new times: 'putin still does not take the opposition seriously

7/31/2019 New Times: 'Putin Still Does Not Take the Opposition Seriously'

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/new-times-putin-still-does-not-take-the-opposition-seriously 1/6

http://newtimes.ru/articles/detail/49063

“Putin still does not take the ‘new opposition’

seriously” Mikhail Khodorkovsky — The New Times

In his public pronouncements, the chief claimant to the post of the future president of the

country and the current premier has already let it be understood that he does not believe in

broad protest, while the people coming out on the square have a self-serving interest in this.

You know “the collective Putin” pretty well: what might the power clan’s response be to the

opposition’s demands?

Vladimir Putin considers himself to be a successful ruler, and his methods — to be correct. His

position in relation to those who do not agree: either crooks, or hirelings of the western special

services, or urban lunatics. In Putin’s opinion (thus he has declared), the right of the power —

is to press, the right of society — to resist. In this sense rallies really are resistance — in that

measure in which they have shown the quantity of those who disagree, “enemies”. In what

way are “enemies” dangerous to Putin? They can hinder his getting elected in the first round.

Why is it important for him to get elected in the first round? Otherwise the entourage will start

having doubts. Once it starts having doubts — it may stop being loyal.

As concerns concessions on the part of Putin, they are possible, but only personal ones (removea “block” from on-the-air television, finance somebody). Anything else would signify doubt in

his successfulness as a ruler and in the correctness of his methods.

Putin vs the square

Aleksei Kudrin, just recently still the minister of finance, is coming out in favour of

What can be expected from the power?

What ways out of the current political

crisis might it choose? What is the possible

optimal strategy for the opposition?

Where is the boundary line for

compromise, including for an individual

person, that can not be crossed, —

The New Times posed these questions to

the country’s most famous political

prisoner, Mikhail Khodorkovsky






negotiations between the protestors and the notional Putin. Do you deem there is sense in

this? And who can/should speak on behalf of the square at such negotiations?

Aleksei Kudrin can now represent only Vladimir Putin and only if the latter wants substantive

understandings. As concerns the “new opposition”, from my point of view at the current stage

negotiations can be conducted only about the allowable methods of struggle (the rules of thegame). Putin still does not take the “new opposition” seriously. And it can be represented at

negotiations with the power by those who are not participants in the current elections. For

example, Alexey Navalny, Yevgenia Chirikova, Sergei Udaltsov and Boris Akunin. But — only

together. We need to keep an eye on the League of Voters too.

The “new Putin versus the old one” situation — is déjàvu that nobody needs. The country

needs a new political philosophy of cooperation instead of the archaic “vertical”.

Now — about objectives. In my opinion, the objective of the “new opposition” — is an honest

power, that is: — honest elections;

— honest independent and fair courts;

— honest independent mass information media;

— intolerance for corruption;

— a coalition government (that is transparent for society on account of the presence of

an opposition;

— a president with balanced powers.

Another round of worshipping a leader with boundless power, the “tricks” with the third term

— unacceptable. Chieftains [Vozhdi ] — be they old ones or new ones — are something Russia

does not need any more.

What you are proposing in the capacity of objectives, — this is a game for the long haul, but

in the nearest future — in the next few weeks that are left before 4 March?

The strategy of the “new opposition”, in my opinion, — escalation of non-violent protest, up

until all the demands have been executed. As the demands get executed — a transition to

normal political competition and political representation. The methods are spelled out in

textbooks on non-violent resistance, with an adjustment for modern-day information

technologies and achieved understandings with the power.

The immediate short-term objective: honest elections of the president in the second round.Consequently: mass monitoring at polling stations, mass campaigns “For honest elections”,

mass participation in voting. Expansion of the ranks of observers. Active interaction amongst

one another on the day of the elections. People must see for themselves and understand for

themselves that place which is being offered to them by the power. And then — accept it or

reject it. „



To go for a compromise for the sake of a goal that you consider important? I’ve had

to, and how many times! Such is life. What is important is to honestly juxtapose the

significance of the goal and the consequences of the “giving in”, so that you

wouldn’t feel ashamed later

”

On propriety

The question of the measure of compromise, of cooperation with the power — a question

that came up acutely before thinking people in the Soviet time and is once again sticking out

like a rib now?

