Morrison
Figuratively speaking, Zhirinovskiy's political rise has had the relative speed and light of a meteor. No one can say at this time whether he and his followers will be burned up in the atmosphere of Russian politics, be reduced in mass or attitude so as not to pose a threat, or continue on a course that could pose an increasing threat to reform in Russia, to neighboring states, and to the West.
Some may regard Zhirinovskiy as frivolous and only a fringe element. Others appear to suggest that he may have been making outrageous statements only to grab headlines and that he may become more responsible in the future. Finally, some believe that he should be regarded as having the potential to pose a serious threat within Russia and without.
Some have cautioned against overestimating Zhirinovskiy's political support and the threat of fascism in Russia, suggesting that Zhirinovskiy's relatively strong showing in the election was due to a protest vote. President Yeltsin has said: "There are many poor people. It were they who voted for the Liberal Democratic Party. They voted not for its leader, (or) the programme, but in protest against poverty."1 Izvestiya commentator Otto Latsis, has suggested that people are on the wrong track in comparing the Zhirinovskiy phenomenon to Germany in the 1930s and Hitler, and has observed that "According to my estimates, a maximum of 8 percent of the electorate could be considered hard core militant Zhirinovskiy supporters. The rest voted for the LDPR as a protest."2 In a recent poll of 1,223 people in Russia, 72% said they would not like to see Zhirinovskiy as prime minister, while 8% said they would. Some 67% said they did not think he would carry out his campaign pledges, and 10% thought he would.3
In statements after the elections, both President Yeltsin and Foreign Minister Kozyrev appeared to differentiate between statements Zhirinovskiy made during the election campaign and those he might make in the post-election period, both taking a wait-and-see attitude with respect to the latter and indicating a readiness to cooperate with Zhirinovskiy.
Yeltsin, asked at a 22 December press conference if he were prepared to cooperate with Zhirinovskiy after his statements, replied: "You see, we have heard Zhirinovskiy's words so far, what he has said during the election campaign. Let us wait for him and his party's deeds, their deeds in parliament, and only after that will we draw conclusions on how to cooperate with him. If he starts a constructive dialogue and works for the benefit of the country and the people who have elected him, then naturally we will cooperate and interact."4
Kozyrev, commenting shortly after the election on statements by Zhirinovskiy, whom he said he has known for a very long time, said that it was his personal, moral, and political assessment, and not a legal assessment, that Zhirinovskiy's statements "verge on utter irresponsibility and, in general reek strongly, to put it bluntly, of fascist-style demagogy." He went on to comment that "I must say that Hitler, in the past--I am not whipping up tension in this case and we really have nothing to fear, but we must remember some similarities--did more or less the same in Germany in 1933."5
Kozyrev, however, went on to say: "Therefore, when I meet . . . Zhirinovskiy in the Duma or somewhere else I shall not offer to shake his hand, at least not until he says, not just smoothly but as a good solid man, simply as an honorable man . . . until he says to me and to those around: Yes, I made a few statements during the election campaign--well I wanted to be a deputy, I wanted to be a leader--I made several irresponsible statements but I have renounced them and I have reviewed my position. If he does this, I shall be glad and evidently it will be possible to shake hands with him. . . ." Later he said: "A threat of fascism? Yes . . . the threat does exist . . . but this is a complete nonsense that this pest will now spread all over the country, that we must panic and therefore keep silent, that we must get frightened, let others intimidate us and terrorize us. . . . I think we will get away with an inoculation. . . ."6
Yeltsin, in his 22 December press conference, downplayed the threat of fascism in Russia, saying: ". . . some people are currently comparing the Germany of the 1930's with today's Russia. I believe that there are no grounds for this. True, there are some grounds such as hurt national feelings, unsteadiness, poor living conditions, the unsatisfactory living conditions of many people--these, of course, show some similarity. But the main thing that was absent in Germany, which we have, are a president and a constitution, which is on guard against fascism, and we will not permit anyone to get through with such ideas." Later in the press conference, he said he was prepared to cooperate ". . . with factions in parliament. That means not only with the neo-fascists, to use your (a journalist's) word. It means members of parliament. And I am obliged to cooperate with them because they were elected by the people." He went on to say: "I do not consider the threat as great as it is being blown up to be by certain mass media, as dangerous as that, because the people of Russia lived through so much . . . (pauses) millions of lives, millions, were lost, tens of millions in Russia alone. So such a people and such a country, even more so with such a constitution, will not permit these forces to be unleashed." When asked if he would in the future speak out against "anti-Semitism and other forms of jingoism," Yeltsin replied, "I can guarantee you this."7
