Translated in accordance with a complete version of the
interview
(A shorter variant of the interview in Russian as published
by MK at its web-site on July 12 is here).
Twelve years ago people thought that the country needed
order and a strong hand. Now people dream about another thing
honesty and respect.
A huge public transformation has been brooding for many
years, but it happened in the past six months. What does it
mean? What challenges people with democratic views are facing
now? How the government will act and what can be expected
from it? Such questions MK addressed to Grigory Yavlinsky.
Photo by Alexei Antonov
MK: The first question is about urgent matters. What do you
think will happen to the leaders and activists of public protests
who are now under pressure from the Investigative Committee?
GY: They will torment them. They will try to imprison those
whom they got under investigation due to the rally of May
6. They will not imprison the leaders, but they will be continuously
interrogating them, making searches, bug them, prohibit them
leaving the country and make them nervous. But only Sergei
Udaltzov out of all of them is prepared to go through tormenting,
others are people of a different type and they are unlikely
to be happy with such a living.
MK: In other words, further toughening of reprisals is inevitable.
How do people critical of the government should see it?
GY: They should see it as givenness. The government is struggling
to protect itself. When an opposition MP promises to hang
them all by their feet, a famous blogger threatens to gnaw
their throats and a young "revolutionary" calls
on to storm the KGB office at Lubyanka so that to get 15 days
of arrest and become a "hero", it is clear what
their answer will be. So do not be surprised now.
MK: And how would you explain the wave of protests, how have
they emerged and what has triggered them?
GY: A certain and quite deliberate political programme led
to the protests. We have always argued the need to participate
- no matter what - in the elections at all levels. We have
been defamed by all sorts of abstainers, objectors and inventors
of voting for anybody. But we have persistently implemented
our programme. This allowed to give people an opportunity
to vote for us in December 2011 and try to trace how those
votes were be counted and see that lie in the state had reached
the extreme and the country badly needed fundamental changes.
After this in December people came out into the streets so
that to say that the regime forming for the past 20 years
had outlived its usefulness and had been over rather than
to overthrow someone or get some small concessions from the
government. [They came into the streets so that] to show that
the country needed a transformation which this authority -
in its present form and its present archaic attitude to people
and things can not give in principle.
MK: Can we say that you unequivocally support the protesters?
GY: People who came out into the streets in December - February
so that to protect their stolen votes made an important historical
act. We are all grateful that they have raised the issue which
must be solved and which forces to solve Russias key problem
exactly in this historical period. Thanks to these people
we for many years, and perhaps for the first time, have got
a chance to win Russias eternal problems: injustice, institutionalised
tradition of tyranny of the authorities and barbarism.
I came into politics exactly for this purpose. That is the
purpose I have pursued in all the programmes that I wrote
and in all my articles and speeches, in my daily work, and
in all elections I participated in. And for me it is very
important that this goal, this strategy, rather than a mechanical,
soulless and selfish introduction of borrowed economic and
political models, has become a mainstream, the main melody
of the time. Actually, this is the only thing people want.
MK: Do you think the leaders of the protests have acted improperly?
That they should have developed the protests in a different
way, not to get people to rallies, but do something different?
GY: Do you remember why did the rallies begin? [They began]
because people felt the need to protect their votes stolen
at elections, to protect their honour and dignity. Their movement
was peaceful and non-violent. This allowed the protest to
become truly mass-scale.
Many people got tired of lawlessness and injustice, from
the lack of hope, a feeling that they were in minority and
the authorities did not take them into account. The rallies
became an area where they felt free and saw that they were
not alone. They felt a sense of joy and solidarity with the
same people. This was an important experience, and it was
much needed. But you can not build a strategy on such experiences.
So that the emerging movement would not be confined to the
joy of unity only, it must develop a rational-political line
- consciously and actively support the alternatives to the
ruling regime.
MK: What, in your opinion, were the mistakes committed by
the organisers of the winter protests?
