Elections—2000

Hosted by Mikhail Sokolov

Mikhail Sokolov:

The result of the parliamentary elections: in the new Duma there will be a precarious balance of two coalitions - right-wing pro-government forces and communists and "Fatherland - All Russia". Parliament's decisions will depend on how independent MPs are grouped.

There will not be many famous politicians in the new Duma. Democrats Andrei Kozyrev and Konstantin Borovoy, communists Yuri Voronin and Yuri Belov, anti-Semitic general Albert Makashov, Komsomol member Daria Mitina and social democrat Olga Beklemishcheva, socialist Svyatoslav Fedorov and tyrant fighter Telman Gdlyan, vice-speaker Sergei Baburin and Mikhail Yuryev. In parliament there will be no prominent Yabloko deputies Valery Borshchev and Vladimir Averchev, businessman Vladimir Semog, former Zhirinovite Alexander Vengerovsky, former Deputy Prime Minister Alexander Zaveryukha, economist Pavel Bunich, director Galina Volchek, and the faction of the Our Home is Russia movement.

We invited today to discuss both the past and the future of the parliament of famous people, whose opinions on the prospects of the Third Duma will be of interest to our listeners. A conversation with those who will not be in the new, third State Duma, with famous politicians Gennady Burbulis, Ella Pamfilova, Alexei Podberezkin and Viktor Sheinis, will be aired in the Radio Liberty program “Elections 2000”.

Today the guests of the Moscow studio of Radio Liberty are deputies of the outgoing second convocation of the State Duma of Russia: Gennady Burbulis (he worked in the Duma as an independent deputy, parliamentary experience - since 1989 he has been a people's deputy of the USSR); Ella Pamfilova (part of the Russian Regions group, people's deputy of the USSR from 1989 to 1991, and since 1993, deputy of the State Duma); Alexey Podberezkin (was a long-time member of the Communist Party faction, independent since 1999, in the Duma since 1993) and Viktor Sheinis (Yabloko faction, began in 1990 in the Supreme Council of the RSFSR).

Our guests and politicians, well known in Russia, will not be part of the third State Duma. Well, in my opinion - unfortunately.

And I would like to ask the first question to Gennady Burbulis. What is the main thing that parliament has done and what has not been done?

Gennady Burbulis:

It seems to me that the second Duma laid the foundations of professional parliamentarism, which, I very much hope, will be developed and consolidated by the new composition of the Duma.

And that nightmare, and those offensive and shameful scenes with endless political discussions and scandals, and opportunistic decisions - they, however, were not decisive for me. We are approaching that professional highest legislative body of the country, which, I hope, will be more and more engaged in real lawmaking, and less and less in political, party, scandalous discussion.

It’s bad that our Duma was never able to pass a land law. Russian land was and remains today without an owner and without a clear legal basis for it to work economically. It’s bad that our regulations for the work of the Duma are skewed specifically towards factional-party activity, and the basic legislative committees are in second or third place... But in general, I believe that the foundation of professional parliamentarism in Russia has been laid, and it will be developed by the new Duma.

Mikhail Sokolov:

Thank you. Victor Sheinis, please.

Victor Sheinis:

I agree with Gennady Eduardovich on some points. I think that in general, although it is customary to scold the outgoing Duma, and the media have tried a lot in this, first of all, television, which is not interested in showing how people work in committees, but if someone pours water on someone or hits someone on the head, then it is interesting, it is spectacular... And to a large extent, under the influence of these scenes, the idea of ​​the State Duma was formed.

I think the Duma really did something. In my opinion, there were several reasonable economic laws. First of all, a series of laws on production sharing agreements, where it was possible to reach an inter-factional consensus. When it came only from Yabloko, it failed, when an agreement was reached with other factions, it went away.

In general, there was an inclination towards lowering taxes, contrary to the stubborn desire of the most rabid part of the communist faction to raise taxes in every possible way - “let the rich pay.” A law on guaranteeing deposits was adopted - unfortunately, not approved by the president. Again, based on some populist considerations, this law was resisted. They say that poor people did not have deposits. Not understanding how important it is to have a reliable system of reserving money and creating the necessary savings funds for the development of the national economy.

