On June 12, 1991, the first presidential elections in the country's history were held in Russia (RSFSR). Together with the head of state, a vice president was also elected. Six pairs of candidates took part in the electoral race. Boris Yeltsin, Nikolai Ryzhkov, Vladimir Zhirinovsky, Aman Tuleyev, Albert Makashov and Vadim Bakatin applied for the post of head of state. Over 79 million voters took part in the voting. Boris Yeltsin won the first round with over 57% of the vote. Alexander Rutskoi, who was walking with him in a pair, became vice-president. On July 10, 1991, Boris Yeltsin took the oath and officially became president of the RSFSR. In 1996, he again won the presidential elections, but the country already bore the name of the Russian Federation. However, until the end of his second term, he did not complete, resigning from office on December 31, 1999.

RT asked Russian politicians and public figures how they assess the role of Boris Yeltsin in the history of modern Russia?

Member of the Federation Council of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation Vladimir Lukin, in the 1990s - Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the Russian Federation to the United States and Deputy of the State Duma:

“I would rate Yeltsin's role as significant. This is one of the main historical characters of the third Russian revolution of the twentieth century. A big personality always has great merit and big problems, but, undoubtedly, this is one of the leading figures of the turbulent end of the twentieth century. Boris Nikolayevich Yeltsin, with whom I had to directly communicate and work, had many positive and negative qualities. He was a man of very bold and very courageous decisions, risky for himself, decisive and rather harsh towards his opponents and enemies, but at the same time not vindictive. He was a man with great personal passions and great personal dignity. It is too early to judge him objectively. It was a person who challenged everything that existed then, including his own destiny. This is the secretary of the regional committee,who became one of the leaders of the anti-communist and democratic revolution. To do this, you need to have character. At the same time, he had features that are characteristic of a big politician, but which personally do not cause much sympathy for me. For example, his desire for power was very strong and sometimes prevailed over other considerations. But, probably, during the revolutions, those who did not strive for power so much did not get it. "

  • Pre-election rally in support of Yeltsin's candidacy for the post of President of the RSFSR on Manezhnaya Square in Moscow

  • RIA News

  • © Oleg Lastochkin

Special Representative of the State Duma of the Russian Federation for Migration and Citizenship Konstantin Zatulin, since 1996 - Director of the Institute of CIS Countries:

“I would say that the role of Yeltsin in the history of Russia is negative. He was guided by his own idea of ​​what is “good” for Russia and what is “bad”. But all his good intentions are outweighed by the damage he has inflicted on the Russian state as a whole. The collapse of the USSR, to which he had a hand and became almost his main demiurge, in fact meant the collapse of big Russia. On closer examination, his attempts to play on the feelings of the Russian population turned into big problems just for this very Russian population, which turned out to be in a fragmented state as a result of the collapse of the USSR. The motive for Yeltsin's actions was the struggle for power in confrontation with the union center, and then - attempts to implement in Russia the scenario of building an anti-socialist state. He's in charge of shock therapyfor the mediocre war in Chechnya and for the political crisis of 1993, which ended in the shooting at the White House. Under him, a predatory privatization took place. It should be noted that he was not an ordinary person. In terms of will and determination, he surpassed his opponents by a head and used this ability to maintain power. The opposition preferred conformism to the quarrels with Yeltsin, which they feared. "

  • Boris Yeltsin after the vote

  • RIA News

  • © V. Chistyakov

Nikolai Travkin, one of the founders of the Democratic Party of Russia, in the 1990s - a deputy of the State Duma and a member of the Government of the Russian Federation:

“I am not a fan of evaluating the past.

It can be said unambiguously that Yeltsin was elected twice.

He was given crazy support and trust.

People could define their sympathies: leave everything as in the USSR, or develop towards an advanced part of the planet.

The majority made a choice in favor of Yeltsin, not imposed, but conscious.

And then there were many mistakes, but all this is in the past. "

Director Karen Shakhnazarov:

“On the one hand, I have always had a negative attitude towards Boris Nikolayevich, believing that he caused quite a lot of damage to Russia.

On the other hand, there is historical logic in his appearance on the political arena.

Sometimes the historical logic becomes clear after decades or even centuries.

This keeps me from jumping to conclusions about Yeltsin.

Assessment of his figure is still ahead.

My personal emotional assessment, I repeat, is negative.

I've seen what the country has become.

There was a feeling that she was finished.