GY: The main mistake was that they were elaborating the concept
of a "non-political protest" in the most in appropriate
moment on the threashold of presidential elections. They
presented it as a new technology, a Russian know-how, constantly
repeating that Russia did not need politics, politicians and
political parties. However, the absurdity of such a line in
a situation when Putin had to be elected for 12 years and
the naivety of absolutely unjustified hopes that few people
would vote for him at the non-alternative elections, were
absolutely obvious. And I regret that modern educated people
were unable to look a little forward and make two and two.
MK: And why did they fail to make two and two?
GY: Because they are self-centred conceited amateurs in politics.
They liked it to be in the limelight and in the lead, but
they did not quite understand what they were doing, moreover
what should be done next. That is why they led to idleness,
conscientiously raising the importance of the non-political
protest and blocking the attempts to transfer it to an ideologically
clear partisan-political direction.
MK: Can you give a definite example of how the organisers
and leaders of the protests did absolutely the wrong move?
GY: The most obvious example here is the presidential campaign.
It could have given a possibility for developing an alternative
to the regime. Certainly, it would have been only the first
step, but a very important step. After all, the main problem
was not about the legitimacy of the election and certainly
not in the perspective of Putin's election in the first or
second round. The problem was in the presence of an alternative
candidate, and the political protest could have focus around
such a candidacy. Moreover, in this case mass-scale fraud
on the part of government would be absolutely inevitable.
The protest movement had to and could defend the nomination
of its presidential candidate. But public figures who became
the "face" of the movement did not speak in defense
of the alternatives, failed to understand and see the major
political plot.
MK: Are you speaking about your candidacy? That when you
were removed from the presidential race, the protest movement
did not demand to restore you in the campaign?
GY: Certainly. In fact, other faces of the protest could
have been the alternative candidates (with varying degrees
of success, of course) Vladimir Ryzhkov, Alexei Navalny,
Boris Nmetzov or Mikhail Kasyanov. All they could have self-nominated
their candidacies and begin collecting signatures [in their
support in accordance with the law]. But they did not do that.
I was the only one who did it - the only real alternative
candidate to Vladimir Putin. The authorities removed me from
the election, because Vladimir Putin realised that my programme
corresponds exactly to what people want now.
I was removed from elections, and the protest movement swallowed
that fact, its civil leaders did not fight for the alternative
candidate, and [after that] there could be no further fighting,
because everyone who was on the ballot in addition to Putin,
were part of Putin's system.
MK: Yes, the protest movement was preoccupied mainly with
creativity: a competition of funny banners and photoshopped
pictures. It was too busy with this to think about elections.
GY: Because the people who took on the role of organisers
of the protest movement were developing the form without filling
it with content. That is why the rallies demonstrated an abundance
of inventions, funny posters and performances. But by the
spring the main "faces" of the protest have already
partially changed. The new faces have quickly realized that
it was necessary to leave the glamour and creativity it
was a deadlock. They tried to make camps by the fountain at
the Pushkin square, breakthrough to the Manezh square, put
forward incredible demands to the authorities and socialize
at the boulevards. But this was also development of one form
only, without any content, including the Occupy Abai action
(Ed. Occupy Abai was a camp in the centre of Moscow by the
monument to Kazakh poet and philosopher Abai Kunanbayev).
It was clear what Occupy Wall Street was about. Wall Street
is the personification of the type of living the occupants
protest against. And what does Occupy Abai mean? Again,
it is an interesting form of protest but not filled with so
much needed political content.
MK: A transition from the ideological to the physical opposition
was a natural development of the protests. Is not it how they
should grow - from coming to rallies to creation of permanent
camps of the dissenting? from peaceful methods and slogans
to violent clashes?
GY: No, it isnt. Because in case of physical and violent
confrontation with the authorities the protest movement would
immediately lose and in general can be even permanently destroyed.
The organisers of rallies must understand that this is unacceptable.
