To some, the passing of the Soviet Union 10 years ago
hardly seems an event worth mourning. The USSR left a grim legacy. The
one-party rule system erected there left millions dead or rotting in the
gulag. Millions more lived in a state of fear and oppression as the state
monitored nearly every aspect of their lives. But was it really as bad
as some think? In the last of a three-part series, RFE/RL correspondent
Tony Wesolowsky puts that question to U.S. Sovietologist Stephen Cohen.
Prague, 14 December 2001 (RFE/RL) -- In a speech delivered in 1983,
former U.S. President Ronald Reagan famously referred to the Soviet Union
as the "evil empire." Given the USSR's often brutal and bloody history,
it was a title many found fitting.
But Stephen Cohen, a Soviet historian at New York University, says the
majority of the people living in the Soviet Union -- particularly in Russia
-- didn't see their country that way. Like the citizens of most countries,
they tended to see the good in their homeland. They pointed to the Soviet
Union's rapid industrialization and cities such as the famous steel-making
center of Magnitogorsk, which was built from the ground up according to
Stalin's first Five-Year Plan. The Soviet Union also boasted many technological
and scientific achievements, and was the first nation to put a man in space
in 1961. And Soviet citizens also remembered with pride and sorrow the
sacrifices their country made during the so-called Great Patriotic War,
or World War II -- during which over 20 million Soviets perished.
And then, in December 1991, the Soviet Union suddenly collapsed. In
its place arose new freedoms and opportunities, but also a lasting nostalgia
for the "good old days." Cohen says that for the elderly who lived most
of their lives during the Soviet era, it is still hard to come to grips
with the fact that the country they grew up in has been consigned to history's
dustbin. He also says nostalgia for the past is being fueled by the hardships
of the present.
For most people, Cohen says, newfound freedoms have yet to add up to
a better way of life.
"But a second thing," he says, "is that a way of life has been lost.
And what has yet to be gained -- if it is to be positive [in comparison
to] the end of the Soviet Union -- remains for the great majority of people
-- both in Russia and the former territories, except possibly the Baltics
-- futuristic and theoretical, sort of like communism was under the Soviet
system. It's a radiant future, but it's in stark contrast with a very grim
present."
According to Cohen, the shining achievement of the Soviet Union was
its comprehensive social-welfare system.
"For most Soviet citizens, what the system achieved -- particularly
after Stalin -- was what we would call in the West a fairly modern welfare
state, which I've called occasionally a cradle-to-grave welfare state.
The state provided all sorts of entitlements and subsidies so that you
were born, educated, had work, lived fairly comfortably, and died -- if
you didn't challenge the political rules of the game -- with great certainty
and predictability. That -- for, I would guess, 80 percent to 90 percent
of the citizens of the former Soviet Union, except in the Baltics -- is
gone, lost. That security of life, that sense of entitlement and welfare
privileges and subsidies is gone."
A troubled transition period in the former Soviet republics has meant
a rise in poverty, crime, disease, and mortality rates. A 1999 transition
report by the United Nations Development Program warned "a human crisis
of monumental proportions is emerging in the former Soviet Union."
A 2000 World Bank report on poverty in the former Soviet states -- which
includes the countries of Eastern Europe -- said more than one-fifth of
the region's population was living below the poverty line, with the highest
poverty rates in Tajikistan (70 percent), Moldova (55 percent), and Kyrgyzstan
(50 percent). The report also said the number of people living in poverty
in the region has increased more than 10 times over the last decade. In
its 2001 annual survey, the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions
said "the wage gap between an increasingly pauperized majority and a tiny
rich elite is widening" in the transition states of the former Soviet Union
and former Eastern Bloc states.
One of the countries hardest hit is Moldova, where poverty levels are
among the highest in Europe. Last year, the country's biggest export was
its ".md" Internet domain suffix, which it sells to medical professionals,
primarily in the U.S. Moldova has also become a hub for the illicit trade
in human organs.
Such desperate poverty is in marked contrast to the days of the Soviet
era, when many aspects of life in the republics were subsidized by Moscow.
In this respect, Cohen says, the Soviet Union should not be thought of
as an empire in the traditional sense. Whereas a dominating power like
Britain took more from its colonies -- like India -- than it gave back,
the Soviet Union assured its republics a more or less even standard of
living.
"The problem [with looking at the Soviet Union as an empire] is that
it begs the question of whether it truly was that kind of traditional empire
-- whether we should look at the republics as colonies [and] at Russia
as a metropolis that exploited them. And clearly the Soviet Union did not
qualify in important respects. For one thing, economic flows show that
many of the republics were the beneficiaries, economically, of Moscow.
They received so many subsidies, energy, and things like that. So you can't
see a clear pattern of colonial economic exploitation."
What if the Soviet Union hadn't collapsed in 1991, but instead Mikhail
Gorbachev's perestroika and glasnost had somehow managed to reform the
country into a more democratic entity? It's a question Cohen likes to ponder.
He contends such a scenario could have meant a smoother path to democracy
for many of the former republics -- in particular, the Central Asian states.
"Would political reform [and] democratization have proceeded better,
more steadily and further, in the non-Slavic republics -- say, in Central
Asia -- had the Soviet Union continued to exist, because the leaders of
Central Asia would have been compelled to follow the democratization policies
of Moscow? That's a hypothetical [question]. But it's an important question
to ask, because democratization really no longer exists in Central Asia
-- not only in Central Asia, but it's become a new form of authoritarianism
where the old communist elites have turned into clan families which monopolize
the wealth and the politics of the country."
As proof of public support for the USSR, Cohen points to the fact that
nine of the 15 republics voted to preserve the union -- albeit a repackaged,
looser version -- in a March 1991 referendum. He contends that what made
the collapse of the Soviet Union palatable to many citizens was the belief
that it would quickly be replaced by a new, more flexible, version of itself.
"Because remember that when [Boris] Yeltsin, [Ukraine's Leonid] Kravchuk
and [Belarus's Stanislau] Shushkevich announced the end of the Soviet Union,
they said there would continue to be a single economic and military space."
None of that happened, despite the formation of the Commonwealth of
Independent States on 8 December 1991. The CIS has largely failed as a
surrogate for the Soviet Union, but Cohen says he remains optimistic. The
USSR is a relic of the past, he says, but a strong CIS could someday prove
a more perfect union.
(This is the final part of a three-part series.)
ко-мент