Interpretations: Gorbachev and Yeltsin (Edexcel A-Level History): Revision Notes
Gorbachev
Introduction: The Gorbachev Factor
Mikhail Gorbachev stands as one of the two most significant figures associated with the collapse of the Soviet Union. Historian Archie Brown introduced the concept of the Gorbachev Factor, emphasising how Gorbachev's personal decisions and reforms were pivotal in transforming and ultimately dismantling the Soviet system.
Gorbachev recognised early on that the Soviet Union required fundamental change. By the early 1980s, he understood that simple reform would be insufficient—the entire system needed transformation. However, in attempting to save Soviet Communism, his reforms paradoxically undermined the very foundations he sought to preserve. His goals evolved over time, beginning with economic restructuring, then expanding to political reform, and finally attempting to reshape the nature of the Union itself. Ultimately, he failed to achieve his central ambition: revitalising both Soviet Communism and the Soviet Union.
The Paradox of Reform
Gorbachev's central dilemma was that in attempting to save Soviet Communism through reform, he created the very conditions that led to its collapse. Each reform intended to strengthen the system instead weakened it further, creating a self-reinforcing cycle of decline.
Perestroika and the weakening of the Soviet Union
Perestroika (meaning 'reconstruction') was Gorbachev's programme of economic and political reforms that fundamentally altered the Soviet Union. The reforms progressed through three distinct phases—Rationalisation, Reform, and Transformation—each progressively weakening the Soviet state.
Rationalisation phase
The initial rationalisation phase aimed to restructure the Soviet economy and improve efficiency. However, this phase produced devastating consequences:
- Economic growth actually declined rather than improved
- Living conditions deteriorated for Soviet citizens
- Public faith in the Communist Party eroded as the reforms clearly failed to deliver promised improvements
- The failure of these moderate reforms pushed Gorbachev towards more radical economic and political changes
The Failure of Moderate Reform
The rationalisation phase demonstrated that modest reforms could not save the Soviet system. Rather than improving conditions, these initial attempts at restructuring actually worsened the economic situation, forcing Gorbachev to pursue increasingly radical measures.
Reform phase
The second phase introduced two crucial policies: glasnost and demokratizatsiya, which further destabilised the Soviet system.
Glasnost (literally 'openness') began as a policy for greater freedom of information but rapidly evolved into something far more radical:
- It exposed the crimes and failures of previous Soviet governments
- This undermined faith not only in the Communist Party but in the entire communist ideology
- The revelations created a more profound crisis of legitimacy than the economic problems of the rationalisation phase
Demokratizatsiya (democratisation) weakened the Communist Party's control:
- Alternative candidates were permitted to stand in elections
- Soviet voters could now choose their own representatives
- The Party lost its monopoly over patronage and political appointments
- Gorbachev's personal control over the Party diminished as power shifted to elected officials
Glasnost: From Information to Revolution
What began as a controlled policy of greater openness quickly spiraled beyond Gorbachev's control. By revealing the Soviet Union's dark history—from Stalin's purges to the failures of central planning—glasnost destroyed the Communist Party's moral authority and legitimacy in the eyes of Soviet citizens.
Transformation phase
During the final transformation phase, Gorbachev abandoned the essential features of Soviet Communism:
- The one-party state was dismantled
- Central economic planning was questioned
- The use of force to maintain unity was renounced
- These changes allowed rival national power bases to emerge and challenge the Union
The significance of Gorbachev's reforms
From this perspective, Gorbachev's reforms were a primary cause of the Soviet Union's collapse for several critical reasons:
Four Critical Factors
Reform was not immediately necessary: In 1985, the Soviet Union faced decline rather than acute crisis. Between 1979 and 1982, Andropov had successfully eliminated the dissident movement, and more conservative reform options enjoyed support within the Party. Gorbachev therefore chose to introduce radical reform despite not facing immediate pressure to do so.
Reforms created their own crisis: Rather than solving existing problems, Gorbachev's reforms generated new crises that demanded ever more radical solutions. The reforms themselves became the problem.
Increasing radicalisation: Gorbachev proved willing to embrace progressively more radical reforms as time went on, even when these threatened the system's survival.
Abandonment of core principles: By 1990, Gorbachev was prepared to discard the essential features of Soviet Communism—the very elements that had held the Soviet Union together since its creation.
New thinking: new vocabulary
One of Gorbachev's most significant achievements was introducing 'new thinking' to Soviet politics through a transformed political vocabulary. This new language fundamentally eroded the Soviet system by making previously unthinkable ideas seem acceptable.
