Activists grapple with next stage of democracy

Press, 30 December 1988, Page 17

Activists grapple with next stage of democracy

FRENZY IS proceeding in the Soviet Union, the first legal political pressure groups of modern times, so-called Informal Groups, are popping up faster than Stalin’s credibility is going down. Some 30,000 Informal Groups have been formed since Gorbachev’s perestroika (restructuring) allowed them overground in 1985, but now activists are struggling with the next stage of democracy.

Idealism must be turned into something practical but at the same time everyone should have the chance to say their piece. As would be expected after nearly 70 years of imposed single-ideology expression, the novelty of Informal Groups has brought' a massive range of ideas and goals, some more practical than others. The lunatic fringe is no less prevalent in the Soviet Union than in the West. The groups fill the same role as New Zealand’s multitude of sports clubs, hobby groups, musical fan clubs, ecological and cultural movements, and, of course, political pressure groups. But while group activities vary, all have a vested interest in political reform as this will dictate whether they survive and grow or remain merely superficial and ineffective. Multi-candidate elections to local Soviets (councils) are becoming a reality, and group leaders face, the challenge of putting up their own credible candidates.

To be successful they must bind an enormous number of ideologies into a movement, or movements, with enough focus and cohesion to gain public support. Achieving such organisation will not be easy given the odd status of informal groups at present. Legality has not necessarily brought with it all embracing acceptance by the State.

“Informal” is somewhat of a misnomer by Western standards. The groups must be

registered with local authorities, and have stated goals and membership lists. Tempering the new freedom of speech are laws on public gatherings, adopted in July by the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet.

Originally introduced as Temporary Rules late last year the regulations required groups to apply for permission to hold public meetings seven days in advance. As one group member said, “In Paraguay it is 10 days, in Chile it is five days, so we are in between.” Branded anti-constitutional by activists, the rules were enforced to differing degrees by local authorities around the country but the June decision makes them mandatory . . . with the application time extended to 10 days. Applications can be declined if authorities consider demonstrations are anti-constitutional or may threaten public order. Uniting informal groups is made even more difficult by the intense distrust in some quarters/Of any organisational structure even closely resembling the dreaded bureaucracy blamed for the ills of the country. Some such structure is essential, however, for effective organisation. There are also a great number of viewpoints to consider. Some groups feel perestroika is going too slowly, some feel it is the wrong tack entirely. Groups also differ on their attitude to authorities, some avoiding any links while others are willing to work with “progressive” Communist Party members. Such differences of opinion are not surprising considering the membership of the groups. Obshchina (Community), for instance, has a base of somewhat idealistic students while many members of pro-peres-troika clubs were active during the Khrushchev years, but became disillusioned and have only returned to the fray with

perestroika. Attempts so far to organise the more politically minded Informal Groups into a united movement centre on about four “federations,” each loosely uniting a comparatively small number of groups. The Federation of Socialist Social Clubs, for instance, was formed last year with the stated aim of “supporting perestroika.” It claims to represent between 30 and 50 informal groups across the Soviet Union, not a lot when the number of groups in existence is considered.

To fight elections something more structured is required. The Moscow People’s Front in support of perestroika represents about 25 informal groups and appears to be leading the way to a more organised movement. Its first public meeting in July (officially authorised) formed plans to put up candidates and work towards election of the head of State directly by the people. At present a multi-tiered system operates whereby voters elect voters. Achieving legal democracy

is the primary aim of the People’s Front, the leader, Nikolai Dergunov, said. “We must prove we are ready for democracy. Our people are not used to the democratic forms that exist in the West,” he said. “We want to organise the public, to wake up the people of this country.” While the ideas are sound, putting them into practice will be a challenge. At a demonstration. Obshchina (Community) member, Sergei Ilyin, whom we met the day before, called us aside for

a quiet chat. He questioned the credibility of the People’s Front, claiming it was not representative enough to call itself a “People’s Front.” Many of its aligned groups had just three or four members, he said. He also questioned why the People’s Front had been permitted to hold a demonstration when countless applications from other groups had been turned down.

In true Western fashion, there may also be the whiff of a scandal around the People’s Front.

“They want to organise their own good bureaucracy — they have even set up the Security Forces of the People’s Front,” Ilyin said sarcastically. “The head of security is a member of Memory.” The existence of Memory, yet another informal group, highlights what has always been democracy’s biggest problem — enter the lunatic fringe.

Fascists in the Soviet Union? It may seem incredible after the ravages caused the country by Hitler’s regime, but Memory seems to fit the bill. The group holds extreme nationalistic, even Stalinistic views, including anti-Semitic philosophies, and is reputed to have a 30,000-strong membership across the country. While not advertising itself as members of the hard Right, mention of the group to other Informal Groups brought a roll of the eyes and immediate dissociation.

And the plot thickens: Ilyin also claimed to have seen the Chief of Security in close discussion with an officer in the militia (police) and a high-up member of the Komsomol (Young Communists’ League). “Maybe I am wrong, but it looks suspicious,” he said. Perhaps some level of “Informal” envy is at work as Community was one of the foundation members of the Federation of Socialist Social Clubs.

They were involved in the initial formation of the People’s Front but disagreed with plans to organise the movement from the top, not on the basis of the "seriousness” or membership numbers of the groups involved. They feel this is more in line with the activity of a political party than a public movement. Following the adoption of the Temporary Rules, the group has abandoned public demonstrations, claiming they are purely .publicity generating and a risk to members. The issue was to be discussed at a congress.

Community was one of many Informal Groups to take on politics after beginning life as an ecological group concerned with the preservation of historic buildings. A spokesman, Vladimir Grubolnikov, has grave doubts about perestroika. “Perestroika is just a slogan; what it implies is another question. If it implies a rise in prices (planned for next year) it is not a solution for social problems; it is a way which leads to catastrophe. "Recently, Gorbachev said, in one of the factories, that perestroika implies better and more work. We don't think that should be the main point in perestroika. “Through perestroika we should understand who we work for and why we work. We think the leadership itself cannot give the guidance for serious changes without the pressure from beneath.”

This “revolution from below” to support Gorbachev’s oft-mentioned revolution from above is a central issue to many informal groups. As in the West, the number of actual activists, though vocal, probably represents a small percentage of the population.

While many groups already run non-official bulletins, a freeing up of publishing laws would greatly assist in uniting groups and making the public aware of issues.

To get the people’s support, however, a movement unified on at least basic issues is required. Is it possible? The general consensus of activists seems to be that it is.

Inevitably, a new generation of groups will develop in the future with a more pragmatic approach to achieving their goals.

It should be remembered that what is happening now in the Soviet Union, has been allowed to develop naturally over decades in the West.