I

APPROVED FOR RELEASE DATE: JUN 2 0 9 ;

I

. .

21 July 1966

INTELLIGENCE STUDY

'

THE NEW SOVIET CONSTITUTION AND THE PARTY-STATE ISSUE IN CPSU POLITICS, 1956-1966

C/g5&4 wfu
. .

HR70-14 (U)

DIRECTORATE OF INTELLIGENCE Research Staff

' 1

... . . . .:

THE NEW SOVIET CONSTITUTION AND TEE PARTY-STATE ISSUE I N CPSU POLITICS, 1956-1966

T h i s working paper of -the DDI/Resea.rch S t a f f examines t h e t e n y e a r d i s p u t e , which c o n t i n u e s , w i t h i n t h e Communist P a r t y of t h e S o v i e t Union (CPSU) over t h e q u e s t i o n of t h e correct r o l e f o r t h e Communist p a r t y i n t h e modern Russian state I t examines t h e i n t e n s e p a r t y - s t a t e dispute--which is r e f l e c t e d i n t h e e f f o r t s t o ' adopt a new S o v i e t Constit u t i o n - - p r i m a r i l y through p o s i t i o n s t a k e n i n t h e p a r t y and j u r i d i c a l media. Although not c o o r d i n a t e d w i t h o t h e r o f f i c e s , t h e paper has b e n e f i t e d much from t h e a u t h o r ' s d i s c u s s i o n s w i t h c o l l e a g u e s i n OCI, ONE, ORR, FDD and BR. I n p a r t l o u l a r , t h e a u t h o r , Leonard Parkinson, would l i k e t o th'ank Marion Shaw of OCI and C a r l Linden, f o r m e r l y of RPD, f o r t h e i r suggestions The a u t h o r a l o n e , however, is respons i b l e f o r t h e c o n c l u s i o n s of t h e paper. The DDI/RS would welcome f u r t h e r comment on t h e p a - e r ,. addressed t o M r . - p Parkinson, or t o t h e Chief or Deputy Chief of t h e s t a f f (all a t 7 1

............ .. . , . . . ...

......1 ::.:

THE H E W SOVIET CONSTITUTION AND THE PARTY-STATE ISSUE I N CPSU POLITICS, 1956-1966

.._.' . . ... . ... . . .

I.

.........

Conclusions..............

.............................i Su~a~y...................................., ..........iii

ELEMENTS I N THE DEBATE ON THE CONSTITUTION......l The I n s t i t u t i o n a l Problem I n CPSU Pol it ics , , ,

........

ONE:

.. ,2

The Form Of The I n s t i t u t i o n a l Debate............G

TWO:

THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CONSTITUTIONALINSTITUTIONAL DEBATE.................,.........ll Opening Moves On I n s t i t u t i o n a l Reform...

.......1 2

2 1 s t Congress And The C o u n c i l of M i n i s t e r s ' Diminished Role...............................17

....

Khrushchev And The J u r i s t s On The Withering Tei....................2 hss...............,....3

........ . .... . . ............... ..... ......

...............................35 The ltProduct ion P r i n c i p l e t 1 And The C o n s t i t u t i o n . ................................. 42

I n t e r v e n t i o n of t h e Presidium Opposition.... ..,52
New Leaders And Old Problems...................65

22nd Congress And The P a r t y ' s T r a d i t i o n a l Role...........

...... ..........

23rd Congress And The Supreme S o v i e t ' s Expanded Role..O..OOO.....e.D.............. The "Brezhnev C o n s t i t u t i o n " .

.................. .90

....-81

I
I

.....

THE NEW SOVIET CONSTITUTION AND THE PARTY-STATE ISSUE IN CPSU POLITICS,
1956-1966

Conclusions The long-standing e f f o r t w i t h i n t h e USSR t o promulgate a new c o n s t i t u t i o n reflects t h e d i s p u t e w i t h i n t h e CPSU o v e r t h e q u e s t i o n of t h e correct r o l e for t h e Communist p a r t y i n a modern, i n d u s t r i a l i z e d S o v i e t Union. Unlike t h e d i s p l a y of S t a l i n i s t s o l i d a r i t y which surrounded t h e promulgation i n 1936 of t h e e x i s t i n g S o v i e t C o n s t i t u t i o n , t h e e f f o r t t o w r i t e a new basic l a w emerges a g a i n s t a background of major t h e o r e t i c a l and j u r i d i c a l . d i s p u t e s o v e r basic i n s t i t u t i o n a l q u e s t i o n s . The main i s s u e a t s t a k e was-and remains i n t h e post-Khrushchev period--the q u e s t i o n of t h e f u t u r e and f u n c t i o n of t h e p r i n c i p a l p a r t y and s t a t e o r g a n i z a t i o n s . Under Khrushchev's d i r e c t i o n , . t h e project f o r d r a f t i n g a new c o n s t i t u t i o n was p a r t of a larger p l a n t o t r a n s form t h e p a r t y i n t o an i n s t i t u t i o n t h a t would absorb funct i o n s t r a d i t i o n a l l y performed by t h e m i n i s t e r i a l a p p a r a t u s of t h e state. The i n s t i t u t i o n a l t r a n s f o r m a t i o n sought by Khrushchev a p p e a r s t o have been Qimed a t e n a b l i n g him t o surmount b u r e a u c r a t i c h i n d e r a n c e s t o t h e e x e r c i s e of p e r s o n a l power which have accompanied t h e p o s t - S t a l i n s l a c k e n i n g of p o l i t i c a l d i s c i p l i n e i n t h e CPSU. For d i v e r s e r e a s o n s , t h e l e a d i n g members i n t h e p a r t y p r e s i d i u m ( t h e p a r t y ' s h i g h e s t policy-making body, r e c e n t l y renamed "politburo") and t h e secretariat ( t h e p a r t y ' s highest e x e c u t i v e body) who were involved i n t h e d i s p u t e on t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n rejected Khrushchev's e f f o r t s t o c o n s t r u c t a p r o d u c t i o n - o r i e n t e d p a r t y , t o enhance h i s p e r s o n a l power p o s i t i o n , and t o push h i s p a r t i c u l a r domestic programs. Suslov, t h e p a r t y ' s l e a d i n g t h e o r e t i c i a n and t h e one who l e d t h e o p p o s i t i o n t o KhrushchevO s C o n s t i t u t i o n , argued

..

.........../ . .

- i-

.. ...

\.

...

f o r t h e p r e s e r v a t i o n of t h e t r a d i t i o n a l r o l e of t h e CPSU as t h e ideological and p o l i t i c a l monitor of 'a separate s t a t e a p p a r a t u s concerned y i t h t h e r o u t i n e f u n c t i o n s of running t h e c o u n t r y . Suslov t h u s upheld t h e v i a b i l i t y of t h e e x i s t i n g s t a t e m i n i s t e r i a l s y s t e m as a p a r t of h i s a r q p e n t f o r t h e p r e s e r v a t i o n of t h e p a r t y a s a p o l i t i c a l organization. In e f f e c t , he argued t h a t Khrushchev was p r e s s i n g f o r t h e d e s t r u c t i o n of t h e t r u e i d e n t i t y of t h e p a r t y . Ponomarev, a l e a d i n g o f f i c e r of KhrushchevOs cons t i t u t i o n a l commission, seconded S u s l o v ' s o p p o s i t i o n . Kosygin, t h e p a r t y ' s l e a d i n g economic manager, s u p p o r t e d t h e e x i s t i n g m i n i s t e r i a l s y s t e m as a p a r t of h i s argument f o r t e c h n i c a l e x p e r t i s e in r u n n i n g t h e complicated economic' l i f e of t h e country. The l a t e Kozlov, t h e e a r l y h e i r app a r e n t d u r i n g t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l debate, appeared t o b a l k a t Khrushchdu's i n s t i t u t i o n a l e f f o r t s t o s t r e n g t h e n h i s power p o s i t i o n . Brezhnev, t h e subsequent h e i r apparent , may a l s o have objected t o Khrushchev's i n s t i t u t i o n a l schemes. N e v e r t h e l e s s , Brezhnev, l i k e s e n i o r p a r t y o f f i c i a l Mikoyan, had s t r o n g l y seconded Khrushchev's project f o r a new c o n s t i t u t i o n and referred t o t h e project in . t h e c o n t e x t of p r a i s i n g Khrushchev's concept of a productionoriented party.
While KhrushchevOs successors i n i t i a l l y s o f t - p e d a l l e d t h e idea of c o n s t i t u t i o n a a reform, t h e c u r r e n t p a r t y l e a d e r , Brezhnev, r e c e n t l y r e v i v e d t h e p r o j e c t of a new c o n s t i t u t i o n . And c e r t a i n less c o n t r o v e r s i a l facets of t h e o l d q u e s t i o n of a p r a c t i c a l r o l e f o r t h e p a r t y have once a g a i n been r a i s e d by t h e new c o n s t i t u t i o n a l commission chairman, Brezhnev, i n t h e c o n t e x t of a new b a s i c l a w . Thus, it is p o s s i b l e t h a t t h e Brezhnev C o n s t i t u t i o n c o n c e a l s an e f f o r t t o s a n c t i o n j u r i d i c a l l y less c o n t e n t i o u s p a r t y -

I
8

.
I .

s t a t e p o l i c i e s s u c h as a "working p a r t y " , p r i m a r i l y a t t h e r a n k and f i l e l e v e l , and a s t r e n g t h e n e d Supreme S o v i e t ( t h e formal law-making p a r l i a m e n t ) i n its r e l a t i o n s w i t h t h e Council of M i n i s t e r s ( t h e formal e x e c u t i v e body). The l a t t e r p o l i c y s u g g e s t i o n h a s been endorsed by Podgorny, t h e c u r r e n t chairman of t h e p r e s i d i u m of t h e Supreme S o v i e t , and h i s protege S h e l e s t , t h e p a r t y leader of t h e Ukraine. Kosygin, t h e c u r r e n t chairman of t h e p r e s i d i u m of t h e Council of M i n i s t e r s , and one of h i s first d e p u t y chairmen, Mazurov,

, .

- ii-

...

,.

have so f a r remained s i l e n t on t h e Brezhnev-Podgorny prop o s a l s t o s t r e n g t h e n t h e Supreme S o v i e t . Kosygin and Mazurov have emphasized t h e need f o r an improved s t a t e a p p a r a t u s i n <r u n n i n g t h e complex a f f a i r s of contemporary Russia
,
,

,.
(

..
. .
I .

L )

. .
"

.... . .....

., . . . .
.
,

I."

..:.,.;?.." . .. :
.

"I 1.
'

'

...
,

So f a r t h e issues i n t h e c u r r e n t c o n s t i t u t i o n a l debate have been of a f a r more l i m i t e d scope t h a n those raised by Khrushchev's h i g h l y c o n t r o v e r s i a l approach t o t h e i n s t i t u t i o n a l i s s u e . Accordingly t h e c u r r e n t constit u t i o n a l d i a l o g u e is s i l e n t on t h e themes t h a t were promin e n t under Khrushchev; namely, e x p l i c i t s u b o r d i n a t i o n of ideological t a s k s to economic t a s k s i n o v e r a l l p a r t y work, t h e f o r m u l a on t h e "withering away" of t h e s t a t e a p p a r a t u s , t h e assumption of s t a t e t a s k s by t h e p a r t y o r g a n i z a t i o n ,
and other % o d i a l l * orgElnil;ations. Khrushchev's conspicuous f a i l u r e t o a l t e r f u n d a m e n t a l l y t h e major governing bureaucracies i n t h e USSR combined w i t h t h e s t r e n g t h e n e d i n f l u e n c e of t h e Suslovl e d p a r t y t r a d i t i o n a l i s t s i n t h e c u r r e n t p o l i t i c a l environment w i t h i n t h e CPSU makes it l i k e l y t h a t a t t h i s s t a g e t h e project of t h e new c o n s t i t u t i o n t e n t a t i v e l y s c h e d u l e d f o r completion next year w i l l n o t r e s u l t i n any basic i n s t i t u t i o n a l t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s w i t h i n t h e s y s t e m , As y e t no leader, i n c l u d i n g Brezhnev whose s t r e n g t h has s t e a d i l y i n c r e a s e d , e i t h e r seems powerful enough or ready t o force t h r o u g h major changes. The best any leader might hope for, it would seem, would be t o i n t r o d u c e f o r m u l a t i o n s i n t h e new c o n s t i t u t i o n which.he could u s e t o j u s t i f y p o l i t i c a l programs now o n l y i n embryo.

...

.. .. . .
. .

summary
P a r t one of t h e paper b r i e f l y examines t h e c o n t e n t and form of t h e p o s t - S t a l i n d e b a t e over t h e i n s t i t u t i o n a l roxes of t h e p a r t y and state.

. ...., . .

Part two of t h e paper r e c o n s t r u c t s the:.development.'.of t h e c o n t r o v e r s y , ,-and't h e . development ; '..ofh e ' ..p.o s i t i o n s - o f . , t h e t . ... *
:i
,

':;

.,.

.,

'

. I _ .

i,.

.. . . f - ~ . ., ,. .
f

;'i: i . .

I*..

..

,_. .. * . . ...,

..

,,,'

.*:

,,

... ..

-iii-

current Soviet leadership I%concludes w i t h an examinat i o n of t h e c o n t r a s t Ing c o n s t i t u t i s n a l p o s i t i o n s within t h e c u r r e n t Kqernlkn command. To smnarize t h e c h r o n o l o g i c a l development , eight t i m e p e r i o d s i n .&Be e o n s t i t u t i o n a l d e b a t e are s i n g l e d o u t :

'

The first p e r i o d , 1936-1959, i n v o l v e s the developIn t h i s ment of KiirushchevOs c o n s t i t u t i o n a l p o s i t i o n . p e r i o d , Khrushchev (1) r e v i v e d t h e "withering away of t h e ' state" thesis t h a t had been b u r l e d by S t a l f s , (2) made clear h$s c o n t r o v e r s i a l p o s i t i o n t h a t t h e w i t h e r i n g t h e s i s meat t h a t r e s p o n s l b i l i t ies of t h e s t a t e apparadus would i n f a c t be diminished, (3) h e l d t h a t t h e e x i s t i n g s t a t e a p p a r a t u s would not remain under %ornunism, '( (4) stressed t h a t s t a t e f u n c t i o n s w o u l d be t r a n s f e r r e d t~ "social o r g a n i ~ a t f o n s u c~ ~as t h e pai-ty, t h e s o v i e t s , trade unions, s~ h ( 5 ) p l a c e d p a r t y work on a p r o d u e t i o n - o r i e n t e d , rather t h a n on I t s t r a d i t i o n a l l d e o l o g i c a l l y - o r i e n t e d basis , and ( 6 ) i m p l i c i t l y argued that t h e p a r t y organ%zation, t h e ' ? h i g h e s t form of s o c i a l o r g a n i z a t i o n , " would l a t e r s u b s t i t u t e for o r merge w i t h t h e m i n i s t e r i a l and s o v i e t o r g a n i zat i o n s
'

In 1959-1961, v s a ~ i o u sp o l i t i c a l and j u d i c i a l spokesmen exposed t h e i r o p p o s i t i o n t o KhrushchevQs c o n s t i t u t i o n a l scheme. The o p p o s i t i o n w a s led by p r e s i d i u m member Suslov who s u p p o r t e d a s t r o n g &ate appa~sttus ('Oeven a f t e r the r e a l i z a t f o n of communisnP) to s t r e n g t h e n his case f o r t h e . p r e s e r o a t i o n of the pasty as an i d e o l o g i c a l l y - o r i e n t e d o r g a n i z a t i o n . Leading S o v i e t j u r i s t s e n t e r e d t h e debate in t h i s p e r i o d and p r e s e n t e d t h e i r c o n t r a s t i n g briefs on t h e project f o r a new b a s i c l a w ,

By t h e 1961 P a r t y Congress, t h e d e b a t e a p p e a r s to have undercut Khrushcheves i n s t i t u t i o n a l views. He w a s unable t o g a i n party s a n c t i o n fop t h e p r i o r i t y of p r a c t i c a l work i n t h e new p a r t y prog~amwhich gave t h e u s u a l - p r i o r i t y to t h e p o l i t i c a l - i d e o l o g i c a l o v e r economic t a s k s i n p a r t y activities
D e s p i t e t h i s sethack, Khrushchev in 1962 moved ahead w i t h t h e project t o d r a f t a new c o n s t i t u t i o n and toward t h e end of t h e year gained formal adoption of h i s r e o r g a n i z a t i o n of t h e p a r t y "production p r i n c i p l e .,"

-i v -

......,.

. .

..

,
,

._
I

.
I

The r e a c t i o n t h a t followed t h e October 1962 Cuba missile d e b a c l e c o n s t i t u t e s t h e f i f t h round i n t h e d e b a t e on t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n . During t h i s p e r i o d , Khrushchev's d e c e n t r a l i z a t i o n p o l i c y , an important p a r t i n h i s "witheri n g thesis," s u f f e r e d s e t b a c k s and t h e p r o j e c t of t h e cons t i t u t i o n showed no s i g n of p r o g r e s s . The s t a t e m e n t s of Kosygin, Brezhnev and t h e l a t e Kozlov m a n i f e s t e d d i f f e r e n c e s of view on t h e p r o j e c t .
. I

.
.

, . ... . . . . . ...... . . :..... , . . .

, . .. . .

D e s p i t e s i g n s of h i g h - l e v e l disagreements, Khrushchev i n mid-1964 renewed h i s e f f o r t s t o move forward on t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n . I n d i c a t i o n s of resistance t o h i s p l a n s ' were s u g g e s t e d i n t h e p u b l i c h a n d l i n g of h i s mid-July cons t i t u t i o n speech which appeared t o q u a l i f y h i s comments by n o t i n g t h a t he made o n l y " p r e l i m i n a r y observations"-w h i l e two y e a r s e a r l i e r he had "defined" t h e main t a s k s of t h e new c o n s t i t u t i o n . In a d d i t i o n , t h e r o l e of t h e s t a t e a p p a r a t u s was h i g h l i g h t e d i n t h e S o v i e t media i n t h e p e r i o d f o l l o w i n g t h e mid-July c o n s t i t u t i o n commission m e e t i n g , s e c r e t a r i a t member Ponomarev p r e s e n t e d a Suslovs t y l e t h e o r e t i c a l defense of t h e s t a t e s y s t e m

.... . ..... .... . .

.....~..

Within a year' a f t e r Khrushchev's overthrow, h i s major i n s t i t u t i o n a l changes were a b o l i s h e d : f i r s t h i s 1962 r e s t r u c t u r i n g t h e p a r t y on a p r o d u c t i o n basis and l a t e r 1957 d e c e n t r a l i z a t i o n of t h e s t a t e m i n i s t r i e s were f u l l y revoked. The p a r t y w i t h d r e w . t o its sphere of p o l i t i c a l - i d e o l o g i c a l l e a d e r s h i p , t h e s t a t e a p p a r a t u s regained its p r e r o g a t i v e s as t h e economic manager w i t h i n t h e system. Suslov t o o k h i s u s u a l p a r t as t h e p r o t e c t o r of t h e i d e o l o g i c a l l y - o r i e n t e d p a r t y , l e a v i n g mundane t a s k s t o state i n s t i t u t i o n s . Brezhnev i n i t i a l l y endorsed t h i s l i n e , b u t as t i m e went on--and as p r e s s u r e s for h a r d d e c i s i o n s mounted--he gave i n c r e a s i n g emphasis t o t h e necess i t y of t h e p a r t y ' s involvement i n t h e economic sphere. He w a s , however, cautious n o t t o a s s o c i a t e himself d i r e c t l y w i t h t h e d i s c r e d i t e d Khrushchevian f o r m u l a t i o n s on t h e In d e f e n s e of t h e p r e r o g a t i v e s product i o n - o r i e n t e d p a r t y . of t h e s t a t e , Kosygin sought t o mark o u t t h e realm of e c o n o m i c - i n d u s t r i a l management as h i s quasi-autonomous j u r i s d i c t i o n . With Podgorny's s h i f t t o t h e chairmanship of t h e Supreme S o v i e t a n o t h e r dimension t o t h e i n s t i t u t i o n a l

-V-

. ... ....., . . . ...

....,.

......

r i v a l r y e n t e r e d t h e p i c t u r e : t h e movement aimed a t expanding t)is powers of t h e Supreme S o v i e t I n its r e l a t i o n s w i t h Kosggin's Council of M i n i s t e r s was pressed. BjrezhnevPs endorsement of p a r l i a m e n t a r y reforms t o p u t teeth i n t o t h e Supreme S o v i e t seemed directed n o t so much toward b o o s t i n g Podgorny (over whom he had gained t h e advantage) b u t r a t h e r as another way of d i m i n i s h i n g Kosggings state apparatus. SUSlOV, while apparently not o b j e c t i n g t o " t h e expansion of t h e Supreme S o v i e t * s rolep continued t o c o n c e n t r a t e on t h e concept of t h e i d e o l o g i c a l p a r t y .
As- these c l e a v a g e s developed, t h e p r o j e c t for writi n g a new c o n s t i t u t i o n once more grew i n p o l i t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e . And Brezhnevqs 10 June 1966 announcement t h a t a new S o v i e t C o n s t i t u t i o n would 'krown t h e maJestic h a l f c e n t u r y course of o u r ~ountrg*~--1967--may w e l l engender t h e e i g h t h round in t h e debate. This p o s s i b i l i t y is s t r e n g t h ened by t h e fact t h a t (1) Brezhnev surrounded h i s reference t o t h e new basic l a w w i t h r e f e r e n c e s r e m i n i s c e n t of some of h i s p r e d e c e s s o r * s p a r t y - s t a t e c o n c e p t s and (2) t h e m e m b e r s of t h e new IWemlin o l i g a r c h y p r e s e n t e d d i s s i m i l a r views on the r e s p e c t i v e roles of t h e p a k t y , t h e s o v i e t s , and the s t a t e a p p w a t u s a n d t h e i r i n t e r r e l a t i o n ship. In s ~ Brezhnev's move on t h e p r o j e c t is l i k e l y @ ~ t o s h a r p e n t h e i n t e r n a l c o n f l i c t over t h e i n s t i t u t i o n a l issue as v a r i o u s elements seek t o i n c o r p o r a t e t h e i r posit i o n s i n t o t h e regimevs basic l a w .

. ..... . ,

. .

... . ...... ... .

' I

...... ..
,

,..

-vi-

ONE:

ELElldENTS I N THE DEBATE ON THE CONSTITUTION

During t h e momentary p o l i t i c a l vacuum i n t h e leade r s h i p produced by S t a l i n ' s death (5 March 1953) a h i g h l y unusual j o i n t s e s s i o n of t h e CPSU C e n t r a l Committee, t h e USSR Council of M i n i s t e r s and t h e P r e s i d i u m of the'USSR Supreme S o v i e t - w a s convened i n ' o r d e r t o undertake t h e f i r s t a c t i o n s of t h e p o s t - S t a l i n regime. For a b r i e f moment t h e three bodieh r e p r e s e n t i n g t h e p a r t y , t h e s t a t e m i n i s t e r i a l bureaucracy, and t h e p a r l i a m e n t were d e p i c t e d as co-equals. While t h e Supreme S o v i e t p r e s i d i u m was soon relegated t o its u s u a l ceremonial f u n c t i o n s i n S o v i e t p o l i t i c s , t h e cleavage between t h e p a r t y and s t a t e app a r a t u s has f i g u r e d prominently i n contemporary S o v i e t p o l i t i c s . I t r e v e r b e r a t e d i n t h e Khrushchev-Malenkov s t r u g g l e i n t h e 1953-55 p e r i o d and t h e charge raised a g a i n s t Malenkov f o l l o w i n g h i s defeat t h a t he attempted t o p u t t h e s t a t e o v e r t h e party--whether h i s u l t i m a t e i n t e n t i o n or not--gave e x p r e s s i o n t o an underlying i s s u e . I r o n i c a l l y , a s Khrushchev's p o l i c y from 1956 on c u t i n c r e a s i n g l y deeper i n t o t h e p r e r o g a t i v e s df t h e s t a t e a p p a r a t u s he became s u b j e c t t o t h e r e v e r s e charge and a f t e r h i s f a l l he was denounced for a t t e m p t i n g t o i n v o l v e t h e p a r t $ i n f u n c t i o n s t r a d i t i o n a l l y exercised by t h e s t a t e .

.......... . .. . ..,....... . . ....,.'

.\:....JI..j

I n t h e post-Khrushchev l e a d e r s h i p , i n s t i t u t i o n a l i s s u e s are once more enmeshed i n l e a d e r s h i p p o l i t i c s . A t p r e s e n t t h e Supreme S o v i e t a p p a r a t u s e n t e r s i n t o t h e p o l i t i c a l e q u a t i o n s i n c e t h e t o p p o s t s of t h e p a r t y , t h e s t a t e a p p a r a t u s and t h e Supreme S o v i e t are d i v i d e d between t h r e e powerful f i g u r e s i n t h e i r own right--Brezhnev, Kosyg i n and Podgorny. While Brezhnev is c l e a r l y i n t h e s t r o n g e s t , and Podgorny i n t h e weakest s t r a t e g i c - p o s i t i o n in terms of f a c t i o ' n a l p o l i t i c s , t h i s circumstance is more l i k e l y t o e x a c e r b a t e kather t h a n s i m p l i f y any a t t e m p t a t a r a t i o n a l r e o r d e r i n g of t h e S o v i e t i n s t i t u t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e . I n b r i e f , s i n c e t h e p a s s i n g of S t a l i n ' s s y s t e m of p e r s o n a l absolutism, i n s t i t u t i o n a l issues have been an e v e r - p r e s e n t and i n c r e a s i n g l y important dimension of S o v i e t These i s s u e s under Khrushchev and leddership p o l i t i c s

.. ...

-1-

.. .. .._

more r e c e n t l y i n t h e Brezhnev-Kosygin-Podgorny l e a d e r s h i p have been m i r r o r e d i n a c o n t i n u i n g d i s c u s s i o n and . d e b a t e within t h e regime o v e r t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n and app l i c a t i o n t o contemporary R u s s i a of d o c t r i n e s f e c e i v e d from Lenin and S t a l i n on t h e p a r t y and s t a t e ,
P a r t one f i r s t b k i e f l y discusses t h e broad p o l i t i c a l c o n t e x t of t h e i n s t i t u t i o n a l i s s u e and s e c o n d l y s e t s f o r t h i n summary t h e b a s i c d o c $ r i n a l elements of t h e debate over t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n of t h e a u s s i a n p o l i t y . .

I
I

THE INSTITUTIONAL PROBLEM I N CPSU POLITICS

Since its founding t h e S o v i e t regime h a s s u f f e r e d from basic defects i n its i n t e r n a l c o n s t i t u t i o n . * Both t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p s w i t h i n t h e r u l i n g group and between t h e major p o l i t i c a l s t r u c t u r e s of t h e regime have been illd e f i n e d and e s t a b l i s h e d c h a n n e l s or r e g u l a r i z e d methods f o r c o n t a i n i n g and r e s o l v i n g p o l i t i c a l c o n f l i c t s have been almost wholly a b s e n t . These defects of t h e S o v i e t "const i t u t ion'' have been v a r i o u s l y manifested s i n c e 1927 perhaps most cons p i c u o u s l y i n t h e absence of any arrangement f o r t h e t r a n s f e r of power from one l e a d e r s h i p to a n o t h e r . The t r a n s f e r of power h a s been and remains an i r r e g u l a r and unp r e d i c t a b l e proceeding f r a u g h t w i t h dangers f o r t h e r u l i n g
.... .
'

..... ..

*Throgghout most of t h i s paper t h e t e r m c o n s t i t u t i o n is used i n its g e n e r i c s e n s e - - t h a t is, t h e o v e r a l l in s f i t u t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e and p o l i t i c a l practice of t h e S o v i e t p o l i t y . The paper also discusses t h e e f f o r t in t h e postS t a l i n regime t o d r a f t a new w r i t t e n c o n s t i t u t i o n t o supersede t h e 1936 S t a l i n C o n s t i t u t i o n , but t h e c o n t e x t w i l l m a k e it clear when reference is b e i n g made t o t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l document

i
,
I
1

' I

-2-

p a r t y i n s t i t u t i o n itself e The 'vsuccessionvv crises however are r o o t e d in t h e p e r e n n i a l c o n d i t i o n s of S o v i e t p o l i t i c s The a u t h o r i t y and powers of a prime l e a d e r have never been s t h b l i z e d i n clear-cut i n s t i t u t i o n a l terms and have been v u l n e r a b l e b o t h t o t h e e c c e n t r i c i t i e s of f a c t i o n a l p o l i t i c s and t h e s h i f t i n g b a l a n c e s of i n s t i t u t i o n a l forces w i t h i n t h e regime. A t t h e same time the i n s t i t u t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e s of t h e p a r t y and s t a t e rather t h a n p r o v i d i n g a s t a b l e environment f o r t h e r e s o l u t i o n of p o l i t i c a l c o n f l i c t s have served as c o u n t e r s i n power s t r u g g l e s among f a c t i o n s of t h e l e a d e r s h i p .

Under Lenin and S t a l i n t h e problem of r a t i o n a l i z i n g and s t a b i l i z i n g b o t h p o l i t i c a l a u t h o r i t y and t h e inn e r - p o l i t i c s of t h e regime remained submerged. L a r g e l y through h i s prestige as t h e a u t h o r of Bolshevik v i c t o r y i n 1917 and t h e force of h i s p e r s o n a l i t y , Lenin dominated and gave u n i t y t o t h e new S o v i e t regime. Though of a r a d i c a l l y d i f f e r e n t p o l i t i c a l c h a r a c t e r t h a n Lenin, S t a l i n also created a p e r s o n a l i s t regime. The d i c t a t o r i a l sway he imposed is of t e n c a l l e d a system of " i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d " terror and, indeed, from t h e s t a n d p o i n t 6f t h e s o c i e t y s u b j e c t e d t o t h e t e r r o r t h i s w a s p r e c i s e l y t r u e . Eowever, i n terms of inner-regime p o l i t i c s t h e t e r r o r p r e v e n t e d i n s t i t u t i o n a l f a c t o r s from g a i n i n g autonomous p o l i t i c a l force and t h u s a f f e c t i n g t h e p e r s o n a l power of t h e supreme leader.
With t h e e r o s i o n of S t a l i n O s system of terror a f t e r h i s d e a t h , i n s t i t 6 t i o n a l f a c t o r s began t o g a i n i n import. . .... .... .. . ... , .

ance in S o v i e t p o l i t i c s . Khrushcheves l e a d e r s h i p i t s e l f reflected t h e change. While he s t r o v e i n h i s own way t o lead i n t h e p e r s o n a l i s t t r a d i t i o n of Lenin and S t a l i n , he devoted more and more energy a f t e r 1956 t o t h e effort b o t h t o i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e h i s p o s i t i o n and reshape t h e i n s t i t u t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e of t h e regime. (In way of contrast, S t a l i n , e s p e c i a l l y i n the l a s t half of h i s r u l e , d i s p l a y e d l i t t l e i n t e r e s t , i f n o t contempt, for t h e quest i o n of h i s i n s t i t u t i o n a l s t a t u s . Molotov occupied t h e p r e m i e r s h i p i n t h e heyday of S t a l i n e s d i c t a t o r i a l powers and even S t a l i n ' s t i t l e of General S e c r e t a r y of t h e p a r t y f e l l i n t o d i s u s e . ) Khrushchev, f o r example, engaged i n a s u s t a i n e d b u t n o t n o t a b l y successful e f f o r t t o e s t a b l i s h

-3-

. ;

'

. .

himself f o r m a l l y as t h e 'thead**of t h e p a r t y p r e s i d i u m , a body which is f o r m a l l y based on t h e concept of v9c01l e c t i v i t y " and t h e p o l i t i c a l e q u a l i t y of its members.* He sought t o overcome t h e p o t e n t i a l f o r c o n f l i c t i n t h e regime r e s u l t i n g from t h e d i v i s i o n of e x e c u t i v e a u t h o r i t y between t h e p a r t y and s t a t e by t a k i n g o v e r t h e p r e m i e r s h i p i n a d d i t i o n t o t h e po,st of F i r s t S e c r e t a r y . H e e v i d e n t l y r e g a r d e d > o r came t o r e g a r d h i s s t r a d d l i n g act as o n l y an i n t e r i m s o l u t i o n . In t h e l a s t t w o y e a r s of h i s incumbency, Zok example, Khrushchev sought t o underscore h i s e x e c u t i v e supremacy o v e r p a r t y and s t a t e by c h a i r i n g a series of j o i n t presidium-Council of M i n i s t e r s meetings ghrushchev s concern w i t h h i s formal p o s i t i o n also was echoed i n chara c t e r i z a t i o n s of Khrushchev by some m i l i t a r y f i g u r e s as t h e "Supreme High Commander" of t h e armed forces--a t i t l e similar t o t h e t i t l e h e l d by t h e U.S. P r e s i d e n t under t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n . Reports a t t h e t i m e o f Khrushchev's f a l l t h a t he w a s a t t e m p t i n g t o set up a new e x e c u t i v e arrangement designed t o separate himself from h i s presidium c o l leagues seem a t least credible i n view of h i s p r e v i o u s moves.

. .

...

KhrushchevOs awareness of t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l probl e m w a s not narrowly l i m i t e d t o s e c u r i n g h i s p e r s o n a l p o s i t i o n . As h a s been noted he w a s c o n c u r r e n t l y engaged i n a broad eff0r.C t o r e c o n s t i t u t e t h e o v e r a l l i n s t i t u t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e of the regime. H i s 19b2 reform of t h e p a r t y w a s p a r t of a long-term effort a t once aimed a t a s s u r i n g t h e i n s t i t u t i o n a l supremacy of t h e p a r t y in t h e S o v i e t system and a t r e s h a p i n g t h e role of t h e p a r t y i n contemporary S o v i e t s o c i e t y . From t h e s t a n d p o i n t of t h e

*Rhrushchev"s own concept of t h e i n t e r n a l o r g a n i z a t i o n of a p a r t y bureau was reflected in h i s c r e a t i o n a t t h e 2 0 t h Congress of t h e C e n t r a l Committee Bureau f o r t h e RSFSR. In c o n t r a s t t o t h e concept of a c o l l e c t i v e of e q u a l s , t h e new b u r e a u c o n t a i n e d a h i e r a r c h y of r a n k s (chairman, first d e p u t y chairman. and so f o r t h ) modelled after t h e Council of M i n i s t e r s . EbrushchevQsRSFSR B u r e a u was a b o l i s h e d a f t e r h i s f a l l .

-4-

t r a d i t i o n a l s e p a r a t i o n of p a r t y and s t a t e f u n c t i o n s Khrushchev was moving i n a r a d i c a l d i r e c t i o n . Under h i s p r o s p e c t u s of t h e " t r a n s i t i o n t o communism" t h e s t a t e app a r a t u s would be reduced and its f u n c t i o n s g r a d u a l l y abs o r b e d by t h e p a r t y which would i n c r e a s i n g l y involved its e l f i n t h e management of t h e economy. Khrushchev's p r o j e c t f o r i n s t i t u t i o n a l reform aroused powerful opposit i o n both i n - t h e p a r t y and s t a t e a p p a r a t u s and it f e l l w i t h him.

As a r e s u l t t h e i n s t i t u t i o n a l problems Khrushchev sought t o r e s o l v e have been posed anew i n t h e post-Khrushchev leadership. I n f a c t , i n t h i s second decade of t h e p o s t - S t a l i n period, t h e i n s t i t u t i o n a l anomalies of p a r t y and s t a t e remain e s s e n t i a l l y unchanged. The regime f o r m a l l y s t i l l has no less t h a n t h r e e e x e c u t i v e posts--the p a r t y s e c r e t a r y , t h e Premier and t h e Supreme Soviet chairman heading t h e r e s p e c t i v e hierarchies of t h e p a r t y and s t a t e m i n i s t e r i a l a p p a r a t u s and t h e Supreme S o v i e t p a r l i a m e n t . S t r i c t l y s p e a k i n g t h e p a r t y has no genuine e x e c u t i v e o f f i c i a l , rather it is l e d by a " c o l l e c t i v e " organ of p o l i t i c a l e q u a l s ( p o l i t b u r o , f o r m e r l y p r e s i d i u m ) . By' c o n t r a s t t h e arrangement of a u t h o r i t y and o f f i c i a l respons i b i l i t y is f a r more c l e a r l y d e f i n e d and r a t i o n a l l y organized . in t h e s t a t e m i n i s t e r i a l a p p a r a t u s and t h e Supreme S o v i e t s t r u c t u r e . Unlike t h e p a r t y organs, each h a s its d e f i n e d order of r a n k s and s u b o r d i n a t i o n .
1

.. .

I n a d d i t i o n , t h e p r i n c i p l e s of c o e x i s t e n c e between t h e p a r t y and t h e i n s t i t u t i o n s of t h e s t a t e c o n t i n u e t o be surrounded by ambiguities. I n form, t h e a p p a r a t u s of t h e s t a t e remains as a s e p a r a t e o r d e r of p o l i t i c a l power. Indeed, p a r t y dominance w i t h i n t h e regime has t o date been complete, b u t t h e p a r t y l e a d e r s h i p has always had t o compete w i t h t h e l a t e n t b u t r e a l danger t h a t t h e s e i n s t i t u t i o n s provide p o t e n t i a l frameworks f o r a l t e r n a t i v e s t o p a r t y r u l e . T h i s c o n s i d e r a t i o n h a s i n c r e a s e d i n importance i n t h e p o s t - S t a l i n p e r i o d . No l o n g e r is t h e "monol i t h i c " u n i t y of t h e i n t e r n a l regime e n f o r c e d by an a l l p o w e r f u l o r d i c t a t o r i a l p e r s o n a l i t y . N o r is t h e i n t e r n a l d i s c i p l i n e w i t h i n t h e l e a d i n g group a s t i g h t as it once w a s . F u r t h e r w i t h t h e p a s s i n g of Khrushchev t h e i n s t i t u t i o n s of p a r t y and s t a t e once &re become e n t a n g l e d i n

-5-

.
I

.,

r...

Under such circumstances t h e i n s t i t u t i o n a l dualisms of t h e regime can have a d i s i n t e g r a t i v e c e f f e c t . While t h e p a r t y has succeeded i n keeping t h e System more or l e s s u n i t a r y i n p r a c t i c e t h e d i v e r s i t y of i n s t it u t i o n a l forms h a s a f f e c t e d t h e p a t t e r n of p s s t - S t a l i n S o v i e t p o l i t i c s .

t h e struggle f o r l e a d e r s h i p among h i s successors.

