Alexei Navalny on the program “Full Albats” dated October 29, 2012

television company

RTVi and Echo of Moscow radio present

the program Full

Albats. Good evening, 20:07 on the air.

on Echo of Moscow radio and the television company

RTVi. I am Yevgenia Albats, and as always on

Mondays I begin the program

devoted to the key events of the week, the

events that will have an impact on

politics in the coming weeks and months. And at the

end of last week, on Saturday, there was the

first meeting of the Coordination Council

of the opposition. Let me remind you that the elections

took place on the 20th through the 22nd. A total of 45

people were elected: 30 people from the general

federal list

and 15 people from the liberal,

nationalist, and left curias, in order

to ensure representation

of different interest groups in the Coordination

Council of the opposition. The highest number of votes

43,790 votes, was received by Alexei Navalny. This

was something few people really doubted. Although

it should be noted that there was not such a sharp lead

over the others after all. For example,

Dmitry Bykov lost to Navalny by

about 5,000 votes. Be that as it may,

the first Coordination Council meeting took place under

the chairmanship of Alexei Navalny. There

a whole range of issues was discussed, including

the question of temporary rules of procedure, which

is of course very interesting. And on Saturday there was already

the first action held under the auspices of the

Coordination Council

of the opposition: one-person pickets that

stretched from Lubyanka (the square associated with the former KGB headquarters) to the Investigative

Committee

— a protest picket against political

repression, against torture, and above all

of course this is connected with the arrests

that took place last week, of Leonid

Razvozzhayev

and

and what happened last week. Yes, and

finally, Alexei Navalny was also detained

already in the status of chairman

of the Coordination Council, again on Saturday.

Four people were detained. If you

watch the video online,

it is quite difficult to understand what they were detained for

and a few hours later

they were released. But Alexei will tell us

how all this will end. Alexei,

hello, thank you for joining us. Good

evening. Yes, and my first question to you right away:

are you in fact now the permanent

chair of the Coordination Council, or how will

all of this be organized for you?

At the last meeting, a presiding officer was chosen.

That is, this is the person

who conducted the first meeting. The rules of procedure

have not yet been written, as you correctly said,

so it is unclear how this will be determined. But

as far as I can judge, the general

position of the members of the Coordination Council, and

mine as well, is that it should not have

a permanent chairman; rather, there should be a

presiding chair

for each meeting. There should be rotation. For example, one

person should not chair twice in a row.

That is, it should not be possible to form a majority of

28 people and keep choosing someone all the time,

me, or Yashin, or Vinokurov, or

whoever else. There must be rotation. I think this

would be the right approach, and most likely

such a decision will be adopted. Is it already clear how

the Coordination Council will be structured internally?

Will there be factions there, or will there be

committees? What kind of structure is becoming clearer?

Well, 45 is no small number indeed. Forty-five

people is quite a lot, considering that the

structure itself already includes

factions, yes, because there are nationalists,

liberals, and leftists. I do not think a decision will

be made that factions will have

any kind of advantage compared with

other groups or associations. But nevertheless,

from the outset people have already grouped themselves somehow.

These issues must be approved in the

rules of procedure. At the first meeting we

devoted some time to this. But the greater

part of the time we discussed the

action program on political

prisoners, which is generally quite

understandable. People who are more experienced when it comes to

conducting meetings, of course,

understand that the rules of procedure come first, but

a large number of our voters

were simply demanding from us some kind of

immediate action, perhaps even

symbolic actions in defense of political

prisoners. Therefore this was the priority

at the first meeting. Right now we have

several people in the Coordination Council

who love thinking about rules of procedure

and understand this very well, and now

there is a discussion underway. We are using a system of absentee

voting, but nonetheless public

voting. These 45 people do not necessarily

have to vote and decide things only

at a Council meeting. Some provisions

of the rules of procedure can be voted on

remotely, and then finally

approved at an in-person meeting. I think

that the structure of the Council will be as

democratic as possible. There definitely will not be

any domination by a faction or

to govern the entire council on behalf of

some council of factions or something

like that. We will try to avoid all those

formats in which some people,

having formed a majority, will impose

their will on others, because we understand

perfectly well that in a public body like this

by its very nature, it will simply quickly come to

a split: some faction will break away if it

is ignored, if they simply

steamroll it with a majority. They will simply say,

"Why are we sitting here? We were elected exactly

the same way as you were. Maybe you have

a majority, but if you keep pushing us aside, we

will simply leave." And of course this must

be avoided. We need to avoid everyone pulling

the blanket over themselves

and suppressing the minority.

But nevertheless, we need to look for

some kind of compromise solutions, we will have to

look for them. But some kind of, well, I don't

know, coordinating council, some kind of

politburo, are you going to form a politburo?

There is an opinion that

it is necessary to form some kind of bureau. In

any case, 45 people need to have

governing bodies at least in order to

conduct meetings properly so that there

is no chaos. After all, there has to be some

procedure for decision-making, voting, and

so on. There are various forms; one can

form a bureau. The question is how to

form it there: ten people, the first nine

by vote, or simply elect them?

Is it necessary to give some representation

to these very factions and curiae

which, in a vote of 45 people, most likely

will not get their representative through if we

directly elect ten

people? I believe that at this stage we

quite sufficiently need a responsible

secretary, or two responsible

secretaries. The fact that one has now been elected from

among the council members and one from outside the council

who will handle technical issues,

where we meet, how we meet, taking into account that

I hope we will be able to resolve

most issues, including through

an electronic voting system.