What obviously did not suit me in the last Duma was not the politicization itself (I think politicization is normal and good). And the factional structure, unlike Gennady Eduardovich, suited me. But the continuous adoption of completely meaningless resolutions condemning this, condemning that... Resolutions in favor of Yugoslavia or resolutions in favor of Iraq, resolutions against NATO, resolutions in favor of an alliance with Belarus, and so on. This, in my opinion, is a net deduction from the work of the Duma.

Mikhail Sokolov:

Thank you. Alexey Podberezkin. View from the left.

Alexey Podberezkin:

I, of course, do not agree with Viktor Leonidovich’s last statement that... Note that all the resolutions that he listed - against Yugoslavia, against NATO, against Iraq - they all had a certain character. I just think that this was useful, but I agree that there were a lot of unnecessary laws, unnecessary specifications, a lot of completely unnecessary regulations.

After all, think about the numbers. We have adopted more than six hundred laws. But each of them has four readings. Multiply by four, right? Plus - a lot of all sorts of amendments to laws, regulations, and God knows what. More discussions. Such “overload” inevitably affected the quality of work. That is, it was impossible to isolate the priority.

Therefore, such things as the Tax Code, there, the Land Code and much more were left out. But what I regret most is something else. The Duma, which obviously bore the political burden, had two chances - in September 1998, and then again in the spring of 1999 - to achieve agreement and sign documents. This agreement, stability... I participated in the preparation of these documents...

Mikhail Sokolov:

"Under" Primakov.

Alexey Podberezkin:

The point is not that - “under someone”. In fact, for me personally, let’s say, Primakov is not much different from Stepashin, and Stepashin is from Putin. In general, this is a statist tendency, in general, with certain nuances. In my opinion - not very big. But the fact is that a society without stability, without consent, in principle, cannot now develop and solve its problems.

The branches of government must learn to negotiate. There is another alternative to this, here. What we saw in 1993, in 1991, right? And the most important thing is different. No issues are being resolved. The people, the very voters we care about, are living worse and worse at this time.

So, the most offensive thing, in my opinion, is that it was not possible to do, including through the fault of our faction, first of all, to sign an agreement on consent, on political stability. This was, of course, a huge mistake, a political defeat.

Mikhail Sokolov:

Thanks to Alexey Podberezkin. Ella Pamfilova.

Ella Pamfilova:

I will not talk about the good things about our Second Duma that my colleagues have already said. I will say the main thing that the Duma did not do, but what it should have done. She did not lay down qualitatively different moral criteria, say, high standards in order to change the rules of the political game.

Throughout the work of the Duma, it formed double standards. She had a double morality. And our so-called ones, including the left opposition... I think that Alexey Podberezkin will agree with me, because I think that one of the reasons for his leaving the Communist Party faction was precisely this... Our so-called “left opposition” has long learned to negotiate with the Kremlin. An agreement has long been concluded between the Kremlin and the “pocket” left opposition, which under no circumstances wanted and does not want to take power into its own hands.

This is precisely the reason for the failure of impeachment and much more. What do I mean by double standards? These are the so-called notorious parliamentary privileges. It would seem like a trifle. In fact, it is very significant. Because when they talk about social justice, but they row under themselves - this is significant. This, again, is the quality of the legislative power, the moral quality of the legislative power.

This is a very serious thing that they did not do - they did not limit parliamentary immunity. As a result, what have we done now? The current elections, in my opinion, are unprecedented in terms of dirt. The fact that they were black, they were dirty, they were tough. Precisely because the Duma did not create powerful barriers to the penetration of crime into power. That is why it was such a tough and dirty fight.

Money bags - I will say this, a banal thing - those who have large finances, those who have information resources, they have practically blocked all the roads to normal independent candidates for deputies. This dirty political game that we observed during these elections has led to the fact that the current composition of the Duma, the third Duma, in this sense will be even more cruel, there will be even fewer moral criteria, there will be even more manipulation. This is a sad conclusion.

