Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T20:49:05.009Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Political Liberalism in Postcommunist Russia

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 August 2009

Marcia A. Weigle
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This article examines the discussion among Russian scholars and activists concerning the principles of political liberalism in Soviet Russia during the Gorbachev era (1985–1991) and in independent Russia during the Yeltsin presidency (1991-present). After a review of the emergence of liberalism during the Gorbachev years, the analysis focuses on three models of political liberalism which have emerged in the context of Russian postcommunist state construction. Each competing model of liberalism—statist, rule of law, and social—offers a different vision of the principles of political liberalism and the strategies necessary to institutionalize liberalism as the foundation of the postcommunist polity.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Review of Politics , Volume 58 , Issue 3 , Summer 1996 , pp. 469 - 504
Copyright
Copyright © University of Notre Dame 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Kliamkin, I. M., “The Paradoxes of Mass ‘Liberal’ Consciousness in Contemporary Russia,” Etika uspekha No. 2 (1994): 70–80Google Scholar as translated in Russian Politics and Law 33: 6 (1995): 21–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2 Rodichev, Fedor Ismailovich, Vospominaniia i ocherki o russkom liberalizme, edited and annotated and introduced by McKenzie, Kermit E. (Newtonville, MA: Oriental Research Publishers, 1983).Google Scholar

3 Berdaev, Nicolas, The Russian Idea (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1948).Google Scholar

4 Fischer, George, Russian Liberalism: From Gentry to Intelligentsia (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1958).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

5 Miliukov, Paul, Russia and its Crisis (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1906), pp. 433–534.Google Scholar

6 Bochkarev, V. N., Ocherk' istorii revoliutsionnago dvizheniia v Rossii XVII–XX v.v. (Moskva: Russkii Knizhnik', 1918).Google Scholar

7 Stepanski, A. D., Obshchestvennie organizatsii v Rossii na rubezhe XIX–XX vekov (Moskva: Moskovskii gosudarstvennii istoriko-arkhivnii institut, 1982), pp. 77–86.Google Scholar

8 Frank, Semyon, “De profundis,” in Iz glubiny, ed. Askol'dova, S. A. et al. (Moskva-Petrograd: Russkaia Mysl', 1918), p. 260Google Scholar. For the most comprehensive review of the formation of political parties in prerevolutionary Russia, see Emmons, Terence, The Formation of Political Parties and the First National Elections in Russia (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1983).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

9 The most interesting and widespread discussion in Russia is of the collection of essays published in 1909 as Vekhi(Landmarks)For the edited collection of essays and an Introduction on the impact of the essays on the current discussion of liberalism in Russia, see Vekhi (Landmarks): A Collection of Articles about the Russian Intelligentsia, trans, and ed. Shatz, Marshall S. and Zimmerman, Judith E. (Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe, 1994).Google Scholar

10 Space limitations preclude a systematic discussion of Russian political parties which claim to be liberal in orientation. The focus here on the content of Russian political liberalism and the context in which it has emerged is based on the argument that the Russian discussion of the principles of political liberalism must be understood as a prelude to any analysis of the development of liberal political parties.

11 For the content of the Democratic Union program, see Slavin, B. F., ed., “Proekt programmy partii Democraticheskii Soiuz, vynesennyi na obshchepartiinuiu diskussiiu III s'ezdom DS,” Noveishie politicheskie partii i techeniia SSSR (Moskva: Institut Teorii i Istorii Sotsializma TsK KPSS, 1991), pp. 565–639.Google Scholar

12 For an overview of the programs and orientation of the liberal-oriented parties which emerged after March 1990 see Kuksin, A. N. and Kodin, E. V., Politicheskie Partii Rossii, Dokumenty i Materialy (Smolensk: 1993).Google Scholar

13 DemRossiia's constituent parties in late 1991 were the Democratic Party of Russia, the Republican party of Russia, the Social Democratic party of Russia, the Russian Christian Democratic Movement, the Free Democratic party and the Constitutional Democrats.

