Stas Bush wrote:Yeltsin's attempts to work out a new constitution and to resolve the standstill was blocked by the parliament. Yeltsin suggested that a referendum should be held in order to decide how the power should be balanced, but what happened? It was blocked by the parliament and the 1993 April referendum essentially became an opinion poll on Yeltsin's politics (and the majority of voters expressed confidence in Yeltsin).
Stas Bush wrote:I'm sorry to shatter this idea:
Oh really? Let's take a look on the part I've bolded below, shall we?
FOM.ru opinion polls - 1993 wrote:The poll asked the interviewees if they could remember which of the conflicting sides they supported during the described events. As it turned out, 23% of those polled sympathized with Parliament, 21% supported the Russian President and another 20% claim they backed neither. [...] As for those who claim to have supported Boris Yeltsin in the conflict, as few as half of them (48%) justify his actions today.
No cookie for you. The actual figures from the referendum I referred to were:
1.Do you have confidence in Boris Yeltsin, the President of Russia?
Yes:
58.7%
No: 41.3%
2. Do you approve the social and economic policy of the President of Russia and Russia's Government since 1992?
Yes:
53%
No: 47%
3. Do you consider early presidential elections necessary?
Yes: 49.5%
No:
51.5%
4. Do you consider early elections of People's Deputies of the Russian Federation necessary?
Yes:
67.2%
No: 32.8%
So, the overwhelming majority of the Russian voters expressed their confidence in Yeltsin and wanted early elections, not of the President, but of the Russian parliament and a clear majority supported the reform program.
Doesn't look like a majority, and even then, the Parliament had the right to block attempts at a new constitution, constitutionally. Yeltsin did NOT have such rights. Just as earlier he disbanded the USSR unlawfully.
The breakup of the Soviet Union can hardly be seen as unlawful. It would have been much more questionable to preserve the union against the wishes of the people living in the various Soviet republics. And as I mentioned, the 1978 constitution was severely outdated and didn't include any instruments to deal with the kind of standoff the constitutional crisis was.
The new constitution, while not perfect, better reflected the new realities.
Stas Bush wrote:And gave the President autocratic powers, that is the right to disband the Parliament. Yeltsin is the same as Kuchma or any post-Soviet autocrat. And how do you think parliamentarism can even rise under such thugs? Why do you think Putin has these powers now?
The fact that the Russian President can dissolve the Duma when there's a conflict between the President and the Duma (except during the year following the election) is one of the things I'd describe as "not perfect" and, as you're describing, an obstacle.
There are quite many assumptions in this (and the next) paragraph...
Indeed. But Gorbachov was able to prove with documents that he _had_ such plans, he has a very good lengthy issue on the dismemberment of the USSR.
For whom and why would the Union, which was forced upon the majority of the republics in the first place, have been preserved?
Stas Bush wrote:I just said for whom. The majority of people in the three main Republics - those which were dissected! - voted to preserve the Union, in a referenda which was lawful (the Supreme Soviet unlike Yeltsin had the right to run referenda). These same people deeply regret the dismemberment of the USSR even 16 years later. For all us, Soviet people.
As I've already mentioned, if that's true, why did 90% of the voters in the Ukraine vote for independence?
I've already stated where I put the blame.
Stas Bush wrote:You defend Yeltsin, ignoring the facts? That's a nice position to have.
When have I ever defended Yeltsin? All I've said is that he took the right step and dissolved the USSR.
And I have nothing against Russia or Russians. I've only been to Russia twice (never to Moscow though), but I find Russians to be a friendly and hospitable people.
Stas Bush wrote:Then why do you think that Russian and Soviet people who have stated their will, deserved to have their state carved up by three thugs on a drunk party, behind everyone's back? I've already shown how this dismemberment was covertly plotted by the Republican leadership who were willing to plunder their respective republics without interference from "too honest" people like Gorbachov and other in the USSR leadership.
The Soviet Union wasn't a democracy in the first place, so it shouldn't come as a surprise if things were decided behind peoples' back. But as far as your conspiracy theory is concerned, Yeltsin saw his opportunity and seized it.
But should people stay in the past? And was it really only the good times as people seems to remember? I have no personal experience on how easy or difficult or what challenges there are to enter politics in Russia, but in general, if one wants changes, why not at least try to work for them?
Stas Bush wrote:Are you saying Russians have not been working? And frankly, having been in Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan (and earlier as the Kazakh SSR) and Belarus and China I am firmly entrenched in the opinion that reforming socialism, creating a more flexible and robust system, enduring the crisis - was the key, not the thuggish capitalism of Yeltsin.
No, I don't say that the Russians haven't been working (and you're pointing to Belarus as an example of reformed socialism? Are you joking?).
Agreed and I think it's a shame that his reforms were cut short.
Stas Bush wrote:Then why do you support the brutal thug who plotted the carving up of the USSR behind Gorbachov's back, then ousted the liberal Soviet leader out of power? Gorbachov wasn't hellbent on stealing money and self-enriching, I believe that he was simply _too weak_, but he was at least a competent and honest person.
Again, when have I ever said that I supported Yeltsin and his reform work? And I agree with you, I've always had respect and admiration for Mr. Gorbachev who saw the failings of the Soviet state and who had the courage to reform and to work in the right direction.
Stas Bush wrote:It should be well known to you that the bandit Yeltsin wrote in his memoirs that he longed to be free from "Gorbachov's supervision" and "do whatever I want". What he wanted is to be free from ANY responsibility towards the people, and 1993 proved that well. Just as his re-drafted autocratic laws.
What was shown in 1993 was that he, at the time, had the support of the Russian people.