CNN Newsroom: Global View

home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search

/ CNN Newsroom: Global View / CNN Newsroom: Global View.iso / txt / fbis / fbis1093.004 < prev next >

Wrap

Text File | 1994-05-12 | 23KB | 440 lines

<text> <title>Yeltsin Asserts Commitment to Democracy</title> <article> <hdr> Foreign Broadcast Information Service, October 20, 1993 Yeltsin Asserts Commitment to Democracy </hdr> <body> ["Russian Federation President B.N. Yeltsin's Answers to NOVAYA YEZHEDNEVNAYA GAZETA Questions"; dated 19 October, Moscow, the Kremlin: "Mr President, Can It Be Claimed That You Have Personally Opted for Authoritarian Power?"] [text] [NOVAYA YEZHEDNEVNAYA GAZETA] Esteemed Mr. President! Following the events of 3-4 October and the resolute steps taken by the government, a certain section of society has begun to fear for the fate of democracy in the country. Can it be claimed that you have personally opted to the establishment of harder-line, authoritarian power, having deemed the path of reforming the country to be no longer possible, or is that viewpoint erroneous, in your view? In your view, for how long and in what form should the restriction of democratic freedoms continue to operate? Will the ban on the activity of certain political parties and the publication of a number of newspapers be lifted, and who is empowered to make that decision? In general, in your view, is the existence of an opposition in the country permissible today, and within what limits and in what form? [Yeltsin] First of all I consider it important that Russian society is profoundly concerned about the fate of democracy in our country. This alone is a powerful barrier to totalitarianism and authoritarianism. But the fact that the voices of opponents of democracy are mingled with the voices of sincere supporters of democracy is a different matter. The former see a democratic regime soley as the means to monopolize and usurp power. Distant and recent historical experience and communist theory itself confirms this threat. None other than Lenin constantly reiterated in his works that bolsheviks must make use of the achievements of democracy to establish the so-called "dictatorship if the proletariat." We all know very well what that means. It means a regime where the leader and the nomenklatura are all-powerful, a regime of repression, a regime of cynical lies and contempt for those in whose name the nomenklatura rules. A democratic politician cannot operate by these methods, and nobody can accuse me of altering my choice--a choice in favor of democratic development in Russia. I have never spoken and, especially, have never acted like a dictator. Unfortunately the president has been denied the opportunity to act "according to the scenario" of classical democracy. If most of the former Russian deputies had been sincerely interested in calmly reforming our economic and political system they would have been obliged to themselves adopt a decision on early elections for a completely new parliament under completely new election rules. This did not happen. And as president I could not simply "wash my hands" of things, observing impassively as the forces of reaction, rejected by the people, pushed increasingly overtly for the restoration of the old order. I regret that not everyone discerned the insidiousness of the intention: to utilize democratic institutions--representative power, the Constitutional Court, the Constitution--for their own ends. Today it is not a question of cutting off the democratic road, but of clearing the ground for the people to make a free choice in favor of one or another model of development. Free elections are a sharp-edged knife for opponents of democracy. It is no accident that today they are arguing that the elections are illegal. By using this argument they graphically expose--maybe unwittingly--what they are essentially about. How can the freely expressed will of the people be illegal? After all, it was for precisely this kind of freedom of expression of will that I was compelled to assume an enormous political responsibility. The former Supreme Soviet simply refused to share this responsibility. On the subject of the restriction of democratic freedoms: Restrictions have indeed been introduced, but in strict accordance with the Law on a State of Emergency. In addition, there was no question of the total restriction of political rights and freedoms. The state of emergency regime in Moscow is now over. I emphasize that these restrictions were not introduced and did not operate outside Moscow. As for the opposition, I would say the following. The president has been and continues to be criticized from all sides. And this criticism is becoming increasingly vigorous now, during the election campaign. Do you have any knowledge of people being put behind bars for criticism? I can definitely state that there are none. Following the August putsch in 1991 not a single person in Russia was deprived of his freedom for his political convictions. The unnatural "posse" of fascists and communists, who call themselves the opposition, is something different. Let us dot the "i's": Examined within the framework of democratic standards, this is not an opposition. As as organized political force voters have not given them a mandate to participate in government. An opposition can emerge only now, after elections to parliament on a party basis. There is no democratic country where the opposition permits itself to describe the legal government as an "occupation" government. Especially since its course won support in a referendum. So if that kind of thing happens you are no longer talking about political opponents of the government but of a desire to seize power by any means. Ultimately our implacable "opposition" showed itself to be precisely like that by taking up arms. Think about it. For what was blood spilled? So that the people could have the chance to freely elect themselves a normal parliament which, depending on the alignment of political forces in it, would form a government? No. Solely so that deputies and few discredited leaders could continue their activity. In these conditions the state was obliged to use force to halt the avalanche of violence, which threatened to crush anyone who disagreed and again flood the country with seas of blood. All this does not mean that I intend to exploit the situation to eliminate associations that totally disagree with the president's course. Neither I nor the country need a "tame" parliament. We are talking about banning only those parties and organizations that are stained with blood. In the next few days I will possibly be signing an edict listing such organizations. It will not be a very long list. I would say that it was a sign of our young democracy's weakness and naivety that an "opposition" if this kind, which had adopted violence as part of its armory, operated almost unobstructed in Russia and operated in defiance of the law. Excessive liberalism toward them jeopardized the country's security and the lives of thousands if not millions of people. The activity of such organizations has now been suspended for the sake of democracy and Russia's future. Incidentally we are not stepping outside the framework of international politics and international standards here. [NOVAYA YEZHEDNEVNAYA GAZETA] Esteemed Mr. President! The tight deadline for holding the elections to the State Duma and the simultaneous extention of the state of emergency in Moscow have added somewhat to many parties' difficulties in preparing for the elections. What do you see as the guarantee that these elections will be truly free? There are fears that only a few political parties will get the chance to campaign extensively using state funds, including in the government-controlled media, television included. How rational are these fears? Do you consider it possible to answer the question: For the candidates of which specific party will you personally be voting? [Yelsin] Strictly speaki