"I would vote again ..."

What today are those who wrote a declaration of state sovereignty of the RSFR, and those who voted for it, on the consequences of decisions adopted in 1990

At the First Congress of People's Deputies of the RSFSR in the Kremlin, Moscow, May 19, 1990
On June 12, 2015, the 25th anniversary of the adoption by the Congress of People's Deputies of the RSFSR of the declaration of state sovereignty - a document that laid the foundations of the Russian Constitution. It is also common that it was the Declaration that launched the collapse of the USSR.

Since mid -1989, the Russian Topic began to be actively discussed. A significant part of the intelligentsia and nomenclature began to be considered by the RSFSR as an alternative to the union authority. Boris Yeltsin, who returned to politics in 1989, supported the slogan about the proclamation of Russian sovereignty and made it key in his election campaign in 1990.

The congress made the theme of the Russian sovereignty of the main one in the agenda under discussion. A month after discussions and approvals, on June 12, the voting number of votes adopted a declaration of state sovereignty of the RSFSR. The Russian authorities, having become an independent subject of politics, announced the revision of the Union Treaty.

This day will be the first new state holiday of post -Soviet Russia, which has been celebrated since 1992.

The New Times talked with people who made this document and voted for it. In a quarter century, the interlocutors of NT are confident in the correctness of the choice made then. Some of them for 25 years were forced to debunk myths that developed around the declaration. Others are convinced that today you should not make any complaints to the authors and supporters of the document.

It was not a declaration of independence

Sergey Shakhrai in 1990 - People's Deputy of the RSFSR. Today - the vice -rector of Moscow State University, my attitude to the adoption of the declaration has not changed. But a quarter of a century I have to constantly debunk myths around this document. The main myth is the opinion that this document proclaimed Russia's exit from the USSR, launched a “parade of sovereignty”.

This is wrong. The text of the document was quite competent, although it was created during the month of the work of the new deputy corps. It said that Russia is part of the Soviet Union, and the priority of union legislation was recognized. Separately stipulated a paragraph about a single citizenship. There was not a word about independence. It was a new format of legal regulation - the distribution of rights and obligations between Russia and the Union. We can say that it was a declaration of support for the Soviet Union.

Alexander Rutskaya in 1990 - People's Deputy of the RSFSR. Today - a member of the Public Council under the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation during this period began the process of reforming the Soviet Union. There was a proposal to reform the USSR and turn it into a real federation. The republics that were part of the Union should become the subjects of this federation. To do this, you need to have a certain status. Russia at that time did not have it, so the declaration was supposed to endow it with such powers.

Sergey Stankevich in 1990 - People's Deputy of the USSR. Today - the expert of the Foundation Anatoly Sobchak Russia in its composition had about 20 autonomies. And they also felt infringed. Nobody could answer the conditional Tatarstan to the question: “Why is it autonomy, and Estonia is the Union Republic?” Russia resembled Swiss cheese with 20 holes of autonomies. In 1990, only this cheese remained.

The declaration was supposed to not allow to do this. She completed the Russian state in which there were not enough several details to prevent such decay. The declaration was aimed, first of all, to the leadership of autonomies. The document was built on the thesis: "We are now Russia, and you will have to negotiate with us."

Economic sovereignty

Ruslan Khasbulatov in 1990 - First Deputy Chairman of the Supreme Council of the RSFSR. Today - Professor REU named after Plekhanova When we accepted this document, I made significant changes to it. At the exit, the declaration proclaimed not political, but economic sovereignty. The Russian Federation in the USSR was infringed on the possibilities to influence socio-economic policy. It was exclusively about giving the Russian authorities a similar influence at the All -Union level: on the placement of production, on the state of labor relations, and so on. The accepted document did not pursue other goals. In the end, we did not concern the issues of defense, the protection of borders, foreign affairs, and international pipelines. We even have no effect on this document in any way. It was just an economic plan of action.

Alexander Lyubimov in 1990 - People's Deputy of the RSFSR, host of the program "View". Today is a television producer. There were a specific situation and conditions. Since the 1970s, the country crawled into stagnation, it has not developed. We still reap the fruits of those years - we have a technologically retarded economy. The Soviet Union climbed into colossal debts, which then Russia, must be paid tribute to the management, paid alone. And then this money did not go to improve and create innovative technologies. This money was just erased. The Soviet Union was a retired country.

