Russia Profile
www.russiaprofile.org
June 14, 2005
Why Would a Bear Need Wings?
Some Thoughts on Internal Discussions in the United Russia Party
Comment by Konstantin Kosachev
Konstantin Kosachev is chairman of the State Duma's Foreign Relations Commitee. He contributed this comment to Russia Profile.
The media's attention was focused this spring on discussions underway inside United Russia, referred to by many as simply the "party of power," although the label is debatable in a presidential republic like Russia. But United Russia does hold a majority in the lower house of parliament, its representatives head all the committees in the State Duma. So it can be said that it holds a "controlling stake" in legislative decisions. The party can have a decisive impact on the legislative process by focusing its work in the areas it considers of greatest priority.
In this context, the question of United Russia's political and ideological direction is not just an abstract issue. There are a number of reasons why the party today is looking at the question of its own identity. It is no secret that when it was being formed most people saw the party as simply a vehicle for the president, although Vladimir Putin is not formally a member of United Russia. United Russia did, however, bring together people of different ethnic and religious backgrounds and different professions, who all support Putin's policies, but it would be wrong to see the party as being about nothing more than supporting the president.
After years of total political and ideological interference in all areas of life, under the Soviet regime, the very act of joining a political party is in itself a big step. It is not simply about expressing support for this or that policy. If this were the case, it would be enough to turn up at the polling booth every few years. To join a party is a sign of a desire to be a part of what is happening and of standing up for your convictions in the political process.
Of course, these convictions cannot be reduced simply to approving the president's policies, even if this support really exists. Just gathering for congresses and "approving" decisions is not enough for a political party. If the country's leader were to change - something perfectly normal in a democracy -a party of this kind would find itself without a raison d'etre.
Fortunately, United Russia had enough sense to see itself as more than Putin's fan club. From the outset, the party identified its place on the Russian political stage, defining itself as democratic and centrist. This choice was deliberate. It corresponded with the views of the members of the party and also reflected what voters were looking for, as was confirmed by the party's success in parliamentary elections. Russian voters were fed up with political extremes. They did not want a return to a "socialist paradise," nor did they approve of the economic shock therapy policies that created a politically dangerous situation in which the growing gap between the haves and have-nots was hindering the formation of a strong middle class.
This all reflects the general trend underway in democratic countries, where yesterday's political opponents have begun to move closer to the center: Right-wing parties are now paying more attention to social issues, and social democratic parties no longer represent only the interests of workers. Differences still remain, however, between these forces. Voters at home and colleagues abroad still have to be able to decipher who is who.
In this respect, United Russia has reached, or at least is approaching, its moment of truth. Defining the party as democratic and centrist was the first step, a step that represented a rejection of political extremes and a commitment to democratic values. This democratic commitment has more meaning than just symbolic significance.
In choosing democracy, which for Russia historically is only a very recent choice, a country not only sets the strategic direction of its development and the organization of its system of power. It also commits itself to general social and political principles that have emerged through centuries of experience in working democracies. This also concerns sensitive matters of ideology. There is a wide range of political ideologies but, in countries with established traditions of parliamentary democracy, three main currents dominate: the social democratic, liberal and conservative. This breakdown is reflected in the three main international groupings of political parties - the socialist international, the liberals and the conservatives (the latter are officially united in the International Democratic Union). All other groupings are merely variations on these themes or represent various extremist movements.
These three main ideologies emerged through discussions on the three main pillars of modern society - the economy, democratic liberties and social guarantees. Each of the three main ideologies recognizes the importance of these three pillars, but they each place an emphasis on one of them in particular. The social democrats have traditionally emphasized social guarantees for the population, the liberals place most importance on freedom and democracy, while the conservatives uphold the value of economic progress built on the foundation of a stable society and state.
The stand a given party takes on these three pillars is a key factor in determining its identity. In this respect, United Russia is no exception. What went on in the party this spring was not, as some mistakenly thought, a split within the ranks but, rather, what I would describe as a successful attempt to define the party's position with regard to each of the three main pillars. In other words, the party is seeking to define just how much emphasis it should variously place on social, liberal and conservative values, while at the same time remaining a centrist and democratic force. What some hastened to call "wings" - something that, as party leader Boris Gryzlov said, a bear, which is the party's symbol, hardly needs - should be more aptly seen as working groups that were examining these three main directions, and not something generating internal conflict within the party.
