Alexei Navalny’s Speech at the Central Election Commission

Please, before we make a decision,

I am also speaking about the cases in which we

have given the floor to Alexei; this is very

Please, the podium is yours.

Thank you. Good afternoon.

I do not like the Central Election Commission

and I assume you do not like me very much

either, but a strange thing is happening.

Namely this:

I am constantly doing your job. Here I am,

for the second time in my life, speaking at a meeting

of the Central Election Commission, and all the while

I keep saying the same thing: how can you, guys, make it so

that more people come out to vote,

so that the citizens of Russia

who over the past 18 years have completely

stopped believing that elections have any

effect, would nevertheless believe in them again and

go to polling stations in order

to make a conscious choice

and influence what is happening in the country.

And the amazing thing is that I keep urging you

to do exactly that, urging and urging you, and you keep

saying no. Last time I spoke here,

I spoke in support of the lists of opposition

parties that were running only in certain regions—in

Novosibirsk, Kaluga, and Magadan, as I recall,

and I remember exactly what was at issue here,

and by the way, I went on a hunger strike because you did not

allow people onto the ballot in Novosibirsk.

You did not allow Vannikov. That was under your

under your

predecessor, but the essence of the commission, as you know,

has not changed at all.

I look at you now, and it is the same thing.

On the one hand, it is an amazing

celebration of life.

Some wonderful people come in,

respected people, and they have every right

to participate in elections. But we see no

real political activity, and here everything is

so nice—you congratulate each other on

the New Year, wish each other

success, and rejoice at how wonderfully everything

is going. On the other hand, whenever I come here,

somehow it always turns out that

things do not work out for us for some reason. And yes,

however inconvenient it may be for you, well, you

Thank you very much, and please do not

interrupt. All right? You may be seeing me

for the first time, and I am glad, but your colleagues

have seen me before. After all,

I did not come here as your guest; I came to

an institution, and this institution under

Mr.

[Churov] and under Ms. Panfilova works

in exactly the same way. It weaves some kind of

legal lacework.

Borisovich, you spoke so eloquently that

I was listening in admiration. As a lawyer, I thought: my God,

what a well-spoken man, and all of it is so

beautifully constructed, and so many words

were said, with so many different references, even

to the international convention on the protection of

human rights. But over all that lacework there is

a huge sign:

you are not allowed to participate in the elections.

We will not allow onto the ballot those who speak out

against corruption; we will not allow onto the ballot

those who are not afraid to challenge the current

government; we will not allow onto the ballot those who are

actually conducting

a real election campaign. That is the

big red sign hanging here.

There were demonstrations here of 100,000 people.

Those people who gathered at the demonstrations

declared that the authorities, the president,

together with the Central Election

Commission, had falsified the elections,

deceived millions of people, and stolen millions

of votes.

They stood here and told you all this.

You changed some formal things, but

you continue to do exactly the same thing. To all

these people, you continue to say: you are not

admitted to the elections; we will not let you in

ever, anywhere, because you disturb

our small, cozy world in which

there is us, there are candidates who do not even

try to fight for votes, and there is

a predetermined election result.

Previously it was achieved more through falsification;

now it is achieved more through barring people from running.

So, what I want to say is that even

all your legal constructions, Boris

Borisovich, I am addressing you directly, are absolutely

wrong, despite your remarkable

biography. The Constitution of the Russian

Federation

which, even if legislation specifies things further,

does not thereby cease to be

substantive law—in it, in black and white,

it is written plainly, in black and white, that

legally competent citizens have the right to run for office

if they are not being held in places of deprivation of

liberty. The Central Election

Commission is, of course, a gloomy place, but not

so gloomy

that it can be considered a place of imprisonment.

Therefore, I have the right to run in this election.

Moreover, it was said here

by the rapporteur on my case, on

the previous matter, that the

verdict had been reviewed many times

by various instances. Well then, I inform you

that my verdicts were reviewed, and I

proved in the European Court that those

verdicts had been fabricated.