THE FORM OF 'THE'INSTITZPPIONAL DEBATE

. ...

.;

While p o s t - S t a l i n S o v i e t p o l i t i c s h a s been subjected t o e x t e n s i v e examination and a n a l y s i s , one body of evidence b e a r i n g OB t h e i n s t i t u t i o n a l d h i e n s i o n s of leaderbeen s h i p pol it i c s - - e s p e c i a l l y the p a r t y - s t a t e issue-has g i v e n , a t most, o n l y p a s s i n g a t t e n t i p n . T h i s evidence c o n s i s t s of t h e e x t e n s i v e debate i n r e c e n t y e a r s i n p a r t y and j u r i d i c a l l i t e r a t u r e (and leaders* s t a t e m e n t s as w e l l ) on t h e f u t u r e of the p a r t y and s t a t e a p p a r a t u s e s i n t h e " t r a n s i t i o n t o communism. f v While the d i s c u s s i o n h a s been conducted i n e l a b o r a t e and abstruse d o c t r i n a l terms, it has echoed t r e n d s and c o n f l i c t s w i t h i n t h e l e a d i n g group over the i n s t i t u t i o n a l i s s u e .

Much of t h e debate has revolved around t h e MarxistL e n i n i s t n o t i o n of t h e w i t h e r i n g away of t h e s t a t e under communism. The " w i t h e r i n g thesis" w a s , and remains, c l o s e l y t i e d i n w i t h S o v i e t c o n s t i t u t i o n a l theory.* The c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r o l e of t h e stadre apparatus under S t a l i n ' s r e i g n was predicated on L e n i n ' s d o c t r i n e i n h i s 1917 State And Revolution t h a t t h e USSR would p a s s through a " t r a n s i t i o n a l stage" called "soclalism"--a stage i n which the r o l e of t h e s t a t e o r g a n i z a t i o n s ( f o r example, t h e s:ecret police) would expand r a t h e r t h a n w i t h e r away.

*The f u t u r i s m of S o Q i e t c o n s t i t u t i o n a l law c o n t r a s t s w i t h Western c o n s t i t u t i o n a l law, which is founded on past o r existing p o l i t i c a l i n s t i t u t i o n s .

-6-

. .

t.

..

Under S t a l i n , t h e p a r t y became, i n p r a c t i c e , one of s e v e r a l i n s t it u t i o n s of governance. The c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r o l e of t h e s t a t e a p p a r a t u s under Khrushchev's p l a n , however, w a s p r e d i c a t e d on L e n i n ' s f u r t h e r a s s e r t i o n i n t h e same work on a subsequent t r a n s i t i o n t o t h e "higher s t a g e c t of *lcommunismlvd u r i n g which time t h e s t a t e w a s supposed t o "wither away.I* Khrushchev h e l d t h a t t h e f u n c t i o n s of t h e s t a t e bureaucratic o r g a n i z a t i o n would be t r a n s f e r r e d t o 11socia119 organizations--such as t h e p a r t y , "the h i g h e s t form of s o c i a l organizationVv--as t h e S o v i e t Union progressed toward t h e l'higher s t a g e e f t Those r e s i s t i n g Khrushchev's purposes ( i n c l u d i n g , , i n p a r t i c u l a r , Suslov) drew on other elements of d o c t r i n e o r r e i n t e r p r e t e d d o c t r i n e s on t h e s t a t e i n f a v o r of more c o n s e r v a t i v e p o s i t i o n s i n e l a b o r a t e arguments d e a l i n g w i t h two key q u e s t i o n s . * One argument d e a l t w i t h a s t r i c t l y f u n c t i o n a l q u e s t i o n : what would t h e role of t h e p a r t y and t h e m i n i s t r i e s be d u r i n g t h e p e r i o d of t h e w i t h e r i n g away of t h e s t a t e ? The Khrushchev s c h o o l stressed t h a t d u r i n g t h i s p e r i o d t h e p a r t y ' s "main t a s k " was c o n s t r u c t i n g t h e " m a t e r i a l t e c h n i c a l f o u n d a t i o n s f o r communism. ** The Suslov group stressed t h a t s u c h a c t i v i t y was l i m i t e d t o t h e "main economic tasK'of t h e p a r t y , t h a t is, a job s u b o r d i n a t e t o t h e p a r t y ' s t r a d i t i o n a l i d e o l o g i c a l and p o l i t i c a l "guidance. lv The former e c h o o l , i n a step-by-step c o n s t r u c t i o n of its p o s i t i o n , argued t h a t t h e s t a t e f u n c t i o n s s h o u l d be transferred t o social o r g a n i z a t i o n s d u r i n g t h e

.. . . .. .- .....
,

* P a r t two examines t h e p r e s e n t a t i o n s of t h e l e g a l advocates .of t h e Khrushchev s c h o o l ( p r h c i p a l l y j u r i s t s P S. Romashkin, F. B u r l a t s k y , M. Mnatsakanyan, M. Akhmedov : and A. Nedavny), and t h e past and p r e s e n t opponents ( p r i n c i p a l l y j u r i s t s G . Shakhnazarov, 1. P i s k o t i n , B. Mankovsky, V. Chkhikvadze, V o Kotok, and D. Chesnokov). The p e n u l t i m a t e s e c t i o n of p a r t two examines t h e p r e s e n t a t i o n s of t h e advocates of t h e Brezhnev-Podgorny p r o p o s a l s for g r e a t e r s o v i e t control over the m i n i s t e r i a l apparatus ( j u r i s t s A. Makhnenko, V. Vasilyev, M. Binder, M. S h a f i r and 0. Kutafyin).

-7-

withering-away p e r i o d . Included in t h i s d e f i n i t i o n of s b c i a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s were t h e p a r t y , t h e s o v i e t s , t r a d e unions, young communist l e a g u e , comrades0 c o u r t s - - v i r t u a l l y a l l o r g a n i z a t i o n s other t h a n t h e s t a t e bureaucracy. Under KhrushchevOs developed c o n s t i t u t i o n a l views, a l l s o c i a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s d u r i n g t h e w i t h e r i n g p e r i o d would converge i n t o an all-embracing s o c i a l o r g a n i z a t i o n - - h i s concept of t h e p a r t y of t h e f u t u r e , The o t h e r school s o u g h t t o j u s t i f y c o n t i n u i n g r e l i a n c e on t h e s t a t e s t r u c t u r e i n t h e t r a n s i t i o n to' communism. T h e i r arguments, in effect, opposed t h e notion of a convergence of p a r t y and s t a t e and a c o n c u r r e n t d i m i n u t i o n of the, r o l e of t h e s t a t e a p p a r a t u s . In t h i s connection, t h e y defended t h e t r a d i t i o n a l c c o n c e p t of t h e p a r t y as p r i m a r i l y a p o l i t i c a l i d e o l o g i c a l r a t h e r t h a n managesial-administrative agency of governance I n t h i s c o n t e x t , t w o CPSU paEty congresses--the 8 t h and t h e 1 8 t h - - w e ~ e used as j u r i d i c a l and t h e o r e t i c a l p r e c e d e n t s f o r c e r t a i n f u n c t i o n a l arguments of t h e two opposing s c h o o l s . The 8 t h P a r t y Congress (18-23 March 1919) had r e s o l v e d (1) t h a t t h e s o v i e t s were s t a t e organs and t h a t t h e p a r t y ought t o 'fguidelt s o v i e t a c t i v i t y b u t n o t *'replace*' t h e s o v i e t o r g a n i z a t i o n , and (2) t h a t t h e s t a t e system would d i s s o l v e * * l f t e r e i n g freed of its b c l a s s c h a r a c t e i ' (i.e. a f t e r t h e a t t a i n m e n t of %ocialism**) The Khrushchev group stressed t h e second p r o p o s i t i o n of t h e 8 t h Congress and, i n effect, d i s t o r t e d t h e first i n t o r t u o u s l y a r g u i n g t h a t t h e s o v i e t s ( l i k e t h e p a r t y ) were s o c i a l organizations.
:...

The Suslov group c o n c e n t r a t e d on

......... . . ...........

t h e first r e s o l u t i o n and deemphasized t h e second, The 1 8 t h P a r t y Congress (10-21 March 1939) f o r m a l l y s a n c t i o n e d an earlier pronouncement by S t a l i n t h a t *'under communism t h e s t a t e w i l l remain u n t i l such t i m e as t h e danger of f o r e i g n a g g r e s s i o n has v a n i s h e d o l t The Suslov s c h o o l , emphasizing t h e need for a s t r o n g s t a t e apparatus (anc l u d i n g its c o e r c i v e organs) i n t h e face of t h e e x t e r n a l threat from **imperialism,** a u d e d t h e 1 8 t h Congress9 j u s t i l f i c a t i o n f o r s t r e n g t h e n i n g t h e s t a t e on t h e eve of t h e war w i t h t h e "imperialists" ( i n t h i s c a s e N a z i Germany). The Khrushchev s c h o o l a l l o w i n g t h a t t h e 1 8 t h Congress

gave a n e c e s s a r y j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r maintenance of a coercive apparatus against the e x t e r n a l threat a l s o

-8-

s t r e s s e d t h e theme t h a t t h e i n t e r n a l need f o r t h e coerc i v e s t a t e was waning i n t h e " t r a n s i t i o n taccommunismOti

.,.. .. . .
I .

....... ......., .. .

A l s o i n t h e f u n c t i o n a l c o n t e x t , t w o d o c t r i n e s on t h e state--the t r a d i t i o n a l concept of t h e " d i c t a t o r s h i p of t h e i ~ p a o l e t a r i a t qand an i n n o v a t i o n i n t r o d u c e d a t t h e t 22nd Congress, t h e Itstate of t h e whole people"--f igured prominently i n t h e arguments of t h e opposing s c h o o l s . Khrushchev i n t e r p r e t e d the t r a n s i t i o n f r o m t h e d i c t a t o r s h i p of t h e proletariat t o t h e s t a t e of t h e whole peopae as a m a n i f e s t a t i o n of t h e p r o c e s s of w i t h e r i n g away of t h e s t a t e and t h e assumption of s t a t e tasks by t h e p a r t y

p e o p l e d o c t r i n e meant an increased r o l e f o r t h e s t a t e , and t h e p r e s e r v a t i o n of t h e p a r t y u s t r a d i t i o n a l r o l e i n Since KhrushchevOs f a l l , t h e t t t r a n s i t i o n t o communism." t h e concept of t h e s t a t e of t h e whole people h a s once more a p p a r e n t l y become t h e s u b j e c t of c o n t r o v e r s y i n s i d e t h e regime. The 23rd c o n g r e s s ' s complete s i l e n c e on t h e d o c t r i n e suggested t h e presence of s t r o n g p r e s s u r e s w i t h i n t h e l e a d e r s h i p t o s h e l v e t h e concept. BrezhnevOs i n t r o d u c t i o n of t h e n o t i o n of a Itgenuine p e o p l e ' s s t a t e " a f t e r t h e congress b o r e earmarks of an attempt to come up w i t h an a l t e r n a t i v e formula. Behind t h e Brezhnev move may be t h e c u r r e n t issue produced b$ moves by some regime &lements t o s t r e n g t h e n t h e a u t h o r i t y of t h e Supreme S o v i e t v i s - a - v i s t h e Council of M i n i s t e r s and t h e m i n i s t e r i a l apparatus as a whole.
....
:. ,

t h i s B'otion h o l d i n g rather t h a t t h e s t a t e of t h e whole

and social o r g a n i z a t i o n s .

The Suslov s c h o o l resisted

.. .,.

... ... ., .., . . ,..

A second argument w a s p u t i n terms of t i m e : when would t h e s t a t e w i t h e r away? Khrushchev had a v e s t e d i n t e r e s t in r e a l i z i n g *tcommunismlt--and t h u s h i s p a r t i c u l a r view of t h e p r o d u c t i o n - o r i e n t e d party--as soon as p o s s i b l e . Suslov and other oppcqents had:.a v e s t e d i n t e r e s t i n pushing back t h e r e a l i z a t i o n of tlcommunismleas an important p a r t of t h e i r case f o r t h e maintenance of t h e t r a d i t i o n a l roles f o r t h e p a r t y and state. While both s c h o o l s s t a t e d t h a t t h e p r o c e s s would be tfgradual,fit h e former took p a i n s t o e x p l a i n why it would take as much as two decades t o b u i l d communism. (The 20-year d e a d l i n e was raised a t t h e 1961 p a r t y c o n g r e s s , ) On t h e basis of t h e " d e a d l i n e , " t h i s s c h o o l adopted a l i n e which emphasized t h e urgent

-9-

. .,
.
, .

. .

. . .. .

....

.. , ._.. .,.

n e c e s s i t y t o commence, now, t h e w i t h e r i n g away of t h e s t a t e . The lat&er.schodl went t o some e f f o r t t o p o s i t t h a t communism would n o t be realized by 1981, and t h a t t h e state system a t t h a t time would be s t r e n g t h e n e d , n o t withered. In t h e post-Khrushchev leadership, t h e elements opposing any h u r r y i n g of t h e advent of "communismii i n t h e USSR appear t o have won t h e day a t least f o r t h e p r e s e n t a The ambitious goals of Khrushchev*s economic program which w a s t o take t h e USSR t o t h e v e r y doorstep of t h e communist s o c i e t y have been s h a r p l y scaled down and t h e successor l e a d e r s h i p h a s g e n e r a l l y avoided any e x p l i c i t commitment t o a target date when t h e " t r a n s i t i o n t o communism" is o s t e n s i b l y t o be completed i n t h e
USSR.

, .,.,.. ..... . .

. .

..,. .......' ..,..,..'..... ... .... ...

-10. ... .. ..

TWO:

THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CONSTITUTIONALDEBATE

INSTITUTIONAL

INTRODUCTION

With h i s sweeping i n d u s t r i a l d e c e n t r a l i z a t i o n i n e a r l y 1957 Khrushchev f o r c e d t h e i s s u e of t h e r e l a t i o n of p a r t y and s t a t e t o t h e c e n t e r of p o s t - S t a l i n p o l i t i q s . H i s a s s a u l t on t h e s u p e r - c e n t r a l i z e d s t a t e a p p a r a t u s Anh e r i t e d from S t a l i n was t h e opening a c t i o n i n a running' b a t t l e over b a s i c i n s t i t u t i o n a l i s s ' u e s i n t h e Khrushchev and post-Khrushchev regimes. The i n d u s t r i a l reform which aroused immediate r e s i s t a n c e from t h e Molotov-Malenkov o p p o s i t i o n and o t h e r s was among t h e major i s s u e s involved i n t h e c h a l l e n g e t o KhrushchevOs l e a d e r s h i p in June 1957. The reform i n i t i a t e d Khrushchev's e f f o r t t o diminish t h e r o l e of t h e s t a t e a p p a r a t u s andFinsure t h e supremacy of t h e p a r t y a p p a r a t u s i n p o s t - S t a l i n R u s s i a . The e f f o r t r e g i s t e r e d Khrushchevvs awareness t h a t t h e p e r p e t u a t i o n of p a r t y hegemony w i t h i n t h e S o v i e t system had i n c r e a s i n g l y become. an i n s t i t u t i o n a l problem. H i s d r i v e , however s t i r r e d powerful forces opposed t o major i n s t i t u t i o n a l changes and not s u r p r i s i n g l y h i s 1962 r e s t r u c t u r i n g of t h e p a r t y a p p a r a t u s was a key event i n t h e lead-up t o h i s overthrow i n October 1964. On t h e , - e v e of h i s f a l l he was p r e s s i n g ahead w i t h an e f f o r t t o i n c o r p o r a t e t h e i n s t i t u t i o n a l changes he had a l r e a d y e f f e c t e d and a p p a r e n t l y o t h e r s h e w a s p l a n n i n g i n t o a new c o n s t i t u t i o n r e p l a c i n g t h e 1936 S t a l i n C o n s t i t u t i o n .
As Khrushchev developed h i s f a r - r e a c h i n g program t o t r a n s f o r m t h e regime's i n s t i t u t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e he inc r e a s i n g l y sought t o j u s t i f y i$ in broad d o c t r i n a l terms. He t u r n e d t o v a r i o u s l e g a l t h e o r i s t s t o e l a b o r a t e h i s p o s i t i o n . Some e n t h u s i a s t i c a l l y took up t h e t a s k , others were lukewarm and s t i l l o t h e r s engaged i n a d i s g u i s e d e f f o r t t o d i l u t e and undermine t h e Khrushchevian f o r m u l a t i o n s . J u r i d i c a l l i t e r a t u r e f o c u s i n g on i n s t i t u t i o n a l and c o n s t i t u t i o n a l matters became a m i r r o r of t h e c o n f l i c t s

-11-

and c r o s s - p r e s s u r e s t h a t developed i n s i d e t h e regime under t h e impact of Khrushchev's p r o d e c t e The f o l l o w i n g s e c t i o n d 6 t A i l p t h e development of t h e c o n f l i c t , t h e r e a c t i o n to what may be b r o a d l y chara c t e r i z e d as t h e "Khrushchev C o n s t i t u t i o n " for t h e contemporary USSR both b e f o r e and a f t e r h i s f a l l , and fdfrally t h e reemergence of t h e i n s t i t u t i o n a l - c o n s t i t u t i o n a l conf l i c t i n somewhat altered terms among WlieushchevOs successors

OPENING MOVES ON INSTITUTIONAL REFORM

Khrplshchev's first major f o r a y i n f o t h e s p h e r e of i n d u s t r i a l reform--the d e c e n t r a l i z a t i o n of t h e managerial s t r u c t u r e of t h e s t a t e a p p a r a t u s i n e a r l y 1957--was undert a k e n i n t h e m i d s t of c o n f l i c t i n t h e S o v i e t leadership.

He launched h i s bold v e n t u r e d e s p i t e t h e s t r e n g t h ened p o s i t i o n of h i s presidium opponents a f t e r t h e Hungarian r e v o l t , His 1956 Congress d e s t a l i n i z a t i o n p o l i c y vas under a c l o u d as a r e s u l t of t h e revolt; and he had been tempora r i l y forced t o t h e d e f e n s i v e - - p a r t i c u l a r l y on t h e S t a l i n i s s u e - - i n t h e presidium, His d e c e n t r a l i z a t i o n project In f a c t came on t h e heels of a major managerial r e o r g a n i z a t i o n i n December 1956 t h a t was not of h i s own making and which w a s o p p o s e d i n concept and d e s i g n t o h i s e a r l y 1957 i n d u s t r i a l reform, The December 1956 r e o r g a n i z a t i o n had enhanced t h e powers of t h e s t a t e a p p a r a t u s through t h e c r e a t i o n of a new c e n t r a l i z e d economic directorate and super-planning agency, t h e Gosekonomkommissiya, headed by Pervukin (a f u t u r e m e m b e r of t h e "anti-partyV9 group). The ghrushchev reform, by c o n t r a s t , dismantled t h e c e n t r a l m i n i s t e r i a l apparatus s e e k i n g t o s h i f t major economic r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s f r o m t h e s t a t e to t h e p a r t y , e s p e c i a l l y its t e r r i t o r i a l a p p a r a t u s . Thus, t h e new l o c a l Councils of t h e N a t i o n a l Economy created by t h e Khrushchev reform came under t h e purview of p r o v i n c i a l p a r t y o r g a n i z a t i o n s .

.;

-12.. .

. .

A t t h e 1966 Congress,, Khrushchev had s t r e s s e d t h a t t h e p a r t y m u s t i n c r e a s i n g l y involve i t s e l f i n **problems of p r a c t i c a l economics" b u t he gave l i t t l e h i n t - t h a t he was contemplating a d i r e c t a t t a c k on t h e t r a d i t i o n a l s t a t e s t r u c t u r e . H i s i n d u s t r i a l re'form emerged w i t h no forewarning and bofe t h e earmarks of a s u r p r i s e move i n t h e c e n t r a l committee aimed a t s e t t i n g h i s o p p o s i t i o n i n t h e presidium o f f balance. He d i d succeed i n recouping t h e i n i t i a t i v e w i t h t h e reform p r o p o s a l b u t its i n t r o d u c t i o n produced s h a r p c o n f l i c t i n t h e p r e s i d i u m and t h e tenuousness of Khrushchev's p o s i t i o n iin t h e e n s u r i n g s t r u g g l e was r e v e a l e d in JunerL1957 when he came p r e c a r i o u s l y close t o b e i n g overthrown by h i s * * a n t i - p a r t y * * i v a l s . r

Khrushchev's D e c e n t r a l i z a t i o n Theses Khrushchev introduce'd h i s reform p l a n a t a c e n t r a l committee plenum on 13-14 February 1957. The p l a n c a l l e d f o r a sweepidg;decentralization of t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e s t r u c t u r e of S o v i e t i n d u s t r y by s e t t i n g up a network of r e g i o n a l economic c o u n c i l s in t h e p l a c e of c e n t r a l i z e d m i n i s t r i e s . And on 29 March 1957 t h e c e n t r a l committee released t h e famous Khrushchevian '%heses*' which c l e a r l y i d e n t i f i e d t h e m i n i s t e r i a l system as h i s t a r g e t . The **theses** proposed (1) t h a t w i t h t h e c r e a t i o n of r e g i o n a l c o u n c i l s of n a t i o n a l economy there would be no need t o have union and r e p u b l i c a n m i n i s t r i e s .to r u n i n d u s t r y and c o n s t r u c t i o n , and (2) i n apparent r e f e r e n c e t o P e r u v k i n ' s GoskonomkommAssya, t h a t t h e c r e a t i o n of new c e n t r a l organs under t h e USSR Council of M i n i s t e r s would mean " t h e preserv a t i o n of t h e old form of management o n l y under a new name b u t of an i n f e r i o r type.*@ A passage i n Khrushchev9s "theses" charged t h a t "some comrades*' were i n f a v o r of t h e l a t t e r scheme. After t h e June 1957 l e a d e r s h i p crisis, "comradesv* Yalenkov, Kaganovich and Molotov were i d e n t if i e d as among t h e opponents of Khrushchev's p l a n . Soon a f t e r t h e o u s t e r of Marshal Zhukov i n October 1957 from h i s p o s i t i o n s on t h e p a r t y p r e s i d i u m and t h e Ministry.\of Defense even t h e m i n i s t r i e s connected w i t h t h e d e f e n s e i n d u s t r i e s were downgraded to s t a t e committees.

-13..... .

h
I
I

. ....
,

.
'

.
. !

I.......

.... . ... . ..(.... .

. ._.

With t h e diminution of t h e r o l e of t h e m i n i s t r i e s , Khrushchev c o n c u r r e n t l y h e l d o u t t h e p r o s p e c t of t h e exp a n s i o n of t h e role of t h e s o v i e t s . Thus, a l o n g w i t h h i s i n d u s t r i a l reform d e c r e e s , t h e m i n i s t e r i a l system was . also t h e t a r g e t of an earller Khrushchev-supported decree of t h e p a r t y D s : . c e n t r a l committee e n t i t l e d Iton improving t h e a c t i v i t y of t h e s o v i e t s of workers d e p u t i e s and s t r e n g t h e n i n g t h e i r c o n n e c t i o n s w i t h t h e masses." The decree, dated 22 January 1957, e n a b l e d t h e s o v i e t s t o assume l e g a l l y f unct i o n s r e s i d i n g i n t h e s t a t e a p p a r a t u s ( t h e m i n i s t r i e s , o r e x e c u t i v e committees a t l o c a l l e v e l s ) . The decree also provided added s a n c t & n t o a Khrushchevemphasized campaign which called f o r v o l u n t e e r s t o assist, if not assume, t h e work of t h e s t a t e employees i n executi n g c o r r e c t i o n a l p r o t e c t i v e , medical, c u l t u r a l , educat i o n a l , and r e c r e a t i o n a l f unet i o n s *

Khrushchev g s Withering T h e s i s
With o r g a n i z a t i o n and p o l i t i c a l g a i n s in hand, Khrushchev i n h i s 6 November 1957 r e v o l u t i o n a n n i v e r s a r y speech f o r m a l l y resurrected t h e f 9 w i t h e r i n gaway of t h e state" t h e s i s which had been buried by S t a l i n and h i s chief postwar s t a t e t h e o r e t i c i a n , D o Chesnokov.**

*According t o t h e o f f i c i a l S o v i e t s t a t i s t i c s presented i n N a t i o n a l EcQnomy of t h e USSR, a 25 p e r c e n t r e d u c t i o n i n t h e number of s t a t e a d m i n i s t k a t i v e workers t o o k place between 1953 and 1957. T h i s r e d u c t i o n c o i n c i d e d w i t h t h e p o s t - S t a l i n emphasis given to t h e v o l u n t e e r s e campaign. According t o t h e same s t a t i s t i c a l source,, a s h a r p i n c r e a s e i n t h e number of workers i n t h e s t a t e a p p a r a t u s d u r i n g KhrushchevOs l a s t y e a r (some 46,000 workers were added t o t h e 1963 f o r c e ) was s u s t a i n e d - - a l m o s t doubled--during t h e first y e a r of t h e new l e a d e r s h i p (some 86,000 a d d i t i o n a l a d m i n i s t r a t i v e workers w e r e added i n 1965).
**After l o s i n g h i s seat on t h e smaller March 1953 p a r t y p2esidium (he had been elected a member of t h e expanded presidium a t t h e October 1952 p a r t y c o n g r e s s and selected ( f o o t n o t e continued on page 15)

-14-

......__.

I1

That t h e w i t h e r i n g t h e s i s had been buried by S t a l i n and Chesnokov had been made clear i n t h e l a t t e r ' s 18 March 1953 Pravda c i t a t i o n t h a t

on t h e b a s i s of t h e b a l a n c e of e x p e r i e n c e of t h e S o c i a l i s t S t a t e , J.V. S t a l i n f o r t h e first t i m e i n t h e h i s t o r y of Marxdsm, came t o t h e s t r i k i n g c o n c l u s i o n on t h e

..,. . . ,.
....

.. . . .
.. ..,

n e c e s s i t y of m a i n t a i n i n g t h e S t a t e even under Communism ' i f by t h a t time, c a p i t a l ist e n c i r c l e m e n t h a s not been l i q u i d a t e d , ? and he placed b e f o r e u s t h e t a s k of ' s t r e n g t h e n i n g i n e v e r y way t h e power of t h e S o c i a l ist state.?
E a r l i e r , a t a 19 June 1951 lecture at t h e Department of Economics and Law of t h e Academy of S c i e n c e s , Chesnokov had made t h e t r a d i t i o n a i i s t s O c a s e f o r t h e preeminent r o l e of t h e s t a t e i n b u i l d i n g communism. **Only a sound . S o v i e t s o c i a l i s t s t a t e is c a p a b l e df e n s u r i n g t h e b u i l d i n g of t h e m a t e r i a l - t e c h n i c a l basis of communism.'* And l i k e .the 1936 S t a l i n C o n s t i t u t i o n , Chesnokov i n 1951 lectured t h a t the r o l e of t h e p a r t y is t h a t of t h e " g u i d i n g n u c l e u s of t h e s t a t e and o t h e r o r g a n i z a t i o n s of S o v i e t , s o c i e t y . ' * (The B S U l e . .is t h e l e a d i n g c o r e of a l l o r g a n i z a t i o n s of t h e working people, both s o c i a l and s t a t e , " Article 126.)

. ..

Khrushchev i n h i s November 1957 speech set o u t to r e v e r s e t h e gases of the Stalin-Chesnokov %on-withering" t h e s i s . Linking h i s 1957 d e c e n t r a l i z a t i o n d r i v e t o t h e w i t h e r i n g t h e s i s , Khrushchev d e v i s e d a three-part i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of Lenin's vagary i n State Abd Revolution (1917)
I

( f o o t n o t e continued from page 14)

by S t a l i n as a m e m b e r of an e l i t e 11-man commission to r e v i s e t h e 1919 p a r t y program) Chesnokov l o s t h i s posit i o n as e d i t o r of Kommunist i n A p r i l 1953. I n January 1955 i n t h e w a k e of KhrushchevPs p u b l i c attack on Malenkov, a P a r t y L i f e a r t i c l e i m p l i c i t l y l i n k e d Chesnokov w i t h t h e p r m s G Z F views of t h e d i s g r a c e d Malenkov.

-15-

...-... ... .. .

t h a t t h e statei,would P w i t h e r away'* under "communism. fv F i r s t , Khrushchev held t h a t flcommunism is no l o n g e r i n the distant future." Second, he s t a t e d t h a t s t a t e funct i o n s would be diminished d u r i n g t h e movement toward com"The Marxist-Leninist t e a c h i n g on t h e s t a t e and munism. its w i t h e r i n g in p r o p o r t i o n t o t h e movement 8P s o c i e t y -toward complete communism is of enormous s i g n i f i c a n c e , '* he said. T h i r d , he concluded t h a t t h e s t a t e f v w i l l w i t h e r away completely when t h e h i g h e r phase of communism sets i n o * * (Two o t h e r p a r t s of W r u s h c h e v v s w i t h e r i n g t h e s i s awaited--and in 1959 d u l y r e c e i v e d - - e x p l i c i t f o r m u l a t i o n ; (1) t h a t - s t a t e f u n c t i o n s would be t r a n s f e r r e d t o social:. o r g a n i z a t i o n s and (2) t h a t t h e p a r t y , a " s o c i a l organizat i o n , would assume productive tasks--and t h u s become

..

.I..

...

*The p r o c e s s of t he " w i t h e r i n g away" of s t a t e c o u r t f u n c t i o n s w a s g r a p h i c a l l y demonskrated d u r i n g t h i s p e r i o d . I n 1957-1958 a series of h a r s h I Q a n t i - p a P a s i t e t f l a w s w e r e promulgated by t h e s e v e r a l r e p u b l i c s of t h e USSR. The l a w s , o s t e n s i b l y aimed a t r e f o r m i n g "hooligans" and 'fworks h i r k e r s " among other s u c h " p a r a s i t e s , " were t o be carried o u t through a newly established network 'f t r i b u n a l s called o "comrades' c o u r t s . " The Khrushchev-endorsed t r i b u n a l s , somewhat s i m i l a r to S t a l i n P s fotroikasltr e p o r t e d l y abol5shed in 1953, were placed o u t s i d e t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n of t h e r e g u l a r s t a t e - r u n c r i m i n a l c o u r t s . And w h i l e t h e new p a r t y - r u n comradeso courts w e r e engaged i n t h e s p h e r e of c r i m i n a l J a w , t h e y r e p r e s e n t e d a j u d i c i a l maneuver d i r e c t l y related t o t h e basis of IChrushchevOs i n a e r p r e t a t i o n of S o v i e t cons t i t u t i o n a l -law--the " w i t h e r i n g away" of t h e f unct i s n s of governmental b o d i e s and the t r a n s f e r of s t a t e t a s k s t o non-governmental ' s s o c i a I o r g a n i z a t i o n s " s u c h as t h e i r r e g u l a r t r i b u n a l s . m u s h c h e v drew t h i s c o n c l u s i o n i n h i s 2 1 s t P a r t y Congress s p e e c b i n January 1959. Paradoxica l l y , t h e r e g r e s s i o n t o S t a l i n O s system of p a r t y - r u n kangaroo courts and f h e subsequent ' % i o l a t i o n s of s o c i a l ist l e g a l i t y " t h a t were r e p o r t e d l y handed down i n t h e comradesv courts tended to s t r e n g t h e n t h e appeal of Susloves c o n s e r v a t i v e view of t h e s t a t e among s e v e r a l l e a d i n g , l f b e r a l S o v i e t j u r i s t s . The views of t h e l e a d i n g lawyers on t h i s q u e s t i o n are examined p r e s e n t l y .

-16-

.
J

more t h a n t h e " l e a d i n g core" of t h e n a t ion--and s u b o r d i n a t e a l l o t h e r t a s k s , such as ideological work, i n t h e b u i l d i n g of comunism. P a r t y p r o d u c t i o n t a s k s were equated w i t h p a r t y ideological work in Khrushchev's 14 February 1956 P a r t y Congress report, b u t t h e l a t t e r work was n o t t h e n e x p l i c i t l y s u b o r d i n a t e d t o t h e former. The f i n a l s t e p i n Khrushchev's w i t h e r i n g t h e s i s - - t h a t t h e p a r t y w o u l d t h e n become t h e "all-embracing" or " m u l t i-purposeq' organiz a t i o n i n modern R u s s i a - - c r y s t a l b e d i n m i d - 1 9 6 1 . )
Following t h e basic g u i d e l i n e s set by Chesnokov i n t h e e a r l y T i f t i e s , t h e o p p o s i t i o n to Khrushchev's p a r t y s t a t e scheme maintained c o n t r a r y c o n c l u s i o n s on Khrushchev's w i t h e r i n g t h e s i s i n an e n s u i n g debate on t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n . The debate v i g o r o u s l y commenced a t t h e n e x t p a r t y congress.

THE 21st CONGRESS AND THE COUNCIL OF MINISTERS* DIMINISHED

ROLE

Having occupied t h e highest party,, government, and m i l i t b y * posts, Khrushchev a t t h e 21st P a r t y Congress t o l d t h e delegates on 28 January 1959 t h a t "somett r e v i s i o n

*Within's y e a r after t h e f a l l of Zhukov, Khrushchev had established t h e "Bigher M i l i t a r y Councilq* (sometimes referred t o as t h e Supreme M i l i t a r y Council or Main M i l i t a r y Council by S o v i e t m i l i t a r y spokesmen) w i t h himself as chairman. The Higher M i l i t a r y Council, which seemed to bear some resemblance to t h e U.S. N a t i o n a l S e c u r i t y

Council, c o n s i s t e d of key m i l i t a r y and p a r t y p e r s o n n e l who s e r v e d as KhrushchevQsp e r s o n a l a d v i s o r y group on matters r e l a t i n g t o defense. Two o r three years after t h e c r e a t i o n of t h e Council, Khrushchev donned t h e t i t l e of "Supreme High Commander"--a t i t l e which a p p a r e n t l y had been i n t e n d e d t o i n d i c a t e t h a t K h r u s h c b v O m i l i t a r y s a u t h o r i t y w a s comparable t o t h e m i l i t a r y powers e x p r e s s l y g r a n t e d i n t h e U.S. C o n s t i t u t i o n t o t h e P r e s i d e n t of t h e ( f o o t n o t e continued on page 18)

-17-

.......... , , ...:, . ........ .. ...... ......,.. . ....... . ....

Of t h e 3439 C o n s t i t u t i o n was i n o r d e r . H e d i d not cast ' h i s remarks on t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n i n an a n t i - S t a l i n c o n t e x t as h e did a t t h e 2 0 t h P a r t y Congress. (In h i s 2 5 Februa r y 1956 secret speech a t t h a t congress, Khrushchev e m p h a t i c a l l y concluded, w i t h no f u r t h e r e l a b o r a t i o n , t h a t i n o r d e r t o " a b o l i s h t h e c u l t of t h e i n d i v i d u a l d e c i s i v e l y once and for a l l " it was n e c e s s a r y **torestore completely t h e L e n i n i s t p r i n c i p l e s of S o v i e t s o c i a l i s t democracy e x p r e s s e d i n t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n ' of t h e S o v i e t Union.") Rather, he announced a t t h e 1959 Congress t h a t c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r e v i s i o n was n e c e s s i t a t e d by t h e f a c t , announced e a r l i e r by h i m i n h i s c o n g r e s s r e p o r t , t h a t t h e USSR was e n t e r i n g upon t h e "higher stage" of h i s t o r y c a l l e d "largescale c o n s t r u c t i o n of a communist society.11

( f o o t n o t e continued from United States: 'The P r e s i d e n t s h a l l be Commander-in-Chief of t h e Army and t h e Navy...'' Article 11, S e c t i o n 2. (For a s t u d y on Khrushchevvs r o l e in m i l i t a r y p o l i c y making see CAESAR XXIV of 20 J u l y 1964, "The Higher M i l i t a r y Counc i l of t h e USSR.**) f a l l of Khrushchev, Brezhnev. . t h r o u g h ms-elf as chairman of a "Defense Council"
......
.

...

a W e f e n s e Council" d a t e s back to 1961,\

lous o n l y other r e f e r e n c e t o

-18. , . ... .
I

i
I .

Khrushchev argued t h a t t h e basic l a w of t h e l a n d ought t o r e c o g n i z e t h e endeavor of b u i l d i n g communism, as w e l l as a l l t h e theoretical and f u n c t i o n a l changes, s u c h as t h e expanded r o l e o f t h e p a r t y and "withering away" of t h e s t a t e a p p a r a t u s (whose h i g h e s t body is t h e Council of M i n i s t e r s ) 1 t h a t he s a i d e n t e r i n g the ''higher : s t a g e " embraced. He t o l d t h e d e l e g a t e s t o t h e 2 l s t Congress t h a t

.
.

. .
., , .
2.

. . ..:. .I .... . ..

The Communist P a r t y , as t h e h i g h e s t form of social o r g a n i z a t i o n , as t h e l e a d i n g detachment, t h e w e l l - t r i e d vanguard of t h e n a t i o n , leads a l l t h e social o r g a n i z a t i o n s of t h e working people.
Comrades, a t p r e s e n t , when o u r c o u n t r y is e n t e r i n g a new and m o s t important period of development, t h e need for int r o d u c i n g some changes and a d d i t i o n s t o t h e USSR C o n s t i t u t i o n h a s r i p e n e d . Since t h e adoption of t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n , o v e r 20 years replete w i t h e v e n t s of world h i s t o r i c s i g n i f i c a n c e have gone by. Socialism h a s l e f t t h e c o n f i n e s of one c o u n t r y and has become a mighty world system. Important changes have t a k e n place i n t h e p o l i t i c a l and economic l i f e of t h e Soviet Union. The b u i l d i n g of a communist s o c i e t y h a s become a d i r e c t practical t a s k of t h e p a r t y and t h e people. A l l these great changes i n t h e domestic l i f e and i n t h e i n t e r n a t i o n a l s i t u a t i o n s h o u l d be reflected and s e t down l e g a l l y in t h e S o v i e t Union's C o n s t i t u t i o n , t h e basic l a w of o u r state.
The P r a c t i c a l P a r t y Corollary of t h e Withered S t a t e

Two p r i n c i p a l c o n s t i t u t i o n a l changes, Khrushchev's report f u r t h e r i n d i c a t e d , would be r e c o g n i t i o n of (1) t h e t r a n s f e r of s t a t e f u n c t i o n s to "social o r g a n i z a t i o n s " ,

-19-

.. . . .....,. : ", ..
.

