SCORES LELEGALITY OF KHRUSHCHEVI!S OUSTER
“Among ‘the Communist parties ‘in the West, the Swedish organi~. zation appears to still hold the record for making the sharpest. criticism of -the. procedure followed in ousting Khrushchev, © An editorial in the October 21 issue of the party's daily Ny Deg questioned the reasons first offered for kicking out the Soviet premier:
"If the only motive for his dismissal was age and illness, this would not have been unusual in view of the fact that Khrushchev is 70 years old; but why then wasn't the text of his resignation made public? Why was there no medical report, customary in such: cases?
- Continuing in this vein, the editorial asks: "Why not a word of thanks to Khrushchev, who ‘spent the greater part of his life in.the service of -the Soviet state in responsible and leading positions? Why wasn't he given the opportunity to tell the Soviet people himself why he decided to resign? Because of this, one must conclude that _ Khrushchev did not simply resign. He was dismissed, overthrown."
Ny Dag-stresses the abnormal procedure. "At the party congress of 1961, he was re~elected first secretary of the Central Com-. mittee. According to the statutes, the congress must be convened at least once every four years. In addition, the Central Comal tte has the right to call a special congress ton its own initiative, This can be done within two months, .
“Why couldn't they wait until the. 1965 congress and arrange a change in party leadership there in a normal way and under normal conditions?
"If an immediate change in party leadership was considered necessary, why didn't they convene a special party | congress as in 1959? 4 :
_"The procedure in Khrushchev's resignation as chairman of the Council: of Ministers is even stranger. Article 70 of the constitution of the Soviet Union provides that the Supreme Soviet; i.e., parliament, designate the chairman of the Council of Ministers. Parliament was not convened at all this fall. The Presidium, composed of 33 members, dismissed: Khrushchev. and designated his successor. But the constitution provides no sanction for such procedure, The rights of the Presidium are limited by article 49 which states that. 'between sessions (of the Supreme Soviet) it-can dismiss individual ministers, upon the proposal of the chairman of the Council . of Ministers of the Soviet Union, -and can designate new ones,!
the constitution specifies ‘the exact difference between: ministers and the chairman or vice chairman of the Council of Minis~ ters of the USSR. The Supreme Soviet. holds two sessions a year. One of them normally takes place near the end of the year, in order, among
many other things, to adopt the budget for the following year. In addition the Presidium has the right to convene special sessions.
"Why wasn't the matter postponed until the session (of the Supreme Soviet) near the end of the year 1964, so that a motion of censure could be introduced in the Supreme Soviet against Khrushchev and: « proposal be submitted to designate a new chairman of the Coun= cil of Ministers?
Mand at an immediate change in the: chairmanship of the Coun- cil of Ministers had become unavoidable, why didn't the ‘Presidium call for a special session of the Supreme Soviet?
"Outside of the 33 members of the. Presidium, no vice chairman (of the Council of Ministers) had the opportunity to express himself on the question of designating a new chairman of the Council of Mine isters. From a democratic point of view, it is poor consolation to know that they can take up the matter later when the Presidium calls for ratification of its measures ain the next session of ‘the Supreme’ Soviet. oS ae
"The way in whi oh: Khrushchev resigned, or was forced to resign, leaves a bitter taste. .He: was not permitted to say even a simple ‘thank you!.‘and tgood-by!: to the people. The curtain came down between one day and the next, in sad contrast to the open de-+ bates and intense election campaigns in Sweden, Denmark and Britain preceding the mobilization’ of the voters whose decision determines who is So: “guide the destinies of these countries: in the coming years."
' Dh. this paragraph, “Ny Dag displays rather nakedly: to what extent illusions in pourgeois democracy have spread among the adherents ‘of Khrushchevism., One of the features of Leninism, by way of contrast, <is precisely its understanding of the erosion of bourgeois democracy. which even at best never altered the: essentially dictatorial character of capitalist rule.
However Ny Dag does score a telling point in the following paragraph: . “after the end of Stalinism at the Twentieth and twentysecond party congresses, it was generally thought outside the Soviet: Union that the methods used by the: new leaders to replace Khrushchev: were a thing of the past. This idea has proved to be wrong.