Question: The authorities have taught us to expect that in every election, they will use some preparation that has a strong impact on public opinion: the second war in Chechnya, or the expropriation of YUKOS. Should we expect anything like this in 2007?

Grigori Yavlinsky: Unfortunately, we can’t rule out something of the kind. But people’s minds are already in such a state that no further measures are necessary to keep the present-day authoritarian system and its authorities in power, and they can do whatever they please.

After all, they have created a second Kremlin party to bamboozle voters even further. Such an imitation of elections, without any real choice, combined with the kind of television broadcasting we have in Russia – that’s drastic medication in itself. So there’s no need to kill, jail, or intimidate anyone. Ultimately, however, the form of “preparation” and whether it is administered will depend on the Kremlin’s paranoia level. And that, in turn, will largely depend not on the state of society, but on numerous intrigues within the presidential structures as they engage in their power-struggle. This conflict could suddenly turn very vicious.

Question: And did the need to create the Just Russia party arise because United Russia couldn’t guarantee a parliamentary majority on its own?

Grigori Yavlinsky: There is always some demand for dissent among the public, and there are always some officials and bureaucrats with grievances. What has been created is a special device for meeting these needs in a way that poses no threat to the authorities. Besides, Russia has countless problems – and unfortunately, some people might be misled by hearing opposition talk from the Kremlin’s second party. So the two president-loving parties will get a great many votes between them.

Question: Does Mironov’s party have any chance of beating Gryzlov’s party?

Grigori Yavlinsky: What does it matter? It all depends on what Putin decides, what he considers necessary to reinforce his system. If he stays with United Russia, that party will win – if he switches sides, Mironov’s party will win.

Question: Why has the Kremlin decided to do this at all? Does it want to have the whole field covered?

Grigori Yavlinsky: In order to simulate a two-party system, with a right-wing party and a left-wing party – thus destroying all the real forces which have grown of their own accord, from the grass roots, in recent years. And in order that all the discontented officials and bureaucrats should know what their permitted alternative is – so they have an option for quarreling within the system framework. A naive idea, but quite dangerous for Russia.

Question: And when Putin invited ten party leaders, including yourself, to meet with him at his Novo-Ogarevo residence – was that your entry pass to the next elections?

Grigori Yavlinsky: No. Such meetings don’t mean anything in that sense. And these days elections mean nothing as well. The procedure of elections has been stripped of political content. It’s a routine administrative task. Those who end up in the Duma or a regional legislature are those whose presence there serves the purposes of the authorities – the president, his administration, an appointed regional leader. Elections in an authoritarian system, if their goal is reduced to nothing other than getting into power, become only a means for patrons to accumulate clients.

For example, [Union of Right Forces leader Nikita] Belykh addressed a personal request to [Chechen Prime Minister Ramzan] Kadyrov, and praised him in a Moscow newspaper – and hey presto, their group was elected to the Chechen parliament. And this kind of thing happens everywhere. As for getting an entry pass to the elections – there’s still a lot of time ahead. In the present-day system, all parties that take part in elections are parties of the authorities, one way or another. There may be some exceptions, but they are only exceptions.

Do you know the difference between a regime and a system? In a system, a person who manages state institutions will be guided by the law 90% of the time and make 10% of decisions on his own. In a regime, those proportions are reversed. What we have is a regime.

Question: Do you sense any signs of the regime being relaxed? For example, television coverage being given not only to [Communist Party leader Gennadi] Zyuganov and [LDPR leader Vladimir] Zhirinovsky, but also to Yavlinsky and Belykh.

Grigori Yavlinsky: Since the de facto leader of the Union of Right Forces (SPS) has announced that he supports and will continue to support both Putin and Putin’s designated successor, the SPS situation is clear. This has nothing to do with “relaxing” the regime. But all these displays are meaningless. The only meaningful course of action is to express an alternative point of view on events, consistently and systematically – an alternative to Putin’s point of view. And we’re not seeing anything of the kind. Everything – the media, the courts, business – is subjected to significant political censorship and strictly monitored by the authorities.

Question: In that case, what are we fighting for?

Grigori Yavlinsky: That’s an odd question. For freedom, for justice – so that things can be different. For survival, sometimes – but usually for victory. Just as your newspaper is doing.

