“Itogy”: "Alternative service"
"Opposition to the authorities" must not be an end to itself... the country needs real competition in the political field and it must be a level playing field. These are the principles promoted by the president," says the speaker of the Federation Council Sergey Mironov.
How profound is the programme of political modernisation initiated by the president? What does "being in opposition" mean in Russia? Is it possible to create another governing party committed to modernising the country? Itogy has put these questions to the leader of Just Russia party and speaker of the Federation Council, Sergey Mironov.
Q.: Do the authorities need an opposition in principle?
A.: Sometimes one gets the impression that they do not. Especially during elections and vote counting. But the opposition, of course, is necessary in order to have somebody to synchronise watches with and in order not to have the mice sleep. A one-way game has never yielded positive results. One can cite concrete examples. But for the opposition, the initial draft of the transport tax would have been adopted. We, the opposition, declared that this was not an option. We expressed the opinion of citizens and non-governmental organizations, including the Russian Federation of Car Owners.
The country's leadership is well aware of the importance of the opposition and the multiparty system. The President spoke about it in his Address. The fact that after the October 11 elections the President invited party leaders for a conversation confirms that he wants to hear various opinions. During the course of a frank conversation we expressed our grievances regarding the current electoral law. Much of what we said was later articulated in the President's address. Just Russia, for example, proposed to ban early voting and voting by absentee ballot and to provide all the polling stations with transparent ballot boxes.
Q.: But not all the proposals have been adopted.
A.: But still the right direction has been chosen. We cannot stop. We are not happy with the provision that gives additional seats to the winning party when distributing mandates, the so-called Imperiali system. Even if a party for which people have voted has failed to win enough votes to get into parliament, why should the votes cast for it be given to the winning party. In the Nenetsky constituency Just Russia party won 10% of the vote in the elections for the city council, but our sole seat went to United Russia. By the way, the President had proposed some time ago that one seat be given to those who came close to the Duma barrier but failed to clear it, collecting for example, 5-6% of the votes. The same goes for regional parliaments. I have long advocated lowering the barrier to 5%, and even to 3%. The scales will then tip in favour of the minority whose voice is barely heard at present. It is heartening that the President has welcomed our proposal to cancel the practice of collecting signatures. But there again, we should go further and cancel collection of signatures at all levels for all the registered parties. There are only seven of them, what is there to be afraid of?
Q.: They are probably reluctant to face tougher competition.
A.: But if they go it alone, United Russia assumes full responsibility for everything that is happening in the country. And sooner or later when people are fed up with the current situation all the blame will be put on United Russia.
Q.: So, you got the impression that the President intends to strengthen the opposition?
A.: Definitely. But opposition need not be an end in itself, one can endlessly criticise the authorities just for the sake of criticising. The country needs real competition in the political field and it must be a level playing field. These are the principles the President advocates, I know it from my personal conversations with him.
Q.: Is there a chance that we will get another governing party committed to the President's modernisation course?
A.: In this country, the President should be above parties. Being a party member would put into question the thesis that he is the head of all Russians. The word "party" literally means "part." Part of the people. But you will remember that Dmitry Medvedev was nominated as presidential candidate by several parties.
Q.: But the Prime Minister has cast in his lot with one party, United Russia.
A.: By associating himself with United Russia Vladimir Putin may have damaged his image. On the other hand, his personal rating is still high and looks unshakeable. I think in a sense the Prime Minister is using the party as the majority which is ready to fulfill his orders at any moment. In fact, they do just that.
Q.: Does Just Russia behave differently?
A.: We generate ideas, be it the problem of pension laws, housing construction or the tax policy. The country's leadership expects the opposition to come up with concrete proposals. For example, it has thoroughly studied our alternative budget.
Q.: But none of your party's more significant amendments to the budget law have been adopted.
A.: Still we hope that some of our proposals will make a difference. It would be sad if we were proved right, say, by the middle of next year. The budget would then have to be amended, and that is a costly exercise. Our party at the Duma has voted against this draft budget because we consider it to be ill-balanced.
Q.: How do you account for the nervous reaction of the Duma majority to the walk-out of the other parties in protest against the results of the regional elections?
A.: You remember the words that were heard at the time? "This is not a parliamentary method. They are disrupting our work. We have complicated laws to discuss." Because if everybody votes, then everybody will be responsible. By the way, if a boycott is not a parliamentary method why does the UR use it so readily? In Volzhsky, a city of 300,000 people in the Volgograd Region, United Russia at the local legislature was against a representative of our party becoming the speaker. The UR members simply stayed away from the sessions. Boycott is a perfectly parliamentary method. It has to be resorted to when you run out of other arguments. Having said that, a reluctance to work with a speaker who is not a member of your party is a far cry from principled ideological struggle.
Q.: Why was the boycott called off so quickly?
A.: Such methods should not be used frequently, they should be used only over serious matters. I do not rule out that it may happen again some day. Incidentally, our move has been entirely successful: amendments to the Duma's rules of procedure have been introduced. Now every party will be given five minutes at the start of every session to make a political statement. The opposition does not get much air time on television. Under the new setup, at least something will be shown on television. Just Russia returned to the session as soon as it got assurances from the Duma leadership that it would accept our conditions. Unlike other parties, we did not only have a quarrel with the results and the procedure of the October 11 elections, but we were also outraged because a member of our party was not even given the floor.
Q.: Do you agree that neither your party nor the other opposition forces have any real cadre reserve? Our elite is monolithic because it has been formed during Vladimir Putin's presidency and it is in power or close to power.
A.: Of course many members of the elite owe their position to Vladimir Putin personally. So there is a team of like-thinking people inside the elite who are prepared to go on supporting him. The team was not formed on the basis of personal loyalty to the Prime Minister, they are all professionals doing a common job. Putin hardly ever made a mistake in his appointments. But the country has a human reserve of young and independent-minded politicians, businessmen, teachers and scientists. Many of them find the ideas of Just Russia appealing.
Q.: Let us go back to the topic of elections. Has anything been done to eliminate irregularities?
A.: After the regional elections of October 11 criminal cases have been initiated. An investigation into the results of the March elections has been completed, but it is taking too long for the cases to reach the law courts. Things did not get moving until a meeting of the party leaders with the President. But of course there will still be opposition. Any exposure in the law court deals a blow at United Russia. I am sure that as soon as somebody is convicted of electoral fraud others will start thinking whether the risk is worth it.
Of course, if opposition parties interacted during the elections the results could have been different, especially at the regional level. But the opposition is not united because there are reasons for this. For example, the LDPR is to all intents and purposes a branch of United Russia. Vladimir Zhirinovsky agrees on how he should act. Therefore it is impossible to unite with the LDPR. The K is a different case. Its leadership, in the person of Gennady Zyuganov, is not inclined to negotiate, unlike the rank-and-file and some leading members of the party. We have established contacts with them and have reached certain agreements. I am convinced that the K and Just Russia will unite on a social-democratic platform in the near-term historical perspective.
Q.: Can the governing party itself split?
A.: I do not rule out that the United Russia may undergo some changes at a certain stage. The creation of "interest clubs" inside the party - patriotic, liberal and social - does not solve the problems. "The social" wing, leaving personalities aside, is the closest to us ideologically. I do not rule out that after 2011 (it hardly may happen earlier) when the Duma is elected for another five years, divisions may arise within the UR and two or three parties may appear in its place. But time will tell...
Svetlana Sukhova