14 Aver'ianov, Iu. I., ed., Politologiia: entsiklopedicheskii slovar' (Moskva: Moskovskogo Kommercheskogo Universiteta, 1993), p. 154.Google Scholar

15 Kydiukin, Pavel, “Nam ne khvataet liberalizma,” Panorama No. 15 (1991): 4.Google Scholar

16 Gozman, Leonid, “Liberaly nikogda ne pridut k vlasti,” Panorama No. 14 (1990).Google Scholar

17 Mareeva, E., “O krainostiakh neformal'nogo politicheskogo myshleniia ili surrogatakh demokratizma,” in Neformaly: Kto oni? Kyda zovut?, ed. Pecheneva, V. A. and V'iunitskii, V. I. (Moskva: Izdatel'stvo politicheskoi literatury, 1990), 70–88, pp. 74–77.Google Scholar

18 See, for example, Kosmarskii, V. et al. , “Attitudes of the Population toward the Prospect of Making the Transition to a Market,” The Soviet Review 32: 4 (1991): 23–30Google Scholar, as translated from the original, “Otnoshenie naseleniia k perspektive perekhode k rynku,” Voprosy ekonomiki No. 7 (1990): 56–59.Google Scholar

19 Kagarlitsky, Boris, The Disintegration of the Monolith, trans. Clarke, Renfrey (London: Verso, 1992)Google Scholar. Kagarlitsky, Boris, The Thinking Reed: Intellectuals and the Soviet State, 1917 to the Present, trans. Pearce, Brian (London: Verso, 1988).Google Scholar

20 See, for example, Fadin, A. V., “Kvadratura kruga ili zametki ob antinomiiakh liberal-etatizma,” in Sotsializm i demokratiia (Moskva: Institut ekonomiki mirovoi sotsialisticheskoi sistemy, 1989), pp. 112–24.Google Scholar

21 Migranian, A., “The Long Road to a European Home,” Soviet Law and Government (Winter 1990–1991), pp. 62–98Google Scholar, as translated from the original “Dolgii put'k evropeiskomu domu,” Novy mir No. 7 (1989): 166–84.Google Scholar For a warning of the danger of the absence of a strong middle class with liberal values in the context of Russian history, see Kliamkin, I. M., “Marksizm i stalinizm,” in Drama Obnovleniia: Perestroika, Glasnost', Demokratiia, Sotsializm, ed. Melkumiana, M. I. (Moskva: Progress, 1990), pp. 280–304.Google Scholar

22 Interview with M. Sal'yo, co-chair of the Free Democratic party, in Informatsionnyi Biulleten'; (Svobodnii demokraticheskaia partiia rossii), in Alexander Suetnov, Svobodnii demokraticheskaia partiia rossii, The Center for the Studies of New Political and Social Movements of the USSR, Archives of the Independent Press, (no date), p. 3.

23 Shakhnazarov, Georgii, “Tri samoopredeleniia rossiiskoi demokratii,” Izvestia (15 11 1991), p. 4.Google Scholar

24 Brudny, Yitzhak M., “The Heralds of Opposition to Perestroyka,” Soviet Economy 5: 2 (1989): 162–200.Google Scholar

25 For an analysis of the distinction between the French and German models, see Brubaker, Rogers, Citizenship and Nationhood in France and Germany (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1992)Google Scholar. For an analysis of the importance of the emergence of a state-building nationalism in postcommunist Russia, see Zaslavsky, Victor, “Nationalism and the Democratic Transition in Postcommunist Societies“ Daedalus 121: 2 (1992): 97–121.Google Scholar

26 Staniszkis, Jadwiga, The Dynamics of the Breakthrough in Eastern Europe (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991), pp. 215–48Google Scholar and Stokes, Gale, “The Social Origins of East European Politics,” in The Origins of Backwardness in Eastern Europe: Economics and Politics from the Middle Ages until the Early Twentieth Century, ed. Chirot, Daniel (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989), pp. 210–51.Google Scholar

27 Ruzavin, G. I., “Samoorganizatsiia i organizatsiia v razvitii obshchestva,” Voprosy Filosofii No. 8 (1995); 63–72.Google Scholar

28 The last liberal in Yeltsin's cabinet, Anatoli B. Chubais, the deputy prime minister, who authored Russia's privatization program, was forced out after the win by the Communist Party of the Russian Federation of a plurality of seats in Russia's December 1995 parliamentary elections. Stanley, Alessandra, “A Key Reformer Resigns in Russia,” New York Times, 17 01 1996, p. 1.Google Scholar

29 Karapetian, Liudvig and Ebzeev, Boris, “Budushchii za bezpartiinost'iu,” Nezavisimaia Gazeta, 11 02 1994, p. 8.Google Scholar

