NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote
Nationalism, Identity and Human Rights In one week in August of 1991, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic became history. The forces of reform unleashed by President Mikhail Gorbachev in the mid 1980 s generated a democratic movement. Gorbachev's economic policies threw his country into even more turmoil and chaos, as the different nationalities used their new freedoms to move away from the union. Gorbachev sincerely wanted to reform the communist system, but he did not want to eliminate it. He recognized there was a lot of wrong with his country, but right to the end, he never grasped the extent of the problem. As a result, the breakup of the Soviet Union was not a singular event that occurred overnight, rather was caused by decades of neglect and abuse to the former nations by the central communist government, government that would never end, but find ways to cover-up its identity.
As with perestroika, the early stages of glasnost were meant to be limited in extent. Soviet society would be open to criticism by its intellectuals artists, scientists, writers, and others. However, initially it did not include every day citizens of the working class. Gorbachev believed that if he allowed people to speak their minds and informing them of the status of the nation and its failures, he would win their support for perestroika. In 1989, the crimes and hardships of the Stalin decade were talked about openly, and every angle was criticized along with the party itself. Every failure and every success of the system was now being exposed and exploited.
Every step the government took was being questioned publicly. During the second half of 1991, the Soviet Union, the worlds largest nation and a highly militarized nuclear superpower, broke apart into its constituent republics. The Baltic nations of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, captured by Stalin in the Second World War, demanded independence and started a movement of secession. The effect was a domino one where other Russian nations began to have the same sentiments and started revolts against the centralized government. After the attempts to free themselves were successful, other Soviet republics that desperately wanted to be independent started to separate from the Soviet Union. In Soviet republics, many people believed that living in independent country, where the rights of individual will be respected, would be much better that even in changed Soviet Union.
Creation of fifteen new independent countries out of Soviet Union was not surprise during those days of August, because later or sooner this would happen. Many people believed that they would live much better after the downfall of Soviet regime. However, after several months it became clear for the leaders of major former republics that it is hard to exist without each other because of interconnection of economies. In December of 1991, leaders of Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus met to sign and agreement, which declared that on December 25, 1991, the Soviet Union was succeeded by the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), a loose confederation of twelve of the former republics (all newly independent countries except Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania).
Gorbachev obviously opposed such actions taken by these countries but was in fact powerless against them. The day that CIS was established was also the day the Gorbachev resigned and was the last day that the red flag was hung in the nation. Actually, creating a market economy was the greatest problem facing the former Soviet Union: its success depended on its new leaders ability at replacing the old system of central planning with a market economy. Yeltsin's plan for Russia was to increase the production of consumer goods and to improve the standard of living for all Russians. He encouraged private farming as a means to increase food production. Sure enough, a market was created and goods appeared on the shelves of private businesses however, the consumer product was too expensive for the average citizen to purchase.
When, in January 1992 the prices were deregulated, the cost of goods and services was freed and 60 % of the people of former Soviet citizens were forced into poverty. These private markets were extremely high priced compared to the price controlled goods of the previous communist government. Problems for the free market included a lack of property rights and legal structure, greed, desire for control and lack of police. Russia lacked the financial disciple of a structure government and banking system. In Russia and the other former Soviet republics, unemployment was not known to its citizens during the reign of communism. Unemployment causes poverty; this rising poverty impeded the realization of market economies and democratic reforms.
The high rate of inflation in 1992 was caused by the continuing monetization of economic activity without control over the supply of money and credit (Hutchinson). The high level of inflation added to the poverty as wages fell in relation to rising prices. In an attempt to bring down inflation, and to restrict deficits, Yeltsin stopped the subsidies to inefficient industries, which resulted in laying off the workers. Yeltsin had big plans to dissolve the state monopolies and collective farms in favor of privatization; however, he had not the money or the ability to make this plan a reality. The process of creating a free market environment is always slow. Russia had never known private industrial capitalism.
Many citizens wanted the drastic reforms to slow down or change, as there was great disappointment with the private market driven economy. Tremendous disparities developed; privatization meant differences in income, wealth and status, which directly defied past socialism. A few were getting rich in this new economy but the majority of citizens were worst off than they had been under communist rule. Mafia and other crime circles controlled much of the economy. Nevertheless, many overseas investors were interested in Soviet economic development and wanted to be a part of this new consumer market.
As a result, foreign investment grew. The International Monetary Fund and Summit Conference of the Rich Nations also approved several billion dollars of loans to the struggling land. Despite the multitude of troubles, the World Bank judges privatization a success in the former Soviet Union. Russia was considered a chaotic but dynamic society by foreigners. Years earlier, political specialists warned that the multi-national Soviet society was An unnatural and unstable entity that might one day began to unravel (Diuk and Karatnycky).
However, in his last year in office, Gorbachev realized that No questions was more decisive to the success or failure of reform, no issue more critical to the Soviet Union future than that of growing nationalism (Diuk and Karatnycky). When Gorbachev consented to the relaxation of central control, non-Russians saw the as an opportunity to transfer power to their own nations, despite Gorbachev's condemnation of people who were inciting ideas of separation and nationalism. The reemergence of nationalism was motivated by the Ussr's social and economic inequity; this helped end the totalitarian state. The USSR was inhabited by millions of people whose ethnic groups lacked any territorial recognition. The communist system had attempted to destroy national barriers and ethnic differences and to create a group of people that was beyond nationality (Diuk and Karatnycky). The Soviet doctrine pronounced that the Ussr's many nationalities were amicable partners in a voluntary union-a union with social justices, ethic equality and fraternity among people (Diuk and Karatnycky).
