E. ALBATS: Good evening. This is Echo of Moscow on the air, Yevgenia Albats at the microphone, and I’m beginning our traditional Sunday program. It is now 7:08 p.m., and as you know, our program is devoted to the key events of the week. This week, as you know, brought us a couple of surprises. First of all, personnel reshuffles in the presidential administration, with unclear goals and consequences—we discussed that on Echo all week. Second, a new state attack on public organizations. I mean, first and foremost, the bill prepared by the United Russia, Rodina, Communist Party of the Russian Federation, and LDPR factions and submitted to the State Duma, which would tighten state control over nonprofit civic organizations, require these organizations to re-register, notify state registration authorities when new ones are created, and so on. Moreover, the notification procedure, as proposed, would be set not by law but by the Russian government. Human rights advocates believe these amendments to the current laws would set Russian civil society back by at least 15 years. My colleague A. Cherkizov discussed that topic in detail with his guests. As for us, together with my guests, we will be talking about the Moscow City Duma elections, which will take place on December 4. We are talking about them precisely because, under current conditions, elections remain, in essence, the last democratic institution, and it is essential that representative bodies include people ready to defend citizens’ interests, including the right to free association, as enshrined in our Constitution. In the Echo studio today is Alexei Navalny, deputy chairman of the Moscow branch of the Yabloko party, candidate for the Moscow City Duma from the University district. He heads the united democrats’ list. Hello. A. NAVALNY: Good evening. E. ALBATS: Pyotr Miloserdov, member of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, single-mandate candidate for the Moscow City Duma from District No. 3—that’s the Northern district and Zelenograd, correct? P. MILOSERDOV: Correct, hello. E. ALBATS: And Mikhail Ivanovich Moskvin-Tarkhanov, representative of the United Russia party, Moscow City Duma deputy, chairman of the Commission on Long-Term Development and Urban Planning. He is running on the United Russia list in the Central district. Hello, Mikhail Ivanovich. M. MOSKVIN-TARKHANOV: Good afternoon. E. ALBATS: Our live call-in number is 203-19-22, Moscow code 095, and the on-air pager is 725-66-33. The subject of today’s discussion is how an ordinary person can survive in a nomenklatura city—a city where the main rights belong to officials, and the most important services belong to them as well. And my first question is for the future deputies. Every day, residents of Krylatskoye see the same thing: Rublyovskoye Highway and all adjoining streets are blocked, and for 10, 15, 20 minutes everyone waits for the president’s motorcade to pass. Then the same thing happens all along the route to the Kremlin. As a result, everything grinds to a halt and a chain reaction begins. And besides the president, roads are also blocked for the prime minister, deputy prime ministers, and a whole number of ministers. In short, for those who live in Moscow, there’s no need to explain—it has become a complete nightmare to get around the city. Meanwhile, in normal countries, it’s exactly the opposite: special lanes are set aside for public transport—as in Boston, London, and Amsterdam. And to imagine that a huge city of 10 million people, which is what Moscow is, would wait while the servants of the people drive to work—that is simply unthinkable in many countries. Such “servants” would be swept out and not re-elected next time. What do you propose to do about this? Please, Mr. Miloserdov, from the Communist Party. P. MILOSERDOV: Of course, the very fact that roads are blocked for the passage of ten or fifteen top government officials is unprecedented. And mind you, if there really were only fifteen of them. A huge number of cars use special plates and flashing lights. We all know that you can buy a plate that gives you privileged passage almost anywhere, for a certain sum. There is a black market in such plates. They are sold, just like special signals and passes exempting you from inspection. The authorities created this corrupt market. And it will exist as long as it remains profitable to trade in these plates. E. ALBATS: Thank you. Mr. Moskvin-Tarkhanov—you represent the party in power. Please tell us what you intend to do. M. MOSKVIN-TARKHANOV: I don’t represent the party in power, I represent the city authorities, let’s put it that way. E. ALBATS: Which authorities? Let’s clarify—executive or legislative? M. MOSKVIN-TARKHANOV: The current city authorities, which are divided into legislative and executive branches. But in principle, these are the authorities of the city of Moscow—let’s call them that. Under the Moscow city charter and the law on the capital’s status, the Moscow authorities cannot regulate this issue that troubles and concerns us through their own law or decree. We have been assigned capital-city functions, and the passage of various cars, motorcades, and so on is considered one of those capital functions, carried out by the federal authorities. So whether we like it or not, legally we have no right to do anything here. That’s all I can say on the matter. E. ALBATS: Mikhail Ivanovich, you told me before the broadcast that you’ve been in the Moscow City Duma since 1990, right? M. MOSKVIN-TARKHANOV: First I was in the Frunzensky District Council, and the Duma was formed in 1993, and from its very first convocation I’ve had to deal with all these issues. E. ALBATS: But it wasn’t like this before 2000, was it? M. MOSKVIN-TARKHANOV: No. E. ALBATS: We didn’t have this nightmare, where the servants of the people blocked half the city while everyone else had to sit and wait for them to get to work. M. MOSKVIN-TARKHANOV: I don’t understand at all why the president sits in the Kremlin—what is he doing there? What is he doing in the greatest monument-fortress in Europe, filled with marvelous treasures of world culture, a UNESCO site? Why doesn’t the Queen of England sit in the Tower? Why does the president of France not sit in the Louvre? Why did they choose normal palaces—decent, beautiful, good ones—but not the most extraordinary monument in