MG: As of now, no. They need to be created and, of course, from the grassroots up. Attempts to graft something from those already existing are bound to fail. The graft will be the same as its parent. That is how they created the United Russia Party, using the Communist Party as a prototype, and the result has been a shadow of the CPSU! If people with social democratic views genuinely joined together, from the Fatherland party, from the party of the regions, if they took up our idea it would make really good sense.
DM: Are you an optimist, Mikhail Sergeyevich?
MG: Always. They say optimists are an irresponsible lot, but that is nonsense. No and no. Every country is restive today, not only Russia. We cannot allow ourselves to panic. History is not fated: there are always alternatives, alternative solutions. It is not a flood that is unaffected by what we do and the choices we make. We have to find our place in the process of history, which cannot just be abolished. As Bismarck said: ‘A statesman must wait until he hears the steps of God sounding through events, then leap up and grasp the hem of His garment.’ An optimist is someone who sees everything, analyses and understands, but still goes on to find an answer. Every age has its heroes, people who do, in spite of everything, give an answer.
DM: Do you see any among our politicians?
MG: Not so far, but what of it? I am an optimist about that too. There are opportunities for the president, and not only for him. There is no cause to panic.
A new direction, or more of the same?
The annual Message of the President to the Federal Assembly in April 2005 was considered and substantial. I had the impression that Putin had thoughtfully analysed the events of the past year and drawn some intelligent conclusions about the need to adjust government policy. He had some encouraging things to say about attacking poverty, fighting corruption, supporting small and medium-sized businesses and moving towards a post-industrial society. The priorities announced were education, healthcare, affordable housing and agriculture. The president stated his intention of seeing through nationwide initiatives in these areas. His approach struck me as interesting and very promising: the price rises for raw materials on world markets were providing an inflow of funds that could be applied to rescuing those sectors from their current dire situation. The president’s address gave me grounds to reiterate my support for his general approach, but…
Watching him on television and observing the hall in which the deputies and other representatives of the elite were assembled that day, I had serious doubts. I saw the same bored expressions, the faces with no sign of intelligent interest and involvement in these matters that so affect Russia’s future. I could detect no sense of urgency in the hall, no animation that might have indicated a willingness on the part of the deputies and officials to support what he was talking about. I felt I had seen all this before. Thinking back to last year’s address, no less considered and responsible, which had outlined similar plans, I believed the president must be in great difficulties.
A year had passed, but instead of settling down to tackle the tasks proposed, the government had plodded along, offering more of the same. It had carried on with the familiar radical monetarist approach, putting macroeconomic stability ahead of social priorities, industrial or agricultural policy, where little had been done. Instead, there had been a monetization of benefits that had outraged and stirred up the entire country. Everything suggested that the government kitchen was still busy baking the same pies: the plans to privatize or semi-privatize education and healthcare, and to raise payment for utilities and maintenance of accommodation above what most families could afford.
‘I support the president’s overall political approach and policies, but the state of the institutions called upon to implement them raise serious doubts about what will actually happen’, I said in reply to a question from Interfax’s reporter. ‘I think that Russia and our public are now facing the moment of truth.’ Specifically, that meant Russia needed a new government and parliament, I concluded after careful consideration. I stated publicly: ‘The situation is such that we need new parliamentary elections and a new government. That is what the president should propose, and I am confident that the public will support him. It is time for action.’
Responses to my call varied considerably. Izvestiya, which at that time was still maintaining a respectable level of quality, responsibility and objectivity, wrote: ‘Gorbachev’s recent advice to President Putin has been something of a sensation.’ Needless to say, that was not my aim. I wanted to explain to the public why I considered that to be the right way out of the predicament in which the president and the country found themselves. I gave a long interview to Alexey Pankin, a correspondent of Izvestiya:
Pankin: By saying recently that President Putin should dismiss his government and call new elections for the Duma, you blew our planned interview on historical matters out of the water.
MG: I do not know why it was so sensational, because I made the suggestion very calmly.
Pankin: Even so, when the president of the USSR urges the president of Russia to do something like that, people sit up and take notice. Why at this precise moment?
MG: My temperament is still a bit volatile, but I never lose self-control. Every statement I make has been deliberated over and thought through. That was my considered reaction to the president’s address. It might have been entirely unexceptional but for what the president said at the very beginning. He said: ‘I will not repeat what I said in my last address, and would ask you to consider these as two instalments and proceed on the basis of a programme I am proposing for the coming decade.’
I have to say that I paid close attention to the address last year and, together with the new additions this year about the state, human rights, the judicial system and political issues, it really did come over as something of a manifesto. It seemed a statement of long-term policy and it raised my spirits. I felt it was a serious project that I could support. However, it was immediately toned down by commentaries: the president had supposedly changed his overall policies at the last minute. How come, if he had begun it last year? I do not believe this is just some kind of game. The president is, after all, an ambitious man, a man who knows his own worth, and I believe he meant what he said.
Moreover, he was clearly finding it all very difficult. When he read it, you probably noticed, he was thinking very hard how best to get his point over. He seemed to be choking on the words, gasping for air. I remember thinking he seemed to be saying he could not agree with what was happening and wanted to distance himself. Some people here in Russia, and also abroad, say he was so stressed because of his incursions against democracy and his attacks on the media and had decided to put matters right. I don’t think that can be taken seriously. I saw this as a carefully considered choice on the part of the president.
But how is it all going to be implemented? That is what worries me. Is he counting on parliament? The present parliament is passing, without proper scrutiny, proposals of huge social significance, affecting the very part of the population the state ought to be standing up for. Perhaps some people find that kind of parliament convenient, but what the hell use is it to the rest of us? It’s certainly no use to Russia. Anyway, forget the parliament. Perhaps it can be turned around, although frankly I doubt it.