Glasnost Helps People Decide Their Fate

Glasnost , an old Russian word that has reached out to other countries, means that the public should have an opportunity to control and censure anything. This is what is happening in the Soviet Union.

Consider that the Soviet Union is situated in different climatic zones, has cold Arctic regions, humid subtropics, the abundant taiga, steppes and sun-scorched semi-deserts of Central Asia. Central Asia--a sunny region of cotton, tobacco, grapes and sweet melons--lacks water, while in the north full rivers flow into cold Arctic seas.

Therefore we planned to divert part of a northern river’s flow southward. It was called the project of the century, a mind-boggling plan that involved the establishment of a specialized research institute.

The plan had been approved and the work was well ahead when a group of writers and scientists demanded a national discussion of the project. Newspapers, magazines, radio, television and even a writers’ congress addressed the issue. It was proved that the improvement gained by turning the course of the river was nil compared to the damage that would pile up over the years; it would bring the ecological situation to a dangerous edge. So, although millions of rubles had been spent on the project, the government stopped it.

Another example: In the past few years newspaper circulation has increased. Why? Not because the newspapers publish sensations but because they openly discuss the problems facing Soviet society: economy, social justice, spiritual development and morality.

Some people ask: Is there a limit to openness? I believe that the limits should be determined by a sense of responsibility in each of us. For there can be no freedom without responsibility, and the more freedom, the more responsibility. Otherwise freedom for some would turn into lack of freedom for others.

Before World War II I went to school. But when the war broke out I fought like thousands of my peers. I was in the artillery troops. After the war I was graduated from the literary institute. Since then I have been writing books.

A year ago, after the writers’ congress, I was offered a job as editor-in-chief of the magazine Znamya (Banner), one of the largest in this country, issued in Moscow by the writers’ union. I agreed because I’m fascinated by the changes under way in this country. We are living through a period of great opportunities.

After I became editor-in-chief the magazine published several interesting works that had been gathering dust on a shelf. One was a novel by Alexander Bek, “New Appointment,” which has been waiting for 20 years to see the light. This talented work of tremendous insight is being translated into several foreign languages, and I’m sure that its life will be long. The novel came at a right time, because it treats fundamental problems and because relations between people change slowly.

A short while before his death, Aleksandr Tvardovsky, an outstanding Soviet poet, read me his new poem, “By Right of Memory.” That tragic story of the Stalinist purges was not published in his lifetime. I told Tvardovsky that if I ever was in a position to determine the fate of literary works I would publish his poem. I kept my word and published it in Znamya. The poem was a bombshell. We later published letters from readers, both those who welcomed the publication and those who would damn it to oblivion if they could.

See how the times have changed. Tvardovsky, who once was the editor-in-chief of the magazine, could not publish it, while in early 1987 two magazines, Znamya and Novy Mir (New World), fought for the right to publish the poem. Each issue of Znamya also carries articles on the problems of the day.

The editorial board decides what to publish. In this country the banned subjects are propaganda of war, racial and national hatred, and pornography. Also, it is prohibited to disclose state secrets. Had I not agreed with any of these bans, I would suggest discussing them in the press. But I think the bans guard not just our security but also the moral health of society.

I have lived three lives: one long prewar life (since to young people each day is long beyond belief), four terrible war years that saw millions of people perish, and the last, third life, after the war. I tell you honestly that neither literature nor film-making nor theater lived through a more interesting period, although outstanding cultural values were created even in the grimmest periods of our history.

Today we are giving the people a chance to enjoy the cultural legacy of our people, including recent works like “The Executioner’s Block” by Chinghiz Aitmatov, “The Golden Cloud” by Anatoly Pristavkin, stories by Vasil Bykov and the film “Repentance” by Tenghiz Abuladze. As people say, it has become easier to live and more difficult to work.

We cannot settle all our problems on our own, for this is an interrelated world. People speak different languages, but the same winds are sweeping over the Siberian taiga and the Amazonian jungle, and all countries are washed by the same oceans that have been polluted with thousands of barrels of oil.

Meanwhile, all this is the planet’s lungs used by each and all. The problems of ecology and disarmament are global, and can be settled only by joint effort. On the international plane we need a new way of thinking. People must take part in deciding their fate, and hence the highlight today must be not on power but on reason and neighborly accord.