Third Meeting of the Opposition Coordination Council

Once again, the smearing of the opposition on the main

TV channels shows that over the

past year it still has not been possible to begin

a full-fledged dialogue between Russia and civil

society, which is what we had been calling for

deliberately and consistently at every

rally. This speaks to a very

telling outcome. On the one hand,

society has changed, activism has grown and

will continue to grow in Russia, I think, in

the coming year. On the other hand, the authorities

still consciously do not want dialogue; they

prefer repressive measures

and prefer to pretend there is no one

to talk to, that we represent no one

and thereby are cutting themselves off from

society. I believe this is a major mistake.

As a result, instead of a civilized

conversation, we may end up in a situation where

any kind of problem—

socio-economic,

foreign-policy-related, or corruption-related—could

give a new push to a very serious protest movement

that could take on the character

of a social explosion. The consequences could

be unpredictable.

So it turns out that

probably, well, around

20 percent made up, probably about

20... But in reality, the number of people

was not that small; according to different estimates,

well,

1,500. Don’t you think that for some kind of

countrywide opposition protest, that is very little?

In my view, there were a lot of people for

a situation in which everything is banned, when

it is bitterly cold, when simply showing up is risky.

There were several thousand people there at

the very least; there was constant turnover, if you had

noticed. People were coming and going; there was no

fixed number of people

present at any one moment. Yes, maybe there were

about 1,500 there at a time. But the people changed, and

in reality I estimate the number of participants

at around 4,000 to 5,000 people. That is not a small number

for an unauthorized rally; that is

quite good. On the other hand,

of course we must acknowledge that

the peak levels of protest have, of course,

now passed, but much of the blame for that

lies with the authorities, because instead of

dialogue, as I already said, they chose a tactic

of intimidation. Of course, they

drove some people away; they frightened some

people, and some became disillusioned because they

did not see quick results, a rapid

response to our demands. It is like in

sports: you cannot set world records every day.

The massive rallies in

December of last year, in the spring, in May—they

raised the bar of our activism very

high.

But overall, let me repeat once again, there is no

question of activism having disappeared,

or of the protest having fizzled out, as it is fashionable

to say here, and the authorities having completely won while

the people and civil society

have lost. That cannot be said.

I categorically disagree. The protest potential

remains very high, and

the task now for

the opposition and all active citizens is to find new

forms of action, to make the demands more specific, and

most importantly, to preserve

patience, principle, and resilience. No one

promised us easy victories; we need to remember

that. So now we simply need

to prepare for a longer struggle

for our rights, for democracy, for free

elections, for real reform. I think that many

[music]

Have the authorities chosen the right tactic? I think

for the moment, perhaps, they are damping down the protest: some people

they intimidate, some they isolate, some

they vilify on television screens, and in this way they create

the impression that opposition leaders are not

worthy of trust. But strategically, the authorities

are losing, because the problems that

gave rise to the protests are not

being solved; they remain. And the lack of

real democracy, and election fraud,

and socio-economic

problems, and monstrous corruption—

the protest can show its strength again at any moment.

But if they do not take steps now

to create platforms for полноценный dialogue

—which is what we are once again calling for—then

it will happen.

Perhaps next year the rallies

of 2011 will seem

tiny by comparison.

That means we need to bring out into the streets

such a mass of citizens that they can no longer

be deceived, ignored,

arrested, or dispersed—and with whom the authorities will have

to reckon. That, I think, is our main

goal now. Without panic, without fuss, without

any despair, we need to move forward calmly,

purposefully. The potential is there,

and it is strong; this year we need to develop it

further.

Ideologically, yes, some are more moderate,

some are more radical, left-wing, like

your movement. Still, what are you more inclined toward:

more modest, more decisive, faster kinds of

action, or are you still leaning toward your more

moderate colleagues, who insist on

trying to achieve change through the system itself?

Or not?

I am a supporter of a comprehensive

approach. One cannot deny the possibility

of reforms and dialogue under any circumstances. At the same

time, we should not rely only on that.

If necessary, we must

act more radically, with an emphasis on

street forms of protest, including

fairly tough ones. I do not mean

violence or violations of criminal law.

legislation. Well, the forms that will

force the authorities to act more quickly. Standing in

squares, protest actions, sit-ins, and so on, which are

generally used in different countries

around the world, and sometimes very effectively. As for

splits, they have been trying all year to divide us

and set us against each other. The authorities are trying to do this, and

so are some of our colleagues, who may be jealous

or have various ambitions, and

provocateurs are also deliberately working in this direction.

The very fact that at the end of 2012

we are meeting at a session of the

Opposition Coordinating Council, with very different

political forces that were elected

by the people

through electronic voting technologies, is also

a kind of know-how, yes, and also a step forward. It seems to me

very valuable, even though it was not

a perfect election. Nevertheless, the advantages

far outweigh the drawbacks. But the very fact that we are

here says that no

serious split has occurred. Yes,

we do have disagreements, yes, we argue and

will continue to argue, but as long as we

act together—and even at the December 15 rally

we were together, we were detained

there, both me and Sobchak, and we were

sitting in the same police van. This shows

that this unity is being preserved today. There will be arguments, but

truth is born in argument; there is no split

whatsoever, and our task is not to

allow one, because a split today would play into the hands of

our opponents, into the hands of those

who do not want real

change.

In general, which make up

today, if we are talking about creating

some kind of single party, I think that is

impossible and unnecessary. We are different, our

views differ greatly, and a common

fully detailed program

on economic and social policy, I believe, is impossible

and not the right way forward.

In specific

actions, within the format of the Coordinating Council, we have already

taken a big step: all forces have joined

this council. We need to expand our influ-

ence

further

so that citizens will be able to make

a real choice. And what we see now,

when we are

being imposed on—right now we need to develop our

strategy.

People from different groups agreed to

perhaps hold off until spring, maybe

build up our strength and analyze things. Because

if we start

holding rallies too often, attendance will begin to decline

in numbers.

[music]

That will only demoralize people further. And from this side

we should invest maximum energy in this

process. But as for a general mobilization like that, I

think it should be planned for spring, for a specific

date. Maybe we will decide it today,

maybe not, but there is still time to do it

in such a way that there is a real qualitative leap forward.

We cannot go downward; it is better to wait

for some time, especially since it is now the winter

period, which is not the best time for

protest. First of all, we must respond

to the sociopolitical situation. If there arises

a need to come out urgently, then of course

we should. If there is no such situation, then we need to

prepare systematically, gather all our strength,

build it up, spell out our demands in detail, and

come out in the spring, but already truly in a

new capacity, and the scale of participation should

increase.

Thank you.

[music]

now

uh

and when it came down to it, when it came down to it

to everything

inter-

Colleagues, let us gradually

begin, and I ask everyone, in accordance with

the tickets you purchased, to take your seats so that we

can begin the discussion. Well,

comrades, there are four or five people still coming

they think they will come in quietly and calmly

and take their seats, so please

dear colleagues, I ask you to sit down at the

table, and we will begin our work.

Right, if possible, over there

whoever is watching the lobby, please ask that if there are

members of the Coordinating Council there,

they take their

[music]

seats. Well then, is everything

ready on our side? We have little time; they will call them now.

Will someone there make sure of it? Call

and please invite the council. All right, let us

begin.

working. Even though we have the hall until 9 o'clock,

reserved, it seems to me there is no need

to take things to

extremes.

Quorum.

At the moment, 25 people have registered,

which means there is a quorum in any

case. We can

begin. Dear

colleagues, today I

under-

we have quite a lot of things

to discuss, so let us

work clearly, concisely, correctly, and

most importantly,

productively. We have an agenda

it

has been distributed. It is proposed that we adopt it as the

basis. Shall we vote?

No? No objections to adopting this agenda

as the

basis.

...to add. For now, let us take it as the basis...

as the basis, and now let us go through the items one by one.

So, colleagues, are there any objections to

taking the agenda as the basis?

No? Please, if anyone has

any important items that you

believe need to be added, please state them briefly and

to the point, please.

[music]

You.

Here.

Unfortunately, for now there is no written

document that we could evaluate right now.

Let us nevertheless...

Yes, a proposal for the miscellaneous section, if we have a wish

to discuss the possibility, we will discuss it.

All right, then we add an item

to the miscellaneous section there, and, if possible, your question as well.

Please.

As for how we proceed, let us agree here

that in an hour and a half we will take

a break. Well, let us in an hour and a half

take a break, if there are no objections.

For ... minutes. All right, we will take a break

for five minutes, and then

continue. Colleagues, are there any more additions

to the agenda?

[music]

Please, interaction with the expert

council, and other proposals that

have come from the expert council. Yes, there is such a

large list of proposals with draft

decisions, which are not—well, rightly so, because

they are not on the agenda, these

proposals. Well, all right, if they have been submitted,

then we will consider everything consolidated

into one group—that is, a large set of proposals from you

of proposals, accordingly they are

combined into a certain group under these

Well then, which one?

Which group? The one about the expert council? Ah, well, that means

accordingly, we mean

[music]

The group is called...

for the Russian opposition.

Position...

I cannot refer to the document

by another title, because the document

is in that form for you, and in that case

it is submitted

as an amendment to the agenda.

Agenda item: submission, discussion—submission, discussion

of the draft statement of the council about

the situation in the country. We have a written

document; let us also place it in the section

for miscellaneous matters so that we do not have to

argue now

about the document.

Program... Is there any objection from the members of the coordination

council to framing the issue this way?

So, the question is as follows:

our program group has

developed a programmatic statement; it

is called 'On the Goals and Tasks'

of the Coordination Council. Andrei

Nikolaevich proposes discussing another

statement that has been prepared in writing.

Dmitry prepared it. We do have such a

written document, yes, the one that

Andrei Nikolaevich is proposing—yes, yes, yes, here

several documents are combined in this item.

Several documents that

were submitted on this topic have been combined; there is also

another draft version, under a different

title. It is proposed that they be discussed

under the third item. Andrei Nikolaevich

proposes discussing them as the third item. Are there

any objections from members of the Coordination

Council? No? Good, adopted. What other

additions to the agenda, proposals,

or comments are there before we approve it

finally?

