The Liberal Democratic Party of Russia, commonly known as the Liberal Democratic Party, and the Democratic Party Yabloko, the characteristic of which usually comes down to the definition of “social liberal, ” should essentially be similar. Just based on the "species affiliation." Meanwhile, it is difficult to find more dissimilar platforms, programs, and conceptual political positions in general. Of course, the liberal democratic party in the form in which it exists is not very liberal and not too democratic. But the paradox is still curious. Even Kozma Prutkov claimed that if “buffalo” is written on the elephant’s cage, then most likely his eyes are lying. True, he did not specify, regarding the inscription or regarding the inhabitant of the cell. The same problem with the modern political arena.
Party Political Views
The leaders of the Yabloko party traditionally position it as democratic, liberal and socially oriented. Such a strange cocktail of definitions is explained by the historical context and features of the national mentality. In many countries of the world, especially in conservative Europe, liberal and social parties strive for maximum socialization of the state, limiting the role of capital and private property in the country.
In Russia, the situation is the opposite. Here, in contrast to Europe, there is a reverse bias - the excessive regulatory function of the state, the absence of true freedom of enterprise, the absence of effective budget allocation practices at a fairly high level of taxes. That is why the liberal party of Russia should advocate a reduction in the tax burden and maximum support for entrepreneurs, while within the framework of the European political tradition these goals are just characteristic of conservative parties. The leaders of the Yabloko party are well aware of the duality of this position. And explain it by the historical and cultural context. High taxes in Europe are distributed efficiently. It is thanks to them that a high level of social protection of citizens is achieved. If at a high tax rate it is not possible to organize a decent work in the social sphere, then why bleed the business? Is it not more logical to direct these funds to its maintenance? Then, due to an increase in the number of objects of taxation, the total amount of budget revenues will increase. In Europe, this position is meaningless - everything is fine with private business there. In Russia, alas, not yet.
Liberalism in Russian
The leader of the Yabloko party, Sergei Mitrokhin, associates the party’s political activity with pre-revolutionary democratic traditions. The traditions of the Constituent Assembly, in his opinion, were an island of European democratic legality in a series of different types of dictatorships, from monarchist to proletarian. It is the Constituent Assembly - the first and only legitimate representative of the rule of law and liberalism in Russian political life. Alas, the attempt to replace monarchical rule with a democratic one ended in failure. The Constituent Assembly did not last long, its activities were ineffective, and fate was sad. The Yabloko party, which claims to be the cultural successor to the traditions of Russian democracy, has also not achieved much success in the political arena. Does this mean that democratic traditions are alien to Russia, or that Russian democrats tend to make mistakes that lead to tragic results for them and for the country? The issue is controversial, but in the context of time is extremely relevant.
Party election program
Now, probably, few already remember that the name of the party, in fact, is an abbreviation compiled by journalists from the names of the founders of Yabloko. Yavlinsky, Boldyrev, Lukin. These people have long been irrelevant to the party, the average person is likely to be able to identify only Yavlinsky from this list, but the party’s comic nickname accidentally born by the media really became her name.
Initially, it was not a party, but a bloc. It included the Republican, Social Democratic parties and the bloc was Christian Democratic, which now sounds even funny. In the 1993 elections, this association received almost 8% of the vote and, accordingly, a seat in the Duma. After that, Yabloko was a stable member of the Duma, although it could not boast of a large number of votes. And only in 2001 the Yabloko party was officially created. The party’s program, of course, has changed more than once since then, but the basic tenets have remained the same:
- personal integrity;
- civil rights and freedoms;
- judicial reform;
- reform of special services and law enforcement agencies: a professional army, the possibility of public control over the activities of government agencies and various law enforcement agencies;
- expanding the powers of the subjects of the federation, weakening the centralized power vertical in favor of local self-government;
- inviolability of private property;
- free competition, simplification of legislative mechanisms governing entrepreneurial activity, guarantee of consumer rights;
- modernization of industry and agriculture;
- rationalization of the country's infrastructures;
- adoption of measures aimed at reducing social disunity of the population, reducing the difference in income of the richest and poorest segments of the population;
- development of education, medicine and culture;
- state support of science;
- improving the environmental safety of industries, supporting environmentally friendly energy production methods.
These are the goals that the Yabloko party has traditionally stated in its election manifestos. The party program involves the fight against corruption, oligarchy and civil lawlessness. Fundamental points for the Yabloko party are the national, religious, racial tolerance and official condemnation of Stalin and Bolshevik repressions raised to the level of civic ideas. They consider the USSR a state that has emerged illegitimate, and believe that the continuity of official power can be restored only by recognizing the 1917 coup as illegal.
Real goals or regular promises?
Of course, all the points stated in the election program sound simply wonderful. The leaders of the Yabloko party say the necessary and right things, as, indeed, the representatives of any other party taken offhand. The question is what methods and due to what such promises should be realized. In this respect, the Yabloko party is no exception. The party program, summarized, sounds like another list of populist slogans. Alas, it is impossible to find out if this is so. The only way to evaluate the quality of the election program is to give the party the opportunity to implement it. Since Yabloko has not remained a very popular opposition movement, it’s impossible to talk about its ability or inability to realize what was promised. The party does not offer effective mechanisms for implementing all the wonderful things promised in the election program. But perhaps they have them. Who knows…
Practical Results of Party Activities Achieved
At the moment, the assessment of the political activity of the Yabloko party is possible only on the basis of the mathematical principle “from the contrary.” That is, to say that it was she who did the good, it is impossible simply because the party had no such possibility. But we can say against what dubious government initiatives the Yabloko party leaders have consistently opposed. Actually, this can also be considered a “quality criterion”, especially for a traditionally opposition party.
