Congress of People's Deputies of the USSR. First Congress of People's Deputies of the USSR Convocation of the 1st Congress of People's Deputies of the USSR year

In January-March 1989, an election campaign took place in the country during which candidates were nominated for people's deputies of the USSR. Elections took place on March 26. They, despite some shortcomings and violations, were the most democratic in the entire previous history of the country. For the first time in many decades, the Soviet people had the opportunity to elect their representatives to the highest body of power from several candidates. In districts where, in accordance with Soviet tradition, one candidate was nominated, she often did not receive the required number of votes. At the same time, voters sometimes rejected not the candidate, but the very principle of elections without choice. In some constituencies, more than a dozen candidates were registered.

During the elections, a phenomenon was observed, designated in journalism as the “Yeltsin phenomenon.” B.N. Yeltsin was removed from the list of candidates for membership in the Politburo of the CPSU Central Committee and removed from the post of first secretary of the Moscow City Party Committee for the critical remarks he made about the party leadership at the October Plenum of the CPSU Central Committee in 1987. However, he put forward his candidacy for the elections and, despite to powerful opposition from the party press and official party and state bodies, he won a landslide victory. More than 80% of Muscovite voters voted for him. The more communist leaders opposed him, the more popular he became among the masses.

May 25, 1989 1st Congress people's deputies The USSR began its work. He aroused great interest in Soviet society. The country literally fell to televisions and radios. People walking down the street holding a transistor to their ear did not cause the slightest surprise to passers-by. It was clear to everyone that the person was listening to the Congress.

At the first congresses of people's deputies of the USSR, political factions took shape, that is, groups of deputies united to express the interests of certain social or professional segments of the population, to defend certain political ideas and decisions.

Thus, by the beginning of 1989, an unusually favorable socio-political situation had developed in the USSR both for the transition to a market and for the development of state federalism. The signing of a new Union Treaty, which the Baltic republics insisted on at that time, would make it possible not only to move on to the implementation of urgent political and economic reforms, but also to preserve a single state.2

The interregional parliamentary group, representing the opposition minority, united democratic deputies. Its leaders were A.D. Sakharov, Yu.N. Afanasyev, G.Kh. Popov, A.A. Sobchak, G.V. Starovoitova. The group advocated radical reforms both in the economic field, in particular the introduction of private property, and in political life.

The deputy group "Union" led by Yu.V. Blokhin, E. Kogan, Colonel N. Petrushenko and V.I. Alksnis advocated the preservation of the USSR against the right of the peoples included in it to decide their own fate.

The agrarian group included heads of collective farms, state farms, and agricultural bureaucratic institutions. Agrarian deputies demanded more and more billions of dollars in injections into the collective farm system, which had proven its inability to meet the country's food needs. The deputy group “Life” decided to defend the interests of women and children. Other groups were also formed.

The Supreme Soviet of the USSR, which worked in the intervals between congresses of people's deputies, adopted a number of important new laws: on the entry and exit of Soviet citizens abroad, which eliminated the “iron curtain”, on public organizations, decrees that determined economic development countries.

The most significant, from the point of view of the reforms carried out in the country, was the extraordinary III Congress of People's Deputies of the USSR, held in March 1990. At it, M. S. Gorbachev was elected President of the USSR. In fact, this was the beginning of the liquidation of the state system of Soviet power, which, as you remember, did not provide for the post of the president of the country as head of state. At the III Congress, an addition was made to the Constitution, according to which the President of the USSR was elected by citizens of the USSR on the basis of universal, equal, direct suffrage by secret ballot for a period of five years. However, an exception was made here. M. S. Gorbachev was elected at the Congress of People's Deputies. According to the new law, the president acted as a guarantor of the rights and freedoms of Soviet citizens, the Constitution and laws of the USSR, and was the Supreme Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the USSR. The President submitted to the Supreme Soviet of the USSR for approval the candidacies of senior government officials, primarily the Chairman of the Cabinet of Ministers and the head of government. At the insistence of M. S. Gorbachev, he became Valentin Pavlov. Somewhat later, the position of vice president was introduced, who was supposed to replace the President in his absence and perform certain functions of the president of the country. Vice President, again at the insistence of M.S. Gorbachev, the colorless functionary Gennady Yanaev became.

The 3rd Congress of People's Deputies of the USSR abolished the article of the 1977 Constitution of the USSR, which legislated the leading role of the Communist Party.

Chronology

• 1989, May - July 1st Congress of People's Deputies of the USSR
• 1989, December II Congress of People's Deputies of the USSR
• 1990, March III Congress of People's Deputies of the USSR. Election of M.S. Gorbachev as President of the USSR
• 1990, June 12 Declaration of State Sovereignty of the RSFSR
• 1991, June 12 Election of B.N. as President of the RSFSR Yeltsin

Congresses of People's Deputies of the USSR

At the May 1989 I Congress of People's Deputies of the USSR

Congress of People's Deputies

the ensuing discussion revealed the presence of a wide group of radical deputies, such as A. Sobchak, E. Yevtushenko, A. Adamovich, Yu. Chernichenko, B. Yeltsin. Academician A. Sakharov became the leader of the democratic wing. The radicals did not have a clear program and strategy for behavior at the Congress. Their opposition line developed spontaneously, gradually rallying like-minded people around them. All aspects of Gorbachev’s course, primarily the economic one, were criticized by the radicals. By the beginning of the Congress, the economy was in a state of crisis, with commodity shortages and hidden inflation constantly deepening. The most necessary goods disappeared from the shelves: soap, salt, washing powder, bread, milk, shoes, bed linen. The people believed less and less in the CPSU headed by the General Secretary.

Food coupons

The economic crisis in the country was reflected in the intensity of political passions at the Congress. Deputy Yu.A. Chernichenko, speaking at the Congress, called supporters of M.S. Gorbachev by an “aggressively obedient majority,” and G. Popov openly declared opposition to this majority and called for the formation of an interregional independent deputy group. In fact, at the Congress there was a division of the single camp of supporters of perestroika into moderate led by M.S. Gorbachev and radicals(A. Sakharov and B. Yeltsin played the leading role among them).

The First Congress of People's Deputies formed Supreme Soviet of the USSR. M.S. was elected its chairman. Gorbachev.

For 1989. conflict between M.S. Gorbachev and the radicals went deeper. Radicals opposed preservation of the USSR, against socialism, against party monopoly.

On II Congress of People's Deputies of the USSR, held in December 1989, they advocated abolition of article six Constitution (on the leading role of the CPSU). After the sudden death of Academician Sakharov on December 14, 1989, leadership in the radical movement passed to B.N. Yeltsin.

First Secretary of the Moscow City Committee of the CPSU B.N. Yeltsin accepts the Red Banner of the CPSU Central Committee, the Council of Ministers of the USSR, the All-Union Central Council of Trade Unions and the Komsomol Central Committee

By this time, radicals from the Baltic states had achieved tangible success. Popular Fronts The Baltic states declared the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact illegal, and, therefore, the entry of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia into the USSR illegal.

At the beginning of 1990, Russian radicals developed a new strategy in connection with the approaching elections to the Congress of People's Deputies of Russia. They proceeded from the fact that the Congress of People's Deputies of the USSR was conservative, which means that it was necessary to achieve the sovereignty of Russia and carry out reforms in it.

III Congress of People's Deputies of the USSR, held in March 1990, canceled Article 6 of the Constitution. At the III Congress M.S. Gorbachev was elected President of the USSR, but less than 60% of deputies voted for him. This clearly indicated a decline in his popularity.

In June 1990, the radicals won the elections at the First Congress of People's Deputies of the RSFSR, and Chairman of the Supreme Council of the Russian Federation B.N. was elected Yeltsin. G. Popov and A. Sobchak headed government bodies in Moscow and Leningrad, respectively. At the same congress, the Declaration of State Sovereignty of Russia was adopted

IN July 1990. took place XXVIII Congress of the CPSU, at which a mass exit of radicals from the ranks of the CPSU began. New parties were formed that advocated pure liberalism - the Democratic Party of Russia, the Constitutional Democratic Party, the Republican Party, etc. There was a decisive transition of radicals to anti-communist positions. At the same time, they concentrate on the opposite pole conservatives. Are being created Russian Communist Party headed by I. Polozkov(later he was replaced in this post by G. Zyuganov), the faction “ Union”, which accused M.S. Gorbachev in the collapse of the USSR. As representatives of this faction stated, Gorbachev succeeded in what foreign interventionists from Napoleon to Hitler failed to do - turn great power to a secondary state.

Rally

Thus, in 1989 - 1990. M.S. Gorbachev found himself forced to maneuver between the opposition on the left and right, he tried to stay on centrist positions. This was largely possible thanks to the support of the West, which continued to rely on him, and not on Boris Yeltsin as the leader of democratic reforms in Russia.

By mid-1990, the Soviet leadership decided to introduce private ownership of the means of production. If at the first stage of perestroika attempts were made to improve the socialist system, then with the recognition of economic pluralism, the dismantling of the foundations of socialism began. The President was proposed several programs for the transition to a market economy. The most famous program was called “500 days”, aimed at a quick and decisive transition to the market, created under the leadership of G. Yavlinsky. The President preferred a government program that was more moderate in nature.

A layer of entrepreneurs appeared in the country and began to become legalized. At the same time, the population's living standards were falling more and more rapidly. Store shelves were empty, prices in private trade were inaccessible to most people living on wages. A strike movement arose in the country; miners were particularly active. Failures in the economy increasingly undermined the positions of the reformers led by M.S. Gorbachev.

The weakening of the central government led to the exacerbation of interethnic conflicts and the growth of separatism.

On IV Congress of People's Deputies of the USSR(December 1990) the question of the further existence of the Union became acute. The congress spoke in favor of preserving the USSR. In accordance with the resolution of the congress, an all-Union referendum was held. 76.4% of those participating in the referendum were in favor of preserving the USSR. However, the movement to secede from the USSR intensified. In 1988 - 1990 Declarations of state sovereignty have already been adopted by Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Azerbaijan and Moldova.

