Debate “Where Is Democracy?” — Transcript

Political Debates — IV May 16 Bilingua Club Irina Khakamada VS Alexei Chadaev Topic: “Where Is Democracy?” Round I Alexei Navalny, moderator: So then, dear friends. Are you ready to tell us where democracy is? We’d like to ask each of you to give a brief opening statement of literally two minutes, and in that opening statement, if possible, briefly answer three questions: over the last twenty years of Russian history, was there perhaps even a very short moment when there was democracy in Russia—or maybe there is democracy now? Second question: what are you personally doing right now to bring democracy about? And third: who is the enemy of democracy in Russia today? You may name names. Irina Mutsuovna, you almost became president, so please begin. Khakamada (hereafter — K.): I believe that in Russia there was not even a moment when there was democracy; there was a short period of democratization, with the prospect of perhaps building democracy. What was the second question again? N: Are you doing anything to help build democracy here? K.: Yes! For example, I write books. I wrote a book called Sex in Big Politics. N: Wow! The audience applauds. K.: And it’s all about democracy, quite a lot of it. N: Any enemies of democracy? Can you name anyone you consider an enemy of democracy? K.: Ah, enemies. I think we are all enemies of democracy if we do not want to build it, because no one is going to bring it to us from above. N: Thank you! Alexei? Chadaev (hereafter — C.): I think it will be hard for me, after such a short opening, to answer just as briefly. Unfortunately, I haven’t been in politics that long and haven’t yet learned to express my thoughts so concisely. (A request from the audience to speak louder.) Hmm, yes... So I’ll have to go on a little longer. It seems to me that in our recent history there was a moment when discussion of the main political questions was at its most democratic, and when the broadest possible number of people, social groups, and so on took part in it. That was literally on the eve of the collapse of the Soviet Union, in 1990–91, and everything that happened in that period was a direct consequence of our inability to cope with the situation—when so many people were participating in a democratic, public, open discussion of the main political questions. N: Is there more democracy now than there was then? C.: There is certainly less democracy now than there was then, but there was even less in the mid-1990s. After 1993, democracy in Russia ended. In its place, a kind of ersatz democracy was built—a regime that outwardly resembles democracy, but in essence is a kind of oligarchy. And the minor changes taking place today are, in some sense, coming from above. But in fact—I agree here with Irina Mutsuovna—you cannot build democracy from above, just as you cannot create an opposition in Russia by presidential decree. N: Right, I see. What are you doing for democracy? C.: As for me, over the last six months I’ve made around thirty work trips across the country and traveled all over Russia, from Pskov to Vladivostok. I met with students, with young activists from civic movements, I gave lectures. The main theme of those lectures was called sovereign democracy. As you know, there was recently a very important discussion about sovereign democracy. Boris Nemtsov, with whom Irina Khakamada—as she recently admitted—maintains relations, unlike other leaders of the Union of Right Forces (SPS), wrote that democracy cannot be sovereign. Why can’t there be such special adjectival democracies—either there is democracy or there isn’t. So, frankly, I was pleased when I heard the phrase “sovereign democracy” from Dick Cheney... in his speech in Vilnius. N: I see. Enemies. Enemies. Tell us briefly about the enemies. Surely there are some? I read your book, and I got the impression that you know something about the enemies of democracy. C.: At the moment, the enemies of democracy are being appointed by directive from the Washington party committee. N: I see! (Applause and shouts from the audience.) N: Irina, have you read Chadaev’s book? (Khakamada shows that she is holding the book in her hands.) Excellent. So tell me, do you generally share the view that all these books, this whole sovereign democracy business, all these political scientists and articles—are just an attempt to provide some ideological cover for the enormous looting of petrodollars that is going on in the country right now? Do you generally agree with that view or not? K.: I’m going to surprise you now... N: Go ahead! K.: I not only read my opponent’s book. By the way, unlike my opponent, I rely on the book itself, not on Boris Nemtsov’s words, though I do maintain relations with him unlike others... Let’s argue with me. But to do that, you probably need to read something I wrote. If you had my book Sex in Big Politics in your hands, I’d be delighted. But never mind... N: It’s available. C.: I’ll answer, I’ll answer... K.: You won’t be able to answer me adequately, because I not only read your book... in many respects I agree with you, though I disagree with many of your conclusions... you’re not a stupid man, sometimes your analysis is very professional... But I dedicated a poem to you! (Applause, an excited murmur in the audience.) K.: I’ll read it now. (Applause.) I dedicated it, well, to the book and to someone else too. (Laughter in the audience.) I hope you’ll guess. Once there lived a demagogue on earth He muddled everyone’s minds for all he was worth He slipped in fraud in everything he said And for the people became a god instead But this demagogue of all Rus’ Gathered disciples in a rush. They charged ahead all in a pack To fool their little people back But daily bread was all they had And the demagogue forgot the lot, too bad The disciples endured all his words, But then they got terribly hungry, of course, And from starvation ate their god. What did I mean by that? (Shouts from the audience, noise.) What did I mean? Ah. For example, when you write about the fight against terrorism, you write everything absolutely correctly, and then at the end you slip in the conclusion that, based on what you’ve argued, a decision such as appointing governors as party governors from the party that wins the majority is somehow an adequate response. That follows from your line of reasoning. But fundamentally I’m not going to argue with you as a bearer of values, because I think you are, after all, a democrat. And in general, if the younger generation is intelligent, it cannot be undemocratic, because you are all ambitious, self-regarding intellectuals, and of course you want to realize yourselves. And today a young person can only realize themselves in a democratic system, unless they plan to spend all day licking boots and bending over backward and so on... But it seems to me that you belong to the great successors—I mean this as a compliment—of the Greek demagogues, because the demagogue was, broadly speaking, a Greek philosopher who invented an entire theory of conducting argument. And the point of that theory was that you argue on the substance, but shift the emphasis. So every time one has to argue with you, and today we’ll have to argue not about the content—I’ve already said I believe you are a democrat—but about the method you use. And for the younger generation, it seems to me this method has absolutely no future, because then it is not objective, it is somewhat ideological. But since “demagogue” comes from demos, from the people, then of course everything you say carries a strong sense of populism, and the people will naturally like it. Today’s reaction, as soon as you said that U.S. agents are creating Russia’s enemies inside Russia—that too was received with cheers. It’s a rhetorical trick. Nationalists use it, false patriots use it. And I suggest to you: let’s be honest. I will drop any populist slogans, and you do the same. After all, we are at remarkable debates: the audience here is all young people, and intellectual people at that—our future. Let’s try to speak honestly! C.: All right, let’s speak honestly! A brief reply! Thank you very much! First of all, I’m impressed by your attention both to my text and by the fact that you devoted so much time to it and... even wrote poetry... but... K.: I devote a lot of time to the younger generation in general. C.: But you know—(applause for Khakamada, shouts of “Sex in Big Politics”)—for everyone sitting here in the hall, and they are mostly my peers, that’s very flattering. But I have to tell you: I not only read your book, I even found the literary tradition it quite literally follows. And today, as a reciprocal gesture, I want to give you a book that could in fact be described as Sex in Big Politics, only from the 11th century—namely, the diaries of court ladies from ancient Japan. (Stormy applause.) By the way, they wrote poetry too, sometimes very beautiful poetry... K.: Yes, and by the way, they were smart enough to answer the substance of the question, because Sex in Big Politics is about morals and manners in politics, whereas the court ladies of the Japanese court did not take part in politics... C.: That’s not true. And this book will convince you. May I? May I? (He tries to hand her the book.) N: All right! Dear friends, let’s... hand Irina the book, Alexei. (Chadaev hands the book to Khakamada.) And let’s try to break up this overly cordial atmosphere. Alexei, tell me please: in your book you talk about the period from the early to mid-1990s, in which Irina played a part, as a kind of collapse of Russian history, a possible collapse of Russian history. And now we supposedly have to build this sovereign democracy, and it’s so hard for us, with all these restrictions. Is Ms. Khakamada personally to blame for the fact that things are so difficult for us now, and that we are building this special kind of democracy? If it hadn’t been for her, for Yavlinsky, for Nemtsov, would things be easier now? Would we be building a normal Western-style democracy now rather than a sovereign one? C.: Wait a second—“sovereign democracy” was said by Dick Cheney, so that’s not a Western type, apparently, right? N: