|
GRIGORY YAVLINSKY, LEADER OF "THE YABLOKO PARTY", PRESIDENTIAL
CANDIDATE-RUSSIA
ADAM SMITH: If you look back at the Russian crisis if you
will, is there anything the West could have done specifically?
YAVLINSKY: I would say that there are some things which could
have be
done in a different way. More attention
to the political side of the issue. More attention to the civil
society
concept… in order to achieve a real
democracy in Russia. Legal systems – courts – arbitration and
similar
things. Without them, the market does not
work. Economically, greater attention to institutional changes,
financial issues, the budget and inflation. Macro
economic data are important, but they must be related to institutional
changes, like
demilitarization, private property, land reform. Competition.
Restructuring, bankruptcies, Private ownership.
SMITH: But this really was up to the Russians - what could
the West have done?
YAVLINSKY: Everything is up to the Russians, everything. One
hundred
and ten percent , not one hundred
percent is up to the Russians, but the West was stimulating this
process
in Russia: it was providing a carrot to the
donkey to make it move. And it was issuing signals as to what
is right
and wrong. Certainly the experience of the
worst and the strength of the United States economy, for example,
provides Russia with ideas about they are
doing the right or wrong things. So those signals were sometimes
wrong,
and sometimes not enough,
and sometimes they were in the opposite direction.
SMITH: For example.
YAVLINSKY: For example financial aid. While we had a war in Chechnya,
for example communicating with the
corrupt government. For example looking that we are creating very
rapidly growing capitalism.
Oligarchy capitalism. Looking at the political leaders who were
saying
that corruption is serving democracy. That
is unacceptable not only in Indonesia. It is unacceptable in Russia,
even more so.
SMITH: Previously you described extremely articulately the
problems in Russia. However, last year it was claimed that the
Russian crisis had been triggered by George Soros.
YAVLINSKY: No. Soros was a great supporter of the Russian transition
and he spent a lot of money on us,
maybe the only one in the world to do this. This is an individual
who
sent to Russia, for free, millions and maybe
billions of money for Russian transformation…for education, for
science,
for culture, for many things like that. So
he achieved a lot of good things. He failed with the Russian economy
simply, because he had a dream about
Russia’s positive economic transformation which didn't materialise.
SMITH: So his statements about the rouble didn’t caused the
run on the rouble? That letter to the Financial…
YAVLINSKY: To speak about his letter to the Financial Times…
that was
peanuts compared to what was really
happening in Russia. We were creating an economy based on loans.
We
were drug addicts - we were taking
money from your taxpayers to create prosperity for Russians…that
would
never work. Look at the Russian budget
for 1999, which has already been approved by parliament. The debt
which we have to pay this year, `99, is
one-seven-point-six billion dollars. We have no budget - none.
SMITH: Are you saying that Primakov does not have any plans?
YAVLINSKY: Primakov has no plans – Prime Minister Primakov has
no idea about the plans. Primakov has a team which cannot even
understand what is going on. And I don't
believe that this team with Primakov can change anything.
SMITH: The world was shocked last summer by the Russian default.
Do you think there could be another Russia shock, another default?
YAVLINSKY: There could be a political default.
SMITH: What does that mean?
YAVLINSKY: If the elections in `99 and 2000 go badly, Russia
would go
the way of an isolated country, a
country with a criminal environment - almost abandoned inside,
with
nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.
That would represent a real default.
SMITH: Could there be another financial default?
YAVLINSKY: What can I add - if we have borrowed 20 billion dollars
and
a debt of 17.6 billion dollars, this is
already default, greater than you can imagine.
SMITH In your own mind, what do you see as the near-term
scenario?
YAVLINSKY: I am going to speak positively. There are possibilities
for
the new Russian political generation, for
new Russians who established themselves after the fall of Communism
to
come to power. And for the first time in
the history of Russia, people not from a totalitarian society,
differently minded, different mentality, this is the
Russian chance. But we have to fight for that. We have to struggle
for
that. This remains the positive scenario for
the near future.
SMITH: And the other scenario?
YAVLINSKY: All the other scenarios would be nightmares. All
the other
scenarios would put Russia in a situation
where the youth would be eager to leave Russia.
SMITH: Can you tell me the Grigory Yavlinsky fix for this?
YAVLINSKY: Yes. My party must double the number of seats in
the lower
chamber this autumn - now we have50
and have to make a hundred. And, in 2000 I have to take part,
I am going
to take part in the presidential
elections. I have a maximum goal to win; or a minimum, to come
third.
If I come third, before the second round I
would be in a position to be Prime Minister in the new government.
And then, we would create the first
government in recent years without corruption. I have about ten
people
who are not taking bribes and that is
enough to start among 160 million Russians. And then we would
move
forward step by step and we would create
confidence among the people in the new Russian government, because
the
main problem of Russia today is that
the people have no confidence in the government. In Russia revolutions
never happened as a consequence of
economic difficulties. But it always happened - 1917, 1991, as
a
consequence of the enormous gap between
society and power. When the people reject the power, revolution
happened
so that is what we have to overcome.
At the beginning of the 1990s, the press and the West were saying
everything is great in Russia. Everything is
terrific. This was euphoria. It was wrong. Now the people are
saying
that everything is bad and terrible in Russia.
This is also wrong. No euphoria. Look at reality. With clear eyes,
with
a cold hat on and a warm heart. Then you
will find it easy to understand what is going on in Russia.
SMITH: We visited Russia several times and we saw radical
changes - you see them first in the media, and so on. And yet
I wonder now since 1991 what is the total impact - do people want
to go back to the old ways - do they want to create some new way.
They must be very disillusioned. And then you know, one wonders
about Russia versus the old Soviet Union, and what it thinks about
these former parts of the Soviet Union that are now something
else.
YAVLINSKY: There is a small number of people - 5% - in society
who are
ready to give up their lives for the
freedom of reading, speaking, talking, moving - but 95% is not
ready to
pay the price. That is what has happened
in Russia. Five percent of the Russian intelligentsia now has
all the
freedoms one can imagine. All…you can go,
you can speak as you like, but 95% lose everything. They are not
sure
about their children, they are not sure
about their parents. All that...that is why the people are angry.
They
are not against those freedoms, but this
package is not the first one.
SMTIH: I understand that…
YAVLINSKY: And I think this is the case in every country. Even
in the
United States 95% of the people are far
more interested in the future for their children, than about democracy
and all that. They are not against the idea,
but they can't put it ahead of everything else. That is what I
understand. And when Moscow is saying to the
country that at least people can now read whatever they want,
some
people get angry.
Published with the kind permission of Adam
Smith Global Television
original at: http://www.adamsmith.net/
| 