Gorbachev and Deng Xiaopings Reforms - Term Paper Example

Gorbachev and Deng Xiaoping’s Reforms Gorbachev and Deng Xiaoping’s Reforms: Perestroika and ‘Cat and Mice’ Date and Time Institution Introduction: Gorbachev’s Perestroika and Deng Xiaoping’s ‘Whether a cat is black or white makes no difference as long as it catches mice’ themes of reforms constitute a vision towards the end of ideology and predominance of free market forces even in the erstwhile staunch ‘socialist’ countries like Soviet Union and Peoples Republic of China. Deng started this process of massive reforms in 1978 while Gorbachev could begin only in 1986. Moving beyond Mao’s Cultural Revolution was the main concern of reforms brought about by Den Xiaoping. Gorbachev, however, introduced his concept of restructuring the economy of the Soviet Union in the name of Perestroika. His policy of Glasnost or openness was also an integral part of his restructuring as well. The essence of these reforming exercises was largely the movement towards economic liberalization and plausible democratic transparency – to the extent as it augured well with the need for necessary change (Kessler, 1988, 651). Indeed, what Deng could foresee in 1978, Gorbachev and erstwhile Soviet political stalwarts took yet another eight years to conceive! China’s journey to realizing need for globalization began with Deng’s very first visit to United States for meeting President Carter. When USSR started with restructuring economy and polity, China was already way ahead in this process. Does it mean that Deng was better entrenched in the corridors of power in China than Gorbachev in Soviet Union? There can be quite few reasons behind this apparent ‘back bencher’ attitude of the Soviet Union. Despite other international political designs, China was not so globally involved with the cold war mutual vilifications and indirect fighting with the United States (US). The Soviet Union had to waste a lot of her resources and energy in the cold war with US. In view of Soviet involvement in Afghanistan and tremendous pressure upon it during cold war and détente, USSR’s weal economy could not really bear the burden of a so-called socialist polity and economy – largely closed to the outside world. Perestroika: However, in order to critically analyze and compare both Perestroika and Deng’s reforms it is required to know the major aspects of both these perspectives. First, main aspects of Perestroika may be pointed out: 1. Economic reconstruction through introducing ‘socialistic free market’ institutions and practices. 2. Agricultural reforms for giving, among others, more freedom to farmers for deciding on their own about their crop and other choices. 3. Other reforms in the area of international and intra-national trade and industry. 4. Educational reforms with more freedom to parents and children in their own decision making. 5. Initially minimal level of political reforms to provide more freedom of expression to Soviet citizens (Gorbachev, 1987 and Kishlansky, 2001). The Gorbachev leadership, however, regarded its reforms in the USSR as a development of socialism, a “modernization,” as it were, of socialism to bring it up to date in the modern epoch. The policy of perestroika has …. The proposals of the reform movement have lead to contradictions within Soviet society concerning the nature and extent of the changes. There has undoubtedly been a significant recasting of the organizing principles of socialist society. Post-Communist states have moved away from the centralized plan to greater use of market forces, from collective solidarity to individualism, and from a primacy on politics to a greater role for economics. The centralized forms of control are to be superseded by greater devolution and by a more “pluralistic” political system. Ideas of a classless society and a hegemonic Communist Party leading the working class to a world order of communism have been completely repudiated (Lane, 1992, 377). The major follies of the Perestroika were its being imposed from, as it were, top to bottom – without much effort towards evolving a public opinion. Moreover, Soviet Union could not prevent its disintegration despite reforms because its citizens in several of its provinces revolted as a result of slight opening up of the Soviet society. Political set up of the changing Russia could not immediately control its revolting public. Deng’s Reforms: As regards Deng’s reforms in China, his leadership has shown more maturity combined with utter authoritarianism as well. His somewhat brazen stone heartedness came out clearly when Deng used tanks and guns to end the 1989 pro-democracy demonstrations in Tiananmen Square, where hundreds of students and bystanders were believed to have been killed. He crushed democracy in favor of Chinese communist ideology in spite of other reforms in the polity and society. Indeed, the major reforms brought about by Deng Xiaoping are as follows: 1. Deng ordered the turnover of collective lands to individual peasants to help relieve the famines of 1959-62. 2. Deng criticized Mao’s Cultural Revolution. He said "Poverty is not socialism." He encouraged the creation of a market economy and capitalist-like enterprises, and by the early 1990s his reforms had helped lift an estimated 170 million peasants out of extreme poverty. 3. Yet he continued with Marxist-Leninist-Maoist ideology on which the Peoples Republic of China was founded in 1949. 4. In 1979 Deng met U.S. President Jimmy Carter in January at the White House. Dengs goal was a wealthy, modern, powerful China, and he opened the door to new relations by establishing ties with the West. 5. Deng reformed education in China while saying that the Cultural Revolution had produced "an entire generation of mental cripples". Deng allowed students to go abroad for college, sparking a craze for learning English. 6. Throughout Dengs economic reforms, however, he kept an iron fist ready to crush any threats to the nations Communist dictatorship. In Dengs final five years, virtually all of Chinas dissidents were imprisoned or exiled abroad. Deng left China a more stable and prosperous nation than at any time in the 20th century, but its authoritarian government and one-party system were still firmly in place. 