Russian Election
To understand the Russian election results (Dec. 13), we have to appreciate that Russia is still in the early stages of an era of upheaval. This era may run for decades. It could feature a major war, at least within the boundaries of the former Soviet Union. This would correspond to the experience of other powerful nations.
France offers a good case in point. Following its revolution in 1789, it took a full century before it developed a strong arrangement of free institutions. As late as 1889, its government faced overthrow in a military coup. Not until the defeat of the right, in elections of 1899, did France achieve stability.
For Germany, it took 60 years. Here the era of upheaval began in 1888, with the accession of Kaiser Wilhelm II. His policies quickly set Germany on a course to World War I. Germany achieved stability and peace only in 1949, with establishment of the Federal Republic in Bonn.
In Russia the process began in 1985, with Mikhail Gorbachev’s rise to power. Its end lies nowhere in sight. For the near term, we face the prospect that Vladimir Zhirinovsky could win the powerful post of president, in the election of 1996. After that, things could rapidly go downhill. A peaceful, prosperous Russia could lie in the distant future; we would not see it in our lifetimes.
T. A. HEPPENHEIMER
Fountain Valley
The commentary by William Pfaff (Dec. 15) concerning the oppressive economic policies imposed upon Russia in the name of liberalization as espoused by the International Monetary Fund is right on the mark. These are the very policies that have been inflicted upon the countries of Latin America and the rest of the Third World since the 1960s, when that organization became the instrument for requiring monetarist policies in these nations as a condition for the international lending necessary for them to repay previous privately and publicly financed loans. The fact that these countries can only repay loans in hard currencies generated by exports or continued borrowing has shaped these economies and made them vulnerable to the rapacious behavior of the multinational corporations, including the large transnational banks, which have led the world into the era of unregulated global capitalism, with lower wages worldwide.
The outcome has been increasing maldistribution of incomes, immiseration of larger and larger segments of their populations, and growing profits for the multinationals and the local elites who benefit from the arrangement. In the Third World, for the most part, the political consequences have been manageable. That notice is now being paid to the cruelty and long-term political destabilization of shock treatment only when it affects a large former superpower possessing nuclear arms targeted at the U.S. is another indication of how elite-serving our foreign policy has been.
MARJORIE W. BRAY
Coordinator
Latin American Studies
Cal State Los Angeles