B.N. Yeltsin

In order to preserve the political foundations of the state, it was decided to change the structure of power and return it to “Leninist ideals.” In June-July 1988, a decision was made to create a two-tier system of power:

1) Congress of People's Deputies of 2250 people;

2) elected by the Congress and renewed every year by 1/5 of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR (554 people). (

1st People's Congress dep. USSR– May-June 1989 (Elected President of the USSR Supreme Council – M.S. Gorbachev; President of the Council of Min. – N.I. Ryzhkov; for the first time, the official opposition of “interregionalists” arose, for the first time daily broadcast of all meetings).

2 People's Congress dep. USSR– November 1989 (political propaganda decisions: there was an open skirmish between Ak. Sakharov and M.S. Gorbachev, the 1939 pact with Germany was condemned, the XIII Five-Year Plan plan was discussed but never adopted, the entry of troops into Afghanistan was condemned) .

3rd Extraordinary Congress of the People. dep. USSR– March 1990 (abandoned Article 6 of the Constitution, elected M.S. Gobachev as the first President of the USSR, refused to recognize Lithuania’s secession from the USSR).

4 People's Congress dep. USSR– December 1990. At the congress, the question of M.S. Gorbachev’s resignation was raised for the first time. It is noteworthy that this question was formulated by a representative of the CPSU. However, soon the Supreme Council granted M.S. Gorbachev emergency powers.

The last Congress of the CPSU - XXVIII, July 1990. At the congress, Yeltsin, Popov, and Sobchak left the party. By the end of 1990, the CPSU had shrunk by a third. The number of party members dropped to 15 million. M.S. Gorbachev proposed creating a Union of Northern States.

Parade of sovereignties.

The process of collapse of the USSR began with the beginning of the process of collapse of the CPSU. In 1989, the Lithuanian Communist Party left the CPSU. During these same years, from May 1988 to January 1991, declarations of independence or sovereignty were adopted in all union and autonomous republics. But the Baltics went further. On March 11, 1990, Lithuania adopted the Act on the Restoration of State Independence. Soon, on June 12, 1990, at the First Congress of the People. dep. The RSFSR adopted the Declaration of State Sovereignty of the RSFSR. Bilateral treaties were concluded with the Baltic republics. Soon, four days later, the same Declaration was adopted by Ukraine. In October 1990, Yeltsin announced the non-subordination of the RSFSR to the allied authorities and the beginning of his own course of reforms. This decision was enshrined in law.

Soon, similar Declarations were adopted in the autonomous republics of the RSFSR (Yakutia, TASSR, Chechnya, Bashkiria).

Novo-Ogarevsky process.

On June 24, a draft of a new union treaty was published. However, the Baltic republics refused to discuss it. The western regions of Ukraine and Moldova expressed a negative attitude towards the agreement. Similar sentiments reign in Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Armenia.

On March 17, at a referendum on the existence of the USSR, support was expressed for the union state (76%). On April 24, a preliminary agreement “9+1” was signed in Novo-Ogaryovo. The signing of the new union treaty was scheduled for August 21. The new state was to become a confederation. Gorbachev was to become the new President, Nazarbayev was to become Prime Minister.

On the eve of the signing of the agreement, M.S. Gorbachev went on state vacation. Foros dacha in Crimea.

Collapse of the USSR.

State Emergency Committee.

On August 19, 1991, at 6 o’clock in the morning, the creation of the State Emergency Committee was announced. Vice-President of the USSR G.I. Yanaev announced the temporary assumption of the functions of head of state. This was explained by the illness of M.S. Gorbachev.

The Commission included Prime Minister V.S. Pavlov, min. Defense Marshal of the USSR D.T. Yazov, Chairman KGB V.A. Kryuchkov, min. ext. cases B.K. Pugo and others. The circumstances of the creation of the State Emergency Committee are poorly understood. Probably, all parties to this process were interested in this, both those who joined the Commission and those who were temporarily removed from power. The actions of the Commission were in accordance with the plan approved by M.S. Gorbachev back in the spring of 1991. At a meeting in Foros between the members of the Commission and the President of the USSR, Gorbachev did not oppose the measures of the State Emergency Committee, did not remove them from power and even shook their hands.

The members of the Commission motivated their actions by the inconsistency of the future treaty with the norms of the USSR Constitution, the danger of disrupting the events planned for August 21 (Ukraine, for example, hesitated), and the desire to prevent the collapse of the USSR. However, the Commission's actions were poorly coordinated. Troops were brought into Moscow, but they were not given clear orders, the reason for their presence was not explained, and they were not given ammunition. At the same time, the Armed Forces of the RSFSR began to reassign the army, but no one opposed this. The senior command staff and commanders of military units began to change their oath, recognizing B.N. Yeltsin as commander in chief. The supplies and activities of the government of the RSFSR continued. The commission mobilized the army, but did not dare to introduce into Moscow units loyal to the oath and formations based on military schools that supported the State Emergency Committee. Mass rallies began in Moscow and Leningrad. Barricades were spontaneously built. Free food, alcohol, and water were brought into improvised gathering places for opposition youth and townspeople.

On August 20, B.N. Yeltsin issued a Decree banning the activities of the CPSU. The Plenum scheduled for August 20-21 never took place.

By August 21, the opposition took the initiative into their own hands. On the night of 21–22, the President of the USSR returned to Moscow. On August 23, at a meeting of the Supreme Council of the RSFSR, M.S. Gorbachev confirmed the legality of all the Decrees of B.N. Yeltsin.

By August 26, all members of the State Emergency Committee were arrested and the party buildings were taken away. Mirshal Akhromeev, manager. Affairs of the Central Committee of the CPSU Kruchin, min. ext. Del Pugo committed suicide. Yazov refused pardon and sought a trial. The court recognized the actions of the members of the State Emergency Committee as legal, and justified the actions of the members of the State Emergency Committee.

On September 2, M.S. Gorbachev announced the preparation of a new union treaty designed to create a Union of Sovereign States on a confederal basis. On these same days, the last Congress of the People took place. deputies of the USSR. A program for a new state system for the transition period was adopted and the State Council was created.

The first decision of the State. The Council recognized the independence of the Baltic republics. In August-September, Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova, Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Armenia and Turkmenistan declared independence. And on November 25, members of the State Council refused to sign the agreement written with their participation.

On December 1, Ukraine declared its complete independence, and 2 days later it was recognized by the RSFSR as an independent state. And already on December 8, in conditions of secrecy at the Belovezhskaya Pushcha dacha, the collapse of the USSR was recognized and an agreement on the creation of the CIS was signed. Within a few days, despite the statement of M.S. Gorbachev, the decisions of the Belovezhskaya Agreement were ratified by the Supreme Council of the republics. For some time Nazarbayev spoke out against the collapse of the USSR. On December 25, M.S. Gorbachev announced his resignation as President of the USSR. B.N. Yeltsin terminated the powers of deputies of the USSR Supreme Council, and the Russian flag was raised over the Kremlin.

The collapse of the Soviet system occurred later, in 1993, during the confrontation between the President of Russia and the Armed Forces of the RSFSR. The court found B.N. Yeltsin's actions illegal. However, the President won the political confrontation. The new constitution of the RSFSR created new authorities, completely eliminating the Soviet form of democracy.

Foreign policy of the USSR in the mid-60s - early 90s of the XX century.

Social countries Commonwealth.

After the dismissal of N.S. Khrushchov, the new government began a course to eliminate the problems that arose during the previous period of government. It was necessary to normalize relations with Romania and China, restore relations with the United States and with the countries of the “third world”. It was necessary to cope with the threat of the collapse of the socialist camp.

Major events this period began

1) entry of ATS troops into Czechoslavakia (1968);

2) military clash with China on the island. Damansky (1969);

3) participation in military conflicts in Vietnam (60s), India, the Middle East, Lebanon and Syria (70s), Egypt (1948-1949, 60s);

4) participation in the Helsinki Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (1973-1975);

5) expansion of the CMEA at the expense of Vietnam and Cuba, agreements were concluded with Yugoslavia, Finland, Iran, Mexico, Nicaragua

6) signing of the ABM treaties, SALT 1 and SALT 2 (1972) with the United States;

7) participation in Polish politics. the crisis of the first half of the 80s (general V. Jaruzelski);

The chairman is the Chairman of the Central Election Commission for the Election of People's Deputies of the USSR V.P. Orlov.

Presiding.

Dear comrades people's deputies of the USSR! It was a great honor for me. In accordance with the Constitution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, I, as Chairman of the Central Election Commission, will have to open the Congress of People's Deputies of the USSR.

Allow me, first of all, on behalf of the Central Election Commission for the Election of People's Deputies of the USSR to cordially congratulate you on your election to the highest body of state power in our country, on the great trust that the Soviet people have placed in you, on the honorable and extremely responsible mission that is now entrusted to you.

The elections and preparations for them took place in conditions of widespread, unprecedented publicity and openness, and a rapid growth in the political activity of the working people. This was especially convincingly confirmed on Sunday, March 26, when more than 172 million Soviet people - almost 90 percent of all voters included in the lists - went to the polls to express all shades of public opinion to support perestroika.

The elections showed that perestroika had become a national cause. Soviet people spoke in favor of its further deepening, for the fastest changes for the better in all

spheres of life. With their novelty and high interest of the masses, the elections complemented and enriched the image of perestroika and became a step of fundamental importance in the development of democracy. They moved our society forward along the path outlined by the 27th Party Congress and the 19th All-Union Conference of the CPSU.

The elections confirmed that the people see in Lenin’s party a force capable of uniting Soviet society, ensuring its consolidation, and finding effective ways to solve pressing problems and overcome difficulties. We have never had a more powerful, nationwide referendum in favor of the Communist Party and its course for renewal.

Today we can say that the elections were a major contribution to the practical implementation of the reform political system, affirmation of democracy. They brought Soviet democracy to a qualitative level new level and will go down in the history of our socialist state as one of the most important milestones in the development of all social life. During the election campaign, the Soviet people acquired unique political experience. At a new, extremely responsible and difficult stage of the democratic development of our country, candidates for deputies were nominated from below. Thousands of candidates took part in the election campaign, and elections were carried out on an alternative basis. Millions of voters have only just now truly felt that their voice means a lot in resolving major government issues and in the socio-political development of the country.

