Statism has routed reform in Russia. Imperialism is back, with Yeltsin's blessings, and the ingrained dependency of Russian culture has carried the day.
Yuri N. Afanasyev, a historian, is rector of the Russian State University for the Humanities in Moscow and former Co-chairman of the Interregional Deputies' Group in the U.S.S.R. Congress. This article was translated by Antonina W. Bouis.
The political arrangement in Russia that began with the attrition of reform forces in mid-1992 has come to an end. The January departure from government of economic and political reformers Yegor Gaidar, Boris Fyodorov and Ella Pamfilova erased all doubts. Until then, despite reactionary successes in the December parliamentary elections, it was possible to believe that the necessary reforms urged by Gaidar, however inadequate the half steps, would continue. Those economic reforms were only monetarist and anti-inflationary, not structural. But now it is clear that there will be no reforms, not even bad ones.
Under the guise of social welfare policies, a planned economy will be reestablished. Its executors will be Prime Minister Viktor Chernomyrdin; his ally, industrialist Oleg Soskovets, who will be the sole first deputy prime minister; Aleksandr Zaveryukha, deputy prime minister of agriculture; and Yuri Skokov, an industrialist and former head of the Russian National Security Council.
President Boris Yeltsin has become merely decorative. His professed understanding of Gaidar's resignation as first deputy prime minister means that he understands there will be no radical economic reforms. While Yeltsin vows that his role as president is to guarantee structural reform, his office will be ornamental. If reform is to come, the work will be done by others.
Meanwhile, Gaidar vows that from his perch in the new parliament he will not become an opponent of Yeltsin; Andrei Kozyrev, holding on as foreign minister, will further learn how to talk tough foreign policy to out-Zhirinovsky the openly fascist parliamentarian, Vladimir Zhirinovsky.
The West will continue to insist that Yeltsin represents democracy. Russia, instead of moving along the axis of time, will continue spinning in the Western-versus-Slavic circle codified in Russian thought by the early nineteenth century writings of Petr Chaadayev. This tension promises further conflicts like the failed coup of August 1991 and the forced shutdown of the Soviet parliament in October 1993. 1
AN AUTHORITARIAN LEGACY
This is a premium article
You must be a logged in Foreign Affairs subscriber to continue reading. If you wish to continue reading this article please subscribe , or activate your online account to get full online access.
Log In
Buy PDF
Buy a premium PDF reprint of this article.Related
A new conventional wisdom is forming on the Cold War, but the records do not support its hard line. The Soviet Union did not aim at world conquest. It was afraid, and its clients got out of hand. The U.S. and U.S.S.R. share responsibility.
Moscow with a Soviet hangover tests the patience even of those who most wish to engage it. As Chechnya festers, privatization lags, and the world contemplates the possibility of a communist president in the Kremlin dreaming of empire, some ridicule the notion of partnership. Russian chauvinists paint America as the enemy, but the interests of the two countries after the Cold War are compatible. The West should focus its attention--and Russia's--on common interests like nonproliferation of nuclear weapons, regional peace, and full participati0n in the world economy. America should deal rationally with irrationalities in a nation finding its way.
Reporters and pundits have spun many theories as to why Yeltsin won. None of them matches the polling data. Clever campaigning, anticommunist scare tactics, even efforts to end the war in Chechnya came at the wrong time. Boris Yeltsin passed Gennadi Zyuganov in the polls only when he traveled the country ladling out pork. Yeltsin doubled the minimum pension and paid off the backlog in wages. A Vorkuta coal miner asked for a car -- and got it. A presidential aide slipped a bystander a handful of cash. High-minded criticism from the West notwithstanding, Tammany tactics are hardly unknown in Western politics, and they did keep a communist out of office.

Sign-up for free weekly updates from ForeignAffairs.com.