Tweet
MEDVEDEV'S DECLARATION. YEAR 2009
Russia Today
http://russiatoday.com/Politics/2009-04-15/M edvedev_s_Declaration._Year_2009..html
April 15 2009
Russian Presidents Dmitry Medvedev was interviewed by Novaya Gazeta
on April 13 in his residence "Gorki". He said this was "his interview
to a Russian publication, but he would continue the practice with
other newspapers
In his interview Russian President told Novaya Gazeta about the
country being free and full, the election in Sochi, the Yukos
case, his non-affiliation with any party, web censorship, and the
"rehabilitation of democracy".
About Sochi Novaya (Muratov): I would like to begin with more general
questions, but there are some urgent ones. Maybe it is better to cancel
the election in Sochi altogether rather than faking it? This simulation
seems more cynical than cancellation. The court removed Lebedev from
the candidates list and Nemtsov is not allowed to campaign.
Medvedev: I don't know yet who was removed and how, but in any case
there is a fully valid political fight going on in Sochi. And it is
good that different political forces participate in it. In my opinion
many municipal elections lack variety. People don't have anyone to
choose from, they are bored.
It is true that people usually choose politicians they understand,
not famous celebrities, but the more interesting events like that we
have, the better it will be for our election system, for democracy.
As far specific circumstances - at every election there will be
candidates who will lose, candidates who will be removed from the
list, this is the way it goes everywhere in the world. But on a whole
I think such campaigns are good for democracy.
Social contract. Going back to the subject of food and freedom
Novaya: On April 15 you will hold the President's Council, focusing
on the issues of civil society and human rights. I was glad to see
intelligent and honest people on the Council list - Auzan, Simonov,
Svetlana Sorokina, Elena Panfilova, Yurgens, Irina Yasina, and there
are more. Do I understand it correctly that today this civil society
is more important for you than the society of government officials?
Medvedev: You know civil society is a category that Russia doesn't have
full understanding of yet. Everywhere in the world civil society is
the flip-side of the state. The state is not just a political machine,
it is a form of life organization based on state power and supported
by law. Whereas civil society is a human dimension of any state. And
even though it functions within the framework of legislation, it
has its own human laws, which do not always appear in the official
form. Not too long ago many people didn't even understand what was
meant by "civil society". The state was a somewhat clear category.
But what is civil society? A society of citizens? But we all are
citizens of our country. But now there is already understanding that
civil society is an essential social institution of any state. A
feed-back. Institution. An organization of people that are outside
official posts, but actively involved in the life of the country. And
meetings, contacts between the country's President and representatives
of this civil society are absolutely necessary. I would like to note
that these contacts are never easy for any power.
Because of civil society, human rights activists always have many
complaints addressed to the state and its leaders. They have many
questions. And we don't always want to answer questions. But that is
exactly why these contacts should be regular. Including the Council
that you mentioned. I expect to have an interesting discussion. Most
likely, it will be tough. But that's why it is so valuable.
Novaya: For several years there has been an unspoken contract between
the state and the society (the majority of it, to be exact): the state
keeps the society full and comfortable to an extent, and in return,
the society stays loyal to the state and tolerant.
Medvedev: You mean the "democracy in exchange for prosperity", or
"freedom for food" propositions?
Novaya: Yes, and now when there is no more prosperity, what do you
think this contract should look like? I will not even use the word
"warming", it is more of a total "defrosting" of society. Neither
society, nor the state can fight the crisis alone, they will be forced
to talk.
Medvedev: No doubt, the social contract is one of the best human ideas,
and it played an important part in the development of democratic
institutions in the world. We know the roots of Rousseau's idea,
but if we are talking about the modern interpretation of the social
contract idea, I would say that its construction is part of our
Constitution. The Constitution itself is a special agreement between
the state, on the one hand, and citizens of this state, on the other.
Novaya: Agreement on what?
Medvedev: On how to execute power in our state, our country. In this
context, the social contract means that some powers that a person has,
in accordance with the natural law, are transferred to the state,
so that the state would provide for the person's prosperity, life,
and freedoms.
But I think we can never set a stable, good life against a list of
political rights and freedoms. It is not right to set democracy against
food. On the other hand, we do understand that intricate civil rights
and freedoms can be threatened if society is unstable. If its basic
wellbeing is not ensured. If people don't feel protected, if they
don't get paid, if they are unable to buy basic foods, if their life
is threatened.
Therefore I don't see any contradiction in your question. It is
obvious to me that this social contract has its roots not just in
famous theories of 17-18th centuries, but also in our Constitution.
Novaya: Do you suggest Russia should combine freedom and wellbeing?
Medvedev: Yes.