No? Do we need to vote on the agenda? No

objections? The agenda is adopted, and

then our second item

is a discussion

of the current socio-political

situation and development strategy. Well, that is a rather

grand title. Let us say that it is

a discussion of the current political situation

and the tasks for the immediate period. And we do not have

a keynote speaker; we did not consider it possible, at the

technical level, to single someone out as a

speaker, so we will proceed in the following way:

if anyone wishes to speak briefly

about the situation, we will give speakers 3 minutes

so that they can, well, convey

their point of view and somehow discuss what

is happening today.

Any objections to that procedure?

Three minutes, then. Please, the first hand I saw

was Boris Nemtsov. Please, Boris.

To be honest, I do not want to speak about broad, global

issues in general; I will only speak about

our action yesterday. I believe that

it was wonderful. Only the brave, independent

and free people took part in the action,

and it truly was the

warmest place in Moscow

yesterday, and many

of those present at the council took part.

That was great, but I would like to say this:

of course, the liars in the police and

the Moscow...

...

Here is my assessment, and I think my colleagues will agree:

there were up to

people there, taking into account that many

came and went; it was

cold, people

did not stay long. Still, this was not a rally

on the scale of Bolotnaya and Sakharov (major Moscow protest rallies), it was an action of a different scale.

The reason, in my view, is precisely that the action

the action

[music]

was

essentially not...

...with that kind of character of the action, the response was, of course...

You know why we made this decision as well.

Clearly, we turned to our voters.

We turned to the voters of the council.

with the question of whether to seek the use of the central

square in Moscow, including Lubyanka Square, or

at

[music]

More than 10,000 voted for a compromise.

people—80%, that is, more than 8,000—said

that we should take a hard line, and that is what we did.

In that sense, there is only one question:

did these more than 8,000 people

take part in the protest? They

did not take part in the protest. In this connection, I

have a specific

proposal regarding protest actions: let us

not shift onto citizens the

responsibility that we ourselves should bear. I

do not think that unauthorized protests

are bad—I do not think so. I myself often

take part in them, including on the 31st (a reference to Strategy-31 protests in support of freedom of assembly).

Yes, but I think that Limonov (Eduard Limonov, Russian writer and opposition politician) overall

is

bad. Overall, Limonov is bad.

We still need to keep in mind that

the protest must be mass-based, because

only a mass protest will change the situation

in the country’s politics fundamentally.

Thank you. I see Sergei Udaltsov’s hand.

Please raise your hands, everyone who

wants to speak. Sergei, I see your hand.

Please.

Um.

Then Lyuba, and then

Konstantinov. Yes, colleagues, very briefly.

I largely agree. In the final analysis,

at the end of the year,

people are saying everything is lost, the protest has disappeared, we

have failed, the authorities have won, and we should tear our voices out

screaming. I personally have nothing left to tear out,

but nevertheless, under no circumstances

has the protest’s serious potential disappeared.

Yesterday’s protest showed that: in freezing weather, under

the threat of dispersal, arrests, and beatings, there came out

a great many people. I think there were

more than 5,000. Some were walking around

the perimeter of the square; we did not, we did not

count everyone. There were many people. But on the other

hand, it is clear that a quick victory over

the course of this year did not happen. Our adversary,

our opponent, turned out to be tougher and in some ways

more resilient than we had assumed, and now

we need to regroup intelligently. And most

importantly, we need to persuade people to shift from

a sprint to a marathon. The struggle ahead will be

hard. For that, the Coordinating Council should propose

of course not only these mass protests

once every two or three months—they are necessary, I think

the next one should be prepared for spring very

powerfully, using all our creativity

and intellect.

And these two or three months should not be spent

in vain; then there may be new growth and

a new upswing. We must not abandon mass

mobilization. In my view, in the

intervals between them, we also should not retreat

into merely adopting statements and

declarations; we need to carry out some

supporting activities. Political

prisoners—this is our duty. They are still in jail.

We need local actions, statements,

appeals—done regularly.

In the near future, we should prepare—Boris

Akunin wrote about this—why are the events of

May 6 and the actions of the police and authorities not being investigated?

And why are we not demanding this? We need to make

a statement from the Coordinating Council: investigate, free

the guys, and get it signed by the broadest possible

circle of figures from the arts, culture, politics,

and public life. I think we can

do this. We had planned to carry out

that postcard collection, but yesterday we could not.

Let’s do it before New Year, because

the team—Tatyana Lazareva and Mikhail—already

have done a lot of groundwork. And one last thing:

It seems to me that besides mass protests, we

must be present in the public

space through some powerful

campaigns—a referendum, for example, not

necessarily a federal one; a Moscow referendum should be

thought through, so that the Coordinating Council

is constantly present in the political

space, not only at the level of

declarations but through real campaigns. The idea of a

referendum, I think, could later

be discussed in specific working groups,

but overall, to sum up once again:

today we are maintaining the status

quo, the protest potential is serious, and our

main task is not to waste it for nothing,

not to disappoint people, and next year

to make a new breakthrough. Thank you.

Right on time. Lyubov.

Eduard, dear colleagues, good afternoon. I

to a large extent wanted

to join in what

Sergei said. There is no doubt, there is no

reason

for such conclusions. Temporary fluctuations

in the number of participants in street

events are normal, and

this is largely connected with the fact

that we have not offered what people expect

from us. Well, so far we have not had the opportunity to provide some

clear perspective, so that these events

would not simply be a demonstration that we

exist and an opportunity to put forward

demands that in no way

affect reality as long as the authorities

do not listen to them. Our task, it seems to me, is to bring these

actions and all other activity

into a strategy, into some kind of plan—

a strategic and tactical action plan

for the protest movement. That is the main thing people

are really waiting for from us: some clear

vision of the future, and the implementation of this

strategy and tactics, of course, should

be carried out not only, and not so much,

public events, which

are necessary, but also by a broad range of

educational activities.

legislative

working groups today are probably

a major step forward in moving us in this direction,

but I think it is not enough, because 45

people is simply, objectively, too few.

If we are not in constant

interaction with the protest movement, if we do not

integrate its forces into this

work, including in drafting pla-

in developing plans, strategy, and implementing

these plans and strategies, we will not be able to

achieve

success. This also concerns the issue that, when we get to it,

I urge you to pay close

attention and view it not as

a proposal from some group of citizens,

whether they are good or bad, but as the first step on the

path toward interaction between the Coordinating

Council and a much broader

circle of activists around it. Thank you.

Thank you.

Lyubov, I will state my point of view. I believe

that rallies and marches should not be held in the

near future until people once again have

the same mood they had

last year, when people themselves took to the

streets and did not need to be called out in

some planned, organized way, because

people themselves wanted to come out. We need

to wait for that moment and not plan rallies

and marches so that they become

regular events and then eventually lead

to a situation like on Triumfalnaya Square (a square in Moscow known for opposition protests), when only

dozens of people are left coming out

and the police will crack down harshly.

Why did this happen? I would like

to say why yesterday not as many

people came as the Coordinating Council had planned.

Quite a lot of people did come — there were

thousands — but still not as many as we

expected. The first to propose holding this action

was Sergei Udaltsov, at the first

meeting of the Coordinating Council. He said that

this action would

take place in December and would be called the March

of Millions. I propose that everyone support it, and

after that all the members of the Coordinating Council

discussed this idea. No one rejected

holding the action, but everyone discussed its

format — that is, whether it would be a march, a rally,

or something else, and what the demands

would be. But the action itself was not abandoned.

Accordingly, the mistake, it seems to me,

was, among other things, that it was

rather crudely scheduled, because it was awkward for everyone

to refuse to mark the anniversary

of last year's events. We need to think

about whether there is a mood in society

to take to the streets or not. And secondly,

I wanted to say: what lesson did we lear- what

lesson did yesterday teach us? That

people are ready to come out in any case.

Protest sentiments have not died down, and thousands

of people came out into the freezing cold. It is just that these actions

need to be thought through better and better

planned, including in terms of format.

Yesterday the organization was not very good.

All of us, including the members of the Coordinating

Council, are partly to blame. On Lubyanka Square (a central square in Moscow), there were not, among other things,

white ribbons. Yes, there were some,

but very few. There was no other

symbolism. It is not necessary to make placards,

no, not necessarily.

cat

to our meeting in

there were none on the front banner either.

We spent a great deal of time planning.

The format was completely different, but still everything needs

to be thought through and planned, including

some kind of symbolism, so that people do not

just come out, but are somehow

marked, at least symbolically,

externally, through some formats or other.

Tatyana Lazareva, in a Facebook group,

suggested wonderful ideas for

organizing flash mobs that could be held

there, and not only in Moscow but in

other major cities as well. And we could think

about the idea, which is also supported by many

civic activists, of a

charity concert, because

there are a great many opposition-minded musical

groups — not only Yury Shevchuk from DDT (a Russian rock band), but

many others as well — and the money raised from a

charity concert could be directed

to helping political prisoners, and so on. That is,

we should think about these formats and

plan them carefully.

No questions. Guys, let's do it this way:

for now, no questions; we will go around and speak,

and then, if there is a desire to continue

the discussion, we will vote, and then perhaps

we can do questions and answers. Please, I wanted

to give the floor, yes, to Konstantinov, then

Ilya Yashin, and you

are the representative of the imprisoned Daniil

Konstantinov. Dear colleagues, I would like

to draw your attention to several

circumstances.

The cast is not removed, the client does not

leave. Street actions are only one of the

many forms of activity

of the protest movement; there is no need at all to

fixate on that. The main thing Daniil asked

to convey from Matrosskaya Tishina (a Moscow pre-trial detention center) is that

from Matrosskaya Tishina

it is necessary, in particular, to begin

consultations with those political

parties and

organizations that, for various reasons,

did not take part in the elections to the

Coordinating

Council. There are various political

parties and structures represented in the

State Duma and not represented in it.

Those in the State Duma who take

opposition positions—we need to

cooperate with them.

We should also cooperate with creative unions.

We need to cooperate; we need to diversify the range

of activities. But street actions, as a

tradition, as an impetus, as the start

of the protest movement, must continue

with more careful preparation. Thank you.

