Andrei Illarionov on the Forum of Free Russia. Photo: Каспаров.Ru
Domestic opposition, until recently, divided by party and salon “lists”, becomes aware of the need to coordinate joint actions and establish a clear scenario of the country out of the impasse. A key milestone on this path is held in early March, the forum of Free Russia, which gathered experts and politicians from Russia and exile. One of its main participants and ideologists has become a well-known Russian politician and economist, senior fellow at the Cato Institute Andrei Illarionov, who agreed to give an interview to the editor of the “Russian Plot” to Yury Terekhov in the Institute in Washington.
School democracy, law and civil society
— Andrey, You have participated in Forum of free Russia (FSR) in Vilnius. How would You assess its value whether justified the expectations and will it be continued?
The collection as a whole proved to be useful and far better than expected and me and some other people with whom I discussed the idea of the Forum during its preparation. FSR continues a series of projects, which was carried out last at least ten years. Among them I would name the following: the organization “Other Russia” (2006-2007), national Assembly (2007-2012), the Coordinating Council of the opposition (2012-2014), now, in 2016, the Forum of Free Russia. It is a social organization, composed of civil society activists, public and political figures, writers, journalists, lawyers, cultural figures, having different ideological and political views, belonging to different political and public organizations: some involved in political life, someone not involved, but they all share the concern and pain about the fate of the country. It is an asset of Russian civil society.
We see that, on the one hand, it is not easy to combine in the common work of different people. On the other hand, gradually gain experience of communication, interaction, cooperation, common solutions, the implementation of joint actions. I remember how hard it was done the first steps in the “Other Russia”, in the National Assembly. Some of their members to the last time you saw each other only through the sight of the machine, as it was in October 1993 during the civil war on the streets of Moscow. Gradually, people learn to be in the same room with each other. It turned out to be a very important quality to be able to be in the same room with another person, if that person holds a different point of view, to shake him by the hand, to talk to him, lead him intelligent dialogue without neither a cry nor a tantrum, as it happens on the first, second and other current channels of Russian television. Informative, and balanced discussion of questions of public interest, and offering arguments and counter-arguments.
Using wording which many of us remember the Soviet perido (“unions are schools of communism”), I would say that this organization is absolutely necessary in schools, civil society, rights and democracy. Without this kind of initial steps of creating a successful democratic, legal society is impossible in our country. Therefore, the citizens taking part in it, doing, from my point of view, a very important thing both for themselves and for their colleagues and for future generations.
In other words, using the language that many of us know in Soviet education, “unions are schools of communism.” I would say that the above organization is a school of democracy, rights, civil society, is absolutely necessary. Without the initial stages the creation of a democratic, legal society is impossible in our country. Therefore, those who take part to do with my point of view, very important for themselves and for their colleagues and for future generations.
Civil society and quasiparticle projects
— As you know, up to half of the participants of the Forum represented one way or another political exile. In Your opinion, should we expect consolidation of the Russian political emigration at the end of the Forum?
— It depends on what is meant by the word “consolidation”. Consolidation into a single political organization, the type of party to expect, definitely not worth it. It was never possible, now impossible, moreover, it is not necessary. It is absolutely contraindicated: different people have different views. The party, movement, political organization has some purpose. Someone has liberal views, some conservative, national, left. To force other people to ensure that they were to profess other opinions, is impossible. Of course, someone can evolve, learning new information, but it will be the individual evolution of this man.
The only thing I see possible consolidation of people irrespective of where they are — inside the country or in exile, is the consolidation on the platform of establishing a democratic, legal, tolerant political system in the country. Only such a system will create conditions for an acceptable social life for all, whoever they were and whatever they were doing. All citizens will have the opportunity to live in the country, to do their work, to promote their views, to campaign for his position to create their own organizations and, following the rules of modern civilized society, to participate in the political struggle to win support among voters. On the basis of consolidation is not only possible, but necessary.
In that case, how would You comment on the fact that some of the Russian “mainstream” liberal media and forces ignored the Forum?
— It’s sad. Obviously, they perceive the Forum as a strong and dangerous rival. We do not gorim about those who carried out the direct orders of the regime. But those who have had the opportunity to cover, but did not do it, apparently, did it intentionally, based on such considerations.
Even those that technically are not based in Russia.
And they including. The party and quasiparticle projects – one associated with the Parnassus, Kasyanov and Navalny, other – and with Khodorkovsky “Open Russia”. I hope that sooner or later they will reconsider their position and will participate in the national process of establishing a Russian legal demokraticheski political system. In this project, as the SDF, involving not only liberal activists and liberal organizations. It involves both the left and those who are called nationalists. None of them feel about discomfort, each of them has a chance to speak, they were not “overwritten”. What is fear to those who have no less significant organizations, resources, people?
Sooner or later the historical development and understanding common goals will lead to the fact that a significant part of civil society to join the process of further development and strengthening of national representative organizations. That is, they will snimatsya not only their own party project, but shared project representative organizations of civil society. During the work of the coordinating Council, I called it a protoparliament. Not the party organization.
Some other members of the coordinating Council, for example, the Bulk, the vision of this project was different. Despite the fact that he had his own so-called “Bulk group”, he tried to use all of the COP for their own party-projects like the campaign for participation in elections of the mayor of Moscow. Such attempts to use the Coordinating Council as protperties organization, by definition, was doomed to failure.
