This is an analysis of how fundamental change came about in the Soviet Union and of the part played by political leadership. In its most general aspect, it is a contribution to the literature on democratization and transitions from authoritarian rule. More specifically, it examines the evolution of Mikhail Gorbachev as a reformist politician and his major role in the political transformation of the Soviet Union and in ending the Cold War. The failures as well as the successes of perestroika are examined – economic reform that left the system in limbo and the break‐up of the Soviet state that Gorbachev had attempted to hold together on the basis of a new and voluntary federation or looser confederation. The institutional power of the General Secretary was such that only a reformer in that office could undertake peaceful systemic change in such a long‐established, post‐totalitarian authoritarian regime as the USSR, with its sophisticated instruments of control and coercion. In embracing the pluralization of the Soviet political system and thereby removing the monopoly of power of the Communist Party, Gorbachev undermined his own power base. His embrace of new ideas, amounting to a conceptual revolution, combined with his power of appointment, made possible, however, what Gorbachev himself described as revolutionary change by evolutionary means. Mikhail Gorbachev's lasting merit lies in the fact that he presided over, and facilitated, the introduction of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of association, religious freedom, and freedom of movement, and left Russia a freer country than it had been in its long history.

and emeritus fellow of St. Antony's College, Oxford. His most recent books are The Rise and Fall of Communism and Seven Years that Changed the World: Perestroika in Perspective. ARCHIE BROWN Chernenko-on the prompting of his aides and ofthe editor ofthe Communist Party's principal theoretical journal (Kommunist), Richard Kosolapov, who had read with disapproval the text circulated to them in advance-telephoned Gorbachev late in the afternoon on the day before the conference was to take place, urging him to postpone the event or at least to change his speech." Gorbachev demonstrated his growing boldness as the second secretary of the party by flatly rejecting both requests? Just over a week later, Gorbachev made another speech, this time to British parliamentarians, the significance of which is clear in retrospect. It was delivered on 18 December, towards the end of his first visit to Britain, during which he famously made a good impression on Margaret Thatcher. The speech itself received far less attention than the difference in style of Mikhail Gorbachev and his wife, Raisa, as compared with any previous high-ranking Soviet visitors. British ministers commented favourably on Gorbachev's will ingness to engage in real argument, rather than simply repeat Soviet dogma, and on his pleasant manner, while observing that this was not accompanied by actual policy change. Indeed, so long as Chernenko was general secretary and, still more important, Andrei Gromyko remained foreign minister, Gorbachev was not in a position to make new foreign-policy proposals. His speech, however, was devoted to the imperative necessity of ending the Cold War, and it embodied a freshness oflanguage and of tone. It had become evident, Gorbachev said, that 'Cold War' was not a normal condition of international relations, since it constantly carried within itself a military threat. While Icalling for a return to 'detente, productive discussions and co-operation', he added: 'For that not only words are needed (although in politics the:¥, are also important).'8 It was insufficient, he said, to regard war as a great misfortune. What needed to be realised was that it now threatened to destroy the human race. The most acute and urgent contemporary problem, 'now worrying all people on earth', Gorbachev said, 'is the prevention of nuclear war'. The nuclear age, he observed, 'inescapably dictates new political thinking [novoe politicheskoe myshlenie]'.9 Among the phrases Gorbachev intro duced in that speech, which were to acquire greater resonance over time, were not only 'new political thinking', but also Europe as 'our common

Hypertension is the most prevalent health condition worldwide, affecting ~1 billion people. Gordon's syndrome is a form of secondary hypertension that can arise due to a number of possible mutations in key genes that encode proteins in a pathway containing the With No Lysine [K] (WNK) and its downstream target kinases, SPS/Ste20-related proline-alanine-rich kinase (SPAK) and oxidative stress responsive kinase 1 (OSR1). This pathway regulates the activity of the thiazide-sensitive sodium chloride cotransporter (NCC), which is responsible for NaCl reabsorption in the distal nephron. Therefore, mutations in genes encoding proteins that regulate the NCC proteins disrupt ion homeostasis and cause hypertension by increasing NaCl reabsorption. Thiazide diuretics are currently the main treatment option for Gordon's syndrome. However, they have a number of side effects, and chronic usage can lead to compensatory adaptations in the nephron that counteract their action. Therefore, recent research has focused on developing novel inhibitory molecules that inhibit components of the WNK-SPAK/OSR1-NCC pathway, thereby reducing NaCl reabsorption and restoring normal blood pressure. In this review we provide an overview of the currently reported molecular inhibitors of the WNK-SPAK/OSR1-NCC pathway and discuss their potential as treatment options for Gordon's syndrome.

In Study 1, 55 young women responded that they preferred men with hairy chests and circumcised penises. The chest was the male body part reported to be most “sexually stimulating” to females. The busts were the female body part most “sexually stimulating” to males ( n = 34). In Study 2, men ( n = 35) preferred larger busts than women typically possess on the average, but the women ( n = 48) tended to overestimate the bust size most preferred by males. The ratings of bust-revealing clothing showed the males were more desirous of actually seeing the naked bust than females appear to realize.

No abstract

The cult of the strong leader is dangerous not only in dictatorships but also in democracies. Political commentators too readily equate 'strong' with successful leadership. Yet, the idea that one person is entitled to take all the big decisions is antithetical to good governance and at odds with democratic values. In the British case, contemporary obsession with the one person at the top of the political hierarchy has led to anachronistic attribution of past policies to prime ministers when in reality they were very much the product of collective government deliberation. Thus, it is totally misleading to credit Clement Attlee with the creation of the National Health Service and the post-war British welfare state. Attlee's considerable achievement was to hold a strong and disparate team together. He did this without dominating his party or determining all major policy, and without aspiring to do so. Recent commentary, which uses the prime minister's name as a synonym for the government, exaggerates the actual determination of policy by that one person -and overstates also the significance of party leaders for electoral outcomes. There is one area of policy where heads of government have, indeed, acquired greater power and authority ever since the late 1930s -namely, foreign policy. Even in this sphere, however, the consequences can be disastrous when prime ministers are allowed to pull rank, to sustain an unrealistic belief in the exceptional quality of their own judgements, and to assert a corresponding right to discount intra-governmental, party and specialist opinion. Leadership 0(0) 1-10 ! The Author(s) 2015 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav

No abstract

No abstract