Title: Glasnost| The Pandora's box of Gorbachev's reforms
Abstract: concept, the refonn escaped Gorbachev's control and literally clashed with the rigid dogma of the Communist Party. Glasnost's democratic nature could not be reconciled with the authoritarian nature of the Party. 4 It is critical to the argument to establish glasnost's impetus toward change in a nation where, for centuries, autocratic rule defined the political and socioeconomic structures. Therefore, it is necessary to evaluate the literature of such noted Soviet citizens as Andrei Sakharov and Aleksandr Sol2iienitsyn in order to comprehend how die lack of democratic freedoms, such as the right to freedom of speech and of the press, in the Soviet Union created a system totally antithetical to the social democracy platform Vladimir I. Lenin used to gain power in 1917. By evaluating the works of Russian authors, one can gain an understanding of the democratization process which was embodied in glasnost. hi Sakharov's volume, Memoirs, published in 1990, he reflects on the restrictions placed on himself^ his family, and friends as well as countless other political dissidents residing in the Soviet Union. As Sakharov explains, censorship, enforced by the KGB, or Committee of State Security, regarding communication and freedom of expression was always present in order to suppress social resistance and ensure political loyalty to the Communist Party. As Sakharov recounts, his struggle for human rights started earnestly in the mid-60's when he published a series of reform iiroposals meant to stimulate the economy and allow intellectual freedom. The defining difference between Sakharov's bid for social democratization and Gorbachev's glasnost reform is that each perceived the idea of open communication as fulfilling different objectives. While Gorbachev employed the term glasnost to enhance the Soviet system, not destroy it, Sakharov desired open commimication and die ability to inform and be informed as a fundamental right of humanity, regardless of the consequences to the Soviet system. As a recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize in 1975 the distinguished scientist was exiled to Grorky with his wife, Elena Bonner by orders of the Chairman of the Presidium of the 5 Supreme Soviet, Leonid Brezhnev, in 1980.'* Sakharov presents a compelling perspective of the struggle of political dissidents who were silenced to benefit the Communist Party authority. Additionally, Sakharov exenq}lifies the Soviet citizen's desire to break fi-ee of political and social oppression, and to that end he illustrates the need for glasnost before Gorbachev advocated the reform. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, literary writer and political activist, through his literature shed li^t on the reforms needed in the interest of democratization, hi his pubUcation of 1991, Rebuilding Russia. Solzhenitsyn expands on the processes and problems that Russia must conJfront since the collapse of the Soviet Union. As a Russian citizen he offers a candid evaluation of the mentality that has inhibited social democratization. Solzhenitsyn's insights also include tiie definition of democracy from the Russian perspective, a valuable contribution in comprehending what glasnost means to tile national population.^ An part of the study in understanding glasnost's effects on the Soviet population and on the Communist Party is met by evaluating how glasnost was interpreted. It is interesting to note that, according to author W. Bruce Lincoln, tihe term glasnost was initially used by the enhghtened bureaucrats who occupied the courts of 19'*' century Russia. What is imperative about Lincoln's account is that the Russian definition of glasnost was altogether different from how the West understood the term. According to Lincoln, flie term glasnost emerged to represent the necessary commimication important in bridging the gap between the bureaucracy and educated Andrei Sakharov, Memoirs (New York; Alfred A. Knopf Inc., 1990). ' Aleksandr Solzenitsyn, Rebuilding Russia: Reflections and Tentative Proposals (New York; Farrar, Strauss, and Giroux, Inc., 1991), 64. 6 society which Nicholas I's firai suppression of the Decembrists had opened at the beginning of his reign.® lincoln's assessment of glasnost lends a firm basis to the argument that Gk>rbachev used the term according to a particular understanding obtained firom Russian thinkers. In the mid-19''' century the Russian courts of Nicholas I and Alexander n were marked by the desire for change that swept across Europe during tiie Enlightenment Consequently, many scholars and intelligentsia advocated glasnost as a way to bring public opinion to the fore but only under tiie auspices of authority. ' From Lincoln's 1981 volume The Vanguard of Reform comes a valuable insight into the definition glasnost took in the 19*'' century, allowing a basis of comparison witii Gorbachev's definition over one hundred years later. Most notable to the premise of the thesis is the accoimt of Scott Shane who published Dismantling Utopia: How Information Ended the Soviet Union in 1994. Shanes's work largely supports &e contention of the thesis, claiming that [i]nfonnation slew the totalitarian giant.