The Tribune

AMIDST the huge international media coverage of the passing last week of the former president of the Soviet Union, Mikhail Gorbachev, perhaps one of the most telling headlines was one by the BBC calling him ‘a warm-hearted, decent and generous man’. Delving in to the background, it is evident that this was partly prompted by what was known about his deep love for Raisa, his wife of forty-six years. After her death from leukaemia in 1999, he publicly admitted that “my life has lost its principal meaning. I have never had such an acute feeling of loneliness”.

But it was also based on an assessment of his capacity, skill and efforts to reform the system of government in the former USSR. After becoming General Secretary of the Communist Party and then President of the country in 1985, he had burst on to the political stage with his plans for perestroika (restructuring) to reform a failing state-controlled centralised economy – not necessarily to replace it with a free-market economy – and glasnost (openness) in order to implement such reform with a measure of democracy like free elections and some relaxation of an existing repressive regime. These changes were intended to reinvigorate the country’s stagnant economy and overhaul its political processes, rather than to replace the existing system in its entirety.

The world had never seen a Soviet leader similar to him. Unlike his predecessors, he was young and relaxed with an open and direct manner and he seemed determined to build better relations with the West. His name became familiar in Britain when, during his and his wife’s visit in 1984, Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher memorably said that Gorbachev was “someone I can do business with”, thus taking relations with the Soviet Union to a new level of meaningful dialogue and bilateral co-operation. His relationship with President Reagan also paved the way to an ending of the Cold War.

After helping to achieve this in the face of his fear of a third world war, Gorbachev was recognised as one of the most influential figures of the last century and won a Nobel Peace Prize “for the leading role he played in the radical changes in East-West relations”. But the internal reforms became the catalyst for a series of events, including growing calls for independence of parts of the Soviet Union, that eventually resulted in its dissolution after 70 years of existence. There was increasing pressure for creation of a Commonwealth of Independent States that included an end of communist rule across the satellite states in Eastern Europe. However, despite claims to the contrary, the evidence clearly shows that this had not been his intention and that he had been trying to keep the union together – indeed, in later years he reiterated his fierce opposition to the collapse of the USSR and called it “a crime resulting from treachery”. He wanted reform of the existing system not the destruction of the whole edifice of the Soviet Union.

Nonetheless, by the time Gorbachev left office the USSR no longer existed. Inevitably, he was blamed by some people for its collapse. So, although his perestroika and glasnost reforms had been beneficial to an ailing economy and society had acquired new freedoms and hope for the future, many were not happy with his actions. That said, others maintained that the USSR collapsed under the weight of its own inefficiency.

Gorbachev was forced to resign in 1991 after opposition from hardliners in the ruling Politburo and as the result of a coup. After the instability of the Boris Yeltsin era, the autocratic Vladimir Putin made it clear after assuming power in 1999 that he wanted to improve order and discipline, and restore what were termed the lost certainties of a strong and respected USSR, saying that Russia had been a great power for centuries and remained so, with legitimate zones of interest.

Putin is said to be a nationalist in the federal (Russia) – rather than purely ethnic (Russia) – sense of the word which partly accounts for his terrible and calamitous invasion of Ukraine. It also explains his earlier infamous words about the disintegration of the USSR being a “geopolitical catastrophe”.

He has undone much of the reform process introduced by Gorbachev. The latter complained in a recent interview that his achievements had been rolled back in the face of an increasing crackdown so that any taste of freedom had been lost. Even though he had agreed with the annexation of Crimea in 2014, Gorbachev also warned recently -- well before the invasion of Ukraine in February this year – of renewed East/West confrontation and that the current tensions between Russia and the West were putting the world in “colossal danger” because of the threat of nuclear weapons.

Interestingly, however, on Gorbachev’s 90th birthday last year Putin praised him as “one of the most outstanding statesmen of modern times who had made a considerable impact on the history of our nation and on the world.” It was therefore surprising to some that Gorbachev was not accorded a full state funeral and that his service at the weekend was not attended by Putin though he had earlier privately paid his respects at Gorbachev’s coffin and laid flowers. But perhaps a not insignificant factor was that in the nation’s current state of isolation over Ukraine international dignitaries would not be able to show up.

Watching the large numbers of ordinary people filing past his coffin and paying their own respects to this remarkable man, it was not hard to see why many had placed their hopes in Mikhail Gorbachev. He had earlier given the people a first taste of freedom and partial democracy. But he lost control of his own reforms which have been reversed as Russia under Putin has returned to a state of renewed authoritarianism.

AUTOCRACY IN A DEMOCRATIC STATE

While reflecting in today’s column about the rise once again of authoritarianism in Russia, how disturbing it was to read of President Biden’s speech to the nation this past week about – purportedly – the soul of America.

