This week, the 90th birthday was celebrated by a man whose influence on the processes taking place in the world is invaluable. Mikhail Gorbachev. He has been the most important politician of my generation by far, because everything could have gone completely different if the Kremlin gerontocrats had not chosen him as their leader on March 11, 1985.
Quite often the opinion is expressed that the collapse of the USSR was inevitable, because the whole communist system, with its total deficit and flood of lies, was rotten to the core and was therefore unsalvageable. The example of China, and in part the relative stability of the Putin regime, suggests that the Soviet economic model may have been unsalvageable, but that the authoritarian system could have lasted with a different leader. Therefore, for the successful collapse of the USSR and the fact that we can live in an independent Latvian state, we must be grateful to Gorbachev in a large part, even though he opposed the release of the so-called Soviet republics until the very end.
I remember very well the relatively cold day of March 10, when only muted symphonic music was playing on Latvian radio since early morning. Given that the then General Secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU, Konstantin Chernenko, had not appeared in public for a long time and there were rumors about his health problems, no one hid the suspicion of the death of the elderly secretary as the cause of these program changes.
At that time I was working in the economic analysis department of the institute Pakalpojumprojekts. My desk, as the youngest specialist in the department, was closest to the desk of the manager, Dzidra Miķelsone, who is already of retiring age. Imants Jakovļevičs Alksnis came to her. Son of the commander of the Red Army Jēkabs Alksnis, who was repressed during Stalin's time, and father of the later leader of the Interfront, Viktors Alksnis. He did not speak Latvian, so everyone addressed him according to the Russian tradition - by his name and the name of his father. A gray-haired, tall man who, in spite of his childhood traumas - the death of both parents, living in the orphanages of the enemy of the people, early work in the mines of Central Asia and other humiliations he had suffered - had a very bright view of life. I have only positive memories of him.
"What will happen now? Who will be the new Secretary General?” Imants Jakovļevičs asked anxiously. Quietly, but loud enough for me to inadvertently witness this conversation.
"Maybe Grishin? Romanov? Shcherbytsky?” The head of the department named the most popular names of the members of the Politburo.
As a young man, I was even less able than now to hold my tongue and shamelessly jumped into a conversation: "Well, everyone knows that it will be Gorbachev."
The head of the department obviously didn't like my arrogant tone, and she angrily rebuked me: "Well, I didn't know that."
I mention this episode because Gorbachev becoming the head of the Soviet empire was not unexpected. Prior to that, three leaders changed in three years - Brezhnev, Andropov and Chernenko. All three had health problems long before their death that prevented them from performing their job functions properly. Both Andropov, who suffered from kidney disease, and Chernenko, who suffered from asthma, did not appear at any public event for months, which stimulated the public's desire for a younger national leader. The problem was that there were not really any young ones among the members of the Politburo. There was one who became a full member of the Politburo in 1980 at the age of 49 (!). Imagine among the senile anecdotal characters - Brezhnev, Suslov, Pelše - this one guy who is not even fifty.
At that time, Gorbachev's increasing appearance in public space against the background of the public absence of the nominal leader of the country, Chernenko, suggested that the choice had already been made. In particular, this discrepancy between Gorbachev's nominal status and his place in the Kremlin hierarchy was notable during his visit to London in December 1984. The British Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher welcomed him, who was just one of the party's secretaries, almost as one would the head of state, and this was shown that way on Central Television.
When it was announced on March 10, 1985 that Gorbachev had been appointed head of the Chernenko funeral commission, and the next day in the plenary session of the CPSU Central Committee he was officially elected the new General Secretary of the party, it seemed obvious. There was a huge public demand for a younger head of state because the people were unbelievably tired of the former gerontocrats.
The first plenary session of the Central Committee of the CPSU, chaired by Gorbachev, indicated that everything will change. Perestroika had not yet been invented, but its predecessor, "acceleration" (uskoreniye), had already been proclaimed. However, the main messenger of change was the language with which he spoke to the public. In the absolutely lifeless, dry, administratively wooden vocabulary of the party bureaucracy, some green sprouts of a lively language suddenly appeared. I admit that today's people would not even notice these small nuances, and would find the party's speeches in the early stages of Gorbachev's reign as dry and lifeless as in Chernenko's time, but at that time these differences were immediately noticeable.
