E. ALBATS: Good evening. It’s 7:07 p.m. and some seconds; Yevgenia Albats at the microphone, and of course you’re listening to Echo of Moscow radio. I’m beginning our traditional Sunday program devoted to the main events of the past week and what lies ahead. This week, of course, was marked by the anniversary of the terrible tragedy in Beslan. 186 children. Beslan probably has the country’s largest children’s cemetery today. A year later, those responsible for the tragedy—apart from one terrorist who is currently on trial—still have not been found or identified. Members of the operational headquarters who allowed this tragedy to happen, and to end the way it did, were promoted, while after Beslan the country abolished elections for regional governors and tightened the screws even further. In my view, that was the beginning of a new political era, one that will end with the 2008 elections. And today, at the start of a new political season, young politicians have come to the Echo studio to discuss it. Maria Gaidar, representative of the youth movement “Da!” (“Yes!”), coordinator of the project “For Freedom of the Media.” Maria, hello. M. GAIDAR: Good evening. E. ALBATS: Alexei Navalny, deputy chairman of the Moscow branch of the Yabloko party, executive secretary of the Committee for the Defense of Muscovites. Alexei, hello. A. NAVALNY: Good evening. E. ALBATS: And Sergei Udaltsov, head of the AKM youth organization. Hello, Sergei. S. UDALTSOV: Good evening. E. ALBATS: I should tell you, Dmitry from Moscow wrote in asking: was there really no one else to invite except these practically unknown young people who have done nothing to distinguish themselves in politics or in life? Next time, just grab the first passersby you see on New Arbat. Dmitry, we do invite passersby too. But I should tell you that Echo of Moscow’s editor-in-chief, Alexei Venediktov, personally invited representatives of the youth movement Nashi (“Ours”) to come on the program. He called them, and they replied: we don’t sit down with minor parties. Well then, I’d like to send a message to Nashi: go stand in the corner. Our sound engineer Svetlana Rostovtseva is helping us tonight; after the half-hour mark she’ll start taking your calls in the studio. But first let’s go straight to the questions that came in large numbers through the Echo of Moscow website. Tatyana from the Urals asks: for those in power, will this be the last autumn or an eternal spring? And Vasily Stoyanov, an entrepreneur from Kostroma, asks: the political season has begun, but how will it end? Option one: constitutional elections. Option two: unconstitutional elections. Option three: a putsch by the Kremlin entourage, as I understand it. And option four: an Orange Revolution. So then, Masha Gaidar, what do you say? M. GAIDAR: In the current situation, with no oversight from society and with this vertical power structure being built, it really could end in anything. There is indeed a risk that it could end in either a putsch or a revolution. I believe that, of course, must not be allowed, and we need to do everything possible to avoid such extreme scenarios. That requires public oversight, and it means we need to start acting now. And for that, we need in many ways to stop defending our own personal ambitions, unite, build coalitions, and resist this. E. ALBATS: Thank you. Alexei Navalny? A. NAVALNY: I disagree with Masha. I don’t think this will end in an Orange Revolution. After Beslan, Putin finally formalized a framework convenient for his rule: no serious decision is made without his direct involvement. I think this will develop gradually: in 2007 we’ll get a managed Duma, and in 2008 we’ll triumphantly elect a successor. It’s possible that Putin will return a year later and again be our president for eight years. Any upheaval is possible only if oil prices fall—if the flow of petrodollars our state uses to shut up dissatisfied pensioners, state employees, and so on dries up or shrinks. Then some shocks are possible, but for economic reasons. I don’t think political reasons—the curbing of the media and the rollback of democratic freedoms—can now cause any real change. E. ALBATS: So what, should we just sit on the shore and wait? A. NAVALNY: We shouldn’t sit and wait, no. But we need to work on this gradually, gradually. We need to build a democratic party, we need to fight, we need to enter government, we need to take part in elections at every level. We shouldn’t boycott anything. Of course we need to do all of that. But I don’t believe that in six months we’re going to organize some Maidan and triumphantly overthrow Putin. To hope for that, it seems to me, is simply to mislead ourselves and everyone else. E. ALBATS: Sergei Udaltsov? S. UDALTSOV: You know, I wouldn’t engage in fortune-telling. I’m not Cassandra. But one thing, it seems to me, must be understood: this government is criminal, this government is illegitimate. It is in power today because of violations of the law during the 2003 and 2004 elections, because of falsifications. For some reason that topic is barely heard now, but it is the basis of this government’s illegitimacy. Our people are living in a state where they are being robbed, where crimes are being committed against them—Nord-Ost (the 2002 Moscow theater hostage crisis), Beslan, and many other, perhaps less significant but constant events. So the people, and all political organizations that in one way