Alexei Navalny’s interview with Leonid Parfyonov on Kommersant FM

Hello, I’m Leonid Parfyonov,

co-founder of the League of Voters. In the midst

of yet another election campaign, Kommersant

is running a series of dialogues with

public and political figures,

new ones, or perhaps not entirely new, but

certainly people who have revealed themselves in a new way in this

undeniably new social and political

situation. Our guest today is Alexei

Navalny, politician Alexei Navalny.

Is that the right introduction?

Hello. Politician Alexei Navalny.

I think that’s correct.

Tell me, I have a very specific first

question for you. Why do you shout so much

at rallies?

Because I believe in what I’m saying. And

in fact, when speaking publicly at a

rally—I wouldn’t say I often

speak, but when I do, it seems to me

that this is one of the main keys

to success. You simply have to shout

so that a large crowd can hear you.

You have to shout. If you believe in what

you’re saying, shout louder. And I

really do believe. When I say that

I hate these people, I can’t

just say, “I hate these people.”

I hate them, so I yell about it. Yes,

but you also make other people shout

along with you. I understand it on the fifth,

when there was universal outrage, because

the votes had just been counted and then suddenly these

implausible numbers were announced. But on December 24,

to me, for example, it felt like overkill.

Well, why were we going to rallies if not

to rallies in support of something or

in solidarity with someone? We were going to

rallies because we had been robbed

and cheated. We went there and shouted:

“Help!” Because I believe that this

power has been taken away from us. I believe that

power has been taken from me, from these people,

they are taking away our money, our children’s future,

and so on. And we understand perfectly well

that I’m not going anywhere, I’m not leaving

this country. I want to stay here. I

will make sure that power returns to

the people. And I am part of those people. And I

am saying that if our demands

are not met, then

we will take it all back. So

you yourself have identified as a politician. I,

to be honest, have never been able to understand it.

Why is it that some people simply cannot help but write? I

understand that—“I can’t stay silent,” and all that.

But why do they go into politics?

Is it that they can’t help but lead

others, can’t help but propose a program

of action? You see, when you simply observe

some kind of injustice,

everyone reacts differently: some write

an angry article about it, some simply

turn away and sheepishly pretend

that nothing at all is happening, while

others think something must be done, that

something has to be fixed. I can’t just watch

all this. I believe that everyone should

take an active stance.

I actually wanted to ask you about your legal

practice. Somehow I couldn’t find

anything about it. In a few words, can you

say what you do as a lawyer?

As a lawyer, this is what I do. Let’s say you became

a co-founder of LLC Romashka. Your partners

are diluting your stake, want to push you out,

or are looting your company. So you

come to me and say, “Alexei,

they won’t give me the documents—go demand

them.” I’m the number one lawyer in Russia when it comes

to obtaining documentation, and in fact the entire

body of commercial court practice on

document retrieval

Is there a law office called Alexei

Navalny? It’s not a law office. I

am myself a lawyer, Alexei Navalny. Under

the law on the legal profession, I

must belong to a bar association.

I do belong to one, and

I practice independently.

Roughly how many cases do you handle?

Well, I

in my main specialty.

I take on exactly as many clients as

I need in order to earn enough money

to support my office and my family. That’s

three or four clients. You need to earn enough

to be able, in your spare time, as I understand it,

to engage in

work on

the budget. My annual budget right now

is, I think, somewhere around $300,000,

but part of that money

is financed through the RosPil project,

where the money is raised simply

from ordinary people. That isn’t my money. And their salaries

are paid by 20,000 people who

finance RosPil. You emerged under conditions

in which becoming this kind of

public figure—even if

you were kept off television, still

you managed to become a recognizable public figure

at a time when it seemed to everyone that no such public rise

was possible without the approval of

Vladislav Surkov. And, uh,

the first theory was that you had been given the go-ahead

because, supposedly, these two Kremlin “towers”

—rival factions within the Kremlin—were competing with each other, and

Surkov, they say, was at Transneft.

