In response to "Reassessing Boris Yeltsin" (Sept. 27), a comment by Stephen Cohen.





Editor:


Cohen's argument that President Boris Yeltsin or his policies have created the legacy of a divided nation is, at the least, an egregious simplification. It is questionable whether any human could lead Russia from its Bolshevik past to a market-driven democratic future without divisiveness, intrigue, bitterness and slander galore. The lives lost a year ago are a fraction of what "might have been" had the power struggle expanded to greater proportions. The "unlawful and tank-backed" events of a year ago were probably the only measures that could have prevented a military junta or full-scale civil war. Had Yeltsin not acted as he did, the blame for allowing such a catastrophic event to happen would have lain forever on his doorstep.


Without endorsing or attacking Yeltsin's actions of last fall it must be recognized that the ensuing year has been one of relative political and economic stability. The fact is that without provocateurs and nabobs ensconced in the White House, Russians are now thinking more about adjusting their lives to a new political and economic reality than how best to evacuate their homes in the event of civil war.


It seems that Cohen is still suffering from the throes of the "Gorbasms" of the 1980s. I hope that Western leaders and analysts have learned a lesson and do not consider Yeltsin, or any single individual, the "sole" arbiter of democratic and market reform in Russia. The fact is, however, that Boris Yeltsin is the first, and as yet only, democratically elected president of Russia. As such he should be supported as flag-bearer of democratic and market reforms.


Cohen's criticism of "Yeltsin's" dissolution of the Soviet Union are weak and smack of internationalism. Yes, the Soviet Union (and all of the Warsaw Pact bloc) was an intensely integrated economy. That does not mean, however, that it was an efficiently or productively integrated.


Is the fact that 150 million Russians were suddenly deprived of the "only nationhood they had known" an argument for not dissolving or reforming the union? The Russian empire, for hundreds of years, presided over most of what was to become known as the U.S.S.R. Of all the nationalities contained within those totalitarian regimes, the Russians are those least likely to be dealing with an identity crisis.


There is also doubt whether the government in its "attempt" to bring about a Western-style economy ever actually implemented shock therapy as it was used in Central Europe. Jeffrey Sachs and others have successfully argued this point. The fact is that the transition from the centrally controlled "state capitalism" to a market-driven economy requires political resolve, determination and endurance.


What Cohen seems to ignore is the reality of contemporary politics in the former Soviet Union. Democracy is not simply proclaimed in such an environment. The reality of the situation is that Yeltsin and his team inherited perhaps the most chaotic and unstable situation in post-World War II history. If the "ruling elite" has begun to fear its own people, is that not a good thing? (A little fear might go a long way within the Washington Beltway). Perhaps the Duma will begin to seriously address the issues of the day.


An "authoritarian constitution" is perhaps the only tool that has allowed constructive reform to continue. The power struggle between the government and the Supreme Soviet was gridlock at its worst. A stronger executive is what was necessary to overcome that. To this point this new arrangement has performed relatively well.


Anyone following the history of the "October events" should understand that Yeltsin paid a great price for the support of the military. This explains the careful treatment of General Alexander Lebed and others in the upper echelon of the military.


Such commentary as that offered by Cohen may be accepted by the American public, which counts on such experts in order to form an opinion. These events are not taking place in a country with a tradition of democratic thought. This is Russia with all of its Byzantine and authoritarian traditions. This must not be forgotten when formulating any type of analysis.


What is being witnessed is truly the cutting edge of societal evolution. Hopefully, those reading this publication do not depend on those living in ivory towers 6,000 miles away for their information on events that surround them.


David J. Horne


Moscow





A Jaywalker's Tale


Editor:


Why did the lawyer cross the road? Or rather, why did I cross the road on Wednesday September 22, 1994, at approximately 1:05 P.M.? Only minutes before, I had been enjoying myself in a fun-filled share sale and purchase meeting. Suddenly, I was sitting in a Moscow police station, able to say little more than "I don't understand," -- having been whisked away by two charming Russian policemen only 40 yards away from my office.


The police station contained a barred open cell containing nine inmates, two iron-doored cells containing an unidentifiable number of inmates (although from the noises there must have been at least two in each), a six-year-old boy, several police-type looking thugs (at least some things don't change from country to country) and the suited man in the corner (me).


The odd word of Russian I had learned didn't help. Instead, it seemed to give them the impression that I could actually converse with them, but did not want to. When asked (in Russian) whether I spoke Russian, I stupidly replied -- using my vast Russian vocabulary -- "Nyet" (which they, for some reason, found incredibly funny). It took me more than an hour to convince the policemen that I needed to let the office know where I was.


Fortunately, shortly thereafter a benevolent, bilingual secretary from my office came to my rescue, collected my passport and wrote something about me being very sorry for having crossed the road and promising never to do it again! Thus, having shared quarters and cigarettes with the other unfortunates, I was released to freedom.


Ironically, it was for the sake of the benevolent secretary, Ksenia, that I had crossed the road in the first place. She'd asked me to buy her some bananas.


Peter Lewis


Moscow