Interview of President Medvedev with Novaya Gazeta
April 13, 2009
Published April 15, 2009
ent-Medvedev.html
Thursday 16 April 2009, by Emanuele G. – 4 letture
NOVAYA GAZETA (EDITOR IN CHIEF DMITRY MURATOV): I wanted to start with
general issues, but some are more urgent. It might be better to cancel
the election in Sochi rather than to imitate it Imitation is more
cynical than abolition. Candidate Lebedev was barred from the election
by a court, and candidate Nemtsov is kept away from campaigning.
PRESIDENT OF RUSSIA DMITRY MEDVEDEV: I do not yet know who was
expelled and how, but in any case a full-fledged political struggle is
taking place in Sochi. It is good that different political forces are
participating in it. In my opinion, many municipal elections suffer
from monotony, a lack of interesting candidates, and as a result are
uninteresting.
It is true that people almost always vote for intelligible politicians
rather than popular stars, but the more striking these events are the
better it is for our electoral system, for democracy in Russia.
Now regarding the specific circumstances: in every election there will
always be candidates who lose, candidates that are taken off the
ballot, and this is the case everywhere in the world.
But in general I believe that such public campaigns are good for
democracy.
NOVAYA GAZETA: On April 15 you will host the Presidential Civil
Society Institutions and Human Rights Council. I was glad to see that
the members list includes intelligent and decent people. Alexander
Auzan, Alexey Simonov, Svetlana Sorokina, Elena Panfilova, Igor
Yurgens, Irina Yasina, and I have not listed them all. Do I understand
that today civil society is more important to you then that of
`plainclothes men’?
DMITRY MEDVEDEV: You know, civil society is a category that we have
not fully absorbed in Russia. Throughout the world civil society is
the flip side of the state. The state is not only a political machine,
it is also a form of organising life in
e that is based on state power and relies on the law, while civil
society is the human dimension of any state. Though its members are
governed by state legislation they often act according to human laws
that, incidentally, do not always have a legal form. Still quite
recently, many people did not understand the words civil society. A
state is more or less clear. But what is civil society? A society of
citizens? So we are all citizens of our country. And now there is the
understanding that civil society is an integral non-governmental
institution in any state. An institution that provides feedback. The
organisations of people who do not hold office, but are nevertheless
actively involved in the life of
their country.
Therefore meetings and contacts between the President and
representatives of civil society are indispensable. Let me emphasise:
these relations are not easy for any authority, because all members of
civil society and representatives of human rights organisations have a
huge number of issues to raise with the government and leaders. They
have a lot of questions, and these are questions the authorities do
not always want to answer. But that is why such contacts must be
systematic, including contacts within the framework of the Council you
mentioned. I expect that this will be an interesting conversation. It
will likely be hard, but therein lies its value.
NOVAYA GAZETA: For a few years now there has been an unspoken contract
between state and society (or, more precisely, the majority of
society): the state provides a given level of comfort and well-being,
and in exchange society remains loyal to the state.
DMITRY MEDVEDEV: You mean `democracy in exchange for prosperity’ or,
say, `sausages in exchange for freedom’?
NOVAYA GAZETA: Yes. But now, in the absence of prosperity, what do you
think a new contract could be? I will not even say the word thaw, but
perhaps the defrosting [Alexander Auzan’s term] of society is
pertinent? Since neither society nor the state can deal with the
crisis alone, they will have to talk.
DMITRY MEDVEDEV: The idea of a social contract is certainly one of the
brightest human ideas and has undoubtedly played a very significant
role in the development of democratic institutions throughout the
world. The origins of Rousseau’s idea are well-known, but if you refer
to the modern social contract then I would say that its framework is
laid out in our Constitution. The Constitution is a special agreement
between on the one hand the state and, on the other, its citizens.
NOVAYA GAZETA: An agreement on what?
DMITRY MEDVEDEV: On how to exercise power in the territory of our
state, of our country. In this context, the social contract refers to
the partial assignment of autho
ty, which by virtue of natural law belongs to the individual, to the
state so that the state guarantees individual’s prosperity, life and
liberty. But it seems to me that one should never oppose a stable and
prosperous life, and a set of political rights and freedoms. You can
not oppose democracy and well-being. On the other hand, it is clear
that the inalienable rights and freedoms of the individual and citizen
may be in jeopardy if society is unstable, if the elementary needs of
individuals are not provided for, if people do not feel secure, if
they do not receive their wages, if they are unable to buy basic
foodstuffs, if their lives are threatened.
