1995: 10 Years of Perestroika
The intelligentsia
In 1995 came the tenth anniversary of Perestroika, but the mood during the first days and weeks of the year was far from celebratory. That made it all the more important to continue analysing the lessons learned during Perestroika and applying them to the new challenges and worries.
A round-table discussion at the Gorbachev Foundation debated one of our most difficult topics: the role of the intelligentsia in Perestroika. It brought together people with different beliefs and of different political persuasions: Academicians Nikita Moiseyev, Vitaliy Goldansky and Boris Raushenbakh; the playwrights Viktor Rozov and Mikhail Shatrov; the film directors Stanislav Govorukhin and Nikita Mikhalkov; actor Anatoly Romashin; journalist Lyudmila Saraskina and philosophers Valentin Tolstykh and Vadim Mezhuyev.
I have had plenty of experience of interaction with the intelligentsia, in public and in private, in wider circles and more exclusively. During Perestroika the intelligentsia was sometimes lavish in its praise, but sometimes turned its back on me and was harshly critical. I was ready for that. Throughout history, reformers have found themselves in the position of being accorded sporadic support, almost worshipped, only then to be vilified. Nevertheless, the intellectuals have the capacity to interpret events and public opinion as they develop. When they have understood what is really happening, they can steadfastly support reformers and help society to understand what is being done and why.
At the round table, I recalled how academics (with few exceptions), writers and media commentators launched a vociferous campaign against our government’s intention to raise the price of bread by three kopecks. Nowadays, people would just laugh at that, but back then it was no laughing matter for us. Academicians, doctors of science and journalists anathematized our plans and us personally. Later, those same people were accusing Gorbachev of indecisiveness.
I could have reeled off a long list of instances when the intelligentsia declared Gorbachev was heading in the wrong direction or doing things the wrong way, but serious political action is not based on instant advice. It can take a long time before it becomes clear who has done what, and which route is the most direct. For example, the intelligentsia was largely in favour of the shock therapy begun in January 1992, with dire consequences.
I said I would not like to see us denouncing or blaming the intelligentsia. I considered it unhelpful and even dangerous at the time and still think so today. Society cannot exist without intellectuals, cannot express itself, understand and explain its past and present, or generate guidelines for the future. The intelligentsia are the yeast of a nation, without which the bread is flat. They are the elite seeds needed to grow a good crop. That is why, as we embarked on Perestroika, we were very much counting on the intelligentsia.
There are many conundrums to which no government, including a reforming administration, can find the answer without the support and help of the intelligentsia. By that, I do not mean only the metropolitan intelligentsia, but everybody who works in education, science, medicine, the media and the arts. We are talking about millions of people who are a priceless social asset.
The intelligentsia have a special responsibility for Russia’s future, a contribution to make to her renewal and the continuation of democratic reform. Democracy, freedom and culture are what matter most to the intelligentsia, and it is for the intelligentsia to defend them.
Government and society
With the agreement of the chairman of the Duma Committee on Legislation and Judicial and Legal Reform, I forwarded my views to the Duma on a draft law on ‘Election of the president of the Russian Federation’. I proposed:
immediate insertion of essential additions and amendments to the Constitution of the Russian Federation to restore a reasonable balance in the sharing of power and to correct a manifest de facto and de jure bias favouring unaccountability of presidential power, resulting from a hurriedly drafted constitution that was adopted, effectively, as an emergency measure.
Among other proposals, I included an amendment laying out clear conditions and procedure for early elections of the president of the Russian Federation, as well as measures to strengthen guarantees of the democratic nature of the presidential election and scrutiny by voters of how it was conducted and the vote counted. In other words, I demanded guarantees of fair and free elections.
It was impossible to remain silent in those tense months of 1995. I talked a lot to journalists and visited the Russian provinces. Planned trips to Novosibirsk in February and to St Petersburg in May gave commentators grounds to suggest I might be thinking of standing in the presidential election the following year. I decided to take the opportunity to assess the state of society and see how receptive people were towards my ideas.
In Novosibirsk I visited Akademgorodok and met scientists. I met workers at the Stankosib factory, university students and businessmen. I found that everywhere people were very engaged. They bombarded me with questions about topics that were clearly of great concern, and totally dispelled the myth that they had no interest in politics.
I also spent four extremely busy days in St Petersburg. A conference was held at the Mariinsky Palace to mark the tenth anniversary of the beginning of Perestroika. I talked about Perestroika to workers at the Baltika factory, to academics and writers at Kshesinskaya’s Palace, and to teachers and students at St Petersburg Pedagogical University. Everywhere the same question came up in one form or another: ‘How do you see the future of Russia. How do current policies measure up to your ideas? Are they a logical continuation of what was begun in 1985?’ My reply was:
I am very sure that what has happened after December 1991 has not been a continuation of Perestroika. Of course, there are processes initiated by Perestroika that are continuing. Take Glasnost, for example. It is attacked, attempts are made to distort it by applying economic pressures, newspapers are disappearing one after the other, independent television stations have their licences revoked, and so on. It is very difficult for me to appear on Channel One, and here in St Petersburg I have not been given an opportunity this time to speak on television. Nonetheless, Glasnost, even if retrenched, is still there. Much of what people gained, particularly in terms of freedom, is still available and advantage should be taken of that.
In every other respect, current policies have nothing in common with Perestroika.
I had a turbulent exchange of views in Kursk at the Khimvolokno synthetic fibre factory. The workers and their families there were in severe difficulties because of a sharp cutback in production. Their salaries were going unpaid for months. At first, for several minutes, I was simply prevented from speaking by hundreds of agitated people who were despairing of getting any justice, including many women with children. I waited for a time, then came down from the platform and took a few steps across to the front rows. I asked them, ‘Have you come here to make a noise or to talk? If you just want to make a noise, then perhaps it is already time to finish. If you want to hear what I have to say, do please listen!’ The hall quietened down and we were able to start a conversation. I made no excuses, and myself asked the audience some hard questions. Our discussion lasted almost two hours and they applauded at the end.