Russia, not a world-famous site of historical and cultural heritage? I’ve said this many times, because something really has to be done. Why not take Lefortovo Palace, on the outskirts, build proper access roads to it, and create a federal center there? Why should people sit on Staraya Square and in the Kremlin and drag themselves there across all of Moscow every time, causing the unpleasant things you’re talking about? I think Putin, as a cultured man from St. Petersburg, ought to think this through carefully. Because they need to leave that place. Leave it as a ceremonial residence for the president, so he can receive some distinguished ambassador there, or another president, meet him there once, and then get in a car and go somewhere else. E. ALBATS: I see, all right, your point is clear. Mr. Navalny, please—Yabloko, leader of the united democrats’ list in the University district. A. NAVALNY: You know, once in the UK I saw how they stop traffic for the Queen. It literally took a minute and a half. That’s in a state far richer than ours, one that can afford much more serious security measures. Here, it seems to me, this has become a ritual of humiliation that all Muscovites must endure so they understand that they are trembling creatures, and who the real boss is here, and who makes the decisions—so they can fully grasp the greatness and power of the Russian state. So I think that’s the main reason for it. As for the concrete measures that need to be taken—I disagree with Mikhail Ivanovich. We have a traffic management service—this is in fact the city’s business. We are obliged to deal with it. And the city is obliged, at the very least, to make some demands of the federal authorities on this issue. And in the bigger picture, of course, we need to build our own Russian Washington—that is, build a city in Moscow Region to which we could move all the federal authorities. E. ALBATS: I see. A good proposal. M. MOSKVIN-TARKHANOV: We’ll make demands—and get such a response we won’t know what hit us. A. NAVALNY: We should at least try. E. ALBATS: All right. Another example from the same category. I’ve often seen it—I don’t know whether you have—on Teatralnaya Square. If you stand there, you can see cars coming from Petrovka Street. Cars are only allowed to turn left, uphill toward Lubyanka. But cars with parliamentary plates turn right. They’re heading to the State Duma. Judging by the quality of the cars—Audis, BMWs, and so on—these are cars of Duma officials. Which means, incidentally, Mikhail Ivanovich, your United Russia again. So tell me, please, how can it be that representatives of the people in the State Duma allow themselves to drive against traffic, violating every possible rule? The police are standing there, the traffic police don’t stop them. Another traffic jam is created, another danger of possible accidents. We constantly hear now about accidents on Moscow streets, and above all those involving officials—because officials drive however they want, wherever they want, and why they do it. So tell me, can this issue be solved at all? M. MOSKVIN-TARKHANOV: Let me say this. The mayor travels normally, in a car, with one escort car. Nothing is blocked, only officers are posted when he approaches the entrance. We travel in ordinary cars, without any flashing lights, with completely ordinary plates. None of this applies to us. All these things—flashing lights, sirens, black SUVs, forcing their way through traffic and all the rest—this is like in the old days, when one boyar rode to another boyar across one muddy street to another house. He got on a horse, his servants surrounded him, and with great ceremony he crossed a rotten little bridge to the other boyar. There they lifted him from the saddle. You see, this is a ritual act—and it has to stop. Because one thing is the transport problem, which needs to be solved. Another is when this becomes a display of supposed grandeur—that’s not grandeur, that’s Asiatic backwardness, that’s stupidity, and it has to end. E. ALBATS: Mikhail Ivanovich, have you raised this issue in the Moscow City Duma? M. MOSKVIN-TARKHANOV: What is there to raise? They immediately tell us one very simple thing: these are the highest federal authorities. You, Moscow, as the cradle of Russian democracy, are obliged to provide the federal authorities with a cozy nest. And to pay for it from your own budget, too—because nothing is allocated to us from the federal budget to compensate for all this. E. ALBATS: Mikhail Ivanovich, I understand you—nothing can be done, the Moscow City Duma... M. MOSKVIN-TARKHANOV: Let the public do it. E. ALBATS: Then why are we paying for you to be elected? M. MOSKVIN-TARKHANOV: Excuse me, we have plenty of other problems. Our sewer system alone is enough to keep us busy. We have, excuse me, the construction of new residential districts. We have ecology, we have God knows what else—there are plenty of tasks. But this is not ours. It has been taken away from us. E. ALBATS: Mr. Navalny, you’re only just planning to run for the Moscow City Duma. You don’t have the privilege of saying this is not your issue, that it doesn’t concern you, and that you can do nothing. Not to mention that you’re what—27? A. NAVALNY: Twenty-nine. E. ALBATS: Let’s hope your heels are still on fire. Tell me, then, how can a Muscovite survive in this city? A. NAVALNY: First and foremost, through self-organization. A Muscovite on his own will not survive in this city. We have excellent experience: the Yabloko party created the Committee for the Defense of Muscovites, which has brought together more than a hundred initiative groups that, for example, fight violations of their specific rights. The main task is for these initiative groups to communicate with one another and share experience. For example, School No. 194 in the Western district comes to me and says: we have a big problem, our grounds are very attractive, so they want to grab them and build a huge building there. I send them to School No. 591 on Ukrainsky Boulevard, which we helped—we simply laid out a set of steps for them. And they managed to defend their grounds from development. The public really does have to intervene. Mikhail Ivanovich said the public should deal with it—and it is trying to. But there is also a certain style to all this: there is an absolutely boorish attitude on the part of the federal