Thank you very much. I would like to support Pavel—

it really is very important that actions

be well organized, that people

feel comfortable there. But regarding

yesterday’s action, there is one “but” that

my colleague Sobol forgot: the action was

banned, so talking about any kind of

organization, when people were simply being picked up

for no reason even on their way there, is just

somewhat strange. That said, I believe that

yesterday’s action was more than successful.

But there was not all that much of our own contribution to it.

The credit belongs to the Moscow City Hall and to Mr.

Mayorov, who once again angered

people. The credit also belongs to the Kremlin, which

did everything possible to make people even more

angry. Indeed, we are

seeing a certain fatigue, an emotional

exhaustion among participants in the protest

movement. This is connected with the fact that people

were, of course, hoping for quick

results. When we saw

truly mass rallies involving many thousands,

it seemed that just a little more and the system would begin

to change. But the system has a reserve

of resilience; in principle, that was clear

from the start. We should not count on quick

results, and here we simply need

to be patient and keep up the pressure. This is

not a sprint. When you

run a marathon, it is impossible to run

at the same speed the whole time. Yes, sometimes you

slow down. We have now covered some part

of the distance; there is still a considerable

stretch ahead, probably. But if we want

to make it to the finish, it is very important to

pace ourselves properly. One of the important

results of this year is the significant

expansion of the core of the protest movement.

Yesterday’s action vividly

demonstrated this. Usually, such actions

would draw a few hundred people.

Yesterday, several thousand people came out,

despite the frost, despite the bans,

despite detentions and arrests,

massive fines and the potential

prospect of getting out right before New Year’s

from behind bars. Quite a large number of people gathered,

considering the specifics of the action. And honestly,

I am calm about the fate of the protest,

because protest is not about technology,

protest is not about organization; protest is,

first and foremost, about the reasons that

drive people into the streets. And here we

have reliable helpers: they

sit in the Kremlin. Every time, they do everything

to make people come out into the streets

again and again. Every time, on the day before

the next protest action, they arrange something

or other. In that sense, I have no

doubt that they will provide many more reasons

for people to take to the streets. But

one of the important tasks of the Coordinating

Council, in my view, is

to expand its toolkit. Many people have spoken

about this, and I completely agree.

The Coordinating Council should not reduce

its activities exclusively to

street protest actions. Although this is an important

part of our work, without external pressure

on the existing political system,

it will be very difficult to change it. But

we really should also be working on, among

other things, legislative initiatives.

Even if we currently have no opportunity

to implement them, we must

engage in elections wherever there is

an opportunity to run electoral

campaigns, including campaigns at the federal level.

And above all, my main wish—what seems to me

to be the main task of the Coordinating Council—is

not to reduce its activity to endless

declarations and resolutions. We must become

a practical body, a body

of practical politics. So,

please. My name is—thank you. I

also want to say a few words about

yesterday’s action. After Lyubov Sobol’s remarks about

whom we should thank

for yesterday’s action: we should not thank

the authorities or the Kremlin.

What matters are the people who

came out yesterday. Yesterday, something remarkable

happened: people were not afraid, even though it was

frightening. People came out to an

unauthorized protest, and that is

first of all. Second, perhaps one of the most

important things: please tell me, dear

colleagues from the Coordinating Council, who

spent eight hours agreeing on

various points of statements,

telling everyone that there would be an action—how many of you

were actually at the rally? Come on, let’s raise our hands.

Let’s see. Almost everyone was there?

No, it looks like about 15 people. Well then,

let’s count: one, two, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven,

twelve, thirteen, fourteen, fifteen, sixteen, seventeen.

At

45 people, including those from other cities. In short,

in the full membership, it seems to me this is

not normal. I do not want to accuse anyone,

but let us admit one

thing: the council has, in fact, somewhat forgotten what

this is all about. I, for one, also acknowledge my own mistake.

We are engaged in this.

Yesterday people were detained and taken to police stations

across Moscow. Members of the council, in fact, should

have gone there to support them.

Great. We

Everything

is wonderful.

Thank you, it’s just about Navalny there.

[music]

Uh, what are we talking about? Why say that? I...

am speaking.

about ordinary people... We’ve moved on. Bori—Boris, thank you. I...

let me finish, and then you can tell us

about your own fate. You say, don’t

pay attention to three

people. What I’m saying is this: in my

view, we need to change our approach, we

must acknowledge the mistake, we must say

thank you to those who came out yesterday. Yes, I acknowledge

the mistake. — And I do not. — Fine, I’m telling you again

then. Let’s speak, colleagues. Let

the person speak, I’m asking you very much.

Look, over the past three

months, the people who voted for us in the

CC elections hear that the CC is just about settling

scores—who’s tougher and who’s more left-wing, uh...

But actually, no one here is tougher or more

left-wing, and in general, unlike

State Duma deputies,

we are not smarter, nor more left-wing, than our

voters. Let’s simply remember that.

We have stopped adopting statements about

the state of affairs in the country. That is important, but

but this

at this moment, right now, there is

a repressive wave, a repressive crackdown, and it will

intensify. It’s just that our time is up.

Thank you very much, asked Alexei

Navalny. That’s all. Does anyone else—here,

I see one more hand. Alexei Navalny

had his hand up, and if you allow, then minus...

please. Thank you very much, dear

friends. I think that first of

all—well, that doesn’t matter at all.

The CC must thank all those people

who came out yesterday. No matter how many there were—

thousands, hundreds, or just a few—no matter how many

came out. Yes, they are all ours, and they all came out in

support of the demands that we

put forward, and we must be grateful

to these people and to each one of

them. Whoever could come, came. Who knows what

circumstances others had; some people could not

come. But those who came out yesterday are

—this may sound lofty, but—

modern-day heroes. They came out to an

unauthorized

rally with a high risk of being detained,

arrested, or beaten. Nevertheless,

they did it, and to these people, I personally

am very grateful. I think the CC simply

must express its general gratitude in

this

sense. Whether it was a mistake or not is also a rather

questionable line of reflection.

Of course, all actions need to be analyzed, but

it seems to me that in the situation that

developed,

for the sanctioned rally to take place,

it happened the way it happened; it could not

have happened differently. We were driven into this

scenario, which unfortunately we were

forced to follow. But we showed

firmness in our position and followed

that scenario. I think that, unfortunately,

there is a high probability that

in the future as well we will have to follow this

scenario, because they will never

make it easy for us

to hold this or that mass event. They will do

everything to create conflicts, disputes, and so on.

A very inconvenient route, a significant

number of people shouting, “No, only

hardcore, let’s go to the center,” while another number of

people say, “No, we’re ready to go to

Lyublino,” and so on and so forth. These are

normal things; this is part of our work.

We simply need to get used to the fact that this is

part of our work. Therefore, in concluding my

speech, I want, on behalf of the CC, if there are

no objections, to once again thank

all those people who came out yesterday to

the square in the freezing cold for an unauthorized

rally simply because they share with

us these values and ideas.

Please, your speech, and then from...

Uva.

As for Igor’s work in the main... I

will speak about the regions. And about

Moscow.

The ideological content of the protest

movement—a year ago, even less than a year ago,

people could be brought into the streets only

over bread-and-butter issues: utility rates, wages, and everything

related to the material side of life.

Today, in the regions, people are taking to the streets

in exactly this freezing weather, for banned

protest actions,

coming out

for rights and

freedoms. Much has already been said; I will not

repeat myself now. So indeed,

the Putin vertical (centralized power structure) cannot be broken by protest actions alone.

What is needed is serious

systematic work, and for that work we need

structures.

