|
The leader of Yabloko Grigory Yavlinsky came to the head-office
of Komsomolskaya Pravda with a lot of bodyguards, but spoke quite
openly…
 1.
Is the President our everything?
Question: Grigory Alexeevich, when was the last time
you met up with Vladimir Putin?
Yavlinsky: It was at the Independence Day reception at
the Kremlin. I congratulated President Putin. We talked. I said:
"I am concerned about a number negative developments in our
country recently. For example, the issue of nuclear waste imports.
Let us meet and talk." I am ready to go anywhere and talk
to anyone on this issue.
Question: Did he promise you a meeting?
Yavlinsky: Of course.
Question: The president must think of you highly as an
economist. As you know, he is not an economist.
Yavlinsky: I would advise you not to be rude. As Unity
says, the president is our everything, including an economist.
But leaving aside all the jokes, he grasps many economic issues
very rapidly.
Question: Apparently he personally verifies all the figures
before voicing them in speeches.
Yavlinsky: Incidentally, he does not need to go into
such detail. Most importantly, he grasps the crux of an issue.
On one occasion I proposed that we split the budget into two parts.
One half would be based on all the incidental conjuncture and
the other half on everything else. The President liked the idea.
I know that he is trying to implement it now, but the Government
objects. However, we will help him!
Let’s take another example. I talked so many times with Yeltsin,
Chernomyrdin and Primakov on reducing taxes – all in vain. They
did not understand, were afraid of such changes and did not know
how to do this, but Putin had to listen only once before going
ahead: 13% personal income tax and 24% profits tax. This reflects
the personal role of the President in the economy.
Question: Maybe you should meet more often then?
Yavlinsky: If I were to start seeing the President every day,
he would promptly be shown transcripts of my telephone conversations.
With you, for example. And these would state that I had said that
Putin was a so-and-so and that you were laughing and agreeing.
And it doesn't even matter if such a “dialogue” really occurred
or not. From the following day I would not be able to come and
talk to him. He has a presidential entourage, you know. They are
a jealous and nervous bunch and are concerned about their place
and role by his side.
Question: Do you mean to say that you never criticise
Putin?
Yavlinsky: Why never? I criticise him, quite often. But I always
do it publicly – on the air or in the newspapers. It is not my
style to say something to my friends off the record, privately,
and something altogether different on TV.
Question: Do your opinions often differ?
Yavlinsky: Fairly often. We disagree on a number of important
issues in state-building and domestic policies. For example on
the war in Chechnya, local government, the development of a civil
society, on NTV and personnel issues. But it is perfectly natural
that people hold different points of view in a country.
Question: Has the President by any chance turned to you
for help?
Yavlinsky: There are such important issues as judicial
reform, where for example, working joint groups involving Yabloko’s
experts have been formed by presidential decree. But our proposals
on military reform and the transfer of the army to a contract
basis are still not approved. Regarding appeals for assistance
– the President is an independent man. Why should he do this?
We are ready to help if our opinions coincide. You may know the
following joke: two men drive in a car. One says to the other:
“Look, there is a precipice straight ahead, turn right!” The other
man replies: “I can’t.” The first one says again, “Take a right,
or we will fall.” – “I can’t.” – “Why not?”- “Because you are
driving the car.”
2. Merging Yabloko and the Union of Right-Wing Forces (SPS)
would resemble a merger of Izvestiya and Komsomolskaya Pravda.
Question: Grigory Alexeevich, the next presidential election
will come soon. Will the right-wing forces finally join forces
for this election?
Yavlinsky: Let us first define the terms: the right-wing
means the SPS. We are democrats. And there is a difference here.
We do indeed share some views, such as defending an open society,
rejection of a totalitarian system and communist ideology. We
both consider Russia to be a European country. But there are considerable
differences. First, we have different priorities: Yabloko places
human rights first. Our priorities include such issues as equal
starting opportunities for all, justice. Second, Yabloko and the
SPS have different relations with the authorities. Our position
is the position of a party independent from the administration.
We talk to the authorities from a position of our independence.
Each time we determine the degree of compromise.