Therefore, I see no contradiction in your question to me. It is
obvious that the social contract goes back not only to the well-known
theories of the 17th and 18th centuries, but also to our Constitution.
NOVAYA GAZETA: Are you suggesting that you can offer Russia both
freedom and prosperity?
DMITRY MEDVEDEV: Yes.
NOVAYA GAZETA: Today the primary function of society is, of course, to
supervise public officials, to oversee the benefits and services that
the bureaucracy provides for society. How do you think this control
can be implemented? The entire country read the declarations of income
and assets of your subordinates and those of the Prime Minister.
DMITRY MEDVEDEV: Probably everyone enjoyed reading this?
NOVAYA GAZETA: Yes they did. Of course, it is unclear who will verify
the authenticity of the declarations. In a few days a powerful
community of `poor’ husbands with wealthy wives has emerged in
Russia¦
DMITRY MEDVEDEV: You know, the problem of supervising public officials
and civil servants is one of the fundamental tasks of any state. The
state must control its officials ` officials who are actually serving
the state, and of course there is a wide variety of control
mechanisms.
We started working on this a long time ago and I cannot say that we
have achieved great success. Although if we’re comparing, say, the
situation in the 1990s and that of t
nisms are associated with legal proceedings. And as a person with a
legal way of thinking, I can say that legal procedures are very
important. The role played by the rule of law in society at large,
individuals’ legal consciousness, and the degree of the very legal
nihilism I have referred to more than once all depend on how these
procedures are implemented. Therefore the procedures we have now are
sufficient.
Some time ago we changed the law on public service. Incidentally, I
began working on this when I was still working in the Presidential
Executive Office. We passed a very decent, modern law on the
fundamental aspects of public service and laws on the various types of
public service, and this work continues: there are many new chapters
to this story. Just recently we adopted a package of anti-corruption
laws and amendments to legislation on public service, including those
governing the declaration of income and a number of other fairly
important and useful things.
In my opinion, today the main problem is not the absence of
regulations on supervision, but rather their full implementation. This
is, of course, the most difficult thing, because when the bureaucracy
is told to supervise themselves this, of course, does not make them
happy and I understand this. But we need to make sure that these
procedures are nevertheless respected, despite the fact that nobody
likes to limit oneself, nobody likes to restrict oneself within
confining limits. A civilized society differs from a less civilized
one precisely because it has learned to do this.
With regards to the income declaration, this is only one of the
institutions of control, an important but not exclusive one, of
course. It is very good that for the first time in the history of the
Russian state (this has never happened before: neither under the Tsar,
the Soviet government, nor in the recent history), all senior
officials must not simply declare ` in a tax declaration, for example
` their incomes and those of their immediate families, but also make
this i
e public.
This practice should become a habit and should not cause an allergic
reaction.
You can, of course, ask me: does the publication of the declarations
mean that we have control over all senior officers and other
officials? Of course not. But at least it is the first step in the
right direction. If a person declares his or her income each year `
and for senior officials this is not just a declaration but, I repeat,
the publication of these documents ` then at least this person should
think about the assets acquired and the funds used to do so.
While introducing the above practice, we should of course avoid
demeaning human beings. I believe that our bureaucrats are Russian
citizens who perform a very valuable mission.
NOVAYA GAZETA: The same as other citizens of Russia?
DMITRY MEDVEDEV: Exactly the same as all the others.
NOVAYA GAZETA: Just with flashing lights on their cars.
DMITRY MEDVEDEV: Far from all of them. This is a common
misconception. We have several million officials and public servants
and the number of those entitled to such features is quite small. So
both the income declaration and other forms of supervision establish a
certain chain of events with the ultimate goal of compiling the
history of a given individual.
NOVAYA GAZETA: The credit history of an official?
