Alexei Navalny’s Interview with Echo of Moscow in Pskov

Many politicians say that when

they meet with people, it is important to get

feedback—yes, to see whether their eyes are lit up, so to speak.

I’m curious: did the people of Pskov feel like

these were your like-minded supporters, or were they

just onlookers who came

to see some kind of high-profile

new national political figure associated with

certain conflicts,

scandals, and political events?

Absolutely, I did feel that. As I already said,

this was specifically a meeting with volunteers.

These are people whom no one forced to come.

They did it all themselves: they found my website on their own,

registered themselves, received

a text message, filled out a form about themselves, and

said that they were ready to spend several months

working for the election campaign for free

because they believe in the ideas

of the campaign and believe in

the campaign platform. And

today’s meeting had a very good

atmosphere. It was very pleasant for me. These

trips—I won’t lie—are fairly

exhausting. But when you have a mee-

today in Pskov, it really gives you more energy.

Honestly. And as for the age

of the volunteers—I was at your meeting

and noticed that, by and large,

this audience, if not under 16,

then 18-plus, yes—but there were practically no people older than thir-

Still, there were actually

quite a lot of them, but of course it was mostly

young people. But that is simply a feature of the volunteer

movement in general—it has always been that way, and the same thing

was true in 2013, when volunteers

worked on my mayoral campaign, and that is

how it works. So of course, volunteers

are most often young people, but

the main campaigning push, through these

young people, is directed at people who are

older. That’s how it is structured, and that is

naturally how it happens in all countries.

When a person is 20 or 25,

they want to do it, and they have the opportunity. While

they are not yet burdened with all these

problems, they can spend four months

handing out leaflets for free.

Was there any resistance from

the regional authorities? Here is what

they say.

The organizers of your meeting say there was none at all.

That even surprised us. Despite the fact that I have

traditionally not very good relations with

Governor Turchak—well, that is, he and I

have never actually met—but I even

began my meeting by

quoting his Instagram post, where

he was speaking about the rally

on the 26th, saying that young people should choose between

be-

what was it he called me again—

a hopeless future and wonderful prospects.

So despite the fact that

we criticize Turchak—I criticize him, I

believe he was involved in the attack on

Kashin (Oleg Kashin, a Russian journalist). I believe he is implicated in

corruption. I have many questions about

his wife’s business and about the well-known villa on

the French Riviera, but there was no

resistance or anything of the sort that we

noticed, and everything went very well. We are

satisfied. How do you explain that?

It’s hard to say. Most often we see

the following pattern: the more

uneasy a governor feels, the more

weak he feels, the more inclined he is

to stage various antics

around our headquarters. So, for example,

it was difficult in Tambov or Mordovia, whereas

in Kaluga it was complete peace and quiet. As for your region,

I don’t really want to admit it now,

of course—the very thought is not

very appealing to me—that Governor Turchak

feels very confident, but

perhaps that is one

explanation for why there were no

hired people around the headquarters

standing there with placards.

Everything was very good from the standpoint of

the police and everything else.

I think there was only one person standing there, just one

person. We invited him in, but he did not want

to come inside. But I answered all the questions

he voiced. Nare, the thing is that

the official overseeing domestic policy in Pskov Region

was asked by one of the

journalists a question related to

the growing activity of your supporters,

the emergence, generally speaking,

of an initiative group, and the events of March 26.

Well, his position was roughly this:

we do not see any threat to the regional

authorities from the non-systemic opposition

I’m putting it in my own words, but the meaning

was approximately that these are just

some people over there on the liberal

flank; all of this is far removed from ordinary people, all of it

is not very serious. In general, how do you

view this position of the current

authorities—that everything happening

in the camp of the non-systemic opposition, everything

connected with political forces and non-

party politicians whom the authorities

do not accept, is all something that is simply not worth

paying attention to?

Well, that is obvious disingenuousness. If they were not paying

attention, then they would not be sending, including to

Pskov universities, teams of people who tell

and persuade young people that they should not go to

rallies. We can see this absolutely

on a mass scale now—it is happening everywhere. They come

and show videos claiming that I am Hitler or

that I am an extremist—well, all that nonsense

they spread. We see how actively they are

working in order to persuade

people not to speak out against corruption,

to persuade people to stay silent. But it is obvious that they

They’re trying to put on a brave face in a bad situation.

What is the deputy governor going to tell you?

That, oh my God, we were clutching our heads, we...

We want the business here to be discussed.

Turчак’s wife’s business—they’re pretending it makes no difference to them,

because they don’t want to answer

our

questions. But that will probably only last for so long,

until the moment when, on the sixth, there is a rally here.

