Legacy of Boris Yeltsin
Rizwan Ghani
April 23, 2007
Death always leaves a feeling of fear and isolation behind. Those who remember it can always make use of time and power that is at their disposal to do good to humanity. When great people die it also leaves a message for those who are left behind to do what it takes to make life of fellow beings comfortable. After all we all share the same destiny.
First president of post communist Russia Boris N. Yeltsin passed away at the age of seventy-six. His doctors attributed his death to cardio insufficiency. Yeltsin remained president of Russian from 1991 to 2000. He resigned on New Year eve of 2000 and since then as a state pensioner he lead a quiet life.
To some he stayed away from the politics in exchange for immunity from state prosecution against alleged charges of corruption by those who surrounded him and his family members.
Born to peasant farmers his most important political decisions revolve around his parents’ fate who in 30’s were left landless and their livestock confiscated under Stalin’s Collectivization of Soviet Agriculture policy that confiscated small farms and merged them with large state-run farms.
West credits Yeltsin for his economic, political and decolonization reforms in post Soviet era. These changes however like his parents in Stalin era pushed average Russians into abject poverty. Something he had aspired to undo as member of Communist Party. That is one reason for an average Russian he is still a figure from dark era.
Historians credit Yeltsin for his outstanding achievements during extra-ordinary circumstances. As first president he is credited for (almost) bloodless smooth transition from post communist era to modern day Russia. He is also credited for averting return of communism through economic liberalization, privatization coupled with personal and media freedom.
But despite averting communist coup, saving Gorbachev leadership and introducing market economy and social reforms he failed to avoid Russia from the clutches of “Oligarchs” who emerged as unwanted byproduct of following western economic model consolidating state assets in few hands.
These hands got so powerful that by the start of his second term even president Yeltsin himself was left out of country’s major policy decisions. Pubic however blamed Yeltsin and the Western model for their poverty and other deprivations.
Something that explains core difference between Yeltsin’s and Putin’s Russia. Yeltsin’s Russia was liberal, followed major yardsticks of modern western economy but poverty followed heels of reforms quicker than the benefits.
Today, if Putin is more popular than his predecessor and gets away with his manipulative control of Russia and its Oligarchs it is because of tacit pubic support who views Russia’s young economic managers, oil Czars and other tycoons as exploiters.
That in turn strengthens Putin’s style of leadership. Putin since last few years has used anti-oligarch grassroots sentiment to reasserted control on state resources to strengthen his grip on the country despite international protests to open up country to international business.
In turn he has revived individual economic well being and stability. Something that was lost after collapse of former Soviet state. And common man still is not ready to think of that time as worth remembering because it brought poverty at grassroots which by and large is still there in Russia.
Yeltsin’s Russia is different from Putin’s in other areas also. For instance Yeltsin allowed press freedom, freedom of speech, he supported democracy and he supported revolution to end the Soviet empire. Something that is wanting in Putin’s Russia.
But when it came to protecting his own presidential powers against entrenched parliamentarians in 1993 coup Yeltsin blatantly used tanks to evict the building instead of resolving the issue through political dialogue.
Similarly, he was readily participated in revolt against Soviet empire but despite international protests, he ordered invasion of Chechnya to maintain fifteen-state Russian territorial integrity intact. Putin has followed the footsteps of Yeltsin’s and still there is no end to death and destruction in Chechnya.
Chechnya needs political solution. It would be better to have it sooner than later in national, economic and energy interests. Resolution of Chechnya problem will enhance Putin’s political standing in Europe and ME. And with ME’s look East policy and China opening up in Asia Russia will need to resolve the issue.
Yeltsin no doubt is a defender of democracy from West’s point of view. And as part of bigger picture in addition to promoting market economy (or as some would say Washington doctrine) in a major market he is also credited for bringing an end to the cold war.
In this respect he like his people enjoyed “distant” also described as love hate relationship with Gorbachev. Unlike Yeltsin Gorbachev believed that communism could still be fine tuned to serve former Soviet Union. However, Yeltsin believed that the revolution had finished and it was time to liberalize and open up.
The debate if communism is dead for good is not over. However, for those who are exposed to forces of market economy down the line memories of old Soviet Union still seem attractive. But with globalization and growing business and interdependence things are moving away from nostalgia.
The plight of average man both in capitalist, socialist and even restricted style of governments has changed little. It is still a challenge for policy makers. If Russia is suffering the curse of “Oligarchy” America and western world are also being exploited by the “corporate world”.
