CNN Newsroom: Global View

home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search

/ CNN Newsroom: Global View / CNN Newsroom: Global View.iso / txt / fbis / fbis1093.004 < prev next >

Wrap

Text File | 1994-05-12 | 22.5 KB | 440 lines

<text> <title>Yeltsin Asserts Commitment to Democracy</title> <article> <hdr> Foreign Broadcast Information Service, October 20, 1993 Yeltsin Asserts Commitment to Democracy </hdr> <body> ["Russian Federation President B.N. Yeltsin's Answers to NOVAYA YEZHEDNEVNAYA GAZETA Questions"; dated 19 October, Moscow, the Kremlin: "Mr President, Can It Be Claimed That You Have Personally Opted for Authoritarian Power?"] [text] [NOVAYA YEZHEDNEVNAYA GAZETA] Esteemed Mr. President! Following the events of 3-4 October and the resolute steps taken by the government, a certain section of society has begun to fear for the fate of democracy in the country. Can it be claimed that you have personally opted to the establishment of harder-line, authoritarian power, having deemed the path of reforming the country to be no longer possible, or is that viewpoint erroneous, in your view? In your view, for how long and in what form should the restriction of democratic freedoms continue to operate? Will the ban on the activity of certain political parties and the publication of a number of newspapers be lifted, and who is empowered to make that decision? In general, in your view, is the existence of an opposition in the country permissible today, and within what limits and in what form? [Yeltsin] First of all I consider it important that Russian society is profoundly concerned about the fate of democracy in our country. This alone is a powerful barrier to totalitarianism and authoritarianism. But the fact that the voices of opponents of democracy are mingled with the voices of sincere supporters of democracy is a different matter. The former see a democratic regime soley as the means to monopolize and usurp power. Distant and recent historical experience and communist theory itself confirms this threat. None other than Lenin constantly reiterated in his works that bolsheviks must make use of the achievements of democracy to establish the so-called "dictatorship if the proletariat." We all know very well what that means. It means a regime where the leader and the nomenklatura are all-powerful, a regime of repression, a regime of cynical lies and contempt for those in whose name the nomenklatura rules. A democratic politician cannot operate by these methods, and nobody can accuse me of altering my choice--a choice in favor of democratic development in Russia. I have never spoken and, especially, have never acted like a dictator. Unfortunately the president has been denied the opportunity to act "according to the scenario" of classical democracy. If most of the former Russian deputies had been sincerely interested in calmly reforming our economic and political system they would have been obliged to themselves adopt a decision on early elections for a completely new parliament under completely new election rules. This did not happen. And as president I could not simply "wash my hands" of things, observing impassively as the forces of reaction, rejected by the people, pushed increasingly overtly for the restoration of the old order. I regret that not everyone discerned the insidiousness of the intention: to utilize democratic institutions--representative power, the Constitutional Court, the Constitution--for their own ends. Today it is not a question of cutting off the democratic road, but of clearing the ground for the people to make a free choice in favor of one or another model of development. Free elections are a sharp-edged knife for opponents of democracy. It is no accident that today they are arguing that the elections are illegal. By using this argument they graphically expose--maybe unwittingly--what they are essentially about. How can the freely expressed will of the people be illegal? After all, it was for precisely this kind of freedom of expression of will that I was compelled to assume an enormous political responsibility. The former Supreme Soviet simply refused to share this responsibility. On the subject of the restriction of democratic freedoms: Restrictions have indeed been introduced, but in strict accordance with the Law on a State of Emergency. In addition, there was no question of the total restriction of political rights and freedoms. The state of emergency regime in Moscow is now over. I emphasize that these restrictions were not introduced and did not operate outside Moscow. As for the opposition, I would say the following. The president has been and continues to be criticized from all sides. And this criticism is becoming increasingly vigorous now, during the election campaign. Do you have any knowledge of people being put behind bars for criticism? I can definitely state that there are none. Following the August putsch in 1991 not a single person in Russia was deprived of his freedom for his political convictions. The unnatural "posse" of fascists and communists, who call themselves the opposition, is something different. Let us dot the "i's": Examined within the framework of democratic standards, this is not an opposition. As as organized political force voters have not given them a mandate to participate in government. An opposition can emerge only now, after elections to parliament on a party basis. There is no democratic country where the opposition permits itself to describe the legal government as an "occupation" government. Especially since its course won support in a referendum. So if that kind of thing happens you are no longer talking about political opponents of the government but of a desire to seize power by any means. Ultimately our implacable "opposition" showed itself to be precisely like that by taking up arms. Think about it. For what was blood spilled? So that the people could have the chance to freely elect themselves a normal parliament which, depending on the alignment of political forces in it, would form a government? No. Solely so that deputies and few discredited leaders could continue their activity. In these conditions the state was obliged to use force to halt the avalanche of violence, which threatened to crush anyone who disagreed and again flood the country with seas of blood. All this does not mean that I intend to exploit the situation to eliminate associations that totally disagree with the president's course. Neither I nor the country need a "tame" parliament. We are talking about banning only those parties and organizations that are stained with blood. In the next few days I will possibly be signing an edict listing such organizations. It will not be a very long list. I would say that it was a sign of our young democracy's weakness and naivety that an "opposition" if this kind, which had adopted violence as part of its armory, operated almost unobstructed in Russia and operated in defiance of the law. Excessive liberalism toward them jeopardized the country's security and the lives of thousands if not millions of people. The activity of such organizations has now been suspended for the sake of democracy and Russia's future. Incidentally we are not stepping outside the framework of international politics and international standards here. [NOVAYA YEZHEDNEVNAYA GAZETA] Esteemed Mr. President! The tight deadline for holding the elections to the State Duma and the simultaneous extention of the state of emergency in Moscow have added somewhat to many parties' difficulties in preparing for the elections. What do you see as the guarantee that these elections will be truly free? There are fears that only a few political parties will get the chance to campaign extensively using state funds, including in the government-controlled media, television included. How rational are these fears? Do you consider it possible to answer the question: For the candidates of which specific party will you personally be voting? [Yelsin] Strictly speaking, I have already answered your second question, but maybe there is a point in clarifying a few things. All parties and movements officially registered with the Central Electoral Commission will have equal guarantees for conducting their election campaigns and for campaigning for their candidates. The statute on elections clearly states this. And I will stricly monitor the fulfillment of these requirements. In addition, a statute on informational guarantees of election campaigning has been prepared on my instructions. I will shortly be signing an edict on the subject. Furthermore, to the best of my knowledge the Central Electoral Commission is also working on explanatory instructions. As for the second part of your question, permit me not to answer for the time being. For the time being... [NOVAYA YEZHEDNEVNAYA GAZETA] Esteemed Mr. President! Today the government has been given the opportunity to implement economic reforms without having to keep one eye on the hard-line opposition in the shape of parliament. To what extent, in your view, will this affect the the success of the reforms? In the absence of an opposition, is there any insurance against the government's making any erroneous decisions? Could you tell us which, today, are the most important steps to be taken in the near future in the sphere of the economy? [Yeltsin] No one in the Russian Federation Government is rejoicing over the temporary lack of opponents. People have not forgotten the times when the deputies' sound judgements and reasonable arguments served the good of the cause. V.F. Shumeyko himself, when he was still in the Supreme Soviet leadership, used to propose interesting ideas and sometimes sharply criticized particular government decisions. But everyone knew that this was a man who cared about the cause and who saw it as the common cause. Unfortunately, the former Supreme Soviet overstepped the limits of constructive criticism a long time ago. Its stance became bellicose, intransigent, and destructive. In these conditions it was frankly impossible to conduct any kind of dialogue. Irrespective of its quality, any government decision, however minor, was given a hostile reception, and government policy was sytematically obstructed literally throughout the system of soviets. This was dyarchy in action. It is well known that within the Supreme Soviet itself, much work was done, basically repressive work, to artificially ensure the dominance of this ruinous line. Ruinous not only for the reforms, but for the country's elemental survival. At the same time I think that pending the election of the Federal Assembly, the Council of Ministers should refrain from taking any drastic, revolutionary steps in the economy. Without a proper parliament, this is really dangerous. Basically the government is operating on the basis of the decisions adopted prior to 21 September. Especially since its main policy priorities were defined long ago. [NOVAYA YEZHEDNEVNAYA GAZETA] Esteemed Mr. President! In the dispute with the government, the former parliament often