Vladislav Surkov’s Secret Speech: How Russia Should Fight International Conspiracies
Created: 12.07.2005 20:19 MSK (GMT 3), Updated: 17:56 MSK
MosNews
We publish the full text of a secret speech, delivered by Vladimir Putin’s top aide, the deputy head of Russia’s presidential administration, Vladislav Surkov, speaking to members of the “Delovaya Rossiya” (Business Russia) economic forum, last week. The full text of Surkov’s speech was made public on the Radio Liberty website on July 11.
Vladislav Surkov: First, I would like to briefly identify our wishes. We wish to see Russia as a democratic state with developed economic institutes. Someone might want this out of sheer sympathy, others adhere to more pragmatic reasons, as recent world history has proven that a complex society model is more efficient, than a vertically integrated one. We have an idea of how long these processes should take. A system as complex, as our country, can not afford fast and dramatic changes. Democracy is not our only objective. We care about the Russian Federation’s sovereignty.
Open economy and global financial networks tend to render the very notion of sovereignty obsolete. Nowadays, some schools of political thought are dominated by illusions. The success of open economy is impressive. But this does not mean that the global financial system is rock solid, or that it won’t change with time. I think, that some people, blinded by today’s results, have got it wrong. The world has to be integrated, but the value of national cultures does not decrease, it only grows instead. One has to safeguard sovereignty. There is also the immediate task of fighting terrorism, that threatens our country’s integrity, and, therefore, threatens our sovereignty. The Caucasus is [problem] number one. Unfortunately, the situation isn’t getting any better there. It is even getting worse. It looks like an underground fire. And we’ve got nothing to boast about there.
Today we witness definite movement by Finland, Estonia and the EU on the issue of Finno-Ugrian nations. It has suddenly been discovered that we [Russia] opress them somehow. They are discriminated against in our country. And regions, where these Finno-Ugrians constitute a majority of the population, do hold a strategic amount of our oil reserves. I am not a fan of conspiracy theories. But this is obviously a premeditated system of operations [against Russia]. Last week there was a resolution in PACE about how “we” oppress the Finno-Ugric nations (the Hants, the Mansi, the Chuvash, the Komi peoples etc). These are yesterday’s schemes, and they’re evident. And I didn’t even start to mention all those “orange revolutions”, about humanitarian institutes’ activities. It’s common knowledge, that Freedom House is headed by Woolsey, who used to be the head of the CIA. It takes an idiot to believe in the humanitarian mission of this “establishment” [Surkov uses the word “kontora”, which means “office” in Russian and used to be a codename of the KGB in Soviet times]. We also should not forget, that specific circles in those countries are also pursuing similar tasks. We have to take this into account in our work.
For instance, it is difficult for me to understand what the big difference is between the Kuchma regime (now alledgedly perceived as criminal), and the Yushchenko regime. As hard as I tried, I failed to see any difference. Apart from the fact, that some people grabbed the seats of others. Obviously, some financial streams and some assets will soon be changing hands, too. If this is a positive development, then I want to ask, what would have happened if Putin someday said: “Let’s deprivatize a couple of strategic[ally important] enterprizes.” One can imagine, what a storm of protests such a statement would provoke, both nationwide and internationally. And in the Ukraine such steps are taken quite openly. And they call it a democratic achievement. And our “rightist” leader Boris Nemtsov acts as an advisor there. This will probably ensure the stability of democratic institutions. Not to mention what we used to believe what we learned from Western [political] theory pundits — that peaceful transition of power, in the timeframe defined by Law, constitutes the core principle of democracy. And how did the governing power change in Ukraine? All the thinkable and unthinkable procedures were violated. It can hardly strengthen the Ukrainian people’s respect for democracy.
But this was all about [our] external problems. Regardless of whatever anyone has to say on the issue, current [Russian] rulers do uphold the principle that [private] property is inalienable. I wouldn’t want to discuss the Yukos case here. But this, indeed, had nothing to do with redistribution [of property], as some tend to claim. But this is a totally different story, and it had totally different reasons. Not related to politics. Of course, it’s easy to present these reasons as political ones nowadays. Thank God, I’m doing exactly those very things myself, for which Misha [Khodorkovsky] was allegedly jailed. This is outright nonsense. I can swear to you, that if Khodorkovsky were at large, the outcome of the elections would have been the same. This corporation posed absolutely no political threat. I told him [to Khodorkovsky], that power, as well as love, can’t be bought. Thinking that a bunch of corrupt [Duma] factions can elect you prime minister is naive. He had those bizarre ideas.
Therefore I would like to stress, that this [Yukos] process, that had wide repercussions, that was difficult and unpleasant for all of us — does not have such a plain political explanation. There were a number of factors involved. Of course, as Sergei Alexandrovich [Abramov, chairman of the Business Russia’s supervisory board] correctly stated, speaking before me, there was this task [for the Kremlin] to send a negative message to business tycoons. They’ve got it all wrong if they think that they can do what they please. From the very start we kept saying, that we won’t tolerate [this approach]. We won’t allow a small bunch of companies to exercise power in this country. This is not democracy. Apart from that small bunch of people, there are also 140 million “poor relatives”, living in this country. And their opinion should be also taken into account. In our business people like to say “I come from the business background myself”. There is a memorable quote by one of the U.S. presidents, who said: “What’s good for GM, is good for America”. I would like to remind, that both the Roosevelt brothers had a somewhat different view of [big] business. I won’t even quote them, in order not to offend anyone present here. But even the trade secretary in JFK’s government used to say: “Sometimes, it’s this way, but sometimes it’s the other way round.” Sometimes, what’s good for General Motors is not good at all.
That is why our position is open here, too. We consider it an incorrect situation when several big companies are ordering about state personnel. I have worked in big companies, myself. I know how it is done and I know what I am talking about. Evidently, it does not mean that we must ignore the opinions of business. But a normal, civilized form must be worked out. We understand it clearly that the best intellectual resources and staff etc. are concentrated in business. It is our national property. It is the base of the political class that must take the first place in the country. Not direct the country but take first place. At the same time, we adhere to the idea of the property stability. If there are exaggerations in the regions, it means that both law enforcement structures and various people extort something, try to make something, this is a disease in the whole of society. Of course, things such as the Yukos case can create a negative atmosphere. But both the president and other top officials are trying to prevent it. At this stage many things depend on the active position of business, on its active self-defense, because there is no need to look toward the state only.