Mikhail Sokolov:

Thank you, Ella Alexandrovna. I think that you just asked the second topic. This is the difference between the new Duma and the old one. Well, I don’t know if everyone will agree with such a harsh sentence. Victor Leonidovich Sheinis, what do you think?

Victor Sheinis:

First of all, I don't know this. As the British say, you can only experience pudding by eating it.

Mikhail Sokolov:

But there are already lists.

Victor Sheinis:

There are lists, but to a large extent these are lists of people unknown to anyone. This, in my opinion, is very bad, because people should predominantly be elected to parliament who have already earned a certain name through work that corresponds to what needs to be done in parliament. That is why I, being criticized from different sides, have always supported the idea of ​​party lists and party selection of those candidates who are offered to society.

Mikhail Sokolov:

Well, well, the party lists “worked”...

Victor Sheinis:

But the party lists, unfortunately, did not “work” enough. And the defect of the law, in my opinion, is that it was extremely easy to create quasi-party formations in the form of blocs. When the legislator supported the creation of blocs, he proceeded from the fact that normal parties were being formed through the bloc. In fact, we see how certain structures were created, which began to crumble a week after the elections.

I would like to object to Ella Alexandrovna and the very widespread belief in society that all evil, or at least most of the evil, lies in parliamentary immunity. I strongly disagree with this. Mainly, here's why. Firstly. Remove parliamentary immunity, and then you will make the deputy absolutely dependent on the local authorities, on the ability to blackmail him with anyone, in any way, and so on.

Ella Pamfilova:

And now is it...

Victor Sheinis:

First of all... No. At least, nothing like this has ever been done against me and my comrades. This is the first thing. Secondly. The idea that parliamentary immunity is some kind of armor is a very naive idea. During my entire time working in two Dumas, well, in my memory, there were four appeals from the Prosecutor General’s Office with a request to lift immunity and allow the conduct of the case. In two cases the Duma easily agreed. This is Mavrodi and Khachulaev. In two cases - Zhirinovsky and Senkevich - in the previous Duma...

Mikhail Sokolov:

Belyaev, why, was still there...

Victor Sheinis:

No, there was no request from the prosecutor’s office against Belyaev, as far as I know. If, in fact, the appropriate evidence is presented, the corporate interest may or may not work. But immunity is a form of protection for a deputy.

And - about benefits, privileges. My conscience is clear. I have always voted against this law. My faction was the only one that voted against the law in two decisive votes, both February and June. But I think that there is also a lot of exaggeration here.

Mikhail Sokolov:

Alexey Podberezkin, your opinion. That's all: the third Duma - will it really be so terrible due to the huge number of people who either want to take advantage of parliamentary immunity, or come to power under the cover of governors or parties in power? That is, these are, well, let’s say, not independent politicians or even party politicians, but simply puppets of some specific persons?

Alexey Podberezkin:

Well, I wouldn’t make such a forecast now, because the Russian intelligentsia is characterized by reflection. There is always something so terrible... The last thing, now... Zyuganov likes to say that in the fall there will be a rebellion, a riot. But then ten years pass - somehow it doesn’t come, you know?

Mikhail Sokolov:

Well, why? Another spring offensive of the working people is always promised.

Alexey Podberezkin:

Well, that goes without saying. Well, no need to exaggerate. Nothing will happen. And the Duma will not be any worse. In my opinion, people are about the same, just as gray, unfortunately. In general, democracy is not the best way - by the way, a bad way, in my opinion - of selecting people for the leadership of the country. Because they don’t choose according to their minds... and who has more money, who has more information support...

Victor Sheinis:

Which way is better?

Alexey Podberezkin:

Monarchy, of course. Certainly. I just understand that this is unrealistic now. Well, okay, God be with him. But regarding benefits. Here I agree with Viktor Leonidovich. All this is exaggerated. You see, for example, in four years I didn’t get an apartment or a dacha there, I never used a voucher, I never went on vacation at all, right? Pah-pah-pah, I’ve never even been to a hospital, but to the clinic that’s there... right? So what would I get out of this? I didn’t call for a car either, because, thank God, I have my own. The office is such that, in general, it’s not even very convenient to invite people into it, so I don’t often hold receptions there...

