Reasons behind the Fall of the Soviet Union - Research Paper Example

Reasons behind the fall of the Soviet Union Name of the Student: Name of the Instructor: Name of the course: Code of the course: Submission date: Reasons behind the fall of the Soviet Union Introduction The eventual collapse of the Soviet Union has been pointed out as an important epoch in history of humankind (Khan, 81). This is based on the fact that it is often perceived as the fall of one of the most dominant doctrine in history; socialism. On the other hand, just as the WW1 and the Bolshevik revolution played an integral role in defining the instigation of the twentieth century, so the ultimate culmination of the cold war and the collapse of the USSR marked its ending (Pravda, 356). In August 1991, the Soviet Union underwent the final political collapse which culminated in its split into several sovereign states whose future economic ties remained highly uncertain (Shreifer and Vishny, 341). It is worth noting that diverse reasons have been forwarded attempting to expound on the primary reasons behind the collapse of this expanse empire which seemed so robust and progressive just several decades before its eventual collapse. Against this backdrop, this paper is a profound attempt to analyze the primary reasons which led to the collapse of the Soviet Union which reached its peak in August 1991. What were the reasons behind the collapse of the Soviet Union? Several reasons have been forwarded in the efforts to explain the collapse of the Soviet Union. These are explored in the subsequent section. Failed institutions and ideologies It has been pointed out by different commentators that the initial integration of the Soviet Union was firmly anchored on strong institutions as well as a robust ideological foundation. The ruling communist party was founded on the Marxist-Leninist ideology which upheld the frontline of the proletariat and had employed an authoritarian monopoly of power over the political system (Hosking, 2). In addition, through the epoch of Great Terror which was engineered by Stalin and controlled through the state security (NKVD), the regime was bolstered by extensive intimidation and fear. Thus, the strength and legitimacy of the system was chiefly anchored upon the ideological faith among the social echelons of the society, of the Marxist-Leninist principle and was critically reinforced by the coercive state power of the red army and the secret police (Hosking, 3). Nonetheless, this ideological orientation weakened with the instigation of increased freedom of speech and worship which were initially curtailed by the ruling system. This resulted in undermining the ideological set-up of the system as well as the strength of the institutions. There are different corollaries of this paradigm shift (Weiss and McFaul, 5). Firstly, there was a heightening crisis in regard to the legitimacy within the Soviet society. On the other hand, the elevated educational levels culminated in the weakening of the ideology of increased mobilization which was fundamental to the existence of the system. In addition, increased freedom of speech meant the decline of the social contract perception and at the end, the government was unable to guarantee the employment of the citizens (Weiss and McFaul, 5). This was marked by the increased outcry of ‘we pretend to work, while you pretend to pay us’ in the 1970s. All this culminated in a chasm between the promises that the system made in its diverse propaganda claiming the superiority of the socialist lifestyle and the growing incapability by the same system to deliver its inflated promises. This is supported by the fact that despite the social services being free, they were characterized by poor quality due to insufficiencies in the planning system. Thus, interplay between the failing ideological orientation combined with weakening institutions played a major role in undermining not only the legitimacy of the system but call for more profound reforms in the systems of governance in the Soviet Union. This paradigm shift played an integral role in the eventual decline of Soviet Union. Heightened nationalism It is worth noting that prior to the collapse of the Soviet Union, the affairs of the Soviet Union as well as the east European satellites were governed and managed from the central point of Moscow, an interrelated control structure that duplicated political, economic and social patterns across a geo-political space. Against this background, it has also been noted behind the desire for freedom in 1989 was also the desire for national sovereignty. Thus, the unrest in Eastern Europe was not perceived merely as revolts against communism which was viewed as an oppressive socio-political system but in actual sense, it was a series of revolts against the domination of the Soviets which is closely linked to which had also become widespread within the Soviet society itself (Beissinger, 334). Therefore, the collapse process of the Soviet Union has been perceived to have spread along two basic institutional forms which had previously been used to structure the international as well as the multinational control; the Warsaw pact and ethnofederalism. In the final epoch of the looming disintegration, Gorbachev who was the incumbent president consented the independence of the Baltic States, while he still desperately tried to salvage some sought of confederation with him being the overall president. Nonetheless, the republican leaders in were not willing to take this compromise with the possibility of becoming presidents in sovereign states being apparent. In December 1991, Yeltsin and his allies in Kazakhstan, Ukraine and Belarus dealt a disastrous blow to USSR and Gorbachev by inaugurating the Commonwealth of Independent states (Pravda, 360). Thus, the heightened nationalism among the satellite communist nations towards national sovereignty has been viewed as a major point of departure that saw the collapse