He was chairman of the board of directors there, and one of your

most high-profile exposés was

about the extra billions at Transneft.

No matter how many investigations I did,

there was always a theory that

the whole thing had been commissioned by the opposing side.

Our system is set up in such a way that

no one ever believes there can be

a person who goes around

catching crooks or exposing them

simply because he likes doing it and believes in it.

No one believes you can do things

without being commissioned, that you can write articles without

being commissioned, go to the prosecutor's office without being commissioned,

and so on. I wasn't counting on getting

what I couldn't get. I didn't care

about television. I mean, I wasn't trying to get onto

TV, and I didn't need to go around

asking someone, "Listen, put me on

television so I can make a name for myself." I

was doing my investigations,

posting my boring documents on my blog.

People gradually started finding them interesting.

And it all spread. When I

asked, "File complaints together with

me," at first there were

30 people filing them with me, then 300,

then 3,000. And fighting

corruption, fighting crooks—that's

exciting. It's basically like

an internet series, really.

And then, on the air at one of the radio stations,

you casually let slip the phrase, "the party of crooks

and thieves." And that caught on too. It

caught on. Well, it caught on because

it's true. I was trying to make the fight

against United Russia into something almost fun. I mean,

I sincerely, with all my heart and soul,

hate it, can't stand it. And I

believe it has to be fought, but at the same time

there shouldn't be any special strain or melodrama in it.

There shouldn't be.

Tell me, there's another version of events: there was a movement,

right, in which alongside you were

Yevgenia Albats and Masha Gaidar. And according to another

conspiracy theory,

that was where you were sent off into

nationalist movements. Let our good

our good

culturological theories have their say,

you know, if you search for Navalny, you get

7 million results. You just have to

dig around and find something. But you were

in a movement, right, that looked nothing like

that at all.

Well, Zhenya Albats, a close friend of mine,

was of course never a member of the movement,

never. As for all this—there's some kind of

stereotype that Navalny somehow turned to

nationalism,

right. But simply between that movement and

nationalists—well, I was in the Yabloko party

for many years, in Yabloko, a liberal party,

which I joined out of conviction.

I joined it on principle.

It seems to me that the Navalny of that

past, who more or less fits with

that movement, and then the Navalny of

the present,

the Navalny of the past and the Navalny of

the present—and, I hope, the Navalny of

the future—are all one and the same

Navalny. I mean, I believe I am

absolutely honest with people and with

myself. When I joined the

Yabloko party, I believed there should be no

illegal immigration, and that we should not

be making those kinds of budget transfers

to the Caucasus. I still believe that now. It's just that in

traditional Russian political discourse,

it's customary to label

people who say, "We are against

illegal immigration," as nationalists. And

so, well, some people call it

patriotism. In America, liberals and

Democrats vote for building

a wall on the Mexican border. They're not

nationalists. Not nationalists. But here

for some reason they say, "Well, look at him, he doesn't like

Ramzan Kadyrov. So probably

he doesn't like him because he doesn't like Chechens.

That's all nationalism."

And were you expelled from Yabloko specifically with

that wording—for nationalism?

"Propaganda of nationalist ideas"

was the official wording.

And what was the precedent? What specific case of

propaganda did they mean? Ah—I wrote

an article

in which I said that

turning the agenda of so-called

nationalist issues—migration, ethnic

crime, the situation of Russians outside

Russia—into a taboo was a major mistake. And

liberals and democrats should discuss these

problems instead of ceding that agenda

to some right-wing fringe figures, because

if normal people don't discuss it,

then it will be discussed by

outright neo-Nazis and fascists, while

the problems are real, and liberals and democrats

are obliged to respond to these

problems and offer their own answers.

Well, there was a series of articles,

and naturally the question arose that under no

circumstances should the word "nationalism"

forbidden. And then came the usual set

of clichés and stereotypes, and so on. I

will definitely ask Grigory about this

Yavlinsky, who, we hope, will also

end up in this chair. And, as I

understand it, this is also your answer to the most

common question after shouting at a rally

question: "Why do you go to the Russian

March?"

