Duma: Too Coy Over Chechnya

Let there be no doubt about it, the State Duma has been far from idle. In no fewer than four plenary sessions this week alone, it has given a first reading to a bill on advertising, debated various aspects of legislation on the presidential election due in 18 months time, discussed at length the possibility of lifting immunity from prosecution from deputy Vladimir Zhirinovsky, pontificated on the course of constitutional development and considered a new draft tax law.


And, to be fair, it did hold one emergency session on Chechnya, the biggest crisis to hit Russia since this parliament was first convened nearly a year ago. It emerged pretty quickly at that session that virtually all factions were severely critical of President Boris Yeltsin for sending the troops in when he did.


The liberals, furious that the legislature had not been consulted, said the move threatened the survival of democratic institutions and warned of a revival of the feud between president and parliament that ended with the storming of the White House in October 1993.


The communists took a similar line to the liberals, while even the nationalists were critical of the action against Chechnya, albeit for entirely different reasons, expressing the view that Yeltsin was culpable for not taking tougher action sooner.


Given this rare and doubtless temporary consensus across the political spectrum, one might have expected a deluge of demands and denunciations to pour out from the lower house of parliament and pile up at Yeltsin's door. Instead, the Duma could only produce one limp resolution calling the government's actions unsatisfactory.


Plenty of deputies have expressed their concern about the worsening situation in Chechnya; many have been willing to speak out. But as a body, the Duma has done virtually nothing. A proposal to hold a second emergency session on the crisis was overwhelmingly rejected.


Apologists for this inaction can argue that there was little the Duma could have done anyway, once the president had decided, as he has done so frequently in the past, to go his own way without consultation. Other than issue resolutions and statements, the legislature has no means to stop Yeltsin from acting as he deems fit.


But under such circumstances, to resort to a sulky silence is irresponsible, for it provides Yeltsin with a carte blanche and will give the Duma no grounds to take an indignant stance should, as is possible, everything go horribly wrong.


At a time like this, when thousands of lives are at stake, it is surely the duty of parliament to take a clear stand before its electors and to bring as much pressure as possible to bear on the president -- whether or not he chooses to listen.