Communism gave political parties a bad name among Russians, and due to this simple fact the development of mature democracy is suffering terribly.


Svyatoslav Fyodorov, the world-renowned eye-surgeon, has recently become the latest of all too many lightweight politicians to launch his own party. This is an event of little moment, as the doctor's supporters are few. But Fyodorov offers an apt illustration of one of the central problems blighting the creation of stable democratic institutions in Russia.


In the old days the concept of a party was clear. You either joined it, and abided by its rigid ideology, strict discipline and self-glorification, or you stayed out. You were either partiiny or bespartiiny -- party or without-party. There was no question of inopartiinost -- of a different party.


Then suddenly all this was thrown aside as the country crossed over to democratic elections and a multi-party system. Parties, factions and pressure-groups mushroomed, all clamoring for representation but wary of being labeled as "the party."


Few of the new parties, groups and movements were willing to coalesce. On the contrary, they have tended, amoeba-like, to divide, ally temporarily and divide again. The result is that Russia still has no clearly defined party of government, nor a strong opposition united around an alternative agenda. Instead, numerous factions and individuals vie for power.


Under such conditions, temporary political alliances are made and broken all the time. Groups join together on one issue, but remain hotly divided on the next. The idea of party consensus, of a manifesto or even a platform barely exists. People like Fyodorov can get up and form a new party any time they like. Few take any notice; this is, after all, the fifth political organization the eye surgeon has joined.


Strangely enough, it was Vladimir Zhirinovsky who called for a tightening of party discipline among elected deputies, arguing that if a deputy is elected on a party ticket, he owes it to his voters to abide by that party's policies.


On this rare occasion, Zhirinovsky has a point. For government to work effectively, it must have a base of consensus; similarly an opposition needs consensus if it is to have any teeth. Above all, voters -- if they are to have real power -- must be presented with a meaningful choice at the polls.


The problem in Russia has been compounded by a commonly held view that the president and government should remain above politics and parties. This attitude is understandable, but it also perpetuates the damaging myth that a government should represent the wishes of an entire nation, rather than those of its electors.