or another try to reflect their mood, must understand this: until we all organize, until we create an effective coalition that will lay claim to power, these crimes will continue. And, as they say, this could go on forever. As for the future, real claims to power can come only from the left—I am absolutely convinced of that. I don’t expect any Orange Revolutions; I think that’s mostly PR right now. They won’t happen. And even if our oligarchs are already talking about a left turn, I don’t think that’s accidental. Whether Khodorkovsky’s words are sincere or opportunistic, God will judge him, but on this point I largely agree. People are tired—tired of these reforms, tired of lies. For now they are still enduring it. But sooner or later, I think, there will be a social explosion. And in principle, we will welcome that explosion, because people must not be humiliated any further. E. ALBATS: Sergei, here’s a question for you. I remind listeners that Sergei Udaltsov is the leader of AKM. You’re being asked: how do you feel about calls for the right-wing and left-wing opposition to unite against the current regime, calls that have mainly come from our liberals? S. UDALTSOV: You know, first of all, I believe the left must unite. That process is underway now, and the trends are very positive. The authorities are pushing us toward such unity by every means possible. Just this Monday I witnessed events during preparations for the “Anti-Capitalism 2005” rally—an annual left-wing event, a kind of review of forces—when the city committee building of the Communist Party was attacked. At that moment there were communists there, AKM members, National Bolsheviks—who suffered the most, since they were outside at the time—and representatives of the Rodina youth wing. In other words, a very broad spectrum of the main left-wing forces was there, practically all of them. And that challenge was thrown down to the entire left. E. ALBATS: Mr. Markidanov from Moscow, a doctor, asks whether there has been any progress in the investigation into the beating on Avtozavodskaya, and since when has beating people with bats counted as petty hooliganism? Media reports suggest that the driver of the PAZ bus was one of Yakimenko’s closest friends—I remind listeners that Mr. Yakimenko is the leader of Nashi. What was the point of the Nashi people organizing all this? S. UDALTSOV: You know, again, these arguments—whether it was Nashi, outsiders, or aliens from outer space—this is all being done by the authorities’ hands. Of course, I hope the investigation will proceed; there has at least been a serious wave of publicity, and deputies have appealed to the Prosecutor General’s Office. I myself was attacked this spring: unknown people assaulted me outside my apartment building, beat me up without any motive, without any demands. A criminal case was opened. Four months have passed, and of course it has gone nowhere. E. ALBATS: But what is actually known about the attack on the National Bolsheviks and your people on Avtozavodskaya? Do you have any information on who it was? S. UDALTSOV: I do have information. Just yesterday I was at the police department of the Southern District with the investigator handling the case materials. She summoned me, but when I arrived she said: excuse me, Sergei Stanislavovich, I’m in a great hurry; we still haven’t gathered all the facts, let’s meet another time and talk. So for now I don’t see any real eagerness there. This was done by the authorities’ hands. On my way to that meeting, I actually saw the bus being prepared, the people getting ready for the attack. One thing is clear: it was a highly organized action, carefully planned and carried out under the cover of law enforcement. Maybe there was some confusion or lack of coordination on their side, but in the end, if our activists had done something similar—and we don’t do such things, but hypothetically speaking—not one of them would have walked out of the police station; they all would have stayed there and then been sent to pretrial detention to await trial. These people were released. So there’s no point guessing whether it was Vasya the Killer or someone else—they’re all on the same team. This is what the authorities do. They keep committing new crimes. So, returning to the beginning of my point: first of all, if there is a serious left coalition, a bloc—and today one is already visible, taking shape—if people find the will to step over their ambitions, meaning the Communist Party, Rodina, AKM, the NBP, and other organizations, and there are quite a few of them, then we can begin discussing and considering joint efforts with the liberals. That’s normal. But everything must be on an equal footing. E. ALBATS: Thank you. A question for Maria Gaidar from Yakov Sergeyev in St. Petersburg: how many people are in the Democratic Alternative youth movement, “Da!”