The current election campaign has presented a far from clear picture. It reflected the diversity of positions, points of view, and opinions that exist in our society. It became a kind of testing ground where new provisions of the USSR Constitution were put into effect for the first time, and a fundamentally new Election Law was tested. In general, it made it possible to hold elections on a truly democratic basis and to obtain new electoral practices. At the same time, at pre-election meetings, in work collectives, in funds mass media wishes were expressed about the need to adjust certain norms and procedures established by the Law.

All of them deserve attention and require analysis. It is important, taking into account the experience gained, to make the necessary changes to the election legislation so that it more fully meets the interests of developing socialist democracy and strengthening our statehood. All proposals on these issues received by the Central Election Commission will be transferred to the Supreme Soviet of the USSR.

Today, 2,155 people's deputies of the USSR out of 2,249 elected are present at the Congress. Detailed data on the election results and the composition of deputies will be reported by the Credentials Commission, which will be elected by the Congress and to which the Central Election Commission will transfer all the documentation necessary to verify the powers of the deputies.

It should be said that in this hall today there are workers, collective farmers, production commanders, scientists, cultural figures, military personnel - people of different professions, different generations, representatives of the people with great political and intellectual potential.

The composition of the deputies reflects the multinational character of our country. Among them are representatives of 65 nations and nationalities.

The current deputy corps will have to solve problems of national importance. These tasks are assigned by our Constitution, first of all, to the Congress of People's Deputies, which, being the highest body of state power, is competent to consider any issue within the jurisdiction of the USSR, determines the main line of activity of the Supreme Council and all other state bodies.

Today the attention and thoughts of all working people are directed to the Congress of People's Deputies of the USSR; much is expected from it. First of all, it is an answer to people’s questions related to the further course of perestroika. Along with their parliamentary mandate, voters gave you, comrade deputies, their faith in a better life, in a prosperous and powerful Soviet socialist state.

Let me express confidence that the Congress of People's Deputies will justify the aspirations of the people, that each deputy will contribute his share of experience, intelligence and labor to the joint efforts aimed at achieving new stages of socio-economic and spiritual progress for our society.

Comrades! In accordance with Article 110 of the USSR Constitution, I declare the first meeting of the Congress of People's Deputies of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics open.

(Fruits).

On the podium is People's Deputy of the USSR V.F. Tolpezhnikov, head of the office of the 1st Riga City clinical hospital emergency medical care named after N. Burdenko (Proletarian national-territorial electoral district, Latvian SSR).

Comrades! Before we begin our meeting, I ask you to honor the memory of those killed in Tbilisi. (Everyone stands up. A minute of silence). Thank you.

I am making a parliamentary request: on behalf of my constituents, I demand that it be publicly reported now, at the Congress of People's Deputies of the USSR, who gave the order to beat peaceful demonstrators in the city of Tbilisi on April 9, 1989 and to use toxic substances against them, and also to report the name of these toxic substances. (Applause).

Chairman. Comrades! Many deputies made proposals for the election of the Presidium of our Congress. These proposals were supported by a meeting of representatives of groups of people's deputies of the USSR.

The floor for the proposal on behalf of the meeting of representatives of the Presidium of the Congress is given to Deputy Lukin.

Lukin V.P., gas cutter at the Kolomna Diesel Locomotive Plant named after V.V. Kuibyshev (Moscow rural national-territorial electoral district, RSFSR).

Dear comrades! As is known, the organization of preparations for the Congress of People's Deputies of the USSR and the session of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR is entrusted to the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR. This work has been done.

A meeting of representatives of groups of deputies makes a proposal to elect to the Presidium of the Congress of People's Deputies the Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, General Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee, Comrade Mikhail Sergeevich Gorbachev. (Applause). And the First Deputy Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, Comrade Anatoly Ivanovich Lukyanov. (Applause).

A proposal is also made to elect Comrade Vladimir Pavlovich Orlov to the Presidium of the Congress as Chairman of the Central Election Commission. (Applause). In accordance with the Constitution of the USSR, he opened the first meeting of the Congress.

At a meeting of groups of deputies, it was decided to delegate one representative from each union republic to the Presidium of the Congress. The meetings of deputies of the republics proposed the following comrades to the Presidium of the Congress: Azizbekova Pusta Azizaga kyzy - director of the Museum of History of Azerbaijan; Aitmatov Chingiz - Chairman of the Board of the Writers' Union of the Kirghiz SSR, Editor-in-Chief of the magazine "Foreign Literature"; Ambartsumyan Viktor Amazaspovich - President of the Academy of Sciences of the Armenian SSR; Brazauskas Algrdas-Mikolas Kaze - First Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Lithuania; Vorotnikov Vitaly Ivanovich - member of the Politburo of the CPSU Central Committee, Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the RSFSR; Gorbunov Anatoly Valeryanovich - Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Council of the Latvian SSR; Ishanov Hekim - chief engineer of the Turkmenneft production association, Turkmen SSR; Kozhakhmetov Ibraimzhan - chairman of the collective farm named after Kirov, Panfilov district, Taldy-Kurgan region, Kazakh SSR; Kiseleva Valentina Adamovna - operator of the Grodno production association "Khimvolokno" named after the 60th anniversary of the USSR, Belarusian SSR; Kurashvili Zeinab Givievna - seamstress-machine operator of the Tbilisi Knitting Production Association "Gldani", Georgian SSR; Lippmaa Endel Teodorovich - Director of the Institute of Chemical and Biological Physics of the Academy of Sciences of the Estonian SSR; Mukhabatova Soniabibi Khushvakhtovna - foreman of the farm of the Khaeti-Nav state farm in the Garm region, Tajik SSR; Nishanov Rafik Nishanovich - first secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Uzbekistan; Paton Boris Evgenievich - President of the Academy of Sciences of the Ukrainian SSR; Svetlana Anatolyevna Rotar is a master of machine milking at the Moldova collective farm, Dondyushensky district, Moldavian SSR.

Thus, a total of eighteen comrades are proposed to be elected to the Presidium of the Congress.

Presiding. Allow me to put the proposals submitted to a vote.

Those who are in favor of electing the proposed composition of the Presidium, please raise your certificates. Please omit it. Against? Abstained? The Presidium of the Congress has been elected. Almost unanimously.

We ask the elected deputies to take seats on the Presidium of the Congress. (Applause).

M. S. Gorbachev presides.

Presiding. Let me, on behalf of the Presidium of the Congress, thank you for your trust. (a fruits and changes). We will try to work in full contact - I am sure that all members of the Presidium will support me in this - with the Congress in order to successfully guide this ship towards its intended goals.

We need to approve the agenda and order of work of the Congress. I would like to inform the People's Deputies of the USSR, the Congress, that yesterday, under your authority, representatives of groups of People's Deputies of the USSR, 446 people, met. We sat for nine hours and discussed these issues most thoroughly in order to prepare proposals for you on them.

The floor on behalf of the meeting of representatives on the agenda and order of work of the Congress is given to Deputy Nazarbayev.

Nazarbayev N. A., Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the Kazakh SSR (Alma-Ata - Ili territorial constituency, Alma-Ata region).

Dear comrades people's deputies! Yesterday, at a meeting of representatives of groups of people's deputies, the issue of the agenda of the Congress of People's Deputies of the USSR was comprehensively discussed.

Various points of view on this issue were expressed at the meeting. As a result of a thorough discussion, proposals were developed to include the following issues on the agenda of the Congress:

1. Election of the Credentials Committee of the Congress.

2. Election of the Chairman of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR.

3. Election of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR.

4. Election of the First Deputy Chairman of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR.

5. On the main directions of the domestic and foreign policy of the USSR. Speaker - Chairman of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR.

6. Program of future activities of the USSR Government. Speaker - Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR.

7. Approval of the Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR.

8. Election of the Constitutional Supervision Committee of the USSR.

9. Approval of the Chairman of the People's Control Committee of the USSR, Chairman of the Supreme Court of the USSR, Prosecutor General of the USSR, Chief State Arbitrator of the USSR.

10. Miscellaneous.

On behalf of the meeting of representatives of groups of people's deputies, I make a proposal to approve this agenda of the Congress of People's Deputies of the USSR. As for the order of work of the Congress, it is proposed to consider issues in the order in which they are included in the agenda.

Chairman. So, there is a proposal from a meeting of representatives of groups of people's deputies of the USSR.

Please - Andrei Dmitrievich Sakharov. (Fruits).

Sakharov A.D., academician, chief researcher at the P. N. Lebedev Physical Institute of the USSR Academy of Sciences, Moscow. (From the USSR Academy of Sciences).

Dear deputies, I want to speak in defense of two fundamental provisions that became the basis of the draft agenda, compiled by a group of Moscow deputies as a result of long work. This project was also supported by a number of deputies from other regions of the country.

We proceed from the fact that this Congress is historical event in the biography of our country. The voters, the people, elected us and sent us to this Congress so that we would take responsibility for the fate of the country, for the problems that it faces now, for the prospects for its development. Therefore, our Congress cannot begin with elections. This will turn it into an electoral convention. Our Congress cannot give legislative power to one fifth of its members. The fact that rotation is provided for does not change anything, especially since in a hurry, obviously, the rotation is drawn up in such a way that only 36 percent - I am basing this on the Constitution - only 36 percent of deputies have a chance to be part of the Supreme Council.

This is the basis for the first fundamental thesis of the provision contained in the draft presented by the Moscow group.

I propose to accept as one of the first items on the agenda of the Congress the decree of the Congress of People's Deputies of the USSR. We are experiencing a revolution, perestroika is a revolution, and the word “maternity leave” is the most appropriate in this case. The exclusive right of the Congress of People's Deputies of the USSR is the adoption of laws of the USSR, the appointment of senior officials of the USSR, including the Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR, the Chairman of the People's Control Committee of the USSR, the Chairman of the Supreme Court of the USSR, the Prosecutor General of the USSR, and the Chief State Arbitrator of the USSR. In accordance with this, changes must be made to those articles of the USSR Constitution that relate to the rights of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR. These are, in particular, articles 108 and 111.

