Khrushchev's Domestic Strength
| DOI | 10.1177/002070206001500404 |
| Date | 01 December 1960 |
| Published date | 01 December 1960 |
| Author | Robert H. McNeal |
| Subject Matter | Notes and Comment |
Notes
and
Comment
KHRUSHCHEV'S
DOMESTIC
STRENGTH
Robert
H.
McNeal
University
of
Alberta
Ever
since
Khrushchev
consolidated
his
authority
in
1957
there
have
been
rumours
that
his
downfall
might
be
at
hand.
In recent
months
such
notable
commentators
as
Secretary
of
State
Herter,
his
Russian
expert,
Charles
Bohlen,
and
one
of
the
New
York
Times'
outstanding reporters
on
Soviet
affairs,
Harri-
son
Salisbury,
have indicated
that
Khrushchev
faces powerful
domestic
opposition.
As
numerous
informed
readers
seem
to
take
this
analysis
for
granted,
a
general
reconsideration
of
the
question
of
Khrushchev's
domestic
strength
is
in
order.
First
of
all,
it
should
be
remembered
that
Khrushchev's
do-
mestic
authority
is
not
an
all-or-nothing
affair,
for
he
has
not
chosen
to
dominate
his
subordinates
by
sheer
terror,
and
leave
them
with
no
alternatives
except
complete
submission
or
mutiny.
On
the
contrary,
it
is
well
established
that
Khrushchev
delegates
a
considerable degree of
authority
and
permits
real discussion
of
important
issues in
the
supreme
organs
of
the
Communist
Party
and
the
Soviet
state.
Therefore,
it
is
quite
likely
that
supporters
of
various competing
policies
are
able
to
attempt
to
bring
persuasive
pressure
to
bear
upon
the
chief,
even
though
this
does
not
at
all
imply
that
such
groups
are
in
a
position
to
infringe
upon
Khrushchev's
personal
power.
This
type
of
pres-
sure may
take
various
forms:
stubborn
argumentation,
foot-
dragging, bargaining
and
the
alignment
of voting
blocs
within
the
supreme
bodies.
This
sort
of
politicking
is
sure
to
be
elusive
to
the
observer,
but
it
is
quite certain
to
be
characteristic
of
the
Khrushchev
regime
as
long
as
the dictator
does
not
choose
to
simplify
his
relations with
his lieutenants
by
reviving pervasive
terror.
It
is
against
this
background
of
relatively
flexible
rela-
tionships within
the
hierarchy
that
Khrushchev's
domestic
authority
must
be
appraised.
One
of
the
alleged
sources
of
pressure
on
Khrushchev
is
the
"Stalinists"
in
the
upper
echelons
of
the
Communist
Party
of
the
Soviet
Union.
This
involves
two
separate
issues:
(1)
Is
"Stalinism"
in
contradiction
to
"Khrushchevism?"
(2)
Are
there
any
anti-Khrushchev
blocs
within
the
top
leadership
of
the
party,
regardless
of
their
doctrinal
position?
With
regard
to
the
first
of
these
problems,
this
writer
holds
that
Khrushchevism
is
not
essentially
contradictory
to
Stalinism.
To continue reading
Request your trial