? M. GAIDAR: In the Democratic Alternative youth movement, there are about 100 active members and 200 people who have joined and whom we are gradually getting to know. But for us, the issue is not even so much quantity as the quality of the people who come. Truly wonderful people are joining—people who really want to do something, really want to change something. And what is especially important and valuable to us is that people are coming who have never before belonged to any parties or movements. I think that’s very important. E. ALBATS: And what about age? M. GAIDAR: Unlike most youth movements, our average age is around 26. People from 18 to 30 are joining. E. ALBATS: And geography? M. GAIDAR: Geography-wise, since our initiative group was originally based in Moscow, most of us are Muscovites for now. But the regions are now becoming active. Our goal was to create projects that could easily be adopted both by the regions and, for example, by other civic organizations altogether. Our idea is to create turnkey projects that can function without funding and that, once an initiative group is formed anywhere, can work depending on the regional structure. We can say that we now have a regional branch in Novosibirsk. In fact, it was unexpected even for us: a boy filled out a form, we told him—go ahead and do it. He gathered a group of people around him, and they have already held an action that received very broad coverage in the Novosibirsk media. That’s wonderful: we’re sitting here, and they’re working there. E. ALBATS: Two questions. One, in various forms, has been put to you here. Alexei Navalny said that one must participate in all elections—regional, local, and so on. But at a press conference three days ago you said you would not run for the Moscow City Duma. Why? M. GAIDAR: As I said at the press conference, I think it is very important to participate in all elections, and very important to take part in civic projects. I simply think that one can want to change things and not be afraid to do so. But there is also the question of adequacy—whether your own knowledge matches the effort and the direction in which you apply that effort. I think this has to be done in line with one’s abilities. And this is not even about the election campaign; it’s about the work in the Moscow City Duma. To be honest and frank, I do not believe I would be maximally effective in that position. I think what I’m doing now is also very important. I believe I am fighting for freedom, for democracy, for civil society. I believe I am where I should be here and now; someone has to do this too. E. ALBATS: Wonderful. Alexei Navalny, as I understand it, you are in fact running for the Moscow City Duma. Remind me—I don’t remember which district you’re running in. You’re not running on the Yabloko list alone, but in a district as well, right? A. NAVALNY: Obviously, I will most likely appear somewhere on the Yabloko list and also run in a district. I won’t say which one, so as not to give the election commission grounds to remove me from the race, because the elections were officially announced on the 31st, and we know that people have been removed from elections for much smaller offenses. But yes, Yabloko is taking part in the elections. As a representative of Yabloko, I will run both in a single-member district and on the party list. E. ALBATS: And why do you think it’s necessary to run for the Moscow City Duma, when Masha believes it’s more important to engage in street politics, to build a strong youth movement, to attract people in the regions—and, if I understand correctly, Sergei Udaltsov from AKM works in roughly the same way? A. NAVALNY: One does not interfere with the other, actually. In Yabloko, I’m responsible precisely for that segment—which is why I know Sergei Udaltsov very well; we’ve sat together in the Tverskoye police station more than once. By the way, I’ve been detained administratively more than 20 times just for violating rally regulations. I’m precisely responsible for the segment involving public events. E. ALBATS: Ah, so that was you sitting behind bars in the monkey cage? A. NAVALNY: We sit in the monkey cage and regularly discuss various political topics. E. ALBATS: You can’t change the meeting place—the monkey cage. A. NAVALNY: Right now, the whole opposition mostly meets only there. But of course, one does not interfere with the other. We still have to do more substantive work as well. The fact that we oppose the authorities does not mean we shouldn’t try to enter city government, draft proposals, deal with garbage collection or transport problems. There is absolutely no contradiction here. Yes, when they abolish gubernatorial elections, we come out and hold rallies. On the 14th, Yabloko will hold a rally near the Federation Council to mark the anniversary of the abolition of gubernatorial elections. But that absolutely does not prevent us from sitting down and writing draft laws for Luzhkov on education development, transport problems, and so on. There is no contradiction there, in my view. E. ALBATS: How do you assess your chances, Alyosha? A. NAVALNY: It would be foolish to run in an election while believing you have no chance at all. But harsh statistics show that candidates who are not backed by administrative resources and are not on the so-called Luzhkov list very, very rarely make it into Moscow’s government bodies. E. ALBATS: But your various youth movements could probably support you, couldn’t they? After all, they’re interested in having a young man with a well-trained speaking voice, quite likable too—I can say that, listeners of Echo of Moscow. A. NAVALNY: Thank you very much. E. ALBATS: Quite frankly, yes—they could support you. Or is that completely unrealistic? A. NAVALNY: I think they certainly will support me. I think all youth movements—in contrast to the older politicians—don’t really have contradictions here. I think that if someone from another youth movement runs for the city duma or somewhere else, there