State employee. His income, services, wives, rights Novaya: The main
function of society today is of course to control red tape. To control
the services that this red tape provides to the society. How do you
think this can be done? The whole country was reading the income
declarations of your subordinates as well as the Prime Minister's
subordinates.
Medvedev: They all probably enjoyed the reading?
Novaya: They did. But it is not clear who will check if these
declarations are true. A whole society of "poor" husbands and wealthy
wives was formed in our country in a matter of days...
Medvedev: It is one of the major objectives of any state to control
red tape, government officials. The state must control its officials,
who serve this state. And of course a whole range if different control
procedures is involved.
We started doing this already some time ago, and I can't report any
huge success. However, if we compare today's situation with the 90s,
I think things are much better today. Control systems at least have
their legal procedures, and as someone with a legal mind I can tell
you - procedures are very important. And their execution provides
for law enforcement in the society as a whole, legal awareness, the
level of legal nihilism that I have talked about many times, depends
on it. That's why we have a significant number of procedures now.
Some time ago we changed our legislation regulating state service. I
myself began to work on that when I was still in the Presidential
administration. We accepted a rather relevant, contemporary law about
the basics of state service, accepted laws on different kinds of
state service, and this work is still going on, there are a number
of new things in this area.
Also recently we accepted a whole package of anti-corruption laws and
some changes into the state service legislation, including the part
where it talks about declaring income, and other serious and useful
things. In my opinion, the main problem now is not the absence of
laws on control, but their diligent execution.
Of course, that is the most difficult thing. Because when red tape is
supposed to control itself, this is not a pleasant thing, I know. But
we still need to make sure that these procedures are observed, even
though nobody likes to control themselves, limit themselves. But this
is what sets a civilized society apart - it has learned to do it.
As far declaring goes - this is just one of control institutions. An
important one, but not all inclusive. It is a very good thing that
first time in Russia's history (this has never happened before -
neither under Tsars, nor in Soviet times or in the recent history)
all high-ranking officials did not just report to the tax office their
income and incomes of their close relative, they made them known to
the people. This is the habit that should be formed without causing
any allergic reactions.
I might get the following question - does this publication of
declarations mean that we now control all high ranking officials
and other government workers? Of course, not! But at least we took
this first step in the right direction. And if a person declares his
income year after year, and the high ranking officials, I repeat,
do not just declare their income, but publish it, then at least this
person has to think about the nature of his/her assets, and what means
are used. I think that our officials are regular Russian citizens
and they have a very important mission.
Novaya: Regular Russian citizens?
Medvedev: Absolutely regular, just like everybody else.
Novaya: Just with beacons on their vehicles.
Medvedev: Not all of them. This is a common misconception. We have
millions of state workers, and an insignificant number of them have the
right to this type of transportation. So - by declaring and through
other forms of control we create a chain of events which eventually
will make up the person's history.
Novaya: Official's credit history?
Medvedev: Why not? They are regular people by all means. You mentioned
wives for example. I think any person can decide for themselves how to
organize their family life. And there is nothing special in the fact
that officials' wives do business. The question is - how transparent
is it? And also are there conflicting interests in this?
If an official is involved in regulating processes in one field or
another and their spouse works in a major company in this area, it is
not ethical. But if this is some other business, then it is ok. That is
how it is everywhere else in the world. There is no taboo on officials'
spouses doing business. It is an issue of personal integrity and
knowing the limits. And publicizing incomes of officials and their
close relatives should create this culture. May be not right a way. And
I will say it again, this will be some kind of history. History
of a person as a leader and history of his family. This might not
be pleasant, because you don't always want someone to discuss your
spouse's income. But this is part of an official's public image.
Every person has a choice! You can stay in business absolutely
legally, but at the same time make money, not publishing any reports
anywhere. Banking confidentiality should be guaranteed in Russia,
just like in any other country. But you can make a different choice.
You can become a state employee, an official, but in this case this
person, especially if he thinks about the future and structures his
career accordingly, has to understand that at some point he will have
to uncover a part of his private life. It is a conscious choice, but
those who decide to do so, must understand - it is inevitable. And
this can make certain things uncomfortable for the family.
Novaya: Have you personally felt the officials' negative reaction? Or
did they have a good understanding of your decision to publish the
declarations?
Medvedev: You know my post of the President allows me to be exempt
from listening to officials' negative reactions. I made the decision,
and they all have to follow it.
About courts and "Khodorkovsky - Lebedev case" Novaya: Mr. Medvedev,
from this "human judgment", when tax returns are made public and
an official's "credit history" emerges, I would like to move to
your favorite subject - courts and their independence. I want to
ask about "the Yukos's second case". Could you foresee this case's
outcome? Unfortunately, the outcome of the first one was obvious
to all who were following the story. Is it obvious this time? I
received the following letter - "At first Medvedev will just call
most of the judges, including the Yukos case judge and tell them -
you are independent, you are independent, I would like to remind you -
you are independent, independent, independent!" This manual control
in order to restore the judging institution.
