Russians and history may well forgive Boris Yeltsin his many sins because of his one triumph. He was the man who stood up to the tanks in 1991 and permitted democracy in Russia. In the wake of a failed coup against reformist communist leader Mihail Gorbachev. The hardline communists could easily have taken power had not Mr Yeltsin bravely climbed on the taken to demand peace. Events in China two years earlier are a clear reminder that democracy is not the inevitable winner when communist is defied.
After declaring the Russian Federation (one of the constituent parts of the Soviet Union) as independent, Mr Yeltsin paved the way for the other parts of the Soviet Empire to also break away to become independent states with varying degrees of democracy.
From that promising beginning, however, it was all down hill. In 1993, Yeltsin ordered the firing of shells from tanks into the parliament building when he could not get his way with opposition MPs. He then launched a disastrous invasion of Chechnya in 1995 which led to the death of thousands of civilians and thousands of young conscripts. All the while the Russian economy has suffered from a too-hasty transition to a full market economy and erratic decision-making in an attempt to curb the worst effects of the haste. The erratic decision making could often be put down to Mr Yeltsin’s habitual drunkenness. His trigger-happy dismissals of four Prime Ministers in as many years have added to a picture of a nation lurching like its leader from one crisis to the next.
Russia is undoubtedly a better place for Mr Yeltsin coming to power rather than a return to hardline communism, but it would undoubtedly have been a better place if Mr Yeltsin had left the Kremlin shortly afterwards rather than having to suffer six years of his incompetent rule.
The danger now is that the bud of democracy might be nipped before it can flower. That would be a tragedy. Mr Yeltsin’s poor rule has resulted in the vast majority of Russians being sceptical of the benefits of the market economy and democracy. They have every reason to be. The market economy is a back market filled with criminals enriching themselves. Democracy has resulted in a few people in power abusing their power for themselves and their relatives. Little has changed from the communist years. Once embedded these practices will be hard to eradicate.
Russians, however, can be grateful for two blessings. The first is that Mr Yeltsin’s departure was voluntary. Every transition in Russian for the past 1000 years previously has been through death or force. The second is that the new leader to replace Mr Yeltsin will be chosen by constitutional means, not by force. The Prime Minister, Vladimir Putin, took over as interim president (as provided by the Constitution) until elections can be held in March.
Nonetheless Russian democracy is fragile. For a start democracy has to involve an informed choice, but since the Russian media was captured during the privatisations by a few people willing to abuse it for their own political ends, that is not possible.
Mr Putin has mouthed the right sort of words on democracy, giving support to freedom of speech, and conscience and the right to private property. But actions are more important than words. The test for Mr Putin is whether he can change Mr Yeltsin’s confrontationist approach, particularly with the parliamentary opposition so a better economic program can be launched, and with minorities in the Russian federation, so bloodshed like that in Chechnya can be avoided.
Mr Putin cannot win the war in Chechnya without destroying the place. He should start negotiating sooner rather than later.