That is exactly what happened, but we underestimated the cunning of the forces of the past. We did not manage to continue along the path of gradual, evolutionary change.
The formidable attack Khrushchev launched on totalitarianism was choked off and followed by a period of reaction that was little more than titivated neo-Stalinism. The rest of the world embarked on major structural changes while Russia stagnated and fell decades behind. This is what we need to remember: ‘It is not so much for Khrushchev’s benefit as for ourselves, for Russia, for the world, that we need to go back to the experience of previous reform initiatives and learn from them.’
The Union could have been saved
Another important project was what the Foundation described as a ‘White Paper’ titled The Union Could Have Been Saved.[2] A white paper consists mainly of documents that speak for themselves. Many were previously unpublished, including records of the negotiations for a new Union Treaty in Novo-Ogarevo and Politburo meetings. Others had been published for limited circulation and now, with hindsight, read differently.
A book launch and press conference were held at the Foundation. Of course, I told the journalists, you cannot turn back the pages of history. Opportunities which had existed in the past were no longer an option. Replying to a question, I said:
People are trying to persuade us that Russia is not ready for democracy and all our troubles are due to the fact that we embarked prematurely on democratic change. A substantial section of our press shares that view, and seeks to substantiate it. That is a big mistake. It is not democracy that is to blame for our troubles, but the fact that we have too little of it. The oligarch groups are all in favour of curtailing democracy. The docility of our representative institutions and lack of public participation suit them nicely, and that is the source of the current state of rampant lawlessness. It is even more pronounced now than when the Communist Party had a monopoly on power. I believe, on the contrary, that democracy is not anarchy and chaos, not dithering and lack of principle, but a very rigorous system under which everybody, from the president to the ordinary citizen, genuinely has to obey the law. That demands an independent judiciary and prosecutors who act in strict accordance with the law, without waiting for orders from above. Everybody who shares that view, and understands it is in the interests of the majority of the population, needs to form a democratic opposition movement. That is the conclusion I have come to after watching the government’s intensification of policies that are disastrous for the nation.
The economy: what now?
In the first half of 1994, the government decided to make combating inflation its top priority, and once again tried to solve the problem with a cavalry charge, as if it were an end in itself and, moreover, something that could be over in next to no time. Once again, the result was lamentable, the medicine almost deadlier than the disease.
My colleague, Corresponding Member of the Academy of Sciences Vadim Medvedev, wrote in one of his research reports to me as president of the Foundation:
At the beginning of this year inflation was reduced at too high a price, by inducing a further, uncontrolled contraction of the economy at a dangerous rate. In the first quarter of the year, industrial production declined by 24.9 per cent, in comparison with the corresponding period last year. We have not seen such a shocking fall in industrial output since early 1992. This is, in effect, a new downward spiral. For the first time, the level of industrial production has fallen to less than half the pre-crisis level. The country is closer than ever to a major economic collapse. Major enterprises that are the backbone of our manufacturing capacity, the pride of Russian industry, like the ZIL automotive factory and the Kirov engineering complex, are coming to a standstill, while many others are limping along.
Recent months have seen a rapid increase in mass unemployment. Including part-time workers, the overall level of unemployment according to the State Statistics Committee is currently 8.8 million people, or 11.7 per cent of the workforce.
This results from the fact that, despite the assurances of the leaders of the present administration that they are correcting their former ways of implementing economic policy and that they recognize the unacceptability of shock therapy, they are in effect continuing to implement their belief in the omnipotence of tight monetarist policy while ignoring its effects on manufacturing output.
Meetings in the regions
In 1994, I travelled to St Petersburg, Krasnoyarsk, Vladimir, Ufa and Novgorod. I wanted to talk to people and get a sense of their mood and reactions to what was going on in the country, and also of their attitude towards me.
I went to St Petersburg at the invitation of cultural figures and business circles there, and also of the mayor of St Petersburg, Anatoly Sobchak, and the head of the administration of Kronstadt, Viktor Surikov.
Surprisingly, contrary to the agreed programme, Sobchak was absent from our meetings. We heard later that this had been because of direct pressure from Yeltsin. The Petersburg authorities’ arrangements for the visit were coordinated by the city’s deputy mayor, Vladimir Putin. He met us at Pulkovo Airport, accompanied us throughout our stay in St Petersburg, was attentive and considerate, and showed he was knowledgeable about the city’s problems and much else besides. We enjoyed the company of Lyudmila Putina, who showed Raisa the work of the city’s schoolchildren.
We spent an evening at the Actors Club of the Union of Theatre Workers, where we met such outstanding Petersburg actors as Vladislav Strzhelchik, Kirill Lavrov, Andrey Tolubeyev and others prominent in the arts.
I remember Andrey Tolubeyev took me aside at one reception and said very quietly: ‘Mikhail Sergeyevich, if you should need a place of refuge, I will hide you in my dacha in the forest. The Devil himself would never find you there. You can rely on me.’ I laughed, although I believe the offer was meant seriously. I said I was touched by his concern, but had no intention of hiding anywhere.
Raisa and I went to see Maxim Gorky’s Posledniye [The Last Ones] at the Bolshoi Drama Theatre.
In meetings with some of the city’s young entrepreneurs I heard of the extraordinary difficulties they had to overcome for their businesses to survive.
A small group of protesters tried to disrupt my meeting with students at St Petersburg State University. The students had come to listen to Gorbachev and gave them no support. As always when I have meetings with young people, we got on well and I left to warm applause. Incidentally, I noticed one of the girls who had been protesting clapping loudly. She had stayed, listening carefully, right to the end.
I had the rare opportunity of a live television interview on Petersburg-Channel 5, and enjoyed a meaningful conversation with the editors of the St Petersburg press. I was left with a good overall impression. Although initially rather taken aback by Sobchak’s ‘disappearance’, I left St Petersburg in a positive mood.
2