Others have discounted suggestions of fascism in Russia. For example, Russian political observer Lev Korneshov has written that many people are writing articles and organizing anti-fascist committees based on the outward resemblance of Weimar Germany and today's Russia, both with their impoverishment, prices, inflation, economic recession, and the like. He dismissed this similarity and the idea that those who voted for Zhirinovskiy and his party are infected with fascism. He also concluded that "The democratic stratum in our society has proved all too thin and barren. . . ."8
Russian Academician Georgiy Arbatov in a recent article raised the question of whether Russia is doomed to fascism. He first observed that, with the events of December 1993, he had seen "the successful movement of fascism to power for a second time" (the first being when he lived in Germany from 1930 to 1935 with his parents who were there on official business). Arbatov went on to say that he is "profoundly convinced that we are not doomed to fascism" and that the solution lies in unity and coalition among democratic forces built around a new radically revised economic and political platform, but with none of what he called the "ruinous monetarist experiments of Gaydar, Boris Fedorov, and Jeffrey Sachs."9
An article in the Russian newspaper Trud, entitled "Reading Trud mailbag. Not So Much 'For' as 'Against,'" assessed views on Zhirinovskiy expressed in letters sent to the newspaper.10 The article warned readers not to trust political magicians who promise easy routes to prosperity which may result in bloodshed; it reported that many people believe that "voters voted not for Zhirinovskiy but against the ruling team's ability to cope with reforms," or, to put it another way, they voted for him "because he highlighted society's sore points to which our leaders are deaf."
According to Trud, others commented positively about Zhirinovskiy, saying they were impressed with his promises to restore lost savings. Trud reported that from the letters ". . . you can see something else. There are plenty of people who think Zhirinovskiy is the person who will (maybe) save the country. . . ." One person wrote that: "On television he spoke not to everyone at once, like certain turncoat Communists, but as it were to everyone individually." Another wrote that, "If Zhirinovskiy does not betray his election promises and implements a policy in the interests of Russian citizens and Russia, he will move mountains." Another stated that: "The Zhirinovskiy option, the 'stick and carrot' option suits us more in these conditions. And when he runs for president, you see, he will poll 90 percent of the vote." One writer defended Zhirinovskiy, saying he envisioned only the minimum use of force in the drive to the Indian Ocean.
Columnist Charles Krauthammer has written that the West has been staggered not because Zhirinovskiy will influence Russia's government (which Krauthammer suggests he will not because the new constitution provides for a strong presidency that can practically ignore parliament) but because of what Zhirinovskiy's victory tells us about the Russian people. Krauthammer goes on to say that, if what it tells us is true, the entire post-Cold War strategy of the West--gradually bringing Russia into the Western security system--is built on sand. Krauthammer acknowledges that it is possible that the December election revealed not an ugly Russia mind but just an ugly Russian mood.12
In looking at this issue, one must take into account Zhirinovskiy's relatively rapid rise from obscurity and his increasing political support. He founded his party only in 1990. In 1991, he won the vote of some 55% of the RSFSR Supreme Soviet in order to be registered for the RSFSR presidential election and then won more than 6 million votes, or 7.8%, in the popular voting for the president. In 1993, he participated in the constitutional conference to help draft the new Russian constitution. In the 12 December parliamentary election, he won a seat in the new State Duma by capturing an individual district election in the Moscow area. Even more significantly, he led his party to win the support of more than twice the number of voters compared to 1991--more than 12 million in 1993 compared to some 6 million in 1991. Perhaps even more significantly, he led his party to capture more votes than any other party and nearly 23% of the total votes cast in the nation-wide party-list voting for 225 of the 450 seats in the State Duma. Zhirinovskiy's party, with more than 12 million votes and about 23% of the total, far outdistanced the coalition party that came in second--"Russia's Choice," which won just over 8 million votes or about 15% of the vote.