Medvedev: I can tell you that there are major downsides to any manual
management. And I am not even talking about courts now. We need to move
towards making sure that the state machine can work in a reasonable
automatic regime. And now about courts and the specific case.
I have a relatively short answer to that. May be for some the outcome
of one case or another is predictable. It is the freedom and benefit
of a person who doesn't have any state obligations, and is a free
analyst, for example, who says: I think this is the way it will
be. And then he will say - see, I told you, - or, - Sorry, I was
wrong. But for a state official, and especially for the President,
there is no such freedom to comment and never will be.
Predictability of a court decision, court sentence is unlawful. This
is a sign of breaking the law. As far as all other free commentators
are concerned - it is their business. For state officials and the
President there can be no predictability in any court case, including
the one you mentioned.
Novaya: Just now you basically repeated the famous saying from the
18th century, by emperor Fredrick. I'll quote using Mamardashvilly's
lecture as the source. When Frederick wanted to take away the mill
from the mill owner, the mill owner told him: "Mr. Emperor, besides
you, we have judges in our country..." And, having left the mill
owner alone, Fredrick ordered an inscription to be written there:
"Mr. Emperor, besides you, we have judges in our country". Lucky mill
owner, he had judges, besides the Emperor.
Medvedev: There are other thoughts on this issue - Hume, for example,
said: "The whole political system exists only in order for the judges
to carry out their functions independently"
Novaya: Excellent thought...
Party membership for the President Novaya: Before we move on to the
subject of charity, I would like to ask you. There has been rumours,
are you going to join one of the political parties? May be even the
ruling one?
Medvedev: Just recently I was talking about it when I met with United
Russia. And I told them that there is a tradition in our country that
the President does not belong to any party. And at a certain stage
this is the right thing - I have always thought so.
Because our political system is underdeveloped. It needs to develop,
needs to mature. It does not mean that we should never have the
President belonging to a political party and say it is impossible
to have that in our country.People belonging to political parties or
leading political movements, become Presidents in other countries. We
don't have it yet. The question is - when are we going to be ready for
this? It is an issue of political experience. An issue of political
life.
Novaya: So there is a need to reform the elections system some time
in the future, to have real competition between parties?
Medvedev: I think that election legislation, legislation on parties and
social unions is very flexible legislation. In my opinion, it needs
to be changed regularly. This is how it is in other countries. And
it is a normal process in our country.
I would be a lot more careful when it comes down to changing civil
laws, for example, which stipulates citizen's property, property rights
in the country, conventional institutions, inheriting mechanisms,
because these are fundamental things. Napoleon's Code was accepted
200 years ago. And it functions just fine, even though there are
many outdated things in it. But with any changes, Constitutional
fundamentals should never be questioned.
Charity and acts of mercy Novaya: Recently - you might have seen it in
blogs - the NGO Mothers of Beslan have shown discontent. The guardians
and parents were taxed for the living and education expenses of their
children in Korallovo college. [The college was established by Mikhail
Khodorkovsky for orphans and children who suffered in terror acts and
whose parents suffered as well. His parents work there.] The state
does not spend money on that, but recovers taxes. And this is not
the only case. When I pay for a sick child's treatment as a private
citizen, I know: parents will have to pay 13% as a revenue tax. Those
who receive this money from us, have collected it with difficulty to
cure their child (there are many examples), they cry, but have to go
and pay tax. It's probably reasonable to change the Charity Law?
Medvedev: The Charity Law needs improvement. The problem is in details
as usual. Of course there are obvious cases of acts of charity
and helping sick children and elderly persons. But there are less
evident cases, when people are tempted to use this money channel for
commercial purposes. We need to learn (with the help of legislation)
how to tell the money directed for charity from the money transferred
to fulfill commercial tasks.
Novaya: Making acts of kindness must be made easier. Suppose, you see
a picture of a sick child in a newspaper, underneath there is a cell
phone number, you dial - and the money is taken from your account. An
act of kindness is absolutely available. But the telephone companies
take an unthinkable per cent for this service, so the whole idea
is spoilt.
Medvedev: Bright idea! Everything is to be done fast. Also the
possibility for an act of kindness needs to be equal for both the
rich and the poor.
Charity is important on both large and small scale (to stimulate it
we have passed a law on creating trust funds) . Small scale charity
is no less important. I always give this example: we are ashamed
to donate 100 roubles for a sick children support fund or for the
university where we studied. But why? Because we doubt whether 100
roubles is enough, they might think that you are kidding.
