.
}
i

World

Special to the Tribune

MOSCOW — Daylight saving time ar-
tived here on election day and the evening
before it still got dark early. It was cold.
The streets glistened from the off and on
showers. It was a time to be indoors, but a
lot of people seemed to be in no hurry to
get there.

The election campaign would end at
midnight and up and down Gorky Street
at 8 p.m. people stood in clusters reading
fresh election posters. It had been that way

oe

USSR election affirms democratization

from a host of public organizations,
including the Communist Party, youth,
women’s, artist and veterans’ groups and
the trade unions.

Following the election campaign has
not been an easy task. Firstly, the action
has taken place in so many arenas.
Secondly, the campaign waged largely
around slogans and personalities, has been
somewhat short on what might be called
issues. A small hand-printed poster
appeared on the front door of my apart-

Carl Bloice

here and — from what I hear — around
much of the country for about a month.
Rallies were held nearly every day,
handbills distributed and television debates
Staged. However the voting would turn
out, one thing was clear: the election of the
new Congress of People’s Deputies had
evoked a wide response and stirred a dra-
Matic upsurge in public political activity.
Last November, Soviet leader Mikhail
Gorbachev referred to the scheduled bal-
loting as “one of the most difficult, but
also the most important, election cam-
paigns in the entire history of Soviet
power.” The “future of the country,” he
said, “depends to a large extent” on the
first composition of the new Congress.
Although the functioning: of the new
Congress, as well as the bicameral
Supreme Soviet it will elect, will be crucial
at this point in perestroika underway in
the USSR, the campaign itself has changed
the country. The voting on March 26 was
the final stage in the process of electing the
2,250-member Congress. In accordance
withthe new election law, nearly one-third
of the deputies had already been elected

FROM MOSCOW

ment building last week reading: “A vote
_for Brakov is a vote for the apparatus. A
.-vote for Yeltsin is a vote for the people.”
Still, the voting took place in a highly
charged political atmosphere and the
results will largely be examined to see how
many local officials have been upset by
challengers and whether any significant
number of “nyet” votes are cast against
those Communist Party officials who ran
unopposed. It might be stretching the
point to say that there was a contest
between those who say perestroika is pro-
ceeding too slowly and those in the party
leadership whose position is basically
“stay the course.” (Since this report was
filed, results indicate that many unop-
posed officials, among them the mayors of
Moscow and Leningrad and the CPSU
secretaries in several cities were defeated.
Election rules permitted voters to express
lack of confidence in unopposed candi-
dates by crossing out their names on the
ballot. — Ed.)
Still, there is some of that involved. If
choice between two or more candidates is
the litmus test of democracy, then the

balloting — for the most part — passed
the exam. For 1,500 seats in the Congress
elected from geographical constituencies,
there were 2,895 candidates. In most pub-
lic groups, the number of candidates on
the ballots exceeded the number of man-
dates alloted.

However; the 1989 election displayed
some features that those of us from “the
West” have come to know and abhor. For
instance, another democratic principle,
representation of the various elements of
society, suffered a setback. Judged against
the outgoing Supreme Soviet, the Con-
gress which will elect the new one will be
short on workers and women.

Inevitably, the issue of campaign
financing appeared. Campaigning started
off as an even-handed presentation —
single posters with a picture and platform
for each candidate. However, as time went
on, it became obvious that the candidate
with resources, if nothing more than
access to a printing press, would be more
visible. Under such circumstances, factory
managers, for example, had a clear advan-
tage.

The last week of the campaign saw full-
colour calender posters of one of the Mos-
cow candidates. Face-to-face encounters
between candidates produced discussion
of issues and allowed for mutual chal-
lenges. But printed platform materials fre-
quently suffered from a vice common
when people “run” against each other: an
excess of promises.

For instance, pledges were made to
increase the supply of foodstuffs and con-
sumer goods with little indication of how
that was to be accomplished. In some pla-
ces the old way of conducting elections
gave way to the new only begrudgingly, if
at all. While most of the public organiza-
tions chose deputies through real discus-
sion, debate and open elections, the
leaderships of some were accused of high-
handed methods and of paying little or no
attention to the views of their rank-and-
file members.

In some areas there was scant electoral
democracy and some rather unique tactics
devised to get around it. There is little

BORIS YELTSIN AT RALLY ...
candidacy a lightning rod for Soviets’
demand for change.

his

doubt that one of the tasks of the new
Supreme Soviet will be to make some
changes in the election law. The number of
cases where candidates ran unopposed
didn’t sit too well with the public, nor did
the procedure for organizing registration
meetings that determined which nominees
became candidates.