In the final analysis of party strength in the 450-seat State Duma (when the election of representatives from individual districts to fill the other 250 seats is factored in), it appears that Zhirinovskiy's party will have a total of 63 seats. This is fewer only than the 76 registered for "Russia's Choice" and the 65 registered in parliament after the election as a newly created faction of independents under the title of "New Regional Policy." It is more than the 57 for the Agrarian Party, the 45 for the Communist Party, the 30 for the Party of Russian Unity and Accord, the 27 for the Yabloko Bloc, the 23 for the "Women of Russia," and the 15 for the Democratic Party.13
According to an assessment based on research by the All-Russian Central Public Opinion Research Institute, Zhirinovskiy's party has won over part of the supporters of the Yabloko Bloc led by reformer Yavlinskiy, and could even draw some support from supporters of "Russia's Choice," where 40% see a need for state financial support to enterprises and 10% cite Zhirinovskiy as among the politicians they can trust. The author of the article reporting on this assessment concludes that, "A fear arises that it will be very difficult to stop Vladimir Zhirinovskiy's growing influence by political maneuvers. . . ."14
This assessment suggested that Zhirinovskiy supporters are "'men . . . employed mainly in the state industrial sector' . . . working at less than thriving enterprises in small towns . . . belong[ing] to the average income brackets. . . ." Liberal Democratic Party electors are said to "stand apart from others in their irritation and anxiety. Their misgivings primarily relate to Russia's losing its great power status . . . and the weakness of state authority in the country . . . identification with the 'Soviet people' is very essential. . . ."15
Based on results of a survey conducted in Russia just before the December parliamentary election, Professor Jerry Hough has written that: ". . . it was not impending unemployment in the cities that produced Zhirinovskiy's triumph. His largest support was in the countryside, the small towns and the medium-sized cities, and it came at the expense of the centrist parties, especially the Agrarian (Peasant) Party. Mikhail Gorbachev's agricultural Stavropol region, for example, gave 38 percent of its vote to Zhirinovskiy and only 10 percent to the Agrarian Party." He reported that Professor Susan Lehmann's analysis of the data "found the following rates of approval for Zhirinovskiy's party among skilled workers who lived in villages and towns of different population: Under 50,000, 33.5 percent; 50,000-200,000, 29 percent; 200,000-500,000, 27 percent; 500,000 to million, 21 percent; over 1 million, 15 percent." Hough indicates that there was a major decline in voter turnout in the large industrial centers.16
In another personal assessment, Mikhail Poltoranin, head of the Federal Information Center, expressed the view that it was not the poorest segment of society that voted for Zhirinovskiy's party but that there were rich business people and even farmers who voted for Zhirinovskiy because they were being threatened by gangsters and Zhirinovskiy had promised order. He expressed the view that ". . . if policies go on drifting for just six months more, the people will demand the iron fist. I do not think that forces behind the scenes are preparing the LDPR leader for this role: He is too talkative, and deliberately draws fire onto himself. Zhirinovskiy is just the probe they used to measure the depth of dissatisfaction in Russia. Another man is ready to spring out from behind his back--I cannot see his face yet, but I can just make out his general's shoulder boards through the smoke."17
Zhirinovskiy continues to receive much attention in connection with the new parliament. He was one of ten nominated to be speaker of the Duma but withdrew his name. His party was given chairmanship of a Duma committee on geopolitics that apparently was created in a compromise to keep him from the chairmanship of the international relations committee. The Liberal Democratic Party's number two person, Viktor Kobeliyev, was nominated to be one of four deputy speakers of the Duma.18
Zhirinovskiy's party captured more committee chairmanships than any other party--committees on work and social support, environment, industry, natural resources, agriculture, and geopolitics.19
The shouting, intimidation, and other activities on the floor of the Duma by Zhirinovskiy and his party colleagues have drawn much attention. One observer has characterized the Liberal Democratic party as "a party of the street," explaining that: "The LDPR plays without rules--that's why it is a party of the street."20 According to one summary of Zhirinovskiy's remarks to fellow delegates on 13 January, he said: "You are not yet mature enough for a normal parliament. . . .I agree to undergo psychiatric examination. . . . My two-day visit to Europe made everyone sit up. . . . I am not suitable for the role of parliament's traffic controller [in other words chairman of the State Duma]. My health will be spoilt by Chubays, Kozyrev, Fedorov. . . . But my health is necessary for the entire Russian people. Mr. Chubays (addressing Chubays), don't look at the clock, you will have time to look at it in your cell in Lefortovo. . . . Quiet! (taps with his heel on the rostrum). Get out of the hall, out, all of you! I am waiting for the presidential elections. Then I will show you!"21
