€
i

World

CPSU faces a ‘crisis of trust’
as new reform program begun

Interview with Politbureau member Gennady Yanaev

MOSCOW — Gennady Yanaev, 53, is an
engineer by trade and also a graduate of law
school. He has worked many years in politi-
cal work: 12 years as chair of the Committee
of Youth Organizations of the USSR, six
years as vice-chair of the Soviet Society for
Friendship and Cultural Relations with
Foreign Countries, and four years in the
All-Union Central Council of Trade Unions,
of which he became chair. At the 28th Con-
gress of the CPSU last July, he was elected
to the party's politbureau, on which body he
presently serves in addition to being the
Central Committee secretary in charge of
international affairs. He granted the follow-
ing éxclusive interview to the Tribune’s Mos-
cow correspondent on Sept. 26.

Tribune: The crisis seems deeper than
anyone could have predicted. Things that
had seemed solid, or simply in need of
reform, now look to be crumbling. There is
a hint of anarchy in the air, How would you
describe this?

Yanaev: Yes, our situation is extraor-
dinarily difficult. We can speak about a crisis
in the political sphere. There is a power

.' Fred
Weir

FROM
MOSCOW

struggle going on. Now that we are in the
conditions of a multi-party system, we can
expect this power struggle to sharpen.

Much of this is happening in the worst
way possible. We must recognize that in our
political culture there is the ingrained ten-
dency to see in the political opponent an
“enemy”. You can read the implications of
this in much of what is happening today.

The political crisis is, of course, greatly
aggravated by the economic one. We can say
straightforwardly that none of the socio-
economic objectives of perestroika have
been fulfilled. In fact, the situation in the
economy has deteriorated.

We have smashed the old command-ad-
ministrative system, but have not as yet
replaced it with anything that works. Our
models of perestroika in the economy have
failed. That’s why, at the present time, we
have to take principled decisions, to transit
to market relations. This is not an easy solu-
tion for the Soviet people. It’s no wonder that
this question agitates the people more than
any other right now.

People are not concemed about the fact
of transition to the market — we now have
general agreement on the need for that —
but people are very worried about the
method and character of this transition.
Working people resent the transition to the
market by means of shock therapy, which for
our people may tum out to be shock without
therapy.

The social background in the country is
also very negative. About 80 million people
are living near the poverty line, and if we
don’t find the ways to defend these people
now, they may well be beggarized by com-
ing shocks. During the first year of transition
we may have over 10 million unemployed.
This is all social dynamite.

Feeding into this is the crisis in inter-eth-
nic relations. These contradictions have late-
ly sharpened, and centrifugal forces are

8 * Pacific Tribune, October 22, 1990

growing. In some regions they are acquiring
a dramatic and tragic character— we’ve had
to impose martial law in some places. Even
though it’s peacetime, the USSR has some
700,000 refugees. Our party’s program here
is extremely urgent: for the elaboration of a
new Union Treaty that will lead to a volun-
tary federation of independent and sov-
ereign republics. We have to agree on anew
division of powers between different levels
of government, the competence of the centre
and the degree of sovereignty for each
republic.

So far, 12 republics have spoken in
favour of becoming members of this new
union. Only the three Baltic states are un-
willing to remain in the federation. We have
to find the ways of working things out with
them too.

An appalling thing has happened. The
CPSU gave away its monopoly of power,
and it relinquished its administrative role in
managing the economy, without adequately
preparing the transition. We can no longer
speak about the existence of a “Party-state”,
in which the party runs the government. But
the newly formed soviets, at all levels, are

not prepared to take up the power and use it

effectively. So we have a kind of vacuum of
power, what we could call a “sclerosis” of
power in the country.

Tribune: Isn’t the CPSU largely res-
ponsible for all of this?

Yanaev: Bearing in mind that the CPSU
for more than 70 years has been the ruling

_ party, the people obviously associate all of

these problems — past and present — with
the workings of that party. The people judge
the party by the empty shelves in shops, by
the humiliating need to line up for every-
thing, by this “legal bacchanalia” that’s
taking place in society, by the increase in the
crime rate, and so on. The CPSU has to pay
all these bills, for all its policies that did not
work. :

This applies not only to the Stalin era, or
the period of stagnation, but also to the
party’s mistakes during perestroika. This is
how we can understand the people’s crisis of
trust toward the party.

Never before has this party had such a
low rating in the polls as the one we enjoy
just now.

Tribune: Can we not also speak about
an internal crisis besetting the CPSU?

Yanaev: Yes, in fact within the party we
now have several different platforms. All
may be united on several of the most impor-
tant things, but there are also very serious
differences among those platforms.

We have to renovate this party and demo-
cratize it in a radical way. One of the mis-
takes of the previous party leadership is that

having started perestroika, the party was not

prepared politically, organizationally or
even psychologically to carry it through.
The party looked like the commander of a
regiment who orders his troops to go into
battle but who stays safely in the bunker
himself. But now we’re crawling out of this
bunker, but this is not a simple process ....

