Anchor: I am Vitaly Ushkanov. Today Moscow follows to his grave Alexander Nikolayevich Yakovlev. When this program goes on air, at the Russian Academy of Sciences Presidium building, the last rites will be given to him. In the morning, we contacted Grigory Yavlinsky, the leader of the Yabloko party, on the phone.

Grigory Yavlinsky, can you hear me?

Yavlinsky: Yes, good day.

Anchor: What will Alexander Yakovlev remain in your memory?

Yavlinsky: In your memory Alexander Yakovlev will stay as an honest and open individual. In the party system, he was one of those few ones who really appreciated human lives and human dignity. He believed that a human fate, the fate of one’s parents, the fate of the people is inseparable from respect, including respect for the country’s culture, the country’s future. And he has played an outstanding role in changes having occurred in this country.

Anchor: Look, he was a sincere communist. He has gone along a painful and complex path toward equally sincere rejection of communism. Would you agree that in Russia today, what our elite is lacking particularly is sincerity and readiness to overcome one’s illusions?

Yavlinsky: Yes, you are absolutely right. Briefly, what happened to Russia is, in my opinion, that Russia is sinking in lies and cynicism. And particularly this lack of noble intentions, belief in certain noble ideals is really the main problem for our current political elite.

Anchor: In a recent interview, Alexander Nikolayevich Yakovlev admitted that democrats have made so many mistakes that they have given grounds for the previous nomenklatura, which lied down for some time, to present democracy to the people as a phenomenon that is harmful for the Russian people. You would agree that that has not impaired democracy, but the people do not feel happy about that. How is it possible to bring back respect for democracy? What could you propose?

Yavlinsky: Actually, I have to say that we have not had democracy in this country yet. We have to say openly that no decisions have been made in this country, which would proceed from the interests of the majority of citizens, in particular, since 1990. No decisions have been made in this country, which would be based on justice. No governmental or top-rank decrees or ordinances have been issued which would say that freedom is granted to make sure that there is justice in the country.

So, citizens have all grounds to believe that the way of carrying out reform and changes having occurred in Russia were not aimed for the majority of the population to benefit. As they were not targeted at the majority, they cannot be regarded as democratic, actually. How could we convince the people that it was not democracy, that it was rather decisions to the benefit of a very limited number of individuals, and this certainly cannot be described as democracy, no matter how those who implemented those changes describe themselves? This is really a big problem.

Anchor: If one listens to politicians — perhaps, this is due to their profession, they all wish their home country well. But you would agree, perhaps, that it is easier to be in opposition to the authorities when there is disorder and, say, the budget deficit. But when there is relative stability in place, relative to devastation, when there are dozens of options for spending petromoney, the opposition has to look for new words and arguments. Is it hard for you to find such arguments today?

Yavlinsky: No, I do not find it hard to find such arguments for that simple reasons that it is obvious to everyone that the money the country has today could be spent by far more effectively because having money in the country, for instance, the amount it has today in the stabilization fund, having a budget surplus for many years running, having substantially increased this budget — this means that the country should have changed the situation, for example, in the sphere of education, it should not be on a pay basis. The country should have resolved the problem of quality medical services for the majority of the population. It should have resolved the problems of those impaired most in the 1990s, they are elderly people, those who fully depended on money in the federal budget.

But everyone knows well that those problems have not been dealt with. There are some promises, but they are not too impressive and they are just promises for the time being.

Anchor: But during a meeting of the Cabinet yesterday, they were dividing money, dividing it among the four priority national projects — healthcare, education, agriculture, and housing construction. Actually, people like those steps by the authorities. What do you think of those?

Yavlinsky: I think they are positive yet not sufficient steps.

Anchor: Is it that they have allocated small amounts of money?

Yavlinsky: No. It is that they have not created enough serious mechanisms that would really allow spending the money efficiently. The difference between the opposition and the government is that the government should talk less and do more, while the opposition is in a situation when it shows the authorities how it is possible to deal with national objectives.

The situation is different in this country. The opposition only rarely has an opportunity to say something clearly and in detail to the authorities, because they are not too much interested in any other opinion than their own one. And the authorities, rather than doing something, increasingly often narrate to us how they could do something good. And then they start telling it again, then again. But there have been no deeds.

Anchor: So, you don’t think that the economy has advanced.