In addition, if you invite people to an [officially] permitted
rally, they should not get into trouble - people can not be
victimized. If one is professionally engaged in the organisation
of mass-scale peaceful protests and wants precisely this,
this can be done. If one has other goals, than it will be
the other way.
MK: Do you think the other way prevailed during protests
on May 6?
GY: The desire for exploring "another heroic way"
has been there for all these months. However, after the first
attempt on December 5, this thrust was marginal, inferior
to the general belief in the power of peaceful mass protests.
But the protest did not yield immediate results as tangible
concessions from the government, or provided a coherent perspective
that could have been indicated by the political leadership.
Thus, the lead was taken by the left, nationalists and supporters
of the thesis you cannot make an omlette without breaking
eggs. The question of responsibility for the health and lives
of people was either redirected to the government or simply
removed from the agenda. They said that under the current
conditions the true organisers of mass actions were Twitter
and FaceBook.
MK: Do you think that the government was not responsible
for the collision on May 6?
GY: It certainly was. Moreover, [the government] bore the
primary responsibility, as it was the government which rigged
the elections and lied, and this brought people to the streets.
But there are also grounds to believe that the definite confrontations
were voluntarily or involuntarily (due to unprofessionalism)
provoked by the authorities. In generally, after the parliamentary
and presidential elections this government has been provoking
protests by many of its actions. Whatever they do from awarding
orders to [head of the Central Electoral Commission] Vladimir
Churov and [ex Interior Minister] Rashid Nurgaliyev, clear
the centre of Moscow of people before the inauguration, or
fill the entire city with OMON (Ed. The riot police) - all
this provokes just resentment. But there is absolutely nothing
new in this! These are the same authorities we have known
for a long time, with their well-known reactions to certain
stimuli. So what's the point of discussing now how bad these
authorities are? We must discuss how to change them.
MK: And how we can change them?
GY: In order not to lose track of time and rhythm of the
present development, we need at least an adjustment along
the four essential elements.
First, we should not allow for actions that may lead to the
expansion of violence. Only a peaceful civil movement well-organised
by responsible people can be popular and successful.
Second, which is more important, people should feel that
there has emerged a moral political power, a base they can
cling to avoid sinking into chaos. Therefore, we have to change
the moral climate and abolish the principle of "the end
justifies the means." Otherwise, what's the difference
between the ruling group and the "opposition" if
both regard other people as an instrument for solution of
problems.
Third, we need to overcome the division between Moscow
and the country. We were divided by government: it set the
protesters at Bolotnaya square against [Putins supporters]
at Poklonnaya Gora, Moscow white collars against the Urals
workers. But the protesters, the media and analysts were also
willing to develop the topic of protests by the advanced
citizens and emergence of a politically active class in Russias
capital. Consequently, there emerged a stereotype of the "active"
Moscow and the "passive" country. This is wrong
in the essence and prespectiveless by the result.
Fourth, we must fill the protests with the meaning, content.
Politics and Elections begin when there us a clear alternative:
personal, programme, moral, economic and political. And we
should very clearly make a democratic, European political
vector, formulate the essence of it. The first step is to
show that democrats are different from the extreme left and
the nationalists. Otherwise, the democrats will fail to develop
common goals or a common programme. They will only participate
in different actions and demonstrations in separate columns
that will be increasingly isolating from each other and under
the slogans that will be less coherent to each other. Obviously
the protest has become more aggressive and more dangerous,
and our present task is to separate it from ill-intentioned
figures clinging to it (for example, disguised Nazis, etc).
This is not a matter of emotions, likes or dislikes. I have
respect for Sergei Udaltsov, but I categorically disagree
with his programme. I do not agree with the nationalists.
I think that what they say and would like to do is dangerous
for the future of the country. But to prevent this danger
we should not fight with them in the streets, but we should
create our own political and democratic offer to the country,
transform the protest into a mass-scale democratic movement
fighting for the realisation of the goals formulate by us
during these 20 years and win the election.