will be complete mutual cross-support. Everyone will support one another here. For example, if I ask AKM to provide election observers for me, they’ll give them to me without any problem, even though overall they’ll be working for the communists and we’re for Yabloko. I think youth movements have no problems with that at all. E. ALBATS: So shall we announce that our decent deputy to the Moscow City Duma is here? A. NAVALNY: They’ll definitely strike me off the ballot now. E. ALBATS: We won’t allow it. S. UDALTSOV: That would be a violation of the law. E. ALBATS: We won’t allow it. It’ll be my fault—Yevgenia Albats personally will be to blame. Masha Gaidar, did you want to add something? M. GAIDAR: I wanted to say that we will, of course, help Alexei Navalny a great deal by monitoring the elections and by conducting exit polls. And as for supporting Alexei Navalny—not as the “Da!” movement, because the “Da!” movement cannot support politicians or political parties—but as participants in the “Da!” movement, we will certainly support Alexei. E. ALBATS: Sergei Udaltsov, here’s a question for you: is AKM a subdivision of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation or an independent party? That’s from Tatyana—I seem to have lost which city she’s from. So are you independent, or are you part of the Communist Party? S. UDALTSOV: Yes, we are an absolutely independent organization. Our task is precisely to train cadres and create a prototype of a future left-wing party. Because none of today’s parties, from the Communist Party down to the very smallest organizations, satisfy us. Some structures are already bogged down exclusively in parliamentary activity; other organizations are closed-off, almost sect-like and nothing more. So the task for the entire left movement is also to renew itself, put forward new leaders, and that is, in principle, what we are working on. E. ALBATS: Are you planning to run in the elections? S. UDALTSOV: But we do not see ourselves in any way apart from the broader left movement, so we have excellent allied relations with the Communist Party, the Russian Communist Workers’ Party, the Communist Party of the USSR, and many other organizations active on the left. We consider ourselves one part of that whole. As for elections, the main thing is to set priorities correctly. One should participate in them, and our people will take part in these city duma elections on the Communist Party lists. But the main thing is to understand clearly that elections today, as they say, rarely proceed according to the law, so staking everything on them is a mistake. Using them as a way to communicate your position to citizens is perfectly normal. That’s how priorities should be set; then there will be no disappointments or distortions in tactics and strategy. Those who rely only on elections have already lost a thousand times and will lose again. I think a more sober approach is needed today. E. ALBATS: The Mayorov couple write on the pager: dear guests, who exactly is going to blow things up or prepare an Orange Revolution? The older generation is terribly tired and just wants to survive. The middle generation is scrambling to earn a living and sometimes manages to do something. And the young go to Nashi—they gravitate to wherever the Kremlin is closer. That’s the message. S. UDALTSOV: That was probably written by someone from Nashi. E. ALBATS: Could be—we don’t know. Our pager is open. Vitaly writes: ask your guests why they do so little work with students at Moscow universities. All right, we’ll ask them after the half-hour mark. Right now, in just a few seconds, we have to break for the elections—sorry, for the news. Did I understand correctly that the main task of Masha Gaidar’s organization is to prevent a revolution? Nick, remember that—Masha, that’s a question for you. Communists and democrats in Germany in the early 1930s also delayed uniting; in the end they did unite, but only in cattle cars on the way to Auschwitz, writes Pavel. A good comparison. I am convinced that with ladies… no, Mikhail, we won’t read that. Masha, how does your father feel about your movement’s ideas and your work? All right, we’ll return to all these questions after the news and commercials. E. ALBATS: Good evening once again. It’s 7:35 p.m. on Echo of Moscow radio. Yevgenia Albats at the microphone, continuing our program. We’re talking about the start of the political season with young politicians in the studio: Maria Gaidar, representative of the “Da!” youth movement and coordinator of the “For Freedom of the Media” project; Sergei Udaltsov, head of the AKM youth organization; and Alexei Navalny, deputy chairman of the Moscow branch of Yabloko and executive secretary of the Committee for the Defense of Muscovites. So, let me read you something from the pager. Mrs. Kozyreva from St. Petersburg writes: prove me wrong, and I’ll be grateful, but it seems to me that for many years yet our people’s mentality will resist a bright future, while 80% of Russia’s people are indifferent and ill-disposed. All your talk, as they say, is just talk for the poor. I disagree with you, Mrs. Kozyreva. In a country like Germany, three years after the end of the Nazi Reich, in 1948, most Germans, when asked what kind of regime they wanted, said the Third Reich—the Hitler regime. Twenty years passed, and an overwhelming majority of Germans, 90% in West Germany, then said: democracy. So there