There are direct rulings to that effect. Moreover,

dear friends, I want to point out to you

that you really should no longer have the right

even to utter the words

"international convention" or "European Court,"

because there was a special decision

reviewing the way the Russian

Federation

implements the judgment in Navalny v.

Russia, and there was a specific ruling on that.

is legally established and must

be accepted by Russia, stating that the state

of the Russian Federation failed to comply with

the ruling of the European Court, and it separately

stipulates that Alexei Navalny must

be allowed to participate in the election, because it is obvious to everyone

and there is no need to pretend

that you do not understand that these

cases were fabricated in order

to keep me off the ballot. That is

the whole point of this entire scheme, and everyone

understands that perfectly well. But I came here

not even to engage in any kind of

legal debate, although the last thing I will

note on the legal issue is that you

are being misleading when you say that

the Constitutional Court considered this, and

it considered a similar provision

in the law on guarantees of electoral rights

yes, but presidential elections are governed

by a different law. That law was not

the subject of review. Since we

... but of course I

did not come here to engage in casuistry. I

came here to declare that

I represent a huge number of

voters.

You may treat that with irony,

or you may treat it without irony,

but I am saying with complete certainty that a decision

by the Central Election Commission, if

such a decision is made, to deny me access

to the election will exclude millions of people from this

election, and will exclude millions of people altogether

from the political system, because it will not

give them any opportunity whatsoever

to participate in the election. And your decision today

is exactly about that. It was said

in the phrase:

"We have nothing to discuss here; this

does not constitute any kind of conflict

or subject of doubt for us." So you do have

a subject of doubt. Why not

build a whole system of attempts to prove

to yourselves that somehow you are such

good people, and that when you go home later

you can look in the mirror and say, well,

I am a decent person, because look

at how much we said. No, that is not

the case. If you do not allow me to run in the election,

you will be making a decision not against me, but

against those

How much time do I have left? Two minutes?

All right, thank you very much. A decision against

those 16,000 people who nominated me yesterday,

against those 200,000

volunteers who are working in

the election campaign, and against those

millions of people who are demanding,

who have been appealing to you throughout the year and

saying one simple thing: we demand that

Navalny be allowed onto the ballot. And this is not about

Navalny; it is about the fact that there needs to be

a candidate who will finally come to

the election and say plainly everything

that is happening in our country right now, describe

our reality, the lack of

prospects, the poverty, and so on, in plain

language.

I did that, and that is precisely why you do not

want to let me into the election. In closing, I

want to

say this to you once again: you are not robots, and from what I can see

you are very much alive; one could

touch each of you, rosy-cheeked and well-fed. You are

an independent body, and I understand everything

that is going on in your minds, I understand

the difficulty of your situation, but surely

once in your life you can do

something decent, not even

heroic. No one is standing there

with a gun to your temple. A simple thing

based on the law can be done, not

for me,

but in order to fulfill your function in

the election commission. This is your

profession, your calling. You

spend your lives on these elections.

So it turns out that you are spending your lives

keeping someone out of an election. You can

do the right thing once in your life.

Do it. And if it is not done,

I assure you, a huge number of people

will not go to this election; they will actively

boycott it, they will speak out

against this election, they will engage in

an election strike, and I assure you, we

will be active. And I assure you, no one will

recognize either the election process itself or

its result. Thank you, thank you. Well, first of all,

I would say that we are certainly not cookies here

that are supposed to please someone.

It is assumed that officials are servants

of the people, and you should work for the good of

every person who is seated here.

Each has a serious biography, and more than once

Excuse me.

has faced very difficult things head-on, and

if he makes his choice, then it is

on the basis of his principles, convictions, and

he has the right to them; it is not only you who have

convictions. Let us move on

to the question. So, we are not going

to try to please you or anyone else; we should

simply perform our functions. Do

what you are supposed to do. And ma'am, please do not

interrupt, please. Alexei...