No, we’re building a sovereign one now; apparently we’re building sovereign democracy... C.: I’m answering your question... K.: Well, actually, Mr. Surkov said it first... C.: Well then, apparently the Washington party committee reads Mr. Surkov very attentively. K.: Or vice versa: perhaps Mr. Surkov works for the sinister Washington headquarters. C.: That can’t be ruled out either! (Applause in the audience.) N: Remember, dear friends, that all of this is being transcribed, and the transcript will be published... (Laughter in the audience.) Alexei, be careful! C.: Ah, yes, yes... K.: And why are you only warning Alexei? Not me? So I’m not allowed? N: You have nothing left to fear. K.: Yes, I have nothing left to fear. N: After men, you have nothing left to lose. K.: I see! C.: I’m answering your question! First of all, I do not consider the 1990s a bad time, and I am not inclined to condemn that period and its politics wholesale. I think those were very important years, when we avoided the worst-case scenario. I could name ten possible ways events might have unfolded, each of them worse than what actually happened. All the more so, I cannot and have no right to judge Irina Khakamada, simply because that would mean applying the Stalinist principle of collective responsibility. And thank God we’ve been rid of that for a long time. Besides, if we started sorting out Irina Khakamada’s personal contribution to democracy-building in the 1990s, we’d get very far from the topic. K.: Oh, let me shake your hand! (They shake hands.) N: How lovely! Take pictures! Take pictures! Excellent! K.: This really is... remarkable. Unlike the debates with Vladimir Solovyov, this is the first opponent I’ve had who is genuinely trying to be objective. N: So how is this all going to end then? (Laughter in the audience.) K.: It doesn’t matter! It doesn’t matter how it ends; what matters is political culture itself. C.: Right, now the second very important point... We are all here, and the overwhelming majority of this hall are indeed my peers, who grew up in those years. And in fact we have no other political experience, no other political models, except the ones we inherited from the 1990s. In that sense, my whole generation is, if you like, a kind of collective Masha Gaidar. (A slight stir in the audience, exclamations of “Oh!”) The difference is that everyone reflects on that fact differently and behaves accordingly in different ways. What do I mean by that? In fact, we had no other ideology, no other substantive system of views, and no other modernization idea except the ideas given to us by the democrats of the 1990s. The idea of moving Westward, the idea of market modernization, and so on and so forth... Yes, they didn’t win many votes in elections, but the party of power, which did win many votes, in fact repeated the same slogans. The only difference was that it said: “Well... of course liberalization, the market, all that... but people must be pitied, right? So we’ll do it gradually somehow... little by little...” while the liberals said: “No, we can’t do it gradually, then we won’t make it! Then we’ll lose out, then reforms won’t happen, and no one will believe we’re carrying them out at all!” And that, in essence, was the content of the debate. It was only in 2003 that Yegor Gaidar admitted that the current authorities were no longer following the vector of their ideology, although in fact even now liberal ministers are not proposing any other reforms, any other methods. And if we’re talking about methods—we are talking about methods today, right?—including the methods of my analysis, the methods that existed in the seminar of Gaidar, Chubais, and others... N: All right, thank you! Let’s have a couple more questions and then move on to the second round! Irina, we’ve talked about Chadaev’s democracy, now let’s talk about yours! You supported Yeltsin’s democracy, you supported Putin’s democracy, you were a minister, you were part of the ruling elite... So here’s the question: many people have the impression that you, for example—or your colleagues... your closest ally was actually head of the executive branch under Putin... There’s a feeling that no democracy would satisfy you except the kind where you drive around with a flashing blue light and you live in Barvikha. And as soon as you were kicked out of there, suddenly democracy started to seem lacking. (Applause.) K.: Well, that’s not a question! I think you’ve confused your role! You’re no longer moderating... N: No, I’m challenging you... K.: More than that, you’re personally insulting me by twisting the facts! N: All right. Tell me... K.: Because I do not live in Barvikha, and the state dachas are not in Barvikha, just so you know! (Laughter in the audience.) N: Fine! Let me rephrase the question! Of course I don’t know, unfortunately, I... K.: Secondly, you... secondly, you cannot say of any person who participates today in various public chambers and the like that they personally support someone, some policy, some cabinet, or some president. Every person supports themselves, and if they want to be a politician, they simply advance their own ideas! And what distinguishes a democratically honest politician from an authoritarian one is that they do not want to fit themselves into the vertical of power, but try to change something within it. N: At least a democratically honest politician... K.: Wait! Let’s stick to me! ... N: Go ahead! K.: You were asking about me... N: Go ahead! K.: Who is Nemtsov, who is... I’m answering for myself here, all right? N: Fine! K.: Otherwise poor Alexei will have to answer for Putin... N: Well, he’ll answer, he’ll answer... K.: Why should he? Putin can answer perfectly well for himself! Let’s talk to him. Putin to the debates!!! Yes, that’s the main slogan! (Laughter in the audience.) A very good one! We couldn’t make it happen... I kept challenging him during the presidential campaign. It didn’t work! So, here’s what it comes down to: let’s speak seriously, after all we didn’t gather here for nothing. Why should we keep throwing these barbs in each other’s faces—false, dishonest ones in advance? I proposed an honest conversation to Alexei, and by the way he started very well; I liked that. So where do I differ from your position on democracy? I believe that any democracy is, of course, a democracy in which every brick of the state building is built on human rights. And because of that brick, the state building is very strong! Perfect democracy does not exist! If you try to build perfect democracy, you will absolutely, certainly build a totalitarian system! Because you will try to make the people completely controllable, and only then can power be formed democratically, right? The people form it—so how do you make the people controllable? We are all different; it is very hard to control us. So you have to deceive the people somehow and, by staging this democracy, strengthen the vertical of power in the name of the people. Therefore, the road to perfection is always the road to hell. A classic example is the United States. Here I agree with you. It was the first state built democratically from below, unlike Europe, precisely because it did not experience totalitarianism and does not know what that is... and what is the result? They are now effectively destroying democracy in their own country and serving as an example to other countries, which, easily relying on their example, do the same. N: All right, all right... K.: Although I understand—no, wait—that the fight against terrorism is a serious matter, and still it does not exclude preserving human rights. So: a) there is no perfect democracy; b) democracy always has a national character. It cannot be the same in France, Luxembourg, Italy, Japan, America, or Russia; it will necessarily take a national form. But unlike you, I recognize that there are universal standards of democracy—universal ones—without which even a national form of democracy cannot exist. And from that point of view, absolutizing sovereign democracy as a special path is a road to totalitarianism. N: Thank you! I hope everyone took notes on that answer. Alexei, I have a question for you. I hope you’ll answer it. Tell me this: all this sovereign democracy is wonderful, the ideology is marvelous—but what does this democracy of yours mean in practice for someone like me? There was the terrorist attack in Beslan, which in my view happened simply because of poor work by the security services, and after that they tell me: “You, Navalny, are too stupid to elect the mayor of Moscow, so we’re taking that right away from you, and instead we’ll appoint some Public Chamber for you...” Maybe there are decent people there... but it all looks completely insane: they introduce “schools of kindness” and rename prices into “conventional units,” and in general it’s just some colossal theater of the absurd! In practice, this whole sovereign democracy leads to something completely incomprehensible. My rights were simply curtailed—explain to me why. C.: Read the British newspapers! There the phrase “theater of the absurd” is the mildest thing you’ll find. That’s the first point! N: Fine, we’ll read the British newspapers, but what do British newspapers have to do with our sad reality? C.: Second! No, this is about the question of a special path! There is no special path; we have the same problems as everyone else. N: Then why do you answer in such a special way? C.: In what special way? Dick Cheney said: a community of sovereign democracies! N: Fine, but in order to fight Dick Cheney, why did you deprive me of my voting rights? C.: Fight whom?! Fight whom? No one is fighting Dick Cheney! N: But wait... C.: As for voting rights, I really liked your example: you were deprived of the right to elect the mayor of Moscow! Do you seriously believe that in the current Moscow system you could really replace Luzhkov by democratic means?! You tried! In 1999 I worked at the Moscow headquarters of the SPS, many people know that... we got 10%, we... we knew perfectly well... N: You changed governors, you changed governors by democratic means! You yourselves first introduced a third term, then a