Conversation with a politician. Part 1

Conversation with a politician

Part one: taking the bull by the horns

Alexei Navalny is the most prominent political figure of the recent time. To be even more categorical: he is the only actual politician in today's Russia. Many eyes are directed at this person — with admiration, hatred, criticism, and bewilderment.

The evolution of my attitude toward Alexei Navalny is quite typical. At first I sincerely liked him, because it is a very beautiful story: a young lawyer who, acting alone, using only legal methods, challenges a colossal corrupt system — and makes it back down. A huge disappointment, a warning signal for me was Navalny's participation in the "Russian March". Ah, is this man a nationalist? Or an unscrupulous populist? Maybe he simply has a mess in his head? Then, with his growing popularity, he could be dangerous.

I kept watching the young politician, thinking, like Bulgakov's Sharik, that "this owl must be explained".

During the preparation of the rally we met, and I suggested holding a public conversation — in the form of a correspondence, since I have experience with such communication: about three years ago I similarly tried to "explain" Mikhail Khodorkovsky.

Well, here we are talking. Read it, form your own judgment.

The conversation will be divided into three parts: what happened, what will happen and what will calm the heart. Since I am very interested in your opinion and your reaction, I inserted 'polls' into the text.

G.Ch.: Alexey Anatolyevich, many people in my circle and — much wider — those of the same mindset today view you with mixed feelings. They cannot understand your system of views and decide for themselves how to relate to Navalny: "strongly approve-and-support" or "stop-it-before-it's-too-late"? If we state unemotionally: who are you for the supporters of democratic ideology — a temporary ally until victory over the common enemy (cheating authoritarianism) or something more promising?

The main reason for this distrust is your commitment to the idea of Russian nationalism, which in democratic intelligentsia is firmly associated with Black Hundreds. I know you have repeatedly tried to explain your position on this issue. Not enough. Let's try again.

Let's start with a childish question. If I understand correctly, you are an advocate of the idea of a "national Russian state"? What is that in a federation where a hundred different nationalities live, and in large cities the "mixed" population almost predominates? Do all ethnically non-Russian or half-Russian people have to feel like second-class citizens in your Russia?

A.N.: Grigory Shalvovich, to be honest, I did not expect from you, nor from the democratic intelligentsia in your circle such questions. The democratic intelligentsia should, in principle, read newspapers and, if they are at least somewhat interested in my activities, should have a basic understanding of my political views. To know about the party "YABLOKO", about the movement "Democratic Alternative", about current activities.

Your question is not childish, but offensive. You work, you work, and then the "democratic intelligentsia" wonders whether I consider anyone to be second-class people. There are no second-class people, and if someone thinks so, he is a dangerous lunatic who must be reeducated, treated, or isolated from society. In principle, there can be no restriction of citizens' rights by ethnic principle.

I, by the way, am semi-Russian myself — half Ukrainian, and I do not want to feel like a second-class person even a little.

G.Ch.: Then what is the "Russian national state"? Or do you not align yourself with the slogan of the "Russian March" in which you participated?

A.N.: I never put forward such a slogan, but I will certainly support it in the interpretation of Khodorkovsky: it is an alternative to attempts to build Russia into an empire of the 19th-century type. That thing is unviable in the modern world.

The source of power in a national state is the nation, the citizens of the country, not the estate elite that promotes slogans of conquering half the world and global domination and, under that guise, robs the population, marching toward the Indian Ocean.

The state is needed to ensure comfortable and dignified living for the citizens of this state, to protect their individual and collective interests. A national state is the European path of development for Russia, our charming cozy, yet strong and reliable European little house.

By the way, here is the main "nationalist" text I signed. The Manifesto of the movement NAROD. I would still sign under every word.

Poll #1808072 A.Nav alny's Position on the National Question

Open: to Everyone, detailed results visible: to Everyone. Participants: 10532

How do you explain this to me?

Show answers

The position is clear and, in principle, acceptable — 5405 (51.5%)

The position is clear, but unacceptable — 603 (5.7%)

I can't decide. Explanations are not enough — 4482 (42.7%)

G.Ch.: Well, I am not ready to subscribe to every word in this document. For example, the idea of the right of every citizen to own a pistol seems to me overly romantic given our realities. I have questions about the provisions of the Manifest, but okay, all these disagreements do not go beyond a normal working discussion. I have grasped the main point — the thesis I will not argue with: “The unity of the country, its power and prosperity will be strengthened only if we can ensure equality before the Law for all citizens, regardless of their ethnicity, social status, and place of residence.”