Speaking on securing sovereignty, we believe in the national elite. Here I stress the word “national”. Any well provided person visits the same places in Moscow and in London — Armani boutiques look almost alike everywhere — and the things there are close to each other regarding their class. Evidently, people like you and me, we feel that we are integrated, united, that our borders have no space. I tell you once again that we must remember that 140 million far from rich but complex people live in the country. It is strange to ignore such a fact. We can invent a situation whereby the political class works on rotation. They are in Monte-Carlo, and then they pay flying visits here to receive profits. But this is the way to nowhere. In spite of the integrity of Western economics, the French elite is considered as French, and the German as German. I think that while the Russian ruling elite is still an offshore aristocracy, till it understands, maybe not in this generation, that it is, for all that, a national bourgeoisie, we will have nothing good in our country. We will dangle in a critical gap. It is because of this gap that we have not yet succeeded in anything. Evidently, the staff issue is close to this problem. If the country does not have a critical mass of top managers, we will result in nothing. In this case, we are retarded in our conception of the authorities. Because the notorious power vertical is a primitive interpretation. Today, it is not the vertical that is ruling. The conception that there is a telephone above, the second telephone below, and the third far lower, is stupid. Unfortunately, many of our bureaucrats base themselves on those principles, not feeling and not understanding the current processes. This is a problem of the education and the retarded political culture. These are the reasons why the Soviet Union collapsed. Russia, too, may collapse because of it. But while the Soviet Union crashed kinglike, a catastrophe worth filming, we will decay slowly and everything will finish at this stage. That is why if a new political class does not grow, there will be nothing. I can say that there is no place to take it from. There is no critical mass of such people. And there is also a wide area for collaboration. Where else can they accumulate if not in your sphere where everything occurs faster, in a more flexible and more effective way?
The concern for sovereignity foresees certain economic restrictions. We need restrictions that the President had briefly mentioned in his address to the parliament. This is somehow a matter of taste, a matter of sober-minded estimation. We see that the national capital should either control or dominate in several areas: strategic communications, pipelines, federal highways, railroad, most of electric lines. Financial system. Because there is an opinion that one can simply do without the national financial system. Poland lives this way. However, I think that here the Russian control should dominate, too. Of course, the defense complex in some parts, mostly important for us. Although, we do not rule out the cooperation somewhere, including the cooperation in defense area with the Western countries. Restrictions of control possibilities of the nationwide broadcast. We have such a norm. In the United States, the norm is sharper, than in Russia. We have not more than 49 foreign participants, they have not more than 20.
I would speak on fuel and energy complex. Unfortunately or fortunately, this is the main base of our economic steadiness. Unfortunately, you are letting us down and, so far, proposing nothing new. Maybe, sometime we will fill the entire world up with kvass and people will drink it in all regions of the universe. Today, the priority in a row of entrails must belong to the national capital, including oil, gas and several other minerals and soil treasures. The entrails approach is based on the archaic power and government system. Because the markets can be controlled in more complicated ways: integral, mathematic, counting where the foreign or purely national capital may exist.
That is all, on the whole, I think. I would like to say, that our project is a commonplace one. I would name it briefly as a “sovereign democracy.” It is not good to add something to democracy because a third way issue appears. But we are forced to do that because liberal politicians consider the sovereignty issue as not actual. I often hear that democracy is more important than sovereignty. We do not admit it. We think we need both. An independent state is worth fighting for. It would be good to flee to Europe but they will not receive us there, Russia is a European civilization. It is a badly illuminated remote area of Europe but not Europe yet. In this regard, we are inseparably tied with Europe and must be friends with it. They are not enemies. They are simply competitors. So, it is more insulting that we are not enemies. An enemy situation is when one can be killed in a war as a hero if there is conflict. There is something heroic and beautiful in it. And to lose in a competitive struggle means to be a loser. And this is doubly insulting, I think.
It is better to be enemies and not ambiguous friends as is the case now! That is somehow what we want.
There is a psychological base here. For 500 years, the country was a modern state, it made history and was not made by history. After all, with respect to all those nations, we differ strongly from Slovaks, Baltic nations and even Ukrainians — they had no state system. People, including Russian politicians of the past, drew them on maps. This explains why we will be those bad children who have disregarded everything. That is why, I think, even the self-esteem element should play its role in the forming of our look at ourselves. And if we speak on whether we have democracy or not — you know, as it is said, [in Mikhail Bulgakov’s novel, The Heart of a Dog] devastation is in our heads, and so the same thing is true with democracy, either it is in our heads or it is not. When people tell me of the dependence of the courts, I say, yes, that is a fact. But what can we do with them, if they are dependent because of their nature? If people there can be bribed, or are afraid of calls from their bosses. What will you tell me to do with them? And who can resist the temptation of putting them under his or her supervision? These are sore points. One can draw up many democratic constitutions, one can speak of democracy till he or she goes mad, one can create an artificial system of checks and balances, but what next? [U.S. President George] Bush told Putin shortly before the [presidential] elections [in March 2004], “Vladimir, do not get more than 80 percent of the vote; I have 50, and that is enough for me.” What was he thinking about? Should Putin have sat down and called to the Central Election Commission, and said, “Hey, listen, give me no more than 80, better 70 percent.” So he received 70. But this is nonsense, of course! How can we be more democratic than we really are?
When I hear our television being criticized for not showing politicians, I say, I cannot imagine the U.S. television showing a politician with a rating of just 2 percent talking for hours on end. That would never happen because it is nonsense! It is possible only in this country. Just because some director likes him, because he talks smoothly, because his appearance is being paid for, etc. When I hear them say his ratings are low because you do not show him on TV, look, there were times when Yavlinsky, Zyuganov were shown on TV but their ratings did not change anyway. Yavlinsky’s rating remained 5 percent no matter how often Gusinsky [and his NTV channel] showed him. Nothing ever changed! It is sheer nonsense!
Building a democracy is not just about drawing democratic institutions, but also about making sure people reach that level of cultural development.