fourth... a twenty-fifth... and then abolished elections altogether, saying: “You’re all idiots and can’t elect anyone!” C.: By democratic means they only changed failed governors who could not build their own ideology... but in fact that so-called procedure for changing governors turned into an instrument for creating regional satrapies! And Moscow is just as much a satrapy in that sense as, for example, Tatarstan or Bashkortostan! Just try removing the group that is in power there! There... there... and from the point of view of formal procedure, everything there is absolutely democratic! Indeed, the majority votes: the majority of state employees, the majority of the poor, the majority of employees of power structures, the majority of workers at enterprises closely tied to that власть.... N: That’s not the point.... Did you replace those satraps? Did you replace them? How much time has passed, and all those satraps are still there! (Applause.) C.: Remember where Nazdratenko ended up? Remember where Gordienko ended up? Remember... N: I know! I know! It’s just... governors, some of them, really... K.: Nazdratenko was removed during democratic elections using a different procedure! C.: Yes! Replaced... to clarify... K.: But the elections themselves were not abolished! Because you mustn’t throw the baby out with the bathwater! That’s exactly what I was talking about: there are sacred, inviolable standards! If you throw them out, you embark on a path of endless betrayal of the human being, the individual, and their rights! C.: No one is throwing out elections! The main elections in a region today are elections to the regional parliament! Only the regional parliament now forms the government! Do you think Moscow has 88 candidates for the post of head of 88 regions? N: Can you give even one example where a regional parliament did not approve the proposed head of the region? Just one example! C.: You see....... (Long pause. Noise and applause in the audience.) You see. There were such examples! The only thing is, we didn’t know about them. Why? Because parties do not know how to discuss these issues openly. Because parties prefer backroom negotiations... N: What parties?.. C.: The idea of the new law is that the majority in parliament, in the regional parliament, proposes the candidate for governor! And that means people go to elections for the regional parliament already having such a proposal for governor in mind. We have not yet had a single regional election where this question was on the agenda! N: All right! Let’s ask Irina one last question and move on to the second round! Irina, tell me please: perhaps Vladimir Vladimirovich is right when he talks about the wolf that listens to no one and keeps eating... Dick Cheney, the notorious one, fully denounced Russia in the Baltics, then the next day went to Kazakhstan... and the Kazakh regime, which... C.: He denounced Belarus; he only gave Russia a mild kick! N: Well, yes!.. And he praised Kazakhstan to the skies, although the situation there is a hundred times worse than here, because they’re building an oil pipeline! K.: I’ll tell you honestly: today I was at the American embassy. N: Why? (Laughter and applause from the audience.) K.: To talk! You yourself just told me—I have nothing to lose! N: Answer accepted! For the transcript, that’s permissible. K.: I’m an honest person. I don’t need elections, I’m not trying to please everyone. I am what I am! I was at the American embassy; the ambassador invited me to discuss the situation in Russia. Understood? Did everyone hear that? (Laughter in the audience.) Write it down quickly, yes? Quickly send it to the proper address... N: And what did you tell him? K.: This! I told him exactly the same thing! I said: under the guise of... (A shout from the audience: “Sex in Big Politics!”) Calm down! First learn something about sex, then start shouting! (Applause and noise.) You still have a lot to learn! N: Maybe you should give master classes? K.: No... with pleasure! But separately, yes? That would be a separate debate! I said the following: if, at the time after September 11, when Putin called Bush, and after that Russia became friends with America, and they called each other family, brothers, and all sorts of things... if at that time, when there were no conflicts yet and no war in Iraq, Cheney had raised the issue that Russia lacked democracy, I would have believed him! But all that time they were all silent! They were not concerned about democracy at all. The main thing was, in the common struggle against terrorism, to restrict human rights—and that was done both in Russia and in America. In America, you know what lawlessness is going on, and in Russia you know what is happening too... you know that it was precisely after Beslan that this notorious institution of effectively appointing governors was introduced under the guise of fighting terrorism! It was a huge deception! It had nothing to do with fighting terrorism. And then, when they fell out over Iran, when they disagreed over something in China, when they diverged over Iraq, when America very much disliked the fact that Russia was now selling gas to Ukraine at market prices—I think that is perfectly normal. First, it benefits Russia, and there is no point in subsidizing a regime that exists independently. Why sponsor it? We should trade with everyone on market terms and maximize our profit. And it is also very good for Ukraine, it just hasn’t realized it yet... because the more cheap resources there are in nature, the more relaxed the elite becomes! It does nothing, and the country then sinks into crisis, while sitting on huge sums of money and spitting on its own people! (Applause.) Ukraine will now have to struggle and come up with effective solutions... So now, when you have quarreled over your tactical problems, when you suddenly start talking about democracy, supposedly from some objective view of Russia—I don’t believe you! And that is exactly what I honestly told the ambassador today! By the way, he agreed with me! N: All right! Thank you very much to our guests for taking part in the first round! (Applause.) Round II Navalny: The second round: you ask each other questions! Alexei, your question! Chadaev: Yes. My first question is about the book, simply as someone who works in publishing. I just couldn’t... what does it say on the cover? On the cover it says: Sex in Big Politics. And below, in small letters, a footnote: “sex (Eng.) — gender.” My question is: who, pardon me, do you take your readers for? (Chuckling.) (Laughter in the audience.) N: That has nothing to do with democracy... K.: I don’t know what democracy has to do with it. I think that “sex,” as most people in the audience today understand it in Russian, means in the direct sense of the word sexual relations between the sexes—or sometimes even same-sex relations. But in English, when you read articles—for example, about how the presidential candidate who won in Chile conducted her campaign—it was written directly in English that she made serious use of the theme of gender in politics, and in English “sex” means gender. So in fact the book is about the adventures of the female sex in a male world. I show what happens in the White House, in the Kremlin, in parliament, and how an inexperienced young person comes into politics, what they need to learn in order to be more effective, and how to remain strong, honest, and true to their values! So the book is serious! And the title is like that precisely so that young people would get excited and buy it; as a result, the print run is already 75,000. (Applause.) C.: An honest answer! Maybe some little explanatory note could have been invented for the cover... K.: No, I’ll tell you honestly: I came up with all of it! When I brought the book to the publisher, they said: “Well... in principle, let’s try it, since the content is very good and it’s written in a popular style. Let’s do a print run of 10,000. That’s the classic print run for books like this, you know... it’s about politics, not fiction, not a detective novel. 10,000 copies.” I said: “I’ve come up with a new title.” “What?” they asked. I said: “Sex in Big Politics!” They said: “25,000 copies!” (Laughter in the audience.) Fine! It worked. Young people buy it hoping to find out who is sleeping with whom, when, and for how much. They open the book, start reading, and finish it. And in doing so, they learn about very serious things. N: Alexei, I saw that Alexei’s book had a print run of 2,000. Did you figure out what word you should have added? (Delight in the audience.) Irina, your question for Alexei Chadaev? K.: Alexei, I really liked the fact that you’re involved in cultural studies and head the Russian Journal. C.: Not anymore. And I never headed it. Gleb Pavlovsky now heads the Russian Journal; I only headed the politics section... K.: Well, in any case, I realized I’m dealing with an intellectual! I’m giving you a chance to think out loud, so the question is pitched exactly at your level! Tell me: according to Zeno, why can Achilles never catch up with the tortoise, and why in real life does he catch up with it? (Applause.) C.: You see... N: This question has nothing to do with democracy! K.: This question has a direct bearing on democracy, on Russia, on the global world, on the United States... N: No, I liked it, Irina Mutsuovna. At the beginning you said, let’s do without jabs, and in that sense I liked your question. Alexei. K.: No, honestly, let’s reflect on this! C.: Let’s recall who Zeno was. Let’s do a bit of analysis... and what was Zeno’s task? Zeno was a sophist! K.: Correct! (Noise and applause.) N: Is that the right answer? K.: Absolutely! A brilliant answer! Why did I ask it? Because it seems to me that in your book you are a bit of a sophist! Maybe deliberately, maybe out of ambition, because you want to build a successful career. Realizing that if you reasoned the way I do, you’d end up out on the street. But... from a scholarly point of view, a bit of a sophist... C.: You know... K.: Because if you look at it in that plane, then yes, Russia needs a special model—aggressive, with sovereignty guaranteed by nuclear weapons, and