used to assert that it was defending the interests of Russia's impoverished population. How will the problem of the poorly-off population strata be dealt with today, and will those strata widen, in your view, in the course of the reforms? [Yeltsin] In general the claim that parliament defends the interest of any one section--however big--of the population demonstrates once again a complete failure to understand the function of parliament in a democratic state. A democratic parliament is an institution in which the interest of all population groups are collated. On that basis, by means of highly complex procedures, a political compromise is reached. This is necessary so that society remains stable and so that no single group feels it is suffering because nobody is defending its interests. In fact the former Supreme Soviet was not even thinking about defending the interests of even one social group. It was exploiting those interests, and it must be said, not without success. Boshevik demagoguery seeks to hit the most vulnerable spots: justice, equality, well-being. Yet demagoguery is still demagoguery, first and foremost because it is not backed up by consideration for the objective laws of economics. By adopting various "kindhearted" decisions, the deputies were only boosting inflation. That meant they were taking money out of the pockets of the poorest population strata most of all. It goes without saying that the executive power also did not do everything possible to alleviate the burden borne by the poorly-off strata. But the necessary experience is gradually being accumulated. An awareness has developed that it is essential to introduce targeted socioeconomic shock absorbers. This is the narrow "tightrope" we are walking, trying not to delay the pace of reforms and at the same time not to bring about an increase in people's poverty. Although, I repeat, the balance is not always successfully maintained. [NOVAYA YEZHEDNEVNAYA GAZETA] Esteemed Mr. President! The events of late September and early October in Russia created an exceptionally complex situation in legal terms. How can the temptation to continue breaking the law be avoided, when the Constitution does not, in effect, exist, the Constitutional Court is not in operation, and doubt has been cast on legislation in general among the broad masses of the population? [Yeltsin] I will tell you frankly, some people do indeed urge the president to overstep the law here and there. The reason is well known--departmental interests. To be frank, for them, right and the Law were an obstacle which they tried with all their might to overcome, and they are still trying. Let me remind you, the well-known Edict No. 1400 states clearly that the measures being adopted are aimed exclusively at bringing about decisive progress in constitutional reform, and nothing else. The edict states frankly and unequivocally that the Constitution and legislation remain in force. That is a fundamental provision of the edict. It is no secret that, taking advantage of the situation, certian political groupings, departments, and regional administrations are trying to bypass the law to solve their own corporate, departmental, or regional problems. There are plenty of examples of this. That is why the Edict "On Legal Regulation in the Period of Stage-by-Stage Constitutional Reform in the Russian Federation" was issued on 7 October. In effect a barrier has been created in the path of deliberately unlawful decisions and unjustified amendments to the law. But the problem still remains. The forces I have mentioned are trying to solve their problems by means of presidential edicts. I have therefore instructed my apparatus carefully to scrutinize all initiating proposals and draft edicts. To scrutinize them specifically to see that they comply with the general principles of the Constitution and the general principle of the primacy of man's natural rights. Incidentally, this largely explains the tight schedule for the election campaign. A country that wants to be a democratic state cannot go on for long without a civilized parliament and other democratic institutions, such as a Constitutional Court. If I was not keenly aware of this, the entire logic of my decisions would be radically different. [NOVAYA YEZHEDNEVNAYA GAZETA] Esteemed Mr. President! Do you not consider it possible to lift the veil of secrecy that has formed around certain events of 3-4 October? What measures were taken to avoid an armed clash? Did you personally, or members of your apparatus, attempt to contact Rutskoy and Khasbulatov? How do you assess the activity of the militia, which suddenly disappeared from the streets of Moscow on Sunday evening? What was the position of the leaders if the Defense Ministry and Moscow Military District and the commanding officers of the formations? Were there no instances of insubordination to the government and the president on the part of various power structures? What cadre changes and reshuffles have been or will be carried out following these events? [Yeltsin] An attentive observer who seeks to analyze the consistency of the president's actions will certainly see that on my part everything was done to avoid possible clashes of any kind, let alone armed confrontation. Look at the actions of the leaders of the former parliament. Where, in what country, does political confrontation involve the stockpiling of a vast quantity of firearms? For what purpose? When the danger arose that these weapons would spread through Moscow, then the decision to