The Morning Overview”episode of December 5, 2017. Alexei Navalny’s strategy for the 2018 presidential election

Navalny has just arrived. If you have questions for him: +7 985 970 45 45, or the Twitter account @vyzvon. Good morning, Alexei!

Good morning!

Thanks for making it out to us so early. I’ll definitely ask about Samara and about everything else you’ve been up to. But there are some questions people are asking more than anything else. The election is getting closer. Every day brings us nearer. And people are asking: what should your supporters do—those who back you, those who are trying to get you registered—if you’re not allowed to run? Is there some kind of plan?

It’s no surprise they’re asking. This question is on a lot of people’s minds. And the plan is very simple, Alexander, and dear radio listeners, YouTube viewers, and everyone else. If I’m not allowed onto the ballot, then we should vote for another candidate who has set up 81 campaign offices, recruited 190,000 volunteers, and has been running an election campaign for a year. If you can name me such a candidate, we’ll go vote for him. If we don’t see such a candidate in the election, then we should treat these elections as “elections” in quotation marks and not take part in them, because the civic duty of every decent person will be to boycott them and make sure no one goes, so that taking part becomes shameful. Because elections are, after all, about political position; they’re about voting for a political force. I’ve spent a whole year honestly running a political campaign. If the Kremlin doesn’t let me run, despite the fact that I have every legal and moral right to do so, then of course people should not take part in these elections.

All right, but let’s say nobody goes—what do we get then?

That’s a false alternative. Let’s suppose we do go—what do we get then? We get nothing. I agree that an election boycott is not some super-successful strategy. It’s quite hard to measure. It’s hard to say how many people are just lying on the couch and how many are actually boycotting. But still, this isn’t a question of rational calculation; it’s a question of morality and ethics: do we want, and do we have the right, to participate in a procedure from which a candidate has been excluded? If we do participate, then essentially we approve—or, well, not approve exactly, but accept—the Kremlin’s position, which says, especially to the listeners of Echo of Moscow (a well-known independent Russian radio station): “Guys, you’ve got this candidate who’s getting too full of himself, traveling around the regions, holding rallies, and we’ve decided that no, you can’t vote for someone like that, because he’s dangerous for us. We’ll find you another one.” If we go to these elections, we’ll be agreeing with that position. So yes, there’s nothing wonderful about a boycott; it’s not the most beautiful strategy, but we’ll have no choice except to declare these elections indecent.

Am I right in understanding that as soon as it becomes clear—once the final list of approved candidates is closed—and you’re not on it, you’ll begin a large-scale boycott campaign using all the resources you have in cities, villages, Moscow, and so on?

Exactly right. It will be an active campaign. I think it will be a more significant campaign than those of all the other candidates, because we can see they’re barely doing anything. We’ll use our offices and our volunteers to inflict maximum political damage on this government through a boycott: telling everyone how unfair and wrong these elections are, and that they were designed solely so that Putin would not just be re-elected, but re-elected as comfortably as possible. Well then, let him at least be re-elected uncomfortably. We can see from all these insider reports published by newspapers about meetings between deputy governors and the presidential administration that turnout matters a lot to them; it matters that people still go vote. Yes, nothing catastrophic will happen to them if turnout is low, but it will still be unpleasant for them. And that’s what we’ll be working on.

To cause maximum discomfort.

Discomfort—and political damage.

Levada (an independent Russian polling organization), I think, is forecasting 60% now—58%.

I think that will be a difficult task for them. In the 2012 election they had 65%, and getting 60% now will be hard for them. But we’ll work on making sure that if I’m not allowed to run, as few people as possible go.

How did that absolutely spectacular story in Samara end? We talked about it yesterday and spent a lot of time on your adventure.

It really was an adventure in Samara. “Adventure” is a great word for it. Because we had a court ruling... It was very interesting, because when I went to the rally, I literally had the writ of execution in my pocket.

Was that a first?

The first time in my life...

By the way, why do you think the courts suddenly acted like that? It’s not typical of them, is it?

It’s not typical of Russia in general.

An honest court in Samara?

Yes, apparently some honest judge turned up in Samara. In Pskov, for example, we won all our court cases. There are a few regions—very few—and very few judges who rule in our favor, but they do exist. In Samara it happened in the clearest possible way. We won in the first instance and the second instance, and they gave us an enforcement order that basically said: “Go and hold this rally.” So we went and held it. Naturally, the regional and city administration can’t just give in to us like that. The pensioner who was the formal applicant was already taken to the police yesterday. They’re drawing up some kind of case materials against him.

Did they make any claims against you, apart from what happened before your flight...?