those nuclear weapons guarantee not only internal sovereignty, they guarantee external sovereignty too! And they will force other countries to keep their distance... they will determine other countries’ sovereignty. That aggression, it seems to me, is an attempt to catch up with those wretched United States. But if you look at it in three dimensions, or simply in ordinary human terms, then there is always something else: one simply has to live like a human being. And to involve every human potential in the country’s development, because if these aggressive barriers were not there, then in fact Russian people—and by “Russian” I mean in the broad sense, people living in Russia and carrying the Russian language as their cultural heritage—are tremendously creative! Russia is still always catching up with someone, instead of others running after it. Because the ordinary person in our country—with their brains, ambitions, ideas—is of no damn use to anyone! And from that point of view, nothing will change! And that is why I say that there has never been democracy in Russia! There was only democratization: various instruments were switched on, and today the door has been shut completely. N: All right, yes? C.: One second, a brief remark! I don’t know whether it’s worth alluding to classical sources in such a predominantly student audience... after all, the main thing is... K.: What, are they idiots or something? C.: No, that’s not the point... the point is that they get enough of that during the day already! They’re students! K.: But democracy did arise in ancient Greece... C.: Yes, but we’ll talk about that later today... that will be one of my questions... but today I just wanted to recall Socrates’ dialogue with Gorgias. How did Socrates differ from the sophists? Because in fact Socrates used the same methods and techniques as the sophists. The sophists asked him: how are you different from us? In that, unlike you, I use your techniques only as a method, but in fact I speak on the substance, about essential things, and my task is not to defeat my opponent but to persuade him, to make it so that he himself arrives at the same thoughts I have arrived at; and if his logic is more convincing than mine, then I am internally ready to agree with him. This is not combat, it is dialogue! N: Good. Alexei, ask your question! Let’s develop the ancient Greece theme. What did you want to ask? C.: Yes, the theme of ancient Greece. I wanted to make it my third question, but now... K.: We’re supposed to ask three? I was told two. (Laughter in the audience.) I don’t have a third one in my head, but I’ll think of something... C.: So, in ancient Greece, where the basic standards of democracy actually arose, women, as we know, did not take part in political procedures! (Applause.) K.: Well... and what’s the question? C.: I wanted to ask you why you insist so stubbornly, with such long-standing persistence, on women’s participation—sometimes even in the form of quotas. I read your interview: you propose simply having quotas for women in parliament until people get used to listening to them, and so on. Why did the Greeks manage without women’s participation in public procedures? N: See, and you say this is much better than Solovyov’s show—answer the question: why do you insist on your own voting rights?! (Laughter in the audience.) K.: No, but I can’t even answer that—it seems so natural to me. I believe that a woman is not only man’s friend, she is also a human being! C.: But why did the ancient Greeks...? Do you really think they were so intolerant toward women? Just remember what role women played in Greek history! Remember Thais—who knows who really led the army against Persia, right? K.: More than that! I can even add that women in developed democracies received voting rights only in the 20th century—in the 1930s, 1940s... I can only answer like this: if we believe in our future, then we believe in the progress of humanity! (Applause, cries of “Bravo!”) N: Good! Thank you! Your second pre-prepared question for Alexei! K.: Yes, here comes the pre-prepared one. Let me just remember it! Ah, yes. Your whole book is devoted to the fact that you, very professionally in terms of content, sometimes arguing but ultimately agreeing, explain Putin’s doctrine to young people, using his two addresses. I think his third address, in its main message, differs little for you and fits into the same overall framework. Tell me, do you honestly think this is all Putin? Or do you really mean, in quotation marks, a “collective Putin”? Or do you place such emphasis on Putin’s personal role in history? C.: You know! When people ask me that—and they ask me often—I always answer: I don’t care! If a person signed a document, then he bears responsibility for what he said! K.: Right. But you’re a scholar! And you’re giving this to young people, and they trust you! They’ll read this book and decide that Putin really is that amazing! (Applause and laughter.) C.: Why are you so afraid of that? K.: Because I believe that the optimal model of a democratic society is one in which you do not have to trust a civilian president the way you trust in church! You have to verify! You have to control! And you have to demand! But you are imposing on them: look, a genius! I’m not against him—I myself supported Putin when I thought he embodied values I found appropriate! When I saw that I disagreed with him, I began arguing with him! I believe we should not erect monuments to today’s politicians. It seems to me that in France, in the United Kingdom, in America, and in Russia, the role of the individual is no longer that strong. These are all collective teams. We all understand that Bush, in terms of IQ, is not the most intellectual politician, right? But he has a strong team. And we understand that the team around Putin is very mixed. And in fact that is why his steps go this way, then that way, then another way. Sometimes we can’t even understand what his doctrine is—real, coherent, and directed—because there are a great many people behind him! So if the book had been called Putin’s Doctrine, and then had a little footnote saying “collective,” I think the book would have become an aphorism. C.: Most of the people sitting here are opposition-minded. Do you really think I intend to convert them into Putinists? Nothing of the sort! I’m simply explaining to people—both those who support Putin and those who do not—what is actually meant! This is not needed by supporters alone. It is needed by everyone! So that those who support him know what they support, and those who argue know what they are arguing against. K.: And what if instead of Putin it’s Sechin? C.: Let’s not discuss alternatives. That’s not this discussion! N: Your third question! Alexei, your third question! C.: My third question? I’ll explain later, but it has the most direct and immediate relation to democracy. N: When later? C.: Ah... Irina, tell me, what colors do you think will be fashionable in Europe next season? K.: (Khakamada laughs, the audience applauds.) No, I like debates like this! You know, when I came into the hall and saw these two sheets of paper, I thought—it’s some irony of fate, because Chadaev has an orange sheet, and his whole book is devoted to fear of orange revolutions! And I have a green one! (Laughter in the audience.) Maybe I’m an environmentalist? I don’t know. So, recently MK (Moskovsky Komsomolets, a Russian newspaper) asked me: write about what is happening in Russia in 2026. Obviously one can’t take that seriously. And there was a question there: President of Russia—how do you see that person? So I joked and said: you know, the president of Russia in 2026 will be a blonde woman, 1.80 meters tall, 85-40-84, with long hair, and accordingly she will have very good relations with the president of the United States. And that one will also be a woman, and as women they will extend their hands to each other and say: let’s create a normal way of life so that all women can be as beautiful as we are, and on that basis we’ll have great cooperation. C.: There won’t be enough budget for that! K.: Yes, that’s true! Then there was another question: tell us, how do you see the regional structure of Russia in 2026? So I joked and said that Courchevel, Porto Cervo, what else? Where do our people hang out? N: I don’t even know where your dacha is, so how would I know? K.: Oh, come on! Don’t pretend... anyway, never mind! (Laughter in the audience.) They announced that they wanted to join Russia and become external enclaves. Russia agreed, and these enclaves would be governed by a prefecture in Zhukovka. Then they asked me: and what would the U.S. reaction be? And the U.S. would like it so much that Russia was dismantling Europe that they would say: we will no longer finance colorless revolutions! Because by that time all the colors would already have run out! C.: A small remark on Russia’s regional structure: I remember how in 1998 Boris Nemtsov proposed solving the Kuril problem. He proposed appointing Irina Khakamada governor of Sakhalin. K.: Exactly! And Korzhakov got scared! C.: Really? I heard a version that your husband wouldn’t let you. K.: No, Korzhakov told everyone to get lost... including Nemtsov and Khakamada. And then they got rid of him. N: Irina, have you come up with a question? K.: Oh no, wait, I forgot to think of one.... Well, let’s do this... this is improvisation, not a prepared question! Do you like me? C.: Yes! (Noise, applause in the audience!) N: With a tan like that, everyone likes you! We’re moving on to the third round. Round III N: We are moving on to the third round. And now the jury gets to ask questions of the participants! Who’s first? Oleg. Let’s start from this side. All right, Oleg Kozyrev, please ask your question! Kozyrev: Well, I tried to prepare for this meeting, and specifically in order to prepare, I read neither one book nor the other. So I’m an equidistant person today. My question is this: try switching places for a second, and give a practical answer—not a joking one, but a real practical one. Alexei, how can democrats, while naturally remaining democrats, come to power in 2008? And what should the authorities