Redesigning the Soviet Union : Nine Soviet activists describe how the superpower may look within a year

W hat idea can unite the peoples of the Soviet Union and avert its split into hostile groups, regions, or nations? The one most frequently mentioned and debated is that of a “commonwealth” or “confederation,” with each of the country’s 15 republics enjoying a large degree of economic and political independence. To learn what the Soviet Union might look like if such a system were adopted, The Times asked nine Soviets who already are involved in either blocking or promoting separatist movements to comment.

VYACHESLAV A. MIKHAILOV,chief of the ethnic-relations department, Central Committee of the Soviet Communist Party:

The Soviet Union will not survive in its present form. It will evolve into a new form of statehood, with much looser ties between its constituent parts and with these parts enjoying much greater rights. With maximum possible decentralization of the country’s power structures, there will be greater freedom for political, economic and cultural interactions.

It follows that the ultimate goal in the political evolution of the Soviet Union is a confederation of independent states.

We always had elements of confederation. There is the provision in the Soviet constitution that enables the republics to secede from the Soviet Union. But that right was an empty declaration. The new law setting up the procedure for secession is a major step toward real confederation. It is the only road to progress.

I foresee a Soviet Union that will be smaller than it is today. The momentum for independence in the Baltic republics is so great that even confederation could be unacceptable for them; they will refuse to sign the new union treaty or, to be more precise, the treaty among the former Soviet republics. But I do not think that the Ukraine, for example, will drop out. After all, the Ukrainians have coexisted with Russia for centuries. They will stay in the future confederation.

In general, I foresee the appearance of two groups of republics. Those with predominantly raw-materials’ industries, which need a stable market and must import the bulk of their consumer goods, will gravitate toward an economic federation. I am talking about the Central Asian republics and Azerbaijan. Those with more diversified economies will be more inclined to press for a larger degree of political independence.

There will be political opposition. Political forces occupying extreme positions--such as the nationalist movements--will press for immediate dismantling of the old “empire,” regardless of consequences. Inter-ethnic fronts--such as the new United Workers Front and similar organizations--will oppose the slide toward confederation. This already is happening: They demand that their representatives be included in all negotiations aimed at transforming the state structures and relationships. They say they want to dampen, even arrest, the centrifugal forces in the Soviet Union. This is a political reality we need to account for.

The process of transformation will probably take a relatively long time, perhaps several years. But the crucial period, which will determine the direction, will be from July to December of this year. If the Soviet Union does not disintegrate as a state by the end of this year, we shall witness an orderly transition, with the least damage and sacrifices for all. I am convinced that the economic situation will determine the political evolution. Economic levers are the only ones to put things into their proper places.

ALEXANDER TSIPKO,deputy director of the Institute of Economics of the World Socialist System:

The Union of Socialist States--the approach since 1922--will not suffice as a basis for a new confederation. We could build a new federation of Russian states on an older foundation--the dramatic appearance of Russia and the Russian empire.

If we try to settle relations on the basis of history, there will be grounds for arguments. The Baltic republics, it is clear, were incorporated through military violence; they have a right to return to their old statehood. Going back half a century is hard, though. They may prefer to look forward to a new relationship.

A union based on the Slavic nations has great historical legitimacy. Russia was not only an empire but the motherland of many peoples whose destinies are intertwined with Russia. The future of Russia, the Ukraine and Byelorussia can be resolved not on the mythological basis of the Union of Socialist Republics but on the basis of Slavs interacting with one another in history.

As for the other nationalities, each will have to make its own decision--Georgia, Armenia, Tadzhikistan, Kirghizia. In that way, we can come to terms with one another.

Although everyone embraces the simple solution of a new confederation, I have no confidence that it will work. We need an honest historical legitimacy as the basis for the future. Such a serious problem as nationalism cannot be resolved on the basis of ideology or political myths, but only on the basis of the history of the country.

FYODOR M. BURLATSKY,a political scientist, member of the Soviet Congress of People’s Deputies and editor-in-chief of Literaturnaya Gazeta:

The election of Boris Yeltsin as chairman of the Russian Federation’s Supreme Soviet and the adoption of the declaration of Russia’s sovereignty have created a new political situation. It is impossible to think of Russia as fighting against the union. But I am convinced that Mikhail S. Gorbachev and Yeltsin will find common language; then the political course will move toward the long-overdue structural reforms.