^ Shanes's account is compelling because he focuses on the common Soviet citizen, providing insight into how the public responded to the restrictions on information and communication by the Communist Party. From artists to publishers to political prisoners, Shane gives a wide perspective of how information and expression in the form of art, literature, education, and opinion enables the development of identity apart from the state. Additionally, Shane presents valuable comparisons of how the ® W. Brace Lincoln, In the Vanguard of Reform: Russia's Enlightened Bureaucrats 1825-1861 (DeKalb, Illinois: Northem Illinois University Press, 1982),107'Ibid. ® Scott Shane, Dismantling Utopia: How Infonnation Ended the Soviet Union (Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, Publisher, 1994), 6. 7 Communist Party responded to glasnost as the governing authority and felt challenged by the flow of potentially damaging information. By offsetting the viewpoints of society and those of the Party officials the reader gains an understanding of what was at stake for both society and the political entity. Moreover, Shane's focus enables the reader to realize the consequences involved when the struggle for political power leads to &e sacrifice of the society. In establishing the contrary objectives that Gorbachev recommended, when he first declared the use of glasnost as a reform, it is necessary to review his own literature for a iiiller comprehension of what he hoped to accomplish. Perhaps one of the most revealing accounts of the Commimist Party's illusion concerning social consensus comes from Gorbachev's first book in which he outlines the reform initiatives.' It is especially valuable in terms of establishing Gorbachev's loyalties to the Party and of his belief in the socialist democratic system that Lenin had implemented. The countless references to Leninist principles that Goihachev uses throughout Perestroika and speeches delivered during his time in ofiRce point to the unyielding direction in which Gorbachev wished to lead the Soviet Union. Yet, there is also an unmistakable difference in method found in the leadership of Gorbachev. Unlike his predecessors, who maintained a course that did not deviate from the Party line, Gorbachev exhibits a flexibility and receptivity to different approaches in the interest of motivating change in the nation. Hence, he proposed glasnost as a way to engage the population in a discussion of issues relevant to economics and politics. The style approach, utilizing glasnost, was distinctive in that it offered public ' Gorbachev, Perestroika. 8 participation. However, Gorbachev's platform for encouraging reform, new thinking, is still packaged in the style of Party compliance, which presents a paradoxical situation in terms of glasnost's democratic value and the rigidity of the Party structure. To observe better the incompatibility of glasnost with the Party dogma it is reasonable to explore the writings of the man who embodied Party principles of socialist democracy yet sou^t to implement a democratic reform meant for social rejuvenation. One of the best sources of comparison comes from Gorbachev's autobiography of 1995, Memoirs, in which he reflects on the course of action that he took and that ultimately led to the failure of the Communist Party to maintain power, driving flie Soviet Union to the collapse of 1991.^° In Memoirs, Gorbachev is acutely aware of the corruption in Party politics in all areas of the Soviet system: economic, political, and social, which due to a lack of progressiveness in reform, maintained the status quo of Party authority and kept the society debilitated. Most relevait to the argument of this thesis is Gorbachev's insight concerning his interpretation of glasnost. What he formulates in Perestroika. die a^erence to the Leninist socialist democratization as critical to the process of socioeconomic reform, takes on a different interpretation in Memoirs when Gorbachev has retrospectively assessed all the changes brought to bear upon his nation under his leadership. By his own admission, Gorbachev acknowledges the contradictions found in his speech that he delivered to the Congress, contradictions that he could afford to be more introspective about at a later date. Yet, these contradictions effectively demonstrate the
Publication Year: 1999
Publication Date: 1999-01-01
Language: en
Type: article
Access and Citation
Cited By Count: 1
AI Researcher Chatbot
Get quick answers to your questions about the article from our AI researcher chatbot