A rally. Well, you tell me yourselves, how many

people were at the rally, at your...

Around 100 people, roughly. It was...

It was unauthorized—100 to 150 people.

And yet the governor is speaking out

about it and writing some vague phrases,

saying that the youth should not... This worries them very much.

They are used to living in a zone of

comfort, where no one asks about

corruption—neither at the local level nor at

the federal level. We are not going to stay silent now.

You know, historically it just so happened that

the activation of your supporters in the region

coincided with the appearance here of

Open Russia, and many of your

potential supporters are also

potential supporters of Open Russia.

And since there are not that many

active citizens here, as a rule they are the same

people who drift from one

group to another. How do you generally feel about that?

Do you view this

structure as, well, some kind of your own

potential

electoral resource in the regions, or do you

distance yourselves from it? We have

a practical task: we are running

an election campaign. And everyone who helps us

run that election campaign,

is our friend. Everyone who helps us speak

about corruption, about poverty—

a monstrous problem in Pskov Region—

unfortunately one of the poorest

regions. They are all our friends, anyone who speaks

about this. There is no practical cooperation with

Open Russia. No. Today their chairman came to

the meeting and said that they

support, at their highest level, in the person of

Khodorkovsky, and they also declared

their support for me, for my candidacy. But

I repeat: we have an election campaign.

We do not want to organize round tables

and sit there discussing

positions and doing all the things that, unfortunately,

have become a constant practice:

endless meetings and chatter. We

work with people, hand out leaflets,

campaign, train them, distribute

materials. Anyone who wants to do this

is welcome. But round tables—that’s

without us. I see, so the tasks are entirely

technical; they do not relate to

the current political

process. Let me correct you: quite the opposite.

Technically, technically, that would be

to come here, hire people, and have them

stand somewhere handing out leaflets. That is

a political task. Under political

slogans, we invite people, gather

people who are ready to work for an idea. Well,

because we do not have significant money.

The election campaign is financed

by donations. That is the real

political process. But all these

round tables and meetings are more

an imitation, I would say. It’s just that for a long time

here, in the Moscow political

field, on this flank, a well-known

politician, Lev Shlosberg, has dominated. Well, he

has occupied this patch of ground.

And I even know many journalists,

civic activists, and young politicians who

are sort of torn,

between their ties to Lev Shlosberg

and the desire, say, to join your camp.

Yes, and are you ready in some way

to coordinate your actions with him,

to unite, build a dialogue—I don’t

know—against Governor Turchak, or

in the fight against corruption, or against

poverty? Or do you have your own task,

the presidential election, while he has his own

local regional politics here? We are friendly

with everyone. I think very highly of

Shlosberg, and of course at headquarters we will

welcome everyone. Fortunately, we do not have

serfs (peasants bound to a landowner in imperial Russia), and

we do not have serf activists either. A person

chooses for himself where he wants

to work, what interests him more, which

political structure. We are glad

absolutely

to see everyone, and we are also ready to cooperate with

everyone. Believe me, the number of people who come to us—

former and even current

United Russia members—who say, well, we would

actually support you completely,

we’re just a little afraid. When you

really push harder and it becomes less scary, we’ll

come to you. So everyone is coming to us. And

as for Lev Markovich specifically,

unfortunately he disappoints me a little

by how maniacally and

dogmatically he supports the leader

of his party, so zealously supports

Grigory (Yavlinsky). Support you? Well, we

argued about this here. It seems to me this has no

prospects, and that is clear to everyone, including

Lev Markovich himself. But for some reason he has

got stuck on this note and is trying to convince all of us

that he is a politician, a good politician. I

respect Yavlinsky, who

has consistently lowered his percentage in

elections ever since 1996, and

now supposedly has some prospects. But

Yabloko, having hundreds of millions

of rubles in public funding, in the last State Duma

election received less than 3% nationwide.

Well, there has to be some accountability.

