Optimistic view of Perestroika

Press, 21 October 1989, Page 28

Optimistic view of Perestroika

Perestroika Annual. Editor-in-chief, Alexander Yakovlev. Futura/ Macdonald, 1988. 346 pp. $49.95 (paperback). (Reviewed by John Goodiiffe) In October, 1984,1 reviewed in “The Press” a book published in 1982 called "An end to silence.” This was the English translation of a collection of material from Roy Medvedev’s magazine “Political diary,” distributed clandestinely in the Soviet Union 196471. It included a letter written by Medvedev, Andrei Sakharov and Valentin Turchin which had been printed in the “diary” in March, 1970. They called upon the Soviet Government to adopt a programme of reform, laying great stress on the need for “democratisation” and “the broad exchange of information and ideas.” Five years ago I expressed my doubts about their proposals ever being adopted. My pessimism was misplaced. Medvedev and Sakharov are no longer dishonoured dissidents, but officially elected representatives of the people, part of the Soviet Government. The ideas they put forward in their "underground letter” of 1970 have become, under Gorbachev, official policy. So, nearly 20 years after that letter, I find myself reviewing a book, the existence of which five years ago I did not think remotely possible. “Perestroika Annual” is intended to be the first of a series. Its editor, according to the title page, is Alexander Yakovlev, secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party and a member of the Politburo. According to the introduction by the publisher, Robert Maxwell, the editor is Professor Abel Aganbegyan, chief economic adviser to Gorbachev. Whoever the editor is, this is no underground publication. It is from the top, not the bottom. The words “perestroika” and “glasnost” are now familiar to Western readers, although it is doubtful whether everyone really understands what they mean. It is useful, therefore, to have them officially defined in the introduction: "The language of perestroika.” “Perestroika’ is package of radical measures involving the revolutionary transformation of society and providing for qualitative shifts in all spheres. Perestroika is by its very nature comprehensive, with democratisation and glasnost as its motive force.” “Glasnost” is “one of the major democratic principles of the Socialist system” in accordance with which

"the Soviet people must have a real opportunity to express their opinion on any problem in public and political life.”

The annual itself embodies this principle to the full. Yakovlev and Aganbegyan contribute substantial articles on the political philosophy behind perestroika and the scope of the economic reforms which have been set in motion by it. The other items cover law, sport (an interview with Kasparov, the world chess champion), foreign economic relations, the theatre, the question of political leadership (this is in the form of frank comments from Fyodor Bulatsky, a leading political journalist, about Khrushchev, Brezhnev and Andropov), Soviet-American relations, literature, social forces working for and against perestroika, and an analysis of glasnost, its past, present and future.

Finally there is an article by Metropolitan Alexy of Leningrad and Novgorod in which he emphasises the importance of the Russian Church in the thousand years of its history and the role it still has to play in Soviet life. He concludes: "at the present time there are no problems concerning the Russian Orthodox Church and the State which would be impossible to solve” and boldly asserts: “I am full of hope, optimism and enthusiasm for perestroika.” The range and richness of this collection makes it difficult to know where to focus attention in a short review. Every article deserves detailed analysis and comment. To me the most interesting are the contributions on law, sport, culture, and the church. “Towards a socialist rule-of-law state” is by Vladimir Kudryavtsev, since 1973 Director of the Soviet Institute of State and Law. He calls for a restructuring of the Soviet legal system so that the rights of the individuals are safeguarded at all times.

“Respect for the rights and dignity of the individual should be an inviolable law for all State bodies, officials and economic and public organisations,” he writes. “Judges, procurators and investigators should be free from any pressure or interference with their activities.” The article makes virtually no direct reference to politics, but it is clear that it is firmly directed against the kind of power-abuse which most Western observers regard as inevitable under a one-party system of government. The implications are deep and far-reaching indeed.

The Kasparov interview is certainly the liveliest section of the book. Kaksparov fulminates against sports officials “who often do not understand anything about sport,” complaining that money which should be used for “mass sport” is too often channelled into what he calls ‘pseudoprofessional” areas. He draws unflattering comparisons with the West, where “all strata of the population” can “go in for sport under very good conditions.” He criticises, too, the Soviet • tax system which provides for different taxes for different occupations, not different incomes. Thus a composer pays only 13 per cent tax, considerably less than, say, an inventor or a chess player. Kasparov is clearly peeved that he has had to hand over to the State most of his hard-earned Swiss francs: two million in the last five, years, he claims. His outspoken comments would certainly evoke sympathy from many New Zealand sportspeople. The contribution on the theatre is from a leading actor, Mikhail Ulyanov, who, despite his name, is apparently unrelated to Lenin, but who, by a remarkable coincidence, portrayed Lenin, in a television serial. “We must admit,” he writes, “that we are only beginning to learn what democracy is about.” The Soviet theatre, he tells us, is positively seething with new ideas; like all true art, it is there to make people think. Thus it has a vital part to play in the “fundamental restructuring” that is persestroika. “Samizdat,” by Nikolai Chetverikov, reasserts the proud tradition of Russian literature as “the cutting edge of public opinion.” The bureucratic narrow-mindedness which tried to squeeze culture into fixed patterns is now over and done with. “None of the former taboo areas are left.” Thus the West can no longer seize upon socalled “banned literature” and try to use it for political ends. “Samizdat,” under-the-counter do-it-yourself publishing, is no more.

The main fault with this most interesting book is that it has far too many misprints and that the anonymous, presumably Soviet-based, translators too frequently produce bizarre non-English: “But we can put to perestroika’s credit the unprecedentally large and intense work of the party in the organisational and theoretic fields .. ” is but one example from many. There are, no doubt, people who still regard perestroika as an insincere hollow propaganda exercise. They would probably regard this annual as a mere collection of empty words. I confess to scepticism myself in the early days of Gorbachev. We should certainly be wary of assuming from a publication like this that the Soviet political system is on the verge of disintegration.

The contributors are still committed to Soviet socialism, only now it is to be on a pluralistic basis which allows for open discussion, argument and disagreement. This does not mean however that the one-party system will suddenly disappear. Nor does it mean that the Soviet Government will sit back while the various groups, religious, political, intellectual, cultural or ethnic, take over.

But perestroika is certainly more than a word; it represents a genuine attempt by the Soviet Government to oil the wheels of a machine which had, under Brezhnev, become more and more creakily inefficient. It may well prove to be a pivotal turningpoint in the history of the Soviet Union. I await the next issue of the annual with eager anticipation.