Soviets"
HOW QUICKLY political debate can deepen in the Soviet Union once there is even a small opening is indicated by the following article. It is from the October 6, 1987, issue of Merkury, the journal of the coordinating committee of the independent social clubs in Leningrad.
The clubs are the first legal independent organizations to exist since the establishment of the bureaucratic regime. The policy of glasnost and perestroika has obliged the bureaucracy to tolerate them. [For an extensive account of the clubs, see /V 129, November 9, 1987.]
Since the possibilities for political discussion have been so limited in the USSR, it is almost inevitable that the first attempts will reflect some illusions. Nonetheless, the following article includes a radical challenge to the rule of the bureaucracy and some of the ideological pretences that have been used to justify it.
N RECENT ELECTIONS for the local
Soviets of People's Deputies, more than one candidate ran in certain districts.
This is the first experiment for many decades to try to find a solution to the impasse represented by a facade that all is well and voters' indifference.
Today, at election times there is no mobilization by the voters. They show no interest in those "elected," they are not 10 familiar with the backgrounds of the candidates, they do not try to find out what the International Viewpoint #139 • April 18, 1988 deputies elected do. Most citizens see the very procedure of electing a single candidate as meaningless — an understandable
It is no accident that in a large number of countries in the same situation, it is usual not to hold elections. This saves a lot of money and time. By way of example, I might quote a TASS [Soviet press agency] dispatch of August 22, 1987, which said "Shankar Dayal Sharma was proclaimed president of India before the elections (which were scheduled for September 7), because he proved to be the only candidate
You have to admit that is an argument! But arguments based on reason are not acwhen a bureaucratic apparatus needs an appearance of democracy to cover up governmental administrative procedures. The media then have to repeat that participating in this sort of election is performing "a civic duty." And people go to the polis, because tradition demands it, because everyone does it, because they do not see the harm done to them indirectly by this
But this is shortsighted. In fact, by our votes we help the bureaucracy place its preferred candidates in the Soviets, who remain docile and silent, regardless of the disastrous consequences of incompetent management by these functionaries, such as pollution of the environment, chronic shortages of goods or low productivity.
Which of us remembers the name of the candidates we voted for? What useful thing have they done as deputies? Who has turned to them for help? Everyone knows that to settle a problem, you have to go to see the executive committee functionary and not deputies, who themselves are unwelcome visitors for such functionaries.
And what about the role of the Supreme Soviet deputies? Twice a year, in short sessions they in practice rubber-stamp the bills prepared by the bureaucracy in the ministries and cabinets. In form, the system in force is parliamentary — that is, the voters elect their deputies directly on a territorial basis. But the essential difference from bourgeois parliamentarianism (leaving aside the recent experiment with multiple candidates) is that this system does not accept a battle of ideas, confrontations of
In imposing a new constitution in 1936, the bureaucracy sought to assure total control by the apparatus over promotion of people useful to it and to guarantee their election to the Soviets. It succeeded totally.
Today, as a means of challenging the existing system, many citizens have chosen to refuse to vote. This is a vain illusion! The boycotting of the elections by a growing number of voters does not appear in the figures released on the elections. No! The fight for democratization will be victorious only when broad layers of society realize the need for a radical reform of the electoral system and of the functioning of the representative bodies!
Our slogan must be "Back to the Republic of the Soviets!" Attempting to introduce multi-candidate elections, with a contest over the positions and effectiveness of the candidates in the election campaign, deprives the bureaucratic apparatus of its 100 per cent control. But for the moment, it will not change fundamentally the position of the deputies in the Soviets.
The work of the Soviets after the revolution
Let us look that the experience of the work of the Soviets in the first years following the revolution. Such a retrospective is useful, in particular since it will enable some readers to discover that the present system of representative bodies does not have a whole lot in common with the Republic of the Soviets established in 1917.
For decades, all information about the system of Soviets that functioned up until the adoption of the "Stalin Constitution" has been wiped out of the collective memo ry. Today, the statement by Lenin that the Republic of Soviets was better and more democratic than any bourgeois republic fig ures in every civic manual. But what this superiority might consist of is absolutely incomprehensible.
The first constitution of the USSR provided for a system of elections of Soviets at different levels. The deputies were elected in the workplaces. In this way, only people who knew the candidates through their work and could assess their political qualities in production or in their work in a grass-roots Soviet had the right to vote. This was what distinguished the Republic of the Soviets in a positive way from bourgeois republics, where the merits of one hopeful or another are advertised like a brand of soap or toothpaste, and where the political baggage of candidates is less important than how photogenic they are.
Only peasants, because of the specific nature of their work, voted on the higher, territorial level. That is, in the provinces and
republics, a somewhat different principle was applied. Congresses of Soviets were called, which elected standing bodies, the provincial executive committees and the central executive committee of the Union.
In the Republic of the Soviets, deputies were delegates. If their work in the Soviets did not correspond to the position of the majority of the members of the collectives that elected them, they immediately resigned. But, on the other hand, in debates and conflicts they felt strongly supported by their collectives.
