Second Secretary of the Central Committee of a Soviet republic does not sound a very important position, but as this book shows it was an extremely important role, one that helped hold the Soviet Union together and helped to keep it going for so long. The key was that Second Secretaries were both members of a Soviet republic's ruling body and at the same time members of the All-Union ruling elite - they were often characterised as Moscow's governor generals. This book examines how the position of Second Secretary was established by Khrushchev in the 1950s, explores how it took on increasingly important political functions representing Moscow's interests in the republics and the republics' interests in Moscow, and discusses how the conflicts, inherent in the role, developed. The book also provides biographical details of the people who held the position and argues that the role was extremely effective in managing what could otherwise have been very difficult relationships between centre and periphery.
The notion of a clan of the first secretary in the soviet Lithuania or, in contrast, speaking about the consolidated titular nomenklatura enables to penetrate deeply into the governing of a soviet republic. The key questions here are: what kind of networks? Could the sort of networks and trust help us explain political dynamics in the soviet Lithuania and reasons why exactly Soviet Lithuanian Communist party became the first one in the Soviet Union that break with CPSU in 1989? What kind of circumstances and political context made possible the horizontal links among nomenklatura members and made nomenklatura likely to be a more consolidated network than the personal clan of the first secretary in such a centralized soviet system?Seeking to draw a difference between the clan and the consolidated titular nomenklatura, useful is the concept of krugavaya poruka presenting the Lithuanian nomenklatura as a cycle of functionaries bounded with interpersonal ties and collective responsibility against Moscow to drain out the political forms of nationalism in society. This article focuses on the personal network of Petras Griškevičius, the first secretary of the Communist party of Lithuania (1974–1987), revealing the importance of his networking in controlling the soviet Lithuanian nomenklatura.Griškevičius' leadership network consisted of professionals and technocrats (functional nomenklatura), on the one hand, and the functionaries loyal to Griškevičius personally (Griškevičius' personal clan) on the other. Tensions between members of functional nomenklatura and representatives of his personal clan appeared in many sectors of political, economic and social life of the republic. The article investigates cases of intelligentsia and technocracy in order to show how Griškevičius had used the competition between the functional nomenklatura and members of his personal clan aiming to gain more power.While the first secretary succeed in keeping balance among nomenklatura members, his power was limited by political circumstances. There were at least three factors that made possible the distinguished situation in the soviet Lithuania: 1) high expression of nationalism in society, 2) low status of the first secretary of the republic's Communist party, 3) the role of the second secretary of the Communist party sent by Moscow into republic's leadership.The obligation against Moscow to drain out political forms of nationalism in the republic led to functionalism in its nomenklatura leadership. Threat and political responsibility for the expression of nationalism demanded functional skills from party and soviet managers able to deal with political, social, and economic problems in the republic. For this reason, Griškevičius could not behave in the nepotism way by recruiting only trusted and personally loyal to him functionaries into leadership; he needed professionals.Secondly, in contrast to the "masters" in other republics, the first secretary of the soviet Lithuania had a comparatively low status in all-Union institutions. Both the first and second secretaries were only a member and a candidate member of the Central Committee of the CPSU. This low status of the first secretary in all-Union bureaucracy ranking made an impact on the behavior of the local nomenklatura, because it got a room for the personal play between the first and the second secretaries. ; Straipsnyje analizuojamas sovietinės Lietuvos vadovo (1974–1987) Petro Griškevičiaus personalinis tinklas, atskleidžiant jo svarbą sovietinės respublikos lyderio siekiui įtvirtinti bei išlaikyti asmeninę nomenklatūros kontrolę ir balansą, tam panaudojant tiek tam