Commentary/Letters

Break seen in dark cloud over USSR

Is a significant shift under way in the
political atmosphere in the Soviet Union?
Some well-placed observers think so.
Their still-cautious speculation was bol-
stered by events surrounding the obser-
vance of the anniversary of the 1917
Socialist revolution.

Meeting with U.S. Secretary of State
James Baker in the Kremlin Nov. 8, Presi-
dent Mikhail Gorbachev said the Nov. 7
celebration had demonstrated “a commit-
Ment to good sense and desire for con-
solidation and strong support for per-
estroika” on the part of the majority of the
people.

The big Red Square Revolution day
parade was, in fact, the first significant
pro-socialism demonstration amid the cur-
rent political struggle. For the first time, the
Communist Party and allied forces called
openly for a visible political expression.

Occurring on a traditional holiday, the
outpouring of 90,000 to 100,000 people
might be subject to varying interpretations.
However, there was no escaping the im-
plications of the relatively small turnout
for the two counter-demonstrations. Com-
pared to past actions with tens of thou-
sands, it was clearly a comedown.

Communist Party officials appeared
pleased with the day’s events, and the hold-
ing of two counter-demonstrations testi-
fied to the growing rift amongst anti-
socialist forces.

In some republics where nationalist and
separtist sentiments are running high, there

; Carl Bloice

a AD

were no Nov. 7 actions. However, in many
places around the country, there were
large, successful observances, sometimes
accompanied by small counter-protests.

There appears to be a widespread feel-
ing that the public confrontations of the
past year have led nowhere. The stance of
various “radicals” and the “populists”
around Russian Federation President Boris
Yeltsin may be failing to attract the
response it once did. Yeltsin attended all
three rallies.

Another sign of new political winds
may have been the meeting earlier this
month between Gorbachev and Yeltsin.
After a month long standoff which fol-
lowed the exchange of sharp words over
the course of economic reform, the two
held talks Nov. 11. The five-hour discus-
sion, with Russian Prime Minister Ivan
Silayev and Soviet Prime Minster Nikolai
Ryzhkov, was said to have centered on the
proposed new union treaty between the
republics.

FROM MOSCOW

Yeltsin told the Russian Supreme
Soviet’s Constitutional Commission he
had assured the Soviet leadership of his
commitment “fora strong alliance with the
USSR and a federal treaty.”

The following day, Yeltsin said he had
proposed to Gorbachev a new “coalition
government of national unity” to which the
Russian Federation leaders would name
the prime minister and the ministers of
defence and finance. He implied that Gor-
bachev had agreed in principle and had
also accepted the idea of abolishing the
State Security Service (KGB). Later, a pre-
sidential spokesperson said only that Gor-
bachev has not agreed to dismiss the
Ryzhkov government.

Time will tell how long this latest in-
stance of co-operation between the Soviet
leadership and Yeltsin will last. Images of
co-operation in the past have shattered
quickly and Yeltsin’s one-sided, rather
boastful account does not augur well,

None of this suggests that the political

and ideological conflict under way has
subsided or will any time soon. Actually,
the sharpest confrontation in the coming
weeks may be centered in the Russian
parliament. Leaders of the Russian Com-
munist Party say they are preparing a draft
constitution as an alternative to the one
under discussion in the Constitutional
Commission. They are also backing the
Soviet government’s plan for economic
stabilization and transition to a market
economy as opposed to the radical “500-
day” quick-fix-type plan Yeltsin favours.

Critics of the draft Russian constitution
have sharply assailed it as separatist. The
section on the powers of the Russian presi-
dent have been described as “monarchist”
and “Bonapartist.” Gennady Tsyganov, a
member of the political bureau of the in-
creasingly bold and assertive Russian
Communist Party, has charged that under
it “people who possess the means of pro-
duction will rule. That means real
democracy is in danger now.

“We think the essence of the reforms
should not be to help the businessmen of
the shadow economy to enlarge their capi-
tal but to make lives of honest working
people “better,” Tsyganov told the
newspaper Rabochaya Tribuna last Nov.
11. “That is why the aim of Communists is
stabilization of the economic situation in
the republic and transition to a regulated
market, based on the socialist choice and
the strengthening of social justice.”

