Alexei Navalny said that his experience serving on the board of directors of Aeroflot showed the limits of corporate reform in state-owned companies without political will, although, he said, some changes were still possible. He acknowledged that Vladimir Putin had certain achievements at the beginning of his rule, including financial stabilization and administrative reforms, but noted that later, in his view, the system deteriorated and corruption became the main mechanism of governance. Navalny rejected suggestions of any agreements with the Kremlin, stressed his commitment to political competition and opposition primaries, and also explained the sharpness of his rhetoric as an effort to consistently criticize corruption and secure legal political representation for radical and nationalist groups so as not to drive them underground.
Text version
0:10
This is the program *HARD DAY'S NIGHT*; let me remind you, our guest today is
0:12
Alexei Navalny. Let's, in order to
0:14
wrap up the topic we started before
0:16
the commercial break—I'd like to clarify something.
0:18
You talk about corporate procedures,
0:20
independent
0:22
directors. It seems to me that for giant
0:24
companies—truly giant ones, especially
0:27
those controlled by the state—this is not
0:29
a panacea. You were on the board of directors of
0:31
Aeroflot. Were you able to change much there,
0:33
or do you think the company
0:35
was so well organized, despite
0:37
being under state control, that
0:41
no changes were needed? I managed
0:43
to change only a little, but I did manage to change something.
0:45
You know, before I became
0:47
a member of the board, the head of
0:49
the audit commission and the head of the tender
0:51
committee were the same person. That
0:53
sounds fantastic, of course. They would hold
0:56
tenders and then audit themselves afterward.
0:58
Thanks to my modest efforts,
1:00
Alexashenko was also working actively there, and this
1:03
position was supported, including by Androsov as
1:04
the head of the supervisory board. Now
1:06
those positions have been separated. I proposed
1:09
a broader reform of corporate
1:10
governance there, including the introduction of these so-called whistle-
1:13
blowers, who could
1:15
report violations anonymously. Most
1:18
of these proposals, unfortunately, were not
1:20
supported. Why? Because there sit
1:22
state representatives who say to us,
1:24
we don't need any of this, we don't
1:26
want any of it. This is exactly why we should be bringing in
1:28
more independent directors so that
1:31
these decisions can get through. There were sitting there
1:33
some very fine people from the
1:35
ministries who, of course, would come,
1:37
they're all good people, but they read
1:39
the board materials simply in the
1:40
car while they're on their way to the
1:42
board meeting. They are completely
1:44
uninterested in it. The people sitting there should be
1:46
professionals who are paid
1:47
for their work and do it properly, at a high level.
1:49
So even in just
1:51
one year as an independent
1:54
director at Aeroflot, I changed a few things.
1:56
If there were a state-level
1:58
commitment to changing these things,
2:01
we would all feel the changes
2:02
fairly quickly. I'm sure of that. After
2:04
Aeroflot, I'm 100% sure of it. May I
2:06
change the subject? The word “president” came up, and
2:09
I've been sitting here with one analogy
2:12
spinning around in my head—please don't be offended,
2:14
Alexei. You know, in 1999
2:16
I'm playing the role today of the old woman from the fairy tale about the golden fish (a reference to Pushkin), and
2:18
back then we also got this kind of
2:21
fair-haired man who, at
2:23
one point, seemed like someone
2:24
you wouldn't be embarrassed by, not embarrassed at all.
2:27
He could speak well. He moved easily.
2:29
He felt comfortable
2:31
in front of cameras. Though, of course, after 12 years
2:34
the impression faded a bit.
2:36
So tell me, please: do you personally
2:41
—you personally—deny Putin any achievements at all, or
2:45
do you see any achievements
2:47
that belong to the current president of the
2:49
Russian
2:51
Federation? There were certainly achievements, especially
2:54
at the first stage. He began to carry out
2:56
administrative reform.
2:59
[music]
3:00
He made progress in that direction.
