Industrial development of Russia in the 90s. undergone major qualitative changes. The new leadership of the Russian Federation set the task of restructuring the economy from planned and directive rails to market ones, with the subsequent entry of Russia into the world market. The next step was supposed to accelerate the country's progress towards building an information society.
In the 90s. in Russia there was a privatization of huge state property; a commodity market has developed; the ruble became a partially convertible currency; the formation of the national financial market began; there was a labor market growing from year to year.
However, it was not possible to fully solve the tasks set in the course of economic reforms. The result was a sharp drop in the 1990s. level of both industrial and agricultural production in comparison with the previous time. There were both objective and subjective reasons for this.
The starting conditions for the reforms turned out to be extremely unfavorable. The external debt of the USSR, which was transferred to Russia in 1992, exceeded, according to some estimates, $100 billion. In subsequent years, it has grown significantly. Disproportions in the development of the economy also persisted. The "openness" of the Russian economy to foreign goods and services helped in a short time to eliminate the shortage of goods - the main disease of the Soviet economic system. However, the emerging competition with imported goods, which, due to more favorable economic conditions, are cheaper than similar Russian goods, led to a serious decline in domestic production (only after the 1998 crisis did Russian manufacturers manage to partially reverse this trend in their favor).
The presence of huge subsidized regions of the country remote from the Center (Siberia, the North, the Far East) in the conditions of the emerging market hurt the federal budget, which was unable to cope with the sharply increased costs. The fixed production assets have reached the limit of wear and tear. The rupture of economic ties that followed the collapse of the USSR led to the cessation of the production of many high-quality products. A significant role was also played by the inability to manage in unusual conditions, flaws in the privatization policy, the conversion of many enterprises in connection with the conversion of military production, a sharp reduction in state funding, and a drop in the purchasing power of the population. The global financial crisis of 1998 and the unfavorable conjuncture of foreign markets had a significant negative impact on the country's economy.
Subjective reasons also emerged. In the course of the reforms, their initiators had an erroneous idea that in the transition to a market economy, the role of the state in the economy is weakening. However, historical experience shows that in the conditions of the weakening of the state, social instability is growing and the economy is being destroyed. Only in a strong state does economic stabilization come faster, and reforms lead to economic recovery. The rejection of elements of planning and centralized management occurred at a time when the leading countries were looking for ways to improve it. The copying of Western models of the economy and the lack of a serious study of the specifics of the historical development of one's own country also led to negative results. The imperfection of the legislation created the possibility, without developing material production, to receive super profits by creating financial pyramids, etc.
Production of industrial and agricultural products by the end of the 90s. amounted to only 20-25% of the 1989 level. The unemployment rate rose to 10-12 million people. The orientation of production towards export led to the formation of a new structure of the domestic industry - it was based on enterprises of the mining and manufacturing industries. The country has lost more than 300 billion dollars of exported capital in just 10 years. The curtailment of domestic industrial production led to the beginning of the country's de-industrialization processes. If in the 20th century Russia entered the top ten industrialized countries, then in 2000 it was in 104th place in the world in terms of industrial output per capita, and in the second ten in terms of gross production indicators. In terms of the totality of the main economic indicators, Russia occupied 94th place by this time. According to a number of indicators, Russia now lagged behind not only the developed countries of the West, but also China (three times), India (twice) and even South Korea.
Despite the efforts made in the late 1990s measures to revive the economy and even the emerging growth of industry, the basis of the Russian economy remained the same - dependence on the sale of raw materials and especially oil and natural gas. How dangerous this situation is was clearly demonstrated by the situation associated with the fall in world energy prices in the late 1980s and early 1990s. 20th century
FROM THE MESSAGE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION TO THE FEDERAL ASSEMBLY (2000):
The main obstacles to economic growth are high taxes, arbitrariness of officials, rampant crime. The solution to these problems depends on the state. However, a costly and wasteful government cannot lower taxes. A state subject to corruption, with unclear boundaries of competence, will not save entrepreneurs from the arbitrariness of officials and the influence of crime. An inefficient state is the main cause of a long and deep economic crisis...
Social sphere
In the context of a protracted economic crisis, the development of the social sphere was also in a rather painful state. In the context of a sharp reduction in budget revenues, spending on science, education, healthcare, and pensions has decreased by almost 20 times! In the first years of the economic reform, this put the social sphere in an extremely difficult position. By the end of the 1990s, the average salary of researchers amounted to 12-14 dollars a month with a living wage of 50 dollars. Due to lack of funds, long-term planning of scientific work (which was previously carried out 20 years in advance) was stopped.
However, some positive trends have also emerged. For the first time in the country's history, the number of university students was 246 per 10,000 population. However, this figure was made possible thanks to the opening of many private educational institutions, the level of education in many of which remained very low.
Domestic health care was deprived of the opportunity to provide free full-fledged care to patients and by the end of the 90s. occupied the 131st place in the world according to the main most important indicators.
Below the subsistence level were old-age and disability pensions.
Under the pretext of lack of budgetary funds of the authorities in the early 90s. removed from the Constitution the right of citizens to complete secondary education, free housing and medical care.
For 10 years, the social structure of society has noticeably changed. The proportion of rich Russians was 3-5%, the middle class - 12-15%, 40% each - the poor and the poor.