.
,'.

.
,

..

Khrushchev*e report t h u s p r e s e n t e d a clear Insight i n t o h i s long-range goal of e s t a b l i s h i n g , i t h i s parn t i o u l a r hstrnce by w n e t i t u t - i o n a l amendment, a -party. that would take t h e place of tbe efate. h c o r d l n g l y , t h e tradit i o n a l state adarin~stra~ive~gunctlons which were c e n t e r e d in t h e Council of Ministers-the c e n t r a l government apparatus wh1ch.had been t h e base of power f o r KhrushchevOs r e c e n t l y defeated r i v a l s , Malenkov and Bulganln--were given l i t t l e r e c o g n i t i o n in Khrushchev's c o n g r e s s report. He s a i d t h a t s t a t e f u n c t i o n s would be t r a n s f e r r e d t o nvoluntaFye social o r g a n l s a t i o n s v 0d u r i n g t h e prooess of t h e w i t h e r i n g away of t h e state i n t o what Khrush$,hev called and continued t o c a l l a "communist social self-aklministrat ion
1 )

Khrushghev gave as examples of t h i s "withering awayn t h e transfer of c e r t a i n undefined aspects of c u l t ural serxices away from 'qgoverment o r g a n i z a t i o n s , t( t h u s u n d e r c u t t i n g t h e M i n i s t r y of C u l t u r e , t h e transfer of h e a l t h s e r v i c e s and resort f a c i l i t i e s t o t h e trade unions and local s o v i e t s , t h u s u n d e r c u t t i n g state ministries, and t h e s t r e n g t h e n of t h e newly formed comrades* courts, and N p e o p l e o sm i l i t i a , which had s e t up a p&alle1 and r i v a l par-ty-run system for t h e state m i l i t i a and

court heirarchy.

,.

' That t h e withering t h e s i s had a direct bearing on t h e f u t u r e of state c o e r c i v e o r g a n i z a t i o n s ( t h e state m i l i t i a and t h e state s e c u r i t y bodies) w a s made even more e x p l i c i t by Khrushchev e i g h t months after t h e congress B u t t h e r a t i o n a l e for such a connection w a s made in his c o n g r e s s r e m a r k s on t h e changed role of t h e secret police. While asserting at t h e c o n g r e s s t h a t it would be " s t u p i d and crlmlnal" to do away w i t h t h e state m i l i t i a and s t a t e

-20-

. .
I
I

__-I

. ..

s e c u r i t y b o d i e s due t o " i m p e r i a l i s t i n t r i g u e s , he emp h a s i z e d t h a t t h e **spearhead" of such bodies I t i s p r i m a r i l y p o s t e d a g a i n s t agents s e n t i n by i m p e r i a l i s t states" and he. e m p h a t i c a l l y r e i t e r a t e d t h a t **atp r e s e n t w e have no people i n p r i s o n s f o r p o l it i c a l motives '*

The Old Party-Old;.State Opposition

The Khrushchevian c o r o l l a r y t h a t t h e w i t h e r i n g away of t h e s t a t e and t h e t r a n s f e r of m i n i s t e r i a l funct i o n s t o s o c i a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s would be m e t by a p a r a l l e l rise of t h e f u n c t i o n s of t h e p a r t y w a s promptly c h a l l e n g e d a t , t h e 2 1 s t Congress. The o p p o s i t i o n w a s l e d by presidium m e m b e r and s e n i o r p a r t y t h e o r i s t Suslov who, i n h i s 30 January c o n g r e s s speech, ignored KhrushchevQs appeal f o r a d d i t i o n s and amendments to t h e S t a l i n c o n s t i t u t i o n as he attempted t o undercut t h e p r i n c i p a l f o u n d a t i o n of Khrushchev's c o n s t i t u t i o n a l thesis.* Suslov argued t h a t as t h e S o v i e t Union e n t e r s t h e "higher stage1* (1) t h e t r a d i t i o n a l r o l e of t h e s t a t e app a r a t u s under t h e Council of M i n i s t e r s would n o t be reduced and (2) t h e role of t h e p a r t y would remain i n t h e

. . ......

. ..... .......:.
. ... . , .

. .

*The o n l y h i g h - l e v e l s t a t e m e n t by a p a r t y o f f i c i a l t o endorse Khrushchev's remarks on t h e need f o r changes and a d d i t i o n s t o t h e S t a l i n ((3bnstitution was made in a speech a t t r i b u t e d t o t h e n presidium member and chairman of t h e Supreme S o v i e t presidium ( t h e ceremonial "presidency") Voroshilov. The speech was i n s e r t e d in t h e o f f i c i a l s t e n o g r a p h i c record of t h e 2 1 s t Congress w i t h t h e belated e x p l a n a t i o n t h a t it w a s n o t d e l i v e r e d a t t h e c o n g r e s s due t o l * i l l n e s s ' l of t h e speaker. While t h e s p e a k e r r e p o r t e d l y e x p r e s s e d t h a t KhrushchevOs c o n s t i t u t i o n a l p l a n s were "completely c o r r e c t , " Voroshilov d i d n o t e l a b o r a t e on t h e f o r m e r ' s w i t h e r i n g t h e s i s . Voroshilov a t t h e next c o n g r e s s (1961) was l i s t e d , by Khrushchev, among t h e members of t h e "ant i - p a r t y group.
((

-21.. ...

. .......,.. . . .
.I....

ideoiLogica1 f i e l d . The s t a t e r e l a t e d f u n c t i o n s of t h e p a r t y , Suslov p o i n t e d out, were t o Itraise I d e o l o g i c a l work" and '*guidett t h e planned a c t i v i t y of t h e people. S e p a r a t i p g d o v i e t s from s o c i a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s , Susl o v p r e s e n t e d h i s f u n c t i o n a l and temporal argument t h a t " t h e i n c r e a s i n g r o l e of s o c i a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s by no means leads t o a r e d u c t i o n of t h e role of t h e s t a t e o r economic o r g a n s o r of t h e great r o l e of t h e s o v i e t s d u r h g t h e gradual t r a n s i t ion from s o c i a l i s m t o communism."* suslov followed h i s argument w i t h a s c a t h i n g remark abaut t h e a t t e m p t s of **Yugoslavfq e v i s i o n i s t s t o depreciate t h e r Importance of t h e s t a t e and s t a t e organs "and, t h u s , i d e o l o g i c a l l y t o disarm t h e working class in t h e s t r u g g l e for t h e V i c t o r y of s o c i a l i s m e t q Khrushchev l i n k e d t h e p a r t y and l o c a l s o v i e t s w i t h s o c i a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s . And in f u r t h e r contrast t o S u s l o v ' s argument, Khrushchev remarked t h a t " t h e implement a t i o n by p u b l i c o r g a n s of s e v e r 8 l f u n c t i o n s which a t t h e moment belong t o t h e s t a t e w i l l broaden and s t r e n g t h e n t h e p o l t i c a l f o u n d a t i o n s of t h e s o c i a l i s t s o c i e t y and w i l l l e a d t o t h e f u r t h e r development of s o c i a l i s t democracy. 'I And Khrushchevvs remarks on t h e Yugoslav view of t h e w i t h e r i n g away of t h e s t a t e were n o t cast i n a p r e j o r a t i v e t o n e . I n . - f a c t he went o u t of h i s way t o p o i n t out t h a t ??we do n o t q u a r r e l w i t h Yugoslav leaders about t h e formation of t h e workers c o u n c i l s o r other q u e s t i o n s of t h e i r i n t e r n a l l i f e . " (The Yugoslav workersD c o u n c i l s seemed to bear much In common w i t h Khrushchev's n o t i o n of local l e v e l v o l u n t a r y s o c i a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s .I

.. .

.<.

F i n a l l y , Suslov rounded o u t h i s case w i t h a S t a l i n Chesnokov d e f e n s e of t h e s t a t e o r g a n i z a t i o n : '*The s t a t e is p r e s e r v e d nbt o n l y under s o c i a l i s m b u t also i n c e r t a i n h i s t o r i c a l c o n d i t i o n s under communism, when t h e c a p i t a l i s t states and t h e c a p i t a l i s t camp are s t i l l p r e s e r v e d and,

*Emphasis s u p p l i e d here and elsewhere i n t h i s paper u n l e s s o t h e r w i s e noted.

-22-

consequently,when t h e danger of t h e i m p e r i a l i s t attack on o u r c o u n t r y and other s o c i a l i s t c o u n t r i e s is s t i l l n o t eliminated." (The logical c o n c l u s i o n t o S u s l o v D s cons e t f r a t i v e s t a t e d o c t r i n e was 'made by c o n s t i t u t i o n a l j u r i s t B. Mankovsky, who i n 1961 w a s i d e n t i f i e d as t h e chairman of t h e committee of c o n s t i t u t i o n a l law of t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l A s s o c i a t i o n of Democratic Lawyers Mankovsky, a c c o r d i n g t o t h e B u l g a r i a n legal j o u r n a l Pravna M i s u l of N6vember-becember 1966, claimed a t a l-nference t h a t "it is o n l y w i t h t h e v i c t o r y of t h e world communist system t h a t t h e p r o c e s s of w i t h e r i n g away of t h e s t a t e and l a w begins.") Xhrushchev rounded o u t h i s case w i t h a d i s c u s s i o n of s t a t e f u n c t i o n s , n o t o r g a n i z a t i o n s : "under communism c e r t a i n p u b l i k f u n c t i o n s w i l l remain, (The l o g i c a l conanalogous t o p r e s e n t s t a t e f u n c t i o n s . " c l u s i o n t o gfhrushehevOs state d o c t r i n e was made by t h e head of t h e USSR Law I n s t i t u t e , P. Romashkin, whose views are examined p r e s e n t l y . ) S i g n i f i c a n t l y , S u s l o v o s emphasis on t h e c o n t i n u i n g role of t h e state a p p a r a t u s found its way i n t o &he congress r e s o l u t i o n on KhrushchevOs report. The r e s o l u t i o n obscured For example it inKhrushchev s a p p o s i n g f o r m u l a t i o n c l u d e d a passage dealing, w i t h t h e need to expand t h e a c t i v i t y of t h e s o v i e t s , b u t d i d not broach t h e i s s u e as t o whether t h e s o v i e t s w e r e s t a t e o r s o c i a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s , or both. The r e s o l u t i o n ' s endorsement of t h e Khrushchevsponsored proposal for changes and a d d i t i o n s to t h e cons t i t u t i o n followed,

.,

KHRUSHCHEV AND THE JURISTS OM THE WITHERING THESIS

...,.. .., '....,.:..

Though he w a s unable to push through unimpaired i n t h e c o n g r e s s r e s o l u t i o n h i s concept of t h e r o l e of t h e p a r t y i n contemporary R u s s i a , Khtushehev and c e r t a i n j u r i s t s proceeded t o expand upon t h e i m p l i c a t i o n s of h i s c o n g r e s s f o r m u l a t i o n on t h e w i t h e r i n g away of t h e s t a t e . As a way of t r y i n g to get around S u s l o v Q so p p o s i t i o n , Khrushchev p r e s e n t e d t h e m a J o r e x p o s i t i o n of h i s t h e s i s on 24 February 1959 t h a t a l l s o v i e t s were " s o c i a l organizationseve However, t h e a t t o r n e y s f o r t h e d e f e n s e of t h e o l d p a r t y and s t a t e were prompt to d e v i s e new arguments i n d e f e n s e of t h e o l d s y s t e m . .

-23-

?.

.........

The Working P a r t y , The Strengthened S o v i e t s , and "Othertv Social Oraanizations

..

. .. . , . " .._.... .. . <:. . . .. ....

,

,..... .

'

.... . ,

.. .

. e l e c t o r a l d i s t r i c t of Moscow: "Communism is no l o n g e r a remote dream b u t o u r n e a r tomorrow,'* In t h e same speech Khrushchev expanded upon h i s c o n g r e s s p o s i t i o n by asserting t h a t *@a number of f u n c t i o n s of t h e b o d i e s of t h e s t a t e a p p a r a t u s would be t r a n s f e r r e d t o social organlzat i o n s , i n c l u d i n g t h e s o v i e t s of workers d e p u t i e s , which are among; t h e most mass-scale and a u t h o r i t a t i v e ones." Khrushchev had included-, and t h e n i n p a s s i n g , o n l y l o c a l s o v i e t s i n h i s January 1959 Congress d e f i n i t i o n of s o c i a l organizations. In February 1959 he included t h e whole s o v i e t o r g a n i z a t i o n i n h i s d e f i n i t i o n of s o c i a l organizati o n s . P o s s i b l y f o r t a c t i c a l r e a s o n s , Khrushchev went on t o v o i c e o n l y p a r t of a l i n e first made a t t h e 8 t h P a r t y Congress held 18-23 March 1919. Ee told the e l e c t o r s t h a t " t h e t a s k of t h e p a r t y o r g a n i z a t i o n s is t o a s s i s t t h e s o v i e t s i n t h e i r workL, guide t h e i r a c t i v i t y , b u t n o t to take t h e i r p l a c e or t o take o v e r t h e i r f u n c t i o n s . " S i g n i f i c a n t l y , Khrushchev steered clear of s t a t i n g t h a t t h e p a r t y : o r g a n i z a t i o n s would n o t take t h e place of s t a t e organs--the main theme of t h e 8 t h P a r t y Congress c a v e a t (which had e x p r e s s l y d e f i n e d t h e s o v i e t s a s t a t e organs) s and a c r i t i c a l part of S u s l o v D sJ a n u a r y 1959 Congress def e n s e f o r t h e " p u r i t y " of Marxism-Leninism for t h e CPSU.

Poetic utopianism combined w i t h a forecast t h a t t h e advent of communism wab c l o s e a t hand was expressed i n KhrushehevOs 24 February 1959 speech i n t h e K a l i n i n

. ., .. . .
':

.. .

.
.

,' .
..

. .
..
L

. . '

. .

.. ,
I .

..,(

....... . ... ...

Khrushchev's post-congress formula on t h e n a t u r e of t h e s o v i e t s w a s r e i t e r a t e d i n a conference of t h e Ins t i t u t e of Law of t h e S o v i e t Academy of Science h e l d on 18 May 1959 which w a s devoted to t h e i s s u e of c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r e v i s i o n . The conference renewed Khrushchev's c o n g r e s s view t h a t t h e p a r t y was t h e h i g h e s t form of s o c i a l o r g a n i z a t i o n , and r e v i v e d t h e q u e s t i o n of t h e g r a d u a l t r a n s f e r of f u n c t i o n s of t h e s t a t e a p p a r a t u s t o s o c i a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s In a d d i t i o n , t h e c o n f e r e e s i m p l i c i t l y raised t h e s e n s i t i v e q u e s t i o n of d e f i n i n g a new r o l e of t h e p a r t y i n t h e r e v i s e d
.. ' P
1

. t

. !.

. .

-24':

. ..

".

c o n s t i t u t i o n . The conference r e p o r t p r i n t e d i n S o v i e t S t a t e and Law September 1959 recognized as l l u n s a m t o r y t * t h e f a c t t h at t h e 1936 S t a l i n C o n s t i t u t i o n d i d n o t specif i c a l l y d e f i n e t h e role of t h e CPSU b u t merely stated t h a t "the l e a d i n g role of t h e Communist P a r t y is t h e main feature of a socialist state." The j u r i s t s a t t h e conf e r e n c e , however, d i d n o t go on t o propose any major changes. Following t h e May conference, t h e q u e s t i o n s of t h e role of t h e p a r t y and t h e i m p l i c a t i o n s of t h e w i t h e r i n g t h e s i s were given added a t t e n t i o n in s t a t e m e n t s by Khrushchev. With regard t o t h e non-ideological role of t h e p a r t y , Khrushchev i n h i s 29 June 1959 c e n t r a l committee plenum speech r e b u t t e d a '*comride" who, Khrushchev s a i d , had i n q u i r e d what had happened t o " p a r t y worko" Khrushchev i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e theoretical work of t h e p a r t y would be relegated t o second p r i o r i t y whale t h e p a r t y w a s engaged in t h e t a s k s of s o l v i n g t h e economic problems of t h e country. Khrushchev snapped One of t h e comrades here s e n t me a n o t e : *Comrade Khrushchev, why is it t h a t everyone here' s p e a k s about i n d u s t r y and nobody s p e a k s about p a r t y work?g D e a r comrade, i f a f a c t o r y where you a r e engaged i n p a r t y work produces a f a u l t y component w h i l e you are a t t h a t time d e l i v e r i n g a l e c t u r e on t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n of communism in o u r c o u n t r y , f i n h a l t i o n i n t h e ha117 wouldn't it be more u s e f u l i f you were engaged I n o r g a n i z i n g people for s c i e n t if i c work of a h i g h e r s t a n d a r d ? P a r t y work m e a n s everyone doing h i s job, knowing h i s p r o f e s s i o n w e l l , making good components, and assembling good machines

.5.

. ., .

.. . . . .

.........

In h i s 17 October 1961 CPSU Congress report, Khrushchev made e x p l i c i t t h e p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t ideological t a s k s were s u b o r d i n a t e t o p r o d u c t i v e tasks in " p a r t y work '*

-25-

The Withering Campaign of 1959-1960 P o p u l a r i z i n g t h e w i t h e r i n g t h e s i s , Khrushchev gave p a r t i c u l a r emphasis t o t h e t r a n s f e r of s t a t e f u n c t i o n s t o s o c i a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s throughout t h e l a t t e r half of 1959 and e a r l y 1960; For one n o t a b l e example, i n a 2 1 September 1959 i n t e r v i e w p u b l i s h e d i n Pravda on 2 5 September Khrushchev, i n d i s c u s s i n g t h e t r a n s f e r o f v e r n m e n t a l f u n c t i o n s to m a s s a s s o c i a t i o n s of workers, p o i n t e d toward (1) t h e r e d u c t i o n i n t h e p e r s o n n e l from t h e M i n i s t r y of Defense, (2) r e d u c t i o n i n t h e p o l i c e p e r s o n n e l from t h e M i n i s t r y of Public Order (MWP) and (3) r e d u c t i o n i n p e r s o n n e l from t h e M i n i s t r y of S t a t e S e c u r i t y (KGB) H e t h e n added t h a t "more and more f u n c t i o n s of m a i n t a i n i n g o r d e r and a d m i n i s t e r i n g t h e s t a t e are b e i n g t r a n s f e r r e d t o t h e hands of s o c i a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s . " Later, i n h i s major t r o o p and m i l i t a r y budget c u t speech a t t h e Supreme S o v i e t on 1 4 January 1960, Khrushchev provided more d e t a i l on t h e w i t h e r e d M i n i s t r y of Defense of t h e f u t u r e : "Looki n g i n t o t h e f u t u r e one can p r e d i c t t h a t w e can have m i l i t a r y u n i t s formed on t h e t e r r i t o r i a l p r i n c i p l e . T h e i r p e r s o n n e l w i l l be t r a i n e d i n m i l i t a r y a r t i n t h e i r spare time w h i l e employed i n p r o d u c t i o n , when t h e need a r i s e s , t h e n e c e s s a r y means of t r a n s p o r t , a i r c r a f t , and o t h e r m i l i t a r y equipment w i l l make it possible t o c o n c e n t r a t e t r o o p s a t t h e r e q u i r e d place on o u r t e r r i t o r y . "
e

.. ........,
I .

.. .
I

.
.

. ... ... .
. . ..

The J u r i s t s
. ... .. . . ... ..

Contrasting B r i e f s

In 1960 c e r t a i n J u d i c i a l p u b l i c i s t s undertook a f u l l scale e f f o r t to r e f i n e Khrushchev's new examples of

s o v i e t s . One of Khrushchev's most o b e d i e n t c o n s t i t u t i o n a l t h e o r i s t s , P. S. Romashkin t h e D i r e c t o r of t h e I n s t i t u t e of State and Law of t h e USSR Academy of S c i e n c e s , i n an article i n h i s i n s t i t u t e ' s o f f i c i a l journal Soviet State And Law (October 1960) expanded upon t h e par't;y-state views presented i n Khrushchev's January and February 1959 speeches. F i r s t , Romashkin made it clear t h a t t h e w i t h e r i n g away
t h e w i t h e r i n g away of t h e s t a t e m i n i s t r i e s and t h e p a r a l l e l r i s e i n importance and f u n c t i o n of t h e p a r t y and

-26-

I
\

. -

of t h e s t a t e meant t h e w i t h e r i n g away of t h e s t a t e bureauc r a c y . C i t i n g a textbook e n t i t l e d Fundamentals of Marxism-Leninism,* he s a i d t h a t w i t h e r i n g away of t h e s t a t e

meant
t h e gradual disappearance and d i s s o l u t i o n i n s o c i e t y of t h a t special s t r a t u m of people who are c o n s t a n t l y engaged i n w a d m i n i s t r a t i o n and who form t h e . s t a t e proper. I n other words, t h e w i t h e r i n g away of t h e s t a t e presupposes a continuous r e d u c t i o n of and l a t e r t h e complete l i q u i d a t i o n of t h e s t a t e apparat u s and t h e t r a n s f e r of its f u n c t i o n s t o s o c i e t y i t s e l f , t h a t is, t o s o c i a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s and t o t h e e n t i r e p o p u l a t i o n . (Emphasis i n - o r i g i p a l )

. . . . ..... . ... ..... .,.

Secondly, a f t e r having c i t e d Khrushchev's 2 1 September 1959 remarks on t h e w i t h e r i n g away of t h e armed forces and t h e m i l i t i a and t h e s t a t e s e c u r i t y organs, Romashkin proceeded t o c r i t i c i z e a group of j u d i c i a l p u b l i c i s t s f o r "not t a k i n g i n t o account" t h e s i g n i f i c a n c e of Khruslichev's 24 February 1959 f o r m u l a t i o n on t h e n a t u r e of t h e s o v i e t organization.** The s i g n i f i c a n c e of Klirushchev's formula,

*This textbook w a s p u b l i s h e d i n l a t e 1959 under t h e g e n e r a l e d i t o r s h i p of p r e s i d i u m m e m b e r Kuusinen. L i k e t h e January 1959 congress r e s o l u t i o n , Kuusinen's book a l s o c o n t a i n ' s S u s l o v s s 21st Congress f o r m u l a t i o n on t h e p r e s e r v a t i o n of t h e s t a t e apparatus. Romashkin did n o t point t h i s out.
**He d i d n o t mention names i n s c o r i n g these " a u t h o r s f 1 b u t he i d e n t i f i e d t h e i r work, The Foundations of t h e Theory of State and Law, and a p a r t i c u l a r page which o m i t t e d t h e " s i g n i f i c a n c e f 1 of Khrushchev's K a l i n i n remarks. One "ommission" was made i n a c h a p t e r w r i t t e n by F. K a l i n i c h e v , a department head of t h e H i g h e r P a r t y School. W h i l e K a l i n i chev r e c t i f i e d his "error" by p o i n t i n g o u t t h e alleged d u a l n a t u r e of t h e s o v i e t s (i.e., b o t h s t a t e and s o c i a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s ) i n a June 1961 S o v i e t S t a t e And Law a r t i c l e , ( f o o t n o t e continued on page-)2 8

-27-

analyzed Romashkin, w a s t h a t " t h e s o v i e t s , b e i n g t h e e l e c t e d organs of s t a t e a u t h o r i t y , a t t h e v e r y same time are organs of s o c i a l s e l f - a d m i n i s t r a t i o n . "

'

Romashkin t h e n p r e s e n t e d t h e maJor t h e s i s of h i s article. H e proposed t h a t t h e amended c o n s t i t u t i o n s h o u l d i n c l u d e p r o v i s i o n s for t h e t r a n s f e r of f u n c t i o n s of t h e c o u n c i l s of m i n i s t e r s t o t h e s o v i e t s .

.
.. : .., .. .

t h e transfer of a number of f u n c t i o n s of t h e s t a t e a p p a r a t u s t o s o c i a l organizat i o n s s i g n i f i e s a s t r e n g t h e n i n g of t h e role of t h e s o v i e t s and t h e e x e c u t i o n by t h e d e p u t i e s of t h e s o v i e t s of c e r t a i n f u n c t i o n s p r e v i o u s l y performed by t h e employees of t h e s t a t e a p p a r a t u s .

C a r r i e d t o t h e logical conclusion, Romashkin's r a d i c a l s u g g e s t i o n p o i n t e d toward t h e assumption b y t h e soviets of genuine governmental powers,

F i n a l l y , after having a g a i n urged t h a t Khrushchev's

24 February 1959 formuTation on t h e s o v i e t s be i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o t h e r e v i s e d c o n s t i t u t i o n , Romashkin broached t h e sens i t i v e i s s u e of d e f i n i n g a new r o l e for t h e p a r t y in t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n . And u n l i k e t h e r e p o r t of t h e t i m i d 18 May 1959 j u r i s t s P conference, Romashkin h i n t e d t h a t a major

(In February 1961, as p o i n t e d change ought to be proposed. o u t ahead, he bodly suggested t h a t t h e f u n c t i o n s of s t a t e a g e n c i e s s h o u l d be t r a n s f e r r e d to t h e p a r t y ) . In h i s

.... .... . .. .

. :,.:

( f o o t n o t e c o n t i n u e d from page 2 7 )
he n e v e r t h e l e s s advocated a S u s l o v - l i k e p o s i t i o n a t a Higher P a r t y School conference ( d i s c u s s e d p r e s e n t l y ) i n February 1961, A t t h a t conference, K a l i n i c h e v argued (1) t b a t t h e p a r t y w a s o n l y a " d i r e c t i n g force,'' and (2) t h a t t h e s o v i e t s p e r se (and by i m p l i c a t i o n other e x i s t ing o r g a n i z a t i o n s , s u c h as t h e p a r t y , t h e s t a t e bureauc r a c y ) w i l l c o n t i n u e under communism.

-28-

..

......

October 1960 a r t i c l e Romashkin c r y p t i c a l l y suggested t h a t t h e amended c o n s t i t u t i o n r e c o g n i z e "the growing r o l e of t h e Communist P a r t y i n t h e l i f e of the S o v i e t people and s t a t e f i h i c h 7 is even more c l e a r l y e x p r e s s e d by t h e t r a n s fer of-a nuEber of f u n c t i o n s . o f s t a t e a g e n c i e s t o p u b l i c organizations (Emphasis i n o r i g i n a l ) Romashkin went on t o suggest t h a t t h e growing r o l e of t h e p a r t y and its development i n t h e f u t u r e '?must be c l e a P l y and thoroughly d i s c u s s e d perhaps in t w o o r even three places in t h e Cons t i t u t i o n - - i n t h e g e n e r a l i n t r o d u c t o r y part, i n t h e c h a p t e r on t h e USSR social system, and i n t h e chapter on t h e b a s i c r i g h t s and o b l i g a t i o n s of c i t i z e n s . l 1
(*

Romashkin's c o n c l u s i o n s were p a r t i c u l a r l y important i n l i g h t of t h e f a c t t h a t he w a s t h e director of t h e ins t i t u t e which was reported i n 1960 to be working o u t a d r a f t of a "newf*--not m e r e l y amended--const it u t ion f o r Xhrushchev. That Romashkinvs case was polemical i s made clear i n comparison w i t h a point-by-point r e f u t a t i o n of Khrushchev's view of t h e withered m i n i s t r i e s which appeared i n an a r t i c l e by S o v i e t j u r i s t Shakhnazarov m i n t e d in P o l i t i c a l Self-Education- ( A u g u s t , 1960). The j u r i s t taut i o u s l y adopted the Bfhrushchevian c o n s t r u c t i o n 6n t h e t r a n s f e r of s t a t e f u n c t i o n s t o p u b l i c o r g a n i z a t i o n s and t h e growth of t h e r o l e of t h e p a r t y d u r i n g t h e " t r a n s i t i o n p e r i o d . " B u t he e m p h a t i c a l l y concluded t h a t t h e p a r t y ' s r o l e would remain in t h e t r a d i t i o n a l s p h e r e of "general guidance" rather t h a n a c t i v e p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h e work of t h e s t a t e a g e n c i e s . i n S o v i e t p a r t y and l a w schools

F i r s t , w i t h r e g a r d to the d e f e n s e m i n i s t r i e s , t h e j u r i s t p o i n t e d l y c i t e d t h e c o n c l u s i o n reached a t t h e 1 8 t h P a r t y Congress (10-21 March 1939) on t h e eve of World War I1 w h i c h provided added t h e o r e t i c a l j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r a

-29-

h i g h l y o r g a n i z e d state a p p a r a t u s : "under commun&tSm t h e s t a t e w i l l remain u n t i l such t i m e as danger of f o r e i g n . aggression has The o n l y e a r l y c o n g r e s s t h a t Romashkin c i t e d in h i s October article w a s t h e 0 t h P a r t y Congress in 1919, a t t h e end of World W a r I , which h e s a i d foresaw t h e t r e n d of t h e transfer of s t a t e o r g a n s t o p u b l i c o r g a n i z a t i o n s , Thus it was not s u r p r i s i n g t h a t Shakhnazarov, u n l i k e Romashkin, ignored Khrushchev's September 1959 remarks on t h e withered d e f e n s e o r g a n i z a t ion. Secondly, in d e f e n s e of t h e p o l i c e and j u d i c i a l m i n i s t r i e s Shakhnazslrov c o n s t r a s t e d t h e p r o f e s s i o n a l i s m of t h e s t a t e m i l i t i a and t h e s t a t e c o u r t s w i t h t h e amateurishness of t h e Khrushchev-sponsored comrades' d o u r t s and p e o p l e s v m i l i t i a . And he appeared t o a p p e a l f o r some e n i s t e r i a l c o n t r o l of t h e irregular t r i b u n a l s in p o i n t i n g o u t what h e called " s e r i o u s mistakes" when t h e p e o p l e ' s squads and comrades* courts acted without close c o n t a c t w i t h t h e corresponding s t a t e m i n i s t r i e s The mistakes, (Romashkin chose t o i g n o r e t h i s i s s u e . ) wrote Shakhnazarov, were "due to poor knowledge of S o v i e t

. -.
I I .

*The 1 8 t h party e o n g r e s s w a s handled q u i t e a i f f e r e n t l y by t h e j u r i s t s who supported Khrushchev's c o n s t i t u t i o n a l scheme. For example, j u r i s t F. B u r l a t s k y , whose s u p p o r t f o r Khrushhhev's views is discussed l a t e r in t h i s p a p e r , stated t h a t " i f one makes a c a r e f u l s t u d y of S t a l i n ' s pronouncements on t h e q u e s t i o n of t h e s t a t e , and e s p e c i a l l y a t t h e E i g h t e e n t h Congress of t h e CPSU, it w i l l n o t be hard t o n o t e t h a t he c l e a r l y had one d e f i n i t e p o l i t i c a l aim--to f i n d t h e o r e t i c a l s u b s t a n t i a t i o n for i n t e n s i f y i n g t h e methods of c o e r c i o n in t h e period of t h e t r a n s i t i o n t o communism, t o j u s t i f y t h e practice of mass r e p r e s s i o n s and t h e gross v i o l a t i o n of s o c i a l i s t l e g a l i t y . " (World Marxist Review, J u l y 1 9 6 3 ) ,

-30-

II

law and prove t h a t e x t e n s i v e t r a i n i n g should t h e r e f o r e

be g i v e n a l l t h o s e who p a r t i c i p a t e i n v o l u n t a r y organizat i o n s f o r t h e ' maintenance of o r d e r .

"*

: :

F i n a l l y , i n d e f e n s e of t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e m i n i s t r i e s (the s t a t e bureaucracy), t h e j u r i s t v e i l e d h i s argument by d i s c u s s i n g o n l y t h e r o l e of t h e s o v i e t s , which he was w i l l i n g eo r e g a r d as both s t a t e and s o c i a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s i n a countermove t o t r y t o g e t around Khrushchev's propos a l s . ( T h B t is, he adopted Khrushchev's terminology b u t r e t a i n e d S u s l o v t s c o n c l u s i o n s e) Shakhnazarov a s s e r t e d t h a t "only an i n s i g n i f i c a n t number of t h e more t h a n 1 , 8 0 0 , 000 d e p u t i e s * of t h e s o v i e t s are employed d i r e c t l y i n t h e offices of t h e e x e c u t i v e committees and i n other s t a t e i n s t i t u t i o n s . * * B u t he d i d n o t go on, l i k e Romashkin, t o conclude t h a t p a r t s of t h e s t a t e o r g a n i z a t i o n ought to be assumed by t h e s o v i e t s d u r i n g t h e w i t h e r i n g away of t h e s t a t e , Shakhnazarov capped h i s v i n d i c a t i o n of t h e t r a d i t i o n a l role of t h e s t a t e m i n i s t r i e s and t h e o l d r o l e of t h e p a r t y by c i t i n g t h e a r t i c l e i n t h e 1936 C o n s t i t u t i o n

.. . . .
,

, .

.. ... . : . . .

.. .. , ... . . ... ... . .

. ...,. .,.

*This complaint c o n t i n u e d t o be voiced i n o t h e r t h e o r e t i c a l j o u r n a l s . For example, an unsigned a r t i c l e i n Kommunist of November 1963 concluded t h a t it would be " r s e r l o n g 6 i s t o r i c a l period**b e f o r e S o v i e t l e g a l s c i e n c e w i t h e r e d away. Going beyond Shaknazarov, t h e a r t i c l e w i t h appare n t j u s t i f i c a t i o n maintained t h a t **thee n t i r e system of s o v i e t and economic organs w i l l require greater a t t e n t i o n t o t h e legal t r a i n i n g of.workers i n t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e and economic a p p a r a t u s . I t is no secret t h a t many s u c h workers are s t i l l somewhat a t sea in l e g a l m a t t e r s , and t h e r e s u l t is v i o l a t i o n s of t h e l a w . It w o u l d be desirable t o make u s e of t h e e x p e r i e n c e a c q u i r e d to date i n d r a f t i n g a list of p o s i t i o n s f o r which legal t r a i n i n g is n e c e s s a r y . '* **This f i g u r e is t h e rough t o t a l f o r a l l s o v i e t d e p u t i e s i n 1960 from t h e lowest l e v e l s ( c i t i e s , d i s t r i c t s , e t c . ) through t h e h i g h e r l e v e l s (union r e p u b l i c s , e t c . ) t o t h e h i g h e s t l e v e l ( t h e Supreme S o v i e t ) .

-31-

d e f i n i n g t h e p a r t y as the ':leading core**--rather t h a n an actual p r o d u c t i v e f o r c e i n t h e n a t i o n . And as i f t o m a k e h i s disagreement w i t h Khrushchev and h i s lawyers clearer, Shakhnazarov d i d n o t c a l l f o r any c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r e d e f i n i t i o n of t h e role of t h e p a r t y .
.. .

Khrushchev And Romashkin's BFief

.. ....
......

Avoiding Shakhnazarov's d e f e n s e of t h e e x i s t i n g state o r g a n i z a t i o n and a d o p t i n g much of RomashkinOs case, Khrushchev summarized h i s c o n c e p t i o n s r e g a r d i n g t h e w i t h e r i n g t h e s i s i n a 6 January 1961 speech b e f o r e a j o i n t meeting of t h e Higher P a r t y School, t h e Academy of S o c i a l S c i e n c e s and t h e I n s t i t u t e of Marxism-Leninism. Though he d i d n o t t h e n e x p r e s s h i s p r o p o s a l i n t h e s p e c i f i c terms of a l e g i s l a t i n g Supreme S o v i e t or a n **allembracing" p a r t y , Khrushchev i g n o r e d t h e f u t u r e role of t h e s t a t e a p p a r a t u s and a g a i n t u r n e d t o t h e s u b j e c t of t h e r o l e of v o l u n t a r y s o c i a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s as t h e S o v i e t Union " e n t e r s communism." While t h e 1959 CPSU c o n g r e s s r e s o l u t i o n had t a k e n a compromise p o s i t i o n , Khrushchev n e v e r t h e l e s s announced a t t h e J a n u a r y 1961 joifit meeting t h a t "our p a r t y h o l d s f h m l y t o t h e course'? of ' q t r a n s f e r r i n g f u n c t i o n s of s t a t e o r g a n s to s o c i a l . o r g a n i z a t i o n s . " Compressing Romashkin's 1960 r a t i o n a l e Khrushchev concluded t h a t " t h i s c o u r s e , far from weakening, s t r e n g t h e n s s o c i a l i s t s o c i e t y and is '1n:iline w i t h t h e f u t u r e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n of t h e s o c i a l i s t s t a t e s y s t e m i n t o communist s o c i a l s e l f - a d m i n i s t r a t i o n . " The "Convergence Thesis"
A t a l i v e l y conference h e l d on 21-22 February 1961 a t t h e Higher Papty School i n Moscow, Romashkin, endorsi n g Khrushchevas renewed p o s i t i o n , rounded o u t h i s October 1960 S o v i e t State And Law case i n a maJor e x p o s i t i o n of h i s radical views on c o n s t i t u t i o n a l changes. Romashkin's p r e s e n t a t i o n , some parts of which were r e p o r t e d i n Quest i o n s of H i s t o r y CPSU (May-June 1961) and o t h e r p a r r i n S o v i e t S t a t e And Law (June 1961), i n c l u d e d h i s e a r l i e r

....

..... .... ........

-32...... . .... ..
I

sEYwT

(-.

..

prkmises t h a t (1) w i t h e r i n g away of t h e s t a t e meant t h e t r a n s f e r of s t a t e m i n i s t e r i a l f u n c t i o n s t o social o r g a n i z a t i o n s and (2) t h a t t h e s o v i e t s , as s o c i a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s , would assume t r a d i t i o n a l s t a t e f u n c t i o n s . A t t h e February 1961 conference, t h e c o n c l u s i o n of h i s a r g u m e d was pres e n t e d : t h e t r a n s f e r r e d m i n i s t e r i a l powers were t o be assumed by t h e p a r t y o r g a n i z a t i o n . F i r s t he argued t h a t there would be a "drawing tog e t h e r of S o v i e t , p a r t y , and trade union work" which would r e s u l t i n a **newt y p e of multipurpose o r g a n i z a t i o n for a d m i n i s t e r i n g t h e a f f a i r s of s o c i e t y . " Then t h e "new m u l t i Purpose o r g a n i z a t i o n " w a s d e f i n e d : "it is e s p e c i a l l y important t o keep i n mind an o r g a n i z a t i o n such as o u r p a r t y whose very n a t u r e r e v e a l s many features of t h e f u t u r e of t h e communist system of o r g a n i z i n g society." T h e r e f o r e , a c c o r d i n g t o Romashkin's r a t i o n a l e , t h e p a r t y would become t h e l'mult ipurpose o r g a n i z a t ion*' or "all-embracing s o c i a l o r g a n i z a t i o n f f i n t h e l i f e of t h e f u t u r e Russian s o c i e t y . Romashkin concluded w i t h a look i n t o t h e d i s t a n t f u t u r e : "when t h e consciousness of t h e e n t i r e people is r a i s e d t o t h e l e v e l of communist c o n s c i o u s n e s s , t h e need for t h e e x i s t e n c e of t h e p a r t y w i l l disappear, and it w i l l g r a d u a l l y be d i s s o l v e d i n t h e people as a whole." Romashkin's t h e s i s t h a t t h e p a r t y would be t r a n s formed i n t o an tvall-embracingl*oorganization a s a l o g i c a l w e x p r e s s i o n of Khrushchev's e f f o r t s t o t u r n t h e p a r t y ' s a t t e n t i o n t o t h e p r a c t i c a l matters of a d m i n i s t r a t ion and economics.
. ._..
... ... . A., ... .. . .
..

