Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T03:06:41.409Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Coalition Maintenance in the Soviet Union

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 June 2011

Dennis Ross
Dennis Ross
Affiliation:
University of California, Los Angeles
Get access

Abstract

Few students of the Soviet political scene have used coalition theory to explain Soviet behavior. However, the fact that coalitions are assumed to exist suggests that the different elements of coalition theory—coalition formation and coalition maintenance—may be useful for the study of Soviet decision making. Because the Soviet political system has evolved to the point where the elements that are vital to preserving coalitions are also an integral part of the Soviet system (e.g., fear of the alternative to the coalition, unanimity rule in decision making, the existence of a power broker, and the exclusion of contentious issues), the operation of coalition maintenance may describe the decision-making process. If that is so, the key institutional actors in the Soviet hierarchy must be minimally satisfied before major decisions can be reached. Although elite harmony and coalition stability are ensured thereby, lowest-common-denominator policies will serve to rule out fundamental changes or reform attempts that are necessary for coping with emerging problems. As emerging economic problems make it difficult to satisfy the incremental demands from elite actors and the society at large, it is quite possible that the current decision-making process, or the distribution of power it ensures, will not endure.

Type
Research Article
Information
World Politics , Volume 32 , Issue 2 , January 1980 , pp. 258 - 280
Copyright
Copyright © Trustees of Princeton University 1980

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 For a contrary view—i.e., one that emphasizes the continuing utility of the totalitarian model for interpreting Soviet reality—see Odom, William E., “A Dissenting View on the Group Approach to Soviet Politics,“ World Politics, xxviii (July 1976), 542–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 See, for example, Riker, William, The Theory of Political Coalitions (New Haven: Yale University Press 1962), 174–82Google Scholar; Schwartz, John, “Maintaining Coalitions: An Analysis of the EEC with Supporting Evidence from the Austrian Grand Coalition,“ in Goennings, Sven, Kelley, E. W., and Leiserson, Michael, eds., The Study of Coalition Behavior (New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston 1970), 235–49Google Scholar.

3 Ibid., 240.

4 Ibid., 245–46.

5 Dahl, , Polyarchy (New Haven: Yale University Press 1972)Google Scholar.

6 Simes, Dmitry and Rocca, Gordon, “Soviet Decision-Making and National Security Affairs,“ Georgetown CSIS Memorandum 20–KM-12–4 (January 1974), 10Google Scholar.

7 Barghoorn, Frederick, Politics in the USSR (Princeton: Princeton University Press 1972), 224Google Scholar.

8 Quoted in Lodge, Milton, Soviet Elite Attitudes Since Stalin (Columbus, Ohio: Merrill 1969), 4Google Scholar.

9 Yanov, Alexander, Detente After Brezhnev, Special Studies Monograph (University of California, Berkeley, March 1977), 8Google Scholar.

10 Brzezinski, Zbigniew, “The Soviet Political System: Transformation or Degeneration,“ in Cornel, Richard, ed., The Soviet Political System (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall 1970), 370Google Scholar.

11 Yanov (fn. 9), 41.

12 Lowenthal, “The Revolution Withers Away,“in Cornel (fn. 10), 190.

13 Ibid.

14 Brzezinski (fn. 10), 371.

15 This was particularly true of Khrushchev's attempts to change the investment priorities in heavy industry from steel to chemicals, and to execute organizational and structural reforms in the party and governmental apparatuses.

16 One especially good example of this is provided by la. P. Riabov's speech at the 25th Party Congress. Riabov praised the collective character of the Politburo (and implicitly its decision-making process) by observing that activity in the Politburo constituted a “good example of precise, smooth, and collegial work combining principled demandingness with necessary attention, respect, and trust in cadres.“Pravda, February 27, 1976. (All translations from the Russian are by the author.) For a discussion of this theme, see Breslauer, George, “The 25th Party Congress: Domestic Issues,“ in Dallin, Alexander, ed., The 25th Party Congress (Stanford: Hoover Institute Press 1977), 7–26Google Scholar.

17 Yanov (fn. 9), 8.

18 Hough, Jerry, “The Brezhnev Era: The Man and the System,“ Problems of Communism, xxvi (March-April 1976), 3Google Scholar.

19 Daniels, , “Office Holding and Elite Status,“ in Cocks, Paul, Daniels, Robert, and Heer, Nancy, eds., Political Dynamics of the Soviet Union (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press 1976), 87Google Scholar.

20 Hough (fn. 18), 5.

21 Richard M. Mills, “The Virgin Lands Since Khrushchev: Choices and Decisions in Soviet Policy-Making,“in Cocks, Daniels, and Heer (fn. 19), 179–91.