That's right. So why are you

trying to convince someone right now

to get involved with Yavlinsky and promote him? That has no

prospects. I'd like to remind you that on the

live broadcast of Echo of Moscow radio in Pskov

Alexei Navalny is on the program *Special

Opinion*. We're talking about how today in

Pskov, the campaign headquarters

of Mr. Navalny was opened, as well as many

other topics. I'd like to return to your

remarks about how the regime reacts to your

activity. Well, I think it's no secret to anyone

— everyone understands that the regime's reaction

to you and your

supporters could, of course, be much

harsher. Yes, today you were asked a question

and you responded by saying

that people often ask you about this: why

haven't you been killed? If you are killed, what should we

do? Well, I don't want to talk about that

topic, and I won't. I'll ask about something

else: do you have an explanation for the fact

that the authorities react rather restrainedly

to your activity? You have

the opportunity to open campaign headquarters

in Russia, you have the opportunity to meet

on the air of mass media, on the

internet, in the Moscow region. Well, let's

make this a bigger, broader question. In fact,

it's about something else: against such a

brazen opposition figure, they could act

by other methods. Well, first of all,

they already are acting against this opposition figure who

is sitting in front of you, who not long ago

was a perfectly ordinary lawyer. Now

I am a three-time convicted man, and every case

was fabricated. Despite the fact that in the

European Court we prove that these cases

were fabricated, they keep handing down the same

sentences again. In principle, the very fact

that we are sitting here at a radio station

— not in a kitchen, but at a radio station — seriously

discussing questions of political

murders in Russia, says that, well,

something is clearly wrong in the Pskov

region. Indeed, we arrived and successfully

opened a headquarters, and today I

spoke in a wonderful venue that

is located in the city center. In

Mordovia, I spoke in the middle of the woods because

not a single venue in the city of Saransk

would rent to us. And those who did rent

to us were forced to return our

money. In

Tambov, a day ago — the day before yesterday — I spoke

in a hangar at a produce — no, not produce — at a

wholesale depot belonging to one of our

supporters, where the city of Tambov even

cut the electricity during my speech

in order to disrupt it.

What is happening here is unusual. In

most headquarters, we are constantly

facing some kind of pressure and

obstruction from the authorities. It's clear why:

they believe that corruption issues in general

— especially these ones — are absolutely taboo;

they must not be discussed, and those who discuss them must be driven out.

So

Pskov is a pleasant, welcome exception. In

most regions, unfortunately, there is

pressure. But this pressure does not

stop us. I spoke in the middle of the woods

— well, fine. If they hadn't let me

hold a meeting anywhere in the city, then

fine, I would have spoken here too, in the middle of the woods,

and if it had started to rain, then in the

rain I would have stood there, and I assure you

quite a lot of people would have come and also

stood there with me in the rain. Your

opponents often accuse you of

lacking any clear

ideological program, of the fact that you

are essentially ready to gather together — Who, for

example? I wouldn't want to name names right here

on air. Well, that you

are ready to bring together all

supporters — you said part of this today

— regardless of their

political views: nationalists,

then

communists, so to speak, former

United Russia members — that is, if these people are ready

to discuss the issues you raise,

for example the fight against corruption, then

you basically don't care where they were yesterday

— from the Black Hundreds (a far-right monarchist movement in the Russian Empire), or, say, from

the LDPR — and this absence of such clear

party-ideological boundaries among

your supporters, on the one hand,

probably attracts some people, but also

repels others. Do you agree with that

statement? I don't agree that it

repels people, but overall I do agree with your

point. It really doesn't matter to us

where a person comes from, what party

they belonged to; what matters to us is what views they

hold now.

And if within Russian politics

there really were these clear boundaries,

then perhaps this conversation would make sense. But

you know perfectly well yourself — you yourself

just said that many people belong

to several organizations at once.

There are cities — and Pskov is probably no

exception — where there is an opposition activist who

is everything at once: simultaneously

with Open Russia, Yabloko, and with Kasparov there was the United Civil

Front, and so on and so

forth, the Civil

Front. So all these distinctions

don't make sense. United Russia members yesterday were

members of Gaidar's Democratic Choice, and before that

they were members of the CPSU (Communist Party of the Soviet Union). Here, people in our country

