both he and Andropov have protected Russians who do support such a development. Perhaps he believes that he needs the support of such forces to restructure Soviet society, that they must be brought back into the mainstream in the fight against the conservatives, who really want only
...
Read Full Article
|
|
