Alexei Navalny’s interview for Deutsche Welle’s program “Nemtsova.Interview” in 2016

[music]

Our guest today is Alexei Navalny.

the founder of the Anti-Corruption Foundation.

the leader of the Progress Party. With Alexei

we're speaking via video link. This is due to

objective reasons: Alexei cannot

leave the country's borders, and I, for now, am not planning to return to the homeland.

Alexei, good afternoon.

Thank you for joining us today.

Come visit us in our homeland.

Thank you for the invitation, I'll consider it.

Alexei, in the last election your strategy was

to vote for any

party except United Russia. This time

you changed the concept somewhat, and this

strategy was called

550 rubles, and now Grigory Yavlinsky has already

spoken to journalists at a briefing. He

said the following, quote: "Alexei

Navalny was running a campaign to reduce

none of this cost us anything. Look

at PARNAS's results — that's where all of it is."

What do you say to that?

Did you really make an effort to ensure

that the Yabloko party

didn't get 3%? Grigory Yavlinsky, of course,

knows very well who is to blame for Yabloko

getting one and a half percent — of course it was me.

I personally did it. But I want to say

the following: indeed, I personally did not

go to vote because I have been deprived of

my voting rights in violation of all

laws, because both legally and in terms of

basic fairness, my

right to vote should have been restored. After all, I

won all the court cases, including at the ECHR (European Court of Human Rights),

including the ECHR Grand Chamber. And yet, because of

a fabricated case — and it has been proven that the case

was fabricated — I am barred from taking part in elections.

That is why I did not go

to vote. I cannot recognize this. However,

I did not call for a boycott; I called on

everyone to come and vote for

single-member district candidates. And perhaps,

as a reproach to Grigory

Yavlinsky, I would simply like to say

this: there is not a single party leader

who wrote more posts and

made more statements calling on people

to come to the polls. If the leaders

of Yabloko and the leaders of PARNAS

had done even a little to

bring these people out, then perhaps something

might have changed. But since 2003, these

people simply have not wanted to do anything, and

Yabloko's result is natural in the sense that

in 2003 they did not clear the threshold, in

2007 they did not clear the threshold, in

2011 they did not clear the threshold, and

naturally they could not clear it

in

2016 either, because they simply do nothing

and because voters do not

want to vote for them. Of course, one can

always say that the voters are to blame for everything,

you know, while we are so good

and wonderful. As for

the voters, several leaders

of opposition parties have already said that

the reason the opposition

political forces posted such modest

results lies in low

turnout. Is that true?

It's the other way around: low turnout exists

because no opposition

political forces were represented in these elections.

Only Yabloko

and PARNAS were represented — parties that do have

wonderful people in them — but I will repeat once again:

there is no force on planet Earth that could

make Yabloko or PARNAS

clear the five-percent threshold, because

that has not happened in the last 16

years, and it could not have happened. But look,

Zhanna, these people simply do nothing.

Not long ago you gave an interview to Yevgenia

Albats and said essentially similar

things: nobody does anything except

Alexei Navalny and the Anti-Corruption

Foundation. Yes, but there you also said, well,

that party leaders are not making any use of

the political agenda; they do not even

make vivid statements like Zhirinovsky.

Well, PARNAS tried to play that kind of

[music]

nationalist line. I think

you were following

the debates: Maltsev made striking statements, and

it seems to me that in this election he performed

quite well as number two. But Maltsev simply

won those primaries — those, those

ridiculous primaries that were organized by

PARNAS. Nevertheless, he won. However,

this is the most important thing, the thing I

would like everyone to pay attention to:

you cannot run an election campaign

just a month before the vote. A party, you know, must

do something during the four years that

precede the election, and the fact that they

in the last month, on debates

watched by relatively few people,

said two or three striking things changes nothing.

But in principle, does it not bother you

that on the party list, through those ridiculous primaries — I

stress, through ridiculous primaries — there appears

a person who does not share the party's ideology at all?

For example, he ran

last time in a single-member district in

Samara with the support of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation. Ideology does not

matter.

It does not matter. Artemyev is a minister in the government,

Yavlinsky's deputy, and he completely

agrees with Putin on everything from issues of

monopoly policy to Crimea and Ukraine,

and that's apparently fine. So ideological purity

does not matter at this stage of

Russia's political development.