authorities toward Muscovites and toward Moscow in general. After they broke the last barrier—abolishing mayoral elections—they were left with no obstacle at all. Here’s another absolutely typical example: you mentioned Petrovka Street, and we all see it. Vozdvizhenka is a wonderful Moscow street from which we used to have a marvelous view of the Kremlin. Now at 11 Manezhnaya Street there is the FSB. Simply ignoring all urban planning regulations, ignoring Moscow’s law on protected zones, ignoring the fact that this is literally next to the Kremlin—they just added another floor to their building, and because they couldn’t walk one span on foot, they built two huge elevator shafts that have completely blocked our view of the Kremlin. And the public, and all the architecture specialists—we raised a huge outcry, wrote a million inquiries—and it was like water off a duck’s back. So the Moscow City Duma cannot simply say: let the public deal with it. We are the authorities. At least you are the authorities, and we are going into government. I hope we will get there—and we must develop mechanisms. We must fight. We cannot simply say: well, the federal authorities have taken everything from us, so let’s quietly fold our paws. We must fight. We must, if you like, push back against them, and we must defend the rights of the people who elected us. M. MOSKVIN-TARKHANOV: Here’s what I can say to that. There is a new Urban Planning Code. I’m a lawyer, you’re a lawyer. We all understand perfectly well. It says that all laws of the federal subject of Moscow must be coordinated with federal laws. And we look at the Constitution—and that contradicts the Constitution. So what can I do? I can file a petition with the Constitutional Court. I am writing it, I am filing it, I am defending it, I will pursue it. If we achieve a ruling that says: no, the city of Moscow has greater rights in the field of urban planning than the Russian Federation—as indeed follows from the Constitution—then we will say: excuse us, any federal body at any level is obliged to obey our general requirements. But for now the situation has been twisted in such a way that the top boss still sits in the White House (the Russian government building). A. NAVALNY: A brief reply—we see wonderful billboards all over the city: “United Russia, Luzhkov,” and so on. Maybe before going to the Constitutional Court, it would make sense to try the party line? After all, these laws are being passed by United Russia. Why does Moscow’s United Russia allow federal United Russia to do such things? M. MOSKVIN-TARKHANOV: Because I nearly broke my leg in that State Duma—I shouted from the podium, I went to every committee, I persuaded people, I spoke with Boos and everyone else—no. We have amazing specialists, brilliant specialists from Gref’s ministry, and they made this wonderful Urban Planning Code for you. Now no one knows what to do with these housing packages, with this Urban Planning Code. But United Russia has proved capable of learning. Now they ask: how should it be done, what are we going to do, how are we going to fix the situation, and so on. That ability to learn convinced me that one can work with United Russia, and one can come to it as an ally, a fellow traveler, a comrade-in-arms. I am not a party member. E. ALBATS: As I recall, you were once a member of the Union of Right Forces, then moved into the Yabloko faction, and now you are an ally, fellow traveler, and comrade of United Russia. M. MOSKVIN-TARKHANOV: I’m everyone’s ally. I was an ally of Yabloko, and of United Russia, because my task is simple: my task is to secure the maximum benefit for the city of Moscow. And if for that I can use any party structure like a glove, I will gladly use it. Then I’ll take it off and put on another glove. What matters to me is the city. I was born in Moscow, my family has lived in this city since 1725. And what matters to me is to do what is best for it, as much good as possible. E. ALBATS: So with the Mensheviks and the Bolsheviks alike. M. MOSKVIN-TARKHANOV: But not with the Communists. I can’t, I can’t. E. ALBATS: All right. Let’s give the floor to the Communist now. P. MILOSERDOV: May I object? E. ALBATS: Please. Let me remind listeners that Mr. Miloserdov represents the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, he is a single-mandate candidate in the Northern district, District No. 3, and he is also 29. P. MILOSERDOV: Yes. Deputy Moskvin-Tarkhavin is being a little disingenuous... Moskvin-Tarkhanov, my apologies. M. MOSKVIN-TARKHANOV: Well, really... P. MILOSERDOV: Yes, really. As for the plates: every Moscow City Duma deputy is entitled to a personal car with a plate corresponding to the number of his district, and the Moscow traffic police know those plates perfectly well—so you do have that privilege. That’s one. Second, as for your claim that capital-city functions are not your problem and you can do nothing about them—you are again being disingenuous. The Moscow City Duma, like any regional parliament, has the right of legislative initiative and can take it to the federal level and demand action. Why did the Moscow City Duma not demand amendments concerning the passage of official transport? It could have done so, no one prevented it from going to the State Duma level—but you did not do that. M. MOSKVIN-TARKHANOV: There is a big basket for all legislative initiatives from all federal subjects. Every committee has a big basket for all these initiatives. Writing federal initiatives is almost useless. Do you know how many we have submitted? E. ALBATS: Here’s a question from Olga and Valery: “Does the federal budget pay for the Kremlin’s utility services? If not, why don’t you evict them?” Who can answer? M. MOSKVIN-TARKHANOV: Because under the law on the capital’s status we are obliged to perform capital-city functions. E. ALBATS: Do they pay or not? M. MOSKVIN-TARKHANOV: No, of course not. E. ALBATS: They pay nothing? M. MOSKVIN-TARKHANOV: No, of course not. They are supposed to pay subventions, they are supposed to reimburse us—especially as the highest state bodies—for our expenses by providing certain subventions from the federal budget. They don’t provide them. But the smaller tenants—the ones who rent from us—they pay rent, and that’s all normal. All the little ones pay. A. NAVALNY: Not only do they not pay. They take things away—everyone