..

. _.. .

The Higher P a r t y School c o n f e r e n c e was s i g n i f i c a n t not o n l y in t h a t it r e v e a l e d Romashkin*s f u l l t h e s i s , which Khrushchev a t t h e 22nd Congress l a t e r endorsed, b u t also i n t h a t (1) it exposed t h e s t a t e b u r e a u c r a t i c opposit i o n t o Khrushchev's a n t i - m i n i s t e r i a l e f f o r t s and (2) it disclosed t h a t a s u g g e s t i o n made a t t h e 2 1 s t P a r t y Congress

-33-

...

.....__,.-. ..
~~~

....

2n.wwzz
t o i n c r e a s e t h e numbers and powers of permanent commiss i o n s * of t h e s o v i e t s was a c o n t r o v e r s i a l c o n s t i t u t i o n a l matter.

. With few e x c e p t i o n s , t h o s e s u p p o r t i n g one or more of f o u r m e a s u r e s t o s t r e n g t h e n t h e m i n i s t r i e s o r , a t t h e lower l e v e l s , e x e c u t i v e committees were a d m i n i s t r a t i v e workers.** The f o u r m e a s u r e s t h i s group s u g g e s t e d were
. . . ,.... ..&.. .. ... . . . . ....

. . ... .. .
.....

.......

.
'

*Permanent (or s t a n d i n g ) commissions of t h e s o v i e t s are a g e n c i e s of t h e two houses of t h e Supreme S o v i e t USSR ( t h e S o v i e t of t h e Union, t h e S o v i e t of N a t i o n a l i t i e s ) and t h e lower-level s o v i e t s . The permanent commissions c o n t i n u e t o work between t h e b i a n n u a l s o v i e t s e s s i o n s . I n t h e o r y , t h e powers of t h e commissions are impressive: t h e y are charged w i t h (1) a l a b o r a t i p g and g i v i n g first c o n s i d e r a t i o n t o d r a f t s t a t u t e s t h a t are i n t r o d u c e d a t s e s s i o n s of t h e Supreme S o v i e t , (2) checking t h e work of a g e n c i e s s u b o r d i n a t e t o t h e Supreme S o v i e t , and (3) ass i s t i n g in t h e implementation of acts passed by t h e s o v i e t s . In practice, however, t h e commissions and t h e s o v i e t s have been v i r t u a l l y ignored by t h e Council of M i n i s t e r s which, i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h t h e partyOs c e n t r a l committee, carries o u t t h e b u l k of s t a t e l e g i s l a t i o n . As examined p r e s e n t l y , t h e i s s u e of g r a n t i n g greater j u r i d i c a l respons i b i l i t i e s t o t h e permanent commissions is one of t h e main c o n s t it u t i o n a l i s s u e s i n p r e s e n t Kremlin p o l it ics
e

. . . ........... .. , . . .- ......

**Those s u p p o r t i n g t h e s t a t e apparatus w e r e t h e followi n g : A. Denisov, chairman of t h e Law Commission attached t o t h e Council of M i n i s t e r s USSR; N. Smirnov, chairman of t h e e x e c u t i v e committee of t h e Leningrad S o v i e t ; P. Spiridonov chairman of t h e e x e c u t i v e committee-of t h e Ehoynikskiy Rayon i n B e l o r u s s i a ; A. N i k i f ornod, deputy chafrman of t h e e x e c u t i v e committee of t h e Moscow C i t y S o v i e t , and F. Kalinychev, d e p a r t m e n t head Higher P a r t y School. Those s u p p o r t i n g s t r o n g e r s o v i e t s i n c l u d e d t h e f o l l o w i n g : Mp. Ceorgadze, S e c r e t a r y of t h e Presidium of t h e USSR Supreme S o v i e t , N. Starovoytov, d i v i s i o n head of t h e P r e s g d i u m of t h e RSFSR Supreme S o v i e t , B. Samsonov, deputy t o t h e USSR Supreme S o v i e t , and j u r i s t s P. Romashkin ( f o o t n o t e c o n t i n u e d on page 35)

: I

-34-

t o (1) increase r e s t r i c t i o n s on s o v i e t d e p u t i e s , (2)

t r a n s f e r s o v i e t jobs t o t h e e x e c u t i v e committees, (3) i n c r e a s e t h e size of t h e e x e c u t i v e committees, and (4) e n s u r e t h e f u t u r e e x i s t e n c e of t h e m i n i s t r i e s (tlrat is, " r e t a i n i n a communist s o c i e t y " ) . The group s u p p o r t i n g one o r more of t h r e e measures t o streng$hen t h e s o v i e t s were g e n e r a l l y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e s o v i e t system. The t h r e e m e a s u r e s suggested were t o (1) assume f u n c t i o n s of m i n i s t r i e s o r e x e c u t i v e committees, (2) i n c r e a s e s o v i e t c o n t r o l over t h e m i n i s t r i e s or e x e c u t i v e committees, and (3) s t r e n g t h e n t h e s o v i e t o r g a n i z a t i o n by adding permanent commissions.

THE 22nd CONGRESS AND THE PARTY'S TRADITIONAL ROLE

Khrushchev's renewed e f f o r t s i n 1960 and 1961 t o resolve i n h i s favor t h e critical constitutional question on t h e f u t u r e d i m i n i s h i n g r o l e of t h e s t a t e bureaucracy r e c e i v e d a s e t b a c k i n 1961 w i t h t h e i n c o r p o r a t i o n of t h e t r a d i t i o n a l i s t s t p o s i t i o n i n t h e new p a r t y program a t t h e October 1961 22nd P a r t y Congress. Khrushchev countered by proposing a "new" s t a t e c o n s t i t u t i o n t o i n c o r p o r a t e t h e "new f e a t u r e s " t h a t b u i l d i n g communism supposedly necessitated.
8

.. .. . . . ...
..... ....,

( f o o t n o t e continued from page 34)

M. Akhmedov and A. Nedavny. Two s t a t e workers, Nikiforov and Spiridonov, reasoned t h a t t h e expansion of a u t h o r i t y

of permanent commissions would somehow a l l o w e x e c u t i v e committees t o c o n c e n t r a t e on s o l v i n g "fundamental problems.** USSR P r o c u r a t o r Rudenko ( t h e USSROs Chief Prosec u t o r a t t h e Nuremberg war crimes t r i a l s ) supported greater c o n t r o l s on s o v i e t d e p u t i e s w h i l e a l s o c r i t i c i z i n g c e r t a i n l e g a l v i o l a t i o n s of e x e c u t i v e committees.

-35-

c
The O l d P a r t y O r g a n i z a t i o n
1

The convergence of t h e p a r t y o r g a n i z a t i o n w i t h t h e o t h e r s o c i a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s was t h e crucial element i n Romashkinss t h e s i s . And Khrushchev, i n h i s 17 October 1961 speech a t t h e 22nd P a r t y Congress, appeared t o have accepted much of h i s l a w y e r ' s thesis i n asserting t h a t d u r i n g t h e p e r i o d of t h e change of t h e e x i s t i n g system of government i n t o a s o c i a l - s e l f government (1) t h e p a r t y o r g a n i z a t i o n $$self r e v e a l s f e a t u r e s of t h e f u t u r e s t a t e s y s t e m ("the p a r t y m u s t s e t t h e example, be a model i n developing t h e v e r y best forms of communist p u b l i c - s e l f government1'), (2) t h a t t h e p a r t y o r g a n i z a t i o n would be modified w h i l e p a r t y i n f l u e n c e would grow ("the a p p a r a t u s of t h e p a r t y a g e n c i e s w i l l s t e a d i l y s h r i n k w h i l e t h e r a n k s of t h e p a r t y a c t i v i s t s growr') and (3) t h a t p a r t y a c t i v i s t s would i n c r e a s e t h e i r p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h e operat i 6 n of t h e s o v i e t s , t h e trade unions and o t h e r s o c i a l organizations. The Romashkin l'convergencell t h e s i s , however, d i d n o t appear i n t h e p a r t y program, t h e document which purp o r t e d t o be a two decade b l u e p r i n t f o r b u i l d i n g a communist s o c i e t y " i n t h e main" i n t h e USSR. The O l d P a r t y Tasks Khrushchev on 17 October ignored and h s l o v on 2 1 October p r a i s e d t h e program's formula on t h e c r e a t i o n , of t h e m a t e r i a l - t e c h n i c a l basis of communism as t h e l'rnain economic task" of t h e p a r t y . Khrushchev viewed t h e c r e a t i o n of t he b a s i s of communism as t h e main task: " t h e party first of a l l w i l l d i r e c t t h e efforts of t h e S o v i e t people toward c r e a t i n g t h e material and t e c h n i c a l base of communism.
*(

'

..

+I . . .

..

Khrushchev e x p l i c i t l y s u b o r d i n a t e d t r a d i t i o n a l
p a r t y j o b s t o t h e t a s k s of b u i l d i n g communism. The p a r t y , he said on 17 October, "has based its p o l i c y on ti s c i e n t i f ic, M a r x i s t - L e n i n i s t f o u n d a t i o n and h a s s u b o r d i n a t e d

-36-

a l l its t h e o r e t i c a l and i d e o l o g i c a l - e d u c a t i o n a l a c t i v i t y t o t h e s o l u t i o n of s p e c i f i c t a s k s of communist c o n s t r u c t ion." The congress, however , gave t h e t r a d i t i o n a l ideoG l o g i c a l t a s k s t h e dominant emphasis. Even t h e c o n g r e s s r e s o l u t i o n (31 October) on Khrushchev's r e p o r t placed ideology o v e r p r a c t i c a l work:

,.. . . ......... ... . ..._... .. ... . . . ...

1 .

F u r t h e r improvement and i n t e n s i f i c a t i o n of i d e o l o g i c a l work c o n s t i t u t e s one of t h e P a r t y ' s chief tasks and a m o s t i m p o r t a n t p r e r e q u i s i t e f o r success i n - a l l its practical a c t i v i t y . (Emphasis in original)
The O l d S t a t e Agencies
\

I n h i s 21 October speech Suslov, v a u n t i n g t h a t und i s c l o s e d " d i f f i c u l t i e s " in working o u t t h e t h e o r e t i c a l p o r t i o n s of t h e p a r t y program had been surmounted " b r i l l i a n t l y , w f i r m l y p r e s e n t e d t h e S t a l in-Chesnokov-Mankovsky view t h a t t h e s t a t e system would be s t r e n g t h e n e d d u r i n g t h e "new s t a g e " of R u s s i a ' s development. A t about t h e same t i m e , Romashkin (read Khrushchev) reiterated h i s case on t h e l i q u i d a t i o n of t h e s t a t e a p p a r a t u s in a l a w j o u r n a l a r t i c l e e x p l i c i t l y pegged t o t h e t h e o r e t i c a l p o r t i o n s of t h e p a r t y program.
0

, ,.

Romashkin, S o v i e t State And Law, October 1961 "Withering away of t h e s t a t e means t h e follow- , i n g ; first, t h e gradual d i s a p p e a r a n c e of the need f o r state c o e r c i o n toward the members o society. f Secondly , g r a d u a l disappearance and d i s s o l u t i o n of t h e special class of p e r s o n s engaged i n government a d m h i s t r a t i o n .

Susiov, 2 1 Octobe'r CPSU Congress speech "The p r o c e s s of w i t h e r i n g away of t h e s t a t e w i l l s i g n i f y t h e gradual t r a n s f o r m a t i o n of t h e organs of s t a t e power i n t o o r g a n s of s o c i a l s e l f - a d m i n i s t r a t i o n by means of t h e f u r t h e r developrdent of s o c i a l i s t democracy, which presupposes t h e a c t i v e p a r t i c i p a t ion of a l l
I

. .

-37-

Romashkin (continued)
<

Suslov (continued) c i t i z e n s i n t h e management 'of t h e s t a t e and c o n t r o l of economic and c u l t u r a l c o n s t r u c t i o n , Improvement i n t h e work of t h e s t a t e apparatus and i n c r e a s i n g c o n t r o l by t h e people over its a c t i v i t y . "

'

'

.
.

Consequently , w i t h e r i n g away of t h e s t a t e remans unremltt i n g reduction and l a t e r t h e complete l i q u i d a t i o n of t h e s t a t e apparatus and t he t r a n s f e r of its f u n c t i o n s t o s o c i e t y i t s e l f , t h a t is, to social organizations, the whole c o l l e c t i v e .

The f i n a l d r a f t of t h e p a r t y program s e t off S u s l o v ' s above p o s i t i o n i n bold face t y p e i n t h e Russian t e x t . Khrushchevss (and Romashkin's) f o r m u l a t i o n t h a t t h e S o v i e t s were b o t h s t a t e and s o c i a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s w a s a l s o i n c l u d e d , b u t , as j u r i s t Shakhnazarov had demonstrated i n A u g u s t 1960, it w a s p o s s i b l e to adopt KhrushchevOs terminology while r e t a i n i n g Suslovos conclusions Unlike Khrushchev and t h e p a r t y program, Suslov i n h i s 22nd Congress speech f a i l e d t o mention t h e s o v i e t s . A t t h e 1959 Congress Suslov had referred f a v o r a b l y t o t h e s o v i e t s and t h e permanent commissions of t h e s o v i e t s . H i s s i l e n c e a t t h e 1961 Congress on t h e i s s u e of t h e s o v i e t s 9 role followed t h e p u b l i c exposure of Khrushchev's formula on t r a n s f e r r i n g f u n c t i o n s of t h e s t a t e a p p a r a t u s t o t h e s o v i e t s and other s o c i a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s . In s h o r t , S u s l o v ' s new t a c t i c i n d e f e n s e of t h e o l d s y s t e m w a s t o s l i g h t t h e s o v i e t s and t o uphold t h e v i a b i l i t y of t h e e x i s t i n g s t a t e m i n i s t e x i a l s y s t e m as a p a r t of h i s protracted s t r a t e g y f o r t h e preservation of the p a r t y ' s t r a d i t i o n a l p o l i t i c a l role, ' Notwithstanding S u s l o v o s e x c l u s i o n of t h e s o v i e t s i n h i s 1961 s c e n a r i o , t h e p a r t y program i n c l u d e d a passage on t h e a u t h o r i t y of t h e Supreme S o v i e t s and t h e permanent commissions of t h e s o v i e t s t o check on t h e a c t i v i t y of t h e s e v e r a l Councils of M i n i s t e r s . The prov i s i o n i n t h e p a r t y program, r e c e n t l y paraphrased by Brezhnev and Podgorny a t t h e 23rd Party Congress i n 1966 (see ahead, pp. 86-87 ),, read:

-38-

......, . ..
, ,,

. .,. . . . ..

Every deputy t o a S o v i e t must take an a c t i v e p a r t in s t a t e a f f a i r s and c a r r y on d e f i n i t e work. The role of t h e permanent committees of t h e S o v i e t s is i n c r e a s i n g . The permanent committees of t h e Supreme S o v i e t s m u s t s y s t e m a t i c a l l y s u p e r v i s e t h e a c t i v i t i e s of minist r i e s , a g e n c i e s and economic c o u n c i l s and c o n t r i b u t e a c t i v e l y t o t h e implementat i o n of d e c i s i o n s adopted by t h e respect i v e Supreme S o v i e t s . However, s y s t e m a t i c s u p e r v i s i o n of t h e a c t i v i t i e s of t h e p a r t y o r g a n i z a t i o n rather t h a n t h e government m i n i s t r i e s appeared t o be t h e c r i t i c a l i s s u e i n S u s l o v * s c o n g r e s s d e f e n s e of t h e e x i s t i n g i n s t i t u t i o n s . And h i s 1961 Congress d e f e n s e on t h i s i s s u e seemed t o be directed toward prec o n g r e s s p r o p o s a l s t o s e t up an agency empowered t o check on t h e a c t i v i t y of both t h e p a r t y and s t a t e bureaucracy-p r o p o s a l s w i t h which Khrushchev and p r e s i d i u m m e m b e r Mikoyan i d e n t i f i e d , t h e m s e l v e s a t t h e congress. The cont r o l agency, as o r i g i n a l l y proposed i n t h e p a r t y press, would have had t h e a u t h o r i t y t o i n v e s t i g a t b t h e a c t i v i t y of h i g h - l e v e l p a r t y and s t a t e o f f i c i a l s . S u s l o v o s view on t h e i s s u e , as cited i n j u x t a p o s i t i o n t o a Romashkin quote (above), was for l l i n c r e a s i n g c o n t r o l by t h e people over its /%he s t a t e a p p a r a t u s ' 7 activity"--not f o r i n c r e a s i n g llcontFollt over t h e p a r t y a p p a r a t u s . The agency ( l a t e r named t h e P a r t y - S t a t e C o n t r o l Committee) was n o t e x p l i c i t l y endorsed i n t h e c o n g r e s s r e s o l u t i o n . .

,. ....
,. . ...... .....,. ... ......

The State of t h e Whole People

Both Suslov and Khrushchev a t t h e 22nd Congress endorsed t h e f o r m u l a t h a t t h e l l d i c t a t o r s h i p of t h e proletariat"~ had f u l f i l l e d its m i s s i o n ( b u i l d i n g "socialism") and t h a t t h e d i c t a t o r s h i p of t h e p r o l e t a r i a t had been transformed i n t o t h e "state of t h e whole people'' (whose mission was t o b u i l d tfcommunism'l). B u t t h e t w o s p e a k e r s promptly drew c o n t r a s t i n g c o n c l u s i o n s from t h e above s u b s t i t u t i o n of s t a t e formulas. Suslov concluded (1) t h a t

., ..

-39... . .

.... . ...
. , .... . . ....... ..... ..

milestone")

t h e s t a t e a p p a r a t u s d u r i n g t h e p e r i o d of t h e "state of t h e whole peoplet1 would in effect be Btrengthened and t h a t (2) *'our s t a t e is called upon t o o r g a n i z e t h e creat i o n of t h e ma1 and t e c h n i c a l base of communism.** Khrushchev h e l d t h a t (1) t h e s t a k e and economic a p p a r a t u s of t h e "state of t h e whole people" would in e f f e c t be diminished through n v o l u n t a r y p a r t i c i p a t i o n in t h a t app a r a t u s " and through t h e assumption of s t a t e f u n c t i o n s by t h e p a r t y and s o v i e t s and (2) t h a t t h e p a r t y was t o o r g a n i z e t h e c r e a t i o n of t h e material and technical base of communism. In a d d i t i o n , S u s l o v D sremarks on t h e change in terminology were devoid of t h e e f f u s i v e praise t h a t Khrushchev gave to t h e s u b s t i t u t i o n of formulas ( t h e t r a n s i t i o n t o t h e s t a t e of t h e whole people is 'la fact w i t h o u t p a r a l l e l i n h i s t o r y ! " , *?am o s t important

,
' , (

I
I

The p a r t y program endorsed S u s l o v ' s c o n c l u s i o n s on t h e "state of t h e whole people."

The New Cons t it u t i o n

....

Khrushchev, who w a s a s s i g n e d by a 17 January 1961 plenum t h e t a s k of r e p o r t i n g on t h e p a r t y program a t t h e 22nd Congress, d u t i f u l l y f u l f i l l e d t h i s t a s k i n h i s 18 October report on t h e program by b r i e f l y mentioning t h e program's i n c o r p o r a t i o n of t h e s u s l o v t h e s i s on t h e cor("While b e a r i n g ' r e s p o n s i b i l i t y rect r o l e of t h e p a r t y . f o r t h e s t a t e of work on a l l sectors of communist cons t r u c t i o n , t h e p a r t y o r g a n i z a t i o n s m u s t a t t h e same t i m e n o t s u p p l a n t t h e s t a t e and p u b l i c agencies"). But i n KhrushchevOs 17 October c e n t r a l committee report t o t h e delegates of t h e 22nd CPSU Congress he ignored t h e p a r t y program's compromise i n c l u s i o n of S u s l o v ' s f o r m u l a on t h e c o r r e c t r o l e of t h e p a r t y as w e l l as S u s l o v v s view on t h e f u t u r e r o l e of t h e s t a t e - b u r e a u c r a c y . I n f a c t , Khrushchev on t h e 1 7 t h deleted any r e f e r e n c e t o t h e s t a t e ' s r o l e i n h i s concluding remarks on t h e "chief tasks'? of b u i l d i n g communism.

.-

iI
~ ~

-40-

...... .... ....-..

~

However, Khrushchev d i d sat get h i s p o s i t i o n s off i c i a l l y endorsed i n t h e p a r t y program. Accordingly, he t u r n e d h i s a t t e n t i o n t o a n o t h e r document--the %ew" USSR c o n s t i t u t i o n . And i n t h e c o n t e x t of p r e s e n t i n g h i s p a r t i cular r a t i o n a l i z a t i o n f o r t h e p a r t y e s e x i s t e n c e , i n h i s 17 October speech Khrushchev made t h e s u r p r i s e announcement t h a t a "new" c o n s t i t u t i o n which would reflect "changes in t h e l i f e of o u r country" w a s in the p r o c e s s of being
drafted: Over t h e p a s t q u a r t e r of a c e n t u r y , since ' t h e p r e s e n t C o n s t i t u t i o n of t h e USSR w a s adopted, thepce have been b i g changes i n t h e l i f e of o u r c o u n t r y . The S o v i e t Union, has e n t e r e d a new stage of its development, and s o c i a l i s t democracy h a s r i s e n

t o a h i g h e r l e v e l . The new C o n s t i t u t i o n of t h e USSR t h a t w e are beginning t o d r a f t m u s t reflect t h e new features i n t h e l i f e of S o v i e t s o c i e t y in t h e p e r i o d of t h e full-scale b u i l d i n g of communism. The opposing faction scored again: l i k e Suslov, t h e 31 October r e s o l u t i o n ignored Khrushchev's remarks on t h e '*newff c o n s t i t u t i o n .

. .

........ . .. . .. . . .. .
. ,

-41-

....

...

. ..
. .

THE "PRODUCTION PRINCIPLE" AND THE CONSTITUTION

Following h i s second c o n g r e s s setback f o r h i s own p a r t i c u l a r p a r t y p l a t f o r m , Khrushchev, i n h i s s u s t a i n e d e f f o r t s t o "modernize" t h e CPSU, t u r n e d from t h e conservat i v e p a r t y program t o t h e promulgation of a new c o n s t i t u t i o n t o s a n c t i o n t h e new forms and methods a l l e g e d l y needed t o b u i l d communism. (For a p p a r e n t t a c t i c a l r e a s o n s , h e i n i t i a l l y appeared t o s e t t l e f o r a new b a s i c l a w which would have been l i t t l e more t h a n a r e d r a f t of t h e p a r t y program.) However, Khrushchev's long-range view of t h e p a r t y reappeared i n 1962 as he undertook a c o n s i d e r a b l e e f f o r t t o move ahead on t h e f i n a l d r a f t i n g of a new cons t i t u t i o n w h i l e a t t h e same t i m e promoting t h e "economics Over p o l i t i c s " formula f o r p a r t y work. T h i s formula-t h e o r e t i c a l l y s u b s t a n t i a t e d , s o t h e Khrushchev f o r c e s argued, by a newly "deciphered" passage i n a Lenin document ("The Immediate T a s k s of t h e S o v i e t Regime") r e g a r d i n g t h e p r a c t i c a l r o l e of t h e party--became t h e . d o c t r i n a 1 underpinning f o r Khrushchev's long-standing e f f o r t s t o p l a c e t h e p a r t y o f f i c i a l l y on t h e PFproduction" p r i n c i p l e .
T h e p r o d u c t i o n p r i n c i p l e , as some S o v i e t spokesmen p o i n t e d o u t l a t e r , was intended t o be i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o t h e new c o n s t i t u t i o n . O t h e r spoResmen adopted new t a c t i c s t o s u s t a i n t h e t r a d i t i o n a l i s t s . ' o p p o s i t i o n . And f o l l o w i n g t h e October 1962 Cuban m i s s i l e crisis, Kosygin and Brezhnev exposed t h e i r d i s s i m i l a r views on t h e p r o j e c t .

N e w P r o j e c t , O l d Polemic
'

..,........ .. . . , .... . .

s t a t e f u n c t i o n s t o s o c i a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s was i n i t i a t e d i n I z v e s t i y a - - t h e government newspaper e d i t e d b y Khrushchev's son-in-law, Adzhubey--as e a r l y as December 1961. Notably, a 4 December I z v e s t i y a e d i t o r i a l r e p r i n t e d Khrushchev's 1 7 October 1961 remarks on t h e need f o r a new c o n s t i t u t i o n w h i c h had been d e l e t e d i n t h e 22nd Cozgress r e s o l u t i o n . Immediately f o l l o w i n g t h e remark on t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n , I z v e s t i y a added t h e s e n s i t i v e matter of t h e t r a n s f e r r a l of s t a t e j o b s t o s o c i a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s :

A s e n s e of urgency f o r a new c o n s t i t u t i o n combined w i t h r e i t e r a t i o n s of Khrushchev's l i n e on t h e t r a n s f e r of

1

-.

-4 2-

.. ..
.......__.
..,.I

. ..

.......... . . ..
... .

.....

T h e q u e s t i o n n a t u r a l l y a r i s e s of t h e elabor a t i o n and a d o p t i o n of a new C o n s t i t u t i o n of t h e USSR, w h i c h , - a s N.S. Khrushchev s a i d i n t h e Report of t h e CC-CPSU a t t h e XXII Congress of t h e P a r t y , s h o u l d r e f l e c t new c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s i n t h e l i f e of S o v i e t s o c i e t y d u r i n g t h e p e r i o d of t h e f u l l - s c a l e c o n s t r u c t i o n of Communism. T h e P a r t y and Government i n t h e f u t u r e a l s o w i l l conduct a c o u r s e of t r a n s f e r r i n g an i n c r e a s i n g

number of s t a t e f u n c t i o n s t o s o c i a l organizations. "Rushing Ahead'' w a s t h e t i t l e of a n o t h e r I z v e s t i y a commentary on 19 December w h i c h , a t f i r s t g l a n c e , seemed t o s u s t a i n I z v e s t i y a ' s case f-or t h e need t o adopt a new b a s i c l a w . However, t h e a r t i c l e - - a u t h o r e d by j u r i s t Shakhnazarov, t h e l a w y e r who had c a r e f u l l y r e b u t t e d i n 1960 Khrushchevss view of t h e w i t h e r i n g away of t h e s t a t e a g e n c i e s - - e x p l i c i t l y defended t h e S t a l i n C o n s t i t u t i o n and argued t h a t a new basic l a w ought t o " p e r f e c t t h e whole s t a t e o r g a n i z a t i o n . " Shakhnazarov, a f t e r s c o r i n g S t a l i n ' s abuses of t h e 1936 C o n s t i t u t i o n ( " t h e f r u i t of t h e c o l l e c t i v e c r e a t i v i t y of o u r p a r t y , " wrote t h e j u r i s t ) , argued t h a t t h e 1956 Congress " l a r g e l y restored t h e L e n i n i s t norms of p a r t y and s t a t e l i f e . " Shakhnazarov t h e n gave o n l y p a s s i n g a t t e n t i o n t o t h e i s s u e of a new c o n s t i t u t i o n and o f f e r e d t h e comment t h a t t h e s t a t e - o r i e n t e d p r o p o s i t i o n s i n t h e 1961 p a r t y program were a "remarkable t h e o r e t i c a l b a s i s f o r t h e c o u n t r y and of a new c o n s t i t u t i o n . " And u n l i k e t h e I z v e s t i y a e d i t o r i a l on 4 December, Shakhnazarov made no r e f e r e n c e t o t r a n s f e r r i n g s t a t e f u n c t i o n s t o s o c i a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s as t h e S o v i e t Union " r u s h e s ahead" toward communism and a new c o n s t i t u t i o n . Khrushchev's C o n s t i t u t i o n Commission I n t h e wake of o t h e r j u d i c i a l polemics on t h e s u b j e c t of a new basic document, Khrushchev a t a 25 A p r i l 1962 s e s s i o n of t h e Supreme S o v i e t a g a i n ventured i n t o t h e realm of c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l a w . H e announced t h a t t h e 1936 C o n s t i t u t i o n " h a s o u t l i v e d i t s e l f ," t h a t " i t does"n o t c o r r e s p o n d t o i t s p r e s e n t stage." D e c l a r i n g t h a t "now t h a t a new p a r t y program has been adopted, w e f e e l t h a t every c o n d i t i o n e x i s t s t o t a c k l e t h e d r a f t i l i g of a new S o v i e t C o n s t i t u t i o n . "
-43-

.....

.........

.... .....
. I

. . .. .

. .

...., .. . .... ..
, .

He went on to assert, however, that the new constitution llshould embody in full measure r t h e ideas 7 which have been reflected and developed in-the CPSU PFogram." He did not take the occasion to reiterate his view of the long-range role of the party; in fact, he did not even mention the party in his 25 April speech. Nor did Khrushchev indicate that the constitutional project should rush ahead with any great urgency. Rather, his somewhat uncharacteristic remarks on the new project were an expression of hope that the draft law would be completed by 1966. Comrade deputies, I think I express the satisfaction of all deputies of both chambers of the Supreme Soviet of the sixth convocation that this Supreme Soviet in its present composition n . e . , 1962-19667 will draft, discuss with alT the people,. and adopt the new constitution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Khrushchev remained discreetly silent on the fact that work on the draft of a new constitution, which he referred to in October 1961, had been progressing for at least two years. And he explicitly avoided the disclosure of any specifics of the new constitution in telling the delegates that "for the time being it would be premature to specify in detail what the new constitution should look like." B u t in a ,broad generalization he went on "to define briefly the main tasks of the future constitution," which Khrushchev said "will be to reflect the new stage in the development of the Soviet society and state; to raise socialist democracy to a still higher level; to provide even more solid guarantees for the democratic rights and freedoms of the working people, guarantees of the strict observance of socialist legality; to prepare the conditions for transition to communist sdcial self-administration.'' However, he may have been publicly hinting that radical changes in the existing system were to be incorporated into the new constitution. He said that the Soviet people in creating the new constitution were "pioneers of new forms of state and social systems." He did not call for the transformation of the existing

...., . ...

.. .. .. ., . .. .. .. . .....-...._.

. ... . ..

.. . . . . ... .

-44-

. .
.

"parliamentary" sydtem into one granting express powers to an independent bxecutive branch, though late 1964 reports (which are examined presently) held that Khrushchev's effort to pioneer new forms--particularly the effort to cbnvert the Soviet leadership structure to "something likecrthe "U.S. system"--f aced strong opposition dating from 1962. Abundant signs in March and April 1962 of other high-level opposition in arriving at more immediate policy decisions (particularly those relating to resource allocations) may, in part, explain Khrushchev's public avoidance of particularly sensitive party-state matters in his 25 April 1962 speech. The postponement of the April Supreme Soviet from the 10th to the 23rd suggested that the leadership had had difficulties in agreeing upon a single program for the soviet delegates to approve. Following the speeches on Khrushchev's report, which added virtually nothing to his cautious remarks, the Supreme Soviet passed a resolution creating a constitutional commission consisting of 97 deputies of the Supreme Soviet, most of whom were leading party officials, under Khrushchev's chairmanship. The chairmen of the nine sub-committees, which made up Khrushchev's new constitutional commission were not disclosed at this time. (One of the subcommittees, apparently at Khrushchev's request, dealt with foreign policy. , At the April session, Khrushchev complained that "the present constitution does not define the principles of the foreign policy of the Soviet Union" and that in the current period problems of peaceful coexistence of states with different social systems and of the struggle for peace have acquired "tremendous importance." Therefore, Khrushchev concluded, as j u r i s t Romashkin had done in his 1960 Soviet State and Law article, that "the new constitution should clearly formulate the basic principles of the relations of our state with other states." Domestically, constftutional incorporation of foreign policy principles may have provided further theoretical justification for Khrushchev's efforts to further his particular proposals. But the net effect of one 1962 Soviet foreign policy failure--the late

. .

... ... . . . . .... . . ......

...

..

-45-

~.

October f a i l u r e t o keep o f f e n s i v e mis6"iles deployed i n Cuba--led t o a n o t h e r check on Khrushchev's long-range view of t h e "new Party." The n e x t t i m e Khrushchev t a l k e d about t h e need f o r a new c o n s t i t u i o n (16 J u l y 1964), t h e r e p o r t of h i s remarks d i d n o t i n c l u d e any mention of a need f o r t h e i n c l u s i o n of f o r e i g n p o l i c y p r o v i s i o n s i n . t h e new l a w . ) Cuba. T h e C o n s t i t u t i o n . And Kosvnin I n t h e summer of 1962, as Khrushchev was r u s h i n g ahead w i t h h i s domestic e f f o r t s t o p l a c e t h e p a r t y on t h e "productiori'principle--rather t h a n t h e i d e o l o g i c a l b a s i s a s s i g n e d i n t h e p a r t y program--leading o f f i c i a l s of Romashk i n ' s i n s t i t u t e h i n t e d t h a t t h e new c o n s t i t u t i o n would be more t h a n a l e g a l accommodation of t h e new program. I n r e s p o n s e t o a v i s i t i n g U.S. l a w y e r ' s s u g g e s t i o n t h a t t h e program c o u l d become t h e l a w of t h e l a n d by adding a f e w c o n s t i t u t i o n a l amendments, t h e s e c r e t a r y of t h e I n s t i t u t e of Law and a n o t h e r spokesman r e p l i e d t h a t t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r e v i s i o n would n o t be a "patch-work j o b . " And t h e o f f i c i a l s a t RomashkinOs i n s t i t u t e t o l d t h e v i s i t i n g l a w y e r t h a t t h e y expected t h e new c o n s t i t u t i o n t o be ready by t h e summer of 1963. I n an October 1962 S b v i e t S t a t e and Law a r t i c l e , j u r i s t F. M. B u r l a t s k y was less d e f i n i t e w i t h r e g a r d t o t h e d a t e f o r a new l a w , b u t h e i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e c o n s t i ' t u t i o n would i n v o l v e important a l t e r a t i o n s i n t h e s t a t e a p p a r a t u s . B u r l a t s k y wrote t h a t " w i t h i n t h e next f e w
years w e a r e going t o have t o adopt a new c o n s t i t u t i o n . "
T h i s forecast followed h i s Khrushchev-like f o r m u l a t i o n t h a t under t h e s t a t e of t h e whole p e o p l e t h e s t a t e appar a t u s would be s u b j e c t t o t h e i n c r e a s i n g e n l i s t m e n t of t h e "masses" i n t o t h e management of s t a t e j o b s .

..

. ... .. .. .,. . . ..

..

..

. .

. ..

.. .

. .. .. , , .

Unlike B u r l a t s k y , Kosygin o f f e r e d a d i f f e r e n t formula f o r t h e development of t h e s t a t e of t h e whole people i n h i s 6 November 1962 Kremlin speech--the f i r s t major presidium address i n t h e wake of Khrushchev's f a i l u r e t o redress t h e
.. . ..
,

-46 -

....... .. .... ..

strategic balance by installing offensive missiles in Cuba. Kosygin, commenting on the establishment of the materialtechnical base for building communism, seemed to betray his position on the state organs by not only pointing out the role of,the state, but also by listing the state before the party: "the leading place in the activity of the state and the Communist Party fin the construction of communism7 is taken by the development of the economy." Accordingly, Kosygin made no reference to the withering away of the state, no reference to the role of the soviets, and no reference to the related constitution project. One month later, at a 5 December 1962 Moscow reception at the Finnish Embassy, he refused to suggest any time period for the projected completion of the constitution. According to AFP, when the Finnish Ambassador asked if it was possible to predict the approximate date for the new constitution to go into effect! Kosygin would only answer: $No, it is really too early." Kosygin's particular case forthe preservation of the state agencies was reflected in a 5 December 1962 Pravda editorial celebrating "Constitution Day" which pointed out in the context of recalling the establishment of Khrushchev's constitutional commission that the CPSU Program called for "improvement of the work of the state apparatus." Kosygin, the party's chief economist, failed to speak at a central committee plenum $n-s-%ate..November concerned with "The Development of the Economy of the USSR and Party Leadership of the National Economy." And Suslov, the party's chief ideologist, at the same November plenum referred only to the necessity to struggle for the purity of Marxism-Leninism. The Creation of the Production-Oriented Party at the November
1962 Plenum

.... . .. .. .. . .

. .

.. .....

KhrushchevSs proposals for change in the basis of party activity and organization in the summer of 1962 sustained the shock of the missile crisis and were adopted at

-47-

...... .. . .. . . ,...

...,.:. .:: ( . ..