MK: Can you formulate such a political offer?
GY: What does the majority of people living in Russia today
want, no matter which party they voted, and what is their
attitude to the protest movement? People want to have more
justice, less lies, more kindness and more honesty in life
and in the country. If we speak about this in more practical
terms, they want education different from what we have now,
they want to have normal education, they want affordable healthcare,
they want housing and utilities to be effective and at reasonable
prices, and they want to have security and so that they do
not have to be afraid of police any more. And all this can
be implemented only if the law is the same for all, courts
are independent and the property is inviolable.
Now it is crucially important that the prospects for realization
of these desires would be associated with a clear and transparent
sequence of actions that will change living and its rules
from day to day, rather than with another myth of a good ruler.
MK: But how can we change these, if the authorities base
on absolutely different rules and are not going to give them
up in favour of democratic reforms proposed, for example,
by YABLOKO? The only way left for us is to hope for the growth
of protest moods and that we will be able to make the government
leave this way.
GY: It is short-sighted, silly and dangerous to simply rely
on the growth of protest moods and activity.
First, knowing this government, I can state that they (some
of them secretly and some quite openly) are ready and prepare
a special operation to crush the opposition. And they not
simply prepared, after [the protests on the threashold of
inauguration of Vladimir Putin of] May 6, they have been doing
this: slowly, tediously, but persistently and relentlessly.
There are rational arguments warning them against taking Alexander
Lukashenkos way, but psychologically it will be easier for
them this way. The shift of the protest toward provocations
works in favour of this scenario. Therefore it is necessary
to decide what the opposition wants to win or die heroically?
MK: They will not be able to crush all the dissenting. The
opposition is not only certain individuals. This is a spirit
of dissent, discontent, which can be intimidated, but not
eliminated. In any case, this spirit will find other forms.
GY: But these forms are likely to be suicidal for the country.
Our society which is tired, irritable and split, is susceptible
to populist promises and simple solutions, and it tends to
the "leftist revanche" and nationalism. Educated
people who decided to enter politics, can say we are not
like this, however, even the most active part of Russias
civil society is held hostage by political amateurs at present.
They may decide to lean against somebody who has fallen out
of the government or will begin vesting hopes on someone like
Vladimir Putin in 1999-2000 - young, energetic and offering
simple solutions to complex problems; or they may try to rely
on left-wing populists or nationalists as the lesser evil.
All this is so typical of our elite, but politically is absolutely
wrong.
If the collapse of the government occurs in the absence of
a politically responsible democratic alternative, then its
fragments, as has already happened in our history, will fall
into the hands of the most irresponsible forces. And then
we are likely to see the true face of the Communists and the
nationalist trend will take extremely dangerous and violent
forms that are destructive for the country. And the very concept
of the Russian society will change. It will be more amorphous
and less rational. A demand for freedom will again be replaced
by a demand for order.
MK: So it turns out badly this way and not good that way.
But still, what do people who want changes should do? Do they
have to join YABLOKO?
GY: They need to strengthen the protest movement. But strengthening
means acquisition of content. Without this we will fail not
only to change the government, but even to seriously disturb
it. Without this we are likely to witness a collapse of the
government under the pressure of various circumstances. But
we should not wait for this. We should create an alternative.
Here we have just talked about the need of a moral political
force, that politics should politics would become moral, life
would be fair, people would not be humiliated and they would
not live in poverty. We have been in politics for twenty years,
but no one will ever be able to accuse us of an immoral step
or decision.
MK: If we talk about the moral alternative to the ruling
regime, then what it should comprise?
GY: Rejection of all forms of state deceit and public lies
by top officials of the country. Abolishing of cynicism and
lordly panache manifested in infinite self-awarding of medals.
Refusal of the principle of "the end justifies the means"
and using of people without their being aware of it.
