To what extent was Mikhail Gorbachev’s policy of glasnost responsible for the eventual collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991?
I have already written the introduction which is as follows:
Introduction
This essay investigates the research question, “To what extent was Mikhail Gorbachev’s policy of glasnost responsible for the eventual collapse of the Soviet Union in
1991?”.
Before glasnost, to the outside world, the Soviet Union was a global superpower. However, behind the scenes, the Soviet Union was a declining superpower, struggling with economic stagnation and political rigidity. Its centrally planned economy, focused on military and heavy industry, suffered from inefficiency and low productivity. Chronic shortages of consumer goods resulted in mass public discontent. The Communist Party maintained tight control, suppressing dissent and censoring information, which hid deep corruption and a growing disconnect with the people. Internationally, the USSR faced the Cold War arms race with the U.S. and the costly war in Afghanistan. By the early 1980s, the Soviet system appeared unsustainable, prompting former Soviet General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev to seek reforms.
In 1986, Mikhail Gorbachev and his advisers introduced glasnost as a key political slogan. “Glasnost”, translating to “openness”, was adopted in an effort to promote more open consultative government and a wider dissemination of information. However, over the five years following the introduction of glasnost, the Soviet Union embarked on a gradual process of democratization that reduced Communist control. In December of 1991, less than 6 years after the policy had first been introduced, the Soviet Union was formally dissolved as a sovereign state.
The historical debate around the collapse can be categorized into two viewpoints. On one hand, historians argue that Gorbachev’s policy of glasnost promoted greater transparency, which in turn exposed deep-seated issues within the Soviet system, such as corruption, economic inefficiencies, and public dissatisfaction. The increased scrutiny from the public delegitimized the communist party, leading to loss of control and the Soviet Union’s eventual collapse. On the contrary, many historians argue that the collapse of the Soviet Union was inevitable due to the preexisting decline of communist ideology and overall economic inefficiencies, which was largely independent of Gorbachev’s introduction of glasnost. These historians argue that although Gorbachev’s policy of glasnost may have accelerated the collapse by provoking public discontent, the fundamental cause of Soviet collapse was not due to glasnost. Missing in these debates, however, is a clearer explanation of the interplay between external and internal factors, including the roles of U.S. leaders Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.
This essay seeks to elucidate the extent of responsibility of various parties in contributing to the downfall of the Soviet Union. This essay argues that while glasnost played a notable role in causing the collapse of the Soviet Union, preexisting instability such as economic stagnation, declining faith in communist ideology, and political corruption—combined with pressure from U.S. leaders Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, who implemented aggressive foreign policies and military buildup, ultimately weakened the Soviet system and led to its dissolution.
A variety of primary and secondary sources were consulted during this investigation. Primary sources included speeches from the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, including his 1983 speech “Evil Empire”, which provided context for the U.S. pressure on the USSR during this period. For additional statistical evidence on Soviet economic progression, reports from the U.S. The Directorate of Intelligence provided detailed statistics of the Soviet economy, including industrial output, and agricultural performance. While government documents offer a better understanding of the US perspective of the state of the Soviet Union, statistical evidence offers insights into the economic regression within the country.