Alexei Navalny on the program *Special Opinion* on December 14, 2017

Hello. In the Echo studio

of Moscow (Echo of Moscow, a Russian radio station), Alexei Navalny, a politician,

who yesterday announced that he

is ready to put forward his candidacy for the post

of President of the Russian Federation in

the next presidential election. Good

evening, Alexei.

>> Good evening.

>> Alexei Anatolyevich, is this a false start

or a political gesture? A year before

the campaign begins, you are announcing your

candidacy?

>> A year and three months before the election. And we believe

that time is already running short for us. So this is

not a false start; it is an announcement that we

actually made a little later than we should have, because

we are facing enormous tasks—not just

political ones, but organizational ones as well.

In order to secure

registration, we need to collect 300,000

signatures. No one has any doubt that

we will have to collect those signatures

honestly—super honestly. It is a huge job,

and it has to be done in forty regions. Besides

that,

>> Let me interrupt you. So you are planning

to run as an independent candidate, rather than from

a party?

>> Yes, exactly.

>> Why? There are parties that are ready

to support you. PARNAS, for example, has already

announced its support for you. It is easier

to run that way. Why did you decide

to run as a non-party candidate, as

an independent? And

>> It is important to me to run on behalf of the people. I

aspire, as I said

in my address, to become the voice of those

millions of people who have no

political representation. That is why

I would like to run precisely on behalf of the people.

Even if I have to collect more

signatures, they will be real

signatures from real supporters who,

I hope, will not only sign but also

help me in the campaign. And today I, uh,

as you know, on my Twitter

posted yesterday a poll about whether

the Kremlin will allow you onto the ballot. Yes

or no. And you voted yes. That was

clear. Why? Why do you think

the Kremlin will let you run?

Because I believe that we should not

be thinking in any other framework at all.

Whether they allow it or not implies

some kind of unlawful system already. That is a

strange feature of Russian elections.

We are not thinking about how many votes

to win, but about how difficult it is

just to get onto the ballot. That is why I am running this

campaign. I proceed from the assumption that I will

take part in the election, that I will be on that

very ballot. And I do not want to think about anything else,

because I have the

moral, legal, and political

right to participate in this election.

Alexei Navalny is in our studio. We will

return to the question of morality, of

legal morality and non-legal morality.

But in the meantime, Alexei Anatolyevich,

when I asked you about a false start, I

meant that in order

to run for president, there has to be

an officially declared campaign under the law on

presidential elections. There is still a year before that announcement. Before

the announcement. What do you want to do during

this year? Why do you need this year?

>> This is one of the reasons why I am involved

in politics at all. Because I

fundamentally disagree with the idea

that election campaigns in Russia

are conducted only once the election is announced,

there are just the last three or four months left, and everyone

suddenly crawls out from somewhere and starts looking for

voters. Politicians should be doing

something in the period between elections. And major campaigns

should begin two years in advance. We

have just seen in the United States a campaign being run over two

years, because it is a big, enormous

job. And frankly, I do not

understand this. Participation in the

election campaign has already been announced by several

people, several candidates from different

parties. Why are they doing nothing? Now

it may be a stroke of luck for you that

they are doing nothing. But that may be

good for me, and it is a tragedy for the country,

because all Russian elections are

not even just a game with a

pre-programmed result. Even

the script of that game is known in advance.

>> Let us not use words

that maybe only one person in

our audience understands.

>> The course, the course of this campaign

is traditionally the same. A: nobody does anything.

B: debates are held in which no one

takes part and no one watches. And C—

a vote in which everything has already been decided. I would

like the very course of the election campaign

to have important political meaning, so that

it would be a campaign about a fundamental choice

that citizens make. My campaign

and my program differ quite sharply from the Kremlin's program.

I believe

that this is the fundamental choice I

am offering to people, to citizens.

>> We will talk more about your program. How

does it differ from the Kremlin's? I keep

remembering how four years ago our mutual acquaintance

Ksenia Sobchak,

speaking about you—and that was 2012—

said that Alexei

Navalny seemed to her like Putin

2.0.

