Alexei Navalny’s interview with Deutsche Welle

[music]

Our guest today is Alexei Navalny.

the founder of the Anti-Corruption Foundation (ACF),

and the leader of the Progress Party. With Alexei

we are speaking via video link. This is due to

objective reasons: Alexei cannot

leave the borders of his homeland, and I, for now, am not planning to return to mine.

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

... We lost nothing from this. Look

at PARNAS’s results — there he is in full.”

What would you say to that?

Did you really make an effort

to keep the Yabloko party from getting

3%? Grigory Yavlinsky, of course, knows perfectly well

who is to blame for the fact that the Yabloko party

got 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 by law and by

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 participating 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 voters are to blame for everything,

you understand, while we are so good

and wonderful. Now, regarding

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 so?

It is exactly the opposite: low turnout exists

because no opposition

political forces were represented in these elections.

Only Yabloko

and PARNAS were represented — parties that do have

some 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: no one does anything except

Alexei Navalny and the Anti-Corruption Foundation

(ACF). 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 up this kind of

[music]

nationalist rhetoric. 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 rather

ridiculous primaries organized by

PARNAS. Nevertheless, he won. However,

this is the most important thing, and I

would like everyone to pay attention to it:

you cannot run an election campaign

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

be doing something during the four years

that precede the election, and the fact that they

in the final month, on debates

watched by quite a small number of people,

said two or three vivid things — that 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. Ideology does not

matter.

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

Artemyev, Yavlinsky’s deputy, is entirely

in agreement with Putin on issues ranging

from monopolies to Crimea and Ukraine,

and that is 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

it sits 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 is no смена

of generations in politics, that there are these

political old-timers, I don't know how else to put it

long-livers, but that's not quite right, not quite

let me just say, you do 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 appeared too, and you've also

been in the opposition for how many years now—it’s even

scary to imagine. Yes, Zhanna, let me

correct you: the problem is not with some

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 also emerged many years ago

and that I too will probably soon, very soon

become one of those old-timers. But am I allowed to run in elections

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 take part in elections

—that is the problem. First and foremost, we must

fight for the registration of

independent candidates. And if they, if they are

not allowed to run, then there is nothing

shameful about calling for 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 can be

any color, as long as it is black. And

in the same way, democrats can be anyone

as long as it is Yabloko. That is not a choice

While you still have not been allowed to take part in

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 will happen—what

fate awaits corrupt officials? An unenviable one

by the way, an unenviable fate indeed. 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 one could put it that way

from 2011 onward. Why this starting point?

Why not 2000? 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

was reborn. That is why 2011 became the

point of departure, when no one can any longer

say, 'You know, I was just sitting here

as a minister and was not responsible for anything'

'I was only the deputy commandant of the concentration camp and

therefore I did not know what was happening over there in

that barracks building, the chimney of which

was giving off suspicious smoke.' That can no longer

be said

That is the principle of lustration. Is there not a risk

that this could 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 States. Wait, I’m not confusing you with

Putin? I have not spoken to Putin personally, so I cannot

mix you up

Well then, don’t steamroll me, Alexei. So, is there any

successful example in world practice, in your

view, an example

of lustration? We do like to borrow 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 happening

right now in Ukraine. In any

case, it is important to note that in fact

we are talking about millions of people here, and when

it comes to lustration—how can that be, you are lustrating

you cannot lustrate a million people

We have a project called

the Black List, where we simply

enter the names of people responsible for

specific crimes, first and foremost

unjust court rulings

falsifications, administrative decisions

of that kind. 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

a million people. That is, you say that

for such cases there should be no

statute of limitations—you propose to

abolish it—and what, put millions of people on trial?

Why millions? You seem to have a very

poor opinion of millions of

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

who, with the statute of limitations removed, 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 example. He, he is currently

violating the Criminal Code; it’s just that

the legal system does not function when it comes

to him because he has immunity.

Well, of course, they should all be jailed. This is not about

millions of people. I mean, you just used one

word just now: “the biggest.” Because

if not just the biggest, corruption still

permeates—you probably know this better than anyone—

all strata

of our society in one way or another. So

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 you stole a billion, we jail you; if you didn’t steal 100 million, (about $1.1 million) we don’t.”

We don’t jail you—of course not. All of this is already

spelled out directly in the Criminal Code

right now; it’s just that no one

Another point in your program is,

of course, one of the most painful issues.

That 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 right of nations to self-determination,

and that is a normal right. Under no circumstances

does it mean 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 entirely

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 this question: you are the author

of numerous anti-corruption

investigations and all sorts of

blockbusters that everyone watches online

holding their breath.

On the internet, probably the most high-profile one is

of course the film Chaika (about former 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 doesn’t the topic of corruption

shake society? The topic of corruption shakes

society; the topic of corruption has been

the most important political issue. Why

does Putin stage these

showy

pseudo-anti-corruption proceedings—

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 happen, of course. We released an investigation

about Chaika, and in a normal political

system this should have led to such a

political crisis in the country and a change

of government. In Russia, this 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 they will come out and

shoot them. They are afraid. I now want 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

the probability was that she would meet a dinosaur

when she went outside: 50%—either she meets one or she doesn’t.

But I understand these are cute

short questions, but they cannot be

answered seriously. What

if—let’s say—what if China

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

Alexei, I make up all the questions

myself.

Fine. 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 woman to replace you as host? I don’t

know. The point is that right now in the

Far East there are more and more

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. And one last question, I hope

maybe you'll like it better. What

if you

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

I ask all kinds of questions.

So, if you get the opportunity

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 hope we'll see each other. Thank you, Zhan. Bye for now.

Take care.