DMITRY MEDVEDEV: And why not? It is exactly the same person as
others. You mentioned wives, for example. Firstly, I believe that any
person can determine independently how to create a life for his
family. There is nothing wrong with the fact that officials’ wives are
engaged in business. The question is whether or not this is
transparent, and of course if there is a conflict of interest. If,
say, an official is involved in regulating a given sector and his
spouse works for a major company in that sector, this is
unethical. But if she is involved in any other business there is no
problem. And this is the case throughout the world. It is not taboo
that officials’ spouses are engaged in business. It is a question of
measures and
‘s personal culture. And measures such as the publication of income
declarations of high-positioned officials and their close relatives
should create such a culture.
Maybe not right away.
But I would repeat again that some history has been created, the
history of an official and his family history as well.
Incidentally, this can be unpleasant because people do not always want
to have others discussing the income of their spouse, but this is part
of the public persona of bureaucrats. Each person has a choice. One
can stay in business absolutely legally and make money without any
publicity, without publishing any such reports, as banking secrecy in
Russia, as in any other country, is guaranteed.
Or one may choose another path.
One can become a public servant, an official, but in this case people
` especially when thinking about the future and how to structure their
careers ` must understand that at some point in the future part of
their private life must be revealed. This is a conscious choice, but
whoever takes it must understand that it is inevitable and it may
cause inconvenience to their family.
NOVAYA GAZETA: Were you personally affected by the negative reaction
of public officials? Or did they react with understanding to your
decision, the decision to publicize the declaration?
DMITRY MEDVEDEV: Well as you know, the office of President releases me
from the obligation to listen to the negative reactions of officials.
I took the decision and everyone must execute it.
NOVAYA GAZETA: Mr President, I would like to leave the so-called
people’s judgment, or `vox populi’ issue where we discuss declarations
of income and credit histories of officials, and switch to your
favourite subject, the courts and their independence. I want to ask
about the second Yukos case. Can you predict what the outcome of this
case will be? For most of those interested in the first case, its
outcome was, alas, all too predictable. But can we say the same thing
this time? I received the following letter: perhaps, for at least some
kos case and say: you’re independent, you’re independent, let me
remind you that you’re independent, independent, independent! Here is
a hands-on way of encouraging the renewal of judicial culture …
DMITRY MEDVEDEV: I can assure you that every hands-on management
technique comes with important drawbacks. I’m not even talking about
the courts here. We just need to try and ensure that the state machine
operates with a reasonable degree of consistency. Now, with respect to
the court and the specific process. I can answer this very
briefly. Maybe for some the outcome of a given case is
predictable. This is the freedom, the pleasure of someone who does not
have any public duties and is, let us suppose, a free-lance analyst
who can say: I think this will happen. And then he can say: see, this
is what happened. Or: sorry, I was wrong.
But for a public servant, and even more so for the President, no such
freedom exists and they can make no such comment.
For the President, predictability of judicial decisions is illegal, it
is a sign that the law is being violated. For all the other
unconstrained commentators, this is a personal matter. No legal
proceeding, including the one you mentioned, should be predicted by
government officials or the President in any manner. This is the way
it is and the way it should be.
NOVAYA GAZETA: You have repeated almost exactly the remarkable words
of the 18th century Emperor Friedrich (as cited by Merab
Mamardashvili). When Friedrich wanted to take the mill away from the
miller, the miller told him: `Your Majesty, besides you we have judges
in our country…’. So the Emperor left the miller in peace and
throughout his residence inscribed the words: `Your Majesty, besides
you we have judges in our country…’. The miller was lucky, as apart
from to the Emperor there were judges available for him.
DMITRY MEDVEDEV: There are other maxims on this subject. For example,
as Hume put it, all political systems exist only so that judges can
perform their functions independently.
NOV
f charity, I would like to ask you something. There have been
rumours¦ Are you thinking about becoming a member of one of the
parties? Perhaps even the ruling party?
DMITRY MEDVEDEV: I spoke about this issue recently, at a meeting with
United Russia, and said that in our country, we currently have a
tradition of a `non-party president’. During a certain historical
period, I feel that this is best, because our political system is not
yet fully developed. It must develop, and it must become more
mature. That does not mean we should simply cross out the idea of a
party-aligned president and say that it is not possible in our
country. In other countries, people who become presidents are often
either members of a party or leaders of political movements. For now,
this is not the case in our country. The question is, when will we be
ready for it? This is a question of political experience, of political
life.
