August 19 marked 20 years since a coup d'etat was staged by top Communist Party officials, the ultimate failure of which led to the collapse of the Soviet Union. Looking back at the past two decades, questions arise about the changes that have taken place in the former Soviet republics.
IFES Chief of Party in Armenia Michael Getto and IFES Program Officer Irina Zaslavskaya talk to us about their experiences during the 1991 events and democracy in the post-Soviet states.
IFES: On 19 August 1991, the world was transfixed by the events taking place in Moscow. What was your experience with the putsch?
Zaslavskaya: I was in St. Petersburg while the coup unfolded in the morning hours of 19 August, and it became immediately clear that we were witnessing one of the most important events in Russian history - and that the stakes were enormously high.
I was raised largely on the pre-revolutionary Russian’s intelligentsia culture and history, and my family had strong anti-Soviet and even anti-establishment beliefs. So, when I heard from my friends that tanks were moving on the city (they were already were seen in the center of Moscow) I was absolutely certain my place would be there, on the famous Palace Square, in front of Winter Palace, where large crowds were gathering to protest the coup and trying to stop the bloodshed.
In the end, the newly elected mayor of St. Petersburg was able to persuade the military command not to advance on the city, but I did watch the tragic standoff in Moscow on TV in which three young men were killed on the streets. I was inspired by the famous images of the last confrontation between the defenders of the Russian White House and the troops, who eventually refused to shoot at the crowds, sealing the fate of the plotters.
Getto: I was living in San Francisco at the time and my firm I was going to work for - a public affairs and advocacy firm - had recently established a representative office in Moscow in April of 1991. I visited Moscow for the first time in early June and was anticipating returning in early September to join my wife who was the firm's first full-time expatriate in the then-Soviet Union.
When informed of the coup developments via the news cycle and my friends and colleagues as I was preparing to travel back to Moscow, I remember first being very apprehensive about my wife's safety. She was living and working in the Radisson Slavyanskaya Hotel and Business Center near the Russian White House where Boris Yeltsin famously mounted the tank and inspired the coup opponents. I also knew I was experiencing history. The Soviet Union I knew and had studied was probably disappearing; not definitely, I thought, but probably.
When I returned to Moscow in September, the political situation had settled and congealed somewhat. I remember being driven into the city from the airport and viewing the debris around the Russian White House from the protests in late August. There were no words for me at this time. I was in awe of the events that had transpired there. I was witnessing a historical transformation first-hand, even if it was immediately after the events of the August putsch.
IFES: What were you hoping would change with the collapse?
Zaslavskaya: I was hoping that my family and I would finally see our hopes come true: the dismantlement of the Soviet system, a complete change of the political course, the abolishment of the KGB and the eventual emergence of a liberal democratic system in Russia. These hopes were not associated with the collapse of the Soviet Union per se, but rather with the collapse of the political regime.
As I never believed seriously in the possibility of a nuclear conflict between the USSR and the West, a conclusion based on my firm belief in the rationality of both potential adversaries; the military aspect of this historic change was not relevant for me at the time.
Getto: I hoped the relationship between the West and the component parts of the former Soviet Union would improve and normalize politically, economically, militarily and, very importantly, culturally. As something of a fiscal hawk, I looked at what was then termed, "the peace dividend" as a great opportunity for my country and for the world to divert resources away from defense and national security to the many other needs and priorities of good governance.
On a personal level, I also hoped for more opportunities to travel and explore and experience the former republics of the former Soviet Union - places I studied and read so much about.
IFES: How was the anniversary of the putsch observed in Russia and Armenia?
Zaslavskaya: In the former Soviet countries, the difficulties experienced during the 1990s have brought about a widespread nostalgia for the safety and predictability of the old system, so the events of the August 1991 and the dismantlement of the USSR are seen in a less positive light than 20 years ago when hopes for reforms were still very high.