The idea and the practice of democratization have already played a colossal role in reconstructing our political system. It is an undeniable fact that democratization is being preached by different, sometimes diametrically opposed, forces. It would seem that it should lead to a greater tolerance, to reasonable compromises, to accommodation of interests and opinions, to civilized forms of political competition. But bitterness and antagonisms are daily growing; opposing forces are ready to devour each other.

Nonetheless, this idea of democratization should now assume the more concrete form of a parliamentary republic. Its formation is already under way; we need only to accept this reality and to move more consistently along this road.

A parliamentary republic is the only guarantee against a return to authoritarian power. Our soviets (governmental councils) are quite compatible with parliamentarism.

The talk today is about a new form of union. The current federation, no matter how badly we would want to reanimate it, is hardly possible any longer. This notion has been thoroughly compromised by our super-centralism. Not only the Baltic republics but Russia itself has declared its laws supreme.

Let’s call the new body just a Union of the Republics. But such a union must be founded on a treaty ratified by a congress of the peoples that all the soviets would send their representatives to.

Even in ancient times, the social foundation of a republic could only be formed by the middle classes. Only when they become a majority does the republic begin to stand on firm ground. The power of the rich means oligarchy; the power of the poor, ochlocracy.

What does this mean today? That all economic reforms must have as their primary goal the transformation of the poor, which constitute a two-thirds majority, into the wealthy. Such is the platform on which diverse democratic forces in the country could converge and cooperate: a parliamentary Soviet republic, economic freedom and initiative and a society open to cooperation with the outside world.

ALEXANDER A. PROKHANOV,a Russian nationalist writer and editor-in-chief of Soviet Literature:

The Soviet Union is not just an independently existing administrative shell. It is an expression of a certain kind of social body that is built around ideology, economy, defense, culture and so forth. If the social body dies, its shell disintegrates. Both are under way.

Big formations like the Soviet Union do not die in an instant. It is a drawn-out event. As the decay proceeds, there are attempts to preserve “what’s left.” They might include a state of national emergency or even military interference. But the decay cannot be stopped or even slowed down significantly. The disintegration will proceed to its logical end: The entire Soviet Union will lie in ruins.

But a new geopolitical entity will be rebuilt out of the disorderly shards. Japan and Western Europe will pull at some of the former components of the Soviet Union, but the biggest part will once more be included into the new agglomeration. At this moment, however, it is impossible to predict what forms it will assume or on what principles it will be built. The magnitude of the catastrophe acts like a dense screen, obscuring the contours of the future.

All activities aimed at persuading the integral parts of the Soviet Union to come to terms and preserve the union are palliatives. The political and economic landslide will bury them all. Suppose a large group of workers strike over the economic hardships. Any interruption of the already irregular deliveries of spares and components would cause multiple breakdowns, some of which would amount to Chernobyls of a chemical or ecological nature. The entire technological sphere will start crumbling, removing the only motivation for sticking together.

BRONUS GENZELIS,philosophy professor Vilnius State University and member of the Lithuanian national movement Sajudis:

The Soviet Union can survive only as a Soviet version of the British Commonwealth. The chances for that are not very good, but I would vote for such an arrangement. In the near term, there are two possibilities: A confederation of sovereign states, or the use of brute force to preserve the current forms and structures of the Soviet Union.

Whether Lithuania retains some ties with the Soviet Union does not depend on Lithuanians: The stronger the outside pressure to stay in, the more bitter is the Lithuanian opposition. Future ties are only possible if secured to a new inter-state treaty. Lithuania is not prepared to delegate any powers to the Soviet Union. But it can maintain normal economic, political and perhaps military ties with it. No transfer of defense responsibilities to the center is possible. But if the Warsaw Pact is renovated, Lithuania might consider joining it to protect its own and Soviet defense interests.

MARJU LAURISTAN,deputy chairman of the Supreme Council of Estonia:

A new treaty of union for the Soviet Union is in order now that Yeltsin and Gorbachev have called for one. Although their proposals differ, both agree that the treaty’s priority should be to preserve the union while taking the rights and interests of the different republics into account.

The Baltic states, in any case, will not participate in the formation of a new union, because it is not in their interest. For them, the most important concern is to restore statehood. Once a separate state, we can decide with whom to form economic and political relations. We are interested, of course, in joining with the East as well as our Scandinavian neighbors.

We should remember that Yeltsin’s version of a union treaty is based on the ideas of Andrei Sakharov, who was the first to say that each republic has the right to define its relationship with the center. I am convinced that some sort of union will exist.