knows about the Road Fund that was taken away from Moscow. We have a catastrophic situation with roads—this money was simply taken from us, and we cannot really build anything. In fact, many road construction projects have been stalled. M. MOSKVIN-TARKHANOV: Somehow, on the basis of Moscow patriotism, we seem to have stopped talking about our party differences... Let’s talk about party differences, because after all this Moscow patriotism I start getting very nervous. A. NAVALNY: Let’s. Mayoral elections, for example. E. ALBATS: Olga suggests: “Build a metro line from the Kremlin to Nikolina Gora, and the problems will be solved.” Well? A. NAVALNY: A bit expensive, perhaps. P. MILOSERDOV: Easier to move Nikolina Gora into the Kremlin—it would be cheaper. M. MOSKVIN-TARKHANOV: Right. And then no one would get in there at all. P. MILOSERDOV: At least there would be no traffic jams. A. NAVALNY: Actually, it would be easier just to relocate them once and for all. Move them to the moon once and for all. M. MOSKVIN-TARKHANOV: No. A country cannot live without supreme authority. There must be normal supreme authority. P. MILOSERDOV: And without citizens? M. MOSKVIN-TARKHANOV: Without citizens, even less so. E. ALBATS: Another question from Sergei Vladimirovich: “What do you think about the reliability of security in the city and at the most important facilities?” Who can answer? P. MILOSERDOV: I can comment. Today we have a situation where the most important facilities are prefectures, district administrations, and municipalities. Try getting in there. There is always either a uniformed police officer or a security guard who will обязательно ask why you came. In other words, citizens cannot get into the district administration building. The municipal building—this is a local self-government body elected by citizens, usually located in the same premises—is also, as a rule, impossible to enter. So our most strategic facilities turn out to be the places where officials sit. M. MOSKVIN-TARKHANOV: I take that as a nice joke. P. MILOSERDOV: Perhaps you just haven’t been to a district administration office. M. MOSKVIN-TARKHANOV: I have. It’s a nice joke. But in reality the situation is this. We have several very serious chemical production facilities, we have several very dangerous sites. We have, excuse me, federally operated nuclear reactors on Moscow territory, guarded by very serious security forces. In any case, we have many dangerous facilities, and much is being done to protect them, but this is not the sort of topic to discuss on the radio. Because if I start telling you what these facilities are, I don’t know who I’d be addressing that information to. So I won’t. E. ALBATS: Spies all around us, Mikhail Ivanovich? M. MOSKVIN-TARKHANOV: Not spies—terrorism is still a problem for us. E. ALBATS: Oh yes. Mikhail writes to you: “Well done, Moskvin-Tarkhanov—he only looks out for his own benefit. And he admits it honestly.” M. MOSKVIN-TARKHANOV: What does that even mean? What personal benefit of mine, I wonder? Working 14 hours a day on all this? If I went into business and earned much more there—that would be my benefit. P. MILOSERDOV: Excuse me, what is a Moscow City Duma deputy’s salary—can you say? M. MOSKVIN-TARKHANOV: I can—80,000 rubles a month. P. MILOSERDOV: Not bad. E. ALBATS: And plus? M. MOSKVIN-TARKHANOV: Plus what? E. ALBATS: Well, wait—medical insurance, right? Where? P. MILOSERDOV: A personal car. M. MOSKVIN-TARKHANOV: The Second Moscow City Clinic. E. ALBATS: A good Moscow city clinic. Plus a car, plus what else? M. MOSKVIN-TARKHANOV: Well, various other things. E. ALBATS: Mikhail Ivanovich, you’re not going into business. M. MOSKVIN-TARKHANOV: I will. There I would earn much more. A specialist of my level earns much more. E. ALBATS: That’s not true. There, Mikhail Ivanovich, you’d really have to work hard. M. MOSKVIN-TARKHANOV: So in your opinion I’m an idler. I wrote 30 laws, produced the Urban Planning Code, delivered the general plan, wrote dozens of federal initiatives and laws, and even managed to push them through over 12 years, and after all that I get accusations like this? Well, hello there—what a life. In short, every lazy fool thinks he can spit on a deputy—that’s what I can say. E. ALBATS: I see. I have absolutely no desire to spit. We’re going now to the news and commercials, and we’ll be back in two minutes. E. ALBATS: Good evening once again. It is 7:34 and 44 seconds, and this is Echo of Moscow on the air. In the studio with me are Alexei Navalny, deputy chairman of Moscow Yabloko and candidate for the Moscow City Duma; Pyotr Miloserdov, member of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation and candidate for the Moscow City Duma; and Mikhail Moskvin-Tarkhanov, Moscow City Duma deputy, co-chair of the commission on long-term urban development, and representative of United Russia. And we are talking about how a Muscovite can survive in a nomenklatura city. We’ve received a number of nasty pager messages asking “how much Albats is being paid for programs like this.” My answer: neither I nor Echo of Moscow is paid a single kopeck for these programs. Because we do not do propaganda broadcasting. And this program is not that. But I consider it absolutely essential that people who come to vote in the Moscow City Duma elections on December 4 know what views this or that deputy represents, what programs they have, what they can and cannot do, and what they are aiming for. That, in fact, is the essence of representative electoral democracy—people must know what they are voting for. Their vote must be informed and conscious. That is my answer to some of our more hostile listeners. I repeat the live number: 203-19-22, Moscow code 095. We’ll open the phones in just a few minutes. For now, just a few questions. A question for Navalny: “Why are candidates from the united democrats not represented in all districts? I know the story with Kataev. But what about the other districts?” — Elena. A. NAVALNY: First of all, we have 15 regional groups, and in any case there is a united democrats candidate in every district. As for single-mandate candidates, yes, we are not in every district. In some places we were removed—there were ugly stories like the one with Kataev. In some districts we simply did not nominate anyone, having divided the districts with other political