The CC must, is obliged to take on

itself

support for

what could constitute a two-

part system: mass nonpartisan

civic committees at the grassroots level, and

councils of non-parliamentary political

parties as a kind of additional

political superstructure, a political

platform allowing

work to be carried out in a purely

political

And, well, before the CC I cannot help but

express

my gratitude to the Dzerzhinsky branch

of United Russia in Nizhny Novgorod Region

which submitted an application for

holding a march and rally

on December 15, the day of the March of Freedom, which

allowed us to come out to this

event, which had been

because of this

The authorities, thanks to the active work of United Russia

can do good when they want to

Please, Dmitry, if you'll allow me, I would like to

use mine as well

WHO says that yesterday's action in no way

can be considered

a failure

about bones in the streets, and one should not say

that there were few people there, because

people, as they passed by the stone, laid flowers and

moved on. Many believe

it is wrong to drink and take photographs in front of

a gravestone, and in that sense they are

absolutely right

many judge the success of an action not only by

the number of people who came out there

voluntarily, but also by the number of police

OMON riot police and other punitive forces that

were sent there. First of all, there were

an exceptionally large number of them, and that shows

something telling. Very many of these people

behaved sympathetically, and from one of the

police officers I got a grin and the words

"We understand everything," it seems

The editorial board of the newspaper Bolshoy Gorod (Big City) and we

think not only about how to please

our readers. Any authorities and any

representatives of the opposition must be

prepared for the fact that they will face not only

popular but also unpopular measures. We do not

need to keep looking over our shoulder at someone all the time

If you say something, there will always be someone

who is unhappy with you; if you stay silent,

someone will be unhappy with you too, colleague Pikovsky

That is normal; we have to live with it, we have to

get used to it, and to keep expecting

universal approval is, at the very least, naive

Excuse me, respected colleagues, yes

Thank you, but why are you telling me about

the fact that we should not rely

only on the support of our readers and

listeners; sometimes we must be prepared

for their indignation. And that is

right. I propose, dear colleagues,

in my capacity as moderator, I ask you to stop

this

these unofficial exchanges. I ask you to give me

time. I want to say a few words

about yesterday's action and the situation in general. I

do not consider yesterday's events a failure

Indeed, it was not an organized action, it was not

a call to action; people came at the prompting

of conscience, as their own conscience

told them to. But what I would like

to say is that the protest movement is alive and will

remain alive. Uh, it is a sine wave. I hope that this

sine wave has an increasing amplitude, and that

the fact that today 65%, according to absolutely all

polling agencies, of Russian citizens

are настроены for change, and for change

in politics, is a fact. This is our enormous

potential and an opportunity for growth. What

needs to be done, of course, I

agree with many colleagues who

spoke here, that not only mass

protest actions, which cannot be

frequent, should make up the substance of our

work. Of course, there should also be

various flash mobs and various actions

on a smaller scale, which should simply

sustain

the appropriate emotions

Of course, the emotion that existed on December 4

of last year—the composition is changing

committed people remain, people remain

who are capable of running a marathon rather than a sprint, and

that is very good. That means there is taking shape

the foundation of future mass actions, of the future

protest movement. But of course

today we will form working

groups, and in those working groups we need to

take a serious look at the forms, methods, and

mechanisms for shaping our actions

This is very important, and I would ask those people

who possess unconventional

creative thinking to join these

groups in any capacity. Perhaps we

need an expanded meeting of the groups

that will prepare peaceful protest

actions. It is completely obvious that we need

to review the slogans. It is completely

obvious that some slogans do not

work, but I believe this is serious

work that should be carried out not

publicly here, but perhaps somewhere in

working committees

Roughly speaking, today, already today

and tomorrow, we need to start planning a mass protest action

that will now take place in

the new year, in 2013. I think we

are capable of making sure that this action cannot

be either banned or obstructed

and that it truly gathers no fewer than

100,000–150,000, even 200,000 people. Then

the struggle will take on a different quality, and then we

will finally force, in

the country, force things so that in the country there begin

political changes. There is no other way. And of course

we need to take other steps as well

I absolutely agree. Let us write

an open letter about what decision

the Moscow mayor's office made to close all

central squares to mass

events. It will be interesting to see what they reply to us

There are many such things. We have a great many, including

appropriate actions that we can hold

wherever we see fit; these can include offices

of repressive institutions that today

are behaving not very properly, extremely harshly

toward a number of protest leaders

Colleagues, if we have no other opinions among us

let us draw a line under our

discussion

let's hand over this mechanism for preparing our

actions to the working

commission group being created today, and continue moving forward

with our agenda, if there are no objections.

Colleagues, the more united we are,

the stronger we will appear. Please,

let's move on

to the third item, please.

I will briefly explain which documents

are on your desks. That is, there is

a programmatic statement on the goals and objectives

of the Coordination

Council, which was prepared by the working

group: Ashurkov, Nemtsov, Gorov, Krylov,

Pikovsky, Pakhomenko.

That is one document. There are also two, as I understand it,

alternative documents: a programmatic

statement on the situation in the country and the Coordination

Council of the Russian

opposition,

and accordingly the main goals

of the Coordination Council by Garry Kasparov. These

documents, as I understand it, have a certain

alternative

character. Besides that, besides that,

I will set out the logic, yes, as I see it.

In addition, there is a large number of

amendments; all amendments are to the first

document, which was prepared

by the working group, since the amendments, as

usual, came in at the very last

moment, on sheets, in different formats, and here

it takes a long time to sort through and

review them. Let's have brief remarks

from the participants in this process, briefly,

literally one-minute remarks. The technical

group, please. One minute, please. Overall, I

agree with what was said, but Kasparov actually

set out the first part of the statement

in his own wording, and also proposed

submitting the document that the editorial

group prepared as amendments. So, for example,

Kasparov's proposal could have been

considered by taking the documents

of the editorial

group as the basis. So, colleagues, now we will decide

on the procedure. Are we beginning discussion

of the document that was prepared

by the editorial group, correct? No, no.

Then one remark from the authors

of the alternative versions, and then we will begin

the discussion. So, an error has already been voiced:

there are no alternative

documents here. All three documents are not

alternatives, because all

three documents proceeded from one

original text, and in all three

documents this original text, as

the framework of the goals and objectives, is present.

This is the document presented under

the title "Programmatic Statement on the Goals and

Objectives of the Coordination Council

of the Russian Opposition," here, on five

pages. This is Garry Kasparov's version; this is

the document submitted by

Ilarion

Konstantinovsky, based on the same thing, and

the difference in the third document lies

only in the fact that those comments,

proposals, and amendments that

were voiced in discussions and in the

internal discussion of the Coordination

Council were, to the greatest extent possible,

included in the original text that

was proposed by the editorial group.

Therefore, all three documents are

of the same kind. Thank you to the authors of the documents.

No more from us; then we will proceed with you.

Let's do it this way, colleagues: we will determine this

it is a very difficult and important matter of procedure, procedure

on procedure, please, on procedure. I

please, simply, Andrei Nikolaevich,

of course these are three alternative texts.

These are three different texts that

were prepared by three different groups

of people. I propose, on procedural grounds,

to take one of these versions as the basis

without discussion, and then work with it,

and of course we should adopt the version that

was prepared by the working group that

we formed. In general, it is a strange

way to frame the issue. We formed

the working group after quite a few heated arguments.

Colleagues, let's now address the procedural issue.

On procedure, Sergei.

Please, am I correct in understanding that the word

"alternative" means that from these texts

it is proposed to leave only one in the end, after

all discussions, voting on amendments, and

so on, if they cannot

be combined?

If that is not the question, then they are

alternative. I ask everyone to be aware of that.

Thank you. That was a procedural

remark indeed.

I simply have

a question. There was a working group

formed at the meeting of the CC (Coordination Council), which

proposed some options. It would be entirely

understandable if there were a situation in which members

of the working group differed in their views and submitted two

versions. I do not understand the status of the texts: are these

proposals submitted by members

of the Coordination Council outside the working

group? Did the working group discuss them?

Were they submitted for consideration to the working

group?

Boris, yes.

Please, please, the coordinator

of the working group. So, the editorial

group, consisting of seven people, was

formed at the previous meeting of the CC (Coordination Council).

The main work on this

document that is being proposed,

the programmatic statement, was carried out by colleagues

Nemtsov, Parkhomenko, Gaskarov, and myself, since

the document is complex and gives rise to many disputes, and

It has the character of a programmatic document.

Our goal was

to prepare a main draft that would

satisfy the majority as fully as possible

of the members of the Coordinating Council. And so

this is the document we are proposing. It

has been retitled; it is called "On the Goals and

Objectives of the Coordinating Council"

of the Russian opposition, and its structure—it

consists of two parts. The first is the main

goals, which are mainly the political section, and

then the more specific objectives. At first

they consisted of nine sections, but then

one section, on creating a roadmap

for the transition period, was moved into

the political section. That is, it now

consists of nine sections. And our colleague

Piontkovsky, in an email, expressed agreement with

the second part, with the specific objectives, but

submitted an alternative version of the

political

section, and I propose adopting the draft that

four members of the editorial

group are proposing to the Coordinating Council

as the basis, and then continue work on this

document in the form of reviewing

amendments to individual parts of this

document. That is my view, but I would like

the other members of the

editorial group to speak as well—Gennady, Andrei

Andreyevich, and Mr. K.

Now then, dear colleagues, I see hands raised, and

yes, certainly—the first hand raised was Sergei

Borisovich. Sergei Borisovich, the last phrase

by Oshurko was the one I wanted to say:

it would be important for those three members of the working

group who in fact did not take part

in its work to express their views

regarding this main

working document being put forward by the

majority—the relative majority,

four of the seven members of the working group.

I mean Mr. Krylov, Mr.

Gudkov, and

[music]

Mr.—let's begin with Andrei.

Andrei, who do we have there? Volodya, I'll give

you the floor now. Please, Andrei Andreyevich.

May I, on procedure? Boris Nemtsov,

please be brief. One second.

Friends, perhaps the authors of

this document should first present its essence?

What? No, it has—it has already been

presented.

Well,

I think it would be reasonable to put all

the options to a preferential vote.

Based on that vote, whichever document receives

the support—otherwise we would be contradicting ourselves. We had

an editorial group. Unfortunately,

I indeed did not participate in its

practical work; that's just how it turned out,

simply for procedural, technical reasons. But it seems to me

that it would be right—I am not insisting,

and I do not want to diminish the merits

of any document—but it would probably be

proper, after all, to consider the statement

prepared by our editorial group, taking into account

the submitted documents in terms of

substance. I would propose that this

be adopted as the basis, without adopting it

as a final version; instead, we should extend

and continue the work of the editorial group, giving

enough time to coordinate

this text with each member of the

Coordinating Council. That is entirely

possible as a procedure—or with almost

everyone—and then adopt it by a majority

vote at the next meeting. Because

right now, unfortunately, we will not be able

to do that. I can state my own point

of view, since I was asked to: in terms of

content, I fully approve this document.

But I believe it lacks important

points concerning our goals, objectives, timelines,

and so on, and perhaps some

wording could be reconsidered by

common agreement and expanded a little

further. And I really would, for example,

adopt it as a basis and refine it

into a proper text already agreed with the

majority. Yes, Sergei?

Please, briefly. On procedure, the proposal

by Mr. Tor, if it has been submitted, it

must be considered. What we worked on in the working group is important,

but that does not in any way

but in no way

... this is a fact. In that case, we will keep arguing.

Let's have a quick vote.

Who is— I really did not participate

AK

The positions expressed in the draft of the liberal

group will be defended and carried through

to the end, up to submission to the editorial

commission. Unfortunately, as a result

of Boris Yefimovich's work, I, like

most members of the liberal faction,

was not... I expressed sharp disagreement

with the document that was drafted

together

later

attached

As you can see, members of our faction, with

the support of other factions, have put forward

an alternative document. In this situation,

I believe that this

decision of the drafting commission is a conditional

majority

4 to 3, not

the same as Tor's proposal to put the

alternative document up for discussion. And finally,

a third document has been submitted by Kasparov

and it is in fact presented in the form of amendments

to the first main document. All right, so

there is a proposal, yes.

Please.

On procedure: historically, the first proposal was

the proposal to adopt the document as the basis.

So, if we're going to vote, then first we

need to vote on adopting the document

of the editorial commission as the basis. If this

proposal does not pass, then a ranking

vote on our colleague's proposal, yes.

That's right, thank you. Please, Andrei Ch.

On procedure: I am opening the document that

was submitted by the editorial group. I am reading. If I am not

mistaken, the third paragraph from the bottom

begins: "Only a return to

true competition in Russia's political life

will make it possible..." and so on in the text.