As for the Baltic states, the model for reorganization is Europe. There will be mutually beneficial ties without a strict political structure binding the states. Agreements will be based on individual interests.

One serious issue remains for a future of separate republics and a new union of states--the military. There is growing anxiety in the republics over the Soviet military presence.

The Baltics have been occupied by Soviet troops for 50 years. Even now there is a high number of Soviet forces in our republics. Every day we feel the effects of occupation.

Special treaties to diminish militarization are needed immediately. We (Baltic states) are taking this issue to such international groups as Helsinki Watch for wider consideration. The military future of Europe and that of a new union here are intricately related.

AMBARTSUM GALSTYAN,a member of the Karabakh Committee in Armenia:

We expect the Soviet Union in its current form will cease by the end of this year, or early next year at the latest. In fact, it has already ceased to exist in this form: Of its 15 constituent republics, only 12 are left; by the end of 1990, one or two Caucasian republics will also have seceded.

We in Armenia believe there is no future for us in the Soviet Union. It will never have true democratic attitudes--even among ordinary people there are strong imperial sentiments, which influences their mentality. For example, during the debates on the declaration of sovereignty by Russia, some deputies suggested that autonomous ethnic groups should have the right to quit the Russian Federation. Only 8% or 9% of the delegates voted for this suggestion--and more than 50% of them regard themselves as democrats!

The new talk about confederation cannot continue for long. The imperial Russian apparatus will soon stop all this confederation business. Gorbachev and his team are increasingly becoming irrelevant. He will soon be relegated to the role of the British queen: all the trappings of the ultimate ruler but no real power. This is why, incidentally, Gorbachev did not dare nullify the declaration of sovereignty by Russia.

As for Armenia, we in the Karabakh Committee will push for secession. If the central government regarded us as an equal partner in all matters economic, political and administrative, we might consider staying within the union. We would then delegate to the center only one sphere of competence--defense. All others would have to remain in our hands, including international relations.

VYACHESLAV CHORNOVIL,chairman of Lvov Regional Council of People’s Deputies in the Ukraine:

I don’t believe in Gorbachev’s idea of a new union of free socialist states. Although he says individual republics will be allowed to deal directly with regional issues, I consider full independence from the center as essential.

There should not be a union of states, but a sort of family of mutually interested members based on mutually accepted agreements. Each republic must decide for itself what form of union it wants, what would be most advantageous for its concerns.

Through referendums, each republic will decide what sort of economic, political and social relations to have with Russia and the other republics. Moscow now decides for us what relationship we are to develop. Any idea to force a union, even if it is freer than what we are experiencing now, would be unacceptable. This Soviet view of confederation is not democratic and therefore should be rejected.

In the Ukraine, no less than half the citizens already want independence. It is necessary for us to return to our European heritage to develop a new independent government.

By the end of the 1990s, there will be separate governmental bodies in the republics. This will not mean total isolation. Economic and social ties with what will remain of the center will benefit us all. It is the politics that will be separate.

For many republics without experience in democratic practices, extra effort will be needed to learn along the way. Most important will be economic separation, for this will guarantee future political independence.

These new, independent governments will not be socialist. There have been experiments in the Soviet Union, China and Yugoslavia, but socialism has shown itself operable in an ideological sketch only. We need a working economic political system.

OLZHAS SULEIMENOV,a poet and member of the Soviet Congress of People’s Deputies from Kazakhstan:

The Soviet Union as a political and administrative form has no future. Its transformation has already started. One overriding question is whether the new arrangement will retain the old structures and mechanisms for governing the nation. My answer is a categorical “no.” The tempo and sheer force of the changes augur the appearance of the new political forms in the nearest future--in one year, two at the most.

We in Kazakhstan see two possible outcomes: a complete disintegration of the union, or a new union treaty embodying equality and partnership that leads to the formation of a new federation of sovereign republics. We favor the idea of federation. It is possible that some republics will press for a confederation of independent states as the new form of the political coexistence. Others will stick to the idea of a more unified federation. We shall support the second group. We are aware that Gorbachev has begun talking of confederation, but we think this is a forced move, the result of political pressure.

Kazakhstan will demand complete economic and political self-management as the foundation of a new federation. Rights and powers pertaining to matters of defense, national transportation, communications and so forth should be delegated to the center. But we shall demand our share of the industrial potential currently owned by the central government. At present, 93% of all Kazakh industry is owned by the center.

We realize the danger of a conservative backlash. A victory by these forces cannot be totally excluded. Should that happen, we will not take it humbly.