Political Reformism and Leadership Performance in Closed Systems: the Cases of Deng and Gorbachev in Comparative Perspective
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Political reformism and leadership performance in closed systems: The cases of Deng and Gorbachev in comparative perspective A thesis presented by Marko Patchev to the Department of Balkan, Slavic and Oriental Studies in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Political Sciences University of Macedonia, Thessaloniki September 2020 Thesis advisors: Dr. Christos J. Paraskevopoulos Dr. Eftihia Voutira Dr. Ioannis Armakolas Acknowledgements I am most grateful to professor Takis Pappas for helping me enrol in the University of Macedonia PhD programme and to professors Christos Paraskevopoulos and Eftihia Voutira for their support and guidance in pursuing this project. The scholarships from the Open Society Foundation and the Greek State Scholarship Foundation were also crucial for completing this project. All insights contained in this research are the result of extensive institutional and financial support as well as the numerous and lengthy discussions with my supervisors; all errors are mine. 2 ABSTRACT Focusing on the exercise of power of individual leaders in the context of examining institutional change is typically understood by social scientists as a way of highlighting the obvious and the idiosyncratic. That is to say, such an approach should be avoided because it combines the worst of both worlds. This research will argue that the potentialities of the approach remain misunderstood. Focusing on what leaders do, and how they do it, is not only about revealing complexities and regularities, but it also brings out certain realities of institutional change which hitherto have eluded the more conventional approaches to agency and institutional change. What eludes mainstream social science (and what the study of individual leaders brings in focus) is the following: political leaders try to organise change; and some perform better than others in that role. This argument is developed empirically by considering the reformist projects in China and the Soviet Union. The analysis of the cases is narrow in focus as its intent is specific. First, this research focuses on the dynamics of interaction between the leaders and the policies of change. In each case, it explores the linkages between the exercise of power at the centre and the coherence and cohesiveness of the reformist policies. It also considers the interdependencies between the policies’ performance and the leaders’ performance in each case. The purpose is to show how such an approach can lead to a distinctive and dynamic, though incomplete, account of the reforms in China and the Soviet Union. This research also examines Deng’s and Gorbachev’s efforts to control and manipulate the influence of history and bureaucracy over the policy processes. The underlying assumption here is that ‘bureaucracy’ and ‘history’ create certain strategic situations for the reformer that preserve integrity across various cultural, historical and institutional arrangements and that the two leaders of interest here have rationalized those situations in opposite ways. By analysing those situations, the choices of the two leaders and the contingencies that have arisen from their choices, this research will take the analysis of the reforms in China and the Soviet Union outside the idiosyncrasies of socialist systems. In doing so, it will challenge the assertion that focusing on a leader’s choices is about dealing with somewhat important but idiosyncratic aspects of institutional change processes. 3 In terms of theory, this study borrows some key concepts that new institutional approaches use in order to analyse institutional change. At the same time, it preserves some of the characteristic features of ‘leadership approaches’ in that it considers leadership, first and foremost, as being something which structures change. So, for instance, this study considers institutional change processes as being driven by the ‘logic of appropriateness’ and the ‘logic of instrumentality’, while also remaining attentive to the way in which leaders can manipulate those logics in order to appear stronger or weaker. In terms of methodology, this study adopts the ‘paired comparison strategy’. Given the explorative nature of this study, the number of cases investigated, as well as the intention to examine the reforms in China and the Soviet Union at a more general level, the paired comparison seemed to be the most appropriate vehicle. Concerning the choice of cases, it has been made with the awareness that social scientists have over-analysed the reforms in China and the Soviet Union. The reasoning here is simple enough: if leadership as an analytical tool offers some innate advantages that are poorly understood, and if the role of individual leaders in institutional change is indeed misrepresented in the more theory-informed accounts within political science, and if something is indeed lost by doing so, then dealing with some of the most popular and most frequently compared historical cases within the discipline seems to be a good research strategy to make such realities visible. 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLES AND FIGURES .................................................................................................................... 8 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................... 9 CHAPTER 1 ............................................................................................................................................ 15 Leadership and the study of institutional change: formulating a problem .......................................... 15 1.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 15 1.2. The logic of examining institutional changes from a leadership perspective: what is so distinctive about it? .......................................................................................................................... 16 1.3 Leadership within political science: identifying the two key assumptions about the study of leaders within the discipline ............................................................................................................. 24 1.4 The three relationships of interest to this study ........................................................................ 30 1.5 How this study uses Hirschman’s, Selznick’s, and Samuels’ ideas on (the study of) agency and change ............................................................................................................................................... 35 1.6 Explaining the choice of cases: why Deng’s era and Gorbachev’s era reforms? ....................... 41 Conclusion ......................................................................................................................................... 46 CHAPTER 2 ............................................................................................................................................ 49 Conceptualising and relating political leadership and reformism ........................................................ 49 2.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 49 2.2 Structure and strategic action (looking beyond interpersonal relationships) ........................... 51 2.3 Distinguishing reformism from evolutionary and revolutionary changes (and relating it to leadership) ........................................................................................................................................ 56 2.4 Considering (reformist) leadership as a deviation and contingency .......................................... 68 Conclusion ......................................................................................................................................... 74 CHAPTER 3 ............................................................................................................................................ 77 Methodology and focus of analysis ...................................................................................................... 77 3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 77 3.2 Explaining the methodological approach: why the paired comparison is favoured over the case study method .................................................................................................................................... 78 3.3 What are the cases: what aspect of the reforms in China and the Soviet Union are observed and analysed by this research ........................................................................................................... 82 3.4 A few delimitations and limitations of the cases analysis .......................................................... 86 5 3.5 On comparing the reforms in China and the Soviet Union and relying on the already available data: issues and non-issues .............................................................................................................. 94 Conclusion ....................................................................................................................................... 101 CHAPTER 4 ....................................................................................................................................... 102 Reformism and