home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
TIME: Almanac 1990s
/
Time_Almanac_1990s_SoftKey_1994.iso
/
time
/
072390
/
0723009.000
< prev
next >
Wrap
Text File
|
1993-04-15
|
9KB
|
176 lines
<text id=90TT1912>
<link 91TT0654>
<title>
July 23, 1990: Soviet Union:Flanked By Trouble
</title>
<history>
TIME--The Weekly Newsmagazine--1990
July 23, 1990 The Palestinians
</history>
<article>
<source>Time Magazine</source>
<hdr>
WORLD, Page 30
SOVIET UNION
Flanked by Trouble
</hdr>
<body>
<p>Gorbachev defeats a rival from the right--but on the left,
Yeltsin's bolt from the Communist Party threatens to create a
separate power center
</p>
<p>By John Kohan/Moscow--Reported by James Carney/Moscow and Paul
Hofheinz/Donetsk
</p>
<p> Boris Yeltsin has an exquisite sense of timing. Just when
Mikhail Gorbachev had soundly defeated hard-line rival Yegor
Ligachev and secured his control over the divided Communist
Party, Yeltsin threw down an even greater challenge. He quit
the party, threatening to wrest the embattled reform movement
from Gorbachev's hands and turn the party into a sideshow.
</p>
<p> For the five years Gorbachev has been in power, his every
move has been dogged by these two men, shadow members of a
strange political troika. Ligachev was the archconservative,
unwilling to sacrifice ideological certainties for the risks
of change; Boris Yeltsin, the maverick populist, wanting to go
further, faster in forcing the pace of reform. At times the two
have seemed like Gorbachev's alter egos, the right and left
boundary markers on his political horizon. But mostly they have
been his rivals, vying to force him off the careful centrist
course he has charted for himself.
</p>
<p> Last week, as Gorbachev struggled to bring the party whole
and united out of the 28th Congress, the two men figured in one
of his most remarkable triumphs--and abrupt setbacks. After
10 days of harsh attack, he put down the right-wing revolt with
a display of personal authority so convincing that his victory
might justly have been dubbed "Ligachev's last stand." It was
then, from his left flank, that Yeltsin pounced. When the
chairman of the Russian parliament announced he was pulling out
of the party, he paved the way in effect for a potentially
dangerous split in the 18 million-member body.
</p>
<p> Yeltsin's move was not unexpected, but it still caused a
sensation. With his huge popular following, he could spark a
wave of defections. More important, he appears to have
established himself as the leader most in sync with the public
appetite for rapid change. As head of the Russian republic,
which covers 76% of the U.S.S.R.'s landmass and is home to 147
million of its 289 million people, he holds a strong power base
where he is now free to try his own more radical brand of
reform. Even if the party does not split formally, Gorbachev
could be left trying to implement perestroika through a rump
dominated by moderates unable to keep pace with leftists
outside the party.
</p>
<p> Ligachev was the first to make his move. The blistering
attacks against Kremlin policies in the opening days of the
Congress left no doubt that conservatives were intent on
forcing the party to the right--and the party leader with it.
Wielding his muscle, Gorbachev handily kept the job of General
Secretary. The right wing decided instead to wage war for the
key post of deputy, who would supervise day-to-day party
business. Whoever controlled that job would in effect control
the party.
</p>
<p> Gorbachev threw his support behind Politburo member Vladimir
Ivashko, 58, a tough-talking moderate from the Ukraine,
committed to the Soviet leader's kind of reform. Without
rejecting Ligachev by name, Gorbachev pointedly reminded the
delegates that it was important that the two people at the top
of the party are "close in their views." Ivashko won 3,109
votes, Ligachev 776, a showing so poor that when he was later
asked about his chances of being on the new Politburo, he
candidly replied, "There is no need for me to be."
</p>
<p> Gorbachev did not have long to savor the triumph. As the
Congress began discussing candidates for the new Central
Committee, Yeltsin signaled that he wanted to speak. "I am
announcing my resignation from the Soviet Communist Party," he
said. "In view of my great responsibilities toward the people
of Russia, I cannot fulfill only the instructions of the
Communist Party." Yeltsin explained, "As the highest elected
figure in the republic, I have to bow to the will of all the
people."
</p>
<p> Amid cries of "Shame! Shame!"--and scattered applause--Yeltsin turned on his heel, marched down the aisle and out the
doors. Gorbachev managed to respond, with a wry smile, "That
ends the process logically."
</p>
<p> It was, in fact, only the beginning. Barely an hour after
Yeltsin departed, Vyacheslav Shostakovsky, a leader of the
radical Democratic Platform group, took the Russian leader's
declaration one step further. Although faction delegates had
come to the Congress hoping for "resolute change," said
Shostakovsky, the decisions taken there had convinced them that
no real democratic renewal was possible. With that, Shostakovsky
described his group's plans to set up an independent party.
Next day the reform-minded mayors of Moscow and Leningrad,
Gavril Popov and Anatoli Sobchak, resigned as well.
</p>
<p> Suddenly, Gorbachev's strategy of cobbling together a
middle-of-the-road party, with a less centralized and more
democratic organization, seemed in danger of unraveling. As
President, he has successfully freed himself from much of the
party's oversight and diluted the Moscow power base of the new
24-member Politburo by dropping several key government
officials and bringing in the party heads of the 15 republics.
But if there was to be no solid left flank, Gorbachev's
revitalized party would be about as airworthy as a bird with one
wing.
</p>
<p> It was apparent from Yeltsin's statements last week that he
ruled himself out as a new party leader. He seemed more
interested in playing the role of a nonpartisan referee who has
withdrawn from the political fray to concentrate on furthering
reform. Even if Yeltsin's decision does inspire like-minded
liberals to turn in their party cards, they may also choose not
to align themselves with any other political movement.
</p>
<p> If a true parliamentary democracy is to develop in the
Soviet Union, the best interim solution might be the creation
of a "nonparty" system, with the Communists joining other
groups in a national coalition to promote reform. Yeltsin has
clearly been faster out of the starting block than Gorbachev
to embrace this idea. Given the size and economic clout of the
Russian republic, a nonpartisan Yeltsin might set up a rival
power center in Moscow that could turn the national party
apparatus--to say nothing of the federal government--into
a Soviet Vatican City, its power and influence bounded by the
Kremlin walls.
</p>
<p> In contrast, Gorbachev has staked his future on keeping a
foothold in both the national presidency and the party
leadership. He believes that the party, whatever its internal
divisions, still has the most effective organizational
structure for promoting reform.
</p>
<p> The key question Gorbachev must answer is whether the party
has not fallen so far behind the dramatic changes taking place
that it has already become largely irrelevant. Tens of
thousands of coal miners staged a one-day political strike,
calling for, among other things, the resignation of the
government, the nationalization of $12 billion worth of
property belonging to the party, and the dissolution of local
party cells. Gorbachev dismissed the demands with the brisk
comment that "there was no general strike." Maybe not, but the
party can hardly afford to ignore the miners and millions of
other Soviets who share their thirst for change more rapid and
sweeping than the party proposes.
</p>
<p> And what about President Gorbachev? For the moment, many of
the coal miners still have grudging respect for the initiator
of perestroika, but their patience is wearing thin. "Gorbachev
can stay a while longer," said striking coal miner Yuri
Boldyrev, "but we need a government of national agreement, a
government people are going to trust." He no doubt meant a
government not under the control of the Communist Party--a
government led, perhaps, by someone like Boris Yeltsin.
</p>
</body>
</article>
</text>