Glasnost: A Review

As Gorbachev developed glasnost, he sought controlled reforms to revitalize the nation. He intended for glasnost to involve the open discussion of economic inefficiencies and bureaucratic corruption to garner support for restructuring the Soviet economy. However, state imposed constraints on glasnost backfired because of the public’s thirst for more freedom and fissures which emerged in the regime’s ideological foundation: the government was unable to contain the dormant fury roused by glasnost. Glasnost fostered transparency and civic engagement from Soviet society, which exposed failures within the system through events such as Chernobyl, the January 1987 Plenum, and the opening up about Soviet history. 

The unintended consequences of Gorbachev’s glasnost were a significant contributor to the downfall of the once mighty and feared Soviet Union. Glasnost’s crevice ruptured into an abyss of historical grievances and nationalist sentiments that ultimately became the doom of the USSR. The indignations were most deeply felt in the Baltic States due to decades of repressed ethnic tensions. These states exploited glasnost’s platform and poorly played hand of the Soviet government to get it to capitulate to the demands of the Popular Fronts. In doing so, the Popular Fronts challenged Soviet legitimacy through declaring sovereignty, a major contradiction of Gorbachev’s initial goals of revitalizing the economy and strengthening the legitimacy of the Soviet government. 

In conclusion, perhaps historians Beissinger, Marples, and D’Agostino were all right. Their divergent views are not mutually exclusive but rather inextricably linked and complementary. The openness of glasnost would not have by itself, given a burning platform to the Popular Fronts, if there weren’t incendiary grievances to burn over (such as decades long ethnic indignation, economic strife, and national demoralization). Without the epiphany to the ideological hypocrisy and the “moral collapse” of the Soviet Union which undermined the State’s authority, the Popular Fronts would not have fully turned their national grievances into secessionist sentiment. The repressed hostilities and nationalism in the USSR would not have had a platform to surface without the ignition of glasnost. There would have been no right to assembly and expression, without which the mass protests of the Popular Fronts could have occurred. Together, all of these factors: mobilization, structural issues, and ideological crisis gave fuel to the fire of the Popular Fronts, leading to the demise of the USSR which marked the end of the Cold War. 

In the end, was glasnost a success or a failure? While Gorbachev moved the Soviet Union towards democracy, he lost the once feared goliath of a nation that was the very subject of his reform process. Glasnost’s failure to achieve Gorbachev’s vision of a revitalized Soviet state was a product of its success in unleashing suppressed voices of Soviet society. Undoubtedly, glasnost was a short-term catastrophe for the Soviet Union through its dissolution in less than five years. However, in the long-term, glasnost put an end to the Cold War, to the inexorable tit-for-tat arms race, and the militarization of the Soviet Union. 

In his final address to the Soviet Union, Gorbachev stated, “The most damaging thing about this crisis is the breakup of the statehood. [...] Some mistakes could surely have been avoided. Many things could have been done better. But I am convinced that sooner or later our common efforts will bear fruit, our nations will live in a prosperous and democratic society.” The tragedy of glasnost lies in its ironic triumph. It unleashed freedom across the Soviet Union that led to its dissolution, shockingly marking the end of the 50 years of the Cold War that would introduce a new world order of a differently played global game with new players and new polarities.