are no peoples with inherently bad political culture or undemocratic mentality; the question is about politicians and their ability to persuade. I have a question here—many questions are coming in for Alexei Navalny as well: does he intend to cooperate with the authorities in the elections? Are you going to cooperate with the party of power? A. NAVALNY: What exactly is meant by cooperating with the authorities? Helping them falsify elections? No, of course we are not. Are we going to smash district administrations and set prefectures on fire? No, we’re not doing that either. So in some sense we do cooperate with the authorities: we have deputies in the city duma, and they work within the authorities. They draft laws and get them passed. And all Muscovites live under those laws, among others. So in that sense we cooperate. Where the authorities break the law and engage in nonsense and absurdity, we are not going to cooperate, and we will try in every possible way to pin them down for it. E. ALBATS: Alla Alexandrovna writes: thank you to Sergei Udaltsov and AKM for the strike and hunger strike against the monetization of benefits. Passing that on, Alla Alexandrovna. S. UDALTSOV: Yes. E. ALBATS: A question for Maria Gaidar. Quite a few messages have come in here and are still coming in on the pager and over the internet. Maria Gaidar, you were lucky with your great-grandfather, even though your political views don’t coincide—does that not bother you? After all, Arkady Petrovich Gaidar was a Bolshevik and a very good children’s writer. And on the political stage, in my view, the country has already had quite enough of your father. So, on the question of uniting the right, the left, and every shade in between—Masha, are you ready to unite with those once represented by your grandfather? M. GAIDAR: I want to say that all these questions about uniting with the left and making a left turn come from weakness. It’s like saying: let’s unite, they’ll do all the work, and then somehow, for some reason, power will end up in our hands. In reality, it is obvious to me that you can’t ride into paradise on a crooked goat. That is simply obvious. It is also obvious to me that Russia will be a democratic country; the only questions are time and cost. And when liberal democratic parties themselves talk about unification, it’s because they don’t want to do something, or can’t do something. In fact, the field is completely clear right now. There are practically no politicians; the authorities do not talk to people; there are very few politicians who do talk to people. And in fact, this moment should be used to defend your positions, to show people what problems exist and how exactly you are prepared to solve them. But to unite, to unite with the left—I think that is completely, completely, categorically wrong. It’s like what Yabloko does, for example, when Yabloko knows it cannot bring 2,000 people out to a rally. So Yabloko decides: we’ll invite everyone—we’ll invite the Communist Party, the NBP, Rodina. And they think that because they invite them, it will become a great Yabloko rally with all the other parties included. And what do we get in reality? A sea of red flags and one miserable Yabloko flag. A. NAVALNY: Yabloko just got hit for absolutely nothing, completely unfairly. E. ALBATS: That was Alexei Navalny. But he’s not hitting Gaidar yet. All right, Sergei Udaltsov. S. UDALTSOV: Just as a comment: Maria tried to contrast democratic values with left-wing values for some reason. In my view, that is completely unjustified. It is precisely a misconception often imposed on us by state propaganda. Left-wing values are, in essence, deeply democratic. We see no contradiction between them and democratic values. To tie left-wing forces necessarily to authoritarianism, repression, or violence is a trick from the realm of rather cheap propaganda. I would not characterize everything so sweepingly. So I think that today, willingly or unwillingly, political forces will either remain on the sidelines of historical processes or come to consolidation with the left. And if the left, for its part, creates a normal strong bloc or coalition, I don’t think it will refuse either, because today the situation is such that separately, one by one, neither the left as a whole—unfortunately—nor, even less so, the liberal forces can claim power or reflect the majority of society. Yes, that is the objective situation. So to change it, to accelerate it, a coalition is вполне possible. What we should be doing today is fighting the authoritarianism we see from the authorities, which is steadily growing, rather than settling scores among ourselves. Otherwise we’ll get a new successor, another colonel or whatever rank—hard to say—and that won’t end well for anyone, neither liberals nor the left. Most importantly, our people will suffer from it. E. ALBATS: Thank you, Sergei. Alexei Navalny, defend the banner of the Yabloko party. What are you going to do? What can you do on your own? A. NAVALNY: Yes, on this notorious right-left coalition, spears are being broken—we can already see that a fight is about to break out in the studio. In reality, a tactical alliance on certain issues is absolutely possible and necessary. The opposition is very small, so if it does not consolidate on certain issues, then we simply won’t be able to exist at all. I don’t understand why Masha reacts so sharply to the idea that Yabloko can