PERSPECTIVE ON THE SOVIET UNION : A Glut of Conspiracy Theories : Across the political spectrum, people hungry for answers devour plots and rumors; one of them actually may be true.

Marcus Tullius Cicero, the Roman orator, once described how Cassius, a judge, solved a complicated criminal case by asking simply, “ Cui bono? “--”Who benefitted?” A similar approach, often taken to absurd lengths, is used by those with a conspiratorial mind-set when trying to understand economic and political events.

Conspiracy theories are most popular in societies experiencing rapid change or difficult times. Even the United States has not been immune. Conspiracy theories are especially prevalent where the society has been totalitarian, the political process has been hidden from the public or the secret police have been free to organize plots against the government’s enemies.

All of these conditions apply to the situation in the Soviet Union. As a result, the number of conspiracy theories being seriously discussed in the Soviet Union is greater than anywhere else in the world, except perhaps the Middle East. Every event of political import, whether large or small, whether in the capital or in the provinces, is subject to a conspiracy analysis.

The collapse of the Soviet economy has been a favorite topic of conspiracy theorists from all across the political spectrum. Liberals have blamed the rapidly deteriorating consumer market on a plot by party apparatchiks and the mafia, who want to turn the population against perestroika . Moscow’s democratically elected leaders have accused rural party committees of scheming to stifle liberal Moscow by refusing to supply the capital with food.

The conservatives, in turn, have suggested that the collapse of the Soviet economy is following the design of the democrats, who want to create chaos in order to destroy the Communist Party, remove the legal government and seize power for themselves. They also allege that democrats in charge of local governments intentionally impeded the 1990 harvest by refusing to send urban workers to the countryside to help farmers pick vegetables and potatoes--an idea most recently forwarded by Yuri Golik, a leading figure in the Soviet Parliament. Now conservatives are claiming that the democrats are trying to disrupt the spring planting to achieve the same goal--the creation of mass hunger throughout the country.

A version of this theory recently presented on Soviet TV holds that the democrats are actually the political party of the new Soviet bourgeoisie, who, regardless of the consequences for the masses, want to destroy the state economy and eliminate any competition for the new class of private business owners.

The conservatives were recently joined with particular fervor by Valentin S. Pavlov, the new prime minister, who accused foreign economic firms and banks of plotting to destroy the Soviet economy. Among other things, the alleged plot included sending obsolete equipment to the Soviet Union and using the black market to buy billions of rubles for subsequent use in grabbing up Soviet industries now in the process of privatization.

Conspiracy theories regarding political struggles are especially intriguing and creative, as each camp tries to outdo the other in imagination and inventiveness.

Late last year, as Mikhail Gorbachev began an obvious shift to the right, many democrats postulated the existence of a reactionary conservative group that, through some type of ultimatum, had broken Gorbachev’s will and forced him to carry out their plan to return Russia to totalitarian rule. To these democrats, the suspicious army maneuvers around Moscow in September, Eduard A. Shevardnadze’s resignation speech in December and several subsequent events all provide confirmation of their theory, which suggests that the pre- and post-October Gorbachevs are two very different political actors.

Other democrats, particularly those who are more radical, portray Gorbachev not as a weakling, bowing to army and KGB pressure, but a central conspirator. These democrats assert that, out of fear of losing the Soviet empire and his own power, Gorbachev has worked with the KGB to prepare a sophisticated plan for destroying political opposition throughout the country.

The conservatives’ repertoire of political conspiracy theories is far richer than that of the liberals. The theories posed by the Russophiles and the Stalinists are especially exotic. Some theories, for example, suggest that perestroika and glasnost are schemes by either the CIA, the Zionists, the Masons (a Russophile code word for Jews), the domestic capitalists or some combination thereof, all of whom are determined to destroy the Russian state, the Soviet empire and socialism. According to this theory, Gorbachev is merely the agent of these devilish forces.