I am convinced that the Russian people in the broad sense of the word are fit for democracy and are able to live under democracy and build it, to enjoy its fruits. But, apparently, we are talking here of some historic path. You cannot jump off it, or else, you will break your neck. We are not trying to keep that process in check intentionally, as many think. It is just that we are afraid.
Well, let’s imagine we agree with those who suggested establishing a confederation. The country will fall apart in a week. Let’s set up a parliamentary republic. With whom, with those parties? Trust me, nobody honors his word. There is no culture of coalition building in this country! Italy has lived through 60 governments in 5 decades. Do you think Russia can handle that? Never! And how do they come to terms today?
Today you agree with someone, you let him take a [government] post or something else, and next day he will sell you out completely, in political sense, because there are other things on his mind. What is to be done about that? They tell us, you have an obedient majority in the parliament, it’s terrible. Well, G. W. Bush, too, has a majority in his parliament. Who said, that in a democratic state a president cannot have a majority? Putin has it, and Bush has it. The French president sometimes has it and sometimes he doesn’t. And so what? What’s the big deal? Nobody said we would win the next election. Nobody appreciates our moves, artificial as they are, because we understand that we need to strengthen even the proportional system even though it is still in the interim stage.
Let me cite a simple example. If the 2003 elections were held under a proportional representation system the United Russia party would have 232 votes, not 300 as it has today. Such a system rules out absolute control over the house.
I don’t rule out that we will loose the elections. Try to score more than all the other parties taken together! It is hard, even if we resort to the the so-called administrative resource. That is virtually impossible! We take the risk intentionally. Let it be so.
Let those wishy-washy deputies from single-mandate constituencies, pardon me, who keep running to and fro depending on where the dice rolls, stay away from us. Let there be coalitions, let us again think on whom to join ranks with. Do they mean somebody forced them to join that majority? Of course not, they came of their own accord. And, of course, half of them will run away in 2007. Something has to be done. We need to strengthen the institute of political parties.
The new procedure for appointing governors was criticized by many as the manifestation of the regime’s arbitrariness. Wait a minute! We have insured ourselves against several factors, quite idiotic by nature. Excuse me, our cultural level is not that high yet. It is not that somebody mistrusts the people. But wouldn’t it be the last straw if Dagestan elects some Wahabbi follower [radical Islamist] as their governor?
There are problems, colleagues. Governors’ candidacies must be endorsed by local legislatures. They say you threaten them with being disbanded. Yes. Indeed. For, there must always be a way out of a crisis.
But those legislatures are aware that they have serious influence. If it is their will, the president won’t be able to appoint anyone whose candidacy is disagreeable for them. That is why — and not because we are abandoning democracy — the president has made it clear that the final say belongs to the leaders of the majority factions in the local legislatures. Because, this is where life is leading us. We are talking here of what has already begun across the regions.
Then again, what is so bad about that? We are introducing the party system. Of course, the goal is for the president, too, to be able to belong to a certain party. So far, as long as our governors and our presidents remain non-partisan the entire parliamentary system is nothing but a decoration. They see him as something alien. And that’s natural.
You see, if I do not belong to a team, I can throw support behind one person today, and behind someone else tomorrow. As a result, we have no ideology, no stable political foundation. All depends on just where the dice will roll. Today you’re a conservative, tomorrow you are a right-winger, and the next day you are leftist. Most governors have some of their deputies in charge of the communists, others responsible for right-wingers, and still others for the leftists.
But these deputies are all hostages. The governor summons them and says, this we will give to the communists, and this, what the hell, let United Russia have it, and then this goes to someone else. What is this, a democracy? Of course, the ruling political class should evolve from political parties.
No matter what they say, and many believe the party-based democracy to be obsolete, it is necessary to move on towards building an interactive, virtual democracy. I think it is still too early to speak of that; thus far it would be much better if a political leader, either on the regional or federal level, depended on the party. After all a party is a team, and it is better to depend on a team than on a handful of aides.
Imagine that three people get together and decide on something. I think it is better if a larger number of people are involved in decision making. Although, even the majority is not always entitled to that privilege. It creates extra burden for those who are accountable, and enhances their political burden, if you like, their responsibility.
Of course, we are set to support United Russia in the future election. Many call for inventing something new, claiming that the burden is too heavy for United Russia to handle. I believe it would be a huge error on the part of the government if we give up United Russia for some new party. Then we will never be able to create a stable political system.
No matter how highly praised democracy is elsewhere, try to build a political career in the United States without entering the Republican Party or joining the Democrats. No chance. There are several independent Congressmen. That system largely eliminates all those who remain outside that binary model. It is clear why, for as regards the other existing models, they are run by various clans of the same ruling elite who have come to a national consensus.
That is why there are no conflicts, no mutually exclusive doctrines, or, if there are such, like, say, for example when the Labor Party dropped their calls for nationalization during the latest campaign, it was because they had insisted upon that after the war, and stuck to it without any hope for implementation because the after-war generation would never allow that. That is why, of course, it is so important for you to build relations with United Russia.
In your place, I would not treat United Russia as something unavoidable, or something you have to cooperate with just because it dominates the parliament. No matter what they say, these days United Russia is the most liberal-minded, the most electoral of all the existing parties.
Many say that in Russia there is only one European, and he holds a post in the government. I don’t think it is really so but there isn’t another force who would pursue a different policy. We still have communists, liberal democrats… I won’t comment on this.
But no matter what the right-wingers and Yabloko say, nobody had ever impeded them. Perhaps, they will regain their seats in the parliament, and may God help them. Perhaps, that would be good. But, I think that today we need to focus on enhancing the liberal-oriented modern Europeanized wing of United Russia. For, undoubtedly, the leftist conservative wing prevails within that party. If they were only given a go-ahead, they could adopt such laws that would make us all shudder.
But, fortunately, the party leader, albeit unofficially, is the President, and the country’s policy is based on certain values. At any rate, that party will remain in parliament, and I don’t know what may impede us.
It is quite another matter whether we secure the majority, and if we do, what sort of quality will it be? But that majority will definitely advocate a certain set of ideas, as it will be linked to the policy we pursued today with all its advantages.