Still, despite those negative aspects that
arose during the campaign, there can be
little doubt it marked a considerable
advance in the process of democratization.
The Congress will be a more representa-
tive body of political power than most
others in the world. With the prospect of
another election five years hence, a new
relationship has been established between
the chosen and the choosers.

Carl Bloice, Moscow correspondent for
the U.S. People’s Daily World, will be pro-
viding the Tribune with coverage from the
USSR during Fred Weir's cross-Canada
tour.

Rebuilding the movement for a free Grenada

ST. GEORGE’S, Grenada — It doesn’t
take long after arriving at the new interna-
tional airport here to discern a markedly
dishonest dimension of the New National
Party (NNP) administration of Prime Min-
ister Herbert Blaize.

It is as near as the arrival lounge where a
wall plaque boldly asserts the airport was

“constructed with assistance from the U.S.
Agency for International Development
(USAID).”. Another plaque proclaims
“Grenada-Canada co-operation” in build-
ing the airport.

There is nothing to give the true picture
how hundreds of Grenadians and Cuban
internationalist workers under the guidance
of the People’s Revolutionary Government
(PRG) had almost completed the facility
before U.S. paratroopers invaded the island
in 1983.

Other examples of sleight-of- “hand can be
found in Blaize’s weekly radio broadcast
where among other things he fails to men-
tion the chronic jobless level of over 25 per
cent and the frustration among Grenada’s
business people.

Against this backdrop of what many
islanders refer to as “NNP: New National
Problem,” the country’s opposition party,

the Maurice Bishop Patriotic Movement
(MBPM), organized an international con-
ference on March 13 to celebrate the 10th
anniversary of the 1979 Grenada Revolu-
tion.

Norman Faria

Present were representatives of a wide
range of the regional left and progressive
movement and solidarity workers from
Europe and North America. Before settling
down to listen to several papers, they heard
MBPM leader Dr. Terry Marryshow des-
cribe the 4 2 years of PRG government as
“the first time the Grenadian people had
taken their destiny into their hands.” He
added that the present conjuncture was a
time for “cool and sober reflection” in the
rebuilding and organizing of the democratic
forces following the downfall of the PRG
and the U.S. invasion which led to the instal-
ling of the NNP by Washington.

Tributes were also paid to the memory of
the late PRG Prime Minister Maurice
Bishop and other revolutionary heroes and
martyrs who lost their lives following tragic
infighting within the ruling New Jewel
Movement shortly before the invasion.

Among the papers presented at the meet-
ing was one entitled “The impact of the

FROM THE CARIBBEAN

Grenadian revolution on Caribbean and
world politics,” delivered by noted Carib-
bean historian and political leader of the
February 18th Movement in Trinidad and
Tobago, Dr. James Millette. One of his
points was that the Grenada revolution was
no “palace revolution, but one which
enjoyed widespread support.

Another paper which was equally well
received was “The International Monetary
Fund and its politics towards the Carib-
bean,” by Grenada-born Dr. Davidson
Budhoo, a senior economist at the IMF
who recently resigned, saying he found inci-
dents of fraud within the international
financial institution.

But it wasn’t all listening and discussing
papers at the Amanda Hotel overlooking
scenic St. George’s. A social was held,
attended by delegates and a wide cross-
section of Grenadian society, including the
parents of former PRG Minister of Educa-
tion Jacqueline Creft, who was among

those senselessly murdered by ultra-left
elements within the New Jewel Movement.

A final declaration stated: ““The confer-
ence was dominated by a mood of optimism
and by the conviction that the Grenadian
revolutionary process remains alive and
relevant to the needs of the Grenadian peo-
ple.” It also recognized “the continuing
interest in, and significance of the Grena-
dian revolutionary process to the people of
the Caribbean and other oppressed peo-
ples.”

In this vein, MBPM leaders such as Dr.
Marryshow and deputy leader Einstein
Louison told the media that the MBPM’s
recent growth, coupled with international
solidarity, had forced Blaize’s NNP to
accede to certain demands from the move-
ment, including the return of Louison’s
passport which had been seized shortly after
the invasion. Political observers also suspect
authorities would like to ban MBPM public
rallies, but have their hands tied by public
opinion.

The government, however, still uses the
old communist bogey to explain why it
drew up a banning list which prevented
several invited delegates from entering
Grenada. Among those banned’ were
Dominican MP Rosie Douglas as well as
representatives from Martinique, Guade-
loupe and Haiti. In addition, three U.S.
visitors representing a publishing house had
their visit cut short and their books seized.

Pacific Tribune, April 10, 1989 « 9