But in other countries, it's not bad to send a dollar to the beloved
university or to the municipality of your native town, because people
think it normal behaviour And we are to encourage somehow important
social undertakings. I think that it's right - to carry out acts of
kindness regardless of income and the sum of the donation.
By the way we have such a practice. The Central Bank organized an
interesting campaign. They started issuing special payment cards. By
opening such a card you agree that a certain per cent from the purchase
sum will be taken for charity. [Central Bank and Chulpan Khamatova's
foundation "Grant life".]
Novaya: Social ideas are important and often do not require great
expense. Valentina Melnikova's Soldiers' Mothers Committee, a couple
of military enlistment offices and us conducted an experiment:
young soldiers were given cell phones to have a chance to call
prosecutors or mothers or their girl-friends. We were informed that
cases of humiliation of conscripts by senior servicemen have greatly
diminished. Suppose, we call it pricing plan "Soldiers'" and by the
end of the service period it's "Dischargees'"...
Medvedev: It's a good idea. Military crimes are dangerous first of
all because of their concealed character. The Military Prosecutor and
investigator learn about very few cases, let alone the courts. But
modern means of communication of course helps a lot.
Grannies will save Russia.
Novaya: We have recently written about the town of Maysky. You might
have heard this story - it's connected with you. There was a rumour in
Maysky town, in the Kabardino-Balkaria region, that President Medvedev
will soon arrive to see his grandmother who lives there. What did
the authorities do when they failed to find the granny? To be on the
safe side they laid roads in the town. They removed tons of garbage,
paved the town square, put street lamps up. The citizens are happy. I
think we should spread a rumour about grannies of Medvedev, Surkov,
members of Parliament in various towns - probably local authorities
will wake from a trance due to fear.
Medvedev: Not bad technology.. I understand what you are talking
about. Many years ago right in Maysky, Kabardino-Balkaria region
if I'm not mistaken, my grandfather worked for the district Party
committee. Though it was long ago, about 60 years ago.. Maybe that's
where the information came from...
Internet and television. Freedom of speech.
Novaya: The Internet is one of the few remaining public discussion
forums. Do you think officials are trying to control the web?
Medvedev: I don't think it's true. The Internet is not just one
of a few forums, it's the best place for discussion. Today, there
simply is nothing else as socially important, as active in its
household presence and, at the same time, as suitable for direct
communication. I've voiced my view of the Internet more than once,
and I'll say it once again: we have to create normal conditions for
the development of the internet in Russia. As an active and immersed
internet user who accesses it daily, I think Russia needs a legal
base for its development - meaning both laws and organization.
Without organizational support, the internet will not be able to
fully develop in our country.
Recently, I've attended the launch of WiMAX [a telecommunications
technology used in a variety of devices, from desktop PCs to mobile
phones, providing high-speed Internet access with the use of IEEE
802.16 standard] in Armenia. Now, I envy my Armenian friends - it's
a small country, and they've got WiMAX coverage everywhere, in every
single place. You can drive across the country and watch TV in your
car: you get a high-speed signal via wireless.
In Russia, the situation is different: we are a very large
country, and we had to spend a lot even to provide all schools with
Internet access. It took a lot of organizational effort and state
participation. I managed this programme personally. It's great that
we now have internet access in all schools, it has also helped it to
develop in smaller towns and villages which are a long way away from
the country's center.
As for legal regulation, it has to be sensible. We don't have to be
light years ahead of the rest of the world: we just need to think
about creating a legal environment which will not limit the internet's
development, on the one hand, and block online crime, on the other. The
internet shouldn't be viewed only as a potential criminal environment,
more dangerous than other environments. The internet is not evil.
Novaya: Outstanding Russian writer and analyst Dmitry Oreshkin
once said the USSR couldn't create computers, because even copiers
were controlled by the KGB. They would not let anyone have their own
personal computer equipment. But it takes a special, free environment
to modernize the country. You've mentioned elections, controlling
bureaucracy, the internet. Does it mean that President Medvedev is
set to rehabilitate democracy in Russia?
Medvedev: You know, I think democracy itself doesn't need any
rehabilitation. It's a historical notion, as well as a supranational
one. That's why democracy doesn't need rehabilitation anywhere. There's
also one other issue. Russians have come to associate the basic
institutions of democracy with the very complicated political
and, what's more important, economic processes that went on in the
1990s. Hence the perception of the term. But this has more to do with
personal experience than the overall attitude to democracy. That's
why I don't think we need to rehabilitate it. There was, there is
and there will be democracy.
Novaya: I've recently watched Andrey Khrzhanovsky's film on Brodsky,
there was that wonderful quote: 'Inhumanity is always the easiest
thing to organize in Russia'. In fact, inhumanity is always easy,
while justice and freedom are difficult. I wish you luck on your
difficult journey.
