The Impact of Gorbachev’s Reforms (Edexcel A-Level History): Revision Notes
The Impact of Gorbachev's Reforms
Gorbachev's reforms fundamentally changed the Soviet Union in ways he did not anticipate. While intended to strengthen the Soviet system, these policies unintentionally encouraged the rise of nationalism across the Soviet republics, ultimately contributing to the collapse of the USSR. This note examines how various reforms—from cadre changes to glasnost—fuelled nationalist sentiment and challenged Soviet control.
Unintended Consequences
A key theme throughout this note is that Gorbachev's reforms, designed to strengthen and modernize the Soviet system, produced outcomes that were the opposite of what he intended. Each reform policy inadvertently accelerated the very nationalist movements that would ultimately dismantle the USSR.
Cadre change and anti-corruption
Following Brezhnev's death, Soviet policy towards the republics underwent significant change. Both Andropov and Gorbachev prioritised effective government over representative government, meaning they abandoned the previous commitment to staffing republican governments with local leaders.
The shift to Russian leadership
Instead of ensuring local representation, Andropov and Gorbachev argued that government positions should go to the most capable candidates. In practice, this meant replacing existing leaders in non-Russian republics with Russians. This process was closely linked to the anti-corruption campaign, which resulted in the removal of many local leaders.
Gorbachev's purges were particularly extensive. For example, he removed relatively popular leaders in the Central Asian republics in 1986. At the highest levels of Soviet government, Gorbachev's Politburo contained only one non-Russian member, compared to Brezhnev's more diverse appointments.
Consequences of Russification
This increased Russian dominance at all levels of government created deep resentment in non-Russian republics. The most notable example occurred in Kazakhstan in 1986, when riots erupted after the Russian leader Gennadii Kolbin replaced the local Kazakh leader Dinmukhammed Kunaev. This event demonstrated the growing tension between Moscow's centralising policies and local national identity.
The Kazakhstan Riots: A Turning Point
The 1986 riots in Kazakhstan represented the first major public resistance to Gorbachev's leadership changes. The violent protests against Kolbin's appointment signalled that the policy of replacing local leaders with Russians would not be accepted passively by the republics. This event foreshadowed the larger nationalist movements that would emerge later.
Acceleration
Gorbachev's economic reform programme, known as Acceleration, aimed to modernise and invigorate the Soviet economy. However, these reforms ultimately led to economic decline rather than growth.
Economic decline and its political impact
Living standards in the republics either declined or stagnated during this period. This economic deterioration coincided with the replacement of local leaders with Russians, creating a powerful association in people's minds: the new Russian leadership became linked with economic failure, while the previous generation of local leaders was remembered as presiding over economic growth.
The Psychology of Economic Decline
The timing of economic decline was crucial to its political impact. People in the republics didn't just experience worsening living standards—they experienced them under new Russian leadership. This created a narrative where Russian control meant economic failure and local leadership meant prosperity, even if the reality was more complex.
Growing inequality
Gorbachev did not challenge the privileges enjoyed by Communist Party officials. As the economy declined, the stark inequalities between the new privileged Russian leaders and the people they governed became increasingly obvious and offensive to local populations.
Impact on nationalism: These combined factors—economic failure and visible Russian privilege—fuelled growing nationalism. People in the republics began to see Soviet rule not as beneficial but as exploitative Russian domination.
Glasnost
Glasnost (openness) and democratisation produced consequences that Gorbachev had not foreseen. The most significant was the emergence of demands for greater autonomy or full independence from Soviet republics.
How glasnost fuelled nationalism
Glasnost contributed to the rise of nationalism in three main ways:
Exposure of Stalin's persecution: Glasnost allowed open discussion of how Stalin's government had persecuted non-Russian peoples. This revelation undermined the legitimacy of Soviet rule in many republics, as people learned the true extent of historical injustices committed against their communities.
Comparison with the West: Soviet citizens could now see how much higher Western living standards were compared to those in the Soviet Union. This was particularly significant because from the mid-1950s to mid-1980s, citizens in the republics had been broadly satisfied with their standard of living. The Soviet economy had improved conditions compared to the 1920s or 1930s. However, compared to the West, living standards remained poor. Glasnost therefore undermined the perception that the Soviet Union had benefited people in the republics.
Freedom for nationalist groups: Glasnost allowed nationalist groups to publish material demanding greater autonomy. For the first time in decades, nationalist ideas could be openly discussed and promoted.
How Glasnost Worked in Practice
Consider how glasnost transformed public discourse in the Baltic states:
Before glasnost: Discussing Soviet deportations of Estonians, Latvians, and Lithuanians in the 1940s was forbidden. The official narrative presented Soviet rule as liberation.
After glasnost: Newspapers and journals published accounts of mass deportations, executions, and forced collectivization. Previously suppressed documents revealed the scale of Stalin's persecution. Public meetings openly discussed independence movements from the pre-Soviet era.
Result: Within months, nationalist movements gained widespread public support, transforming from underground resistance into mass political movements demanding independence.
