{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.023973546431523836, 'fraction_numerical': 0.004133370074400662, 'mean_word_length': 5.226415094339623, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Editor’s Corner

Political science is a discipline preoccupied with understanding and explaining the dynamics of social change. Whether it be the content of public programs, voter preferences, or party organization and rules, political scientists seek to uncover the preconditions, process and prospects for change. Is it any wonder then that we are fascinated by Mikhail Gorbachev's Soviet Union? The Soviet Union appears to be a society preoccupied with change. This issue's symposium examines the three faces of change in the USSR: glasnost (openness), perestroika (restructuring), and novoye myshleniye (new thinking). As symposium author Peter Zwick states in his article examining foreign policy under Gorbachev, the three dimensions of change are interconnected: "new thinking in foreign policy contributes to the restructuring of the Soviet economy, and domestic economic and political openness influence the implementation and direction of Soviet foreign policy." William E. Odom lays out the three puzzles reformists have had to contend with historically: agriculture, nationality, and military security. Odom cautions against too readily accepting the reality or eventuality of change in the USSR. Economic development, ethnic and cultural diversity, and security remain as formidable obstacles to successful change for Gorbachev as they were for Lenin, and Peter the Great before him. Ellen Mickiewicz explains glasnost in the media. Indeed, she points out that the media has become the instrument through which reform is promoted, a countervailing instrument to the intransigence of party conservatives and the traditional bureaucracy. The power of the media is echoed in Rasma Karklins' essay on the nationality question in the USSR. The recipient of the 1987 Ralph J. Bunche Award for her book Ethnic Relations in the USSR: The Perspective from Below, Karklins describes how the forces of glasnost confronted the Soviet Union's ethnic and cultural pluralism. Gorbachev's policies show the precarious balance being maintained between promoting openness and preventing political disintegration. Peter Zwick and Roger Kanet portray the impact of "new thinking" in Soviet foreign policy. Pointing to Gorbachev's arms reduction proposals, the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan, and the scaling back of commitments in Eastern Europe and the Third World, Zwick observes that the new directions in foreign policy are real, but that the success of meaningful policy change will depend on the prospects for economic and social change. Kanet goes one step further and declares the end of the postwar era characterized by the global competition between the United States and the Soviet Union. Soviet policy, argues Kanet, is reflecting this new reality. Finally, Valerie Bunce extends the discussion of reform to Eastern Europe. The stresses of political, economic, and social reform are acutely felt in such countries as Poland, Hungary, and Yugoslavia, perhaps even more so than in the Soviet Union. As Bunce suggests, the Eastern European countries appear to be less able to resist reform altogether, as well as less able to control its course and direction. The theme of political change is carried on in the "Features" section in Jorge Heine's description of the October 1988 Chilean plebiscite. Of 7.4 million registered voters, 7.1 million took part in the plebiscite, and 55% voted against the continued rule of General Pinochet. From his position as a poll-watcher for one of the winning opposition parties, Heine gives a very personal accounting of the October 5 plebiscite as well as the days leading up to it.