We should expect to hear much more from Zhirinovskiy in his role of parliamentarian, much of it designed to grab attention and to shock. A quotation from his 13 January address in the Duma is illustrative: "I would gladly have agreed to carry out the functions of leader of the Russian parliament as it would have been an example, not just for this country, not just for Europe, but for the whole world. After all, just two days that I spent in Europe sent the entire planet reeling, all the diplomats, all the ministers."22
An article has been published indicating that Zhirinovskiy has plans to create a radio program or station to be called "Radio Zhirinovskiy."23
In early 1994, Zhirinovskiy apparently was a major advocate, along with communist politicians, of an amnesty for people imprisoned in connection with anti-government activity in recent years. He reportedly proposed in the State Duma an amnesty for those arrested in connection with the August 1991 abortive coup, the demonstration by hardliners on May Day 1993, and the October 1993 armed revolt, but this proposal was voted down by the Duma on or about 17 February.24 An amnesty was subsequently approved by the Duma on 25 February. Zhirinovskiy's role in the amnesty is not entirely clear. Some have reported that Zhirinovskiy wanted to free the men, including former Vice President Rutskoy, from jail but not necessarily allow them to participate in politics.25 If Rutskoy becomes active in national politics, he could draw support away from Zhirinovskiy, an issue to which Zhirinovskiy has responded: "There will always be contenders--so be it," and that in the next presidential election "the choice will be between me and Rutskoi."26 Rutskoy's political future and his willingness to work with or compete against Zhirinovskiy remain to be seen.
In addition to support from a significant proportion of the population, Zhirinovskiy may have strong support from the security forces in Russia and possibly from foreign sources such as Iraq.
Zhirinovskiy's party appears to have considerable support of the military. In the December nation-wide party-list voting for 225 of 450 State Duma seats, his party may have received as much as one-third or more of the votes of the military, with indications that the reformist coalition Russia's Choice came in second with some 11 percent. Zhirinovskiy writes in his book of using the "dash" to the south to help provide a renaissance for the Russian military. He appears interested in weapons and weapons research, and has spoken of a new, secret sonic weapon called Elipton. He has already announced his intention to run for president of Russia in the next such election.
Many have viewed Zhirinovskiy's success as raising the specter of fascism in Russia. Some have compared him to Hitler, and others to Mussolini. Some have dismissed these suggestions or said that at least they are premature. A Russian television film on Zhirinovskiy showed an interview with a youth movement representative of Zhirinovskiy's party who drew parallels between the Liberal Democratic Party and Hitler's Nazi Party as follows: "Our party arose in troubled times, and won its supporters by sure steps, just as Hitler's party arose in its time. Just in the same way, it won its supporters before it came to power. We also have a second thing in common. Hitler came to power by constitutional means, by elections, and our party also intends to come to power legally and by constitutional means. Third, Hitler pursued a firm ethnic policy. He favored the German race within Germany. We pursue the same policy, but in Russia. We want Russians to feel good in Russia."27
On 2-3 April 1994, the Liberal Democratic Party reportedly held a party congress in Moscow which elected Zhirinovskiy as the leader of the party until the year 2004, endorsed him as a candidate for the Russian presidential election, and voted to grant him dictatorial powers in forming the party's leadership. Zhirinovskiy told the congress he would restore all democratic institutions in the party after he wins the presidency, but also said that the idea of democracy "does not correspondent [sic] to the national psyche . . . in Russia."28 He also reportedly called for a new Eastern European Slavonic Union, and the LDPR Congress reportedly transformed itself into a "Congress of Slavonic People," which set up an "All-Slavonic Parliament" and an "All-Slavonic Government." Zhrinovskiy was elected head of the "parliament" and former KGB general Aleksandr Sterligov became head of the "government."29
Discredited or Fade Away. Zhirinovskiy could discredit himself and his party, become isolated, and even fade from the political scene.