Medvedev: Thank you. It is only right, because it really is more
difficult...
Russia Today
http://russiatoday.com/Politics/2009-04-15/M edvedev_s_Declaration._Year_2009..html
April 15 2009
Russian Presidents Dmitry Medvedev was interviewed by Novaya Gazeta
on April 13 in his residence "Gorki". He said this was "his interview
to a Russian publication, but he would continue the practice with
other newspapers
In his interview Russian President told Novaya Gazeta about the
country being free and full, the election in Sochi, the Yukos
case, his non-affiliation with any party, web censorship, and the
"rehabilitation of democracy".
About Sochi Novaya (Muratov): I would like to begin with more general
questions, but there are some urgent ones. Maybe it is better to cancel
the election in Sochi altogether rather than faking it? This simulation
seems more cynical than cancellation. The court removed Lebedev from
the candidates list and Nemtsov is not allowed to campaign.
Medvedev: I don't know yet who was removed and how, but in any case
there is a fully valid political fight going on in Sochi. And it is
good that different political forces participate in it. In my opinion
many municipal elections lack variety. People don't have anyone to
choose from, they are bored.
It is true that people usually choose politicians they understand,
not famous celebrities, but the more interesting events like that we
have, the better it will be for our election system, for democracy.
As far specific circumstances - at every election there will be
candidates who will lose, candidates who will be removed from the
list, this is the way it goes everywhere in the world. But on a whole
I think such campaigns are good for democracy.
Social contract. Going back to the subject of food and freedom
Novaya: On April 15 you will hold the President's Council, focusing
on the issues of civil society and human rights. I was glad to see
intelligent and honest people on the Council list - Auzan, Simonov,
Svetlana Sorokina, Elena Panfilova, Yurgens, Irina Yasina, and there
are more. Do I understand it correctly that today this civil society
is more important for you than the society of government officials?
Medvedev: You know civil society is a category that Russia doesn't have
full understanding of yet. Everywhere in the world civil society is
the flip-side of the state. The state is not just a political machine,
it is a form of life organization based on state power and supported
by law. Whereas civil society is a human dimension of any state. And
even though it functions within the framework of legislation, it
has its own human laws, which do not always appear in the official
form. Not too long ago many people didn't even understand what was
meant by "civil society". The state was a somewhat clear category.
But what is civil society? A society of citizens? But we all are
citizens of our country. But now there is already understanding that
civil society is an essential social institution of any state. A
feed-back. Institution. An organization of people that are outside
official posts, but actively involved in the life of the country. And
meetings, contacts between the country's President and representatives
of this civil society are absolutely necessary. I would like to note
that these contacts are never easy for any power.
Because of civil society, human rights activists always have many
complaints addressed to the state and its leaders. They have many
questions. And we don't always want to answer questions. But that is
exactly why these contacts should be regular. Including the Council
that you mentioned. I expect to have an interesting discussion. Most
likely, it will be tough. But that's why it is so valuable.
Novaya: For several years there has been an unspoken contract between
the state and the society (the majority of it, to be exact): the state
keeps the society full and comfortable to an extent, and in return,
the society stays loyal to the state and tolerant.
Medvedev: You mean the "democracy in exchange for prosperity", or
"freedom for food" propositions?
Novaya: Yes, and now when there is no more prosperity, what do you
think this contract should look like? I will not even use the word
"warming", it is more of a total "defrosting" of society. Neither
society, nor the state can fight the crisis alone, they will be forced
to talk.
Medvedev: No doubt, the social contract is one of the best human ideas,
and it played an important part in the development of democratic
institutions in the world. We know the roots of Rousseau's idea,
but if we are talking about the modern interpretation of the social
contract idea, I would say that its construction is part of our
Constitution. The Constitution itself is a special agreement between
the state, on the one hand, and citizens of this state, on the other.
Novaya: Agreement on what?
Medvedev: On how to execute power in our state, our country. In this
context, the social contract means that some powers that a person has,
in accordance with the natural law, are transferred to the state,
so that the state would provide for the person's prosperity, life,
and freedoms.
But I think we can never set a stable, good life against a list of
political rights and freedoms. It is not right to set democracy against
food. On the other hand, we do understand that intricate civil rights
and freedoms can be threatened if society is unstable. If its basic
wellbeing is not ensured. If people don't feel protected, if they
don't get paid, if they are unable to buy basic foods, if their life
is threatened.
Therefore I don't see any contradiction in your question. It is
obvious to me that this social contract has its roots not just in
famous theories of 17-18th centuries, but also in our Constitution.
Novaya: Do you suggest Russia should combine freedom and wellbeing?
Medvedev: Yes.
State employee. His income, services, wives, rights Novaya: The main
function of society today is of course to control red tape. To control
the services that this red tape provides to the society. How do you
think this can be done? The whole country was reading the income
declarations of your subordinates as well as the Prime Minister's
subordinates.