>> And now, looking back—no, looking

back—do you understand why she, knowing

you better than I do, said that? Why did it seem that way to her?

did it seem that way? I think I know why,

because Ksenia

likes all sorts of extravagant, harsh

statements. We recently

discussed it, and she understands that she was

wrong. What matters more to me is that she

understands that.

>> We’ll talk with her about that. In what way are you

similar to Putin? Look, I’ve just

received this from Irik in Ufa (a city in Russia). Do you

allow for the possibility that your ideas appeal

to Putin? That’s Irik from Ufa asking.

>> A significant share of the things that I

actually intend to do, Putin

says out loud but never implements. He

talks about the need to give more

freedom to entrepreneurs, and has been saying that for 17 years. He

says that we need to reduce

state interference in the economy

and has been saying that for 17 years, while it has only kept

growing. So from the standpoint of

formal rhetoric, Putin says

sensible things. My program is also

built on sensible ideas. So there are

some purely textual overlaps here. But

in substance, of course, we can see that

he acts only in order to

strengthen his personal power and

not hand that personal power over to anyone.

To remain a kind of emperor of Russia

for life. I categorically disagree with that,

and that is one of the things

I want to discuss in this

election. We’ll talk more about it.

Alexei Navalny is here in our studio.

Alexei Anatolyevich, there is one more theory,

besides the false start. It concerns

that very trial now underway in

Kirov, as a result of which you

could once again, possibly, be deprived

of the right to run for office. And some

observers, aside from the false-start theory,

have said that what you are doing now

was done in order to take

the court virtually hostage. If it hands down

a guilty verdict, it would thereby

be accusing itself of acting politically, of

removing you from the electoral

process, and so on.

>> I understand that. And what can I

say here? Over the past five years, there probably

hasn’t been a single day when I

didn’t have one legal proceeding or another

going on. And no matter what I

did, all these kinds of observers

would say, “Well, he’s releasing this

investigation so that they won’t be able to do this

or that to him.”

And since the authorities keep fabricating

criminal cases against me endlessly, those cases

are endlessly being heard. What I can

say is this: the announcement of the

start of the campaign had been planned

some time ago. Before the court date

was announced, we had chosen

an approximate time frame for when it would be

announced. And this trial itself has no

significance for me from the moment when,

let me explain, let me explain, from the moment when

the European Court of Human Rights

ruled that the verdict should have been

overturned, I knew for certain that the Supreme Court

would overturn it. I knew for certain that they

would overturn it in the way most

inconvenient for me, namely by sending it back

to Kirov. And it was only a question of

when they would do it. So

in planning my life and my

work, I definitely do not base anything on

these proceedings. I know they exist. I

know they will continue, because this is the

toolkit the authorities use

not only against me, but against

all sorts of people: opening criminal cases.

One way or another, they will go on. If I

plan all my activity

around these various proceedings,

then I won’t be able to do anything at all.

>> Am I right in understanding that you made

the decision to announce your candidacy

in principle regardless of this trial

that is underway in Kirov?

>> Absolutely right. Absolutely right.

After the European Court of

Human Rights issued its ruling, I

already had guaranteed

legal grounds, not just

moral and political ones, but also

legal ones. So from that moment on I

knew for certain that I would go to any debate,

to any meeting with voters. And

when someone in a crowd asks me someday:

“Are you a criminal?” I’ll say that I won

a case against this government and proved that the case

had been fabricated. And that means

that I have every right to take part in

the campaign. That was when I began seriously

discussing this decision.

>> So for now you are not a criminal in

the legal sense of the word.

>> If someone asks in a crowd—well, I’m asking you

from this crowd of reporters—

in the legal sense of the word here

under Russian law, I am not just

a convicted criminal, but a repeat offender, because there are

other cases in which I was tried. But

I do have the right to run for office.

>> Alexei Anatolyevich Navalny is here in

the studio. We’re going to take a break for 3

minutes, but I’d like to pass along those

questions for Alexei Anatolyevich that

came in through our website. It’s impossible to get to them all right now.

We’ll answer some of them. But

Alexei Anatolyevich has promised

to answer most of them on his own

website and on ours. We’ll pause here for now.

Alexei Navalny is here in our studio.