In mid-February, two Liberal Democratic members of the State Duma were reported to have declared that they were leaving Zhirinovskiy's faction, criticizing him for extremism and interfering in the affairs of other countries.30 Other reports indicated Zhirinovskiy had expelled them and would institute criminal charges against them.31 These reports were subsequently denied. Zhirinovskiy indicated that the reported split was a ruse to ferret out dissenters in the party and expose machinations of the security services who might try to split the party.32 One report suggested there had been a reconciliation after Zhirinovskiy met with the dissenter or dissenters.33 Finally, a later report indicated that Zhirinovskiy had called all of the parliamentary deputies of the LDPR together and pressed them to adhere to party unity; this report indicated there were three disgruntled LDPR deputies and that only one of the three attended this meeting. Zhirinovskiy allegedly took a hard line at this meeting, calling for strengthening his chairman's position and saying: "We have unity, a policy and leader and the party's rating is going up at breakneck speed," "What our opponents want is party infighting and we must not give them a chance," and "If you dislike it, put your party card and deputy mandate on the table and start from scratch in some other party."34
Another new nationalist party, the movement for Russia's National Revival, has emerged, and one of its leaders, Dmitry Vasilyev, has denounced Zhirinovskiy, saying his rise was "not incidental" and that there is someone behind him. Vasilyev has described Zhirinovskiy's statements as a "dangerous political provocation" and said that Zhirinovskiy "provokes revenge-seeking sentiments and discredits the idea of the Russian issue."35
Prosecuted. He could be prosecuted and imprisoned for war-mongering. The Russian prosecutor general's office has opened a formal criminal investigation into statements he has made in his book and perhaps elsewhere that may violate Article 71 of the Russian Criminal Code, which provides for 3-8 years imprisonment for propagandizing war. The investigation was launched after complaints by a Russian newspaper man and human rights campaigner. Not until the investigation is completed would any charges be filed, under Russian law.36 (See in the Appendix under Part C, 3, selected quotations from his book cited as possible violations of Article 71.)
Physically Harmed. He could even so antagonize people that someone might attempt to physically harm him. On 14 January 1994, a fellow Duma delegate punched Zhirinovskiy in the face in a dining room, reportedly after one of them attempted to jump ahead in the cafeteria line, and, some time before the December elections, body guards of a popular singer are reported to have beaten him up at a concert.37 Asked during an interview about whether he worried about being physically removed, he responded "No, because there is no getting away from fate. Lincoln had to be killed, so they killed him. Kennedy--they killed him. Palme--they killed him. . . ."38
Major Political Player. On the other hand, with the force of his personality and the strength of his support, he could continue to be a major player in the parliament and even become more powerful as coalitions are formed generally or on specific issues. In the government at large, he might be able to have even wider influence. The government already appears to be taking into account the recent elections with respect to some new bureaucratic and policy issues, and Yeltsin has avoided criticizing Zhirinovskiy and has even accorded him a degree of respect over the past year.
Government Leader. At the further extreme, between now and the 1996 presidential election, if something were to happen to Yeltsin, if Zhirinovskiy succeeded in promoting his candidacy for the presidency sufficiently to become a leading contender, or if something even more untoward occurred (there have been two attempted coups in Moscow in the past three years), it is not inconceivable that a Russian government heavily influenced or even led by Zhirinovskiy could emerge.
supportive of a renaissance of the Russian military, increased funding and support for Russian defense industry, an end to defense conversion, and increased arms sales abroad;
Zhirinovskiy's accession to power could have significant implications for U.S. national security policy, defense budgets and programs, and a broad range of foreign policy issues, including refugee policy.
| Return to Top | Return to Contents | Next Chapter | Previous Chapter |