Between the two of them, these parties probably get about 7% of the electorate's vote.
The Mikhail Gorbachev mentioned is the same one y'all know and love.
Chris Doss The Russia Journal ---------------------------
Novoe Vremya No. 11 March 2002 A NEW LOOK AT OLD VALUES Social democrats rendezvousing with liberalism Author: Vladimir Shveitser [from WPS Monitoring Agency, www.wps.ru/e_index.html] SOCIAL-DEMOCRATIC IDEAS IN THEIR PURE FORM REMAIN ABSOLUTELY UNWANTED IN RUSSIA. LIBERALISM WITH AN EMPHASIS ON HUMAN RIGHTS, TYPICAL OF YABLOKO IN THE PAST, IS NOT POPULAR WITH THE MASSES EITHER. HENCE THE ACTIVE SEARCH FOR A NEW SYSTEM OF COORDINATES.
The programs of Yabloko and the Russian Social Democratic Party.
The regime's eagerness and determination to reduce Russia's multi-party system to what will be essentially a two-party system makes it urgent for parties to seek out their own political niches. Russian conservatives from the pro-presidential United Russia and post-communists from the Communist Party have the least problems with this, and are favorites in the race for the next election. The conservative-liberal Union of Right Forces may occupy part of the political spectrum too. Social-democratic ideas in their pure form remain absolutely unwanted in Russia. Liberalism with an emphasis on human rights, typical of Yabloko in the past, is not popular with the masses either. Hence the active search for a new system of coordinates.
Yabloko and Mikhail Gorbachev's Russian Social Democratic Party became pioneers of the program boom among social democrats. Both parties proclaim as their objective construction in Russia of a democratic (in every sense of the word), fair, and humane society. Both parties advocate its construction on the basis of principles of social liberalism. There are, however, some differences. These principles are fundamental for Yabloko. The Russian Social Democratic Party promotes integration of humane, social democratic, and liberal values.
Expressed in the Democratic Manifesto, Yabloko's "Europeism" stipulates establishment of a state of general well-being "close in its parameters to the European standards". It sets a strategic task as well - "joining as a fully fledged member the European Union and other political, economic, and defense organizations of Europe." A special part of Yabloko's program is titled Russia's European Way.
Program of the Russian Social Democratic Party doesn't even mention the terms "Europe" or "European".
External attributes are important of course but they do not define the vector of program searches of the domestic liberals and social democrats. Finding one's niche means finding one's electorate. Who do social liberals' program provisions address?
Both programs claim to be addressing the middle class. Both parties, however, differ on what they call by that. The Yabloko program makes it clear that the middle class is but an addendum to the major social addressee, the intelligentsia. Yabloko member M. Amosov from St. Petersburg had his brochure handed out to delegates of the January 2002 congress. According to Amosov, the middle class comprises small and medium businessmen, well-paid managers, and free-lancers of all kinds. Social-democratic construction, on the contrary, assumes that the middle class is composed of employees. "They teach, educate, and treat the people, ensure security of the people, state, and society. These men and women comprise the nucleus of the middle class," to quote from the program of the Russian Social Democratic Party. According to this construction, owners of small and medium businesses comprise an independent category, no yet a social basis of the party but surely its natural ally.
Social democrats in the West know the cost of vague program postulates all too well and are ever so careful with wording. The category European social liberals appeal to is called middle strata. The matter concerns highly-paid employees involved in physical and intellectual labor in high-tech spheres. It is exactly them who put spiritual immaterial values to the level comparable with material and social needs. It isn't hard to see that in Russia of the early 21st century, such employees have not yet found their niche in social stratification.
Given all the nuances of its perception in the West and in Russia, social-liberal model incorporates some general essence. It boils down to the attempt to establish a connection between every citizen's individual demands and collectivism as a phenomenon of social relations. The idea rests on what is termed as the major values. Both programs put liberty on top of the list.
The Russian Social Democratic Party mentions freedom of choice for every individual and his or her responsibility with regard to society. Yabloko is more precise. It means freedom of Russia ensuring citizens' well-being and security. Both parties associate this value with another, justice. A society not split into a prosperous minority and impoverished majority is Yabloko's ideal of justice. Equality is the third value. It comprises equality of rights and equal opportunities for realization of individual potential. Social democrats in their turn treat justice as a synonym to equal opportunities. The Russian Social Democratic Party also objects to unwarranted privileges and social parasitism.
Both programs mention solidarity as another value. Yabloko merely outlines the problem of social solidarity for the strong and the weak of society. As far as the Russian Social Democratic Party is concerned, solidarity is an equivalent of mutual assistance and mutual responsibility of citizens, including assistance and responsibility in the war on abuses the regime and businesses allow themselves. Business is only condemned in its extreme embodiment. On the whole, however, values and program postulates of the Russian Social Democratic Party favor private property. Here is one of the key provisions of the program. It states that "We call the policy aimed at development of businesses within the interests of the population social liberalism." The Democratic Manifesto agrees with social democrats, "Social liberalism of the 21st century should aim at implementation of the reforms within the interests of absolutely all citizens of Russia, and not the interests of the prosperous minority alone."
The parties, both of them, follow the Western model where liberals traveled their part of the way treating justice as an equivalent of aspirations of the poor, and social democrats recognized that freedom was the vital pillar of economic prosperity and development of society. Solidarity in this construction is adequate to partnership connecting interests of all citizens in a state where the law reigns supreme.
Advocates of social liberalism in Russia understand the enormous difference between the tasks existing in the Western states where the law reigns supreme and where economies are socially-oriented free- market ones and in Russia. What is a fact of life in the West is still a goal in Russia. Theoreticians of Russian social liberalism are aware that on the verbal level the problems are properly outlined by their opponents on the right and on the left.
Only the lazy is no talking of the necessity to build civic society and social state in Russia nowadays. Social democrats in particular emphasize that the tasks are interrelated. Yabloko agrees with that. "Social progress in Russia is impossible without society imbued with a sense of responsibility that can criticize and control the authorities and force them to promote its interests," its program states.
Both programs call local self-rule one of the factors holding civic society and state together. Yabloko objects to all forms of administrative and financial pressure on the institution. The Russian Social Democratic Party is even more radical in this respect. It advocates the principle "as much of self-rule as possible, and as much of the state as necessary." Specialists comment in this respect on the influence of West European social democratic positions that have always relied in their policy on the initiatives from the below. "The European trace" can be seen in the opinion of the Russian Social Democratic Party on social partnership as a "cornerstone" of civic society.
Social liberals build their own scale of priorities in the relations between the state, society, and market. Approving of activeness of the state in establishment of economic order, Yabloko points out twice (!) that the state should merely advise the market to be socially-oriented, without enforcing its will on it in any manner. The opinion of the Russian Social Democratic Party is fairly close to that - "... there should be as much of the market as possible, and as much of the state as necessary." Both programs denounce the liberal- conservative opinion that economy is the dominating basis of society. As far as social democrats are concerned, economy is "a necessary means toward social ends."
PUBLICATION OF THE PROGRAMS MAY BE VIEWED AS A START OF SOCIAL- LIBERALISM IN RUSSIA. WILL THESE IDEAS MEET WITH UNDERSTANDING? IT DOESN'T DEPEND ON THE IDEAS THEMSELVES OR THEIR ATTRACTIVENESS. EVERYTHING WILL BE DECIDED BY SPECIFIC POLITICAL ACTIVITIES, RESPECT COMMANDED BY LEADERS OF THE PARTIES, THE ABILITY TO SENSE THE POLITICAL MOMENT AND DEMANDS AND WISHES OF THE ELECTORATE.