Medvedev: They all probably enjoyed the reading?
Novaya: They did. But it is not clear who will check if these
declarations are true. A whole society of "poor" husbands and wealthy
wives was formed in our country in a matter of days...
Medvedev: It is one of the major objectives of any state to control
red tape, government officials. The state must control its officials,
who serve this state. And of course a whole range if different control
procedures is involved.
We started doing this already some time ago, and I can't report any
huge success. However, if we compare today's situation with the 90s,
I think things are much better today. Control systems at least have
their legal procedures, and as someone with a legal mind I can tell
you - procedures are very important. And their execution provides
for law enforcement in the society as a whole, legal awareness, the
level of legal nihilism that I have talked about many times, depends
on it. That's why we have a significant number of procedures now.
Some time ago we changed our legislation regulating state service. I
myself began to work on that when I was still in the Presidential
administration. We accepted a rather relevant, contemporary law about
the basics of state service, accepted laws on different kinds of
state service, and this work is still going on, there are a number
of new things in this area.
Also recently we accepted a whole package of anti-corruption laws and
some changes into the state service legislation, including the part
where it talks about declaring income, and other serious and useful
things. In my opinion, the main problem now is not the absence of
laws on control, but their diligent execution.
Of course, that is the most difficult thing. Because when red tape is
supposed to control itself, this is not a pleasant thing, I know. But
we still need to make sure that these procedures are observed, even
though nobody likes to control themselves, limit themselves. But this
is what sets a civilized society apart - it has learned to do it.
As far declaring goes - this is just one of control institutions. An
important one, but not all inclusive. It is a very good thing that
first time in Russia's history (this has never happened before -
neither under Tsars, nor in Soviet times or in the recent history)
all high-ranking officials did not just report to the tax office their
income and incomes of their close relative, they made them known to
the people. This is the habit that should be formed without causing
any allergic reactions.
I might get the following question - does this publication of
declarations mean that we now control all high ranking officials
and other government workers? Of course, not! But at least we took
this first step in the right direction. And if a person declares his
income year after year, and the high ranking officials, I repeat,
do not just declare their income, but publish it, then at least this
person has to think about the nature of his/her assets, and what means
are used. I think that our officials are regular Russian citizens
and they have a very important mission.
Novaya: Regular Russian citizens?
Medvedev: Absolutely regular, just like everybody else.
Novaya: Just with beacons on their vehicles.
Medvedev: Not all of them. This is a common misconception. We have
millions of state workers, and an insignificant number of them have the
right to this type of transportation. So - by declaring and through
other forms of control we create a chain of events which eventually
will make up the person's history.
Novaya: Official's credit history?
Medvedev: Why not? They are regular people by all means. You mentioned
wives for example. I think any person can decide for themselves how to
organize their family life. And there is nothing special in the fact
that officials' wives do business. The question is - how transparent
is it? And also are there conflicting interests in this?
If an official is involved in regulating processes in one field or
another and their spouse works in a major company in this area, it is
not ethical. But if this is some other business, then it is ok. That is
how it is everywhere else in the world. There is no taboo on officials'
spouses doing business. It is an issue of personal integrity and
knowing the limits. And publicizing incomes of officials and their
close relatives should create this culture. May be not right a way. And
I will say it again, this will be some kind of history. History
of a person as a leader and history of his family. This might not
be pleasant, because you don't always want someone to discuss your
spouse's income. But this is part of an official's public image.
Every person has a choice! You can stay in business absolutely
legally, but at the same time make money, not publishing any reports
anywhere. Banking confidentiality should be guaranteed in Russia,
just like in any other country. But you can make a different choice.
You can become a state employee, an official, but in this case this
person, especially if he thinks about the future and structures his
career accordingly, has to understand that at some point he will have
to uncover a part of his private life. It is a conscious choice, but
those who decide to do so, must understand - it is inevitable. And
this can make certain things uncomfortable for the family.
Novaya: Have you personally felt the officials' negative reaction? Or
did they have a good understanding of your decision to publish the
declarations?
Medvedev: You know my post of the President allows me to be exempt
from listening to officials' negative reactions. I made the decision,
and they all have to follow it.
About courts and "Khodorkovsky - Lebedev case" Novaya: Mr. Medvedev,
from this "human judgment", when tax returns are made public and
an official's "credit history" emerges, I would like to move to
your favorite subject - courts and their independence. I want to
ask about "the Yukos's second case". Could you foresee this case's
outcome? Unfortunately, the outcome of the first one was obvious
to all who were following the story. Is it obvious this time? I
received the following letter - "At first Medvedev will just call
most of the judges, including the Yukos case judge and tell them -
you are independent, you are independent, I would like to remind you -
you are independent, independent, independent!" This manual control
in order to restore the judging institution.
