Russia’s political landscape is now having a blind-spot. Social democracy is missing. That’s at least what Russian journalists and political analysts are thinking, as it’s been a decade and a half so far of them, waiting for someone to fill this blind-spot. In the run-up to the 2007 elections the issue of the Russian social democratic force is once again being tossed about by experts and spin doctors. At this point finding a generous investor seems to be enough to handle this issue.

Ukraine, for instance, has got something that may seem to be a kind of a social democracy. To be more precise, even two of them – the United Social Democratic Party of Ukraine of Victor Medvedchuk and the Socialist Party of Ukraine of Aleksandr Moroz. Neither of them, however, are officially accepted members of the Socialist International. In other words, they don’t posses a “quality certificate”, issued by Western Europe. But does that matter? People are trying, you know!

Meanwhile, in the countries of the former Soviet Bloc things are going just fine. There is Poland, where social democrats have been in power twice, and twice failed the elections. There is Lithuania, with a similar situation, there is Hungary, where the Socialist Party is resolutely leading the nation to capitalism. Everyone is doing fine, it’s just us.

With all that, a certain Eastern European peculiarity is distinguished: all successful social democratic parties have grown out of the old Communist Parties, and not solely out of their recourses, but structures as well. In Russia, such attempt was made in 1991-1992 and it didn’t look like a failure at first – I am talking about the Socialist Party of Working People, which became extinct at the beginning of the 2000.

The idea which suggests itself: the absence of the social democracy in Russia is accounted for by the Communist Party, being either reluctant or incapable of undergoing changes. But, normally, all answers found on the surface prove to be wrong, and this one is no exception. Before discussing the reasons for Russia lacking social democracy, it is worth asking oneself: does the social democracy really exist in Western Europe?

At first sight, the answer is obvious: social democrats not only exist, they rule in many countries. Even the European Parliament’s got a faction, a good one. And what is more, the Socialist International Congresses are being held regularly. Still, it’s all too superficial. If we take a look inside the matter, we’ll have to admit that social democrats are those who share a certain ideology and pursue a certain policy. And that’s where we’ve got a problem.

Not only do the existing social democrats discard applying socialist policy into practice, but they are even denying the ideology in public. In any case, this has already been done by Gerhard Schroeder and Tony Blair. They did it, having published their well-known 1990 joint letter. Its idea was pure and simple. The social democratic values and traditional social democratic policy are not fit in the modern world. Blair was straight about it: establishing an independent Labour Party in England (separately from the Liberals) was a historic mistake. It of course, sounds bizarre, said by a person who is actually heading the Labour Party, but not as much bizarre as Gennady Zyuganov’s statements about Orthodox faith and his Freudian slip about the October Revolution of 1917 being a disaster for Russia. 

In this respect Medvedchuk’s claims to represent the Ukrainian social democracy are as grounded as Blair’s. They are both trying to sell the historic brand having no rights for that, it’s just one of them succeeds and the other – not. Blair has inherited his brand, and Medvedchuk’s brand is nothing, but a counterfeit.

Coming back to Western Europe, we observe the formation of the social democratic movement in the specific conditions of the turn of the 20^th century, when the working class had already acquired a serious political potential, while the ruling classes, occupied with colonial conquests, were eager to pay off for the revolution by political and social concessions. It was very attractive for the leaders of the labor movement. Revolutionary social democracy of the end of the 19^th century was followed by a new reforming force. The brand, speaking modern language, stayed, but with a new ideology and practical application. For Russia having lost in the WWI, there were no conditions for such political layout, since then, the major force in February Revolution of 1917 happened to be bolsheviks. The same thing is with Latin America, which, either, did not have grounds for the proper social democracy. Not even mentioning Asia and Africa. They did have the left forces, but they turned out to be either revolutionary, or populist.

The compromise of classes, which brought success to the Western democracy, has been maintained for most of the 20th century. After the Russian revolution and especially after the WWII the ruling classes of Europe have earned another stimulus to cooperate on the class level: the Soviet menace. The society had to be consolidated under the slogan “defending the democratic freedoms of the West”. To make this work, these freedoms needed to be made real, accessible for the majority, and enjoying support of the social benefits, which could be presented as an antidote to the “red propaganda” from the East.

Social democracy is a political party of the class cooperation, but this cooperation may be possible only with both parties in agreement. Paradoxically, the collapse of Communism turned out to be the end of the social democracy as well. The ruling classes have lost their interest in compromising. And politicians, who acted as professional compromise managers, are in the wilderness. There was nothing left out of social democracy, but the name. The brand…

Brand as it is, has value both in politics and in commerce. That’s why it became so frequently used by politicians occupying various positions, starting from the moderate conservatives and going as far as the liberal right. There are even a number of social democratic traditionalists, who honestly try to pretend, that nothing in the world has changed in the last 25 years.

However, in Russia, the social democratic brand has no value. All attempts to sell it out are doomed. Only the “Communist” brand makes sense. It’s got quite a promotion in Russia! Numerous efforts made to present a social democratic project in Russia end the same way – wasted funds and confused electorate. The other thing is: the same brand can’t be on sale forever. If its reputation is not being upheld properly, it loses its value. This rule applies equally well to the post-Soviet communists, switching to nationalist conservatives, and the Western leaders of the Workers’ parties who oriented towards the elite of the upper-middle class.

The 2007 elections in Russia may truly become the last parade for the Communist Party. The same thing that happened to the Ukraine’s Communist Party, which this time got in the Parliament, agonizing, may easily happen to its Russian “colleague” as well. And then comes the dead-end.

Gennady Zyuganov has already warned his friends, “The existence of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation as a political institute is being questioned”. Speaking in plain terms, we get something like, ”I’m warning you, guys, the CPRF project may soon be dismissed”.

Is anything likely to come to its place? Sooner or later, the substitute will come along. In any case it is not going to be the Western-type social democracy.

Boris Kagarlitsky is a Director of The Institute for Globalization Studies.

June 26, 2006