The second fundamental question that faces us is the question of whether we can, whether we have the right to elect the head of state - the Chairman of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR before discussion, before discussion on the entire range of political issues that determine the fate of our country, which we obliged to consider. There is always an order: first the discussion, the candidates presenting their platforms, and then the elections. We will disgrace ourselves in front of all our people - this is my deep conviction - if we act otherwise. We cannot do this. (Applause).

In my speeches, I have repeatedly expressed support for the candidacy of Mikhail Sergeevich Gorbachev. (Applause). I still adhere to this position now, since I do not see another person who could lead our country. But I don't see that at the moment. My support is conditional. I believe that a discussion is necessary, a report from the candidates is necessary, because we must keep in mind the alternative principle of all elections at this Congress, including the election of the Chairman of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR. I say the word “candidates,” although I think it is quite possible that there will be no other candidates. And if they are, then we will speak in the plural. Candidates must present their political platform. Mikhail Sergeevich Gorbachev, who was the founder of perestroika, whose name is associated with the beginning of the process of perestroika and the leadership of the country for four years, must say about what happened in our country over these four years. He must talk about both achievements and mistakes, and talk about it self-critically. And our position will also depend on this. The most important thing he must say is what he and the other candidates are going to do in the near future in order to overcome the extremely difficult situation that has developed in our country, what they will do in the future... (Noise in the hall).

Presiding. Let's agree that if someone wants to speak out as a matter of discussion, then up to 5 minutes maximum. Finish up, Andrey Dmitrievich.

Sakharov A. D. I'll finish now. I will not list all the issues that I consider necessary to discuss. They are contained in our project. I hope the deputies are familiar with this project. But, in closing, I hope that the Congress will prove worthy of the great mission that faces it, that it will democratically approach the tasks facing it.

Chairman. Just a minute, comrades! I think we are already at the final stage. We discussed the issues on the agenda with quite great desire and concern. And these questions have basically emerged. But, I think, we will not deprive the comrades who spoke out at previous stages of the opportunity to convey their point of view to the Congress. And it’s up to the Congress to make a decision. Our main proposal was made on behalf of all delegations, so I ask, comrades, to speak briefly.

Please, Comrade Popov.

Popov G. X., editor-in-chief of the journal “Economy Issues”, Moscow. (From the Union of Scientific and Engineering Societies of the USSR).

Comrades! Yesterday, in a completely democratic atmosphere, at a meeting of representatives of groups of deputies, the agenda was adopted, which was reported here today. We participated in the discussion, we were all given the opportunity to speak. There was a vote; 15 percent of the participants in the meeting of representatives spoke in favor of the proposal we made. But, as Mikhail Sergeevich correctly said, democracy is democracy - we have the opportunity to appeal to the Congress.

The essence of the problem lies essentially in one agenda item. To be precise, it is whether to hold discussions, debates and reports before the elections of the Supreme Council or after the elections of the Supreme Council. There was a proposal that Andrei Dmitrievich spoke about. There was a second proposal, which was voted on yesterday: that Mikhail Sergeevich’s report be heard as the third item on the agenda, after his election.

Where does the current idea come from that elections by the Congress of the Supreme Council should take place immediately? It starts from two assumptions. Both of these assumptions are not someone’s invention, ill will, desire to launch a voting machine, etc. They are dictated by the logic of our Constitution, and it is quite understandable that the comrades made these proposals. According to the Constitution of the USSR, we really must wait until the Supreme Council appoints the Chairman of the Council of Ministers, the Prosecutor General, elects the Chairman of the People's Control Committee, then we must receive these nominations and we must vote. In this case, the logic proposed by the agenda is natural. But we believe that there is a need for an amendment to the Constitution, which Andrei Dmitrievich spoke about, that the Chairman of the Council of Ministers, the Chairman of the People's Control Committee, the Prosecutor General, the Chairman of the Supreme Court and the Chief State Arbitrator should be elected or appointed here at the Congress, in order to enhance the role of the Congress as the highest body of state power in the country. If this amendment is adopted, there will be no need to pre-elect the Supreme Council in order to give it the opportunity to work and nominate candidates.

The second assumption that forms the basis of the agenda. The point is that the election of deputies to the Supreme Council essentially does not require debate about their points of view, position, etc. Essentially, we are being asked to move away from such principles of democracy as real secret voting, choice among alternative candidates. We are asked to vote for a list of candidates in which the number of applicants corresponds to the number of allocated places. Why did this idea come about? Again, not because someone wants to violate democracy. There is logic here, and again this is the logic of our Constitution. It states that the Council of the Union should be formed taking into account the regional principle. And from here all the consequences arose: since it is a regional principle, then, consequently, quotas. The quotas natural for the Council of Nationalities were extended to the Council of the Union, and as a result, quite naturally, each region strives to realize its quota. A situation arises that requires attention. After all, today each region has different deputies. I don’t know the situation in many places, but, for example, the Moscow region is quite familiar to me.

In the Moscow region, such a well-known figure in our perestroika as Nikolai Travkin won the elections. In the list of representatives from the Moscow region, I do not see him as a candidate for the Supreme Council. I, for example, believe that for our perestroika his participation in the Supreme Council is necessary.

Therefore, we are asked to simply take as a basis what each region offers. It seems to me that we all ended up in this room only because there were new elections, elections with alternative candidates, elections with programs, and so on. The principle of alternativeness must be extended to the elections of the Supreme Council. If this principle is accepted, the principle of alternativeness, then everything falls into place, then it is possible to actually hear the report and arrange a debate as the third item on the agenda.

Our delegation sat for a very long time yesterday, late into the night, and by a majority vote, with three abstentions and two against, decided to address the Congress with a proposal. We are submitting a full list of candidates, significantly exceeding the number of seats that have been allocated to us. We ask all of you to follow our example and defend the new democracy. (Applause).

Chairman. The floor is given to People's Deputy Meshalkin.

Meshalkin E.N., Director of the Research Institute of Pathology and Blood Circulation of the Ministry of Health of the RSFSR, Novosibirsk. (From the Peace Movement, united by the Soviet Peace Committee, together with the United Nations Association in the USSR).

Dear comrade deputies! This is the first time I have to speak before such a responsible and huge forum. Forgive me if I'm a little worried, but it seems to me that if we are going to approve the agenda today, of course there must be a reason for it. But there must also be a completely responsible formulation of the question. The agenda proposed here was approved by the majority of delegations yesterday. The key point on this agenda is the question of whether to immediately elect the Chairman of the Supreme Council or listen to him first. It seems to me that in order to listen to the future Chairman of the Supreme Council, it is necessary first of all to vest him with powers. Because we need not only a statement of today’s affairs, but also an analysis of what can be done, supported by the supreme authority, that is, the Supreme Council, with which, of course, the Chairman will discuss his report. This is absolutely necessary, because you and I cannot just listen to empty promises, we need to know what will be backed up by action. (Applause).

Representatives of a group of deputies from Moscow, in particular Academician Sakharov, confirmed that they do not see an alternative to the figure of Mikhail Sergeevich Gorbachev. When we talk about a candidate for the post of Chairman or President, what determines his figure is not what he says now, but his deeds preceding these elections. Don’t we know the previous cases with which the candidate for the post of Chairman characterized himself at least during the period of four years of activity? After all, no one forces the President of the United States of America to speak in front of a microphone or in front of the Senate with promises immediately before his election. There is a long four- to six-month election campaign in which the future president's affairs and his promises are outlined. And therefore, I believe that from the position, so to speak, of ensuring that we receive a truly businesslike report, a real analysis of what needs to be done to implement and complete perestroika in our country, we must first vest the Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Council with the powers of the Chairman of the Supreme Council, and then listen to this report. This is my point of view. This is the first. (Applause).

I also believe that it is necessary to listen to this report after the elections to the Supreme Council. No one is stopping you from introducing alternative candidates to the discussion of candidates for the Supreme Council - this is the second issue on the agenda, but not the first, and there is no need to bring it up now. I believe that our first meeting of the Congress should now be limited to the approval of the agenda. And for each item on the agenda, when it comes time to consider it, the debates that I just talked about should be organized. I urge you to vote for the agenda that was approved yesterday by the majority - not 85 percent, as Comrade Popov says, but more than 85 percent. The vote was essentially unanimous. Representatives of the delegations approved this agenda. Thank you. (Applause).

Chairman. Comrades, shall we continue the debate? Or have two points of view been formed, and we can discuss them and decide which one we will adhere to?

Who is in favor of ending the exchange of views here? One minute. I will read out the note: “In pursuance of the orders of my voters to hold any elections at the Congress, it is mandatory on a competitive basis and on the basis of Articles 48 and 120 of the Constitution of the USSR, I nominate my candidacy for election to the post of Chairman of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR. I am ready to present my program. Obolensky Alexander Mitrofanovich, people's deputy from the Leningrad rural national-territorial district of the RSFSR."

Deputy (did not introduce himself).

There is an alternative proposal. I agree that we need to elect Mikhail Sergeevich as the first Chairman of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, because we know him. We know him by his deeds, by his daily hard work. I deeply agree with this. But I do not agree to elect the Supreme Council immediately, because it will include many people whom we do not know. We are now returning to common sense in our lives. We cannot elect mostly unknown people who are changing before our eyes.

I want to see how they will show themselves here, what their position is, their citizenship, their courage, and only after that, after listening to them, looking at them, will I vote for them.

I make an alternative proposal. The first to elect the Chairman of the Supreme Council. I agree with the arguments voiced here. But I propose that the election of the Supreme Council itself be held after the discussion.

