Grigory Yavlinsky, member of YABLOKO’s Political
Committee, Doctor of Economics, did not give to Kommersant’s
correspondent Viktor Khamrayev the exact dates after which
the collapse of the political system will become irreversible,
although he considered such an option be quite realistic and
offered preventive measures.
Kommersant: Why are all the democrats, including your party
YABLOKO, have been constantly repeating that our political
system is "an imitation of democracy." Is it because
you are hurt: as democrats have been losing all the elections,
this means that we have not a democracy, but its imitation?
Yavlinsky: They have been asking this question for fifteen
years already. Do you think that it is possible to play being
hurt for such a long period of time? I do not think people
who say that twice two is four say so because they are offended.
Millions of people are absolutely convinced that the elections
are unfair. These are not only our ardent supporters (by the
way, we have millions of supporters, even according to the
official figures). Many people are losing their trust to the
state and its institutions. But as many people still believe
that we should participate in elections, at least for the
fact that no one could say "well, you see, you yourself
do not go, so it’s your fault”, we have to participate. By
the way, the October election day (Ed. regional elections
in 77 Russian regions took place on October 10, 2010) showed
us many signals that people had positive attitude to us, although
we experienced great difficulties in the campaign and monitoring
over the counting of the results.
Kommersant: Ok, but we still have elections in accordance
with the law, right?
Yavlinsky: Yes, but it would be unspeakable if they cancel
elections formally. But have a look at least at the data of
official surveys: there are very few people who believe that
elections are fair. This is one of the major reasons why people
are seriously dissatisfied with the quality of life.
Kommersant: Yes. But we have parties still?
Yavlinsky: Yes, against all odds, there are many people who
risking their well-being continue participating in social
and political life. They want to change a lot, they know how
to act within the law and categorically do not want to be
guerrillas or revolutionaries. Such people think not about
benefits and careers only, they also think about more important
and long-term issues.
But this is not the party in power. The party in power is
our very Russian phenomenon, survival by means of decades-long
submission. Such a party either submits to the authorities
itself or subordinates other people, including those who have
been recently considered idols. That is why this party has
been recently so sharply against election of governors.
Kommersant: I agree these are indirect elections, but still
elections.
Yavlinsky: Elections can be only direct, on a competitive
basis. Another issue is that the post of a governor implies
much responsibility, so notorious populists and extremists
should not get there. But this is an issue of a responsible
and careful legislative activity. For example, it could be
established that only political parties have the right to
nominate candidates for the governor post who will run at
elections. But these have to be all the parties, but not one
party only.
Kommersant: But we have freedom of speech, and we have a
sea of different press, including political ones.
Yavlinsky: The abundance of glamour and erotic editions does
not mean that there is freedom of speech or freedom of the
press in the country. Political discussions and public debate
on key issues of national life are needed. Such discussions
are a prerequisite for sustainable development of the state
and its stability.
Kommersant: In general we have been developing more successfully
without discussions for the past ten years than with unbridled
debate during 1990s.
Yavlinsky: Do you seriously believe that world prices on
oil and raw materials have grown because Russia got rid of
political debates? The facade of success created by means
of bureaucratic subordination is, as anyone knows, not what
is actually required. It is impossible to stop discussions.
Discussion of important issues is still going on. And it has
an impact on what is happening even on such a level of virtually
personal discussions. But if a public discussion could develop
on a normal level of publicity and political culture, it would
be far more useful. However, of course, not any one can reach
a high level of culture.
Kommersant: So, this means that there should be restrictions
so that not to “let them go”?
Yavlinsky: Hard to say ... Some people should be really not
let into power. The state service should at least some day
cease to be the source of the status rent for such people.
Other things, not rent, should be of importance for them.
Kommersant: For example?
Yavlinsky: It is required, for example, to create the conditions
for reduction of the “brain drain”. But this requires freedom
– of creative work, contacts, movement, and it is necessary
to provide the necessary resources for this freedom. People
should be provided with a minimum comfort in their every day
living, they should have guarantees of personal safety and
security in their creative activities. Science towns were
built en masse in the Soviet Union, there were about dozen
of them around Moscow. So what? Soviet science failed the
competition even in its best days. Our scientists have been
in many aspects better than in the West, but they were treated
not as human beings, but as mechanisms that "will bring
something to the country."
Or let us take the disintegration developments in the Northern
Caucasus and the Far East. There we can completely lose the
control at the first cut of budget expenditures on these regions
due to a banal reduction of the state income, if it suddenly
happens. And we should urgently consider this, until the reality
has not come upon us, as during the forest fires. And we should
take institutional actions where possible reducing manual
control to the required minimum.
Kommersant: You mean that institutions will be effective?
Yavlinsky: It is necessary so that institutions would start
functioning. First, at the local level, and then at the higher
level. All of this will not begin functioning efficiently
at once, but the direction of the movement should be chosen.
Unfortunately, we do not have this now, despite all the talk.
Moreover, the apparent discrepancy between words and deeds
encourages indifference and crime. People have the feeling
that they have passed the "point of no return."
Kommersant: In my opinion, the term "point of no return"
is misplaced here. The Soviet political system seemed irreversible,
but it was reformed nonetheless.
Yavlinsky: The “point of no return" means that nothing
can e corrected or amended anymore. And there is always time
to collapse like the Soviet system. Strictly speaking, the
Soviet system was not reformed, they simply built something
on its ruins and that is why we have got what we have got.
And we can approach the same situation once more if once again
we cynically change nothing, as, for example, the present
electoral system. In short, this means waiting until nationalists
and populists get out on the vast Russia’s areas and fight
against the people and each other.
Kommersant: And is there any way out of this vicious circle?
Yavlinsky: The ban on criticism of top officials, including
president and prime minister, which we have in those media
that are controlled by the state should be abolished without
delay. Non-commercial civil association should get back their
rights in full. Measures for ensuring an independent judiciary
should be implemented. Representatives of business should
be prohibited to get posts in the state civil service, and
civil servants should be prohibited to get posts in the boards
of directors of state companies. Businessmen should be given
the right to openly and transparently finance political parties
activities. Also the barrier for parties getting into the
parliament and local representative bodies should be lowered
and single-mandate two round elections should be introduced.
And terms of office for elected officials should be reduced.
Kommersant: Who should do this and in what terms?
Yavlinsky: The authorities should begin this. Two or three
years are enough for realization of such ideas and conducting
modernisation in the medium term.
Kommersant: Any modernisation has been already postponed
until after the presidential election of 2012.
Yavlinsky: Why do you think so? This is a matter of skill
and political proficiency. Elections can help here. The matter
is in personal and political responsibility.
See also:
Modernisation
in Russia
| 