Many liberal leaders contact me suggesting we should build a new party together. What for, I ask. Here are 300 mandates, come and take seats there. You want governing posts? Come on, join the party, don’t be shy, there are many worthy people there. For as long as they stay fastidiously aside, lashing out on all those inside and saying what freaks they all are, calling them voting machines or a bunch of mediocrities, nothing will ever change. Let’s not shun them but try to step inside.
If you think yourself an outstanding personality, enter inside, and the party will also become outstanding. As long as you all turn your backs on it and just let things take their course, you are alienating yourselves from power. I think, in truth, you simply do not want it, because, just like the governors, you think why bind oneself to some political force, what if tomorrow things will change, what if…
That means, politically, they are still too immature. And if they are, then, welcome! Take, for instance, Valery Alexandrovich [Fadeyev, Business Russia co-chairman], who actively cooperates with United Russia, and he is fine, everyone still says “Hello!” to him; nobody shuns him.
I think that if we do not move to modernize the political system today, then who else will do that for us? Our immediate task today is to modernize it. Otherwise, the initiative will be seized by those who join the party driven solely by their parochial interests, who keep changing parties all the time. Well, yes. What is to be done with that?
You can chose from a variety of options, including joining the ranks directly. This is a highly important task, I will say that again. The more serious members we have, the higher are the chances we will preserve continuity in politics. And if there is a majority, well, that’s politics; today you are a majority, tomorrow a minority. Hence, another issue. Take Valery Alexandrovich’s organization, which is a highly effective lobby group for the party. All forms of cooperation are possible. There could also be unofficial meetings…
As Sergei Alexandrovich said, the only thing you have to remember is that you should not think that you will come and everything will be fine. So what is the problem?
I have a friend who says that if you fail to do something in 2 weeks, you will never be able to do it. Those bumpkins who sit there, they do not understand that there is no democracy in this country and bureaucracy is ineradicable. That’s the problem of lack of patience and failure to take long-term efforts.
Culture is the fruit of long-term efforts in any sphere, and in politics, too. If we fail to achieve something today, we will try again tomorrow. And a day after tomorrow you will realize that you were wrong when you heard other groups speak out, and you understand that you have to listen to them too. Or, you put everything on hold until some smart minister or Kremlin official arrives.
I think one has to be more persevering, more patient. And if something goes wrong one should not speak of complete failure, that the country is ruled by mediocrities who don’t understand a thing. This is not exactly so, or maybe, absolutely not so.
That is why I pledge personal support to you if you decide to join the party. I hope you too need that.
Speaking of the Public Chamber, I would again like to thank Sergei Alexandrovich for his attempt to dispel a certain skepticism, and again, if you think it is all rubbish, it will be rubbish. If you treat it seriously, it will be a very serious case. We see a certain mechanism in it, yes, and sort of vapor, but what is bad in it — it is an effective mechanism in a social system where the vapor is being emitted first of all, and this is just a mass giving way to the temper and emotions. In America, everything is based on the vapor emission; the whole civilization is based on it. Yes, and that too. But it is not the main thing, of course. The main thing is the possibility to gather people who support the common cause, who are advocates of different social groups in the wide sense. And who actively works with the officials? What prompted us to do that when we have parliament? But those are absolutely different structures. We cannot solve this problem having only parties, only parliamentarian measures. If a politician is taking care of how he looks at the screen, he will never sit down and think sensibly, being a politician is simply another job. He will think what he can gain from this at the next elections, at his next attempt to make himself a career. It is better to add a row of even-tempered people who do not think they are working at this problem to win at a single member constituency at the next elections, or, when they do not exist, in a slate at a territory. But they think their professional predicament is for the sake of this problem. The estimation of those people would be calmer and more objective than that of any politician.
In spite of all the fuss we hear in the Duma at different points, there are almost no professional proposals. They are only fussing. It is their work, to fuss. Citizen [Dmitry] Rogozin [head of nationalist Motherland faction] submitted a proposal, a law on opposition rights. Let us suppose, it is necessary to have such a law. But what is opposition? In this parliament? He says, you have the majority. Who are we? It seems that the rights of the opposition must be fixed only where the concept of a ruling party exists. And what do we have for opposition? Today it is you, tomorrow it is me.
In the last parliament, where no one had a majority, they would combine a majority from different factions. And who was then in the opposition? There was an opposition on one issue, on another issue, and tomorrow on yet a third issue. This is a lack not only of any judicial foundations, not just in terms of looking at other countries, it is lack of logic.
Today I am in the opposition — we need to pass a law on the opposition, even though it doesn’t fit into any apparatus. What is a ruling party? And that’s how it is with everything. Everything has cracks running through it. The fact that the bill will effect an entire society doesn’t concern anyone. We can hold a referendum on nationalizing all economic spheres, we can spend our funds — but that is irresponsible. They know themselves that it is irresponsible. We tell them: what are you doing? What, you’ve already decided everything up there. What is that?
Concerning the public chamber, I would like you to give your suggestions for candidacy. And we are prepared to include your candidates in the initial presidential list. Of course, later we can work with regional lists. But be prepared for patience in your work.
I remember how we did the Civil Forum a couple of years ago. We got together the civil society, as they called themselves — and there they won’t let us into the prosecutor’s office. The result of the forum was an order by the president to make such meetings a regular thing. And after that, I had to chase them with a stick to Ustinov’s office. Why did you holler on every street corner? I personally had to force two groups to go there. Then everything was over. They have other aims, after all — not to visit the minister, but to support people. To support their grants. According to that well-known scenario. Once I went to visit them — there’s a lot of people, dissidents — I also had an opposing view on the Soviet system; an anxious soul. Then it turned out that they were all full of imposters. Awful! In general, the more I work there, the more disappointed I get in the world. There are problems.
That is why we need to get accustomed to long-term, patient work.
If people gather to talk, they will talk a while, then scatter. Then nothing will happen. If you are ready to work actively, we will only praise that. Because if at least 7 out of 10 people gather, then others will join. It’s the active minority that sets the standard. It’s easy to dominate in such systems. Of course, we will not agree to do everything passed by the Public Chamber. But the government will certainly take them into account. We are serious about this. And we want you to be serious too.
http://www.mosnews.com/interview/2005/07/12/surkov.shtml
http://www.mosnews.com/about/copyright.shtml
=> Saa levittää.
