He wields immense power but he is probably considered less essential to the reform
He wields immense power, but he is probably considered less essential to the reform process than at any time since the fall of the Soviet system.Constitutionally, it is Mr Chernomyrdin who would succeed Mr Yeltsin in the event that the President was forced out of political life. His crusade against Communism, his willingness to seek power through the ballot box and his bravery in August 1991 made him a hero in his own land Nowadays he is seen rather differently. His conversion to a more arbitrary form of rule has been particularly noticeable since the Russian armed forces started their crackdown in Chechnya last December, an operation that has caused thousands of deaths and boosted the powers of the unelected Security Council.All this means that when progress is recorded in Russia - and it is certainly being recorded now in economic matters - people tend not to give Mr Yeltsin the credit. Inflation is being tamed, the rouble is stable, savings are growing and the financial sector and other service industries are booming, but the President's popularity ratings have hit all-time lows this year. His party suffers from internal squabbles, and the public increasingly perceives him as a loudmouth, not a patriot.As for Mr Yeltsin's own performance, it is common to hear the view in Moscow that history will judge him to have done his best service for his country in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Mr Zhirinovsky's appeal has declined as economic conditions have improved. Certainly, he remains the most powerful man in the country, but other politicians have grown in stature, notably Viktor Chernomyrdin, the Prime Minister.
The war in Chechnya has eroded Mr Yeltsin's popularity and moral standing, and he is no longer the supreme embodiment of stability and reform that he was at the time of the Soviet Union's collapse.Eighteen months ago, many Russians considered it essential that Mr Yeltsin should run for re-election in the presidential polls of June 1996, so that political extremists of the far-right and neo-Communist variety could be kept at bay These fears have since receded. One can well imagine the turmoil that would have engulfed Russia and the outside world if the parliamentary election victory of the extreme nationalist Vladimir Zhirinovsky that month had coincided with Mr Yeltsin being forced into retirement because of ill health.Today, however, Russia's future is not tied so intimately to Mr Yeltsin's fortunes. The Russian President used his victory to create an extremely powerful executive presidency, tailored to his immediate political needs, and to establish a new parliament much weaker than its predecessor.Had he been forced to leave politics before voters approved this remodelled system in the referendum of December 1993, it is not at all clear who would have succeeded Mr Yeltsin - for he had abolished the post of vice- president - or, indeed, whether his new constitutional order would have survived. At the least, there would have been a power struggle even more intense than that which did in fact take place between the reformers and their die-hard opponents in the Russian parliament. After Mr Yeltsin battered his enemies into submission in October 1993, by shelling the parliament building on the Moscow river, the political scene was equally fraught with uncertainty. Had he disappeared from the political stage at that moment, it is doubtful that the young Westernisers who were brought into the first post-Soviet government would have been able to achieve very much. In August 1991, when Mr Yeltsin defeated the hardline Communist coup attempt, he was a leader of undisputed moral authority in Russia, the man around whom a reform programme had to be constructed.
But the message from the sudden deterioration in President Boris Yeltsin's health yesterday is almost certainly that Russia now has the ability to cope with an unexpected change of leadership - a far more optimistic outlook than at the two previous points of great uncertainty, in 1991 and 1993. Political systems that concentrate power in the hands of one man are notoriously prone to instability if he should fall seriously ill or die. Given the chance to propose savings with the opportunity to share in the "profits" without arbitrary and unfair redundancies, staff will be keen to point out what could be done more cheaply, more quickly and better, or, sometimes, even to point out what does not need doing at all.Labour governments have tended to prefer the first and second formulae; Conservatives, the second and third ones.Isn't it time to try the fourth?Yours faithfully,R E W HarlandBury St Edmunds,Suffolk8 July. It is, in fact, most unusual for such an exact contract to get written - first time anyway. Thus, the cost savings are not achieved and service levels fall too.Both of the second and third formulae are those defined in Douglas McGregor's Theory X - people only work for sticks and carrots.The fourth formula uses McGregor's Theory Y - most people actually like to do a good job and to belong to an efficient organisation. The quality of service usually, nevertheless, falls at the same time.The third formula is privatisation.