Medvedev: I can tell you that there are major downsides to any manual
management. And I am not even talking about courts now. We need to move
towards making sure that the state machine can work in a reasonable
automatic regime. And now about courts and the specific case.
I have a relatively short answer to that. May be for some the outcome
of one case or another is predictable. It is the freedom and benefit
of a person who doesn't have any state obligations, and is a free
analyst, for example, who says: I think this is the way it will
be. And then he will say - see, I told you, - or, - Sorry, I was
wrong. But for a state official, and especially for the President,
there is no such freedom to comment and never will be.
Predictability of a court decision, court sentence is unlawful. This
is a sign of breaking the law. As far as all other free commentators
are concerned - it is their business. For state officials and the
President there can be no predictability in any court case, including
the one you mentioned.
Novaya: Just now you basically repeated the famous saying from the
18th century, by emperor Fredrick. I'll quote using Mamardashvilly's
lecture as the source. When Frederick wanted to take away the mill
from the mill owner, the mill owner told him: "Mr. Emperor, besides
you, we have judges in our country..." And, having left the mill
owner alone, Fredrick ordered an inscription to be written there:
"Mr. Emperor, besides you, we have judges in our country". Lucky mill
owner, he had judges, besides the Emperor.
Medvedev: There are other thoughts on this issue - Hume, for example,
said: "The whole political system exists only in order for the judges
to carry out their functions independently"
Novaya: Excellent thought...
Party membership for the President Novaya: Before we move on to the
subject of charity, I would like to ask you. There has been rumours,
are you going to join one of the political parties? May be even the
ruling one?
Medvedev: Just recently I was talking about it when I met with United
Russia. And I told them that there is a tradition in our country that
the President does not belong to any party. And at a certain stage
this is the right thing - I have always thought so.
Because our political system is underdeveloped. It needs to develop,
needs to mature. It does not mean that we should never have the
President belonging to a political party and say it is impossible
to have that in our country.People belonging to political parties or
leading political movements, become Presidents in other countries. We
don't have it yet. The question is - when are we going to be ready for
this? It is an issue of political experience. An issue of political
life.
Novaya: So there is a need to reform the elections system some time
in the future, to have real competition between parties?
Medvedev: I think that election legislation, legislation on parties and
social unions is very flexible legislation. In my opinion, it needs
to be changed regularly. This is how it is in other countries. And
it is a normal process in our country.
I would be a lot more careful when it comes down to changing civil
laws, for example, which stipulates citizen's property, property rights
in the country, conventional institutions, inheriting mechanisms,
because these are fundamental things. Napoleon's Code was accepted
200 years ago. And it functions just fine, even though there are
many outdated things in it. But with any changes, Constitutional
fundamentals should never be questioned.
Charity and acts of mercy Novaya: Recently - you might have seen it in
blogs - the NGO Mothers of Beslan have shown discontent. The guardians
and parents were taxed for the living and education expenses of their
children in Korallovo college. [The college was established by Mikhail
Khodorkovsky for orphans and children who suffered in terror acts and
whose parents suffered as well. His parents work there.] The state
does not spend money on that, but recovers taxes. And this is not
the only case. When I pay for a sick child's treatment as a private
citizen, I know: parents will have to pay 13% as a revenue tax. Those
who receive this money from us, have collected it with difficulty to
cure their child (there are many examples), they cry, but have to go
and pay tax. It's probably reasonable to change the Charity Law?
Medvedev: The Charity Law needs improvement. The problem is in details
as usual. Of course there are obvious cases of acts of charity
and helping sick children and elderly persons. But there are less
evident cases, when people are tempted to use this money channel for
commercial purposes. We need to learn (with the help of legislation)
how to tell the money directed for charity from the money transferred
to fulfill commercial tasks.
Novaya: Making acts of kindness must be made easier. Suppose, you see
a picture of a sick child in a newspaper, underneath there is a cell
phone number, you dial - and the money is taken from your account. An
act of kindness is absolutely available. But the telephone companies
take an unthinkable per cent for this service, so the whole idea
is spoilt.
Medvedev: Bright idea! Everything is to be done fast. Also the
possibility for an act of kindness needs to be equal for both the
rich and the poor.
Charity is important on both large and small scale (to stimulate it
we have passed a law on creating trust funds) . Small scale charity
is no less important. I always give this example: we are ashamed
to donate 100 roubles for a sick children support fund or for the
university where we studied. But why? Because we doubt whether 100
roubles is enough, they might think that you are kidding.
But in other countries, it's not bad to send a dollar to the beloved
university or to the municipality of your native town, because people
think it normal behaviour And we are to encourage somehow important
social undertakings. I think that it's right - to carry out acts of
kindness regardless of income and the sum of the donation.