However, the Soviet system failed to build a sense of unity among the different ethnic groups. The USSR citizens were forced to keep their opinions to themselves causing the world to believe that they had fully surrendered to totalitarianism. Gorbachev's political relaxation of the late 1980 s offered an opportunity for change and freedom: the ethnic groups thought nationalism was the solution to the problems of Soviet society and politics (Rusinow). The communist failure can also be viewed as a nationalist victory. The desire for independence broke the eternal union of fraternal people into 15 states (Diuk and Karatnycky). Nearly half of the Soviet population was not Russian; therefore, the non-Russian people in USSR had an identity crisis.
In the 1960 s and 70 s, inter-ethnic conflicts among national groups were already very intense; therefore, when de-Stalinization was introduced, all republics became committed to constructed democracy. Ethnic relations were affected by Stalin's designing of republic boundaries, which placed large national minorities with in each union republic, and by the ranking of republics and lesser ethnic homelands. Seven decades of communist rule resulted in disrespect and resentment for government. Each nation was trying to figure out who they were and belonged in the world. Nationalism becomes an ideology within newly independent states.
Loyalty to independent republics confused the lines of authorities and caused the division of the country. The republics (non-Russian) wanted to reach national independence but they tend to lose focus. The ethnic revolts of the 1980 s became the international relations of the 1990 s. The defeat of communism in the USSR caused the separation from Russia of lands and people that many Russians believed to be theirs before communism. Russias internal nationalities problems include territorial nations who redefined themselves as sovereign states.
There were disputes about what republics should be part of Russia. There are many people in Russia whose historic homelands are outside the Russian federation and are now independent; as a result, Russia was most affected by civil conflicts. The end of the Soviet Union turned disagreement between the problems of one state into deadly conflicts between separate states. Ethnicity was linked to political structure and to territory; boundaries of government units and territories were divided according to the ethnic composition of the population (Hutchinson, Smith). A fight for power and property after the collapse of Soviet communism was everywhere. Power struggles between the old leaders and democratic forces often led to violent rioting or civil war, and then usually resulted in some form of dictatorship.
In Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Tajikistan, conflicts broke out as they declared their independence then fought with each other over ethnic boundaries. Many factors contributed to the fall of communism but nationalism was the decisive force. The communist Soviet Union was dissolved almost 10 years ago. One totalitarian state was transformed into 15 independent republics.
These metamorphoses did not take place without bitter, often deadly conflicts; the problems are not yet resolved. The economic and political environment has improved; however, debates over ethnic boundaries and independence persist. Moving from a centrally controlled state to a market economy requires knowledge, foresight, financial support and stable institutions: The leaders were unprepared for the chaos that erupted with the advent of democracy. It is interesting to notice that there are not too many differences between Soviet Union and newly created independent states. In Soviet era, human rights were not respected, but the average life a citizen was better and more secure.
Today, in independent countries of former Soviet Union the laws had significantly changed in order to give people more freedom. At this point, it is possible to say that these countries are democratic however; the level of corruption and government influence (as it used to be during the times of Soviet Union) is still high. Nevertheless, people in these independents states live in poverty and their future is insecure, while some small percentage of society has accumulated wealth. This all situation creates many problems, such as high rates of crime, drug addiction, alcoholism, prostitution etc. To many people of the new Russia, the former communistic government was a lesser evil than the attempt at capitalism.
The Western-influenced market economy has brought nothing but failure and frustration to the Russian people. Such a disappointment with the empty promises of a better life for Russia soon, has made the people think of the days when everything was equally good or bad and the decisions were made for them. During the reign of Stalin, everyone was required to work, but everyone had a job, and thusly money coming to them. The society was relatively egalitarian.
Everyones basic needs were met and all basic products were cheap and accessible. In addition, workers had housing assigned to them through their workplace. Overall, there was no risk or insecurity of the market economy. If capitalism could reach this level in Russia, the people could be happy, but until Putin or his successor determines a better way. Although democracy is what Russia has attempted to gradually adopt since the downfall of Soviet Union, its people today are not ready yet to take on this system of potential inequality and chaos.
They are not ready for extreme poverty levels and other negative issues of democracy. Russia, like any deeply traditional country, is afraid of the unfamiliar. What conclusions can we take away from all of this? Almost all former Soviet republics except Baltic countries and Russia to some extent clearly are not stable states. Their governments are riddled with corruption, a weak economy and no real future except to align themselves yet again with stronger more stable foreign powers. Further more the conditions of the people are not good and little faith or support is given to the government.
Works Cited Mark Kessel man, et al. , eds. , Comparative Politics at the Crossroads, Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath, 1998 Gray, Ian. The History of Russia, New York: American Heritage Publishing Hutchinson, John and Anthony D. Smith Eds. Nationalism, New York: Oxford University Press, 1994 Rusinow, D.
The Theory and Practice of Nationalism course lecture, University of Pittsburgh, 2000 Diuk, M. and Karatnycky, B. The World Today Series Russia, Eurasian States, and Eastern Europe 1998, West Virginia: Stryker-post publications, 1998
Free research essays on topics related to: market economy, communist rule, soviet republics, soviet society, soviet union
Research essay sample on Soviet Republics Soviet Union