t h e 19-23 November 1962 C e n t r a l Committee plenum. The d e c i s i o n s , which were a major landmark i n Khrushchev's e f f o r t s s i n c e 1957 t o develop a "new p a r t y , " involved (1) an o f f i c i a l r e c o g n i t i o n of t h e p a r t y ' s c h i e f r o l e i n p r o d u c t i v e f u n c t i o n s of t h e n a t i o n , (2) a r e o r g a n i z a t i o n o f t h e p a r t y and lower-level s o v i e t a p p a r a t u s i n t o two p a r t s , one concerned w i t h i n d u s t r i a l a f f a i r s (mainly urban based) and t h e other with a g r i c u l t u r a l matters ( r u r a l based), and (3) an e f f o r t t o s t r e n g t h e n d i r e c t s u p e r v i s i o n and c o n t r o l of t h e p a r t y over t h e s t a t e a g e n c i e s through t h e formation of a combined P a r t y - S t a t e C o n t r o l Committee (headed by KCB Chief S h e l e p i n ) . (Some a r t i c l e s on t h i s committee had p r o j e c t e d a p a r t y c o n t r o l f u n c t i o n as w e l l , b u t t h e November plenum d i d n o t e x p l i c i t l y d e f i n e t h i s c o n t r o v e r s i a l purge power f o r Khrushchev's new committee.) And K h r u s h c h e v a t t h e November plenum a g a i n made h i s p o s i t i o n c l e a r t h a t t h e matter of economic p r o d u c t i o n was t h e p a r t y ' s main t a s k : "by c o n c e n t r a t i n g a t t e n t i o n on t h e main t h i n g , namely q u e s t i o n s of production, t h e P a r t y o r g a n i z a t i o n s w i l l be a b l e more c o n c r e t e l y t o d e a l w i t h o r g a n i z a t i o n a l and i d e o l o g i c a l - e d u c a t i o n a l work w h i c h is d i r e c t l y bound up w i t h both i n d u s t r i a l and a g r i c u l t u r a l p r o d u c t i o n . I' I d e o l o g i c a l work of t h i s n a t u r e was e x p r e s s l y emphasized by t h e chairman of a body e s t a b l i s h e d a t t h e November 1962 plenum, t h e I d e o l o g i c a l Commission of t h e C e n t r a l Committee headed by s e c r e t a r i a t , member (and Khrushchev p r o t e g e ) I l i c h e v . On t h e eve of t h e November 1962 plenum, I l i c h e v i n a l e n g t h y Kommunist Mo. 1 6 ) a r t i c l e r e p e a t e d l y a t t a c k e d unnamed p a r t y t h e o r e t i c i a n s who " c l i n g t o y e s t e r d a y ' s theory." And u n l i k e Suslov a t t h e 22nd P a r t y Congress, I l i c h e v i n d i s c u s s i n g t h e p a r t y program d i d n o t a s s e r t t h a t t h e c r e a t i o n of t h e - m a t e r i a l - t e c h n i c a l bases of communism was t h e "main economic t a s k " of t h e p a r t y . Rather h e f i r s t c i t e d t h e main t h e m e of t h e " r e c e n t l y deciphered? a r t i c l e (first announced i n Pravda on 28 September 1962) s a i d t o have been d r a f t e d by Lenin: Usually w i t h t h e world ' l e a d e r s h i p ' o r , ' d i r e c t i o n ' there is a s s o c i a t e d p r i m a r i l y an a c t i v i t y w h i c h is predominately o r

"

..

. ...

-48-

even p u r e l y p o l i t i c a l . Y e t t h e v e r y b a s i s and t h e very e s s e n c e of t h e S o v i e t regime and t h e very e s s e n c e of t h e t r a n s i t i o n from a c a p i t a l i s t s o c i e t y t o a s o c i a l i s t one, c o n s i s t s i n t h e f a c t t h a t p o l i t i c a l t a s k s and problems h o l d a s u b o r d i n a t e p l a c e t o economic t a s k s .
. .... .. . ....

,.....
,

... ,

Then I l i c h e v judged t h a t Lenin p u t q u e s t i o n s of t h e d i r e c t i o n of t h e economy i n t h e c e n t e r of a l l t h e work of t h e P a r t y "and consequently a l s o i n t h e c e n t e r of i t s s c i e n t i f i c t h e o r e t i c a l a c t i v i t y . " And as i f t o make h i s t h e o r e t i c a l d i f f e r e n c e s w i t h t h e t r a d i t i o n a l i s t s even c l e a r e r , I l i c h e v went on t o a s s e r t t h a t t h e p a r t y ' s dominant r o l e i n economics "is a l l t h e more j u s t i f i e d under p r e s e n t c o n d i t i o n s . " Khrushchev's November v i c t o r y was s u b s t a n t i a l : t h e p a r t y ' s basic s t r u c t u r e w a s transformed from t h e 1961 p a r t y program's t e r r i t o r i a l - p r o d u c t i o n b a s i s t o a b a s i s t h a t w a s mainly production-oriented. And t h e newly e s t a b l i s h e d Ideological Commission was headed by an o b e d i e n t t h e o r i s t rather t h a n a p e r s i s t e n t c r i t i c . But h i s v i c t o r y w a s n o t s u s t a i n e d a s t h e post-Cuba c r i s i s r e a c t i o n began t o c o n s o l i d a t e , and as i n d i v i d u a l presidium members began t o p l a y p o l i t i c s w i t h t h e p r o d u c t i o n p r i n c i p l e and t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n .

. .

Brezhnev and Koglov On The N e w ' L a w

.'

............. . .. . .,.
..........
/_

Divergent handling of t h e p r o d u c t i o n p r i n c i p l e and new c o n s t i t u t i o n p r o j e c t w a s d i s p l a y e d i n December 1962 by t w o l e a d i n g c o n t e n d e r s f o r Khrushchev's power--"heirs apparent" Kozlov and Brezhnev. Shades of v a r i a t i o n between t h e t w o of t h e e f f i c a c y of t h e November plenum d e c i s i o n s was n o t s t a r t l i n g . (Kozlov i n h i s 3 December speech a t t h e 1 0 t h I t a l i a n Communist P a r t y Congress s a i d t h a t t h e November plenum " g e n e r a l l y o u t l i n e d P f t h e measures corresponding t o t h e p e r i o d of c o n s t r u c t i n g communism. W i t h r e g a r d t o f e a t u r e s of t h e same p e r i o d , Brezhnev i n h i s 30 December I z v e s t i y a a r t i c l e s a i d t h e November plenum
the

-49-

..... .. . . . . . . .. ..... .. ..
. .

"outlined concrete ways.") But the interesting variation between the two, and between Khrushchev's constitutional jurists, appear to have centered on the sensitive question of the constitutional incorporation of the party's November 1962 production principle. Khrushchev's j u r p s k s , in particular Romashkin and Mnatsakanyan, discussed the consti- , tution in terms of the November 1962 plenum decisions in law journal articles in 1963 (examined presently). Kozlov at the Italian Party Congress did not link the two projects. Brezhnev in his Izvestiya article juxtaposed, but did not link the party's new prime task with the USSR's new law project. For example, Kozlov told Italians that we are striving to draw all the builders of communism into the administration of the economy, of culture, and of all the affairs of our all people's state. The more perfected forms of democratic administration fostered by life will be legally reflected in the new USSR Constitution which is being worked out now. And Brezhnev revealed to Izvestiya readers that
'

.. .... .

. . . . . ........ .. . , ... ..... ..... . , . . . . .. . . .

the decisions of the November plenum have embodied the collective wisdom and experience of the party; they are permeated with a spirit of a genuinely creative Leninist approach to the solution of problems in the further development of socialist society. The enormous changes which have occurred in Soviet society, in the development of socialist statecraft, will be legally endorsed in the new USSR constitution.

However, Brezhnev's failure to link conclusively the November 1962 decisions to the new constitution appeared to be a particularly shrewd maneuver in the unsettled Kremlin politics of the immediate post-Cuba missile crisis period. That is, Brezhnev's argument (1) placed him in a somewhat different constitutional position from Kozlov (in addition,

-50... ...

,,

......

Brezhnev, u n l i k e Kozlov, c i t e d Khrushchev's A p r i l 1962 c r y p t i c remark on p i o n e e r i n g new forms of s t a t e and s o c i a l systems) w h i l e (2) s t o p p i n g s h o r t of a f u l l commitment.to t h e Khrushchev-sponsored p o s i t i o n f o r c o n s t i t u t i o n a l accommodation of t h e p r o d u c t i o n p r i n c i p l e . Brezhnev, l i k e Suslov a t t h e 22nd Congress, a l s o referred t o t h e p a r t y program's appeal t o improve t h e work of t h e s t a t e a p p a r a t u s (a r e f e r e n c e conspicuously a b s e n t i n Khrushchev's A p r i l 1962 remarks on t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n ) , and t o s t r e n g t h e n "popular c o n t r o l t t o v e r t h e a c t i v i t y of t h e s t a t e - - n o t (As p o i n t e d o u t ahead, t h e p a r t y and s t a t e - a p p a r a t u s . p o s i t i o n on g r e a t e r c o n t r o l of t h e s t a t e a p p a r a t u s w a s r e i t e r a t e d by Brezhnev d u r i n g t h e 1966 p a r t y c o n g r e s s . )

.. .... .. ........ ..... (.._ ... ..... ._ .,.. . ... . . ..,...

-51-

....~.. ... .. ....

THE INTERVENTIPN OF THE PRESIDIUM OPPOSITION

While Khrushchev was able in t h e immediate postm i s s i l e crisis period t o push through h i s p l a n s t o place t h e p a r t y on t h e p r o d u c t i o n p r i n c i p l e a t t h e November 1962 C e n t r a l Committee plenum, h i s project f o r a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l d e f i n i t i o n of t h e production-Driented p a r t y of t h e f u t u r e made l i t t l e p r o g r e s s throughout most of 1963. In f a c t , d u r i n g t h e f i v e month p e r i o d f o l l o w i n g t h e Cuban crisis, KhrushchevDs d e c e n t r a l i z a t i o n policy--dating from his 29 March 1957 *%heses" on t h e m i n i s t e r i a l apparatus-s u f f e r e d s e t b a c k s . And KhrushchevPs e f f o r t s t o impose a d d i t i o n a l c o n t r o l s on p a r t y f u n c t l o n a r i e s through t h e newly e s t a b l i s h e d P a r t y - S t a t e C o n t r o l Committee were f r u s t r a t e d ; an 18 January 1963 Party-State s t a t u t e forma l l y l i m i t e d t h e role of ShelepinOs committee t o t h e s t a t e administrative apparatus.

< '

I n t h e m i d s t of other setbacks and o t h e r h i g h - l e v e l disagreements, Khrushchev i n mid-1964 renewed h i s e f f o r t s f o r a new basic l a w . P r e s i d i u m o p p o s i t i o n t o h i s c o n s t i t u t i o n was manifested.
The C e n t r a l i z e d M i n i s t r i e s And S t a l i n ' s S t a t e T h e o r i s t

....

......... ..

In t h e m i d s t of h i g h - l e v a p o l i c y d i s p u t e s o v e r ghrushchev's h a n d l i n g of Cuba, China, resource allocat i o n s and d e S t a l i n i z a t i o n , Khrushchev's November 1962 m i n i s t e r i a l v i c t o r i e s encountered s i g n i f i c a n t s e t b a c k s . w i t h i n t h e first three months of 1963.

.<,

One setback d e a l t w i t h t h e downgrading of t h e Khrushchev-supported s t a t e committees. A 26 January 1963 e d i t i o n of Vedimosti, t h e o f f i c i a l j o u r n a l of t h e Supreme S o v i e t , carried t he unheralded January, Supreme S o v i e t decrees which announced t h e d i s e s t a b l i s h m e n t of Khrushchev's

-52-

3EauGc

...

s t a t e committees as independent agencies.* The b u l k of t h e s t a t e committees were s u b o r d i n a t e d t o t h e USSR State P l a n n i n g Committee (Gosplan), others t o t h e USSR Council of N a t i o n a l Economy (USSR Sovnarkhoz)--an o r g a n i z a t i o n a l scheme which was a s t e p toward t h e one advocated by t h e '*ant i - p a r t y group" i n 1957
F i v e days l a t e r , D. Chesnokov--Stalings postwar s t a t e theoretician--warmly endorsed t h e unheralded Vedimost i c e n t r a l i z a t i o n announcements i n an a r t i c l e i n kommunist ( s e n t t o press on 31 January 1963). I n t h e m i d d l e of t h e a r t i c l e , Chesnokov suddenly chose t o d i g r e s s from h i s main theme, t h e November 1962 plenum d e c i s i o n s ; to s t a t e t h a t t h e economic and p o l i t i c a l l i f e of t h e n a t i o n " r e q u i r e s t h e maintenance and perfect i o n of c e n t r a l ism." Chesnokov, before r e t u r n i n g t o h i s main theme, took a crack s t a l l e g e d n e g a t i v e t e n d e n c i e s in Khrushchev's d e c e n t r a l i z a t i o n scheme i n t h e c o n t e x t of p r a i s i n g t h e USSR Council of N a t i o n a l Economy and Gosplan. The measures o u t l i n e d by t h e P a r t y a l s o i n c r e a s e t h e o p e r a t i o n a l smoothness of a l l e c h e l o n s of t h e n a t i o n a l economy;

. ....

."...._ . .

automation and machine-building, p r o f e s s i o n a l - t e c h n i c a l e d u c a t i o n . The subsequent growth of t h e Gosplan b u r e a u c r a c y a l o n e r e p o r t e d l y h a s been phenomenal. According t o S o v i e t economist Liberman i n an i n t e r v i e w p r i n t e d i n Komsomolskaya Pravda on 24 A p r i l 1966, t h e number of off i c i a l p o s i t i o n t h e p l a n n i n g bureaucracy has i n c r e a s e d by a factor of 45. "In d u e course t h e number of s u c h p o s i t i o n s h a s grown from 400 to lS,OOO!l* exclaimed t h e economist.

formed a t t h e November plenum--trade, e l e c t r i c a l , l i g h t , and food i n d u s t r i e s . L a t e r i n January and February 1963 many independent s t a t e committees e s t a b l i s h e d in t h e y e a r s f o l l o w i n g t h e 1957 d e c e n t r a l i z a t i o n "reforms" were also disestablished--lumbering, f i s h i n g , f u e l i n d u s t r y , f e r r o u s , a n d non-ferrous m e t a l l u r g y , chemical i n d u s t r y ,

*This announcement included those s t a t e committees

-53-

..,..._.,..... . ..
.

t h e y p e r f e c t c e n t r a l i s m as dictated by t h e o r g a n i z e d and planned character of economy and s o c i e t y . Thus, t h e s t r e n g t h e n i n g of t h e sovnarkhozes w i l l undoubtedly f a c i l i t a t e t h e overdoming of p r o v i n c i a l i s t i c t e n d e n c i e s which are more s t r o n g l y pronounced in t h e small sovnarkhozes. The , c r e a t i o n of a'USSIi c o u n c i l of n a t i o n a l economy w i l l f a c i l i t a t e a more f l e x i b l e P o r m of c o o r d i n a t i o n of t h e c u r r e n t p l a n s of economic c q n s t r u c t i o n and of t h e operat i v e leadership of t h e f u l f i l l m e n t of t h e annual p l a n s on a nationwide scale. The t r a n s f o r m a t i o n of t h e Goskomsoviet / S t B t e Economic Council7 i n t o Gosplan, Landling l o n g range planning, w i l l perm i t a more thorough and b e t t e r grounded e l abor a t ion of long-range p l a n s f o r b o o s t i n g t h e n a t i o n a l economy and thereby w i l l f a c i l i t a t e t h e c o m p i l a t i o n by t h e Union R e p u b l i c s , t h e local governmental a g e n c i e s and t h e sovnarkhozes of t h e i r own p l a n s w i t h i n t h e framework of t h e n a t i o n a l p l a n s . (Emphasis in original) Following t h e January-February r e v e r s e s , a n o t h e r
setback f o r Khrushchevss l o n g s t a n d i n g d e c e n t r a l i z i n g e f f o r t s a r r i v e d on 13 March 1963 w i t h t h e f o r m a t i o n of t h e Supreme Economic Council of t h e USSR Council of M i n i s t e r s and t h e s u b o r d i n a t i o n 60 t h e Supreme Economic Council of Gosplan and USSR Sovnarkhoz. The Supreme Eco-

....
,\..

......
,

nomic Council was g r a n t e d clear powers e n a b l i n g it t o move i n t o any economic area t o f u l f i l l its p l a n s . And t h e Supeme Economic Council was headed by a man, armaments m i n i s t e r Ustinov, whose 13 March 1963 appointment r e c e i v e d l i t t l e praise from Khrushchev. The Return of t h e L a w y e r s

... .._...

In t h e l a t t e r p a r t of 1963--that is, w e l l a f t e r Khrushchev had h e l d on t o h i s l e a d i n g p o s i t i o n in an

.....

-54-

....

apparent s t r u g g l e w i t h Kozlov (who became ill in e a r l y 1963 and d i e d l a s t year) and Suslov i n t h e months followi n g t h e Cuban m i s s i l e crisis--Khrushchevgs c o n s t i t u t i o n project a g a i n surfaced i n a r t i c l e s by j u r i s t s e n d o r s i n g and opposing Khrushchev s i n s t i t u t i o n a l efforts. One S o v i e t j u r i s t , M.O. Mnatsakanyan in an a r t i c l e in Problems of EIiStmry CPSU'(0ctober 1963) made more exd i c i t t h e c o n c l u s i o n drawn bv Romashkin in a d i s c u s s i o n bf t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n project ahd t h e November 1962 p a r t y d e c i s i o n s in a March 1963 S o v i e t S t a t e And Law article'. Mnatsakanyan h e l d t h a t t h e concept of Khrushchev's 'prod u c t i o n p r i n c i p l e would be i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o t h e new cons t i t u t i o n which, t h e a u t h o r declared, l g w i l l be adppted in t h e v e r y n e a r f u t u r e . " Mnatsakanyan went on t o make it clear t h a t t h e new c o n s t i t u t i o n would "consolidate" t h e " r e c e n t measures1' which, he l a t e r e x p l a i n e d i n h i s a r t i c l e , were embodied i n t h e d e c i s i o n s of t h e November 1962 plenum r e g a r d i n g "the r e o r i e n t a t i o n of t h e p a r t y o r g a n s of t h e r e p u b l i c s a c c o r d i n g t o t h e p r o d u c t i o n p r i n c i p l e and the c r e a t i o n i n t h e c e n t r a l committee of t h e r e p u b l i c communist p a r t i e s a b u r e a u f o r i n d u s t r y and a bureau f o r agriculture .The next major a r t i c l e on c o n s t i t u t i o n a l themes
d i d n o t draw t h i s connection. It made t h e t r a d i t i o n a l i s t s ' classic argument of l i n k i n g t h e d e f e n s e of m i n i s t e r i a l s y s t e m w i t h t h e v i a b i l i t y of t h e S t a l i n C o n s t i t u t i o n .

..

.. ..:

c o l l e a g u e Shakhnazanov i n his 1960 P o l i t i c a l Self-Educat ion a r t i c l e , praised t h e 1936 C o n s t i t u t i o n f o r ? p l a y i n g a tremendous r o l e " in t h e l i f e of t h e n a t i o n . P i s k o t i n ignored t h e three-year-old s u b j e c t of t h e n e c e s s i t y f o r a new c o n s t i t u t i o n , and as t h e t i t l e of h i s a r t i c l e s u g gests, he enumerated t h e powers of t h e s t a t e m i n i s t r i e s : " t h e main r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r t h e management of s t a t e , economic and c u l t u r a l a f f a i r s rests i n t h e s t a t e a p p a r a t u s . " And he applauded, as had Kosygin on o c c a s i o n , t h e q u a l i t y and q u a n t i t y of t h e s t a t e t e c h n i c i a n s : ''in t h e v a r i o u s s t a t e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e organs, b o t h c e n t r a l and l o c a l , a v a s t army of s p e c i a l i s t s is a t work."

The a r t i c l e , w r i t t e n by j u r i s t M. P i s k o t i n , appeared i n Kommunist No. 17, s i g n e d t o t h e p r e s s ' o n 3 December 1963, under t h e p o i n t e d t i t l e of "development of democracy and improvement of t h e s t a t e a p p a r a t u s e l l P i s k o t i n , l i k e h i s

- 55-

C o n s t i t u t i o n a l accommodation of t h e p a r t y product i o n principle--which would p r o v i d e t h e basic s t a t u t o r y a u t h o r i z a t i d n far Khrushchev's s o l u t i o n f o r t h e r o l e of t h e p a r t y i n t h e nationOs contemporary life--was n o t mentioned in Fravda's cautious 1963 * * C o n s t i t u t i o n a l DayV1 e d i t o r i a l , b u m t r a d i t i o n a l 5 December e d i t o r i a l d i d not go on, as it had in December 1962, t o recall t h e p a r t y program's e x p l i c i t p o s i t i o n on t h e expanding r o l e of t h e state apparatus. The Return of t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n Commission
Like t h e 5 December Pravda e d i t o r i a l , Khrushchev d i d not r e c a l l t h e p r o g r a m ' m t i o n on t h e c r i t i c a l matter of t h e r o l e of t h e s t a t e a t what w a s called t h e

n e x t "regular'* meeting of t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n commission on 1 6 J u l y 19618. (This w a s t h e first meeting on r e c o r d of t h e commission s i n c e its f o u n d a t i o n i n A p r i l 1962.) And u n l i k e h i s r e p o r t before t h e A p r i l 1962 Supreme S o v i e t s e s s i o n , Khrushchev a t t h e 16 J u l y 1964 meeting s p e c i f i c a l l y brought u p t h e matter t h a t t h e new c o n s t i t u t i o n I f m u s t f u l l y reflect" n o t o n l y t h e p a r t y program b u t a l s o t h e r o l e of t h e p a r t y and s o c i a l a r g a n i z i i t i o n s i n t h e b u i l d i n g of communism. According t o t h e o n l y a v a i l able v e r s i o n of h i s r e m a r k s , he ignored t h e f u t u r e r o l e of t h e s t a t e . He t o l d t h e commission members t h a t " t h e new c o n s t i t u t i o n m u s t f u l l y r e f l e c t t h e . ideas of MarxismLeninism, t h e CpSU Program of a communist s o c i e t y , of t h e r o l e of t h e p e o p l e s s masses, t h e communist p a r t y , add s o c i a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s i n t h e b u i l d i n g of communism." S i g n s of R e s i s t a n c e t o Khrushchev's C o n s t i t u t i o n
While Khrushchev may have renewed h i s former posit i o n on t h e p a r t y , a t least f i v e i n d i c a t i o n s t h a t a l l had n o t gone w e l l a t t h e m i d - J u l y meeting may be t a l l i e d .

...... ..
I,.I..

- 56I

sEeBG;lr

. . ... .

One: Khrushchev's speech was released i n a summarized form only--a s i g n which i n h i s case g e n e r a l l y ind i c a t e d t h a t c o n t r o v e r s i a l i s s u e s w e r e n o t r e s o l v e d . Ano t h e r 1964 example of t h i s was h i s final--and abridged-major speech a t a l a t e September party-government meeting whiah, a c c o r d i n g t o post-coup r e p o r t s , c o n t a i n e d r a d i c a l s u g g e s t i o n s (e.g. a s u g g e s t i o n t o .adopt a pro-consumer p o l i c y s i m i l a r t o t h e one advocated by Malenkov i n t h e e a r l y p o s t - S t a l i n p e r i o d ) t h a t were not a c c e p t a b l e t o t h e l e a d i n g group.
Two: The o n l y a v a i l a b l e t e x t of KhrushchevDs a b r i d g e d r e p o r t (a 16 J u l y Moscow r a d i o domestic broadcast and a v i r t u a l l y l i d e n t i c a l 17 J u l y Pravda r e p o r t ) appeared t o q u a l i f y h i s comments by n o t i n g a t he made o n l y "preliminary o b s e r v a t i o n s t t on t h e p r i n c i p l e s f o r t h e new c o n s t ittit ion. T h i s q u a l i f i c a t i o n appeared t o be p a r t i c u l a r l y c u r i o u s in l i g h t of t h e f a c t t h a t work on t h e p r o j e c t had been p r o g r e s s i n g f o r o v e r f o u r y e a r s (it t o o k S t a l i n less t h a n two y e a r s to e n a c t h i s basic law) and i n l i g h t of t h e f a c t t h a t t w o y e a r s earlier ( 2 5 A p r i l 1962) Khrushchev had "defined t h e main t a s k s of t h e cons t i t u t i o n " before t h e same commission.
(A c u r i o u s m o d i f i c a t i o n w i t h regard t o t h e c o n s t l t u t i o n a l i s s u e of t h e m i l i t a r y a u t h o r i t y of Khrushchev w a s exposed i n t h e Moscow p r e s s three months before t h e commission m e t Khrushchev O s l o f t y m i l it a r y t i t l e "Supreme High Commander, Io pub1 i c l y i n t r o d u c e d by Defense M i n i s t e r Malinovsky a t t h e 1961 P a r t y Congress and r e i t e r a t e d i n h i s m i d - A p r i l 1964 Red S t a r a r t i c l e pegged t o Khrushchev's 17 A p r i l 1964 r e p r i n t b i r t h d a y , was d e l e t X i - a v d a P s of Malinovskyss a r t i c l e . m a referred t o Khrushchev as ttcomradelt rather t h a n m * -e High Commander . ' I )

. .. ..
.. .. ...

Three: E i g h t days a f t e r t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l comm i s s i o n m e t , prominence was g i v e n in Pravda t o a meeting of t h e r a r e l y p u b l i c i z e d *oPresidiumllof-the Council of M i n i s t e r s . The P r e s i d i u m of t h e Council of M i n i s t e r s , f o r m a l l y e s t a b l i s h e d t w o days a f t e r S t a l i h ' s d e a t h was announced, had been g i v e n v i r t u a l l y no p u b l i c i t y f o l l o w i n g t h e purge of i t s o r i g i n a l m e m b e r s (Malenkov as chairman, Bulganin, Molotov, Beria and Kaganovich a s f i r s t deputy

-57-

chairmen) under ghrushchev's a e g i s . In a d d i t i o n t o t h e p o l i t i c a l significance associated with the ministerial presidium, Pravda's 25 July 1964 r e p o r t o r i a l a c t i o n was In t a c i t c o m w i t h Khrushchev's deemphasis on t h e policy-making r o l e of t h e s t a t e a p p a r a t u s as a separate entity. ( I t may be s i g n i f i c a n t t o r e g a r d t o t h e e l e v a t d o n of t h e p u b l i c s t a t u s of t h e Council of M i n i s t e r s t h a t on t h e day before t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l commission m e t , Mikoyan, t h e p r e s i d i u m m e m b e r who had g i v e n Khrushchev no n o t i c a b l e o p p o s i t i o n on t h e f o r m e r ' s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l e f f o r t s , w a s s h i f t e d from t h e Council of M i n i s t e r s t o the Supreme S o v i e t chairmanship--vacated on 15 J u l y by Breehnev who r e t u r n e d t o f u l l - t i m e p a r t y work.)
t h e f a c t t h a t r e p o r t s of t h e subcommittee heads w e r e n o t

Four: . Lack of agreement may a l s o s e r v e t o e x p l a i n

r e l e a s e d , even i n summary form. Almost a l l subcommittees s u b m i t t e d r e p o r t s , Pravda noted, and f o r t h e first t i m e , t h e names of seven subcommittee heads were d i s c l o s e d : Subcommission General Pol it i c a l and T h e o r e t i c a l Quest ions Questions of P u b l i c and State Structure S t a t e Adnuinistrat ion, A c t i v i t i e s of t h e S o v i e t s and P u b l i c Organizations Economic Questions and Administ r a t i o n of t h e N a t i o n a l Economy N a t i o n a l it ies P o l i c y and N a t i o n a l State S t z u c t u r e S c i e n c e and C u l t u r e , Education, and P u b l i c Health F o r e i g n P o l i c y and I n t e r n a t i o n a l R e 1a t i o n s People s C o n t r o l and S o c i a l i s t Law and Order E d i t o r i a l Sub-commission Chairman (not r e v e a l e d ) Voronov
Brez hnev

Kosygin Mikoyan Yelyut i n ( M i n i s t e r of Education) Ponomarev Shvern i k (not r e v e a l e d )

.._.. .

-58-

cj'

. _
, ,.

...
,. ,

....... .

, .

Suslov, as t h e s e n i o r t h e o r e t i c i a n of t h e p a r t y and as a member of t h e o r i g i n a l 97-man c o n s t i t u t i o n a l commission, wquld have been t h e l o g i c a l c h o i c e for t h e subcommittee chairmanship of t h e important subcommission of General P o l f t i c a l and T h e o r e t i c a l Q u e s t i o n s . In l i g h t of t h e paramount importance of t h a t subcommission, it may be noteworthy t h a t t h e s e s s i o n was called a t a t i m e when Sqslov w a s o u t of t h e c o u n t r y . (He w a s i n P a r i s as t h e head of t h e S o v i e t d e l e g a t i o n t o t h e f u n e r a l of French p a r t y leader Thorez.) T h u s it w a s Khrushchev who pres e n t e d t h e p r i n c i p l e s of t h e d r a f t c o n s t i t u t i o n and t h e expected p r e s e n t a t i o n of t h e subcommission on "General P o l f t i c a l and Theoretical Questions" w a s not mentioned i n t h e r e p o r t of t h e meeting.

........ . .
.....

Two weeks after Khrushchevfs t h e o r e t i c a l p r e s e n t a t i o n , a S u s l o v - s t y l e r e f u t a t i o n of t h e bases of Khrushchev's c o n s t i t u t i o n a l t h e o r y s u r f a c e d i n t h e p a r t y * s major t h e o r e t i c a l journal,, The r e f u t a t i o n appeared i n a speech which secretariat m e m b e r Ponomarev r e p o r t e d l y made a t a June 1964 s e s s i o n of t h e Academy of S o c i a l S c i e n c e s b u t belate d l y p u b l i s h e d i n an i s s u e of Kommunist s e n t t o t h e press on 31 J u l y 1964. The speech, p u b l i s h e d by Kommunist w i t h " c e r t a i n a d d i t i o n s " which w e r e n o t d i s c l o s e d (and which r a i s e d t h e q u e s t i o n as t o whether t h e a d d i t i o n s o r i g i n a t e d a t t h e 1 6 J u l y s e s s i o n of t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l commission), s c o r e d t h e Chinese Communist r e j e c t i o n of t h e 1961 CPSU program and attempted t o r e f u t e t h e basic r e a s o n s for t h a t r e j e c t i o n . Ponomarev's r e f u t a t i o n , however, carried i m p l i c i t c r i t i c i s m of Khrushchev's view on t h e w i t h e r i n g away of t h e s t a t e . For example, Ponomarev openly agreed w i t h what he called t h e s t a t e m e n t by t h e "enemies of t h e CPSU Program'' who s a y t h a t d u e t o t h e Imperialist threat t h e s o c i a l i s t countries must strengthen the state. (This was somewhat r e m i n i s c e n t of S u s l o v ' s 30 January 1959 a s s e r t i o n t h a t due t o t h e t h r e a t of i m p e r i a l i s t a t t a c k , " t h e s t a t e is preserved--under communism.") Ponomarev g r a t u i t o u s l y added t h a t t h e t h r e a t of i m p e r i a l i s m n e c e s s i t a t e s "heavy e x p e n d i t u r e s f i n t h e p a r t of s o c i a l i s t c o u n t r i e s 7 t o s t r e n g t h e n t h e i r d e f e n s e capabilities." H e made 50 r e f e r e n c e t o KhrushchevQs December 1963 and January 1964 a p p e a l s f o r reduced d e f e n s e expend i t u r e s . Ponomarev concluded w i t h t h e non-committal

- 59-

s t a t e m e n t t h a t t h e t h r e a t of i m p e r i a l i s m "must n o t be allowed t o be an i n v i n c i b l e obstacle t o t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n of communism.ft L a t e r i n h i s a r t i c l e he made t h e weak I argument t h a t *'crit C s g t who regard t h e * ' c o n s t r u c t i o n of communism imposs ible as l o n g as i m p e r i a l i s m c o n t i n u e t o e x i s t " lack f a i t h i n t h e S o v i e t people.
. .
,

..

. .. . .

F u n c t i o n a l d i f f e r e n c e s w i t h regard t o Khrushchev's view of t h e c o r r e c t r o l e of t h e p a r t y were t h e n drawn by Ponomarev. Ponomarev chose t o c i t e t h e 1961 p a r t y pro- . gram's p o s i t i o n t h a t t h e c o n s t r u c t i n n of t h e materialt e c h n i c a l f o u n d a t i o n s f o r communism is regarded as t h e main "economictt t a s k of t h e p a r t y . He made no r e f e r e n c e t o Khrushchev*s long s t a n d i n g view t h a t t h e t a s k of b u i l d - 1 i n g t h e f o u n d a t i o n s of communism w a s t h e p a r t y a s "eBie'f'f
task.

D i f f e r e n c e s w i t h regard t o t h e amount of t i m e it would take t o c o n s t r u c t a communist s o c i e t y were a l s o drawn by Ponomarev. Ponomarev chose t o r e p o r t t h a t communism would not be realized by 1981 ( t h e two decade reference dn t h e 1961 p a r t y program). He s a i d t h a t a t t h e end of t h e twenty y e a r p e r i o d Itour s o c i e t y w i l l be v e r y c l o s e t h e implementation of t h e p r i n c i p l e " of communism. Khrushchev i n h i s 17 Octobep 1961 c o n g r e s s report went t o some l e n g t h t o e x p l a i n why it would take as much as two decaded " t o b u i l d a communist s o c i e t y i n its basic o u t l i n e s . ft
I

........ .. ., .~....,

F i n a l l y , Ponomarev reiterated S u s l o v ' s p o s i t i o n on t h e " s t a t e of t h e whole people." Employing S u s l o v ' s 22nd P a r t y Congress d6f in-iffon bf W i e . ' s t a t e - i o r m u l a Ponomarev i n Kommunist p o i n t e d o u t what he s a i d was t h e Pobvdous f aCtThAt::the power of t h e . . . s t a t e has i n c r e a s e d g r e a t l y w i t h t h e growth of t h e d i c t a t o r s h i p of t h e p r o l e t a r i a t i n t o a s t a t e of t h e whole people.'* Khrushchev a t t h e 22nd P a r t y Congress had f o r e c a s t t h a t t h e s t a t e would w i t h e r away under t h e . s t a t e of t h e whole p e o p l e . ' A t , t h e July 1964 meeting he ignored t h e f u t u r e r o l e of t h e s t a t e a p p a r a t u s i n u r g i n g t h a t t h e new b a s i c l a w *'must be t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n of t h e s o c i a l i s t s t a t e of t h e whole people whose aim is t h e b u i l d i n g of a communist s o c i e t y . " )
'

-60-

2RimlMz

F i v e : The issue of t h e new c o n s t i t u t i o n w a s v i r t u a l l y ignored in open S o v i e t media a f t e r t h e J u l y meeting,

......

fter the July m a t Khrushchev's c o n s t i t u t i s the e x i s t i n g Soviet m i n i s t e r i a l system. reported before Khrushchev's ouster t h a t t h e new would p r o v i d e f o r a and Khrushchev would pr'esident based on become p r e s i d e n t . r e p o r t e d a f t e r Khrus h c h e v ' s ouster t h a t zne aases he Khrushchev-Kozlov d i f f e r e n c e s on t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i s s u e involved Khrus h c h e v ' s desire t o c o n v e r t t h e S o v i e t l e a d e r s h i p s t r u c t u r e t o "something l i k e " t h e American p r e s i d e n t i a l s y s t e m , wflth e x p r e s s e x e c u t i v e a u t h o r i t y f o r t h e leader, and t h e separat i o n of t h i s from t h e l f l e g i s l a t i v e t l branch. The r e p o r t added t h a t Khrushchev's o p p o s i t i o n wanted t h e f u l l development of one-party "Soviet parliamentarism'*--that is t h e p r e s e r v a t i o n of t h e st a t u s quo.

r e p o r t e d l y mentioned KhrushchevKozlov t h e unprecedented 1961 p a r t y s t a t u t e c a l l i n g f o r t h e s y s t e m a t i c t u r n o v e r of h i g h - l e v e l

LzzzJ

..... . .... . ....

..,.,.'... . ..

*The remainder of h is d i s c u s s i o n on t h e new c o n s t i t u t i o n was somewhat c o n f u s e d , / I kith r e g a r a to t n e conversion of t ne e x i s t i n g s o v i e t barliamentary system i n t o one based on t h e U.S. p a t t e r n : t h e r e p o r t h e l d t h a t Kosygin w o u l d "undoubtedlyt1 be given t h e p o s d t i o n of Chairman of t h e Council of M i n i s t e r s and t h a t Khrushchev would "probably** g i v e Podgorny t h e posit i o n of p a r t y F i r s t S e c r e t a r y i n o r d e r t o m a i n t a i n cont r o l o v e r t h e p a r t y . In t h e U.S. system, '(1) t h e p r e s i d e n t is head of b o t h p a r t y and s t a t e and (2) - t h e r e ' is no m i n i s t e r i a l body.

'

-61-

party o f f i c i a l s i n elections.*

According t o t h i s p a r t

. '. . .

garded t h e t u r n o v e r s t a t u t e as an a t t a c k upon h i m s e l f , and countered b y s e c u r i n g an amendment e x c l u d i n g " t h e h i g h e s t p a r t y leaders" from t h e p r o v i s i o n . In f a c t , t h e amendment d i d n o t exclude t h e h i g h e s t p a r t y leaders. Rather, it appeared t o have been aimed more a t removing any such o f f i c e - h o l d i n g i n s u r a n c e by p r o v i d i n g a l e g a l

