j q 4 4 A deputy makes a point from the floor during debate in the Congress of People’s Deputies first session May 25 to June 9. A forum of passion and polemic Second of two articles The aspect of the new Soviet Congress of People’s Deputies that was most fascinating for observers is the extent to which the Soviet Union’s complex and diverse politi- cal voices came out full-throatedly onto the stage. There was plenty of grandstanding for the cameras — sound familiar? — more than a touch of hypocrisy, hyperbole and petulance, and dozens of half-baked ideas. There was also clear reasoning and tough polemic. Political positions defined them- selves to an unprecedented degree and the struggle over the Soviet future became — as it must be — a free, democratic and peace- ful clash of positions and interests: - That diversity of those voices, by the way, defies the facile “liberal versus conserva- tive” split, or some version of it, that seems to frame most Western analyses of peres- troika politics. Rather, there are many groups, repres- enting elements of a heterogeneous and multi-layered society, who found their voi- ces and pressed their positions at the Con- gress: @ First, the strongest and leading force is the Communist Party and its apparatus, headed by Mikhail Gorbachev. In many analyses, the party is treated as separate from, and somehow antagonistic to the people. That is simply wrong. The CPSU cuts across all social strata and Soviet nationalities. It brings together some of the country’s most dynamic minds: it is, after all, the originator and driving force of perestroika. The apparatchiks — who are a minority of party members — may often be overbearing, crusty, with interests of their own to defend, but it must also be remembered than an ongoing inter- nal party democratization has greatly weeded their ranks of autocratic, corrupt and dogmatic types over the past few years. The party is, of course, in the very diffi- cult position of having to transform itself and manage an explosive social upheaval, while defending the legitimacy, integrity and continuity of Soviet party and state in the face of a multitude of centrifugal forces. However, the methods it has chosen are democracy, the open contest of ideas, and public control. Who can argue with that? @ The “radical” intelligentsia. Easily the most vocal and eloquent group in the Con- gress, and the biggest headline-grabbers as well — it includes many of the leading - lights of perestroika. They are very much in the tradition of Russian and Soviet intellectuals in that their attitudes and ideals have been nurtured lar- gely in isolation, both from other. social strata as well as from direct participation in 6 * Pacific Tribune, June 26, 1989 and responsibility for power and policy- making. In the alchemy of kitchen politics, they have always tended to pursue the phi- losopher’s stone: their modern panacea is western-style democracy, free-market eco- nomics and the supposed cornucopia of benefits to be gained through “integration into the global division of labour.” Perhaps the archetype of this trend is economist Nikolai Smelyov who, in his address to the Congress, called for a cut-off of Soviet aid to Cuba and Nicaragua, de-regulation of the economy, and massive Western credits to import consumer goods. In general, this group is the source of much devastating criticism and many fruit- ful ideas. They can also, at turns, be arro- gant and intolerant, as when the “Moscow delegation” threatened to set up its own faction in the first days of the Congress, and radical historian Yuri Afanasyev denounced what he called “the aggressively obedient majority.” Ina similar vein, Afanasyev later decried the newly-elected Supreme Soviet as FROM MOSCOW “fit for the Stalin or Brezhnev eras” (the politician in him had to get the better of the historian for that one to pop out). @ Nationalists. These forces too are mainly led by intellectuals, most notably from the Baltic states, whose delegations made brilliant tactical use of ultimatums and walk-outs at the Congress. Unset- tlingly, there was also the presence of Rus- sian nationalism, in the person of Siberian writer Valentin Rasputin, and author Vass- ily Belov, whose views are a harsh and anti- democratic throwback to earlier times. It is a continual amazement to me that the Western.media continues to refer to many - of these people as “liberals” or “radical reformers,” when their theoretical baggage is mostly old-fashioned nationalism and chauvinism. @ The co-operative movement. Not to slander the idea of co-operatives, or their place in socialist society, but if there are any actual incipient capitalists in the USSR today, they are to be found in the co-ops. However, they were virtually unrepresented in the Congress, having been — along with Brezhnev-style bureaucrats — the category most totally thumped by voters in the elec- tions. @ Peasants. All Soviet farmers appear to agree that