To take it one step further, the generations that grew up during the transition came to associate democracy with chaos, lawlessness and hardship. Many Russian TV talk shows and retrospective documentaries showed the events of the coup as the last attempt of the old system’s supporters to try to stop the tide of history. However, they presented their image in a less negative way than earlier assessments did. So, I would say the events were observed in a lukewarm fashion as the past was re-evaluated in light of the later events, and now the anniversary is not necessarily a cause for celebration.
Getto: In Armenia, there was relatively little fanfare about the anniversary of the August 1991 putsch. I believe more will be commemorated and celebrated on 21 September, the 20th anniversary of Armenia's formal declaration of independence from the Soviet Union.
IFES: People often say the post-Soviet experience is one more example of how some countries/societies are not ready for democracy. What do you think about this?
Zaslavskaya: I think this perspective is somewhat shortsighted. Due to their political history, economic experience, educational realities and other factors, certain societies do not have a history of democratic traditions. This can make a transition to democracy more challenging, as democracy is only sustainable when society demands and upholds it. It also requires an economically strong middle class that is able and interested in defending its rights. It takes time. Russia, as well as other former Soviet countries (with the exception of the three Baltic states), has yet to acquire this class.
This said, transitional societies are subject to influences from the world outside, and this interaction accelerates their evolution. Some centuries ago, the European countries were not democratic. It took them enormous effort and sacrifice to redefine themselves. These days, several countries, including Russia, are only beginning to set sail on that perilous journey. Their road will be paved with good intentions, abuses of power, losses and bitter frustrations. Setbacks, and at times social unrest, will be unavoidable. Nonetheless, as Gorbachev used to say when his early perestroika efforts were stumbling, “the process has begun.”
Getto: I believe people from all countries desire fundamental freedom to participate in their communities and prosper. It's natural, regardless of the region of the world or the country. People and countries pursue those freedoms somewhat differently; but, the basic desire to speak, write, gather, worship and work freely is intrinsic in all of us. It was suppressed by the Soviets for 75 years; but, eventually ordinary Russians, Ukrainians, Kazakhstanis, Georgians, Armenians, Moldovans, et al. had had enough of a fatally-flawed system that was not responding to their needs and their children's needs.
IFES: What can post-Soviet countries do to solidify their democracies, and can you give us examples of when these steps have worked?
Zaslavskaya: Given the realities of present day Russia, I think the best way to help the development of the democratic process is to focus on the smaller steps, which include the indigenous grassroots efforts.
Organizations trying to assists the transition should look for the emerging oases of democratic activism, self-rule, and initiative – and should help the enthusiasts who are moving them forward. For example, several orphanages were recently created by caring priests. Those orphanages were not created under the auspices of the State, nor with the help of the official Church. Private schools are being created by enthusiastic teachers. Small innovation technology companies are created by inventive engineers and scholars, and so on.
Some of these undertakings are political, but most are not. What is important, however, is that they are the greenhouse that is providing a hospitable environment in which the rest of the citizenry can learn about contributing to one’s society to help advance it. Supporting and sponsoring such non-government activities is a slow, but sure-fire method of harvesting a new generation of people, and thereby of shaping the future Russia.
This is crucial because the leaders and methods associated with the past twenty years lack credibility, and the only hope that is left is for new leaders to show the people how to build a society that can foster their enormous human capital and potential. Perhaps in this way we will see the hopes we all had in 1991 fully realized.
Getto: If I had to focus on two important elements of democratic consolidation, it would be fundamental tolerance and institutionalizing the rule of law. Respecting differences of opinion formally and informally in legislatures and cafés as part of civilized discourse and then adhering to democratically-produced laws as a basis for social justice and economic development are necessary to a prosperous society in any part of the world.
My prime examples of three former Soviet Republics which have successfully made the transition to democratic prosperity are not surprising - particularly to people who know me. They are the Baltic States of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania; small countries who made early, definitive, courageous decisions to defy totalitarianism, orient toward Europe and, very importantly, took the sometimes painful steps necessary for full integration in Europe, where they stand proudly today.
There are other former Soviet Republics who have made progress toward genuine, sustained democracy with more work to do. This is where IFES can be of enormous assistance.