The Sinatra Doctrine
Gorbachev's foreign policy reforms also contributed to rising nationalism, particularly through redefining the relationship between the Soviet Union and Eastern European satellite states.
From the Brezhnev Doctrine to the Sinatra Doctrine
Under Khrushchev and Brezhnev, Eastern European states (including East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Poland) had very limited freedom. Reforms in Hungary (1956) and Czechoslovakia (1968) that threatened Soviet interests were crushed by Soviet military intervention.
The Brezhnev Doctrine (1968) formalised this policy. Brezhnev argued that the Soviet Union had a right to intervene in the affairs of other European socialist countries to protect socialism across Europe.
In August 1989, Gorbachev rejected the Brezhnev Doctrine, renouncing the Soviet Union's right to intervene in other socialist countries. Instead, he argued that different countries could follow their own path to Communism. This new policy was nicknamed the Sinatra Doctrine after Frank Sinatra's song 'My Way', because it allowed countries to choose their own path.
The fall of communism in Eastern Europe
During October and November 1989, communism collapsed across Eastern Europe:
Poland (1988-1989): Strikes led to free trade union Solidarity winning elections. Mazowiecki became the first non-communist Prime Minister in Eastern Europe.
Hungary (1988-1990): Gorbachev accepted Hungary becoming a multi-party state. Democratic elections were won by the Democratic Forum, an anti-communist alliance.
Czechoslovakia (November-December 1989): Huge demonstrations against communism began on 17 November. The Communist government resigned on 24 November. Václav Havel became the first non-communist President since 1948. Democratic elections were won by Civic Forum, an anti-communist alliance.
East Germany (October-November 1989): Gorbachev told East Germany that Soviet troops would not suppress demonstrations. Mass protests occurred, including 300,000 in Leipzig and one million in East Berlin. The Berlin Wall opened on 9 November 1989. Germany reunified in 1991.
Romania (December 1989): The secret police fired on demonstrators in Timisoara on 16 December. A huge crowd in Bucharest booed President Ceausescu on 21 December, who fled but was captured. The army joined the rebellion, fighting the secret police. Ceausescu and his wife were executed on 25 December. Democratic elections were won by the National Salvation Front in 1990.
Bulgaria (1990): Democratic elections were won by the renamed Communist Party.
The Symbolism of the Berlin Wall
The destruction of the Berlin Wall, which began on 9 November 1989, symbolised the end of Soviet control of Eastern Europe. The Wall had stood since 1961 as the most visible symbol of the division between communist and non-communist Europe. Its fall was broadcast worldwide, creating powerful images of ordinary citizens physically dismantling the barrier that had separated families and nations for nearly three decades.
The destruction of the Berlin Wall, which began on 9 November 1989, symbolised the end of Soviet control of Eastern Europe. These changes went far beyond what Gorbachev had anticipated, yet he allowed them to happen, refusing to use Soviet troops to restore communist rule.
Implications for Soviet republics
The revolutions in Eastern Europe had clear implications for the Soviet republics. Across Eastern Europe, countries had regained their independence from the Soviet Union. Nationalists in non-Russian republics hoped they could achieve the same. The precedent had been set: if Poland and Czechoslovakia could become independent, why not Ukraine, the Baltic states, or Central Asian republics?
The Precedent Effect
The peaceful achievement of independence by Eastern European states created a powerful precedent for Soviet republics. Nationalist movements could now point to concrete examples of successful separation from Soviet control without military intervention. This fundamentally changed the calculation for nationalist leaders: independence was no longer a distant dream but an achievable goal demonstrated by their Eastern European neighbours.
Democratisation
Democratisation further aided nationalist movements by allowing them to participate in and win elections.
Electoral victories for nationalists
Significantly, nationalists gained majorities in several republican parliaments in the elections of 1990. These elections led to the first major nationalist challenge to the Soviet Union since 1921.
Lithuania's declaration of independence: In March 1990, the newly elected parliament of Lithuania declared independence from the Soviet Union. Gorbachev claimed the declaration was illegal and imposed economic sanctions. Although the sanctions were lifted in summer 1990, there was no resolution to the fundamental issue of Lithuanian independence.
Lithuania's Bold Move
Lithuania's declaration of independence was unprecedented in Soviet history. For the first time, a Soviet republic had democratically elected a government that immediately voted for full independence. Gorbachev's response—economic sanctions rather than military intervention—revealed the limits of Soviet power under glasnost and the Sinatra Doctrine. The Soviet government could no longer use force as it had in Hungary (1956) or Czechoslovakia (1968).
Yeltsin and Russian nationalism
Boris Yeltsin took the process further in May 1990 by insisting that laws made by the Russian parliament were legally superior to Soviet laws. In effect, Yeltsin's statement gave Russia a significant degree of independence from the Soviet Union.
Further evidence of rising Russian nationalism included the re-emergence of the old Russian flag and the double-headed eagle—the symbol of the old Russian monarchy. Both had been banned by the Soviet government. The use of these symbols by Russians who supported Yeltsin indicated that nationalists in Russia wanted to break away from the Soviet Union and assert Russia's independence.