Created: 12.07.2005 20:19 MSK (GMT 3), Updated: 17:56 MSK
MosNews
We publish the full text of a secret speech, delivered by Vladimir Putin’s top aide, the deputy head of Russia’s presidential administration, Vladislav Surkov, speaking to members of the “Delovaya Rossiya” (Business Russia) economic forum, last week. The full text of Surkov’s speech was made public on the Radio Liberty website on July 11.
Vladislav Surkov: First, I would like to briefly identify our wishes. We wish to see Russia as a democratic state with developed economic institutes. Someone might want this out of sheer sympathy, others adhere to more pragmatic reasons, as recent world history has proven that a complex society model is more efficient, than a vertically integrated one. We have an idea of how long these processes should take. A system as complex, as our country, can not afford fast and dramatic changes. Democracy is not our only objective. We care about the Russian Federation’s sovereignty.
Open economy and global financial networks tend to render the very notion of sovereignty obsolete. Nowadays, some schools of political thought are dominated by illusions. The success of open economy is impressive. But this does not mean that the global financial system is rock solid, or that it won’t change with time. I think, that some people, blinded by today’s results, have got it wrong. The world has to be integrated, but the value of national cultures does not decrease, it only grows instead. One has to safeguard sovereignty. There is also the immediate task of fighting terrorism, that threatens our country’s integrity, and, therefore, threatens our sovereignty. The Caucasus is [problem] number one. Unfortunately, the situation isn’t getting any better there. It is even getting worse. It looks like an underground fire. And we’ve got nothing to boast about there.
Today we witness definite movement by Finland, Estonia and the EU on the issue of Finno-Ugrian nations. It has suddenly been discovered that we [Russia] opress them somehow. They are discriminated against in our country. And regions, where these Finno-Ugrians constitute a majority of the population, do hold a strategic amount of our oil reserves. I am not a fan of conspiracy theories. But this is obviously a premeditated system of operations [against Russia]. Last week there was a resolution in PACE about how “we” oppress the Finno-Ugric nations (the Hants, the Mansi, the Chuvash, the Komi peoples etc). These are yesterday’s schemes, and they’re evident. And I didn’t even start to mention all those “orange revolutions”, about humanitarian institutes’ activities. It’s common knowledge, that Freedom House is headed by Woolsey, who used to be the head of the CIA. It takes an idiot to believe in the humanitarian mission of this “establishment” [Surkov uses the word “kontora”, which means “office” in Russian and used to be a codename of the KGB in Soviet times]. We also should not forget, that specific circles in those countries are also pursuing similar tasks. We have to take this into account in our work.
For instance, it is difficult for me to understand what the big difference is between the Kuchma regime (now alledgedly perceived as criminal), and the Yushchenko regime. As hard as I tried, I failed to see any difference. Apart from the fact, that some people grabbed the seats of others. Obviously, some financial streams and some assets will soon be changing hands, too. If this is a positive development, then I want to ask, what would have happened if Putin someday said: “Let’s deprivatize a couple of strategic[ally important] enterprizes.” One can imagine, what a storm of protests such a statement would provoke, both nationwide and internationally. And in the Ukraine such steps are taken quite openly. And they call it a democratic achievement. And our “rightist” leader Boris Nemtsov acts as an advisor there. This will probably ensure the stability of democratic institutions. Not to mention what we used to believe what we learned from Western [political] theory pundits — that peaceful transition of power, in the timeframe defined by Law, constitutes the core principle of democracy. And how did the governing power change in Ukraine? All the thinkable and unthinkable procedures were violated. It can hardly strengthen the Ukrainian people’s respect for democracy.
But this was all about [our] external problems. Regardless of whatever anyone has to say on the issue, current [Russian] rulers do uphold the principle that [private] property is inalienable. I wouldn’t want to discuss the Yukos case here. But this, indeed, had nothing to do with redistribution [of property], as some tend to claim. But this is a totally different story, and it had totally different reasons. Not related to politics. Of course, it’s easy to present these reasons as political ones nowadays. Thank God, I’m doing exactly those very things myself, for which Misha [Khodorkovsky] was allegedly jailed. This is outright nonsense. I can swear to you, that if Khodorkovsky were at large, the outcome of the elections would have been the same. This corporation posed absolutely no political threat. I told him [to Khodorkovsky], that power, as well as love, can’t be bought. Thinking that a bunch of corrupt [Duma] factions can elect you prime minister is naive. He had those bizarre ideas.
Therefore I would like to stress, that this [Yukos] process, that had wide repercussions, that was difficult and unpleasant for all of us — does not have such a plain political explanation. There were a number of factors involved. Of course, as Sergei Alexandrovich [Abramov, chairman of the Business Russia’s supervisory board] correctly stated, speaking before me, there was this task [for the Kremlin] to send a negative message to business tycoons. They’ve got it all wrong if they think that they can do what they please. From the very start we kept saying, that we won’t tolerate [this approach]. We won’t allow a small bunch of companies to exercise power in this country. This is not democracy. Apart from that small bunch of people, there are also 140 million “poor relatives”, living in this country. And their opinion should be also taken into account. In our business people like to say “I come from the business background myself”. There is a memorable quote by one of the U.S. presidents, who said: “What’s good for GM, is good for America”. I would like to remind, that both the Roosevelt brothers had a somewhat different view of [big] business. I won’t even quote them, in order not to offend anyone present here. But even the trade secretary in JFK’s government used to say: “Sometimes, it’s this way, but sometimes it’s the other way round.” Sometimes, what’s good for General Motors is not good at all.
That is why our position is open here, too. We consider it an incorrect situation when several big companies are ordering about state personnel. I have worked in big companies, myself. I know how it is done and I know what I am talking about. Evidently, it does not mean that we must ignore the opinions of business. But a normal, civilized form must be worked out. We understand it clearly that the best intellectual resources and staff etc. are concentrated in business. It is our national property. It is the base of the political class that must take the first place in the country. Not direct the country but take first place. At the same time, we adhere to the idea of the property stability. If there are exaggerations in the regions, it means that both law enforcement structures and various people extort something, try to make something, this is a disease in the whole of society. Of course, things such as the Yukos case can create a negative atmosphere. But both the president and other top officials are trying to prevent it. At this stage many things depend on the active position of business, on its active self-defense, because there is no need to look toward the state only.