30 For example, the Majority party, founded in February 1994, calls itself the “party of the middle class,” though its main goal is the creation of a middle class and a rule of law state. Gleb Cherkasov and Yelena Tregubova, “Challenges: Majority Party Wants to Defend the Middle Class,” Sevodnya (16 February 1994), p. 2 as translated in The Current Digest of the Post-Soviet Press 46: 7 (1994): 17–18Google Scholar. Russia's Democratic Choice, founded in June 1994 by Yegor Gaidar, is “devoted to the principles of liberalism,” specifically “the full exercise of individual rights in the economic sphere and a strong state as a guarantor of those rights.” Gleb Cherkasov and Dmitry Kuznets, Sevodnya (15 June 1994), p. 2 as translated in The Current Digest of the post-Soviet Press 46: 23 (1994): 1.Google Scholar

31 See Kantor, B. K., “Meniaetsia li rossiiskaia mental'nost'?” in “Rossiiskaia mental'nost' (materialy ‘kruglogo stola’), Voprosy filosofii No. 1 (1994): 39–45, 44.Google Scholar

32 Akhiezer, Aleksandr, “Russian Liberalism in the Face of Crisis,” Russian Social Science Review 36: 2 (1995): 56–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar as translated from the original “Rossiiskii liberalizm pered litsom krizisa,” Obshchestvennye nauki i sovremmenost' No. 1 (1993): 61.Google Scholar

33 The dilemma was formulated as such in a Roundtable discussion sponsored by the journal Problems of Philosophy. See “Risk istoricheskogo vybora v Rossii (materialy ‘kruglogo stola’), Voprosy filosofii No. 5 (1994): 3.Google Scholar

34 Liberal theory in the west is at its own crossroads. See Wolfe, Christopher and Hittinger, John P., Liberalism at the Crossroads: An Introduction to Contemporary Liberal Political Theory and Its Critics (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 1994)Google Scholar; Lilla, Mark, “The Other Velvet Revolution: Continental Liberalism and its Discontents,” Daedalus 123: 2 (1994): 129–57.Google Scholar

35 Medushevskii, A. N., “Demokratiia i tiraniia v novoe i noveishee vremia,” Voprosy filosofii No. 10 (1993): 22.Google Scholar

36 Erygin, A. N., “Rossiiskii mentalitet i fenomen ‘zapadnichestva’ v russkoi kul'ture,” in “Rossiiskaia mental‘nost’ (materialy ‘kruglogo stola’),” Voprosy filosofii No. 1 (1994): 45–49, 48.Google Scholar

37 See Pantin, I. K., “Natsional'noi mentalitet i istoriia Rossii,” and comments in “Rossiiskaia mental'nost' (materialy ‘kruglogo stola’), pp. 35–36Google Scholar and Kantor, V. K. in the same roundtable discussion, p. 49–50Google Scholar, as well as Kosolapov, N. A., “Integrativnaia ideologiia dlia Rossii: intellectual'nyi i politicheskii vyzov,” Voprosy filosofii No. 1 (1994): 3–24.Google Scholar

38 For a discussion of the origins of the crisis, see Konstantinov, Vladimir, “Soblazn vlasti,” (an interview with sociologist Leonid Gordon) in Kuranti No. 5 (5 11 1991).Google Scholar

39 Goiman, V. I., “Zakonodatel'stvo rossiiskoi federatsii: teoreticheskie voprosy, problemy i perspektivy,” (krugly stol'),” Gosudarstvo i pravo No. 10 (1992): 3–25,14.Google Scholar

40 Troitskii, Nikolai, “Poslednii Sovet, ili, parlamentarizm s tiazhelimy posledstviiami,” Stolitsa No. 42 (1993).Google Scholar

41 Karapetian, Liudwig and Evzeev, Boris, “Budushchii bespartiinost'iu, inache, my obrechemy na revoliutsionnie potriaseniia,” Nezaoisimaia Gazeta (11 02 1994), p. 8.Google Scholar

42 Shkaratan, O. I. and Gurenko, E. N., “From Statocracy to the Evolution of Civil Society,” Soviet Sociology 30 (1991): 74.Google Scholar