Question: But we’re trying to expand our ground!

Grigori Yavlinsky: In what sense? What does that mean – are you trying to become part of the yellow press, a pro-oligarch newspaper, or a pro-government newspaper? Are you trying to make everyone love you – fugitive and non-fugitive oligarchs, and the political mainstream, and the human rights groups? You need to have a policy line. Principles. As for us, in the past year our party has been joined by an environmentalist organization and human rights groups. We now have factions: the Soldiers’ Mothers, a women’s movement, a youth wing headed by Ilya Yashin.

Question: But to the outside observer, it seems like Yabloko is multiplying by division within itself.

Grigori Yavlinsky: That depends on the perspective you take. Despite all the threats and pressure, our membership has increased by 10,000. That’s ordinary members only. So the field is expanding. Alexei Vladimirovich Yablokov, ecologist and associate fellow of the Russian Academy of Sciences, never used to be a Yabloko member. Like Sergei Adamovich Kovalev, he is a very authoritative person with an impeccable reputation, and thus has broad support. And that is how our party is really expanding and growing stronger.

Question: But your party has been expected to expand to the right, with the SPS, or to the left, with [Sergei] Glaziev.

Grigori Yavlinsky: Those who refuse to admit their mistakes and crimes, those who lie continually, are not our fellow- travelers. Neither are those who have spent decades trying and failing to make up their minds, find their place, and figure out what they want.

Question: All right, but can you tell us who caused the quarrel between yourself and Belykh?

Grigori Yavlinsky: The SPS has declared its support for the policy course of the incumbent president and his designated successor. Given its policy program, biography, and methods, that party has always been, and still remains, categorically unacceptable for us. Belykh has become an organic part of it, and hasn’t been able to change anything there. Yabloko and the SPS are different parties. End of discussion. There’s nothing left to talk about.

Question: A government newspaper reported that everything was decided by a meeting with [Anatoly] Chubais.

Grigori Yavlinsky: Yes.

Question: What did Chubais say to you?

Grigori Yavlinsky: That none of what we had agreed on with Belykh would happen.

Question: Why did you offer Belykh the post of political council chairman within Yabloko? Is that normal – offering another party’s leader a job in your own party? Does this still count as politics, or is it politicking?

Grigori Yavlinsky: This was about a post within a unified party to be established on the basis of Yabloko. We discussed substantial matters: a policy program and an action plan, goals and objectives, our place in Russian politics. The post was mentioned as evidence that our intentions were serious. But it turned out that we offered the SPS far more than it is capable of, and immeasurably more than it deserves.

Question: But didn’t such negotiations only damage your party?

Grigori Yavlinsky: I don’t think so. There are voters and party members who were hoping that the SPS had learned some lessons since acquiring its new leader, and we had to respond to that. It’s a politician’s job to investigate every opportunity. We wanted to find out if there are any people in SPS who are truly prepared to fight for democracy, or just people who want to do shady business deals and service the ruling class. And we are now fully convinced that the honest people in the SPS don’t have any influence at all.

Question: So is your party’s electorate expanding or shrinking?

Grigori Yavlinsky: For numerous reasons, today’s Russia doesn’t have many people who are honest and independent, living according to certain moral principles, and taking an interest in politics as well. Yabloko’s traditional electorate is shrinking, of course.

Question: In that case, what hope do you have, now that the threshold has been raised to 7% of the vote?

Grigori Yavlinsky: I don’t understand the question. If you’re talking about getting into the Duma, what’s the electorate got to do with it? All you have to do is ask Putin, or join the United/Just Russia party. We have said on many occasions that there are more important things than Duma seats. We don’t intend to abandon our views, political history, or goals for the sake of that.