run endlessly from one party to another, and

real ideological boundaries do not

exist. We want to unite everyone who is for

simple things, for basic changes

that can be achieved in Russia, at least

tomorrow, if there is the will, the fight against corruption

raising the minimum wage

this is a measure that has been implemented in all

developed countries; only in Russia can we not

do it. Increasing spending on

healthcare and education—these are simple

things. Within our movement, of course,

there may be many different ideological

disagreements, but for the sake of bigger goals we

come together. Again, I’ll continue along the same

line. Mr. Shlosberg—I'll name him directly—

just last week on

his video blog, answering

questions, said that you have no

economic program, that you have no

strategy at all, and that there is only a set of

slogans, catchphrases, and flashy speeches

which, essentially, are

a kind of populist device, yes, that

draws attention through its vividness

and charisma, but that is not enough

to govern a country. And I was

sent a link to that speech several times

I watched it, and I want

to say that, of course, Lev Markovich really

disappointed me. I understand how they

are worried in the Yabloko party (a Russian liberal political party) about

the fact that they got less than 3%. And I

understand how personally Shlosberg is taking it

because he was the main

architect of what he called

a coalition, which people did not believe in. Well,

they did not vote for it, basically, and

therefore the coalition did not happen. And

well, well—he declared that this was

a united list, and, well, everyone, just as

you said, said: there is no coalition here. No, we will not

vote for this. And their attempt, and

Lev Markovich’s attempt, unfortunately,

now, in 2017, to seriously try to prove to us

that Yabloko is the only party

that has

an economic program—well, that only provokes

either a kindly

or compassionate

response. The program is written, well, indeed

In a speech, of course, I speak

mostly in broad points, but our economic

program—and our program overall—is far

better than Yabloko’s; it is much

better aligned with reality, including

because we

keep adjusting it, because I travel and meet

with people. This is the fortieth campaign office, and everywhere I

meet with volunteers, I answer

every question, I answer all the uncomfortable

questions. But Yabloko and Lev Markovich

are a bit too behind the scenes there, and they do not do the same

and that leads to the fact

that they keep bringing up the 500 Days program

from 1989 or 1988

and still try to convince us that

this is the most important economic

program. If I told volunteers today,

“The 500 Days program,” some of them would tell me,

“We don’t know what that is, because

we hadn’t even been born then.” And they are not

fifteen-year-old children either—they are already

even twenty years old

and remember nothing about any

500 Days program. And instead of

boasting about certain achievements that

certainly did exist—well, I myself once

joined the Yabloko party for that reason—well, one has to

live in the real, new world already, to remember

that this is not 1987 and the beginning of

perestroika (the Soviet reform period), but rather

2017, when you can no longer simply

deceive anyone like that. You said that

you answer any questions, even the most uncomfortable

ones. As I understand it, yesterday or

the day before yesterday, during this tour

through the regions, you were asked about sources

of funding during a meeting, yes?

Do these questions get under your skin—who

funds you, what do you live on, and

how do you carry out your activities—and what answer

do you give people? I love these questions because

they are very easy to answer, and

there was a similar situation today. You were

at the meeting—you won’t let me lie

when you ask. Leonid Volkov,

the campaign manager, asked who here

had ever sent money to

the election campaign. Well, about 30 percent

of the people raised their hands, and that is precisely the most

important objective confirmation that

everything really is as we say: our

election campaign is funded

by small donations from ordinary people, and we have

the most transparent, the clearest campaign

in that sense. As for me, actually

people say, “But the expenses are enormous.” What

enormous expenses? Look, here is what our

expenses are here in Pskov Region:

an office and the salaries of two people. For that we

raise money. Our expenses are lower than those of

everyone else’s—many times over—for one

main reason: this is our basic

advantage. We have volunteers.

You saw the volunteers today—there were

150 people standing there, and they will work

for free. More than that, they will even

pay money in order to work for free.

Another party would have had to hire

150 people and pay them salaries. And that is

a huge expense. We can do without

that. So our only costs are

the cost of leaflets and office rent.

Alexei, well, to me as someone who

has been watching Russian politics, you know,

for the past 20 years, it seems that this

American-style fundraising model,

with its organization of private

donations and tours of the regions,

is, of course, very appealing. You watch

it and it feels like some good

American movie about an election, somewhere in

The U.S. Congress—how much do you think

do you think

this is a workable model for Russia?

Don’t you think that, well, Russia

with its traditional

patriarchal approaches to shaping

the sacralization of power, might

not really respond to such elements of

civic

politics? All this talk about some kind of

special patriarchy, first of all—

and even if that patriarchy does exist, well,

fine. Do these patriarchal people

support corruption? Do they

support Prime Minister Medvedev

in his activities involving the theft of 70 billion

rubles and the construction of palaces across the

country? Of course not. That’s exactly the point.

Our program is for everyone, and it

is supported by everyone, regardless of

whatever kind of patriarchy we’re talking about. We’re talking about

simple things. If in the UK,

Germany, and the U.S. there is a minimum

wage set at an acceptable real

level, and I’m proposing that we also set

a minimum wage of 25,000 rubles for

a full working day, that does not

contradict any kind of patriarchy.

It’s a normal economic measure. And as for

this supposedly American style of

our campaign—it’s not because

it’s some kind of movie image, but because we have no other

choice. You know, maybe I would

travel less around the regions if I had

the opportunity to appear on television, but

I don’t have that opportunity. But here

this is one of the few regions where I

can speak on the radio, because the radio

here is independent. In most

regions, everything belongs to the local

governor, and so on and so forth. So

these meetings with people matter, because people are

essentially our only and main

asset. If I don’t come here, don’t meet

with volunteers, and don’t give a speech

that convinces them, they won’t hand out

leaflets during our campaign. So

that’s really how it should be built.