3:03
He helped ensure that the country's
3:05
financial system was built, and the GDP growth
3:07
that accompanied the first years of his
3:10
presidency was connected precisely with
3:12
that. Those were the right directions. A
3:14
reserve fund was created; some things were
3:16
done correctly. But over time,
3:18
naturally, over the years, all this power
3:20
degenerated. And now we see
3:22
a completely different Putin, with different
3:25
approaches and different
3:27
attitudes. Naturally, before 2003
3:31
there was not this level of corruption. There was corruption in
3:33
the country, but Putin was not a direct
3:35
vehicle for that corruption. There were
3:37
significant achievements before 2003,
3:40
but from 2003 to 2007 we saw only
3:43
stagnation. And since 2007, there has been nothing
3:45
except the desire of certain
3:47
people to grab one resource or another for themselves.
3:50
What question would you ask
3:52
Vladimir Putin if you had
3:53
the chance—just one main question? I
3:56
would ask why he believes so strongly in
3:58
corruption as a method of governing
3:59
the state. I can see that he really
4:02
holds the entire country together through corruption, through
4:04
this kind of informal
4:06
social contract: you steal, but
4:08
hang my portraits everywhere. You said the government has degenerated.
4:11
Is that the fate of any
4:13
government? Is that what awaits any president,
4:15
including you, for example? The same thing awaits anyone in a situation
4:17
of irremovability, in a situation of usurpation
4:19
of power—absolutely. Any government, if
4:21
a person wants to become a lifelong
4:23
ruler—Putin simply imagines himself an emperor.
4:25
He has decided this for himself, and it is completely
4:27
obvious to me that he intends to be the country's
4:28
leader for life—not even as president,
4:31
but as the main, the ultimate
4:34
person who makes all the decisions.
4:35
In those conditions, absolutely any power
4:37
degenerates. You don't imagine yourself as
4:39
the emperor of the Russian opposition, do you?
4:42
The Russian opposition is such a dubious thing. No,
4:45
not the irremovable leader of the Russian opposition.
4:47
At the rallies, at the rallies, at the rally
4:49
on the ninth, on Monday—the speakers
4:51
They say Navalny likes you. Well, that’s...
4:55
You have to understand that our whole campaign
4:56
was, in many ways, rather ironic — it was
4:58
irony, and a lot of it, a great deal of irony.
5:01
It’s not simple. Some people didn’t quite get it,
5:02
some people did. I think this is
5:04
the terrible, nightmarish fate of any politician:
5:06
to become the opposition’s emperor for life.
5:09
I’ve been in Yabloko (a Russian liberal political party) since 2000, and I’ve seen all these
5:13
lifelong emperors, and I find it
5:16
a sad sight. In fact, we do not need
5:18
any lifelong emperors of the opposition.
5:21
That is precisely why I am such
5:23
an advocate of the primary system. I believe that
5:25
within the opposition, we must resolve personnel
5:27
issues honestly before we begin
5:30
resolving those issues at the state
5:31
level. When there is pressure from below,
5:33
from activists, then the opposition
5:35
works. Please, please, may I
5:37
finish? You interrupted me. Tikhon has given me
5:40
that opportunity back. As for what
5:41
Putin thinks — we began with the point that you
5:43
have absolutely no idea what is going on
5:44
in his head, and now you have explained in such detail
5:46
what he feels about future
5:47
power. No, I’m simply observing what he does.
5:50
Okay, fine, then can we at least
5:51
understand the logic of it, as regards
5:53
a personal meeting with him? There was such a
5:55
hypothetical possibility: if not for
5:57
the travel restrictions, would you, here now during
5:58
the Valdai Club (an annual Russian discussion forum), have met with him
6:00
because, as I understand it, tomorrow he will in fact be
6:01
meeting with representatives of the opposition.
6:02
If not for the travel restrictions, would you have gone, and
6:04
would you have been interested in
6:05
meeting him, after all? Not exactly to
6:06
reset relations — you have to understand that
6:09
as far as I understand, the format of the Valdai
6:11
Club is that 300 people sit there — I want to say 300
6:15
idlers, but 300 different people — and
6:17
they talk with Putin. Oh, among them this year are
6:19
Ilya Ponomaryov and Gennady...