Well, Yabloko tried to achieve

some kind of ideological purity, there it is

sitting there with one thing

while at the same time there is no ideological purity at all

No, not at all

You blame everything on the fact that there has been no смена

of generations in politics, that there are these

political heavyweights, I don't know how else to put it

long-timers, but that's not exactly it, not exactly

Let me just say this—you understand, you understand

that it's very difficult, and in conditions like the ones

Russia is living in now, where there is no

freedom of the media, and where

political competition is restricted, it is very difficult

for new faces to emerge, and still

the presence of, I don't know, Yavlinsky

Khakamada, Kasyanov, is not the main

obstacle to new

politicians appearing. You yourself appeared, and also

how many years have you already been in the opposition—it's even

scary to imagine. Yes, Zhanna, let me

correct you: the problem is not with some

old political heavyweights—they are wonderful people, experienced and

remarkable. The problem is that the Kremlin

does not allow new parties to participate. You

said that I, too, appeared many years ago

and will probably soon, soon also

become one of those old heavyweights. But am I allowed onto the ballot

or not? One time I ran in an election, and I

got a fairly good share of the vote. Every

third Muscovite voted for me

after which I was no longer allowed to run in elections

—that's the problem. First and foremost, we must

fight for the registration of

independent candidates. And if they, if they

are not allowed into elections, then there is nothing

shameful about declaring a boycott, and there is

no contradiction in that, because the best

way to fight for your vote is not to go to

elections where you are put, where you are put in

conditions like this: here, here you go

—a Ford car may be

any color, as long as it's black, and

that's exactly how it is here: democrats can be any kind

as long as it's Yabloko. That's not a choice

While you still haven't been allowed into

the presidential election, let's talk about your

political program. I took these

answers to questions as a kind of

political

program. In particular, you speak about

lustration and about what you will do. What

fate awaits corrupt officials? An unenviable one,

by the way, a grim fate. So, about lustration

—you have taken 2011 as the starting point

So lustration will apply to all those

who committed

some kind of crime, I suppose you could put it that way

since 2011. Why that starting

point? Why not 2010? Why not

1993, why not 1991? Could you

explain? As for lustration

specifically for those who commit, who participate in

political crimes, we believe

that in 2011 the regime simply

transformed itself. 2011 became the

point of no return, when no one can any longer

say, 'You know, I was just

sitting here as a minister and wasn't responsible for anything'

'I was just the deputy head of the concentration camp, and

therefore I didn't know what was happening over there in

that barracks, from whose chimney

suspicious smoke was coming out'—that can no longer

be said

be said. As for the principle of lustration, is there not a risk

that it will turn into settling

scores with some

personal

enemies? What will it look like? I do not

see such a risk, because lustration

must be carried out according to

rules. Well, should Alexei

Navalny be given the right to draw up lustration lists?

The answer is no. And just like any other

private individual, there must be a system

that excludes personal

animosity and any conflicts from all of this

And if we look at international experience

you like to draw various

parallels there, for example with the United States, often

when you talk about

elections. No, if I'm not mistaken, once you referred

to the United States. Wait, am I confusing you with

Putin? I haven't spoken to Putin personally, so I can't

mix you up

Don't steamroll me like that, Alexei. So, is there any

successful example in world practice, in your

view, an example

of lustration? We do like to take Western

models, you know. Well, Western or not

Western

there have been examples of how all this can be done

There are positive examples and negative ones

we can see how difficult and

apparently not very well it is going

right now in Ukraine. In any

case, it is important to note that in fact

we are talking about millions of people, after all, when

people say: lustration—how can that be, are you going to lustrate

a million people? You can't lustrate a million people

We have a project called

the Black List, where we simply

enter the names of people responsible for

specific crimes, above all

unjust court rulings

falsifications, administrative decisions

of that sort. Right now, I think there are only

about 600 people on it. You say that

a million people will not fall under lustration, but

under anti-corruption measures they will. It seems to me

that it could be a million people. That is, and you say

that for such cases there should be no

statute of limitations—you propose

abolishing it—and what, you'll imprison millions of people?

Why millions? You seem to have a very

poor opinion of millions of

people. For corruption, those who must be prosecuted are the ones

who, if the statute of limitations is abolished, committed

the most serious corruption crimes

This is in no way illustrated by the fact that

Rotenberg gets contracts from Gazprom.

That is illegal, but it does not mean that it

is connected to the illustration. He, he is currently

violating the Criminal Code; it is simply that

the legal system does not operate in

his case because he has immunity.