I can handle this myself here, I can manage.

...

I can handle it. I am not addressing the lady right now; I was

interrupted three times during my speech.

If you want to ask a question, I will answer you. Please tell me,

please.

Your convictions can be viewed in different ways.

One may agree or disagree, but

is it within the competence of the CEC (Central Election Commission)

to remove or in any way decide issues related to your

convictions? What does that have to do with

to the circus

Let me put it this way before I answer.

Yes, perhaps we were more than

anyone else interested in the fact that you came.

to the elections, if there had been full grounds for it and

you would have received the percentage that corresponds

to your popularity, excuse me.

Well, since there are facts—here is one of them.

What does this have to do with clearly

complying with the law as such?

Can you answer for the difference... you

Once again, you are referring to some

heroic fact from your biography when

you are caught manipulating things.

The elections—as soon as we say, look,

in Saratov Region, at all polling stations

in a row, 60.60 and 22 percent.

Alexander, let's not get sidetracked.

You come out and say, “In my youth I did

heroic things.” Congratulations to you, many

thanks for doing heroic things.

You came here, and we pay your salary.

I pay your salary—not for your, yes,

not for your heroic deeds, answer already.

It is so that you do your job and

try to do it well, because you have

the opportunity—and are you ready to hear my question?

Please listen, press the

button so you won't be tempted to speak.

The microphone says—thank you very much, so

the Central Election Commission

is an independent body that makes

independent decisions when it

makes a decision.

Being a political body as well, it

also looks at the context of what is happening. This

context and all the facts that

as I know, the point is that

the verdict existed, it was overturned, it was

proven that it had been fabricated; legally, I in

court proved it, you understand. I went to court and in

court proved that this case had been

fabricated. The other one was also fabricated, even

all the administrative cases—they came in person to

clarify whether the CEC has the right to carry out

a direct ruling from the ECHR (European Court of Human Rights), or—I still want

a precise answer—does it have that right or

not, after all?

The CEC, let us say—what does it follow?

The laws, or those decisions that

are adopted by the Constitutional Court, or old practices?

Please come out from there and sit down

here, and declare that you are once again running in the

presidential election. Then I will

debate with you with pleasure, I will do that.

If you have just asked me a question, then let

me answer. Or is the time regulated?

Tell me.

Fine, you have a minute and a half. I

need one minute out of that minute and a half. I answer you

that the CEC must take all facts into account.

The facts are as follows: first,

the decision was overturned by the European Court

of Human Rights, which is recognized

by Russian law as part of the judicial system. Second,

there was a special hearing where

the question was considered whether

Russia had complied with the European Court's ruling, and the answer

was no, it had not. Navalny should

be allowed to participate in the election. Therefore, you, as

people sitting, excuse me, on my back,

I would like

as a taxpayer, for you to get on with

your job,

study all these facts and issue the decision

that you are obliged to issue on the basis of

the law. Don't laugh. It may be unpleasant for you

to think about, but that is the reality: you are officials sitting

on my back, and on the backs of those people whom you do not

want

to let into the election. Do you have any more questions for me?

Questions? Back in Soviet times (the USSR), I actually

worked hard in industry, while you, as far as I

have seen, think everything can be sorted out by

collecting money illegally and

brainwashing people—well, naturally, you know...

All right. Personally, I am glad that you revealed your

true face. Please, let us end our

discussion.

I was about to sit down, I was returned

to the podium only briefly. Please—five, five, that's all.

I won't. Better to just move on, everything

is clear—you are afraid to say it. You were given

Dear Aleksandrovna,

[applause]

Dear audience, including

that part of it which later burst into applause

and greeted the vivid

speech of Mr. Navalny. But I

would like to draw your attention to two

circumstances. First,

all the greatest achievements

and all the greatest crimes in the history of

humanity were committed in the name of the people

and on its behalf. That is the first point. Second,

it was said here that, you see,

it is a celebration, we congratulate some people, and some

we allow through, while others we do not allow through.