Therefore - well, why talk about it? In my opinion, the topic is completely empty. Although, perhaps, unfortunately, for some this is too much. This country is so poor that many people are eager to do it precisely because it is too much for them. This is bad. A deputy, in principle, should be such a deputy, such a self-sufficient person, in my opinion, who would not need an apartment, a car, or these opportunities there... a fax... Well, in the end, you are not so poor to pay for your fax there, right? And therefore you will not be so dependent on your deputy mandate.

Therefore, now I would neither exaggerate all these, so to speak, horrors, both present and future, nor make any dangerous predictions. I can say this. And, by the way, all my predictions were confirmed, that’s what’s nice. They usually say that, well, I made a mistake, but it’s always good here...

Therefore, I can still say that 1999 and 2000 will inevitably be a change of elites. Analogous to what happened in 1990-91. And, by the way, here we are also representatives, in part, of the outgoing generation. Other people will come. They may be worse, perhaps they will be better. They will just be different. The elite will change. Just as in 1990 it changed by ninety percent, so now it will change. For better or for worse, that's another question. And how she can continue to work is also a very serious question.

Unfortunately, in ten years we have not learned to think conceptually. There are no strategic programs, especially those that would be implemented. Maybe now Putin has come up with something, maybe he will succeed? But this will be the first, in my memory, attempt since 1990 to come up with something like this in public administration and implement it.

Mikhail Sokolov:

Gennady Eduardovich Burbulis. Gennady Eduardovich. Well, you are, after all, the president of the Strategy Foundation. This word has already been uttered here, firstly, and secondly - after all, he is a specialist in changing elites. You succeeded once, in 1991. What is your opinion about the Third Duma?

Gennady Burbulis:

I believe that the Third Duma will be much more prepared in such important areas as committee heads, deputies, and subcommittee chairmen. That is, it is obvious to me that somewhere around sixty to seventy deputies came to the Duma, having extensive experience both in the executive branch and in the legislative branch. And in this sense, they form the backbone of competent, professional and responsible legislators.

As for the “dark lists”, this is the same disaster that Viktor Leonidovich Sheinis created for many years, as one of the active developers of the current law...

Mikhail Sokolov:

Together with President Yeltsin.

Gennady Burbulis:

For me...

Victor Sheinis:

The law is still separate from President Yeltsin...

Mikhail Sokolov:

Who signed it?

Gennady Burbulis:

It is absolutely obvious to me that we must somehow convince today’s Duma to amend this law, and choose... First, we must, of course, reduce the composition of the Duma. Four hundred and fifty people, with all the efforts of Podberezkin and the entire intellectual elite, we will never be able to have a full-fledged parliament. Two hundred and fifty people can fully cope with the work that lies ahead.

Secondly, dear Viktor Leonidovich, as long as there is at least one person in our country who strives to get into the Duma only because there is parliamentary immunity, it must be abolished. And it is absolutely obvious to us, no matter what we say today, that such people exist, and they got into the Duma, and this is very bad. Another thing is that today the norm of immunity is a constitutional norm, and this is due to difficult but desirable amendments to the Constitution.

And finally, perhaps most importantly. We have a rare opportunity when the Duma learns to ensure agreement with the executive branch to a greater extent than has been achieved so far. There is also the factor of the presidential elections, and the person of Putin as a reflection of the urgent need in society for some kind of certainty, for some kind of political stability. And I have a feeling that the Duma will be able to support society today in these expectations.

Mikhail Sokolov:

You know, this is probably the main question, or one of the main questions during the election campaign - the Chechen war and its impact on the political system, on what was happening. How will this war further influence the course of Russian history? Well, let's start with Gennady Burbulis.

Gennady Burbulis:

In the most serious way. And perhaps even more serious than this influence has been so far. It is quite obvious to us that the entire post-election landscape is largely connected with the problem of the North Caucasus and the completely unusual role of Vladimir Putin, the Prime Minister, as such a core of power in the country today, including on the problem of Chechnya.