22 Jerry Hough, “Soviet Succession,“Washington Post, April 17, 1977, p. 15.

23 Valenta, Jiri, “Soviet Decision-Making and the Czechoslovak Crisis of 1968,“ Studies in Comparative Communism, viii (Spring/Summer 1975), 147–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

24 Thomas Wolfe, The SALT Experience, Rand Report R-1686-pr (September 1975), 190.

25 Heikal, , The Road to Ramadan (New York: Ballantine Books 1976), 90Google Scholar.

26 Lindblom, , “Policy Analysis,“ American Economic Review, xlviii (June 1958), 301Google Scholar.

27 Grossman, Gregory, “An Economy at Middle Age,“ Problems of Communism, xxvi (March-April 1976), 18–19Google Scholar.

28 Ibid.

29 U.S., Congress, Joint Economic Committee, Soviet Economic Problems and Prospects, 95th Cong., 1st sess. (August 1977), 6.

30 Amalrik, , “Will the Soviet Union Survive Until 1984?“ Survey (London) (Autumn 1969), 61Google Scholar.

31 Khrushchev, Nikita, Khrushchev Remembers: Last Testament, trans, by Talbott, Strobe (Boston: Little, Brown 1975), 146Google Scholar.

32 See, for example, Walter Conner's discussion of the elite's realization of this factor in “Generations and Politics in the USSR,” Problems of Communism, xxv (November-December 1975), 20–31Google Scholar.

33 Yanov (fn. 9), 32.

34 Hodnett, Grey, “Technology and Change in Soviet Central Asia,“ in Morton, Henry and Tokes, Rudolph, eds., Soviet Politics and Society in the 1970s (Ne w York: Free Press 1974), 97–106Google Scholar.

35 In April 1978, some twenty thousand Georgians demonstrated (at times violently) against proposed provisions that would have emphasized the use of Russian in place of the Georgian language throughout the Republic. In June, 1978, protests against Georgian dominance in Abkhazistan led to demonstrations that may have involved ten to twelve thousand protesters. See Craig Whitney, “Georgians Protest Dropping of Language,” New York Times, April 15, 1978, p. 3, and “Dispute in Caucasus Mirrors Nationality Problems,” New York Times, June 25, 1978, p. 3.

36 Gertrude Schroder and Barbara Severin, “Soviet Consumption and Income Policy in Perspective,” in U.S., Congress, Joint Economic Committee, Soviet Economy in a New Perspective, 94th Cong., 2d sess. (October 1976), 629–30.

37 See Nove, Alec, The Soviet Economic System (London: Allen and Unwin 1977), 60–67Google Scholar.

38 Shtundyuk, V. D., “Ispol'zovanie Oborudovanija v Assotsiatsiyakh” [The Utilization of Working Capital at Associations], Den'gi I Kredit, No. 8 (August 1977), 5Google Scholar.

39 For Kosygin's advocacy of and role in the economic refor m movement, see Katz, Abraham, The Politics of Economic Reform in the Soviet Union (New York: Praeger Special Edition 1972), 111–40Google Scholar; Tatu, Michel, Power in the Kremlin (New York: Viking Compass 1969), 437–39Google Scholar.

40 Katz (fn. 39), 140–48, 155–70.

41 Working according to old procedures and general bureaucratic resistance was scored in the Soviet press. For example, an editorial in Pravda (April 29, 1966), reported that “unfortunately old habits had not everywhere been overcome.” Similarly, Kosygin declared that “the Party and the government demanded the decisive end of any attempts at renewing the narrow departmental approach to business, formalist administration, or the petty regulation of activity of the enterprise.” Izvestiya, April 9, 1966.

42 Nezhnyy, Alexander, “Tocbka priknove n'iya: Odobrosovestnost i ichestnosti v provedenii eksperimenta’” [Point of Rest: On the Purity and Integrity of the Experiment], Ekpnomika I Organizatsiya Promyshlennogo Proizvodstva, No. 8 (1978), 180–81Google Scholar.

43 Alice C. Gorlin, “Industrial Organization: The Associations,” in Soviet Economy in a New Perspective (fn. 36), 181–83.

44 See Katz's discussion (fn. 39), 197–203.

45 Yanov (fn. 9), 26. For a partially contrary view, see Hough, Jerry, The Soviet Prefects (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press 1969)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, esp. 285–87.

46 Nezhnyy (fn. 42), 177; emphasis added.

47 Pravda, February 26, 1971.

48 Grossman (fn. 27), 27.

49 Pravda, February 26, 1976.

50 Grossman (fn. 27), 27.

51 Breslauer, , “Khrushchev Reconsidered,” Problems of Communism, xxvi (September-October 1976), 18–33Google Scholar.