Africa, developing countries in Asia are already struggling to get rid of corruption and poor economic policies leading to poverty epidemic. Public in these countries has given up on western economic and trade models and discriminatory WTO polices.
These ground realities expect leaders to look beyond economic and political models to bring an end to growing poverty. But little has been done in this regard. It is time economic fate of ordinary man is improved. International community needs to bring end to poverty. And to do that a chain of events needs to be initiated so that developing countries recognize constitutional rights and civil liberties and bring and end to torture. That in turn will empower people to hold their leaders accountable for effective governance.
Masses have had their share of experimentation with political and governance systems. In every case some form of exploiters end up usurping rights and resources. It is time to have a accountability based approach to have lasting results.
Unlike West East views Yeltsin’s legacy with mixed emotions. For instance communists allege that elections were rigged to keep Yeltsin in office in second term to ensure continuity of market reforms. But that has been exploited by Oligarchs and now like other market based economies Russia is also reeking with poverty.
World is now looking at China and its economic expansion that is fueled by use of diplomacy and successful foreign policy based of equality and recognition. Though there is still time to see how Chinese system flourishes in heat of market challenges at a scale where America or for that matter West is operating.
But there is one common message both from West, and China. It is respect for law both natonal and international that enables a country to progress.
International media will debate Yeltsin’s legacy from Western perspective and compare today’s Russia with Soviet Union and rest of the world.
But in all probability it is time to help developing countries to strengthen good governance and supporting infrastructure so that they become part of global prosperity drive than acting as a drag.
May be from third world’s perspective Yeltsin didn’t achieve much as far as fate of common man is concerned. And in all probability it is same for Yeltsin’s village Butko that lost its independence to Stalin in 1930 and now it is Oligarchs. The cycle of poverty that Yeltsin tried to break by dismantling former Soviet Union has completed but it has failed from the public’s perspective.
In all probability history will remember Darfur and Chechnya in same spike. A question mark on the conscience of advanced world. And somewhere in the footnotes historians will number it as one of the Yeltsin’s legacy.
In addition to his legacies as an individual man he had a lighter side that will always be remembered by the world. May his soul rest in peace!
Finally, death always leaves a feeling of fear and isolation behind. Those who remember it can always make use of time and power that is at their disposal to do good to humanity. When great people die it also leaves a message for those who are left behind to do what it takes to make life of fellow beings comfortable. After all we all share the same destiny.
First president of post communist Russia Boris N. Yeltsin passed away at the age of seventy-six. His doctors attributed his death to cardio insufficiency. Yeltsin remained president of Russian from 1991 to 2000. He resigned on New Year eve of 2000 and since then as a state pensioner he lead a quiet life.
To some he stayed away from the politics in exchange for immunity from state prosecution against alleged charges of corruption by those who surrounded him and his family members.
Born to peasant farmers his most important political decisions revolve around his parents’ fate who in 30’s were left landless and their livestock confiscated under Stalin’s Collectivization of Soviet Agriculture policy that confiscated small farms and merged them with large state-run farms.
West credits Yeltsin for his economic, political and decolonization reforms in post Soviet era. These changes however like his parents in Stalin era pushed average Russians into abject poverty. Something he had aspired to undo as member of Communist Party. That is one reason for an average Russian he is still a figure from dark era.
Historians credit Yeltsin for his outstanding achievements during extra-ordinary circumstances. As first president he is credited for (almost) bloodless smooth transition from post communist era to modern day Russia. He is also credited for averting return of communism through economic liberalization, privatization coupled with personal and media freedom.
But despite averting communist coup, saving Gorbachev leadership and introducing market economy and social reforms he failed to avoid Russia from the clutches of “Oligarchs” who emerged as unwanted byproduct of following western economic model consolidating state assets in few hands.
These hands got so powerful that by the start of his second term even president Yeltsin himself was left out of country’s major policy decisions. Pubic however blamed Yeltsin and the Western model for their poverty and other deprivations.
Something that explains core difference between Yeltsin’s and Putin’s Russia. Yeltsin’s Russia was liberal, followed major yardsticks of modern western economy but poverty followed heels of reforms quicker than the benefits.
Today, if Putin is more popular than his predecessor and gets away with his manipulative control of Russia and its Oligarchs it is because of tacit pubic support who views Russia’s young economic managers, oil Czars and other tycoons as exploiters.
That in turn strengthens Putin’s style of leadership. Putin since last few years has used anti-oligarch grassroots sentiment to reasserted control on state resources to strengthen his grip on the country despite international protests to open up country to international business.