Democracy 2, after all—the council

was formed on such innovative

principles: people voted directly,

elected these people. These people can, on

most issues, vote directly

We do not need a permanent body,

this very bureau, because it is simply like this:

you know that an issue is on the agenda,

it is urgent, you take out your computer

or mobile phone, review it, vote, and

within half a day we have a decision. First of all,

everyone else can see how

they voted. Do you mean, well, this

Democracy platform? Well, any, any

electronic voting platform

that is verified here by only 45

people. It would be right if

the 86,000 voters could see how

their

representatives vote. In a democracy, yes, yes, I

think that is right, except for personnel

matters, where of course a secret

ballot is required. You mentioned that you had

two responsible secretaries elected: Nekrasov, not a member

of the Coordinating Council, and Vinokurov, a member

of the Coordinating Council. You probably

know that on social media there is already

a discussion on this topic: why at

the first meeting of the Coordinating

Council did a person appear who is not

a member of the CC (Coordinating Council), namely Dmitry

Nekrasov, who is part of the Committee

for Alexei Navalny's Civil Initiatives

and who worked in the expert directorate

of the presidential administration, and because of this

there is a great deal of confusion around the matter. So

please explain what happened and how.

In any case, we need one person or

several people who will prepare

the next meeting of the Coordinating

Council, so it was clear that the question of

appointing a responsible secretary would

come up. A number of colleagues—Ilya Yashin, Kasparov,

and Gudkov, who was absent from the meeting—they

proposed Nekrasov, whom I

do not know well, but he generally makes

a quite decent impression. Yes, he has

some experience working in that

presidential administration,

but he gives the impression of being a sincere,

reasonable person, capable of dealing with all

these bureaucratic matters. They put him forward,

they proposed him to the council. I think that

as a result of the fact that there were no

preliminary consultations with a large

number of council members, they

felt, well, a little bit

left out—as if a piano had been dragged out of the bushes here (a Russian idiom meaning a conveniently staged surprise),

and Nekrasov did not get through alone. That is,

he was not elected sole

responsible secretary; added alongside

him was Alexander Vinokurov, who

is a member of the Council. The two of them now

are these responsible secretaries

on a temporary basis, until the rules of procedure are adopted. That is,

this is for one or two meetings, I think.

It seems they are already quite sufficient as they are now.

They have been working successfully already, and Nekrasov

prepared the transcript of the meeting

a high-quality one, the very next day, that is,

the process is underway, it’s all working, and does it not

bother you that this is a person who was not elected by anyone?

Unelected. But what do you mean? Well, people did, uh,

vote for him, since he was

a candidate, but nevertheless he was not

elected, and suddenly he appears in your structure.

It is inevitable that, one way or another,

the Coordination Council will

interact with people; it will

form a so-called executive committee, or

maybe it won’t. In any case, there will be people who

will do things, implement one or another

projects. Obviously, these people are not

members of the Coordination Council,

but they can work for it for free

or for pay; that is simply

an executive committee. And if for pay, where will you get the money?

If money appears, if, if

let’s suppose something is being implemented, we, we

we definitely will not pay salaries

to anyone at all. If

one project or another is being implemented and

we need to hire for that project

an expert, for example a lawyer,

the Coordination Council is already now

planning to pay for lawyers

there.

Razvozzhayev needs such services, I think.

As for Lebedev, it’s unclear what is happening there with

the lawyers, so certain

people in particular areas of work

the Coordination Council will definitely

pay, and of course the council will

need, I don’t know, a press secretary;

it needs someone who will work on the website,

do something with it. For the most part,

90% of them will be volunteers, but one way or

another we will have to bring in some

professionals. And now,

you know, in his work “The Powerless” (likely referring to Václav Havel’s essay “The Power of the Powerless”),

excerpts from it were published in the magazine in

the previous issue. He believed precisely that one should not

create bureaucratic structures,

that if, in dissident times,

organizations begin creating

bureaucratic structures, then it all goes

to waste; that in fact there should

be public councils of this kind, and all

questions should be put up for the broadest possible

discussion, and this was under conditions of a fully

totalitarian Czechoslovakia. On the one

hand, that is true; on the other hand, you yourself

said that procedures matter. When people

sit in one room and vote,

make decisions, then either there is

a strict set of rules, as is done in the EU,

with people responsible for drafting those

rules, or it does not happen. Well,

for example, with the meeting transcript, a question may arise:

for a given decision,

did 25 or 24 people vote for it? You need

to pull up the transcript, you need to check;

someone has to prepare all of this.

Naturally, there is no need to create

meaningless bureaucratic bodies,

and I am a strong supporter

of the idea that the Coordination Council should

work, well, according to a project-based

principle. Everyone should understand very clearly

what the Coordination Council is doing. If it

claims to represent those

people who are not represented in

the State Duma (the lower house of Russia’s parliament), and I see it exactly

that way, then it should say: right, here is what I am doing.

I have a track dealing with political

prisoners; here I am forming election

commissions with voting rights; here

we are dealing with local elections;

if necessary, here we will support

or not support this or that mayoral

candidate. Here are the responsible people

who deal with these matters. Here they are,

doing concrete things. So there is no need

to breed paid bureaucracy, but in

any case, procedural rules

must be very strict and must be

understandable to voters. Because if

the Coordination Council, or some of its

members, do something wrong, those people

will bear responsibility, including

in the next elections. They must answer

to their voters, and the voters

must understand very clearly how they

will know and monitor what those

members of the Coordination Council for whom

they voted are doing. Without procedures, without

some minimal executive committee, this

cannot be done. And do you have any

recall procedure? For example, can voters

recall someone? No, that is not provided for.