So, I would like to draw your attention,

dear colleagues, to the fact that we

allow through only those of our

fellow citizens who do not have

a criminal conviction, and in particular under Article 160

of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

I will not go into the substance

of that provision.

I would also like to draw attention to the fact

that the European Court of Human Rights

does not have the authority to overturn

the decisions of national judicial authorities. From this

point of view, I would also like to say

that there is an established

legal order. Either we live in a

state,

or we do not live in a state. So,

if we live in a state that

has a solid rule-of-law system, the foundation

of which is the law currently in force

the Constitution of the Russian Federation

I believe every citizen is law-abiding

citizen

acts in accordance with all

the provisions established in

our men are like that, just wait

dear colleagues, dear...

I am addressing you first regarding these

these statements claiming that the European Court

has overturned the sentence handed down against

me and have

absolutely no basis whatsoever, because when and

if, to be more precise, this sentence

is reviewed on the basis of the decisions of

the European Court of Human Rights

this sentence will be invalidated

believe me, that will be your first

proposal: let us register it, and we

will support you. But in this situation, the issue

concerns the law and compliance with it

this law applies to us, as our

so-called officials, and this

is imputed to every citizen on whom

the duty rests to comply with

the Constitution and the laws currently in force

dear L. Alexandrovna

the speech... the key point...

made me even more convinced that

the position

I was trying to set out in this

proposal that I submitted for your

consideration is the only

adequate option consistent with the law

for resolving this matter. I ask you to support the

proposal. Thank you, esteemed...

... members of the chamber, I would advise...

still, your people, those

who support you—you really do

have support. We looked at it here

indeed, in 20 or 21 regions there were

held

meetings there, with somewhere between 500 and 1,750 participants

in St. Petersburg (Russia's second-largest city) there was support; overall

in total, taking part in these meetings

were about 10,800 people, yes. But

strictly speaking, notarization, however,

was only present where there was, let's say,

a notary—only in Moscow

present. In the other cases, according to our data,

if we are mistaken, that can be challenged, but there were no notaries

there, that is, they

but these were, in essence, a demonstration

of support. That is good, I believe

it would be very useful for you to gather the most

independent experts—both foreign and

Russian—as I do, as I gather

what some call harsh opponents, those who

criticize us, and I am very grateful

because they allow us to identify

some of our mistakes. Thank you, they think through

some complex

problems, in fact. Gather them

and hold a roundtable. We are not claiming

a monopoly on this issue, but sort it out. We

really do not have—you tell me

that we are monopolizing the right, that you have us

as some unique, one-of-a-kind politicians

in the opposition who do nothing but talk

about corruption. But look at

the difference. Well, as soon as I come here

there sits Smagulova, and Grigory...