do to make sure democrats don’t even get into parliament? So those are the two questions. C.: No, well, ladies first... K.: What, me first? How can democrats be kept from coming to power? Well, that’s already been done. You have to split them up. They’re all ambitious and weak, full of complexes. They really want to drive around with flashing lights and really want to be in parliament, even if only in the minority. But most of all, they want to travel abroad, talk about democracy, perform their function. So what has to be done? The worst thing is if they unite, even though there are few of them. But if Kasparov, Yavlinsky, Khakamada, Kasyanov—no matter what their program is, doesn’t matter—stand as one wall and say: we will fight to the end, that’s a signal! So that must not be allowed. How do you prevent it without pressure, without the security services, etc.? You summon the weakest one, the one with the weakest nerves and the biggest ambitions, and say: “Listen, we’ll let you through. And you’ll be the main one, just tell everyone else to get lost, and you’ll represent the whole opposition in parliament, and you’ll clear all the barriers.” (Laughter in the audience.) “And you’ll be the main one...” N: Irina, who? Who, tell us... K.: I won’t name names, because first of all that would be too brazen, and besides, it’s already known. But I won’t engage in that; I still hope conscience and honor will awaken. N: I hope so. Alexei? C.: Yes? Well, first of all, it’s already been named. They really did summon Ryzhkov. K.: I’m neutral. I won’t comment. C.: Secondly, to be honest, I don’t want to answer this question, but... I will. I don’t want to answer it for one reason: I really dislike the word “democrats.” Because when people say that in the political system there exists some group called “the democrats,” that means there is something wrong with the system, some malfunction... what do you mean, some democrats and some non-democrats! So there are these people who are not democrats... Ruslan Gaga: This totalitarian burden—how long can the people tolerate this democracy before another fiasco happens and the people burst into tears... and aren’t treated. (Laughter in the audience.) And a third and final question: is there democracy already? ... Well, I’ve asked the question. N: Well then, Alexei, now you answer first! (Laughter in the audience.) K.: On that one, let’s have you go first! C.: Well, what can I say? Such figurative thinking. G: Yes, yours is good. How have democracies treated you? C.: You see, the thing is, we really do need to hold master classes and teach people. N: Are you ready to take part in them? C.: You see, when I retire, probably, and leave big politics—though in truth I haven’t really entered it yet—then... because this is actually a major problem: it is very unclear where those who stop actively participating in politics are supposed to go; they have nowhere to go. In the States, for example, those who leave active political life, the top tier, only then become rich, only then join the boards of directors of major corporations, and so on... whereas here the system is not set up that way at all. Why? Because there the main value is experience—preserving it, accumulating it, passing it on to the next generations... N: All right, thank you! Irina? K.: Let me clarify what democracy means to me. As a person from St. Petersburg—I was a deputy there, and I do not consider it a province... I don’t consider that word part of the Petersburg style; you seem to have decided to overdo it for Moscow, because there people are generally careful about everything! But that’s fine! I’m not a prude. So, what is democracy to me? Democracy is a model of society built on the principle of universal distrust, formalized by law! And through distrust it achieves trust. That is, if you come to church, you trust the priest from the outset because he is sanctified by divine light. You trust God because you simply believe in Him, without any reflection. But for society to be effective, it must be built so that society does not trust the authorities from the outset, because they are somehow special, sacred, illuminated by some light. Power is us! We must control it; for that there are special procedures and laws, and re-elections. That kind of democracy is the most inconvenient thing imaginable! So when will such democracy arise in Russia? Because they are imposing on us a model of trust, right? Trust us! Trust us! We’ll decide everything for you! That was the mistake of the democrats too: Chubais, Gaidar, and Yeltsin. And in fact he was only a post-Soviet politician, he was not a real democrat. It is Putin’s mistake too, but now it is done consciously. Consciously, the bureaucratic class is feeding society this ideology in order to strengthen its power and its money. N: All right. Thank you... K.: When will it happen? Such a society of distrust will arise in Russia, instead of a society of total trust, when 1% of the population—just 1% is enough—understands this and then says to itself: I am ready to fight for this until the end of my life, I will not sell out, and I will fight for myself, for my honor, for my freedom, for respect for my human dignity, for this model! As soon as that one percent appears, for the first time in Russia, from below and not from above, real democracy will arise—national in form, perhaps taking different forms, but real democracy! G: One last thing, quickly. What is primary for you? What should come first: forming an understanding of democracy among citizens, or introducing the authorities into democracy? K.: No. For me, what comes first is forming these values among citizens! That is why elections are not interesting to me right now, participation in this kind of politics is not interesting to me, and that is why I write books, already hold master classes, and travel to the regions giving lectures. (Noise in the audience.) N: Thank you very much! Dear colleagues, let’s be a little quieter! Next jury member. Who has a question? Sergei Varshavchik, please! V: I’m local, unlike my colleague. So my question is shorter and more serious. A question to both of you: why, in your view, has no one been held responsible for Nord-Ost and Beslan, and how do you assess the likelihood of similar situations in the future? Thank you. K.: Well... N: (To the noisy audience.) Colleagues, quieter please! I’m asking you! K.: It’s a short question. It’s hard to answer it briefly, but I’ll try. Today there is no political class in power, because a political class is one that has its own ideology. Today what is in power is a bureaucratic class that invents ideology in order to preserve itself. Therefore any event that shakes bureaucratic power, any truth, only kills bureaucratic power. So in such a system it is impossible to find justice! There will never be an objective investigation and the guilty will never be punished. Because if even serious bureaucratic figures were punished, that would lower the status of that very trust—not even trust, but the original faith in power itself. N: The answer is clear, thank you... K.: Therefore in the future, all of this will return. And there will be objective investigations when the people themselves, the citizens who come to power—precisely so that this does not happen again—carry them out. What conclusions should we draw from Nord-Ost and Beslan? We are protected from nothing, because human life is the last value, while preserving power is the first value! We mean nothing! So my advice to you—and I was there inside—is: if you ever get caught up in something like that, never hope that they will save you. Do everything you can to save yourself! Or at least hold out as long as possible... otherwise this enchantment with power and faith in God and in its kindness will make you the first victim. N: Thank you. Alexei? (Applause.) C.: First of all, I’m surprised—and here I’m addressing Sergei more than anyone else—by the insistence with which people demand this so-called accountability. With what insistence many of our liberals ask: when will they start imprisoning people? When will they start putting people on trial? When will responsibility appear? Astonishing bloodthirstiness! (Shouts from the audience, noise, whistling.) N: Colleagues, you’ll have a chance to show your disapproval during the vote; you can vote and express your opinion then... go on! C.: Secondly, when people tell us—and I agree that these are probably not the last such cases—I am very interested in who exactly, who exactly, is виноват, for example, for the Madrid train station bombing? Who is to blame? The Spanish government? Who is to blame for the buildings blown up in New York... what, the U.S. government...? V: Excuse me, a small remark about Spain: but there... C.: Yes, there were elections. V: The prime minister resigned there. C.: Yes, there were elections... and... K.: And the troops were withdrawn from Iraq... C.: After the elections. And... you see, you see... as soon as we declare human life to be a value greater than the state—and we always do—that is a very harsh, unpleasant truth! By doing so, we create a situation in which Beslans will be repeated endlessly. We simply have to be aware of that. We have to admit it honestly. That is not a reason for us to abandon this idea! I... believe that human life is just as great a value for the Russian authorities as it is for any other authorities, insofar as they are elected by the people and are democratic! However, as soon as we declare this fact, we make them vulnerable! Look: whom did the terrorists of the early last century shoot? They shot governors, ministers, tsars. Why? Because back then the murder of an ordinary person really meant nothing to that system. But the murder of a governor or a tsar could cause some kind of wave! Today... today terrorists seize schools. And that means there is no one who disputes the fact—including the terrorists themselves—that the most important thing there is, is the lives of ordinary people! (Applause.) K.: Have you seen Spielberg’s Munich? That film reveals the very legend of how Israeli intelligence did not negotiate and instead killed all the terrorists. It