The quest for legitimation, or the recognition of its right to rule, is a primary aim of every political regime. Acceptance of its right to rule greatly facilitates that rule and can be an important stabilising factor. In pursuit of this, regimes adopt (either implicitly or explicitly) legitimation programmes. These are coherent patterns of behaviour and statement which seek to generate a sense of authority by tapping into the various ideal type modes of legitimation, like those listed in Chapter 1. In ideocratic regimes like the Soviet, which feature an overriding metanarrative, that metanarrative is a central vehicle for the projection of such a programme. In this way, the themes of the metanarrative constitute effective appeals for the authority of the regime. So, too, do the myths. At a general level, six Soviet myths can be associated with seven modes of legitimation used by the Soviet regime at various times:

• Myth of regime founding: ideocratic and teleological legitimation

• Myth of building socialism: teleological, ideocratic, nationalist, performance and democratic legitimation

• Myth of leadership: ideocratic, teleological, charismatic, performance, democratic and legal-rational legitimation

• Myth of internal opposition: ideocratic, teleological and performance legitimation

• Myth of external opposition: ideocratic, teleological and nationalist legitimation

• Myth of victory in the war: ideocratic, teleological, performance and nationalist legitimation.

As the metanarrative and the myths changed over the life of the regime, so the patterns of legitimation sought by the regime changed.