The Irony of Russian Nationalism
Russian nationalism presented a unique challenge to the Soviet Union. Russia was the largest and most powerful republic, and Russians had traditionally been the primary beneficiaries of the Soviet system. When even Russians began asserting their independence and adopting pre-Soviet national symbols, it signalled that the USSR had lost legitimacy among all its constituent peoples—not just the non-Russian republics that had long resented Soviet control.
Growing nationalist unrest, 1988–90
From 1988, nationalist unrest grew across the republics, sometimes leading to ethnic and religious violence. The Soviet government's inability to manage these crises further undermined its authority.
Nationalist violence
The Karabagh crisis (1988):
In 1988, nationalist protests erupted in Karabagh, a region of Azerbaijan. The crisis was caused by Armenian nationalists living in Karabagh who wanted to unite with Armenia. Armenian nationalists organised protests demanding the redrawing of the republic's boundaries in February 1988. Azerbaijani nationalists organised a counter-campaign, and by the end of the month, violent riots had broken out.
Gorbachev responded by introducing direct rule of Karabagh. However, this satisfied neither side. New groups emerged fighting for their different national communities. The situation deteriorated into massacres and mass migration of Armenians. Both sides denounced the corruption of the Soviet Union.
The Karabagh Crisis Escalates
The Soviet authorities failed to contain the crisis. By the end of 1989, the Communist Party had lost control of the Republic of Azerbaijan. In January 1990, Azerbaijani nationalists, who now effectively controlled the republic, massacred Armenians. Mass Azerbaijani rallies demanded formal independence from the Soviet Union.
Uzbekistan (1989):
In Central Asia in 1989, Uzbeks massacred the Muslim minority of Meshketians. Soviet authorities were unable to restore peace or negotiate compromise. This failure led to a loss of faith in the Soviet government, which appeared incapable of either ensuring peace or meeting nationalist demands.
Pattern of Escalation
In both Azerbaijan and Uzbekistan, the Communist government failed to contain nationalist demands and failed to solve intercommunity issues. In both cases, nationalist protests that started against a minority community escalated into violence and demands for independence from the Soviet Union. This pattern revealed a critical weakness: the Soviet government could neither suppress nationalist movements nor satisfy their demands through compromise.
The Tbilisi massacre
Events in Georgia demonstrated the limits of Gorbachev's real power and the contradictions in Soviet policy.
The massacre (9 April 1989): Georgian nationalists protested against the rights of the Abkhazian minority. Soviet troops attempted to restore order by force. Consequently, Soviet forces killed 19 Georgian protestors and wounded thousands more. The killings outraged Georgian nationalists and, as in Uzbekistan, the government's violent response turned Georgian nationalists against the Soviet authorities.
Consequences of the Tbilisi massacre:
Fear across the republics: The massacre led to concern among nationalists in all republics that the Soviet government was prepared to use lethal force to stop nationalism. This heightened tensions and made nationalist groups more determined.
Tbilisi syndrome: The government refused to take responsibility for the killings and blamed local military leaders. As a result, military commanders became increasingly unwilling to use force against protestors. This refusal to use force became known as 'Tbilisi syndrome' and seriously weakened the government's position, because it could no longer rely on military support to suppress nationalist movements.
Tbilisi Syndrome: A Fatal Weakness
'Tbilisi syndrome' created a paradox that paralyzed Soviet policy. The government's use of lethal force in Tbilisi outraged nationalists and increased support for independence movements. Yet the government's subsequent refusal to take responsibility undermined military commanders' willingness to use force in future crises. The result was that the Soviet government could neither credibly threaten force nor effectively negotiate peaceful solutions—leaving it powerless to prevent the growth of nationalist movements.
Russian nationalism
During the late 1980s, Russian nationalism also grew. Traditionally, Russians had benefited from the Soviet system and had not developed strong nationalist movements. However, Gorbachev's reforms began to change this dynamic. As outlined earlier, Yeltsin's assertion of Russian sovereignty and the revival of Russian national symbols demonstrated that even Russians were beginning to see their interests as distinct from—and potentially opposed to—those of the Soviet Union.
Key Points to Remember:
-
Gorbachev's cadre changes replaced local leaders with Russians, creating resentment in non-Russian republics and fuelling nationalist opposition.
-
Economic decline under Acceleration became associated with new Russian leadership, while previous local leaders were remembered positively, strengthening nationalist sentiment.
-
Glasnost exposed Stalin's persecution of non-Russian peoples, allowed comparisons with higher Western living standards, and permitted nationalist groups to publish and organise openly.
-
The Sinatra Doctrine led to the collapse of communism across Eastern Europe in 1989, providing a powerful precedent for Soviet republics seeking independence.
-
Democratisation enabled nationalists to win elections in 1990, with Lithuania declaring independence and Yeltsin asserting Russian sovereignty, directly challenging Soviet authority.
-
Nationalist violence and the Tbilisi massacre demonstrated the Soviet government's inability to manage ethnic conflicts, while 'Tbilisi syndrome' meant the military would no longer reliably suppress protests.