Well, of course, they all need to be jailed. This is not

about millions of people. I mean, you just used one

word now: “the biggest.” Because

if not the biggest ones, corruption still

permeates—you probably know this better than anyone—

in Russia, all, uh, strata

of our society in one way or another. That is,

are we talking only about the biggest cases? What

amount? Starting from what amount can one expect

punishment?

Zhanna, when we talk about fighting

corruption and jailing corrupt officials, what we are

really talking about is called the rule

of law, the supremacy of law. We simply need

to create a normal judicial system, and

gradually all corrupt officials

will be put behind bars, as happened in other

countries and will happen in Russia. We do not need

to invent some kind of, you know,

“if he stole a billion, we jail him; if he did not steal 100 million, we do not.”

No, of course not. All of this is already

spelled out directly in the Criminal Code

right now; it is just that no one

Another point in your program is,

of course, one of the most painful issues.

It is Crimea, where you say that

the referendum in Crimea was

illegitimate.

In Ukraine, the fate of individual

territories is decided by the entire people of Ukraine.

There is a nation’s right to self-determination,

and that is a normal right. It in no way

means that tomorrow Yakutia

will join Bulgaria, or someone else

will join someone else. That is complete nonsense.

As for these laws—well, under

Ukrainian law it is one thing, while under Japanese law

the Northern Territories are part

of Japan and cannot be transferred. Under

Israeli law, the Gaza Strip is one thing, while

under the laws of Gaza it is something completely

different. Unfortunately, Putin has created

a territorial conflict that will

take decades to resolve and will not be resolved

for many, many, many years. Alexei, I

absolutely agree with you that there is

a principle of international law: the right

of peoples to self-determination. But there is

a conflicting principle called

the inviolability of borders, or territorial

integrity, and this is constantly in

conflict—these, these two concepts,

these two principles, these two norms. That is what

we are talking about. Well then, I would like to

ask you a question. You are the author

of numerous anti-corruption

investigations and all kinds of

blockbusters that everyone watches online

holding their breath.

On the internet, probably the most high-profile ones are

of course the film *Chaika* ("The Seagull," referring to Prosecutor General Yury Chaika) and

now the film about Medvedev’s dacha.

Indeed, all these things

undoubtedly blow up the internet—millions

of views. But why does the topic of corruption not

explode in society? The topic of corruption does shake

society. The topic of corruption has been

the most important political issue. Now, why

does Putin stage these

showy

pseudo-anti-corruption prosecutions—

Oboronservis, the arrests of governors, and everything

else? Because he is responding to

public demand for it.

Unfortunately, this does not lead to huge

demonstrations, which really ought to

be happening. We released an investigation

about Chaika; in a normal political

system, this should have led to such a

political crisis in the country and a change

of government. In Russia, that did not happen.

Why? Because Russia is

an authoritarian country. Such changes do not

happen after an investigation, not in

Uzbekistan, not in Belarus, not in

Zimbabwe, nor in all the other countries

that are already at such a stage

of authoritarianism that

you understand—in Uzbekistan, if they come out, they

will be shot. They are afraid. I want now

to ask you three final questions, and each of

these questions

will be one of three final short questions,

so as not to distract you from fighting

corruption in

Russia. So, what if Putin offered you the

post of prime minister

of Russia? Zhanna, a young woman was once asked:

What is the probability that she will meet a dinosaur

when she goes outside—50 percent: either she meets one or she does not.

But I understand these are cute

short questions, yet they cannot be

answered seriously. What

if—let us say—what if China

colonized...? These questions—tell me, please,

Alexei, I make up all the questions

myself.

Excellent. A good question, but I do not understand

what it means for China to colonize Russia. Russia

should cooperate with China, uh, and that

is wonderful. And what does it mean

to colonize Russia—to seize Russia?

Colonize it? And what, what will happen if

China colonizes Germany—will it appoint

a Chinese female host instead of you? I do not

know. The point is that right now in the

Russian Far East there are more and more, uh,

Chinese people, and in the Far

East there is uncontrolled migration, both from

China and from Asian countries, and this is a major

threat to

Russia. Well, one last question, I hope.

Maybe you'll like it better: what

if you

Yes? What, am I not supposed to ask you smart questions?

I ask all kinds of questions.

So, if you get the chance

to travel outside Russia,

what will be the first thing you

do? I'll come to you and give an interview

to you, in your studio. Thank you very much.

Alexei, I wish you every success.

I'm sure we'll see each other. Thank you, Jean. Bye for now.

Take care.