_. *The s t a t u t e maintained t h a t "at a l l r e g u l a r e l e c t i o n s of t h e C e n t r a l Committee of t h e CPSU and its P r e s i d i u m n o t l e s s t h a n one-fourth of t h e membership s h a l l be newly e l e c t e d . P r e s i d i u m members s h a l l as a r u l e be elected f o r n o t more t h a n three s u c c e s s i v e terms." The l e n g t h of t h e was n o t s e t down i n t h e s t a t u t e , though " r e g u l a r e l e c t i o n " of presgdium members is a p r o forma f u n c t i o n of p a r t y c o n g r e s s e s which are normally h e l d e v e r y four y e a r s . E l e c t i o n o r d i s m i s s a l of p r e s i d i u m o f f i c i a l s w a s n o t l i m i t e d t o c o n g r e s s e s as a n o t h e r passage of t h e 1961 s t a t u t e s made clear: "a meeting, conference o r Congress may, i n c o n s i d e r a t i o n of t h e p o l i t i c a l and work q u a l i t i e s of an i n d i v i d u a l , elect h i m t o an e x e c u t i v e body for a l o n g e r period." Thus, on t h e b a s i s of p r e s i d i u m t e n u r e , s i x o u t of e l e v e n pEesidium m e m b e r s named a t t h e 1961 Congress a u t o m a t i c a l l y came under t h e s t a t u t e ' s vaguely worded p r o v i s i o n f o r t h e t h r e e c o n s e c u t i v e t e r m limitation-Khrushchev, Mikoyan, Shvernik, Suslov, Kozlov, and Brezhnev. The t u r n o v e r p r o p o s a l f o r p a r t y o f f i c i a l s , a s w e l l as t h e need f o r a new c o n s t i t u t i o n were n o t ment i m e d i n t h e congress s p e e c h e s of Mikoyan, Shvernik, Suslov or Brezhnev. Brezhnev, who proposed t h e a b o l i t i o n of t h e t u r n o v e r s t a t u t e i n 1966, r e p o r t e d on t h e p r o p o s a l ' s a p p l i c a b i l i t y to t h e s t a t e o f f i c i a l s . H e s a i d i n h i s 19 October 1961 speech: "So t h a t even new hundreds, thousands, and m i l l i o n s of people s h o u l d p a s s through t h e s c h o o l of state administration i n t h e Soviets, t h e p a r t y poses t h e t a s k of renewing t h e composition of organs of s t a t e a u t h o r i t y a t e v e r y e l e c t i o n by no less t h a n one-third."
1

. *.

-62-

. .. .,.
.,

. . . , . . . . -. ..... . _ ..... ,, .

.. ,.. . . . . . . ., ....:,..,.....

framework t o f o r c e o u t r e c a l c i t r a n t high l e v e l leaders i n a nlegal, w c o n t fnuous , non-controvers i a l purge. I t may a l s o have been designed by Khrushchev i n an e f f o r t t o p r o v i d e himself w i t h t h e l e g a l machinery t o p r e v e n t high p a r t y l e a d e r s from g a i n i n g enough power, or a bureauc r a t i c basis f o r a c h i e v i n g power t o c h a l l e n g e h i s own. A t any r a t e , Khrushchev's p u b l i c s u p p o r t f o r t h e t u r n o v e r r u l e w a s suggested by (1) h i s p a r t i c u l a r i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of t h e t u r n o v e r r u l e and (2) h i s s u p p o r t f o r a key''"amendmerit" made in t h e final d r a f t of t h e s t a t u t e s d e a l i n g w i t h t h e q u a l i f i e d e l e c t o r a t e . With r e g a r d t o i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , Khrushchev i n h i s 18 October 1961 Congress r e p o r t . i n a t r a n s p a r e n t e f f o r t t o exempt himself from t h e e l e c t o r a l proposal p o i n t e d l y commented t h a t " i n r e j e c t i n g t h e c u l t of t h e i n d i v i d u a l we do n o t i n t h e least e l i m i n a t e t h e q u e s t i o n of developing l e a d i n g p a r t y f i g u r e s and s t r e n g t h e n i n g t h e i r authority.11 The m a t t e r of s t r e n g t h e n i n g a u t h o r i t y w a s not i n c l u d e d i n t h e remarks of Kozlov, who had been given t h e t a s k a t t@e January 1961 plenum of r e p o r t i n g on t h e s t a t u t e s a t t h e c o n g r e s s . I n h i s 28 October s t a t u t e r e p o r t , Kozlov merely noted t h a t t h e s t a t u t e "does not deny t h e importance of t h e r o l e played by e x p e r i e n c e d p a r t y workers who e n j o y h i g h p r e s t i g e , " went on t o s t a t e t h a t *lwithout a more or less s t a b l e group of leaders it is not p o s s i b l e : , t o e n s u r e c o n t i n u i t y of l e a d e r s h i p , t h e t r a n s m i s s i o n of accumulated e x p e r i e n c e , " and t h e n paraphrased t h e s t a t u t e ' s p r o v i s i o n on t h e ap"partip l i c a t i o n of t h e l a w t o " l e a d i n g p a r t y m e m b e r s " ; cular P a r t y o f f i c i a l s may, by v i r t u e .of t h e i r recognized a u t h o r i t y and t h e high o r d e r of t h e i r p o l i t i c a l and o r g a n i z a t i o n a l a b i l i t i e s , be elected t o e x e c u t i v e b o d i e s f o r With regard t o t h e key "amendment," a l o n g e r period." a s u b s t a n t i v e change in t h e wording i n t h e f i n a l d r a f t of t h e s t a t u t e s merits c o n s i d e r a t i o n : t h e f i n a l d r a f t alloted t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of d e t e r m i n i n g q u a l i f i e d p a r t y leaders, t o a "meeting, c o n f e r e n c e or Congress." The o r i g i n a l d r a f t of t h e s t a t u t e s , p u b l i s h e d on 5 A u g u s t 1961, had maintained t h a t t h e " c o n s i d e r a t i o n of t h e p o l i t i c a l and work q u a l i t i e s of an i n d i v i d u a l " would be t h e d e c i s i o n of a " p a r t y o r g a n i z a t i o n . " That Khrushchev was i d e n t i f i e d w i t h t h e change from * * p a r t yo r g a n i z a t i o n " t o ltmeeting, c o n f e r e n c e , or Congress,'* was h i n t e d i n a second remark, a l s o ignored by Kozlov, made i n h i s 18 October

-63-

zn!mwz
I

. ....

i.-.\..

.
'

... .
I..

. .

...

1961 speech. After commenting on t h e p e r m i s s i b i l i t y of s t r e n g t h e n i n g t h e a u t h o r i t y of q u a l i f i e d p a r t y o f f i c i a l s , Khrushchev stated t h a t '?what is n e c e s s a r y is t h a t leadi n g P a r t y f i g u r e s be promoted from t h e P a r t y masses by v i r t u e of t h e i r t a l e n t , t h e i r p o l i t i c a l q u a l i t i e s and t h e i r q u a l i f i c a t i o n s and t h a t t h e y be c l o s e l y t i e d w i t h t h e Communists and t h e peop&e,** I t is p o s s i b l e t h a t Khrushchev had h i s June 1957 presidium a n t i - p a r t y group e x p e r i e n c e in mind--it w a s one s u b j e c t of h i s 1961 speech-and wanted t o i n s u r e l e g a l l y t h a t there w o u l d be no r e p e t i t i o n of s u c h a c l o s e c a l l t o h i s power p o s i t i o n . * In s h o r t , Khrushchev's p r e s e n t a t i o n on t h e l v s u c c e s s i o n s t a t u t e " suggested t h a t he had more s t r e n g t h i n a wider p a r t y forum t h a n i n t h e s m a l l presidium. In t h i s l i g h t , it may n o t be s u r p r i s i n g t h a t Khrushchev e n t h u s i a s t i c a l l y endorsed t h e p r o v i s i o n which w a s i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o t h e new p a r t y s t a t u t e s t h a t a d e c i s i o n by a p a r t y organizat i o n , s u c h as t h e p r e s i d i u m , r e l a t i n g t o t h e s u c c e s s i o n , i s s u e would e x p l i c i t l y be subject t o review of t h e larger p a r t y masses i n a "meeting, c o n f e r e n c e , or Congress." I n a d d i t i o n , t h e p a r t y program gave rather s u b s t a n t i a l a t t e n t i o n t o t h e e l e c t o r a l r o l e of t h e p a r t y masses which appeared t o f i t i n w i t h KhrushchevOs e x p r e s s e d i n t e r e s t i n a w i d e r e l e c t o r a l base t o s t r e n g t h e n h i s own a u t h o r i t y v i s - a - v i s h i s presidium a s s o c i a t e s ) F i n a l l y , one l a t e October 1964 Moscow d a t e l i n e d Western news i t e m , c i t i n g "reliable i n f o r m a t i o n , It r e p o r t e d t h e s t o r y , which a l s o appears p l a u s i b l e , t h a t t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n commission s e t u p i n 1962 t o produce a new S o v i e t c o n s t i t u t i o n had been deadlocked over t h e i s s u e of i n t r o ducing "something a k i n t o t h e American p r e s i d e n t i a l s y s t e m . It

' i

. . ..

... . ... ...

*The !!anti-party group1' i n t h e p r e s i d i u m i n 1957 had voted t o o u s t h i m , and o n l y l a t e r i n t h e p r e s i d i u m sess i o n d i d t h e y agree t o Khrushcheves request t o b r i n g t h e matter b e f o r e a h u r r i e d l y called s e s s i o n of t h e p a r t y ' s c e n t r a l committee.

-64-

NEW LEADERS AND OLD PROBLEMS

. .

Within a y e a r after Khrushchev's overthrow, h i s s u c c e s s o r s a b o l i s h e d t h e f a l l e n leader's major i n s t i t u t i o n a l changes. F i r s t h i s 1962 r e s t r u c t u r i n g of t h e p a r t y and l a t e r h i s 1957 d e c e n t r a l i z a t i o n of i n d u s t r i a l management w e r e revoked. The regime r e t u r n e d t o t h e s t a t u s q u o a n t e i n s t i t u t i o n a l l y . The p a r t y withdrew t o i t s r e -political-ideological leadership, t h e state apparatus r e g a i n e d its p r e r o g a t i v e s as t h e economic manager w i t h i n t h e system. The r e s e g r e g a t i o n of p a r t y - s t a t e f u n c t i o n s a l o n g t r a d i t i o n a l l i n e s however w a s more a r e f l e c t i o n of t h e b a l a n c e of forces w i t h i n t h e c o a l i t i o n t h a t overthrew Khrushchev t h a n t h e c o h e r e n t p l a t f o r m of a dominant and u n i f i e d r u l i n g f a c t i o n . The new i n s t i t u t i o n a l arrangement was n o t stable. N o t l o n g after t h e d u s t of Khrus h c h e v ' s f a l l had s e t t l e d s i g n s of c o n f l i c t o v e r i n s t i t u t i o n a l roles began t o emerge among t h e leaders. Suslov took h i s u s u a l p a r t as t h e p r o t e c t o r of t h e i d e o l o g i c a l l y - o r i e n t e d p a r t y l e a v i n g mundane t a s k s t o s t a t e i n s t i t u t i o n s . Brezhnev i n i t i a l l y portrayed h i m s e l f as a backer of t h e r e t u r n t o t h e t r a d i t i o n a l concept of t h e p a r t y b u t as t i m e went on gave i n c r e a s i n g stress t o t h e l e g i t i m a c y and n e c e s s i t y of t h e p a r t y ' s involvement i n t h e economic sphere. Thus he began t o move i n t h e g e n e r a l d i r e c t i o n Khrushchev had gone b u t w a s careful n o t t o associate himself w i t h t h e d i s c r e d i t e d Khrushchevian

formulas on t h e p r o d u c t i o n - o r i e n t e d p a r t y . Here Brezhnev e n t e r e d i n t o c o m p e t i t i o n w i t h Kosygin. Kosygin sought '$0 e s t a b l i s h a working p r i n c i p l e of mutual n o n - i n t e r f e r ence between p a r t y and s t a t e marking o u t t h e realm of e c o n o m i c - i n d u s t r i a l management as h i s quasi-autonomous j u r i s d i c t i o n . With Podgorny's s h i f t t o t h e Supreme S o v i e t a n o t h e r dimension of t h e i n s t i t u t i o n a l r i v a l r y e n t e r e d t h e p i c t u r e . The movement aimed a t expanding t h e powers of t h e Supreme S o v i e t began t o be v i g o r o u s l y promoted and t h e idea of p u t t i n g teeth i n t o t h e s o v i e t s as t h e c o n t r o l l e r of t h e m i n i s t e r i a l apparatus of t h e s t a t e w a s pressed.

-65-

,..

c4

In connect i o n w i t h t h i s i s s u e v a r i o u s a l l i a n c e s appeared t o develop. Podgorny's p e r s o n a l i n t e r e s t i n expanding t h e r o l e of t h e s o v i e t s was obvious. Brezhnev seemed t o go along w i t h t h e idea n o t so much t o boost a r i v a l o v e r whom he had gained t h e advantage b u t rather as a n o t h e r way of d i m i n i s h i n g Kosygin's s t a t e a p p a r a t u s . Kosygin continued t o b e t r a y h i s distaste f o r expanding t h e sovieltb' r o l e and other high-level f i g u r e s i n d i c a t e d t h e i r opposit i o n t o c u r b i n g t h e s t a t e a p p a r a t u s . Suslov and h i s p o l i t i c a l k i n while apparently not objecting t o t h e expansion of t h e s o v i e t s g r o l e continued t o c o n c e n t r a t e on t h e concept of t h e i d e o l o g i c a l p a r t y .
As these cleavages developed, t h e p r o j e c t f o r w r i t i n g a-new c o n s t i t u t i o n once more grew i n p o l i t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e . mile t h e debag4, over i n s t i t u t i o n a l r o l e s contdnued among t h e j u r i s t s f o l l o w i n g Khrushchev's f a l l , t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l p r o j e c t was soft-pedalled d u r i n g t h e first twenty mQnZhs of t h e new regime. However, soon after t h e 23rd Congress Brezhnev--who replaced Khrushchev as head of t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l commission--revived t h e q u e s t i o n . H i s move on t h e project is l i k e l y t o sharpen t h e i n t e r n a l c o n f l i c t over t h e i n s t i t u t i o n a l i s s u e a s v a r i o u s elements seek t o i n c o r p o r a t e t h e i r p o s i t i o n s i n t o t h e regime*s b a s i c l a w . The f o l l o w i n g pages d e t a i l t h e development of t h i s i s s u e s i n c e Khrushchev 's f a l l .

..

The R e s t o r a t i o n of t h e I1Pure'* Party a t t h e November 1968 Plenum The i n t e n s i t y of t h e r e a c t i o n w i t h i n t h e regime t o Khrushchevgs e f f o r t t o t r a n s f o r m t h e p a r t y i n s t i t u t i o n was registered almost immediately a f t e r his f a l l . In November, b a r e l y a month a f t e r h i s f a l l , t h e C e n t r a l Committee convened and l i q u i d a t e d h i s 1962 b i f u r c a t i o n of t h e p a r t y i n t o i n d u s t r i a l and a g r i c u l t u r a l committees on t h e '*production1* r i n c i p l e . p Curiously, presidium member PodgornyOs 16 November report a t t h e plenum c a l l i n g f o r t h e u n i t i n g of i n d u s t r i a l and a g r i c u l t u r a l o o b l a s t and k r a y p a r t y and s o v i e t organs w a s never p u b l i s h e d .

-66.... .

.. ........ .

B u t Pravda on t h e next day r e p o r t e d and commented on t h e deci-of t h e plenum, and made it c l e a r t h a t t h e p r o d u c t i o n - o r i e n t e d p a r t y was an e r r o r . o f the Khrttb. shchevian past:

.. . .. . . .. .. .

.. . .,. . .

'Replacing t h e t e r r i t o s i a l - p r o d u c t i o n p r i n c i p l e of p a r t y o r g a n i z a t i o n w i t h t h e so-called production p r i n c i p l e ' o b j e c t i v e l y led t o a c o n f u s i o n of funct i o n s , r i g h t s , and o b l i g a t i o n s of p a r t y , s o v i e t , and economic o r g a n s and pushed p a r t y committees i n t o r e p l a c i n g economic organs. Following t h e plenum, t h e t r a d i t i o n a l i s t lawyers promptly c l a r i f i e d t h e i r earlier abstruse o p p o s i t i o n t o Khrushchev's view of t h e p a r t y . Two j u r i s t s , V. Kotok (head of t h e l a w i n s t i t u t e ' s department of t h e o r y of governance and c o n s t i t u t i o n a l law) and h i s a s s i s t a n t V. Maslennikov, reiterated and added t o t h e above Pravda indictment by c h a r g i n g in a 28 November 1964 I z v m a r t i c l e t h a t t h e November 1962 reforms n o t o n l y pushed p a r t y committees i n t o r e p l a c i n g economic o r g a n s , b u t a l s o i n t o s u b s t i t u t i n g f o r s o v i e t organs. The two j u r i s t s t h e n c i t e d t h e f u l l 8 t h Congress t e s t a m e n t on p a r t y r e s t r i c t i o n s on s o v i e t s and s t a t e b o d i e s which Khrushchev had avoided in h i s 2 m e b r u a r y 1959 maneuver i n h i s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l cambaign. Kotok and Maslennikov wrote t h a t " t h e 8 t h P a r t y Congress i n d i c a t e d t h a t one s h o u l d never confuse t h e f u n c t i o n s of p a r t y c o l l e c t i v e s w i t h t h e f u n c t i o n s of s t a t e o r g a n s , s u c h as s o v i e t s . The p a r t y m u s t c a r r y o u t its d e c i s i o n s through t h e s o v i e t o r g a n s w i t h i n t h e gramework of t h e S o v i e t C o n s t i t u t i o n . The p a r t y s t r i v e s 30 lead t he a c t i v i t e s of t h e S o v i e t s and n o t r e p l a c e them:" (Emphasis i n o r i g i n a l ) Brezhnev iind The S i l e n t C o n s t i t u t i o n a l Commission

......... .. .. ..

..,..... ..

On PodgornyOs recommendation, Brezhnev was selected a t an 1 December 1964 s e s s i o n of t h e Supreme S o v i e t as 1 Khrushchev's replacement f o r t h e chairmanship of t h e

-67-

. .

. .
. ..... .. . ........ .

That Khrushchev's e f f o r t s f o r a new c n n s t i t u t i o n were deemphasized by t h e new l e a d e r s h i p was a g a i n made clear in t h e Pravda e d i t o r i a l on C o n s t i t u t i o n Day, 5 December 1 9 6 4 7 i K F e d i t o r i a l had n o t h i n g t o s a y about p r e p a r a t i o n s f o r a new basic law. The e d i t o r i a l r e i t e r a t e d S u s l o v ' s view on t h e expanding role of t h e s t a t e a p p a r a t u s and went on, w i t h o u t naming Khrushchev, t o p r a i s e t h e d e c i s i o n s of t h e October 1964 plenum, which o u s t e d him, and t h e November 1964 plenum, which revoked h i s b i f u r c a t i o n scheme. On t h e n e x t day, i n an even more p o i n t e d a t t a c k on Khrushchev's view of t h e p a r t y , an e d i t o r i a l i n Pravda r e i t e r a t e d t h e p o s i t i o n voiced around theLtime of t h e v e m b e r plenum t h a t " t h e e s s e n c e of t h e L e n i n i s t s t y l e of p a r t y l i e s i n t h e f a c t t h a t t h i s guidance is n o t a d m i n i s t r a t i v e b u t of t h e supreme, p o l i t i c a l t y p e . The p a r t y exercises p o l i t i c a l guidance o v e r a l l s t a t e and p u b l i c o r g a n i z a t i o n s . B u t it d o e s not assume t h e i r f u n c t i o n s , t h e f u n c t i o n s of d i r e c t management. (Emphasis in t h e o r i g i n a l ) A s i m i l a r p o s i t i o n w a s promptly adopted by t h e new head of t h e I n s t i t u t e of Law.

-68-

RomashkinDs Conservative ReDlaCement And The N e w Debate

. ..

.I_.

, ..,

. V. Chkhikvadze, a S o v i e t j u r i s t who r e p l a c e d Romashkin as D i r e c t o r of t h e l.aw i n s t i t u t e i n e a r l y 1964*, p r e s e n t e d a m2Jor e x p o s i t i o n of h i s p r o - m i n i s t e r i a l views i n t h e e a r l y January 1965 e d i t i o n of Kommunist. The a r t i c l e first set out: t o clear t h e new director, -who w a s n o t a m e m b e r of t h e 97 man c o n s t i t u t i o n commission, of any pro-Khrushchevian l e g a l views. It p r a i s e d t h e October ouster and t h e November d e c i s i o n s on t h e p r o d u c t i o n p r i n c i p l e , criticized " a r t i f i c i a l h a s t e n i n g of t h e w i t h e r i n g away of t h e state", q u e s t i o n e d t h e worth of comrades' c o u r t s (which have r e c e i v e d abundant c r i t i c i s m i n t h e poSt-Khrushchev period), and urged t h a t t h e s t a t e app a r a t u s s h o u l d closely s u p e r v i s e a l l social o r g a n i z a t i o n s which assumed former state f u n c t i o n s . Chkhikvadze t h e n p r e s e n t e d h i s e x p l i c i t d e f e n s e of t h e s t a t e a p p a r a t u s by first s t a t i n g t h a t t h e s t a t e is t h e "basic t o o l i n t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n of t h e b u i l d i n g of Communism." A second assertion followed t h a t " t h e p e r i o d of expanded Communist c o n s t r u c t i o n is accompanied by t h e ever growing importance of a d m i n i s t r a t i o n . '* This pro-state p D s i t i o n was t h e n r e p e a t e d l y bucked u p w i t h t h e theme of t h e importance of e f f i c i e n c y and p r o f e s s i o n a l i s m i n a d m i n i s t e r i n g a modern, complex s t a t e . The new l a w d i r e c t o r v s. c o n s e r v a t i v e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l

u a r y 1965 I
.. .... .
. .

. :. i : . ; .:< :

. .... .. ....
\

*Chkhik vadze w a s an a c t i v e m e m b e r of t h e e d i t o r i a l board of S o v i e t State And Law f r o m mid-1948 t o t h e end of 1958--at w h i c h time Romashkin became a m e m b e r of t h e board. Ramashkin w a s dropped f r o m t h e e d i t o r i a l board by t h e September 1966 e d i t i o n of t h e l a w j o u r n a l , H i s l a s t a r t i c l e in t h e l a w j o u r n a l appeared in t h e March 1963 e d i t i o n , and it d i s c u s s e d t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l p r o j e c t i n terms of t h e p r o d u c t i o n - o r i e n t e d p.arty.

-69-

..... ....., .. .

c
changes" were expected i n t h e S o v i e t C o n s t i t u t i o n as a t r e v i s i o n which " s h o u l d be completed, It " i n approximately one year.?' I
I

t h a t any c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r e v 1 e n b e i n g carried o u t under t h e

new l e a d e r s h i p . Conservative c o n s t it u t i o n a l views were n o t r e f l e c t e d i n 'a Februagy 1965 S o v i e t State And Law a r t i c l e by t h e chief e d i t o r of t h a t j o u r n a l , A. Lepeshkin. Lepeshkin, while p r e s s i n g for a strengthened s t a t e s y s t e m i n the new c o n s t i t u t i o n , posed t h e radical s u g g e s t i o n of a genuine c h o i c e of c a n d i d a t e s i n t h e S o v i e t " e l e c t i o n s Lepeshkin b o l d l y t o l d , > us t h a t
I

<

.I'

as is w e l l known, t h e S o v i e t e l e c t i o n l a w does n o t l i m i t t h e number of c a n d i d a t e s proposed as s o v i e t d e p u t i e s e Meanwhile, t h e p r a c t i c e of e l e c t i o n s . f o r t h e s o v i e t s of a l l l e v e l s h a s been formed i n s u c h a way t h a t o n l y one c a n d i d a t e , f o r whom o r a g a i n s t whom t h e v o t e r s of a given e l e c t o r a l okrug v o t e , is on t h e v o t i n g list f o r deputies

. . . . ..

Numerous. articles and s u g g e s t i o n s of o u r readers r a i s e t h e q u e s t i o n of t h e advisa b i l i t y of l e a v i n g on t h e b a l l o t paper n o t one, b u t s e v e r a l c a n d i d a t e s proposed by t h e v o t e r s f o r e l e c t i o n t o one v a c a n t seat of a s o v i e t deputy f o r a g i v e n e l e c t o r a l okrug. Of c o u r s e , t h e democrati s m of any e l e c t o r a l system is n o t meas u r e d o n l y by t h e number of c a n d i d a t e s p u t on t h e v o t i n g list, t h a t is one o r two. Never%heless, t h i s is not a problem of minor importance and its c o r r e c t s o l u t i o n under o u r c o n d i t i o n s is of great imp o r t a n c e f o r t h e development of t h e democ r a t i c p r i n c i p l e s of t h e S o v i e t e l e c t o r a l system.

-70-

..__-

Lepeshkln, whose radical e l e c t o r a l remarks were widely circulated i n the Western press i n l a t e May 1965,* was r e p l a c e d as chief editor of t h e j o u r n a l by t h e e a r l y June 1965 e d i t ion.
A t about t h e t i m e t h a t Lepeshkin p r e s e n t e d h i s radical e l e c t o r a l views, a r e j o i n d e r t o t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l p o s i t i o n of t h e new d i r e c t o r of t h e l a w i n s t i t u t e w a s p r e s e n t e d i n an e a r l y February 1965 Kommunist a r t i c l e by V. Vasilyev. Vasilyev g u a r d e d l y i n t r o d u c e d h i s r e b u t t a l w i t h t h e comment t h a t s h o u l d n o t go t o extremes f i i t h regard t o t h e s o v i e t d - - t a k e over t h e f u n c t i o n s of The economic organs, adopt-administrat i v e methods affecti n g e n t e r p r i s e s and o r g a n i z a t i o n s under t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n of economic organs o r i n t e r f e r e i n t h e managerial a c t i v i t i e s of t h e i r leaders .?? Nevesfheless, Vasilyev e m p h a t i c a l l y endorsed t h e Khrushchevian p o l i c y of "recent years'' of t r a n s f e r i n g a d m i n i s t r a t i v e and economic s t a t e f u n c t i o n s to t h e s o v i e t s .

......

. . .

I n r e c e n t years, t h e s o v i e t s have s t a r t e d s o l v i n g more and more problems which in t h e past were mainly t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of t h e e x e c u t i v e o r g a n s . The s o v i e t s have been more a c t i v e i n s u p e r v i s i n g t h e f u l f i l l m e n t of r e s o l u t i o n s . The m e m b e r s h i p i n t h e permanent commissions h a s expanded. Some l o c a l s o v i e t s have t r a n s ferred t o t h e i r commissions many administ r a t i v e matters
e

I
,
I

The new d i r e c t o r of t h e l a w i n s t i t u t e had referred t o "inc r e a s i n g t h e r o l e of permanent commissions," b u t o n l y p a r e n t h e t i c a l l y and t h e n i n t h e c o n t e x t of d e s c r i b i n g an assignment given by t h e Academy of S c i e n c e s which c a l l e d

..

*See Zorza's Manchester Guardian a r t i c l e f o r 2 1 May

1965, " E l e c t i o n Reforms For Russians? Voters May G e t Choice o Candidates." Soviet voters did not get a f choice i n t h e 1 2 June 1966 e l e c t i o n s .

-71-

. .. ... ......
.....

upon t h e law i n s t i t u t e t o d r a f t a manual d e f i n i n g t h e l e g a l a c t i v i t y of t h e s o v i e t s . And u n l i k e t h e new l a w d i r e c t o r , V a s i l y e v p o i n t e d o u t t h a t t h e s o v i e t s , which he regarded as all-embracing s o c i a l o r g a n i e a t i o n s , should c l o s e l y s u p e r v i s e t h e a d m i n i s t r a t o r s . Vasilyev c r i t i c i z e d s o v i e t d e p u t i e s who " f a i l t o g i v e t h e e x e c u t i v e organs t a s k s " a f t e r having p r e s e n t e d h i s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l t h e s i s :
It is t h e S o v i e t s who s e t u p t h e administ r a t i v e apparatus. Directly o r indirectly, a l l s t a t e organs r e c e i v e t h e i r power from t h e s o v i e t s . The r e p r e s e n t a t i v e oggans have great f a c i l i t i e s f o r i n f l u e n c i n g t h e practical work of t h e e x e c u t ive;.apparatus by d i r e c t l y p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n the work themselves.

...

F i n a l l y , Vasilyev praised t h e r o l e of t h e nonp r o f e s s i o n a l v o l u n t e e r s . While he noted t h a t v o l u n t a r y workers sometimes d u p l i c a t e t h e t a s k s of formal organizat i o n s , he emphasized t h a t " t h e more a c t i v e t h e y /The v o l u n t e e r s 7 are, t h e b e t t e r U n l i k e law director ChkhikvadEe,* Vasilyev lauded t h e scope of v o l u n t e e r soviet activity:

."

Voluntary d e p u t y chairmen of e x e c u t i v e committees of v i l l a g e , s e t t l e m e n t , rayon

.:.>..,.....

.., ... ...

*Chkhikvadze i n Kommunist referred t o t h e r o l e of vulunteers i n t h e same s l i g h t i n g manner t h a t he had referred t o t h e r o l e of permanent commissions. Praise f o r t h e a c t i v i t y of v o l u n t e e r s was a common theme i n t h e j u r i d i c a l media p r i o r t o Chkhikvadze's replacement of Romashkin as d i r e c t o r of t h e l a w i n s t i t u t e . For example, t h e head of t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l a w department ( s e c t o r ) of t h e i n s t i t u t e , V. Kotok, emphasized t h e case f o r r e p l a c i n g t h e p a i d s t a f f of e x e c u t i v e committee d e p a r t m e n t s w i t h unpaid volun-' teers in a J u l y 1961 S o v i e t State And Law a r t i c l e . Following t h e change i n law i n s e i t u t e d i r e c t o r s , Kotok and h i s a s s i s t a n t Maslennikov d i d n o t r e t u r n t o t h i s p o i n t in t h e i r 28 November 1964 I z v e s t i y a a r t i c l e .

-72-

. .. ..
,

.\ . .. : . ..

. . ........... .. .

and c i t y s o v i e t s , . v o l u n t a r y departments of e x e c u t i v e committees, groups of volunt a r y i n s p e c t o r s and i n s t r u c t o r s , v o l u n t a r y c o u n c i l s a t r e g u l a r departments and adm i n i s t r a t i o n s , many v o l u n t a r y pub1 i c o r g a n i z a t i o n s - - t h i s is f a r from t h e f u l l list of ways i n which t h e working people p a r t i c i p a t e i n t h e work of t h e s o v i e t s . The s o v i e t a c t i v e s now number about 23 m i l l i o n people. T h i s clearly marks t h e s o v i e t s n o t o n l y as government b u t a s s o c i a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s as w e l l In s h o r t , t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l debate continued, And though w i t h f a r more l i m i t e d terms of r e f e r e n c e . t h e former t e r m s d e a l i n g w i t h t h e role:.6f t h e p a r t y . were o b l i q u e l y raised in March by t h e new . F i r s t S e c r e t a r y of t h e p a r t y ' s c e n t r a l committee.

During t h e p e r i o d between t h e r e v o c a t i o n of t h e "so-called" p r o d u c t i o n p r i n c i p l e and a March 1965 c e n t r a l committee plenum, S o v i e t t h e o r e t i c a l and j u d i c i a l spokesmen were c a r e f u l t o d e f i n e t h e p a r t y e s t a s k in t h e economic l i f e of t h e n a t i o n a s "guiding" or "leading." One l e a d i n g t h e o r e t i c i a n who had f u l l y s u p p o r t e d Khrushchev's s u b o r d i n a t i o n of a l l p a r t y tasks t o p r o d u c t i v e work-secretariat m e m b e r I1ichev--was removed from t h e s e c r e t a r i a t a t t h e March 1965 plenum.
While c a r e f u l l y emphasizing t h e "guiding and leading" r o l e of t h e p a r t y , Brezhnev i n h i s March 1965 plenum speech on "urgent measures f o r t h e f u r t h e r development of S o v i e t agriculture" made a comment r e m i n i s c e n t of a passage i n Khrushchev's 1956 Congress report on t h e determining f a c t o r of p a r t y work in t h e economy.

-73-

Khrushchev, 14 February 1956 r e p o r t a t t h e 2 0 t h R a r t y Congress

Brezhnev, 24 March 1965 e e n t r a l Committee plenum

speech

!The work of a l e a d i n g P a r t y worker should be judged p r i m a r i l y b y re8 s u l t s obtained i n the development of t h e economy. *I

"Constant a t t e n t i o n . . . t o i n c r e a s e d a g r i c u l t u r a1 p r o d u c t i o n should be t h e determining a s p e c t of t h e work of P a r t y bodies."

9

Six months l a t e r Brezhnev referred t o t h e p a r t y ' s r o l e in i n d u s t r i a l p r o d u c t i o n im t h e same v e i n .

I n s h o r t , Brezhnev w a s echoing t h e general o u t l i n e s of t h e former Khrushchevian l i n e and ::.indicating: t h a t t h e p a r t y d i d not p l a n t o hand over its a u t h o r i t y i n t h e economic sphere t o t h e s t a t e .
Evincing h i s e a r l i e r c a u t i o u s and e v a s i v e approach toward making f i n a l t h e 1962 p a r t y p r o d u c t i o n p r i n c i p l e , Brezhnev--like Khrushchev i n h i s 1956 Congress report:preceded h i s above remark w i t h a t r a d i t i o n a l i s t p o s i t i o n t h a t t h e p a r t y m u s t l l c o o r d i n a t e and guide" t h e work of s t a t e and s o c i a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s in t h e c o u n t r y s i d e . Howe v e r , Brezhnev l i m i t e d s u c h p a r t y work t o " o r g a n i z a t i o n a l and economic s t r e n g t h e n i n g " - - r u r a l ideological work was ignored. I d e o l o g i c a l work w a s b r i e f l y noted i n an e a r l i e r remark by Breshnev on t h e broader theme,of t h e p a r t y ' s nationwide t a s k s , b u t it was t h e n l i s t e d l a s t : t h e p a r t y h a s '*the special r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of s t e a d i l y improving o r g a n i z a t i o n a l , p o l i t i c a l , economic and i d e o l o g i c a l work." Brezhnev a l s o claimed t h a t r u r a l p a r t y b o d i e s t'must s t o p g i v i n g preemptory o r d e r s and b u r e a u c r a t i c i n s t r u c t i o n s , and s t o p e x e r c i s i n g p e t t y t u t e l a g e and usurping t h e funct i o n s of t h e managers and e x p e r t s of c o l l e c t i v e and s t a t e farms." B u t he went on i n h i s plenum speech t o u r g e an i n c r e a s e i n t h e r o l e of t h e p a r t y and t h e numbers of f u l l time p a r t y secretaries dill t h e c o l l e c t i v e and s t a t e fadms,
A second example of t h e p a r t y a s role i n p r o d u c t i o n w a s s i g n a l e d a t t h e Bdarch plenum by promotion of d e f e n s e e x p e r t Ustinov t o t h e p a r t y secretariat and p r e s i d i u m ,

. . .. .

........... , .... .. ...

.*,'. ".', ,

I
I

-74-

-2mawCx

and h i s concomitant r e s i g n a t i o n from Kosygin's Council of M i n i s t e r s and t h e Supreme Economic Council. U s t i n o v v s p a r t y promotion, coming i n t h e wake of a 2 March 1965 c o n v e r s i o n of s i x key s t a t e d e f e n s e committees i n t o m i n i s t r i e s , * suggested t h a t Brezhneves p a r t y c o n t r o l over t h e c r i t i c a l S o v i e t i n d u s t r i a l sector would be s t r e n g t h ened.
.I . . . .

.... .. .. . . ... ...

In s h o r t p Brezhnev seemed t o be l e a v i n g open t h e q u e s t i o n of t h e partyOs assumption of economic t a s k s . The q u e s t i o n was a g a i n raised a t t h e September plenum.

Brezhnev The P a r t y , Kosygin The S t a t e Reminiscent of h i s November 1962 s t a t e - o r i e n t e d p o s i t i o n on c o n s t r u c t i n g communism, Kosygin a t t h e September 1965 plenum declared t h a t "the s u c c e s s f u l completion of t h e program of b u i l d i n g t h e material and t e c h n i c a l b a s i s of communism...will l a r g e l y depend on how e f f e c t i v e l y t h e y firoblems of i n d u s t r i a l management, p l a n n i n g and produEtion7 w i l l be The s o l u t i o n , c o n f i d e n t l y announced-Kosygin i n h i s 27 September plenum speech, would be approached by t h e f u l l r e e s t a b l i s h m e n t of t h e pre-1957 m i n i s t e r i a l system--the t a r g e t of KhrushchevOs e a r l y ' * t h e s i s t 1 and l a t e r c o n s t i t u t i o n a l e f f o r t s . As i n h i s 6 November 1962 speech, Kosygin a t t h e September 1965 plenum a g a i n p r e s e n t e d h i s p o s i t i o n on t h e s t a t e ' s r o l e i n t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n of communism. And w h i l e he p o i n t e d o u t t h e r o l e of t h e p a r t y i n t h e practical a f f a i r s of t h e economy ( i n d u s t r y in t h i s case), he a g a i n l i s t e d t e c h n i c a l e x p e r t ise first: " A t t h e p r e s e n t time more t h a n two m i l l i o n experts w i t h a h i g h e r or secondary e d u c a t i o n are employed i n i n d u s t r i a l e s t a b l i s h m e n t s . There are more t h a n f o u r m i l l i o n communists working i n i n d u s t r y .It ( V r o f e s s i o n a l i s m "

. ..,... .. .: ... ... ... . .. ... .

*Perhaps c o i n c i d e n t a l l y , a p a r t i a l r e h a b i l i t a t i o n of Marshal Zhukov surrounded t h e March 1965 r e e s t a b l i s h m e n t of t h e pre-December 1957 s y s t e m of d e f e n s e m i n i s t r i e s .

45...,. ...... ,.. . ..

. ... . ..... . ... .

i n t h e whole s t a t e a p p a r a t u s w a s t h e main subject of a September 1965 a r t i c l e i n S o v i e t State And Law by j u r i s t M. P i s k o t i n , who reiterated much of h i s c o n c l u s i o n s r e g a r d i n g t h e e f f i c a c y ,- of a v i a b l e s t a t e a p p a r a t u s p r e s e n t e d i n h i s earlier discussed December 1963 a r t i c l e i n Kommunist

.)

. . . . .

,.

. .. ... . . . . . ..
?. .

:.,.. ,