6:21
who fit that description perfectly,
6:23
as one of the 300 idlers. Dmitry
6:26
Gudkov is there, and Ksenia Sobchak too. Dmitry
6:28
Gudkov, Ksenia Sobchak — people who, in that sense,
6:31
well, perhaps some people like such
6:34
events. I try not to attend them. I
6:37
do not see any practical
6:38
sense in them. And even if I were invited
6:41
to Valdai, I would not have been able to go there because
6:43
of the travel restrictions. And if there were no
6:45
restrictions, I think I probably... I mean,
6:47
to be honest, I am constantly invited to
6:48
various roundtables, of course without
6:50
Putin’s participation, but I never go there
6:52
because it is a meaningless waste
6:53
of time. And even for the prospect of
6:54
meeting Putin — what does it even mean
6:56
to meet Putin? Well, I see him on
6:57
television, and there I would see
6:59
him not from the distance I’m seeing
7:01
Tikhon from right now, but from somewhere about 20 times
7:03
farther away. What would that change?
7:04
So Putin is not interesting to you? On the contrary,
7:07
Putin is interesting, but these
7:09
meetings at some Valdai forum — well, they are
7:10
absolutely ritualistic,
7:13
meaningless absurdities. There is also
7:15
another point — two aspects to the topic of Putin and
7:19
the opposition. On the one hand, your
7:24
sudden change in the preventive measure, yes,
7:27
gave rise to a marvelous criminological—
7:30
or rather conspiratorial — marvelous version that
7:32
in fact, the conspiracy theory is
7:35
well, partly this:
7:38
that in reality you have
7:40
a deal with Putin, and everything with him has long been
7:43
stitched up. Please dissuade those who
7:46
at least believe this, or
7:48
keep repeating it. And the second point, conversely:
7:51
look, just now, in passing,
7:54
let’s hear the answer to this
7:56
question — you offended, offended your colleagues from
7:58
the opposition.
8:08
I feel...
8:14
this video on YouTube would probably get
8:17
a lot of clicks if I said right now:
8:19
yes, there is a deal with Putin. But
8:21
then you would say to me: prove it. How
8:23
can people who genuinely, in all seriousness,
8:25
believe that I have a deal with
8:27
him
8:30
be convinced otherwise? It’s impossible, so I won’t even
8:31
try to do that. There is another
8:34
point: yes, those may be people who perhaps
8:36
can no longer be persuaded. But there are
8:39
other people who are simply
8:41
afraid of you. Excuse me, and in general they do not
8:45
much like Putin, yes, or the current
8:47
government. They are ready to sign on
8:49
to practically every point
8:51
in your platform, but you personally, excuse me,
8:54
they see as too cynical, too
9:00
— and the people around you as well. Yes, they also
9:03
consider them too ideologically
9:07
honed in one direction. This is precisely
9:10
about the opposition. And many people, excuse me,
9:12
are afraid of you.
9:13
So convince people that you are not so
9:17
cynical and pragmatic.
9:19
Why? Frankly, I understood the question,
9:22
but for me it is surprising to hear “cynical,”
9:25
“pragmatic.” Masha, with that
9:29
perhaps sarcastic little sign of hers,
9:30
asked: “Are you an idealist?” Well, of course I am.
9:33
That kind of sign? Yes, I’ll give you that sign.
9:36
Well, yes, and it seems to me that my
9:38
work shows exactly that. But what is cynical
9:40
about it? If I could be called a cynic, if
9:42
I were going after
9:45
Yakunin using Chemezov’s money — good Lord —
9:48
or vice versa, something like that. But I
9:50
like it, I like that Tatyana Rusova
9:51
is throwing up her hands at this moment. Well, the votes
9:53
you did get the votes... you declared, “I’ll put those people in jail...”