Exactly the same: you have to go, because

there are voters there too.

Well, because that's exactly how it is.

It's not because there are voters there,

but because it's a problem. And if we do not

want the Russian March to consist of

some Sieg-heiling youth, then

normal people who are

concerned about the problem of illegal migration should come.

It concerns me. I live in the Marina

district, and there are markets all around me

everywhere. I see Tajiks who

live in my basement, in some kind of

poverty. And because of that poverty they constantly

commit crimes. This

problem worries me. I want to discuss it

properly. I do not want the absence

of discussion to lead to violence in the

streets. I

And why did you need to go with Vladimir Tor

to see Father Vsevolod Chaplin?

I simply didn't know Chaplin personally.

So Tor suggested that I meet with him.

I was very happy to

meet him. We discussed all these issues.

I gave my own view. Chaplin

gave his view of these problems. That is

completely normal. And I don't see

anything wrong here. I asked him: "Why do you

want to send all

protesters into the army?"

Well, he smiled and said: "Well, you know,

I stand by..." He stood by his

opinion on some issues. Why would he want

to send protesters into the army?

It seems to me that it was more of a

rhetorical device. I don't know what was

going on in his head. I would say that

on most issues we

agreed more than we disagreed.

That's why I asked about Vladimir Tor. I

watched his speech at Sakharov Avenue (site of Moscow protest rallies) again

and it began, well, in my

view, rather creepily. Forgive me, Russian people,

for standing on the same stage. Here

I am, as a Russian, well, on the same stage with

a minister from Putin's government,

Kudrin — we should really finish

that quote. When someone addresses me as a Russian with

something like, "Goy esi, good

fellow" (an archaic, folkloric Russian greeting), I feel I don't need

such defenders. Why once again

shout oneself hoarse that only Russian

nationalists, somehow, want Russian freedom more than anyone else?

I don't think that

Tor or anyone else there — Tor, Chaplin,

or whoever — needs any of my

services in defending or whitewashing them. I

for a combination of reasons, I go and

stand on stage with various people, among

whom Tor is not the most exotic

character. And I think you can see that

perfectly well, since right now you too are

taking part in this civic movement in exactly the same way.

And what do you think — nationalism in general,

you apparently distinguish between healthy and

unhealthy forms — is it an indispensable component

of any political activity? For example,

Vladimir

Putin also flirts with it from time to time.

sometimes by meeting with football fans, sometimes, quite

recently,

Look, there are healthy people and

unhealthy people. The unhealthy ones need to be treated

or persuaded. The point is not nationalism.

And we need to stop making some kind of

fetish out of the term. I am talking about the real

agenda, about real problems. If we are

discussing illegal migration, then that

is somehow considered nationalism. But I

discuss illegal migration today, and

tomorrow I discuss corporate governance

in companies. For me, basically,

these are simply issues. I

list them separated by commas, and to pull

one out from among these issues, from the whole set

of problems I discuss, and

say, "Here you're a nationalist, and here

you're a bit of a liberal" — that's some kind of,

well, it seems to me completely

irrelevant discussion, especially in the

context of Russian politics, particularly the

non-systemic opposition, where everything is simply mixed together

in a heap and no one understands what is right-wing

and what is left-wing. This whole discussion of whether to allow

nationalism in or keep it out is all, uh,

well, it's just wrong and

strange. What matters are the issues. Putin

is periodically forced to address

certain problems that really strike a nerve.

Yes. When they feel that

Kondopoga happened (the 2006 ethnic riot in Karelia), that there really was

a major ethnic conflict there,

because the police, the local authorities, and

so on had let it all slide, they

are forced to react. Then they

First he says that the only Russian

nationalist is someone who alone

how did he put it, that only a fool can

call himself a Russian nationalist.