attend the same rallies as the communists. Let me point out, by the way, that in the last Duma even the Union of Right Forces voted together with the communists on most issues. You can just look at the voting records. So here too, please, it’s a tactical alliance. As for creating this right-left coalition, we already see some democratic politicians floating the idea that in 2008 all democrats should support Rogozin. I want to say the following: I have enormous respect for Mikhail Borisovich Khodorkovsky, he is a political prisoner, I sympathize with him deeply, I have organized and will continue to organize various events in his support—but these Yukos political inventions are absolute nonsense and absurdity. The fact that they come up with things like a right-left coalition, throw them into public consciousness, and then start creating resources for such coalitions—this, it seems to me, only harms the development of the opposition. It is completely obvious to me, for example, that in the foreseeable future there will be no formalized right-left coalition in the form of a party or any legal coalition. E. ALBATS: What are you going to do in the near future, Alexei? I asked you that question and you dodged it. Or are you not going to do anything? A. NAVALNY: In the near future, we intend to participate in the elections. We intend to win those elections. We intend to create a faction. And if, in order to defend the interests of Muscovites in the Moscow City Duma, we need in some way to cooperate with the communists, with Rodina, or with anyone else, then fine—we will do that. E. ALBATS: All right, Natasha wrote on the pager asking why all of you—Alexei, Sergei, and Masha—communicate with listeners through the pager and the internet rather than directly. So now we’re turning on our internet—our telephone, sorry. While you find your headphones, I’ll read a couple of messages. “I am 72 years old, a lonely pensioner, disabled,” writes Irina, “and nevertheless, dear Masha, I am very grateful to your father for that very shock therapy. Strange as it may seem, everyone curses it, but otherwise we would all be living in a very different country.” And here someone writes that your father set the price of democracy. “Dear Masha, admiring your courage, I wish you every success and victory; I bow to your father,” writes Viktor from Moscow. All right, we’re switching on the phone now. We’ll ask our sound engineer Svetlana Rostovtseva to be kind to you and put the calls through. We’re listening—you’re live on the air. CALLER VLADISLAV: I’d like to ask a question, for example, to Masha Golikova. First of all, why do you keep talking about Putin deciding something—whether he’ll go for a third term or not? Understand this correctly: it’s not he who decides. He’s just the tip of the iceberg; one group put him there, and that group will decide whether he stays or not. And you know, all these games of the National Bolsheviks, Nashi—it’s all some kind of game, like cockroach races, roughly speaking. It’s not serious. These are not parties that will really fight in elections, if we even still have elections at all. Thank you. M. GAIDAR: If you were listening to me, I did not mention Putin’s name once during this broadcast. I absolutely agree with you that this is not about Putin personally. It is about the system. It is indeed my deep conviction that he no longer controls the situation, that in fact the situation is largely controlled by his corrupt and incompetent entourage. But that situation will continue as long as there are no counterweights, no mechanisms of restraint. And restraint can come only through civic oversight. On that I absolutely agree: until that exists, anyone who ends up at the top of this iceberg will find themselves in the same situation Putin found himself in. And that will not be good for us. E. ALBATS: All right, next please. CALLER LARISA (Kazan): Good afternoon, my name is Larisa, I’m from Kazan. E. ALBATS: Congratulations on Kazan’s recent anniversary. CALLER LARISA: Thank you very much. By the way, it was a very beautiful anniversary, and the city has become much more beautiful. I’d like to ask this question. You know, as I listen to you, you strike me as the future intelligentsia, people whom perhaps in 10 or 20 years we’ll listen to the same way we listen to our leading senior politicians who are already recognized by society. E. ALBATS: Your question. CALLER LARISA: My question is this: for the record, for people listening, could each of you say a few words about who you are—your education, your age, perhaps repeat your names once more so people remember them? E. ALBATS: Thank you. Let’s go around the table. Maria Gaidar. M. GAIDAR: Masha Gaidar, 22 years old. I graduated from the Faculty of Economic and Social Sciences at the Academy of National Economy under the Government of the Russian Federation. I’m applying to graduate school and working with the “Da!” youth movement. E. ALBATS: Alexei Navalny? A. NAVALNY: Alexei Navalny, I’m 29 years old. I graduated from the law faculty of the Peoples’ Friendship University and from the Finance and Credit faculty of the Financial Academy under the Government of the Russian Federation. I work in the Yabloko party. E. ALBATS: Sergei Udaltsov? S. UDALTSOV: My name is Sergei Udaltsov, I’m 28 years old, I graduated from the law faculty of the Transport Academy, I work in my profession, I’m married, I have two children—so