1996 Russian Presidential Election and US Intervention

[loup99]

In the post-Soviet history of Russia, the 1996 presidential election is by far the one that was the closest fought, and the only one to ever get to a run-off as of writing this thread.

Before voting, the outgoing President Yeltsin did not enjoy high approval ratings, living conditions for Russians had dramatically worsened since the fall of the Soviet Union, Chechnya had been invaded and in 1993 there had been an armoured assault on the Supreme Soviet of Russia. Yeltsin did however in the foreign political domain have the clear advantage, having the support of the main global leaders, who seem to have had little consideration for his track-record. One of the main supporters were the US, lead by President Clinton.

The main contender to Yeltsin, was Gennady Zyuganov of the Communist Party, a party that with its 157 seats was the biggest in the country. It had a considerable voting base and seemed to be capable of offering an alternative to the Russians, despite being coloured by nostalgia towards the Soviet Union and a rather strange ideological mix, having resulted out of the dissolution of that state and its dominant party.

Do you think there was fraud in this election to a such extent that Yeltsin won instead of Zyuganov? If yes, what role did foreign countries play in helping Yeltsin to win despite his authoritarian approach and the repeated human rights breaches? Evidence from archives points to the US having played a major role in assisting Yeltsin, is this something you see as plausible?

https://mondediplo.com/2019/03/04russia
http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2107565,00.html
https://www.globalresearch.ca/us-me...elections-in-support-of-boris-yeltsin/5568288
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1996-07-09-mn-22423-story.html

 

[ramius3443]

I thought it was commonly accepted by now that we helped Yeltsin throw the election? Surely nobody is still arguing that the US had no role in influencing in the outcome, or that Yeltsin didn't cheat?

Yeltsin to win despite his authoritarian approach and the repeated human rights breaches?

Considering his main opposite was Gennady Zyuganov and the Communist Party, I'm pretty sure Yeltsin still compares very favorably on those grounds!

 

[Abdul Goatherd]

Do you think there was fraud in this election to a such extent that Yeltsin won instead of Zyuganov?

Nah. Yeltsin was riding a very rough period, but nobody wanted the Communists back. Zyuganov over-performed because of Zhirinovsky's collapse. Just a reallocation of the same protest vote.

Communists were never really viable as an opposition, and pretty much crumbled after 1996.

 

[loup99]

Considering his main opposite was Gennady Zyuganov and the Communist Party, I'm pretty sure Yeltsin still compares very favorably on those grounds!

The Communist Party had and still have what I would say is a very bizarre platform, but on social and economic matters you could certainly consider that they are more respectful of human rights than Yeltsin or his successor Putin. With regards to the 1993 crisis you could argue that the Communist Party were stronger defenders of parliamentary democracy. This as well as their rhetoric on corruption could however be seen in part as a natural reflex of an opposition party, if they had won they would probably not hesitate to commit fraud themselves, although they would most certainly not have received help from the US to do so. Zyuganov's candidacy in 1996 doesn't inspire the most confidence, but bearing in mind the state of the country at the time it is not difficult to see why it would do well.

Nah. Yeltsin was riding a very rough period, but nobody wanted the Communists back. Zyuganov over-performed because of Zhirinovsky's collapse. Just a reallocation of the same protest vote.

If this was so, why would Yeltsin with his US consultants and leaders from NATO powers feel it necessary to launch a massive anti-communist PR campaign? Does that not indicate that there was a genuine threat of Zyuganov winning? Even if Zyuganov scoring so high might have been more of a protest vote, that protest vote could reasonably, with the numbers we have, have lead him to the victory.

Communists were never really viable as an opposition, and pretty much crumbled after 1996.

They remain the main opposition force to this day, however, although in decline, and given the regular fraud we can't really tell what the actual vote is, however it is safe to say that today Putin is indeed popular and more popular than any opposition party. That being said I don't think we should project the later decline of this party as structural or fatal.

 

[A.L.Göth]

They remain the main opposition force??

 

[loup99]

They remain the main opposition force??

This thread isn't about contemporary Russian politics, for that there are other sub-forums, but yes, the Communist Party is the largest opposition party in the Duma, by a handful of seats, but still.

 

[Abdul Goatherd]

The Communist Party had and still have what I would say is a very bizarre platform, but on social and economic matters you could certainly consider that they are more respectful of human rights than Yeltsin or his successor Putin. With regards to the 1993 crisis you could argue that the Communist Party were stronger defenders of parliamentary democracy. This as well as their rhetoric on corruption could however be seen in part as a natural reflex of an opposition party, if they had won they would probably not hesitate to commit fraud themselves, although they would most certainly not have received help from the US to do so. Zyuganov's candidacy in 1996 doesn't inspire the most confidence, but bearing in mind the state of the country at the time it is not difficult to see why it would do well.

