The Glasnost Papers: Voices on Reform from Moscow (review)

BOOK REVIEWS 215 The Glasnost Papers: Voices on Reform from Moscow. Andrei Melville and Gail W. Lapidus, eds. Boulder: Westview Press, 1990. 340 pp. $42.50/Hardcover. Reviewed by Brian Coleman, M.A. Candidate, SAIS. Mikhail Gorbachev introduced glasnost to the Soviet people as a necessary component of reform. "We need glasnost as we need air," he wrote in his book Perestroika. The air ofglasnost has been fresh, indeed, and The Glasnost Papers supplies a deep and healthy breath. The book's editors set themselves a daunting task: "to offer the American reader the opportunity to judge the changes in Soviet society on a first-hand basis." To do this they have drawn upon articles from 49 Soviet newspapers, magazines and journals covering an array of subjects from late 1986 through 1988. Such a project is inevitably fraught with limitations and weaknesses. Many subjects failed to survive the editors' cuts—Eastern Europe and social problems such as alcoholism are notably absent from this survey. Those subjects that did make it into the book—and they are numerous—often suffer from short treatment. Yet the editors have deftly overcome these limitations to present an informative and engrossing display ofglasnost in action. Glasnost, commonly translated as "openness," has become associated in the West with open dissent. In fact, this could have been a book of anti-communist, pro-perestroika writings. Hearing long-stifled voices would be fascinating by itself. What Gorbachev sought, however, was "a way of accumulating the various diverse views and ideas which reflect the interests of all strata, of all trades and professions in Soviet society." TAe Glasnost Papers attempts just such an accumulation. Both progressive and conservative voices are heard on the eights subjects tackled in this book. These subjects are glasnost itself, Soviet history, religion, justice, economics, nationalities, political thought and foreign relations. The resulting debate includes some familiar voices—such as Andrei Sakharov, Roy Medvedev and S.S. Shatalin—and some unknown voices—such as an office worker from Leningrad and an engineer from Yaroslavl'. What TAe Glasnost Papers may occasionally lack in depth is made up for by the variety of sources utilized and the breadth of opinions represented. What then are the changes in Soviet society shown by this selection of articles? To the extent that this book takes the pulse of public opinion in the Soviet Union, three things are clear. First, glasnost reveals the failure of Marxism-Leninism, or more precisely, the failure of the idea of a single truth embodied in the Soviet state. The web of contradictions and lies propagated through Marxism-Leninism has been all too evident to the Soviet people. The diversity of opinions represented here in itself demonstrates the widespread rejection of this ideology. Recognition of this change and of its value comes in plain language from a surprising source. In response to a letter rejecting perestroika andglasnost, Pravda, the official publication ofthe Communist Party, said of glasnost: "We are rehabilitating Truth." On only one subject is there unanimity—recognition that the economy has collapsed. Yet even on that matter, 216 SAISREVIEW dispute rages about the reasons for the breakdown and the necessary solutions. The old dogma has been replaced by a lively, absorbing dialogue. Second, the articles collected here also show the tremendous scope of the changes taking place. No aspect of Soviet life lies untouched by the new dialogue—perhaps because no aspect of Soviet life was untouched by 70 years of communist rule. In this survey alone, living standards, national identity, literature, and the role of God and religion are addressed. Even foreign policy, a subject long reserved for only the ruling elite, is subject to questioning by the general public. Finally, along with the recognition of diversity comes discomfort. America's founders sought to accommodate factions through the separation of powers; Soviet leaders sought to dominate factions with tanks and ideology. But the Soviet people never became true "comrades," and the failure of totalitarianism does not necessarily mean the flowering of democratic ideals—such as tolerance- —in a society unfamiliar with the concept. Long-standing hatreds and suspicions have reemerged. The greater "openness" ofglasnost reveals these darker aspects ofthe region's psyche—anti...