Tribune: Excuse me. When you say
“previous party leadership” in this con-
text, don’t you mean Gorbachev, the lead-
ership of the past five years?

Yanaev: Yes. Let’s speak precisely.
That’s exactly who I mean.

We have to really develop our work in the
grassroots of society, because here is where
the decisive power lies. If we want to win
our influence politically, under conditions of
a multi-party system, then this is the crucial
work. Unfortunately, as I said, many of our

party workers are not prepared for this kind
of work.

For over 70 years we’ve had a comfort-
able life. We were a powerful party, with

strong discipline, with centralization of

authority. Party workers received their com-
mands from above, and acted upon them.
Now times are different. Those old days
aren’t going to return.

Another mistake of the previous leader-
ship was that they lost the political initiative.
They surrendered the mass media into the
hands of our political opponents. Now a very
big portion of the media is of a decidedly
anti-communist and sometimes even anti-
constitutional character. Under these condi-
tions we must revitalize the work of com-
munists within the mass media and make the
party media strong. This is one of the few
means we have at our disposal now with
which we can influence the formation of
public opinion, and confront this anti-com-
munist hysteria that is being pumped up in
the country.

Tribune: So you are now taking a
much more sober view of perestroika and
the consequences of the process the party
started?

Yanaev: I should say that in the initial
period of perestroika, what we could call its
romantic phase, we were taken with the
illusion that the problems that had been
piling up for decades could be easily solved
within two or three years.

But both in politics and economics there
is no way to change things overnight. And
bearing in mind that the situation within the
society is not improving but deteriorating,
there is a very painful crushing of illusions
taking place.

Tribune: Also within the party, leading
to a major loss of membership?

Yanaev: I don’t think we need to dram-
atize the fact that the party is losing mem-
bers. We are now about 18 million strong.
Many people joined the CPSU over the
years, for a variety of reasons. Some joined
for personal convenience, or to benefit their
careers. When these kind of people leave it’s
all to the good.

What really worries us is that workers are
starting to leave the party. Many of them are
greatly disillusioned in the party and the
process of perestroika. These are the people
that we have to fight for.

In order to unite, we first have to divide.
We have to break with forces that would like
to de-stabilize the party and the country. This
doesn’t mean we should start a major purge.
Rather, we have to consolidate on the basis

‘The CPSU for more
than 70 years has
been the ruling party
and people obviously
associate all of
these problems —
past and present —
with the workings of

_that party.’

GENNADY YANAEV

of a very precise platform. Let the party be
smaller than it is now, but let it be a party of
like-minded people sharing common con-
victions.

Also, despite the fact we are suffering a
net drain of members at the moment, we do
have lots of people joining. A great many
young people are joining the CPSU, young
workers of extraordinary calibre are coming
in. This really heartens us.

I believe in the potential of the party, and
I look with optimism upon its future. I am
convinced that in the long run the working
people will support our party.

Tribune: Do you think that the CPSU
should prepare for a period of being in
opposition?

Yanaev: The party should prepare for all
eventualities. But we’re not in opposition
now, and it’s now that we have to fight to
turn the situation around, to better the con-
ditions of the people. We must do this by
precise deeds, not demagoguery. We would
like to provide stability within society.

Let’s be clear. Nothing can be accom-
plished by repressive measures. We mean
we will fight by political means. We have to
do everything to avoid the situation degen-
erating into violence and bloodshed.

Tribune: I observed the elections last
February and March, and it seemed clear
to me that the USSR has ceased to be a
one-party state and become a no-party
state. It isa very strange kind of moment,
when the former ruling power is para-
lyzed but there is no organized force to
challenge it. Cannot the CPSU now make
its best contribution to building a multi-
party system by re-organizing itself as a
potent and focussed political party? If so,
then what about the basic principles a

* communist party builds itself around?

How must they change, or be re-ap-
plied in your view?

Yanaev: I see. Speaking about Marxism-
Leninism as an ideological foundation, we
are not in favour of abandoning Marxism-
Leninism, but utilizing our theoretical heri-
tage in a creative way. We must fertilize the
basic ideas with all the modern streams of
advanced socialist thought. There are also
certain things we can borrow from social
democratic doctrines. One thing is for sure,
we have to put serious work into theory.

Democratic centralism. Until now we

- have been distorting the essence of this prin-

ciple towards centralism. Democracy was
always present somehow, but in very ques-
tionable forms. Now we need to apply
democratic centralism much more openly.

For instance, we now acknowledge the
existence of various plafforms. We are in
favour of creative discussion within the
party, for taking all these platforms into ac-
count. We believe in finding compromise,
consensus, when it can be done in a healthy
and reasonable way.

Most fundamentally, we have to restore
the rank-and-file of the party to their proper

see PARTY page 9