Why was the collapse of the Soviet Union difficult for political science to predict?

The collapse of the Soviet Union proved difficult for political science to predict because the discipline has historically struggled to handle rapid, dynamic change, often preferring to focus on stable, static systems. While historians are sometimes viewed as being stuck in the past, political scientists are frequently described as captives of the present, leaving them better equipped to describe existing conditions than to discern future upheavals.1

Several factors contributed to this predictive failure:

• Methodological Limitations: Critics argued that despite decades of data collection and theorizing, the field lacked the utility to anticipate such a defining event. Some scholars maintain that the discipline’s attempt to imitate the natural sciences resulted in research that was removed from the "burning issues of the day," while others argue that such events are inherently unpredictable or unique.1
• Data Constraints: Political analysis is often hindered by a lack of reliable elite-level data, as researchers rarely have access to the closed-door deliberations of rulers.1
• Complexity of Change: The collapse was the result of a long-term process involving economic strain, the failure of command structures in a technological age, and rising demands from an educated urban population. Because political science often struggles to establish causality with certainty, these complex, multifaceted transformations remained elusive to many observers.21