shows how it was done! As a result, even greater crimes were committed, even more innocent people died! And most importantly, it turned out that the athletes who died might have remained alive... and when they keep telling us: no negotiations with terrorists—and cite Israel as an example—today, despite all the toughness, we can see that it all continues... N: I feel we need to give the floor to Rabbi Avrom! Kh: Yes! No, but this is an endless argument, you understand! I only know one thing: if you cast aside a human life, which is given by God with all its rights, for tactical purposes, then there can be no talk of any democracy, or any democratic ideology! N: Dmitry Olshansky, your question! O: Yes, I have a question for Irina, which will smoothly turn into a question for Alexei. The question for Irina is this: in the 1990s, you personally, your like-minded allies, your party, the people who shared your values—you had everything politically. That is, the reform course would continue, as we know, right? And the main thing was that people believed in you. It wasn’t about the corridors of power! People believed, people went out and voted for the liberal force. Now none of that exists! Yes, even setting aside censorship, NTV, and everything else, people do not want to vote for liberal parties, they do not choose them. So I’m interested in how well you understand, whether you fully grasp the scale of the defeat, and who you think is to blame for it. And at the same time, a question for Alexei: right now, you and those you are working with also have everything, right? There is a certain mandate of trust, there are technologies, resources, and so on. Won’t it turn out that next time around, on the next cycle, you too—just like the liberals of the 1990s—will lose everything to Russian nationalism? (applause) Kh: Good question! A brief clarification: although I agree with Alexei, for the sake of giving a broader answer I’m ready to take collective responsibility, but you should understand that I joined the Union of Right Forces in 1999. Before that, I was not in any party leadership, I had no resources, I was a lone deputy, and then a minor minister for small business, where I wasn’t allowed to get a single decision through. But I do take collective responsibility for all democrats! Because there is no other way! O: Understood, yes. Universal responsibility? Kh: Well, you still have to answer challenges. Why did the democrats lose? They lost again historically, and this is a very serious defeat! And I think we will pay for it with bitter tears. We should have understood that you cannot lose like this! Why did we lose? The defeat began from the very start: the White House (the Russian parliament building shelled in 1993), the absence of social policy, manipulation in 1996 for the sake of victory through the media, appointing a successor not for the sake of preserving the family—these were all steps against the people and toward the destruction of democracy. So I agree that what is happening today is natural. It is the perfected model of what the democrats allowed to emerge spontaneously. The only thing that excuses them is: where were normal people supposed to come from? Eighty years of this Soviet mess! Well, they came out with some ideas, read some books, but in reality they had no sense of the people in their heads! The second reason, and the most important one, is that the people did not forgive them! They did not forgive the money they lost in 1991, or the deception; they did not forgive the shelling of parliament, they did not forgive the Chechen war, they did not forgive being spat on while freedom was used as a cover. Nothing is forgiven in history! The second mistake: liberals do not know how to talk to the people and do not know how to hear the people! They always think they know something the people do not. In reality, this is deep, fundamentally snobbish contempt for ordinary people! And in fact, people, under conditions of savage competition, learned to survive much faster than these politicians did. They needed to be listened to very carefully, and a common language had to be developed! But the parties really were cut off from the people! The third reason they lost: because, as you know, liberalism does not really presume ideology. And it is very hard to oppose these conservative, vulgar slogans, this grand false patriotism: we’ll beat them both, we’ll smash the heads of those Western, sellout democrats, and so on. It’s very hard to answer with equal charisma, to talk about human rights… Ch: Chubais could have done it—he had the right look for it! Kh: Yes, and that’s why he came up with it, right? He came up with the liberal empire. But it didn’t last long. Because that kind of thing never lasts. You have to be consistent, and you have to develop charismatic forms. Well, all of that came together, plus the wild administrative pressure after the Khodorkovsky case, because they defended him. That was very unpopular—rich people are hated in Russia, and deservedly so! But what can you do, there is such a thing as honor. Plus the disgraceful SPS election campaign! Disgraceful, right? All of that together—both the historical and the current factors—added up to defeat! Now, I think the first thing that must be done is, first of all, to admit what the mistakes were! Unfortunately, I’m the only one admitting them loudly; in reality, nobody says anything! Second: offer an alternative—how these mistakes are now going to be corrected, what to do about the collapse of 1991, how to fix the situation in Chechnya. Answer the simplest demands people have, without snobbery and abstract theories of democracy. And third: start everything over from the beginning! We need to go to the people, and wait, and build everything from the bottom up together with them, without hoping that someone from above—whether America or anyone else—will help this process! N: All right! Thank you. Alexei! Ch: My answer will be much shorter! Yes, we need to prepare to leave power! Political forces must know not only how to take power, not only how to exercise power, but also how to leave power. And how to be in opposition, and while in opposition to develop projects for the future. Yes, the system must be arranged in such a way that once they leave power, they can later return to it by proving to people in the next elections that they were right! I have no other answer. N: Thank you very much! The last question from the jury: Avrom Shmulevich, please, your question! (applause) Sh: I don’t want to, I didn’t want to talk about Israel in this hall. Irina forced me to… Of course, it takes a long time when two Jews get together. (shout from the audience: Louder!) I’ll say it, but in the second question. My first question is this: I observe events in Russia very much from the outside, you might say from above. And I get the impression that here, both the authorities and the people are rapidly becoming preoccupied with realizing the very ideologeme: Moscow is the Third Rome! But, as is well known, that phrase has a second part: Moscow is the Third Rome, and there will be no fourth. So it seems to me that the same thing is soon going to happen to the Third Rome that happened to the Second. We know what became of the Second Rome and what stands in its place now. It seems to me that Russia is a totally ungovernable country. That is, the authorities, Moscow, the notorious Garden Ring, are engaged in some kind of virtual chess game, while the regions live their own lives, so to speak, and the authorities have no real influence over what is happening in the country. There may be five or six people in the Kremlin making certain decisions, thinking about something, while everyone else carries out those decisions and meanwhile skims off various budgets. But since Russia is such an unhurried country, the Volga keeps flowing, everything moves slowly, somehow it doesn’t reach the regions. But since there are no real challenges, everything just keeps drifting along as it is. As soon as some external challenge appears, as in 1917, all of this will collapse. That is the opinion, the impression I have formed. And Alexei asked whether we have an opposition, whether Russia has an opposition capable of governing the country. So my question to both participants is: does Russia have a government, and has there been such a government since 1991—or maybe even since 1951—that can, or could, govern the country? That is the first question… N: To both participants? Sh: Yes, to both participants… let’s decide whether to answer that first, or should I ask the second one too: Kh: Whether in history there has been… Sh: Has there been in Russian history, and is there in Russia right now, a government that can govern the country? And in general, do you think Russia is a governable country at all, by anyone? N: Let’s have a short answer to that question! Irina! Kh: So: there has not been a single democratic government that could have made the country prosperous and great from the point of view of democratic values! There. And as for this Third Rome position, I agree with you: unfortunately, it is the dominant subtext. Such a government may arise, and I think it will arise in the near future. But it still will not create governability, because bureaucracy in a large country, together with these false ideologemes, will not be able to cope with the country. N: Alexei, a short answer to the question: has there been, since 1951, a government capable of governing the country? Ch: My answer personally to Rabbi Avrom: you know, when the outstanding Russian philosopher Alexander Pyatigorsky came to Jerusalem, he went to see a rabbi. The rabbi, who lived in Jerusalem but originally came from Malakhovka (a town near Moscow), fed him sour cabbage soup and said: here, this is sour cabbage soup, there is absolutely no pork in it… Pyatigorsky, who usually ate whatever he was given, suddenly clutched his head and said: you know, Rebbe, I am such a bad Jew! (shouts from the audience: Me too!) And the rabbi answered him: you know, Alexander, God has no good Jews. So just as God has no good Jews, Russia most likely has no good governments. But that does not