Hardly. The Duma in the 1993 crisis had been elected during the Soviet era under the Soviet constitution. 90% of its delegates were Communist Party members and Soviet-era nomenklatura. Why would they defend parliamentary democracy? Yeltsin climbed on a tank to defend the Duma in 1991 and continued to try to work with it as if it was a normal legislature. It nonetheless consistently obstructed attempts for new elections, blocked any constitutional reforms and ignored referenda.

Yes, it was an stronghold of opposition to Yeltsin - but it was hardly a parliament, nor cared about democracy. They had not been democratically elected, and did what they could to prevent democratic elections.

As for human rights record, I am not sure what you're referring to. Yeltsin was the only person in Russia who actually gave a damn about human rights and made it a central point. The Chechnya war may have been a low point. But given that the opposition rallied behind communists and fascists, human rights were not the motivation.

If this was so, why would Yeltsin with his US consultants and leaders from NATO powers feel it necessary to launch a massive anti-communist PR campaign? Does that not indicate that there was a genuine threat of Zyuganov winning? Even if Zyuganov scoring so high might have been more of a protest vote, that protest vote could reasonably, with the numbers we have, have lead him to the victory.

Meaning it was maxed out. Zyuganov borrowed the LDR's fascist vote in the presidential election. He got as far as he could get. Yes, there was a chance he might have won, but he was over-performing.

Communists by themselves have never managed to get above one-fifth to one quarter of the vote. So when you do the math, they just about reached the peak numbers they could have reached. Which still falls short.

Yeltsin didn't have a party. The anti-communist PR campaign was chosen in preference to Yeltsin covering himself in nationalist muck and competing directly with the Communists for the fascist vote. Would you have preferred he campaigned on that?

They remain the main opposition force to this day, however, although in decline, and given the regular fraud we can't really tell what the actual vote is, however it is safe to say that today Putin is indeed popular and more popular than any opposition party. That being said I don't think we should project the later decline of this party as structural or fatal.

I don't think anything in the Putin era should be taken seriously.

Communist Party was never viable as an opposition in the 1990s in the sense that it never presented itself, nor tried to present itself, as a loyal opposition. It drew water from Soviet nostalgia and a rejection of the post-Soviet era. And in the Putin era, it is virtually a notional opposition with Kremlin approval.

 

[Yakman]

Charisma at the moment is easily forgotten. Particularly by non-partisans.

Yeltsin, for all his flaws, had indeed stood on that tank, and had stopped the coup. He had made a democratic Russia a going concern in the world order. He was an immense figure, and woe betide the world if Russia had a bland and stupid apparatchik for President in 1990.

The USA should have done more to support Russia after the fall of the Soviet Union but did not. That fact alone should dispel any beliefs that the USA interfered in that election.

 

[loup99]

Hardly. The Duma in the 1993 crisis had been elected during the Soviet era under the Soviet constitution. 90% of its delegates were Communist Party members and Soviet-era nomenklatura. Why would they defend parliamentary democracy? Yeltsin climbed on a tank to defend the Duma in 1991 and continued to try to work with it as if it was a normal legislature. It nonetheless consistently obstructed attempts for new elections, blocked any constitutional reforms and ignored referenda.

Yes, it was an stronghold of opposition to Yeltsin - but it was hardly a parliament, nor cared about democracy. They had not been democratically elected, and did what they could to prevent democratic elections.

Speaking about Yeltsin's actions in 1991 is rather irrelevant with the hindsight of 1993. Surely the Supreme Soviet of Russia had been elected during Soviet times, but Russia also had a constitution under which Yeltsin had been elected President. In this constitution the Supreme Soviet of Russia were the parliamentary body at the time, and as undemocratic as they may be they were a check to Yeltsin's power. That is mainly the reason for how Yeltsin acted, he did not want any limitations on his liberalisations and privatisations, and having a Supreme Soviet of Russia that could interfere with that was problematic for his policies. Yeltsin cared about democracy when it benefited his interests and those of the oligarchs he relied on, which isn't very different from the conception Putin defends. At the time of 1991 Yeltsin's actions were rightfully seen as heroic, but now we know it was just a question of his own power being threatened, hence why he intervened as he did.

As for human rights record, I am not sure what you're referring to. Yeltsin was the only person in Russia who actually gave a damn about human rights and made it a central point. The Chechnya war may have been a low point. But given that the opposition rallied behind communists and fascists, human rights were not the motivation.

I really don't agree with you here. It is pretty clear that no candidate in this election were ultimately concerned with human rights, from Zhirinovsky to Yeltsin and Zyuganov. On the human rights record, Chechnya war is not just a low point, it is a major policy that had disastrous consequences. The war was brutal, deadly and terrible, ignoring that is impossible when assessing Yeltsin. In addition to that we have the 1993 tank assault and up to 1 500 deaths it caused, according to some estimates, as well as the temporary ban on opposition parties and newspapers and the rule by presidential decree. Economically the situation was disastrous as well, with the Soviet industry and state sector in general sold out to criminal oligarchs, with a dramatic fall in living conditions.