When, in my opinion, is no cooperation with the power impermissible [sic, probably“permissible”.— Trans.]? In the event of support by the power of illegitimate force. What kind of

force is illegitimate? The kind that contradicts the Convention on the Protection of Human

Rights and Fundamental Freedoms — Russia has obligated itself to execute it and to comply

with the decisions of the European court of Human Rights. Abandonment of the Convention’s

principles — grounds for the prompt termination of any cooperation with such a power.

As concerns negotiations, they are always permissible.

Even with those — I’m talking cooperation, — to whom it is unbecoming to extend one’s

hand?

We are speaking of whether to shake hands with the power and with the people in power. In

our conditions today, unfortunately, it is hard to expect moral leadership from people simply

because they occupy some kind of post, inasmuch as moral leadership, — this is that quality

which must be internally inherent, given to a person by nature.

This does not signify in any way that the Russian intellectual can allow himself to have a

contemptuous attitude towards a person who does not differ from the average Russian in the

moral sense. Otherwise, one really ought to find another country for oneself, another people.

The criterion by which I determine for myself the possibility of cooperation with a person(taking into account that I know about him reliably) is sufficiently simple: does he or does he

not overstep the bounds of the behaviour that is acceptable for the majority of my fellow

citizens.

Let me try to illustrate with an example how I understand what I was talking about above:

carried out a sausage from the factory — a pilfering little thief, of course, but not a scumbag.

Lifted that same sausage from a little old lady’s bag — a nit. I won’t shake your hand, I won’t sit



down at a table next to you if I’ve got a choice. The difference is in who the damage was

directly caused to and what kind it was.

Another example, more brutal: killed a person in combat, even unrighteous combat — bad,

one may not forgive — but accept. Burned a live cat to death in a furnace — can’t accept. At

the level of feelings — unacceptable. Either you’re sick, or you’re not one of us, or you’re amoral degenerate. In any case better not to have dealings.

And so, our power on the whole has not yet overstepped this boundary. At any rate, in those of

its actions that are reliably known to me. Its individual representatives — criminals, but this is

another conversation. It is precisely for this reason that interaction with the power as a whole,

as an institution, today, in my view, is permissible. With individual people in power —

understandably, it depends.

Another question — in what form? To what extent can one allow oneself to “give in”?

Quite so: where is that boundary line, beyond which self-destruction begins?

The key, starting-point question — for the sake of what to “give in”?

For the sake of saving the life of someone defenceless — I will give in to anybody. Absolutely

anyone at all. But if what we’re talking about is my own dignity and about today’s power,

which we all, to put it mildly, “under-love”, then for me the only thing that is unacceptable is to

abandon my own convictions for the sake of personal gain. If words, actions or simply silence

are a rejection, perceived by a person himself, of his own life position for the sake of getting

some kind of gain for himself — this is unacceptable. Anything else — permissible.

The internal motivation here can be different for different people, I would not go about trying

to impose my own point of view. One person considers it unseemly for himself to receive a

prize from “not entirely” clean hands, another will deem that same prize to be a trophy that will

serve the cause of further struggle for fairness. If a person is honest to himself and does not

renounce his own principles and dignity, both the one and the other are acceptable. In contrast

with conduct that is internally perceived of as dishonest, unworthy. It is horrible when a truly

talented person consciously puts his talent at the service of Evil, and there are no few examples

of this in Russian and world history.

Such is my view, with which, perhaps, many may not agree.



The price of well-being

Odious are times in which a person is forced to make a choice between his own civic position

and the well-being, let us say, of close ones. How, excuse the rhyparography, to avoid “going

bad” in such a situation? After all, you too faced such a choice?