agriculture has been the most under-funded and over-bureaucratized eco- nomic sector. They are united on the need for a massive renewal of agricultural infras- tructure but clearly divided over the recent plan to split-up collective farms into indi- vidual “leasehold” units. Gorbachev, a supporter of the scheme, admitted consid- erable opposition to it.and told the Con- gress how one farmer delegate approached him and demanded: “Mikhail Sergeivich, who on earth suggested this leaseholding arrangement to you?” ® Workers. This is still the most enig- matic social sector, clearly struggling to find its voice. Frequently at the Congress, working-class deputies stood to deliver speeches of strong support for the party, often in traditional terms, which earned them sneers from the intelligentsia and inclusion in Afanasyev’s “aggressively obe- dient majority.” Yet that is surely off the mark, for the fact is that workers often rose to defend the party while at the same time attacking its policies, and sometimes lead- ers, in strong language. What can we make of Leonid Sukhov, a truck driver, who looked Gorbachev in the eye and said: “Never before in our history have the rich and poor sat around the same table, the former eating chicken, the latter licking their own fingers. What kind of per- estroika is this? The majority of people will not go for this kind of perestroika. The stratification of our population has already begun ....” Or Vakhit Dyusembaev, a miner from Kazakhstan, who rejected the party- sponsored idea that workers should take over unprofitable factories and run them co-operatively, on a leasehold _ basis. Workers have no money for this, he said, “but we are strong and organized and we will not allow national property to be pulled asunder by corrupt co-operatives or the mafia — those who have money.” What emerged at the Congress, then, was no simple left-right spectrum, but a mosaic of different — though not irreconcilable — social forces. And they are all, very rapidly, learning to work and press their interests under open, democratic condi- tions. “We are going over from autocratic, authoritarian society to civil society,” said deputy and CPSU politbureau member Alexander Yakovlev. “Yes, there is political struggle, but this is not over power as such but over the best ways to move forward.” The Congress is scheduled to meet again in the fall. IUSALEYAN, E. PESOV TASS PHOTO —V. New era of USSR-FRG co-operation affirmed During his state visit to the Federal Republic of Germany last week, Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev announced the USSR is ‘‘drawing the line under the postwar period,” thus setting the stage for a new era in rela-_ '! tions between the two countries. Gorbachev’s popularity in the FRG has rocketed with each Soviet disarmament proposal and was fur- ther enhanced when he welcomed U.S. president George Bush’s prop- osals-for reductions in conventional weapons. Ina TV poll, 90 per cent of FRG citizens, whose country is the world’s most militarized real estate, said Gorbachev was a man they could trust. That compared with 58 percent for Bush and 50 per cent for FRG Chancellor Helmut Kohl. The two sides signed a joint state- mentaffirming [f- 7 their determi- nation to, en- sure that “any war, whether nuclear or con- ventional, must be averted.” They agreed to work toward creating a Eur- ope of peace and co-opera- tion incorporating “the right of every- one to freely choose one’s political and social system.” GORBACHEV The statement outlined a wide range of areas of co-operation includ- ing “regular meetings at top political level, and realization of human rights ‘and encouragement of exchanges of people and ideas.” They pointed out that recent steps of co-operation between the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (CMEA) and the European Eco- nomic Community (EEC) “are open- ing new prospects for all-European development”. The USSR-FRG statement urged that “war should no longer be a tool of politics”, and that “both sides con- sider it necessary to rule out the armed forces’ ability to carry out a surprise attack and launch a large-scale offen- sive”. It says they ‘tseek 50 per cent cuts in the strategic offensive nuclear — armaments of the U.S. and USSR” as well as a range of stage-by-stage initia- tives to reduce tensions and the . danger of war. “The USSR and the FRG are determined to further develop their relations in all directions with confi- dence that policies on both sides will be predictable in the long term. They will impart stability to the develop- ment of relations between them. This policy takes into consideration the treaty and alliance obligations of both sides and is directed against no one. It meets the deep and longstanding aspi- rations of their peoples to heal the wounds of the past with understand- ing and reconciliation and to build a better future together,” the statement signed by the two leaders concluded.