Yavlinsky: I think the economy moves ahead slowly and very unsteadily. I think that living standards of the population have grown substantially slower than they could have grown, given the economic situation in the world. I think that my voters, when they tell me that all education has shifted to a paid basis, including elementary school, in the form of exactions to teachers, this is a real problem. And it has shifted to a paid basis in the past five to six years, by the way.

Anchor: Particularly, when modernization in that sphere started.

Yavlinsky: Yes, in particular. When I meet, for example, with medical people, they tell me that medicines are not affordable today. One cannot buy vital medicines because prices are beyond compare with anything. This means that measures have not been taken to de-monopolize that sphere. This means that a certain clan, a certain monopoly has it all under control, and they keep prohibitive prices.

I have been told that in many Russian towns some people get doctor positions by paying bribes. This is quite dangerous, and it means that corruption widens. And you certainly know the recently published data on corruption. The situation has aggravated in Russia.

Anchor: This means that one of those reforms the authorities tried to implement, the administrative reform, has not been brought to a logical end and that only minor steps have been made there.

Yavlinsky: As you know, they have rejected administrative reform at a certain moment, when the government makeup changed in connection with various circumstances, including emergencies. They should not have done this. Administrative reform should have been completed, because the number of bureaucrats and nomenklatura representatives has substantially grown in Russia since 1990. Bureaucrats proper, that is, those who deal with no other things than pen pushing, make nearly 1.5 million. This is comparable to the number in the Soviet Union, let alone Russia, especially as this reform was aimed at cutting down the number of bureaucrats.

Anchor: I read just yesterday about a new concept of the administrative reform which is already under development.

Yavlinsky: It’s the second time you are touching upon a very important thing. The point is that concepts are constantly developed, there are constant reports about all sorts of discussions taking place. But you would agree, wouldn’t you, that after so many years of waiting citizens are entitled to discussing what is actually happening and not concepts for the future.

Anchor: In other words you can’t butter your bread with a concept.

Yavlinsky: That is obvious. How many more years can this go on? You have asked me about the administrative reform. I can tell you that one can endlessly pursue administrative reform, one can endlessly discuss these reforms, but if the problem of an independent judiciary has not been solved, if there is no equality of all before the law, if the problem of creating an independent parliament has not been solved — in such a situation it is impossible to conquer corruption, it becomes more and more pervasive.

Anchor: I am going back to the priority national project, I think that the opposition perhaps is in a better place because, for example, the authorities allocate 100 billion and the opposition can always say, why 100, it had better be 200 billion. Or, for example, the authorities identify four national priorities, but an opposition can always say why have you chosen these priorities, why should it be education, rural life and housing? There are more pressing priorities that need to be addressed, isn’t it true?

Yavlinsky: Yes, and then the authorities will have to prove their case and explain why they have chosen these particular priorities and what changes will result. The authorities never report back. When did you last hear a coherent account which would go like this: we have set the task of modernizing education, we want education to be accessible equally to everyone, and secondly, we want education to match world standards. When did the government report to the public for their actions in this area?

The authorities are constantly saying they are in the process of changing something. But they do not report to society on the results achieved so that society could judge whether government is coping with its duties. There are no mechanisms for controlling the actions of the authorities, no one can control them. The opposition cannot control, the judiciary cannot control because it is subjugated to the authorities. There is one person in our country who controls the government and that is the president. But no president is able to control such a huge government in such a huge number o areas.

Anchor: Going back to Alexander Nikolayevich Yakovlev to whom Moscow bidding farewell today. Earlier this year he gave an interview in which he said that «in a way he had sympathy for the president.» Yakovlev thought it was dawning on Vladimir Putin that he was in a dead-end and he did not know how to get out of it. Do you agree with this?

Yavlinsky: I don’t know whether the president thinks so. But I quite agree that it is necessary to get out of the dead-end. I absolutely agree with this. I also agree that the president’s responsibilities are infinite and that the challenges facing him are infinite. But still he has to get out of the dead end.

Anchor: Do you have your own idea of what the priorities should be and in what direction should the country move?

Yavlinsky: Six months ago I published a work called «The Road Map for Russian Reforms» and there I identified three areas that I would like society to discuss in order to resolve this difficult situation.

Anchor: I wonder if it’s like in the fairytale: if you go right, if you go left?

Yavlinsky: No, in my book I say that three tasks should be solved. First, the task of citizens’ confidence in their government, that is an incredibly important task.

Anchor: It’s No. 1.