The top levels of the pyramid
The system of election by levels made it difficult to "parachute" people into the top levels of the pyramid, because those who elected the delegates knew them quite well personally. It kept "useful" people from turning up in the Central Executive Committee, and for this reason was not to the liking of Stalin and his entourage. They
It has to be said, however, that the system of the Soviets had certain disadvantages. At the lower levels of the hierarchy, it enabled a majority of supporters of one political position or another to deprive the minority of any representation in the higher Soviet or Congress of Soviets. To totally control the composition of a delegation, it was enough to get 51 percent of the vote. Nonetheless, in the first years of Soviet power, the deputies not abuse this possibility, and all parties present in the Soviets were represented in the Central Executive
Today, a Republic of Soviets has been maintained and undergone creative evolution only in Yugoslavia. In that country, the citizens elect delegates on three levels — at their workplaces, in their localities (on a
"local associations") and as members of socio-political organizations. The enterprise collectives, local associations and local soviets send not isolated deputies, but representative delegations to the higher Soviets, which contain a larger number of members than there are seats.
Although, for historical reasons, there is only one party in Yugoslavia, the Union of Communists, the third level of elections in principle offers a possibility for a confrontation among the platforms of different political parties and mass organizations when the ways forward for developing the socialist society are being discussed. It makes it possible, in fact, to elect well-known political figures or sociologists, prominent researchers, without their having through the system of elections at different levels. It is quite normal to have renowned researchers in higher bodies of the state, where they can be useful, without their having to go through a purgatory in a local
The presence in the representative bodies of deputies elected by producers, consumers and socio-political organizations makes it possible to solve the problem of a balanced representation of various interests. It would be an error to think that one or another industrial group influencing the domestic politics of a country is exclusively a feature of bourgeois parliamentary republics. In our country, for a long time, we have been fighting unsuccessfully against this kind of lobby, which goes by another name, "the interests of such and such a
The delegates to the Yugoslav Soviets are very active. They discuss scrupulously proposed laws and exercise strict supervision over the work of the executive bodies. As proof of this, bills are quite often rejected and submitted several times for amendment. In the present state of things, that situation is simply inconceivable in our Su-
It should not be thought, however, that through the system of Soviets based on delegations Yugoslavia has entirely solved the problem of bureaucracy, that bureaucracy has been eliminated from the state bodies. As the Yugoslav comrades write, because of a series of defects in the system, the influence of the bureaucracy and the technocracy has been maintained, especially at the republic level. This is primarily due to the fact that the self-management collectives have gained the right to determine for themselves the ratio between accumulation and consumption. This has led to a shortage of jobs and a backlog in investment, which some members of executive bodies have not failed to exploit in a selfinterested way.
Let us suppose, anyway, that in the course of the restructuring of the electoral system, we finally get active Soviets. How, then, should they establish their relations with the executive bodies in order to put an end to the bureaucracy that corrupts them?
On several occasions and in different forms, there have been proposals to extend the authority of the standing committees of the Soviets up to the point of endowing
USSR them with all the functions of executive bodies. Sverdlov best put this idea into practice in organizing the work of the All-Russian Executive Committee. Of course, transforming the deputies from being subjects [that is, decision makers] removed from the actual management of affairs, to subjects responsible for the management of affairs is attractive, and corresponds to Lenin's idea of transforming the Soviets into "working bodies."
But how can this be reconciled with the desire not to cut the deputies off for too long from the collectives from which they come? How can the requirement of professionalism for members of the executive be met? In fact, the makeup of the body of deputies changes after very election. And even though most of them are worthy and respectable people, able to judge what is good or bad for the country, they are far from all able and qualified to take responsibility for management or propose alterna-
Another approach is necessary, based on a confrontation between the positions of the standing committees of the Soviets and groups of specialists. The relations between the two have to be of the same order as those that prevail between an editorial board of a magazine and the writers. Members of an editorial board cannot write all the articles in an issue; they can only read and judge the articles, and choose the best of those offered. The same thing applies
Measures against the bureaucracy
The standing committees have to commission contributions, and the groups of specialists must become temporary enterprise collectives. Obviously, people are not used to that. But imagine for a minute that the standing committee on public health opens up a competition and makes interenterprise accords with groups of specialists on perfecting programs for developing the network of medical establishments. The specialists could themselves determine the composition of their groups and would not leave room for the kowtowing to the bureaucracy that presently prevails in the ministries and scientific research institutes.
Having groups of specialists perform the functions of executive bodies is an effective measure against bureaucracy. It is one of the most promising methods for breaking the monopoly of decision-making power held by the ministerial cabinets.
It seems to us that the consistent advocates of democratizing our society today must propagate among their fellow citizens the idea of representation, the idea of a Republic of the Soviets in improved versions. And to this effect, they must utilize all possible means — public actions, the periodical press or artistic expression. This idea must take hold among the masses, and then 11 it will become a force. * April 18, 1988 • #139 International Viewpoint
"The biggest working class and popular
PORTUGAL was organizing an assembly of workers in a small footwear factory in the Aveiro district.
The main public transport companies tried to force their workers to provide a "minimal service," which was exactly the service that the company normally providaction since 1975"
ed. That is, you have a right to strike as long as you don't use it.