Russian President Vladimir Putin (R) congratulated the head of Russia’s Communist Party Gennady Zyuganov on his 80th birthday when he received the Hero of Labour title, Moscow, June 26, 2024
We recently witnessed the pathetic sight that even after 7 decades of independence and experience as a democracy where hundreds of millions of people genuinely feel empowered, the political elite could behave in an infantile manner during the election cycle.
But this wasn’t how it used to be. My late father used to reminisce how Pundit Nehru as prime minister used to walk towards the communist MPs in the Central Hall to chat up. This was in the 1950s and 1960s when my father was a member of the Lok Sabha.
That memory crept up from the attic of my mind when I read in the Russian press about President Vladimir Putin’s extraordinary gesture to the General Secretary of the Russian Communist Party Gennady Zyuganov on his 80th birth anniversary on June 26.
Putin honoured Zyuganov by signing a presidential Executive Order awarding the Title Hero of Labour of the Russian Federation to the venerable communist leader.
The decree said the award was “for his outstanding contribution to the development of Russian statehood, civil society, and his long-time fruitful work.” Putin followed up with a personal congratulatory message to Zyuganov, which read as follows, in part:
“You are known as an experienced politician and an honest and principled person devoted to the interests of the Fatherland.
“You remain immersed in the country’s public life striving to uphold the principles of social justice, making a weighty contribution to the legislative work and Russian parliamentarianism, and addressing matters of national importance. In particular, I would like to recognise your efforts designed to improve people’s well-being and strengthen our country‘s sovereignty and positions internationally. Such multifaceted and much-needed activities deserve profound respect.
“I wish you good health, every success in implementing your plans, and all the best.
“Once again, please accept my heartfelt congratulations on being awarded the high title of Hero of Labour of the Russian Federation.”
Later, Putin received Zyuganov in the Kremlin. The Kremlin readout said, “The President thanked the leader of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation for his many years of service to the Fatherland and noted that his party has invariably championed patriotic positions.” [Emphasis added]
Those were carefully chosen words. Indeed, Zyuganov is a man of strong convictions and never hesitated to articulate his positions on political issues through public comments, his presidential campaign statements, and his voting record. But his seamless love for the Fatherland was never in doubt.
Often enough, he disagreed with Putin. But the latter never took it to heart. During the 1980s, Zyuganov, a member of the CPSU, even tore into General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev’s reform programme of ‘glasnost’ and ‘perestroika’.
It might seem a paradox, but good communists actually make great nationalists. Zyuganov opposed Western involvement in Syria and supported Russia’s special military operations in Ukraine accusing NATO of plans “to enslave Ukraine” to create “critical threats to the security of Russia”. He endorsed Putin’s call for the “demilitarisation and denazification” of Ukraine.
Zyuganov once wrote in an op-ed in New York Times, “We would restore the might of the Russian state and its status in the world. That would make its policies incomparably more predictable and responsible than they are today.” Now, one might say, that is unvarnished ‘Putinism’. Zyuganov believes that Russia holds the “unique role as the pivot and fulcrum” of Eurasia.
Unsurprisngly, Zyuganov opposed privatisation of state-run industries and pledged to restore state control of the economy. But in a refreshing departure from Soviet dogma, he also made agriculture a main focus of the communist party, especially the lack of state support for rural regions.
It goes to Putin’s credit that he has had no qualms about borrowing from Zyuganov’s platform, and makes it a point to consult him, take his advice, while steering Russia unabashedly toward a capitalist country that is done with socialism.
Interestingly, Zyuganov also espouses that Russia should learn from China’s successful example and build Russian socialism. He once encouraged party members to read the selected works of Deng Xiaoping. And he is on record that if only his country had learnt from the success of China earlier, the Soviet Union wouldn’t have dissolved.
Looking back, Zyuganov’s finest moment came in the mid-1990s when, exhausted and disillusioned by the shock and awe of Boris Yeltsin’s lurch toward free market and capitalism, which wrecked the lives of vast swathes of society habituated to a sheltered and predictable life, Russian people flocked to the communist party in the 1996 presidential election.
In fact, Zyuganov’s candidacy surged to a point that it almost seemed Russia was reclaiming socialism. At which point, Bill Clinton descended on Moscow with his Man Friday, Strobe Albott. Alarmed by what they saw, Clinton returned to Washington and okayed a road map to ensure a Yeltsin victory, even roping in the IMF. Clinton deployed American experts as Yeltsin’s campaign managers who were well-versed in the zen of democratic elections. The rest is history.
But Zyuganov never showed rancour or bitterness. Actually, he never held public office. But then, he can look back with satisfaction that at 80 he is seen as the éminence grise in Russian politics — while Yeltsin’s reputation is in great disrepair.
The big question is, what is democracy about? Is it about holding elections regularly? I just visited Iran for a week as part of a group of observers to witness the snap poll on Friday. The one thing that intrigued me most was the list of six candidates that was carefully prepared by the Guardian Council on the basis of a potential candidate’s commitment to the national ideology and the system of government that Iran chose in its wisdom after the tumultuous Islamic Revolution in 1979.
The subtle process is perhaps a reflection of the ‘Persian-Shia Islamic’ mind, but once the six candidates (who include one cleric) are announced, a level playing field ensues. Something like half a dozen TV debates were conducted to ensure that people got acquainted with the candidates. It is a travesty of truth that only conformists are allowed to contest Iran’s elections.
It is well-nigh impossible to arrange custom-made presidents. Experience shows that once elected to high office, some of them even tended behave like Thomas Becket, who after becoming the Archbishop of Canterbury, took his job too seriously for the comfort of King Henry II. Of course, such epic struggles never end happily.
On the other extreme is the bizarre variant the passes for ‘political pluralism’ in the US. One candidate aged 81 and the other 78 and both obsessed with flinging calumnies against each other. Trump’s best bet is that Biden looks ‘crooked and senile, while the latter’s refrain is that his opponent is congenitally dishonest.
A third candidate Robert Kennedy Jr., although a man of ideas and fresh thinking — or, because of that, is deemed unworthy of inclusion in the national debate on the specious plea that he is an ‘independent candidate’!
The result is a reality show of the bankruptcy of the US political system. Coincidence or not, Putin bestowed the national honour on Zyuganov on the same day that Trump and Biden had their slugfest in the name of democratic pluralism.