Question: Nevertheless, there is concern that this irreconcilable
position may lead to a situation where Yabloko will have difficulties
maintaining its public influence and political authority.
Yavlinsky: We may not be the only ones to face difficulties:
so will the electorate. Yabloko is trying to achieve what is in
our common interests – both mine and yours. If our principles
are not accepted for some reason, fair enough, vote for someone
else at the elections. We are not ready to abandon Yabloko’s key
ideas. We know, and this has been proved by life, that these ideas
and their implementation is extremely important for Russia and
its future. This is our responsibility before you. Consequently,
we don’t accept any ways and means of maintenance some form of
public influence at the cost of abandoning of our principles.
What would be the sense in all this?
Question: There is public concern that P Yabloko will
simply disappear owing to intransigence and a refusal to compromise.
Yavlinsky: Please explain to me, where we must reach
a compromise? I will conclude all the compromises right now from
the editorial office of Komsomolskaya Pravda. Let us take, for
example one of the most serious issues – nuclear waste. Ok, let
us compromise here: half of the waste can be imported and the
other half may not be imported. Do you want such a compromise?
Or let us take the national anthem. The first couplet will based
on Alexandrov’s music, the second under Glinka and the refrain
from the “Farewell of a Slav Woman”. Would that work?
Question: Nevertheless, what prevents you and the SPS
from creating a single normal right-wing bloc and protecting democratic
principles by joining ranks?
Yavlinsky: Aren’t you disturbed by the fact that 5-6
million of our electorate will refuse to vote for such a bloc?
Question: Why have you decided that they will refuse?
Yavlinsky: This is the opinion of sociologists and the
results of five federal electoral campaigns.
Question: However, you are exaggerating: so many votes
were given for the SPS...
Yavlinsky: Those who did not vote for Yabloko voted for
the SPS. In addition the electorate was consumed by the two ideas
used in their electoral campaign: “Putin for presidency!” and
"War in Chechnya to the victorious end!" They obtained
an additional three per cent, but, in my view they paid an inconceivable
price for this. This was not worth the lives of those Russian
servicemen who will remain forever in Chechnya. And you want a
compromise from me here?
Question: Fair enough, but what should your rank-and-file
voter do? He likes some of the SPS and some of your party…
Yavlinsky: I would be extremely grateful to this voter
if he would tell me in the period between elections which part
[of our programme] he does not like. I would either change it
or persuade him to think otherwise. By the way, why don’t you
merge with Izvestia? And then with “Argumenti i Fakti” – as you
all seem alike. Why there should be three different democratic
papers? Let all of you write together.
Question: We all cover different niches.
Yavlinsky: Which niches? Don’t play games with us! Write
all of this in one newspaper and call it “The New Truth”. All
write all of this there.
Question: We have one million subscribers.
Yavlinsky: Well that is good news. Now there will be
two million. Take “SPID-info” (Ed. magazine covering a wide range
of interests, including AIDS, safe sex, etc.). Merge with them.
And you can also ask Catholics to merge with protestants and orthodox
believers. We have one God, one common Bible… Unfortunately, or
fortunately, life is made like this, and we don’t need “soft shoes”.
Let us not look back – what happened, happened. I am sure that
we will manage to find common ground with Boris Nemtsov. Our party
is well disposed to Boris.
3. I don’t want a “Milosevic variant” for Russia.
Question: Do you think that the political picture of Russia
is gradually coming into focus?
Yavlinsky: How true, dear friends! Only how? Now we have
three possible scenarios. First of all, the country remains as
it is. Then you get something like Argentina or Peru. Or even
Bolivia. And everything will “come into focus” for another one
hundred years. Only we will find it hard to extricate ourselves
from such a situation. The second scenario represents a course
towards authoritarianism. If a system based on a stringent bureaucracy
with a very authoritarian leader is created in the country, we
will end up with a police state. The third option involves the
creation of some kind of stable system with very simple traits:
respect to the freedom and dignity of an individual, equal starting
opportunities for all, an independent judicial system, a really
intelligent form of free speech, social security and confidence
[in the future] for the majority. Such a stable system could make
Russia competitive in the near future. All the other scenarios
will leave Russia hopelessly behind. If tomorrow the SPS join
forces with us to defend these principles, and do not cling to
different oligarchic elements of a defective democracy, this will
be great.
