Preview

Political science

Advanced search

Regime and state breakdown: dissolution of the Soviet Union

https://doi.org/10.31249/poln/2020.04.15

Abstract

The mechanism of causality between the breakdown of political regime and the disintegration of a state is an important topic in political science. The dissolution of the Soviet Union is a typical example. The aim of perestroika was the transformation of the political regime by renewing the top elite and inclusion of mass groups in the system of government. The initiators of the reform planned to achieve their goals through the general reconstruction of relations between the CPSU and the Soviet state, the redistribution of power from the party elite to the Soviet one concentrated in the Councils of People’s Deputies at various levels. In practice, the implementation of two reforms at once (distancing the party from the authorities and optimizing governance) led to the split of the entire political elite. The struggle of opposing elite groups for dominance led to the paralysis of state power, the loss of control over what was happening in the country. As a result, the interests of elite groups began to prevail over the national interests and ultimately led to the destruction of the state. Thus the authorsubstantiates the thesis that the destabilization of a regime as a result of the inter-elite struggle leads to the destruction of a state. The problem of elite renewal and consolidation and the transfer powers from the party elite to the state one becomes important.

About the Author

Haiting Fei
School of government, Peking university
China

Peking



References

1. Арбатов Г.А. Человек системы: наблюдения и размышления очевидца ее распада. М.: Вагриус, 2002. 459 c. EDN: TYIUTT

2. Гаман-Голутвина О.В. Политические элиты России: Вехи исторической эволюции. М.: РОССПЭН, 2006. 446 с. EDN: QOFXIN

3. Лапина Н.Ю. Механизм трансформации советской политической элиты. Номенклатура и номенклатурная организация власти в России // Материалы интернет-конференции "Номенклатура в истории советского общества". Пермь:ЭлИс-Центр, 2004. Режим доступа: http://elis.pstu.ru/index.php?a=9&pod_id=31& pod3_id=117 (дата посещения: 04.10.2020). EDN: XBLPJF

4. Пихоя Р.Г. Советский Союз: История власти (1945-1991). Новосибирск: Сибирский хронограф, 2000. 684 с. EDN: SXHXKX

5. Черняев А.С. Совместный исход. Дневник двух эпох. 1972-1991. М.: РОССПЭН, 2008. 1047 с. EDN: QVMECT

6. Яник А.А., История современной России: истоки и уроки последней российской модернизации (1985-1999). М.: Фонд современной истории; Издательство МГУ, 2012. 760 с. EDN: UCXXLP

7. Bunce V. Subversive institutions: the design and the destruction of socialism and the state. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. 206 p.

8. Csanadi M. Self-consuming evolutions: a model on the structure, self-reproduction, self-destruction and transformation of party-state systems tested in Romania, Hungary and China. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 2006. 334 p.

9. Ertman T. Birth of Leviathan: building states and regimes in Medieval and Early Modern Europe. London: Cambridge Press, 1997. 363 p.

10. Goldstone J.A. Revolution and rebellion in the Early Modern World. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991. 608 p.

11. Gaman-Golutvina O. Changes in elite patterns // Europe-Asia Studies. 2008. Vol. 60, N 6. P. 1033-1050. EDN: LLGPVZ

12. Matsuzato K. Logics of semi-presidentialism and post-communist politics // Russian Studies. 2010. N 5. P. 36-50.

13. Mosca G. The ruling class (Elementi di scienza politica) / Transl. by H.D. Kahn. New York, London: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1939. 514 p.

14. Yu Keping. Toward an incremental democracy and governance: Chinese theories and assessment criteria // New Political Science. 2002. Vol. 24, N 2. P. 181-199.


Review

Views: 169


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.


ISSN 1998-1775 (Print)