9:58
I won't meet with those
10:10
municipal deputies—you really caught them red-handed
10:12
from United
10:15
Russia. This isn't pragmatism; it's an effective
10:18
political strategy. Let's
10:23
remember
10:28
How did we secure those
10:31
votes? Remember, there were letters
10:33
from public figures, for which I am very
10:34
grateful—and Akunin (Boris Akunin, writer), Chulpan Khamatova—they
10:37
all wrote to Sobyanin and said that we
10:39
demand that United Russia provide the votes
10:41
We called all the deputies, we put pressure
10:43
on everyone. I appealed to Muscovites and
10:45
said: Muscovites, make your
10:48
deputies give me their votes as well
10:50
So I believe we created such an
10:53
intensity of pressure that Sobyanin
10:55
understood that the victory would not be recognized
10:57
by absolutely anyone if I wasn't allowed onto
10:59
the ballot. That's why we succeeded, and he gave
11:01
me those votes from municipal deputies
11:03
That was an absolutely correct, normal
11:05
strategy. There was no pragmatism in it
11:08
Svetlana had a question here
11:10
It was raised—look, Alexei, regarding the fight
11:13
On December 24, at the rally on
11:15
Sakharov Avenue, you said: we will not go to
11:17
the Kremlin. But on September 9, at Bolotnaya
11:20
Square, you said that if necessary, if
11:23
I call on you to overturn cars
11:26
light flares and something else, then I will call on you
11:28
to do it, and so on. Next
11:30
there should really have been a sign saying
11:33
"sarcasm"
11:36
There are people who, in general,
11:39
are afraid of everything, even their own shadow
11:41
Of course, as someone who claims
11:44
to represent the political
11:46
interests of the majority—and I do claim that, without
11:48
a doubt—I try
11:50
to improve. I'm not saying that I am
11:52
a perfect politician. I have
11:53
a fairly sharp way of speaking
11:56
a sharp manner of expression
11:58
Publicly, I speak quite harshly
12:01
about all these
12:03
characters of mine—VTB, Gazprom, Rosneft. Well,
12:05
because I spent years investigating their
12:06
activities. I know how much they stole and
12:09
how they stole it, and they still remain in
12:10
their positions. So I speak quite harshly
12:12
about it. That frightens and embarrasses many people; they
12:15
would probably prefer it if I were
12:18
speaking in more general terms
12:20
with complaints about the authorities, about fighting
12:21
corruption. Back to politics—do you
12:23
regret anything? I was beginning to
12:26
suspect maybe some of your
12:27
publicly spoken words—are there any like that
12:29
No, I wouldn't say that I regret anything. I
12:32
still try, because for me it is very
12:34
important to be politically consistent, and
12:38
I understand that from the standpoint of some
12:39
tactic or advantage or strategy
12:41
probably in some situations I should have
12:43
kept quiet or not published something
12:45
and so on. But within the framework of political
12:47
consistency, will you consistently
12:49
take part in the Russian March on November 4?
12:51
That's like asking: will you go to the movies? You need
12:54
to ask: what film will be showing? There still hasn't
12:56
even been an organizing committee for the Russian March; we
12:58
don't understand what exactly it will be, or whether it will be held in
13:01
one form or another. From the point
13:02
of view of consistency, I can say
13:04
that I still
13:05
consider such events, on the whole,
13:08
positive, because they de-marginalize
13:11
de-marginalize—probably that's the right word
13:14
to use—certain people. These people exist, they
13:18
have supporters. If we do not want
13:19
them running through alleyways beating
13:21
someone over the head, they must exist
13:24
in the legal political sphere, have
13:26
at least some deputies, and all these people
13:28
let them become assistants
13:30
You're now repeating the rhetoric
13:32
of the authorities: Navalny, by lending his name, brings people into the
13:36
streets. I asked one of the
13:37
representatives of the authorities: do you understand what
13:40
happened on July 18?
