Letter: Vladimir Zhirinovsky's rise and the compromise of democratic ideals
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: Anders Aslund's article (10 December) in praise of Russian economic reform is misleading about recent Russian political history and the problems that Russia still faces. Professor Aslund's claim that the now disbanded Russian parliament was elected 'before the democratic breakthrough in Russia in March 1990' and was Communist dominated is just plain wrong. The Russian Congress of People's Deputies was elected in March 1990, the very time Professor Aslund associates with 'democratic breakthrough'.
Professor Aslund asserts that the parliaments were representative of 'the old Communist establishment against the population' because 'no fewer than 87 per cent of the (Congress) deputies were members of the Communist Party at the time of their election'. This information is accurate but irrelevant. Boris Yeltsin was elected both to the Russian Congress of People's Deputies and to the chairmanship of the Russian Supreme Soviet by Congress deputies while still a member of the Communist Party.
To claim that the Russian parliaments were against radical economic reform simply because they were staffed by 'Communists' obscures the way in which political conflict in Russia has been engendered as much by the Yeltsin government's policies as by 'Communist' opposition.
Professor Aslund is also too sanguine about Russia's future prospects. The fact that elections have become necessary is a reflection of the Yeltsin government's political failures and the dangers that still lurk in the economic transition process. Yeltsin has made no attempt to build up democratic institutions (such as a political party) since August 1991. Instead he has followed the advice of economists such as Professor Aslund and achieved economic chaos. Inflation has not been curbed, the budget deficit is still out of control and the basic institutions of a market economy have only the most tenuous hold on everyday economic
activities.
To claim in these circumstances that privatisation has been 'the greatest success' defies belief. Millions of Russian citizens now hold shares in decrepit economic enterprises which will not be able to survive the next round of reform.
I trust that Professor Aslund will be on hand to explain to them why the government allowed them to fritter away the investment capital it gave them in the form of vouchers on enterprises that must close.
Yours faithfully
NEIL ROBINSON
Lecturer in Russian Politics
Department of Politics
University of York
Heslington,
York
10 December
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments