New Thinking as the philosophy of Perestroika was based on universal values, not a class approach, which leads only to social confrontation, divisions and conflict. To this day I firmly believe that was the only correct position and I have adhered to it throughout my political career. I see it not as a sign of weakness but of strength and determination.
As president I was criticized for not making full use of my powers. What matters most, however, is not the president’s powers or how he uses them, but his moral position. Once we had recognized the legitimacy of pluralism in economic and political life, and indeed in every aspect of society, it was essential to stop resorting to ‘administrative’ approaches and resolving the problems that arise in any society by force. That too was a skill we had not fully mastered and had to acquire as we went along. It was not easy.
It took immense faith that we were moving in the right direction, and immense stamina not to renege on that initial decision.
I am reminded of an example from Russian history. Who was the right-hand man of Tsar Alexander I at the beginning of his reign? Mikhail Speransky, an architect of reform. And who was running the show at the end of his reign? Alexey Arakcheyev, renowned for his brutally repressive regime. That is the kind of volte-face reformers tend to succumb to under the pressure of events, ending up very far away from what they initially sought to achieve.
Remaining true to your moral convictions is extremely trying, but I did not go back on this most fundamental political and moral choice. I believe that ultimately this ‘indecisiveness’ and this ‘tardiness’ of President Gorbachev (and I confine the words firmly within quotation marks), in other words, my approach, my strategy, are what has enabled society to build up strengths which, as people are now saying, are the foundation for preserving and building on our democratic changes.
We managed occasionally to get out to the theatre. On 27 January, Raisa and I were invited by Oleg Yefremov to a function at the Moscow Art Theatre. On 29 January, we attended a celebration of Nezavisimaya Gazeta at Cinema House. Since stepping down from the presidency, this was my first major public appearance and opportunity to meet a large number of people. Many shook hands, and I was able to talk to some, to reminisce and discuss. Members of the intelligentsia had reacted in a variety of ways during Perestroika, and relations with many of those in Cinema House that day were also to develop in different ways. That evening, however, was a celebration of Glasnost and freedom. Speaking to the gathering, I said that this achievement of Perestroika needed to be protected and defended, whatever zigzags might lie ahead for Russia’s historical development.
On 28 February I had a meeting at the Gorbachev Foundation with young members of democratic parties who were attending courses at the Foundation’s Social Science Centre. Most were from the Democratic Party and the Free Russia People’s Party. The budding politicians impressed me favourably. They were not interested in so-called ‘political technology’, which later came so much into vogue and was often no more than political chicanery, but in the real problems of the country and how it could be reformed. I supported that:
A competent democratic politician does not defer to ochlocracy, while demagogues go out of their way to provoke mob rule and see what fish they can catch in muddied waters. That is the approach today of both our extreme left and extreme right. It has to be said that our democrats who are presently themselves in or close to power are behaving very oddly in this respect.
I felt it important to add:
I want you to know that I am hoping the Yeltsin government will be successful in continuing democratic reform, because if it does not succeed, all of us and Russia will face serious trouble. In terms of foreign policy it is essential to continue in the spirit of the New Political Thinking, along the path embarked on in the second half of the 1980s, and not try to reinvent everything as if history began in December 1991, as Burbulis claims. We must not repeat the scenario of 1930s Germany when the democrats bickered and fought each other, and allowed Hitler to come to power.
Among the questions asked was one about ownership of land. It was tempting to latch on to simple solutions in agrarian matters and there were a lot of illusions around. I replied:
I am all in favour of coexistence of different forms of land use, collective and private, where that is justified in practice. Incidentally, in traditional Western agricultural countries like Italy, France and Spain, individual peasant holdings are enmeshed in a whole network of cooperative relationships.
I talked about how the situation was developing in the country in the first months of 1992 in an interview for Komsomolskaya Pravda. In February the government adjusted its policies, and by the end of the month the situation was less acute. I remarked on this, because I do not gloat when things get worse:
I am glad the political crisis I predicted a month ago in Komsomolskaya Pravda has not fully come to pass. In my opinion, Russia’s leaders and the president are heeding the feedback from real life.
At the same time, I decided to take the opportunity to speak loud and clear to the whole country, through a newspaper with a circulation of many millions, against the smear campaign I was being subjected to by the Communists under Gennadiy Zyuganov and their supporters. The situation was ludicrous: the Communist Party’s reactionaries were denouncing Gorbachev the Democrat, while the radicals were denouncing Gorbachev the Communist Party Boss. Every newspaper every day could be relied on to vilify Gorbachev. Responding to the lot of them, I said:
The reactionaries who were defeated dream of taking society back to the pre-Perestroika era and are busily trying to blacken the reputation of all who introduced reform. They focus on the most serious difficulties in people’s lives, exploiting tensions and trying to present me as the cause of all ills.
I wish, through your newspaper, to invite the world’s bankers to reveal all the information at their disposal about my supposed foreign bank accounts. Please reveal every detail of the amounts and dates of any deposits. Go ahead, publish it all!
Rumours to the effect that Gorbachev wants to emigrate, to live abroad on all the money he has supposedly squirrelled away, have gone beyond the bounds of all decency. I have to disappoint you! I have no intention of running anywhere. Here is where I have lived and shall live my life. Many might like to see the back of me, but that is not going to happen.
The views of the president of the USSR were not reported in December, and there are attempts to misrepresent my position now. One letter-writer advised me to shoot myself, but hundreds of others support me. For as long as it seems to me that I can be useful to my country, I will not be silent. In 1974, Shchelkov tried to crush me when I began sacking bribe-takers in the militia in Stavropol. Even when I was a member of the Politburo, false testimony was fabricated against me. Shortly before he died, a deputy interior affairs minister told me all about it. Those people have not gone away! Are they hoping now to get the people of our country to join in their harassment?