MS Sobchak, resulting in the COP of the so-called “Group of citizens”, openly talked about how she mobilized people with famous names to, in her words, “throw hats and scarves on Park benches”, that is to take place in the protoparliament to “others do not get”. That is, she quite openly talked about trying to implement it raider capture of the COP.
The coordinating Council was a useful lesson for active citizens of our country who were able to see the behavior of the persons elected as CC members, what goals they pursued. Anyway, sooner or later active Russian citizens will come to the conclusion that the construction of the country’s the most democratic, legal, tolerant political system need to participate. But we should not substitute the project of national mission private party projects. Still will not work.
The legal basis of a free Russia
— In the Forum stressed the need of convening a Constituent Assembly and re-formed the Russian state on a new basis. What are the reasons You had in mind?
— It is clear that this question is not for today or even tomorrow, must have held relevant great job. And we are not yet even at the zero stage of preparation for this. However, I was talking about the Constituent Assembly that will for the success of the state project, the necessary legal framework.
Wherever we looked, all successful projects have a legal basis. We have in 1917-18 is the legal basis has been destroyed, and because no new successful project can not be started without the major political, social and civic forces did not agree on certain common concepts, principles, and rules of life of the future. For example, in Britain such document is the bill of rights for the United States is the Declaration of independence, France’s Declaration of the rights of man and citizen, to Spain — the Moncloa Pact. In different Nations, these documents carry different names, they were taken at different times, on different occasions. Nevertheless, they have some common agreement about what constitutes a nation, people, state what rules apply in the relations between people. We have such a document at the national level, alas, no.
The guidelines for the future of such a Declaration for Russia are obvious. This is right, what keeps the modern civilized society. This is a democratic political system, allowing people who hold different political views to participate in the struggle for state power, provided that they do not use violence for this. This is tolerance, that is tolerance for another point of view, without whipping out revolvers. This is basic stuff, adopting them, you can already move on to other issues. The first version of such document of the Russian civil society was developed and accepted may 12, 2008 in the form of a Charter of the National Assembly.
— On the Forum I remember Your comment that “there are no incurable people.” How would you describe the symptoms of the disease of the Russian people and the methods of cure at this point in history?
— We are really faced with the fact that a significant part of Russian society is vulnerable to several dangerous diseases.
First, it is the lack of many citizens basic ideas about the law. Experience of the coordination Council in 2012/13 was extremely important, in particular because it turned out that most of the CC members had a basic understanding of the law. By the way, many inhabitants of the Kremlin this view, but they use it to circumvent the right to violate and destroy it. But many opposition even a basic understanding of the law, alas, is not there.
Attempts to draw the attention of the COP on the right, on the necessity of following the law caused, as you may remember, very violent and extremely painful reaction. A natural question arises: is it possible to build a legal state with people who have no idea about right? Impossible.
Except for the lack of ideas about the law, popular diseases of Russian society should be called enduring commitment to violence, disease called Imperial, lack of tolerance, respect other people’s point of view, the lack of culture of compromise. All these social diseases are closely related to each other. The lack of knowledge about the law contributes to violence instead of trying to find compromise with people who hold other points of view. That these five disease Russian society is necessary to heal.
Nonviolence is better than violence
— The other day I was at the presentation of the report, Ilya Yashin about Ramzan Kadyrov and asked him about whether he considers necessary deduction in the “Russia after Putin” certain problem areas, by any means, including military. Unfortunately, he’s gone from a direct answer to my question. How would You answer him?
— No, of course. Of the principles established in the Charter of the National Assembly, naturally implies several consequences, including about where can lie the state border. Of fundamental importance is the answer to the question, what methods are acceptable, acceptable in relationships with other people, with other peoples. No matter if they like us or not, whether there are among peoples history of good or hostile relations. Today we need to make decisions about how to interact with other people, be sure to do every time to use the machine, multiple rocket launchers, attack aircraft, or some way to negotiate, without resorting to such tools.
— We are located in the Institute with a libertarian reputation. Could You articulate the libertarian prescription of reforming Russia?
I’m not sure that this is exclusively a libertarian principle, it seems that this is a civilizational approach — maximum use of non-violence. There and then, where and when possible, should try to do without violence — individual, collective, group, public, social. I realize that this is not always possible. However, in many cases it is possible and necessary.
There are some libertarians who are sincerely convinced that nonviolence always wins. Unfortunately, we know that nonviolence leads to good results among people who also adheres to the principles of non-violence. However, not all people are, at least in our part of the world. Therefore, the question of violence is one of the most important in theoretical terms and in practical. The main recommendation for Russia, which can give not only libertarianism, but the whole history of mankind is the lessons of the use of nonviolence to solve the most complex, most intricate, the most difficult issues. There and then, where people are trying to solve existing problems through non-violence, arrangements, compromises, long-term results are incomparably more favorable than where violence is used.
It is known that in the countries of Northern and North-Western Europe historically, the scale of violence was less than in the South and East. And so costs of violence in our own country with the majority of other countries simply are not comparable.
— Rather comparable with China.
— As a percentage of population our losses from the use of violence was more than even in China, in this sad competition, we have broken all “records”.
— Unfortunately, it’s true. I hope this will be a lesson. Thank You for the interview!
