BBC interview with Alexei Navalny

Alexei Navalny, one of the leaders of the Moscow protests and an anti-corruption campaigner, told the BBC in an interview what examples Russia should follow in its development, why he calls on people to attend the "Russian March," and whether he is ready to work in government. According to Navalny, although democratic change in Russia will take a long time, Putin and his supporters will be able to "preserve the system of power" for no more than another year and a half. On democracy in Russia BBC: Alexei Navalny: Turning Russia into a normal democratic country, where power is always chosen through fair democratic elections, will require a process and a long period of time. Right now, we are talking about having the first genuinely fair elections since the early 1990s announced. Vladimir Putin will, of course, delay that date as much as possible. However, given his rapidly declining popularity, I do not think that Vladimir Putin and his inner circle will be able to preserve the system of power in the form they have built it for more than another year and a half. BBC: Do you call yourself a democrat? A.N.: Of course, I see Russia as part of Europe. Of course, I believe that the European path of development is entirely natural for Russia. This is our choice, and it is the choice of the Russian people, no matter how much Putin and his entourage try to prove otherwise. Of course, Russia must become a democratic country. The problem is that when we talk about a set of democratic values, everyone supports them completely. But when some group of people appears and calls themselves democrats and liberals, everyone says: "Right, we get it — you're all former Communist Party officials from the 1990s who stole all the property while calling yourselves democrats to do it." Of course, we promote a completely democratic set of values. Nevertheless, the mainstream of the opposition movement should not carry ideological labels and clichés. BBC: In Russia, one often hears talk of the country's "special path," of how Western democracy does not suit Russian realities. Do you agree? A.N.: I find such talk insulting and humiliating for our country. And it greatly irritates me when some Russian politicians try to prove that the people of Russia are somehow not fully fit for democracy. I am absolutely convinced that Russia is part of Europe. And of course, it would be foolish to claim that Russia is structured exactly like Britain or the Netherlands. Of course not — Russia is a much more conservative country, with its own history. And obviously, we will always have certain distinctive features. But we see equally distinctive features in Britain compared with the rest of Europe. We also see that Europe is not homogeneous. And the democracies that exist in the Western world are quite different from one another as well. But I am absolutely convinced that the basic direction of the path — namely, building a European-style democracy — is the only correct path for Russia. And I am sure that Russia's citizens fully share this position. On Navalny the politician BBC: How do you define yourself? Are you a politician? An anti-corruption campaigner? A.N.: These days people mostly call me a politician, but my main area of interest and my main occupation remains investigating corruption in state-controlled companies. The problem is that corruption is the very foundation of the political system created by Vladimir Putin. So a person engaged in fighting corruption is, by definition, engaged in politics. The political sphere, and the opposition political sphere in particular, was virtually destroyed by the Kremlin. Some opposition politicians were bought off, some were intimidated, and so on. That is why the people who remain are quite visible, myself included. BBC: A.N.: The role of the non-systemic opposition figure who is eternally dissatisfied and eternally opposed to everything was simply imposed by the corrupt Kremlin. We all need to understand that we may dislike the authorities, but we must respect them. And if you do not like the authorities, then you should try to change them and become part of that authority yourself. Of course, one must fight for leadership positions, enter that power through legal procedures: elections, representative democracy, participation in the courts, and so on. A situation has now emerged in which power has been completely usurped by certain groups. And a huge number of people — politicians, activists, anyone at all — have been thrown somewhere outside this little "Kremlin paradise." This is completely wrong; it cannot be the foundation of a country. Sooner or later, it will change. And we will all operate within normal democratic procedures; we will all disagree with one another, we will all compete with one another, but it will be on a single platform with normal, fair rules. ***BBC: *Were you prepared for the fact that you personally would come under attack? A.N.: I understood perfectly well that our task was to make life difficult for these people, these crooks who are robbing our country. And naturally, they are trying to make life more difficult for me. So the growing pressure from the Kremlin shows that I am acting relatively effectively, and