stop these actions was made. I realize that of course the presence of several rings of armed men around the White House annoyed some people, including, of course, those who were in the White House. The need for this was dictated by just one thing: To prevent the spread of armed clashes outside that area. I personally did not make any special attempts to make contact with the former vice president and former parliament speaker. This was because I know these people too well. I was convinced that I would not be able to reach an agreement with them. And how long was it worth going on trying? The experience of all the previous accords showed that after reaching an agreement they would promptly go back on the compromise. I think many people will recall the well-known saying: "The devil is in it." But staffers of the [president's] Administration and government leaders did of course have contact with the people who were in the White House. Note that the presidential side proposed peaceful means of reaching a settlement. The opponents, as a rule, used to reject everything that our side proposed, dictating their own terms, and I mean dictating. More and more details are now becoming known of the development of events according to the so-called "White House scenario." In particular, lists have been found of people who were to be arrested once the rebels had seized power. Incidentally, the composition of these lists very closely resembles the list that were drawn up by the notorious SCSE [State Committee for the State of Emergency] in August 1991. A large number of blank forms were found in the House of Soviets, printed in large numbers, where all you had to do was fill in the name and address of the person who was to be arrested. There were also plenty of xeroxed forms signed by Rutskoy, in effect giving the holder of the form emergency powers. You just fill in your name, and you become a so-called "plenipotentiary representative" of the so-called extraordinary congress. It is easy to guess what kind of "restoration" of democracy lay in store for us if events had developed according to that scenario. October 1917 would simply have been continued in our own day. Subsequently, through the fault of representatives of the former parliament, the possibility of avoiding conflict through the mediation of the patriarch was wrecked, in effect. At the moment it is hard for me to comment on your question about the militia, which you think suddenly disappeared from the streets of Moscow on Sunday evening. A major analysis of the events of those days is in progress, and every action and inaction is being examined thoroughly and in detail. I hope the truth will be reconstructed in full. But for all that, we must bear in mind that the Ministry of Internal Affairs [MVD], the militia, and the internal troops bore the main burden of the work that had to be done to restore calm and order. Such events had not been seen before in the capital. At the very least, I do not know of any instances of mass refusals to carry out duty. Nor were there even any isolated instances of refusal on the part if MVD staffers during that period. If there were perhaps weak-willed people here and there, one can only express regret, and let the MVD leaders themselves deal with them. I know of no instance of any of the leaders of the power structures or their subordinates disobeying an order. First, even before the edict came out, possible scenarios for the development of events were analyzed, and, of course, provision was made for appropriate measures. And the power ministers took part in this anlysis. Second, the use of force on our side was allowed, as you know, only after groups of armed people had broken into the City Hall building and started a real battle at Ostankino. All the operations of the Defense Ministry, the Security Ministry, and the Ministry of Internal Affairs were carried out in the light of the developing situation. In terms of personnel changes, there is only one thing I can say: The president's and government's policy of reforms in Russia wil be maintained in accordance with the results of the referendum of 25 April this year. And it is in order to achieve these objectives that personnel changes have been and will be made. New tasks require new people. [NOVAYA YEZHEDNEVNAYA GAZETA] Esteemed Mr. President! As Russian historical experience unfortunately shows, the introduction of censorship is rarely short-lived. There are fears among journalists that even after censorship is officially rescinded it will be carried out using other, indirect methods (economic, for example). Will the president continue to be the guarantor of freedom of speech and information in Russia? [Yeltsin] So long as freedom of the press is maintained there is confidence that democracy too will survive. This is why the censorship temporarily introduced on the basis of the Law on a State of Emergency caused such disquiet. I see this as a good sign. We consider an uncensored press to be the natural condition for us. Censorship has long been alien to us. On 20 March this year, if you remember, in two edicts specifically devoted to the press and, in particular, radio and television, I took upon myself the role of the guarantor of the freedom of mass information. I state that the law on mass information in Russia must and will be enforced in full. We will rectify any excesses by the enforcers [ispolniteli]. Freedom of the press is as important for me as it is for you and for all citizens of Russia. </body> </article> </text>