Strategic use of language
Gorbachev deliberately chose the term 'perestroika' rather than 'reform'. The word 'reform' carried negative associations with Khrushchev's destabilising policies, making communists deeply suspicious of it. By contrast, 'perestroika' was a neutral, scientific-sounding term implying rational restructuring for efficiency. This strategic choice prevented immediate opposition.
The Power of Words
Gorbachev's linguistic strategy was remarkably effective. By choosing neutral-sounding terms and adding the word "socialist" to traditionally Western concepts, he was able to introduce radical ideas that would have been immediately rejected if presented more directly.
Gorbachev also rehabilitated words that Soviet politicians had previously used only critically. For example, Soviet ideology had traditionally rejected 'pluralism' as a weakness of Western democracy. However, Gorbachev began advocating 'socialist pluralism'. By adding the word 'socialist', he suggested that pluralism could be compatible with Soviet values. Similarly, he spoke of 'socialist markets', thereby advocating approaches that socialists had historically rejected.
Evolution of key terms
The new vocabulary included terms whose meanings evolved significantly:
Glasnost: Initially meant greater freedom of information but quickly became associated with freedom of speech
Perestroika: Originally meant economic reform but by the late 1980s implied both economic and political transformation
Uskorenie: Meant 'acceleration' and referred to speeding up economic development
Demokratizatsiya: Early on, this meant giving workers greater say in running their factories. By the late 1980s, Gorbachev used it to indicate that significant aspects of government should be elected
Impact of new vocabulary
Gorbachev's willingness to embrace new ideas and vocabulary had profound consequences. It allowed radicals within the Party, intellectuals, and ordinary citizens to advocate alternatives to Communism that had previously been unthinkable, including freedom of speech, free market economics, and democratic elections.
Westernising Soviet politics
Gorbachev fundamentally reoriented Soviet politics towards Western values, directly challenging decades of Soviet ideology. At the beginning of his leadership, he stated his desire for the Soviet Union to abandon isolation and re-enter "our common European home". This represented a dramatic shift from previous leaders who had rejected Western values as capitalist and inferior to Soviet principles. Gorbachev believed that European standards could make the Soviet Union more humane.
Embracing human rights
Gorbachev endorsed Western values that previous Soviet leaders had consistently rejected. First, he embraced the importance of human rights:
- In 1985, he allowed 129 dissidents to emigrate abroad to reunite with their spouses
- He permitted Sakharov's wife to leave the Soviet Union for life-saving medical treatment
- In 1986, travel restrictions were eased for all Soviet citizens
- Soviet authorities stopped jamming Western radio transmissions
- Sakharov's internal exile ended
- Glasnost permitted unprecedented freedom of speech
Worked Example: Sakharov's Release
The treatment of Andrei Sakharov, the renowned physicist and dissident, illustrates Gorbachev's shift toward Western values. Previously exiled to Gorky for criticizing Soviet policies, Sakharov was:
- Allowed to have his wife travel abroad for medical treatment (1985)
- Released from internal exile (1986)
- Permitted to return to Moscow and resume public life
- Eventually elected to the Congress of People's Deputies (1989)
This transformation from persecuted dissident to elected representative demonstrated the dramatic change in Soviet policy under Gorbachev.
Accepting pluralism and multi-party politics
Gorbachev embraced pluralism by allowing Soviet citizens to form their own groups and stand for election. This represented a significant step towards Western multi-party politics and away from the single-party state.
In March 1990, Gorbachev took the decisive step of removing Article 6 of the Soviet Constitution. This article had guaranteed the Communist Party's leading role in Soviet society. Its removal meant:
- The Communist Party lost its constitutional right to dominate Soviet politics
- Other political parties became legal for the first time
- The ideological basis of the one-party state was abandoned
The Removal of Article 6: A Revolutionary Change
The removal of Article 6 in March 1990 marked the most significant constitutional change in Soviet history. By eliminating the Communist Party's guaranteed "leading role," Gorbachev destroyed the legal foundation of the one-party state. This single action made the eventual collapse of Communist rule almost inevitable, as it legitimized political opposition and ended the Party's monopoly on power.
Renouncing violence
Gorbachev also renounced violence as a method for holding together both the Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc. At the Twenty-Eighth Party Congress in July 1990, he articulated his vision: "a civil society of free people is replacing the Stalinist model of socialism" and the Soviet Union was moving towards "genuine democracy ... with free elections, a multi-party system and human rights, real people's power is being reborn".