tikros srities profesionalus (funkcinis tinklas), tiek jam asmeniškai ištikimus kadrus (nepotinis tinklas). Profesionalų, ar funkcinio, tinklo svarba išryškinama aptariant nomenklatūros tinklų charakteristikas sovietinėje Lietuvoje. Šiai analizei naudojami personalinių tinklų, krugovaya poruka ir pasitikėjimo (angl. trust) konceptai. Straipsnyje tvirtinama, kad: 1) sovietinės Lietuvos nomenklatūros įsipareigojimas Maskvai užkardyti nacionalizmo politines formas sąlygojo tam tikrą funkcionalizmą vadovybėje: nomenklatūrininkas privalėjo būti ne tiek pirmojo sekretoriaus patikėtinis ar net jo šeimos narys, kiek aktyvus vadovas, galintis spręsti respublikos politines, ekonomines ir socialines problemas; 2) sovietinės Lietuvos lyderio žemas (palyginti) statusas sąjunginėse institucijose vedė prie tam tikros diarchijos respublikoje, kur politinę galią dalijosi LKP CK pirmasis ir antrasis sekretoriai. P. Griškevičiaus tinkle matyti atskiri segmentai ("kultūrininkų", "statybininkų"), susidedantys tiek iš nepotinio, tiek funkcinio tinklų atstovų. Šie segmentai ir buvo tas įtinklintas mechanizmas, per kurį reiškėsi sovietinės etninės federacinės struktūros suponuota nomenklatūros partikuliarizmo ir asmeninių / grupinių programų sąveika
SUMMARY: This article focuses on the institution of second secretaries of republican party committees in the political structure of nominal Soviet federalism. Initially, this institution had been introduced in the Baltic republics during Stalin's tenure in power. In the course of the 1950s, the experiment became universal and included all of the Soviet republics. This led to important changes in the institutional landscape and political behavior of the nomenklatura in both Moscow and the regions. Compared to its predecessors − plenipotentiaries of the Central Committee of the VKP(b), and later of the Bureau of the Central Committee of the VKP(b) – the appointment of the second secretary seemed to be a more delicate instrument of control. Still, this institution was quite imperial: representatives of the center selected on the basis of their professional training, ethnicity, and social origin were sent to occupy high positions in the Soviet republics. Officially, this was presented as routine work aimed at strengthening local cadres. In reality, the institution reflected the existing contract between the Kremlin and the republics' titular nomenklaturas, which regulated the loyalty, nationalism, and economic interests of the elites. В статье анализируется место института вторых секретарей ре-спубликанских партийных комитетов в политической структуре номинального советского федерализма. Впервые этот институт был апробирован в республиках Прибалтики во времена Сталина. Распро-странение этого эксперимента на весь СССР в начале 1950-х гг. привело к изменению институциональной среды и политического поведения высшей номенклатуры. По сравнению со своими предшественни-ками – представителями ЦК ВКП(б) и позднее Бюро Центрального Комитета ВКП(б) − институт вторых секретарей предстает как более деликатный инструмент партийного контроля. Тем не менее в нем на-личествовали имперские черты: представители центра, отбиравшиеся по профессиональной компетенции, этничности и социальному проис-хождению, направлялись в советские республики для занятия высоких должностей. Официально институт вторых секретарей осмысливался как рутинное усиление местных кадров. Однако за ним стоял контракт между Кремлем и республиканскими номенклатурами, в рамках кото-рого могли проявляться и контролироваться лояльность, национализм и экономические интересы элит.
Cover -- Half Title -- Series Page -- Title Page -- Copyright Page -- Table of Contents -- List of tables -- Acknowledgements -- Introduction -- 1. Purging in the Khrushchev era: 'Red cardinals' and nationalism in the Soviet Republics -- 2. The formation and development of the Soviet Latvian Nomenklatura: Path dependency, cleavages, and imposed unanimity -- 3. Patterns of succession: Top party elite recruitment in Soviet Moldavia and centre-periphery relations, 1940-1991 -- 4. The transformist: The evolution and adaptability of Sharaf Rashidov's regime in Soviet Uzbekistan -- 5. The Belarusian Soviet nomenklatura: A political history, 1947-1994 -- 6. The Soviet nomenklatura and cultural opposition during the Brezhnev period in Lithuania -- 7. Ukraine: Falling in and out of Moscow's grace -- 8. Between centre and periphery: The Gamsakhurdia and Kostava affair -- 9. Pragmatic political practice: The Estonian Communist Party, the intelligentsia, and Moscow -- Index.
Access options:
The following links lead to the full text from the respective local libraries:
