End of the Union

Neither the system nor the Union had to disappear in this particular way. Before liberalisation and democratisation from above, only a handful of dissidents dared voice their grievances and demands in public. A different leader from Gorbachev might have resorted to old-style coercion the moment he saw that reform was leading to loss of control. A different leader from Yeltsin might have strived to preserve the boundaries of a 'greater Russia' rather than accept borders that had never, historically, been those of his country and which, moreover, meant that 25 million Russians found themselves all of a sudden living 'abroad'. Each of the five great transformations interacted with and influenced the others.
'Fifteen new states stood where one mighty superpower had recently held sway.'
But the sequence was that the Soviet Union was first reformed, then transformed, and then disintegrated all within the space of six-and-a-half years. It had ceased to be a communist system in any meaningful sense from the time of the state-wide contested elections of the spring of 1989. Inside the Communist Party, vigorous public debate had replaced 'democratic centralism'. Moreover, the basic principle of the party's 'leading role' within the political system and society was being challenged from all sides as new political organisations sprang up. In March 1990 the Communist Party's monopoly of power was removed from the Soviet Constitution, formal recognition of what had been the reality on the ground for the past year.
Seldom, if ever, has a highly authoritarian political system, deploying military means sufficient to destroy life on earth, been dismantled so peacefully. Never has an empire disintegrated with so little bloodshed. Although huge difficulties remained for the successor states, the way Soviet communism came to an end was one of the great success stories of 20th century politics.
Published: 2001-10-12

Bookmark with:
What are these?