Continuers of Yeltsin's work

From the editor. February 1, 2011 marks the 80th anniversary of the birth of the first President of Russia, Boris Nikolaevich Yeltsin. The anniversary is already celebrated. In blogs and journalistic texts, Yeltsin is remembered with special feelings - albeit different - but always very vivid. In memory of this statesman, RJ opens a discussion about the role of the first president in the formation of a new Russia. Political scientist Boris Kagarlitsky told RJ about his attitude to the period of Yeltsin’s reign, as well as its relevance in the context of today’s political realities.

* * *

Sociologists should judge the popularity of Boris Yeltsin. But I don't think there are any reasons that will make Yeltsin popular. Moreover, it seems to me that he has already taken a certain place in the Russian mass consciousness, in Russian culture and history, and this place is far from the most positive.

The growing attention to this figure today is explained by the ongoing expectation of liberal revenge in politics, which is not associated with any Orange revolutions or coups, but with the reconfiguration of power itself. If there are any coups, they will be coups from above. And it seems to me that in this case, the Yeltsin theme is being quite consciously promoted from above as part of this general campaign. And here it is clear that this is an absolutely key figure, because Yeltsin, not being himself a part of the liberal community, the liberal intellectual tendency, used tough administrative and political resources precisely in order to impose liberalism on the resisting people with an iron fist. And in this sense , he very clearly, on the one hand, demonstrated the incompatibility of liberalism with democracy, at least in Russian conditions. But on the other hand, of course, he became the only real political hero for liberals, because he was the only liberal figure who succeeded in something in real practice, and precisely due to his consistent anti-democracy.

This attitude of liberals towards Yeltsin as a role model is also connected with nostalgia for the nineties, characteristic of liberals. The rest of the population regards this period, depending on age and experience, with horror or indifference. I think a correlation is quite possible between the attitude towards the figure of Yeltsin and the attitude towards the 90s.

All the leaders of the Russian state continue the work of Yeltsin , in fact, how could it be otherwise, if this state in its current form was formulated and created by Yeltsin, they live on the basis of his Constitution, they follow exactly those principles that, as they say, were bequeathed to them. Another thing is that the course has to be adjusted for economic, social and other reasons. But Yeltsin is still more alive than anyone else alive.

And in this regard, there is no difference between the course of Putin and Medvedev. These are figures created within the framework of the Constitution, created within the framework of the social system that was formed in the 90s, and within the framework of the ideology that emerged at the end of the 90s. I'm not even talking about who appointed whom. No, there are many differences between them, moreover, these differences may be fatal for them, but this in no way means that they represent different classes, different projects for the development of Russia.

Strictly speaking, such a presidential form of government is generally not very possible in a Western country. To begin with, the notorious presidential form of government, with the almost sole exception of the United States, is a property of peripheral, dependent capitalist countries that cannot build a democratic state simply because otherwise they would have to give significant freedom to a population that is completely wants this system. Russia in this case is no different from any Nigeria. Nigeria and I have a common political tradition and a similar place in the world process and in the international division of labor.