2T - Yeltsin as leader: personality and aims
Learn how Yeltsin tried to build post-Soviet Russia, why market reform and presidential rule produced deep conflict, and what had changed politically, economically and socially when Putin took power by 2000.
Yeltsin's aims and presidential rule
Boris Yeltsin entered the post-Soviet period with authority from his popular election as Russian president in June 1991 and his resistance to the August coup. He was a forceful public speaker who could present himself as an opponent of privilege and bureaucratic rule. His assertive style helped him challenge Gorbachev, but personal confidence did not provide a stable governing coalition.
Yeltsin wanted to establish Russian sovereignty, dismantle the command economy and replace one-party government with a constitutional order. Cooperation with Western governments and financial institutions appeared to offer investment, recognition and support for reform. However, many Russians expected democracy to produce immediate material improvement, while the government confronted inherited shortages, falling output and disrupted links with other former Soviet republics.
Yeltsin increasingly governed through presidential decrees, close advisers and shifting alliances. Reliance on personal networks, frequent changes of ministers and his periods of ill health made decision-making unpredictable. Regional leaders and powerful business figures could bargain with the centre because the state depended on their cooperation. This differed from a functioning system in which clearly defined institutions constrained all office-holders equally.
A central tension therefore ran through his presidency. He claimed democratic legitimacy from elections while using concentrated executive authority to overcome opposition. The tension became especially visible in the conflict with parliament in 1993. His personality mattered, but constitutional ambiguity and the social costs of reform made the dispute much larger than a clash of temperaments.
Market reform and unequal ownership
The government associated with Yegor Gaidar began rapid price liberalisation in January 1992. Removing controls was intended to end shortages by allowing prices to reflect scarcity and making production profitable. Shops acquired goods, but prices rose sharply. Savings and fixed incomes lost value, and many people could no longer afford what was available. The IMF's contemporary study of price liberalisation examines this change in prices and incomes.
Privatisation, associated especially with Anatoly Chubais, transferred state enterprises into private ownership. The voucher programme of 1992–1994 gave citizens vouchers that could be used to acquire shares. In principle, it spread ownership. In practice, people short of cash could sell vouchers cheaply, while managers and well-connected investors had advantages in acquiring control. Formal opportunities for everyone did not create equal bargaining power.
The 1995 loans-for-shares arrangements deepened the concentration of valuable assets. Business interests provided loans to the government against shares in major enterprises; controversial auctions helped a small group obtain control. These oligarchs acquired wealth and political influence, including influence through media ownership. Privatisation changed who owned productive assets, but weak legal enforcement and opaque transactions damaged confidence that the new economy was fair.
Rapid reform was often called shock therapy, but that label should not imply consistent implementation of every proposed stabilisation measure. Credit, subsidies and political compromises continued; institutions able to enforce contracts and collect taxes developed unevenly. Falling production, wage arrears, barter and tax evasion weakened government finances. The problems were an interaction of transition, inherited inefficiency and the manner of reform, rather than proof that the abolition of one price control explains the whole decade.
Oligarch
A very wealthy business figure whose control of major assets and political connections provides substantial influence over government or public information.
Constitutional conflict and Chechnya
Parliament opposed aspects of Yeltsin's reforms and contested his use of power. In September 1993 he ordered the dissolution of the legislature, an action outside the existing constitutional rules. Parliamentary opponents, led by figures including Ruslan Khasbulatov and Vice-President Alexander Rutskoy, declared that Yeltsin had been removed and claimed rival authority. Competing mandates and an unresolved division of powers became a violent confrontation.
After armed clashes in Moscow, tanks shelled the parliament building on 4 October. Yeltsin defeated his opponents but damaged the claim that constitutional disputes would be resolved peacefully and legally. The constitution adopted by referendum in December 1993 created a powerful presidency alongside an elected parliament, including the State Duma. Elections and pluralism survived, but the executive's strength reflected the way the crisis had been settled.
National and regional authority remained contested. Chechnya had declared independence under Dzhokhar Dudayev in 1991, which Moscow refused to recognise. Yeltsin sent forces in December 1994, expecting to restore federal control. The war exposed military weaknesses and inflicted devastating destruction, particularly in Grozny. Civilian suffering and Russian losses undermined support for the presidency. The 1996 Khasavyurt agreement ended the immediate fighting and deferred a final settlement of Chechnya's status; it did not create a secure lasting peace.
In 1999, fighting in Dagestan and apartment bombings in Russian cities contributed to a climate of fear and support for renewed military action. The government launched a second Chechen war. Avoid treating disputed questions about responsibility for particular bombings as settled facts. The political point is that Putin's forceful security response became central to his public appeal, while Chechnya demonstrated the continuing limits and violence of post-Soviet state authority.
Continue this lesson.
You’re previewing NovaLearn without an account. Create a free account to read the rest.
Create free account