NOVAYA GAZETA: So after some time, reforms need to be made within the
electoral system, in order to ensure real party competition?
DMITRY MEDVEDEV: I think that electoral legislation, legislation on
elections, legislation on parties, and legislation on non-governmental
organizations ` all this legislation is sufficiently flexible. In my
view, it can and should be changed every so often. That is what
happened and continues to happen in other countries. And in this
country, this is an entirely normal process. I would act with much
greater care in regard to, for example, changes to civil legislation
that determines the property status of our citizens, the proprietary
rights in our country, contractual institutions, and inheritance laws,
because they are fundamental. The Napoleonic Code was adopted 200
years ago, and it is all right, it is still working, despite the fact
that it has quite a few anachronisms. But when any kind of changes are
made, they should not put into question the fundamental basics of
constitutional order.
NOVAYA GAZETA: A few days ago (I am sure you saw this in the blogs)
the Mothers of Bes
y upset. Guardians and parents who survived the tragedy were asked to
pay taxes for the education and living expenses of children attending
the Koralovo school [a school created by Mikhail Khodorkovsky for
orphans and children who, along with their parents, were victims of
terrorist acts]. The government is not spending any money on this
project, but wants to collect taxes.
And this is not a unique occurrence. Whenever I, as an individual, put
part of my money toward the medical expenses of a sick child, I know
that parents will have to pay a 13 percent tax, just as they would on
their income.
Those who get this money from us, they have barely raked up a sum
needed to pay for medical treatment of their child (there are lots of
examples) and then, in tears, have to go and pay the tax.
Perhaps it would make sense to change the laws on philanthropy?
DMITRY MEDVEDEV: The laws on philanthropy need improvement. The
problem, as usual, is in the details. There are very clear cases of
charity, when help is provided for sick children or the elderly. There
are less clear cases, when people are tempted to direct money through
the appropriate channels to achieve certain business goals.
We must learn (with the help of the law) to separate money that is
intended for charity from money that is intended for business.
NOVAYA GAZETA: And we must make it easier for people to do good
deeds. For example: you see a picture of a sick child in a newspaper,
with the phone number of a mobile telephone operator; you dial it, and
your account is credited. The accessibility of philanthropy is
absolute. But the telephone companies take an enormous cut for this
service, and so it loses its purpose.
DMITRY MEDVEDEV: That is a good idea. Everything must be done very
quickly, and the accessibility of alms-deed must be equal for the rich
and for the poor.
Philanthropy is important on both a large scale (in order to stimulate
it, we have passed a law on creating targeted capital foundations) and
on a small scale which, by the way, is no less valuabl
: for some reason, we may feel ashamed to take 100 roubles out of our
pockets to send them to a foundation that helps sick children or
supports the university where we studied. Why? Because we have
doubts. What is 100 roubles? They’ll think we are mocking them. But
for some reason, in other countries, there is no shame in sending a
dollar, just one, to your university or to the city council of your
home town, because people feel that it is perfectly normal to do so,
and that they must somehow help important social initiatives. I also
think that it is right to do good deeds regardless of one’s income,
donating any sum of money.
By the way, we already have an undertaking of this sort. Sberbank
launched an interesting project. They began to issue special bank
cards. If you get this kind of card, you agree in advance that a small
percent of each of your expenses or purchases will go to charity [this
project was undertaken jointly by Sberbank and the Chulpan Khamatova’s
`Give Life’ Foundation].
NOVAYA GAZETA: Social initiatives are important things, and
oftentimes, they do not require large amounts of spending. Along with
the Committee of Soliders’ Mothers and a couple of military enlistment
offices, we held an experiment: we gave mobile phones to conscripts,
so that if anything happened, they could call the public prosecutor’s
office, or their mothers or girlfriends. It was reported to us that
cases of hazing decreased sharply. For example, they can have a
`Soldier’ price plan in the beginning, and a `Demobee’ price plan by
the end of their service¦
DMITRY MEDVEDEV: That is a good idea. Crimes committed in the armed
forces are dangerous, first and foremost, because of their latency,
because only an insignificant percent reaches the military judges and
investigators, and even less make it to the court. Whereas modern
means of communication do help.