Presiding. So, who is in favor of stopping the exchange of views on this issue? Please vote. Please omit it. Who's against it? So. For now, I ask those who are against to put down their IDs. We need to develop a counting mechanism. A proposal is made: to entrust the counting of votes in open voting to a group of people's Deputies consisting of the following: the leader of the group is Deputy Kostenko, Chairman of the Orenburg Regional Executive Committee. His assistants: Academician Platonov - President of the Academy of Sciences of Belarus, Sokolov - Senior Researcher at the Voronezh Research and Production Association "Electronics". It is expected that the group will also include the following deputies: Amangeldinova - teacher high school, Pavlodar; Widiker - director of the Suvorovsky state farm, Kazakhstan; Akhunov - deputy director of school No. 4, Uzbek SSR; Baranov - Chairman of the trade union committee of the Leningrad production association "Izhora Plant"; Andreev - chief engineer of the Moscow State Design and Survey Institute "Mosgiprotrans"; Yaroshenko - Deputy General Director of the Scientific and Production Association for Tractor Manufacturing, Moscow; Babich - Chairman of the Kyiv City Committee of the Trade Union of Agricultural Workers; Bichkauskas - investigator for particularly important cases of the Prosecutor's Office of the Lithuanian SSR; Giro - commander of the Tu-154 ship, Tajikistan; Ibragimov - driller of the Marine Drilling Directorate "Oil Rocks", Azerbaijan SSR; Margvelashvili - senior lecturer at Tbilisi State University; Bursky - Chairman of the Brest Regional Executive Committee; Reshetnikov - deputy shop manager of the Kaluga Engine Production Association; Nazarov - first secretary of the Russko-Polyansky district party committee of the Omsk region; Erokhin - deputy commander of a military unit, Kiev Military District; Shlyakota - director of the Vetsumi state farm, Latvian SSR; Aasmäe - head of the sector of the design bureau, Estonian SSR; Belyaev is the dean of the Moscow Engineering Physics Institute.

These are the comrades proposed by the representatives of the delegations. Are there any challenges to these comrades? No.

Who do you suggest? Come out here and speak.

Belyaev V.N. (Kantemirovsky territorial electoral district, Moscow). Two comrades fell ill, two of our sectors are not covered. At that meeting, two comrades were included in the reserve. I would ask the chairman of the counting group to report these names so that they can be approved by the Congress.

Presiding. Fine. So, name these two names. Who can report? Comrade Kosteniuk. Please report two comrades.

Kosteniuk A. G. Mikhail Sergeevich, comrade deputies! We have a reserve, this is Comrade Karasev...

Presiding. Where?

Kosteniuk A. G. Head of the department of the Kramatorsk Industrial Institute of the Ukrainian SSR. And comrade Belenkov Yuri Nikitich - director of the All-Union Cardiology Research Center of the USSR Academy of Medical Sciences.

Presiding. Comrades, is a replacement acceptable?

Clear. Decided.

Boldyrev Yu. Yu., senior engineer of the Central Research Institute of Ship Electrical Engineering and Technology, Leningrad (Moscow territorial electoral district, Leningrad).

I have a proposal for the voting mechanism. The fact is that not all deputies will be able to speak during the Congress. Voters must have the right to evaluate how their representatives performed at this Congress. Voters should have the right to know how their deputies voted on certain issues, except personal ones. Therefore, I make a proposal: organize a fixed vote on all issues except personal ones. I think all technical issues can be resolved. (Applause).

Chairman. I think that this proposal is one of the attempts to drag us into something that the Congress should not be drawn into. (Applause).

But since such an offer has been received, I must decide on this one way or another. So, the first proposal that was submitted to the Presidium. Anyone in favor of this voting mechanism, please raise your certificates. Please omit it. Against? Thirty-one deputies are against. Abstaining? Twenty people abstained. Issue resolved.

So, there is a counting commission, I ask my comrades to get to work now, and I will probably start again with the one who is in favor of approving the agenda that Comrade Nazarbayev introduced on behalf of the meeting of representatives of groups of people's deputies of the USSR in the form it is , and at the same time he outlined the order of discussion of issues (in the order in which they go), I ask the deputies to raise their certificates. Please omit it. Who's against it? Count it, comrades. Who, comrades, abstained on this issue?

Presiding. The issue is resolved. (Applause).

This determines the fate of other proposals. The Congress cannot work on two agendas at once.

Don't worry, I know what to do. Who is in favor of limiting it to this? Consider the issue on the agenda resolved and thereby not begin to consider other alternative proposals. I ask the deputies to vote. Please omit it. Are there any against? A clear minority. In this case, no counting is required. This is in the context of the question and does not have such significance. Absolute majority.

Decided. The agenda of the Congress of People's Deputies of the USSR has been approved.

Now about the order of our work. Deputy Nazarbayev, on behalf of the meeting of representatives of groups of people's deputies, made a proposal to consider issues in the sequence in which they are included in the agenda. I included this in the first voting item, we voted.

But then we talk about the Regulations. As you know, the Constitution provides for the adoption of the Rules of Procedure of the Congress of People's Deputies and the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, which should determine in detail the entire procedure for the activities of the highest authorities. Naturally, we now do not have such Regulations. We have to adopt it, and, apparently, the Congress at the appropriate moment must make a decision and instruct the Supreme Council to develop a draft of these Regulations and submit it for approval at the next Congress, that is, the autumn Congress.

Apparently this is what we will do. Before the adoption of permanent Rules of Procedure, it would be advisable to adopt a temporary document defining the procedure for the work of the Congress. This task is solved by the Temporary Regulations for the meetings of the Congress, the draft of which you have. It includes all the norms of the USSR Constitution on the work of the Congress, as well as the rules arising from them. The temporary regulations were considered by the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, and yesterday at a meeting of group representatives we discussed it, quite intensively, by the way, and many interesting additions were made. In my opinion, there were no objections; everyone unanimously approved it. Therefore, here is our project, you have it. I can put it to a vote if the deputies agree with the proposals that the meeting of group representatives made in this regard.

Take the floor and introduce yourself immediately, please.

Antanavichyus K. A., head of department of the Institute of Economics of the Academy of Sciences of the Lithuanian SSR, Vilnius (Vilnius - October national-territorial constituency, Lithuanian SSR).

The Regulations we received today did not include any of the amendments that were proposed yesterday. For example, an amendment was adopted under Article 19 stating that a statement, declaration, or appeal submitted to the Congress by at least twenty deputies shall be distributed by the Congress as official documents of the Congress.

Further, an amendment was made to Article 15 stating that when deciding on the termination of debate, deputies elected from a union republic have the right to insist on the continuation of debate on issues relating to the republics, if such a proposal is supported by at least two-thirds of deputies elected from of this republic.

And there were other proposals, but we did not make them. This means that I think that their authors will also speak out.

Chairman. Firstly, I see that Article 15 says: “The cessation of debate is carried out by decision of the Congress of People’s Deputies of the USSR, adopted by a majority of at least two-thirds of total number people's deputies. When deciding on the termination of debate, deputies elected from a union republic have the right to insist on giving the floor to one of the deputies from this republic, if such a proposal is supported by at least two-thirds of the deputies elected from this republic.”

Antanavicius K. A. Then the question arises: why did representatives of the groups gather yesterday? We agreed yesterday that not just one deputy is given the floor, but that the debate continues at the request of at least two-thirds of the republic’s deputies. This is the essence of the change: not to one deputy, but the debate continues and continues, as you said yesterday, until the second vote.

Chairman. Okay, that's a clarification. Vote? I think, comrades, this is all acceptable. The mechanism is well thought out: the Congress can always intervene in this process; if delays begin, speculation begins on this legal norm, he can stop the debate by voting again.

Now regarding your second proposal. I believe that we agreed on everything then, I remember it, just like you. We voted that all these documents are distributed not by the delegations themselves, but through the Presidium of the Supreme Council. I think we need to include this, confirm what we agreed on at the meeting.

They probably worked at night, you know, until dawn, and something slipped through. Please, Comrade Landsbergis.

Landsbergis V.V., Professor of the State Conservatory of the Lithuanian SSR, Vilnius (Panevezys city national-territorial constituency, Lithuanian SSR).

I asked for the floor a little earlier, but now I would like to draw your attention, dear deputies, to the fact that the voting method that we adopt and was already in effect yesterday may be considered incorrect. In cases where there are alternative proposals, it would be more correct to vote like this: first, who is for the first proposal, and then, who is for the second proposal. And not the way we do it. I suggest you think about it. And besides, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that Academician Sakharov made two proposals on the agenda. And his first proposal - about the decree of the Congress - is still silent.

Presiding. Let's consider! As for the issue of the agenda, it has been resolved. We have already decided. Collectively, the Congress decided. I don't think we'll go back to this. Let's move on.

Regarding the question raised by Academician Sakharov regarding the decree, let's instruct the Presidium to consider this proposal. This does not contradict the agenda. This already applies to the hierarchy of the highest authorities, and the Congress has more control over it than the Supreme Council. And it can determine more accurately. This topic was the most important yesterday, and by the way, we came up with a very interesting proposal. I mean that we will apparently propose (but this will come later) to hold two congresses a year. And not as planned - so that the Supreme Council would basically become a working body, albeit a solid one, high organ, with greater rights, but still mainly worked for the Congress. And so that the basic laws, except those that do not require a decision from the Congress (we will outline this), are ultimately adopted by the Congress. (Applause).

We agreed that the deputies who do not get into the Supreme Council would not have the feeling that they were invited once a year, or even twice, and then stew there, on the spot, in their own juices. No. We thought about it. It should be all in one package. For now, it was considered as an idea, only tentatively. I felt from talking with many deputies that many, if not all, are concerned about the fate of the people's deputy. And we agreed that, firstly, the commissions will include, say, 50 percent of the members of the Supreme Council and 50 percent of other people's deputies. Thus, this will immediately expand the opportunities for deputies to participate in the work of commissions.

We also agreed that the Supreme Council, conducting its current work in the chambers and in commissions, will send the people’s deputies both the work schedule and the schedule of commission meetings. Therefore, all deputies will know the issues that are being discussed, and each deputy, when he needs and considers it possible to participate in the discussion and express his point of view on a particular issue, will come and participate in the work of a particular commission or in a meeting of the chamber . Moreover, we agreed that this should be decided at this Congress. In addition, there will be a new status for the People's Deputy of the USSR, which should raise the authority of the deputy corps in comparison with the position in which it is placed by the current status. We will work on this and decide at the autumn Congress.

