Ligachev Urges Reform Restraint : No. 2 Kremlin Official Warns Against Surpassing Limits

Yegor K. Ligachev, the voice of conservatism within the Soviet leadership, warned Saturday that the ruling Communist Party may be going too far with the country’s political, economic and social reforms and, as a result, departing from socialism.

Ligachev, 67, who ranks as No. 2 in the Kremlin hierarchy after Mikhail S. Gorbachev, the party’s general secretary, objected strongly in a speech published Saturday to the introduction of market forces as a decisive factor in the Soviet economy as advocated by some reformers.

He demanded that strict limits be observed on the process of political democratization and denounced recent demonstrations and strikes as undermining the country’s order. The increased freedom here, he said, was not intended to allow development of a political opposition or a multi-party system.

And he re-emphasized the “class” character of Soviet foreign policy, saying that “any other presentation of (international) questions just sows confusion among Soviet people and among our friends abroad.”

“Actively joining in finding solutions to common human problems in no way means any artificial slowing down of the struggle for social and national liberation,” he said, declaring Soviet solidarity with “workers of the entire world.”

Published in Pravda

Ligachev, whose speech to Communist Party officials in the city of Gorky was published in the party newspaper Pravda, also declared that the country’s achievements under socialism cannot be questioned, though some leading political scientists, economists and historians have asserted that the Soviet system cannot even be considered socialist because of its severe shortcomings.

His speech, which was reported extensively on state television and radio, was particularly notable for its return to classic Soviet political assessments and formulations after months of the often challenging changes of Gorbachev’s “new political thinking.”

Ligachev, however, appeared to be more concerned with marking the limits of what he regards as acceptable reforms and with controlling the pace of perestroika, as the reform process is known, than with directly challenging Gorbachev’s leadership or opposing the changes he is introducing.

The recent party conference, where Ligachev had stood out in urging caution, had “opened up new vistas for perestroika, setting into motion powerful forces of democracy and socialist self-management,” he said in Gorky.

Yet, the impression Ligachev left with many was one of opposition to the course taken by the party’s reformers, especially those who are aggressively challenging long-held tenets of Soviet socialism and demanding more radical changes than those undertaken so far.

“He uses all the right words--democratization, socialist pluralism, even anti-conservatism,” one Soviet journalist, a declared reformist, commented. “But in Ligachev’s mouth, they have a totally different connotation.”

Ligachev had also taken advantage of his first opportunity to speak authoritatively while Gorbachev was away from Moscow on his annual summer holiday, some Soviet political observers noted, wondering whether there was a deepening split in the country’s leadership.

“This is not the first time that Gorbachev has gone away and Ligachev has spoken out,” a university professor commented, “and in the past this has signaled a major confrontation over very substantial issues within the leadership.

“So, the main thing may be not so much what Ligachev is saying--his position is well known, and it changes little--but that he is speaking out again. . . . And so we ask whether a showdown is coming at the top.”

But other analysts believe that Gorbachev tolerates such public questioning of his policies to contain conservative opposition to the reforms. By letting Ligachev voice the doubts, misgivings and criticism that many in the 20-million-member party have, Gorbachev may be hoping to reassure them that their views are considered within the country’s leadership.

Gorbachev, when questioned two months ago about divisions in the party leadership, repeatedly denied that there were any sharp differences and, in the face of earlier reformist criticism of Ligachev, he defended his conservative No. 2 as loyal to perestroika.

Yet Ligachev’s more conservative approach was clear throughout his speech in Gorky.

Focusing on economic reforms, he warned against copying the market economies of Western countries and consequently importing such problems as chronic unemployment and an inherent social “ruthlessness.”

“It must be understood that copying of Western market models based on private ownership is totally unacceptable for a socialist system of management,” Ligachev said.

Many of the most recent reform proposals, however, emphasize private entrepreneurship as essential to ensure broader economic development and growth, particularly in rural areas and in the service sector of the urban economy.

Democratization, one of Gorbachev’s key political changes, was being misused by some, Ligachev said, noting the proliferation of demonstrations, protests and strikes in cities around the country.

“Socialism is a system of the working people, and striking against oneself is absurd,” he said. “In our society, there are other democratic and constructive ways of resolving conflict.

“We must create an atmosphere of contempt around those who incite strikes, illegal meetings and demonstrations that are of an extremist, anti-socialist character.” He also called for a purge of party officials and members in Armenia and Azerbaijan who supported the movement for the transfer of the Armenian enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh from Azerbaijan to Armenia.

The widespread strikes in Armenia and in Nagorno-Karabakh itself had “an extremist, anti-Soviet character,” Ligachev said, going much further than Gorbachev has done, and added that those government and party officials who tolerated them should be punished.

“Leaders who permit illegal acts must take full responsibility,” he said. “As for Communists, their participation in strikes and illegal gatherings is simply incompatible with membership in the party.”