Even the most corrupt and mendacious and cynical of politicians remain--almost always--the heroes of their own story, and there remains a residual commitment to their ideology. I think the KPRF could have allied with the oligarchs in 1996, but only by telling themselves that it was a temporary, tactical alliance which they would break as soon as was practical. Were I an oligarch allied the KPRF at the start of 1997, I would be very, very nervous... --------- I ya pishu:
Actually, in Ukraine the CP has an alliance with some of the Ukrainian oligarchy.
The KPRF and Yeltsin weren't the only political figures involved in the 1996 elections. The oligarchs barred Gorbachev from appearing in their media outlets, and a mass campaign to scare people into thinking some red-brown dictatorship would be imposed if either the KPRF or Zhirinovsky won. (Something which is pretty inlikely -- and by the way, Zhirinovsky is not a red-brown thug. He is a clown -- he is comic reflief. He was actually created by Yeltsin to split the opposition. He's also damn smart: He has a 170 IQ.)
Yavlinsky was completely out of the running because he's not corrupt.
BTW, below is a bit of an interview with Yavlinsky in which he I think gives a nice shorthand description of Putin's actual political weakness.
Chris Doss The Russia Journal ---------------------------
Moskovskiye Novosti May 28, 2002 AT HOME AMONG FRIENDS Grigory Yavlinsky is very much like his electorate. This is his vice. But then, the same holds true about his electorate. By Lyudmila TELEN
.....
Q: You were intolerant of Boris Yeltsin but you have become softer with Putin.
Yavlinsky: Putin is not Yeltsin. As for my stand, here it is: I think the "manageable democracy" created in this country is dangerous and unacceptable.
Q: What do you mean by that?
Yavlinsky: The elections, courts and press are all ruled from the same room. And it is not even president Putin who sits in that room.
Q: Who then? The bad boyars again, who lie to the good tsar?
Yavlinsky: This formula was used under Yeltsin at a time when today's system was being created. And President Putin has completed this system.
Q: Why is it dangerous?
Yavlinsky: The main danger is that if fascists come to this room used to rule the people and replace "the family," we will witness fascism in the country; if nationalists come, we will face nationalism, and if militarists come, we will have militarism. These three institutes - the electoral system, the press and courts, if they are controlled from the same room - are enough to lead the country in any direction.
Q: It proceeds from your statement that the president means absolutely nothing in this country.
Yavlinsky: It proceeds from my words that the power system was built to enable the people pulling the strings to act contrary to the will of the president. Take the Putin-Bush meeting. It ended with a declaration and agreements on military-political cooperation with the USA. If practical steps are taken tomorrow, a considerable part of the military-bureaucratic near-political elite will see this as a symptom reminiscent of the Novo-Ogarevo process.
Q: You warn Putin about the threat of collusion in virtually the same way as Shevardnadze had once warned Gorbachev. But do you have facts? Or is it only political intuition?
Yavlinsky: If the threat had become reality, we would not have been talking about it now. At least not in the newspaper. Neither Yanayev, nor Boldin, or Lukyanov or Yazov had informed the public of their plans. Talk to different people - the military, secret service staff, officials at different ranks - and you will sense the general mood.
Q: What are the possible development scenarios?
Yavlinsky: A truly reactionary flank has been developing in Russian politics for several years now. These forces may finally pull the president over to their side. Or they may try to push him aside. They have set the task of using the errors and shortcomings of his domestic policy, including his economic policy, to mount a frontline offensive.