This isn’t American politics or some

American model of politics—it simply

should be done this way. I am absolutely convinced

that if you’re a politician, if you want

to run for office—whether for president or for the

State Duma (the lower house of Russia’s parliament)—then your job during the

election period is to travel around, to come to

people in any city, climb up on a chair,

and answer their questions. There is nothing

American or French about that. It is also

Russian. That’s how it should be; that’s how it should

be organized. Yes, it disgusts me to look

at those people, those State Duma deputies—they

sit there for 20 years and say, ‘We are

seasoned politicians,’ but not once in their lives

have they met with voters, not once

in their lives have they taken part in debates,

not once in their lives have they answered

uncomfortable

questions. Time and again, I would like to ask:

you keep bringing up the 2018

presidential election, and at the same time I think

even a not particularly attentive or sophisticated

radio listener immediately asks themselves:

well, first of all, there is still almost a year left until those

elections. And second, given your

conviction, as we understand it, you most likely

will not get the opportunity to participate in

these elections. So what, then, is the point, the logic,

the purpose of creating campaign headquarters and

carrying out this activity? Well, I—I

mention 2018, naturally,

because I am engaged in running a

presidential campaign. That’s the first thing.

Second, all this legalistic trickery

doesn’t interest me, because the

Constitution states directly that

anyone who has reached the age of 18 and is not

in a place of detention can be elected. Fortunately,

the Pskov branch of Echo of Moscow (a Russian radio station)

is not a place of detention.

So as long as I am here, I have the

right to participate in the elections, and I am sure

that we, our headquarters, and those people who

believe that elec

there should be competition in elections—they

many of them, in fact, you know, some of them

support Putin, but they say: you

need to be registered, because there should

be some kind of competition, there should be

some kind of discussion, debates. Therefore, by

right and by fairness, I have the right

to participate in the elections, and I will

participate in them because I represent

a fairly large group of people.

That’s it.

When I come here, and another, say,

20 candidates come too, and we see that no one

comes to my meeting, while people come to all of

theirs—then maybe someone

can tell me whether I do or do not

have the right to participate in the elections.

But right now I see the opposite picture.

If Zhirinovsky,

Yavlinsky, Zyuganov, Mironov—all those who

have announced their candidacies—come here, I strongly doubt that

a significant number of people will come to see them

for free. I have a question in this connection, about

the other participants, the other parties.

Look, there is still a whole year until next year’s

election, and there will be other elections. Are they of any interest

to you at all? Or are you so

focused only on your own campaign,

on the presidential election, that you are not

interested in elections to regional

parliaments, local self-government

bodies, the State Duma? Well,

all of that, this whole

slow-moving process that, yes, there

the system has created and is sustained by the system.

is controlled. Do you actually want to impose

your own campaign on top of all this? Or are you

using some of its elements, and are you

supporting someone in the regions? Are you

putting forward some kind of proto-party for

a future political party, or not?

Of course that interests us. We

are interested in any elections. We keep track of everything.

I know there will soon be

municipal elections here. Of course, I’m

interested in the elections to the State Duma (the lower house of Russia’s parliament)

and the Kremlin was very concerned that

they interested me. That is exactly why we

were not allowed to take part in the elections; our party

was dissolved, and they allowed only that

part of the opposition that is completely

co-opted—what they call the systemic opposition. And already

voting like United Russia, or else

having no prospects whatsoever, like

Yabloko. But of course our main task is

the presidential campaign. When you

say, “There’s still a whole year,” I say, “Only

a year.” In fact, an election

campaign should really begin two years in advance.

It’s just simple math: in our

country there are 90 cities with populations over

200,000. Our country, in principle, is

enormous, and very often, to

visit some city in the eastern part

of the country, you need one full day per city, just

to travel around all these cities,

I would need many, many months. And ideally

it would be more than that. I would like to come to

Pskov two or three times, and to every

city I would like to come two or three

times. A year would not be enough for that

even if I were doing it every single day,

with no days off at all.

But while actively doing all this,

traveling around and working in the regions, of course

we are focused on the federal campaign, on the presidential

campaign. As for participation in regional

and municipal elections, that is a matter

for the local headquarters. It’s a matter for local people. I’m not

going to—you know—come to Pskov and

say, “Guys, you have a municipal

election. You, you, and you—go run in it.”

