Reasons for the Collapse of the Soviet Union - Case Study Example

Reasons for the Collapse of the Soviet Union The collapse of the Soviet Union at the end of the 20th Century has been attributed to several causes. One of these asserts that the Soviet system had been founded on principles that were not viable, in the long run. Those who subscribe to this school of thought have repeatedly stressed that Marxism was a fallacious theory that was doomed to failure. In support of their contention, these scholars cite the pathetic economic performance of planned economies and the disgruntlement that they generate amongst their unfortunate citizens (Ekedahl and Goodman, 1998, p. 149). There are others who propound the theory that the Soviet Union had been deliberately dismantled. In their opinion, this system would have continued; but for the destructive acts of some individuals. This conjecture results in the question of who had been responsible for the collapse of the Soviet Union. The erstwhile Communists of Moscow have held that Gorbachev was the sole cause for this unwelcome development (Ekedahl and Goodman, 1998, p. 149). Yeltsin embarked upon a program of consolidating his power. In this endeavour, he acted with great haste, and this had a major contribution to the disintegration of the USSR. Gorbachev also played a major, but unintended role in the process of disintegration. Some of the reasons for the dismantling of the Soviet Union are the liberalization of the system, and its democratization; and permitting the Eastern European countries to claim independence. In addition, the Soviets did not employ force against those seeking self-determination, this proved to be highly encouraging for those seeking self rule (Brown, 2007, p. 318). Prior to Gorbachev’s rule, any expression of nationalism was dealt with very severely. Some of the modes of punishment for such activity were arrest, imprisonment, exile to Siberia, or even execution. Gorbachev liberalised the system and provided the opportunity for democracy to flourish in the Soviet Union. These measures resulted in the disintegration of the USSR (Brown, 2007, p. 319). The Second World War was highly damaging for the Soviet Union. The innumerable executions of persons suspected of being dissidents, had a number of adverse effects on the Soviet system. The Red Army’s leadership was incompetent, it was poorly armed and troop morale was at its nadir. The extant transport arrangements were woefully inadequate, and this led to serious shortages, all over the country (Kenez, 2006, p. 133). The dissolution of the Soviet Union was accompanied with considerable bloodshed, on account of the civil wars in Abkhazia, Adjaria, Chechnya, Ingushetia, Karabakh, Moldova, Ossetia and Tajikistan. A large number of people lost their life, and the refugees were in the millions. In the aftermath there were fifteen states, and even Ukraine, which had managed to prevent civil war, had to countenance a self declared republic, in its far western region (Kotkin, 2008, p. 4). By the 1990s, the conflicts that were in support of, as well as the battles that opposed these reforms; took place in an environment that was witness to the collapse of institutions as well as their recombination (Kotkin, 2008, p. 6). It was opined by the current president of Russia, Putin that the anarchy, which ensued, in the aftermath of the collapse of communism in Russia, was on account of democracy. Russia dragged into the doldrums, when it defaulted on its domestic debt. This transpired during the rule of Boris Yeltsin, in 1998. The trials and tribulations of Russia did not end with this ignominy, and the hapless Russians had to witness the collapse of the Rouble and the abandoning of state welfare (Hilsum, 2007, p. 26). The abject poverty of the Russians and their affliction with several ailments, made them disregard the democracy that had been praised by the US and introduced by an enthusiastic Yeltsin. Liberal capitalism was one of the factors that led to the US victory in the Cold War. Communism, per se, had failed to bestow an adequate standard of living upon those whom it had suppressed and exploited. Another factor was the difference in ideologies, between the Soviet Union and China. The emergence of an ideology, in Russia and China that combines autocracy with capitalism, has proved to be very strong (Hilsum, 2007, p. 26). This novel system constitutes a real challenge to the democracies of the world. There are several reasons that led to the socioeconomic reforms in the former Soviet Union. The most important of these was the fear of being defeated by foreign forces that were culturally alien. This apprehension motivated the Republic to depend on military power. The Soviet Union justified its adoption of a non – liberal model of modernisation, on these grounds. Moreover, the rulers and elites were in favour of instituting and maintaining an empire that was based on military power. These rulers established rigid social and political organisations; and the communist leaders furthered