In the next interview he says that

he and Medvedev are also Russian

nationalists, and so on. So in that

sense, he jumps around. I don’t. I simply

discuss certain problems. I have

a view on these problems. It doesn’t

change.

There was once a play by Konstantin

Simonov called The Russian Question. Yes,

that was during Stalin’s campaign against

cosmopolitanism and the assertion, so to speak, of

Russian priorities in everything. Do you

think there is such a thing as the Russian

question? When I listened to Tor, I

realized that this is being said all over again.

It’s what I was reading 30 years ago in

the magazine Our Contemporary, that we are

the majority, the great Russians, and we are being

pushed aside; some non-Russian власть is

oppressing us, but our hour will come and we will, well,

show everyone.

Well, the Russian question does exist; there’s no need to

refer to it, as you put it, with a three-letter

word starting with “R.” And there’s no melodrama here. And

the point is not that Russians somehow have nothing—

Russians do have a problem which,

for example, consists in the fact that the Russian people

are the largest divided people in

Europe. A fact is a fact. That

problem exists, it does. But that does not mean

anything in itself. It does not mean that tomorrow

we must unite, put on red

shirts, and set samovars everywhere.

All right. What else makes up the Russian

question? Well,

the fact that Russians are deteriorating,

dying out, drinking themselves to death, and that the

population is shrinking. It’s not the small ethnic groups who are

to blame for that.

And who says, who says that some

Russian question is caused by

It is implied, implied, that

the Russians will still show them, because we are

the majority, but some power that is not ours, not

Russian. Bingo. So everything

you just mentioned, listing

a set of clichés and stereotypes, shows

that this question, all these things, need to be

discussed without hysteria and without

dragging any peoples into it. I don’t see any

clichés or stereotypes except in Russian Marches (nationalist demonstrations in Russia),

not in what I say. Yes, when I go to a

Russian March, I am my own

independent little Russian March.

And in my Russian March there is no

conspiracy against Russians, no

little peoples, no blood-drinkers or

anything of the sort. If we are drinking ourselves away

and degrading, we ourselves are to blame.

The authorities we elected are to blame.

So my point is that this is a

Russian authority. Still, let’s then

emphasize this:

Russian, Russian-state authority existing in the

state called the Russian Federation. This

authority must be changed, and we must

strive, including by political

means, to make people stop drinking so much,

smoking so much, and stop

degrading. And at last we must

come up with some kind of unified strategy

for what we are going to do about Russians who

remain outside Russia. Obviously,

it is one thing in the Baltics, somewhat different in Turkmenistan,

and so on. There is nothing in these problems

that requires any kind of

emotional strain or some special app- app-

approach, or again, tearing open on oneself

a loose red shirt.

Especially since neither yours nor mine is

red. All right. And with your rather

acute sense of the national question,

what did you make of Putin’s remark

about Akunin being an ethnic Georgian?

I have no desire whatsoever to defend

citizen Putin, but specifically

to pick on him over this

rather unfortunate phrase, I think, is not

worth it. We all say unfortunate things

from time to time. I am absolutely convinced

that Putin has decided for himself that

he will be president of Russia for as long as

he exists. In other words, he is

either president, or he is nothing.

He has driven himself into this trap. But

I believe he still does have a way

out.

What is it?

Well,

not to be afraid and to gradually begin

delegating this power, loosening

the system. He has grabbed so much power for himself

that he can’t do anything with it. And

now he sits over this

boiling pot that is about to explode.

And he understands that it is about to explode

and scald him with boiling water, but he still

keeps holding it in his hands. So

you mean it would have been better if

Medvedev had gone for a second term?

It would be better if the president were elected by

the people of the Russian Federation. I think that

in a fair election they would hardly have elected

Medvedev.

I strongly doubt it. But I am

sure that, uh,

it would have been possible to create such a system in which

in which a normally elected

President of the Russian Federation would give

Putin security guarantees, specifically for

him and his family. Not even just as

a backroom deal between two people,

it should be an element of

public consensus. But, in the end,

all of us want this, uh,

transfer of power to happen not in the form of

an Orange Revolution or a green,

golden, Arab Spring, and so on.