I don’t want to engage in nonsense like that,

that kind of political engineering. If

there are people here who want

to take part with our ideas, with our

program, and they need support, I will

give that support—in whatever form

I can. But to force all this on someone or

push our way in deliberately—no, there is no need for that.

Thank you. The work of your campaign

headquarters in Pskov Region will be handled by

and coordinated by Valentin

Boldyshev. The decision to appoint him

as coordinator—who was he chosen from, and why

was this particular choice made? We—and I am also

very proud of this—resolve all personnel matters

according to the principle of meritocracy, that

is, we try to choose the best people. We

have a fairly well-developed structure from the Party

of Progress; we set ourselves the task of appointing our

party leaders everywhere. Everywhere it was said:

send in your résumés. These

résumés are reviewed, and the chief of staff,

Leonid Volkov, conducts the interviews. I

do not deal with personnel decisions. In other words,

we divided responsibilities: I work as the candidate, I

lead the political process; I do not manage

the campaign’s money, and I do not manage

personnel decisions. We specifically do not

want to create

that kind of system here. Leonid chose the head of the

headquarters you mentioned. We are very

pleased with him; he organized everything excellently.

An excellent office in the city center,

volunteers came in great numbers, and they properly

set up the headquarters. We are very pleased, and

once again we were convinced that the principle of this kind of

competitive selection—where you simply send in

your résumé, come for an interview, and we choose

the best candidate—works. There were several résumés here,

several résumés. Leonid would

tell you more about that in detail.

In every city we have several résumés; in

some cities and regions—well, the more

populous ones, simply the cities with over a million residents—

there is an enormous number of people wanting to join,

which, by the way, became for us

a revelation: a very large number

of former law enforcement officers

of all kinds. It is really

an astonishing thing that almost

a quarter of the résumés come from former

siloviki (security-service and law-enforcement personnel), saying: “We can’t look at all this anymore,

it makes us sick. Please,

we want to work on the election

campaign.” That was a revelation for us. And here too

we were choosing from several

people. Maybe this is simply connected with

the fact that, in the view of some people in

the provinces, you are a source

of funding, that people expect

they will get some kind of

opportunities. Very often here people

think that elections are a mechanism for

making money. That is definitely not about us.

Everyone understood that, and everything is fairly

transparent. The people who work with us

understand perfectly well where the

money comes from. They understand that it was brought in by

exactly those volunteers who came. Everyone

can see that our headquarters live a fairly

modest life. All our travel is, well,

a minibus, economy-class flights—

there is no luxurious lifestyle here. Yes, we

try to rent headquarters in the city center

so that it is convenient, but overall we

lead a modest and efficient operation, and we do not

spend money on enormous

salaries. And because people

donate money to us, and for them

to keep donating money,

we have to be very transparent. We have nowhere

So, as they say, it’s clear there’s no room there to make a little extra on the side.

It’s clear at what price we buy leaflets,

it’s clear at what price we rent everything,

all of that can be checked, asked about, and verified here as well.

There’s no room for any shadow income. Well,

by the way, you yourself are always talking in your

excellent films about

how people make money and where they get

their funds from.

Uh, world leaders and all that—regarding the financial

reporting of your campaign, are you planning

to make it just as transparent?

To show what, how, where, and why?

Absolutely. Well, first of all, it’s a legal requirement.

Second, we have exceeded that legal requirement

several times over,

because right now the law doesn’t regulate

anything. Yes, nothing is regulated.

But first of all, in the near future

we will publish the first report, and it will make

everything visible. For us, the model and standard

is what we did after the mayoral campaign:

we published who worked, who received how much,

how much money there was in total, where it

came from, what the average donation was.

All of that was published, and it will be

published again. And that is exactly why money

gets transferred to us. For us, this matters not just

so that I can come on

radio stations and say, ‘We’re the most super-

transparent,’ but simply because it is

beneficial. When we are extremely transparent,

people send us money. We publish

a report and say, ‘Guys, we raised 55

million rubles (about 55 million RUB)—look at how we spent it,’

and people send us money. Let me clarify

that by ‘the ... campaign,’ what is apparently meant

is Alexei Navalny’s participation in the election for mayor

of the capital. Let me remind you that at the time you came

in second; Sobyanin won. Now, if

we imagine that in almost a year you

are allowed to take part in the presidential election

of the Russian Federation, and

that scenario unfolds—would that be

a success, or still a failure?

Success in an election means winning

the election, of course. In the mayoral election

of 2013, it was not

an ordinary campaign; in fact, we ran it

for only two months. Now we have, uh, a whole

year ahead of us. And if not for the falsifications

at the mobile polling stations,

then of course Sobyanin would not have won

in the first round. According to the official result,

he got 51%, and that 1% came to him precisely outside

the regular polling stations.

