Jessen & Richter (Eds.) (86 page)

voting booth. They had the choice, it is true, of deleting the name or ex-

changing the ballot paper but could even then not be sure whether the

election committee would interpret their vote correctly. This is why a num-

ber of voters made up their mind to put down their opinion in writing.

The first example is that of a poem with the title “I have cast my vote

for the first time”, whose author was Margarita Maslakova, a student of the

Technical College of Finance. She expressed her satisfaction with the fact

that her voice was heard “in the general sea of voices”. In the sixth stanza,

it says: “Today I want to express in verse/ My burning love for my coun-

try/ And a feeling of pride. Long will I cherish the memory/ Of this merry

and bright day.” Maslakova identifies herself in her verse as a first-time

voter. She is imbued with Soviet propaganda and gives free rein to her

enthusiasm in a patriotic hymn. As she is very aware of its care and con-

cern, she pledges her allegiance to the regime. The demonstration of her

loyalty goes so far as to crown the approval of the candidate nominated

with the assurance of her internal identification with the political ideology.

Of note is furthermore not only that the author appeals to the Communist

maxim of beauty, but also the fact that she expresses her belief in an

achievement-oriented society. It is obvious that she entered the polling

booth well-prepared and remained in it for a considerable length of time:

——————

28 For a reprint of a ballot paper from the 1960s see Mote (1965, 105).

324

T H O M A S M . B O H N

I have cast my vote for the first time.

What good fortune it is to live in the land of the Soviets,

Where all people have the same rights,

Where a multitude of different nations

Live and work like a friendly family.

In the distant past, everything was different.

Terrified and dark were the people’s lives.

Everywhere life was ruled by suppression, violence and injustice,

The people were held in an iron grip by an a executioner’s group.

But now people’s place in society

Is determined only by their personal work,

And only for outstanding achievements

Do they receive the fame they deserve.

Today is a great feast day in my life,

For the first time I have voted for people

Whom the people themselves have selected as their representatives in the Soviets, They are worthy in their country and truthful.

In the general sea of voices, my voice shall also be heard

So that life becomes even more beautiful,

So that our young generation

Does not get to know words like ‘decay’ and ‘war’.

Today I want to express in verse

My burning love for my country

And a feeling of pride. Long will I cherish the memory

Of this merry and bright day.

I congratulate all who for the first time

Have cast their vote with excitement.

For happiness we live, learn and work,

For peace we drop the ballot paper in the box.

Margarita Maslakova, third-year student at the Technical College of Finance

The next two examples, in contrast, present two variants of anonymous

disavowals of the candidates using brief vilifications. The documented

version of the first variant is introduced by an express reference to where it

was found: “On the ballot papers for Comrade I. N. Stets”. It is only then

“ T H E P E O P L E ’ S V O I C E ” : E L E C T I O N S T O T H E S U P R E M E S O V I E T

325

that a statement is quoted calling into doubt the candidate’s integrity: “Two

of his brothers worked for the police.” Here the claim is made that some

of candidate Stets’s close relatives had worked for the Germans during

World War II as law enforcement officers, and the way in which it was

handled by the authorities reveals systemic complications. On the one

hand, public opinion was dependent on rumors being spread. On the other

hand, contemporary instruments of power—the stigmatization of all forms

of collaboration and the practice of holding entire families responsible for

the crimes of one of their members—proved counterproductive. In similar

fashion, the second variant is illustrative of various criticisms raised against candidate Tarasov: “For G.M. Malenkov. The anti-Semite and high-level

rogue Tarasov won’t get my vote.” The director of the tractor works was

alleged to have qualities like high-handedness and unsteadiness, but also

bureaucratism and anti-Semitism, all of which make him appear an apolo-

gist of the Stalinist personality cult. In addition, in selecting Malenkov as

the ballot’s addressee, a person was chosen who did not stand for this

electoral district in the first place. What this means in political terms is that loyalty is expressed for the father of the “New Course”—Malenkov—although, as a putschist, he had fallen out of favor with the Party. In the final

resort, in both cases grumbling is expressed, which must be located be-

tween immunity towards the agitation accompanying the campaign and

protest against the nomination of an unpopular, but influential candidate.