NOVAYA GAZETA: Not so long ago, we printed an article about the town
of Maisky. Perhaps you heard this story, it is related to you. In the
town of M
rumour that Medvedev will visit soon, because Medvedev’s grandmother
lives somewhere in the town. And what did the authorities do, when
they could not find the grandmother? Just in case, all of the roads in
Maisky were paved. Tonnes of trash were taken out, the town square was
paved, and street lamps were installed. The people were happy. I think
that if we spread rumours about the grandmothers of Medvedev, Surkov,
and members of the government in various towns, then perhaps the fear
will cause local authorities to get active.
DMITRY MEDVEDEV: This is not a bad method¦ I know what you are
talking about. If I remember correctly, long ago, my grandfather
worked as a secretary for the district [communist] party committee in
Kabardino-Balkar Republic, right around Maisky. Although, that was
long ago, over 60 years now, but nevertheless. Perhaps that is how
this rumour got started¦
NOVAYA GAZETA: The internet is one of the few remaining public
platforms for discussion. Do you think about the fact that civil
servants constantly try to introduce control over the Web?
DMITRY MEDVEDEV: I do not think that is the case. The internet is not
merely one of many platforms for discussions; in my view, it is the
best discussion platform, not just in our country, but overall,
because I cannot think of anything else that is more socially
significant, or more actively reaching every household, while
simultaneously creating opportunities for direct communication, than
the internet.
I have stated my position on the internet many times, and I can say it
again: we must create normal conditions for the development of the
Web. As a person who is rather deeply immersed in the internet and
uses it quite actively every day, I feel that we must have a normal
legal foundation for its development in our country ` a legal
foundation, and an organisational one. Because without organisational
support, as I have said recently, the internet in our country will not
develop.
Not long ago, I was present at the launch of WiMAX technology [a tel
hnology for many devices, ranging from computers to mobile phones,
ensuring high-speed access to the Web of IEEE 802.16 standard] in
Armenia and I was simply jealous of our Armenian friends, because they
have a small country, and they covered everything at once ` absolutely
everything. You can drive through the territory in a car and watch
television: thanks to the internet, the signal is delivered at high
speed.
We have a different situation. We have an enormous country, and even
providing internet to schools required enormous financial resources,
great organisational resources, and special government attention. I
worked on this personally. It is wonderful that we were nevertheless
able to bring internet to all schools, and this way, it has begun to
develop in smaller towns and villages which are far from out country’s
centre.
As for legal regulation of the internet, it must be reasonable. We do
not need to be ahead of everyone in the world, we must think about how
to create a legal framework that, on the one hand, will allow the
internet to develop, and on the other hand, will block crimes that can
be committed using internet technologies. But under no circumstances
should the internet be regarded as some sort of potentially dangerous
criminal medium in regard to others. The internet is not an absolute
evil.
NOVAYA GAZETA: Our newspaper has quoted the words of the wonderful
writer and analyst Dmitry Oreshkin: in the USSR, they could not create
a computer, because even photocopiers were under the control of the
KGB, so they would certainly not allow anyone to have a personal data
processing device. But in order to modernise the country, we need a
particular, free environment. Today you talked about elections, about
control over bureaucracy, about the internet. Does this mean that
President Medvedev is going to rehabilitate democracy in Russia?
DMITRY MEDVEDEV: You know, I think that democracy as such does not
need any kind of rehabilitation. Democracy is both historical and at
the same time, supranational. T
quire rehabilitation anywhere. There is another issue: at a certain
point, the highly difficult political and economic processes of the
1990s became associated with the arrival of the key democratic
institutions in our country for many of our fellow citizens, and for
them, this was a very difficult time. That is what left a mark on the
perception of the term itself, but that is more a matter of personal
experience, rather than an attitude toward democracy overall. That is
why I do not think that we need to rehabilitate democracy. Democracy
was, is, and will be.
NOVAYA GAZETA: A few days ago, I watched Andrei Khrzhanovsky’s film
about Joseph Brodsky, and it contained his wonderful phrase: `It is
always much easier to organise inhumanity in our country than anything
else.’ Inhumanity is, indeed, always easier, whereas justice and
freedom are always much more difficult. I wish you the best of luck on
your difficult path.
DMITRY MEDVEDEV: Thank you. I cannot disagree with this; it truly is
more difficult¦