43 Zdravomyslov, A. G., “Fundamental Problems of the Sociology of Conflict and the Dynamics of Mass Consciousness,” in Sociological Research 33:3 (1994): 54–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar, as translated from the original “Fundamental'nye problemy sotsiologii konflikta i dinamika massovogo soznania,” Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniia No. 8 (1993): 12–21.Google Scholar

44 See Shlapentokh, Vladimir, Public and Private life of the Soviet People (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989).Google Scholar

45 Kapustin, B. G., “Krizis tsennostei i perspektivy rossiiskogo liberalizma,” Liberalizm i demokratiia: opyt Zapada i perspektivy Rossii (Moskva: Mezhdunarodnyi fond sotsial'no-ekonomichesldkh i politologicheskikh issledovanii, 1992), pp. 23–35, 25.Google Scholar

46 Nazarov, M. M., “On the Distinctive Features of Political Consciousness in the Post-Perestroika Period,” Sociological Research 33:3 (1994): 68–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar, as translated from the original “Ob osobennostiakh politicheskogo soznanie v postperestroechnyi period,” Sotsblogicheskie issledomniia No. 8, (1993):37–46.Google Scholar

47 Glukhova, A. V., “Politicheskii tsentrizm v posttotalitarnom obshchestve: opyt i problemy,” Gosudarstvo i pravo No. 3 (1993): 102–12.Google Scholar

48 Medushevskii, “Demokratiia i tiraniia.” See Panarin, A. S., “Protsessy modernizatsii i mentalitet,” in “Rossiiskaia mental'nost',” Voprosy filosofii No. 1 (1994): 33–36Google Scholar for the argument against the relevance of liberalism in conditions of Russian modernization processes.

49 Chicherin argued that the political and economic principles of liberalism must be implemented by a strong and effective state which alone could protect Russia from external and internal disintegrating forces. See Erygin, , “Rossiiskii mentalitet i fenomen ‘zapadnichestva’ v russkoi kul'ture,’ pp. 48–49Google Scholar. For a discussion of Chicherin's conservative liberalism, see Walicki, Andrzej, A History of Russian Thought from the Enlightenment to Marxism (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1979)Google Scholar and Hamburg, G. M., Boris Chicherin and Early Russian Liberalism, 1828–1866 (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1992).Google Scholar

50 Kagarlitsky puts Kiva in the category of authoritarians along with Migranian; see Kagarlitsky, Boris, Disintegration of the Monolith, pp. 39–40Google Scholar. Kiva, however, has far less of a refined program than the former and emphasizes in general terms the need for immediate broad social support for political rule, a support characterized in positive terms as populism. See Kiva, Aleksei, “Perespektivy Rossiiskogo liberalizma,” Nezavisimaia Gazeta (11 05 1994), p. 5.Google Scholar

51 Kiva, , “Perspektivy rossiiskogo liberalizma,” p. 5.Google Scholar

52 See Migranian, Andranik, “Avtoritarnyi rezhim v Rossii: kakovy perspektivy” Nezavisimaia Gazeta (4 11 1993), p. 1Google Scholar. Here Migranian justifies in the aftermath of the October 1993 storming of the renegade Russian parliament his theoretical model, formulated in 1989, which suggested that a period of authoritarianism was inevitable as Russia traversed the path from totalitarianism to democracy.

53 Quoted in Teague, Elizabeth, “Russian Government Seeks ‘Social Partnership,‘” RFE/RL Research Report 1: 25 (19 06 1992): 17–18Google Scholar. Jadwiga Staniszkis records a similar comment made by a candidate for the position of minister of industry in Poland. T. Syryjczyk, speaking before a parliamentary confirmation committee, said, “I represent subjects that do not yet exist.” Quoted in Staniszkis, , Dynamics of the Breakthrough in Eastern Europe, p. 184.Google Scholar

54 Sheinis, Viktor, “Politicheskaia interliudiia: Rossiia mezhdy 93-m i 96-m godom,” Nezavisimaia Gazeta (13 07 1994), p. 5.Google Scholar

55 Goiman, , “Zakonodatel'stvo rossiiskoi federatsii: teoreticheskie voprosy, problemy i perspkektivy (krugly stol'),” p. 13.Google Scholar

56 Baranov, V. M., “Zakonodatel'stvo rossiiskoi federatsii: theoieticheskie voprosi, problemy i perspektivy (krugly stol'),” Gosudarstvo i pravo No. 10 (1992): 14–15.Google Scholar

57 Most representative of this view is Yakovlev, Alexander M., Striving for Law in a Lawless Land: Memoirs of a Russian Reformer (Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe, 1996).Google Scholar

58 “Zaiavlenie soveta liberal'noi fraktsii DPR,” unpublished mimeograph (8 February 1992).