>> Hello again. Alexei

Anatolyevich Navalny in the studio of Ekho

Moskvy (Echo of Moscow) and RTVI. The program *Special Opinion*.

As I already said, 200 questions, more than

200, came in through our website. Alexei

Anatolyevich selected six. That was his

choice. I’ll ask three now, and then three

more later. And Mikhail from St. Petersburg asks

you: "What fate awaits the crooks,

thieves, and bandits after your victory in the

2018 presidential election?"

>> An honest, fair trial, no

campaign-style score-settling. They should all be tried

by an honest court, preferably by a

jury.

>> And by then, will you already have carried out judicial

reform as well?

>> Well, if

I’m talking about an honest court, then,

of course, I mean that these would be

courts after judicial reform. But, uh,

carrying out the part of the reform that is connected

with making the judiciary truly

independent, is not that difficult. Judges need to be

freed from the dictates

of court chairpersons, from appointment by

the president, and from the so-called

qualification boards. And that can

be done. We have the personnel for judicial

positions in the courts. So I have no

doubt in my ability, or in the ability of the authorities

in general, to carry out a normal,

high-quality judicial reform and create

courts that will judge both crooks and

non-crooks fairly: putting crooks in prison, not

letting crooks go free.

>> In that connection, how do you feel about

the idea, if I understand it correctly,

of Mikhail Borisovich Khodorkovsky, that

in order for the transfer of power

to happen without bloodshed, they should simply be allowed

to leave.

>> Allowed whom?

>> Those whom you suspect are

crooks and thieves.

>> I think that’s impossible, and it would

defeat the whole purpose. What does it mean, to leave? It

means they would remain in their positions.

That is one of the reasons why democracy

did not really happen in the 1990s. Because

all those people who committed

crimes, even under the then-applicable

Soviet criminal code, ended up

completely unpunished. I

believe that Putin and his family should

be guaranteed immunity, and

that should be an important condition of the transfer

of power. If he is ultimately prepared

to give up power sooner or later,

then immunity should be guaranteed

and that guarantee of immunity should be

honored. But should it

extend to Sechin, the Rotenbergs, and

so on? Well, of course not. Then, uh,

why should we change anything at all

if we want to leave these people their

illegally obtained billions and leave them in the

positions where they will continue

to control the economy?

>> Not just retirement—remove them. You know,

like in Georgia, with the traffic police: take your things, leave,

just hand over your weapons.

>> What do you mean, retirement? That

>> that’s how it was in Georgia. When Saakashvili disbanded the traffic police,

he said: "Right,

hand over your weapons, and we’ll let you keep everything else."

That can be done with traffic cops, with some low-level

corrupt officials. That can be done. But

how do you do that with a person who

controls oil companies that

control infrastructure, that

control ports? They control

the economy; all of this belongs to them.

If you take it away and retire them, or send them into

retirement, they will still be in control. That’s why

I’m saying that sending into retirement

people who have seized the entire economy

is impossible. According to official data, in our country

the state and, that is, specific

officials already control 80%

of the economy. In practice, even more. No kind of

retirement solution will work here. There must be

no campaign-style score-settling, no lawlessness—

just normal, honest proceedings.

>> So, not lustration,

>> But lustration implies punishing

a person without proving guilt. Simply: you were

all officials, so we’ll punish all of you. I’m

talking about something else. I’m talking about

>> So you are against lustration.

I am in favor of lustration, but that is a different matter. This is

not lustration; this is holding

people accountable who have violated

the current Criminal Code. All those

people, starting with those who

imprison, uh, activists on political

charges and ending with those who carry out

privatization the way they do—they

are violating the current law. They should be tried under

the current law.

>> I see. Alexei Navalny is here with us in

the studio. Alexei Anatolyevich, one more

question from those you selected. Kolya

Safronova asks: what will your first

decree be about once signed by you? I’ll even name three.

First, the release of all political prisoners.

And this is not just some human rights

measure. It is a measure aimed at

improving the investment climate.

Second, the introduction of a law against

illicit enrichment. And third, precisely

the launch of judicial reform, because

without judicial reform, no other

reform will succeed.