Again, when we were creating all this, we proceeded from the idea that

there should be as few

restrictions as possible and as little

regulation as possible, and the main

principle of the election commission’s work

was simply reasonableness and an attempt not

to control things that

cannot be controlled. So of course

many things were simply not spelled out;

it never occurred to anyone to specify them.

All of that will be added. As of today,

There is no recall mechanism provided for. And

to wrap this up, when will the

next elections be? Have you already set

some date? And the Coordination Council was elected

for one year, for one year. That is, exactly one year from now

exactly one year from now everyone will lose their

mandates. All right, a great many

questions have come in here—235 of them. I tried to

more or less

systematize them. So, the first one is about

what the

individually.

Coordination Council will be. You have already said

and listed that, and now you are being asked

by Ilya from Yaroslavl: What real

capacity to oppose the authorities does it have,

or plans to have, the Coordination

Council? The Coordination Council was elected

in order to coordinate the actions of

those very people or groups who do not

agree with what is happening. Therefore, we

have exactly the same capabilities

that ordinary

civic activists have.

We simply need to combine

these capabilities properly and do certain things

that, for example, people in the regions cannot

do without help from Moscow. Well, here is

the simplest example for you right now:

as I already said, election commissions are being formed.

They are being formed for five years

under the new law. United Russia wants

to form them in such a way that even

if some changes occur,

or political upheavals, they will still have

commissions packed with their people, and everywhere

they will always, if necessary, be able to

tweak something there. So our task now

is, first of all, to recruit thousands of these

people, prepare all the paperwork for them,

and send them to these election commissions.

Of course, there is no guarantee that these

people will be included in the commissions,

because only

political parties represented in the

State Duma (the lower house of Russia’s parliament) have guarantees. Our task here is to organize

a certain level of political pressure,

of sufficient intensity. For example, in Moscow

an election commission is being formed, and we

will draw up lists, and before Mayor

Sobyanin and the Moscow City Duma we will put

the question directly: we demand that all

our people be included in the election

commissions. We will work on each of these people

individually.

The Coordination Council has hundreds of times more

money and visibility than simply scattered

groups that deal with this, and so

on. Understood. The same Ilya asks you

many people claim that the Coordination

Council was conceived primarily for

you, for your group from RosPil (Navalny’s anti-corruption project). How

are responsibilities distributed among

the elected participants, if

someone

They are distributed in only one way:

everyone writes their name next to whatever

they want to work on. When I

was preparing this action plan related

to political prisoners, well, I

drew it up at my own discretion and

assigned names there at my own

discretion. It was, it was

adopted, but the task of the other members of the Coordination Council is simply

to look through it and choose from the list: I want

to handle fundraising, I want

to handle information and campaigning

work, I want, I don’t know, to write letters to the UN

or to the European Union. Simply, every

member of the council can add or not add

their name and can work or not

work. We do not have any apparatus

of coercion. These people do not receive

a salary. Maybe they will do nothing at all;

then their voters probably

will not vote for them

next time. The degree of activity each person

determines for themselves, and any member of the Coordination Council

can put forward their own project

and carry it out alone or together with someone else.

Will you publish somehow, or otherwise

make public who in the Coordination Council is doing what?

Yes, that is necessary, and I will insist

on it. I believe there must be

an absolutely complete report, first of all on

attendance statistics for Coordination Council meetings, who

is doing what. I believe that for every

action plan there should be regular

published reports. Well, I am simply

used to this, because in the

Anti-Corruption Foundation, in RosPil, in

our projects, that is exactly how we do it:

first we say what we plan to do—

first, second, third, twenty-fifth—

and after some time we publish

a report: this is what we did, this

did not work out. I believe that the Coordination Council

and its members must act exactly

like that, and they must be accountable.

It is not enough just to say, ‘We will organize something

wonderful.’ Two weeks later you must

explain to everyone whether you organized it or not, and if not,

why it did not work out. That is the only way it should be.

That is how everything should be built. Here is another question for you; I’m not

naming everyone—there are so many different

people. Another question for you:

A lot is being said about politics. Will there be

specific economic programs

for development—will you be working on that?

Will programs be drafted

for political reform, which was discussed by

Ilya Yashin during the election campaign? There are

different views on this issue. For example, Ilya

Yashin said during the debates that it is necessary

to write various programs, to develop

what is called a positive agenda, while

interestingly, for example, Andrei Illarionov

from whom, generally speaking, everyone expects

the drafting of some kind of programs, for example, and

so on—he believes that doing this

is completely pointless right now because

the CC (Coordination Council) is not a governing body. It cannot

develop some wonderful

state program and then somehow

implement it. The task of the Coordination Council

is to fight for basic rights, to ensure

that fair elections take place, as a result of which

a government will be formed

that will then be able to write

programs and develop them. Just because we

in the CC now write a detailed pension reform plan

—how can the CC work with that?

Its individual members can do so perfectly well. For example,

Yashin, Gudkov, and

Nekrasov, who is the executive secretary,

are writing something there about pension

reform, but doing this on behalf of the CC? I don’t think so.

It seems to me there will more likely be some kind of

middle-ground option. It is possible that the CC, in

its own name, will submit one or another

legislative proposals. That is, it will be

a practical matter—not writing broad concepts

for reform, but drafting and proposing

bills. Thank God, we have

deputies who can officially submit these bills

on behalf of the CC in one area or another

if someone is willing to write them.

Still, this needs to be understood: it is a very

complex and substantive activity. Everyone

seems to think, “Well then, go ahead and write

a reform of the Ministry of Internal Affairs.” But people spend entire days writing

such a reform of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. All right, for example, I

analyzed how members of the

Constitutional Council answered

various questions—the 25

questions of the political compass. It is an incredibly

interesting thing, I must tell you. The

absolute majority—that is, more than 87,

if memory serves me right,

of the council’s members—spoke in favor of

a parliamentary republic, for example.

