|
I represent the Yabloko party faction in the Duma.
Yabloko is a liberal party that was founded
in 1993. The leader of Yabloko is Grigory Yavlinsky,
who ran as a candidate in the 1986
presidential election. Mr. Yavlinsky will run for
president in the next election in the year 2000.
The Yabloko faction has 46 seats in the State Duma out
of a total of 450 seats. We got
between 7-8 percent of the vote in the parliamentary
elections in 1995 and the presidential
elections in 1996. In St. Petersburg, where I am the
chair of the St. Petersburg branch of
Yabloko, we got 16 percent of the vote at that time.
Now, public support for Yabloko is
increasing, and we have not less than 11-12 percent
support in Russia and about 20 percent in
St. Petersburg. The dynamics are good for us and we
have more public support than before,
Our goal in the upcoming parliamentary elections this
December is to get about 100 seats. Our
leader will definitely stand for the presidential
elections in June of the year 2000, or perhaps
earlier.
The main values of the Yabloko party are human rights,
democracy, and the rule of law. We
stand for a market economy and private property. We
stand for reforms which would benefit
the majority of the population, not only a handful of
people with close relations with
governmental officials or former Soviet nomenclatura.
This is crucial distinction between
Yabloko and other parties like the Democratic Choice
of Russia, headed by Mr. Gaidar and Mr.
Chubais. Yabloko opposed the war in Chechnya, which
was started by President Yeltsin.
Yabloko did not support the governments of
Chernomyrdin and Kirienko. Yabloko voted against
the state budgets proposed by these governments from
1994 through 1998. We consider
Yabloko to be the democratic opposition in Russia.
We are preparing very seriously now for the next
general parliamentary elections and the next
presidential elections, because we consider these
forthcoming elections to be critically
important for Russia, and we think that the results
will affect Russia not only for a term of four
years, but for several decades to come. And they will
affect not only Russia. This will be a
choice whether Russia will become a quasi-Democratic
oligarchy with features of "robber
capitalism," or if instead it will take the road to
becoming a normal western style democracy
with a competitive market economy. I think Communism
is no longer an option. This was shown
in the 1996 presidential election.
Russia is coming to this fork in the road with very
serious problems. The everyday life of the
voters is affected by the consequences of the August
1998 crisis, which was an absolutely
natural result of the government's economic policy, a
policy which was by the way supported
by western advisors and by many western politicians.
Speaking briefly about the consequences of the August
crisis, I may point to such factors as
the collapse of real income, which has fallen by 40
percent overall, and by 50 percent for
pensioners. Unemployment has risen up to 12 percent.
Prices have increased by more than 100
percent. So far this year, they have already gone up
by 14.5 percent. I would like to
emphasize that this crisis developed as a result of an
economic policy that was based on
macroeconomic approach aimed at low inflation, a
stable exchange rate, and also large use of
foreign and domestic loans. This policy was
accompanied by an unrealistic tax system,
criminalization, corruption, a lack of governmental
support to small and medium businesses to
create new jobs, significant governmental support to a
small number of tycoons, and the
absence of a competitive market.
Speaking about political developments over the past
few years, I may mention the lack of a
political infrastructure, including the weakness of
Russia's political parties, undeveloped civil
society, and the serious problem of the Russian
Federation itself and of relations between the
central federal government and the regions.
Unfortunately, the new Russian government
headed by Mr. Primakov cannot yet manage most of these
problems. As you probably know, in
1998 Yabloko proposed Mr. Primakov as an appropriate
candidate for prime minister. I may
explain the reasons for Yabloko proposing Mr.
Primakov. This is because we thought that he
was probably the only person who could manage the
political crisis that developed in August
and September 1998. We saw that Mr. Primakov could
guarantee free elections if they were to
happen ahead of schedule. He had the support of the
army and security forces. He did not
have links to so-called oligarchs. He could be
supported by the Duma, and he had no
presidential ambitions, at least at that time.
Now we see that the political crisis have been
resolved. However, the economic crisis has not.
Communists manage the economic block in the
government, and they cannot propose a clear
economic strategy. Another major problem is corruption
within governmental structures. Of
course, there was corruption in the former
governments, as well. But we may suspect that it
still exists in the present government. A lot of
publications in the media demonstrate this, and
we are very worried about the lack of reaction from
the high governmental officials.
The decrease in people's living standards is a major
basis for the rise of extremist sentiments in
society. Poverty is the best soil for growing
Communism, nationalism, anti-Semitism. I am sure
you have heard about the anti-Semitic statements of
General Makashov, M.P. and Mr. Ilyukhin,
M.P. We must recognize that there are many people who
support them. But more dangerous is
the lack of strong reaction from the governmental
bodies. I may add that there is now in the
Duma there a draft resolution to condemn anti-Semitic
statements by Makashov, and several
times Yabloko has proposed to put it to a vote. But
the Communists are doing all they can to
postpone the voting, and I am sure they will not vote
for it. So we may say that anti-Semitism
had been the state policy in Soviet times, when
Communists ruled the country, and now it is
once again the voice of Communists.