powers and autonomy of i n d u s t r i a l e s t a b l i s h m e n t s p a r t i c u l a r l y enhances t h e role and r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of t h e l o c a l P a r t y o r g a n i z a t i o n s , t h a t is, t h o s e of t h e u n i t s whose r o l e i n p r o d u c t i o n is d e c i s i v e , " s a i d Brezhnev on 29 September. WhPle a g a i n i g n o r i n g i d e o l o g i c a l work, '' Brezhnev maintained h i s c a r e f u l l y e v a s i v e p o s i t i o n on t h e "production p r i n c i p l e " by immediately s t a t i n g t h a t prod u c t i o n problems were s u b o r d i n a t e t o t h e "prime t a s k " of e d u c a t i o n a l and o r g a n i z i n g work
e

The emphasis on t h e s t a t e - o r i e n t e d approach toward b u i l d i n g communism i n Kosyglnos speech w a s downplayed i n Brezhnev's 29 September r e p o r t before t h e plenum. Brezhnev a g a i n referred t o t h e p a r t y a s r o l e i n economic p r o d u c t i o n w h i l e r e v i v i n g h i s December 1962 p o s i t i o n on g r e a t e r p a r t y s u p e r v i s i o n of t h e m i n i s t r i e s . "The e x t e n s i o n of t h e

. .

.............

O t h e r shades of h i s p r e d e c e s s o r P s more s h a r p l y drawn views on t h e s t a t e bureaucracy were c a s t in h i s Sepltember 1965 plenum speech. For one example, Brezhneg, a f t e r s c o r i n g Itbureaucratic e x e r c i s e s " i n c e r t a i n undisclosed s t a t e m i n i s t r i e s , went on t o f o r e c a s t t h a t t h e Kosygin-sponsored managerial r e o r g a n i z a t i o n a l o n e " w i l l n o t e l i m i n a t e these /bureaucratic7 shortcomings. W e need, c o n t i n u e d Brezhnev, tPhard-work and p e r s i s t e n t e f f o r t by t h e a d m i n i s k r a t i v e a p p a r a t u s f i o s y g i n ' s sphere7, b u t above a l l by P a r t y and m a s s o r g a n i z z t i o n s t o educate people and weed o u t i r r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , red t a p e , bureauc r a t i c behavior." As a p a r t of t h e weeding-out p r o c e s s , Brezhnev s u g g e s t e d t h a t

...

h i g h l y competent and e x p e r i e n c e d P a r t y workers s h o u l d be recommended f o r t h e o f f i c e of secretaries of t h e P a r t y committees of t h e hew7 m i n i s t r i e s . These committee5 sKould p e r i o d i c a l l y inform t h e C e n t r a l Committee of t h e

-76. . ... ,.. . . . . . .

_,

CPSU about t h e work of t h e i r organizat i o n s , about t h e s t e p s t h e y take t o improve t h e o p e r a t i o n of t h e m i n i s t r i e s i n question.

In a n o t h e r c o n t r a s t w i t h Kosygin, Brezhnev d i d n o t s p e c i f y t h e r o l e of t h e s t a t e i n h i s plenum f o r m u l a t i o n on b u i l d i n g communism: ?*As we s t e a d f a s t l y enhance t h e r o l e of t h e P a r t y i n communist c o n s t r u c t i o n , w e m u s t never forget t h a t t h i s c a l l s f o r hard work by e v e r y organizat i o n , above a l l t h e S o v i e t s , t h e trade unions and t h e
...

Komsomol **

. .

.:......,.... ......_ :..

,L.

Following BrezhnevOs September emphasis on t h e p a r t y a s r o l e i n s t a t e a f f a i r s (and f o l l o w i n g his appointment t o PodgornyOs Supreme S o v i e t P r e s i d i u m i n e a r l y October), an a r t i c l e i n Kommunist @oe 16) 1965, by t h e first secretary of t h e B a s h k i r O b l a s t , Z. Nuriyev, expanded upon t h e theme of t h e p a r t y e s a c t i v i t y in running t h e s t a t e . After repeated a s s e t t i o n s t h a t p a r t y o r g a n s m u s t n o t take t h e place of s t a t e and economic organizat i o n s , Nuriyev f i n a l l y g o t t o t h e nub of h i s p r e s e n t a t i o n i n concluding t h a t l l s o m e t i m e s a s i t u a t i o n b u i l d s u p i n which t h e p a r t y organs are o b l i g e d t o i n t e r v e n e in t h e a c t i v i t y of t h e economic organs . I t T h i s e x t r a o r d i n a r y admission w a s combined w i t h Nuriyev s i n s i s t e n c e t h a t p a r t y m e m b e r s must s t u d y both Marxist-Leninist t h e o r y - economics and modern t e c h n i q u e s of production. With and regard t o economic a c t i v i t y , Nuriyev . p o s i t e d t h a t t h e party--even as a " d i r e c t i n g and l e a d i n g forcett--occupies a s u p e r i o r p o s i t i o n t o t h e s t a t e : He declared t h a t (1) there is no "sign of e q u a l i t y " between p a r t y and economic a c t i v i t y and t h a t (2) t h e p a r t y o r g a n i z a t i o n s " i n no event'' s h o u l d assume a s u b o r d i n a t e r o l e w i t h respect t o t h e economic or s t a t e o r g a n i z a t i o n s . KosyginOs emphasis on t h e stateOs r o l e w a s reiterated by s t a t e t h e o r e t i c i a n Chesnokov in t h e next issue of Kommunist.

-77-

...-.

Chesnokov On Kosygin's M i n i s t r i e s D i s r e g a r d i n g t h e p a r t i c u l a r s of t h e p a r t y v s r o l e i n s t a t e a c t i v i t y , Chesnokov f o r m u l a t e d added t h e o r e t i c a l argument a t i o n f o r Kosygin's September managerial reform An an a r t i c l e i n Kommunist (No. 17) 1965. L i k e j u r i s t Shakhnazarov i n 1960, ehesnokov p r e d i c a t e d h i s d e f e n s e of t h e e x i s t i n g s t a t e a p p a r a t u s on t h e t h e o r e t i c a l pronouncements of t h e 1 8 t h p a r t y Congress concerning " t h e development $of t h e s o c i a l i s t state." Chesnokov, l i k e l a w i n s t i t u t e d i r e c t o r Chkhikvadze, p r e s e n t e d h i s p o s i n t i o n on t h e preeminent r o l e of t h e s t a t e A b u l l d i n g t h e bases of communism:

.. . .. . .. . .....-.
.

. .

The t a s k of c r e a t i n g t h e mater i a l - t e c h n i c a l f o u n d a t i o n s f o r communism is carried o u t w i t h a l l t h e domestic f u n c t i o n s of t h e s o c i a l i s t s t a t e , 7-2 above a l l , its economic-organizational, c u l t u r a l - e d u c a t i o n a l , p r o t e c t i o n and s t r e n g t h e n i n g of p u b l i c ownership functions.
. ,

......... . . .
.I .

,..,.....

T h a t Chesnokov regarded these t a s k s as s o l e l y r e s i d i n g i n t h e s t a t e a p p a r a t u s is s t r e n g t h e n e d by t h e f a c t t h a t a u t h o r made no r e f e r e n c e t o t h e r o l e of t h e s o v i e t s o r permanent commissions of t h e s o v i e t s i n t a s k s of "cons t r u c t i n g t h e f o u n d a t i o n s of communism.19 Chesnokov made a b r i e f r e f e r e n c e t o t h e w i t h e r i n g away' of s t a t e f u n c t i o n s '*which have s e r v e d t h e i r u s e f u l n e s s , " b u t he f a i l e d t o p o i n t o u t w i t h any p r e c i s i o n what t h e w i t h e r e d f u n c t i o n s would be. Chesnokov f l a t l y a s s e r t e d t h a t 'Ithe r o l e of t h e s t a t e system w i l l predominate and c a n n o t b u t predominate o v e r t h e t a s k s of w i t h e r i n g away of t h e s t a t e . " He emphasized (1) t h a t i n t h e b u i l d i n g of communism t h e s t a t e

*Chesnokov s a i d o n l y t h a t t h e a c t i v i t i e s of t h e s t a t e "are developed1' by t h e p a r t y on t h e b a s i s of modern adm i n i s t r a t i v e techniques.

-78-

would be ' ' f u l l y r e t a i n e d , f u r t h e r developed," and (2) l i k e Ponomarev i n J u l y 1964, he emphasin;ed t h e remoteness of r e a l i z i n g t h e "higher stage" of communism. Chesnokov went on t o i d e n t i f y t h e o p p o s i t i o n as . * * r e v i s i o n i s t s t 1 who 'larev*( p r e s e n t t e n s e ) b e l i t t l i n g t h e r o l e of t h e s t a t e apparatus:
t h e i m p e r i a l i s t p r o p a g a n d i s t s proclaim t h e ''theory" according t o which t h e USSR has a new p r i v i l e g e d class, namely t h e w h i t e c o l l a r workers and t h e i n t e l l i g e n t s i a , r e p r e s e n t i n g them8W dominating class s e r v e d by t h e s o c i a l i s t s t a t e . A s i m i l a r s l a n d e r h a s been, and is, adamantly d i s seminated by t h e T r o t s k y i t e s who s h r i e k about t h e d i s t o r t i o n of t h e s o c i a l i s t

...

.... .. . . ., .... .. ,

s t a t e and its t r a n s f o r m a t i o n f n t o a bureaucratic organization A l l these f o r g e d t h e o r i e s were picked up by t h e r e v i s i o n i s t s whose c h a t t e r of stateism o r of t h e p o s s i b i l i t y of a s e l f - c o n t a i n i n g s t a t e , above a l l classes, are u s e d t o c o n c e a l t h e i r b e l i t t l i n g of t h e r o l e of t h e s o c i a l i s t s t a t e i n t h e b u i l d i n g of s o c i a l ism and communism, In s h D r t , h i s s t a t e - o r i e n t e d argumentation changed l i t t l e s i n c e its employment under S t a l i n i n t h e e a r l y ' f i f t i e s . Even t h e o l d terminoaogy w a s employed by Chesnokov as he re-examined t h e pre-1961 o f f i c i a l S o v i e t s t a t e formula.
..... . . . . .. .

The D i c t a t o c s h i n of t h e P r o l e t a r i a t

P r a i s i n g t h e abandoned concept of t h e " d i c t a t o r s h i p Chesnokov i n Kommunist devoted considerable a t t e n t i o n t o t h e s i m i l a r i t i e s between t h a t s t a t e formula and 4 t s s u r r o g a t e fortnula, ? s t a t e of t h e . whole p e o p l e , " i n t r o d u c e d a t t h e 1961 P a r t y Congress. With regard t o t h e 1961 i n n o v a t i o n , Chesnokov f u r t h e r i d e n t i f i e d t h e opp o s i t i o n as "those e claim - r e s e n t t e n s -7 t h a t t h e 5 e

of t h e p r o l e t a r i a t ,

.
-79-

..

. ..

. .

..
....
.

. .'. . .:... ....: .

.,......

..... ..-.

s t a t e of t h e whole people is d i f f e r e n t , n o t o n l y i n form b u t i n c o n t e n t as w e l l , from t h e s t a t e of t h e dictators h i p of t h e p r o l e t a r i a t , t h a t is, t h a t it is an e n t i r e l y new S t a t i n g t h a t "we cannot agree" w i t h t h o s e who claim t h a t t h e two s t a t e formulas are d i f f e r e n t , Chesnokov went on t o conclude t h a t t h e s t a t e of t h e d i c t a t o r s h i p of t h e p r o l e t a r i a t and t h e s t a t e of t h e whole people !@are s s e n t i a l l y t h e same s t a t e a t v a r i o u s e development a1 s t a g e s .I1 His premises were (1) t h a t f o r e i g n f u n c t i o n s of t h e - p r o l e t a r i a n d i c t a t o r s h i p are t h e same i n t h e s t a t e of t h e whole people, and (2) t h a t t h e **basict1 n t e r n a l f u n g t i o n s are t h e same. Chesnokov r o u t i n e l y i e x p l a i n e d t h a t t h e p r o l e t a r i a n d i c t a t o r s h i p "eliminated t h e exploiters,1' which i n t u r n e l i m i n a t e d t h e need f o r c o e r c i o n . B u t , he immediately countered, " t h i s does n o t mean-L t h a t there is no l o n g e r any need for any c o e r c i o n wh8tsoever.1' He s t a t e d t h a t t h e l a w would c o n t i n u e t o p u n i s h v i o l a t o r s and d i t i z e n s who d i s p l a y a "lack of d i s c i p l i n e t 1 t h r o u g h t h e s t a t e c o u r t system. The Khrushchev-sponsored comrade c o u r t s were ignored.
Chesnokovvs p u b l i c a p o l o g i a on t h e v i a b i l i t y of t h e former s t a t e f o r m u l a w a s , r e p o r t e d l y , l a t e r followed by a related b r i e f i n g froni a m e m b e r of t h e c e n t r a l com-

... . .

mittee a p p a r a t u s .

I
.

.... ..
... . ,. . ..

,:: .

. .....?. ;.. . . ......_. .... .. .. .

z

...,. ... . ......

B u t a t least three subsequent i n d i c a t i o n s s t r e n g t h assertion t h a t t h e "state of the whole peop e ened 1 I' s a t l e a s t b e i n g o f f i c i a l l y llreexamined'l-(1) t h e formula w a s n o t mentioned a t t h e 1966 23rd P a r t y Congress, (2) it was deleted i n t h e 1966 May Day s l o g a n s , (3) and Brezhnev i n t r o d u c e d t h e t e r m "genuine p e o p l e ' s s t a t e " i n a speech (examined l a t e r ) f o l l o w i n g t h e congress.

-80-

..

THE 23RD CONGRESS AND THE SUPREME SOVIET'S EXPANDED ROLE

P r i o r t o t h e c o n g r e s s t h r e e important l e g a l developments s u r f a c e d : (1) a December 1965 c e n t r a l committee plenum transformed t h e P a r t y - S t a t e Control Commission i n t o a " s y s t e m of p e o p l e ' s c o n t r o l , " (2) a December 1965 Supreme S o v i e t s e s s i o n c a l l e d upon t h e Council of M i n i s t e r s t o respond t o formal i n t e r p . e l l a t i o n s , and (3) ' c e r t a i n s o v i e t j u r i s t s made e x p l i c i t recommendations-some of w h i c h were voiced by Brezhnev and Podgorny a t t h e 23rd Congress--to s t r e n g t h e n t h e s o v i e t s and t h e permanent commissions i n t h e i r r e l a t i o n w i t h t h e Council of M i n i s t e r s . One: People's Control

I n h i s 6 December plenum speech, Brezhnev suggested t h a t t h e P a r t y - S t a t e C o n t r o l Committee (PSCC)--approved a t t h e November p r o d u c t i o n plenum, f o r m a l l y l i m i t e d t o t h e s t a t e a p p a r a t u s i n a January 1963 s t a t u t e , and ignored a t t h e September 1965 managerial plenum--be transformed i n t o a " s y s t e m of p e o p l e ' s c o n t r o l . " T h e new c o n t r o l b o d i e s , Brezhnev emphasized, "do n o t c o n t r o l t h e work of p a r t y organs"--a commandment t h a t seemed t o r e p r o v e unwarranted c o n t r o l a c t i v i t y on t h e p a r t of i t s p r e d e c e s s o r . T h e c h a r g e t h a t t h e PSCC was involved i n c o n t r o l a c t i v i t y i n t h e p a r t y a p p a r a t u s was n o t e x p l i c i t l y drawn by Brezhnev. Nor do w e have any evidence t h a t t h e PSCC a c t u a l l y s t r a y e d o u t of i t s January 1963 s t a t u t o r y l i m i t a t i o n s i n t o t h e p a r t y ' s s p h e r e of a c t i v i t y . However, i n l i g h t of Brezhnev's p u b l i c r e f e r e n c e t o "shor.t&&niirgs?!" i n t h e work of t h e PSCC and i n l i g h t of Brezhnev's c a v e a t r e l a t i n g t o t h e proper s p h e r e of a c t i v i t y f o r p e o p l e ' s c o n t r o l , i t seems r e a s o n a b l e t o s u g g e s t t h a t t h e p o t e n t i a l t h r e a t of such independent a c t i v i t y on t h e p a r t of t h e PSCC may have been a c o n s i d e r a t i o n i n t h e r e o r g a n i z a t i o n . A t any r a t e , t h e r e o r g a n i z a t i o n seems t o have been d i r e c t e d a t (1) removing any remaining l e g a l ambiguity r e l a t i n g t o t h e a c t i v i t y of t h e p a r t y ' s own c o n t r o l s y s t e m , and/or ( 2 ) d i m i n i s h i n g t h e p e r s o n a l a u t h o r i t y of t h e chairman of t h e PSCC, S h e l e p i n , who i n

-81-

f a c t w a s removed as head of t h e PSCC a s w e l l a s from t h e Council of M i n i s t e r s i n December 1965. The Brezhnev-sponsored maneuver r e l a t e d t o t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l q u e s t i o n i n t h e s e n s e t h a t t h e PSCC r e p r e s e n t e d a Khrushchevian a t t e m p t t o b r i n g under t h e d i r e c t c o n t r o l of one party-run agency r e l a t e d f u n c t i o n s of both p a r t y and s t a t e a p p a r a t u s .
I t does n o t appear t h a t t h e p a r t y a p p a r a t u s gave up s i g n i f i c a n t c o n t r o l p r e r o g a t i v e s o v e r Kosygin's s t a t e app a r a t u s i n t h e r e o r g a n i z a t i o n . However, t h e s t a t u t o r y powers for p e o p l e ' s c o n t r o l have a p p a r e n t l y n o t been p u b l i c i z e d and any f i n a l judgment on t h e s t a t e a u t h o r i t y of t h e new c o n t r o l mechanism cannot be drawn. But two . developments s u g g e s t t h a t t h e s t a t e a c t i v i t y of t h e new agency i s n o t r a d i c a l l y d i f f e r e n t from its ppedecessor. Most of t h e h i g h - l e v e l PSCC o f f i c i a l s were simply t r a n s f e r r e d t o s i m i l a r p o s i t i o n s i n p e o p l e ' s c o n t r o l committees, though m o s t l o s t p r e s t i g u o u s p o s i t i o n s of p a r t y s e c r e t a r y and deputy premier of r e p u b l i c s and union-republics. And t h e r e p o r t e d s i z e of t h e p e o p l e ' s c o n t r o l , s i x m i l l i o n a c c o r d i n g t o Pravda on 26 A p r i l 1966, i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e new agency h a s assumed t h e mass s t a t e c h a r a c t e r of i t s predecessor.
TWO:

Inteipellations An unusual d i s p l a y of Supreme S o v i e t a ' u t h o r i t y o v e r

.. .....

t h e s t a t e ' s h i g h e s t apparat--the Council of Ministers-was r e v e a l e d t h e day a f t e r t h e 6 December p a r t y plenum adjourned. A t a 7 December s e s s i o n of t h e Supreme S o v i e t , s e v e r a l s o v i e t d e l e g a t e s r e v i v e d t h e v i r t u a l l y dormant p r o v i s i o n i n t h e 1936 C o n s t i t u t i o n ( a r t i c l e 71) w h i c h h e l d t h a t USSR m i n i s t e r s must r e p l y t o q u e s t i o n s o f members of t h e Supreme S o v i e t w i t h i n t h r e e days. The d e p u t i e s addressed t h r e e interpellations--calling f o r t h e Council of M i n i s t e r s '

views and p r o p o s a l s on (1) n o n p r o l i f e r a t i o n of n u c l e a r weapons and n o n i n t e r f e r e n c e i n t h e i n t e r n a l a f f a i r s of s t a t e s , (2) t h e West German " t h r e a t , " and (3) p r e p a r a t i o n s f o r t h e second c o n f e r e n c e of Afro-Asian c o u n t r i e s - - t o Foreign M i n i s t e r Gromyko, who d u t i f u l l y responded i n h i s 9 December speech b e f o r e t h e Supreme S o v i e t . (Foreign M i n i s t e r Gromyko s u b m i t t e d t o i n t e r p e l l a t i o n s r e g a r d i n g Fiulganin's disarmament p r o p o s a l s a t t h e 21 December 1957 Supreme S o v i e t s e s s i o n - -82-

I I

3w w 2 Y T

I
I

sElxsiL

.. ._.._

a t i m e when Chairman of t h e Council of M i n i s t e r s , Bulganin, was being p u b l i c l y s l i g h t e d and h i s subsequent d e c l i n e w a s being rumored. Khrushchev r e p l a c e d Bulganin i n March 1958 and u n v e i l e d h i s own major disarmament p r o p o s a l , " g e n e r a l and complete disarmament," i n t h e f a l l of t h e next year.)

T h i s unusual p a r l i a m e n t a r y g e s t u r e w a s accompanied by t h e e l e c t i o n of Podgorny, on Brezhnev's recommendation, t o t h e chairmanship of t h e q r e s i d i u m of t h e Supreme S o v i e t . And i n l i g h t of Podgorny's and Brezhnev's subsequent exp l i c i t p r o p o s a l s a t t h e 23rd P a r t y Congress (examined p r e s e n t l y ) f o r g r e a t e r Supreme S o v i e t c o n t r o l o v e r t h e Council of M i n i s t e r s , Gromyko's r e s p o n s e t o formal i n t e r p e l l a t i o n s seemed t o mark more t h a n a symbolic g e s t u r e of Supreme S o v i e t a u t h o r i t y o v e r Kosygin's s t a t e a p p a r a t u s . Three: Permanent Commissions

, ,

.. ....... ..

A t l e a s t f o u r j u r i s t s i n t h e post-Khrushchev p e r i o d have p o p u l a r i z e d t h e c a u s e of g r a n t i n g g r e a t e r powers-s u p e r v i s o r y , l e g i s l a t i v e , e x e c u t i v e , and j u d i c i a l - - t o t h e permanent commissions. I n ef6,ect ,':-the 1965-1966 prop o s a l s of t h e f o u r j u r i s t s appear t o be aimbd a t implementing t h e long-abused a r t i c l e i n t h e 1936 ' C o n s t i t u t i o n g r a n t i n g t h e l e g i s l a t i v e power t o t h e Supreme S o v i e t ( A r t i c l e 3 2 ) . For example, j u r i s t A . Makhnenko i n t h e J u l y 1965 e d i t i o n of S o v i e t S t a t e and Law u r g e d t h a t t h e s u p e r v i s o r y and j u r i d i c a l powers of t h e permanent c o m m i s s i o n s be extended by o r d e r i n g t h e p r o c u r a t o r - g e n e r a l and t h e supreme c o u r t s t o r e p o r t n o t o n l y t o t h e supreme s o v i e t p r e s i d i u m s of t h e v a r i o u s r e p u b l i c s b u t a l s o t o t h e s e s s i o n s of t h e r e s p e c t i v e commissions of t h e s o v i e t s . (In the ' August 1964 e d i t i o n of t h e same l a w j o u r n a l , Makhnenko p r e s s e d f o r a g r e a t e r l e g i s l a t i v e r o l e f o r t h e permanent commissions i n d r a f t i n g b i l l s . ) J u r i s t s M. Binder and M . S h a f i r i n t h e l a w j o u r n a l % November 1965 e d i t i o n , f i r s t n o t e d t h a t "over t h e l a s t f e w years" ( i . e . , t h e Khrushchev p e r i o d ) t h e permanent commissions of t h e v a r i o u s r e p u b l i c Supreme S o v i e t s have become more a c t i v e i n t h e

-83-

actual a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of t h e economy. Binder and S h a f i r t h e n went on t o propose t h a t (1) t h e scope of economic q u e s t i o n s handled by t h e r e p u b l i c supreme s o v i e t s should be extended, (2) . t h e s o v i e t s s h o u l d be g r a n t e d enhanced c o n t r o l o v e r t h e i r a d m i n i s t r a t i v e organs ( t h e m i n i s t r i e s ) , and (3) t h e procedure f o r examining t h e d r a f t s of t h e s t a t e budget and t h e economic p l a n s h o u l d be improved i n , f a v o r of t h e s o v i e t s .
,..

.. .,... .. : .: :

F i n a l l y , and on t h e e v e of t h e 23rd P a r t y Congress, j u r i s t 0 . Kutafyin i n an i s s u e of S o v i e t S t a t e And Law ( s e n t t o t h e press on 22 March 196G) stressed t he need t o g i v e greater l e g a l powers t o t h e permanent commissions of t h e USSR Supreme S o v i e t i n its r e l a t i o n s w i t h t h e USSR Council of M i n i s t e r s . F i r s t , Kutafyin posed t h e problem; t h e Council of M i n i s t e r s ' v i r t u a l disregard of t h e proposals of t h e Supreme SovietOs permanent commiss i o n s . Advocating actual l e g i s l a t i v e a c t i v i t y on t h e p a r t of the Supreme S o v i e t , Kutafyin wrote t h a t
+ .

According t o t h e p r a c t i c e which has developed, t h e Supreme S o v i e t USSR t r a n s f e r s t h e d e c i s i o n of t h o s e q u e s t i o n s f i h e p r o p o s a l s of t h e s o v i e t permanent c o f i i s sions7 t o t h e d i s c r e t i o n o ! t h e Council f of M h i s t e r s . However, a more correct procedure w o u l d appear t o be one i n which t h e y fihe proposals7 w o u l d be decided i n p r i n c x p l e by t h e Supreme S o v i e t USSR itself.

Then Kutafyin suggested a remedy by which t h e r e g u l a t o r y and p r o c e d u r a l r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e Council of M i n i s t e r s and t h e Supreme S o v i e t and its s t a n d i n g commissions w o u l d be s t r i c t l y e s t a b l i s h e d . The j u r i s t s p e c i f i c a l l y urged t h e adopt i o n of f i v e measures which, conceivably, would p r o v i d e t h e mechanism to e n f o r c e t h e permanent commiss i o n s ' a l r e a d y impressive paper powers (described on page 34): e s t a b l i s h j u r i d i c a l l y (1) t h e d u t y and o b l i g a t i o n of t h e permanent commissions t o send t o t h e Council of M i n i s t e r s p r o p o s a l s w i t h o u t w a i t i n g f o r t h e convocat i o n of t h e next s e s s i o n of t h e Supreme S o v i e t , (2) b e t t e r ''forms and methods" f o r t h e permanent commissions i n t h e

'

. '

-84-

...-.. . ....

,. . . . . . . .. ..~. :.. . , . . ...

...... .. .

implementation of s o v i e t p r o p o s a l s , (3) t h e d u t y of t h e Council of M i n i s t e r s t o c o n s i d e r t h e p r o p o s a l s of t h e permanent commissions and t o inform t h e commissions of t h e r e s u l t s of such c o n s i d e r a t i o n w i t h i n s p e c i f i e d t i m e l i m i t s , (4) t h e d u t y of t h e Council of M i n i s t e r s t o a s s i s t t h e permanent commissions i n d e a l i n g w i t h a g e n c i e s s u b o r d i n a t e t o t h e Council of M i n i s t e r s , and ( 5 ) t h e d u t y of t h e Council of M i n i s t e r s n o t o n l y t o communicate t o the permanent commissions concerning t h e r e s u l t s of m i n i s t e r i a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n s , b u t a l s o t o g i v e a r e p o r t on t h o s e problems d i r e c t l y t o t h e Supreme S o v i e t . Kutafyin a l s o proposed t h a t t h e P r e s i d i u m of t h e USSR Supreme S o v i e t be given p r e c i s e r e g u l a t i o n s and j u r i d i c a l l y d e f i n e d procedures i n d e a l i n g w i t h t h e perman e n t commissions of t h e two supreme s o v i e t chambers, t h e S o v i e t of Union and t h e S o v i e t of N a t i o n a l i t i e s .

..

In contraqtt to t h e a p p e a l s of t h e above f o u r j u r ists, law i n s t i t u t e d i r e c t o r Chkhikvadze and c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l a w e x p e r t Kotok in an a r t i c l e i n Kommunist s i g n e d t o t h e press 23 March 1966 (1) made no r e f e r e n c e t o t h e need f o r permanent commissions for t h e s o v i e t s (2) gave s h o r t s h r i f t t o t h e r o l e of t h e s o v i e t s , (3) and f l a t l y asserted t h a t t h e " s t a t e r e t a i n s its l e a d i n g role1*ovef s o c i a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s - - t h u s , on t h e b a s i s of t h e 1961 p a r t y psogram's d e f i n i t i o n , over t h e s o v i e t s . The two l e a d i n g j u r ists a l s o reiterated e a r l i e r views ( i n c l u d i n g Chesnokov's) on t h e n e c e s s i t y of a v i a b l e s t a t e apparatus. And t h e two jurists employed t h e t r a d i t i o n a l i s t $ * classic argument of defending t h e p a r t y and s t a t e p r o v i s i o n s of t h e 1936 S t a l i n C o n s t i t u t i o n , Affirming t h a t t h e 1936 eons t i t u t i o n a l l o t s t h e " l e a d i n g and g u i d i n g role" t o t h e CPSU, t h e two lawyers l i n k e d p a r t y ' * p u r i t y v t w i t h Chkhikv a d z e ' s earlier expressed p r o p o s i t i o n on t h e v a l u e of a strengthened state apparatus :
I n its a c t i v i t i e s t h e p a r t y proceeds from the fact t h a t t h e S o v i e t s t a t e is t h e main t o o l f o r t h e b u i l d i n g of communism. I t f i h e p a r t y 7 d i s p l a y s const an& concern f o r incFeas i n g t h e power of t h e s t a t e , f o r t h e s y s t e m a t i c implementation of t h e p r i n c i p l e s of S o v i e t

-85-

democracy, s t r e n g t h e n i n g s o c i a l i s t law and o r d e r , improving and b e t t e r i n g t h e state apparatus. Divergent h a n d l i n g of t h i s s t a t e - o r i e n t e d proposit i o n w a s d i s p l a y e d d u r i n g and f o l l o w i n g t h e 23rd P a r t y . Congress. The Congress P r o p o s a l s For P a r l i a m e n t a r y Reform Permanent commissions were t h e p r i n c i p a l c o n s t i t u t i o n a l s u b j e c t a t t h e 23rd P a r t y Congress (29 March8 April) t h i s year. Brezhnev and Podgorny gave c o n s i d e r a b l e emphasis t o t h e s u b j e c t of t h e s t r i c t a c c o u n t a b i l i t y of t h e minist e r i a l a p p a r a t u s t o t h e s o v i e t s and t h e permanent commiss i o n s . Along t h e l i n e of h i s December 1962 I z v e s t i y a argument (and t h e p o s i t i o n s t a k e n by j u r i s t s k u t a f y i n , Makhnenko, Binder and S h a f i s ) and i n r e f e r e n c e t o t h e i n t e r p e l l a t i o n s i s s u e , Brezhnev in h i s 29 March 1966 cong r e s s r e p o r t emphasized t h a t " r e p o r t s of t h e USSR Council of M i n i s t e r s a t s e s s i o n s of t h e USSR Supreme S o v i e t Going beyond V a s i l y e v ' s s h o u l d become t h e p r a c t i c e . " February 1965 Kommunist p o s i t i o n , Brezhnev s u g g e s t e d i n h i s 29 March 1966 r e p o r t t h a t greater m i n i s t e r i a l reviewi n g a u t h o r i t y w i t h i n t h e Supreme S o v i e t " p o s s i b l y could be assisted by formation of new permanent commissions i n t h e chambers of t h e USSR Supreme Soviet." BrezhnevOs remarks on i n c r e a s i n g t h e number and powers of t h e permanent commissions were warmly endorsed by Podgorny t w o days l a t e r , S t r e s s i n g t h a t t h e s o v i e t s "must f u l l y u t i l i z e t h e r i g h t s t h e y already enjoy i n accord w i t h t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n " and complaining t h a t " t h e p o s s i b i l i t i e s and r i g h t s g r a n t e d t o them by t h e Constit u t i o n are f a r from b e i n g f u l l y u t i l i z e d , Podgorny concluded t h a t " t h e C e n t r a l CommitteeOs s u g g e s t i o n t o expand t h e p r a c t i c e of h e a r i n g government r e p o r t s a t s e s s i o n s and t o create permanent commissions i n both chambers of t h e Supreme S o v i e t is f u l l y j u s t i f i e d . "
. ^

.., .. .
.

:,

.,
I

.... , .
I .

. . .... ... ..

...:.,.:',..
'

. ... ..

-86..... .. .. .....

The n e t e f f e c t of t h e Brezhnev-Podgorny Supreme S o v i e t f'reformsff would be (1) t o i n c r e a s e t h e role of t h e s o v i e t s in t h e e a r l y stages of t h e l e g i s l a t i v e p r o c e s s and (2) t o impose added t a s k s and c o n t r o l measures on t h e m i n i s t e r i a l a p p a r a t u s , headed by Chairman of t h e Presidium of t h e Council of M i n i s t e r s Kosygin.

In d e f e n s e of h i s a p p a r a t u s , Kosygin i n h i s b r i e f
. . .. . ... . ... . .

7 A p r i l concluding speech a t t h e c o n g r e s s h e l d t h a t t h e

e a r l y stage of t h e l e g i s l a t i v e p r o c e s s would r e s i d e withi n t h e m i n i s t r i e s , and t h a t t h e Supreme S o v i e t ' s r o l e would be t o consider t h e p l a n s which had been worked out i n t h e government o r g a n s . The S t a t e P l a n n i n g Committee of t h e USSR, t h e m i n i s t r i e s , t h e Council of M i n i s t e r s of t h e union r e p u b l i c s , and t h e economic and planning b o d i e s m u s t work o u t t h e f ive-year p l a n d t h t a r g e t s f o r e v e r y y e a r and, what is of p a r t i c u l a r importance, make it known t o e v e r y e n t e r p r i s e . T h i s new f i v e - y e a r p l a n m u s t be ready w i t h i n f o u r or f i v e months, t h e n it w i l l be s u b m i t t e d t o t h e s e s s i o n of t h e Supreme S o v i e t of t h e USSR for c o n s i d e r a t i o n . S i g n i f i c a n t l y , Kosygin i n h i s l e n g t h y 6 A p r i l r e p o r t a t t h e c o n g r e s s Ignored t h e s u g g e s t i o n s of Brezhnev and Podgorny t o i n c r e a s e t h e powers of t h e Supreme S o v i e t s in Its r e l a t i o n s w i t h t h e Council of Ministers--a ''reform'' which would do l i t t l e t o enhance t h e independence of Kosygin's bureaucracy. Kosygin a l s o ignored Brezhnev * s s u g g e s t i o n (endorsed by Podgorny) t o create a s y s t e m of " e l e c t i v e c o l l e c t i v e farm c o o p e r a t i v e bodies"--another "reform**which, i f e v e r implemented,* would do l i t t l e *The 8 Ap r i l Congress r e s o l u t i o n i n s t r u c t e d t h e c e n t r a l committee " t o examine" t h e p r o p o s a l t o s e t up " c o l l e c t i v e farm cooper a t i v e b o d i e s . '* The c o o p e r a t i v e s , an i s s u e d i s c u s s e d i n a December 1959 a g r i c u l t u r a l plenum (with Podgorny and Polyansky i n d i c a t i n g t h e i r f a v o r of t h e prop o s a l ) , b e a r some resemblance t o t h e kolkhoz unions which e x i s t e d d u r i n g t h e p e r i o d 1927-1932. .

. 1. e . , . "

. ,

-87-

t o enhance t h e a u t h o r i t y of t h e newly r e c e n t r a l i z e d Ministry

of A g r i c u l t u r e under KosyginOs Council of M i n i s t e r s .

Two o r g a n i z a t i o n a l "reforms" associated w i t h Khrushchev and r e l a t i n g t o c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i s q u e s were r e v e r s e d on B r e z h n e v g s recommendation a t t h e 23rd Congress. The d e l e g a t e s t o t h e congress r e p l a c e d t h e 1961 t u r n o v e r r u l e w i t h a vague r e f e r e n c e t o t h e ' # p r i n c i p l e of s y s t e m a t i c renewal" in t h e paktg election s t a t u t e . And in g e s t u r e s a p p a r e n t l y aimed a t s e p a r a t i n g t h e new l e a d e r s h i p from t i t l e s associated w i t h Khrushchev, t h e c o n g r e s s delegates v o t e d t o change Brezhnev's t i t l e of "first s e c r e t a r y " t o " g e n e r a l s e c r e t a r y " and t h e p r e s i d i u m w a s renamed "politburo, t h e o r i g i n a l pre-1952 t i t l e under Lenin and S t a1in e An " O r i g i n a l Version'o Of Lenin,Os ECOnQmiC Testament
While d i s s o c i a t i n g himself from t i t l e s and c e r t a i n s t a t u t e s sponsored by Khrushehev, Brezhnev d i d not choose t o dissociate himself f u l l y from c e r t a i n ' E p o s i t i v e " a t t r i b u t e s of h i s predecessorOs p a r t y p r o d u c t i o n p r i n c i p l e . Thus Brezhnev in h i s c o n g r e s s r e p o r t d i d n o t c k i t i c i z e t h e p r o d u c t i o n p r i n c i p l e in h i s b l a c k list of "negative phenomena" t h a t supposedly had been r e t a r d i n g t h e development of t h e n a t i o n a l economy. H e p o i n t e d toward " f a u l t s in management and planning, under a p p r e c i a t i o n of s e l f f i n a n c i n g methods in economics, incomplete u t i l i z a t i o n of material and moral i n c e n t i v e s . " and so f o r t h . (BY way of c o n t r a s t , Suslov in 8 2 June 1965 Sofia speech judged t h a t t h e vfso-called" p r o d u c t i o n p r i n c i p l e , among other phenomena which arose d u r i n g t h e Khrushchev era, had " i n f l i c t e d great h a r m " on t h e n a t i o n l s economic and pol it i c a l 1 e. ) If

... .,.
.......

(..( ....
I..

Following t h e c o n g r e s s , Brezhnevos l i n e of argument was c i t e d i n t h e c o n t e x t of t h e " o r i g i n a l version'*--not t h e "newly deciphered", and presumably d i s r e g u t e d version-of t h e r e c e n t l y n e g l e c t e d Lenin document t h a t w a s p o p u l a r i z e d i n 1962 in a l i k e e f f o r t to s u b s t a n t i a t e Khrushchev's view of t h e p r o d u c t i v e p a r t y . Somewhat s i m i l a r t h e o r e t i c a l

-88-

.. ,.

s u b s t a n t i a t ion f o r Brezhnev *s c o n g r e s s argument was drawn i n a 22 A p r i l I e v e s t i y a a r t i c l e by t h e Chairman of t h e I n s t i t u t e of MarxAsm-Leninism, P. Pospelov, who wrote: LeninOs o p i n i o n on t h e p l a c e and role of economics and economic p o l i c y i n t h e c o n s t r u c t ion of communism is e s p e c i a l l y valuable' f o r t h e p r a c t i c a l work of t h e p a r t y . In t h e o r i g i n a l v e r s i o n of t h e a r t i c l e *!The Immediate Tasks of t h e S o v i e t Regime, Lenin r e v e a l s t h e determining s i g n i f i c a n c e of t h e economic p o l i c y of t h e S o v i e t s t a t e . Now, he p o i n t e d o u t , "it is not p o l i t i c s b u t economics which is a c q u i r i n g p r i m a r i l y s i g n i f i c a n c e * I t In accordance w i t h t h i s view Lenin more t h a n once warned a g a i n s t t h e mere g i v i n g of commands, and a g a i n s t t h e danger;df t h e predominance over economic methods of an a d m i n i s t r a t i v e approach t o t h e management of t h e n a t i o n a l economy. "If a communist is an a d m i n i s t r a t o r , " t a u g h t Lenin, " h i s first d u t y is t o beware of an enthusiasm f o r g i v i n g commands and t o be able first t o t a k e i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n t h a t which s c i e n c e h a s a l r e a d y worked o u t , t o ask f i r s t where we have made a mistake and only on t h i s basis t o correct what h a s In another: p l a c e Lenin been done." .not t o s e p a r a t e administrawarned: t i o n from p o l i t i c s is t h e task."