So, the leader of the Yabloko party, Yavlinsky, spoke extremely negatively about the privatization of the 90s. He believed that in the form in which this action was held, it was not only useless, but also harmful. Such a privatization scheme precluded the possibility of a fair redistribution of state property. The only thing that could be achieved by such economic reforms was to concentrate the controlling interest in the hands of enterprise managers and people involved in privatization at a level that can be called professional. As practice has shown, Yavlinsky was right. It was the privatization of the 90s that served as the launching pad for the emergence of the largest oligarchic structures of modern Russia. Many of the billions of dollars in people whose names are now widely known come from the privatization hype of those times.
Voice of the Mind
There are several very significant points in which the Yabloko party showed sanity and integrity. The leader of the organization advocated an alternative, mild form of post-perestroika economic reforms. The party considered the option of "shock therapy" unacceptable. Also, Yabloko did not share the position of the authorities regarding the conflict in Chechnya. The power method of resolving the issue they considered unsuccessful. Party representatives even tried to negotiate with the militants, trying to find peaceful solutions to the problem, but the initiative ended in failure. The direct decisions of the military leadership of that time were especially criticized. Yavlinsky even demanded the resignation of Grachev, the Minister of Defense, and Barsukov, the director of the FSB. Again, given the fact that subsequently many decisions of the country's leadership regarding the military conflict in Chechnya were found to be erroneous, the Yabloko party was once again right.
In May 1999, one of the forces that spoke out for impeachment to the president was the Yabloko party. The party leader, Yavlinsky, supported the initiative to dismiss Yeltsin. In addition to Chechnya and economic reforms, Yavlinsky strongly disagreed with the armed dispersal of the Supreme Council in 1993.
Rapid decline in popularity
If in 1999 the Yabloko party, headed by Yavlinsky himself, approved of Putin’s coming to power, by 2003 the position on this subject had changed dramatically. Either the new head of the country did not live up to his expectations, or the familiar “opposition reflex” worked, but one of the parties that voted for a vote of no confidence in the government was the Yabloko party. The leader of the 1990s, permanent Yavlinsky, again clearly outlined the position of the party, but, alas, it was already the 2000s. The tough political opposition led to the loss of voters, already in the 2007 elections, the Yabloko party did not get a seat in the Duma.
In the 2000s, many prominent politicians left the organization - Sergey Popov, Irina Yarovaya, Galina Khovanskaya, Ilya Yashin. Alexander Skobov and Andrei Piontkovsky entered Solidarity, this was another loss that the Yabloko party suffered. The Moscow branch of the organization lost Alexey Navalny in 2007. He was expelled from the party allegedly for statements of a nationalistic nature, although he assured himself that the problem was in criticizing the decisions made by the permanent leader of Yabloko Yavlinsky.
Such losses greatly weakened the party.
Authoritarian liberalism
Many of the departed noted that the party leadership of Yabloko has always been intolerant of the personal views of members of the organization. Oddly enough, one of the most important leaders of the democratic forces, Grigory Yavlinsky, turned out to be a very authoritarian leader. According to one of the Yabloko’s fighters who left the party, the once bright and promising organization turned into a way to satisfy one person’s unfulfilled ambitions.
It would not seem so paradoxical if Yabloko adhered to authoritarian political views. But for liberals and democrats, such a position seems very, very unexpected. The very essence of liberalism is respect for the opinions of others. Here the situation is simply anecdotal. “We respect your opinion as long as it is correct, and correct, as long as it coincides with the party line.”
Moreover, such unanimity in following authoritarian methods of leadership was shown by all the leaders of the Yabloko party. Photos of these people are habitually associated with slogans about freedom, equality and the right to expression. Do such addictions in the choice of leadership style mean that liberal theses are just a desire to occupy an empty political niche? Or, conversely, is it such a peculiar form of fidelity to ideals?
Party criticism
In addition to internal authoritarianism, the Yabloko party also has features traditionally popular with critics. So, often the organization is blamed for the inability to work in a team. Back in 1999, this was obvious. A logical ally in the election for Yabloko was the Union of Right Forces - SPS. And for some time these parties did act together, especially since Yavlinsky and Nemtsov were linked not only by common interests, but also by rather warm personal relations. But even this did not save the coalition from collapse.
In fairness, it is worth noting: not everyone believes that the party "Yabloko" was the culprit in the collapse of the political union. The leader Nemtsov showed himself in this situation as a very unreliable partner. When the election made it clear that the main opponent of the Union of Right Forces in the category of “democrats and liberals” was Yabloko, Nemtsov launched vigorous campaigning, including with the use of “black” PR. Yavlinsky was accused of collaborating with the Communist Party of the Russian Federation; the movement “Yabloko without Yavlinsky” arose, created exclusively to delay votes. But whoever was to blame for the collapse of the temporary union of Yabloko and the Union of Right Forces, the result was logical. Not a single party went to the Duma.