this vision and thereby established a highly diverse land empire (Afferica, 1995, p. 169). These rigid structures had impeded the economical, social and political modernisation of the empire. The decision – making process was centralised and concentrated in the hands of the communist leaders. These despots deprived the various departments and political institutions of autonomy. The latter is essential for growth. Development in the context of the Soviet Union was complex and indirect. It followed a system of state – oriented social organisation, instead of a system based on politically autonomous social organisation (Afferica, 1995, p. 170). Structures that are by their very nature, highly centralised cannot be decentralised. Any attempt at controlled decentralisation could be expected to end in failure. This transpired in the Soviet Union, and efforts at decentralisation, resulted in the collapse of the Soviet empire. This collapse was due to the gradual weakening of the centres of power in the Soviet Union. It was independent of any overthrow of power, due to a mass movement by the people, at the national or international level (Afferica, 1995, p. 170). The centre lost its authority over other institutions; and could not claim moral authority, economic and military prowess or the will to continue its domination. Soviet federalism had its roots in autocracy. Soviet federalism was a mechanism to exercise control from the centre. This was also a contributory factor for the rapid collapse of the empire. Moreover, such centrally located power, inhibited reform processes and caused the subsequent weakening of this imperial centre. However, these federal arrangements, proved to be a blessing in disguise, for some of the independent states to construct their own self – rule, in the aftermath of the collapse of the Soviet Union (Afferica, 1995, p. 170). The Soviet Union had remained nationalistic with a socialist approach. During the last decade of its existence it ceased to be socialist in content and national in form. In the initial stages, Mikhail Gorbachev had attempted to control the decentralisation of the federal nature of the Soviet Union; and strived with might and main to restore power at the Centre. The doctrines and policies of supra-national, national and sub – national factors have always been interrelated in Russian history. However, the supra – national character, the choice of the imperialists, had always held sway (Afferica, 1995, p. 170). The Soviet Union was compelled to envisage a number of challenges, such as the economic problems and pressures caused by the cold war and the arms race. To compound its misery, the Soviet Union had to engage in a decade long fractious armed in Afghanistan. All these factors weakened the economic status of the empire and by the mid 1980s, the Soviet Union’s economy was severely weakened (Stoner-Weiss & McFaul, 2009). These problems were on account of an inefficient planning system in the Soviet Union, and the premier, Leonid Brezhnev’s failure to initiate measures to strengthen the economy. In addition to these general shortcomings, crude oil prices dropped to very low levels during this period, namely between 1982 to 1986 (Stoner-Weiss & McFaul, 2009). The Afghan war proved to be extremely harmful to the Soviet economy, and proved to be the most expensive war to have been fought by the Soviet Union. In addition, to the loss of many servicemen; it also, had a major impact on oil revenues, which were the primary source of revenue for the USSR. The US and its allies, realised the true nature of the situation, and some recommendations were also made by US statesmen to initiate measures to destabilise the Soviet Union (Stoner-Weiss & McFaul, 2009). On 13 September 1985, Sheikh Ahmed Zaki Yamani, Minister of Oil, Saudi Arabia, declared that his Kingdom had changed its oil price policy. This move planted the seed for the economic collapse of the USSR. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia stopped protecting oil prices. It acted independently and regained its market share in the international market. Thereafter, Saudi Arabia increased oil production fourfold, and this reduced oil prices, dramatically. The impact of this sudden drop in oil prices on the Soviet Union was disastrous; and its annual loss was nearly $20 billion. Oil revenues were a major source of income for the USSR, without which it could not survive (Stoner-Weiss & McFaul, 2009). During the period from 1966 to 1990, grain production in the Soviet Union did not increase. Moreover, nearly 80 million people migrated to urban areas from the rural areas. In addition, the production of oil and natural gas was insufficient to defray the cost of importing food grains from abroad. This situation compelled the Soviet Union to borrow money, so as to buy grain for domestic consumption. By March 1991, some party members were issuing warnings regarding the risk of famine if food grains were not procured (Francis, 2007, p. 15). At that time, it was feared that a famine in the Soviet