The Politbureau the Supreme Power in Soviet Russia
POLITICAL power in Soviet Russia is not divided and is delegated only in respect to minor matters; it rests firmly concentrated in the hands of one small group, the steering committee, or "Politbureau," of the Central Committee of the Communist Party. The nine members of the Politbureau, together with their eight alternates, are the spear-head of the Communist Party's force of a million and a half members. On the one hand they dominate and direct the Government of the U. S. S. R. (the usual abbreviation for Union of Soviet Socialist Republics), and on the other hand the Third, or Communist, International. They are the main-spring of all action in the realm of the Soviets and of all Communist action abroad.
This fact is to be emphasized because of a tendency to speak of the Soviet Government as though it were an independent agency, like the Government of the United States. There is hardly any similarity between them. In the one case we have a Government of which the President, his Cabinet, and probably a majority of the elected members of Congress belong to a particular Party, but feel bound hardly at all even to the formal Party platform. In Russia today we see a Government recruited entirely from the sole existing legal Party, the supreme organ of which is a self-perpetuating and autocratic group that meets secretly and can banish or imprison every person in the country who incurs its displeasure...
This is a premium article
You must be a logged in Foreign Affairs subscriber to continue reading. If you wish to continue reading this article please subscribe , or activate your online account to get full online access.
Log In
Buy PDF
Buy a premium PDF reprint of this article.Related
A COMPREHENSIVE restatement of revolutionary creed issued from the Third or Communist International at the conclusion of its six-weeks Congress in Moscow last summer. This Congress, sixth in number since the Third International was organized by Lenin in 1919, was a meeting of particular significance. Over five hundred delegates were present, one hundred of them representing countries outside of Europe. The most important result was the formulation of a "Program of the Communist International," which was unanimously adopted at the closing session on September 1.
Is Communism gaining strength as a world ideology? Is it really destined to sweep new nations and old peoples before it with the force and inevitability that it still claims? Or has it unhinged itself from historical truth and modern reality, thus losing both relevance and momentum?
Is an East-West policy necessary, and what should it be? Such a question would seem to go without saying and, in the eyes of countless academics and other observers, requires an affirmative response. More vigorously than ever, they are demanding from their governments, and, above all, from the United States, a "clear," "coherent," and "global" East-West policy. The question will become still more pressing in 1983, which will see the playing out of one of the most difficult matches in the game of nuclear arms negotiations since the beginning of the cold war, after the close of a year marked by two major events. In Moscow, the death of Leonid Brezhnev and the rise to power of Yuri Andropov may offer an opportunity for a new approach to old problems, and open up new perspectives on Soviet behavior. In Washington, in 1982, we have seen Ronald Reagan's policies run into their first serious problems in two areas that are supposed to be the main pillars of his "doctrine" regarding the Soviet Union: the philosophy of trade with the communist nations and the rearmament program.

Sign-up for free weekly updates from ForeignAffairs.com.