Abstract
M.A. (History)
In 1985 the world took renewed interest in the Soviet Union with the ascendency of its dynamic new leader Mikhail Gorbachev. His policies of glasnost and perestroika made
an unprecedented impact within the Soviet Union and the Western world. As a result of
all the attention Gorbachev's restructuring received, and the subsequent drama and disintegration of the Yeltsin "take-over", interest in the two leaders who preceded Gorbachev, i.e. Yuri Andropov and Konstantin Chernenko, waned considerably. Andropov and Chernenko, together with Brezhnev, were often perceived as a trio of ineffectual old men, endeavouring to keep together a tottering Soviet system. While this perception may be appropriate to Brezhnev in the latter decade of his rule, and to a lesser extent to Chernenko, it is not a justified evaluation of Yuri Andropov's leadership. While he came from the same dispensation and was a contemporary of theirs, he set out with determination and dedication to bring new life into the fossilized system he inherited from Brezhnev. Andropov was a highly intelligent and competent person who had a long and varied political career behind him when he became Secretary General. He had been a member of the CPSU for more than four decades and during this time he served as Komosomol leader, Ambassador, Secretary, Chief Ideologist and headed the KGB for 15 years. In each of these capacities he strived for excellence and conducted himself with integrity. (Dissidents who had dealings with him during his period in the KGB may be of a different opinion, however.) When Andropov took over from Brezhnev, the Soviet system did not correspond to his ideals of Socialism. Over the decades and especially during the last stagnant years of Brezhnev's rule, corruption had become rife in the Soviet Union and it appeared to be entrenched in every aspect of Soviet life. The situation was aggravated by the gigantic bureaucracy which was not in favour of change as it was well-entrenched and elitist. Resistance to change had had a paralyzing effect on all previous endeavours. However daunting the task seemed to be, Andropov set about fighting corruption on every level. Corruption went against the grain of his puritan personality and even more importantly, against his perception of the ideal Socialist system. It was often alleged that Andropov's anti-corruption campaign was merely a mechanism with which to eliminate opponents and attain power. There is some truth in this, but it was not his primary reason for trying to eradicate corruption. He did achieve power through eliminating corrupt officials, but even when he had reached the ultimate position, a sound administration remained a priority for him. Indeed, the fact that he was not selective in this process reflects his determination in this regard. Even very high officials, persons within the Kremlin and members of the Brezhnev family itself were not spared. He not only fought corruption but strived to upgrade social, and labour discipline in the Soviet system. A strict disciplinarian himself, he saw many of the negative aspects within the system reflected in the lives and attitudes of the Soviet citizens. This led him to try to install discipline as a way of life and he stressed a high work ethic. However,Andropov must not be perceived one-dimensionally as the ex-KGB chief using
police methods on a civilian population. His chief priority in his internal policy was to rectify and improve the declining Soviet economy. The gross corruption that existed had
a negative effect on the economy, so eradicating corruption was a prerequisite for economic recovery. As a staunch Marxist-Leninist, he believed that any economic reforms had to be brought about within the strict framework of Socialist principles. He never queried the validity or superiority of the Socialist system and he ascribed the economic ills not to the system itself but to the way it was functioning. He never deviated from Socialist principles and indeed repeatedly warned against the dangers of bringing about changes alien to the nature of Socialism. He was in favour of the centrally planned system but not of the rigidity and corruption that had become part of it. His ideal was for greater flexibility and greater participation with more input from worker, manager and minister. He believed each individual should take full responsibility for the aspect of production or service he was involved in. Only if the total creative force of the masses could be released could the system function as it was originally intended to. The pillars on which this could be achieved were greater democratization and decentralization.