Union, could result in a revolt that the centre would be unable to control. In Poland, the Solidarity Party, under the leadership of Lech Walesa had commenced demonstrations in the capital city of Warsaw, against the failure of the central leaders, to avert these conditions. The Soviet Union was in no position to employ military might to control these open revolts by the Poles, as it had done on previous occasions (Francis, 2007, p. 15). It was feared by the Soviet authorities that any attempt at employing military might to suppress this revolt would result in the loss of the $100 billion aid, promised by the West. This amount was desperately needed at that time. In January 1991, the Soviets attempted to restore power in the Baltic States, by using force. The Western nations, immediately decried these moves, and strongly warned the Soviets that any use of force to suppress the national aspiration of the Baltic States would result in the cessation of credit (Francis, 2007, p. 15). This palpable threat compelled the Soviet Union to desist from further action, in this matter. Subsequently, Gorbachev suggested the dissolution of the Russian empire. He was deposed in a military coup, and Boris Yeltsin came to the helm of affairs in Russia. Some historians, like Goldman, have contended that the initiative of Gorbachev, in permitting the dismantling of the Soviet military – industrial complex, was the starting point, as well as the principal cause for the collapse of the Soviet empire (Francis, 2007, p. 15). The undesirable domination of Communism was replaced with burgeoning nationalism in the various republics that constituted the Soviet Union. As a consequence, republics of the Baltic, namely, Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania, Armenia, Belarus, Georgia, and Moldova declared their independence, with great aplomb. They were accompanied, in this commendable task, by a number of republics of the Caucasus Mountains, like Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan (Soviet Union, 2002). Finally, in the year 1991, the Soviet Union was laid to rest; and the reign of repression and terror came to an end. Subsequently, a highly flexible federation, which came to be termed as the Commonwealth of Independent States, and whose members were some of the erstwhile republics of the Soviet Union, came into being. However, this Commonwealth of Independent States was not accorded the status of a nation (Soviet Union, 2002). In conclusion, the Soviet Union collapsed, due to several reasons. Its principal source of income had been crude oil, and this asset lost its value, in the 1980s, on account of the fall in oil prices. At the same time, there was a tremendous shortfall in the production of food grains in the USSR, which compelled the Soviet Union to import food grains from the West. The Soviets embarked upon a punitive expedition to quell the rebellion in Afghanistan, and after a decade and after great loss to their economy, the Soviets had to withdraw from that country. This served to wreak havoc on their strained economic position. The dependence of the Soviet Union on foreign aid, emboldened its constituent states to stage rebellions, and the Soviets were unable to suppress these initiatives. This set a precedent for the other states. Finally, Gorbachev attempted to usher in democracy into the USSR, and this proved to be last nail in the coffin. The Soviet Union was not prepared for democracy, and the abject poverty that was suddenly thrust upon the populace, hastened the dissolution of this veritable behemoth of a nation. It was principally due to the reason that this system had become economically and politically unviable. List of References Afferica, J. (1995). Federalism In The Post-Cold War Era: The Decay Of Federal Structures In The Former U.S.S.R. Saint Louis-Warsaw Transatlantic Law Journal , 169 . Brown, A. (2007). Seven years that changed the world: perestroika in perspective. Oxford University Press. Ekedahl, C. M., & Goodman, M. A. (1998). Who Undid the Soviet Union?: The Wars of Eduard Shevardnadze. The Fletcher Forum of World Affairs , 22, 149. Francis, D. R. (2007). New Insights on the Soviet Union's Collapse. Christian Science Monitor , 99(165) , 15. Hilsum, L. (2007). Give us democracy – but not yet. New Statesman , 136 (4852), 25 – 26. Kenez, P. (2006). A history of the Soviet Union from the beginning to the end. Cambridge University Press. Kotkin, S. (2008). Armageddon Averted: The Soviet Collapse, 1970-2000. Oxford University Press. Soviet Union. (2002). Retrieved November 19, 2009, from The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Houghton Mifflin: http://www.credoreference.com/entry/hmndcl/soviet_union Stoner-Weiss, K., & McFaul, M. (2009, March). Domestic and International Influences on the Collapse of the Soviet Union (1991) and Russia's Initial Transition to Democracy (1993). Retrieved November 19, 2009, from http://iis-db.stanford.edu/pubs/22468/No_108_Stoner-Weiss_domestic_and_international_influences_on_collapse_of_USSR.pdf Read More