March 26, 1989—Less than a year after one-time
supporter Mikhail Gorbachev had
declared his career over, Boris Yeltsin
was voted into the new Congress of People's Deputies, in the first free
elections in the seven-decade history of the Soviet Union.
In light of the seizure of Crimea by current Russian
strongman Vladimir Putin—a move with
distinct echoes of the Nazis’ grab for Austria and the Sudetenland in the
1930s—it is time to amend the brief one-phrase description of Yeltsin, in Marilyn Berger’s 2007 New York Times obit, as the “Reformer Who Broke Up the U.S.S.R.” Now, we should probably add a pithier version
of the following phrase: “And Paved the Way for a Russian Hitler.”
It was Yeltsin, after all, who placed Putin in
position to uproot the democratization then barely surviving in Russian soil.
Yeltsin, who gained the attention and affection of Muscovites as the populist
hope of Gorbachev’s perestroika policy
in 1989, resigned as President of Russia a decade later, in the waning days of
the millennium and his own nation’s aborted experiment with democratic
capitalism—leaving public life stymied by enemies, deeply ill, and mentally and
physically exhausted.
In contrast to the political firestorm that broke
out in the 1940s over “Who Lost China,” nobody has asked “Who Lost Russia” when
it mattered most, in the 1990s. Perhaps this is because there is no clear-cut
consensus that, without an effective leader of democratic forces in Moscow,
Western efforts to influence Russia could have succeeded. Who lost Russia? You
can start—and end—with boorish, battling, boozy Boris.
“Yeltsin: A Fighter for Social Justice," read
one of the posters in that 1989 election. For some time, he had given signs of not
toeing the Soviet line. He hadn’t even joined the Communist Party until age 30,
comparatively late for anyone hoping to find gainful employment in the nation.
Noticed and promoted by Gorbachev to be in charge of
construction for the entire U.S.S.R., he began to push economic reform faster
than the Soviet President preferred, losing a post as Moscow party chief and
membership in the Politburo as a result. But ordinary citizens soon applauded
his ideas for ending the nation’s occupation of Afghanistan and for widening
residents’ exposure to more consumer goods and products.
Seeing his former protégé gain nearly 90% share of
the popular vote in his race to enter the Congress of Deputies, Gorbachev ensured both that he would be strengthened in future face-offs with Kremlin
reactionaries and that he would need to watch a potential rival in any freer
Soviet state that might emerge. In fact, within months Yeltsin had enhanced his
position as the most prominent gadfly in the Soviet system. A May 1990 article of
his in The Washington Monthly, for
instance, assailed “The Kremlin’s Creature Comforts”:
“Obsequiousness and obedience are rewarded in turn
by privilege: special hospitals, special vacation retreats, the excellent
Central Committee canteen, the equally excellent service for home delivery of
groceries and other goods, the Kremlin telephone system, the free
transportation. The higher you climb up the professional ladder, the more
comforts surround you and the harder and more painful it is to lose them. Therefore,
the more obedient and dependable you become.”
In 1991, when Yeltsin rescued Gorbachev from house
arrest by standing atop a tank and urging supporters to defy Kremlin coup
plotters, his credibility reached a zenith. By the end of the year, when he declared
the old U.S.S.R. over and moved into the departed Gorbachev’s office as the
first popularly elected Russian President, editorial writers around the world
were quick to provide death notices for authoritarianism emanating from the great Eurasian land mass.
They didn’t reckon with the mass dislocation
produced by Yeltsin’s quickly enacted economic reforms, the furious attempt of
the old guard to reverse change, and the feeble response to that resulting from
Yeltsin’s increasingly frail health.
Responsibility for the expiration of democracy’s
hope particularly rested with Russia’s alcohol-sodden leader. Bill Clinton had
identified him as a “candidate for tough love” after Yeltsin had slurred
his response when the newly elected U.S. President phoned to say that relations
between the two countries would be at the top of his priorities. In seven
years, Clinton met one-on-one with Yeltsin 18 times. It was all born out of a
conviction that, as Clinton put it to Russian hand Strobe Talbott, a drunken
Yeltsin was still better than the alternative (even if that same drunken, underwear-clad Yeltsin, on
a 1995 visit to Washington’s Blair House, the guest accommodation used by
visiting dignitaries, ended up outside the building trying to hail a taxi because he wanted a pizza!).
When he resigned his office, several months before
his term was due to expire, it seemed at first that Yeltsin had done the West
yet another favor in his choice of a successor. Putin might have been a former
KGB agent, the conventional thinking went, but at least he seemed inclined, if only because of hard-headed
pragmatism, toward the West.
That hope, we know now, was an illusion born of
wishfulness. Putin was not a carefully chosen successor, but the fourth Prime
Minister that Yeltsin had appointed in less than two years. Yeltsin’s absences
were longer and more frequent as the ‘90s went on. Instead of guiding his
nation toward democracy, he had improvised desperately to stay in power. At the
end, he was in no condition to do much of anything.
Given Putin’s background in one of the main Soviet
institutions geared toward consolidation of power, his eventual slow-motion
putsch could have been anticipated. Yeltsin was far more disappointing. He is proof that policy sometimes doesn't trump all--that the personal failings of leaders play an inordinate role in their nations' fate.
“While the voice has lost nothing, Sarah Vaughan the
improvising musician has grown in stature. She always had an exceptional ear,
and this enabled her to become the first (and perhaps the only) singer who
could utilize the harmonic subtleties introduced to the jazz language by
Charlie Parker and Dizzy Gillespie—not so coincidentally among her first fans
and boosters. In terms of rhythm, she was able to keep up with the innovations
in jazz as well. But in her earlier days, her playfulness sometimes interfered
with the sense and intention of the songs. No such dangers now—she has become a
great interpreter of great songs as well as a great singer, and she has
accomplished this without giving up her sense of humor, which remains as
delightful and unpredictable (and girlish) as ever.”— Dan Morgenstern, Living with Jazz: A Reader, edited by Sheldon Meyer (2004)
.jpg)
