The history of the Soviet system started back in 1917during the era of the Bolshevik Revolution and its aftermath. Following their election to power, the Bolsheviks put into place a Marxist-Leninist political system with one-party control by the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) and a centrally planned economy. The old Russian Empire was intended to be transformed into a socialist state using this system, sometimes referred to as the Soviet system. The first five-year plan was executed in 1928, and the Soviet Union was created in 1922. The plan’s objective was to industrialize the Soviet Union and collectivize the agricultural sector quickly. Early Soviet governments were highly centralized and autocratic, with little space for grassroots initiatives or public engagement. Decisions were taken at the top. The early years of the Soviet system saw several successes, such as industrialization, the collectivization of agriculture, and the development of a powerful military. The Soviet system, however, also had several drawbacks, such as poor living conditions and a sluggish economy. By the middle of the 1950s, the Soviet Union was coping with several problems, like a lack of scientific innovation. Economic growth had also come to a standstill. As a result, the Soviet Union carried out a variety of changes, such as decentralizing the economy, establishing restricted markets, and liberalizing a few facets of life. Greater artistic and intellectual freedom was made possible by the Khrushchev Thaw changes of the late 1950s and early 1960s, although some CPSU members opposed them because they were seen as a danger to the Soviet system. In 1964, the conservative Leonid Brezhnev succeeded the reformist Khrushchev in office. Even if Brezhnev’s government was more traditional than Khrushchev’s, the Soviet system was still developing. The Soviet system saw several difficulties throughout the 1970s and 1980s, including a lack of economic development and a widening divide between the Soviet Union and the West. This paper explores the features of the old Soviet system that has continued to influence political life in post-Soviet Ukraine.
The centralized state control and bureaucracy as a feature of the old Soviet system have continued to influence political life in post-Soviet Ukraine. The top-down, Kremlin-controlled decision-making style that characterized the Soviet era has had a lasting influence on the post-Soviet Ukrainian administration. It has been challenging to alter the Soviet-style government structure, which places the president at the top and many bureaucrats below. The president can nominate and dismiss officials and enact legislation without seeking legislative approval. Due to a sense that their opinions are not being heard, Ukrainian residents have grown distrustful and resentful of this centralized decision-making process. Reform in the bureaucracy could be more active. Even though more open government structures have been implemented, the bureaucracy needs to be more active and influential. The fact that many of the officials in the post-Soviet Ukrainian administration are holdovers from that period has made this situation worse. As a result, the bureaucracy needs help to keep up with the quick changes in business and society and the shifting political scene. The economy has also suffered as a result of the bureaucracy in the Soviet era. The absence of market competition brought on by the centralized decision-making process has stifled economic expansion. The bureaucracy has also been averse to change, frequently thwarting attempts to implement new regulations and changes. In post-Soviet Ukraine, there is still centralized governmental control and bureaucracy in the manner of the previous Soviet Union.
The Communist Party monopolized all political authority in the Soviet Union. The economy, the administration, and the media were all completely under the control of this party. The secret police, censorship, limitations on the right to free expression, the right to assemble, and other civil freedoms were used to impose this single-party government. The single-party system has been substantially replaced by a multiparty one in post-Soviet Ukraine. The single-party rule has been perpetuated in many ways, however. For instance, the Communist Party of Ukraine is the largest opposition party in the Ukrainian parliament and still plays a crucial role in Ukrainian politics. Also closely associated with Vladimir Putin and the Russian administration is the Communist Party. Some people have been alarmed by this and believe Russia is seeking to utilize the Communist Party to increase its influence in Ukraine (Chivvis, 2017). The legacy of one-party control has an impact on Ukrainian politics as well. The Communist Party has been charged with trying to thwart Ukraine’s democratic process and has significantly affected the political culture there. It has been particularly true lately, as the Ukrainian government has become more divided over problems like the Donbass War and the War with Russia. The single-party system profoundly affected post-Soviet Ukraine’s political climate and is still present in how politics are being conducted. It has significantly impeded the growth of democracy in the nation and heightened tensions between various political groupings.
The ideology of communism has been a prominent feature of the old Soviet system and continues to influence political life in post-Soviet Ukraine. The elimination of private property, the implementation of a centralized economic plan, and the encouragement of community ownership and control of the means of production are the core principles of communism. These principles were carefully upheld in the former Soviet Union, which meant that the government had complete control over the economy and society. As a result, a highly centralized and authoritarian government was established in Ukraine, with the Communist Party ultimately in charge of all facets of daily life. The communist ideology continues to have a strong influence on post-Soviet Ukraine. The state continues to have a significant amount of authority and power even though private ownership has been restored and the economy has been significantly liberalized. The Communist Party has substantial control in Ukraine, and the administration is still mainly centralized. It is evidenced by the Communist Party’s continued involvement in municipal and regional politics and its ongoing representation in the Ukrainian parliament (Balázs, 2020). The intellectual discussions in Ukraine are still influenced by communist ideology. The Communist Party argues for a significant state role in the economy and society, while other parties support a more market-oriented approach. Political discussions frequently center on this issue. As a result, the communist ideology plays a significant role in Ukrainian political discourse.
