International Viewpoint #181 • March 26, 1990
USSR / LITHUANIA can recall the president if he violates the constitution or laws of the USSR.
"Fourthly, the proposal starts from the principle that the powers of the president are defined by the constitution and laws.
"Fifthly the Congress of People's Deputies can change the orders of the president, and the constitutional tribunal of the the bureaucracy
USSR is responsible for verifying their legality."
The "first president," however, "will be elected from among several candidates by the Congress of People's Deputies of the
THE SECOND ROUND of the elections for the Lithuanian
Supreme Soviet, originally scheduled for March 10, was moved up a week, reportedly so that the new legislative body could issue a declaration of independence before Gorbachev could get himself elected as a constitutional czar empowered to guarantee the integrity of the"socialist fatherland." The supporters of Lithuanian independence won the race with
Gorbachev. The new Supreme Soviet declared the country an independent republic on Sunday, March 11 by a vote of 124 for, with six deputies abstaining. Gorbachev did not manage an equivalent show of strength.
GERRY FOLEY
N A CONGRESS of People's Deputies made up overwhelmingly of
Communist members, out of 2250,
495 voted against the Soviet chief,
372 did not vote at all and 54 cast invalid votes. In all, he got only about 61%.
Moreover, he barely managed to get the two-thirds majority needed to be elected of People's president by the Congress
Deputies. The Lithuanians did not take part, considering the USSR now a foreign state. The Latvian and Estonian representatives reportedly voted for Gorbachev in return for his pledge to discuss the independence of their countries. Clearly, a period has opened of high-risk political maneuvers.
Strong presidency replaces party's leading role
Gorbachev's ideological high priest made it quite clear what the role of the presidency was supposed to be. "V. Medvedev noted that it was no accident that the post of the presidency was being introduced at the same time as articles 6 and 7 of the constitution were being abolished,"
Pravda's parliamentary correspondents
G. Ovcharenko and Yu. Ursov wrote in the March 13 issue. "Indeed, without a strong presidential power capable of the party's abandonment of its action, present functions could lead to anarchy."
In his report on the proposal, vice chair of the Supreme Soviet A. I. Luk'ianov said: "In the discussion about the establishment of the post of president, the questhis sten did not conflict with the renova tion of our federation, the strengthening of the sovereignty of the Union republics and guarantees of soviet autonomy. This, of course, is a complex and problemridden process. But here also the presidential powers should play a positive, constructive role, in the first place in reinforcing the sovereignty of the republics, defending their territorial integrity and constitutional rights."
Luk'ianov went on attribute to the president basic powers to maintain the
Defending the territorial integrity of the USSR
"Among the primary tasks of the president will be guaranteeing the rights and freedoms of Soviet citizens. He will be obliged to take essential measures for defending the sovereignty of the USSR and the Union republics, the security and territorial integrity of the country and for implementing national-state system."
Luk'ianov stressed the limitations on the president. "First of all, the president is to be elected by universal suffrage and secret ballot [in the future]. In addition, in order to be elected a candidate must receive more than half of the votes cast, not only in the Union but, as a minimum, in a majority of the republics....
"Secondly, it is proposed to establish in the constitution that the same person cannot serve more than one term....
"Third, the proposal clearly stipulates that the president is responsible to the Congress of People's Deputies, which
USSR, the most representative, democratic forum that we have today."
In the Congress of People's Deputies, figures considered liberals such as Aleksandr Yakovlev spoke in favor in election by the Congress on the grounds that in the present conditions in the USSR a popular vote would be dangerous: "We must take account of the present crisis."
Gorbachev had to accept certain limitations on his proposed presidential powers. Nonetheless, the establishment of such an institution is particularly dangerous in time of crisis, when the rulers are waving the bogyman of anarchy, trying to exploit feelings of insecurity as pretexts for cracking down.
Given the fact that it was possible to reduce still further the shaky legitimacy of the presidency, it seems that the Latvian and Estonian delegates made a big mistake in deciding to vote for Gorbachev in return for promises.
National movements face difficult choices
The national democratic movements now face very difficult tactical choices. For example, the political articles in publications such as the Latvian and Estonian literary weeklies, Literatura un Maksla and Reede are now largely devoted to such problems - should the national democratic movements involve themselves in all-Union politics to support the progressives, since their fate depends on the victory of democracy in Russia too; or if they do that, do they risk losing their
"in the dark corridors of power"? Should they base their demands for independence on arguments about the illegality of the Soviet occupation and its results or on a more democratic legitimacy?
Moscow's reaction to the Lithuanian declaration, for instance, was that it was only a formality. But these "words" could very quickly lead to fundamental conflicts. For example, the Paris daily Libération reported March 15 that a law had been adopted by the Lithuanian parliament that citizens of the Lithuanian republic are no longer liable to serve in the Soviet army.
The question now is whether the Sajudis bloc is solid enough for a face off with Moscow, and whether it has a leadership with a strategy for winning such a