There are only three episodes out of HBO’s mini-series Chernobyl and I’m obsessed with it. I’ve been evangelizing it to everyone I can. I’m not a fan of horror or disaster show. But the way this show makes me feel when I watch it and 24 hours after is a combination of horror, uneasiness, disgust, and admiration. But it effectively transmits the radiation to me, like I was in the city and I’m affected by the decisions made. It’s maybe the invisibility of radiation that does the trick. In any case, the production is flawless and from I can gather, it tries to be close to reality. Without a better source, I want to use that recreation to exemplify the form of trust in this show. (I don’t want to get spoiled, or need more context to understand the circumstances here, or want to know what my hype is all about, please watch Chernobyl first.)
We can imagine how extreme were the circumstances in Pripyat in 1986. After all, just the mention of Chernobyl gives a negative connotation of what can go wrong. A shallow thought can make us think of incompetence, the USSR, and nuclear power as a recipe for disaster. But, as always, it’s a lot more complex than that. From the Communist Party perspective, it is important it can be seen as a way to avoid a chaotic situation. But maybe more important, we can see the USSR situation with economic and political problems, during the long Cold War. Its position was very debilitated compared to previous decades but was still very strong. It was important to maintain order. Decisions are made by a committee and strong politicians can influence it. Any deviation is punished by not continuing in the promotion ladder, or worse. If we add that there is only one political party, we can understand all the power in USSR was concentrated in a few people. Not really a dictatorship, but absolutely close to it.
And it’s here where I find this style of management fascinating. If you comply, if you go with the party decisions, if you put a positive spin and applaud the good efforts, you’ll be promoted. Ignoring issues can be overviewed.
Bringing bad news is bad, not only for you but for all the chain of command, higher and lower. And it’s especially bad, because of what’s at stake is your future, your life, your family’s life. As long as it doesn’t show the incompetence of the Party, which is what’s most important to keep, it all can be fixed or hidden.
But Chernobyl showed a dichotomy that the Soviet Union couldn’t hide: the explosion was too big, the failure was of its own making, and hiding more information would make them see more incompetent. Two clear examples of this: not sharing information with other countries that would be affected if it’s not fixed; not sharing information with its own citizens that could’ve prevented needless deaths. All in order to save face and preserve the party. And of course, they would. It’s hard enough to say I made a mistake. I gave the wrong radiation level, I overwrote the safety protocol, I communicated an incorrect measure to the committee, I assumed we were safe without being sure, just to get along with the committee. It is very hard to admit a mistake. It is harder when I condemned other people to die because of it. But it is excruciating if admitting it would mean a possible death sentence. Or in the simplest payoff table:
| Hide | Admit | |
|---|---|---|
| Not caught | Nothing | Prison / Ruin |
| Got caught | Death | Death |
If these were the choices, hiding is the dominant strategy. Why would anyone admit guilt? So, who do you really trust to tell the truth under these circumstances? Of course, the payoffs can be or be valued different to even assign preferences to it, but the point is there are very big disincentives to act truthfully if it’s against the party.
And how did the USSR controlled that everyone stayed in line? The show suggests the KGB served as the control mechanism to prevent leaks. The message is the Party doesn’t want any sensitive information out. This can be used against the regime and for all intents and purposes, preserving the Communist Party’s position in a big goal. But this information is critical to the people millions of people, even for other countries. Information can’t get into the wrong hands. Further, information can’t get into the hands of people that don’t have accountability.
There is no better example than Lyudmilla Ignatenko, the pregnant wife of firefighter Vasily Ignatenko in the hospital after being directly in touch with the radiation of graphite. He’s going to die in the next few days, in a terrifying way. Lyudmilla manages to get in his room and be really close to him in this condition, despite several warnings against it. But she doesn’t really know how dangerous that is. How could she? Even the decision makers don’t know the dangers of radiation. We can assume it’s not the first seemingly ridiculous command she received and ignored. The nurses are told to not explain anything; she isn’t even supposed it be in that hospital in Moscow. So when a nuclear physicist finds here in the room with her husband, she makes a big scandal for it. She threatens to report the nurse for letting Lyudmilla in the room, but then an officer from the KGB steps in, completely shutting her down. Clearly, the priority is information control over safety.
But information wants to be free.
Was the USSR prepared for a scandal? Would that be the first time? What if those accumulated over time? What was the general perception of the regime? I have too many questions on the trust aspect between the people and the government…
Would’ve it been much better in the West?