The cult of personality was spread in the Soviet Union through state-run media, including newspapers, periodicals, novels, movies, and television shows. Leaders’ sculptures, monuments, and political posters were displayed in public areas. Joseph Stalin was the most well-known leader to inspire adoration. His likeness could be everywhere, from portraits and posters to coins, stamps, and propaganda movies. Politics in post-Soviet Ukraine were still influenced by the personality cult surrounding former Soviet leaders (Evans, 2016). Although the Ukrainian administration has attempted to dissociate itself from the Soviet era, a cult of personality still exists. For instance, in Ukraine, Leonid Kuchma, a former president of Ukraine, is frequently referred to as the “Father of the Nation.” Numerous public spaces feature his likeness, and numerous cities also honour him with monuments (Gaidai, 2021). The political environment of post-Soviet Ukraine still exhibits the personality cult surrounding the old Soviet leaders. It is intended to advocate specific programs, support the current administration, and foster a sense of pride and solidarity among all citizens.
The State-controlled media in the Soviet Union was a powerful tool used to influence political life, both during and after the collapse of the Soviet Union. During the Soviet era, it was used to create a sense of loyalty towards the Soviet Union and its leaders. It was accomplished via censorship, propaganda, and restricting information available to the general people. By doing so, the Soviet Union was able to influence how the general public viewed the world and how people thought and behaved. This method of media censorship persisted in post-Soviet Ukraine after the collapse of the Soviet Union, influencing political life there. Like the Soviet period, the media was employed to influence public opinion and encourage regime allegiance. The news was under the supervision of the government, which allowed them to restrict information and further their agenda. Additionally, the government’s financial interests were promoted through the media. It included upgrading the nation’s investment potential and publicizing state-run corporations. It gave the government an economic advantage while informing the people about the country and its economy. The administration was able to sway public opinion on divisive issues thanks to state-run media. For instance, the idea that Ukraine should continue to be a member of the Russian Federation was promoted through the media (Abrams, 2016). As a result, the government could influence public opinion to further its objectives. Additionally, the media was employed to regulate the exchange of information between Ukraine and the outside world.
Political repression in the old Soviet system was a means of control by the Soviet government to maintain power. Repression was employed to silence critics and deter attempts to break the state’s monopoly on politics. It involved using covert law enforcement, monitoring, censorship, and propaganda. Political rivals were apprehended, imprisoned, transferred to work camps, and occasionally even put to death. Terror and dread were often employed as a means of population control through repression. Political life in post-Soviet Ukraine is still influenced by the legacy of political persecution under the former Soviet regime (Ferraro, 2021). The Ukrainian government has occasionally used oppressive tactics to keep the populace under control and quell opposition throughout the post-Soviet era. The government, for instance, has intimidated and harassed anyone who disagrees with its policies using its security personnel. To sway public opinion, it has also employed censorship and propaganda. Even if the Ukrainian government has improved certain civil liberties, there is still a long way to go until the legacy of Soviet political persecution is wholly eliminated. Ukraine’s ties with Russia are still impacted by Soviet persecution. Many Ukrainians are apprehensive of Russia’s intentions. They worry that its aspirations to restore control over Ukraine might result in a return of the oppressive practices of the former Soviet dictatorship (Olsa, A2017). The fighting in eastern Ukraine, which Russia supports, and its meddling in Ukrainian elections have increased this worry.
The surveillance of citizens during the Soviet era was pervasive and pervasive, and its legacy continues to influence political life in post-Soviet Ukraine. The administration included monitoring the activities of citizens, delisting dissidents, and controlling access to information. This monitoring aimed to stifle dissent, prevent political mobilization, and manage public opinion. During the Soviet period, monitoring in Ukraine was particularly harsh, and its repercussions may still be felt today. The legacy of Soviet monitoring continues to shape government policy, and the government frequently employs the exact strategies to quell resistance and shape public opinion. Citizens’ actions, particularly internet activities, are still being watched through surveillance. Additionally, there are still barriers to information availability, and media censorship is being practiced (Irum & Laila, 2015). The legacy of Soviet monitoring is still shaping Ukraine’s political environment, and its repercussions can still be seen there.