Other conservative theorists view Gorbachev not as a pawn but the mastermind of countless cunning schemes. For example, to these theorists, Shevardnadze’s dramatic warning regarding a reactionary plot was clearly a sly trick meant to deceive the public and conceal the planned destruction of the Communist Party and the Soviet Union. Similarly, Nikolai I. Ryzhkov’s heart attack and subsequent resignation as prime minister was dismissed as another of Gorbachev’s shrewd maneuvers.

Some conservatives view the Gorbachev-Yeltsin duel in a similar light, and believe that Gorbachev has purposefully and deftly built up Yeltsin’s political career. These conservatives point out that Yeltsin’s popularity has increased each time Gorbachev (who plucked Boris Yeltsin out of the provinces) has “pretended” to attack him.

Gorbachev gave Yeltsin his first career boost in October, 1987, when he lambasted him for criticizing the Kremlin. Similarly, Gorbachev’s opposition to Yeltsin helped the party maverick garner almost 90% of the votes in Moscow during the election to the All-Union Parliament, and his antagonism later propelled Yeltsin into his current position as chairman of the Russian Parliament.

More recently, with Yeltsin’s popularity declining, Gorbachev again came to his assistance by inspiring the Communists in the Russian Parliament to convene an extraordinary session with the apparent intent of impeaching Yeltsin. Of course, Yeltsin not only avoided impeachment, but actually strengthened his position and solidified his control over the Parliament. Finally, Gorbachev’s ban of the March 28 demonstration in Moscow also benefited Yeltsin, since it inspired Yeltsin’s supporters to flood the Moscow streets and make a laughingstock of the police and the troops.

As the political struggle in Moscow has intensified, the number of conspiracy theories (and theorists) has increased significantly. Col. Viktor Alksnis, a notorious hawk who leads the conservative Soyuz bloc in the Parliament, and KGB Chairman Vladimir A. Kryuchkov have both accused the democrats of having connections with the CIA. And even Gorbachev himself has entered the fray: In late February, he began speculating on the role played by Western “academic centers” in directing the opposition movement in the Soviet Union.

(A Los Angeles Times story April 11 reported that the Hoover Institution at Stanford University plans to enter into an agreement to provide economic advice for Yeltsin.)

To the conspiracy theorists, spontaneous events simply do not exist. There is always a plot by someone, although the plots differ markedly depending on their source. For example, whereas liberals are convinced that Pamyat, a rabid Russian chauvinistic organization, was concocted by the KGB, Pamyat members themselves are confident that anti-Semitic scandals and rumors of imminent pogroms are being created by the Zionists to spur emigration. Similarly, whereas Lithuanians firmly believe that “the bloody Sunday” in Vilnius on Jan. 13 was ordered by Moscow, Russian conservatives charge that this event was staged by Lithuanian President Vytautas Landsbergis to enhance his declining authority in the republic.

For their part, leaders of the national republics that have experienced violent ethnic conflicts (such as Georgia and Uzbekistan) are sure that these events are the result of conspiracies with the center, which wants to destabilize these regions. Moscow, on the other hand, insists that these conflicts are the handiwork of alliances between local mafias and nationalist elements in the party apparatus.

The contradictory nature of conspiracy theories is nowhere more evident than in theories involving Gorbachev himself. Gorbachev is more enigmatic now than he was six years ago, in large part because theories regarding his actions regularly ascribe diametrically opposed roles and motivations.

Of course, explanations of political developments cannot be dismissed simply because they are conspiracy-based or contradictory (particularly in a non-democratic society). Judging the validity of these theories is further complicated because they are used by all political actors, either to discredit their enemies or to conceal their own machinations. Only time can separate true conspiracies from those only imagined. In any case, the proliferation of conspiracy theories in Moscow is yet another indicator of the deep malaise gripping Soviet society.

History suggests that when conspiracy theories abound, at least one of them often proves accurate. The question is, which one?