Zimbabwe Debt Crisis

The competition and increasing awareness on democratic rights did force the Soviets to stand back and make some major policy changes in 1980s. The Soviet Premier of the time Gorbachev tried to set some political and social reforms in the soviet society in order to ease the pressure and help Soviets to continue to survive in the international arena. Moreover, the Soviets did not only make shifts in their internal policies but also in their foreign policy understanding as well. For instance withdrawal from Afghanistan, signing of various nuclear deterrence agreements with multi parties including the US are some of the key changes that occurred in the 1980s. However, the reforms of Gorbachev did not prevent the Soviets to stop its collapse and eventually after a series of events in 1991 the Soviet Union formally announced its dissolution[7].

One can easily admit that the Party had failed to properly economically plan the needs of each state. The Soviet Union economy was complex and massive, it became an impossible task for the state planners to manage, as they did not want to grant and create more managerial levels that would proceed to the local level resulting in failed timely attempts to the constant changes the economy was going through. Since the Soviet economy was based on state planning, it failed in encouraging innovation and motivating productivity. Managers would also alter numbers in order to produce the quotas that they were required to meet. The growth of the Soviet economy had been in a constant decline since the 1950’s and this progressed to the 1980’s. This was a clear sign that the Soviet economy was in need of a complete economic overhaul. Gorbachev succeeded power in March, 1985 and became General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist party of the Soviet Union. His main goal was to revive the Soviet economy, and he strongly believed that success was tied to loosening the governments control and creating a system that included less government intervention and more freedom to allow private initiatives. This new market economy would allow for private enterprise, which what Gorbachev believed would create more innovation. For the first time since 1920’s, individuals were able to own and create businesses.

The democratization, economic liberalization, and eventual collapse of the Soviet Union is commonly attributed to Mikhail Gorbachev's Perestroika and Glasnost reforms during the period of 1985-1991. This purpose of these reforms is still a trenchant question as the countries of the old Soviet Union, particular Russia, are being pressured to further liberalize their economies.

The Soviet Union, which was once a world superpower in the 19th century saw itself in chaos going into the 20th century. These chaoses were marked by the new ideas brought in by the new leaders who had emerged eventually into power. Almost every aspect of the Soviet Union was crumbling at this period both politically and socially, as well as the economy. There were underlying reasons for the collapse of communism in the Soviet Union and eventually Eastern Europe. The economy is the most significant aspect of every government. The soviet economy was highly centralized with a “command economy” (p.1. fsmitha.com), which had been broken down due to its complexity and centrally controlled with corruption involved in it. A strong government

The increase in military spending is another argument that caused stagnation in the Soviet Union during the period. Brezhnev spent huge amount of money in the defense sector and according to Blanchard & Froot et al. (1994) the share of defense spending in GNP was 12% in 1960-70, and increased by 4% in 1975-80 to 16%, even though the country was is deep economic crisis. Brezhnev increased military spending each year; even as the country needed the spending in other “important” sectors, to boots the growth of the country, and caused low-level of economic development. Brezhnev increased the spending specifically on nuclear materials production plants, compared to weapons. During this time in history both the superpower, USA and Soviet Union

Another repercussion of the Soviet Union’s collapse was the failure of the economies of almost every new post-Soviet country. Most of the economies of the new Republics were left in shambles after the collapse. In Russia, people were not ready for the new economic freedom that resulted from the fall of Communism. Their unpreparedness led to inflation. “Inflation caused prices to go up three hundred percent in the first month, and 2,591 percent by the end of 1992.”( Russian Economy in the Aftermath of the Collapse of the Soviet Union) Just three years after the Soviet Union’s fall, Russia’s inflation rate had skyrocketed to 2591 percent, evidencing that Russians were not prepared for such a rapid evolution, going from a communist economy into a capitalist economy. All post-Soviet countries had the same economic fate as Russia, plunging into worse economic conditions than the United States suffered during its Great Depression. For example, in 1992, the Ukraine had almost a fifteen percent drop in its gross domestic production and Latvia suffered a 33 percent drop. (GDP growth) Many of these countries’ economies are still suffering as a result of the rapid evolution

Former Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev presided over the disintegration of a country based on an uncompromising ideological dogma, the unlikely inheritor of Marxist/Leninist communist philosophy. The Soviet Union’s unwieldy economic superstructure left it vulnerable to Ronald Reagan’s aggressive economic/military policy, an approach based on the belief that a military build-up would force the Soviets to spend to keep pace, an effective strategy because it pushed the Soviet economy over the edge into ruin. The subsequent implosion ended communist domination in Eastern Europe and opened the way for democratic elements that radically altered the political landscape in Moscow. When the Soviet Union officially came to an end in 1993, it briefly recalled the end of tsarist rule in 1917, with the potential for the kind of chaos and violence that turned the Russian Revolution into a bloodbath. President Boris Yeltsin used the military to disband parliament but his call for new elections moved the country toward a more open, democratic form of government. Lacking any real background in representative government, Russia ultimately proved incapable of fulfilling the promise of democratic government and descended into a form of anarchy riddled by increasingly strong criminal elements. In recent years, the rise of Boris Putin, a new strongman in Moscow, helped restore a sense of order and allowed the resurgence of communist elements. The government that now holds power, and which