Meaning it was maxed out. Zyuganov borrowed the LDR's fascist vote in the presidential election. He got as far as he could get. Yes, there was a chance he might have won, but he was over-performing.

Communists by themselves have never managed to get above one-fifth to one quarter of the vote. So when you do the math, they just about reached the peak numbers they could have reached. Which still falls short.

The Liberal Democrats were never particularly a threat to Yeltsin, while Zyuganov clearly was. What you say isn't wrong, but since one quarter of the vote would have been enough to beat Yeltsin who after all had approval ratings and polling as low as 3% and 5% I would disagree with your conclusion. The only real electoral reserve Yeltsin seemed to have on his own when he polled this low were the oligarchs he had benefited and a few others relying on them, which was clearly not sufficient for him to win in theory. If the allegations of several NATO members directly and indirectly intervening to assist the Yeltsin campaign are correct, and still didn't suffice for him to win, requiring widespread and systematic fraud, the quarter of the vote was more than enough for the Communists to win.

Yeltsin didn't have a party. The anti-communist PR campaign was chosen in preference to Yeltsin covering himself in nationalist muck and competing directly with the Communists for the fascist vote. Would you have preferred he campaigned on that?

For all purposes Our Home — Russia can be considered as Yeltsin's party just as its successor United Russia is seen as Putin's party. Running as Independent does not make you neutral and when one party is centred around supporting you and had your backing it is for all purposes your party. I don't have any preference about how Yeltsin should have campaigned by the way, my point is to analyse the election itself, and from how I view it it was tainted by a nationalist rhetoric on all sides. Showing archive footage of Bolsheviks burning churches and claiming Russians should stock alcohol is a rather telling campaign strategy, comparable to the one of Trump against Clinton in 2016.

I don't think anything in the Putin era should be taken seriously.

Why do you see the Yeltsin era as "serious" in contrast then? I have trouble with seeing Putin as anything else than a product and consequence of Yeltsin, had Zyuganov won Putin would not had emerged. I don't know what sort of executive Zyuganov would have envisioned, but Putin getting the leading role and becoming his heir seems like a very improbable scenario.

Communist Party was never viable as an opposition in the 1990s in the sense that it never presented itself, nor tried to present itself, as a loyal opposition. It drew water from Soviet nostalgia and a rejection of the post-Soviet era.

It certainly did draw water from Soviet nostalgia, which makes sense given their ideology. They disagreed with the political choices made after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, so there was no reason for why they should be loyal to what followed in any way, given that there had been disagreement between Communists and Yeltsin. However they did respect the situation in the sense that they ran in elections and accepted the outcomes. No less authoritarian than Yeltsin, they nonetheless had a clear ideological difference. That is also why I would see 1996 election as a potential turning point between two conflicting visions.

 

[Pieter Bruegel]

Why do you see the Yeltsin era as "serious" in contrast then? I have trouble with seeing Putin as anything else than a product and consequence of Yeltsin, had Zyuganov won Putin would not had emerged. I don't know what sort of executive Zyuganov would have envisioned, but Putin getting the leading role and becoming his heir seems like a very improbable scenario.

I completely agree with this. Aside from the obvious, Putin being Yeltsin's successor, it was Yeltsin's 1993 constitution that gave the president so much executive power, thus directly leading to Putin's own autocracy.

 

[Kazanov]

Well, Putin always mentions that the US financed the drunkard that preceded him, i remember an interview were he said that the US loved Yeltsin because he was a clown, and hated Putin because he made Russia great again.

And thats some flawless logic. Just remember how was doing Russia under Yeltsin, or if you are too young, look for some of the hilarious Yeltsin-Clinton videos in youtube

And we even have some western media talking about it when the US was crying about Russia meddling into the last presidential elections.

In keeping with Russian laws at the time, Zyuganov spent less than three million dollars on his campaign. Estimates of Yeltsin’s spending, by contrast, range from $700 million to $2.5 billion. (David M. Kotz, Russia’s Path from Gorbachev to Putin, 2007) This was a clear violation of law, but it was just the tip of the iceberg.

In February 1996, at the urging of the United States, the International Monetary Fund (which describes itself as “an organization of 188 countries, working to foster global monetary cooperation”) supplied a $10.2 billion “emergency infusion” to Russia.The money disappeared as Yeltsin used it to shore up his reputation and to buy votes. He forced the Central Bank of Russia to provide an additional $1 billion for his campaign, too. Meanwhile, a handful of Russian oligarchs, notably several big contributors residing in Israel, provided more billions for the Yeltsin campaign.

In the spring of 1996, Yeltsin and his campaign manager, billionaire privatizer Anatoly Chubais, recruited a team of financial and media oligarchs to bankroll the Yeltsin campaign and guarantee favorable media coverage on national television and in leading newspapers. In return, Chubais allowed well-connected Russian business leaders to acquire majority stakes in some of Russia’s most valuable state-owned assets.

And is something logic, you must always weaken your rivals.