For me, the most alarming thing is that we fall into the temptation that has already been experienced many times - to deceive ourselves. Because Chechnya is not only a desirable fight against terrorism, but it is also a grueling war, and an excessively expensive one. And today we must have the courage to admit these enormous costs and somehow explain them to society and to ourselves, at least.

Second. Chechnya today is also a powerful psychological trauma. Perhaps it has not yet been fully identified as a dangerous social disease. But people are worried about how the Chechen situation will develop in the coming months and what results it will manifest.

And finally, third. It must be admitted that Chechnya today is a very serious geopolitical factor for Russia, which causes severe confrontation both between Europe and Russia, its closest neighbors, and Western civilization as a whole. It’s time to realize that from an internal problem it has turned into a serious, protracted problem for many years, including a diplomatic and political problem.

Mikhail Sokolov:

Thank you. Well, now, probably, Ella Aleksandrovna Pamfilova. I would still like to look at the same problem through a woman’s eyes. Well, people are dying... Then, you went there, you saw a lot in this region.

Ella Pamfilova:

I’ve never been in favor of war at all, that’s natural. This is absolutely unnatural. Moreover, before the election campaign, and during, and now, I am convinced that this is how they were criminal-commercial and pre-election, both the last war and the current war, the trend can be traced very clearly, obviously... and there is a cynicism of the situation in this.

That is why I am not in this euphoria, the “pro-Putin” euphoria that our society, in general, is suffering from now. Because it is impossible to raise the Russian spirit, the spirit of the people, in war and blood. I was convinced of this. And very soon it will really come out, it will come out very scary. This is what my colleagues were talking about, I would generally view this war as a trend of some kind, as Podberezkin said, of a change in the political elite. I don’t yet see that the elite of a new formation is coming. I still see attempts by the old elite to wash their faces. To me, the current elite reminds me of some kind of rat pack, which is feverishly trying to replace the rat king, rushing back and forth.

From the point of view of this trend, and our Duma is new... and from the point of view of the general trend of the ongoing political processes, I am frightened by the harsh cynicism that now prevails, which is being imposed on society, public opinion by our youthful, laundering elite.

The fact is that this war... Now they are taking advantage of the army’s feeling of being disadvantaged. Indeed, the army was “smeared” last time. Now they are trying to play on this. They are trying to play on the fact that the entire people of Russia feel a sense of disadvantage, that, indeed, we are not taken into account in the world community, that we have been thrown to the sidelines of world processes. The North Caucasus is, indeed, a gaping open bloody wound on the body of Russia. And the fact that it has now become such a sore point in the struggle of geostrategic interests... This is all true.

And I believe that Putin’s authority, the authority of the current elite, will not be able to last long in the war in Chechnya.

Mikhail Sokolov:

Thank you. Alexey Podberezkin, as far as I understand, you support the government’s actions in Chechnya? Your view... By the way, I also don’t have a feeling of a change in the elite; on the contrary, I see: in many cases, a widely ramified network of intelligence officers, the KGB, simply comes to the surface... Now it’s under different names, but they now operate in almost all power structures, like such a real party in power.

Alexey Podberezkin:

Firstly, employees of the special services (especially, say, foreign intelligence services, military intelligence) are not the worst and most professionally poorly trained people in our society, in Soviet society. I would even say, probably, the best people. Do you remember how you got selected there?

I was graduating from MGIMO, and we had, say, two best assignments: to the United Nations and to the Foreign Intelligence Service.

Mikhail Sokolov:

Because they paid in foreign currency.

Alexey Podberezkin:

Not only that. And this was also very prestigious, and they were selected based on the brain factor very highly. Therefore, these people are not the worst, I am sure, and for the most part they are even stronger than on average our representatives of the so-called establishment or the so-called elite. Therefore, I don’t see a big problem in this, on the contrary.

But in general - yes, you said correctly, my position is known, I am, as it were, a 100% statist, so for me things are obvious. The state is obliged, even if it is scary, if it is painful, to control one hundred percent of its territory. This is not because you want it or not, it is simply obligatory. The state is obliged to prevent terrorist acts. The state is obliged to destroy terrorists...

