Soviet Citizenry Grows Restless : ‘Democratization’ Has Yet to Show Real Gains

One year ago in May, I visited Moscow for the first time since my emigration nearly a decade earlier. Despite ongoing economic difficulties, the tenor of the times was rather positive. The new freedom of speech and the daring publications, courtesy of glasnost , seemed to millions of Soviet people (especially the intelligentsia) to be adequate compensation for the hardships of everyday life.

This year I returned, only to be flabbergasted by the pessimism that has crept into the Soviet people’s perceptions of current life and, especially, their future.

Interminable bombshells about Josef Stalin and his times now bore even the liberal intelligentsia, not to mention the masses. The elimination of fear and the attainment of near-total freedom of speech (in Moscow’s Arbat, the Soviet Hyde Park, speakers revel in reviling socialism, V.I. Lenin, Mikhail S. Gorbachev and his wife, Raisa) has failed to impress the Soviet people, and they no longer hail Gorbachev for this incredible progress.

Still, what amazed me the most was the reaction to the meetings of the Congress of People’s Deputies, where delegates not only freely criticized any phenomenon and any institution in the country, but even argued with the Soviet leader. I was sure that the majority of the Soviet people would consider these meetings a substantial feather in Gorbachev’s cap.

What I found, however, was that many people were deeply disappointed by the congress and its operations during its two-week session. Having apparently developed total amnesia regarding the past 70 years of despotic rule, the Soviet people have suddenly become staunch advocates of “real” democracy. And they don’t want to wait. They won’t acknowledge that a democracy like Britain’s was built across several centuries, not several years.

In the opinion of much of the Soviet population, both the Congress of People’s Deputies in general and Gorbachev in particular failed to follow the rules spelled out by the father of glasnost himself.

According to surveys conducted during the congress session, most Soviets consider themselves far more democratically oriented than either the deputies or Gorbachev. In one survey, the majority supported the accusation made by Yuri Afanasiev, a leader of the Moscow delegation of deputies, that the Supreme Soviet (elected by the congress) was conservative and anti-democratic.

An even greater segment of the Soviet people considered the congress “a big circus” (the expression often used in everyday conversation), and saw no link between its work and their concerns. In their opinion, the congress (like glasnost in general) was designed simply to draw attention away from the rapid deterioration of their life style.

The majority of the Soviet people, who still live on salaries fixed dozens of years ago, have been devastated by soaring inflation. As I myself discovered, a decent dinner in a cooperative cafe costs about 15 to 20 rubles, about 10% of the average monthly salary. Connections and barter exchanges are more useful than money in obtaining needed goods and services. Corruption seems far more widespread now than during the period of “stagnation,” the official label for the Leonid I. Brezhnev era.

My impressions match the results of a nationwide, random-sample survey conducted by the Center for Public Opinion Studies under the direction of Boris Grushin. In the survey, which was conducted six months ago when the times (and the people) were not so lean, half of the Soviet population complained about the plummeting supply of food and other consumer goods.

The Soviet people’s gloom has also been fed by a succession of disasters, which the people feel are the result of a combination of technological backwardness, incompetence and lack of discipline. The Chernobyl incident, which seemed to usher in this lugubrious era, remains the worst of these events. There have been other disasters of shocking magnitude, some in the last two months. The oil pipeline blast in Bashkiria occurred while the Congress of People’s Deputies was holding its inaugural session in Moscow. It is hardly a surprise that, even before this series of new catastrophes, two-thirds of the respondents in Grushin’s survey considered technological disasters an unavoidable part of their everyday lives.

In addition, the Soviet people continue to be horrified by their country’s deteriorating ecological condition. Only 7% of the respondents in Grushin’s survey expressed optimistic views regarding the environment; almost two-thirds voiced gloomy sentiments.

Social and political conflicts, which often become violent, are now a fixture of Soviet life. Confrontations between the police and members of informal organizations, and the strikes and demonstrations of workers, students and even policemen, all contribute to the country’s frayed nerves.

But when the Soviet people are asked to name the gravest threat to Soviet life and Soviet society, their answer is clear: the incessant spread of ethnic conflicts. Spreading like a wildfire, these conflicts have brought on violent clashes and left hundreds of victims in Armenia, Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan and Kasakhstan. Minorities everywhere, including Russians living in non-Russian regions, are in a constant state of high anxiety. Gorbachev’s recent televised speech on ethnic relations, in which he warned of the possibility of a terrible ethnic disaster, only served to confirm the worst apprehensions of the average citizen.

I attended several political meetings, both of the right and of the left. I was shocked that, wherever I went, civil war and the collapse of the state seemed foremost in people’s minds and were discussed as very real possibilities.

When several Moscow intellectuals asked me to put my finger on the most striking aspect of my visit, I chose the increase in the society’s general level of anxiety and nervousness, something I had never seen before. The intellectuals immediately agreed.

Still, in spite of the prevailing dismal spirit, the Soviet people continue to support Gorbachev (two-thirds of them approved his election as president), primarily because they see no alternative. He has lost his aura, his long speeches irritate people, and one no longer hears toasts for Mikhail Sergeievich at Moscow parties, as was the case even one year ago. Moscow liberals, mindful of the beating taken by Gorbachev’s prestige, even among the intelligentsia, now strive to further his image.

The Soviet people remain hopeful that their dynamic leader will prevail. Still, no matter what the future brings, the current psychological atmosphere in the country makes the Soviet president’s life far more difficult than it was one year ago.