All this required a radical revision of the very foundations of social policy in order to ensure the protection of the population during the transition period. Such a revision began with the election of VV Putin as head of state in 2000.
Demography
The socio-economic situation in the country could not but affect the demographics.
If at the beginning of the XX century. 76% of the country's population were citizens under the age of 50, by the end of the century there were almost the same number of people of retirement and pre-retirement age. The average age of the inhabitants of Russia is approximately 56 years, while, according to forecasts, in the USA and Western Europe it will be 35-40 years in a few years, and in China and Japan - 20-25 years. For 1997-2000 The child population of Russia decreased by 4 million people and amounted to 39 million people. The low standard of living has led to the fact that the percentage of healthy children has been steadily declining, in 2001 there were only 8-10% of such children among junior schoolchildren, 6% of middle school age, and only 5% among high school students.
Since 1993, in Russia, the death rate exceeded the birth rate, and soon the natural population decline reached 1 million people a year. The average life expectancy for women has now become not 75 years (as in 1979), but only 69, for men - not 69, but 56. In 10 years, the population of Russia has decreased by more than 10 million people. If this trend continues, there is a threat of a reduction in the country's population by 2015 by another 22 million people (a seventh of the population of Russia).
To remedy this situation, the Government of the country has taken a whole range of measures to improve the living standards of the population.
FROM THE MESSAGE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION (2000):
If the current trend continues, the survival of the nation will be in jeopardy. We are in real danger of becoming a decrepit nation. Today the demographic situation is one of the alarming ones.
everyday life
The changes taking place in the everyday life of all the main social groups of the population turned out to be swift and radical.
Already in 1992, meat consumption decreased by 80%, milk - by 56%, vegetables - by 84%, fish - by 56% from the level of the already meager 1991. By the summer of 1998, the situation had somewhat changed for the better - consumption the population of basic foodstuffs exceeded some indicators of the pre-reform period, but remained quite low.
The unfolding housing construction helped in a short time to reduce the queues for municipal housing, but the lack of funds from the population made it impossible to buy apartments.
The abundance in shops and markets for everyday goods led to lower prices.
The purchase of not only TVs, refrigerators, SV-ovens, but also cars, the construction of small country houses became affordable for the majority of working citizens. The number of private cars only in Moscow by the end of the 90s. amounted to 2.5 million, surpassing the figures of twenty years ago by almost 10 times.
The development of the housing market has led not only to the free sale and purchase of apartments, but also to the emergence of a large number (at least 1 million people) of homeless people who have sold their homes and found themselves on the street.
A new phenomenon in urban life was the emergence of a large number of homeless children (official statistics at the end of the 90s called the figure of 2.5 million people).
Drunkenness, drug addiction, prostitution, and corruption have become a big social problem. The complication of the crime situation, especially in large cities, made it necessary to strengthen the role of the state, its most important institutions in restoring order.
Thus, the socio-economic development of the country in the 90s. was full of contradictions. It reflected the transitional nature of the era experienced by the country.
Chronology
- 1993, October 3-4 Speech by opposition forces in Moscow. Shelling of the White House
- December 12, 1993 Adoption of the new Constitution of the Russian Federation
- 1996, July Election of B.N. Yeltsin for a second term as President of the Russian Federation
- December 1994 - December 1996 War in Chechnya
- 1998 August Financial crisis in Russia
- 1999, August Beginning of the anti-terrorist operation in Chechnya
- December 31, 1999 Early departure of the President of the Russian Federation B.N. Yeltsin to resign
- March 26, 2000 Election of V.V. Putin
Russia in the 90s 20th century
The course of economic reforms in Russia in the early 90s.
One of the main consequences was the transfer of state-political power, which was previously concentrated in the union center, to the republics and, first of all, to Russia. The Russian president, the government, the Supreme Soviet within a few days gained power, which they had been seeking for almost a year and a half. The problem of implementing radical reforms arose. While the radicals had a common ideology of reform, they did not have a clear and justified program of specific economic and political transformations. The plan for economic reforms was made public only at the end of October 1991. President B.N. Yeltsin. The plan included several specific directions of Russia's economic policy, which constituted the essence of the reform.
First major measure- one-time introduction of free prices from January 1992 - was supposed to determine the market value of goods and eliminate the shortage of goods. Second- - was supposed to speed up the turnover, create an infrastructure for the sale of domestic and imported products. Third- wide housing privatization, state enterprises— was supposed to turn the masses of the population into owners.
Privatization checkThe program of radical reforms was outlined by Yeltsin, but its authors were the leading ministers of the new Russian government: market economists E. Gaidar, A. Shokhin, A. Chubais. At its core, this program meant a quick transition to . The main theorist of the Russian “shock therapy”, Deputy Prime Minister for Economic Affairs E.T. Gaidar
E.T. Gaidar
believed that the classical market model could be implemented in Russia without any serious consequences for the social sphere. However, the results were dramatic for the Russians. The release of prices in January 1992 led to their increase not by 3-4 times, but by 10-12 times, while wages and pensions increased by 70%. The savings deposits of the population, the government was unable to index. In fact, the bulk of the population of Russia was below the poverty line. The reform was popularly called "predatory", gave rise to an acute distrust of the government and generally negative attitude towards the course of reforms.
