VLADIMIR BUKOVSKY'S PLEA FOR SOVIET DEMOCRACY
By George Saunders
The recent trials of dissident Soviet writers and the protest activities surrounding these trials have highlighted the existence of an increasingly articulate current among Soviet intellectuals against bureaucratic rule. One of the more interesting features of this oppositional activity is the attempt to press for real implementation of the paper guarantees of socialist democracy written into the Soviet constitution, also known as the "Stalin constitution," the "most democratic in the world."
That was the constitution that Stalin cynically introduced in 1936 at the height of the Great Purges, to cover up with democratic phrases the profoundly antidemocratic rule of the bureaucracy consolidated under his leadership. The bureaucrats never meant those promises of free speech, free press, freedom of assembly, and freedom to demonstrate to be taken seriously. But that is what the young generation and the new antibureaucratic currents are starting to do.
This is nowhere so strongly expressed as in the final plea by Vladimir Bukovsky at his trial ending September 1, 1967. Bukovsky's statement was made public by Pavel M. Litvinov, who thus courageously brought out the issues in this case, despite police threats.
Bukovsky was tried in connection with a demonstration of about fifty young people in Moscow on January 22, 1967. They were protesting the arrest of Yuri Galanskov and several others, who have since been tried and convicted of "anti- Soviet slander."
The demonstration, which Bukovsky acknowledged he had organized, also denounced as unconstitutional Article 70 of the Russian Federation law code. The demonstrators demanded repeal of this reactionary catch-all law against "anti- Soviet slander."
Bukovsky was sentenced to three years imprisonment for his offense against "public order." But he denied he had done anything wrong, and turned the tables on the prosecution, accusing them of violating the constitution.
The following excerpts from his final plea give an interesting indication of the trend of thought among ‘young Soviet rebels. A word should be said, incidentally, on Bukovsky's obvious lack of clear understanding of the nature of the struggle in the United States and his overestimation of U.S. democracy. This error is probably due in part to an un-
critical reaction against everything the
bureaucracy has taught, as well as to
lack of accurate information about the
outside world in the Soviet press.
* * *
",..I have here before me the
text of the Soviet constitution: 'In ac-
cordance with the interests of the work-
ers and with the aim of strengthening
the Socialist system the citizens of the
USSR are guaranteed by law...the right of
street processions and demonstrations.'
Why is such an article included? For May
Day and October demonstrations? But it is
not necessary to include such an article
for demonstrations that the government
organizes -- it is clear that no one. will
disperse these demonstrations."
* * x
"We know that protest demonstra-
tions are powerful weapons in the hands
of the workers; this is an inalienable
right in all democratic states. Where is
this right denied? In Madrid, there was
a trial of the participants of a May Day
demonstration. They were tried under a
new law recently passed in Spain that
provides imprisonment from one and a half
to three years for participation in dem-
onstrations. I see a disturbing identity
between fascist Spanish and Soviet legis-
lation.
"Judge: Defendant, you are compar-—
ing things that cannot be compared: the
actions of the rulers of Spain and those
of the Soviet state. In court, the com-
parisons of Soviet policy with the poli-
tics of foreign bourgeois states is in-
tolerable."
*x* * *
"I recognize the important role of
the organs of the KGB [State Security
Commission, the secret police] in the
fight for state security. But what is
their business in this case? There were
no external enemies involved here."
* * *
"We demonstrated in defense of
legality...We protested against an un-
constitutional decree. Was this really
an anti-Soviet demand? Not we alone
find the decree unconstitutional. A
group of representatives of the intelli-
gentsia have presented a similar demand
to the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet
of the USSR."
"Freedom of speech and of the press is, first of all, freedom for criticism. Nobody has ever forbidden praise of the government. If in the constitution there are articles about freedom of speech and of the press, then have the patience to listen to criticism. In what kinds of countries is it forbidden to criticize the government and protest against its actions? Perhaps in capitalist countries? No, we know that in bourgeois countries Communist parties exist whose purpose is to undermine the capitalist system. In the USA the Communist party was suppressed. However, the Supreme Court declared that the suppression was unconstitutional and restored the Communist party to its full rights.*
“Judge: Bukovsky, this does not have any relevance to the accusations in your case. You must understand that the court is not competent to decide the questions you are talking about. We must not judge the laws; we must execute then.
* * *
* Actually the Communist party was not literally outlawed, although the McCarran Act's provisions were so harsh that the result was virtually the same. And although the Supreme Court overturned certain provisions of the McCarran Act, neither the Communist party nor any other radical group has "full rights" as long as that and other reactionary legislation
"I absolutely do not repent for
organizing this demonstration. I find
that it accomplished what it had to ac-
complish, and when I am free again, I
shall again organize demonstrations, of
course, with complete observation of the
law, as before."
*x* * *
A comment by Trotsky on the 1936
Soviet constitution shows that critiques,
such as Bukovsky's, made by young Soviet
rebels follow a similar line of thinking.
In Revolution Betrayed, in his chapter
on the constitution, Trotsky observed:
"To be sure, the new charter 'guar-
antees' to the citizens the so-called
‘freedoms' of speech, press, assemblage
and street processions. But each of these
guarantees has the form either of a heavy
muzzle or of shackles upon the hands and
feet. Freedom of the press means a con-
tinuation of the fierce advance-censorship
whose chains are held by the Secretariat
of a Central Committee whom nobody. has
elected. Freedom of Byzantine flattery
is thus, of course, fully 'guaranteed.'
..-The crude and ignorant command of
science, literature and art will be whol-
ly preserved. ‘Freedom of assemblage'
will mean, as formerly, the obligation
of certain groups of the population to
appear at meetings summoned by the au-
thorities for the adoption of resolu-
2e5"5 prepared in advance." (pp. 262-
263. remains on the books. -- G.S.
of