This commitment to Western values played a crucial role in the Soviet Union's collapse because it weakened the power of the Communist Party, which had held the Union together since its creation.
Gorbachev's mistakes and miscalculations
Beyond his deliberate policy choices, Gorbachev can be held responsible for the Soviet Union's fall through his fundamental mistakes and miscalculations.
Fundamental miscalculations
Three Critical Errors in Judgment
Believing reform could save the system: Gorbachev's most fundamental error was believing that reform could revive the Soviet Union. Perestroika aimed to unleash the Soviet system's potential, but the reforms ultimately created a crisis from which the Soviet Union could not recover.
Failing to anticipate glasnost's effects: Gorbachev did not foresee how revelations about past crimes would undermine the Communist Party's claims to legitimacy.
Misjudging national sentiment: He failed to recognise the fragility of commitment to the Soviet Union. Gorbachev believed the Party's own propaganda that Communism had created a new Soviet people who no longer felt the pull of nationalism. This proved catastrophically wrong.
Policy mistakes
Refusing democratic legitimacy: Having embraced democracy, Gorbachev refused to stand for election, denying himself democratic legitimacy.
Maintaining Party membership: Even after surviving the 1991 coup, he failed to abandon the Communist Party, damaging his credibility.
Setting competing goals: His policies often contained contradictory objectives. For example, uskorenie aimed simultaneously to restructure industry and increase output. However, restructuring would inevitably disrupt production, making it impossible to increase output simultaneously. These competing objectives help explain why the policy failed.
Inconsistent approach to the Party: From 1985 to 1990, Gorbachev sided with radical reformists. However, in 1990 and 1991, he tended to support conservatives and resist radical reforms. This inconsistency confused allies and opponents alike.
Economic policy instability: He shifted from one economic plan to another without allowing any to develop fully, further undermining economic performance.
Failing to win Party support: The Communist Party was the only institution strong enough to implement reform successfully. However, in practice, the Party resisted reform and therefore hampered Gorbachev's programme.
The Contradiction of Uskorenie
Uskorenie perfectly illustrates Gorbachev's tendency to set contradictory goals. The policy demanded that Soviet industry simultaneously restructure itself (which requires disruption, experimentation, and temporary decline) while also increasing production (which requires stability and continuity). These goals were fundamentally incompatible, yet Gorbachev pursued both at once.
Consequences of mistakes
These mistakes undermined both the Communist Party's authority and Gorbachev's personal position, thereby weakening the Soviet Union. As President of the Soviet Union, Gorbachev was positioned to hold the Union together. However, the failure of his political and economic policies led to a rapid decline in his authority, leaving him without the power to maintain the Union's unity.
Gorbachev and China: a revealing comparison
Since 1992, historians have sought to understand the Soviet Union's collapse by comparing it with the survival of Communism in China. Both communist regimes embarked on reform in the 1980s, yet whilst reform destroyed the Soviet Union, it strengthened China. This comparison highlights crucial flaws in Gorbachev's approach.
Economic reform approaches
China's economic success: China embraced market reform more quickly and comprehensively than the Soviet Union. As a result, China's economy continued growing, allowing the Communist Party to retain political authority.
Gorbachev's economic failures: By contrast, Gorbachev's economic reforms were slow and inconsistent. He mistakenly attempted to integrate markets into a command economy rather than fundamentally transforming the economic system. This hybrid approach failed, creating an economic crisis that generated widespread dissatisfaction with the Soviet Communist Party.
Party flexibility and commitment
Chinese Communist flexibility: The Chinese Communist Party demonstrated greater flexibility than its Soviet counterpart. Economic reform in China therefore enjoyed strong support from the Communist government.
Soviet Communist rigidity: In the Soviet Union, most communists, including Gorbachev himself, remained committed to the command economy and viewed markets with suspicion. This lack of wholehearted commitment undermined reform efforts.
Political reform timing
Comparing Reform Strategies: China vs Soviet Union
China's Sequential Approach:
- First: Introduced economic reforms while maintaining political control
- Result: Economic growth strengthened the Communist Party
- Political system: Remained stable during economic transformation
- Outcome: Communist Party retained power
Gorbachev's Simultaneous Approach:
- Attempted: Economic and political reform at the same time
- Result: Economic chaos combined with political instability
- Political system: Weakened just when strength was needed most
- Outcome: Communist Party lost control and collapsed
Key Lesson: China's success came from reforming the economy first while maintaining political stability, whereas the Soviet Union's collapse resulted from attempting too many transformations simultaneously.