But if we want there to be true competition

in Russia's political life,

then true competition must

begin, at the very least, in the life of the

Coordination Council. If there are

different documents submitted, then in that case we

must at least hear from those who

are submitting these documents and hold this

discussion. This is already the second meeting

of the Coordination Council, and we

are seeing attempts not to discuss

the most significant, the most important issues

relating to the vision of the Coordination

Council. Our colleague, I think, began

today's meeting by saying that we

have forgotten what the Council

is. We have not forgotten it; we do not know what

the Council is in the first place. In order

to fully understand, or at least

to understand what the organizational

council is, what we ourselves represent

as members of the council, what ideas we have,

what views we hold, what we stand for

strategically and tactically,

we need to hold a socio-

political... Therefore, the proposal is:

the proposal, since

at least two documents have been put forward, is

to give each of the groups that

are presenting these documents the opportunity to present

their document within

minutes, and only after that, only after that,

will it be possible to hold a vote, including

the ranking vote

that was mentioned. Colleagues, I would simply

like to address the member of the

Coordination Council. If you do not

object, perhaps we really should

structure our discussion in the following

way: we give 5

minutes to the authors. We have three options, 5

minutes each. We give the authors of the options...

then we put these options to a ranking

vote, adopt one document as the basis,

and continue working on it. Would that

option be acceptable?

On procedure.

Please, I insist that Andre

Nikolaevich finds it very convenient to pull procedural issues

out of one pocket when

he needs them, and out of the other pocket

he pulls questions

outside the rules and puts them to a vote.

The proposals should be voted on in the order in which they

Let's... Understood, colleagues. Let's

not discuss procedure any further. If

the issue before us right now is that

we are either for an alternative vote

or for taking the first proposal as the basis.

It is clear that it will pass, I understand, yes.

Then let the members of the Coordination

Council vote on which option we

support: either a ranking vote

or taking the first proposal as

the basis. All right, there is a proposal.

First, yes, to consider the other options as

independent. There is a second proposal:

to consider them by giving 5 minutes to each

speaker on the three versions of our

draft statement, and then hold

a substantive discussion and a ranking

vote, and adopt one of them as the

basis.

An amendment... all right, then there are two options.

Let's not argue. Let's

put it to a vote.

At the beginning, we had a proposal to take

some document as the basis.

All right, colleagues, who is in favor?

Tom, you see, the point is that to begin

a ranking vote before

the documents have been presented by their drafters

is...

The floor...

5 minutes to a speaker from each

platform, and after that put them to

a ranking vote. Please raise

your hands. Count them, please.

Colleagues, because now there will be... I ask,

who

is against? 18. 18 in favor. Who is against this

proposal? Please raise your hands.

Count... how many.

How many are present? Who

abstained?

Four. Well, we will consider that

the first option has passed after all: to give 5

minutes to each head of the group, or at least to each

option, and then adopt

one of them as the basis and then revise it

into a final document. On the basis

of which one?

He said that the chamber can

do anything, the chamber can change the rules. But

this is in the Duma (the lower house of Russia's parliament). Boris knows. Nemtsov, how many

people do we have?

Colleagues, raise your hands, members

of the Coordination

Council. Count them.

... people. Enough, enough for a

quorum. Colleagues, the decision has been made. Boris

Nemtsov is first. Yes, Boris, you are speaking.

Boris Nemtsov, 5 minutes, please. But not me there...

I think it should not be done that way. I will speak

more briefly. Ashurkov should speak,

Parkhomenko and Gaskarov as well, at least those

those who prepared the documents, then I ask

the technical group to prepare and run through it

for now, as for the timekeeping—no? As I understand it,

we are given 5 minutes. Yes, Nemtsov gets 2 minutes.

Ashurkov gets 2 minutes, and who else do we have? Parkhomenko, 1

minute. Sorry, 2 minutes. All right, out of respect,

6 minutes, fine.

I said that

all the minutes

I’ll give speaking time—who is speaking, not speaking

speaks for

a minute, then half a minute for the technical

group, for each date than for the speakers

please

place. So, the outcome of this discussion was

that my

comrades at odds with me, nevertheless, you

heard

the speech should

to you

have produced an excellent

document. The document contains a unique

political section, including things that

definitely

unite us. The document gives an assessment of

the current authorities—uh, the authorities are illegitimate. The

document says that

mass protest is certainly a way

to change this government. Peaceful protest is the main

say

about

we regard this at a glance as

a unique thing. The first chapter of this

document—I like it very much.

The second chapter, which was mainly

prepared by Sergei Parkhomenko, I consider

fundamentally important for the reason

that it sets out how we are going to achieve all this

and exactly how

the work should be structured

of the Coordinating Council in order to make

its work more effective, more

productive. Therefore I strongly urge you all

to vote for adopting the document as a basis. Thank you.

please

Vladimir, I will add a few words, in

particular regarding those issues that

were put to

a vote on Demokratiya-2, and which

were approved by a majority of the members of the CC (Coordinating Council); they

in principle, those provisions that were

approved were included in this document. We

say that the authorities

are illegitimate, with a description of what kind of

violations took place in the State Duma and

presidential elections. We say that a road

map—the creation of a roadmap

for the transition period

is one of our priorities. We briefly

describe the political reform that

we support. It seems to me that on

this there is

consensus. One more point regarding

the Forum of Free Russia—I think this is

a term that is not very well established, but

in essence we are saying that feedback

from voters and supporters is one

of our priorities, and the development of

communication tools, Demokratiya-2,

and the organization of elections are also among

our tasks. So I think this is

a fairly compromise-based document, and I would

vote to adopt it as a basis.

Thank you. Sergei Bori-

please

plea-

there is nothing substantial, except that I would

draw the attention of those gathered

to the fact that a political statement in itself

does not contain, and cannot contain by

its very

nature, precise instructions on what exactly

it intends

to do, so I proposed

[music]

to do

But if we have missed something here, add something

here together, perhaps, it is necessary

to get rid of it. This is the very

second—the second part is made according to the principle

of a construction set: each of these blocks can

be removed or inserted

or turned around, but the second part must

definitely be there. As for the first

part, the editors’ main purpose was

to eliminate in it, I would say,

the meaningless drumroll of bad

journalistic rhetoric

and to say only what needed to be said. It seems to me

that, uh, the work on

the first part, which is conditionally

political—but this first part

in fact repeats the resolutions of the rallies

that we have already adopted many times, and

in fact, when we start arguing

about this first part, we are talking about the same

thing over and over. That is, I think it is important that here

it is reflected that the main goal of the

Council is to implement the resolutions of mass

protest actions. Accordingly, everyone knows

what the resolutions were, what their goals were. Nevertheless,

all the comments that were made on

the roadmap and on political reform

are all reflected here. I would of course urge

spending less time discussing

the political part, because it seems to me

there is consensus here, and we understand why

we have gathered, what our goals are, and to devote

more time to the second part, in which

we tried to reflect those

specific proposals that we could

implement within the framework of the Council. Here we

included those initiatives that we are already

implementing, for example

oversight of the work of precinct

election commissions, coordination of

mass protest actions, the development of

protest infrastructure

demo

Below, I also suggest seriously working on this.

Here is a set of points that, as we see it,

we could realistically

implement within the framework of the Coordinating Council and not take on

those obligations that would go beyond the time frame

that has been allotted to us

So, accordingly, the main appeal is

more focused on the second part. Keep in mind

that. Thank you, dear colleagues.

The presentation of the concept

of the first document has concluded. I now give the floor

for the presentation of the concept

of the alternative version. Well, Andrei, 6

minutes.

That should be enough; let’s try to keep it to 6 minutes. Please.

the technical group. Go ahead. Dear

colleagues, the editorial group has prepared

a programmatic statement and circulated it; it

is before you now. This document

contains a whole range

of strengths achieved as a result

of the work done.

But there are also a number of shortcomings, and it is precisely the presence

of these shortcomings that prompted some members

of the working editorial group, as well as

other members of the Coordinating Council,

to try to prepare a text that would

take into account both

the achievements

made by the editorial group and also

eliminate the shortcomings that appeared in this

document.

There are indeed shortcomings. I would like to support it.

It is absolutely true that these are two different

documents. One document has

a political character; it is our

conversation with society, with our

voters, with those who support us.

And the second document is the main goals in

the wording proposed by the editorial group, while

the other document is the main tasks

of the Coordinating Council; it is essentially

an internal document, a document

devoted to how we organize our

own work.

It must be said that the second part, this second

document, has on the whole been prepared, in our

view, well. Of course, there are some

points that require further work, but overall

it is indeed a serious

document that can be worked with further

going forward. As for the first part,

there are several significant

shortcomings here. First,

the title omits a very important

element: the situation in the country.

The text discusses the fact that elections to the

State Duma (the lower house of Russia’s parliament) and the presidency have taken place, and the kinds of

large-scale crimes, bribery, and

so on. This does not relate to the goals

of the Coordinating Council; it is a description

of the situation in the country.

Therefore, removing this most important

part of the title is simply unacceptable. It is

indeed a document about the situation in

the country and the goals of the Coordinating Council

proceeding from the situation in the country

that we currently have.

Next, colleague Gorov has just now

spoken about this: it is the resolution of the mass protest actions

of protest

of 2011–2012.

On the one hand, it would seem that we all

know this; on the other hand, there is not a single

document in which these demands

were formally fixed or recorded, at least

there is not a single document of the Organizing

Council; some may perhaps have forgotten.

Therefore, in the document that was

proposed by our

group, those points are listed — the five

main demands of the mass protest actions

of the past year in Moscow and

other cities in Russia, under which

tens and hundreds of thousands of people took to the streets

over the course of that year, and continue to do so.

It is important for us not to forget that these demands

were supported by people, that these

demands still have not been met by the authorities,

and that the Coordinating Council is not

abandoning the pursuit of these

demands and is not trying to replace them

with any others, even though

those others may also be important. But these demands

are the top priority for implementation

by the Coordinating Council. Further, in the process

of discussing these documents, there were

amendments proposed by a number of members

of the Coordinating Council, and we tried

to incorporate practically all, or almost all, of the amendments

submitted by a number of members of the Coordinating

Council into this document.

Next, in the discussion among members

of the Coordinating Council on our website

Democratia 2, questions were put forward

relating to this political statement.

Is power in Russia legitimate?

No — 24 votes. Adopted.

Should the Coordinating Council

develop a roadmap? Yes — 24 votes. Adopted.