59 This represents another historical theme of Russian liberalism. The liberal Russian intelligentsia in the nineteenth century was also fearful of releasing the “stikhiini” or destructive forces of the masses, one reason that they emphasized political liberties over broadly based social reforms.

60 These same moderate liberals, for example, opposed Yeltsin's military policies in Chechnya in the winter of 1994–1995 and criticized the president for not solving the crisis through negotiation and political means.

61 Zhukov, Boris, “'Okhota na ved'm strogo po litsenziiam,” Stolitsa No. 45 (1993): 1–3.Google Scholar

62 “Chto takoe demokratiia? Parlamentarizm i pravitel'stvenniia sistemaopredelenie i razgranichenie,” Polis No. 3 (1992): 38–45Google Scholar; Rormozer, G., “Puri liberalizma v Rossii,” Polis No. 1 (1993): 31–36.Google Scholar

63 See Kapustin, B. G., “Krizis tsennostei,” p. 35Google Scholar and Novikova, and Sizemskaia, , “Liberal Traditions” p. 50Google Scholar. For an analysis of Hessen's liberalism, see the chapter, “Sergius Hessen: A Post-Revolutionary Synthesis,” in Walicki, Andrzej, Legal Philosophies of Russian Liberalism (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1992), pp. 404–65.Google Scholar

64 Kapustin, , “Krizis tsennostei i perspektivy rossiiskogo liberalizma,” p. 33.Google Scholar

65 ibid.

66 For the programs of Russia's major political parties going into the December 1995 parliamentary elections, see McFaul, Michael and Petrov, Nikolai, eds., Previewing Russia's 1995 Parliamentary Elections (Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1995).Google Scholar

67 “[That segment of the ruling class that received nonlabor incomes] ⃛ had to find legal forms for the commercial exploitation of the state sector of the economy.” Kochetov, A. N., “Sources of the ‘New’ Social Structure,” Sociological Research 33:3 (1994): 84–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar, as translated from the original “Istoki ‘novoi’ sotsial'noi struktury,” Svobodnaia Mysl' No. 9 (1993): 66–73.Google Scholar

68 ibid.

69 Savateyeva, Irina, Izvestia (18 05 1994), p. 2Google Scholar, translated as “About Those Who Rule Us,” in Current Digest of the Post-Soviet Press 46: 20 (1994) 8–9.Google Scholar

70 Pastukhov, V.B., “Stanovlenie rossiiskoi gosudarstvennosti i konstitutsionnyi protsess: politologicheskii aspekt,” Gosudarstvo i pravo No. 2 (1993), 89–96, pp. 94–95.Google Scholar

71 Kiva, Aleksei, “Perspektivy rossiiskogo liberalizma,” p. 5.Google Scholar

72 Kagarlitsky, Disintegration of the Monolith, passim.

73 Whitefield, Stephen and Evans, Geoffrey, “The Russian Election of 1993: Public Opinion and the Transition Experience,” Post-Soviet Affairs 10:1 (1994): 38–60.Google Scholar

74 The first wave was based on the principles of a liberal monarchy and began with the reforms of Catherine the Great and ended with the failure of the Decembrists in 1825. The second wave, comprised of the fight for political rights, lasted from the great reforms of 1861 to the 1890s. The third wave, in which classical liberalism was greatly influenced by socialist activism, lasted fom the 1890s until 1917. The fourth wave began in the first years of Russian sovereignty from the USSR. Novikova, Lidiia and Sizemskaia, Irina, “Liberal Traditions in the Cultural-Historical Experience of Russia,” Russian Studies in Philosophy 33:3 (1994–1995): 6–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar, translated from “Liberal'nye traditsii v kul'turno-istoricheskom opyte Rossii,” Svobodnaia Mysl' No. 15 (1993): 67–80.Google Scholar

75 ibid., p. 18.

76 Akhiezer, Aleksandr, “Russian Liberalism in the Face of Crisis,” pp. 56–70.Google Scholar

77 ibid., p. 57.