it’s a good biography. E. ALBATS: Wonderful. Alexei, do you have children? A. NAVALNY: Yes, I have a daughter. She’s four. E. ALBATS: Masha? M. GAIDAR: For now I only have a husband. E. ALBATS: For now, only a husband as a child—I see. CALLER NATALYA (Moscow): Please tell me— E. ALBATS: Sorry, the line dropped. CALLER DMITRY (Moscow region): I have this kind of question. Everyone now talks about democracy, elections, and so on. But back in 1961 John Kenneth Gilbert directly proved that all this is nonsense, all this is incompetence: people are incompetent in their choices, and government is incompetent in governing. A technocratic group governs. E. ALBATS: What was the title of Gilbert’s work? Please tell me. CALLER DMITRY: You should know that yourself. I won’t prompt you. E. ALBATS: No, but you’re the one citing it, my dear, you’re citing it. CALLER DMITRY: I’m not quoting it, I’m retelling it. E. ALBATS: I see—you heard it somewhere but can’t remember. All the best. CALLER NIKOLAI KUZNETSOV (Penza): A question for Gaidar—for the daughter, right? You see, when they were in power, pensions were delayed, wages were delayed. But there’s also the question that Nemtsov and Gaidar stole the budget, transferred it to some offshore firms, so to speak, and the people went hungry. E. ALBATS: I see. And what about now—are you starving? CALLER NIKOLAI KUZNETSOV: There’s nothing good now either. Pensioners get very little. E. ALBATS: Tell me, what’s your patronymic? CALLER NIKOLAI KUZNETSOV: Nikolai Pavlovich. E. ALBATS: Nikolai Pavlovich, tell me please: when you go to the store now, is there meat? CALLER NIKOLAI KUZNETSOV: Excuse me? E. ALBATS: Is there meat, I’m asking, Nikolai Pavlovich? CALLER NIKOLAI KUZNETSOV: I don’t eat it, I can’t. E. ALBATS: Do you eat chicken? CALLER NIKOLAI KUZNETSOV: Do you know how much meat costs in Penza? Beef is 180 rubles. E. ALBATS: And chicken? CALLER NIKOLAI KUZNETSOV: Chicken? 145. E. ALBATS: I see. Nikolai Pavlovich, and in the 1970s, you didn’t happen to go to Moscow for groceries, did you? CALLER NIKOLAI KUZNETSOV: No, we bought things in Penza. E. ALBATS: There was food in Penza? CALLER NIKOLAI KUZNETSOV: Our refrigerators used to be full, full; now they’re empty. E. ALBATS: I understand, Nikolai Pavlovich. Your question is clear. Masha Gaidar will answer, thank you. M. GAIDAR: Nikolai Pavlovich must have been in some special situation if his refrigerator was full despite what was happening across the country. But I want to say that, yes, pensioners were indeed hit very hard. Pensions were small, and they were not paid. And that was terrible. But it happened certainly not because Gaidar transferred money to some accounts of his own—I state firmly that nothing of the sort happened—but because our Soviet system and Soviet economy had spent that money long before Gaidar arrived. E. ALBATS: That’s true, and in 1991 the USSR was bankrupt. CALLER DMITRY (Perm): I’m interested in this point: are the parties trying to win the coming elections simply defending business, and that’s all? Or is there something more? E. ALBATS: Understood. CALLER DMITRY: Let me explain with an example from Perm. Nikita Belykh was deputy governor, and anti-people laws were passed in Perm—against children, the disabled, orphans. And now he’s the leader of the Union of Right Forces. How does that fit with the movement at all? E. ALBATS: I understand, thank you. Who will answer? Sergei Udaltsov is ready. S. UDALTSOV: Yes, but I’d like to respond more broadly. The previous caller was trying to prove to us that everything has already been decided and people decide nothing. That is a very dangerous tendency. And you say elections are only about advancing business and defending its interests. All of us, the whole people, need to believe in our own strength. And that is actually the task of all politicians: to awaken civic consciousness. If we believe in our own strength, then there are no obstacles for the people. Then we will be able to control both electoral processes and our government. But as long as we remain amorphous, apolitical, and believing in nothing, then business interests will continue to be advanced behind our backs under the cover of elections, and disappointment will follow disappointment. So no, we must not give in to propaganda. Just like the previous question, about how there was supposedly no alternative and people in the USSR were starving—no, people were not starving. I remember 1992–93 very well, when I lived in a middle-income family. And thanks to those reforms—not only Gaidar was responsible, there was a whole team, but Gaidar in particular, and we must never forget that, never, we must constantly remind people of it—my family and I lived for two or three years in real semi-starvation. So let’s not tell fairy tales here. E. ALBATS: But couldn’t you earn money, Sergei? You were a young man. S. UDALTSOV: Fairy tales that everyone was starving and then suddenly paradise on earth appeared. No. The majority lost out from those reforms. Some people won, yes, but excuse me, we should act in the interests of the majority, not a narrow stratum of society. At that time I was in school, unfortunately I could not earn enough, and my parents—people from science, from education—yes, they worked, but they were pushed to the brink of survival. So let’s not whitewash what happened. A huge number of mistakes were made. And I think specific people profited from