Sooner or later, many aspects of life in Russia will become like what Yabloko is talking about now – or Russia will find itself in a lamentable condition, and the fate of the Soviet Union could be repeated. We’re existing in very difficult conditions, and our top priority to stand by our professional and political position. Pressure on Yabloko is growing and becoming increasingly blatant. Yabloko’s clearly politically-motivated disqualification from the St. Petersburg election has been followed by further action against our party by the authorities in other regions. In the Orel region, the election commission refused to register our candidate list – questioning the validity of 100 signatures out of 13,500. The Pskov branch of Yabloko was forced to withdraw its candidate list due to unprecedented administrative pressure and blackmail directed at candidates – these people received open threats. In Dagestan, Yabloko’s entire candidate list was disqualified on the grounds of one particular candidate’s age. In the Leningrad region, the election commission found fault with Yabloko’s nomination of its representative and forced it to hold a repeat conference, thus reducing its signature-collecting time by a week and making it practically impossible to collect enough signatures. In last autumn’s round of regional elections, our party’s candidate list in Karelia was disqualified on a fabricated pretext – and we had very good chances there, expecting at least 20% of the vote.

The list of abuses could be continued. To put it briefly, in every single region where Yabloko is participating in elections, it is subjected to overt and unlawful pressure from the authorities, in various forms – from media bans on the party’s campaign ads to direct threats and blackmail directed at party members and candidates.

The purpose of this is obvious: providing suitable conditions for the authorities to do whatever they please, without restraint – and maintaining the existing corrupt and lawless system, unchanged.

And that’s why we exist: to speak out openly and seriously about what is happening in Russia, explain why it is happening, help people, propose an alternative, and work to make the alternative a reality. That is now our cause. It’s the common situation for all political forces who don’t represent the interests of any faction within the authorities. The situation is something like this: they’re not destroying us, but neither do they allow us to influence anything, or operate effectively – they smother us, put pressure on us, obstruct us, forbid us… In this situation, existence comes to resemble a cultural phenomenon. Under certain circumstances, this could have a decisive poltitical significance.

Question: What about the real agenda for Russia – the priorities which the authorities aren’t talking about?

Grigori Yavlinsky: In our view, there are three real problems facing Russia. First: the state is extremely disloyal to its citizens, and they respond with mistrust and fear. The field of politics has been compressed. The authorities have distanced themselves from the people, and the people perceive them as something alien – and more dangerous than in the Soviet era. At least the USSR had some rules, developed in the post-war decades: and as long as you followed the rules, you probably wouldn’t be at risk. But now there aren’t any rules or guarantees against being targeted. This trust needs to be rebuilt by having citizens represented in government.

The second question on the agenda is the court system, and the judicial system in general. It has been absolutely destroyed in Russia. People are unable to find justice anywhere, and they don’t believe it can be found.

Third question: property. There is no confidence in private property rights. What’s more, people are convinced that all major assets have been obtained dishonestly. There’s complete mistrust.

All three of these problems are inseparable. But they cannot be resolved without evaluating and developing a clear vision of Russia’s past and future, clearly identifying Russia as European country.

Question: And the law of the strongest prevails across all areas of the state?

Grigori Yavlinsky: Yes, the law of the strongest. The law of circumstance and the law of force.

Question: The answers given by the authorities to the questions you raise may be formulated as follows: security requires creating powerful, highly-paid security and law enforcement agencies.

Grigori Yavlinsky: What’s that got to do with it? I don’t understand. If you’re asking about the security and law enforcement agencies, they can be trusted as long as they, along with all other state agencies, are subject to public oversight and accountable to the citizenry, not only to their superiors. Legally. People can only feel secure if they are confident that the authorities are operating within the law. Not by using the law, but within the law. There’s a big difference.

Question: To put it simply, the authorities would just say “no” to all your questions. Then what?

Grigori Yavlinsky: They are indeed saying “no” – and calling it sovereign democracy. They’re deliberately giving that answer. They say we’re not mature enough for democracy, we don’t need it yet, we’ll have it someday, but meanwhile…

Question: And under the circumstances, what can actually be done?

Grigori Yavlinsky: What we are doing. And probably something more, which we’re unable to do as yet. We need to learn. The President could do a great deal, but he’s pursuing a different policy course.

Question: When you attended Putin’s meeting with ten party leaders, one report from the Kremlin media pool claimed that you meet with the President often and advise him.

Grigori Yavlinsky: So I’m a secret advisor. So why are you asking me? What kind of secret would it be if I told you about it? But if I really were advising Putin, I’d advise him to do exactly what you and I have been discussing here.

Author: Sergei Mulin
Translated by Elena Leonova
Johnson’s Russia List 2007-#32