parties. E. ALBATS: I see. “We live near Shchukinskaya metro station. There is a pine grove there, and the area is in a terrible unsanitary state. Our children walk among bottles and plastic bags,” writes Galina. Can anyone answer that? A. NAVALNY: I can. Shchukino is a wonderful district. It simply has a concentration of initiative groups—it ranks first, with more than 15 construction sites where residents literally tear down fences on a regular basis. I know dozens of cases where the prosecutor’s office established illegal land seizures, and so on. I believe this lies entirely on the conscience of the prefect of the Northwestern district and the head of the Shchukino district administration. I think this disgrace will not stop until those gentlemen are removed. E. ALBATS: And what can residents do, Alexei? What rights do they have, what can they actually do? A. NAVALNY: In fact, the law exists, and they have quite a lot of rights. Unfortunately, in the Committee for the Defense of Muscovites we often encounter people who come to us and simply do not know the most elementary things. They lack even basic knowledge of their rights. As for land, first and foremost they need to create homeowners’ associations, condominiums, take the land for themselves, register it in their own name—and then they become its owners. They can create territorial communities. In fact, it is quite easy to create them, yet no one knows about them, and they can fight effectively. We have dozens of communities in the Committee that are genuinely effective in suing the city and defending their rights. There are other concrete mechanisms too: ordinary complaints, deputy inquiries, appeals to the prosecutor’s office—not all of them are useless. So when an initiative group comes to us, we teach them how to do it. They are often surprised by how simple it is, and wonder how they never thought of it before. E. ALBATS: The newspaper Vedomosti wrote that you go around courtyards in the University district—which is a rather intellectual district. And even there people don’t know? A. NAVALNY: Absolutely. This is one of the main elements of our election campaign—we literally just go around these courtyards, put up notices, people come out and ask questions. It’s the intelligentsia, people with two higher education degrees—and they have absolutely no knowledge of their elementary rights. But in fact, where would they get the information? The same goes for homeowners’ associations. E. ALBATS: What is a homeowners’ association? A. NAVALNY: A partnership of homeowners. Even though the city supposedly runs a program encouraging them, in practice if there is investment-attractive land next to a building, you will not be allowed to create such an association. Because they simply won’t let you do it, because no one wants you to take the land and make it impossible to slap up yet another elite development there. E. ALBATS: And can you help these people? Alexei, if you become a deputy, can you do that? A. NAVALNY: We already help them. They come to us, and we simply write them a step-by-step plan: go here, do this. To create a homeowners’ association, we explain it plainly—here are five steps. Follow them and do it. We even handle court cases, although of course that is an expensive and rather exhausting process, but we help. M. MOSKVIN-TARKHANOV: And sometimes Alexei comes to the Duma and brings papers. Then we help from the Duma too. A. NAVALNY: Yes, many Moscow City Duma deputies help as well. M. MOSKVIN-TARKHANOV: And we do. E. ALBATS: Another question. “On Alabyan Street they destroyed an Olympic reserve sports school in order to build a huge building,” writes Konstantin. Can anyone answer that? P. MILOSERDOV: I can try. Not specifically about Alabyan Street—I won’t take that on, it’s a bit south of my district. But I’d like to continue Alexei’s point about what residents can do. In the Communist Party we are engaged in exactly the same kind of program—creating territorial communities. We created a Committee for the Defense of Citizens’ Rights, which already unites a substantial number of territorial communities, and now during the election campaign we are also going around courtyards, talking to citizens, and explaining how to create a territorial community. The problem is that the Moscow city authorities do not want developed local self-government. I can tell you this: yesterday evening, at this very hour, I was with residents of 12 Festivalnaya Street tearing down a fence and filling in a trench for which there were no proper documents. The police came, the district administration came—no one could produce the necessary documents. What should people do? Go to court? Yes, they can. But that takes a month, three months, half a year. In other words, you go to court afterward. So the authorities are effectively forcing residents to act in the most radical ways when it comes to development. And in fact, the Moscow authorities bear responsibility for the fact that local self-government in Moscow has been practically strangled. It is extremely powerless. A. NAVALNY: Very briefly, to continue that theme. You know, there is an absolutely anecdotal situation: there is a building in Truzhenikov Lane where six Constitutional Court judges live, including Zorkin, the chairman. They came to us, to Yabloko’s Committee for the Defense of Muscovites—a party not even represented in the federal Duma—and said, “Help us, guys, they’re taking away our courtyard.” These are Constitutional Court judges, in a ведомственный house, a departmental building you can’t even approach because of security and so on. And they come to a public organization asking us to defend their rights—Constitutional Court judges. It’s just... E. ALBATS: That’s a wonderful story. Mr. Navalny, are you ready to defend our Constitutional Court judges? A. NAVALNY: We’ve already started. I hope they’ll defend us too. E. ALBATS: Oh, please. That’s funny. Vyacheslav writes: “People will only go vote at gunpoint—they’ll sort it out themselves without us.” Well, Vyacheslav, then don’t complain, don’t whine and moan that you don’t like the authorities. P. MILOSERDOV: Come in a bulletproof vest. M. MOSKVIN-TARKHANOV: Here’s what I want to say. We have written many laws. It’s hard to list them all. And these laws—Alexei won’t let me lie, he has read them all, he’s a lawyer too—are at a high