and Ilyinsky—what does he say? Nothing less

harsh; in fact, even harsher words

he simply says them more competently—a person with

a biography who truly has

risked his life, I know that, and has had a great many

troubles, you understand

and attentive. And there are other very

respected candidates there as well; I will not

name names, and they are no less

oppositional and, excuse me, quite capable of

scolding and criticizing the authorities. We simply

do it competently and clearly, therefore

so pull yourselves together. If, as I understand it, my

people here seem pink to you, or at any rate certainly

not blue, well

or whatever color—you may

insult us as much as you like, dress me up in

uniforms, draw caricatures of me, and

I will take it calmly. I think that

my own life experience allows me to treat it

calmly. I am ready to meet with your

public groups, with your young

wonderful people who will

ask any questions—I will answer them all. If you want,

I will hold a meeting

honestly and openly. But let us at least

be honest on all sides, so to speak

I am ready, open, and prepared for an open

dialogue

even despite all those insults

that people allow themselves

and I will survive that. Dear colleagues,

Nikolai, did you want to add something to

what was said? Yes, thank you. I would like to say

that today's discussion on all

these issues related to the adoption of

the decision of the Central Election Commission

now, at this final stage,

has allowed me to form the impression

from my observations that during the discussions none of

the participants in today's discussion

allowed themselves, in my view, any rude

or outright indecent

remarks addressed to a member of the Central

Election Commission

while you, in relation to the Central Election

Commission—none of today's participants

allowed themselves even a single

hint of any personal

characterizations. At the same time, when we

declare that our participation or non-participation in

the elections determines the fate of the country or

the fate of some other constituent entity in

the country, let me remind you that there was a mayoral election in

Moscow in which you took part. I

was not working at the Central Election

Commission then either; my experience is limited, but

It seemed to me that the decisions made there were not always

necessarily the right ones.

Perhaps that was the correct decision, but let me remind you: voter turnout

in Moscow at that time

was just over 30 percent, so

to say that participation in the election

determines voter turnout is probably not

entirely correct, and to claim credit for it

by saying, “If I show up, then the voter will show up too,”

is not right either. We saw this in the most important,

largest federal subject of the Russian Federation

and your participation in this election campaign

essentially did not really

have any visible effect on turnout. So what can we say about

the scale of the country as a whole? And if today the list of participants

has not yet been finalized, everyone

understands that turnout will be fairly

high, and all sociological

studies and all agencies say so, regardless

of how they feel about this or that

politician in our country. Therefore,

trying to predict what and how things will unfold

and trying to influence people’s minds

which may not yet always be burdened with

any life experience at all,

is a very thankless task, and a very

dangerous goal, because later, when

disappointment sets in, they

become harsh not toward

those they were opposing, but toward

those who instilled in them not entirely

righteous goals and led them down the wrong path.

And it seems to me that in this case

we, as adults, bear a responsibility

toward these children and should

feel it. Perhaps I speak this way

because I am a teacher; I worked for almost

thirty years in a school.

And I know what it means to deceive a young

person who looks at you and makes

an idol out of you. And it seems to me that this task,

these methods and mechanisms

used in working with children,

they are very—well, how should I put it—not merely

provocative; they are immoral. And all of us

in this work, when we work with

young people,

need to be careful and cautious. They

will remember everything they saw, everything that was said,

and everything that happened. There was a period in

my life when, looking at the president

of our country, I cried—I was ashamed of

the country. I can name that president even

today, based on my life experience. And

of course, each of us makes a choice in

this campaign—all those who are watching us now,

all those who are listening, in this presidential

campaign, will make their choice.

But one should not make a choice when

the very formation of the list of participants is

unlawful from the outset, and you understand this better

than many—better than many others—having a legal

education. You understand that the Central

Election Commission here today, in

this hall, has not adopted a single

unlawful decision.

Not a single one. You are pushing us onto a path

we must not—and never will—take. Thank you.

Thank you, thank you. And I

would like to say that, of course, it has already been proven more than once

that trying to blackmail us

is useless, as is threatening us. But as for the millions—let us

see what happens with those millions. We

shall see; as they say, history and time

will judge, and the election results will be judged.

Please, Gennady Malkin, and then

we will wrap up. Yes, please. I did not want

to speak, but Alexei

Anatolyevich’s remarks finally convinced me

that this person is not even

planning to run in the election at all. But if

he denies his criminal conviction—an obvious fact—

then, as Oleg Borisov rightly said,

the European Court of Human Rights does not

have the authority to overturn the verdicts of our courts.

Elections are a rational and multifunctional process, and

it is

clear that Alexei Anatolyevich has an entirely

different goal.

Therefore, let us make a lawful

decision, because there is no point

in refusing to hear what we are saying; one can

argue here endlessly, but that is, so to speak,

a dead end. That belongs somewhere else.

Well, you agreed—thank you. I would like

to say that the CEC includes representatives

of six parties: the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, Yabloko, A Just Russia, and

other parties as well. We have different opinions,

we may hold different positions, we argue, and

many votes are cast against proposals when necessary.

