What
Russia did right, wrong and what could it do better since 1990.
New
era for Russia has started while Gorbachev was in power. Gorbachev had caused
insubordination of Baltic Republics, unsatisfaction and the coup. Yeltzin gains
popularity and power at the cost of USSR integrity. CIS created but unclear
boundaries exist in political sense, as some republics are stronger and more
independent, like Ukraine and Uzbekistan. Economics created by elite, managed by
elite, and used by elite. Other people fall out of natural life circle. Oil and
gas corrupts those who have access to it, thus helpful to the government but not
to the people. In general, oil and gas exports should be restrained for
economical advantage for present and for future. Elite is corrupted, ignorant of
the rest of the country but it is the only ruling system for now in Russia.
Finances are unstable, because unstable economy results in unstable currency,
and will stay so until blooming of the national economy.
Privatization is only possible upon replacement of the elite, which
prohibits natural growth of the economy. Society has unheard of phenomena in
Russia facing the nude poverty, which is due to the ignorance of elite to state
economy development and reduced to zero standards of living in majority of
population. Elections are unfair and controlled by elite, and were more
democratic in the communistic Russia. Politics in military are such that
president as any member of the government apparatus primarily concerned with his
own interests. Military has problem that America continues its aggressive NATO
expansion in Eastern Europe, despite Russia’s unwillingness to continue
cold-war style engagement. Foreign policy should be such that distribution of
economic connections should be increased with the countries more willing to
depend on Russia.
Gorbachev
was
the first and the last president of former Soviet Union. He has done a great
deed in its sense but not for Russia. He has introduced “glasnost” and
opened gates for democracy into not-so-ready-for-it Russia. The fact that he
himself did not believe in democratic government does reduce significance of his
efforts to a simple political tactic in Russian style of tendency to achieve
grand results first on the world scale. The fact that he did not believe in
democracy can be concluded from the fact that he still tends to unite with
communist members of the parliament, and from his past mistake of never running
a democratic vote in a not-yet but ready-to-be democratic country. This would
prevent caused by his actions separation of Baltic republics, national
unsatisfaction and the revolutionist coup.
Yeltzin
has proved himself to be an outstanding politician. He was able to become
promoted by Gorbachev, following which he was able to outwit Gorbachev's
attempts to eliminate him from political scene. However, he was not able to
maintain a successful coup even though he was proclaimed as commander in Chief
of Russia. He should have organized a better system of implementing the new laws
proclaimed or to be proclaimed by him.
Yeltzin's
wit have assisted him in gaining control over Russia as president of Russian
Federation, while USSR still existed, and while acting president of USSR
Gorbachev was in power. However, this was done at the cost of integrity of the
USSR. Yeltzin did not tolerate poor representation of RSFSR in the republics,
which oppressed the republics and led them to escape chains of USSR at the
earliest convenient moment. He allowed Russia to fall apart but that was in
accordance with his own interests. A solution to find a conscientious political
leader would be naive and impossible to realize.
CIS
was created due to the favorable economical and political reasons in December
7-8, 1991 by Russia, Ukraine and Belarus. It has been extended to eleven
republics on December 21, 1991 in Alma-Ata. However, years of suppression, the
unfavorable example set by Baltic republics, and the mood of “glasnost” and
democracy set by Gorbachev did it, and republics were torn from USSR to be never
returned back under normal circumstances. Even though departure was peaceful,
infrastructure was irreparably damaged. And only years of cooperation will
revive unity amidst the republics. A more gentle and slow process of breaking
away of the republics from the main stream of USSR economy could have eased
economic situation in both Russia and the rest of former republics.
Economics
in Russia since fall of USSR were created by elite and for elite. All food,
fashion, automotive and entertainment industries have become highly attractive
but unreachable for the ordinary public. Everything appeared in stores but its
price is always uncoordinated with regular salaries. This significantly lowers
the standard of living in Russia. An availability of less expensive and less
qualificative goods imported from such countries as China, Brazil, would allow
relatively reasonable distribution of consumers with combination of allowing
non-elite members to participate in the market industry. Those changes would be
more likely to revive Russian economy, than all the efforts to convince elite to
assist its own nation.
Gas
and oil
usually make the country from which they are exported rich and prosperous, but
in Russia's case it only makes rich and prosperous people who are in government
and/or in business of gas and oil export. If only a fraction of these people
would decide to donate some of this money to public schools, medical care,
transportation and to any publicly useful purpose, it would not only revive
lives of many people, but the money also would serve its intended purpose. In
general, the best solution would be to freeze the export of gas and oil and to
allow natural growth of small-businesses economy. Also, this would conserve the
oil until the times when other major sources of oil in the world would run out.