7. He established Special Economy Zones (SEZ) in various provinces by giving them more economic freedom for more entrepreneurial opportunities in a freer market system. These SEZ were generally known as "The Testing Bed of Deng Xiaopings Reform and Opening Up" 8. Deng often declared that Mao was "seven parts good, three parts bad." 9. For him, “Planning and market forces are not the essential difference between socialism and capitalism. A planned economy is not the definition of socialism, because there is planning under capitalism; the market economy happens under socialism, too. Planning and market forces are both ways of controlling economic activity” (Gittings, 2005). Deng and Gorbachev: Deng started his reforms alongside touring the entire country and thus creating a public opinion in favor of is reform ideas. Gorbachev just imposed all reforms from above. As such the result was disintegration of Soviet Union on a vast scale. Moreover, Deng Xiaoping was much more experienced politician than Gorbachev. Deng remained in power from 1978 to 1992 while Gorbachev enjoyed real power only for about four years! Yet Gorbachev has his own important place in Russia. Under Gorbachev, major turns in policy have occurred, seeking to bring about a new alignment in international affairs. In essence the Soviet Union has sought to relinquish the mantle of leader of an ascendant Communist bloc against the principal capitalist states. It has carried out a significant withdrawal from Eastern Europe; it has disengaged from intervention in Afghanistan, and has taken a more conciliatory attitude in Third World conflicts. Soviet hegemony in Eastern Europe has been abandoned in favor of a multiple party system and popularly elected non-Communist governments. The Soviet leadership has sought a less “ideological” policy with respect to the West and more accommodation in an “interdependent” world with more integrated economies. In a less threatening international climate, the Soviet Union has reduced its spending on armaments to the advantage of domestic production. Hence, by modifying the aspirations of the Soviet leadership, Gorbachev has resolved some of the problems that confronted his predecessors. (Lane, 1992, 376). Deng combined Chinese traditions, Marxist-Maoist ideology and modern day realities. Gorbachev failed on this account for he did not really care for his citizen-comrades. Gorbachev has however made a lasting imprint upon the global civil society in just a few years time while Deng took nearly twenty years to do so! Global Impact: It is not difficult to see the global impact of Deng’s reforms and Perestroika. This has been long lasting as of now. Despite continued intransigence of the erstwhile remnants socialist system and so-called ‘dictatorship of proletariat’, the modern network of globalization and good governance is widening while realizing the inherent importance of the free market forces the world over. The real threat after the near end of ‘communism, today, it is terrorism that has come up as the real threat to world peace, security and development. How to deal with this challenge now? Can there be a Perestroika or any other type of reform movement for dealing with this danger to the existing world? Conclusion: One wonders why the so-called communist nations do not realize the internal contradictions of socialism. They all know that proletarian class can never rule themselves because there always has to be a ‘vanguard of the proletariat’! So an elitist framework has to be there to rule. Then the best thing is to have a ‘rule of law’ in a democratic and free set up. Otherwise, people in the Platonic ‘shadows of the cave’ will never see the reality. This paradox of communism and reforms in the socialist system are seldom able to fully cope up with what is really required because even leadership also wants to see only what they like to see and nothing beyond. Leadership, however, is not an entirely independent variable. We have seen what happened to Khrushchev when his policies and initiatives came into conflict with the vested interests of the apparat; even Kosygin’s moderate reforms were sabotaged by the apparat and eventually nullified by those in the Politburo who aligned themselves with the apparat. Indeed, the apparat acts as a strong conservative force. Therefore, when a new, strong leader tries to initiate structural changes that may affect the prerogatives and privileges of the apparat, he is able to carry them out only when a dislocation in the power structure occurs -- a change of guard in the Kremlin -- that produces a split of such magnitude in the apparat that those favoring change get the upper hand. The cases of Kádár in Hungary (after the 1956 rebellion) and Deng Xiaoping in China (after Mao’s death) illustrate the working of this political dynamic. With Brezhnev’s death, the generation gap in the Soviet Union exploded, enabling Gorbachev to come to power, though not without hurdles and conflicts. Precisely because Brezhnev’s old guard saw its end coming, it clung stubbornly to power. At the 1981 Party Congress, for instance, something without precedent occurred: Brezhnev and his associates engineered the reelection of the Politburo exactly in its old format, barring newcomers from the supreme organ of power at a time when the average age in the Politburo was 70. Apparently the old guard feared that the new generation would think and act differently. And history has confirmed that suspicion (Silviu Brucan, 1987, 520). Hence, there has to be evolved a world community of nations whose leaders do not act in a biased fashion. Biases lead to utter mutual exploitation of individual citizens of all nations alike – be they socialist or libertarian democratic. Impartiality and utmost professionalism must enter politics. References and Notes David Lane (1992), Soviet Society under Perestroika, Routledge, New York. John Gittings (2005), The Changing Face of China, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Mark Kishlansky (2001), ed., Sources of the West: Readings in Western Civilization, 4th ed., vol. 2, Longman, New York, p. 322. Merry Kessler (1988), “The Paradox of Perestroika”, World Policy Journal, Volume 5, Issue 4. MIT Press. Mikhail Gorbachev (1987), Perestroika, Harper Collins, New York: 1987. Silviu Brucan (1987), “Political Reform in the Socialist System”, World Policy Journal, Volume 4, Issue 3, MIT Press. Read More