Adopted. Should the Coordinating Council

initiate the creation of a Forum of Free

Russia? Yes — 23 votes. Adopted. In other

words, the majority of members

of the Coordinating Council support these

provisions, and from our point of view, since this is the

position of the majority of members

of the Coordinating Council, then these provisions

should be reflected in the document, not

omitted from the document that has been presented

for your consideration. Finally, there is one more

important point: political reform.

Here there is an important fork in the road: on the one

hand, apparently the majority of members

of the Coordinating Council agree that

political reform is necessary; on the

other hand, there is a serious problem.

related to the content, to the substance

of political reform. Which points should be included there

and in what sequence these

demands and these decisions, these parts

of political reform can be implemented

This requires serious discussion. Unfortunately,

to date, the list

of these elements of political reform has not

been submitted for discussion by the Coordination Council; in

fact, it has been put forward for the first time only in this

document and has not undergone serious discussion

in our view. Political

reform is such an important

issue; it is truly a matter

for the work of our Coordination

Council that political reform requires

serious

serious discussion of what exactly, and in what sequence,

they should be carried out, before or after

various stages, and so on. In other

words, it seems appropriate to devote

possibly a separate meeting of the

Coordination Council, or at least

part of it, to discussing political

reform and what we stand for and

how exactly. Therefore, we consider it important

to make sure to retain in the political

statement a reference indicating that

political reform is necessary. However,

at this

this

proposal, in terms of its overall concept, somehow departs

in genre and style from the genre

of a political statement. Well, and

essentially, taking all these

considerations and all these amendments and

comments into account, the resulting text is the one

of the programmatic statement that has been circulated

which is now before your eyes and reflects

the best of what was proposed

in the discussions and votes that were

presented by members of the Organizational Council

recently. Thank you, we stayed within the time limit.

Dear colleagues, by the standards

of the parliamentary genre, we are a mini-

parliament, and right now we must

discuss the substantive side

of the documents. In your remarks, I

ask everyone—there was a third document

perhaps Garry Kimovich Kasparov presented it

the third document, by agreement with

it was

considered

once again

all of this should be regarded as

amendments to our

document. These are amendments, I am speaking from the position

of the first one, that is, to the editorial

group. There is a version which

we communicated

Minko, Oshurkov, I, Karpov

Yes, Kasparov. Kasparov wrote a complete

document and then attached amendments to

our document. Colleagues, amendments are

amendments to our document.

We can discuss four or five versions of the statement

sent by members of the Coordination Council

perhaps. Therefore, let us proceed as follows: we have

a voted decision, a decision that has been voted on

and we must respect ourselves. We have

two options; we have already determined the documents

one was prepared by the editorial group, at

least for the most part

the second

document is

a statement. Tom

gave the go-ahead to consider it

the draft document prepared by him

as amendments to the main text, so

let us not now drift in that

direction. We will of course now get in touch with

Garry Kasparov so that we do not

have any overlaps or confusion

already.

Each speaker may take 2 minutes.

Please raise your hands, and I will

give the floor in turn. As you conclude your

remarks, you should propose as the basis

either the first or the second document.

Now that is true democracy, at least

in our ranks. So please,

let us begin the discussion. Who wishes to speak

on the concepts of these two

documents presented by the authors or groups? Please

raise

your hands.

Ha.

Let us start with Mikhail... for now I do not see

Andrei Andreyevich, please. All right,

next is Ilya Yashin. I see one hand, three hands. I

already see them. Please, regarding Andrei's opening remarks

Nikolayevich: first, they contained the phrase

"part of the members of the Coordination Council,"

"part of the members of the editorial group." I

understand correctly that this "part of the members"

consists of one person, namely Andrei Andreyevich?

Just for

clarification. And second, on the

substance: Andrei Nikolayevich's remarks

began with the words that in the first

document there are strengths and there are

weaknesses, and these weaknesses should have been

taken into account. Then he explained at length; in my view,

this is a typical procedure, simply described

in Andrei Nikolayevich's own words:

the typical procedure is to adopt the editorial group's version

as the basis and then

introduce amendments into it. Now, on the

substance: the programmatic version of the working group

was sent out to members of the council, while the programmatic

statement of the council was sent out last night.

That means that discussing

substantive documents in such a mode seems to me

difficult. I have just managed

to read it now, and I see there the same, in my

view, nightmarish stylistic flaws,

so to speak, cries and wails about

illegitimacy and other things, which somehow

the incantation carries over from the document

document

Iche Chita

this is not about things being shut down at this very moment

I swear to God, I talk quite a lot with

people there who follow our

activities, so these exercises

in rhetoric are absolutely unnecessary for anyone

there is no real opportunity to discuss them substantively now

no opportunity at all, because I simply

do not know how many members of the

Coordination Council have actually managed

to carefully read this alternative

document

that arrived last night

who read it during the night? One, two—not

very many, it seems. Colleagues,

please share your point of view

domain

rure. Thank you. Before I give the

floor

I would ask the speakers to express

their point of view without judging the authors

I think that would be more proper and

appropriate

plea

nogo T liches

the disagreements are divided, the disagreements concern

one fundamental

question that continued throughout

the work of the commission. This

question is: Is political reform possible

under

the existing—I think

that this question, yes—especially since from this

side, quite recently, we were still

being urged not to criticize the authorities

but to influence the authorities, and to view the resignation

of Putin as

the marginalization of the protest movement, and

so on. We believe that sufficient evidence has been given

to show that under this regime

political reform is impossible, and in this connection

it is therefore extremely important that we put

to a vote the question formulated as follows: should the

Coordination

Council develop a roadmap

for the transition period from the day of the fall

of the regime until the election of legitimate authority? I had

a discussion with Mr. ___ on this

matter when he said that, well, this is really

the transition period, it is

something fairly widespread, that

this is not about something that will happen someday, but

about today—a roadmap, that is, the entire

political reform. By the way, in your article this

is described in quite some detail, needs to be

developed starting from day X, precisely because

today it is impossible under this regime

please, add half a minute

half a minute. It seems to me that in this knot

of disagreements lies what divides us in

the discussions of this month. And

by the way, our position—perhaps you consider

it absolutely unnecessary and uninteresting, but

on any platform broader than the

Coordination Council, our position on this

issue is shared, supported

by the majority of our supporters. Echo of Moscow (a Russian radio station) is

an approximate example of a platform for our

supporters, and there our position gets

9

the reproach directed at Nevzlin-Ashurkov's document was

that here, in their version, this becomes blurred. This

is a good, healthy attempt to create

a compromise, to find a compromise, but it created

this kind of vagueness on the question of political

reform. In our version, the question is posed

completely clearly: the transition period from

the day the regime falls, and the answer to the question whether, under

this regime, political reform

is impossible—this is the central question

of strategy

...navich, I did not

interrupt. More or less everything is clear, but I am

categorically dissatisfied with the way in

which we are being asked to adopt one of the

resolutions. I propose that we simply respect our own

decision: on an alternative

competitive basis, we formed a working

group so that it could produce

a compromise version of the resolution, and

the respected Andrei Andreyevich Piontkovsky was

elected to this group. I voted for you,

Andrei Andreyevich, not so that you would

work in parallel, not so that

you

would sing along to Nemtsov or to anyone else

whatsoever. I specifically voted for you so that

you would sit down at the table and reach an agreement, and not so that

now, over the head of the working

group, some alternative

drafts would be introduced. I am categorically dissatisfied

with this sort of unhealthy

atmosphere of intrigue with elements of

public and completely inappropriate

pressure on the people who prepared the

alternative draft resolution. I am

categorically dissatisfied with this

element of, excuse me, a kind of loyalty test

when our colleague Illarionov publicly considers it possible

to test me on whether I do or do not

consider the authorities legitimate. Andrei

Nikolayevich, excuse me, I considered this government

illegitimate, illegitimate, back when you were still

working as an adviser to Putin. I am not obliged

to answer to anyone on this subject

Therefore, I propose that we respect our

own decision. Excuse me, but nevertheless

I propose that we respect our own

decision and, of course, take as the basis the

draft that was prepared

by the working group formed by the Coordination Council

working

group. Who else signed up? I just—Sergei

Borisovich raised his hand, so I just

colleagues, I may forget someone now, so if you

raise your hands, keep them raised

the same thing

that attempts using demagoguery

dishonest

to discredit some of the members

of the organizing council, I discussed

with Mr. Davi. What exactly does this mean?

the vote that was proposed

that very four-point vote

on the basis of which Mr.

Illarionov on Echo of Moscow (a Russian radio station) spoke about enemies and

traitors. Mr. Davi wrote to me that

it was evident

a technical inaccuracy. Correct, yes, that

what was actually meant

were the wordings that should or should not

be included in the text, but as a result of

a technical oversight, this

quote, made it seem as though we were discussing

not the wording, but rather

the attitude toward certain

political circumstances. This is

a technical oversight which, in fact,

could easily have been corrected, but which was not

corrected, and for example did not allow me

the opportunity to take part, because when it comes to

the wording, of course I am absolutely not

against voting on the four

options proposed by me, proposed

to me. I know very well that there are two

which, in my view, should

be present in the text, and two which should not

be present in the text. Well, perhaps

not in exactly these words, but in essence

yes and no here are completely

there is nothing painful about

discussing this, and in fact in the text

that the working group ultimately proposed

the issue of the illegitimacy of the authorities is clearly raised

the issue of a roadmap is present

the wording is there, the issue of

the form of a free Russia is not there, the wording is not

present, because no one has yet

managed to explain what

it is

exactly. I would simply like to draw

attention to the fact that demagoguery and dishonest

actions

uh, I would say to an outside

observer. Well, colleagues, we have

a procedural group; it is obliged

to turn off microphones when time expires. Yes

but you, but you behave differently toward

different speakers

please, may I ask for an additional 20

seconds? Please add 20 seconds, taking into account

our circumstances, please add them. So, I

believe that appeals in this form to

public opinion are methods

that are dishonest; they are demagogic

in nature

colleagues, I still have a big request

when we speak, to express our point

of view. Well, it seems wrong to me if

we somehow

... Vladimir Tor had signed up to speak, and

colleague Vinokurov. Yes, please, let us

start with you

an unexpected alternative proposal to us

having listened to the discussion and

[music]

having reflected, as I understand it, in the

State Duma (lower house of Russia’s parliament) there is no such general

programmatic political statement, and

programmatic political statements

are adopted by parties themselves. I was there

in attendance; we had the congress of the December 5 Party

for example, yesterday there was the congress

of the People's Alliance party. Surely they did not

adopt their own political

programs—I don’t know, I’m not sure that they have

for example, wording about a criminal

nonviolent, and so on, revolution, and

our political programs can be

different. Perhaps there is no point in breaking

spears over wording and so on. That is the

proposal. Thank you, Vladimir

Dear

colleagues, I urge you all

to work toward increasing scandals in

the nature of disputes over documents, which in the end

ultimately comes down to only one idea: that

one side is bad, and the other side

is engaging in demagoguery, or vice versa; the side can also

be accused of

distortion

and

misrepresentation

roughly speaking. Therefore, the only way

to resolve the contradiction is a rating—let us

the number

Yes, dear colleagues, in principle I

support

the proposal. I cannot but give

the floor... and what else can this be called

after all, it is still adopting a statement

a resolution of the State Duma

therefore there is nothing wrong if we

discuss it for another 10–15 minutes. Boris

Nemtsov, Sobchak—who else raised a hand?