At the same time, one should not think that Gorbachev's coming to power was immediately seen as a green light for freedom. Not even close. The KGB felt omnipotent for a long time, and people's overwhelming fears about this structure can't even be imagined by modern people. Helsinki-86, the Environmental Protection Club (VAK) and the Latvian National Independence Movement (LNNK) united only the bravest (and distinctly small) part of the society. It was only in the summer of 1988 that there was a break in the public consciousness, which culminated in the founding of the Popular Front of Latvia in October of the same year.
If we talk about the restoration of our country's independence, then Gorbachev's role in this matter is a bit ambiguous.
It seems as if it is absolutely clear that without Gorbachev's perestroika, the Awakening, the Popular Front, the Declaration of Independence of May 4 and the complete restoration of the statehood of Latvia on August 21, 1991 would be unthinkable. In Russia, the dismantling of the USSR is still considered Gorbachev's greatest sin. It is as if Gorbachev and his like-minded people had deliberately destroyed the USSR in the interests of the West (mythical Anglo-Saxons) and divided it into 15 separate pieces.
This conspiracy has little to do with reality. Gorbachev has always been very skeptical about the independence of the united republics, let alone their complete independence. The West also tried to curb any separatist tendencies in the USSR, including the Baltic "republics", which were not de jure recognized as components of the USSR. The West drove one central idea in the heads of the leaders of our national movement: just don't you ask for complete independence. Do not disturb Gorbachev, because perestroika has a huge number of enemies who will use your independence efforts against Gorby.
Therefore, for Latvia's independence, we must mainly thank the adversarial relationship between Gorbachev and the first president of Russia, Boris Yeltsin, as the by-product of the struggle was the division of the USSR. In order for Yeltsin's power to be complete, it was necessary to dismantle the existing power of Russia. As long as the USSR survived, the USSR apparatus was nominally above Yeltsin, with USSR President Gorbachev at the head. Therefore, this structure had to be dismantled, which allowed not only Latvia but also all other "republics" to gain independence.
Attitudes towards Gorbachev have also changed significantly in Russia recently. If, in the early 1990s, he became a scapegoat in the mass consciousness, blamed for all the suffering caused by the collapse of the system; if he was afterwards accused of being the main destroyer of the mighty Soviet state, he is now treated relatively favorably (compared to the previous cursing). Of course, he is still blamed for the collapse of the USSR, but at the same time, he is praised for the freedom he has gifted. Specifically gifted, not given.
In the USSR, no one (except certain, small groups of dissidents) demanded freedom. Gorbachev gave it to the people in good faith. Of course, based on the realities that had arisen as a result of the previous administration. Gorbachev brought a completely different spirit to politics. The spirit of humanism and peaceful coexistence. The fact that the sword of Damocles of world destruction was removed from hanging over the heads of mankind for at least some tens of years is a huge credit to Gorbachev.
Interestingly, people are whining about the collapse of the USSR only in Russia, while nowhere else, in none of the former Soviet republics do people cry and regret this collapse. More precisely, only ethnic Russians are saddened by the collapse of the "great and mighty" Soviet Union. This difference in attitude best illustrates the illusory nature of USSR internationalism. I mention this especially, because many of today's Russian liberals, as well as the left of Europe and the world, paint the national policy of the USSR as an ideal example of interethnic coexistence, which seemingly proves the insignificant, artificially constructed nature of national identity. This thesis, in turn, allows them to set global identity as an inevitable reality of a progressive future.
Modern left-wing radicals, progressives, are in fact trying to repeat the evolution of the USSR in almost all ways, only from the starting point of a significantly higher developed society. They themselves think that this time this branch of development will look completely different. It may indeed look different in its external manifestations, but what is already being seen is a matter of serious concern to those who have experienced the Soviet era. Especially the over-sensitivity (intolerance) to ideological heresy and the readiness to morally destroy everyone who thinks otherwise. Those who have experienced the Soviet times see this similarity especially clearly.
It would therefore be great if in this revolutionary progressive camp arose just as intelligent and, above all, open-minded man as Gorbachev was in the 1980s. One who, like Gorbachev, would call on the world not for the last, decisive battle, but would seek understanding with his ideological opponents. Unfortunately, for the time being, it seems that people like Gorbachev are unique rarities in this world.
We were lucky to live during his time and to enjoy the fruits of his policies. I, at least, do not have a single bad word to say about Gorbachev's political contribution to the world. On this birthday, I would also like to wish Mikhail Sergeyevich strong health, a sharp mind and many more years of life on behalf of our readers.
*****
Be the first to read interesting news from Latvia and the world by joining our Telegram and Signal channels.