>> What will you do with this

State Duma, where, uh,

the constitutional majority belongs to that party

to which you attached the label "the party of crooks and thieves,"

>> it should be, uh—there should be announced

new elections. This Duma (the lower house of Russia’s parliament) was elected illegally,

under illegal rules. Important players were not

allowed to take part in the election. There were

falsifications on a scale large enough

to justify calling new elections. At the same time,

I have no doubt that in any Duma

there will be opposition to me or to any other

president. And that is normal. Any

normal president needs a strong

opposition. And the task of a good

president who wants to govern the country

well is to create a parliamentary majority in the Duma,

so that,

relying on it through compromises,

possibly even some difficult

compromises, it can nevertheless pass

the necessary laws. That is the only way, that is how

it should be, that is how democracy works.

>> Alexei Anatolyevich Navalny is here with us in

the studio. In the run-up to your visit

and our interview, people have very often

been comparing you to others; naturally, people always

want to compare someone with a well-known figure.

Some say you resemble Trump

in your rhetoric; others say that

in both your platform and your rhetoric you are like

Sanders. Someone on the website—Elena, for example—

compares you to Hitler. But everyone

says that you are a populist.

What does populism mean to you? How do you

understand it? And do you agree that

you are a populist?

I do not understand what “populist” means in

this Russian political-science context.

This broad spectrum, where I am

compared with people who are absolutely

diametrically opposed, such as

Sanders and Trump, shows that

people themselves do not really understand what

they are talking about. I really do

put forward a number of ideas that are supported by

the majority of the population, that the majority of the population

is demanding. But somehow, in

this so-called political-science environment,

it is customary to label such people

populists. I am not ashamed of a single one

of my proposals, from introducing a visa

regime to raising the minimum

wage. There is nothing

populist about that. Is Alexei more like Trump or

Sanders? Are you more right-wing or left-wing? Are you

more of a social democrat, or are you more of a

liberal conservative? Well, that is impossible.

All of these terms you have

mentioned mean nothing in our country,

because Russian liberals,

as you know, are like American

Republicans. And the people who in

Russia are called liberal

economists would, in American, for example,

political-science terms, be considered some kind of

hellish ultra-conservatives.

Everything in Russia is upside down. All these

labels are inapplicable.

>> All right then. Trump calls for building

a wall. You are calling for the introduction of a visa

regime with our Mexico.

That sounds similar. It is a fight against illegal

migration through restrictions. I, I mean

>> In that sense, this part of my agenda

is indeed conservative; it

aligns with the Republicans. The part of my

agenda that concerns—and this is

the central part of my program—the fight

against inequality, of course, aligns more

with the American Democrats.

But the things I say do not come

from me seeing, “Oh, what a

great idea in Trump’s platform.”

“Let’s adopt it ourselves.” They come from

my understanding of the problems that

exist in Russia. I write about these problems,

and I am sure that my program is

the program of the majority. Which, by the way,

is what the focus groups showed us, incidentally.

>> Well, we will talk about the focus groups later.

Another question selected by you. Black

V-72, excuse me. If you

win the presidential election,

will you seek to reduce the presidential term

to four years?

>> Absolutely, this is a crucial issue. The

presidential term must be reduced to four

years. S-six years is madness. There must

be a strict two-term limit.

Only in this way will a normal transfer of power

finally begin to function. You serve for four

years. If you did a good job,

you work another four years. You have worked eight years,

goodbye. Not even, not even

the most wonderful person can remain.

>> You will retire at 52 if you

in eighteen,

>> if it so happens that in 2018

I am elected, I will retire, but

that does not mean that my life

will be over. It is normal when

a person becomes president, leaves office, and does

something else. This works in

democratic countries; it should

work in Russia too. But a system in which

people stay in office for 17 years is

wrong. Any person will be corrupted

over 17 years. We have never seen

a case where someone stayed in power

for more than 10 years and did not deteriorate. It is

simply impossible.

The experience of humanity tells us this, and

Russia’s experience tells us this too. If Putin

in 2002–2003

was still doing some things, and in

1999, as we know,

Nemtsov (Boris Nemtsov, Russian opposition politician) went into the election with the slogan “Putin for

President,” then the Putin of 2016,

of 2017, is a man who thinks of nothing

except enriching himself and

holding on to power.

