The Sins of the Fathers

It was a mistake to think that in a country where extremes are the norm, and general messianic tendencies the rule -- any beggar will tell you first how the country should be governed, and only then how he gets food -- the post-communist division of power would proceed in a civilized manner. United in opposition to the Union center, Russia's leaders retreated to opposite corners after victory.


For over a year now the superficial assessment has held sway that the fight is between a conservative, if not openly pro-communist parliament, and the reformist president.


Is the parliament really so reactionary and the president so progressive? Let us remember the time when Yeltsin headed the parliament. It would not have occurred to anyone then to call the body of deputies conservative. The parliament and the Congress defended Russia's sovereignty, they instituted the office of president, they pounded the final nail into the coffin of communism. and almost without a murmur they approved the dissolution of the Soviet Union, and gave the president practically unlimited powers to conduct reform.


What does the parliament's conservatism consist of? The budget deficit which was passed by parliament, which exceeds the norms of the International Monetary Fund, is not at all good for Russia. But to cut it would mean lighting the fuse of a social explosion. The army is grumbling, a dozen areas of industry are on the brink of strikes, not to mention scandalous facts such as the closure of cancer treatment centers and other hospitals.


The parliament is being blamed for slowing down privatization. But so far only one-third of Russia's residents have invested their privatization checks, and state property is more and more often falling into the hands of the mafia.


It is possible that the parliament is wrong. But in what other country can the leader, who is supposed to symbolize national accord, wag his finger at the deputies from the television screen, promising that he would "not forget these insults", or even publicly threaten to dissolve the body of deputies?


It seems that part of the blame for the present split in the Russian power structure lies in the communist mentality, thanks to which the president is perceived as a democratically elected, all-powerful general secretary.


Yeltsin's career was built on a forceful collision with the enemy -- whether his opponent was the head of the Sverdlovsk building directorate or the communist center of the Soviet Union. His "battering ram psychology" has not changed now that he is at the pinnacle of power. Even Yeltsin's tennis instructor acknowledges that the president plays best in crisis situations.


When the promised reforms are, to put it mildly, being delayed and the populace is sinking ever deeper into poverty, the ideal target for people's dissatisfaction is the parliament. When tongue-tied deputies go into hysterics in front of the microphone and the deputy speaker, in schoolteacher tones, explains before the whole nation: "Deputies, hold your cards so that Supreme Soviet is at the top, and not upside down", and several deputies still cannot manage the task, the public's impression of the parliament is not exactly great.


But there is secretive silence in the government corridors, from which the people receive only decrees. No wonder the government seems a bastion of wisdom.


Each branch of power sees in its opponent the spirit of the communist past. The members of the president's team openly call the parliament pro-communist, and even compare it to the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. In turn, more and more often from the podium of the Supreme Soviet charges are leveled at the president that he is trying for dictatorship, for a new totalitarianism. This Oedipus complex will not allow the Russian leadership to coexist peacefully. In fighting with each other, they are subconsciously trying to rid themselves of the fear of their common totalitarian-communist "father".


The Stalinist past is tormenting Russia and not allowing it to move to a new, civilized economic and government system, based on the consent of society. The Oedipal tragedy has never found a bloodless solution either in drama or in life.


Andrei Sharapov is a parliamentary observer for Rosiiskaya Gazeta.