Radical reforms caused and broad opposition in the Supreme Soviet of the RSFSR. This opposition was headed by the Chairman of the Supreme Council R.I. Khasbulatov. Resistance to radical reforms received broad support in society, primarily in the sectors of the military-industrial complex and the public sector, where the majority of the population was employed.
The 1990s went down in the history of Russia as a time of democratic transformations in many areas of social and political life - the first congresses of people's deputies of the USSR, the formation of the Russian Federation, taking a course towards the creation of a state of law, etc. Against this background, the new Russia faced one of the main tasks of overcoming the economic, social and political crisis. A course was taken to continue the democratic and social reforms begun in the second half of the 1980s.
Changes in the state system of the USSR and Russia. On May 25, 1989, the First Congress of People's Deputies of the USSR opened, which was a major political event in the history of the Soviet state. For the first time, elections of deputies were held on an alternative basis (only at the union level, a third of the seats were reserved for direct nominees of the party itself and public organizations led by it). The permanent Supreme Soviets of the USSR and the union republics were formed from among the people's deputies. All this looked like a victory for democracy. There were few practical results of the First Congress. In addition to the election of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, several general resolutions were adopted, in particular, the Resolution on the main directions of the domestic and foreign policy of the USSR.
President Boris N. Yeltsin, elected by popular vote, became the head of the executive power of Russia. At the beginning of his presidency, Boris N. Yeltsin "handed out" sovereignties "to each according to his ability," but he promised to preserve the unity of Russia. But the unity of genuine, historical Russia, which existed since 1922 at the head of the USSR, was destroyed in Belovezhskaya Pushcha on December 8, 1991 by the leaders of Russia, Ukraine and Belarus B. N. Yeltsin, L. Kravchuk, L. M. Shushkevich, who announced the dissolution USSR and the creation of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). On December 21, at a meeting in Alma-Ata, eight more republics joined the CIS. On December 25, M. S. Gorbachev resigned from the post of President of the USSR.
Domestic policy. Since the beginning of 1992, the situation in the country has remained extremely tense. Released in January, the prices caused a rapid rise in inflation, deepened the problems in the social sphere, increased the impoverishment of the masses, the decline in production, increased the growth of crime and corruption. For example, in 1993 alone, consumer prices in the country rose almost 26 times. In 1994, the standard of living was 50% of the level of the early 1990s. Payments to citizens of their money savings kept in the State Bank have ceased. All this led to the fact that two-thirds of the population of Russia by 1995 continued to live near the poverty line.
Since the end of 1992, the privatization of state property began, which by the fall of 1994 covered a third of industrial enterprises and two-thirds of trade, household and service enterprises. As a result of the privatization policy, 110 thousand industrial enterprises passed into the hands of private entrepreneurs. Thus, the public sector lost its leading role in the industrial sector, and the decline in production continued to progress every year and by 1997 reached a critical figure - 63%. The output of the machine-tool, metallurgical, and coal industries fell especially sharply. A number of Russian regions have been hit by an energy crisis.
The economic crisis had a negative impact on the agricultural sector of the country, which led, first of all, to a drop in the level of productivity, a decrease in the number of herds of large and small cattle. In particular, the volume of agricultural production by 1996 fell by 72% compared with 1991-1992. The created farms continued to fall apart due to the lack of agricultural machinery, insufficient attention to their needs by the leaders of a number of regions of the country, exorbitant taxes.
Socio-political life. The modern history of Russia, the beginning of which can be dated to 1985, is one of the dramatic periods of its development. In a short time, the communist regime and the CPSU collapsed, the Soviet Union collapsed, and in its place new independent states were formed, including the Russian Federation. The current political process in Russian society is also characterized by extreme inconsistency and, in a certain sense, unpredictability of further development. Parliamentarianism and a multi-party system are established in the course of a sharp struggle between political parties and movements, which embodies the possibilities for implementing various options for the state and social structure of Russia - from democratic to authoritarian-leadership.
On the one hand, Russian parties, movements and blocs are becoming a full-fledged link in the emerging political system, subjects of "big politics", developing in accordance with the Constitution of the Russian Federation and the federal law "On Public Associations". This is evidenced by the results of the elections to the State Duma of Russia on December 17, 1995, when the parties and movements of the "left", "national-patriotic" and "democratic opposition" represented by the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia and the association "Yabloko ".
On the other hand, the presidential elections in Russia on June 16, 1996 showed a clear division of the society of political parties into two opposing camps - supporters of the elected President BN Yeltsin and his opponents.
450 deputies were elected to the State Duma of the second convocation. The vast majority of them were employees of legislative and executive authorities, many of them were deputies of the State Duma of the first convocation (December 1993). 36% of the total number of seats in the Duma was won by the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, 12 - by Our Home - Russia, 11 - by the Liberal Democratic Party, 10 - by the bloc of G. A. Yavlinsky (Yabloko), 17 - by independent and 14% - by other electoral associations. This composition of the State Duma predetermined the acute nature of the inter-party struggle on all the economic, social and political problems considered in it.
