"Novaya Gazeta": "Grani nedeli" with Vladimir Kara-Murza"
Printed version of the programme aired on November 13, 2009
We will know how serious the President's intentions are on March 14.
Below is a conversation with Boris Nadezhdin, member of the federal political council of the Right Cause Party.
Q.: How different was the tone of this year's presidential address to the Federal Assembly from those of the previous years?
A.: I have listened to the early addresses by President Yeltsin and to all the addresses by President Putin. I did not listen to Medvedev's address because we were no longer in the Duma. The addresses differ markedly. Yeltsin's addresses were very compact, he spoke of generalities and hardly ever discussed any technical matters. Putin, on the contrary, cited a lot of figures and set concrete targets. Medvedev, in my opinion, has a bit of both: a lot of words about modernisation, about the need to harness the energy of free and responsible people, but also some concrete figures and deadlines. Because of that, Medvedev's addresses are much longer than those of Yeltsin or Putin.
Q.: The main sensation of last year was the extension of the presidential term which the Duma translated into law within a month. Will this year's instructions be fulfilled as promptly?
A.: A week or two ago the regional parliaments were proceeding from the Kremlin's command that the barrier required to get into parliament be lifted to 7%. Previously, the cut-off line in some Russian regions was 4% or 5%. In recent weeks, on the Kremlin's command, the governors started lifting it to 7%. The higher the barrier, the more votes United Russia gets. Medvedev said that 5% is better than 7%, and that the regions should follow suit.
Q.: If I am not mistaken, the opposition has long been advocating this move which has now been approved by Medvedev.
A.: Yes, Medvedev has articulated many of the ideas that were in the official SPS documents and are now contained in the official proposals of the Right Cause Party. They include the 5% barrier, dropping the requirement for candidates for parliaments, for mayor, etc. to collect signatures. I myself and many of my friends were disqualified during the elections to the Moscow City Duma because of "improper" signatures. The whole of the opposition was disqualified: myself, Milov, Starikov and Yashin. Thank God, Medvedev indicated that this was no good. We do not have to wait long, elections on March 14 will take place in tens of regions, and we will see whether it is all serious.
* * *
HIGHLIGHTS OF THE WEEK
One of the key events was President Medvedev's address to the Federal Assembly.
The practice of annual presidential addresses was introduced by the 1993 Constitution. In the fifteen years that followed, the form of presidential address has not changed in any substantial way. Writer Leonid MLECHIN takes a skeptical view of the address format:
"I find this format ridiculous. Like in the Soviet times, big bosses say absolutely correct things and the audience duly applauds. Meanwhile everybody knows that none of this will take place in reality.
Journalist Maxim SHEVCHENKO has got answers to his questions:
"I cannot say that I was really agonising over what questions the President would answer. I expected him to pronounce on the situation in the North Caucasus, and he did. This is a critical topic for the country and for its development."
Political scientist Igor BUNIN was disabused of whatever naïve views he held before:
"I thought he would make a decision and cross a certain barrier. I was naïve in thinking that he could cross a barrier. When I started listening to his address I realised that it was the most he could permit himself. That is, to write a sufficiently hard-hitting article and propose a business plan. And to include elements of a new image of Russia, a kind of dream, in this business plan."
The owner of Nezavisimaya Gazeta, Konstantin REMCHUKOV, notes the limited impact of presidential addresses:
"The annual address could have been more effective if a document summing up what has and what has not been done appeared a year later. I have been reading these addresses for 15 years and a lot of the goals have never been achieved. If the address was a document that disciplines, a basis for economic and political policy, it would have been many times more effective.
* * *
Today's page in our historical calendar reminds us of 18 years of Leonid Brezhnev's rule which went down in history books as the "era of stagnation."
On November 7 Brezhnev stood on top of the Mausoleum watching the military parade and demonstration for several hours, in spite of bad weather. Foreign newspapers even wrote that he looked better than usual. The end came three days later. In the morning during breakfast Brezhnev went into his office to pick something up and did not return for a long time. His wife was worried and entered the office to find him lying near the writing desk. The doctors' efforts were futile. Four hours after Brezhnev's heart stopped beating, his death was announced. The following day the CC CPSU and the government announced to the whole world that the leader was dead.
Author Mikhail VELLER detects an atmosphere of stagnation today:
"We will understand that we are in stagnation if we consider that over the past nine years all the best has been banished from television screens, if we look at the restored practice of state awards to various individuals, if we consider that we have only one political party left, with several other parties existing just to keep up appearances. United Russia has no coherent political goals, it is the political vehicle of power, the administrative resource and big business. Only today everything is on a more modest scale. This is not the kind of stagnation that we had in the scary totalitarian Soviet empire, this is a crumbling Russia, whose economic potential has been irreparably undermined, whose population is disenchanted and which has the Internet and copying machines.
Opinion journalist Leonid RADZIKHOVSKY also considers the current regime to be a variety of stagnation:
"We live in the situation of political stagnation. The only difference is that under Brezhnev it lasted decades, but this time it would hardly last decades. Of course, the forms of stagnation have changed. Everything ordinary people coveted at the time - foreign travel, the chance to buy normal goods without queues, to watch any films and so on - has been delivered. But the lack of political competition, animated political life, the lack of ambitious plans for society - all this is exactly the same as in the Brezhnev period. Perhaps not in such a ridiculous form, but it is essentially the same."
Journalist Alexander PRIVALOV is sure that the risk of stagnation persists:
"That danger is always there. If today we decide to go into a state of stagnation it would be a much less cozy stagnation than under Brezhnev, but with much less developed social institutions."
Author Leonid MLECHIN points out the difference between the Brezhnev era and today's Russia:
"So far the political system is still evolving, it has not yet gelled. One can still influence it to some degree. I think we are halfway on the road to its ossification. When it develops fully stagnation will set in. And then we will wait to see how long it will hold out."