Paul
Goble
Staunton, October 10 -- Russia’s tragedies including wars,
revolutions and mass deaths have been the result of the unwillingness of the
country’s various rulers, from the last two tsars through the communist leaders
to those in charge of Russia today, to allow for the development of an
opposition that could prepare itself to be a successor, Aleksey Kiva says.
As a result of their efforts to
retain power forever, each ruler has created a situation in which the country
has deteriorated to the point that the people come to believe that anyone else
would be better and thus willing to entrust power to people who are incapable
of ruling in a way that doesn’t repeat the cycle, the historian says (ng.ru/ideas/2019-10-07/5_7695_price.html).
Kiva points to three patterns in
this regard. First, he says, “our rulers do not prepare replacements for
themselves but seek to rule for life; and as a result, there is a strong delay
in carrying out necessary changes in our way of life,” a pattern that leads to
radical tectonic and costly changes when they finally occur.
Some Russian rulers have recognized
this problem. Alexander II did but was killed before he could introduce the
changes he worked out with Interior Minister Loris-Melikhov, Kiva continues. He
was followed by two conservatives who refused to admit the need for change and
led the country down the path to war and destruction.
Had a responsible government and
serious political parties been allowed at the end of the imperial period, there
might not have been the wars and the disasters which opened the way to the
revolutions of 1905 and then 1917. That
is because such governments and such parties would have had a vested interest in
avoiding such tragedies.
The same problem continued under the
Soviets. “The communists did not prepare for their replacements; and as a result,
at turning points in our history, the leaders in the state turned out to be not
the strongest leaders, including Nikita Khrushchev, Leonid Brezhnev and Mikhail
Gorbachev, all of whom lacked the talent, breadth of vision and knowledge to
lead the country on the path of healthy development. The same thing was true of
Boris Yeltsin.”
Related to this is what happened to
each successor” “After the collapse of real socialism, the democratic leaders
couldn’t get organized, separate human rights activities from politics and hold
onto power because they did not have experience with party struggles. They did
not take part in the building of a popular majority, and power was taken from
them by the chekists.”
According to Kiva, the behavior of the
current rulers suggests that “they doo are not concerned about who will replace
them. The president has practically all power in the country, and no one knows
even theoretically who will be able replace him.” If there is no competition,
then the new leaders will be either accidental or from incapable parties and
Russia will never escape this vicious circle.
Second, Kiva continues, wars and the
preparation for wars “undermines the vitality and capacity of the state.” Had
Russia avoided World War I, 1917 would not have happened; and had the Soviets
stayed out of Afghanistan, 1991 would have not taken place in the way that it
did. The post-Soviet Russian government clearly
has not avoided this problem either.
Third, Kiva continues, “the fall of the
tsarist and communist regimes had a certain logic. Our unbelievably patient
people” held on in hopes of improvement until things became so bad that they
decided that “any new power would be better than the existing one.” That was a
misconception in both cases, but it wasn’t obvious to all at either time.
The real danger, the Moscow
historian says, is that Russians will not recognize this danger in the future
and that the patterns of the past will continue, with ever worse outcomes for
the people and the country all because rulers want to remain in power for life
and not think about how power will be transferred to another.
No comments:
Post a Comment