Ella Pamfilova:

Sorry, can I have a question? But if first, this state, or rather this elite, artificially creates this outbreak, and then fights with it, how is this to be understood?

Alexey Podberezkin:

One second, one second. I don’t bear responsibility, Ella Alexandrovna, rather, I have a question for you...

Ella Pamfilova:

Yes.

Alexey Podberezkin:

Who created it? You were in the government at that time. I am in opposition all the time. I’m a classic oppositionist, I’ve even grown old with this stigma, I’m scared to go into power, I’m already tired of being an oppositionist. But, in any case, I am terribly conservative. You cannot throw such a reproach at me. I was precisely in favor of the fact that in 1991, I helped Rutskoi prepare a decree to introduce armed forces there, and it would be easy to restore order there.

This means that I believe that there simply cannot be such a question here. If you don't like the pain, I don't like it either. But if this sore threatens to poison the body, it must be cut off. I'm not saying this is good or bad. We must understand perfectly well that only idiots and idiots, maybe even criminals, like war. There are no normal people who like war. It's inevitable. The war must end with victory. War is just a political tool. And the political task is to stabilize the situation in the Caucasus, in that part of the territory that belongs to Russia.

Mikhail Sokolov:

Thank you, Alexey Podberezkin. Word to Victor Sheinis. Viktor Leonidovich, how would you react to what is happening if we take this hypothesis: the Chechen war brings to power a wide layer of KGB officers, other special services become power in Russia and put their own person at the head of the state?

I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but that's how many people feel.

Victor Sheinis:

I am a staunch opponent of conspiracy theories. I am a staunch opponent of explaining history by saying that some group of people in some complex way thinks through certain chess combinations that lead to such and such.

I was involved in Chechnya. I have been there more than once, and I worked in a State Duma commission, when those officials whom we could drag onto the carpet told us all sorts of details. I think that this is, to a large extent, the result of a spontaneous collision of different forces.

I was an opponent of the first war. I believed, and continue to believe, that a lot was missed then, as, indeed, in 1990-91. But here is the situation today. What's done is done. Khasavyurt. You can treat it differently, there is a certain fact. An attempt was made to postpone the solution to a complex issue and solve those issues that can be solved. Humanitarian issues, economic, border, traffic, and so on.

What happened? The result is a painful abscess that constantly infects the state. This includes energy traffic, and the slave trade, and illegal income, and the theft of oil, as the least terrible thing of all that happened. And, finally, direct aggression in Dagestan.

What was to be done after this? The question for me is posed on a slightly different plane. I, unlike Alexei Ivanovich, have a rather skeptical attitude towards our special services, towards the people in the special services, and I think that they were selected not only on a professional basis, but also on the principle of... well, as they once said, business and political qualities, that is, to a large extent they selected conformists.

I understand the danger of empowering these people. But at the same time, the state has no choice but to eliminate this outbreak. Another question is how to eliminate it. And this, in my opinion, is the main issue that we have not yet touched upon today, and which often goes unnoticed, where Yavlinsky’s statement was completely incorrectly interpreted. Well, of course, there were pre-election considerations, it was necessary to distort his thoughts. It was not about stopping the suppression of terrorism. The point is how to suppress terrorism.

And here two options opened up. One option: access to the Terek, a blockade, a strict blockade, and eliminating the possibility of aggression from this territory. The other path that we took, and which - I really agree with my colleagues here - can be very costly, because every life, including the life of people under the control of Chechen formations, is priceless.

Mikhail Sokolov:

Thank you. And I want to have another round of discussion on this issue. What will happen as a result? It may turn out that Vladimir Putin will become a president who will have no opposition, not only in the form of the State Duma, constructive opposition (I do not mean the communists), but even in the form of the media, since we practically do not see criticism of the real government, of what is not being done, for example. That is, the amorphousness of the Russian media at the moment, in connection with the war, or in connection with some interests, is very high.

