Soviet-Style Nomenklatura System has Been ‘Reborn’ in Putin’s Russia, Rostovsky Says

Paul Goble

            Staunton, November 9 – In 1984, Soviet émigré Michael Voslensky published his now classic study of the Soviet ruling class under the title, Nomenklatura, a term which refers to the system by which those higher up the chain of command in the Soviet system selected, protected and/or disciplined those below them.

            Most people had assumed that with the passing of the Soviet Union, so too the nomenklatura had been consigned to the dust heap of history.  But Moskovsky komsomolets commentator Mikhail Rostovsky says that in fact the old-style nomenklatura has been “reborn” (mk.ru/politics/2018/11/08/nomenklatura-atakuet-kuda-ukhodyat-otvergnutye-gubernatory.html).

            The commentator says that he well remembers “the flaming slogans of perestroika” calling for “the end of the nomenklatura,” and that most Russians he knows assumed that system is no more. But the ways in which politicians who have lost elections quickly find high level posts elsewhere shows that “the nomenklatura is immortal.”

            In Soviet times, the selection of cadres for the regions was made in Moscow and then imposed on the regions to “the stormy prolonged applause” of people there.  “What kind of system of appointing leading regional cadres exists now in Russia?” Rostovsky asks rhetorically. And he answers that it is “mixed” or to be fashionable a “hybrid” one.

            But “with each month in our hybrid system, ever more clearly expressed is the stress on the practice of the Soviet nomenklatura.” Personal initiative from below has been reduced to a minimum, he says.  Officials are supposed to “sit and wait the important telephone call from the bosses.”  They will decide where you will serve.

            Another sign of the rebirth of this system, however, is contained in the formula “’we do not throw over our own.’” That is, once someone becomes a member of the nomenklatura elite, those above him may remove him from this or that office, but they will find another and not too horrible place for him to continue to enjoy a certain status and income.

             “Is this a bad thing?” Rostovsky asks. “For members of the nomenklatura, it is even a very good one. It is nice to recognize that you will be taken care of and not left alone to face your own problems.” But is this bad for the country?  The answer in that case is “more complicated and more debatable.”

                There are clearly both positive and negative aspects to it. Because Khrushchev was allowed an honorable retirement as he had not shot his opponents, things got better for ordinary Soviet citizens. “But as the example of Brezhnev who replaced Khrushchev showed, the elimination of competition from the political sphere can be mortally dangerous for the country.”

            According to Rostovsky, “politics always presupposes a large element of struggle, competition and discomfort.” When these are removed, it can have a negative impact on the abilities of those who are able to relax a bit. “And in part this is already happening in Russia today.”

            As political scientist Abbas Gallyamov has pointed out, the Moskovsky komsomolets observer says, it means that those the Kremlin has been naming to regional posts aren’t so much technocrats as many assume but simply people who do not have any political experience – and that lack almost always shows itself quickly.

                These people, Gallyamov says, are like those who have been thrown into a pool but don’t know how to swim.  And that means that there is a real risk that they will drown and take others with them all so that the regime will not suffer any immediate discomfort of politics. But in the longer term, Russia is likely to suffer from them even more.