The current party activity takes place in a transitional period, which determines its inconsistency and unevenness: some parties not only conquered the parliamentary Olympus, but also firmly entrenched themselves on this frontier, others stopped at the near or distant approaches to it, and still others took a wait-and-see attitude or rapidly marginalized. Despite certain contradictions in party life, it still remains among the factors influencing the development of the political process. It is on the basis of party-bloc structures that groups of "systemic" (Duma) and "extra-systemic" support for various political forces and their henchmen are formed, with varying degrees of activity participating in the struggle for the distribution of influence in the highest echelons of Russian power. Moreover, this applies not only to all representatives of the ruling establishment without exception, but also to the subjects of the political process, acting "under the banner" of certain groups and groups of influence. For example, former Prime Minister V. S. Chernomyrdin enjoyed the direct support of "his" movement "Our Home is Russia", as well as (in some cases) the left majority of the State Duma, headed by the Communist Party of the Russian Federation faction. Being the head of the Presidential Administration, and later the First Deputy Prime Minister of the Russian government, A. B. Chubais relied in his activities on a number of "extra-systemic" forces united in the E. T. Gaidar bloc, as well as on numerous commercial structures and business circles. In addition, he had in his arsenal an unregistered but rather active deputy group of the Democratic Choice of Russia (DVR) party headed by S. N. Yushenkov.
Other contenders for power also have their own support groups. For the communists, these are the structures of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation (about 26 thousand primary organizations), as well as the NPSR movement created under its patronage. The "siloviki" from the group of A.I. Lebed-A. V. Korzhakov, the situation in this matter is the most difficult. So far, only a number of small parties and public groups, united in the movements Honor and Motherland and For Truth and Order, are on their side. During the presidential election campaign, A. I. Lebed also relied on the Union of Patriotic and National Associations of Russia (SPNOR), which later discredited itself, as well as on individual representatives of the liberal establishment. In March 1997, on the basis of these structures, the Russian Republican Party was created, claiming the right to be called the "third force." At present, the following parties and blocs of Russia can be distinguished.
Parties and blocs of the liberal direction. These are Yabloko, the Far Eastern Republic, the Party of Economic Freedom of K. N. Borovoy, the Republican Party of the Russian Federation V. N. Lysenko, the Union of Realists of Yu. liberal direction are supporters of the ideology of liberalism and Western models of socio-economic and socio-political structure, based on the well-known triad of basic principles: competitive market economy, democratic rule of law, civil society.
modern conservatives. They primarily mean "Our Home - Russia" (NDR), "Reforms - a New Course" by V.F. dominance of representatives of the establishment, undisguised support for the existing government.
Conservative parties, like no other, rely on the established political, economic and economic traditions, as well as on their lobby in the production sector - the directors' corps, bureaucracy and middle and top managers.
Communist multi-party system. It includes the Communist Party of the Russian Federation headed by G. A. Zyuganov, the Russian Communist Workers' Party (RKRP) V. A. Tyulkin, the Labor Russia (TR) Anpilov movement, the Movement of Communist and Socialist Forces of Russia bloc (DKSSR) , the Agrarian Party of Russia (APR) M. I. Lapshina, the deputy group "People's Power" N. I. Ryzhkov and others. A number of very promising trends have emerged in the camp of these forces, most of which are to some extent connected with two key circumstances: the unsuccessful outcome of the 1996 presidential election for the communist opposition, as well as the deepening internal disengagement. On the whole, the entire communist direction actually advocated a revolutionary way of overthrowing the ruling regime, the beginning of which should be preceded by political strikes, strikes, rallies, etc.
Political traditionalism and national-patriotic movement. These include the Liberal Democratic Party of V.V. Zhirinovsky, the Russian National Cathedral of General A.N. Sterligov, the People's National Party of A.K. unity" (RNE) by A.P. Barkashov, "Honor and Motherland" by A.I. Lebed and others. National patriotism is an ideological and political trend based on the absolutization of historical (mostly Orthodox) traditions - monarchism, sobornost communality, spontaneous collectivism, etc. Most parties of this type are distinguished by their desire for a patriarchal socio-political structure and frankly appeal to anti-democratic values - the establishment in Russia of a strong authoritarian regime (personal power, dictatorship of a "firm hand", autocracy, etc.). They are characterized by emphatic anti-communism (which was facilitated by a break with the communist movement), anti-democratism, nationalism and even chauvinism. The situation in national patriotism is extremely complex and contradictory, and the lack of unity often leads to factional struggles.
The activities of parties and social movements turned out to be complex and ambiguous for the political life of Russian society. The social and political life of Russia has in many cases become richer and more varied. At the same time, ignoring by some parties, blocs and movements of an honest opposition struggle for power between themselves and the state structures of Russia turned out to be significant losses for society.
Foreign policy and relations with the CIS countries. The geopolitical realities of the modern world make it possible to consider Russia as one of the important centers of world politics, which, like all other countries, has its own interests in the world. The distribution of its foreign policy priorities can be seen, first of all, in the scheme of the concentric distribution of the borders of the former USSR. The first of these circles is formed by the states of the CIS, where at least two independent segments can be distinguished - the western and the southeastern. The second circle, which is also divided into several sectors, consists of Eastern Europe, Islamic countries, China and India. The third is represented by the states of the "Atlantic civilization" and Japan, the fourth - by the countries of the "South" (Latin America, Africa, the Pacific Ocean).