Speaking on securing sovereignty, we believe in the national elite. Here I stress the word “national”. Any well provided person visits the same places in Moscow and in London — Armani boutiques look almost alike everywhere — and the things there are close to each other regarding their class. Evidently, people like you and me, we feel that we are integrated, united, that our borders have no space. I tell you once again that we must remember that 140 million far from rich but complex people live in the country. It is strange to ignore such a fact. We can invent a situation whereby the political class works on rotation. They are in Monte-Carlo, and then they pay flying visits here to receive profits. But this is the way to nowhere. In spite of the integrity of Western economics, the French elite is considered as French, and the German as German. I think that while the Russian ruling elite is still an offshore aristocracy, till it understands, maybe not in this generation, that it is, for all that, a national bourgeoisie, we will have nothing good in our country. We will dangle in a critical gap. It is because of this gap that we have not yet succeeded in anything. Evidently, the staff issue is close to this problem. If the country does not have a critical mass of top managers, we will result in nothing. In this case, we are retarded in our conception of the authorities. Because the notorious power vertical is a primitive interpretation. Today, it is not the vertical that is ruling. The conception that there is a telephone above, the second telephone below, and the third far lower, is stupid. Unfortunately, many of our bureaucrats base themselves on those principles, not feeling and not understanding the current processes. This is a problem of the education and the retarded political culture. These are the reasons why the Soviet Union collapsed. Russia, too, may collapse because of it. But while the Soviet Union crashed kinglike, a catastrophe worth filming, we will decay slowly and everything will finish at this stage. That is why if a new political class does not grow, there will be nothing. I can say that there is no place to take it from. There is no critical mass of such people. And there is also a wide area for collaboration. Where else can they accumulate if not in your sphere where everything occurs faster, in a more flexible and more effective way?
The concern for sovereignity foresees certain economic restrictions. We need restrictions that the President had briefly mentioned in his address to the parliament. This is somehow a matter of taste, a matter of sober-minded estimation. We see that the national capital should either control or dominate in several areas: strategic communications, pipelines, federal highways, railroad, most of electric lines. Financial system. Because there is an opinion that one can simply do without the national financial system. Poland lives this way. However, I think that here the Russian control should dominate, too. Of course, the defense complex in some parts, mostly important for us. Although, we do not rule out the cooperation somewhere, including the cooperation in defense area with the Western countries. Restrictions of control possibilities of the nationwide broadcast. We have such a norm. In the United States, the norm is sharper, than in Russia. We have not more than 49 foreign participants, they have not more than 20.
I would speak on fuel and energy complex. Unfortunately or fortunately, this is the main base of our economic steadiness. Unfortunately, you are letting us down and, so far, proposing nothing new. Maybe, sometime we will fill the entire world up with kvass and people will drink it in all regions of the universe. Today, the priority in a row of entrails must belong to the national capital, including oil, gas and several other minerals and soil treasures. The entrails approach is based on the archaic power and government system. Because the markets can be controlled in more complicated ways: integral, mathematic, counting where the foreign or purely national capital may exist.
That is all, on the whole, I think. I would like to say, that our project is a commonplace one. I would name it briefly as a “sovereign democracy.” It is not good to add something to democracy because a third way issue appears. But we are forced to do that because liberal politicians consider the sovereignty issue as not actual. I often hear that democracy is more important than sovereignty. We do not admit it. We think we need both. An independent state is worth fighting for. It would be good to flee to Europe but they will not receive us there, Russia is a European civilization. It is a badly illuminated remote area of Europe but not Europe yet. In this regard, we are inseparably tied with Europe and must be friends with it. They are not enemies. They are simply competitors. So, it is more insulting that we are not enemies. An enemy situation is when one can be killed in a war as a hero if there is conflict. There is something heroic and beautiful in it. And to lose in a competitive struggle means to be a loser. And this is doubly insulting, I think.
It is better to be enemies and not ambiguous friends as is the case now! That is somehow what we want.
There is a psychological base here. For 500 years, the country was a modern state, it made history and was not made by history. After all, with respect to all those nations, we differ strongly from Slovaks, Baltic nations and even Ukrainians — they had no state system. People, including Russian politicians of the past, drew them on maps. This explains why we will be those bad children who have disregarded everything. That is why, I think, even the self-esteem element should play its role in the forming of our look at ourselves. And if we speak on whether we have democracy or not — you know, as it is said, [in Mikhail Bulgakov’s novel, The Heart of a Dog] devastation is in our heads, and so the same thing is true with democracy, either it is in our heads or it is not. When people tell me of the dependence of the courts, I say, yes, that is a fact. But what can we do with them, if they are dependent because of their nature? If people there can be bribed, or are afraid of calls from their bosses. What will you tell me to do with them? And who can resist the temptation of putting them under his or her supervision? These are sore points. One can draw up many democratic constitutions, one can speak of democracy till he or she goes mad, one can create an artificial system of checks and balances, but what next? [U.S. President George] Bush told Putin shortly before the [presidential] elections [in March 2004], “Vladimir, do not get more than 80 percent of the vote; I have 50, and that is enough for me.” What was he thinking about? Should Putin have sat down and called to the Central Election Commission, and said, “Hey, listen, give me no more than 80, better 70 percent.” So he received 70. But this is nonsense, of course! How can we be more democratic than we really are?
When I hear our television being criticized for not showing politicians, I say, I cannot imagine the U.S. television showing a politician with a rating of just 2 percent talking for hours on end. That would never happen because it is nonsense! It is possible only in this country. Just because some director likes him, because he talks smoothly, because his appearance is being paid for, etc. When I hear them say his ratings are low because you do not show him on TV, look, there were times when Yavlinsky, Zyuganov were shown on TV but their ratings did not change anyway. Yavlinsky’s rating remained 5 percent no matter how often Gusinsky [and his NTV channel] showed him. Nothing ever changed! It is sheer nonsense!
Building a democracy is not just about drawing democratic institutions, but also about making sure people reach that level of cultural development.
I am convinced that the Russian people in the broad sense of the word are fit for democracy and are able to live under democracy and build it, to enjoy its fruits. But, apparently, we are talking here of some historic path. You cannot jump off it, or else, you will break your neck. We are not trying to keep that process in check intentionally, as many think. It is just that we are afraid.
