> Is there a chance we could write these attributes into a constitutional amendment ?

If all parties acted only in rational ways, it'd already be there. This signals all parties do not act only within the limits of reason.

> A little гласность goes a long way.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

"But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. " - Federalist 51

Glasnost didn't end well. (Edit: for the ones implementing it, I mean)

I wonder if Gorbachev had any pathway available to him that wouldn't have lead to the eventual dissolution of the Soviet Union? By the time he rose to power their economy was in such serious trouble it was a choice between reform or perpetual stagnation, but I don't see any way for Gorbachev to make the necessary reforms without triggering a coup attempt against him from the hardliners which was arguably the moment Soviet power was broken.

'What if Gorbachev succeeded in reforming the Soviet Union' is an interesting alternate history scenario I think. I'm not sure it's a realistic one though, the problems he faced were likely insurmountable.

> I wonder if Gorbachev had any pathway available to him that wouldn't have lead to the eventual dissolution of the Soviet Union?

I'm sure a slow transition, the way he seemed to intend, would have been more stable. A slower, steadier process could ensure smooth transitions to the post Glasnost state for all hardliners and other stakeholders from whom buy-in would be required. The way it happened, rushed through by Yeltsin, accelerated collapse created a vacuum that was quickly filled by powerful criminals (which is usually what happens when governments collapse - and this is a cautionary tale for Americans, BTW).

> I'm not sure it's a realistic one though, the problems he faced were likely insurmountable.

The Soviet Union was broken, and would need to drastically cut expenses in order to provide for its own citizens, but the situation could be engineered to make sure any vacuum happened in the international space in such a way anyone who stepped in would deeply regret it. Think many Afghanistans worth of problems.

The USSR problem was that they didn't have a diaspora who knew how capitalism worked. Russia was eaten alive by robber barons foreign and domestic.

Compare it with the CCP who had Hong Kong, Taiwan and Singapore tycoons to help with the transition to a free market economy.

He had inherited an empire held together by brute force. When this force weakened, intentionally or due to economics, it fell apart. It is hard to maintain an empire and be humane at the same time. And he wasn’t always, but even that wasn’t enough to keep everyone aligned. In 1991 former fellows tried to correct him but they failed, and he lost both the throne and the country. Yeltsin later betrayed democracy twice plausibly to save it from the restoration. So did other fellow leaders. There was hardly any other possible outcome after that.

> I wonder if Gorbachev had any pathway available to him that wouldn't have lead to the eventual dissolution of the Soviet Union?

Whatever the Chinese have been doing for the last ~40 years? The CCP still holds power, but material comfort has increased for the Chinese people.

Poland has also done pretty well in going from Communist to free-market and democratic (notwithstanding people supporting the Law and Justice party).

It ended up much better than it might have? Some of the -stans were violent, but in areas without preexisting violence (pace Romania) the dissolution of the Union was remarkably peaceful.