First Congress: Yeltsin elected chairman of the Armed Forces of the RSFSR, Moscow, May 29, 1990
Because of whom the USSR Sergey Shabrai broke up is unfair to say that the declaration launched the process of collapse of the USSR. The beginning of this was put up by completely different documents. In April 1990, on the 10th and 26th, the Supreme Soviet of the USSR adopted two all -Union laws, with which he aligned the rights of union and autonomous republics. These laws legalized the possibility of withdrawing autonomies from the RSFSR. That's who launched the process of collapse of the USSR!

This explains why the Congress of People's Deputies of the RSFSR voted unanimously unanimously. The laws adopted at the All -Union level ruined Russia. That was really. Everyone is talking about independence, but it was an attempt to save Russia from collapse.

Ruslan Khasbulatov was such that our declaration played an extremely negative role. At some point, other union republics picked up our experience, but unlike us they did not hesitate to invade the issues of defense and foreign policy. Autonomous republics as part of the Russian Federation took up the same. As far as I remember, only Dagestan then did not proclaim his sovereignty.

I treated the collapse of the USSR negatively both then and now. And in the need for a declaration in the form in which she appeared, I have no doubt. But still, when I saw the consequences of these events, I had to regret the decisions made then.

Victor Sheinis in 1990 - People's Deputy of the RSFSR. Today - a member of the Political Committee of the Yabloko party now, many people consider this document the first step to the collapse of the USSR. To a certain extent, he became a step in this direction. The developers and supporters of the declaration perceived it differently. In their representation, this was, first of all, an attempt to transform relations with the Union Center, which more and more under the control of conservative forces, slowed down democratic changes. Other republics joined this process, and Russia was not the first in their row. Another thing is that the adoption of the Declaration of the Sovereignty of Russia - the Main Republic - was of particular importance, not comparable with similar acts in other republics. Now I think that we did not fully realize that in parallel with the departure from communism there was an objective and inevitable process of the collapse of the empire.

Alexander Rutskaya to my deep regret, the Soviet Union still broke up. None of the projects of reform of the USSR was brought to the end. But 25 years later, fortunately, a new union state is being formed - the Eurasian Union. It seems to me that in the end it will be possible to overcome the legacy of the collapse of the USSR.

This is a holiday Sergey Stankevich it was a good document. I reread it from time to time. That's just June 12, I will do it again. This is a holiday, it should be celebrated.

Viktor Sheinis, although 25 years have passed since June 12, 1990, I still live lively with the atmosphere of the holiday, the joy of great achievement, and victory. It was an almost unanimous decision: 907 people voted for it, against 13. This document was accepted by enthusiastic people who were convinced that they managed to express the will of the people and advance the country. We vaguely represented the consequences of this step and did not know how difficult and drama the further path would be.

Now my attitude to those events is far from delight. And yet, if the same choice stood in front of me today, I would vote again for this document.

The declaration for post -Soviet Russia we introduced into an allied policy that the Russian factor that had not been in it had previously existed. Indeed, in addition to the approval of the sovereignty of Russia, the document contained important provisions about the people as a source of power, on the priority of human rights, on a democratic structure, on federalism and respect for generally recognized norms of international law. The provisions that later entered the Russian Constitution and which form its democratic and progressive potential.

Alexander Lyubimov is now a time of frivolous answers to complex historical challenges. Now that the country has changed a lot over the past 25 years, these changes have many critics. But I'm not one of them. My attitude towards the adoption of the declaration in June 1990 remained still positive.

But today, few are interested in these details. The declaration of the sovereignty of the RSFSR has become the subject of criticism. Today's state ideologists promote the version that it was adopted by short -sighted and naive people, in a hurry, which led to the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Now it is pointless to look for the answer to the question “What had to be changed in that reality in order to reduce the negative consequences of the collapse of the USSR?” There will always be people when discussing this issue who will trample the reputation of politicians who made decisions. I'm not one of them.

And now it is impossible to talk about other alternatives to the decay or non -decay of the country. In my opinion, there was only one alternative to decisions made at that moment - a bloody civil war. We see something similar in Ukraine now, but it would be much harder.

Photo: Dmitry Sokolov/Photokhronika TASS, Valentin Sobolev, Dmitry Sokolov/Photokhronika TASS