But my personal experience is not the main thing in assessing a historical personality. "

  • Counting of votes at one of the polling stations

  • RIA News

  • © Ptitsyn

Journalist Vladimir Pozner:

“If we put on the scales what I would consider positive, and everything that I consider negative, then in my case the positive will undoubtedly outweigh. He inherited Russia with all the features of the Soviet Union. And I believe that thanks to him the USSR did not become, and this is a gigantic achievement. It pulls everything else by itself. I believe that the Soviet system turned people into slaves - not in the literal sense, but in fact it was so. Thanks to Yeltsin, we became free people. Not enough, because in such a time it is simply impossible to achieve this, but nevertheless. Today we are not afraid to say what we think, we are not afraid to behave as we want. These are the greatest conquests, for me this is the main thing that he did. "

Sergey Filatov, in the 1990s - First Deputy Chairman of the Supreme Council of the Russian Federation and Head of the Presidential Administration of the Russian Federation:

“I consider both him and Gorbachev to be historical people. They took a step towards transforming the country, its economy, its political system, and its relationship with other countries. It is very difficult to build a political system in any country. Everyone is drawn to the vertical, to keep everything in one hand. So they made an attempt to rule not in one hand, but under the control of society. Another thing is that not everything works out. But what is considered a mistake today can be considered a success and an outstanding decision tomorrow. I think that his work was very fruitful, very important and requires study. Both Yeltsin and Gorbachev did not have a team, and they tried to do everything with their own mind and their own strength. Now the leadership has the opinion that liberalism is the most negative phenomenon. It is not right. Liberalism and conservatism are the two driving forces.They have to balance the system throughout life, and this should not be hindered. "

  • Boris Yeltsin during the ceremony of taking the oath and inauguration of the President of the RSFSR

  • RIA News

  • © Yuri Abramochkin

Writer Alexander Prokhanov, editor-in-chief of The Day newspaper in the 1990s:

“I treat Yeltsin as a monster and am a fierce anti-Yeltsinist.

Yeltsinism is a colossal phenomenon that lies in world politics, in the history of Russia, and in the history of human psychology.

And I assess the role of Yeltsin very badly. "

Member of the Federal Political Council of the Growth Party Sergey Stankevich, in the 1990s - member of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, First Deputy Chairman of the Moscow City Council, Advisor to the President of Russia:

“Yeltsin undoubtedly had an outstanding role, he was a ram-type leader.

Yeltsin spearheaded the demolition of the Soviet system to bring about a democratic revolution.

There is controversy over whether this should have been done or not, but since the reforms carried out by the CPSU did not yield much, Yeltsin had no choice.

Then he started having problems, because his revolutionary role was exhausted, and as a builder he showed himself not in the best way.

His balance is difficult, but I believe that history will appreciate him with a plus sign.

The elections in June 1991 were absolutely fair and highly competitive.

There were six candidates, no money took part in these elections, and millions of selfless enthusiasts participated.

The vote was absolutely sincere and there can be no doubt that Yeltsin was the sincere choice of the Russian people. "

  • RIA News

  • © Sergey Subbotin

Chairman of the Central Committee of the Communist Party, State Duma deputy Gennady Zyuganov:

“During his presidency, Yeltsin brought a lot of tragedies and misfortunes to the country. Yeltsin renounced his previous views and principles and began to mercilessly destroy everything that was built in the country. He put his political ambitions above the interests of the state, the preservation of its territorial integrity and respect for history. We gave a proper assessment to the Yeltsin region back in 1999. It was expressed in volumes of documented crimes of the former president of Russia in preparation for his impeachment in the State Duma. Unfortunately, we did not have enough votes then. However, not only communists, but also representatives of various Duma factions and deputy groups, in their speeches from the rostrum of parliament, acknowledged the destructive nature of Yeltsin's rule. "

Sergey Shakhrai, in the 1990s - Deputy Prime Minister of the Russian Federation, one of the authors of the Constitution of Russia:

“Yeltsin did not allow a civil war in Russia at such a turning point.

Many will understand this someday.

There were no repressions, there were no camps.

A figure of this magnitude is always controversial.

But in the case of Yeltsin, in terms of the amount of points, it was definitely positive.

Russia was saved.

In 1993, he acted in the only way possible.

Opponents drove him and created an almost hopeless situation, then he acted adequately and decisively.

Under Yeltsin, in critical situations, before the people entered the barricades, a referendum was launched.

Time passed, the steam of the political cauldron went down, the country moved forward, albeit a little, but crawled away from the precipice of the civil war. "

  • Alexander Rutskoy and Kirsan Ilyumzhinov at the House of Soviets of the Russian Federation, events of 1993

  • RIA News

  • © Vitaly Arutyunov

Alexander Rutskoy, in 1991-1993 - Vice President of the Russian Federation:

“When Yeltsin made the decision to leave in 1999, he wrote me a letter:“ Alexander Vladimirovich, I regret that our relationship has developed in this way. To my deep regret, you turned out to be right, how it will all end. " And all this ended in default, the most shameful phenomenon in the economy - the country's inability to pay its domestic and foreign debts. Everything that could be destroyed was destroyed. Everything that could be plundered was plundered. Chubais himself spoke about that period of activity that privatization was not of an economic nature, we had only one place - cheap, expensive or free to distribute. Our task was to drive a nail into the lid of the coffin of communism. And the head of state was Yeltsin. To this day, we are disentangling what was done during that period. There was a coup d'etat, a crime. They were hitting from tanksfrom large-caliber machine guns (on the building of the White House in 1993. - 

RT

), then they lied that 120-130 people died, thousands of people died there. On the hands of this man is the blood of his compatriots. A crime was committed against the country and people. Do you think it is normal that the head of state calls on God to preserve America, while he himself has let Russia plunder? Always a person's activity is evaluated by the result of his work. The result of Yeltsin's work is a default. "