There would have been a second round. With a split like 49

to 30, I would have beaten him.

But in a fair election, with a fair result,

I will accept whatever that result is.

Anyone can win an election.

Anyone can lose an election. We are

watching absolutely dramatic things right now in world

politics,

when Hillary Clinton was already

president, already preparing for the inauguration,

and then—bang—she wasn’t president. So in

a fair election, I will accept any result.

But in an unfair election, I will not

stay silent; I will say that the election

is unfair. Your forecast: who will be the Kremlin’s candidate

in 2018? Who will it be?

There’s no need for any forecast—it is guaranteed,

absolutely certain, one hundred percent: Vladimir Putin,

who has already been in power

for 18 years. He intends to run for another 12 years

in the coming

cycles, and all his plans are tied to

remaining president until the very end and

in effect even becoming Russia’s emperor. And everything

that is happening in Russia now, to our

great regret, is aimed at

ensuring that one specific

person keeps hold of that power, even at the cost of

the worsening of life across the whole country. Alexei,

look, you are often criticized for the fact that

you seem to be a lone warrior in the field, right?

Basically, there’s no one beside you. They criticize you—

or praise you; some do praise you. Yes, I

mean that they do not see beside you

other politicians who are known to one degree

or another, because you

distance yourself from them. You do not want

to see anyone next to you except, essentially,

your own supporters. There’s you, and there are

your supporters, while, broadly speaking, politicians

who may already belong to the past for you,

from that cohort of the 1990s and 2000s,

including politicians

with democratic views, are of no use to you.

You do not want to take part in all those coalitions,

you do not want to unite with

anyone, you do not want to stand shoulder to

shoulder with them, not go out with them. That’s all I

do—that’s all I do, constantly.

I keep trying to unite people, endlessly. Listen, I get along with everyone.

I’m on friendly terms with everyone.

I’m very pleased that I’m probably

the only politician who can speak normally

and enter into coalitions

both with liberals and with

nationalists. And what are you criticized for—what

am I criticized for? Of course, many liberals

and nationalists criticize me, but nevertheless that

allows me to gather the maximum

number of people. It is always a difficult

process. I’m ready to be on good terms with everyone, and with

everyone I try to build excellent

relationships.

And I generally try not to criticize

anyone too much. But I stand for, I stand for

competitive procedures. If respected and admirable people come to me

and say,

‘Let’s have a substantive conversation—Shlosberg

and Yabloko (a Russian liberal political party).’ So Shlosberg comes and says:

‘I’m the foreign minister of Yabloko, and let’s

create a united list, but this united

list will be headed by Grigory Alexeyevich.’

Yavlinsky. And you, Alexei, sort of, sort of...

this.

Agree with me. Fine, I agreed — and what then?

We got 2% and then once again we go around

clutching our heads and saying, 'My God,

nobody supports the democrats in

Russia, nobody supports the opposition in

Russia.' But that's not true. Nobody

supports those outdated, unnecessary

structures. So I love everyone, but

just pushing these old

veteran democrats everywhere because they are

old and respected — no. I say, guys,

let's hold primaries, let's hold

a vote. Why did volunteers come to me,

for example, today? Because my

position is simple: volunteers should

campaign for [someone]. I'm ready to compete in

a vote with Yavlinsky, with Zyuganov, and with

Zhirinovsky, even in broader

primaries. Fine — whoever people vote for

should go to the election. If I come in second,

I'll accept it. If I lose to Yavlinsky

or to any other old democrat, whoever it may be.

So, purely in theory, are you ready

if the Yabloko party or any other

party were to offer you its place of its own...

on the left-liberal flank? Yes, but in general

nobody in the country is interested in that at all.

I travel around, and all of this is some kind of

Moscow liberal тусовка (insider political crowd), and even within

that Moscow liberal crowd, it's

an absolutely marginal part. If we hold

broad primaries for

an opposition candidate against

the current authorities, then of course I'm ready for

such primaries and I plan to

win them. And will you yourself initiate something

like that? Well, I try. I'm often

asked about it.