You are asking about the price of well-being. About the choice between the well-being of one’s

own family and the notion about what is good and permissible.

Let us agree: what is being spoken of is not life and death, not hunger or a serious illness, but

specifically well-being, that is — of a greater or lesser degree of satisfaction with life beyond

the bounds of what is minimally necessary in the material sense.

Here, of course, the question of the criteria of what is minimally necessary arises right away.

For me, one such criterion since early youth has been the opportunity not to have to countmoney. Inasmuch as it was earned with difficulty, the opportunity to “not count” it was often

achieved by cutting back on your needs. In order to take a girl you liked out to a café, you had

to not breakfast at school for two weeks and to top up your “savings” with the money saved.

But then in the café itself, you wouldn’t have to count pennies.

So it has remained in my mind to this day: well-being — this is living with the conveniences

minimally necessary for a civilised person, but having the opportunity to arrange a holiday for

yourself and your close ones from time to time — this is what is needed. The rest — non-

essential extravagances, to pay f or which with moral discomfort, let’s put it that way, is

inappropriate. Why? To then deaden the discomfort with booze? This way, a glass with a goodmood is more pleasant than a dreary bender in an attempt to deaden your squeamishness

towards yourself.

To go for a compromise for the sake of a goal that you consider important? I’ve had to, and

how many times! Such is life. What is important is to honestly juxtapose the significance of the

goal and the consequences of the “giving in”, so that you wouldn’t feel ashamed later.

What kind of programmehave they got? And just who are they

anyway? To ’ell with

’em!



I’ve had to reassess a few things myself nowadays. The restoration of industry, the creation of

the biggest company, turned out in actuality to be less important in its consequences than the

concessions with respect to the development of civil society and democratic institutions that

we had to go for for the sake of this — questions of principle, although it seemed then that they

were extremely abstract.

Today, as it seems to me, some not-bad people are repeating the same kind of mistake. They

are keeping silent about something you can not keep silent about, for the sake of positions

“close” to the power, for the sake of retaining or obtaining financing of some kind of projects

that are important for them.

Although I will admit that to find irreproachably precise scales, in order to be able to “weigh”

the significance of concession and acquisition, can be not-simple in such situations.

What is important is to say honestly to yourself — it is not about my well-being that I’m

concerned, not for the sake of personal benefits that I’m trying. Then you can live with this. I

judge by myself.

When I recall the gigantic Priobskoye field, developed by the most modern methods, saved for

Russia, or the revived Angarsk Petrochemical Combine, the town of Strezhevoy, the settlements

of Kedrovy, Poykovsky, the joint work with Tomsk Polytech, and indeed a lot more besides this

that I managed to accomplish thanks, among other things, to compromises and concessions,

what took place afterwards in the country — perhaps, also because of my concessions, my

“giving in” — becomes less bitter. But now, if behind them there stood palaces, yachts and the

gilded handles of limousines, it would be repugnant indeed.

Incidentally, my past activity and its scale are not such that they could have a direct impact onthe mindset and the civic activeness of the majority of our citizens. Perhaps, if what had been

created by me personally had been used by the power in order to suppress the young Russian

democracy, to break destinies for tens and hundreds of thousands of people, it would be much

heavier for me. That same question of the directness of the damage again…

A year has passed since you and Platon Lebedev received a new, 13-year term, have gone by

stage, have turned up in a zone, Lebedev was denied conditional early release on parole. Just

two months ago the situation seemed completely dead-end. But demands for your freedom

were sounded at the rallies both on Bolotnaya and on Sakharov. Rumours have begun to

crawl around Moscow that Putin, in order to satisfy at least some of the demands of theprotesters, may go for such a step. Have you received any kind of signals, offers, conditions

from people of power in recent weeks? And if such conditions are going to be advanced, then

what for you is acceptable and what — is not?

I have not been receiving any signals from the current power in connection with the latest

changes in society. A deal with the conscience is out of the question for me. I don’t want to

make fortune-telling predictions about my future.

new times: 'putin still does not take the opposition seriously

Documents