For many Russians, August is a month for their dachas. But it is also a month with a developing tradition as a time to change the country. August 1991 was such a time because of the attempted coup against my government. That coup attempt failed, but Russia was changed forever. This August we are also engaged (more quietly) in re-examining executive power in Russia, and also in an ongoing effort to correct many of the changes made by president Yeltsin in the wake of August 1991.
The brainless imposition of market rules upon almost every aspect of society, rules which were pushed by a small circle in the Yeltsin government, has given way to more balanced efforts at reform. Indeed, in July left-leaning tendencies were revealed as much more pronounced among the electorate. This fact has not escaped President Vladimir Putin's notice.
By his initiative various commissions were assigned the task of analyzing important reforms and the directions Russia should now take. This allowed formerly ignored views to play a key role in policymaking. For example, the restructuring that Anatoli Chubais, Boris Yeltsin's former economics guru, planned to impose on United Energy Systems (Russia's electricity monopoly) were revamped in positive ways by one of the president's commissions. Socially informed views also played a key part in drafting a new Labor Code, housing and pension reform, and improvements to the nation's educational structures.
Putin promoted these changes. His actions reflect his realization that social conditions are continuing to decline. Needless to say, the desired results are not evident yet; their arrival will depend as much on the public's attitude as on written policy. But what is impressive here is president Putin's realism, for his policies can secure majority support among the population. Under president Yeltsin, public opinion about reform was disdained. The Russian United Social Democratic Party (ROSDP) -- which I helped to found -- is one force that supports the new tendency pursued by president Putin. It is our belief that in education, for example, today's conditions are blatantly unconstitutional. Article 43 of the Russian Constitution, indeed, provides a government guarantee of access to free education for everyone, as well as free higher education for those admitted on the basis of competitive admission tests.
Yet, despite these guarantees, a money hungry education system prevails. It is impoverishing education and will soon deprive Russia of its traditionally high intellectual achievements. To correct this, increased state financing is vital. Teachers need to be paid at least twice as much as they are now, for their wages are only half those of (poorly paid) industrial workers. State investment in textbooks, maps, televisions, computers, and technical support will also be required if Russian education is to keep up and surpass world standards.
The money grubbing attitude also extends to health, where commercialization of state and municipal hospitals is another unconstitutional development. Article 41 of the Constitution guarantees free medical care. However, free medical help is no longer available for most people. Given the nation's deteriorating health conditions, the effect of cutting people off from health care because they can't pay is disastrous, particularly for the older generation.
Social democrats such as those in my party favor a social state, which is why, despite our basic support for President Putin, we still criticized the new Labor Code. Of course, the needs of the market must be considered, but labor law cannot be written solely in the interests of employers. Human interests must be protected above all others; and if not, we will end up with never-ending social and economic instability. If the government wants to develop a social partnership with our people, a labor law reflecting this desire is the place to begin.
As to housing and reform of utilities such as electricity, sadly, official policy seems to go with the flow. But why must people pay more to cover up for managerial incompetence? Meetings our party organized in Moscow, St Petersburg, Pskov and some regions of Siberia show that if services function effectively gas, electricity, water are not overused. So prices need not be raised enormously in order to control waste. Indeed, when smart administration occurs, the costs of housing and utilities are reduced substantially. As now proposed, reform will only create new private monopolies, which will be harder to tame than the old state ones.
At the root of all the failures of the past decade is the fact that, for most of those 10 years, reformers failed to think about the people whose lives they wanted to reform. They never considered the impact of their schemes on everyday life. But social accord will not exist if, as a result of reform, people's spending increases by more than half while their wages go up only a quarter. Such an approach creates instability, as we saw all too often during president Yeltsin's tenure. Public discussion about the results of proposed reforms must occur before they become laws otherwise it will be too late to change them.
All who consider democratic freedoms, social justice, and the people's well-being more than empty words -- indeed, as the essence of Russian values -- must support president Putin's efforts to rebuild in a fair way for everyone. But the president, too, must play his part by evaluating the people around him for their devotion to his outlook. He should not only evaluate them on their support for him personally, but also on their active support of what he stands for. If he does, president Putin's policies will be realistic and socially viable, and allow for Russia's national interests to be respected and maintained. This August, 10 years after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russians finally have a chance to consolidate their society around constructive goals. After a wasted decade, we cannot afford to miss this opportunity.
Mikhail Gorbachev was president of the Soviet Union; he is now president of the Gorbachev Foundation for Socio-Economic and Political Analysis.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Could Asia be on the verge of a new wave of nuclear proliferation? A look back at the early history of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which recently celebrated its 75th anniversary, illuminates some reasons for concern in the Indo-Pacific today. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin recently described NATO as “the most powerful and successful alliance in history,” but the organization’s early years were not without challenges. At its inception, the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty marked a sea change in American strategic thinking. The United States had been intent on withdrawing from Europe in the years following
My wife and I spent the week in the interior of Taiwan where Shuyuan spent her childhood. In that town there is a street that functions as an open farmer’s market. Walk along that street, as Shuyuan did yesterday, and it is next to impossible to come home empty-handed. Some mangoes that looked vaguely like others we had seen around here ended up on our table. Shuyuan told how she had bought them from a little old farmer woman from the countryside who said the mangoes were from a very old tree she had on her property. The big surprise
The issue of China’s overcapacity has drawn greater global attention recently, with US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen urging Beijing to address its excess production in key industries during her visit to China last week. Meanwhile in Brussels, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last week said that Europe must have a tough talk with China on its perceived overcapacity and unfair trade practices. The remarks by Yellen and Von der Leyen come as China’s economy is undergoing a painful transition. Beijing is trying to steer the world’s second-largest economy out of a COVID-19 slump, the property crisis and
Former president Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) trip to China provides a pertinent reminder of why Taiwanese protested so vociferously against attempts to force through the cross-strait service trade agreement in 2014 and why, since Ma’s presidential election win in 2012, they have not voted in another Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) candidate. While the nation narrowly avoided tragedy — the treaty would have put Taiwan on the path toward the demobilization of its democracy, which Courtney Donovan Smith wrote about in the Taipei Times in “With the Sunflower movement Taiwan dodged a bullet” — Ma’s political swansong in China, which included fawning dithyrambs