The Soviet Union maintained a robust military presence in Ukraine during its reign, and this has had a lasting effect on the country. The Soviet Union maintained a significant military presence in Ukraine to protect its borders and control the population and maintain economic and political control. The military presence in Ukraine persisted after the fall of the Soviet Union, and it still significantly impacts how politics are conducted there today. The military has a voice in government decisions and frequently acts as a check on the authority of the government. Military commanders are also commonly assigned to positions of power, and their presence is sometimes considered a measure to guarantee allegiance to the government (Davis, 2016). Because Russia frequently views the presence of Ukrainian soldiers as a danger to its security, the military presence in Ukraine has also been a source of conflict between Ukraine and Russia.
The Soviet system of government was notorious for its corruption, with government officials exploiting their positions for personal gain and disregarding the interests of citizens. This corrupt culture was ingrained in the previous Soviet system and has persisted in post-Soviet Ukraine, influencing political life there. Ukraine has tried to fight corruption, but the effects of the Soviet system are still evident (Habibov et al., 2017). Government employees still do corrupt acts, including favouritism, bribery, and nepotism. These approaches are prevalent in restructuring the energy sector and public procurement. Most Ukrainians believe that the ruling class is corrupt and that the government is not doing enough to address the problem, illustrating how profoundly ingrained corruption is in the country’s political culture (Srirejeki, 2020). Because of this, Ukrainians have a greater mistrust of the government and its institutions. They are undermining the country’s efforts to become a more prosperous and stable democracy.
The Soviet Union was known for its lack of an independent judiciary, as the Communist Party heavily influenced the courts. Since the legal system was still highly politicized in post-Soviet Ukraine, the absence of an independent judiciary impacted political life there. Political pressure on judges and prosecutors resulted in corruption and a lack of due process. The Ukrainian government has found it challenging to combat crime and uphold citizens’ rights. Furthermore, the lack of an independent court has led to frequent contempt for the rule of law and prevented the administration from being held responsible for its deeds. It frequently results in a loss of faith in the government and a deterioration of democracy (Haider, 2022). Ukraine has to ensure that its court is impartial and unaffected by political pressure to advance toward a more democratic society.
In conclusion, the Soviet system has had a lasting effect on political life in post-Soviet Ukraine. Its features, such as centralized control, single-party rule, political repression, censorship, surveillance, and corruption, still reverberate in the country today. The Soviet legacy has created a culture of distrust of the government and its institutions. For Ukraine to move towards a more democratic society, it must address the legacy of the Soviet Union and ensure that its political, judicial, and economic institutions are independent and free from political interference.
References
Abrams, S. (2016). Beyond Propaganda: Soviet Active Measures in Putin’s Russia. Connections, 15(1), 5–31. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26326426
Balázs, A. (2020). In-Between Futures (Doctoral dissertation, University of Manchester). https://pure.manchester.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/portal/216122833/FULL_TEXT.PDF
Chivvis, C. (2017). Understanding Russian “Hybrid Warfare” And What Can Be Done About it. https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/testimonies/CT400/CT468/RAND_CT468.pdf.
Davis, C. M. (2016). The Ukraine conflict, economic–military power balances and economic sanctions. Post-Communist Economies, 28(2), 167–198. https://doi.org/10.1080/14631377.2016.1139301
Evans, C. E. (2016). Between Truth and Time: A History of Soviet Central Television. In Google Books. Yale University Press. https://books.google.co.ke/books?hl=en&lr=&id=QuS7DAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=cult+of+personality+was+spread+in+the+Soviet+Union+through+state-run+media
Ferraro Jr, V. G. (2021). Democratization in Post-Socialist States: An Overview of the Literature on Political Transition in Eastern Europe and the Post-Soviet Space. Russia and Russians In Different Contexts, 4, 115-134. lea.vitis.uspnet.usp.br/arquivos/russiaandrussians.pdf#page=115
Gaidai, O. (2021). Leninfall in Ukraine: How Did the Lenin Statues Disappear? Harvard Ukrainian Studies, 38(1/2), 45–70. https://www.jstor.org/stable/48694960
Habibov, N., Afandi, E., & Cheung, A. (2017). Sand or grease? Corruption-institutional trust nexus in post-Soviet countries. Journal of Eurasian Studies, 8(2), 172–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euras.2017.05.001
Haider, H. (2022). Political settlements: The case of Moldova. https://opendocs.ids.ac.uk/opendocs/bitstream/handle/20.500.12413/17479/1143_political_settlement_Moldova.pdf?sequence=3&isAllowed=y
Irum, S. A., & Laila, A. S. (2015). Media censorship: Freedom versus responsibility. Journal of Law and Conflict Resolution, 7(4), 21–24. https://doi.org/10.5897/jlcr2015.0207
Olsa, A. C. (2017). Russia’s Next Revolution: Reclaiming Lost Freedom. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/AD1032655.pdf
Srirejeki, K. (2020, October 5). Revisiting Corruption Control Strategies: Review and Implications for Anti-Corruption Design Policy. Papers.ssrn.com. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3992149
write