Thus, comrades, through the implementation of these ideas, and as they are developed, I think others will appear, we will reach the point that the people’s deputy, within the framework of his term of office, will effectively participate in all the work. And you and I will give all the necessary instructions on these issues.

Therefore, let's instruct the Presidium to decide on Academician Sakharov's proposal and submit its thoughts on this matter. Fine? I don't think it requires a vote, just agreement. Fine.

One of the deputies came up to me and said: “Mikhail Sergeevich, it is wrong that you are leading the Congress. Because it should be led by the Chairman of the Central Election Commission.” Is someone not happy with my, perhaps, undemocratic nature? I don't know. We, comrades, discussed this issue, and it was recognized that the working Presidium of the Congress should include representatives from both the Presidium of the Supreme Council and the Chairman of the Central Election Commission, who was entrusted with opening the Congress, and from the republics, so that there would be representatives, so that it would be a working, a full-blooded, representative democratic body that could meet, discuss how the Congress is going, develop some ideas, and if something arises, report to you, etc. All deputies, when discussing in deputy groups and at meetings of representatives, with this agreed, and such a proposal was made. Probably they want to “overthrow” the chairman or something, but don’t worry: we agreed that all members of the Presidium will take turns leading the meetings of the Congress.

Levashev A.V., assistant of the department of political economy of the Leningrad Technological Institute named after Lensovet (Kolpinsky territorial electoral district, Leningrad).

Comrade deputies! The fact is that, according to Article 110 of the Constitution, the first meeting of the Congress of People's Deputies after the elections is chaired by the Chairman of the Central Election Commission. If this is not so, then it turns out that all decisions, votes and acts taken now have no legal force. We need to reopen the Congress. This is a very serious matter. Thank you for your attention.

Chairman. I think that the Congress, at the preparatory stage, developed proposals and democratically resolved the issue of the Presidium. And thus today the Congress constituted everything as it is. Shall we proceed from this? Does anyone have any doubts about this? No. Fine.

We started discussing the Regulations. Please. Introduce yourself.

Plotnieks A. A., Professor of the Latvian State University named after P. Stuchka, Riga (Jelgava national-territorial electoral district, Latvian SSR).

Dear comrades people's deputies! The question of the Regulations, temporary or permanent, may seem at first glance to be purely technical. But I was eager to get to this podium because I consider it an issue of paramount importance. By developing or finalizing one or another version of the Regulations, we are laying the foundations for more or less successful activities of our Congress.

In this regard, I begin with a final conclusion. I would propose to form a commission from the people's deputies of the USSR, who now, within a couple of days, would finalize these Temporary Regulations, and the Congress would approve it, since our legal status, the forms of our activities should be in force immediately after the Congress closes . The possibility of their use will depend on what this document will be. In this regard, there is also the following.

We are currently at the second stage of reform of the political system. This stage assumes that we will rebuild the federation taking into account the real sovereignty of the union republics. This, in turn, means that very intensive legislative activity will be needed. The Temporary Regulations talk about this. It talks about who exercises the right of legislative initiative, how to pass laws, and so on. But whole line questions remain open. In particular, it remains open question about what laws the Congress will adopt and what laws the Supreme Council will adopt. The Constitution does not give us an answer to this question. If you compare the powers of the Congress and the Supreme Council, they partially overlap. This means that we must stipulate in the Regulations one way or another what laws we will consider. And, perhaps, provide for some possibility of convening not an extraordinary, but a regular Congress, which would engage in legislative activity.

Further, in this regard, I would suggest that we think about this: maybe it makes sense for the laws adopted by the Supreme Council to be approved at the next Congress. This would be democratic and would not require much time, but at least the people, in the person of people’s deputies, would give the go-ahead to the work that the Supreme Council did over a certain period.

The question of regulation of the legislative activities of the Congress. Also a very interesting question. Let’s say, from the Rules of Procedure we do not receive an answer to questions about what is the time frame for the development of projects in standing commissions and committees, what is the procedure for introducing amendments to them, what is the participation of deputies - both elected to the Supreme Council and non-elected - in the activities of these permanent commissions. This is extremely important; it is a legislative technique. And whether we will be able to give technically more or less perfect laws depends on how accurately we are able to develop these rules. Mikhail Sergeevich has already said that it is still desirable to involve people’s deputies who are not elected to the Supreme Council in the work of standing commissions. This is not in the Regulations. It seems to me that this should definitely be written down so that in cases where special knowledge is needed, we can come and speak, because it will not be possible to speak at the Congress. And everyone wants to make their own contribution to rule-making activities.

And finally, it seems to me that today’s experience already shows that organizational forms are needed. They are also included in the document, but they are still few. Imagine a huge group of people, how can they organize? Apparently, we need to organize ourselves among the union republics. And, apparently, the deputies of the union republic should already appear in some kind of association in the Regulations: let it be a group, let it be a delegation, as we want, it is necessary to clearly record how their work is organized.

Then there will be no inconsistency, there will be more organization, there will be more efficiency. Thank you for your attention. (Applause).

Chairman. Can I express my opinion about this, I think, very informative speech? We - this is apparently the fate of the first Congress - are faced with the fact that we need Regulations, we must develop them. But until we have developed and approved the Regulations, we must live and work. There is a transitional stage for this - the Temporary Regulations. So it was proposed so that we could work, move, and resolve issues. But, as I have already said, we must develop Regulations; they will become the subject of deep discussion at the Congress. This is the first thing.

Secondly. Many questions that Comrade Deputy correctly raised deserve general attention. I think the Rules will change especially seriously given the fact that the delegates support the idea of ​​​​the need to return again and more clearly define the hierarchy of relations between the Congress and the Supreme Council. Hence the participation of deputies in various forms of work, including commissions and committees. All this will need to be implemented in the Regulations. If we stand on the basis of reality, the actual state is this: in order for the Congress to work and resolve issues, we now must support and agree with the Temporary Regulations. All other issues mentioned in the speech should be linked to the permanent Regulations. True, some of them, for example, on the participation of deputies in the work of standing committees, regardless of whether they are members of the Supreme Council or not, are reflected in the document, but that is not the point. All other issues will be resolved as part of the discussion of the issue of two congresses (we have one planned so far), as part of clarifying the mutual competence of the Congress and the Supreme Council. Moreover, it will probably become clear that not every law requires, for example, ratification. There are laws that require that the Supreme Council simply meet and decide the issue. There are laws affecting the fate of the state; they will require ratification by the Congress. We need to work on this. All this will then be reflected in the permanent Regulations, which we will submit for approval at the next Congress. I think we need to move in this direction.

How are you, comrades? Right?

Please. Comrade Stankevich.

Stankevich S. B., senior researcher at the Institute of General History of the USSR Academy of Sciences, Moscow (Cheremushkinsky territorial electoral district, Moscow).

I would like to propose an amendment to Article 18 of the Temporary Regulations. I agree that a more serious revision of the Regulations can wait. It is necessary to create a special commission that will seriously deal with this. But the proposal that I am submitting for your consideration, it seems to me, makes sense to be included in the Temporary Regulations of the Congress.

We are talking about Article 18, which defines the voting procedure. The fact is that there is no provision for roll-call voting. During the election campaign, from communicating with voters in Moscow and other cities, it became absolutely clear to me that the overwhelming majority of voters want to know how their representatives vote at the Congress. In addition, thanks to anonymous voting, deputies now have a fairly convenient opportunity to reject serious proposals, serious bills, the adoption of which voters are waiting for, and then not bear any responsibility to them. I would like to avoid this convenient possibility of anonymous voting. I understand perfectly well that since we have technical difficulties and we currently cannot afford such a luxury as an electronic voting system, in this situation we are forced to look for other solutions.

Let's say that most voting will be done simply by show of hands. Let's go for this archaic. But for the most fundamental proposals and bills, at the request of, say, at least 100 deputies, we can agree to such a luxury as a roll-call vote. Therefore, the essence of the proposal is as follows: to supplement Article 18 of the Temporary Regulations with the provision that, at the request of at least 100 deputies of the Congress, voting can be carried out by name. (Applause).

Chairman. Let me express my opinion and seek advice in this regard. I think that Stankevich’s proposal generally deserves attention. Let's remember: on the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, for example, there was a roll-call vote. This means that such questions may continue to arise when there is a need for a roll call vote. But, in my opinion, it is impossible to agree that a roll-call vote can be held at the request of 100 deputies. This must be decided by the Congress. The congress must determine the form of voting, not 100 deputies. I propose to formulate the proposal as follows: by decision of the Congress, a roll-call vote can be held. In my opinion, this is a very important and serious addition.

Kosteniuk A. G. I report: for - 431.

Those who are in favor of the second sentence: “The Congress may hold a roll-call vote on its decision,” please raise your hands. Please omit it. Is it necessary to count in this case?

Presiding. But only if everyone agrees, then we won’t. Overwhelming majority. Nobody insists on counting? Nobody.

Then the issue is resolved. Your proposal, Comrade Stankevich, is accepted with amendments.

Now, comrades, I want to announce the request of Gorinov and Karpochev, deputies from the Mari Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic. They write: “Attempts by some deputies to divert the Congress to discuss procedural issues are a very harmful thing. This does not create authority for our Congress before voters, even those voters who elected comrades Sakharov, Boldyrev and others. The people are waiting for how the Congress will resolve the fundamental issues of life, so it is necessary to turn to the Congress, whether to give the floor three or four times to those who are actively bringing disorganization into the work of the Congress.” (Applause).

For my part, I would comment on this: many significant questions were raised here. Therefore, I consider everything that has been done so far in these hour and a half to be significant. We have approved the agenda. We have approved the Regulations, and all our activities should be based on this. And finally, we exchanged views on issues that are already emerging. I mean the considerations of Academician Sakharov. We need to think about having the Presidium prepare, based on the participation of deputies, proposals that fall within the competence of the Congress and the competence of the Supreme Council on the functioning of our entire complex representative mechanism. Therefore, everything that has been discussed here can hardly be attributed only to negative work. Basically, it is still positive, but the warnings of the deputies, their wishes, I think, are appropriate and democratic. They exercised their right to make such comments.