Irrespective of their political leanings or preferences, most people will surely have immediately recognised that this was not an address about the state of the nation and an attempt as president of all America to promote unity – as promised in his inauguration speech -- amongst a people who are divided to an unprecedented degree in the nation’s history. Rather, it was an unashamedly politically partisan speech and a blatant attack on the opposition Republicans in the run-up to the crucial mid-term elections in November. Specifically, he labelled MAGA Republicans – as if they can be identified as such among the 74 million people who voted for Donald Trump in the 2020 presidential election – as an extremist threat to the nation’s democracy who were allegedly fanning the flames of political violence.

Unsurprisingly, Biden’s speech has provoked a furious reaction among Republican leaders and voters, with some calling it a despicable attack on tens of millions of Americans – all of whom are his own people given that he is president of the whole country. Biden condemned them en masse as unfit to participate in the nation’s democracy.

This has apparently caused particular outrage because such people believe in time-honoured American values like freedom of expression, small government, election integrity, the sanctity of personal rights and liberty, secure borders and traditional families. This attack echoes Hilary Clinton’s labelling of Republicans as “deplorables” which is said to have contributed to her losing the 2016 election to Trump. Commentators are now suggesting that his speech could seriously damage Biden and prove to be a turning point against him. In the view of some observers, demonising opposition voters in such a way, rather than persuading people to vote for you by explaining the benefits of your own policies, smacks of authoritarianism and may work against the Democrats in the coming mid-term elections.

To my eye, this can invite comparisons with a particular development in Britain where, according to press reports, a debate is starting about the justification of the coronavirus lockdowns, the imposition of which is now increasingly being seen as a lurch into authoritarianism under a Conservative government – and, as I mentioned last week, one example is that Rishi Sunak, former Chancellor of the Exchequer and Tory leadership candidate, is now saying that during the pandemic the scientists had been given too much say over policy.

The politicians in charge at the time may well be covering their backs in response to a formal investigation as some of them now claim they did not support any lockdown. A growing number of voices are suggesting that such lockdown measures were not only unnecessary but also a failure of judgment. It is being said that, in the UK at the height of the pandemic in 2020, insufficient weight was given to the importance of liberty and freedom under the rule of law, together with the primacy of individual personal responsibility under an elected government and the right to a private life – any of which the state should not interfere with except in the most serious circumstances. It is even being suggested that introduction of extraordinarily invasive prohibitions – stricter even than during wartime – was partly politically motivated because some of those concerned were not worried about causing damage to a free-market economy which they did not anyway support.

This may seem farfetched and it would be hard to prove such accusations. But it does illustrate the tensions still surrounding this issue in Britain.

In a liberal democracy voters are always on guard against any form of growing authoritarianism exercised by politicians and a consequent weakening of their accountability to the public. In the US, Republicans are now saying Biden’s speech last week was authoritarian because he said, in effect, that if people opposed him, they are extremist and undemocratic. In such circumstances, with the impending approach of the mid-terms, politics in the US seems set to become even rougher than usual.

NEW BRITISH PRIME MINISTER DUE TO TAKE OFFICE TODAY

It was announced in London yesterday that, as had been widely expected, the frontrunner Liz Truss has won the Tory leadership contest. That means that, as the new leader of the Conservative and Unionist Party, she will also become Britain’s Prime Minister.

But her formal appointment will not be until today when she is due to visit The Queen who will invite her to form a government. This meeting will be at Balmoral in Scotland where The Queen is staying as she normally does during September.

After a leadership contest lasting some two months -- in which the final two candidates were thoroughly questioned about their capacity for the top job and about their policies for dealing with the massive challenges currently facing Britain -- no one can be in any doubt where the new PM stands on the main issues. But it was nonetheless interesting that, in her formal acceptance speech following yesterday’s announcement, Liz Truss spoke firmly of her intention to govern according to the Conservative principles of personal liberty and responsibility, free enterprise, limited government and respect for the rule of law; and it was evident that, after the long period of campaigning during the summer, she was ready to hit the ground running; for example, she stressed that she already had a plan to cut taxes and grow the economy and she would deal urgently with the energy crisis which was seriously affecting the whole country.

It is also, of course, a priority to reunite the Tory party given that her immediate predecessor was thrown out of office following the resignations of some sixty members of his own government – and supporters of Boris Johnson will have been pleased to hear the tribute to him during her acceptance speech. It is already clear that she will run a tighter and more ordered ship than he presided over, and the signs are that she will be tough and assertive while getting on with the tasks ahead. Her first experience of being grilled in the bear pit of the House of Commons, with its numerous aggressive and argumentative MPs, will be at Prime Minister’s Questions as early as tomorrow -- and for those interested in politics, her first encounter with the leader of the main opposition Labour Party, Keir Starmer, should be well worth watching!