technical, methodological, scientific level, with a proper understanding of urban issues, and some of them have received UNESCO awards. Others are copied by other federal subjects; Kyiv takes our laws. But the laws are poorly enforced. So I am grateful to Alexei and all public organizations when they unite around the law. Because what can unite the authorities and citizens? Only the law. Otherwise the confrontation is meaningless. That is why many of our initiatives, many of our dialogue-based efforts, meet with full understanding. Because the issue here is that we are a state governed by law. E. ALBATS: Mikhail Ivanovich, those are general words, that won’t do. We were saying that back in 1990. But here is a specific question for you. “United Russia has plastered every billboard on both sides of streets all over Moscow. No other advertising is visible. There was even an article about it today in Moskovsky Komsomolets—that all janitors were ordered to cover everything with United Russia posters, while posters of the united democrats, Yabloko, the Communist Party, Rodina, and so on are being torn down,” writes Valentina Ivanovna. What is going on, Mikhail Ivanovich? What kind of law is operating in Moscow? M. MOSKVIN-TARKHANOV: I know nothing about that. But since I get around by metro... E. ALBATS: Again, you don’t know? M. MOSKVIN-TARKHANOV: I don’t know, and I don’t want to know. Because it doesn’t interest me—it’s not my business, you see? P. MILOSERDOV: So the fact that janitors are engaging in political struggle instead of doing their jobs... M. MOSKVIN-TARKHANOV: What do janitors have to do with it? I deal with city problems. P. MILOSERDOV: And this isn’t a problem? M. MOSKVIN-TARKHANOV: When I ride the metro, people hand me leaflets. One says LDPR, with some rude slogans about deporting all dark-skinned, dark-eyed people—throw them out. Then Rodina hands me something, and so on. So I can clearly see that United Russia does nothing of the sort. And I get exactly the same concern—I ride the metro and think: what is this, why is it, where is United Russia? P. MILOSERDOV: They do hand them out, I assure you. M. MOSKVIN-TARKHANOV: Why is it the Communist Party hands me things, why do they hand me this—I don’t see any of that. E. ALBATS: Olga asks Mr. Navalny: “I’m voting for the Yabloko list, but what guarantee do I have that I won’t end up with Krasheninnikov and Mizulina?” As we know, Krasheninnikov moved to the United Russia faction, and Mizulina became... A. NAVALNY: Mizulina is now the government’s representative in the Constitutional Court. E. ALBATS: No, the State Duma’s representative in the Constitutional Court. In other words, our listeners don’t like opportunists. A. NAVALNY: We have no opportunists. At the top of our list are people you know very well: Yevgeny Bunimovich, Honored Teacher of Russia, Ivan Novitsky, a fairly well-known deputy. We can vouch for every person on our list. E. ALBATS: Navalny, if you become a State Duma deputy, you won’t switch... A. NAVALNY: City Duma. E. ALBATS: Sorry. For now. If you become a Moscow City Duma deputy—will you switch to the United Russia faction? Yes or no? A. NAVALNY: Too bad you’re not television. E. ALBATS: Yes or no? A. NAVALNY: Naturally, absolutely not. E. ALBATS: Mr. Miloserdov, will you stay in your faction if you become a State Duma deputy, or will you run off too... P. MILOSERDOV: City Duma. No, I won’t. Voters ask me this question regularly. I always give them one simple answer: I do not represent any financial-industrial group. I do not represent the Moscow government or the party in power. The only resource I can work with is the trust of residents and their self-organization at the local level. That is why I always urge everyone to create local self-government bodies, homeowners’ associations, condominiums—that is what I will work with. E. ALBATS: Another question for Navalny—people keep sending you questions, and all from women. Well, really—29 years old, blue eyes, tall, handsome—you’d give him anything. So, Marina writes: “We gave Navalny documents regarding infill construction on Taganskaya Street, property...” A. NAVALNY: Taganskaya, property 3. Yes, that is now probably the best-known initiative group in Moscow, and it is very active. During the last City Day celebration, they even pelted the prefect of the Central Administrative District with mayonnaise—he is now literally afraid to appear at public events because Taganka-3 pursues him everywhere. It is an absolutely outrageous case, literally police lawlessness. There is such a tight alliance between city authorities and the police there—they once detained about 70 people who came out for a peaceful protest against the construction. We are working on it. Naturally, we are a public organization, we cannot simply cancel a Moscow government decree. But we do what we can and help them. M. MOSKVIN-TARKHANOV: You know, all this is very interesting. Throwing mayonnaise, tearing down fences—it’s all very colorful. But the situation is very simple. What do we want to achieve as a result? Do we want normal urban development? Do we want a certain stable course of development for the city in social terms, in terms of civil society, in whatever terms? Or do we want to focus on isolated excesses and build a little political capital, if you’ll pardon me? Meanwhile, right next to us a very serious and very dangerous group of people is lining up, engaged in agitation on ethnic grounds. That is the real problem—it is very dangerous. And when we say that the Rodina party and the LDPR have crossed a certain line and begun provoking ethnic conflict in the city, I understand that the mayor’s strong team and the United Russia party are capable of stopping it. The Communists are disgracefully flirting with Rodina... E. ALBATS: Where were you when the “Right March” was happening, this strong mayoral team of yours? Where were you? Hiding in courtyards. M. MOSKVIN-TARKHANOV: Who was hiding in courtyards? E. ALBATS: Oh, excuse me, Mikhail Ivanovich. Let’s get back... Alexei, you wanted to respond. A. NAVALNY: I wanted to answer Mikhail Ivanovich’s question about what we want to achieve. We want to live by the law. In Moscow, the laws on construction are actually excellent, on a European level—but they are not observed. M. MOSKVIN-TARKHANOV: Well, thank you—I wrote them. A. NAVALNY: They are not observed. And