In Echo of Moscow, they especially like to ask

these questions, and in various regions too, but this is

not a simple process, you understand. I think

Zyuganov, for the same reasons, is also not

eager to take part in primaries with

me, and it constantly turns into this kind of

struggle between me and these, well, old

democrats, old communists, and everyone

else under the sun, because they aren't really ready

for competition, unfortunately. And since they

aren't ready for competition, they like to

throw accusations at me and say roughly what you

just said: you don't tolerate anyone

beside you, you only want supporters. Well,

I, I absolutely, absolutely understand that you

voiced what they quite often

say. But what am I supposed to say? I

say: guys, it's simple — we all

like each other. But let people vote and

decide whom they most want

to support in the presidential

election. This

happens in all normal developed

countries now where there is, well,

a presidential republic. We saw it recently in

France. Some coalition was chosen there

through primaries too,

Macron's En Marche movement won. Well,

that's normal, that's fine. That's how it should be.

By the way, speaking of a presidential

republic — let's hypothetically

suppose that you became the future

president of Russia. Would you preserve the kind of

mega-presidential republic that we

have today, that republic of...

You put it very correctly, because in

political science and legal studies there is

the term 'super-presidential republic,' but we have

already a mega-presidential republic,

a giga-presidential republic, I would even

say — effectively

a monarchy. And you can see it in everything: all

issues are decided in Moscow. Any issue —

the repair of your Kremlin, questions of

some investigations into the activities of the

Ministry of Culture connected with

the well-known scandals during

reconstruction here — all of that is decided by Putin,

all of that is decided by the Kremlin, and this has led to

those colossal

problems that we have. Powers and money are pulled

out of the regions, and

basically everything has to be decided in Moscow, but

at the same time it goes unresolved for years, and everything simply

decays and rots. And Pskov Region

again is simply

a textbook example of depopulation.

A quarter of the population has left here, right?

Or died out. And most of that

quarter disappeared during Putin's years, in

those supposedly prosperous years, in what are called the 'fat'

2000s, the boom years of the 2000s.

Well, it's a catastrophe. This system

simply does not work. Russia does not need any kind of mega-

presidential republic.

Of course, strong government is needed. In the United States

there is strong government; we see examples

of presidential republics where there is

strong government. But in none of these

developed countries does the president come anywhere close

to having such powers. It is

vitally important for Russia that

powers and money be

in the federal subjects (regions). Where is there population growth?

Moscow and Chechnya. Everything else

is simply dying, and all of Russia will die

if this continues. So not a

parliamentary republic? Do you think that

Russia — a parliamentary one, as is proposed by

a classic parliamentary republic? Well,

I think we are not ready for that. Another

matter is that we simply need to very significantly

reduce the powers of Moscow and

the federal authorities, and then the question of

this will not even arise. It's simply necessary to

expand the powers of parliament.

The government should, of course, be formed

with the participation of parliament, not the way it is now.

The president should not be involved in appointing judges.

The president should not appoint them, so that they can be

independent. Now, as for parliament—let me ask you this:

Was there, in Russia, over the past

10 years, even a single parliamentary

investigation? The answer is no. The Communists

raised the issue many times: let’s have a

parliamentary investigation. There has not been

a single one since 1999.

Exactly.

So we do not need a parliamentary

republic, but parliament must stop

being a place filled with various

oligarchs or just some kind of

regional crooks who bought themselves

seats in parliament and do

nothing—just enjoy immunity. There

should be real representatives

of the people sitting there, and they should, among other things, elect

the government, appoint prosecutors,

impeach the president,

criticize them. During Government Hour,

someone comes in—

Medvedev, the leader of an unpopular

government, and the parliamentary opposition

practically fawned all over him, showered him with praise,

and did not properly say a single word of criticism.

That should not happen.

Thank you. Our broadcast is coming to an end.

We only have a few minutes left.

To wrap up, I’d like to ask a question

about the work of your

campaign headquarters, and also, as far as your

activities in the Pskov Region are concerned, what should we

expect? Well, probably apart from June 12, when across

Russia these rallies will take place—what else

interesting

are you preparing? I urge everyone who is interested

in getting involved to come to our

campaign headquarters, join us,

visit the website Navalny 2018,

register there, and take part in this

election campaign. We will work honestly.

The main thing people should expect from us

is that we will work honestly and

tell the truth. And of course we will call on people

to join the June 12 rally.

It is an anti-corruption rally that will take place

everywhere. And at our headquarters, which is located

on Krasova Street

38/25, and starting Monday it will be open from

11:00 a.m. every day. We will

work with volunteers. This will be

normal, honest political work,

where everyone will be

equal, where people come together in order to

engage not in political manipulation, not in

cheating, but in real work for the

good of Russia. This was Alexei Navalny,

a well-known Russian politician

and opposition figure. Thank you for finding

the time, despite your tight schedule

during your stay in Pskov, to come to us

and answer our questions. Thank you, and until next

time. Thank you.

Thank you very much. *Special Opinion*.