mean one should be a bad government! N: All right, second question, Avrom, please! Sh: The second question is this: Irina mentioned Israel, and I don’t know why she mentioned Munich, and… so. When the Israeli government really adhered to the principle of not negotiating with terrorists—although that is often difficult, unpopular, and looks bad on television—there was no terrorism in Israel! (laughter in the audience) By 1991, terrorism in Israel, by the beginning of the Oslo process, had practically died down. Then the government pulled Arafat out of oblivion and began negotiations with terrorist organizations. We have what we have now—even yesterday there was a rocket… N: Avrom. Your question! Sh: One moment, I’ll continue. This is an incorrect statement, but why did it happen? David Hume, in the first volume of his History of the House of Stuart, wrote that any government based on universal suffrage can only—any system can only—degrade. We see that in Russia, quite a number of models have been tried since 1991, but the country, it seems to me, is rapidly sliding into the abyss! And clearly, Russia differs somewhat from all the other CIS countries: in all the others, all models of government have been implemented. They are not… in Turkmenistan, in the Caucasus, under Lukashenko, they are not pretending to play democracy. There… (shouts in the hall: Glory to Russia!) Lukashenko built something very princely… what was always the Grand Duchy of Poland-Lithuania, in Central Asia they built various khanates, Ukrainian districts basically reproduce the model that… that was there originally. (from the audience: Glory to Russia!) Only Russia is playing games, building a democracy that never existed in the country. Isn’t it time to return to those models, to the only successful model of government that existed in Russia over its thousand-year history: a rigid hierarchical system, with an aristocracy, practically a monarchy. We see that no other system works in Russia and the country is simply falling apart at high speed. N: All right. The question is clear. Irina, restoration of the monarchy? A short answer! Kh: Restoration of the monarchy. Short answer. Monarchy is an enormous historical tradition, and if you interrupted it—and did so bloodily, not just that the monarch left the country, but the whole family was shot, and then people lived under communists—you cannot restore that tradition! And if you appoint any ordinary civilian as monarch, no one will believe in him. Nor will there be a proper person corresponding to the role. Second, if you are a modern person, if you are a scholar to any degree, then you understand that constitutional monarchy in modern democratic states, in those models, the royal court does not at all contradict the development of democracy. It does not contradict it—in England, or anywhere… I spoke with the heir to the Spanish throne, and he said: we help the development of democracy. And you know what happened after Franco and how the monarchy consolidated the country in Spain. So everyone has their own model and their own path. I emphasized from the very beginning: there is no need to copy anyone else’s experience, no need to invent a square bicycle. We only need to understand that in the global world, only democratic states—even imperfect ones, because democracy cannot be perfect—are still the most effective and the most successful. Russia has a right to that! It has the right to look to the future, not to trample around in the past. And it will prove it! N: Thank you! Alexei? Ch: As for monarchy… recently George Bush said he would like to see his brother as his successor. It’s interesting what they would have done to Putin if he had said that some relative of his would be his successor. Do you know who is running against Bush from the Democrats? Hillary Clinton. It’s like the tale of the Seven Underground Kings: some sleep, lulled by dead water, while others rule, and then they сменяются… In other words, in practice, in democratic systems the president increasingly plays the role of an elected uncrowned monarch! And the role of presidential elections is not so much a democratic procedure as a kind of oath of loyalty. In that sense, we have much more democracy. In that sense, because in our presidential elections the real agenda is discussed, not the question of which of these parties will win. N: All right, thank you very much to our participants! And now we move on to the final round… Round IV N: And now we move on to the final round: questions from the audience! I ask the participants to listen carefully; at the end, you will have to award a prize for the best question. Raise your hands, come closer to the microphone! All right, please! Short question! Keep the questions short and to the point! Ilya: Hello, my name is Ilya, and here I will represent, so to speak, the worshippers of power even more than usual… So. My question is this. I am very glad that at last, from Irina Khakamada, we have heard a clear concept of what is essentially ideological democracy. Democracy is a system of total distrust. Kh: Of power… I: Total distrust, especially of power. Kh: I said: distrust of power! I: Distrust of power! Very good, simply wonderful! But then… N: The question! I: One moment. If that is so, then what is the point of any democratic procedures if distrust of power is assumed from the outset? Kh: I’ll answer! If you do not trust the authorities, but authority is still necessary, then democratic procedures are needed in order for trust to arise. It will not be endless: if the authorities do not justify that trust, they will be voted out. But in a monarchy, you trust the royal family no matter what it does. N: All right, thank you! Next question, please! Young man: Uh, a question for Irina. Irina, I just ask you not to answer it in a banal way, but really think about it. Kh: We’ll see how it goes. Y.M.: Irina, are you planning to grow out a braid? Kh: No! Y.M.: Thank you, and continuing that theme, if I may… the Ukrainian events and so on. Kh: What? (shout from the audience: What’s the question?) Y.M.: Are you planning to grow out a braid? Kh: I said: no! (laughter in the hall) A non-banal answer. N: All right, next question! Pavlov: Yury Pavlov, human rights defender and Christian anarchist. My question is this: I don’t give a damn about any authority whatsoever. If that authority, during the rule of the democrats and under the current rule of our dear Putin, has failed to provide me with the most important thing: a court elected by citizens! Which, of course, should have been guaranteed under our constitution by virtue of office… N: The question? P: Second: there is no civic local self-government with real power! None of the democrats, none of those currently in power, even raise these issues; moreover, they obstruct the implementation of these specific things through legislation… N: Your question! P: The question! The concrete question: the right to a freely elected court and the right to civic local self-government! In your view, when will Russia finally stop talking about a democracy of distrust and start a democracy of deeds? N: The question is clear. Irina, let’s start with you. Kh: I’ve already answered all these questions! I admit the mistakes! (shout: There was no answer… no answer!) Oh, stop yelling! The main thing for you is to voice your political slogan… I said: when 1% of the population wants to fight for these rights. N: Understood. Alexei, a short answer to that question! When will you finally get down to business? To some of these problems, at least. Ch: Alexander Hamilton wrote to Benjamin Franklin: rights are not given! Rights are taken! Kh: Exactly! N: What are you calling for, please tell us? Kh: Go and take them. N: Next question, please! Roman: Hello, my name is Roman, and I have a question for Irina: you came to power in the early 1990s and until recently you were still, after all, in power. But every time when you read or speak, you say you were always prevented from doing things, you admit your mistakes, but there is still no result. Are you doing everything possible to create distrust of power, including distrust of yourself? So that everything either passes or doesn’t pass, is that it? Kh: You… if… let me explain again: distrust is a model in which there are instruments that ensure trust! As the previous speaker correctly said, if there are independent courts and fair elections, they allow the people to express their will. If they are unhappy with the cabinet, they remove it. That is precisely why I supported a parliamentary republic: to emphasize that the people who elect the majority parties should appoint the cabinet. Otherwise, with us it turns out like this: the president says one thing—what a bad government—and the government says it’s not our fault, it’s the president. And the squabbling begins. So, in a system of distrust, there are instruments! … N: Thank you. A question from the gallery, louder! (a young woman wants to ask a question; the hall shouts: Glory to Russia! She says: shut up…) Young woman: I had a question about the art of Yury Shevchuk. In his song about revolution there is a line: “There is something in democracy that is unpleasant to touch with your hand.” What do you think that line means? (again the hall shouts “Glory to Russia,” Navalny asks the audience to hold on for another fifteen minutes) And a second question right away for Irina Khakamada, a worldview question: is it possible to be both a democrat and a samurai? Because when I read this book, I got the impression that it was completely undemocratic… and that doesn’t seem unimportant… N: Understood. Irina, let’s start with the second one: is it possible to be both a democrat and a samurai? Did I repeat that correctly? Kh: The institution of the samurai was destroyed in its time, and a return to it is impossible anywhere. But the samurai had a certain stage, certain principles of action: the conduct of a soldier who is loyal to his master, who follows his master and defends his interests. From that point of view, if you separate history from character, then it is possible to be both a democrat and a samurai. For that, it is enough