Please. Introduce yourself.

Boyare Yu. R., associate professor of the Latvian State University named after P. Stuchka, Riga (Dobele national-territorial electoral district, Latvian SSR).

I have no doubt that the Regulations presented by the Presidium can be accepted as a basis, and I would gladly vote for it. But, apparently, in addition, we still need to accept some small amendments so that we can move forward with a clear conscience. For some republics and delegations they seem to be of significant importance. Moreover, what I will talk about now, we basically (Mikhail Sergeevich, I believe you won’t let me lie) talked about it yesterday and somehow agreed on it. I have this proposal. Relatively small delegations, in particular the Baltic republics, are worried that in the main political debates, in this very large mass of our generally constructive comrades who all want to speak, they may not get the floor at all. That's why we had a proposal yesterday... No, comrades, this is serious. I have no criticism, just a small request. Still, we need to vote so that every delegation, every republic receives at least a guaranteed minimum of speeches - three speeches at the main political debates.

Presiding. Right.

Boyar Yu. R. It is very important.

Presiding. This issue - I confirm that the deputy is right - was discussed at a meeting of representatives, we agreed, and let's write it down - to instruct the Presidium of the Congress to collectively determine the list of speakers so that the interests of all republics, territories and regions are taken into account. I put the republics first, we are the Union. And, probably, to some extent they should take into account that there are different representatives. Therefore, if you do not object, we can propose the following formulation: instruct the Presidium to monitor the speeches so that at least a minimum of participants is provided - representatives of all republics, territories, regions and relevant groups.

Boyar Yu. R. My next proposal, comrades. Yesterday we more or less agreed - this proposal was made by a number of comrades from the Russian Federation, from the city of Moscow - that after all we, that is, the delegations themselves, need to nominate our representatives to the Supreme Council. This should be written down in the Regulations. Because we think, and we discussed for a very long time, the whole day in our group (back in Riga), who and how to nominate, taking into account the business, personal qualities and even capabilities of each. Professor Plotnieks, who spoke before me, excuse me, he also has an important point. He has a small child at home and a mother who needs supervision. We take this into account in our group. But the rest of the comrades cannot know this, so we have a very clear proposal. We are putting forward our list and will stand for it. Then we will change. Why on earth would I interfere in the affairs of the Russian Federation, determine who will represent the Russian Federation? I would even consider it immodest. This is our second proposal, on which we agreed yesterday.

Presiding. Yes, this has nothing to do with the Regulations, but it has to do with the voting procedure.

Boyar Yu. R. The following is suggested by Professor Plotnieks. We are, first and foremost, legislators and determine the policy of our state. Therefore, one of the most important tasks of our Congress is to compile a main list of priority laws. Apparently we need to vote for this. During the Congress, this work must be done, an appropriate commission must be created that would deal with these laws and proposals for bills. This work, as they say at international meetings, is significant and important.

Presiding. So, in the first part, there is a proposal to give the Presidium instructions to monitor and regulate speeches so that the representation of the republics, at least regions, relevant groups, and public organizations in the debates is ensured.

As for the second group of questions. Let's instruct the Presidium to organize the study of these issues and present considerations on this matter for their subsequent consideration - they are of a very important nature.

Boyar Yu. R. Yes, and according to the laws. Comrades! Mikhail Sergeevich made a very important remark that the law is different. But regarding the so-called “functional” laws, I still have a proposal: to vote on all laws, that is, all laws are adopted by the Congress or approved by the Congress, and in the intervals between the next Congresses and sessions, which, as we decide, will be once or two per year, the law adopted by the Supreme Council is in force. But if the Congress does not approve the law, then it does not take effect. This is the next sentence.

Presiding. I think this echoes what I was saying. All these issues must be resolved in the main Regulations, where we will divide the hierarchies, rights, relationships, and there we will determine to what extent and which laws will be decided finally in the Supreme Council, which - at the Congress or require information or approval of the Congress. That is, there we will dot all the i's. Because these are big legal issues of fundamental importance.

Boyar Yu. R. A small amendment that we agreed on yesterday. I think we have definitely decided on this. I mean amendments to the Regulations. Look at paragraph 19, the very last paragraph, at the very bottom of the page. We agreed that people's deputies will have the right to take part not only in the work of chambers, but also commissions and committees with the right of advisory vote. I propose to write this down; it is essential and important for the status of a people’s deputy.

Presiding. Okay, let's write it down. Moreover, during the preliminary study we proceeded from the fact that we were talking about commissions.

Presiding. The point is that the commissions will include approximately 50 percent of the members of the Supreme Council, 50 percent of people's deputies - non-members. In commissions - with a casting vote, and in the bodies of the Supreme Council - with an advisory vote.

Boyar Yu. R. The very last thing, comrades. Apparently, we are all very concerned about somehow moving forward all the time and not getting stuck in very complex issues and discussions that we cannot resolve in such a large mass. Therefore, I have extremely serious doubts about whether we should vote by name. If we had electronics, as is the case at some international meetings, this would go quickly. And if this mass votes by name now, one question will take us a whole day. I really doubt: should we do this?

Presiding. For the information of the deputies, I would like to say that such instructions have been given and a project is being drawn up so that each deputy’s workplace is prepared accordingly. The project is being worked on. And the matter will be resolved.

Comrades, shall we end the discussion?

It's a big question. Yesterday we discussed it carefully at a meeting of representatives, very carefully. 446 people sitting here can confirm. And today's discussion confirms that this is a really big question. And I think we must act based on the Constitution, according to which the Congress elects the Supreme Council. The Supreme Council is elected, and not formed in the same way as it was formed in practice when there were congresses of Soviets. Then the lower level of the Soviets delegated its deputy to the highest, and thus the process of forming congresses of Soviets began. In this case, proposals come from local delegations, but the decision is made - by voting - by the Congress itself.

There are questions here that need to be thought about. The question of combining the right of the Congress to determine and make a final decision on the composition of the Supreme Council, taking into account the opinions of the republics, still requires clarification at subsequent stages. I think we exchanged opinions, all these nuances will be taken into account.

Sebentsov A. E., head of department of the Moscow floodlight plant (Perovsky territorial electoral district, Moscow).

Comrades! I have a proposal regarding Article 20 of the Temporary Regulations, which also applies to the procedure for conducting our Congress. Article 20 provides that meetings of the Congress are held openly and representatives of state and other organizations, as well as other persons, are invited to them. I would like to propose the following addition to this article: invited persons do not have the right to interfere in the work of the Congress, expressing their opinion through shouts, applause and other means.

Presiding. I think this wish should be expressed from the Congress to all those invited today and for the future. All our deputies are sitting in the stalls, and there is no one here except them.

Sebentsov A. E. Yes, but we already heard shouts from the balcony. And one more question. I would like to exercise my right of legislative initiative and propose a draft Law on the status of the People's Deputy of the USSR so that this draft will be duplicated and distributed to all deputies present at the Congress.

Chairman. Comrades! Now we give half a minute to speak.

Kurochka G.M., Chairman of the permanent session of the Supreme Court of the Komi ASSR, Vorkuta (Vorkuta national-territorial electoral district, Komi ASSR).

I suggest placing microphones between the rows, otherwise it’s inconvenient to work, that’s it; and the second sentence: at the very beginning I submitted a note to the Chairman of the Central Election Commission, for some reason there was no answer, although it contained issues that concern many deputies. All.

Chairman. Fine. Please, Comrade Adamovich. Now everyone, comrades, come forward.

Adamovich A.M., Director of the All-Union Scientific Research Institute of Cinematography, Moscow. (From the Union of Cinematographers of the USSR).

We sit for two hours, with millions of people watching us for two hours. And so our people think: “Okay, what if we want to support the Congress, express our opinion on the issues that are raised at it?” And let's imagine - people will now come out to somehow express their opinions. What will greet them? Will they really be met by the Decree on demonstrations and rallies that was adopted? Don't we need to cancel this Decree both during the Congress and during the elections so that the people can actively participate in our work? (Applause).

Deputy (did not introduce himself).

Amendment to Article 20. We have already spoken here on this article, but we noted the last part, which is not very significant. At the beginning of the wording of this paragraph it says: “Representatives of government organizations, etc. are invited to the meeting.” Why are they “invited”? We are building a rule-of-law state; the term “invited” is not a legal formulation at all and essentially legalizes the discretion of the organizers of a particular congress. It is necessary to provide the wording: “representatives of government organizations, labor collectives, the press, television, and the media have the right to be present.” Otherwise, we will not fulfill the instructions of the 19th Party Conference on the development of glasnost and the resolution on glasnost.

Presiding. First. Let's decide. I think that we will return to the topic that Comrade Adamovich raised. This is certain. As for the proposal to make a decision right now, to suspend the Decree on demonstrations and rallies, I think we cannot follow this path at all. The next step is to pause something else. Then we’ll say: let’s suspend the Constitution, and so passions will flare up.

I think that the order that exists today - even with all the shortcomings that the deputies will probably talk about - makes it possible to hold rallies in favor and not in favor, but in connection with the Congress. And therefore, it is unnecessary to raise the question now that everything needs to be cancelled, stopped. I would not resolve this issue in such dramatic tones.

And when we come to these issues, I think we will discuss them. Do you insist that this issue be voted on?

In my opinion, what exists provides an opportunity for discussion. “By the way, on the eve of the Congress you were at a rally in two or three places, and everything was fine. So I don’t know what we’re talking about.

There is a note here: “Is there a live broadcast of the meeting now?” It's coming. Everyone sees. The whole country sees, and the whole world sees.

Is continuity of the television broadcast of the Congress guaranteed? Guaranteed.

Saunin A. N., associate professor of the department of the Makeyevka Institute of Civil Engineering, Donetsk (Makeyevsky territorial constituency, Donetsk region).

The first thing I would like to say is that I have the feeling that some of our deputies are rushing to catch a train that is about to depart; their proposals are taking them away from the agenda, from the problems that we are discussing.