I*.

....... . . ..

Lenin pushed economic methods of l e a d e r s h i p t o t h e foreground. Undere s t i m a t i o n of t h e s e methods i n t h e p a s t was also one of t h e r e a s o n s f o r c e r t a i n n e g a t i v e phenomenon in t h e development of t h e n a t i o n a l economy which were ment i o n e d d i r e c t l y and openly i n t h e r e p o r t of t h e C e n t r a l Committee of t h e XXIII P a r t y Congress which w a s g i v e s by'comrade Brezhnev

-89-

..
I .

..

I I

2 l wZ 5w z

c.

The "newly deciphered" v e r s i o n was c i t e d by I l i c h e v i n h i s November 1962 Kommunist a r t i c l e (examined on pages 48 4 9 ) , which translates t h a t Lenin wrote " p o l i t i c a l t a s k s and problems hold fianimayut7 a s u b o r d i n a t e p l a c e t o economic t a s k s . t * Posgelov's t ' E r i g i n a l v e r s i o n " t r a n s lates t h a t Lenin wrote "it is n o t p o l i t i c s b u t economics which is a c q u i r i n g / E r i o b r e t a e t 7 primary s i g n i f i c a n c e . l t The terminology in %he " o r i g i n a l v e r s i o n t ' seems t o correspond more c l o s e l y t o t h e c u r r e n t s t a t e of Brezhnev's c a u t i o u s approach t o t h e p r o d u c t i o n p r i n c i p l e , That is, t*ecofiomicsTtc o u l d be i n t h e p r o c e s s of a c q u i r i n g primary c o n s i d e r a t i o n i n BrezhnevOs p u b l i c formula on t h e r o l e of t h e p a r t y though it is not f i r m l y llheld" i n e x p l i c i t primacy over ideology.

. .

.
:

'

Following t h e c o n g r e s s , Brezhnev i n June returned.' t o t h e subject of a working p a r t y , i g n o r e d p a r t y i d e o l o g i c a l work, and followed h i s product i o n - o r i e n t e d comments w i t h a s u r p r i s e announcement c o n c e r n i n g an old p r o j e c t .

THE "BREZHNEV CONSTITUTION"

..

'

.....

. ....

........

The o l d p r o j e c t - t h e a d o p t i o n of a new c o n s t i t u tion--was r e v i v e d by Brezhnev i n his 10 June 1966 Moscow e l e c t i o n speech. And old,, though less c o n t r o v e r s i a l themes on t h e p a r t y and state--the tlworking p a r t y , " s t r e n g t h e n e d soviets--surrounded BrezhaevOs r e f e r e n c e t o t h e new basic law, which he c o n f i d e n t l y i n d i c a t e d would be adopted i n 1967,
O t h e r more c o n t r o v e r s i a l themes on t h e p a r t y and s t a t e from t h e Khruslbchev p e r i o d have n o t been touched upon. For example, t h e c u r r e n t c o n s t i t u t i o n a l d i a l o g u e under t h e new leadership is s i l e n t on (1) t h e program t o t r a n s f o r m t h e m i n i s t e r i a l , l t p a r l i a m e n t a r y l t system i n t o a system g r a n t i n g g r e a t e r power t o an independent execut i v e branch, (2) t h e e x p l i c i t s u b o r d i n a t i o n of i d e o l o g i c a l t a s k s t o economic t a s k s in p a r t y work, (3) t h e formula

-90-

on t h e w i t h e r i n g away of the state a p p a r a t and t h e assumption of s t a t e tasks by o t h e r o r g a n i z a t i o n s and (4) t h e Hconvergencen of a l l s o c i a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s , i n c l u d i n g t h e p a r t y , i n t o a s i n g l e t*all-embracingl' o r g a n i z a t i o n . Although t h e apparent s h e l v i n g of these more c o n t r o v e r s i a l fissues would presumably f a c i l i t a t e t h e passage of
t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l p r o j e c t , d i s a r r a y i n the leadership w i t h r e g a r d t o Brezhnev's r e l a t i v e l y cautious l i n e on t h e r e s p e c t i v e roles of p a r t y and s t a t e is as v i s i b l e as t h e p r e v i o u s o p p o s i t i o n t o Khrushchev's more r a d i c a l p o s i t ions. The Wenuine P e o p l e ' s State"

In a move t h a t could be l i n k e d w i t h t h e reported reexaminat i o n of Xhrushchev's s t a t e f o r m u l a , Brezhnev announced a t a 10 June e l e c t o r a l speech i n t h e Kremlin that
A l l t h e b e s t t h a t t h e p r a c t i c e of s t a t e b u i l d i n g has produced i n our c o u n t r y m u s t be summed up i n t h e new c o n s t i t u t i o n of t h e USSR, which w i l l crown t h e majestic h a l f c e n t u r y course of o u r c o u n t r y , of t h e first genuine people's s t a t e i n t h e h i s t o r y of mankind.
If t h e "genuine p e o p l e ' s s t a t e " was intended as a r e v i sion of Khrushchev's formRla, it may c o n c e a l some posit i o n s on t h e p a r t y - s t a t e i s s u e t h a t were associated w i t h Khrushchev's d e f i n i t i o n of t h e "state of t h e whole people." For example, Brezhnev followed h i s announcement on t h e new c o n s t i t u t i o n of t h e "genuine p e o p l e ' s state" w i t h an u n u s u a l l y clear d e s c r i p t i o n of t h e economic tasks of p a r t y members.* Discarding h i s March and September 1965

*Brezhnev had employed a somewhat s i m i l a r tack i n h i s 30 December 1962 I z v e s t i y a a r t i c l e ( d i s c u s s e d on pp. 49-51) in which he preceeded h i s remark on t h e new c o n s t i t u t i o n w i t h a s t a t e m e n t e n d o r s i n g t h e d e c i s i o n s of t h e November 1962 l l p a r t y production'* plenum.

-91-

szmuzz

performances in c i r c u m l o c u t i o n (and approaching t h e candid l e v e l of Bashkir p a r t y chief Nuriyev's November 1965 KOmbUniSt d i s c u s s i o n ) , Brezhnev ignored t h e q u e s t i o n of p a r t y ideojlogical work and f l a t l y t o l d h i s electors t h a t t h e p a r t y is called upon t o t9formulate t h e b a s i s of t h e c o u n t r y ' s economic p o l i c y , t h e main p r i n c i p l e s and methods of management and t o put t h e s e i n t o p r a c t i c e . * * Later A h i s speech he provided an example of rank and n f i l e p a r t y members p u t t i n g i n t o practice CPSU economic decisions: Communists, l i k e a l l other S o v i e t people, work in e n t e r p r i s e s , on c o l l e c t i v e farms, a t b u i l d i n g s i t e s , and in i n s t i t u t i o n s . If t h e y e n j o y any p r i v i l e g e it is t h e p r i v i l e g e of s h o u l d e r i n g t h e m o s t d i f f i c u l t i e s , of s e r v i n g as examples, and of b e i n g in t h e vanguard. I n s h o r t , what w e mean is what i n t h e w a r y e a r s was e x p r e s s e d by t h e s l o g a n "communists, forward." Tod a y , t h i s means working s e l f l e s s l y a t t h e b u i l d i n g sites of communism, b e i n g e q u a l t o t h e demands l i f e makes, doing e v e r y t h i n g t o f u l f i l l completely t h e d e c i s i o n s of t h e 23rd Congress of o u r p a r t y . '*Working s e l f l e s s l y " t o f u l f i l l t h e d e c i s i o n s of t h e 23rd Congress w a s a formula t h a t s t i l l f e l l s h o r t of f u l l endorsement of KhrushehevOs p a r t y p r o d u c t i o n p r i n c i p l e . T h a t is;, Breehnev d i d n o t go on t o e x p l i c i t l y s u b o r d i n a t e ideological work t o t h e practical t a s k s of b u i l d i n g communism, though he d i d n o t d i s c u s s t h e former t a s k i n h i s e l e c t i o n speech. Brezhnev also d i d not reiterate h i s 23rd Congress s u g g e s t i o n f o r s t r e n g t h e n i n g t h e permanent commissions of t h e Supreme Soviet-a* s u g g e s t i o n , i n c i d e n t a l l y , which had been d e l e t e d i n t h e 8 A p r i l 1966 c o n g r e s s r e s o l u t i o n on Brezhnev*s report. However, Brezhnev, l i k e t h e adopted c o n g r e s s r e s o l u t i o n , urged i n h i s e l e c t i o n speech t h a t t h e role of t h e Supreme S o v i e t be r a i s e d and t h a t t h e scope of s o v i e t a c t i v i t y be expanded.

-92-

Going beyond Brezhnev's e l e c t i o n remarks on t h e s o v i e t s , t h e p a r t y ' s paper Pravda e d i t o r i a l i z e d on 13 June t h a t t h e c o n t i n u e d r i s e h e r o l e of t h e Supreme S o v i e t "hats been posed by t h e p a r t y as a primary goal.** And t h a t t h e s o v i e t ' s role meant t h e r e s o l u t i o n of s t a t e matters w a s made e x p l i c i t on t h e day df t h e e l e c t i o n s , 1 2 June, in a n o t h e r Pravda e d i t o r i a l : "The P a r t y is t i r e l e s s l p concerned o v e r t h e b o v i e t s ' > . g r o w i g g r o l e in d e c i d i n g st ate q u e s t i o n s . ** I n c o n s p i c c o u s contrast--and in c l o s e s i m i l a r i t y w i t h Kosygin's e l e c t i o n riamarks on t h e subject of t h e s o v i e t s - - t h e government's paper I a v e s t i y a ignored t h e subject of r a i s i n g t h e r o l e of t h e Supreme S o v i e t i n its e d i t o r i a l s on t h e same t w o days. And in an apparent r e t o r t t o t h e p a r t y e d i t o r i a l ' s Y i e w of t h e r o l e of t h e s o v i e t s , t h e 13 June government edit o r i a l - - i n t h e same v e i n of Kosygin's 7 A p r i l c o n g r e s s remark--held t h a t t h e Supreme S o v i e t would merely 'lapprovevt ( y u t v e r d i t ' ) a c t i v i t y r e l a t i n g t o t h e new f i v e y e a r p l a n , rather t h a n be more a c t i v e l y involved " i n deciding" (v reshenim) s u c h q u e s t i o n s , as in Pravda's 12 June e d i t o r i a l . I x v e s t i y a ' s 13 June e d i t o r i a l h e r b e l i t t l e d t h a t such s t a t e q u e s t i o n s ' * w i l l face" t h e Supreme S o v i e t delegates. P r i o r t o Breahnev's e l e c t i o n speech, h i g h - l e v e l Supreme S o v i e t d e l e g a t e s p r e s e n t e d t h e i r post-congress, and d i s s i m i l a r , views on t h e role of t h e p a r t y , t h e r o l e of t h e s o v i e t s and t h e role of t h e s t a t e apparat in t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e **campaign** p e e c h e s on t h e e v e of t h e Supreme s S o v i e t elect ions. The Post-Congress Views of The O l i g a r c h y Podgorny i n h i s 9 June Bolshoy T h e a t e r e l e c t i o n speech e n d o r s e d even more of j u r i s t K u t a f y i n ' s March 1966 S o v i e t State And Law p r o p o s a l s on i n c r e a s i n g theipowers of t be permanent commissions of t h e Supreme S o v i e t . Podgorny enumerated one i n t e r e s t i n g c a s e s t u d y on t h e role of t h e permanent commissions i n making c o r r e c t i o n s in t h e budgets and economic p l a n s s u b m i t t e d by t h e government a p p a r a t u s to t h e s o v i e t s . The example Podgorny chose

-93-

2sTTeMW

t o i n s t a n c e h i s p o i n t on t h e worth of t h e permanent commissions was, c u r i o u s l y , deleted i n both Pravda's and excised I z v e s t i y a ' s l e n g t h y a c c o u n t s of h i s s p e e c h . e passage, which harks back t o t h e role of t h e commissions d u r i n g t h e Ehrushchev p e r i o d and i m p l i c i t l y argues t h a t t h e Supreme S o v i e t is n o t a "rubber stamp" p a r l i a m e n t , was i n c l u d e d i n t h e l i v e domestic r a d i o v e r s i o n of Podgorny's a d d r e s s :
L e t u s take t h e d i s c u s s i o n about n a t i o n a l economic p l a n s and budgets i n t h e permanent commissions and a t s e s s i o n s of t h e USSR Supreme S o v i e t . Each o u t l i n e i n t h e p l a n , each figure i n t h e budget, is most thoroughly weighed by d e p u t i e s . They a n a l y z e them,

locate new r e s e r v e s , and i n t r o d u c e concrete p r o p o s a l s .

For example, d u r i n g t h e p a s t f o u r y e a r s the. c o r r e c t i o n s i n economic p l a n s and budgets adopted by t h e Supreme S o v i e t on a proposal of permanent commissions and d e p u t i e s made it p o s s i b l e t o increase p r o d u c t i o n of consumer goods of importance t o t h e p o p u l a t i o n f o r t h e s u m of 725 m i l l i o n r u b l e s .
Both papers, however, r e p o r t e d Podgorny's remarks on (1) t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s of s o v i e t d e p u t i e s i n v e r i f y i n g t h e implementation of adopted laws and (2) h i s p o i n t e d reference t o t h e r i g h t s of t h e Supreme S o v i e t ' s permanent'commisSionS to examine t h e a c t i v i t y of t h e s t a t e bureaucracy: "A permanent commission h e a r s reports from m i n i s t r i e s and government departments, shortcomings are disclosed, and recommendat i o n s are elaborated f o r overcoming them. '' F i n a l l y , and i n apparent r e f e r e n c e t o t h e September 1965 managerial plenum, Podgorny proclaimed t h a t t h e i n c r e a s e d r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s growing o u t of t h e * ' e x t e n s i v e r i g h t s "

g r a n t e d t o p r o d u c t i o n e n t e r p r i s e s and branch m i n i s t r i e s w o u l d be accompanied by * * i n c r e a s e dc o n t r o l o v e r t h e a c t i o n s of managerial b o d i e s by s o v i e t s and t h e i r d e p u t i e s . "

-94-

f l

S h e l e s t , who was e l e c t e d a f u l l member of t h e presidium i n November 1964, warmly seconded t h e s o v i e t ( S h e l e s t i n h i s 30 p r o p o s a l s of h i s p a t r o n , , Podgorny. March c o n g r e s s speech also seconded t h e c o l l e c t i v e f a r m cooperht i v e p r o p o s a l s of Podgorny and Brezhnev ) Shelest , who i n JhFy11963 succeeded Podgorny as first s e c r e t a r y of t h e Ukrainian Communist P a r t y , also echoed muchcof t h e r e p u b l i c - l e v e l p a r l i a m e n t a r y reform p r o p o s a l s urged by j u r i s t s Binder and S h a f i r i n t h e i r Nuvember 1965 l a w j o u r n a l article. Thus, Shelest t o l d Kiev e l e c t o r s on 7 June 1966 t h a t

C u r r e n t l y t h e role of the s o v i e t s of workers d e p u t i e s is b e i n g p a r t i c u l a r l y i n c r e a s e d i n t h e s o l u t i o n of t h e tasks of economic and c u l t u r a l c o n s t r u c t i o n , i n q u e s t i o n s of planning, f i n a n c i n g , and housing cons t r u c t i o n , and in t h e management of l o c a l i n d u s t r i a l enterpnrises and of p u b l i c and c u l t u r a l s e r v i c e s f o r t h e population. The s o v i e t s of workers d e p u t i e s are faced w i t h great t a s k s i n t h e f u r t h e r i n t e n s i f i c a t i o n of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l work, In raisi n g t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of S o v i e t d e p u t i e s and f u n c t i o n a r i e s before t h e people, i n a c t i v a t i n g t h e work of s e s s i o n s and permanent f commissions, and i n t h e s t r e n g t h e n i n g o and s t r i c t adherence t o s o c i a l i s t l a w .

7-

In c o n t r a s t , Kos g i n :in h i s e l e c t i o n speech i n Moscow's Bolshoy Thea er on t h e n e x t day renewed t h e s t a t e - o r i e n t e d approach of j u r i s t s Chkhikvadze and Kotok i n i g n o r i n g t h e s u b j e c t of i n c r e a s i n g t h e role of t h e s o v i e t s and t h e issue of t h e s o v i e t ' s permanent commissions. In f a c t , Kosygin voiced a p o s i t i o n on t h e role of t h e s t a t e a p p a r a t u s as s t r o n g as Chesnokov's December 1965 Kommunisq p r e s e n t a t i o n on t h e September 1965 p l e n u m . d e c i s i o n s . * -

-#-

*Kosygin, after r e f e r r i n g t o t h e numerical growth i n t h e s t a t e m i l i t i a , paraphrased ChesnokovOs December 1965 Kommunist r a t i o n a l e on t h e need for organs of c o e r c i o n : Rosygin s a i d "it would be incorrect t o think that s i n c e communism w i l l f i n a l l y lead t o t h e d i s a p p e a r a n c e of s t a t e organs of c o e r c i o n , one need no l o n g e r b o t h e r about s t r e n g t h e n i n g p u b l i c order."
-95-

Thus, Kosygin, a f t e r a s s e r t i n g t h a t t h e CPSU c o n s i d e r s t h e s t r e n g t h e n i n g of t h e S o v i e t s t a t e "of great importance," made a r e f e r e n c e t o t h e 1965 September managerial plenum i n p r e d i c t i n g t h a t many l e g i s l a t i v e norms of economic quest i o n s w i l l be r e v i s e d and w i l l be made t o correspond t o t h e new system of management of t h e n a t i o n a l economy. T h i s w i l l r a i s e and s t r e n g t h e n l e g a l i t y and d i s c i p l i n e and w i l l i n s u r e t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n of s t a t e o r d e r i n a l l s e c t i o n s of t h e s t a t e machinery and t h e economic management of t h e c o u n t r y . Unlike Podgorny, Kosygin d i d not go on t o s t a t e t h a t t h e s o v i e t s and t h e i r d e p u t i e s would i n c r e a s e c o n t r o l over t h e a c t i o n s o f ' t h e s t a t e machinery. And u n l i k e Brezhnev's e l e c t i o n remarks, Kosygin (1) ignored t h e s u b j e c t of t h e working p a r t y member, (2) asserted t h a t t h e role of t h e p a r t y w a s t o "lead and g u i d e , " and (3) made a s t r o n g e r p i t c h f o r t h e r o l e of t h e expert i n b u i l d i n g t h e b a s e s of communism t h a n he had i n h i s 5 A p r i l 1966 congress speech: a t t h e Bolshoy, Kosygin s a i d t h a t t h e l*working class and t h e s c i e n t i f i c - t e c h n i c a l i n t e l l i g e n t s i a of t h e c a p i t a l s t e a d f a s t l y s t r i d e i n t h e vanguard of t h e s t r u g g l e f o r implementation of t h e p l a n s of o u r p a r t y i n t h e c r e a t i o n of t h e material and t e c h n i c a l base of communism." Suslov i n h i s 7 June Leningrad e l e c t i o n speech once more emphasized t h e need for an i d e o l o g i c a l l y p u r e p a r t y . He reiterated t h e p r i n c i p a l p o i n t s i n Kosygin's e l e c t i o n speech d e a l i n g w i t h t h e need f o r a s t r o n g s t a t e a p p a r a t u s , b u t also endorsed t h e Podgorny emphasis on t h e s o v i e t s , though w i t h o u t making a s p e c i f i c comment on t h e i s s u e of permanent commissions. Suslov, l i k e t h e 13 June Pravda e d i t o r i a l , asserted t h a t t h e CPSU "attaches parat o t h e i n c r e a s i n g role of t h e s o v i e t s " -importance (a f o r m u l a t i o n n o t broached in Kosygin's speech on t h e n e x t day) and he emphasized t h e r o l e of p e o p l e ' s c o n t r o l (an o r g a n i z a t i o n i g n o r e d i n Kosygin's speech) and t h e s o v i e t d e p u t i e s i n v e r i f y i n g t h e implementat ion of adopted laws.

-96-

In sum, S u s l o v ' s 1966 electoral p r e s e n t a t i o n s u g g e s t e d t h a t he had modified h i s post-1959 Congress views on t h e role of t h e s o v i e t s , * and would now a g a i n s u p p o r t measures t o s t r e n g t h e n t h e a u t h o r i t y of t h e s o v i e t s as l o n g as t h e p a r t y ' s t r a d i t i o n a l r o l e would n o t become contaminated i n t h e p r o c e s s . In t h i s l a t t e r connection t h e 23rd Congress adopted more r e s t r i c t i v e p a r t y members h i p rules-making e n t r a n c e more d i f f i c u l t and e x p u l s i o n easier-which accorded w i t h S u s l o v o s i n s i s t e n c e on t h e p u r i t y : ; o f p a r t y ranks.**
Polyansky,, a first deputy chairman of Kosygin's Council of M i n i s t e r s , i n t h e a b r i d g e d (and o n l y a v a i l a b l e ) v e r s i o n of h i s 31 May e l e c t i o n speech i n Krasnoder a l s o praised t h e role of t h e s o v i e t s . And in a d d i t i o n , Polyansky;, who w a s e l e v a t e d t o h i s c u r r e n t m i n i s t e r i a l p o s t a f t e r t h e September 1965 plenum, may have previewed Brezhnev's l a t e r r e f e r e n c e t o t h e " t f g e n u i n e people s s t a t e " ; Polyansky t o l d Krasnoder e l e c t o r s t h a t t h e 1917 r e v o l u t i o n l a i d t h e f o u n d a t i o n f o r a "genuine p e o p l e ' s r u l e " which, he imm e d i a t e l y e x p l a i n e d , was r e p r e s e n t e d by t h e emergence of t h e s o v i e t s . (In a somewhat s i m i l a r v e i n , Suslov

*For example, Suslov i n h i s l a s t e l e c t i o n s p e e c h , 1 2 March 1962 in S a r a t o v , ignored, as he had i n h i s 1961 Congress p r e s e n t a t i o n , t h e subject of i n c r e a s i n g t h e r o l e of t h e s o v i e t s . **The s t a t u t e s , in a d d i t i o n , c a l l f o r p a r t y e x p u l s i o n of those who v i o l a t e either t h e s t a t u t e s o r t h e p a r t y program, a p r o v i s i o n reiterated i n a Pravda a r t i c l e on t h e day p r e c e d i n g t h e Suslov speech. -provision, i n c i d e n t l y , could be invoked as basis f o r e x p e l l i n g Khrushchev f r o m t h e p a r t y . After h i s f a l l h i s p a r t y reform w a s p i c t u r e d as a v i o l a t i o n of t h e p a r t y s t a t u t e s . F u r t h e r , h i s view of t h e p r o d u c t i o n - o r i e n t e d p a r t y w a s o u t of t u n e w i t h t h e more t r a d i t i o n a l d e f i n i t i o n of t h e p a r t y r e t a i n e d i n t h e 1961 p a r t y program. See a l s o pp. 3637 . ' w i t h regard t o t h e l a t t e r p o i n t .

-97-

1
r e f e r r e d t o "genuine socialAsm**before commenting on t h e r o l e of t h e s o v i e t s . ) Hazurov, in h i s 20 May e l e c t i o n speech in Minsk while r m g t o t h e Supreme S o v i e t i n s t a n d a r d terms as t h e "supreme organ of power", d i d n o t s i n g l e o u t t h e

a p v i e t s for- p r a i s e or s u g g e s t t h a t there w a s any need f o r an expansion of their role. Like Kosygin, Mazurov, who became a F i r s t Deputy Premier i n March 1965, emphasized t h e r o l e of t h e s t a t e a p p a r a t u s i n s t a t e p o l i c y . Mazurov a g a i n ignored t h e r o l e of t h e s o v i e t s i n an award p r e s e n t a t i o n speech on 8 June in Fergana although one of t h e s u b j e c t s of h i s speech w a s t h e Supreme S o v i e t e l e c t i o n s . Yazurov h a s been c l o s e l y associated w i t h t h e r e s t o r a t i o n of t h e c e n t r a l i z e d m i n i s t r i e s after Khrushchev's f a l l and, in f a c t , i n t r o d u c e d Kosygin*s managerial proposals t o t h e Supreme S o v i e t . S h e l e p i n i n h i s 2 June e l e c t i o n speech i n Leningrad d i d n o t touch on t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s t a t u s of t h e Supreme S o v i e t . H i s o n l y s p e c i f i c r e f e r e n c e to t h e f u t u r e r o l e of t h e s o v i e t s was t h e non-committal s t a t e m e n t t h a t t h e s o v i e t d e p u t i e s have "an important role" in t h e s p h e r e of housing c o n s t r u c t i o n . (Shelepin had a l s o s l i g h t e d t h e r o l e of t h e s o v i e t s in h i s l a s t e l e c t i o n speech--1 March 1962 i n Tashkent.) With regard t o t h e role of t h e p a r t y , S h e l e p i n in 1966, (1) l i k e t h e 1951 Chesnokov p o s i t i o n (see page 15 ) and t h e 1936 S t a l i n C o n s t i t u t i o n , h e l d t h a t t h e p a r t y is "the p o l i t i c a l leader and t h e leader of o u r s o c i e t y and t h e s t a t e " and (2), u n l i k e Brezhnevts election remarks on t h e 23rd P a r t y Congress, S h e l e p i n s a i d t h a t t h e d e c i s i o n s of t h e 23rd Congress would " s t r e n g t h e n t h e p a r t y even more in t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n a l and i d e o l o g i c a l p o l i t c a l s e n s e " and w i l l " s t r e n g t h e n d i s c i p l i n e . ** P o l i t b u r o m e m b e r Voronov, t h e chairman of t h e Council of M i n i s t e r s of t h e largest r e p u b l i c ( t h e RSFSR) and, under Khrushchev, t h e chairman of t h e important cons t i t u t i o n a l subcommission on " q u e s t i o n s of p u b l i c and s t a t e s t r u c t u r e , '* emphasized t h e r o l e of s t a t e m i n i s t r i e s i n t h e a b r i d g e d (and o n l y a v a i l a b l e ) v e r s i o n of h i s 3 June 1966 Novosibirsk e l e c t i o n speech. I n f a c t , h i s e l e c t i o n remarks on t h e e f f i c a c y of Kosygints September

..

. . .. ..

..I..

-98-

1965 managerial reforms were much more categorical t h a n Kosygin's e l e c t i o n comments on t h e same s u b j e c t . Voronov a s s e r t e d t h a t t h e September d e c i s i o n t o t r a n s f e r t o new methods of p l a n n i n g and management of i n d u s t r y is t h e "decisive f actort1 for t h e f u l f i l l m e n t of t h e f ive-year p l a n . Voronov, however, d i d n o t e i n h i s 30 October 1965 speech in Kirov t h a t t h e d e c i s i o n s of Brezhnev's March 1965 a g r i c u l t u r a l plenum "impose even greater respons-ib i l i t i e s on P a r t y and S o v i e t organs f o r t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n . of a if a i r s .
Pelshe, e l e v a t e d t o t h e p o l i t b u r o a t t h e 23rd Congress, 6 June Riga e l e c t i o n address asserted t h a t t h e s o v i e t s now are " b e a r i n g complete r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , a r e

* P r i o r t o t h e March 1965 plenum, L. Kulichenko, t h e chairman of t h e permanent commission f o r a g r i c u l t u r e of t h e RSFSR Supreme S o v i e t s p e l l e d o u t t h e powers of t h e RSFSR Supreme S o v i e t permanent commissions v i s - a - v i s Voronov's RSFSR Council of M i n i s t e r s . C l o s e l y parall e l l i n g t h e d e s c r i p t i o n of t h e e x i s t i n g powers of t h e Supreme S o v i e t permanent commissions given i n j u r i s t K u t a f y i n ' s l a t e March 1966 S o v i e t S t a t e And Law a r t i c l e , Kulichenko proclaimed i n a 31 January 1965 Iz v e s t i y a a r t i c l e t h a t **extensive r i g h t s and powers have been g r a n t e d u s fihe RSFSR Supreme S o v i e t permanent cormpiss i o n s 7 . When n e c e s s a r y , w e have t h e r i g h t t o i n v i t e t o t h e commission meetings o f f i c i a l s from:the m i n i s t r i e s and f r o m s t a t e committees created under t h e Council of M i n i s t e r s RSFSR, n o t o n l y t o i n v i t e them, b u t a l s o t o hear t h e i r comments and t o recommend t h a t t h e y adopt a p a r t i c u l a r measure. The coldmission may submit its recommendations t o t h e RSFSR government and i n i t i a t e p r o p o s a l s aimed a t improving a g r i c u l t u r a l production." If accepted, t h e Ekezhnev-Podgorny p r o p o s a l s t o i n c r e a s e t h e powers of t h e USSR Supreme S o v i e t permanent commissions w i l l have a l i k e e f f e c t on t h e r e p u b l i c Supreme S o v i e t commiss i o n s in r e l a t i o n s w i t h t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e c o u n c i l s of ministers.

-99-

b e i n g i n c r e a s i n g l y e x a c t i n g toward a l l economic organizat i o n s . ** P e l s h e , however, also i n d i r e c t l y noted t h e lawmaking powers of t h e Council of M i n i s t e r s i n c i t i n g a j o i n t C e n t r a l Comhittee-Counc il of M i n i s t e r s d e c i s i o n r e l a t i n g t o s t a t e farms. The e l e c t i o n speeches of c e r t a i n c a n d i d a t e (nonv o t i n g ) members of t h e p o l i t b u r o * a l s o r e f l e c t e d d i f f e r e n c e s o v e r t h e p a r t y - s t a t e - s o v i e t i s s u e . For example, t r a d e union leader G r i s h i n in h i s 4 June Orekhovo-Zuyevo e l e c t i o n speech, emphasized, l i k e Podgorny and S h e l e s t , t h e i n c r e a s i n g a c t i v i t y of t h e Supreme S o v i e t . G r i s h i n c o n f i d e n t l y asserted t h a t " t h e role of t h e USSR Supreme S o v i e t w i l l be raised even h i g h e r on t h e b a s i s of more a c t i v e work by t h e d e p u t i e s , t h e formation of new commiss i o n s , t h e i n t e n s i f i c a t i o n of S o v i e t l e g i s l a t i o n , and t h e v e r i f i c a t i o n of the e x e c u t i o n of t h e laws." Georgian p a r t y leader Mzhavanadze i n h i s 3 June T b i l i s i speech, like S h e l e p i n , s k i r t e d t h e q u e s t i o n of t h e i n s t i t u t i o n a l powers of t h e Supreme S o v i e t s t r e s s i n g rather t h e mobilizi n g f u n c t i o n s of t h a t i n s t i t u t i o n . He t o l d h i s Georgian e l e c t o r s t h a t t h e d e p u t i e s m u s t "propagate t h e p o l i c y of the Communist P a r t y and s o v i e t government and o r g a n i z e t h e masses t o implement t h i s policy." A t t h e same t i m e ,

*The- v r i enko, t h e remainirlg f u l l member of t h e p o l i t b u r o a n d - m o r to t h e l a s t c o n g r e s s ) t h e first deputy chairman of t h e r e c e n t l y abolished RSFSR B u r e a u of t h e c e n t r a l committee, on t h e s u b j e c t of t h e r o l e of t h e s o v i e t s were n o t i n c l u d e d i n t h e a c c o u n t s of h i s 7 June Sverdlovsk e l e c t i o n speech i n TASS, Pravda, Sovietskaya Rossiya, I z v e s t i y a , and Pravda V o s t c T h 5 T G I I t e x t of h is speech, and t h e 2 J u n e S u k h i m i speech of secretariat m e m b e r Ponomarev, have n o t been made a v a i l able. By t h e a u t h o r ' s account, Ponomarev and K i r i l e n k o have n o t p l a c e d themselves on recor'd r e g a r d i n g t h e i s s u e of i n c r e a s i n g t h e role of Supreme S o v i e t permanent comm i s s i o n s i n t h e i r p u b l i s h e d speeches d u r i n g t h e new l e adersh i p period
r.
I

-100-

3 ! & z Ym E

he c o n c e n t r a t e d on t h e concept of t h e p a r t y as t h e i n c u l aator of i d e o l o g i c a l d i s c i p l i n e i n S o v i e t s o c i e t y as he h a s i n t h e p a s t . He asserted t h a t e d u c a t i n g S o v i e t people i n t h e s p i r i t of * * i d e o l o g i c a l f i d e l i t y t o communism is t h e most important and primary o b j e c t i v e i n o u r i d e o l o g i c a l (In a similar v e i n , he t o l d delegates t o t h e 23rd work." Congress on 30 March t h a t t h e l'party w i l l n o t t o l e r a t e t h e s l i g h t e s t d e v i a t i o n f r o m t h e p r i n c i p l e s of MarxismLeninismv1 and he t o l d Georgian communists on 29 June 1965 t h a t " S t a l i n s a i d a c c u r a t e l y and g r a p h i c a l l y , 'Our p a r t y is a f o r t r e s s , t h e d o o r s of which open o n l y f o r t h e tested.'") The i d e o l o g i c a l chief of t h e c e n t r a l committee, Demichev, s p e a k i n g t o Moscow v o t e r s on 27 May warned 02 t h e c o r r o s i v e i n f l u e n c e of a l i e n p o l i t i c a l ideas, and t h e p a r t y ' s t a s k t o e d u c a t e c i t i z e n s " i n revol u t i o n a r y s p i r i t . a * Demichev, l i k e Breehnev i n h i s elect i o n speech, l i n k e d t h e p a r t y w i t h "other s o c i a l o r g a n i zat ions"--an e a r l y Khrushchevian formula (examined on pages 23-26) which had c o n c e a l e d an e f f o r t t o t r a n s f e r s t a t e f u n c t i o n s t o t h e p a r t y o r g a n i z a t i o n . With r e g a r d t o t h e s u b j e c t of t h e s o v i e t s ' a c t i v i t i e s , B e l o r u s s i a n p a r t y leader Masherov i n h i s 7 June Minsk e l e c t i o n speech d i f f e r e d from the approach t a k e n by h i s r e p u b l i c p a r t y p r e d e c e s s o r , Mazurov. Masherov concluded t h a t t h e p a r t y "attaches enormous a t t e n t i o n t o enhancing t h e r o l e played by t h e s o v i e t s . ? 1

Conclusions The d r a f t i n g and a d o p t i o n of t h e new c o n s t i t u t i o n could w e l l act as a c a t a l y s t b r i n g i n g t o a head t h e d i f f e r e n c e s among t h e leaders o v e r i n s t i t u t i o n a l i s s u e s manifested i n t h e e l e c t i o n speeches. The p a t t e r n t h a t h a s emerged s i n c e t h e 2 3 r d Congress shows t h a t (1) of t h e e l e v e n f u l l p o l i t b u r o members, o n l y five--Brezhnev, Podgorny, S h e l e s t , Suslov, Pelshe--have on record e x p l i c i t l y s u p p o r t e d t h e program t o increase t h e role of s o v i e t d e p u t i e s ( a l i k e l y c o n s t i t u t i o n a l llreformvl i s s u e ) , and o n l y t h e first three of t h e above f i v e have s p e c i f i c a l l y endorsed t h e p r o p o s a l s t o augment

-101-

t h e a c t i v i t y of t h e permanent commissions, and (2) t h a t three p o l it buro members--Kos yg in, Shel ep i n , M a q urov-- h ave been s i l e n t on t h e p r o p o s a l s t o i n c r e a s e t h e r o l e of t h e s o v i e t s . . While t h e remaining three--Kirilenko, Voronov and Polyansky--have i n t h e p a s t commented f a v o r a b l y on t h e role of Supreme S o v i e t d e p u t i e s , t h e i r post23rd Congress views on t h e s u b j e c t cannot be a s c e r t a i n e d w i t h any degree of accuracy.

. .

The q u e s t i o n of t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e Supreme S o v i e t and t h e Council of M i n i s t e r s , w h i l e important (and c o n t r o v e r s i a l , as t h e above p a t t e r n suggests) is nevertheless overshadowed by t h e v e x a t i o u s problem of d e f i n i n g a modern r o l e f o r t h e CPSU. The s o l u t i o n of t h i s central i s s u e s t a n d s as t h e t o u c h s t o n e f o r s i g n i f i c a n t ins t i t u t i o n a l reform i n t h e S o v i e t Union. The n o t i o n of a working p a r t y h a s baen p r o g r e s s i v e l y r e f i n e d i n Brezhnev's p u b l i c remarks s i n c e t h e ouster of Khrushchev. But t o repeat, Brezhnev's remarks s t o p s h o r t of h i s predecessor's sweeping and h i g h l y c o n t e n t i o u s approaches toward a s o l u t i o n of t h e l o n g s t a n d i n g q u e s t i o n s r e g a r d i n g t h e correct r o l e f o r t h e p a r t y o r g a n i z a t i o n , t h e s t a t e bureaucracy, and t h e soviet p a r l i a m e n t in t h e life of contemporary Russia

A t t h i s w r i t i n g , t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l project seems u n l i k e l y t o "pioneer" any b a s i c i n s t i t u t i o n a l transformat i o n s w i t h i n t h e S o v i e t Union's l a b y r i n t h i n e governing s t r u c t u r e . As y e t no l e a d e r , i n c l u d i n g t h e General S e c r e t a r y whose s t r e n g t h h a s s t e a d i l y i n c r e a s e d , e i t h e r seems powerful enough or r e a d y t o f o r c e t h r o u g h major changes. The best any leader might hope f o r , it would seem, would be t o i n t r o d u c e f o r m u l a t i o n s i n t h e new cons t i t u t i o n which he could u s e t o j u s t i f y p o l i t i c a l programs now o n l y in embryo.

In t h e meantime, Kosygin c o n t i n u e s t o g i v e e v e r y s i g n of d e f e n d i n g t h e i n t e g r i t y of h i s s t a t e base of power on t h e e v e of a Podgorny-chaired Supreme S o v i e t s e s s i o n ( c u r r e n t l y scheduled f o r 2 A u g u s t ) w h i c h , a c c o r d i n g t o an account of r e c e n t p r i v a t e remarks of Spiridonov ( t h e chairman of t h e S o v i e t of Union of t h e USSR Supreme S o v i e t ) , w i l l make " q u i t e a lot" of m i n i s t e r i a l changes.

-302-

. ..