So, are you going to discuss these issues

in some way or not? I think this is

simply a political position. You are asked,

right? That is why it is called a compass:

please indicate, in general, which

direction you are looking in. People indicate their

political position, but just because

within the framework of that political

position we now write a draft of a new

constitution—because naturally such

things are regulated by a new constitution—should

the CC be doing that? I don’t think so.

I see. That would just be Manilovism (idle, unrealistic dreaming). And by the way, in

your political compass there is also, interestingly enough,

that same kind of Manilovism:

the same people are in favor of

keeping the flat income tax rate

—that is, 13%—and at the same time they also say

that there should be free

healthcare and education, and you simply

find yourself at a loss, wondering: how do they think

free healthcare is supposed to be paid for

then? I would refer you

to the head of our state, Vladimir

Vladimirovich Putin, who says

exactly the same thing: let’s keep the flat

tax rate, let’s not raise the retirement age,

we’ll make everything free, and

we’ll also build Sochi for 1.4 trillion rubles (about 1,400 billion rubles).

No, no, no, it was just amusing.

And will a shadow cabinet be created

on the basis of the CC? I think not; it is

unlikely. One still has to understand that

there have been many attempts in Russia

to create shadow cabinets.

For the most part, these attempts looked so

naive and a bit ridiculous; after all, they are

led by groups of like-minded people,

ideological allies.

Imagine a shadow cabinet in which

Udaltsov, Illarionov, Nemtsov, and

that same Yashin are all standing together.

That would be a rather dubious shadow cabinet.

So I think that is unlikely. In other words,

you will not be doing that? Well, at

least I will not be coming forward with such an

initiative. I am speaking here only for

myself. I am one of 45 people. It would be

very—oh, come on, what do you mean one of 45? You are

the one everyone wrote about, saying that the CC elections showed

that you are the undisputed leader, at

least of those 86,000 people who

voted. Well, I am very grateful to those

people who consider me a leader

and who voted, but that does not mean

that I can somehow impose

my own [view]. Look at the list—these people

quite independent, like Gelfond and Kasparov

Vinokurov or Nemtsov — they are ready there

to dance to my tune? No. And the degree of my

influence, if I go beyond any

reasonable limits, will, frankly speaking,

decrease proportionally. Therefore, I do not plan

to come forward with such initiatives, and

I do not want to impose them either. Understood. We have

one more minute until

the break. So, Piontkovsky at the beginning

of the meeting proposed organizing a forum

for everyone interested in supporting

the Coordinating Council. By the way, most of those asking

questions watched the broadcast from the first

meeting of the Coordinating Council. Is it possible

to register on such a forum

for citizens living abroad, and

by what means? As I understood Piontkovsky’s idea,

in this sense, I

share it; I think it is shared by

the majority of the Coordinating Council members. We need

to continue this registration. That is,

170,000 people completed the initial registration,

86,000 people completed verification,

and slightly fewer voted. I believe that

a person’s inclusion in this system at all

is an important form of self-identification. You

simply join a certain group

of people and show that you are with them,

that you are like-minded, and we need to continue

to build up this, this thing that

Piontkovsky calls the Forum

of Free Russia; I simply call it

normal active citizens.

Quite simply, we must continue this

work and keep registering them. We

are now going to break for the news and then come back

live in the studio.

Moscow — the network, video, and the internet are working.

Working.

Aha, I wanted to show you — I sometimes

write material for you, but you do not

read it. How so? It happens. Why? Well, I cannot

say that I read every time from

the short ones. Yes. And I did not read the one on Georgia. Show me.

This one.

Hello.

I receive these — today I received again

from...

shows that you

receive... My first reaction was when

first of all, I am interested — I want to tell you

that when Obama

won, every, every one of his voters

received — not voters, but everyone who

was registered received from him an absolutely

standard letter, just saying thank you.

...

You provide them when registering, but

it is still a feeling when you get a letter

for the first time signed

by one of the members of the Coordinating Council. But no,

no one thanked those 86,000 — there is no database, that was

a matter of principle. We cannot

take and send something out to these people, and

the candidates certainly cannot. Maybe the Central Election Committee

can do something else. The database is closed. That is,

I do not know the people who

voted for me, in the sense that

I do not have their addresses, I cannot write anything to them, and

otherwise it would be a database into which anyone could

get access

and spam phone numbers. And ours are not linked

specifically — Volkov can explain this in more detail.

It was done this way precisely because of the ban on

storing personal

data. It was set up there in such

a way that the data, as they are received, somehow

are immediately converted into some kind of

electronic form that can no longer

be reversed. That is, there is no link there

between a given phone number and, say, Yevgenia Albats (Russian journalist) or a given

email — that does not exist. That is, you can do

statistics on phone numbers, for example how many

people are from Moscow and how many from other

regions based on area codes. But there is no

direct link, because we were afraid that

the database would be stolen; we were afraid we would be accused of

storing personal data, and so

on and so forth.

We were also afraid that later someone might

manipulate that database. You know, like

it was before — remember, everyone registered and wrote

letters of support, and then somehow

they started getting spam or something like that. Well,

these are exactly the kinds of unpleasant situations

that, in order to avoid them, we decided from the start not to do any

of that. I insisted on that as well,

because everyone keeps shouting that Volkov

is my friend, and therefore supposedly you and he

would take the whole database for yourselves. I do not have

any database. There really is no database,

none.