It was pretty funny when I was already leaving Samara. The police stopped me—a fairly substantial group of them. They filmed me with several cameras and said, “Give us an explanation.” I said, “In connection with what?” They said, “First, you held the rally without authorization.” I said, “No, not without authorization.” “Second, you insulted Putin... And third, you yourself turned off the sound equipment.” I said that I had acted in accordance with the court ruling, and that yes, I do consider Putin a thief and a corrupt official. They shuffled around a bit and then said, “So you don’t want to give an explanation?” I said, “I don’t.” And they were suddenly all cheerful: “Well then, go on. Fine.” The main thing was for me to leave Samara as quickly as possible.

The head of your federal campaign, Leonid Volkov, is currently under arrest. Do you think it’s possible that under some pretext they’ll keep trying to block your ability to meet voters? Under any pretext, they could arrest you too.

Not only do I think it’s possible—it’s a very likely development. As we can see, administrative case files of unclear origin have now been drawn up against Roman Rubanov, the director of the ACF (Anti-Corruption Foundation), and Volkov’s deputy. Also against Ivan Zhdanov, the organization’s chief lawyer. Volkov is gone, so the burden has shifted to them. Now the same kind of case has been prepared against them. They can arrest them, and they can arrest me. This weekend I’m going to Barnaul, Kaliningrad, and Novokuznetsk. I understand that they really, really don’t want me going there. And in general, they really don’t want me running a real election campaign, because it stands in stark contrast to everything the other candidates are doing. So I think they’ll use their favorite and main tactic—simply locking you up.

Given that, might it make sense to scale back or even stop this activity and focus on, so to speak, trying not to get hauled off?

Then what would be the point of an election campaign? For us, these regional trips are an essential matter of principle. Because I’ll go to Novokuznetsk, in Kemerovo Region, and everyone thinks no opposition in Novokuznetsk could ever gather more than 20, 30, 50—well, maybe 100 people at most for a rally. But I know for a fact I’ll gather more, even though once again they’ve given us some far-flung edge of the city. It’s very important for us to show ourselves, the authorities, and the people of Russia that the opposition—and I in particular—has real support in the regions, and that it is very substantial. You can argue whether 700, 1,200, or 1,500 people came to a given rally, but the fact remains: these are the biggest political rallies held in those cities. If we don’t do them, then what exactly is the election campaign?

A. Navalny: I agree that an election boycott is not some super-successful strategy

Inna asks: how do you explain your high negative rating?

My negative rating is very easy to explain. On television they say I’m an American agent, that I stole all the timber, and everything else. For many, many years—really, quite actively since 2008, when I started suing state corporations—the propaganda machine has been smearing me with varying intensity. For the last two years it’s generally been forbidden to mention me at all. But if we remember 2011, 2012, 2013, I was the main character on TV programs, and they were constantly telling everyone how awful I was. That can’t leave no trace. It affects some people. Pensioners sit there watching television—it’s their only source of information. And there they’re told that I’m terrible...

But surely rallies alone can’t reverse that situation, with all due respect to the people who come.

It can be changed. In fact, rallies and meetings are the only way to do it. I can’t influence pensioners through YouTube. But when a pensioner sees that rally out the window, or a neighbor tells them about it, or a grandson, or anyone else says, “Navalny came here to Samara. And actually, can you imagine, I saw it with my own eyes—several thousand people were standing there.” And the pensioner understands that this is their neighbor, Aunt Lyuba...

Do pensioners come to the rallies?

Quite a lot of them do. It’s completely wrong to think it’s only schoolkids... There are lots of school and university students, and I’m proud that they come. But we also have quite a lot of older and middle-aged people. Alexander was at the rally in Orenburg, so he won’t let me lie. People of all ages come. Of course, we do skew toward a younger audience, because we work and spread information through the internet—that’s our only option.

You’re criticized from the other side too.

A. Navalny: For us, these regional trips are an essential matter of principle

From all sides, constantly...

People say that by trying to get yourself registered for the election and take part in it, you’re trying to become part of the system instead of dismantling it. That’s, roughly speaking, Garry Kasparov’s position at the forum in Vilnius. And representatives of the ACF were there too. Ashurkov was there, and someone else came from Moscow.

Vladimir Ashurkov was there. He represented not only the ACF, but our position in general.

That brings me to the question. We’ll have to break for two minutes, but YouTube continues, and we’ll continue answering it there. A little teaser for the viewers. What do you think about that? And how do you answer it? Because maybe, really, it doesn’t make sense to play by the rules of crooks—the people you call crooks and thieves. The answer in a few seconds on YouTube.

ADVERTISEMENT

What do you generally think of people abroad, who left for various reasons—many for very understandable ones, since they were persecuted here—and who from time to time gather there and tell us how we should fight Putin, how you should fight Putin, how everyone should fight Putin, and how Russia should be organized in general?

I’m fine with it. There are several people within our own structure who were forced to emigrate because criminal cases were fabricated against them. So I’m perfectly fine with it. Many people who gather at foreign forums talk all kinds of nonsense, and it’s amazing to listen to. Then again, plenty of people sitting here talk the same kind of nonsense. That’s normal political discussion. It should always exist—an endless repetition of the same things. Before every election we discuss the same questions. But that’s normal, that’s natural, it happens in every country. So I have no particular prejudice against those who fight Putin from abroad. Well, let them fight, as long as they do something useful.