if a prefect or district head simply doesn’t care about those laws, what is left for people to do? They go and tear down the fence out of anger and helplessness. E. ALBATS: Alexei, I’m asking you the last question, because there are masses of questions for you—you can take the printout afterward and answer them personally, otherwise I’ll be accused of promoting only Navalny. So: “On the program Face to the City it was said that the land under buildings 15, 17, and 19 on Second Setunsky Passage was bought by Chubais, and he plans to build hotels and demolish the buildings. What do you know about this?” — Natasha. A. NAVALNY: As far as I know, those buildings on Setunsky Passage are multi-story buildings. They are not five-story blocks. At present there are no cases in the city—except for one experimental demolition of nine-story buildings in Taganka—of demolishing taller buildings. As I understand it, this is a rumor. People can contact us, and we will request cadastral records and all the necessary information. E. ALBATS: Contact you—that means the Committee for the Defense of Muscovites? A. NAVALNY: Yes. E. ALBATS: All right. Let’s turn on the microphone. I’m listening, you’re on the air live. Please introduce yourself. LISTENER: Good afternoon. Vladimir, Moscow. E. ALBATS: Do you have a question for someone? LISTENER: It’s not a question. Or rather, it is a question to that citizen who called and said he wouldn’t go vote even at gunpoint. Here’s what I want to say. I have always voted for Yabloko. E. ALBATS: Excuse me, what is your name? LISTENER: I said—Vladimir Davydovich. I’m 81 years old, I live in Moscow. What else can I say about myself? I’m a disabled war veteran, but that’s not important. I will definitely come vote. And if I weren’t voting for Yabloko, I would write across the ballot “Against all,” because they removed that line. So that my signature would be on the register showing I received a ballot, which I would then spoil. So that no one else could use that ballot. Therefore I urge everyone to come and vote. If you are “against all,” then write exactly that, spoil the ballot, but at least there is less chance that someone will stuff your ballot in for Tarkhanov or Moskvin, excuse the expression. A. NAVALNY: Thank you very much, Vladimir Davydovich, for your kind words about Yabloko—I absolutely agree with you. The best way to fight falsification is to come to the polls. The higher the turnout, the fewer opportunities there are for fraud. M. MOSKVIN-TARKHANOV: Thank you very much for apologizing when you said my surname, apparently taking it as some kind of swear word. But I can say this: if a citizen wants to go on living in a normal city, he will vote for United Russia. If he wants to throw mayonnaise and tear down fences—then for the Communists or Yabloko. P. MILOSERDOV: That’s demagoguery. The fact is, if you want to vote “against all”... I believe you should vote for the Communist Party as the most oppositional force. That is the “against all” line on this ballot—this time it is called the CPRF. M. MOSKVIN-TARKHANOV: The Communist Party is zero, it is nothing. P. MILOSERDOV: It is not zero. It is a protest against the rest. E. ALBATS: 203-19-22, I’m listening, you’re on the air live. LISTENER: Good evening. Georgy Vasilyevich, a native Muscovite. I listened to Moskvin-Tarkhanov’s endless lamentations and realized that he has made himself very comfortable in the city Duma for 15 years. And that he is the last kind of prostitute... E. ALBATS: Let’s not use insults. Do you have a question? M. MOSKVIN-TARKHANOV: That’s good. Wonderful. So this is what it’s come to. P. MILOSERDOV: Those are your voters, by the way. M. MOSKVIN-TARKHANOV: What can I do? I get all kinds. E. ALBATS: 203-19-22, I’m listening, you’re on the air live. LISTENER: Good evening to you and your guests. My name is Lyudmila Petrovna. I am a member of the Union of Right Forces, and I will vote only for the united democrats’ list, and I urge everyone to do the same. Only that can save us in Moscow. E. ALBATS: You don’t have a question. Thank you very much. I’m listening? Hello, you’re on the air live. Hello. LISTENER: Hello. I have a question for the Yabloko representative. My name is Denis, Moscow. I wanted to ask: before the State Duma elections there was roughly the same situation. People didn’t want to... I called the party office... I have a small retail space where I could place Yabloko advertising and materials. When I called and said, “Guys, maybe you could come and put something up?” they said, “No, come pick up the materials yourself. We’ll provide them.” And now the situation is the same. I called, and the answer was about the same. I wanted to ask: guys, are you already admitting that you’ve lost? E. ALBATS: Denis, don’t hang up, Navalny will answer you now. A. NAVALNY: We are absolutely not afraid of losing in Moscow. What we are very afraid of, however, is the election commission finding fault with us. We get many such requests, and unfortunately we are forced to refuse, because our lawyers insist that we do so, so that we are not accused of... Let’s say, shops often approach us. Small businesses. We are forced to refuse. Because we are afraid claims may be made against us over this. E. ALBATS: Why? A. NAVALNY: Because it is not paid for from the election fund, because it is not processed correctly, there are constant nitpicking issues about this. The situation with our candidate Kataev was already mentioned, for example—they simply gave him the wrong bank account number, he transferred the deposit there, he was simply deceived, and on that basis he was removed. So now we are being extra cautious, and unfortunately we are forced to refuse. E. ALBATS: Denis, but you have a good option—you can make your own appeal to customers. That is a normal civic initiative. There is no need to wait for someone to come and help you. This is our city. LISTENER: No, there is such a thing—I don’t know how applicable it is in politics—but there is such a thing as corporate style. And if, God forbid, I write something wrong... E. ALBATS: If you write sincerely, that will be good. LISTENER: I’m afraid of doing harm. E. ALBATS: Thank you. I’m listening, you’re on the air live. LISTENER: Hello. I have a question for Mr. Moskvin-Tarkhanov. Dmitry from Moscow. The question is simple: he represents the wonderful