Just now, perhaps. Colleagues, one of the

important differences between the two documents is

that the editorial group’s document contains

a general political program

of the united opposition. I must tell you

that all the time we are accused of the fact that, first, we

have no program, and second, that you there are

quarreling with each other and cannot agree on anything

I can tell you this: the strength of this

document of ours is that we have

a program of the united opposition, and it

is absolutely substantive and concrete

it begins with the thesis of the immediate

release of political prisoners

ending repression, ensuring

real rotation of power from

the president down to the municipal level

reform of the judicial system, abolition of political

censorship, reduction of presidential power

the transfer of powers in favor of

election, a real election

of governors. Next, we have—yes, I

believe this is the strength of our document. I

am against postponing the issue

of political reform to the future. If we

do not have what unites us, I can

say politically that what does not unite us

the work of the Coordinating Council will be

very difficult going forward, therefore

therefore, for the future, going forward, that is why

for the future. That is first. Second, many people

do not understand what Putin is capable of and what he is not

capable of. Our text clearly states

that political reform will be

carried out within the framework and developed within

the framework of a roadmap; this is written in

the text. Therefore, when people say that in

the text this is not there, and supporters of those

who will go to Tsar Father Putin and

ask him—there are no such supporters, including

in the editorial group. There were none.

So let us not mislead

anyone. This is a clear, precise text,

absolutely, I believe. You...

with a large number of those who are present

here, and those who are absent as well. And finally,

the vote that took place in Moscow

which was held at our

place on Democracy-2—this vote, we

saw it, it is reflected here

it has simply been taken into account

taken into account. To accuse people that something like that

was not considered is wrong. That is all.

And let us—well, one more

speech, and then we will wrap up.

I actually wanted to say two things.

First, regarding what our colleague

Pikovsky said about certain vague

parts of the text. I would like us

really to move away from

such broad, loud statements and get

to the substance. Therefore, if there are any

things that seem unclear to you, I would like

to understand which ones, so that we can discuss them

perhaps already within

the framework

it would be important to put forward the proposal

of our colleague Vinokurov for a vote so that

we could also, in a ranked

vote, have the opportunity

to vote for the absence of a common

programmatic document, because

there really are a large number of

different forces, different views, and so that

this—to vote for this proposal

which seems to me... All right.

Please, Dolgikh... Nav... Navalny. Yes, and

I-I-I'm sorry, my eyesight is poor

I may not

[music]

see something. Dear colleagues, it is rather

sad to observe that, essentially,

like-minded people are in a state

of division and perhaps even some kind

of discord.

[music]

If consensus is not reached now as a result of

the work of the working group, perhaps

this working group should be expanded. I

spoke in favor of this at the previous meeting as well,

and to expand it, so to speak,

without limit—whoever wants to join, joins

so that this working group can continue

its work and by the next meeting

prepare precisely the document that

can easily be adopted as a basis. Because

already now some are indeed moving

some members of the CC, like-minded people at least

in one respect, into personal attacks. Why are people looking at us?

People are watching us—both those

who support us and those who do not

support us. Those who do not support us

will be immensely pleased by such discord and

division alone, while those who support us will be

disheartened. Well, I am speaking as someone not as

experienced as you, of course. Allow me

to explain once again how the work of

this working group was organized, as follows:

four people took

part in it. One person stated

that he would not take part in this

work. Two people maintained

a mysterious silence.

OTV still did not explain what happened. I did not

understand a thing.

...betrayal. Please take

the floor when I give the signal. If you respect the...

if you do, then take my place. I

do not object. Please, we had requests from

Andrei Nikolaevich. Alexei (Aleksei) also asked to speak.

Navalny asked to speak, and so did Evgeny. Will you give

a minute?

[music]

Please, go ahead.

Alexei, thank you very much. Friends, apparently

this is not the last time we will need

to adopt some important

political statements, and it is obvious that

we will never have a unanimous

position—well, except perhaps in some rare

cases. Therefore, it seems to me very important

from the very beginning to establish

some proper procedure for adopting

such decisions. We moved in the right

direction, created this group. The group met

and worked, and I would note that there was

a ranked vote, and the group was

composed in such a way that the majority

there consisted of supporters of the so-

called radical option, even in

this group. Now the group has put forward what seems

to be an agreed decision, and yet we still

end up with an alternative vote.

If every time we simply

put forward alternative documents, we

will never adopt anything. What matters is

that the document unite us and be

adopted by at least thirty votes

Thank you, colleagues, I still propose that we

follow parliamentary logic; we should

substantively discuss two sides, two

concepts, then vote and adopt one as the

basis. The working group will continue its work.

Please, the working group’s meetings should not

be closed off; we can calmly

finalize the majority document together.

So, whom have I not given the floor to? Right, Zhenya,

please. Yes.

Yevgeny: Colleagues, I would like to say

something on the substance of the matter

regarding the document, namely about the goals for which

we are, properly speaking, undertaking all this.

I did not

see it.

It would be good to combine this with the fact that we

naturally want an end to repression

and turnover of power. Let’s think

about why power in our country has stopped changing hands.

Let’s think about the most important thing: what kind of

economy we have in this country. If anyone

has forgotten, let me remind you: it has been a raw-materials economy since

the time of Boris Nikolayevich (Boris Yeltsin).

With a resource-based economy,

the elites who have settled themselves on top of

those resources have no need to give up power.

Replace Putin with

some Ivanov-without changing the economy, and everything

will remain as it was. Therefore, the most important

point that we must include here is

the struggle to change the economic

system, a transition from a raw-materials

economy to an economy of human

capital.

It should be based

on resources that do not run out, whereas

oil and gas, unfortunately, do run out. And what

happens afterward is frightening even to think about.

Really, only

an economy based on inexhaustible

resources-and those resources are the hands and minds of citizens-

is truly viable.

Therefore, it seems to me that right now we need

to think about these things, and it is very important

to think about reforms. Perhaps this should not

be spelled out quite so directly; it may be that

you think this is a minor point, but it matters,

because right now the raw-materials sectors

pay much less than the sectors

that produce something important and necessary.

It seems to me that these things are needed. Thank you.

Colleagues, I believe that the fact we have many

speakers means that people are all

concerned and engaged. Good. By the way,

that said, dear colleagues, we can

draw a line under this, or we can allow a couple more

speeches and then proceed to a vote.

Let us, in the spirit of our

democratic character, give him a chance

to speak. I had a few questions for Andrei

Nikolayevich. No, you can do that

on the sidelines, because right now we do not have

that format. Unfortunately. Next time we will conduct it

exactly as in the Duma (Russian parliament): a speaker, questions,

discussion, and voting. That is an absolutely

correct procedure. May I have after him

half a minute? All right, half a minute, with

pleasure.

Yes.

Let’s give Andrei Nilovich

a minute.

Go ahead.

Please, in your logic, you excluded from

the programmatic statement the demands for

ensuring real change of power. Do you believe that

power

can change?

...

You removed the demand concerning the Public Television Council and the media. Do you

support the existence of the Public Council? And so

on?

This is Mikhail speaking.

Please, one minute, and then

What exactly is unclear in the

text presented by the editorial

group? I have spoken about this. There are five or

six points here; incidentally, they are

printed out right in front of you. These are

amendments. Point three: those shortcomings

that were identified both in writing

and

orally. Our colleague spoke about

illegitimacy and considers it one of the political

problems of the document that was submitted

by our group. If you open

the programmatic statement submitted

by the editorial group, you will see there the

words “overcome total corruption,” and that

the Coordinating Council does not recognize

the authorities as legitimate. Which means, colleague Yashin

has stated that he does not recognize this government

as legitimate-for many, many, many years now. And

I would like to ask you: why then did you

not vote on the issue that

was put forward at Democracy-2, namely

why the authorities are legitimate?

You abstained on that

question. Yes, did not vote. Colleague, I am saying

you abstained from voting, abstained

from voting-I am speaking clearly.

Colleague Nemtsov said that

this document contains the program

of a united position. That is, of course, not the case.

Boris Yefimovich, that is not true. This is not

a program of the united opposition. Moreover,

there is no program of the united

opposition here. What exactly is the united

opposition? That is entirely unclear. At present we have

only the Coordinating Council. As for the

program, it may

be created, including on the basis of our

work, over a certain period of time.

Right now there are certain points, there are

certain slogans, including some

slogans that have been introduced here as

elements of political reform. Some

none of them received the number of votes that

when we voted for them, so this is

a separate task that still stands before

us. This is our most important task. We

cannot avoid it; we will still

keep coming back to it; it needs to be given

an example. And the last point: why we did not

manage, as a working group, fully in the way

we would have liked. Half a minute more, if possible, please add

half a minute, but for the last time. There are simply

some issues that really

can be handed over to a working group and resolved in

the working group; as a rule, these are

technical or organizational issues

issues. Questions of a political nature,

of a strategic nature, and, I am not afraid

to use the word, of a philosophical or ideological

nature cannot be resolved in a working

group. And the fact that we keep returning

to this and are not satisfied with

the work of the working group, among other things, and that the members

of the working group, as has just been said, also

are not satisfied with their work, lies in the fact

that we missed a very important stage:

a general discussion among the members of the Coordination

Council. This does not mean that even after

such a discussion we will arrive at a consensus

opinion; that is no guarantee. But after such a

discussion, our chances of making

decisions and preparing decisions in any

editorial group increase, because then

the opinions and positions of the members of the organizational

council will have been stated clearly and plainly, and then we

understand what we are starting from and what range of

options we have. Colleagues, well,

the rules are being enforced strictly, so

please do not be offended when the microphone is turned off. Who

is our last speaker? To whom? Ah yes, Vladimir.