In determining its own foreign policy prospects, Russia is in a very difficult position: firstly, the resource base for ensuring the country's foreign policy has significantly decreased (76% in territory, 60% in population, about 50% in terms of gross national product from the indicators of the former USSR in 1985 etc.). In addition, Russia's borders turned out to be more open and less secure; secondly, the economic weakness of Russia and the difficulties associated with the formation of its own statehood (primarily the problems of regionalism) have significantly reduced Russia's authority in the international arena; thirdly, the struggle of internal political forces around the issue of Russia's national-state interests continues. Despite this, the most important world problems (the Yugoslav crisis, the problems of the Middle East, etc.) cannot be resolved without the participation of Russia.
Russian diplomacy proceeds from the continued enormous role of the "Atlantic civilization" led by the United States. It is the "North" that dictates the "rules of the game" at this stage in the development of relations. And this situation will continue for a long time. Moreover, it is obvious that today's America is faced with the need to formulate new goals in the world that are adequate to the emerging realities, redefine interests in the field of national security, and modernize its own structures. Therefore, in foreign policy, the Russian leadership gave priority to the development of relations with Western countries, primarily with the United States. In late 1991 - early 1992, the President of Russia came up with the first foreign policy initiatives. He officially stated that from now on, Russian nuclear missiles are not aimed at US targets. In January 1993, in Moscow, Russia and the United States of America signed the START-2 treaty, which provides for a mutual reduction by 2003 of the nuclear potential of the parties by two thirds compared to the level established by the START-1 agreement.
Striving for a peaceful settlement of relations with the countries of the West, Russia withdrew its troops from the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, including the Baltics. By 1995, more than 500,000 servicemen, 12,000 tanks, and many other military equipment had returned to Russia from East Germany alone. In May 1995, the Russian Federation, along with other states of the former USSR and the "socialist commonwealth", joined the "Partnership for Peace" program proposed by the leadership of the NATO bloc. However, since then it has not been filled with concrete content. Russia's participation in the "Partnership for Peace" program was rather symbolic and boiled down mainly to sending observers to joint exercises of other countries.
In May 1997, the Founding Act (OA) between NATO and Russia was signed, in which, after six months of negotiations, a concession was made to Russia, as it were, and not only was the "Danish-Norwegian model" adopted, providing for the non-deployment of nuclear weapons on the territory of the countries - new members of NATO, but the bloc's obligation to limit the presence of conventional armed forces there and the mutual obligation of the parties not to use force or threaten to use it are also recorded - this act is extremely important from an international legal point of view, but insufficient in moral and psychological terms. Ultimately, despite the practical implementation of the Partnership for Peace program (about a thousand events of 42 countries, cooperation between NATO and Russia in the settlement of the Bosnian conflict, the development of measures to eliminate the consequences of emergency situations), the OA is not a treaty of friendship and cooperation, to which Russian public opinion is accustomed to, but a charter on the foundations of relations between two peaceful, but wary sides.
Russia joined the International Monetary Fund, which strengthened its economic position. At the same time, she was admitted to the Council of Europe, whose competence includes issues of culture, human rights, environmental protection, and the settlement of interethnic conflict situations. She got the opportunity to integrate into the world economy. As a result, trade, industrial and agricultural relations have intensified between Russia, the United States, the states of the Middle East and Latin America.
The development of relations with the Commonwealth of Independent States occupied an important place in the foreign policy of the Russian government. In 1993, the CIS included, in addition to Russia, eleven more states. In 1997, Russia's role in the CIS was, unfortunately, limited mainly to the range of military problems, problems of the position of Russians, manipulation of the supply of Russian oil and gas, and so on. If we proceed from this perspective, then for Russia there are only options for a negative development of events:
1. The liquidation of the CIS by the tacit consent of Russia, in which, in this case, pressure will grow in favor of raising the issue of correcting borders with all former partners in the Commonwealth.
2. The growing migration of the Slavic population from neighboring states, the weakening of ties between them, which is also not a solution to the problem, based on the strategic interests of Russia, the strengthening of its geopolitical positions.
Many experts in the field of international relations consider the most optimal scenario, in which the strategy of modernization of Russia and the entire post-Soviet space is harmonized. Pragmatic diplomats believe that the perception of the latter as equal subjects of international communication is imperative for the success of Russia's dialogue with its CIS partners.
Unfortunately, the alignment of political forces in the Duma, in accordance with the 1996 elections, the thoughtless decision of the Duma to denounce the Belovezhskaya agreements torpedo the idea of integration on an equal footing. Moreover, the statements of political leaders of some social movements in the Russian Federation that the borders of Russia do not coincide with the borders of the former RSFSR, about the desirability of the revival of the former Union (even if they are used for populist purposes), as well as the approach to relations with other countries The CIS as "non-international" is capable of exerting a destructive influence on the development of the CIS.
An encouraging fact of Russia's integration impulses in the CIS can be considered the Decree of the President of Russia, which clearly defines the strategic course in relations with the members of the Commonwealth (Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan) towards closer integration. An important step along this path is the conclusion of a customs union between Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan. Trade between the CIS countries has intensified. Trade turnover in 1997 increased by 64% between Russia and Belarus compared to the previous year, and by 38% between Russia and Kazakhstan. Currently, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan are showing interest in joining the customs union. The extension of this consent to 6 CIS countries will lead to the fact that it will cover 90% of the territory of the Commonwealth, which produces 63% of the total GDP of the countries of the former Union, including 58% of industrial equipment. It is no coincidence that in Ukraine, which at one time was one of the active opponents of the removal of customs barriers, the voices of those who advocate joining this union are becoming stronger and stronger.
