Trying to grasp the principles of democracy can often be difficult - especially for those who have lived under a totalitarian regime most of their lives.
That sad fact became painfully evident in Moscow this week as President Boris Yeltsin ordered the Russian military command to take back government facilities seized by militant communists and nationalists in a revolt that turned wildly violent.The crowd, whipped up to frenzy by Vice President Alexander Rutskoi and Parliament Speaker Ruslan Khasbulatov, seized Moscow City Hall, engaged riot police and fought a pitched battle for control of the Ostankino state broadcasting center.
Yeltsin's response began just after 7 a.m. - two weeks after he disbanded the Soviet-era parliament in an attempt to end the stalemate over his reforms. After soldiers recaptured Moscow City Hall Monday morning, troops hunkered down against sniper fire from the White House and rushed the parliament building, fighting to gain control of the lower floors.
Rutskoi and Khasbulatov, were taken into custody without resistance as the armed insurgency fell apart. The surrender of the two bitter Yeltsin foes signaled the collapse of the organized power struggle over who would rule Russia.
Despite the mass surrender of both leaders, then their top lieutenants and foot soldiers in the rebellion, there were still armed holdouts refusing to give up and leave the burning parliament building, and there were pockets of armed resistance scattered around Moscow - as evidenced by persistent sniper fire.
Exactly how many people were killed in the assault remains unclear, but the numbers are high.
Yeltsin's bold move, although regrettable, may have been warranted, although violence always seems a last resort, especially in a confrontation that is basically political, rather than military.
Yeltsin's actions, however justified, leave Russian politics mired in the strong-armed methods that have ruled in that country throughout its blood-drenched history.
As many Americans know, resorting to force hampers the democratization process and cannot offer stable solutions to political disputes. That, undoubtedly, is something that Russians have yet to learn.
And while the Russian president was clearly victorious, his long-term policy of building a viable democratic state has suffered a serious setback. What kind of lesson is taught when so-called democracy gives way to imposing one's will at the point of a gun? What use will some future Russian ruler make of this example?
The danger now is that Yeltsin's temporary euphoria of victory will overshadow the real reasons, and the real problems that led to the brink of national warfare.
In order get his nation back on track and put this ugliness behind him, Yeltsin must hold early elections for president and parliament. In the interim, he must also mount an aggressive reform campaign to stimulate the dismal Russian economy.
There is no time to lose.