TIME: Almanac 1993/TIME Almanac 1993.iso/time/052190/0521006.000

Text File | 1992-08-28 | 5.6 KB | 125 lines

                                                                                WORLD, Page 40

SOVIET UNION

Nationalism's Silver Lining


A Soviet Communist Party analyst reflects candidly on his
country's problems

By IGOR MALASHENKO

[Igor Malashenko, 35, is a senior foreign policy analyst for the
Central Committee of the Soviet Communist Party. This article
represents his personal views.]


    What is the future of the Soviet Union? Does it have one?
And if so, will the U.S.S.R. be able to preserve its integrity
and stability?

    At the beginning of the 20th century, when traditional
empires began to crumble, it seemed that Russia would follow
suit. But then, by iron, blood and ideology, the Russian
Revolution welded the state together just when it was on the
verge of disintegration. The result was what might be called
a revolutionary empire.

    Seventy-three years later, the revolutionary legacy is
fading. The current transition from totalitarianism to
democracy has created a dilemma. On the one hand, only
democratization can provide the basis for humane, modern
political life. On the other hand, democracy by itself cannot
keep a multi-national federation together. Quite the contrary:
partly because of democratization, centrifugal forces are
gathering momentum. As the attempts to democratize post-Tito
Yugoslavia have shown, a more powerful antidote is needed to
fight the virus of nationalism.

    The most ominous feature of the Soviet landscape is the
economic crisis. Virtually every republic and region of the
country is dissatisfied with its piece of the economic pie, so
each tries to protect its own interests any way it can. As long
as the economy was growing -- and as long as the old political
institutions suppressed any hint of nationalism or regionalism
-- the system remained intact. But now the economy is in
decline. That fact, combined with democratization, has doomed
central planning and exacerbated the centrifugal trends that
threaten to tear the country apart.

    While the economy today is part of the problem in the
U.S.S.R., it could be part of the solution tomorrow. Economic
reform and the emergence of market mechanisms may yet help
stimulate the economic and political integration of the various
parts of the country.

    That is the hope. However, it is by no means a certainty.
The prospects for economic recovery are bleak. Moreover, even
if reform does succeed, it may not outweigh the divisive forces
that are now so evident. Politics, after all, is not just a
rational accounting of assets and liabilities. All too often,
the national aspirations that drive politics take on a wholly
irrational character. Even if the central government applies
massive and benign economic leverage by offering all sorts of
inducements to the republics to stay, it may not deter them
from trying to secede.

    The best hope for our future depends on rescuing the best
of our past -- and on jettisoning the worst. As an imperial
power, Russia consolidated under its rule an enormous expanse
of territory. Many corners of the empire were conquered in
bloody wars. But Russia was also an ethnically and culturally
unique country spanning Europe and Asia. It was not only an
expansionist power but also a source of security to many small,
isolated, exotic peoples and ethnic groups who would otherwise
have been at the mercy of hostile neighbors.

    Attempts by the Czars to Russify the non-Russian populations
always met with resistance. There was never any real danger to
the preservation of different national identities. That is why
the system was acceptable to most ethnic groups in the past and
why Moscow was reasonably successful in containing nationalism.
Only when Russia engaged in outright imperialism did it get
into serious trouble -- notably during the cold war, when
expansionism, primarily in Eastern Europe, threatened the
viability of the country.

    By deporting whole peoples and destroying their cultures,
Stalin greatly damaged the ethnic and cultural diversity that
had always been an important part of Russia's strength. The
state tried to replace ethnic and cultural differences with a
deadening homogeneity. The very name of the country, the Union
of Soviet Socialist Republics, carries no hint of ethnic or
geographic reality.

    If that damage cannot be repaired, we should be prepared for
nationalistic chaos in the middle of Eurasia. The results could
make the most feared consequences of German unification seem
tame by comparison.

    Does this mean that a centuries-old great power will
inevitably be destroyed by the demons of nationalism? The
answer is no. There is not only a grave danger but also a
glimpse of hope in the revival of nationalism and regionalism
in the Soviet Union. There is a double challenge: economic
reform must restore the republics' incentive to stay in the
U.S.S.R., while democratization and decentralization reassure
their populations that their cultures will be respected and
preserved.

    The process will be long and painful. There will probably
be explosions of violence that may shatter the imperial
superstructure. Those parts of the empire that were never
integrated into Russia and that are now gravitating toward the
West or to the Muslim world may eventually leave. But the rest
of the country will not suffer a mortal blow as a result. In
fact, quite the contrary: the revival of a Russia shorn of the
least compatible remnants of its imperial legacy may encourage
the development of a new federation whose diversity is, once
again, a source of strength rather than weakness.