>> One last question before the news, 30

seconds. Tell me, is the support of the PARNAS party

for you a good thing, or is it

a burden?

>> For me, support from any organizations,

including political ones, is of course

a good thing. And I am grateful to the PARNAS party

for supporting me. And I am grateful

to any people who do as well. There are all kinds of people.

Some of them make fairly harsh

statements that I absolutely

disagree with. They support me. I

want to thank them for that support.

That does not mean that I fully share

their ideas, but I will fight for

every vote.

>> Alexei Anatolyevich Navalny is our guest in

the studio. In just 4 minutes

we’ll be back and continue with your

questions. For now, the news on Ekho (Echo of Moscow radio).

Alexei Navalny is in the studio. We’re

continuing. I cut off a question, um, from

Black72, and in fact he is asking you:

"Have you decided on

your candidate for prime minister?"

All personnel appointments and specific

names will be announced only when we reach

the final stage of the campaign. I mean

the legal stage, after registration,

because that’s when there will be

debates, there will be coverage, more

coverage, more attention, and that’s when it

makes sense to do it. After all, the campaign

should build momentum. At

the moment, our political

and organizational task is

to get registered for these elections.

>> So, not Khodorkovsky.

>> Any names will be announced after, uh,

registration.

>> Or may not even come up at all.

>> Alexei Alexeyevich, we are considering many names.

All of these names are

interesting. I have no doubt

that we will assemble an effective team

that will govern the country better

than it is being governed now. And the

financial and economic indicators

being shown both by the government and

by the economy

are getting worse every year. For the

third or fourth year in a row, real

incomes have been falling. Overall, the country is sliding

toward economic catastrophe. And the country’s internal problems

are being patched over in this

clumsy way, with constant

appeals to the foreign-policy agenda. You know,

when they can’t answer

the question of why the roads are so bad, they

start talking to us about Palmyra and Aleppo. And

I have no doubt that we will assemble

a team of people who will govern

properly.

>> Alexei Navalny is in the studio. Since you’ve

moved on to the foreign-policy agenda, let’s

return to our favorite

topic: Crimea.

What does your platform say about Crimea and Ukraine? Well,

Crimea separately, Ukraine separately.

After all,

>> our program is aimed at

>> no, no, no—not your party’s program, I mean

the program of your team. In your

program as a presidential candidate

you should say “I,” not “we.” And I devoted a great deal of

attention in my platform to getting out of

international isolation, because that is

extremely important for economic

growth; it is critically important for economic

growth to have sanctions lifted, and so on. The first

thing we must do to normalize

relations,

>> and what Russia must do—and what Russia will do

with President Navalny—is implement

the Minsk agreements. This is precisely one of those

things we’ve talked about: Putin

talks about it constantly, but does not carry it out.

The Minsk agreements must be

implemented. That will be the first step toward

having sanctions on Russia

begin to be lifted. As for Crimea, there is

no other way

to even begin addressing this problem and

thinking about it, drawing up road maps,

except by holding a proper

referendum. My position on this has not

changed. So, we give everyone time

to campaign as much as they want. An absolutely

fair and free referendum. We

determine the genuine expression of the will

of Crimea’s residents. After that, we begin

to do something. However, overall,

when it comes to how quickly the Crimea

issue can be resolved, and reconciliation with Ukraine in general, I am

skeptical. I believe that

the Crimea issue will not be resolved for

decades. Our grandchildren and

great-grandchildren will still be sitting around discussing

what to do about Crimea. The same

thing is happening with Northern

Cyprus, and likewise with the status of

Jerusalem, and so on. There are

problems that certain politicians have left us

and that cannot be resolved quickly,

effectively, and to everyone’s mutual satisfaction

it simply does not seem possible. I’m afraid

Crimea is one of those problems,

a kind of unhealed wound, and that

what really needs to be resolved is

our relationship with Ukraine. We have created

for ourselves a large, hostile state,

a huge one, with a population in the tens of

millions. This is where we really need

to

do a great deal. I repeat: start with

implementing the Minsk agreements.