So with one sweep—just like that—to brand

us is not appropriate. Of course, you have the right

to what you say here, and much of what we say is also for you,

but we are speaking above all for those

young people who are with you,

who admire you,

for whom you are an idol, so that they too

might think more, and sometimes look more

critically not only at the so-called

“bloody regime” that you

denounce every day, but also at

you, as their idol.

Dear colleagues, may I put it to a vote? And he

himself—may I briefly say a few words in support?

Briefly, please.

Very well. Dear colleagues, fate had it that, unlike you, I

had occasion, unlike you,

to become acquainted with the political talent of

Alexei Anatolyevich

four years ago, when I took part together with him

in the election for mayor of Moscow.

And if we speak to the substance of the issues

that Alexei has just raised here, personally

I see no danger whatsoever in allowing him

to take part in this election—

if there were no legal

obstacles to it. And

in general, all of his reproaches, especially,

Let’s say I attribute my stoutness to

the emotional intensity.

So, well, his eyesight is good; we

looked each other in the eye, but...

Let me emphasize once again that

I would have had nothing against his

participation in the election, if not for

the regrettable circumstances connected with

the requirements of the law. I allowed myself

just a minute, so to speak, to remind you

that in 2009, when I was the leader of

a faction of one of the opposition parties,

I led my

faction, together with others, out of the hall

in protest against the lawlessness that took place

then during the elections in Moscow, and I also

took an active part in other

protest actions that were

aimed specifically at the shortcomings of

the electoral system and the mass

falsifications that had previously occurred in

many places. And perhaps that was partly

what motivated my decision

to personally join the Central

Election Commission in order to, well, at least

to prevent this, so to speak,

as much as possible. But precisely because of

the fact that Alexei and I

Anatolyevich both took part in the election and were

rivals, he showed a much

better result than your humble servant.

Well, first of all, at the time I filed

a complaint with the Moscow City

Election Commission stating that there had been

1.5 metric tons of illegal campaign

materials discovered in favor of candidate

Navalny. Yes, and even then I became convinced

that legal norms in relation to Alexei

Anatolyevich somehow have

a kind of exclusive character. Any other

candidate would, of course, have been removed from the race for such violations,

but he

continued

his campaign, and quite successfully at that,

because of that.

And, Larisa... in order to preserve, as it seems to me,

the integrity of the collegial decision

of the Central Election Commission, I

am concerned that my participation may be seen as a conflict

of interest in this

particular vote, and I ask for your

permission not to take part in this vote.

Well, that is entirely your right.

Yes, we certainly have neither

authoritarianism nor

— excuse me — any dictating here.

You are free and independent people.

You represent an independent institution, and

I have read a few things about it, yes — the CEC is an independent

institution, and we will not tolerate any orders or shouting from outside

the country.

We do not tolerate that. We make the decisions

that correspond to our convictions

and our professional judgment, so that it is clear to everyone.

As for Aleksandr... Oleg, if you wish,

I am ready to meet with you,

to meet and answer

your supporters’ questions. I am absolutely not

afraid of any questions. I believe that

dialogue is a great thing, and you

are young, with good prospects, but as

the saying goes, everything is still ahead of you.

If there are questions, please, we are ready,

and our colleagues are ready as well, excuse me, to answer all

questions. I also meet with others

in an informal setting. Please, if you

consider it necessary.

Dear colleagues, if we may proceed to

a vote, then I am putting to a vote the

draft resolution before you

on refusing to register

the group of voters created to

support the self-nomination of a candidate for the office of

President of the Russian

Federation

— Alexei Anatolyevich Navalny — and his

authorized representatives.

Please vote: who is in favor, who is against, and who

Then what about you — are you abstaining, or is it as if

you are not here at all? Well, as if

he is not here. All right, then let us

count what we have.

Twelve votes in favor. Yes, good. Dear colleagues, with that

our agenda is exhausted. That is all, yes.

Approved.