The media and "democracy"
RARELY has press coverage of a foreign country been so distorted as the reporting on the events unleashed by Yeltsin's banning of parliament on
21 September. A mass of information has been fed to the public, but almost always within the framework of a single, simple message: the fight is between the bold reformer-democrat Yeltsin and the "hard-line"
International Viewpoint #250 November 1993
For several years before there was even a hint of confrontation between
Yeltsin and the Parliament, Russian "democrats" (that is, liberals), openly argued that "market reform" (that is, capitalist restoration),
Parliament, "a strange mixture of Communists and ultra-nationalists".
would require an authoritarian political
The beauty of "big lie" propaganda is that it takes only a few words to regime. This is because such a transition tell, but many words to refute. However, readers interested in digging entails a serious decline in living stanout the truth, should find the following facts of use.
dards for the vast majority of the people, who would not voluntarily support such sacrifices for an illusive "radiant future".
DAVID MANDEL — Montreal, 18 October 1993
The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development now forecasts that it will take thirty-five years for income in
Eastern Europe to reach even half the level of average Western incomes.! This represents a drastic drop in relative real incomes from the time of the Communist regimes. Nonetheless, our media portrayed the Parliament's resistance to
Yeltsin's policies (the Parliament was opposed to "shock therapy", not to capitalist restoration in principle) as "reactionary" and "Communist".
Mass unemployment
• According to the London Financial Times, the crushing of Parliament has opened the way to accelerated privatisation as well as to a severely restrictive budgetary policy that will cause mass unemployment. A recent Western study of Russian public opinion concluded that Yeltsin has failed to "sell" the idea that privatisation would benefit the majority of the people. Seventy-two percent have a negative view of privatisation of large state enterprises.?
• Yeltsin has shut down the entire opposition press, except for one newspaper. He has banned the two largest political parties, which leaves only the pro-
Yeltsin rightwing of the political spectrum to participate in any elections. The trade unions, most of which opposed
Yeltsin's policies, have been warned not to participate in the elections under pain of losing automatic dues checkoff and possibly worse. (They lost their control of social security on the day following the decree dissolving Parliament.)
• Yeltsin will decide the rules under which a new Parliament will be elected and what powers it will have. Moreover, the new Parliament will have before it the recent example of its predecessor, crushed by tanks for showing too much independence. (The Canadian government rushed to offer observers for the proposed elections, thus legitimising Yeltsin's coup d'etat under the guise of a commitment to democracy.)
• The Parliament is portrayed as a holdover from the Communist regime, even though it was elected in 1990 under the same rules as Yeltsin a year later and even though it initially suppor-
• The press tells us that Yeltsin had no choice but to put down by force the "Communist revolt". According to President Clinton, "It is clear that the opposition started the conflict and President Yeltsin had no other alternative but to try to restore order." We may never know the true origins of the violence preceding Yeltsin's armed attack on Parliament. (A few minutes before his arrest, Ruslan Khasbulatov, parliamentary chair, stated: "We never ordered the television attack. This was pure provocation... All this was organised to discourage our sympathisers. "3) But it was Yeltsin who tore up the Constitution and placed the Parliament under armed siege, issuing ultimatum after ultimatum. Under the Communist Gorbachev, who faced growing political oppo sition to which he finally succumbed, there were no political deaths in Moscow. But at least 127 people were killed and 600 wounded in the recent battle for the Parliament building.4 This was a one-sided battle of tanks and heavy machine guns versus light automatic weapons (there were many unarmed people in the Parliament building, including women and adolescents) against an opposition that already posed no threat to Yeltsin's absolute rule. It was a show of ferocious violence meant to serve as a warning to others and so allow a controlled, partial restoration of the trappings of electoral democracy.
### Crosshead
• For the last several centuries, Russia has lived under absolutist regimes, first the Tsar and then the Stalinists. The sorry state to which these "strong" regimes brought Russia is part of the historical record. Yet Yeltsin's crushing of Parliament and the establishment of a "strong presidential regime" is hailed by our media (and "democratic" politicians) as exactly the medicine for what ails Russia.
• In the Russian civil-war of 191821, the capitalist powers intervened on the side of the Whites, led by monarchist generals. Eighty years later, the capitalist powers are again intervening in support of anti-democratic forces. The goal is the same: to shore-up capitalism and keep Russia open for business. *
1. Financial Times, 22 September 1993
2. Ibid, 6 & 7 October 1993
3. British Guardian Weekly, 10 October 1993
4. Montreal Gazette. 6 October 1993
----- pull-quotes on this page -----
RUSSIA
----- photo credits and running heads -----
7