If possible, a bit shorter, because there are very many

questions. Please, just a bit shorter.

Because there are very many

questions.

Program.

Good...

About what the Coordinating Council will be doing,

of the opposition, what resources

it has at its disposal, and how they will generally

organize the whole life of the Coordinating Council.

And specifically, Alexei, here a question has come in

that I should have asked you from the very beginning:

what is happening with the criminal cases

that — there was a criminal case

opened indeed when it became

clear that the elections would definitely take place.

The Investigative Committee showed some kind of

enormous interest in the work of the Coordinating Council and

swiftly opened two criminal cases,

one on suspicion of fraud, allegedly

the theft of funds that had been contributed

the candidates—one case over allegedly improper

storage of personal data, and both that and

the other are complete fabrications and nonsense, but they

are making life very difficult for the chairman

of the Central Election Committee, Volkov, who today went

for questioning three times today,

for questioning. We very much hope that

since the elections have already essentially taken place and

they can no longer derail them this way,

these criminal cases will be closed

because, well,

they are ridiculous.

Well, one of the cases there involved

supporters of Mavrodi (Sergei Mavrodi, founder of the MMM pyramid scheme), who transferred

a contribution there of 10 rubles. It's a funny thing when one

of the biggest and most notorious fraudsters in our

country initiates a criminal case under the article for

fraud against Volkov. Well, they

sent their contributions through the Sberbank system

and then claimed that these contributions

were not being returned to them. But the system

is such that Volkov and the election committee simply see

that it can't be done. If you paid by receipt, not

from your own account, those funds cannot be returned to you

automatically. You have to submit an application.

That is why a public offer has been posted: whoever wants

their money returned should submit an application

stating where to send it, and then it will be returned.

But they are not submitting such an application, and to

this day they still have not, and still are not,

while demanding that a criminal case be opened. Their

money is sitting in Volkov's account,

the chairman of the election committee, who has no

way to return it because all

he knows is that from such-and-such

Sberbank branch, a person came and by

receipt made a payment. Where is he supposed to send

that money? And do you think this was an initiative, or

not? Of course. He is a fraudster against whom

criminal cases are being investigated.

You can go to the website

of the bailiff service and see there

multi-million-ruble claims against him

that have been upheld. He is completely bankrupt, and he

is simply selling this human resource of his

to the Presidential Administration

in order to derail the elections. Moreover, as

it turned out, this resource was not nearly as large as

people said it was—they talked about

hundreds of thousands and so on. It's an amusing

thing, by the way, because

one of the main concerns about online

primaries, and primaries in general, that

was always voiced, was that the Nashi activists (pro-Kremlin youth movement) would come and

vote in a coordinated way and win everywhere. But

it turned out there are no such Nashi people at all.

There simply are no actual people who can

show up somewhere and do something on behalf of the authorities.

They don't exist. That is precisely why they turned to

Mavrodi, who was able to get his people

to do something—but even that was under

financial coercion. After all, he

blocked all the members of his

pyramid scheme from accessing their personal accounts until

he effectively annulled their

money there—the virtual money in their accounts—until

they carried out some

hostile actions against

our elections. And how do you know that

someone approached Mavrodi, rather than it being his own

initiative? Do you have some kind of inside information? No,

there is no direct insider information of that kind, but

there is no other explanation. Why would people

united, first of all, by the fact that they are

crazy and joined a financial

pyramid scheme in which they all obviously

lost out, do this? It's absolutely ridiculous.

Mavrodi is a man who could be sent

to prison at any second. They have him there

not just on the hook, but on 120 hooks.

I repeat: go to the website of the

bailiff service, and in the public domain

look at the huge number

of claims against him. He is simply dancing

to the tune of the Investigative Committee,

trying to bargain himself an indulgence, but

all the same, he did manage to make life for the elections

a little worse—undoubtedly he did.

First of all, there was indeed interference by him

with both the candidates and the voters, and of course all this

is being used as a kind of

PR framing. It's very

interesting—I even posted on my blog today

reports from Channel One, Channel Two,

and NTV, and everywhere they keep going on and on about

Mavrodi. In other words, they are simply trying

to link our elections with these kind of

marginal phenomena. Well, among other things,

mmm, the average person doesn't really understand

what sort of elections these are; it all gets mixed into

one big mess—some kind of opposition,

people mumbling and arguing about something. That's what this is

for. Will a party be created

on the basis of the Coordinating Council? That's a question often asked,

and whether there is or isn't any desire

to join Prokhorov's party.

It is obvious that no party

can be created now on the basis of the Coordinating Council. That is precisely

why the Coordinating Council is being created—because a party

is impossible, at least an ideological party is impossible at

least at this

stage. Completely different people, as I already

said—Nemtsov, Udaltsov, and Illarionov—cannot

be members of the same party; never.

will sign on to a single platform, as for

working with Prokhorov's party, with

everyone

parties. If Prokhorov's party

really gets going and operates

independently, that would be excellent. So far

unfortunately, over the year of his

previous political activity

we have not seen any independent actions, unfortunately

at all. Well, maybe everything, everything

is changing. Maybe he will be more

independent, do well, run in local

elections, take part somewhere. All right, you had

uh, an electoral bloc in the Coordinating

Council elections called Civic Platform

Prokhorov's party is called Civic

Platform. At the party congress on Saturday

Sergei Parkhomenko was present, who

was in fact the organizer of the bloc

Civic Platform. Everyone noticed that.

It's just that everyone loves the word "civic".