78 Rokkan, Stein, “Dimensions of State Formation and Nation-Building,” in Tilly, Charles, ed., The Formation of National States in Western Europe (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1975), pp. 562–601Google Scholar; McFaul, Michael, “State Power, Institutional Change, and the Politics of Privatization in Russia,” World Politics 47 (1995): 210–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

79 Chuprinin, Sergei, “Choice. Notes of a Russian Liberal: The Experience of Self-Identification,” Russian Social Science Review 36: 1 (1995): 58–83, 66–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar, as translated from the original, “Vybor. Zametki russkogo liberala: opyt samoidentifikatsii,” Znamia No. 7 (1993): 174–89Google Scholar; Gordon, Leonid, “Russia at the Crossroads,” Government and Opposition 30: 1 (1995): 3–25, 23CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Medushevskii, A. N., “Demokratiia i tiraniia,” 13–15.Google Scholar

80 Akhiezer, , “Russian Liberalism in the Face of Crisis,” pp. 65–69.Google Scholar

81 Medushevskii, , “Demokratiia i tiraniia,” p. 23.Google Scholar

82 Gordon, , “Russia at the Crossroads,” p. 23.Google Scholar

83 One example of the many accusations is in Mironov, Vladimir, “Tol'ko rossiiskie sotsial-demokraty mogut prevzoiti po politicheskoi sile KPRF,” Nezavisimaia Gazeta, 16 12 1995, pp. 1–2.Google Scholar

84 Medushevskii, “Demokratiia i tiraniia”; Gordon, “Russia at the Crossroads”; Chuprinin, “Choice, Notes of a Russian Liberal.”

85 Already in 1990, Dahrendorf, Ralf, in Reflections on the Revolution in Europe (New York: Random House, 1990)Google Scholar, hinted that political leadership must provide the critical foundation for democratization in East Central Europe and the then-USSR until that time when a constitution and civil society could be institutionalized. See pp. 98–99.

86 See Zubov, A. B. and Kolosov, V. A., “What Is Russia Seeking? Value Orientations of Russian Voters, 12 12 1993, Russian Social Science Review 37: 1 (1996): 3–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar, as translated from the original, “Chto ishchet Rossiia? Tsennostnye orientatsii rossiiskikh izbiratelei 12 dekabria 1993 goda,” Polis No. 1 (1994): 93–112.Google Scholar

87 Whitefield and Evans, “The Russian Election of 1993”; Hough, Jerry F., “The Russian Election of 1993: Public Attitudes Toward Economic Reform and Democratization,” Post-Soviet Affairs, 10: 1 (1994): 1–37Google Scholar; Urban, Michael, “December 1993 as a Replication of Late-Soviet Electoral Practices,” Post-Soviet Affairs 10: 2 (1994): 127–58.Google Scholar

88 See Remington, Thomas F. and Smith, Steven S., “The Development of Parliamentary Parties in Russia,” Legislative Studies Quarterly 20:4(1995):457–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

89 For details of the privatization process, see Rutland, Peter, “A Twisted Path toward a Market Economy,” Transition (15 02 1995), pp. 12–18.Google Scholar

90 Open Media Research Institute, Daily Digest No. 249 (27 12 1995), p. 2.Google Scholar

91 See the interview with Constitutional Court judge Marat V. Baglai by Katanian, Konstantin, “Dva goda nazad nachala deistvovat' rossiiskaia konstitutsiia,” Nezavisimaia Gazeta, 25 12 1995, p. 2.Google Scholar

92 Kovalev, Sergei, “A Letter of Resignation,” New York Review of Books, 29 02 1996, pp. 29–30Google Scholar as translated from Izvestia (24 January 1996).

93 Kuznets, Dmitry, “Positions: The Fate of the Constitution,” Sevodnya (27 11 1993), p. 2Google Scholar, as translated in The Current Digest of the Post-Soviet Press 45: 48 (1993): 4–6.Google Scholar

94 The most likely liberal candidate for this position going into the December 1995 Russian parliamentary elections was Grigorii Yavlinski, leader of the liberal Yabloko party. The poor showing of the party in the elections, however, {Yabloko received 45 seats in the 450 seat Duma, as compared to the 158 seats of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation), does not bode well for the liberals.

95 Chuprinin, , “Choice: Notes of a Russian Liberal”p. 71.Google Scholar