By contrast, the fourth example, handed in without an addressee or a

sender, but marshalling detailed reasons for its demand to have the price of

alcohol lowered, seems to be motivated at first glance merely by “Russian”

(in this Minsk case better: East Slavonic) dipsomania, but actually contains,

through its interest in conviviality, a serious social concern:

Requesting the implementation of the lowering of the prices for vodka, wine and

beer as the promise to fix prices at the pre-war level by 1950 has not been kept, and they are still up by 400 per cent. This does not give the multi-million army of the working people any chance to drink to such holidays as 1 May and others. To

buy half a liter of vodka, workers on wages or pensions of 300 rubles have to go hungry for three days.

As concerns the question of hooliganism because of alcoholism, these are

unimportant details. There are other ways to combat them, and other people’s

interests should not be restricted because of these people.

This comment constitutes in a manner of speaking an official voter man-

date for the candidates, and points out that the prices raised because of the

326

T H O M A S M . B O H N

war have outlasted the currency reform of 1947. In addition, violent treat-

ment is recommended for those drunkards who jeopardized the just inter-

ests of the general public in the availability of alcoholic beverages by kick-

ing over the traces every now and then. The central argument is that so-

cialist holidays are impossible to celebrate without a bottle of vodka. This

is an idiosyncratic version of “Speaking Bolshevik”, of the Party jargon to

which Stephen Kotkin, in the case of the builders of the planned city of

Magnitogorsk in the Urals in the 1930s, attributed the potential to change

consciousness, in the sense of an internalization of the utopia of the new

person (Kotkin 1995). On the other hand, the discreet hint in this note at

the grinding poverty of the people springs from disillusionment and native

cunning.29 Inner identification is replaced by the writer’s self-will, which

follows the logic of the system and only at first glance seems to intend de-

politicization.

An illustration of deficits in consumption and an economy of scarcity is

provided by the fifth example, which is concerned with the social problem

par excellence, the housing problem. The documents in question are the

private letters that a married couple addressed to their candidate on a num-

ber of ballot papers. In the hope of receiving feedback, for which they

include their address, they depict, from their different perspectives, the

hopelessness of their situation:

Dear Comrade Tarasov!

I, V. S. Riger, was discharged from the cadre of the Soviet army with the title

of candidate of the naval forces and moved back to my former town of residence.

At present, I am living under conditions of private accommodation. It has not

been possible to date to promise me an apartment in the foreseeable future with

reference to the waiting list for officers. I implore you to help me in finding an apartment as one is not allowed in private quarters with small children and there is just nowhere to live. I would be prepared to stay in the shack which is being torn down to improve the looks of the place.

I am looking forward to your answer at this address: Apartment 2, 7

Voroshilov Street.

In 1956 my husband was discharged from the ranks of the Soviet army and our

family came to Minsk, where we were born and grew up. However, we did not

have an apartment and therefore made our home for the time being with people

we did not know. i.e. in private accommodation. One and a half years have passed by now but we have not been given any living space, and the waiting list of the

——————

29 Cf. the section on “Consumption and Elections” in Merl (2007, 526–532).

“ T H E P E O P L E ’ S V O I C E ” : E L E C T I O N S T O T H E S U P R E M E S O V I E T

327

executive committee of the raion is moving only very slowly. It is however impossible to live under the conditions we are in at present. The room is 9 square meters.

Our family consists of 4 people. Conditions are unbearably cramped. We all sleep in one bed. The landlady picks on me. She throws the axe at the children, and my husband, to make us move out, she destroys foodstuffs, and breaks crockery. I

worry every day that she may slay a member of my family. I ask you urgently to