ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1996, Roanoke Times
DATE: Tuesday, July 2, 1996 TAG: 9607020025
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-6 EDITION: METRO
IF RUSSIAN politics seem odd to Westerners, consider how odd they must seem to Russians, for whom democratic institutions and procedures are a novelty.
As Russians prepare to go to the polls tomorrow, Westerners may find it peculiar that the presidential-election debate there has been as much about whether the post-Soviet system can survive as about who'll head that system. Similarly peculiar to Westerners, perhaps, is the importance attached in a putatively democratic state to control of the security apparatus as opposed to, say, economic policy.
Yet in Russia, with an authoritarian tradition dating back to the days of the czars, the fragility of democratic institutions and the political centrality of the security apparatus may well seem the natural order. What's new to Russia is democracy at work.
That's something Westerners tend to take for granted. Because they do, they may not be giving the new Russia enough credit for bringing it about.
After the election's first round on June 16, for example, Westerners worried about the deep divisions among the Russian people that the balloting revealed. True enough, the vote totals were fragmented among candidates arrayed along a very broad ideological spectrum. Surely, though, the breakdown - 35 percent for Boris Yeltsin, 32 percent for Communist leader Gennady Zyugano, 15 percent for Gen. Alexander Lebed, 7 percent for liberal reformer Grigory Yavlinsky, 6 percent for radical nationalist Vladimir Zhirinovsky - was healthier than the "unanimity" of Soviet-era "elections" in which Comrade Winner routinely pulled down 99 percent of the vote.
Also perturbing to many in the West has been the resurgence of Russian nationalism: In the first-round of campaigning, Zyugano, Lebed and Zhirinovsky all struck nationalist themes. But surely Lebed's brand of nationalism, sharp and accurate criticism of Yeltsin for weakening Russia with his tolerance of corruption and his prosecution of the unpopular war against Chechnya rebels, is a far cry from Zhirinovsky's call for a Greater Russia. And it is Lebed's star, not the fascist Zhirinovksy's, that is on the rise.
Moreover, Lebed's post-election alliance with Yeltsin not only greatly improves the latter's prospects against the Communists in Wednesday's run-off. It also bespeaks an understanding of a fundamental principle: The fact that democracy produces flawed leaders does not invalidate the value of democracy. This, too, stands in marked and healthy contrast to Soviet-era attempts to render the Maximum Leader infallible and beyond criticism.
For his part, Yeltsin has shown a healthy willingness to heed the message from the electorate by firing ministers and aides most closely linked to corruption and anti-democratic sentiments, thus making possible the alliance with Lebed.
Which is not to say all's well in Russia. Valid questions can be raised about Yeltsin's inconstancy. About authoritarian impulses in Lebed's character. About the enduring support of at least a third of the Russian electorate for Communists that, while professing repentant allegiance to a multiparty system, nevertheless seek a return to many of the command-economy practices that bankrupted the Soviet Union.
Even so, if democracy's future in Russia is not yet guaranteed, it is more secure than it was a few short weeks ago and than was imaginable just a few years ago. That's good news for both Russia and the West.
LENGTH: Medium: 61 linesby CNB