Hindsight in Kremlinology is no guarantee of 20-20 foresight
* The new Soviet leader is ''very much in charge,'' said Vice-President George Bush. There was ''reason to be hopeful'' that there might be a change for the better in United States-Soviet relations.Skip to next paragraph
Subscribe Today to the Monitor
* The new Soviet leader seemed to be acting with ''full authority,'' Mr. Bush commented. There was agreement ''about the need to place our relations on a more constructive path.''
The Vice-President was certainly consistent. The problem, however, is that he was talking about two different men.
The first comments were about Yuri Andropov, who presided in the Kremlin as US-Soviet relations plunged to a new low. And, as subsequent events showed, Mr. Andropov's hold on power was not too tight - at least not strong enough to assure that he would be replaced by one of his own loyalists once he passed from the scene.
The second set of comments was made about Konstantin Chernenko, who took over from Mr. Andropov last week as the sixth leader of the Soviet Union.
It is, of course, possible that Mr. Bush could yet be proved right about Mr. Chernenko. However, his strikingly similar comments - made 15 months apart - illustrate how much the West relies on snap impressions and ''conventional wisdom'' about the Kremlin hierarchy. And, at least in the case of Andropov, it shows how such quick judgments can be wrong.
With the benefit of hindsight, it is possible to draw a few conclusions about the way in which the Soviet leadership transfers power, the way in which Western diplomats and the foreign press interpret the process, and the mistakes that are made along the way.
1.Official Soviet statements about the well-being of the leader can hardly be trusted. Throughout the course of Andropov's illness, the Kremlin never announced that he had anything more serious than a cold or ''chill.''
In a speech in late December, Andropov regretted that he was unable to appear at a party gathering ''for reasons of a temporary nature.'' In fact, Andropov had been receiving treatment for a serious kidney ailment for a year before his death.
Nevertheless, less than two weeks before his death a Kremlin spokesman assured reporters that he was recovering and would soon reappear. After his death, and as if to prove its own deception, the government issued a detailed medical bulletin going into clinical detail as to the nature of Andropov's ailments and the treatment he received. Why?
Some analysts think the reason is to reassure the Soviet populace that the leader died of medical complications, and was not the victim of treachery.
2.The succession process in the Soviet Union clearly has the potential for instability, yet twice in recent times it has assured fairly smooth transitions of power.
The Soviet Union leaves few things to chance. Even the mourners that filed past Andropov's coffin were handpicked. But it does leave one key question unanswered until the last minute: Who takes over at the death of the leader?
There is no constitutional mechanism for naming a successor. Instead, the Communist Party must convene its nearly 300-member Central Committee for a meeting to ratify the choice of the ruling 18-member Politburo. In the middle of a Soviet winter, this proved to be a time-consuming process this time. The new leader was not named until nearly four days after the death of the last one.
Also, the process certainly gives rise to the possibility of a power struggle between opposing factions in the party.
Nevertheless, for the second time in 15 months, the Soviet leadership was able to engineer a fairly smooth transition. Last time, it appears that transfer was done in spite of the Central Committee, which was apparently only asked for pro forma approval of Andropov after his ascension was a fait accompli. This time, Chernenko apparently took pains to have the Central Committee involved, perhaps as a reassurance to party stalwarts that he would protect their interests in the future after some fairly rough treatment at the hands of Andropov.