. } 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