In turn, the Russian government seeks to maintain integration ties. On his initiative, an interstate committee of the Commonwealth countries was created with a residence center in Moscow. An agreement on collective security was concluded between Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan and other states, and the charter of the CIS was developed and approved. At the same time, Russia's interstate relations with the former CIS republics are not always favorable. Until now, there is no consensus regarding the Black Sea Fleet, the Crimean Peninsula, the Russian-speaking population, territorial problems, etc. However, the Russian government pays unremitting attention to the issues of settling the economic, political and social problems of Russia and the CIS countries. His efforts are aimed at achieving stability and prosperity for all the peoples of the CIS.
Russia in the 90s of the XX century
The 1990s went down in the history of Russia as a time of democratic transformations in many areas of social and political life - the first congresses of people's deputies of the USSR, the formation of the Russian Federation, taking a course towards the creation of a state of law, etc. Against this background, the new Russia faced one of the main tasks of overcoming the economic, social and political crisis. A course was taken to continue the democratic and social reforms begun in the second half of the 1980s.
Changes in the state system of the USSR and Russia. On May 25, 1989, the First Congress of People's Deputies of the USSR opened, which was a major political event in the history of the Soviet state. For the first time, elections of deputies were held on an alternative basis (only at the union level, a third of the seats were reserved for direct nominees of the party itself and public organizations led by it). The permanent Supreme Soviets of the USSR and the union republics were formed from among the people's deputies. All this looked like a victory for democracy. There were few practical results of the First Congress. In addition to the election of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, several general resolutions were adopted, in particular, the Resolution on the main directions of the domestic and foreign policy of the USSR.
President Boris N. Yeltsin, elected by popular vote, became the head of the executive power of Russia. At the beginning of his presidency, Boris N. Yeltsin "handed out" sovereignties "to each according to his ability," but he promised to preserve the unity of Russia. But the unity of genuine, historical Russia, which existed since 1922 at the head of the USSR, was destroyed in Belovezhskaya Pushcha on December 8, 1991 by the leaders of Russia, Ukraine and Belarus B. N. Yeltsin, L. Kravchuk, L. M. Shushkevich, who announced the dissolution USSR and the creation of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). On December 21, at a meeting in Alma-Ata, eight more republics joined the CIS. On December 25, M. S. Gorbachev resigned from the post of President of the USSR.
Domestic politics. Since the beginning of 1992, the situation in the country has remained extremely tense. Released in January, the prices caused a rapid rise in inflation, deepened the problems in the social sphere, increased the impoverishment of the masses, the decline in production, increased the growth of crime and corruption.
Since the end of 1992, the privatization of state property began, which by the fall of 1994 covered a third of industrial enterprises and two-thirds of trade, household and service enterprises. As a result of the privatization policy, 110 thousand industrial enterprises passed into the hands of private entrepreneurs.
The economic crisis had a negative impact on the agricultural sector of the country, which led, first of all, to a drop in the level of productivity, a decrease in the number of herds of large and small cattle. The created farms continued to fall apart due to the lack of agricultural machinery, insufficient attention to their needs by the leaders of a number of regions of the country, exorbitant taxes.
Socio-political life. The modern history of Russia, the beginning of which can be dated to 1985, is one of the dramatic periods of its development. In a short time, the communist regime and the CPSU collapsed, the Soviet Union collapsed, and in its place new independent states were formed, including the Russian Federation.
On the one hand, Russian parties, movements and blocs are becoming a full-fledged link in the emerging political system, subjects of "big politics", developing in accordance with the Constitution of the Russian Federation and the federal law "On Public Associations". This is evidenced by the results of the elections to the State Duma of Russia on December 17, 1995, when the parties and movements of the "left", "national-patriotic" and "democratic opposition" represented by the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia and the association "Yabloko ".
On the other hand, the presidential elections in Russia on June 16, 1996 showed a clear division of the society of political parties into two opposing camps - supporters of the elected President BN Yeltsin and his opponents.
450 deputies were elected to the State Duma of the second convocation.
The current party activity takes place in a transitional period, which determines its inconsistency and unevenness: some parties not only conquered the parliamentary Olympus, but also firmly entrenched themselves on this frontier, others stopped at the near or distant approaches to it, and still others took a wait-and-see attitude or rapidly marginalized.
The activities of parties and social movements turned out to be complex and ambiguous for the political life of Russian society. The social and political life of Russia has in many cases become richer and more varied. At the same time, ignoring by some parties, blocs and movements of an honest opposition struggle for power between themselves and the state structures of Russia turned out to be significant losses for society.
Foreign policy and relations with the CIS countries. The geopolitical realities of the modern world make it possible to consider Russia as one of the important centers of world politics, which, like all other countries, has its own interests in the world. The distribution of its foreign policy priorities can be seen, first of all, in the scheme of the concentric distribution of the borders of the former USSR.
