What Is Yeltsin Up To? : Aspiring autocrat? Or committed democrat?

Will Boris Yeltsin destroy Russia’s nascent and besieged democracy in the name of saving it? The Russian president shows signs of moving ominously and inexorably in that direction.

On Wednesday night, in the wake of his violent confrontation with die-hard parliamentary opponents and their ragtag supporters, Yeltsin solemnly assured his country that his commitment to democratic reforms was unflagging. But even as he spoke to the nation, he had already acted or was preparing to act to outlaw a number of opposition political parties; ban 50 or more publications that had criticized his policies; dismiss the Moscow City Council; put pressure on regional legislatures to liquidate themselves, and suspend the Constitutional Court, which had frequently sided with Parliament in its running battle with Yeltsin.

These clearly were more the actions of an aspiring autocrat than of a committed democrat, and they provoke alarm in all who believe that the best hope for a stable Russia lies in representative government. The basic reason for that alarm isn’t that Yeltsin is trying to fill an immediate power vacuum--the current chaos and absence of basic political institutions require him to be firmly assertive at this point--but that the methods he is using could grievously undercut the chances of achieving true popular-based government.

Yeltsin says he still wants national legislative elections on Dec. 12. They would be the first of the post-Communist era. The new legislators would be called on to ratify a new constitution and to decide on Yeltsin’s still-evolving program of economic reforms. They would play a central role in the arduous task of cleaning up the mess left by more than seven decades of Soviet rule.

It’s vital that the new Parliament be elected freely and equitably, with no coercion, no ballot-box stuffing and a fair chance for all candidates. Outlawing parties and their candidates, however odious and anti-democratic they may be, and denying those who aren’t Yeltsin loyalists access to the media remove that fairness. The legitimacy of a Parliament elected under perceived conditions of unfairness would inevitably be tainted. Communist control over the Soviet Union, achieved in a coup d’etat and perpetuated by terror and oppression, always lacked legitimacy. Political power in post-Soviet Russia must be broadly accepted as legitimate. Otherwise the democratic experiment will fail.

The United States, the West, indeed, the whole world, have an enormous stake in Russia’s political development. The message to Moscow should be that a revival of authoritarianism and rule by ukase would not be supported and would certainly cost Russia the international support it so desperately needs.