The first internal pressure was the impending economic collapse and debts accrued from economic competition between the United States and Russia. The second internal pressure was the rise of the modern era revealing the politics and society of the East and West forcing Russia to reform. The Russian government started policies intended to establish a market economy, but Soviet authoritarian structures ensured these reforms were ineffective policies. Gorbachev’s role in the collapse of the Soviet Union was the reforms he passed making the Russian economy and government more capitalist. The major events that contributed to Soviet economic collapse were a lack of infrastructure, lack economic reinvestment, and the economic collapse of the collectivist system.

Instead of increasing economic growth, Mikhail Gorbachev’s economic reform policies created the adverse effect, paving the road to economic crisis and series of events that would end with the Soviet Union dissolving. After attaining power in 1985, Gorbachev instituted, “perestroika, or “restructuring,” efforts to force the pace of growth combined with minor steps to redesign the administrative system” (Treisman, p. 16). The goal was to

A continuous trend of decline in the economy in the 1980’s threatened an even worse economic performance in the future, shown by example of the continued decline in capital and labour productivity (Bunce, 223). Consequentially, Mikhail Gorbachev’s ‘new thinking’ focus was on reforming Soviet agriculture and the domestic economy (Suri, 78). Gorbachev instituted two programs: ‘perestroika’ (‘restructuring’ of economic management) and ‘glasnost’ (‘openness’) early in his time as leader, which aimed to put the Soviet Union on par with the economies of the capitalist countries such as Germany and the United States by decentralizing economic controls, and to allow open discussions relating to social and political issues (Encyclopædia Britannica). However, ‘perestroika’ “generally lacked precise goals and any coherent framework of application” (Shearman, 129). Through the ‘glasnost’ program, the power of the Communist Party was reduced paving the way for an elected form of government. Gorbachev began to democratize the Soviet economy, initiated competition and profit incentives as well as linking wages to productivity (van der Veen, 122). At the time of Gorbachev’s ‘new thinking’ approach, many Western observers were divided on whether Gorbachev was instituting genuine change, or

How is the family? How goes the struggle to put food on the table? From what I am reading, the end is near. Once upon a time, there was a party called Zanu PF that dominated Zimbabwe’s politics, but now we are all waiting for its demise. What happens next, is anyone’s guess.

More importantly, INDECO failed to advance beyond production of non-durable consumer goods to durable and capital goods. Fourth, the bias against agriculture and rural areas meant the continued dependence on the copper mining industry. Fifth, the bias against exports and import restrictions resulted in higher exchange rates and reduced the gains from exports. Sixth, Zambia’s support for the liberation movements of Southern Africa and the closure of the border following the Unilateral Declaration of Independence by Rhodesia seriously affected implementation of development plans, as alternative export routes had to be built, especially the Tanzania -Zambia Railway.

Under Mikhail Gorbachev the Soviet Union underwent massive social, political and economic reform that drifted away from communist ideology and this ultimately lead to the collapse of the Soviet Union and failure of communism in Eastern Europe. This essay will focus on how the Perestroika reform and Glasnost policy programs as well as other external and internal pressures contributed to the failure of communism under Gorbachev. The aim of the Perestroika and Glasnost reforms was to restructure and strengthen the Soviet political and economic system and provide more freedom and democracy within the Soviet Union while strengthening Communism. However, these changes had achieved exactly what they aimed to prevent when they were first elaborated and led to the failure of communism and collapse of the Soviet Union. While focusing on the policies this essay will also focus on the major increase in nationalism that occurred in the Soviet Republics as a result of the Glasnost. External pressure from the western world was also a factor and the role that the United States and the Ronald Reagan administration played in the downfall of communism under Gorbachev will be examined. The essay will also discuss how the disintegration of Yugoslavia and the 1991 Coup d’état led to the failure of the policies and failure of communism.

Afternoon once again some more on Zimbabwe...DISCUSS THE RISE AND EXPANSION OF THE MUTAPA STATE. (NOV 2008)

With China, Zimbabwe would “never walk alone” claimed Emerson Mnangagwa, speaker of the Zimbabwe parliament (qtd in Obiorah 39). Nonetheless, several experts have condemned the Chinese government for fueling the ongoing conflicts in Zimbabwe and for helping the authoritarian government in its repression of any opposition. China has been heavily criticized for shipping armament to Zimbabwe that would ultimately distributed to the military and the militia that would help keep the opposition down during the 2008 elections. Although China adopts its non-interference stance, such types of trades are ultimately affecting the country. The delivery of those arms coincided with a time of extreme hostilities in the country and many pointed fingers at the Chinese government for blatant human rights violations (Spiegel and Le Billon 324, 330).