In determining its own foreign policy prospects, Russia is in a very difficult position: firstly, the resource base for ensuring the country's foreign policy has been significantly reduced. In addition, Russia's borders turned out to be more open and less secure; secondly, the economic weakness of Russia and the difficulties associated with the formation of its own statehood (primarily the problems of regionalism) have significantly reduced Russia's authority in the international arena; thirdly, the struggle of internal political forces around the issue of Russia's national-state interests continues. Despite this, the most important world problems (the Yugoslav crisis, the problems of the Middle East, etc.) cannot be resolved without the participation of Russia.
In late 1991 - early 1992, the President of Russia came up with the first foreign policy initiatives. He officially stated that from now on, Russian nuclear missiles are not aimed at US facilities. In January 1993, in Moscow, Russia and the United States of America signed the START-2 treaty, which provides for a mutual reduction by 2003 of the nuclear potential of the parties by two thirds compared to the level established by the START-1 agreement.
Striving for a peaceful settlement of relations with the countries of the West, Russia withdrew its troops from the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, including the Baltics. By 1995, more than 500,000 servicemen, 12,000 tanks, and many other military equipment had returned to Russia from East Germany alone. In May 1995, the Russian Federation, along with other states of the former USSR and the "socialist commonwealth", joined the "Partnership for Peace" program proposed by the leadership of the NATO bloc. However, since then it has not been filled with concrete content. Russia's participation in the "Partnership for Peace" program was rather symbolic and boiled down mainly to sending observers to joint exercises of other countries.
In May 1997, the Founding Act (OA) between NATO and Russia was signed, in which, after six months of negotiations, a concession was made to Russia, as it were, and not only was the "Danish-Norwegian model" adopted, providing for the non-deployment of nuclear weapons on the territory of the countries - new members of NATO, but the bloc's obligation to limit the presence of conventional armed forces there and the mutual obligation of the parties not to use force or threaten to use it are also recorded - this act is extremely important from an international legal point of view, but insufficient in moral and psychological terms.
Russia joined the International Monetary Fund, which strengthened its economic position. At the same time, she was admitted to the Council of Europe, whose competence includes issues of culture, human rights, environmental protection, and the settlement of interethnic conflict situations. She got the opportunity to integrate into the world economy. As a result, trade, industrial and agricultural relations have intensified between Russia, the United States, the states of the Middle East and Latin America.
The development of relations with the Commonwealth of Independent States occupied an important place in the foreign policy of the Russian government. In 1993, the CIS included, in addition to Russia, eleven more states.
In turn, the Russian government seeks to maintain integration ties. On his initiative, an interstate committee of the Commonwealth countries was created with a residence center in Moscow. An agreement on collective security was concluded between Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan and other states, and the charter of the CIS was developed and approved. At the same time, Russia's interstate relations with the former CIS republics are not always favorable. Until now, there is no consensus regarding the Black Sea Fleet, the Crimean Peninsula, the Russian-speaking population, territorial problems, etc. However, the Russian government pays unremitting attention to the issues of settling the economic, political and social problems of Russia and the CIS countries. His efforts are aimed at achieving stability and prosperity for all the peoples of the CIS.
In October 1991, Russian President Boris Yeltsin unveiled a program for the transition to a market economy. The Russian economy was waiting for radical changes.
The main points of the program:
restructuring of industry, building a private-state economy;
privatization of most state-owned enterprises, unhindered development of private property;
land reform followed by permission to buy and sell land;
removal of restrictions on foreign trade operations, renunciation of the state monopoly on foreign trade;
liberalization of prices and trade;
the introduction of the Russian national currency - the ruble.
Russia began to free itself from the economic legacy of the USSR and build a new economy based on market relations.
At the same time, the Russian leadership decided not to drag out the transition to the market for several years and not to apply half-hearted measures. The transition to the market was swift and complete. Yeltsin's program began to be implemented in full in January 1992. Responsible for the implementation of the reform program was one of its developers, Deputy Prime Minister Yegor Gaidar.
Price liberalization. "Shock therapy". Fall in production. Hyperinflation (1992-1994).
The leadership of Russia did what the leaders of the USSR, who feared a social explosion, did not dare to do: they abandoned the state regulation of prices. From January 2, 1992, the country switched to the use of free market prices. Prices began to be determined not by the state, as it was in the USSR - they began to be determined solely by supply and demand. The state left under its control only the prices of bread, milk, public transport and other socially significant consumer goods and services (they accounted for 10% of the total mass of goods and services).
It was assumed that after the release of prices they will increase by 3 times. However, the reality turned out to be more dramatic: prices immediately increased by 10-12 times. The reason is an acute shortage of essential goods.
But the rise in prices did not end there: the country experienced hyperinflation. In 1992, prices rose by 2,600 percent. The savings of citizens accumulated during the Soviet period were depreciated. Hyperinflation continued in the next two years. The consequences of "shock therapy" turned out to be much more severe than the authorities and leading economists of the country expected.
The abrupt transition to the market had many pluses and minuses. Moreover, often an unconditional plus often became the cause of the appearance of a new minus - and vice versa.