Second. Regarding the Regulations. We want to create a rule-of-law state, which means we want to live according to laws and regulations, and the haste to adopt the Regulations and other documents adopted here may lead to us returning to them again - to their imperfections, to the shortcomings - what we had and before. I think the democratic process is difficult. We need to be patient, thoughtful, listen carefully to the pros and cons and make a decision.

According to the Regulations. The first article of the Temporary Regulations states that the Congress is held once a year. It seems that Mikhail Sergeevich said that we should hold congresses twice a year. This means that it must be written down in the Regulations - twice a year.

Further. I don’t like Article 19 - its last lines, where we, people’s deputies, authorized equal representatives of the people, are divided into deputies with the right of a decisive vote and with the right of an advisory vote. And I believe that this is connected with what Mikhail Sergeevich spoke about - this is a change in the status of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, its transformation from a body of state power into a body of the Congress of People's Deputies. I propose to remove this item.

Presiding. Fine. But I come back again to what we were talking about. Until we made changes to the Constitution, and it says: once a year. We cannot adopt Regulations that would be contrary to the Constitution. Yesterday at a meeting of representatives, everyone agreed that this topic is the topic of the Congress and the Supreme Council: the timing, frequency, regularity of congresses - we all must work on and make appropriate changes to the Constitution and include them in the new Rules of Procedure. So let's do it, comrades. In the meantime, let’s resolve the issue of the Temporary Regulations. So that they can act.

Lubenchenko K.D., Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, Moscow State University named after M.V. Lomonosov (Ramensky territorial electoral district, Moscow region).

Comrades, we all call for political culture. Unfortunately, we are not showing it very much now, but there is a live broadcast. It seems to me that if we are talking about the Regulations, then this is such an extremely complex document that we must develop very carefully and over the course of many months. We won't accept it now.

But we, in addition to this, also want to include in the Regulations a whole range of substantive issues, specific norms, and each of us wants to express a whole host of thoughts. And this sea will simply overwhelm us. One issue is currently being considered: the issue of the Temporary Regulations. But the Congress has such high legal force that, in general, the Temporary Regulations are not a hindrance for it. And in the course of considering certain issues, we can immediately make changes to it if something bothers us. If we now devote time to including all these issues in the Regulations, then nothing will happen. Therefore, it seems to me that it is now necessary to raise the question of an editorial commission that would immediately deal with these problems, summing up all the comments that are being made, so that we each do not go to the podium and speak.

And one last thing. A remark was made to us here that the first meeting of the Congress after the elections is chaired by the Chairman of the Central Election Commission, and then by the Chairman of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR. But in order not to violate the Constitution, it seems to me that we must confirm by a vote of the Congress the right to conduct it, which was entrusted to Mikhail Sergeevich Gorbachev by the Presidium. Thus, the issue of violation of the Constitution will be procedurally removed.

Presiding. But it’s as if this issue has been resolved and legitimized. What, do you want to vote? Let's then secure everything by voting so that I am not a usurper. Please. Against? No. Have you reached unanimity, comrades? Abstaining? Five abstained. Decided.

Let me conclude this discussion on the Rules of Procedure and rely on the proposal of the last deputy. To pose the question in such a way as to approve the Temporary Regulations with those additions that we have already decided on here in each specific case. And, naturally, to instruct the Presidium to make a proposal for a commission so that it can already begin work on summarizing all proposals on the Regulations and so that this work can already move forward. And edit these Regulations taking into account the comments.

Those who are in favor of adopting the Temporary Regulations with the additions that we have adopted, please raise your certificates. Please omit it.

Who's against it, comrades? I don’t see, but do the counters see? No. Who abstains? There are abstainers. Do the math. Have your comrades counted who abstained?

Kosteniuk A. G. 17 people abstained.

Presiding. We adopted the regulations with 17 abstentions.

Now, comrades, in accordance with the Constitution, we need to form a Credentials Commission of the Congress to verify the powers of the elected deputies. You have proposals on its composition in your hands. They are introduced both by groups of people's deputies and by the meeting of their representatives. They have been agreed upon, but nevertheless the Congress may have some questions or other proposals. Any comments on the personnel? Please... Andrei Dmitrievich Sakharov has the floor.

Sakharov A. D. I believe that the position of chairman of the Credentials Commission is an extremely important position. It should be discussed personally, and not as a general list. My suggestion is that this position should be filled by a professional lawyer due to the nature of this work.

Chairman. So, a question about the chairman. The proposed deputy is Gidaspov Boris Veniaminovich - General Director of the scientific and production association "GIPH", Chairman of the Board of the intersectoral state association "Tekhnokhim", Leningrad. I want to say that this candidacy was put forward directly at the meeting of representatives. This was a unanimous opinion, including, in my opinion, Andrei Dmitrievich Sakharov speaking out for this. Perhaps it makes sense to discuss his proposal, since we are talking about the figure of the chairman. By the way, there are lawyers on the commission’s list. I think this is not the case when a lawyer should necessarily be the chairman. Deputy Stankevich has the floor.

Stankevich S. B. I make the following proposal: give the commission itself the opportunity to elect a chairman, and vote only for its composition. Let her figure out who will be the chairman, who will be his deputies, and who will be the secretary. Thank you.

Presiding. This topic was discussed at a meeting of representatives, and the following proposal was put forward. But everyone considered that this was the prerogative of the Congress, and not the commission itself.

Comrades Leningraders, what can you say about Comrade Gidaspov?

Revnivtsev V.I., General Director of the intersectoral scientific and technical complex “Mekhanobr”, Leningrad. (From the All-Union Society of Inventors and Innovators). It seems to me that the main qualities for the chairman of the Credentials Committee should be decency and honesty. From the Leningrad delegation, since we discussed this issue, I will say that Comrade Gidaspov has these properties. But there is a lawyer there, and I think compliance with the legal form will be ensured in the commission. (Applause).

Presiding. Fine. Does anyone question what has been said?

Presiding. Comrade Gidaspov, please come up to the podium and tell us a little about yourself.

Gidaspov B.V. (Petrograd territorial electoral district, Leningrad).

Comrades! I’m really not a lawyer, I have a technical education. True, I attended two or three meetings and realized that now such education is almost in the red. I graduated from the Polytechnic Institute, taught at universities for a long time, and worked my way up to head of the department. Now he is a corresponding member of the Academy of Sciences, director of a large institute and chairman of an intersectoral association and concern created in Leningrad for the first time.

Gidaspov B.V. My attitude towards the elections is correct and normal. We believe that the way we conducted the elections, we got these results. (Applause).

Presiding. Fine. Still have questions? Comrade Aidak, please.

Aidak A.P., chairman of the collective farm "Leninskaya Iskra" of the Yadrinsky district of the Chuvash Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic (Yadrinsky national-territorial electoral district, Chuvash Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic).

Of course, my performance is not entirely appropriate, but what can you do? The day before yesterday, on the initiative of the peasant commission, the Committee for the Rescue of the Volga and a group of collective farm chairmen, a meeting of collective farm chairmen and state farm directors was held. We are very grateful to Mikhail Sergeevich Gorbachev, Nikolai Ivanovich Ryzhkov, Egor Kuzmich Ligachev for finding more than two hours to meet and discuss with us all the burning problems of the village.

Yesterday, collective farm chairmen and state farm directors met again. The country's leadership gave us the go-ahead to bring our pains to this Congress. A group of collective farm chairmen (about 70 people) decided that this appeal should be discussed not only with collective farm chairmen and state farm directors, but with all agrarian deputies...

Presiding. Comrade Aidak, are you a member of the Credentials Commission?

Aidak A.P. No. I ask everyone involved in agricultural production to stay in the room during the break to discuss this appeal. Thank you.

Presiding. Comrades, if there are no other comments or considerations regarding the Credentials Commission, then I could put its composition to a vote.

If anyone is in favor of the proposed composition of the Credentials Committee, please raise your certificates. Please omit it. Who's against it? Two. Who abstained? Three abstained.

The Credentials Committee was elected with two against and three abstentions. Now we need to give the floor to the Chairman of the Credentials Committee for a message.

Gidaspov B.V. I ask the members of the Credentials Commission to go after the adjournment to the Faceted Chamber, where the meeting will be held.

By the way, these days it would be quite possible to celebrate one event that happened 25 years ago, which in many ways in the following years decided the fate of the entire post-Soviet space, and changed us in many ways. But it’s somehow quiet on our radio and TV.

But if you look back a quarter of a century, from the height of the years you have lived, you can already say with confidence that then everything ended not in 1991, but in the early summer of 1989...

Late 80s. The country lived in hope for the best and in anticipation of freedom. In June-July 1988, at its 19th conference, the CPSU nevertheless announced a course for political reform. And on December 1, 1988, the USSR Law “On Elections of People’s Deputies of the USSR” was adopted, which took place in the spring of 1989. These were the first democratic alternative elections in the history of the Union.

Live broadcasts from the 1st Congress eclipsed the entire information space on 1/6 of the landmass. The voices of people's deputies did not sound then except from the gas burner. Shops, workshops, ateliers from May 25 to June 9 were configured for one program. Working under a parliamentary background was in the order of things. Well, where there was no TV, they turned on the radio. Then it even seemed that radio had won the competitive battle against TV for the first time. It was one thing when motorists in the car turned on the full power of meetings from the Kremlin Palace of Congresses. But when a young and striking girl in heels walked down the street with a small transistor under her arm...

I remember there was a saying like this:

All the people do not sleep, do not eat,
CONGRESS is watching on TV!

Mikhail Gorbachev interrupts Academician Sakharov:

Boris Yeltsin:

By the way, at the same time, another hot topic for the people was being vigorously discussed in society - a new and terrible disease for humans, AIDS. Therefore, along with the congress, another pun was circulating among the people:

All the people do not eat, do not sleep,
Being tested for AIDS!

Today, for some reason, it’s no longer funny.
Oh, now we wish we had that spirit, desire and spirit of freedom in our modern State Duma... But somehow everything quickly turned out to be emasculated in 25 years.