those mistakes. And sooner or later—I’m not saying Gaidar personally put money in his pocket, he was an intellectual, I think in that sense he was a decent person—but he also bears responsibility for the fact that such reforms were carried out at all. And sooner or later historical justice will be restored, it seems to me. I hope so. E. ALBATS: Masha Gaidar. M. GAIDAR: I’d like to say that although I was little, I remember 1990 and 1991 very well. It was impossible even to buy milk. And it is a terrible feeling when there are lines, empty shelves, and you can’t get anything. I don’t know how people managed to have full refrigerators; it’s quite hard for me to imagine, even though we lived in Moscow and our family probably had some opportunities. Even in that situation it was absolutely impossible to get or buy anything. It was deeply humiliating that any child was ready to sell their soul for foreign chewing gum, which now they can simply go and buy. And then, as for memory—yes, we should not forget what Gaidar did, although I think we should not forget what he did right. But when you represent the Communist Party and the communist movement, then don’t forget what the communists did. What the communists did throughout the history when they were in power—let’s not forget that either. I think that is very important. E. ALBATS: All right. CALLER NONNA ALEKSEYEVNA (Moscow): Just now one of the participants and Masha Gaidar said that Gaidar was an intelligent man and— E. ALBATS: The line dropped, not our fault. M. GAIDAR: She probably wanted to say something nice. CALLER DMITRY SMIRNOV (Moscow): I think that when it comes to unification, one should not unite just for the sake of uniting. But one should look for issues on which there is real, honest agreement, and on those issues one should of course act together. For example, there are political prisoners—right-wing political prisoners and left-wing political prisoners. Naturally, one should act together, first, against this abuse, and second, to jointly draft amendments to laws so that it becomes harder to create political prisoners, and to advance those amendments together. On issues where there are disagreements, people should still talk to one another and try to understand one another. As for supporting Rogozin, that should not be done not because he is left-wing, but because he is neither right-wing nor left-wing—he is simply a careerist. It is enough to look at the fact that until very recently, when Putin began to wobble badly, Rogozin supported Putin with all his might because it was more advantageous for him. In November 2003, after Nord-Ost, he said in an interview with the BBC that he supported Putin’s security policy and wanted Putin to serve a second term as president. So in my view, it would be better to have a relatively decent person, right or left, it doesn’t matter, but not someone like Putin or Rogozin. And as for the main disagreements between the right and the left, they are mainly questions of economic policy. One should not pretend those disagreements do not exist. But one should understand that under a government like the current one, any policy—formally right-wing or formally left-wing—will still boil down to everyone stealing everything and abusing the people. So for democracy, honest right-wingers and honest left-wingers can probably fight together. E. ALBATS: Thank you very much. CALLER ILYA VLADISLAVOVICH (Moscow): I really like your program; a lot of opinions are expressed on it. E. ALBATS: Thank you. Your question—we’re running out of time. CALLER ILYA VLADISLAVOVICH: My question is this—or rather, my opinion on this question: if we stop discussing what was, if we start doing things, if we get rid of even 10% of the bureaucracy, that will already be a plus. If bureaucracy is everywhere, we’ll keep seeing it everywhere and always, as if it were indestructible. E. ALBATS: Haven’t you noticed that we have more of it now, if only because the regions are now headed by officials too? CALLER ILYA VLADISLAVOVICH: I have noticed that, and that’s why I don’t go to elections. And that’s very bad. E. ALBATS: Ah, so you don’t go to elections—you prefer someone else to make the choice for you? CALLER ILYA VLADISLAVOVICH: No, I do go to elections, but the choice, you see, it doesn’t come from the heart. I have doubts. I go to elections, but I doubt that choice. E. ALBATS: I see. CALLER: That’s, so to speak, my word on it. E. ALBATS: Sorry, we have 10 seconds left. Your question and your name. CALLER VASILY LEONTYEVICH: Vasily Leontyevich. E. ALBATS: Right, name and question. CALLER VASILY LEONTYEVICH: My question is: how can I get to Putin with my proposals? E. ALBATS: Go to the Kremlin. Go to the Kremlin—they’re waiting for you there. M. GAIDAR: We ask ourselves that question too. E. ALBATS: That is indeed a question many citizens of our country ask: how do we get to Putin, and our great father, our big brother, will help us all. It doesn’t work that way. Our country exists with Putin and without Putin. And we are all citizens. So everyone must bear responsibility for their country, rather than trying to get an appointment with Putin. On that note, thank you all. I thank Maria Gaidar, Alexei Navalny, and Sergei Udaltsov for being here on our program. We’ll see each other on the air, we’ll see each other on the streets of Moscow, in the squares, at rallies. Thank you, all the best.
Loading PDF...
1
/
0