that my work is genuinely causing them damage. On the protesters' next steps BBC: Has Moscow reached the limit in terms of the number of dissatisfied people? Is around 100,000 people in the streets the maximum? A.N.: If you had asked me six months ago whether I believed 100,000 people would take to the streets, I would have said: "Yes, I do, and we're working toward that." But I would have been quite skeptical that 100,000 people would come out in the next two months. Nevertheless, it happened. It came as a big surprise, including to the Russian opposition. I would say that no one is organizing the protests taking place now. And the people, including people like me, who stand on stage during these rallies are not controlling this wave; they are standing on the crest of it, largely by chance. It seems to me that Vladimir Putin is driving people into the streets through his blatant and obvious falsifications. So it all depends on him. The March 4 election will obviously be rigged. But if the level of fraud is as irritating and obvious to people as it was in December, then I think many more people could come out into the streets. ***BBC: *How will your supporters act after the election, which Putin will most likely win? A.N.: The struggle must continue. Putin's [government] is now an illegitimate government. The party that supports him won its majority in the State Duma through falsification, and that is obvious to everyone. Vladimir Putin will appoint himself president through a corrupt, illegitimate, and fraudulent procedure. The task is to increase street protest; the task is to conduct campaigning in such a way as to force Vladimir Putin's corrupt власти to announce fair, free elections in which he, too, may be able to take part. ***BBC: *Are you really an aggressive person? Because you attack the authorities aggressively. ***A.N.: ***Anger is the right word. We really are furious; we are enraged. I am trying to prove to everyone that corruption is not something abstract and detached, but concrete money that was stolen from you, stolen from your children. I call on all my readers and all citizens to take everything happening in the country personally. And when we say that yet another official or yet another oil or gas oligarch has bought the most expensive property in London, that means that this money was in fact stolen from Russia's citizens. When we see that all property in Britain worth more than one million pounds is being bought by Russian officials, I explain to people that this money was stolen from them. This corruption is not something stolen from everyone in general; it is stolen specifically from you. You and your children are being robbed; your future is being stolen. On taking part in the "Russian March" BBC: A.N.: Here again we are talking about the problem of ideological brands, labels, and clichés. When people say "nationalism," it immediately evokes negative associations. The truth is that when we talk about the so-called nationalist agenda, we are talking about real, existing problems. Russia ranks second in the number of illegal immigrants, Russia ranks first in the world in heroin consumption, which is brought in by uncontrolled migrants, and Russia has enormous problems in the North Caucasus, which has essentially ceased to be part of Russia. Russians are the largest divided people in Europe. These are real problems that we must discuss. And my participation in events traditionally attended only by nationalists, and not by people from liberal or democratic movements, stems from my saying that we must not leave discussion of these crucial issues exclusively to marginal politicians. Either democratic and liberal politicians will look for answers to these crucial questions, which concern absolutely all citizens of our country, or they will taboo them, and then the answers will be sought by marginal figures and people inclined toward violence. On Putin BBC: As of today, Vladimir Putin is the most popular politician in Russia. Shouldn't one admit that people like his style of governing the country? A.N.: Vladimir Putin is indeed the most popular politician in the country. He used to be much more popular. And it would be foolish to deny — and it would be untrue to say — that he has done absolutely nothing good. He came to power in 1999, and from then until 2003 he really did many outstanding and correct things. However, from 2003 to 2007 we saw a period of stagnation, and from 2007 to the present nothing has happened except the constant looting of the enormous sums of money that come into Russia from oil and gas sales. Vladimir Putin is still popular, but it is no longer 70 percent popularity — it is 35 percent. One must understand that his popularity now rests solely on a monopoly over the mass media. Television is the thing Vladimir Putin worships. They destroyed all the politicians around him; a gigantic PR machine works for him, and for him alone. But we can see that even this PR machine is failing. After all, he has been in power for 12 years, and the constant rhetoric that "things were bad, just as they were bad in the 1990s" no longer works. Because now many people can ask: "What have you done in 12 years?" And he does not have much of an answer.