to fight for democratic values even when it threatens your personal safety and your life. That is, not to fear death, to be ready to die in advance, and then to go all the way! N: The answer is clear. Alexei? Will you answer as a samurai? Ch: The question was for Irina… N: All right. The first question was about the words: “There is something in democracy that is unpleasant to touch with your hand.” To what extent do you feel that is true for you? Let’s start with Alexei. Briefly! Ch: Churchill said it best. His famous quote—I don’t even need to repeat it—about democracy being the worst of all possible systems, except for all the others. N: Irina? Kh: If we answer on an intuitive level, then I suggest you try living in Saudi Arabia, as a young woman. Then you’ll understand how pleasant it is to touch things there with your hand. (applause) N: Next question, please! Tatyana: Hello, I have one question for each of you. Irina Mutsuovna, a question for you: I haven’t read your book yet, but I did catch one phrase in it: “Because in Russia nothing will ever happen!” That’s cynicism! But I caught it at the end… Kh: No, I’m not going to answer based on a phrase snatched out of context! There’s a lot around it and after it… T: Fine! Sorry… N: Yes, a question for Alexei! T: Returning to your discussion about the place of women in politics, do you really think democracy is the democracy of the white man? The white male, sorry, I misspoke… Ch: People here criticize Islamic countries a lot. Let me tell you a short story: once there was a contest on Iranian television for the model Iranian family. One family won, and they interview the wife. She says: I obey my husband in everything, he decides all the important matters, and I decide all the unimportant, secondary ones. They ask her: what do you decide? Well, where we live, what we eat, where we work, where the children study, and so on. The reporter turns pale and says: so then, what are the important matters? Well, who will be the next prime minister, when there will be a war with Israel, and so on and so forth. In other words, it turns out that women are far from always fighting for the places from which they can actually exercise real power. In fact, I did not choose the example of ancient Greece by accident, because there had only recently been a matriarchy there, and only recently people still thought that bearing and raising children—and thus the future of the people, their survival—were issues more important than taxes and roads. N: Thank you! Next question! Young woman: In the conditions of the modern world, when all states defend their interests, and rather aggressively, is a democratic state—truly democratic—viable, in your view? Please, no quotations, just your own opinion. N: Alexei, please! A short answer. Y.W.: I’m asking both of you. N: Alexei first, then Irina, please! Ch: Look, today all totalitarian regimes are living practically in trenches, in hard defense. Democracies, on the contrary, run around like that wolf in the saying—eating and listening to nobody. It is democracies that are on the offensive today, so the question is: who is viable? N: Irina? Kh: I believe that if Russia wants to be truly a major player on the world stage, then it can do so a) not through violence, b) not through nuclear weapons—nuclear weapons are needed to maintain balance, not to demonstrate strength, because that is a dangerous thing—and c) through super-efficient economics directed above all toward attracting human potential. And for the economy to be effective, human potential must be involved in political decision-making. When the people are pushed aside and told: we’ll decide for you, and you just work!—Russia will never be an effective country! So to involve a person not only in arranging his own life, not only so that he earns a salary and has personal success, but to give a person the opportunity to participate in political decision-making—that is democracy! Y.W.: But then we have the example of the United States, where there is an effective economy, a country that earns… N: Thank you very much! Kh: It achieved that through democracy! But now it is going to collapse soon! And if it collapses… (applause, shouts of “Bravo!”) N: Thank you! Last question! Kirill: My name is Kirill, and I have a question for both participants! Let us imagine a democratic government in power, facing its first election. At the same time, all public opinion polls and analysis of the situation show that as a result of the next election, a political movement will come to power that will abolish democracy in the country. The question is: what should the government do? Kh: It should take such steps during the election campaign that the majority of people vote for democracy and vote against its opponents, and there is no other method in democracy! But if we start banning those parties that are not democratic, silencing them and putting them in prison, then all of that will go underground, and in the end that government will still be swept away. And it will happen bloodily, through civil war. N: Alexei, answer that question? Ch: There are different mechanisms! Do you know where, for example, the institution of public chambers was invented? Do you think it was in Russia? Nothing of the sort—it was invented in France. And it was invented for one single purpose at the time: so that if the communists won a majority in parliament, it would not lead to fundamental changes in the political system, the country’s political orientation, and so on. In other words: democracy is a procedure! There is a well-known statement to that effect. And if we translate it into modern language, it means that democracy is institutions! And the task is to ensure that the institutions themselves protect the system from any extremist parties, from any kind of majority, and so on. Kh: But those institutions must be independent! Formed independently! I would applaud if today’s Public Chamber were elected on the Internet! Today’s Public Chamber—the first forty people were signed in by the president’s own hand! (applause) Appointed. Like some regional party boss managing society while demonstrating a kind of democracy to it. Parliament has already been bought off completely, it means absolutely nothing anymore! And there is only this dreary impression that nobody wants to vote for it! More than that: it makes such wild mistakes that the authorities themselves get stuck in a complete mess, because nobody here controls them! That is precisely the system of distrust. They themselves have run headfirst into a heap of problems, excuse me. And now they have appointed a chamber into which they included many honest people, including people like you, so that you might correct them a little, but all of this is nonsense of the highest order! It is a demonstration of complete helplessness, in reality a barricading-off from the people! A chamber through voting… Ch: Read that Frenchman… (Chadayev interrupts her, Khakamada tries to argue, but the noise in the hall drowns everything out) Kh: Don’t quote Frenchmen or anyone else to me… Ch: But read… Kh: Yes! No. Democracy is universal! (applause) Democracy is universal, but democracy always has a national model. Given Russia’s totalitarian past, Russia has only one path: not to copy democratic France, but to create a maximally independent civic institution! N: Thank you! We will conclude. Thank you very much to our participants; now we will move on to summing up the results! I remind you that under our rules we have three levels of voting: the jury vote, the audience vote, and the Internet vote! The first vote: the jury! We ask our jury to think everything over once again and now vote for the person—not whose position you agree with in principle, but who was more convincing in today’s debate. Please! Dear friends, please quiet down a bit! Jury, raise the card of the person who won! Khakamada! (All the jury members raise Khakamada’s card; Ruslan hesitates, but also raises Khakamada’s. The audience applauds!) Please, dear jury members, just a couple of words: why unanimously? Just two words from each of you. Oleg? Yes, why Khakamada? Kozyrev: Because Irina presented her own position, while Alexei presented Churchill’s position. N: All right, please, Sergei, why Khakamada? Varshavchik: In fact, I want to say that both opponents were convincing and it was genuinely a pleasure to watch the level of discussion and political culture. But still, Irina Mutsuovna is the more experienced fighter, and she was more convincing, more precise, and today she was, as Oleg rightly said, speaking more from herself. N: Okay, thank you! Ruslan, why Khakamada, and why did you think so long? Ruslan: First of all, you said: not whose position you share, but who. N: Who won the debate! R: If you had said that, I would have raised Chadayev, because he is closer to me in spirit: you have to work, not write books. You are not bringing the truth to the people. Kh: You have to do everything! Work and write books. Writing books is work too. R: Sure. But 25,000 copies—that’s not 1%, right? Kh: 75. R: Still not 1%. Kh: Maybe it’ll be 100. R: Well, when it is… Kh: Maybe even 200. R: Well, then I’ll raise both hands. Kh: Wait, I disagree! You can’t talk to people only about politics; people want to talk. R: I talked to you about sex today. N: Excellent! Dmitry, why Khakamada? Olshansky: Although the substance of the arguments and statements was much closer to me, and seemed more interesting and deeper, in Alexei’s case—with whom I agree on many things—debate as a genre is a stage genre, in which brightness, sharpness, and force matter, the way criticism manifests itself in reasoning. What Alexei did was more like a sensible argument with a bureaucrat than a conversation with an audience. Of course, Irina, as the more experienced politician, does that much better. N: Thank you! Avrom, why Khakamada? Sh: Because it was simply a work of art, not a speech. N: Thank you! (applause, noise in the hall) Dear colleagues, you all know that at all our debates the audience has presented surprises, so… those who have cards now vote with cards, those who do not have cards vote with their hands…