>> Alexei Navalny, are you not afraid

for your physical safety, or for your family? Our listeners are asking

that. We’ve had several such

questions from different cities.

>> Well, let's put it this way: the events of recent years and

the way they are investigated, the attacks,

murders, and so on,

do little to give me any

pleasure when I think about these

topics. I'm a real person. I understand

the dangers that exist. Wherever I myself

go these days, I'm constantly

being followed by certain people who carry out

various minor attacks, and it's obvious

that the police are overseeing them at that moment.

Uh, so the shift from minor attacks to

full-scale attacks is something that

could easily happen. Nevertheless,

I'm not afraid. If I were afraid, I

wouldn't be doing what I do.

>> What is it that you're not afraid of?

>> I'm not afraid of anything. I think the thing I fear is

that one day I will become afraid and

before publishing some exposé,

I'll think: "Maybe I shouldn't

do it, because it's somehow

a bit scary." I'm afraid that such a moment

will come, and I will do everything and try to prove to everyone

that a moment like that for me

will never come."

>> How did your family react to your

decision?

>> Because it's a challenge, after all.

>> It is a challenge. My family

supports me, and I can only say once again

that it's impossible to do what

I do. And in general, it seems to me

that it's impossible to engage in

politics normally in this country if your family

doesn't support you. It's just a

catastrophe for anyone. How

can you do this if you come

home and your wife doesn't tell you that

you're doing great, and that she supports you in the fact that

you exposed a certain person

or said something. In other words, if your

wife and your family are not your

like-minded allies, then you shouldn't

go into politics, because first

you need to build a support group there.

>> I'm not asking this for no reason, because at one point

here in this studio you said that

your brother was practically being held

hostage by the authorities. And perhaps

he is not the only hostage. How do you

see this, and how will you go about

solving the problem of hostage-taking if

someone resorts to it?

>> How can it be solved? I will solve it

in the only possible way: by appealing to

people. And the problem of hostage-taking is

not connected only to me. We also have

the problem that in Russia there is an enormous

number of political prisoners. Right now we

don't even know their names. Every day

new people appear who

liked posts on social media, and they are

arrested and jailed. We don't even

know about it. Even the press has already

stopped writing about it. There is simply too much of it.

So I

very much want my brother, who was unjustly

convicted and truly taken

hostage, to be released. But the problem

needs to be solved more broadly overall. The problem of

unjust courts, the problem of

a political regime that

terrorizes people and takes them

hostage. Right now, we have someone sitting in

prison for catching Pokémon

in a church. That's simply madness. And at

the same time, they release under

house arrest or on bail, or under travel restrictions,

officials who

embezzle millions, police officers who

torture people—they get suspended sentences,

but people are imprisoned for catching Pokémon. This is

a catastrophe. It is political

degradation.

>> Are you someone who tends to think that

punishment in the form of repression can

correct the human nature of

a police officer? I believe that the task,

the very task of the penitentiary system,

uh, of the criminal justice system, is the rehabilitation of

the offender. What is happening now is that

people are grabbed and thrown into prisons from

which they emerge as hardened

criminals, from which they come out

sick, with tuberculosis and AIDS, and so

on. In other words, the penitentiary

system now breeds criminals, destroys

their lives, destroys their families; it does not

return them to society. Yes, in prisons,

of course, there are...

>> let's mention the name Dadin (Ildar Dadin, a Russian opposition activist).

>> Well, for example, Dadin. Dadin is simply

a glaring example—a person who

is being tortured, plain and simple. But

there are also a huge number of people

who were rounded up for reasons that are simply

unclear. Yes, of course, they committed

some petty theft, or they caught

some student with a small amount of

marijuana. Of course, they

committed an offense, but is it necessary for him to receive

five years for it, to ruin his life so that

he comes out of prison a hardened

criminal and then keeps committing

crimes forever after? That is not the purpose of

the state.

>> Alexei Anatolyevich Navalny is here with us in the

studio. Now let's talk not about

opponents, but about allies. It is known

that on the eve of the elections to the State

Duma, there were lengthy negotiations among

non-parliamentary parties of a, let's say,

more right-leaning orientation, yes, less

left-wing.

