Yeltsin's orders could have meant the end of a party that for over 70 years had been the Soviet Union's guiding political force. Instead, a group of legislators decided to take him to court for what they called the unconstitutional banning of a viable social organization. and that is how Russia's young Constitutional Court -- itself only a year old -- found itself sifting through the party's history, as it has done for the past four months.
With lawyers for both sides of the case moving into closing arguments this week, the court should rule soon on whether Yeltsin acted constitutionally by banning the party's activities, and more importantly, whether the party itself is constitutional.
There is no question that the Communist Party has committed a multitude of crimes for which it must answer. Since July, the Constitutional Court has waded through mountains of archives documenting in minute detail some of the worst crimes known to the history of man.
But whether its fate should, and can, be determined by the Constitutional Court is another question. These are not criminal proceedings. No one is on trial. The Constitutional Court's task is to analyze the party through the lenses of the former Soviet and Russian constitutions.
But despite the judge's best efforts to stick to purely constitutional matters, the trial has become hopelessly political. On one side are hardline legislators who argue that a ban on the party flouts Russia's fledgling democracy, and that it sets a dangerous precedent for future political parties to be banned at the president's whim.
On the other are Yeltsin's lawyers, who argue that the party violated the constitution by dominating the government, and warn ominously that a decision against the president could lead to his impeachment.
The result is that the courtroom has failed to be much more than yet another loud forum for the tiring battle between Yeltsin's reform government and the conservative parliament that aims to lasso it.
The decision that the court is about to take could be the most important one it ever faces. It has serious consequences for the country's political stability and for the future of its legal system. No matter what verdict is reached, most important is that it be arrived at objectively. But the fiery political controversy surrounding the case has cast it thus far into doubt.
A Message from The Moscow Times:
Dear readers,
We are facing unprecedented challenges. Russia's Prosecutor General's Office has designated The Moscow Times as an "undesirable" organization, criminalizing our work and putting our staff at risk of prosecution. This follows our earlier unjust labeling as a "foreign agent."
These actions are direct attempts to silence independent journalism in Russia. The authorities claim our work "discredits the decisions of the Russian leadership." We see things differently: we strive to provide accurate, unbiased reporting on Russia.
We, the journalists of The Moscow Times, refuse to be silenced. But to continue our work, we need your help.
Your support, no matter how small, makes a world of difference. If you can, please support us monthly starting from just $2. It's quick to set up, and every contribution makes a significant impact.
By supporting The Moscow Times, you're defending open, independent journalism in the face of repression. Thank you for standing with us.
Remind me later.