Well, let’s imagine we agree with those who suggested establishing a confederation. The country will fall apart in a week. Let’s set up a parliamentary republic. With whom, with those parties? Trust me, nobody honors his word. There is no culture of coalition building in this country! Italy has lived through 60 governments in 5 decades. Do you think Russia can handle that? Never! And how do they come to terms today?
Today you agree with someone, you let him take a [government] post or something else, and next day he will sell you out completely, in political sense, because there are other things on his mind. What is to be done about that? They tell us, you have an obedient majority in the parliament, it’s terrible. Well, G. W. Bush, too, has a majority in his parliament. Who said, that in a democratic state a president cannot have a majority? Putin has it, and Bush has it. The French president sometimes has it and sometimes he doesn’t. And so what? What’s the big deal? Nobody said we would win the next election. Nobody appreciates our moves, artificial as they are, because we understand that we need to strengthen even the proportional system even though it is still in the interim stage.
Let me cite a simple example. If the 2003 elections were held under a proportional representation system the United Russia party would have 232 votes, not 300 as it has today. Such a system rules out absolute control over the house.
I don’t rule out that we will loose the elections. Try to score more than all the other parties taken together! It is hard, even if we resort to the the so-called administrative resource. That is virtually impossible! We take the risk intentionally. Let it be so.
Let those wishy-washy deputies from single-mandate constituencies, pardon me, who keep running to and fro depending on where the dice rolls, stay away from us. Let there be coalitions, let us again think on whom to join ranks with. Do they mean somebody forced them to join that majority? Of course not, they came of their own accord. And, of course, half of them will run away in 2007. Something has to be done. We need to strengthen the institute of political parties.
The new procedure for appointing governors was criticized by many as the manifestation of the regime’s arbitrariness. Wait a minute! We have insured ourselves against several factors, quite idiotic by nature. Excuse me, our cultural level is not that high yet. It is not that somebody mistrusts the people. But wouldn’t it be the last straw if Dagestan elects some Wahabbi follower [radical Islamist] as their governor?
There are problems, colleagues. Governors’ candidacies must be endorsed by local legislatures. They say you threaten them with being disbanded. Yes. Indeed. For, there must always be a way out of a crisis.
But those legislatures are aware that they have serious influence. If it is their will, the president won’t be able to appoint anyone whose candidacy is disagreeable for them. That is why — and not because we are abandoning democracy — the president has made it clear that the final say belongs to the leaders of the majority factions in the local legislatures. Because, this is where life is leading us. We are talking here of what has already begun across the regions.
Then again, what is so bad about that? We are introducing the party system. Of course, the goal is for the president, too, to be able to belong to a certain party. So far, as long as our governors and our presidents remain non-partisan the entire parliamentary system is nothing but a decoration. They see him as something alien. And that’s natural.
You see, if I do not belong to a team, I can throw support behind one person today, and behind someone else tomorrow. As a result, we have no ideology, no stable political foundation. All depends on just where the dice will roll. Today you’re a conservative, tomorrow you are a right-winger, and the next day you are leftist. Most governors have some of their deputies in charge of the communists, others responsible for right-wingers, and still others for the leftists.
But these deputies are all hostages. The governor summons them and says, this we will give to the communists, and this, what the hell, let United Russia have it, and then this goes to someone else. What is this, a democracy? Of course, the ruling political class should evolve from political parties.
No matter what they say, and many believe the party-based democracy to be obsolete, it is necessary to move on towards building an interactive, virtual democracy. I think it is still too early to speak of that; thus far it would be much better if a political leader, either on the regional or federal level, depended on the party. After all a party is a team, and it is better to depend on a team than on a handful of aides.
Imagine that three people get together and decide on something. I think it is better if a larger number of people are involved in decision making. Although, even the majority is not always entitled to that privilege. It creates extra burden for those who are accountable, and enhances their political burden, if you like, their responsibility.
Of course, we are set to support United Russia in the future election. Many call for inventing something new, claiming that the burden is too heavy for United Russia to handle. I believe it would be a huge error on the part of the government if we give up United Russia for some new party. Then we will never be able to create a stable political system.
No matter how highly praised democracy is elsewhere, try to build a political career in the United States without entering the Republican Party or joining the Democrats. No chance. There are several independent Congressmen. That system largely eliminates all those who remain outside that binary model. It is clear why, for as regards the other existing models, they are run by various clans of the same ruling elite who have come to a national consensus.
That is why there are no conflicts, no mutually exclusive doctrines, or, if there are such, like, say, for example when the Labor Party dropped their calls for nationalization during the latest campaign, it was because they had insisted upon that after the war, and stuck to it without any hope for implementation because the after-war generation would never allow that. That is why, of course, it is so important for you to build relations with United Russia.
In your place, I would not treat United Russia as something unavoidable, or something you have to cooperate with just because it dominates the parliament. No matter what they say, these days United Russia is the most liberal-minded, the most electoral of all the existing parties.
Many say that in Russia there is only one European, and he holds a post in the government. I don’t think it is really so but there isn’t another force who would pursue a different policy. We still have communists, liberal democrats… I won’t comment on this.
But no matter what the right-wingers and Yabloko say, nobody had ever impeded them. Perhaps, they will regain their seats in the parliament, and may God help them. Perhaps, that would be good. But, I think that today we need to focus on enhancing the liberal-oriented modern Europeanized wing of United Russia. For, undoubtedly, the leftist conservative wing prevails within that party. If they were only given a go-ahead, they could adopt such laws that would make us all shudder.
But, fortunately, the party leader, albeit unofficially, is the President, and the country’s policy is based on certain values. At any rate, that party will remain in parliament, and I don’t know what may impede us.
It is quite another matter whether we secure the majority, and if we do, what sort of quality will it be? But that majority will definitely advocate a certain set of ideas, as it will be linked to the policy we pursued today with all its advantages.
Many liberal leaders contact me suggesting we should build a new party together. What for, I ask. Here are 300 mandates, come and take seats there. You want governing posts? Come on, join the party, don’t be shy, there are many worthy people there. For as long as they stay fastidiously aside, lashing out on all those inside and saying what freaks they all are, calling them voting machines or a bunch of mediocrities, nothing will ever change. Let’s not shun them but try to step inside.
