DM: On the 25th anniversary of the April plenum, you said, in April 1985, ‘…unavoidable need for change’, ‘…contact with people’, ‘…economic development’, ‘…take account of public opinion’. It looks very much like a speech by Medvedev but, as one political scientist observed, Gorbachev tried to return power to society after Andropov died, but Medvedev is attempting modernization with Andropov still alive.’
MG: And what do you yourself think?
DM: I think that modernization means dismantling the corrupt system that has been established in recent years.
MG: There is dissatisfaction in society with the ruling elite. They are not working in the interests of Russia and are interested only in their own well-being. The system expels honest, socially active people, businessmen who have their own ideas, who do not pay kickbacks, who do not take part in projects imposed from above.
I repeat, they are afraid of the people, and that leads to losing control of the situation. We need to move forward one step at a time, building a modern, sophisticated, democratic country. There is no other way.
DM: Some experts argue it would be more effective to reform the country without the aid of democracy.
MG: Reform it for whom? People will not wait. They will turn their backs on Russia. Modernization with or without the people: the question cannot even be posed in those terms. Society should and must take part in determining its future. Otherwise, under the pretext of introducing reforms, they will just siphon off funds for themselves.
We have to learn to live in a globalized world, and you cannot be part of it with authoritarian methods. I cannot, and never will, agree with those who distrust the people. That is just a cover for their horror at the realization that public accountability will destroy their corrupt dealings. The state authorities cannot be in charge of their own political future. That is a dead end.
Disturbing trends
The year 2010 was event-filled, including a number of trips abroad, but the main focus of my attention is always what is happening in Russia. In March, the country was shocked by another terrorist outrage, the explosion in the Moscow Metro. I issued a statement:
It is completely obvious that those behind this inhuman act intended to spread panic and intimidate people and the authorities. I am certain they will fail. It would be a mistake to react blindly to this provocation or to appear distraught for even a moment. On the contrary, all of us, both the authorities and society as a whole, must be resolute and take whatever measures may be necessary to block the possibility of villainous terrorist attacks.
There was concern at attempts to use the forthcoming 65th anniversary of victory in the Second World War as part of the creeping rehabilitation of Stalin. The advertising committee of the mayor of Moscow’s office decided to display posters with his portrait in Moscow. A reporter from Interfax asked me for my reaction. I replied:
Of course, you can’t just overlook facts, and it is a fact that Stalin played a role in the war. I think, though, that we are now fully informed about him, and what was done and how is something that should be written about objectively in textbooks and more generally. If Moscow is suddenly covered in advertising hoardings depicting Stalin, a lot of people will be, to say the least, surprised and baffled. Stalin was, after all, responsible for a lot of mistakes, especially immediately before the outbreak of war and in its initial stages.
Yes, we won the war, but the sacrifices our people made to achieve that victory are a national tragedy from which it will take us a long time yet to recover.
There were disturbing events in the summer also. Again, an interview for Novaya Gazeta:
DM: Mikhail Sergeyevich, a hot summer but no shortage of political developments: a mysterious spy scandal, attempts to give the FSB additional powers, aspirations to gain control over the Internet, constant hassle for the protest rallies on the 31st of each month [in defence of Article 31 of the Constitution guaranteeing the right of peaceful assembly], the statement by members of the government about raising the retirement age, and more. You must agree, life seems full of contradictions: on the one hand, entirely proper remarks about the need for modernization; on the other, tightening of the screws, the attempt to control everything, as if the security top brass are getting ready to impose emergency measures.
MG: There is indeed serious evidence of conflict between the state authorities and Russian society beginning to manifest itself. Human rights are no longer seen as mattering only to defenders of human rights; they are no longer regarded by most people as something abstract and foreign: people are remembering their rights to medical care, education and housing and are beginning to look for ways to assert them. Pointed questions are being asked about social justice. ‘Are the authorities with us or do they live in a different country?’ That is what is really getting people agitated.
DM: And do you believe it is possible to continue dialogue? Or are we going back to: first send in the riot police, after which you can put your teeth back in and we’ll talk?
MG: Dialogue is indispensable, both for the people and for the state authorities. There is no getting away from that.
It is wrong to separate people out according to their political ideas: ‘These young people in the youth movement are a mainstay of the regime, but those others in the awkward squad are nothing to do with “us” and we will just steamroller them!’ Some things are more important than ideology: the law and justice are above everything else. Separating society into those who are with us and those who are against us is the royal road to purges and prison camps. The state authorities are in a quandary, and that is pushing them towards mindless use of force.
DM: Are they in a quandary or do they, forgive the expression, not give a toss?
MG: No, they are in a quandary. They are unable to get dialogue going. They are tempted to declare that all those who oppose them are ‘enemies’. When you drive somebody out of social and political life, you unbalance the system, and that inevitably leads to a succession of unmanageable social conflicts.
DM: But how can anyone make themselves heard in public or political life when it has all been flattened?
MG: That is precisely why, if society is not to explode, we need a new policy. We hear the authorities making the right noises about modernization, and the courts and freedom. They need to discuss this with the public and get their support, not just silence them. Otherwise there will be nobody to defend these ideas. Only society can defend them, civil society, not the bureaucracy.
On the whole, the current elite of appointees in power are yesmen. They are not material for modernizing Russia. They will filibuster it out of existence, or more likely steal all the funding first. These are the wretched results of forming the present elite on the basis of geographical, professional and commercial affinity.
DM: What do you propose, Mikhail Sergeyevich? Import a new elite duty-free? Create a new party?
MG: We couldn’t create a new party. They wouldn’t allow it. I had a talk on one occasion with our main ‘party organizer’, and he said, ‘Why are you wasting your time on this Social Democratic Party? We aren’t going to register it anyway.’ I am quite sure they would not register it, and I don’t for a moment suppose that is exclusively his policy. They will cling on to their monopoly, but people are looking for ways to influence the government.