You see, nobody likes the word "political,"

so everyone likes to pretend

to play dumb and say that we're so

civic. The fact that the bloc was called

Civic Platform and that it was organized by

indeed by Sergei Parkhomenko and Ksyusha

Sobchak seems to me to be just a coincidence.

Again, in order to empha

size

in order to emphasize that they are not

like that, they call themselves civic.

Sergei went to that congress. Well, there were many

people there toward whom I feel very

positively; they went there as

guests to see what kind of congress it was. But are you

not planning to establish any

relations with Prokhorov's party? We are planning to.

The Coordinating Council is 45 people,

each of whom can establish relationships of any

degree of closeness with Prokhorov.

The Coordinating Council as a council

does what it is supposed to do.

So for you it is still an umbrella structure?

Yes, for now at least, yes. Well,

of course Parkhomenko does whatever he

wants on his own. What kind of

discipline can there be? These people were elected, and they

are accountable only to their

voters, so my opinion to them—

just imagine, if I say to Parkhomenko

or Sobchak, "Sobchak, please don't go to

these parties, they discredit

the Coordinating Council"—what do you think she'd say to me?

She would tell me something that on the air

on Echo of Moscow (a Russian radio station) it would be

impossible to repeat. And she'd be right, because these are

45 people who were elected in their own right. All right,

one more question.

From Boris Batalin, about

relations with the systemic, systemic

parties. In particular, he writes that

both the Communist Party of the Russian

Federation, Zyuganov, and A Just Russia

Mironov have sworn loyalty

to the authorities and said they would have nothing

to do with the KS. And do you actually

intend to discuss anything with

the parties that are represented in the

State Duma as needed?

As needed, yes. I already gave an example:

for example, with observers who have

full voting rights. The parties have them,

but in reality they don't have the people. Even if they

don't claim otherwise, still

they have a quota, and under that quota

people are guaranteed to get in. So I

think we will approach them with questions, yes,

so that they give us a quota. Whether they will be allowed to or

not is another

question. I think that in fact, in some ways

they rather sympathize with the Coordinating

Council, and in some ways are jealous of its political

activity, but they are simply forced to make

one statement or another. Those statements

determine the flow of financing

and so on. Uh-huh. As for the rest, I

am skipping the questions here concerning, uh,

Civic Platform. I've already asked those. Here is

another question, which is:

So, how do you plan to mark

the anniversary

of the protests? The author writes that it

seems to him that there is no need for another march. Was this

discussed at the Coalition Council? Could it

be better to organize on

Democratia-2 a signature drive

demanding new State Duma elections? If

100,000 signatures are collected, we remember

that Putin said an initiative could be submitted

if 100,000 signatures were gathered.

Well, that's the initiative. What do you

think about it? As for the 100,000

signatures, that is a wonderful Putin initiative

that has not been implemented, like

other wonderful Putin

initiatives. There is nowhere to submit those 100,000

signatures; it is not set out anywhere. He simply

said it on television, and that is where it all

stayed at that stage. It is impossible to submit them anywhere.

You cannot submit 100,000 signatures anywhere. That's the first point.

Second, some kind of action will be held

to mark the anniversary before the end of this year.

A decision on that has been made. What format it

should take is something to choose carefully; there really should be

an action. Well, people will come, I think, in

fairly large numbers, but

We probably need to be more

inventive, because this kind of

straightforward, head-on rally, our traditional one,

which people do of course attend,

they stand there shifting from foot to foot and

just stand there because they feel they have to

go to rallies. We need something more

interesting. Maybe it will be a concert, maybe

a march, I don’t know. In our group, in the

Coordination Council, there are enough

creative people whom

I personally have high hopes for, that they

will be able to come up with these things. Personally, I

am not capable of coming up with them. Uh-huh, all right.

And Alexei, am I mistaken, or have you really

sat down—I don’t know, maybe the picture

froze, there seems to be no video. Uh-huh. What

is happening with your Kirovles case?

This is the case about the life and work of Alexei

Navalny. They are interrogating various

people who worked for me in 2000–2001

last week. Well, they worked in

one of my companies.

Last week they questioned a guy

who used to go to the gym with me at

college; I last saw him 6

years ago. How they even found his

phone number, and why they questioned him—he

called me in total shock and said,

they summoned me for questioning here. They questioned

him about the gym—well, I don’t know what they could

even have asked him. They also questioned

my assistant, who worked with me at

Yabloko (a Russian political party), that is, several years before

I went to Kirov, they questioned her.

More than that, they questioned some

current boss of hers, whom I have never

seen in my life, I don’t know his name, I don’t even

have any idea what he does. In other words,

this is not even some kind of broad

dragnet—they are simply, in some kind of

chaotic and incomprehensible way, trying

to find at least something. If someone wanted to write a book

about you—well, apparently he would have plenty of

material for that book. Most likely,

they are trying to find some person

with whom, somewhere along the way in life, I don’t know,

I had a falling-out or parted ways, so that this person

would hand over some terrible

dirt on me. I don’t know whom they are trying

to find there. So far, out of this terrible dirt,

there is only the endless claim that

I improperly obtained my lawyer’s

status, and that they are challenging this lawyer’s

status. And this is being stated not by the investigation itself

but by the newspaper Izvestia, to which

the investigators leak information.

Moreover, in order to strip me of

my lawyer’s status, they have been talking about this

and threatening it for many months. They simply need

to apply to the bar association, but they

for some reason are not doing that. Well, they should have

applied already and finally received

what would probably be a rejection from there, and that would be that. So, what about

the case itself? Nothing is being done.