By the way we have such a practice. The Central Bank organized an
interesting campaign. They started issuing special payment cards. By
opening such a card you agree that a certain per cent from the purchase
sum will be taken for charity. [Central Bank and Chulpan Khamatova's
foundation "Grant life".]
Novaya: Social ideas are important and often do not require great
expense. Valentina Melnikova's Soldiers' Mothers Committee, a couple
of military enlistment offices and us conducted an experiment:
young soldiers were given cell phones to have a chance to call
prosecutors or mothers or their girl-friends. We were informed that
cases of humiliation of conscripts by senior servicemen have greatly
diminished. Suppose, we call it pricing plan "Soldiers'" and by the
end of the service period it's "Dischargees'"...
Medvedev: It's a good idea. Military crimes are dangerous first of
all because of their concealed character. The Military Prosecutor and
investigator learn about very few cases, let alone the courts. But
modern means of communication of course helps a lot.
Grannies will save Russia.
Novaya: We have recently written about the town of Maysky. You might
have heard this story - it's connected with you. There was a rumour in
Maysky town, in the Kabardino-Balkaria region, that President Medvedev
will soon arrive to see his grandmother who lives there. What did
the authorities do when they failed to find the granny? To be on the
safe side they laid roads in the town. They removed tons of garbage,
paved the town square, put street lamps up. The citizens are happy. I
think we should spread a rumour about grannies of Medvedev, Surkov,
members of Parliament in various towns - probably local authorities
will wake from a trance due to fear.
Medvedev: Not bad technology.. I understand what you are talking
about. Many years ago right in Maysky, Kabardino-Balkaria region
if I'm not mistaken, my grandfather worked for the district Party
committee. Though it was long ago, about 60 years ago.. Maybe that's
where the information came from...
Internet and television. Freedom of speech.
Novaya: The Internet is one of the few remaining public discussion
forums. Do you think officials are trying to control the web?
Medvedev: I don't think it's true. The Internet is not just one
of a few forums, it's the best place for discussion. Today, there
simply is nothing else as socially important, as active in its
household presence and, at the same time, as suitable for direct
communication. I've voiced my view of the Internet more than once,
and I'll say it once again: we have to create normal conditions for
the development of the internet in Russia. As an active and immersed
internet user who accesses it daily, I think Russia needs a legal
base for its development - meaning both laws and organization.
Without organizational support, the internet will not be able to
fully develop in our country.
Recently, I've attended the launch of WiMAX [a telecommunications
technology used in a variety of devices, from desktop PCs to mobile
phones, providing high-speed Internet access with the use of IEEE
802.16 standard] in Armenia. Now, I envy my Armenian friends - it's
a small country, and they've got WiMAX coverage everywhere, in every
single place. You can drive across the country and watch TV in your
car: you get a high-speed signal via wireless.
In Russia, the situation is different: we are a very large
country, and we had to spend a lot even to provide all schools with
Internet access. It took a lot of organizational effort and state
participation. I managed this programme personally. It's great that
we now have internet access in all schools, it has also helped it to
develop in smaller towns and villages which are a long way away from
the country's center.
As for legal regulation, it has to be sensible. We don't have to be
light years ahead of the rest of the world: we just need to think
about creating a legal environment which will not limit the internet's
development, on the one hand, and block online crime, on the other. The
internet shouldn't be viewed only as a potential criminal environment,
more dangerous than other environments. The internet is not evil.
Novaya: Outstanding Russian writer and analyst Dmitry Oreshkin
once said the USSR couldn't create computers, because even copiers
were controlled by the KGB. They would not let anyone have their own
personal computer equipment. But it takes a special, free environment
to modernize the country. You've mentioned elections, controlling
bureaucracy, the internet. Does it mean that President Medvedev is
set to rehabilitate democracy in Russia?
Medvedev: You know, I think democracy itself doesn't need any
rehabilitation. It's a historical notion, as well as a supranational
one. That's why democracy doesn't need rehabilitation anywhere. There's
also one other issue. Russians have come to associate the basic
institutions of democracy with the very complicated political
and, what's more important, economic processes that went on in the
1990s. Hence the perception of the term. But this has more to do with
personal experience than the overall attitude to democracy. That's
why I don't think we need to rehabilitate it. There was, there is
and there will be democracy.
Novaya: I've recently watched Andrey Khrzhanovsky's film on Brodsky,
there was that wonderful quote: 'Inhumanity is always the easiest
thing to organize in Russia'. In fact, inhumanity is always easy,
while justice and freedom are difficult. I wish you luck on your
difficult journey.
Medvedev: Thank you. It is only right, because it really is more
difficult...