Now there is not a single person in Russia who would associate
the future of the country with a goal other than implementation
of a strategy helping to solve the problems evolving at every
historical stage: lawlessness, injustice, dishonesty, disrespect
and poverty.
I have been developing this strategy for over 20 years and
this responsibility makes me act now with great consistency,
special steadiness and extreme caution.
MK: Even Vladimir Putin has noticed that you develop an alternative.
After all, he several times came to your proposals during
the presidential campaign. And his press secretary said that
people would find in Vladimir Putins programme what was proposed
by Yavlinsky.
GY: Well I would only welcome it, if Vladimir Putin could
at least by several per cent become Grigory Yavlinsky. This,
as my close friend from St. Petersburg says, would be good
and right for the country. And such a possibility does exist.
If Putin implemented the strategy I had developed once and
which was proved be correct by the events of the past six
months, I think then everyone would have been for it. But
there is none of that. Instead of this, instead of the programme
of the transformation of the country, we see a programme of
fight against Gennady and Dmitry Gudkovs, Ilya Yashin and
Ksenia Sobchak. But the country needs quite another thing.
Again, I should reiterate, we have witnessed a serious transformation
of public moods towards us, we know what people want and will
spare no effort so that not to let them down.
MK: But what should be done know that that such people would
come to power? Where will they come from?
GY: Proceeding from my many years of political experience,
I can state with full responsibility that there are such people
in Russia, there are many of them and not only in Moscow.
You do not see them because the present system does not allow
them to come up. It is deliberately arranged in such a way
that it does not allow anyone but a sheer mediocrity to emerge
over the surface. This is one of its goals.
We will pull out of these people, give them a field for political
action participating in all the elections at all levels and
winning the power from the bottom to the top, and forcing
the system to move back and retreat. Let us recollect the
election observers! Quite unexpectedly for the government
there turned out to be thousands of them It is only the beginning.
The system realises this, but instead look for a decent modernisation
response to this challenge, it tries to deceive the public
and to intimidate activists. This will not go! We see it all
and will not allow to fool us with creation of two hundred
parties (Ed. the new law on parties considerably reduced the
threashold for establishing of a party from 40,000 to 500
members only) allows to create a party with, gubernatorial
filters and other imitations or bully us with foreign agents
(Ed. A new law on non-profit organisations labels all the
organisations receiving foreign donations foreign agents
and imposes extremely tough rules of auditing for them).
MK: But how to ensure that democratically-minded citizens
would accept them and believe them?
GY: Certainly, it is impossible to win trust via rallies,
unreasonable fights with the police and shouting from the
stage. People will accept only those who for dozens of years
in politics have never deceived them or stolen anything from
the country, those who are working and acting today. And there
is so much work in the country for everyone who wants to change
the country: control over governments in their daily work
(traffic police, courts, police, government officials, MPs
- how they work, how they implement their promises, what they
neglect, etc.); a detailed public analysis of budget expenditures;
drafting of a public registry of all the corruption facts;
public analysis of housing and utilities costs and prices;
fight against tortures in police; sending regular formal public
inquiries to the governments on the most important public
issues; collection of signatures in support on such inquiries
online and offline; participation in and control of elections
at all levels; nomination of opposition candidates. And YABLOKO
has been doing all this already!
MK: Only despite of all of this you are not very noticeable
in the oppositional media. Why so?
GY: Because we are busy with this content. And not with the
form. And the content is quite a complicated thing. We have
to think much and come into details of the matter. Your newspaper
is ready discuss the content this is a rare thing, and I
appreciate it very much. But most media are interested in
the form. This is much easier and more fun. Suffice it to
say: We are making better banners now, and you are immediately
admitted into the club. But have we begun making them better?
No one bothers about this.
MK: It would be good, if YABLOKO could better represent its
position in the protest area.
GY: I agree. Then we are starting working on it from the
very moment of this interview.
See also:
State Duma
Elections 2011
Presidential
Elections 2012
Human
Rights
|