Still, despite the fact that everywhere they

claim that I am accused of stealing 16 million

rubles, they have not even conducted a forensic accounting

examination, which they are obliged to do. That is,

where did this figure come from, other than

someone’s fevered imagination? This is trading turnover

between—well, meanwhile, there should be

an expert examination. In such cases, the amount of damage

must be determined by expert analysis. In the case file

there are two expert reports; both said

that this was not theft but the causing of

damage without signs of theft, first in the amount of

1,200,000 rubles, then in the amount of

530,000 rubles. Now it has grown to 16 million

rubles, and there is no expert report; we keep

waiting and they keep not conducting it. But instead they

are questioning various people who used to

go to the gym with me. 530,000—what,

is that, something you put in your own pocket? No, it is

the amount of damage I allegedly caused without signs of

theft. Without signs of—so no one is accusing you

Am I understanding correctly that no one is accusing you

of having put something into your own

pocket? Earlier they were not; now they are already accusing me

of specifically stealing. No,

of organizing a criminal group

that stole 16 million rubles. And the travel restriction

is still in force? The travel restriction

is still in force, which causes

me inconvenience, but what is really the subject of

my concern is this unfortunate man,

Pyotr Ofitserov, who in their case

is listed as my accomplice. He was

the head of the Vyatka Timber Company, yes.

He earns his living by

traveling and conducting seminars in the regions, and they

until a certain point would let him travel on the basis of a separate

letter, but now they are simply

effectively destroying his business. They are not letting him

go anywhere. He has five children,

he cannot travel anywhere, he cannot

earn money. So apparently

in this way they are trying to squeeze something

out of him, perhaps. But this is already

completely outrageous behavior.

I see. What are the results of the dispute with

Bastrykin

do you mean

the Czech agent Bastrykin? The case is ongoing.

for us, the Basmanny District Court

the Investigative Committee refuses

refuses to check anything, so we file

against it with the Basmanny District Court, and the Basmanny District Court

refuses to consider our complaint

we are pursuing this investigation in different

directions; in particular, an interesting thing is

that

we

those European universities that

Bak(in) said had allegedly invited him

Well, we have already received replies from two

universities saying that

they know of no scholar named Bastrykin; we don't even

in principle know anything about

the existence of any such scholar, Bastrykin

let alone that we invited him. There is

an investigation in the Czech Republic, and we continue

to dig through various notarial

documents. It is a long process; each

letter gets a reply within a month, but we

will keep at it no matter what

Boris, regarding your investigations

into Transneft and VTB and so on, all of this

is still in progress

and the police keep closing these cases

We keep trying to get them

to reopen them. As for VTB, I will

write, and I think we will soon publish

some new interim

results. That is, on the one hand, we

have already strengthened this entire body of evidence

as much as possible; we have basically

exposed everyone there, we have all the facts, but

we cannot force the FSB, the police,

or the Investigative Committee to go after these people. Here they are—go

we have already found everything, just go and

arrest them. Let them write confessions

for real; there is no need to torture anyone there

because we have already nailed them all

but the Investigative Committee is busy

simply protecting them from us

Unfortunately, we still cannot storm VTB or Transneft

just yet. Maybe

the Coordinating Council will make some

decisions on this matter. Will you

run as a candidate for Mayor of Moscow?

