- Have you read this? They're criticizing you there!
- And look at this — they're criticizing the platform here.
- Don't forget to check out this nasty comment — it got 18 likes yesterday.
- So how do you feel about critics in general?
My answer:
I feel very positively toward critics, because critics are future supporters. My job as a candidate is to persuade them otherwise — or to win the argument with them. That's what "elections" are supposed to be, and I want them always to work that way in Russia.
Of course, I'm very glad that some people are criticizing my platform while others are defending it on the internet. It's been a very long time since I've seen anyone discussing any candidate's platform at all.
Of course, I've read — or will read, as time allows — this criticism carefully. I obviously won't be able to get through every single comment, but the main texts — yes.
The State Duma elections have come and gone. Did you read any party's platform? Did you read any criticism of a party's or candidate's platform? No. Neither did I. That is political degradation. Total emptiness, plus the annual "Direct Line with the President" (a televised call-in show), where factory workers ask rehearsed questions.
Fine, the authorities have created a comfort zone for themselves by swallowing up all independent media — but what about those outside power?
I'm running in this election in part to force society, those outside power, and the opposition to discuss the most important issues — the very issues they refuse to discuss, stuck somewhere in the agenda of 1995, where "democrats" are supposed to spend their time fighting the "red-browns" (a term for the alliance of communists and ultranationalists).
I absolutely reject this stereotype we have all accepted: that the economic agenda of the democratic opposition consists of nothing more than dreaming of raising the retirement age as soon as possible. And if you really want to make democrats and the "liberal economists" speaking on their behalf happy, then ideally pensions should be cut as well, because they supposedly "fuel the inflation spiral."
And there are two more articles of faith: 1. Only certain "unpopular decisions" can have a miraculous positive effect on the economy and politics. 2. At every opportunity, one must condemn "populism."
"Populism" includes anything that is not raising the retirement age or making "unpopular decisions." Calls to fight corruption are presented as a prime example of populism.
There is also "dangerous populism." That includes a tax on raw-materials oligarchs.
That's why I'm absolutely delighted when I see arguments about our proposal to introduce a minimum wage of 25,000 rubles (about 25,000 rubles per month). I invite everyone to go here and see how a fairly high minimum wage is set in the most capitalist country in the world — the United States.
I'm simply happy to read critical pieces about our idea of a tax on raw-materials oligarchs. At last, we've started discussing it — hooray! Maybe now many people will finally learn about the tax on the results of privatization, successfully applied in the United Kingdom in 1997.
This is great — we're actually discussing it. This is what the opposition's agenda should be, not endless lamenting that only raising the retirement age can solve all the country's problems.
That's what elections are for. I offer my own way of solving the country's problems. The Kremlin and Putin offer theirs. Voters look, criticize, and then choose a candidate. That's how it should be, and if that's how the 2018 election works, then it will already have been worth it.
Though of course, we're aiming for nothing less than victory.
Sign up at https://2018.navalny.com/. Critics are welcomed and valued here. Here, we work to turn them into supporters.