United Russia party. As I understand it, all the leadership of the Moscow police are in the same party, or at least vote for it. What exactly has Mr. Moskvin and so on done to stop the, shall we say, less than admirable phenomena taking place in the police? Specifically, what influence has he had on the work of the Moscow police? M. MOSKVIN-TARKHANOV: A very simple answer. I just don’t understand what United Russia has to do with it. I have been in United Russia for two months as a member of the faction. I am not a party member, and I am not responsible for the federal authorities. So I can answer only for the Moscow authorities—for Luzhkov and the rest. We oversee the police to the extent that we are able. We provide them with certain funding, we try to organize them somehow, and we try to give them the ability to ensure security. Are we successful at it or not? Yes, we have many different problems here. And as for the police being in United Russia—the police, alas, sympathize with Rodina. If you look at whom the police sympathize with—they are free citizens of a free country—then on a voluntary basis, most of them sympathize with the Rodina party. Just so you know. E. ALBATS: Thank you. I’m listening. You’re on the air live. LISTENER: Good evening. Galina, Moscow. I have a question for the United Russia representative. Recently we were driving on the MKAD (Moscow Ring Road), and we ended up making a full loop—on every pole in the median strip there was an ad or a sign saying “Vote for United Russia.” Not a single other poster anywhere, except maybe two banners for Zhirinovsky. How are we supposed to understand that, please tell me? E. ALBATS: Galina, may I ask you—did it persuade you? LISTENER: It persuaded me not to vote for United Russia. Because it was too pushy. M. MOSKVIN-TARKHANOV: Well, what can I say? Everyone has an election fund, the party has a fund, it fills that fund. As far as I know, it is not especially large. Appropriate spaces are rented, appropriate posters are put up. Perhaps an unsuccessful posting campaign becomes too conspicuous—that is of course irritating, it happens. But in fact, one should not vote or not vote for someone based on posters and billboards. I say one simple thing: if you want Luzhkov’s and the Moscow government’s policy to continue, vote for Moscow’s United Russia. If you don’t—vote for any other party. E. ALBATS: Mikhail Ivanovich, for heaven’s sake—Luzhkov is losing one deputy after another. Now Alexander Men is leaving for Ivanovo Region. M. MOSKVIN-TARKHANOV: He’s Mikhail. Mikhail Alexandrovich. E. ALBATS: Forgive me, I knew Father Alexander Men very well, my apologies. M. MOSKVIN-TARKHANOV: And I know Misha very well, we’re friends. E. ALBATS: What are you talking about? It is perfectly obvious that Luzhkov is on his way out. Why do you keep riding on Yuri Mikhailovich’s name when you can’t even defend him? M. MOSKVIN-TARKHANOV: What do you mean “riding”? We are his team, we came into this city with him. And if today we unite under the banner of United Russia, that means this is a way to preserve that team—how can that be hard to understand? E. ALBATS: What team, when it is scattering to different cities? M. MOSKVIN-TARKHANOV: We are not leaving. E. ALBATS: Mr. Navalny, please. A. NAVALNY: We must unite around the idea of defending our rights. Moscow’s population is the most deprived politically—we do not elect district heads, we do not elect prefects, and now we do not elect the mayor either. We elect only some feeble district assembly deputies who have no powers at all. So we must reclaim our political right to choose the head of our city. Let us elect our own mayor, rather than look at whoever is appointed for us. E. ALBATS: Mr. Miloserdov, please, from the Communist Party. P. MILOSERDOV: Yes. A party that plasters itself on every pole is a party of hereditary boyars (an old Russian aristocratic class), United Russia. A party of hereditary boyars that, by and large, spits on Muscovites. You see the point? You talk about laws, but have you seen how they are enforced, how they are implemented? Have you seen what kind of cars district heads arrive in when they come to talk to residents? I can tell you—they are very expensive cars. You can’t buy such cars on a district head’s salary. Where does the money come from? M. MOSKVIN-TARKHANOV: I want to say one simple thing. Moscow’s United Russia is the former Luzhkov movement Otechestvo (Fatherland). Everyone saw 1999, everyone saw what was going on, how Dorenko was saying all sorts of things every day... Muscovites supported Yuri Mikhailovich, and Otechestvo merged into United Russia. That process was beyond my control, and I’m not going to discuss it. But today, when we say “vote for United Russia” in Moscow, we mean: vote for us if you still trust us. If you think we are pursuing the right course for you. If you don’t trust us—vote for any other party, that’s all. E. ALBATS: What did you say? Pursuing the right course? M. MOSKVIN-TARKHANOV: Pursuing the right course. E. ALBATS: That sounds like something from my youth. P. MILOSERDOV: Vote for 100 percent payment of housing and utilities, for a property tax based on market value. M. MOSKVIN-TARKHANOV: Do we have 100 percent payment of housing and utilities? P. MILOSERDOV: We will, if Muscovites vote for United Russia—for infill construction in every courtyard. That’s what you are asking people to vote for. That is your real course. M. MOSKVIN-TARKHANOV: What are you talking about? P. MILOSERDOV: Vote for continuing bribery and corruption in local government. M. MOSKVIN-TARKHANOV: Vote for a social budget, for pension supplements and everything else, vote for free schools. P. MILOSERDOV: A social budget? You can’t get subsidized medicines at clinics—yes, by all means, vote for a social budget. E. ALBATS: Mr. Navalny, the last word is yours, and then we will end our broadcast. A. NAVALNY: Dear friends, in any case, please come to these elections and make your choice. Vote for the party that truly represents your interests, that does not regard you as cattle and that works on solving your specific problems, that defends your social and political rights. I believe that party is Yabloko. I urge you to vote, and in any case, please come to the polls. Thank you all. E. ALBATS: Thank you all, we’ll hear each other again in a week. Goodbye.
Loading PDF...
1
/
0