Grigory Yavlinsky said that he would

run. I looked at the results

the elections in Moscow, in the Moscow districts,

where your candidate, backed by

PARNAS, I mean Lyaskin and Jankauskas,

and where the Yabloko candidate was. Everywhere, Yabloko in

Moscow, in those two districts, everywhere

was winning by 12 to 8 — 12% to 8%. And aren’t you

planning to organize primaries

within the parliamentary party, with Yavlinsky,

to figure out which of you would actually

receive the greater share of support? Well, well,

first of all, uh, comparing the results

of single-mandate candidates for the State Duma

simply makes no sense, because these are

very different

very different people. Sergei Mitrokhin,

an excellent politician who was freely able to

run an election campaign,

and Lyaskin, who for the past three years since

my election campaign has been

under criminal prosecution and cannot even leave

Moscow, uh, and cannot work properly.

As for the issue of primaries,

and approaches to them, I have always supported

primaries. In fact, I believe that

right now it is more important to hold

primaries for an opposition candidate

overall. I would like there to be primaries

with the participation of the Communists, the LDPR (Liberal Democratic Party of Russia), and

A Just Russia. We must put forward a candidate.

>> Wait, if the LDPR, if Mr.

Zhirinovsky wins the primaries, are you

ready to support him?

>> If these are truly real,

proper primaries, then of course, if I

take part in the primaries, I will,

naturally, abide by the result

of those primaries. Does that, does that

mean that this is about Putin and anti- and not

anti-Putin forces? It’s hard to say that

Zyuganov or

>> It means that all of us must

put forward a single candidate

>> who is opposed to Putin.

>> Opposed to Putin, because Putin

is a man who has seized

power and does not want to give it up, and wants

to hold it for life. And those political

forces that do not agree with this must

unite and try to put forward

a single candidate. If such primaries

are organized, I will, of course, take part in them,

and I will seek

to win and hope to become that

candidate.

>> Alexeievich, how do you see the mechanism working?

Forgive me, perhaps this is not

the most important question, but there are

the Communists, there is A Just Russia,

there is Yabloko. Suppose you ag— well, why not,

suppose everyone agreed — just a bit of

imagination. Who takes part, and how would the voting work?

The Communist Party machine

mobilized by Zhirinovsky’s people. You would

mobilize yours,

>> ...evich, those are the right questions. The mechanism is still

unclear. This is, after all, a political question.

Russia has never really had

primaries at all. The only elections we have had

that resembled elections within the

opposition were the elections to the Coordination

Council, about which one can say that

there really were elections there. In all

other situations, one way or another, everyone

avoids primaries. And I’m the only one

who has been running around for several years arguing for

primaries. So I can say once again

that I support primaries. I am ready to

take part in them. I will compete

for victory

against absolutely anyone. I am ready to take part

in any primaries, if the result of those

primaries is the nomination of a common

candidate. If I do not win those primaries,

I will not die of grief; I will do everything

to ensure that the winning candidate

wins. Nothing terrible will happen to me.

That is how politics should work.

>> Do you think President Zhirinovsky

or Zyuganov would be better than President Putin?

I believe that right now any of these people

would be better, because that would mean

that in four years we would— in six years,

as it stands now, we would re-elect him. Russia now

simply needs a rotation

of leaders. It needs

the usurpation of power to be broken.

That is what we need most right now.

That is exactly what elections are for. I want

to talk a lot about this. So any

person — good Lord — replacing Putin with

Shoigu, Medvedev, Sechin — I don’t know whom

I dislike most in the government,

Sechin or Shuvalov — even that would be much

better.

>> You have 20 seconds to say something

to the listeners that I did not have time to ask

you about. So, Alexei Navalny,

who has put himself forward for the post of

President of Russia.

>> First of all, I would like to thank

Echo of Moscow radio for this invitation.

Dear friends, I am entering this election

seriously. This is not a game, not some kind of

game with the elites, nor a game involving criminal

cases. These are real elections. I call on

you to take part in this

election campaign together with me. I would like to be

your voice in this election

campaign. I am confident that with your

support we will be able to overcome censorship

in the media, slander, and everything else. We

will be able to do it all.

>> Alexei Navalny, in the Echo of Moscow studio.

M.