If you think yourself an outstanding personality, enter inside, and the party will also become outstanding. As long as you all turn your backs on it and just let things take their course, you are alienating yourselves from power. I think, in truth, you simply do not want it, because, just like the governors, you think why bind oneself to some political force, what if tomorrow things will change, what if…
That means, politically, they are still too immature. And if they are, then, welcome! Take, for instance, Valery Alexandrovich [Fadeyev, Business Russia co-chairman], who actively cooperates with United Russia, and he is fine, everyone still says “Hello!” to him; nobody shuns him.
I think that if we do not move to modernize the political system today, then who else will do that for us? Our immediate task today is to modernize it. Otherwise, the initiative will be seized by those who join the party driven solely by their parochial interests, who keep changing parties all the time. Well, yes. What is to be done with that?
You can chose from a variety of options, including joining the ranks directly. This is a highly important task, I will say that again. The more serious members we have, the higher are the chances we will preserve continuity in politics. And if there is a majority, well, that’s politics; today you are a majority, tomorrow a minority. Hence, another issue. Take Valery Alexandrovich’s organization, which is a highly effective lobby group for the party. All forms of cooperation are possible. There could also be unofficial meetings…
As Sergei Alexandrovich said, the only thing you have to remember is that you should not think that you will come and everything will be fine. So what is the problem?
I have a friend who says that if you fail to do something in 2 weeks, you will never be able to do it. Those bumpkins who sit there, they do not understand that there is no democracy in this country and bureaucracy is ineradicable. That’s the problem of lack of patience and failure to take long-term efforts.
Culture is the fruit of long-term efforts in any sphere, and in politics, too. If we fail to achieve something today, we will try again tomorrow. And a day after tomorrow you will realize that you were wrong when you heard other groups speak out, and you understand that you have to listen to them too. Or, you put everything on hold until some smart minister or Kremlin official arrives.
I think one has to be more persevering, more patient. And if something goes wrong one should not speak of complete failure, that the country is ruled by mediocrities who don’t understand a thing. This is not exactly so, or maybe, absolutely not so.
That is why I pledge personal support to you if you decide to join the party. I hope you too need that.
Speaking of the Public Chamber, I would again like to thank Sergei Alexandrovich for his attempt to dispel a certain skepticism, and again, if you think it is all rubbish, it will be rubbish. If you treat it seriously, it will be a very serious case. We see a certain mechanism in it, yes, and sort of vapor, but what is bad in it — it is an effective mechanism in a social system where the vapor is being emitted first of all, and this is just a mass giving way to the temper and emotions. In America, everything is based on the vapor emission; the whole civilization is based on it. Yes, and that too. But it is not the main thing, of course. The main thing is the possibility to gather people who support the common cause, who are advocates of different social groups in the wide sense. And who actively works with the officials? What prompted us to do that when we have parliament? But those are absolutely different structures. We cannot solve this problem having only parties, only parliamentarian measures. If a politician is taking care of how he looks at the screen, he will never sit down and think sensibly, being a politician is simply another job. He will think what he can gain from this at the next elections, at his next attempt to make himself a career. It is better to add a row of even-tempered people who do not think they are working at this problem to win at a single member constituency at the next elections, or, when they do not exist, in a slate at a territory. But they think their professional predicament is for the sake of this problem. The estimation of those people would be calmer and more objective than that of any politician.
In spite of all the fuss we hear in the Duma at different points, there are almost no professional proposals. They are only fussing. It is their work, to fuss. Citizen [Dmitry] Rogozin [head of nationalist Motherland faction] submitted a proposal, a law on opposition rights. Let us suppose, it is necessary to have such a law. But what is opposition? In this parliament? He says, you have the majority. Who are we? It seems that the rights of the opposition must be fixed only where the concept of a ruling party exists. And what do we have for opposition? Today it is you, tomorrow it is me.
In the last parliament, where no one had a majority, they would combine a majority from different factions. And who was then in the opposition? There was an opposition on one issue, on another issue, and tomorrow on yet a third issue. This is a lack not only of any judicial foundations, not just in terms of looking at other countries, it is lack of logic.
Today I am in the opposition — we need to pass a law on the opposition, even though it doesn’t fit into any apparatus. What is a ruling party? And that’s how it is with everything. Everything has cracks running through it. The fact that the bill will effect an entire society doesn’t concern anyone. We can hold a referendum on nationalizing all economic spheres, we can spend our funds — but that is irresponsible. They know themselves that it is irresponsible. We tell them: what are you doing? What, you’ve already decided everything up there. What is that?
Concerning the public chamber, I would like you to give your suggestions for candidacy. And we are prepared to include your candidates in the initial presidential list. Of course, later we can work with regional lists. But be prepared for patience in your work.
I remember how we did the Civil Forum a couple of years ago. We got together the civil society, as they called themselves — and there they won’t let us into the prosecutor’s office. The result of the forum was an order by the president to make such meetings a regular thing. And after that, I had to chase them with a stick to Ustinov’s office. Why did you holler on every street corner? I personally had to force two groups to go there. Then everything was over. They have other aims, after all — not to visit the minister, but to support people. To support their grants. According to that well-known scenario. Once I went to visit them — there’s a lot of people, dissidents — I also had an opposing view on the Soviet system; an anxious soul. Then it turned out that they were all full of imposters. Awful! In general, the more I work there, the more disappointed I get in the world. There are problems.
That is why we need to get accustomed to long-term, patient work.
If people gather to talk, they will talk a while, then scatter. Then nothing will happen. If you are ready to work actively, we will only praise that. Because if at least 7 out of 10 people gather, then others will join. It’s the active minority that sets the standard. It’s easy to dominate in such systems. Of course, we will not agree to do everything passed by the Public Chamber. But the government will certainly take them into account. We are serious about this. And we want you to be serious too.
http://www.mosnews.com/interview/2005/07/12/surkov.shtml
http://www.mosnews.com/about/copyright.shtml
=> Saa levittää.
Vastaukset
Vanhimmat
Ei vielä vastauksia
Aloittaja odottaa vastauksia. Kerro oma näkemyksesi ensimmäisenä.