First, the election still has to take place; let's wait

until that moment before making a decision. And the beauty of

our Coordinating Council elections is that

I believe we have now

worked out a mechanism by which

lists should be determined and formed

for elections, for mayoral elections and so

on. That is, we should elect

a people's candidate, and that people's

candidate will be supported; he

really needs to be elected, not simply

appointed. All right, one more question. Vladlen

three

six. I voted for you in the Coordinating Council elections

By the way, you, Chirikova, and

Bykov were the only non-left-wing

candidates I chose. So this is

apparently a person with left-wing views. Yes,

I took part in practically all the mass

rallies, but among my comrades, you as a

possible single candidate of the

opposition are not trusted. The main argument is

that there is no guarantee you will not become a new

Yeltsin or Putin—that you are fighting

individuals rather than the system, and in the event of

victory you will act just like the old

liberals, that is, you will sell out

democratic mechanisms for the sake of

holding on to power, as happened in the 1990s

What should I tell them? Well, first of all, I am grateful

to Vladlen for voting for me after all

despite such doubts

and suspicions. It seems to me that I try

to make all my activity

say exactly the opposite. That is, yes, I

fight specific people, but I fight

the system as embodied by those specific people

using concrete people, cases,

and investigations, I show how the

system works, and I show everyone very

clearly. We are also engaged in systemic

work in those areas where something can

be improved. Yes, despite the fact that this whole

entire system of power is arranged in such a way that

nothing can be improved, even our small

efforts matter: we draft amendments

to the law on public procurement, to the federal

contract system. That is, wherever we can

try to improve the system, we improve it

that is, our activity is entirely

systemic and aimed at

fighting these people

comprehensively

but investigations into corruption

must be specifically directed at

specific corrupt officials. That is, you cannot

just shout everywhere that there is

corruption, corruption; you have to say

there is corruption, these people are corrupt, I

accuse them of such-and-such. Here is our

evidence. So it seems to me

that through my activity I have shown many

people that my views are exactly

that: I want to fight the system

and build a better system. If Vladlen's

friends doubt that, then apparently I

need to work better in that direction

and I am trying to do that

And there are a lot of questions. Don't you think

it was a mistake that the opposition did not take part

participation in the Single Voting Day in

elections at the municipal level

and regional elections did take part, and

look, for example, in Saratov we had this situation

everyone united there, from Prokhorov’s side

Prokhorov, Yabloko, PARNAS, and some

smaller satellite groups as well, they

joined forces and said: we will give

a decisive fight in Volodin’s home region, and so on

but they got 1%, maybe 1-and-something percent. It’s clear that

a significant number of votes was stolen from them

of votes. Those were elections to the legislative

assembly, yes; in Barnaul, to the city

assembly. Major resources were invested there

and they got 5%, so they did take part

Yabloko also took part in Krasnodar

and got around 1%. It seems to me—I

don’t claim to have the ultimate

truth—but I’m convinced that this

focus on local campaigns

regional campaigns in the regions is simply

a pointless waste of resources and effort

because it’s impossible to win there anyway. Because

you’re not actually engaged in fighting

for the voter, persuading them; instead, you have to fight with

the police at the polling

station. That is, first you have to

fight for the voter, then you have to

organize monitoring, and then you’re still

thrown out of the polling

stations, and they simply rewrite everything in

the protocols. So in certain

campaigns, you need to participate where there are

strong candidates, where there is an opportunity

to organize at least some kind of oversight

Chirikova’s campaign is a typical example

large cities, legislative assemblies

in large cities. But to spread yourself thin and

say, let’s actively

take part in elections here in Saratov

is pointless; it’s impossible to win them

these are not elections at all, this is simply

these opposition parties, the so-called systemic opposition,

take part merely as backup dancers

and to create the illusion that in

Saratov there really were elections, rather than

simply installing specific people into the legislative assembly

from United Russia. Then how are you

going to come to power if you do not

participate in elections? We must achieve

a situation where elections look more like

actual elections; then, yes, we need to take part in them

I already said that, for example, elections

for mayor of Moscow are fundamentally important, and in

them one absolutely must participate

to form, through primaries, a popular

list, a people’s candidate. Elections to the

Moscow City Duma, the legislative assembly

of St. Petersburg, and so on. Elections, elections in

Yekaterinburg as well, probably—those are elections one should

take part in, elections for city mayors

Yes, but you understand, on October 14—well, in October

there were elections in 4,000 municipal

entities. To say that the opposition

will now go and somehow

participate in all 4,000 of them is impossible

simply because these elections

are organized by the state

by the state machine for the purpose of

reappointing officials; this is not

an election. Therefore, spending effort on this

right now is pointless. Well, Zhenya

Chirikova was here on the air at Echo of Moscow (a Russian radio station), on my program

and she said that the benefit

of participating in election campaigns is that

an opposition candidate actually

gets acquainted not only with their own

supporters, as happens at

protest rallies, yes, but with the broader population

and there is an opportunity simply to hear them and

for people who have never been part of the

protest wave to see opposition

candidates. There is sense in that too, there is

sense in that. Most often, these are mayoral elections

in cities, and where there is a strong candidate

one should participate. But we must acknowledge

the harsh truth that most often these

regional opposition elections are

simply, you see, parties like Yabloko or PARNAS

sell a franchise to local businessmen who

use that franchise in order to

try to get their own local

businessman elected. It has only a very indirect relation to any real struggle, to

the struggle for improvement; it has a very

indirect connection. And here there was also

a question: are you planning to run

when there are elections to the

parliament? That will be, let’s see, in

2016, for the State Duma

of the Russian Federation. Will you go into

parliament? Of course, we must participate

in parliamentary elections. For that, we

must ensure that there are

some parties registered. For that, we

must achieve

the possibility of carrying out

election monitoring. That is what we are working on now

so that we can take part in

elections and come to power through

legal procedures, naturally. But electoral blocs

are not allowed. Ah, yes, right now anyway

PARNAS and the Republican Party are registered

party. Listen, this is a political process

Naturally, if sooner or later there emerges

some genuinely independent

party, there will still be a whole bunch of spoiler parties

Uh-huh, all the same, they’ll still feed and bribe

some people who will also

call themselves the opposition and siphon off

12% of the vote, but there’s no getting around that

that’s part of the political process. So you don’t

believe it will be possible to change the government through

elections

I mean, here in front of me I have an issue of

The New Times, which writes about the latest

report from the Center for Strategic

Research, where

well, apparently right away

they speak of the prospects of a peaceful revolution

they consider the electoral option

unworkable; that is, precisely

through local elections right now

to come to the polls and defeat this government

is impossible, because there are no real elections; they

put themselves there

for example, the Tatars, the Mari,

the Udmurts, the Mordvins, people of the Urals, and the Bashkirs of the Urals

In general, the nationalities issue here raises quite

a lot of questions. First of all, I think very highly

of the Bashkirs of the Urals. And secondly,

why should I have some special attitude toward them

in particular? I treat all

nationalities as citizens of the Russian

Federation, if these citizens of the Russian

Federation

observe the laws and the established

public order, then I treat them

very well, absolutely all of them. And we have

very little time left—one and a half

minutes. So what are the immediate next steps

of the Coordination Council? What will those immediate steps be?

Do you already have a sense of what you’ll be doing?

The immediate next steps of the Coordination Council are

to implement that

multi-point program: defending

political prisoners—that is, not just declarations, but

a concrete program of action

which has already

been announced and will of course be carried out

adopting clear rules of procedure so that

there are no questions about how

the Coordination Council works, who influences whom

so that such questions do not arise, so that it is

absolutely clear. I think that

the Coordination Council should

form working bodies—groups or

commissions by area—that will

develop particular lines of work: a group

for organizing mass rallies, a group for

elections, a group, say, for

investigating corruption. And these people will

work and report back to the public on

what they are doing. Thank you very much. Unfortunately,

we have to leave the air now

and end the broadcast. I’ve already run a little over. Thank you

for coming, and good luck

all the best

I just can never get used to it