So what may be done to overcome the crisis, to fortify
the emerging democracy and civil
society in Russia, to make Russia a reliable partner
in the world economy? We need a
government that does not lie to its citizens or to
investors, a government that respects and
supports institutions of civil society. We need a
government ready to fight against corruption
and the criminalization of the economy. We need a
clear and logical economic program. Yabloko
proposes such a program, which includes tax reform,
control over monopolies of raw materials,
reasonable financial policies, state support for small
and medium businesses, reinforcement of
the customs regime at Russia's borders, and many other
measures.
I may say that since August 1996 through December
1998, we had an opportunity to apply
some of our ideas in St. Petersburg, where one of my
colleagues from Yabloko governed the
city finances and served as vice governor. The result
was a balanced city budget, the growth
of small business, decrease of city debts,
comparatively high credit rating of the city, and no
default on city bonds, contrary to the state bonds.
Unfortunately, now Yabloko has withdrawn
our representatives from the city government because
of changes in the governor's policy,
particularly because of his support of semi-criminal
Communist, and even anti-Semitic
candidates during the city legislative elections three
months ago. But the experience of St.
Petersburg clearly shows that it is possible to run
the reasonable economic policy in Russia.
Concluding my presentation, I would like to make some
remarks concerning the position of the
West regarding the challenges and troubles in Russia.
I will not talk about the potential danger
of Soviet nuclear and chemical materials if they
should fall under the rule of a corrupt
oligarchy, or what would happen if there would be a
loss of control of these arsenals. I think
you all recognize that. This is only one of the
reasons for the west to prefer Russia to be a
stable and wealthy state. So if you recognize the
importance of Russia to the West and the
United States, we must support a policy that as far as
possible does not challenge the
development of democracy reforms in Russia. And in
this respect, I might say that some of the
West's operations, such as NATO expansion, have
treated Russia I think in a wrong way. From
my point of view, the policy of NATO expansion was an
example of a two-faced policy. On one
hand, Western politicians say that Russia is going in
the right direction, and reforms in Russia
are good. But from the other hand they went ahead with
NATO expansion, explaining that
there is a different NATO today than before, that it
is no longer purely a military organization,
and so on. But people realize that this is a two-faced
policy. It would probably be better to be
more honest and say that the West still does not
believe in Russia's reforms. I think it would be
better for real prospects of Russian democracy.
Look at the West's policy regarding the crisis in
Kosovo. You know that many Western
politicians are seriously discussing the bombing of
Serbs in the next few days. Maybe you do
not know that there is one famous politician in Russia
who is waiting for the bombing eagerly.
He even talked about it publicly last week at the
meeting with Prime Minister Primakov. This
politician is Mr. Zhirinovsky. He said that it will be
the best thing if America will start bombing,
because this will increase anti-American mood in
Russian society, and will help him to win more
seats in the Parliament, because now there is
absolutely no guarantee that he will get any
seats for his faction in the next Russian Duma. But
certainly, that is not the most serious
reason to think twice before bombing the Serbs.
Bombing will encourage Serbs to be more
aggressive and intolerant. Bombing will not create the
stability in the Balkans. And by the way,
we remember that the First World War began in that
region. So we think we must be very
careful about military decisions. We must do
everything we can to find a peaceful solution with
every kind of pressure that is possible.
Another thing I would like say is that I have a
feeling that the West prefers to promote
personalities rather than institutions. And I am
afraid that the danger comes when the West
while promoting the rhetoric of democracy and
capitalism, backs Yeltsin, or Yegor Gaidar, or
Chubais, or Chenomyrdin and others, even when they
embark on actions that do not promote
democracy or markets. When Yeltsin ordered tanks to
fire at the Russian parliament, the West
supported him, as they did at least publicly when he
ordered the army to start the war in
Chechnya. And we remember it in Russia.
Finally, do not treat us as a second class democracy.
Apply to Russia the same criteria of
democracy and market economy that you apply to your
own country. Be honest in monitoring
Russian elections, Russian freedoms, do not suggest
that we should elect a president you
would not wish for yourselves. Never give us advise
you would not be willing to take
yourselves. We belong to different histories, but we
belong to one civilization.
The choice of which path Russia takes to the next
century is mostly Russia's but the decision
will effect all of us. The decisions made by both
Russia and the West will influence the choice.
Our goal, the goal of Yabloko party, is civil society,
real democracy, human rights and
freedoms, really competitive market, with a strict
antimonopoly policy. We do not accept the
imagined dictatorship of crime and corruption. Yabloko
has absolutely no doubts that a free and
democratic country can be built in Russia. It may be
not the greatest power in the world, but it
will be far better than it was, or what it is today.
It may be a Russia that works for its citizens,
a Russia which is a constructive player in the world
politics and economy. This can and must
be achieved. And Yabloko is working to create that
Russia.
see also:
http://www.irex.org/programs/conferences/shishlov.htm
|
