Which of Russia's political forces can actually be described as "real leftists"? The views of Anatoly Golov, St. Petersburg political analyst and organizing committee member of the Civic Forum of Voters.
Question: Why are there differences in the political terminology used in Russia and Europe?
Anatoly Golov: All the European democracies made the journey to a balanced political model from "wild capitalism". We are moving toward it from the side of barracks socialism. That is why our concepts of "left-wing" and "right-wing" are different from those generally in use worldwide. In Europe, for example, a kind of political "pendulum" has developed: social attitudes swing to the right and to the left by turn. The size of that swing is quite insignificant - sometimes only 2-3% of the vote. The left, as represented by the social democrat forces, want society to pay more attention to social policy and do more to help the weak. The right favors reducing the burden on the strong and enterprising, so they can make more money and society can develop. As a result, European leftists win elections under slogans of social security; they increase taxes for the strong and social welfare for the weak. But taxation pressure acts as a brake on the economy, and living standards drop slightly. The right comes to power on this wave; they cut taxes and social spending, and the economy becomes more efficient. But then social tension rises, and the social "pendulum" starts to swing to the left again...
Question: And why has "leftist" as a political term been usurped by the Communists in Russia? Don't any other political forces uphold the rights of pensioners and state sector workers? For instance, we also have social democrats...
Anatoly Golov: Let's start with the fact that by international standards, the Communist Party of the Russian Federation (CPRF) isn't leftist at all. Actually, in Western terminology our Communists would be called "conservatives". One way or another, they stand for preserving the old, keeping that which used to be but is now gone. The CPRF is rather like a Russian version of the British Tories, although far less productive. CPRF leaders say: "We want to bring back the past." But they never say how this might be achieved without bringing back state planning, everyone living in equal poverty, and an authoritarian regime. These are the kind of good intentions that pave the road to hell.
Question: If the Communists aren't leftists, then where is the left wing in Russia?
Anatoly Golov: In my view, of the European-style social democrat parties in the Duma today, the one that is almost left-wing in the manner of Tony Blair's Labour Party is Yabloko - which, oddly enough, is considered a right-wing party here.
Now, as elections approach, there's a lot of party-building happening on the left. A "new left" has appeared in Russia - real leftist social democrats according to the international definition. These include the united social democrats led by Mikhail Gorbachev, and the Russia's Renaissance party led by Gennady Seleznev, and the Party of Life led by Sergei Mironov.
Question: Do you think these "new left" parties can win some votes from the Communists at the next elections?
Anatoly Golov: In my view, they can't win many votes as yet. Most Russian voters are not sensitive to half-tones or nuances. They might be described as politically color-blind, with poor perception of colors. They don't see much difference between Zyuganov and Seleznev. But Russians usually vote for leaders rather than political programs. They listen to the leaders, and say "I believe" or "I don't believe". Russian parties are groups of "comrades in faith". Many Communists - especially old-style Communists, of course - believe Zyuganov by inertia.
Electoral laws are such that political parties don't usually fight for "their own voters" or "other voters". There's no need to persuade "their own voters" - the main thing is to get them to turn out and vote. And winning over "other voters" is expensive in terms of money and time. The real battle, once again, will be for "the swamp": undecided voters. That's why it will be hard for the "new left" to count on making inroads into the Communist electorate. Everything is clear about the CPRF voters: 20-25% will duly turn out and vote according to the lists for Zyuganov's party. But Seleznev might try to win over those who vote for the Communists not because they agree with their ideology, but as a form of protest voting. Still, there are already too many parties competing for such voters...
And Gorbachev is about 15 years too late, I think. When he was president, he had the chance to create a ruling social-democrat party based on rational Communists, separating them from the stubbornly orthodox Communist Party members. Perhaps we might have kept the Soviet Union in place then, and developed along the lines of China. But there was a lack of foresight and decisiveness at the time; and now there is no longer the same ground for such an idea...
Question: What kind of concrete tasks should a normal leftist party set itself in order to be in demand and fight for real improvement in the lives of its socially unprotected voters?
Anatoly Golov: It seems to me that Russia's key social problem now is "simple": decent wages for workers. Children and the elderly are unprotected primarily because working men don't earn enough to support their children and parents. Economic growth, job creation, ensuring decent wages - those are the practical priorities for Russian leftists.
Question: Which Russian left-wing parties have these goals and mechanisms for implementing them in their programs?
Anatoly Golov: That's the problem - at present, there is no political force offering realistic mechanisms of creating social prosperity; it's all at the level of slogans. In consequence, cautious voters will vote for "a bird in the hand" - the pro-government party, which at least promises stability: "perhaps things won't improve, but they definitely won't get any worse". (Translated by Andrei Ryabochkin)