Yavlinsky: Yes, No. 1. Another task that needs also to be in first place is settling the issue of property. The legitimate questions that citizens have had after privatization — vouchers, and so on and so forth in the mid-1990s must be answered. All these questions must be answered honestly. And the third issue that has to be addressed if we are to move forward is creating an independent judiciary building on what we have. We cannot invite new people form other planets.

My book proposes concrete measures to solve all these three tasks: public confidence in government, property, the institution of property in Russia, its inviolability and the possibility of real economic competition on that basis. And the third task is creating a judiciary system which can deliver justice. All these three areas of effort boil down to creating a system in Russia in which people would enjoy both freedom and justice.

Anchor: You have uttered the word «inviolability» in connection with property. Do you believe that while the truth needs to be told, there should be no redistribution of property?

Yavlinsky: I think that, yes, first the truth needs to be told. Secondly, it is necessary to use mechanisms to compensate society for the criminal way in which property was distributed in the mid- 1990s. And finally, the authorities should be protected from the pressure of moneybags. These are three things. And then an institution of property that is inviolable can be created.

But that applies not only to huge companies, that applies to the savings accounts of every person, that applies to his apartment, his small summer house and plot of land. It is not limited to large companies. It means that everyone can present claims and take away anything from his neighbor unless there is an effective right of the individual to independence and security and the right to pass on his property to his children, a right protected by the law and all the instruments of the state. This is the key issue in the development of the whole economy.

Anchor: But don’t you think that a decision to expropriate property would be very popular in Russia even now?

Yavlinsky: That is the trouble. But why is it so? Sometimes they tell me that these sentiments stem from our tradition.

Anchor: That’s just the kind of people we are.

Yavlinsky: I categorically disagree with this. I don’t agree with this. It happens because property was distributed in a way that citizens do not trust. They do not understand how it could happen that inflation was 2,600 percent in 1992 and they had lost everything, but three years later there appeared young men under 30, real billionaires, who got full control of a large portion of national or state property that had been created for decades. And people don’t trust it. This is why there is a constant wish to redistribute everything.

But this redistribution won’t do us any good. It will only lead to a situation where property will be taken away from one group of people and given to another group of people, in the same amount. This is why it is necessary to build a strong foundation for the system. First of all, we need to admit the mistakes that were made, to say that this will never be revised and offer compensation to citizens so that they understand that justice is being restored in the country step by step. There will be no stable economic system without that. We won’t get out of this dead end without that. If we just bust oligarchs one after another, we won’t achieve anything.

Anchor: But is there anything that could if not delight then at least encourage you. For example, banking community leaders are confident that the ruble is getting the upper hand in the country after all and that despite the influx of petrodollars our economy is successfully getting rid of it. Is it bad?

Yavlinsky: Well no, why is it bad? There are very many good things. But when something is dear to you, you look at what needs to be corrected to make sure that this previous thing is not affected, so that there were fewer people in the country who live in poverty, fewer people died from industrial accidents and military conflicts, so that we could have good prospects for the country, for our children, and grandchildren. It is the duty of every adult to correct as many mistakes as he can correct during his life.

On the other hand, life is wonderful, our country is wonderful, our young people by far surpass, in terms of their capabilities, many others I have met, and I have delivered economics lectures in many universities around the world. I can tell you that Russian students and post-graduate students are the brightest of all I have seen.

Anchor: Are our young people free people internally?

Yavlinsky: If we look at the environment in which they are growing, we cannot but note some very serious distortions in terms of moral standards and success criteria. In our country, the standards which young people are aspiring to achieve are very often distorted by the lack of culture, moderateness and modesty, and they are very often replaced by violence, bravado, cynicism, the cult of money, and the cult of wealth. And many young people fall victim to this distorted perception of life.

Freedom is not only whether you are watched by a policeman or a teacher, or whether someone makes you do something. Freedom is how free you are from predilection to wealth, drugs, violence, lechery. And not everything is so good with that in this country.

Anchor: You put wealth and lechery together.

Yavlinsky: I simply think that if a person is preoccupied during his life only with how to become rich and has no other goals, he wouldn’t differ much from a person who is void of any idea of ethics, fidelity, and honor.

Anchor: Thank you. We were talking with Yabloko leader Grigory Yavlinsky by telephone. We talked in the morning because today is the funeral of Alexander Yakovlev, an academician, an architect of perestroika and its chief ideologist. At the time this interview goes on air, a commemoration ceremony will be in progress at the Russian Academy of Sciences. Grigory Alexeyevich, thank you for your answers.

Yavlinsky: Thank you.

***
Translated by Johnson’s Russia List