Effect on political system of governance
It ended dictatorship which was introduced by Lenin and later backed by his successor Stalin. They ensured full control of the Soviet Union and its resources and anyone against the communist rule was executed. The elevation of Mikhail Gorbachev as the successor of Stalin brought about “perestroika” program whose aim was to restructure the political system of the Soviet Union. The power of the president was devolved to the elect legislatures.
The centre of power towards realization of the economic reforms, led to a political crisis in 1993. The parliament opposed the current constitution under the Yeltsin government. It was dissolved and new elections as well as a referendum ordered. A new constitution was later approved in December the same year which necessitated radical privatization.
The public had more influence on the political and military institutions. The troops present in Afghanistan were withdrawn and a treaty to control arms signed with the US presidents Ronald Reegan and George Bush. The reformist team lead by Yelstin introduced “shock therapy” which lowered the total spending on military. This was diverted in re-building the economy.
The judicial system was public-friendly, during the communist rule one had no opportunity to defend himself in the court. Once arrested, either harassment or execution followed, without any defiance of defense of one self. This changed the entire system and one allowed to fled his/her innocence before a court of law.
Effect on Russian Economy after the fall
Through Private ownership of land which allowed free-market, people were able to own land. This entitled control of it and one could even spare a portion of it and sell it. Others even practiced farming which ensured plenty supply of food products as opposed to the communist rule were government mostly set up industries to manufacture goods such as machinery rather than consumer goods. This increased food production enhancing agriculture growth.
Less government interaction on ownership of enterprises and joint stock companies: Leadership was decentralized and the shareholders were granted the full control to manage the activities of their ventures. Despite the citizens inexperienced skill to control the firms (since they believed in state-owned ones), they had freedom of control. They were not limited to a particular company (as before) but free to open one of their choices.
In 1998 Russia was not spared by the world recession which affected prices of commodities especially of raw materials. It depended on its oil reserves as the chief export. This made the country not to benefit its lion share through foreign trade hence a crisis in its finances.
The instability during transition of the two governments made entrepreneurs and corrupt leaders to grab government properties. Due to their greed as well as lack of subsidies to the industries, led to closure of some, which increased imports compared to the exports.
Social effects
The rates of poverty were noted to increase during the economic collapse in the mid-1990s. Emphasis made on both macroeconomic data and individual incomes and expenditure by World Bank indicated that population under poverty had increased from 1.5% in the late Soviet era, to approximately between 39% and 49% by mid-1993. Also according to figures released by the government the Per capita incomes fell by another 15% by 1998.
A policy known as “Glasnost” was introduced which facilitated the presentation and discussion of social problems affecting the public. Each had a chance to view out individual issues affecting his or her life and able to fight for their rights as well as national identity. This ensured an easy understanding of how to curb the problems to upgrade the living standards.
The education environment introduced during the communist rule was tense and basically aimed at providing awareness on how to obey the communist party. After terminating the studies each student was endowed a particular compulsory job which determined the career line to participate in. One had no option but to oblige to it, hence a graduate had no control of his or her future. It was for the government to decide. Hence its fall ensured that each individual was to decide the future alone.
Religious and ethnic animosity emerged and immediately the rule broke-up, the Russians were torn into religion and ethnic divides. They planned turf wars amongst themselves and even former rulers and also participated in crime.
It led to unemployment of the citizens. As a result of liberation, banks faced inflation since the revenue collection was unavailable (tax was evaded by many). This entailed a lot of currency printing to meet the debts incurred. The subsidies to the state farms and industries were scrapped causing their shutdown. The government was also unable to meet the payment of all its workers.
Bibliography
Alexander, Robert J. A Documentary Analysis of the Movement. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 1991.
Anders Aslund, The Impoverished Superpower: Perestroika and the Soviet Military Burden (San Francisco: Institute for Contemporary Studies, 1990), p. 49.
Branko Milanovic, Income, Inequality, and Poverty During the Transformation from Planned to Market Economy (Washington DC: The World Bank, 1998), pp.186- 90.
Bull, Martin J., and Paul Heywood, West European Communist Parties after the Revolutions of 1989. London: Macmillan, 1994.p 40-45.
Carey Hunt, R. N. The Theory and Practice of Communism. Rev. ed. London: Penguin, 1963.
Donald, Moira, and Tim Rees, Reinterpreting Revolution in Twentieth Century Europe. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2001.p 197-9.
Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels. The Communist Manifesto. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1999.p 217-8.
Pekka Sutela, “Insider Privatization in Russia: Speculations on Systemic Changes,” Europe-Asia Studies 46:3 (1994), p. 420-21.
Sheila M. Puffer, The Russian Management Revolution: Preparing Managers for the Market Economy (Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, 1992).p 59-75.