The stated critiques by scholars like Blackmer and Kedward can be summed up very bluntly: the cold war had regrettable political consequences for research environments where Communism was studied, which in turn had serious methodological consequences for the research process. Blackmer, Kedward, Mclnnes and Tannahill are all methodological innovators where perspectives on Communism are concerned. Although Per Selle expressed certain reservations, they were also important for his dissertation on the NKP in the period from 1945 to 1950. Not content with macro-perspectives, they also adopted micro-perspectives, looking at the party's internal circumstances. In connection with this dissertation, their views on the character of the organisation are especially interesting with respect to the position of the leader. Tannahill and Blackmer agree that policy is determined by the party's top leadership, according to a system of command based on so-called democratic centralism. McInnes says that the tendency in all the parties has been for the General Secretary to be the dominant leader: ``Dictatorship is not too strong a word for the position occupied by some general secretaries within the party'' (79). Tannahill suggests the need for more research into the role of individuals within the party leadership: (80)

Undoubtedly, much of the variation in party leadership must be left to biographers and the authors of case studies to explain on the basis of unique individual personality characteristics...

Because the party leaderships traditionally dominated the Communist Parties, it is important to see how the party leader (the General Secretary) used his opportunities to exercise power. That is the main question in this dissertation.

Summary of the research models

Whereas works based on the monolithic view, like the classic Borkenau, often failed to specify any special approach, more recent scholars, like Tannahill and Blackmer, typically apply a theoretical framework to their investigations, and use concepts which they have defined in relation to that framework. Tannahill and Blackmer thus choose the course pointed out by Kedward when he introduced his alternative to the monolithic view: first they collect basic data on the various elements in the party which between them influenced its ultimate strategy. They do not assume a priori that it is the leadership which passes on directives received from Moscow to the internal party system. Exponents of the monolithic view, on the other hand, tend towards determinism (Moscow decides), and accordingly emphasize conformity as a characteristic of the Communist Party. Tannahill and Blackmer do not depart from the monolithic school so much in their results as in their methods. In this author's views, their models are valuable new departures in relation to the monolith model; they will form the basis for the approach adopted in this dissertation.