Is Yeltsin a True Symbol of Democracy? : Russia: If he is truly more than just an anticommunist, he must govern according to the constitution.

The President gives an oath to guard and to protect the Constitution of the United States. I cannot believe President Clinton holds two truths--one for America and another for Russia. However, if it is not so, how can he endorse President Yeltsin’s breaking the constitution of the Russian Federation? I share Clinton’s idea that the actual Russian Constitution was created in the Soviet period and as a result has a certain communist legacy. However, the constitution needs to be changed first, according to the accepted practice of civilized and democratic countries, but no violent or illegal actions undertaken.

I believe that one of the greatest problems in my country is the virtual absence of a legal framework with a constitution as its center. Do President Yeltsin’s actions help to resolve this problem? Obviously not. These actions undermine the trust and respect of the Russian citizens for the basic law of the country.

One of the arguments of those who support Yeltsin’s actions is that the Parliament has been elected in the Soviet period and that the majority of lawmakers are former communists. One should never forget that these “communists” made Yeltsin their speaker in 1990 after he had openly broken with the Communist Party, and then supported him during the aborted coup d’etat organized by true communists in 1991. Yeltsin is a former communist himself. President Yeltsin was also elected according to the constitution that he now criticizes so strongly. If we question the Parliament’s legitimacy, we also have to question the legitimacy of President Yeltsin’s power.

There are two other arguments used by Yeltsin’s supporters: first, he was elected by the people and acts in their interest; second, he can no longer wait until the question of reforms is resolved within the existing legal framework and, thus, has to undertake resolute measures.

These arguments are very vulnerable. For one thing, nobody authorized Yeltsin to undertake such actions. Moreover, by endorsing Yeltsin’s actions, Clinton confers a dubious benefit on him. Yeltsin’s politics strengthen the authoritarian style of leadership by force rather than by law. This means that Yeltsin may be removed by force by somebody who also will act “in the people’s interest in Russia.”

The second argument asserts that President Yeltsin is “running out of time.” However, who established a time frame for democracy? Who has ever set time limits for democratic decision-making, beyond which a ruler, who claims to be democratic, may undertake antidemocratic actions?

President Clinton approaches the current situation in Russia from Woodrow Wilson’s position. In other words, if a state has the same institutions as the United States, claims to be democratic and shares the same values, that is good and such a country moves in the right direction. However, one can consider the situation in Russia to be in accord with the rather deep anticommunist traditions of American society, but not with its democratic traditions. Is Yeltsin anticommunist? Yes! Is he a democrat? This is a big question.

Maybe it makes more sense to approach the current situation in Russia from Henry Kissinger’s position. He has worked out an idea of the balance of power as an important condition of long-term peace and stability on the international level. The same idea can also be applied to the national level.

We must keep in mind another very important factor. Will President Yeltsin’s actions strengthening authoritarianism in Russia contribute to world peace and stability--and to the security of the United States, in particular?

In the current situation , it would be wiser to encourage Yeltsin to observe democratic procedures but not to keep applying communist-style rule inherited from the Soviet past. Anybody who wants to determine his position toward developments in Russia has to answer one crucial question: Is Yeltsin a true symbol of democracy, or just of anticommunism?