China's approach: Communist leaders in China introduced economic reform without increasing political freedom. The absence of political reform meant China remained politically stable during the economic reform process.
Gorbachev's simultaneous reforms: The Soviet Union collapsed because Gorbachev attempted to introduce economic and political reform simultaneously. When perestroika led to economic chaos, the government—weakened by political reform—lacked the strength to maintain control.
Implications
Perhaps Gorbachev could have saved the Union if, like Chinese leaders, he had focused exclusively on economic reform rather than attempting to transform the political system, the economy, the relationship between republics, and foreign relations all at the same time.
Historical interpretations: The Gorbachev Factor debate
Historians disagree about the extent of Gorbachev's personal responsibility for the Soviet Union's collapse.
Archie Brown's interpretation
Archie Brown, in The Gorbachev Factor (1997), argues strongly that Gorbachev's appointment was central to destroying Communism in the Soviet Union. Brown emphasises several key points:
Brown's Key Arguments
The scale of unexpected change: In March 1985, neither Soviet citizens nor foreign observers imagined the USSR would be transformed out of existence. The changes during Gorbachev's leadership were remarkably peaceful given the system's previous resistance to reform.
Importance of leadership: Without the promotion of a genuine reformer to the top Communist Party position in 1985, fundamental change would certainly have been delayed and likely would have been bloodier and slower than the relatively speedy political evolution that occurred under Gorbachev.
Critical choice: The choice of Gorbachev, rather than any other potential Party leader, was of critical importance to the transformations that followed.
Peter Kenez's interpretation
Peter Kenez, in A History of the Soviet Union from the Beginning to the End (2006), presents a more critical view, arguing that Gorbachev was timid and lost control of the reform process well before the Soviet Union collapsed.
Kenez's Key Arguments
Timid reforms backfiring: Gorbachev's timid reforms not only failed to achieve desired results but made matters worse. They brought greater shortages, declining productivity and production, inflation, and a criminal-controlled black market.
Lack of constituency: Although liberal politicians and economists urged more radical reforms, Gorbachev knew there was no constituency supporting such changes. Opponents of abandoning the Soviet system's foundations were powerful, numerous, and well organised.
Hesitant and erratic leadership: Beginning in late 1989, Gorbachev's leadership became hesitant and erratic. He temporised, supporting reformers at one moment but withdrawing support shortly after. He became increasingly isolated.
A spent force: By the end of 1990, the Gorbachev era was effectively over. He had no new ideas for reform and had become a spent force. The danger of spreading disorder brought him closer to conservatives, but he could neither advance further reforms nor restore stability.
Exam skills: analysing interpretations
Analyzing Historical Interpretations: Essential Techniques
Identify the core argument: Brown emphasises Gorbachev's crucial role as a reformer whose appointment enabled peaceful transformation. Kenez stresses Gorbachev's timidity, inconsistency, and loss of control.
Use specific evidence: Support interpretations with precise details such as the three phases of perestroika, specific policy failures like uskorenie, the removal of Article 6, or the comparison with China.
Consider context: Both historians write with hindsight about events in the 1990s and 2000s. Their interpretations reflect different emphases on agency versus structure, and on Gorbachev's intentions versus outcomes.
Evaluate competing claims: Brown focuses on what Gorbachev made possible; Kenez emphasises what Gorbachev failed to control. Both perspectives offer valuable insights into the complex process of the Soviet Union's collapse.
Remember!
Key Points to Remember
-
Gorbachev initiated perestroika with the goal of reviving Soviet Communism, but his reforms paradoxically undermined the system he sought to save.
-
The three phases of perestroika—Rationalisation, Reform, and Transformation—progressively weakened the Soviet Union through economic failure, exposure of past crimes via glasnost, and abandonment of core communist principles.
-
Gorbachev introduced 'new thinking' and new vocabulary (perestroika, glasnost, demokratizatsiya) that allowed previously unthinkable alternatives to Communism to be discussed openly.
-
His Westernising reforms—embracing human rights, pluralism, and renouncing violence—fundamentally weakened the Communist Party's control and ideological authority.
-
Fundamental mistakes included believing reform could save the system, failing to anticipate glasnost's effects, setting contradictory policy goals, and attempting too many simultaneous transformations.
-
The comparison with China reveals that China's success came from prioritising economic reform whilst maintaining political control—the opposite of Gorbachev's approach of simultaneous economic and political transformation.
-
Historians debate the 'Gorbachev Factor': Brown emphasises Gorbachev's crucial enabling role in peaceful transformation, whilst Kenez stresses his timidity, inconsistency, and ultimate loss of control.