Well, I move on to the next "painful" question: your attitude toward the collapse of the USSR? The discussion, namely, will concern the infamous "imperial syndrome".

Since in childhood I was taught not to ask the interlocutor questions to which I am not ready to answer myself, I will start by stating my position.

The Soviet Union as a nuclear superpower and "one sixth of the land" is not something I miss; I do not nostalgic for that military-bureaucratic empire. However, culturally-economically I am quite imperialist. I would really like the attraction of our culture, the strength of our economy and the enviable living conditions to encourage neighbors to voluntarily strive for fellowship and union with us. I am for the restoration (and if possible, expansion beyond previous bounds) of the sphere of Russian cultural and economic influence. But not by force, not under threat of weapon or gas cutoff, but by love (this is about culture) and by calculation (this is about economy).

And what do you say? Do you pity the USSR? Blame the villains from the Belovezhskaya Pushcha?

A.N.: Everyone wants their country to be bigger, richer, stronger. That's normal, I want that too.

As for the USSR, I was born in 1976 and although I remember our Soviet life fairly well, it is associated with the milk queue that I stood in all the time. And this while I lived in military towns where provisioning was better than in the rest of the country.

Don't confuse the USSR with our perception of the USSR, formed from happy moments of childhood/youth, as well as the broadcast by Leonid Parfyonov "Namedni. Our Era", mixed with Alla Pugacheva's songs.

The greatness of the USSR was based on self-denial and the heroism of its citizens living in poverty. We built space rockets and told legends about stores with forty kinds of sausage without queues.

As it turns out, there are countries where there are both rockets and sausage.

The USSR was not toppled by villains from the Belovezhskaya Pushcha, but by the CPSU, Gosplan and the roguish Soviet nomenclature. Representatives of this roguish nomenclature signed the legal agreement to end the empire, which by that moment did not exist de facto.

This is a historical fact. Another fact is that the core and main part of both the Russian Empire and the USSR was our country — Russia.

We have it, it remains the dominant state in the region in economic and military terms. Our task is to preserve this and to increase it.

Do not understand dominance in the region as exclusively military; in the modern world it is primarily a matter of economic development. No strong economy — no modern army.

We see that our former Soviet neighbors are reorienting toward China, this happens for economic reasons.

We should not deliberately plan some expansions — the task is to become strong and wealthy ourselves, then neighbors will be in our sphere of influence; they cannot move.

As for cultural influence, it is of course also linked to the economy, but this is a more subtle and irrational matter. If we speak about a state strategy within which we can effectively promote only simple things, then the main object of our concern is the Russian language. As long as there are people in neighboring countries who still speak Russian, we have tools of cultural influence. Unfortunately, the situation is changing; in Central Asia and the South Caucasus there are already millions of young citizens for whom both Russian and German are spoken.

Here is a case when "tomorrow will be too late" — language speakers are shrinking naturally. Money should be invested in appropriate programs; it will be a worthwhile investment and will return to us with greater benefit.

Poll #1808073 Russia: empire or not an empire?

Open: to Everyone, detailed results visible to Everyone. Participants: 10025

What should Russia be like?

Show answers

I want Russia to become as formidable a power as the USSR was — 704 (7.1%)

I want Russia to become an economic and cultural center, evoke sympathy rather than fear — 5351 (53.6%)

Let Russia be a cozy 'country for people', without imperial overreach — 3921 (39.3%)

G.Ch.: There is also another "eternal" question that stubbornly remains relevant, and, in general, it's clear why. (In fact, the issue is the priority of the public-state arrangement: a person for the state or the state for the person?)

I mean the attitude to the figure of the steel statesman and ruthless pragmatist Joseph Stalin. For me he is the scariest chapter in the textbook of Russian political history. What about him for you?

A.N.: Hitler and Stalin are the two main executioners of the Russian people. Stalin executed, starved, and tortured my compatriots; for me here everything is clear.

However, I am against making this an "eternal" question and see no sense in all this "destalinization" etc. I don't understand what it means in the framework of state policy. If you want "destalinization" — let your child read "The Gulag Archipelago"; if he's too lazy to read "The Gulag Archipelago", then have him read the article "Stalinist Repressions" on Wikipedia; there it's all short, clear, objective, and with links.

We must respond to the challenges of the times ourselves, not live in endless political allusions.

"Stalin's Question" is a question of historical science, not current policy.

G.Ch.: I disagree. The specter of the "effective manager", under which "The State Was Great", must be buried very deep and driven through with a stake. Otherwise it will pop up from the grave again and again. But that's a topic for a separate big discussion. Now I want to ask you one more question, where history and political topicality again combine.

