Perestroika lessons

By this time the state returned to food coupons of the previous crisis periods of the Soviet history that led to total grievances against the style of life and caused public need in changes.

It must be acknowledged that Gorbachev"s attempts to turn the country around the crisis and give a fresh impetus to economic and social processes ended in disaster. That was due to the lack of clear understanding of goings-on, inability to act under crisis or revolutionary situations, unpreparedness of state apparatus to changes as a decisive factor in terms of the years-long regime stagnation.

It is important to note that the final six years of the USSR are an eloquent testimony to agony but not that of the Gorbachev reform. There was nothing going on, just spontaneous decisions of economic, political and ideological nature unrelated to each other. Note that Gorbachev staked on three pillars which, in Gorbachev"s view, were to get the USSR out of the crisis:

1. Development of energy complex as investment base for social and economic transformations.

2. Restructuring of state machinery regulation.

3. Openness as a system of state-public pluralism intended to involve society in the state building and enhance responsibility of bureaucratic apparatus before society.

In the first case, the basic principle was not successful and, perhaps, abortive due to sharp drop in oil prices. The above factor made it no possible to purchase technologies for modernization of the Soviet industry and consumer goods.

It should be highlighted that indecision in attraction of foreign capital, both in the form of finances and technologies, as well as strategy of reliance on domestic resources based on petrodollars proved to be a tragic mistake of the Soviet government.

Even 7 years later , after the announcement of the open door policy by Maoist China, Kremlin old farts kept on clinging in mid-1980s to spoiled dogmas of closed economy and closed society.

The essential point to remember is that the Chinese state perestroika met with success due to the opening of domestic market for foreign investors which led to impetuous economic recovery and industrialization of the agrarian country and strengthening of its position in the region and the globe.

It is worth pointing out that Chinese reforms proved successful due to the fact that the state staked on formation of private sector with participation of foreign capital unrelated to the state apparatus. A tight control and punishment mechanism was put into effect to impede bureaucrats" involvement in business.

Instead, the Soviet Party-Komsomol elite established its monopoly over business by creating a hybrid of bureaucrats-businessmen that brought state, natural and human resources under their own interests. That led to the monopolization of various spheres in the interests of small groups, withdrawal of large groups out of creative activity and degradation of most newly formed states and societies. That came as a result of the Gorbachev perestroika of state machinery and management.

The Gorbachev"s glasnost provided for information pluralism and freedom of views; however, in terms of indecision and further social-economic decline this led to the consolidation of citizens for struggle against the Soviet regime where individuals deemed the authorities to be responsible for all their social, economic, political, national, religious troubles.

Thus, the Gorbachev glasnost became a principal mobilizing factor to struggle for various izms which finalized open clashes within people-state; nation-nation; religion-state framework, etc.

It was inability to form openness toward world, resolve social and economic problems and steer social protests into constructive track that led to revolutions and disintegration of the country.

Azerbaijan

It should be borne in mind that Azerbaijan became one of the successors of the USSR not only legally but tendentiously as well. In other words, Gorbachev-laid tendencies continued in the present regime and predetermined a long-tern stagnation and even regress following the past 3-year drop in energy prices following which Azerbaijan remains to be dependent as was the case with the USSR.

It should be added that the interweaving of bureaucratic and business interests led to the formation of bureaucrats-oligarchs class that usurped state-forming political, economic and ideological areas.

There is also formation of the doctrine of sealed-off state, blocking of access of foreign investments to the domestic market. Added to this can be restoration of repressive state machinery, suppression of dissension and freedoms. As a matter of fact, in terms of social-economic crisis this system encouraged revolutionary sentiments in society.

The current situation in Azerbaijan is very similar to autumn years of the USSR, except for God-given glasnost. Like in the USSR-1980, Azerbaijan is going through glasnost epoch given above by Internet. Note that distinctions from the Soviet glasnost make these instrument exceptionally popular, mobilizing masses for struggle against the authoritarianism. All things considered, the Azerbaijani glasnost is presently a factor to spur society and state into changes (under society"s pressure).

Will these changes be of evolution or revolution nature - all these are mostly dependent upon the authorities. Will I. Aliyev be able to avoid errors of indeterminate Gorbachev and thus succeed in creating open economy and open society; decline from dogmas and ambitions and ensure the harmony of state and public interests. That"s the question? At any rate, today"s Azerbaijani development has two paths: evolution or revolution. There is no third opinion.