"Novum Forum Fall" 1993
A Magazine on international Affairs Volume 2 Fall 1993, issue 1
An insiders' view of the constitutional crisis in Russia: an interview with Justice Ernest M. Ametistov
Editors Note: the following is excerpts from an interview with Justice Ernest M. Ametistov of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation. Justice Ametistov has been on the court since its inception two years ago.
Novum Forum: What are your views of the October crisis?
Justice Ametistov: The October events were the result of several factors: One of them was economic and social in character. Reforms begun by the Russian democratic government after the first coup d'etat in 1991 created a situation of real diarchy. The Russian democratic forces managed to overthrow only the high levels of communist party management but the middle level, the former masters of the Soviet Union, preserved the opposition. The goal of the reformers (was) to involve into the reforms all strata of the Russian population, including the significant part of the former nomenclatura (former communist party elite) so as to avoid civil conflicts between the old masters of my country.
The mean stream of these reforms was at first the privatization of state property and demonopolization of industry and trade, as well as new monetary policies (designed) to free prices and establish a market situation for the country. But early 1992 the opposition resisted the reforms. At first, the opposition in the parliament, which includes not only the ex-communists but also extreme nationalist faction used the constitution of the Russian Federation as their main tool. I think it was the first time in Russian history when opposition forces in a civil conflict referred not to weapons but to the law. It is paradoxical evidence of increasing respect for the law in my country. But by using the constitution, the constitution became not a civil contract but a tool of struggle against democratic development in my country....
NF: How did the opposition undermine Yeltsin?
J. Ametistov: By the end of 1992 the opposition was strong enough to begin the first general offensive against the Yeltsin government. First, they introduced into the constitution new amendments making the constitution even more contradictory than before. Their goal was to deprive President Yeltsin and the democratic government of all their power. For example the first articles of the constitution include provisions about separation of powers regarding the legislature, the executive and the judiciary but article 104...insured the full sovereignty of legislative power to the supreme soviet and the congress of people's deputies. Using this provision giving full powers to the Soviet, the opposition with a majority in congress, began to stop all the president's reforms.
They used as their second tool the Constitutional Court. Unfortunately, this new and very progressive institution in Russia was used for political struggle... thanks to its chairman Valery Zorkin and the majority of its justices who supported him...
NF: What effect did the April Referendum have on the opposition?
J. Ametistov: The Supreme Soviet called the referendum with four questions: Do you support President Yeltsin? Do you support his social and economic policy? Do you want early election of President Yeltsin? Do you want early election of the present composition of the Congress of People's Deputies?...Even though the referendum was overwhelmingly in favor of the President, from my point of view I do not know how during terrible inflation people still voted for him. This is evidence of deep and serious change in Russian society. The Russian people understood what reforms meant.
Members of the opposition came to the Constitutional Court and initiated the case challenging the constitutionality of the four questions in the April referendum. The court found that the first two questions were not constitutional but the last two questions were. Even though the results of the referendum overwhelmingly supported Yeltsin, it could not then be taken into account because of the ruling of the Constitutional Court. From my point of view the court's decision was a tragic decision and it was a decision against the law of the constitution (Justice Ametistov and two other Justices were among those who disagreed with the majority ruling). The decision of the referendum in accordance with the constitution gave the president the right to implement his social and economic policies...But the court blocked the early election of the People's Deputies who were the main obstacle to Yeltsin's reforms and they did their best to stop the reforms.
During the summer, the opposition began their last attack against the president's policies. Abolishing whole presidential decrees concerning the privatization of the economy, they stopped the activities of those governmental structures responsible for the reforms. They adopted crazy budgets with high rates of inflation. The president was pushed to a corner. On September 21st the president adopted decree number 1,400 which dismissed the parliament, fixed new elections dates and issued new decrees to make his reforms more real...
In my dissenting opinion, I wrote that the president's actions violated some articles of the constitution, but his actions were made to fulfill other articles of the same constitution. It was the contradiction of the constitution, not the president. The Constitutional Court had a duty to resolve this contradiction. The court refused.
NF: What if any role did the court play during the crisis?
J. Ametistov: The chairman, Valery Zorkin, convened the session of the court with very grass violation of statutes and procedures of the court and adopted a decision about the unconstitutionality of Yeltsin's presidential decree 1400, without taking into account the dissenting opinion of other justices like myself. The whole debate took only two hours. The Constitutional Court therefore established a legal base from resistance by the defenders of the White House.
NF: Why did Chairman Zorkin choose to be actively involved with the opposition? Why did he and the court fail to stay neutral?
J. Ametistov: It's my own opinion, I was very close to him from the beginning, he made his absolutely deliberate political choice in the end of last year when he decided that the reforms will not succeed and that the communist and nationalist opposition will win. He decided with whom to be. It was an absolutely political choice and he made a great mistake. But from his position as the head of the judiciary he had no right to make any political decision. If the court had maintained its clear judicial position, I am sure that the court could have made a great difference in the out come of this crisis. But the court did not do its duty.
NF: How does the Russian public view the October crisis? Do they view it as a tragedy or as an isolated event?
J. Ametistov: The majority of the Russian people were indifferent about the crisis. I view this indifferent as a good sign. The level of politicization of society has decreased and the majority of people support the president. When it became clear that Yeltsin was to be the strong-hand victor to come out of this conflict his approval rating rose.
NF: A new draft constitution is proposed along with new elections this coming December. Will the new Constitution pass and do you believe that it gives too much power to the president?
J. Ametistov: Yes, it will pass... I wouldn't say that it gives the president too much power. It only establishes a real system of checks and balances between the Parliament and the president.
NF: I would like to now focus your attention on Yeltsin the person. He had previously stated that he would not hold early elections, yet he changed his mind, and then changed it again. Do you see Yeltsin as a decisive leader?
J. Ametistov: I don't like this particular problem regarding the elections, because it is not good behavior. If you have already declared a particular stance regarding an issue, you must fulfill it. He explained it as a necessary choice brought on by the actions of the opposition.
NF: Is Yeltsin the best leader possible for Russia at this time?
J. Ametistov: Now, yes. There is no other leader in Russia with such degree of charisma.
NF: Do you foresee Gorbachev reentering the Russian political scene? What are some differences in the mannerisms of the two?
J. Ametistov: Absolutely not. What I know of Yeltsin personally is that he is a leader who has the ability of being strong in a crisis situation... After the crisis passes he becomes soft, maybe that is good. Yeltsin also has the ability to listen to people. It is a very rare ability, and he is able to make conclusions from what he hears and discusses. Gorbachev, however, was a person who totally lacked this ability, he only speaks.
NF: What do you foresee as Yeltsin political future? Will he be re-elected as President?
J. Ametistov: That is difficult to say. It will depend on the success of the economic reforms currently underway.
NF: What lessons should we in the West take from the October events?
J. Ametistov: People in the West should realize that the October crisis was not merely a struggle between the legislature and the executive, nor was it a struggle between the red and brown forces (the ex-communists and the nationalists)... it was a struggle between our past and our future. And the main conclusion should be that Yeltsin and his government and those supporting him saved not only Russia and her future, they saved the future of other countries. The opposition could have reestablished a great terror and tried to re-establish the Soviet Empire and a new Cold War against the West.
Interview conducted by Sourna Daneshvar, who is the editor-in-chief of Novum Forum.