I know you are a person of faith, though you don't flaunt your religiosity or try to convert it into political capital. The question isn't about faith, which is personal, but about the church. What role do you see for the Orthodox Church in modern Russian society? Are you satisfied with the current alignment of the patriarchate with the government? What, in your view, should be the relationship between church and state in Russia?

A.N.: There is no need to stab anyone, and the ghost certainly cannot be pierced; that's what a ghost is. The myth about Stalin is a myth about the iron order, enforced by an iron fist. To debunk it, someone else must bring order without any iron hand, that is, simply by law.

This is quite possible and is successfully happening in many countries; the head of state should set moral and ethical guidelines and follow official instructions, and not earn billions for neighbors in the dacha cooperative.

Church and religion: I, to my shame, am a typical post-Soviet believer — I fast during posts, I am baptized in church, but I go to church quite rarely. When my friends, joking about my latest "vegetable salad — now is the fast", try to "troll" me and require me to explain what exactly that post is about, they quickly put me in a bind and tease me as a "fake Orthodox, unfamiliar with the basics". I really know less about the basics than I'd like; I am working on that.

I don't think my religiosity can be converted into political capital — that would look simply funny. I don't flaunt it and I don't hide it; what it is, it is.

I believe, I like being a Christian and Orthodox, I like feeling part of something big and common. I like that there is a special ethics and self-restraints. At the same time I am not bothered that I exist in a predominantly atheistic environment — before my child was born I was such a fervent atheist that I would have grabbed the beard of any priest.

It's normal for people to be religious, it's normal for some people to laugh at religiosity. Jokes about religiosity in "The Simpsons" or "South Park" are absolutely wonderful and do not offend me at all.

When we talk about the role of the ROC, a few axioms should be highlighted:

We live in a secular state. Religion is separated from the state.

No one can be discriminated against on religious grounds.

Orthodox Christianity — the main religion of Russia and there is no need to fool ourselves into thinking we stand on the position of absolute equality. The special role of the ROC is understandable and reasonable.

More than 80% of citizens consider themselves Orthodox (even though they do not go to church). Christmas is a national holiday. It is clear that giving Buddhists in Russia as much attention as Orthodox will fail.

If Buddhists want, then their religion and clergy should play a special role in places where Buddhists are concentrated and traditionally reside — Kalmykia or Buryatia. It is wonderful that in Tatarstan and Bashkortostan there are days off related to Islamic holidays.

However we should not deny the obvious: the religion of Russia is Orthodox Christianity. Again: no discrimination should be assumed. Restrictions on representatives of other confessions or atheists must be pursued by law.

The topic of "merging" the patriarchate and power is a painful topic. The position of the ROC is that all authority comes from God, they will support any authority. One should approach this philosophically.

I do not see any original recipes here, only law. These relations must be formalized. If someone wants to support the ROC through quotas on cigarette supplies, then secular authority should hold this official accountable in the established manner. Its "counterparty" in the ROC should be handled by the ROC itself, discussing whether this is permissible.

Recently I read an interesting article in Vedomosti; it described the experience of peaceful leaders stepping down from power. Interestingly, in almost all cases the Church was the main mediator between the dictator and the protesters. Is that possible here? Probably not.

But I would very much like the ROC to take such a position in society that all conflicting sides seek and accept its mediation.

Poll #1808074 Stalin's Topic: current or historical?

Open: to Everyone, detailed results visible to Everyone. Participants: 8670

Should we continue to debunk Stalinism?

Show answers

Enough about Stalin, with him it's all clear anyway — 1620 (18.8%)

Stalinism is not completely debunked, and this is dangerous — 2336 (27.1%)

Create a successful state, and the question will die on its own — 4671 (54.1%)

Poll #1808075 Church and Society

Open: to Everyone, detailed results visible to Everyone. Participants: 9087

How do you evaluate the role of the ROC in modern Russia?

Show answers

The role of the church in our public life is positive — 907 (6.1%)

The role of the church in our public life is negative — 3130 (21.2%)

The role of the church in our public life is insignificant — 2001 (13.5%)

The church should not play any role in public life — 2699 (18.2%)

The church should have a public position independent of the authorities — 5628 (38.0%)

The church should coordinate its public position with the authorities — 137 (0.9%)

The authorities should coordinate their course with the church — 295 (2.0%)

(Multiple answers possible)

G.Ch.: We'll treat this part of the conversation as a warm-up before the most interesting: what awaits our country and all of us in the coming year. More in the next portion.