Reader irked by comments on male

Much has been made of late critizing
progressive men on their “continued”
exploitation of women. A recent column
in the Tribune lamented the job of
cleaning the toilet bow] (Equality: at all
times, for all people," Tribune, Oct. 22,
1990).

The issue of equality between the sexes
has been turned on its head and has been
replaced by female chauvinism. Although
some men and women have exploited
each other since time immemorial, today’s
argument seems to be that since women
were more exploited by men, to correct
past wrongs, all men must now be
subjugated. We are to replace the
patriarchy by the matriarchy. The good

and kind men (who always were fair) are
whipped into a frenzy of guilt. They busily
set about to compensate for any and all the
wrongs perpetrated on women by men. df
they happen to be so unfortunate as to be
mated to a selfish woman, Lord help
them.) Selfishness and female sexism
stoke the flames of female chauvinism.
There is no guarantee that women in
leadership will protect and defend other
women. Witness the ugly Meralomas
incident last year. Not one of the three
sitting women aldermen or two sitting
women park commissioners was willing
to deal with the principle of exploitation
and denigration of women raised in that
issue. In fact, they refused — presumably

for fear of political repercussions. It was a
male alderman, Harry Rankin, who rose to
deplore that incident. It is the person of the
politician that matters, not the sex.

Those women who take on only the
easy issues will never make it out of the
bathroom and they will certainly never be
real leaders.

The issue is fairness between the sexes,
as it is among all people. Some people
have a greater sense of faimess than
others. That sense is distorted or retarded
by selfishness. Female chauvinism is a
backward step.

Connie Fogal,
Vancouver

Coalition right in pressing NDP govt

I disagree with the article by Kerry
McCuaig ("Pro-choice movement
pressing Rae gov’t for stand on C-43,"
Tribune, Nov. 12, 1990).

McCuaig implies in the article that the
Ontario Coalition for Abortion Clinics
(OCAC) should not have held its Oct. 26
demonstration against the NDP
government. According to McCuaig, the
NDP government is sincerely against the
new abortion law and the only difference
between the OCAC and the NDP
government is in how to best oppose the
new law. .

The OCAC demonstrated against the

NDP government because this
government refused to declare the new
abortion law unenforceable in Ontario. In
fact, Attorney-General Howard Hampton
has asserted that Ontario will enforce the
new law.

Clearly, no matter what good
pro-choice policies the NDP has, and
despiie the assertions of Bob Rae that the
new law is “bad,” in practice the NDP is
compromising with Ontario’s pro-life
forces. It is deeds, not words, that count,
and in the first opportunity for the NDP to
do something to oppose the new law —
that is, declare it unenforceable — it

decides not to get involved in the abortion
law issue and to do nothing. It was for that
reason that the OCAC demonstrated
against the NDP government.

McCuaig also attacks the OCAC
leaflet for the demonstration as being too
“strong.” The leaflet was certainly not too
“strong” on Bob Rae and the NDP if one
holds to the view of the OCAC that the
NDP government has not sincerely
opposed the new abortion law since it
refuses to declare the law unenforceable.

Colin Lynch,
Toronto

chauvinism

‘Time to
scrap the
Indian Act’

I think the whole Indian Act
should be printed, in instalments if
necessary, in every daily and weekly
newspaper across Canada and
perhaps also broadcast. Several
years ago, at a seminar at Vanier
Secondary School in Courtenay, the
wife of the Qualicum band chief
read excerpts from the Act and it
was obvious that getting rid of the
legislation would be a great step in
starting to right the wrongs that
have been done to Native people.

I have had many experiences that
made me realize that there is terrible
injustice being meted out to a
long-suffering people by bigots and
bureaucrats for too long. Of course,
they can’t and won’t take those
injustices any longer.

Lilian Williams,
Courtenay

Pacific Tribune, November 26, 1990 « 5

» este FA awiAlia wi titer