13:41
They say: we want to get them off the
13:45
streets. No, I'm not repeating the authorities' rhetoric; rather,
13:47
the authorities are repeating my rhetoric, and in fact
13:50
they are talking about fairly obvious
13:52
things. We see that people are protesting—why? Well,
13:55
because they have been pushed out of the legal
13:56
sphere. It is obvious that in Russia there are
13:58
quite a lot of
14:00
conservative and even ultra-
14:01
conservative citizens. These
14:02
ultra-conservative citizens exist
14:04
in France and in Britain. In Britain there is
14:06
also—what is it called?—the British
14:08
National Party. So probably in
14:09
Russia too, these people—whom we, generally speaking,
14:12
look at and absolutely do not approve of
14:14
a significant number of their views—also need
14:16
a normal, legal
14:18
political channel. When they are thrown out from everywhere
14:20
that leads to the fact that
14:22
within their milieu, power is taken locally
14:25
power is taken by the most radically
14:26
minded people. Which specific people did you mean?
14:30
Or us? Look, at every
14:32
Russian March there are people who
14:33
run around shouting Sieg Heil; naturally, I do not
14:35
approve of such people, and I believe that we
14:38
should not try to marginalize and crush this
14:41
movement further. Because if we
14:44
keep crushing it and pushing it out from everywhere, then
14:46
all these Heil-shouters will take control of
14:48
this movement. It just seems to me that you
14:49
have already played this card once before. Yes
14:52
Earlier, Maria Makeeva spent 33 minutes on this. That
14:55
was our record. She was asking me about
14:56
the Russian March and nationalism. I'll ask you afterward
15:00
how your supporters harassed me over this
15:02
then over the course of
15:04
not the TV viewers, no — these were your supporters
15:08
and as for where they poisoned it, this was
15:11
it was on Twitter, and you now retweet, including
15:13
including Sputnik i Pogrom (a Russian nationalist media outlet) — what is your
15:17
attitude toward this outlet? They
15:19
seem to like you so much — or do you like them too? What do you
15:21
think? Raise your hands, those who have retweeted
15:23
Sputnik i Pogrom. Quiet, please. I think you have too
15:24
done that. Not once in my life. There are various
15:28
outlets.
15:29
There is such an outlet, Sputnik i Pogrom (a Russian nationalist media outlet), and it is
15:31
remarkable how much attention it has received lately.
15:33
Recently there was a huge report about it on Channel Two
15:35
they make various funny
15:37
images there, and so these funny images,
15:39
these banners and posters, are popular
15:42
among, including, those
15:44
who are fairly, I would say, liberal-minded
15:47
and among your circle they are popular too.
15:49
Some of the images are fairly
15:51
talented; I’m not going to deny that. There are
15:52
talented people there. They are simply
15:54
images — from a purely design standpoint, I
15:57
mean, a purely design-oriented image
15:58
reflects
16:05
this
16:06
idea that an image sometimes conveys. So
16:10
I need to wait 10 seconds — this is
16:12
called Maria Makeeva has gone back to her
16:13
What idea? If you are talking about
16:15
some specific image, tell me
16:16
which image you mean.
16:18
When you ask me whether I share
16:19
the ideas in images — there are many images on the internet.
16:22
Ask the editor-in-chief
16:23
of [the outlet] — they also have a lot of different
16:26
images, because these are maximally
16:29
politically incorrect. May I get back to something serious?
16:33
So, you admit that this
16:35
was not serious? Let us, let us
16:36
return, let us return to
16:38
serious matters literally, literally after
16:40
a minute of commercials. I would still like
16:42
once again, in order to wrap up this
16:44
topic: are we right in understanding that
16:46
politician Alexei Navalny has not yet
16:48
decided whether he will go to the Russian
16:49
March (an annual Russian nationalist rally) or not? And is it correct to understand
16:51
that there has not yet been a Russian March, and there has not yet been
16:54
an organizing committee for the Russian March? We do not
16:55
know whether there will be a Russian March, and we do not
16:57
know who might lead it. Every year
16:59
we have several Russian Marches
17:01
and of course with certain specific
17:03
people who organize one
17:04
version of the Russian March, of course
17:06
there is a committee. Are you ready to join it? No, I have never
17:08
been part of the organizing committee of the Russian March. This
17:09
time I was invited, and I said that I
17:11
of course would not join the organizing committee. I
17:13
have never joined it. We will break for
17:14
a short pause, then we will come back and continue.
17:16
[inaudible]