Before we continue with election topics: a momentous decision is expected today. The IOC Executive Board will finally announce whether the Russian team will go to the Olympics or not. As a politician and a sports fan, what decision are you hoping for?

Of course I would like the Russian team to go—not only because I want the Russian team to go, but also because if it doesn’t, that will be a huge gift to Putin. The entire election campaign will be built around it. There will be endless hand-wringing: “Look, Europe and America dope too, but only we are being banned, and therefore we must rally around the national leader.” It would be a huge, enormous gift to Vladimir Putin. It seems to me they want Russia to be barred from the Olympics in one form or another, so they have another reason to feel insulted and offended by the whole world.

Our Crimean blogger Alexander Gorny, who writes for the Echo of Moscow website...

I sometimes read his posts.

He asks: you travel around Russian regions. He considers Crimea a Russian region. And the Russian Constitution considers it one too. Will you go to Crimea?

It’s not exactly that I travel around Russian regions—I do, but only where there’s an opportunity to hold a rally. For example, I’d very much like to get to cities in the south: Krasnodar, Stavropol, Rostov-on-Don. I haven’t held a single rally there, because everything is completely shut down.

[inaudible] Makhachkala.

Makhachkala. You’re smiling, Alexander, but you wouldn’t believe the huge stream of letters we get from Dagestan and even from Chechnya.

You can also see it from the truckers, by the way, because they’re there...

That’s despite your “Stop Feeding the Caucasus” slogan?

A. Navalny: They want Russia barred from the Olympics so they have another reason to feel offended

Yes, and what about it? “Stop Feeding the Caucasus” means stop feeding the corrupt Caucasian elites. People in the Caucasus live in far greater poverty than even central Russia, which is itself totally impoverished. The injustice, corruption, and lawlessness there are much worse, but it’s not even remotely possible to conduct any activity there, so right now all my trips are connected only with places where, through the courts or private venues or some other surprising means, we have an opportunity to speak. Again, I’m going to Novokuznetsk, Kaliningrad, and Barnaul. All cities under one million people. And I still haven’t covered the million-plus cities. They won’t let us in. Kazan, Ufa—they won’t let us in. Without exaggeration, there are thousands...

What do you mean, “they won’t let you in”?

“They won’t let us in” means that, without any grounds whatsoever, in complete lawless fashion, they simply refuse to approve our rallies at all—flat refusals, absolutely illegal, but there’s nothing you can do about it. Without exaggeration, thousands of applications have been submitted. At best they give you approval like this: “Come on Monday at 10 a.m. to the local cemetery, and hold your rally there.”

Let’s get back to Crimea. So, will you go to Crimea?

We aren’t conducting any operational activity in Crimea, because it’s simply impossible in principle there, just as it is in Chechnya, because the pressure from the security services is so intense that it’s just impossible... To be honest, I read your Gorny, and I don’t understand how they still haven’t opened a criminal case against him in Crimea, because he’s very much “Crimea is ours, Crimea is ours,” but his position toward the Crimean authorities is fairly critical, so it may yet fall to the radio station staff to write letters in his support...

That’s one opinion. But Valera asks: “Why doesn’t Navalny admit his mistakes?”

Which mistakes, for example? I don’t just admit them—I regret them deeply. The main thing I regret now is that I didn’t make all these regional trips back in 2011 and 2012. That was when it needed to be done. I should have started even earlier—my election campaign. I started it a year in advance, and everyone said, “My God, he started a year ahead! Is he crazy? Who starts a year ahead in Russia?” But I understand now that I should have started two years ahead. Back in 2011 and 2012, all this YouTube stuff and everything else seemed like nonsense to me, just entertainment. That was when I should have started doing it—or maybe even earlier. I very much regret the mistakes I made.

People are bringing it back to the election and asking, first of all, why are you against people going to vote and taking their ballot home, and against people going and spoiling their ballot?

If you go to the election, take the ballot home, spoil it—it still affects turnout. You came, you registered in the book—that’s it, the Kremlin doesn’t need anything more from you. You can spoil the ballot, you can burn it, you can write “Navalny” on it in red marker. You’re already counted in turnout, and in fact Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin is asking nothing more of you. That’s the first point. And second: there have been many ballot-spoiling campaigns—Boris Nemtsov’s “Nakh-Nakh” campaign was the most famous—and many campaigns to take ballots home. These are always campaigns with a small number of participants, less than 1%. We haven’t seen a single campaign where more than 1% took part.

We’ve got a couple of minutes of ads now. Everything continues on YouTube. After that, I hope Alexei Navalny won’t refuse, as is traditional, to take a look at the weather forecast.