forms. Therefore, this study is capable of only positing a "partial generalization." However, as Arend Lijphart reminds us, "partial generalizations may be useful as a first step, and may be followed up by replications in different settings."
Before examining the reforms of Michail Gorbachev and their political ramifications in light of the above hypothesis, it is essential to clearly define the important concepts of "reforms," "legitimacy," and "political instability." After these definitions have been delineated, this paper will then devise indicators for these concepts, making sure that they are measurable. Then the concepts and their indicators will be used to assess the validity of the paper's proposition for the Soviet Union.
The first concept to be defined is legitimacy. According to Max Weber, if the exercise of political power is not be simply that of naked force, then the political system involved must be legitimized. Terror and coercion are not enough. Weber believes that a regime is legitimate to the extent that the ruled accept the rightness of their ruling elite's superior powers. The legitimacy of a system can be established through tradition, the charisma of its leader, or the recognition of its legality and rationality. David Easton seems to be echoing Weber's definition of legitimacy when he states that ". . . the most stable support will derive from the conviction on the part of the member that it is right and proper for him to accept and obey the authorities and to abide by the requirements of the regime."
This paper will maintain that regimes are legitimate "to the extent that their citizens regard them as proper and deserving of power." Legitimacy, then, has to do with the citizens' opinions and sentiments about the regime that governs them. As such, it is an extremely difficult concept to measure. It can be measured either through public opinion polls, which ask people what they think o...