High demand for household goods revived trade. Thanks to trade liberalization, it became possible to quickly fill the market with imports. Goods poured into the country from abroad. This made it possible to quickly cope with the deficit. But now another serious problem arose: Russian enterprises could not stand the competition, as their goods were inferior to imported ones in terms of quality and assortment. As a result, a huge number of enterprises one after another became bankrupt and closed. For the first time in the last 70 years, unemployment appeared in the country, and it immediately became widespread.
The sharp decline in production hit the Russian budget as well. He lost important sources of income and became impoverished very quickly. The state turned out to be unable to finance socially significant budget items. Science, education, health care, and culture were especially affected.
But in general, the rapid reforms, for all their drama, were important:
the trade deficit was quickly eliminated;
a new trading system has emerged, freed from state mediation and based on direct ties with domestic and foreign manufacturers and suppliers;
the country has avoided the rupture of economic ties and economic collapse;
the foundations of market relations and market mechanisms for the future growth of the Russian economy have been created.
In autumn 1992, privatization began. Thousands of state enterprises passed into private hands - to individuals and labor collectives.
An important task of the authorities was the formation of a class of owners, the creation of small, medium and large businesses, which would form the basis of the Russian economy. The announced privatization was also subordinated to the solution of this problem.
But the majority of the population did not have the funds to buy shares. And the authorities decided to issue a privatization check (voucher) to every citizen of Russia. It could be exchanged for shares with a total value of up to 10 thousand rubles. These and other state measures have led to the fact that privatization has acquired active forms. During the first year of reforms, 24,000 enterprises, 160,000 farms, and 15 percent of trade enterprises were privatized. A layer of owners began to form in the country at a very rapid pace.
Voucher privatization did not improve the material situation of the majority of the Russian population. It did not become an incentive for the development of production, did not meet the expectations of the authorities and the entire population, who were counting on an improvement in the economic situation in the country. This is an absolute minus of the economic policy of the authorities in 1992-1994. But within a short time, new economic relations based on private property and freedom of entrepreneurial activity developed in the country. And this is an equally unconditional plus of the past privatization.
The reform program did not bring the main expected result: the government failed to stabilize the country's economy. In December 1992, Yegor Gaidar, who acted as head of the government, was dismissed. The government was headed by Viktor Chernomyrdin. He made adjustments to the reform program: unlike Gaidar, he pursued a policy of strengthening the role of the state in the economy. A special stake was also placed on the fuel and energy and defense complexes.
However, these measures were not successful either. Production continued to fall, the treasury experienced a terrible deficit, inflation grew, and "capital flight" intensified: domestic entrepreneurs did not want to leave profits in unstable Russia. Foreign companies were also in no hurry to invest in the Russian economy, fearing not only economic, but also political instability, as well as the lack of the necessary legislative framework in the country.
Russia was in dire need of money to finance reforms. They were provided by the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. In addition, the government began to issue state short-term bonds (GKOs), which brought considerable income. It was also possible to convince the population to keep money in banks. As a result, the necessary funds appeared in the budget. Thanks to this, the government managed to reduce inflation and stabilize the ruble.
However, by selling GKOs and taking loans from foreign financial institutions, the country got more and more into debt. It was necessary to pay interest on GKOs, but there were simply no such funds in the budget. At the same time, the proceeds were not always used effectively - and therefore did not bring the expected result. As a result, a new threat loomed over the country - the danger of a debt crisis.
In early 1998, Chernomyrdin was dismissed. Sergei Kiriyenko became the new prime minister. The renewed government tried to prevent the impending financial crisis or mitigate its consequences. However, nothing could be changed.
On August 17, 1998, the government announced the termination of payments on GKO, in fact, admitting its inability to pay its debts. An unprecedented financial crisis broke out. The ruble exchange rate collapsed in a matter of weeks, depreciating 4 times against the dollar. Monetary deposits of the population depreciated for the second time in a decade. Confidence in banks was again undermined. The banking system was on the brink of an abyss. Imports decreased, and there was a threat of a new total deficit.
Lost the trust of citizens and the government. It, together with Prime Minister Kiriyenko, was dismissed.
Yevgeny Primakov was appointed the new head of the Cabinet of Ministers. He urged not to wait for outside help, but to rely on one's own strength. The default also had a positive side: due to the strong appreciation of the dollar, imported goods turned out to be too expensive for the majority of the country's population. This was a chance for domestic production, which unexpectedly received serious competitive advantages: domestic goods turned out to be significantly cheaper than imported ones and began to be in serious demand. Production revived. A new economic growth has begun.
In May 1999, Sergei Stepashin became prime minister, and in August of the same year, Vladimir Putin headed the government. They continued their course towards the improvement of the Russian economy.
With the advent of Putin to the leadership of the government, the development of a fundamentally new economic strategy for the country began.
In the 1990s, Russia's lag behind the world's leading economies was constantly increasing. In terms of aggregate indicators of economic development, Russia has rolled back far behind, noticeably yielding to the leading countries of Europe and the United States. If in the middle of the 20th century Russia ranked second in the world in terms of industrial production, then in the 90s it dropped into the second ten. On the other hand, market relations have developed in the country, a new foundation has been built, on which the economy of the new, post-communist Russia was to be built. It was necessary to urgently get out of the protracted crisis, overcome the backlog and ensure sustainable economic growth. Not only the material well-being of the country depended on this. The future of Russia was being decided.