Question: You don't have anyone else to rely on?
Yavlinsky: We do have, now. The first All-Russia Democratic
Assembly took place in Moscow two weeks ago. All democrats, from
Gorbachev to Novodvorskaya, sat at one table and finally tried
to listen to one another. We have been preparing all this for
a year! You won’t believe me, but many of them for the first time
had an opportunity to talk about themselves and their objectives.
This is a serious democratic process, a meeting point, but still
not a union.
Question: Already today some political scientists have
expressed the following concept: the objective of taking Russia
to the people is too great. And that if Russia is to be inclined
to such a grandiose objective, some sacrifices will have to be
accepted, for example, part of our freedoms.
Yavlinsky: This is a policy of the Bolsheviks. They only
acted in this way. Every time they arranged some “extraordinary
situation”. Either they detected spies, or fabricated “the doctors’
case” (Ed. In the Stalin era a fabricated case against doctors
treating top USSR officials: allegedly the doctors had tried to
poison Stalin and attempted to kill other key figures in the country)
They could not survive without all this. Speaking seriously, Russia
can only evolve normally if it follows liberal-democratic ideals
and implements reforms for the majority. There is no other way.
Question: But some people do not want to believe in this.
Yavlinsky: I would like to try this idea on you for consideration.
The Communists are no longer a threat and will never be. Any reversion
of the country to the past or to the left is no longer possible.
It would appear, however, that the country may shift abruptly
to the extreme right. This is very dangerous, because the extreme
right are virtually national Bolsheviks. What does this mean?
This represents a threat of reproducing the Milosevic scenario.
He ruined a country by moving to the extreme right towards militant
nationalism.
4. Does pension reform rob women?
Question: Pension reform is being actively debated. What
is the essence of your proposals?
Yavlinsky: First, we insist that at least 10-12% of gross
domestic product and not 5% as is the case today should be spent
on pensions. In our opinion, pension reform should resolve two
tasks: improve the living standards of pensioners and simultaneously
create effective incentives for the young generation. The priority
task of this system is to improve the demographic situation in
the country. Another banal question arises – the fate of women.
Pension reform as conducted now puts the fairer half of mankind
into an extremely unfavourable position: women as a social group
simply do not get equal opportunities with men. Judge for yourself:
if we sum up everything that will be considered when a woman’s
pension is calculated (maternity leave, lower pension age, plus
a salary amounting to about 60% of that of men), you end up with
a paltry amount. And yet we claim to want to rectify the demographic
situation!
Question: And what do you think about the accrual variant
proposed by the government?
Yavlinsky: There can be no accrual system belonging to
the state. The state will fail here, will lose this money and
will fail to protect the people. In addition the variant of the
accrual system proposed in reality refer only to people under
35. The older generation, even those who are 40, simply will not
have time to accumulate anything with such [low] wages. Our position
is as follows: the social pension should be funded by the budget.
It should be based on taxes.
Question: But where can the state can get the money for
this?
Yavlinsky: This is very simple: if you recall, at one
of our meetings I told you that we “found” 89 billion roubles
in our previous budget. In other words, 57 billion \of this sum
went missing somewhere and only 20 were spent on their proper
aims. So you see, see, if you want something very much, then you
can always find the money for this.
5. About nuclear waste and the TV-blockade.
Question: Yabloko has actively objected to the imports
of nuclear waste into Russia, but the Duma in favour. Do you think
that it is possible to change anything in this respect?
Yavlinsky: We are preparing a referendum, although we
have been strictly advised against doing so.
Question: And how they do advise against this?
Yavlinsky: They conduct “explanatory work”. But we have
no choice. We can only appeal to the citizens: "Let us say
together that we don't want this." That is it. And someone
will fight against us to prevent us holding a referendum. We shall
see what happens. Although nowadays we are very rarely given an
opportunity to appear on television. Probably we are simply banned
from broadcasting.
Question: Do you mean on the first and second federal
channels (Ed. ORT and RTR)?
Yavlinsky: Looks like that. I have been told that there
is even a written order...
| 