Integrated Crisis: Russia 1991
Russia 1991 will place four committees in a struggle to define the future of Eastern Europe in terms of geography, politics, and economics, amid the highly volatile collapse of the Soviet Union. Historically, this struggle was surprisingly peaceful and orderly. Any hardship was the result of extensive economic liberalization generating hyperinflation and unemployment. However, it is conceivable that a few small changes at critical junctures could have resulted in famine, conflict, and even the limited use of nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons. Delegates will have to use political and economic strategies to capitalize on nationalism and foreign assistance, to consolidate their power and move the geopolitical situation of Eastern Europe towards a stable equilibrium.
The constituent assembly of russia
The Constituent Assembly of Russia faces the task of building a durable institutional foundation for a post-Soviet Eastern Europe by designing the future constitution of the Russian Federation. Delegates will include representatives of business and labour groups, religious organizations, government representatives, and members of various ethnic groups, among others. The specific topics and goals of this committee are pending.
The Communist party of the Soviet union
The Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) has presided over 74 years of authoritarian rule, and in that time has industralized the Soviet economy, led the USSR to victory over Nazi Germany, and established a system of semi-imperialist rule over Eastern Europe. By 1990, however, the CPSU’s hegemonic rule is challenged on a number of fronts, including by nationalist movements in its Eastern European client states, a stagnant economy, and emerging liberal, nationalist, and democratic forces within the USSR. These problems became evident through public events such as the Chernobyl accident and the withdrawal from a failed war in Afghanistan. Additionally, the CPSU is plagued by deep divisions between reformers and hardliners among the party’s leadership. A successful CPSU will resolve its internal tensions, satisfy the demands of its citizens, and potentially reassert Soviet domination of Eastern Europe.
Russian cabinet (Yeltsin)
Members of the Russian Cabinet (Yeltsin) are united by their desire to build a new Russian state, independent of the Soviet system. Aside from this goal, its members have little in common due to competing visions from liberals, conservatives, nationalists, socialists, and religious groups, among others, about the future of the Russian state. To succeed, the members of the cabinet must design a coherent vision for the future of an independent Russia, provide solutions for its deep socio-economic problems, and define the country’s place in international affairs.
The coalition for independent states
The Coalition for Independent States consists of members from non-Russian ethnic groups within the Soviet Union (e.g. Ukranians, Siberians, Kazakhs) as well as representatives from the Soviet client states in Eastern Europe (e.g. East Germany, Poland, Romania), who recently freed themselves from Communist authoritarianism. Years of Soviet domination have inspired some nations represented on this committee to aspire for sovereign autonomy, while others remain attached to the notion of a united Soviet Union. This committee must reconcile this conflict, in addition to issues related to borders, national minority rights, ideology, and international cooperation.
the russian chamber of commerce
The Russian Chamber of Commerce begins as a disparate collection of middle class state functionaries and petty capitalists who have the chance to become internationally connected billionaires. Given the stagnant state of the Eastern European economy, with free market principles only employed in the illicit markets for western goods, well-invested capital could repurpose titanic amounts of inefficient state industry into modern private enterprise. The goal of this committee is twofold. First, it must source and invest its capital to promote sustainable economic practices. Second, it must exert political influence over those open to economic reform to ensure that conditions remain favourable to the development of capitalist industries.
Joint Crisis: The Mexican Revolution
Often described as the first revolution of the 20th century, the Mexican Revolution was the culmination of tension between two strata of Mexican society. The first, represented by the senior leaders of the government and capitalist and landowning classes is grounded in a feudalistic conception of Mexico with power and wealth concentrated among the privileged few. The second strata is comprised of the majority of Mexico’s population, mostly landless rural peasants, who are willing to fight for democracy and the redistribution of land and wealth. They were led into battle by “bandits” and revolutionaries who would be later romanticized by Hollywood.
The coalition for revolutionary reform
the conference for law and order in mexico
The Coalition for Revolutionary Reform unites distinct sectors of Mexican society in opposition to the reign of Porforio Diaz. The most powerful sectors are the educated, urban, liberal elites whose primary aim is the implementation of a formal democracy, the poor cattle-ranchers of Northern Mexico who have united under the bandit Pancho Villa, and the socialist-oriented peasant farmers in Southern Mexico who, under the leadership of Emiliano Zapata, seek a more equitable distribution of land and economic resources. To succeed, the committee must unite its forces and secure military victory over Porforio Diaz’s government without provoking extensive foreign intervention or alienating its core supporters.
The Conference for Law and Order in Mexico will consist of the closest military, economic, and political advisors to the government of long-ruling General Porforio Diaz. Known as the “cientificos”, this group subscribed to a positivist philosophy of government by elites, combined with the willingness to brutally suppress any challenge to their rule. Additionally, the government has worked closely with foreign business interests to support economic and infrastructure development, but largely ignored the plight of Mexico’s middle and lower classes. To extend its 40-year grip on power, this committee will have to restore its legitimacy in the eyes of the middle-class, urban dwellers, liberals, and poor landless peasants who have become disillusioned with a society that has failed them politically, socially, and economically.