Please, I will use my right

to two minutes; after that we will begin

the vote. Excuse me, from the point of view of working

on this document and making a decision at

today's meeting, I see that we have

three options. The first option is

to adopt as a basis the version that

the majority of the editorial group

is proposing, and within

the course of a few days, a week, or perhaps a longer

period, to give everyone the opportunity

to submit amendments and then vote on them

democratically. If an amendment passes,

then the corresponding

section of the document is changed accordingly. We

have nine of them there. The second option: we are mainly

breaking lances over

the political part of the statement. In fact, it is

even smaller in size than

half of the entire statement. As for

the areas of work, as for the tasks

that the Coordination Council sets

for itself, we are not really arguing much.

So we can postpone the political part

and

again adopt as a basis the second part,

about the tasks, the specific tasks

of the Coordination Council. And the third option

is that we send the entire document to

the editorial group, expand it, and

so on. It seems to me not very

promising, because we have discussed all this for a long time

and it is unlikely that we will get any

breakthrough new wording

that

will command much greater consensus.

Support it? Yes, thank you, I will also take a minute.

The first thing I want to say is that any document

can be improved endlessly.

You can keep improving Marx's manifesto

or editing War and Peace by Tolstoy, and so

on and so forth. I have my own

point of view; it was sent out to everyone.

My article, which was published in Novaya Gazeta (an independent Russian newspaper),

can be consulted to see what it contains.

The first thing I would like to say

conceptually

about the statement

and its political aspects: this is not

the Coordination Council is not fulfilling

its main function, which is to coordinate

the actions of the opposition. We must come to some

agreement, so of course we must

today adopt as a basis either one

or the other concept, which differ in

essence by one thing: one option is more

moderate, allowing for negotiations and

compromise; the other option is tougher,

one that in fact we should already

be developing with

you: evolution or revolution. So therefore

roughly speaking, I have a proposal here:

to quite clearly adopt as a basis

the editorial group's document. I

agree with many of its provisions; there are things that

I would like to add. For technical

reasons, unfortunately, I could not take

part in Friday's meeting, but I think

the work absolutely must continue. I

am ready to participate actively in this.

I invite the other members

of the Coordination Council as well. I think we

will be able to reach agreement. Such a discussion

is something we really need. We must

determine: evolution or revolution.

Moreover, I want to say that if we

agree on any option, that does not

mean it is dogma. The political situation in

the country is changing, and what the

Coordination Council considers today may tomorrow

already lose its relevance. Therefore we can quite

well, if we gather again in two to four

months, come to the conclusion that the option

we proposed—for example, dialogue

with the authorities—is no longer possible, and we

move to a tougher option. It seems to me

that we do not have any

irreconcilable disagreements; we do not have

a split, and naturally we must

finish this discussion today and adopt

...some document as a basis and not...

rushing, but to refine it properly...

A proposal, well, based on the vote—30

seconds for Boris. As an experienced parliamentarian, you...

...last night Maxim Katz explained last night

in detail that in order to adopt something as a basis,

23 votes are needed. So we have 31

people, so there you have it.

[music]

...in connection with our colleagues' group submitting

an alternative document, there will not

be enough votes for either one to be adopted, and that is

bad, simply bad. Therefore, I appeal to

supporters of option number two to support

ours, and we will be very

...open to compromise.

Colleagues, what did I say incorrectly? Tell me,

please.

Collea...

I meant to say, parliamentary

practice. That's all, colleagues, let's draw a line here. We have

...submitted for our vote. We

have held what I consider a democratic discussion

and I propose that we continue in this way, without

offending one another with various reproaches.

We held the plenary session. First,

what was submitted here to the presidium of today's

meeting was a programmatic statement,

a statement on the goals and tasks

of the Coordination Council of the Russian

opposition, prepared for the most part

by our editorial group. Who is in favor of this

provision—of adopting this document as

the basis? Comrades, who is in favor?

As a basis... on the topic... Kamet has the floor... Kame...

So, who is in favor of voting for

this document? I ask you to raise your

courageous

[music]

hands—for adopting the first document as the basis.

It was drafted by our editorial group.

The first version. Please count.

For adoption we have ... votes.

...

All right, let's do it once more for the sake of

clarity, so that there is no doubt. Who is in favor of

option one as the basis? I again ask you

to raise your hand. Dima, please count.

Everyone.

Colleagues, keep your hands up, keep them up

higher.

That's 23 even without taking into account... 23.

votes. Nevertheless, for the sake of

clarity, since our count is still continuing,

the voting continues, so for the sake of

clarity, you may lower your hands. Thank you.

So, for the sake of clarity, I now put

the second version to a vote,

prepared by our respected colleagues.

I ask you to vote for the second

version, which is titled "On the General

Provisions and Tasks, on the Situation in the Country

on the situation in the country," and then it continues

in the text—you have it in front of you. Therefore,

please, "On the Situation in the Country and the

Goals of the Coordination Council of the Russian

Opposition." Who is in favor of this version of the document?

Please raise your hands.

Please count, esteemed

colleagues.

11, plus Kasparov there.

All right, esteemed colleagues, then in our

ranked vote, the first

version received the larger number of

votes. I am obliged, under

parliamentary rules—and we must

follow them, I believe—to now put

this question to approval by a qualified

majority. Therefore, I ask:

who is in favor of supporting, now on behalf of the

Coordination Council, the first version

of the document as the basis, as a resolution

of the Coordination Council? Please support it—

raise

your hand once again. Yes, this is once again, after

it won the ranked vote...

Once again, I ask—what we need for

approval is to determine whether we have a quorum or

not. Please keep

your hands up. 23 votes, exactly 23.

votes. Well, no need to applaud, because we

still have a great deal of

work ahead of us. Yes, please, Dima. I just want

to say: since we adopted it as a basis, there is

a large number of amendments. I counted

42 amendments; many of them came in

essentially at the last moment, today

overnight. Many of them essentially overlap

with one another, and they were not processed in the usual way

because we simply did not

have time to do so. Therefore, what

colleague Ashurkov proposed—that the amendments should

later be voted on through Democratia (likely an internal platform)—they

all 42 of them right now would simply, from the point

of view of technical...

...considerations, seem the most reasonable...

at this moment, simply because many

amendments in fact even duplicate one another, and since they

came in at the last moment, we could not

process them. I am giving one minute each on the amendments,

on the procedure for adopting amendments—one minute each.

I give the floor to Cherikov, Konstantinov, and Boris Nemtsov.

Please, I have an urgent

announcement. I want to remind you

that ... who has now been declared wanted at the federal level

and is currently in...

... It was obvious to me that he would somehow

take part in our council, in the Coordination

Council. He has been calling, he has been waiting to connect since morning, and

yet this member of the Coordination Council still

for some reason is not connected. I would like

to draw your attention to the fact that the person is in

custody altogether. Let's discuss what we

are going to do next.

Several times he did not pick up the phone

now.

Thank you. We will try to resolve the technical

issue... Konstantinov, and...

Nemtsov, Daniil's representative.

Konstantinova. Dear colleagues, regarding

the procedure for adopting amendments, this is very

important. There are amendments, and amendments are amendments,

some are technical amendments, and there are

amendments of a fundamental nature. But

to put 40 amendments, dear colleagues, to

a vote in a democratic body—this is not... this

means that we may have a chance to pass the first batch of amendments,

the first five or seven

amendments, but the fortieth, forty-first, fortieth

second amendment simply will not be voted on by anyone.

That means blurring the issue of

adoption

of amendments. I am against it.

Therefo...

sta...

[music]

w

there's no one here

[music]

no

Maybe considering that, for example, my

brother was placed under a travel restriction in the city of

Moscow, considering that he

works there—this was done completely unlawfully.

A travel restriction limited to Moscow, in effect.

So now he basically can't work,

or live

peacefully. They can do anything.

They can arrest people, they can come in here, and in general everyone...

[music]

...today's

session. Different people voted, people who

hold different political

views, not the same ones, so

it is a perfectly normal procedure that there is

a conciliation commission, but nevertheless

we are making a single, unified

decision, a very important one, and that is very good.

This is precisely where that very

political process lies that, it seems to me,

the voters expect from us.

They voted for different people: some

voted for Yashin, some for Piontkovsky.

Now they are watching how the candidates

represent their interests. Good, and very

properly, at today's

session. Well, I can see that after the adoption of

the session rules, things have taken on a much

more orderly character. I

can see that for you journalists this is very

boring, and you're sitting there. Well, that's normal.

The democratic process, whenever

a session proceeds so slowly, routinely,

monotonously, is actually going well. It is understandable that

the public watching it is bored

enough. It would be more entertaining if people

were throwing water bottles at each other,

but we are not, and that is very good. And I

hope no one will start throwing things. Friends, thank you very much.

As for yesterday, regarding

yesterday's

event, it's hard to say whether I liked it.

I am satisfied with everything that happened at the

unauthorized rally, which

effectively guaranteed every participant

the potential of arrest,

detention, a fine, and so on. Well, at the very least

time spent out in the wind and drizzle. People

came out. Whether that was a lot or a little is hard

to say. But Dmitry Bykov said today

that protest needs

not only flesh but bones as well.

At unauthorized rallies, there forms

that very backbone of the protest movement:

people who come out to the square despite

the very real threat of arrest and

detention. And these are no longer just a few

isolated individuals—these are thousands of people, and that is

a great many. I am grateful to each of these people,

and to each of these people I say

thank you very much.

[music]

one more—oh, so you...

Guys, don't crowd in. Gennady Vladimirovich,

could you say a few words for Ridus about

yesterday's rally? How do you assess

the low turnout? Many were saying

that this would be a kind of turning point, after

which the authorities would understand whether protest would continue