In turn he has revived individual economic well being and stability. Something that was lost after collapse of former Soviet state. And common man still is not ready to think of that time as worth remembering because it brought poverty at grassroots which by and large is still there in Russia.
Yeltsin’s Russia is different from Putin’s in other areas also. For instance Yeltsin allowed press freedom, freedom of speech, he supported democracy and he supported revolution to end the Soviet empire. Something that is wanting in Putin’s Russia.
But when it came to protecting his own presidential powers against entrenched parliamentarians in 1993 coup Yeltsin blatantly used tanks to evict the building instead of resolving the issue through political dialogue.
Similarly, he was readily participated in revolt against Soviet empire but despite international protests, he ordered invasion of Chechnya to maintain fifteen-state Russian territorial integrity intact. Putin has followed the footsteps of Yeltsin’s and still there is no end to death and destruction in Chechnya.
Chechnya needs political solution. It would be better to have it sooner than later in national, economic and energy interests. Resolution of Chechnya problem will enhance Putin’s political standing in Europe and ME. And with ME’s look East policy and China opening up in Asia Russia will need to resolve the issue.
Yeltsin no doubt is a defender of democracy from West’s point of view. And as part of bigger picture in addition to promoting market economy (or as some would say Washington doctrine) in a major market he is also credited for bringing an end to the cold war.
In this respect he like his people enjoyed “distant” also described as love hate relationship with Gorbachev. Unlike Yeltsin Gorbachev believed that communism could still be fine tuned to serve former Soviet Union. However, Yeltsin believed that the revolution had finished and it was time to liberalize and open up.
The debate if communism is dead for good is not over. However, for those who are exposed to forces of market economy down the line memories of old Soviet Union still seem attractive. But with globalization and growing business and interdependence things are moving away from nostalgia.
The plight of average man both in capitalist, socialist and even restricted style of governments has changed little. It is still a challenge for policy makers. If Russia is suffering the curse of “Oligarchy” America and western world are also being exploited by the “corporate world”.
Africa, developing countries in Asia are already struggling to get rid of corruption and poor economic policies leading to poverty epidemic. Public in these countries has given up on western economic and trade models and discriminatory WTO polices.
These ground realities expect leaders to look beyond economic and political models to bring an end to growing poverty. But little has been done in this regard. It is time economic fate of ordinary man is improved. International community needs to bring end to poverty. And to do that a chain of events needs to be initiated so that developing countries recognize constitutional rights and civil liberties and bring and end to torture. That in turn will empower people to hold their leaders accountable for effective governance.
Masses have had their share of experimentation with political and governance systems. In every case some form of exploiters end up usurping rights and resources. It is time to have a accountability based approach to have lasting results.
Unlike West East views Yeltsin’s legacy with mixed emotions. For instance communists allege that elections were rigged to keep Yeltsin in office in second term to ensure continuity of market reforms. But that has been exploited by Oligarchs and now like other market based economies Russia is also reeking with poverty.
World is now looking at China and its economic expansion that is fueled by use of diplomacy and successful foreign policy based of equality and recognition. Though there is still time to see how Chinese system flourishes in heat of market challenges at a scale where America or for that matter West is operating.
But there is one common message both from West, and China. It is respect for law both natonal and international that enables a country to progress.
International media will debate Yeltsin’s legacy from Western perspective and compare today’s Russia with Soviet Union and rest of the world.
But in all probability it is time to help developing countries to strengthen good governance and supporting infrastructure so that they become part of global prosperity drive than acting as a drag.
May be from third world’s perspective Yeltsin didn’t achieve much as far as fate of common man is concerned. And in all probability it is same for Yeltsin’s village Butko that lost its independence to Stalin in 1930 and now it is Oligarchs. The cycle of poverty that Yeltsin tried to break by dismantling former Soviet Union has completed but it has failed from the public’s perspective.
In all probability history will remember Darfur and Chechnya in same spike. A question mark on the conscience of advanced world. And somewhere in the footnotes historians will number it as one of the Yeltsin’s legacy.
In addition to his legacies as an individual man he had a lighter side that will always be remembered by the world. May his soul rest in peace!
Finally, death always leaves a feeling of fear and isolation behind. Those who remember it can always make use of time and power that is at their disposal to do good to humanity. When great people die it also leaves a message for those who are left behind to do what it takes to make life of fellow beings comfortable. After all we all share the same destiny.
Print
Email
