LEADING ARTICLE: There will still be life after Yeltsin

Boris Yeltsin has been the midwife of political and economic reform in Russia. He has deserved the West's support. But the time is approaching, possibly quite fast, when the West may have to reconsider its reliance upon him.

The news from Russia, it seems, is unremittingly bad. In December a largely unreconstructed Communist Party triumphed over liberal reformers in parliamentary elections. Then as many as 200 people died in a mishandled attempt by President Yeltsin's forces to crush hostage-taking Chechen separatists. Next, the last remaining liberals, including the foreign minister, the minister for economic reform and Mr Yeltsin's chief personal assistant, were kicked out of the Kremlin and replaced by sour-faced hard-liners. From the point of view of the West, increasingly nervous about the outcome of the presidential elections in June, can matters get any worse?

Yes, they can. Nothing but disappointment can result from a policy of backing one Russian horse in an election whose outcome the West has few means to influence. It is not just that Mr Yeltsin is patently no longer the embodiment of radical change and civilising values that we thought he was in his heyday from 1989 to 1992. It is far more a question of being realistic about what sort of Russia we can live with.

Our overwhelming interest is that Russia should act as a responsible international power, abiding by arms control treaties, not threatening its neighbours, and helping rather than hindering the West in areas of joint concern such as former Yugoslavia. For that type of Russia to take shape, market-based economic reforms must flourish and democratic values have to underpin domestic politics.

The Western-educated liberal reformers, who are the most articulate proponents of such a society and who are so favoured in the West, are being ousted from power. Their weakness may slow reform but it is unlikely to halt it.

Russia's transition from a command economy to a market system, however corrupted by gangsterism and the lining of official pockets, would be extremely difficult to reverse. As for the quality of Russian democracy, it is hard to see why Mr Yeltsin's brutal crackdown in Chechnya entitles him to special favours. His credentials as a democrat are not unquestionable. On the international scene, his hostility to Nato's cautious efforts to incorporate some central European countries is no different from what we could expect from a Communist or nationalist president.

The dividing line between Mr Yeltsin and the opposition is growing more blurred. He may either be defeated by a new Communist in the June elections or become more like one himself. That a leader such as Viktor Chernomyrdin, the prime minister, might be more attractive to the West is not the point. The point is that Russia's stability depends upon its institutions, not whether our favourite of the moment is in the Kremlin. From now on, our aim must be to promote the right institutions, not simply a favoured leader.