Elite
has a few tendencies that exist in Russia today. First, the near symbiosis
between the government, mafia and business has led to the failure of most elite
members to distinguish between the national interest and their own. Second, the
more the government attempts to control internal affairs, the weaker it grows -
as demonstrated by its inability to control crime, collect revenues, maintain
public order, mount an effective military, and ensure that its authority is
respected in the periphery. Although they consider these tendencies a distinct
threat to the future of democracy in Russia, it is possible to acknowledge that
these developments have partly democratic roots, insofar as they are efforts by
the elite to respond to the wishes of the electorate, which favours stability
after a period of extreme volatility. To date both the elite and the population
have been self-restraining. The people have been battered by economic losses,
deteriorating public order, reduced international prestige of their state, and
fear of interethnic conflict. Nonetheless, they appear to prefer the present
system, whatever its faults, to uncertainty. People agree with current
conditions when they don't have a choice. If there would be more honestly
conducted elections and people would have more control over what government they
choose, there would be natural development of socio-democratic system within the
country over time. Which by itself is a slow process, plus there is always
someone trying to abuse power and freedom. So giving equal distribution of power
to the democratically elected political figures who are to fairly represent
electorate would be the solution for the problem. To allow fair democratic vote
would require taking back the power from elite, which would require some
assertive action of applying legal power to deprive elite from their power.
Finance
has not become any easier with unstable political situation causes devalvation
of currency. Liberalization of prices in January 2, 1992 should have boosted
economy but unstable politics have caused an instability in economics as well.
In June 1, 1992 Russia joined International Monetary Fund (IMF). However,
already in July 1992 Russia signs a standby agreement with IMF, which fails
immediately. The greatest fall was to come on October 11, 1994 as "Black
Tuesday", when exchange rate of ruble has collapsed completely. It will
take time and slow economical growth of the stabilizing small-business
development and redistribution of gas and oil money towards economic and
national development to stabilize the economy and currency.
Privatization
appears to be the most common sense and logical solution leading to the rise of
economy. However, it has become symbol of corruption, because big fortunes that
ever made in government subsidies and regulations, were used by the elite in
market economy giving more money to the rich and closing the market for the
middle class, or whatever is left of it after capitalization of the country. In
reality, privatization may work only upon replacement of the elite, which
withholds natural growth of the national economy.
Society
from socialistic one, or better to say, from state capitalism with super
monopoly, was transferred into a capitalistic one. Russia achieved what it
desired but at a high human cost, at the cost of completely abolishing and
bringing down to poverty entire middle class in Russia. As the result, homeless
people and beggars have appeared on the streets of cities, which was once
unheard of in Russia. This nude poverty is due to ignorance of elite to the
existence and needs of the rest of the country. This crying-out disaster can be
solved by reintroducing socialistic elements into society, like welfare,
encouragement to start private businesses, loans for starting businessmen.
Elections
seem to be a very important part of life in any democratic society. And so,
democratization in Russia has led to many elections and to high vote
participation in them. The disturbing anomaly is that these elections brought
little replacement of power elite from Soviet era, neither at federal nor at
regional levels. The elections were more democratic in 1991 in communistic
Russia, than the unfair elections held in 1996, which were controlled by the
elite. There is no economic way that powerful and rich elite can be replaced,
only by implementing legal action on the political level it is possible to
accomplish.
Politics
in military
were consistent in Russia since times of Stalin. The country leaders fired
competent military leaders when they became too popular. Competent general Lebed
signed treaty between Russia and Chechnya, becoming very popular by putting end
to the national disaster. Yeltzin dismissed him for his popularity. President as
any member of the government apparatus primarily is concerned with his own
interest. To avoid such happening president’s decisions should be approved by
Duma, which in turn should be fairly elected by the people, not by the elite.
Military
has its own problems in Russia. Other than insufficient, or rather lack of, food
and ammunition supplies, there are also national and international problems. On
national level, it has been five years since Russian withdrawal from Chechnya,
the centre and periphery, however, still continue to contest each other's chains
to power and authority, but the competition seems almost certain to remain a
peaceful one. On international level, the power in Russian military continues to
wane, but NATO enlargement went from a threat to a reality without a fundamental
redefinition of US-Russian strategic relations. Despite that, angry Russian
leadership is reluctant to return to a cold-war style engagement with Americans.
In addition, these relations were strained further in 1999 by NATO engagement
with Yugoslavia. One reasonable solution will be to avoid oppositions in
Russia-US relations, one to which Russia has come now. Putin has recently
started process of Russia's joining NATO.
Foreign
policy
towards newly evolved states from former Soviet republics is now named the 'near
border' should differ from policy toward ever-foreign countries. The question
arises how shall they be treated? Weak CIS states Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan,
Belarus, and Armenia cling to Russia for support. Stronger neighbours, such as
Uzbekistan and Ukraine, are forging new regional identities and orientations
that make their participation in CIS irrelevant. So, distribution of Russian
economic connections with other countries, which are former republics, should be
increased in countries willing to depend more on Russia.
The
main direction that the emphasis of support should be directed to is to change
the centre of power of Russia and to allow to power members of parliament other
than former Soviet era power elite. Money flow then should be redirected from
pockets of the elite from oil and gas business into rebuilding infrastructure
among Russia and former republics, education facilities, government social
support institutions, military, encouragement of small businesses and
development of agricultural supply for the nation. Next step would be emphasis
on valuable export of products in large enough schema to produce stable economy
within Russia and increase its competing ability on the international market.
Back to Main Page
Copyright © Anastasia
June, 2001