Suchergebnisse

Engl. Zsfassung u.d.T.: The Soviet nomenklatura and industry in Lithuania in 1965 - 1985

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.

This book examines what came to determine the local power and character of the Communist party-state at the level of the national non-Russian republics. It discusses how, although the Soviet Union looked centralised and monolithic to outsiders, local party-states formed their own fiefdoms and had very considerable influence over many policies areas within their republics. It argues that local party-states were shaped by two decisive relationships - to the central Communist party in Moscow and to local constituencies, especially to the local intelligentsia and the creative professions who constituted the local party-states' biggest potential adversaries. It shows how local party-states negotiated stability and their own survival, and contends that the effects of "Sovietisation" continue to be felt in the independent states which succeeded the republics, particularly in the field of the relationship with Moscow, which remains of immense importance to these countries.