I should also note that United Russia currently has to work in unusual conditions with regard to parliamentary life. Following the failure of liberal (in the classical European sence) parties, in the classical European sense, to win seats in the Duma, the party finds itself facing an opposition made up of left wing and so-called "patriotic" forces. This situation has had an impact on parliamentary life and on United Russia's work. Personally, I very much regret that the liberal parties - The Union of Right Forces and Yabloko - did not qualify for party-list seats in the Duma. If they had, the Duma would be more balanced today. As it is, United Russia now often finds itself having to keep radical initiatives from the left in check, by playing the part of a right-wing party, something unusual for a centrist party that, inevitably, has an impact on internal party life. This situation will inevitably change as Russian parliamentary life develops. I don't think that the process of internal discussion within the party is complete. United Russia is a young party and is still in the process of formation. The very fact that debate, labeled by some as a "split", is ongoing is a sign that the party is a living organism looking for the road to future improvement and growth. I would even say that, in this respect, United Russia is a step ahead of other parties that have suffered precisely as a result of their inability to pursue internal democratic transformation.
The divisions and crises within the Communist Party are, above all, the result of its inability to modernize itself and become a "normal" social democratic party that genuinely stands up for workers' interests, rather than attempting to prolong the life of retro-communist illusions. The right-wing liberals also proved unable to realize fully the lessons of the economic reforms in the 1990s. The public's deeply negative attitude towards these reforms is one of the most serious threats to Russian democracy today. It would be a terrible thing for the public to associate democracy only with shock therapy and unfair privatization.
United Russia's attitude to democracy, both within its ranks and in general, is even more of a defining factor than the debates about the three main pillars mentioned earlier. It cannot be just an internal national or party discussion if we reject the popular view that democracy in Russia can be different in character than elsewhere. It cannot. Just as fish is either fresh or not, democracy cannot be divided into categories, especially those based on geography. De-mocracy either exists or it doesn't.
The Russian elite, unfortunately, have yet to fully realize this truth. Perhaps this is partly the result of the few contacts we have between political parties. Take the example of the Council of Europe, an organization that puts the principles of democracy above everything else. For more than a year now, I have had the honor of heading the Russian delegation in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. Comparing behavior of representatives from other countries to those of ours, I am always amazed at how, when some country is criticized (something that happens all the time - the Netherlands was recently taken to task over its discriminatory immigration policy, for example) its representatives do not make a drama out of it. They even seem discreetly grateful. After all, these countries joined the Council of Europe in order to share the experience and the carefully weighed decisions the organization has to offer, and they react to them with constant interest.
Russia also joined the Council of Europe in order to share this experience of democratic development. But today, and I know this not by hearsay, most Russian state agencies view our membership in the organization as a burden, an unnecessary weight to bear. As a result, we do not fulfill the commitments we have made, preferring instead to follow our own road.
There are no moves on the part of the international groupings of political parties to invite United Russia to join their ranks. If we asked they would probably turn us down on the grounds of insufficient democracy within the ruling party. This is a worrying signal. Through my contacts in international political circles, I know that, for now, United Russia is seen by those outside the country not as a party in its own right, but as a vehicle for state power, for the will of the president and party officials. There is no sense of United Russia as an expression of popular will, as a vehicle for the voters who support and associate themselves with the party's ideology.
I am certain the members of United Russia themselves will change this situation. More importantly, they will do so of their own accord, and not as a result of orders from above. Identifying the problems is already half the battle. (A close look at what the leaders of United Russia - Gryzlov, Emergency Situations Minister Sergei Shoigu, Moscow Mayor Yuri Luzhkov, Duma Deputies Andrei Isayev and Vladimir Pligin and my colleague in the Federation Council, Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee Mikhail Margelov have said in recent months, that we are seeing a sober and active determination to reinvigorate the party and give it a clear identity. There has been plenty of criticism, sometimes harsh, and also plenty of positive spirit coming through in our desire to modernize the party).
As a politician involved in international affairs, I place great importance on the international aspect of the situation. I would like very much for United Russia to receive support in its work from influential parties abroad, even though I understand they are still cautious about this Russian newcomer. I think that our foreign colleagues have an interest in having Russia's biggest political party form its ideology as part of the political traditions of democratic civilization, rather than through autarchic and isolationist processes. United Russia is open to constructive cooperation with foreign centrist and liberal-conservative parties. This kind of cooperation could create an important new channel of communication between Russia and the fully developed democracies, and help to anchor the Russian ship reliably to the shores of democracy.