of the magnetic pull which held the Soviet Union. Economic decline The epochs in the 19th century saw socialism being perceived as an answer to the questions which were social in nature, for instance, slums, poverty, hunger, prostitution, drugs, crime and disease. However, diverse economic burdens in the subsequent years resulted in the gradual decline of the economic capacity of the Soviet Union which was core to its collapse. These economic burdens emanated from different causes (Hedlson, 17). Firstly, the instigation of the cold war with the United States meant heavy investment in the arms race. This arms race played an integral role in draining resources which were fundamental and available for consumer production. In this regard, the acute deterioration of the economic capacity in the Soviet Union meant that the system was incapable of dealing with the political challenges not only in Moscow itself but also in the satellite states. Thus, the collapse of the Soviet Union has been attributed to the failing capacity of the system to control the failing economy as well as its flawed attempts in reforms (Pravda, 361). Secondly, Moscow engaged into extensive ventures in the Third-world countries aimed at supporting socialist revolutions aimed at independence from colonialism, for instance, in Congo, Angola among other African countries which were fighting for independence after years of colonialism. This meant heavy economic and human capital investment in these courses, which was also tied to the cold war. This resulted in gradual economic decline of the Soviet Union (Pravda, 361). Lastly, the efforts to control other communist states in the periphery meant heavy economic investment in order to ensure their allegiance and loyalty to the central administration in Moscow. Nonetheless, this did not prevent the nationalistic feelings among these states which were seeking sovereignty and self-determination. Pravda cited that the complaints of these satellite states against the management of the economy by Moscow formed a robust platform for nationalism. They also served as aides-de-camp to the political and emotional case for independence (Pravda, 361). Interplay of these factors saw the decline of the economic capacity of the Soviet Union which meant that the system was confronted by both short-term and long-term inability to support its diverse courses abroad as well as effectively and efficiently administer other states in the periphery. This served as a major catalyst for the eventual collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. External pressure Majority of the reasons analyzed in the preceding section explored the domestic factors resulting the in the collapse of the Soviet Union. Nonetheless, Pravda noted that external pressure was also connected with the process of collapse, albeit less directly and centrally. This is less than they appear from accounts that credit American Containment strategies, especially as followed by Ronald Reagan played a chief role in bringing to an end, both the cold war and the Soviet Union (Pravda, 361). On the other hand, it has also been pointed out that the external pressure also exercised their robust influence by aiding the spurring of crucial reassessment which was central in producing Golbachev’s doctrinal revolution and perestroika (Pravda, 362). One of the key features of the strategic changes which were linked with Perestroika was a higher level of openness, free dialogue with the west as well as more open debates at home. Of particular concern, this increased openness of the leadership in the Soviet Union to the counterparts in the western countries proved integral in giving foreign statesmen an opportunity of reinforcing Gorbachev’s inclination of responding to nationalist challenges using political rather than coercive means. As a result, the Gorbachev administration was more ready to discuss the internal problems in the Soviet Union with the Westerners, and in most cases, heeding their counsel (Pravda, 363). This culminated in increased vulnerability of the Soviet Union, mostly in regard to its international policies. Consequently, outrage over the compromises in the arms agreements and the losses in Eastern Europe aided in spurring the conservative opposition which saw the successful mounting of August 1991 coup (Pravda, 363). In conclusion, it is apparent from the above discourse that interplays between diverse factors, both domestic and international played different roles in spurring the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. Nonetheless, it is prudent to note that these factors contributed to the collapse at different levels with some playing more central than others. However, their cumulative effect culminated in the disintegration of the Soviet Union marking the end of the cold war and the creation of sovereign states which were initially under the wider umbrella of the Soviet Union. Works cited Beissinger, Mark. “Nationalism and the Collapse of Soviet Communism”. Contemporary European History 18.3 (2009): 331-347. Print. Hosking, Geoffrey. Russian History. London: University College London, 2003. Print. Hudelson, Richard. The Rise and Fall of Communism. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, 1993. Online. Khan Sajjad, Ali. “The fall of the Soviet Union: The fall of a state or the fall of an ideology”. Journal of Political Studies (2008): 81-99. Print. Pravda, Alex. The collapse of the Soviet Union, 1990-1991. Oxford: St. Antony’s College, 2010. Print. Shreifer, Andrei and Vishny, Robert. “Reverting the Soviet Economic Collapse”. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity 2 (1991): 341-360. Print. Weiss, Kathryn and McFaul Michael. Domestic and International Influences on the Collapse of the Soviet Union (1991) and Russia’s Initial Transition to Democracy (1993). Paper prepared for CDDRL’s authors workshop “Evaluating International Influences on democratic Development” on March 05-06, 2009. Read More