We want there to be no

burning cars in the streets. This is what

not just two people who are supposed to

reach an agreement between themselves want. This is what

140 million people want. The newly elected

president will explain it to all 140 million people,

put it all in writing, and it will be supported by

the new parliament.

And do your political ambitions go as far as

the presidency?

First, we need to make sure there are

free elections. If there are free

elections, including presidential ones, then I

will fight for a leading position. I

assume, and I am sure, yes, that if there are

truly free

presidential elections, all sorts of people will come out

to take part in them. And we

will see politicians who are new and old,

different, brave, and not so brave. I

will fight for a leading position in

this system. But there’s no time left,

March 14. Who cares that, well,

forget it, just like this constant talk about nationalism

all the time. You’re being weighed down by certain words and

unnecessary symbols. There is no

calendar. There is a country, and in it live

140 million people. They want lawfully

elected authorities whom they will

respect. Just because some Churov (Vladimir Churov, former head of Russia’s Central Election Commission)

wrote in a calendar that certain

procedures would take place on March 4, that

means absolutely nothing.

And we will make sure that

proper elections are announced for the State

Duma, for the presidency, and for all

the rest as well—mayoral and any other

elections. And what is happening now,

is irrelevant. You know, over the last

10 years, from the sale of oil and gas alone,

Russia received 2 trillion dollars. We

could have bought ourselves any reform. But here we are:

12 years have passed, and all these, uh, grandmothers,

grandfathers, young and elderly people who

loved Putin—we are now sitting here in

an old Russian melancholy and realizing that what have we

bought or received? Military reform? No.

Interior Ministry reform? No. Judicial reform? No.

Pension reform? No. There is nothing. Did we

build any roads? In all of Putin’s time,

we have not built a single major

highway. I mean, it’s pointless even to compare it with China.

Not

a single railway line. Well, we keep knocking together some

pipelines at a cost three times

higher than what they cost to build in other countries.

That’s all. We got nothing. Yes,

a huge amount of real estate in

Spain and in London belongs to various

Russian officials, but that is hardly something for us

to be proud of. And

there just isn’t that feeling of, uh,

pride in our country. Our satellites

are increasingly entering the dense layers of water

rather than whatever necessary layers of the

atmosphere. I wanted to ask about a goal, about

a national ideal, about a dream.

I came across a phrase in one of your interviews

saying that Russia could

become, what was it, a metaphysical,

irrational Canada. What does

that mean?

Russians are people who, despite the fact that

this is a European civilization, well,

we are a little special; we like being

special, a bit odd, perhaps,

right?

So Canada seems to you like

a country that is, generally speaking, prosperous,

boring, and although it resembles Russia, it is still

not Russia. But we would add our quirks

to that prosperity, those maples and lakes,

and all that. I simply think that our

distinctiveness, our irrationality and

metaphysical nature, do not consist in the fact that

we are doomed to have crooks in Mercedeses,

that a car will always be parked on the

sidewalk, and there will always be some kind of mess,

and pipes will keep bursting. I am absolutely sure

that we can, in general, become

a country with a European level of coziness and

comfort, but there will still be, there will be

something wonderful about us,

something special, while at the same time it will be an ordinary

routine European life. You walk out of

your house, and there is no car parked on your

sidewalk, the traffic cop does not take bribes from you, and

you elect and re-elect the president,

and there are none of these feudal estates,

racing off into the distance

in Mercedeses with various eagles,

coats of arms, and so on. That is not where our

distinctiveness and metaphysical nature lie.

Well, so large and still more

Canada. Thank you, Alexei Navalny. In

the series of dialogues with

public and political figures on

Kommersant, the conversation was conducted by Leonid

Parfyonov, co-founder of the League of Voters.

Goodbye. Thank you.

At