Done for A Level History
When Gorbachev came to power in 1985, he did so without a radical agenda. He recognised the need for economic reform but believed that they should be done within the existing system. This system was a failing one which had not improved since Stalin’s time and thus it can be argued that Gorbachev’s insistence to work in the confines of the existing structure was a factor in the breakup. He did, however, have much of the Central committee replaced with a younger generation. While this would allow young minds with fresh ideas, they were often inexperienced. Furthermore, even after the start of acceleration, Gorbachev continued to work within the traditional framework even though it was evident that it was not working and the economy was still failing; the Soviet budget deficit soared from 3 per cent of national income in 1985 to 14 per cent of national income by 1989 and money was increasingly worthless. He had the Twelfth Five year plans targets set considerably higher than the previous plans and did so against advice. By the summer of 1990 it was clear that there was a major crisis in the economy. While Gorbachev allied with Yeltsin to set up a team of reforming economists headed by the Stanislav Shatalin, he refused to accept their plan. The Shatalin plan was designed to carry out the transformation of the economy to a market based structure in 500 days as it was becoming increasingly clear that a command economy didn’t work. Gorbachev, along with Ryzhkov, refused to accept it because it changed the system and instead sought an unsuccessful compromise. Although Gorbachev himself would later go on to say “the old system tumbled down before the new one could begin functioning” it can be argued that he was the reason the new system failed to function.
On the other hand, one must look at the other factors in the causes of the breakup. Kenez states that “the changes that he started were ultimately uncontrolled and resulted in disintegration.” This is true and can be seen through perestoika. Gorbachev was working from over optimistic analysis that the national income was growing at 3 per cent a year. This, however, is and inaccurate statistic. In reality, it was perhaps a third of that. One could argue that Gorbachev did not know any better as he was provided with incorrect figures and was not fully aware of the situation. Inaccurate figures were also provided about the plans targets which would make the command economy appear to work. However, Gorbachev’s unrealistic targets are likely the reason incorrect figures were given as they simply could not be met. Several others opposed Gorbachev’s policy of perestoika. Middle ranking bureaucrats were obstructing change as they were comfortable in their positions. Managers of enterprises continued to work as they had always done as they too were comfortable with the way things were. Military chiefs disliked the idea of disarmament as it would mean a reduction in the army and thus their own personal empire. The reluctance of so many people to conform to perestoika is certainly a factor in the breakup.
To say that Gorbachev’s reluctance to commit himself fully to radical reform caused the breakup of the USSR is valid to a degree. He himself tried a radical reform through perestoika and glasnost yet opposed minor reforms and the radical reform of the Shatalin plan. However, the opposition he faced is also a major factor as reform would need the help of everyone concerned and many simply refused to change. Futhermore, it can be argued that the state of the economy, which had not improved over the years, was on a continual decline that would have caused the breakup of the USSR regardless.