Which way will Russian society develop in connection with the presidential elections, and what will happen next? Alexey Podberezkin, please.

Alexey Podberezkin:

I understand what you are hinting at, whether we are sliding towards authoritarianism. You know, I don't think so. We have already created all the material prerequisites for civil society to be considered a fact.

Mikhail Sokolov:

What about the spiritual?

Alexey Podberezkin:

But as for the spiritual, it’s more complicated, of course. Here we still have a lot to do, I think, especially since the resources are enormous. We use it poorly. But as for the fear, there is, say, some new dictator, an authoritarian regime there... I don’t know, especially, God forbid, there are some Nazi tendencies... I’m not afraid of that.

Society, in fact, has stopped reacting to all sorts of nonsense. Society began to understand that there are fundamentally important things. I am absolutely convinced that society feels this. And the arrival of Putin, unless, of course, once again, behind-the-scenes intrigues are not merged, so to speak... by some oligarch, which, by the way, is quite likely... Putin’s arrival is completely natural. There was a victory in many ways, in fact... there was fraud, of course, the OVR was rigged, "Bear" was rigged, there were a lot of such examples...

Mikhail Sokolov:

And the communists, I think...

Alexey Podberezkin:

And the communists, of course, almost certainly came to an agreement with “Bear”, because it was very profitable to negotiate - so, objectively. You see, the communists turned a blind eye to how “Bear” was “wetting”, in the words of a famous politician, OVR, and giving the go-ahead for this, and “Bear” in the same way watched how the communists were “wetting” the opposition. In order for them to stay smaller, not control the situation, not be responsible for anything and play their double game, you know? After all, then you can say whatever you want, without being held responsible for anything. This is an ideal situation.

Now it’s possible... Zyuganov can speak out, let’s say... He can quite calmly speak out against the government, for impeachment, for God’s sake, and against the budget... Try it before, but suddenly the budget is ruined - they will disperse the Duma there, and he will also be deprived of his chair. And now - each party secretary has received a soft seat - in the Duma, I mean. And everything is fine, everything is fine, we achieved our goal. Therefore, I do not rule out collusion; moreover, I assume it. This political deal most likely happened that way.

But that's not the point. I would like to emphasize the idea. There was objective support for Putin. The people wanted strength, they wanted power, they wanted them to stop talking less. You see, this is it... Politicians, in fact, don’t invent anything. At best, they reflect some kind of mood. If a smart politician - more, if not, then...

Mikhail Sokolov:

Viktor Leonidovich Sheinis, from your point of view: the people wanted Putin, and... but somehow they didn’t want Yavlinsky...

Victor Sheinis:

For me, the results of these elections showed that there has been a separation - I'm afraid for a long time - of our political class from society. Remember the same year 1989-90, crowds of people, amateur performances, and so on. Now we have something completely different. We have, if not predictable, then fairly controlled behavior of citizens and voters.

There is a political class that solves various problems within itself. Moreover, it is not so significant - new people, or old people, the same characters, or some other characters... I think that the elections (not that they themselves) showed a very annoying feature: we took a step back from civil society.

And, in this regard, I remembered the words from the very bright Russian author Don Aminaldo at the beginning of the twentieth century: “The people are first silent, then they stand under the banners, then they stand in line, then again they stand under the banners, and then they are silent again.” I am afraid that this is precisely the evolution we are going through now.

Mikhail Sokolov:

Ella Aleksandrovna Pamfilova, well, do you agree?

Ella Pamfilova:

The thing is...

Mikhail Sokolov:

A very pessimistic view.

Ella Pamfilova:

My colleagues confirmed my idea that it was not a change of elites, but a conspiracy within this rat pack, which found a new rat king. I speak very rudely. Now in general, after these elections, there is unprecedented manipulation of public opinion. It was not chosen by the people, but indicated to the people. They showed him the political stall where he needed to go. Unprecedented information aggression, unprecedented, dirty technologies and much more.

But what would I like to say? Indeed, the trend is very dangerous. Our political elite is indeed terribly far from the people, even more distant than ever before. And now, excuse me, our political arena reminds me of a menagerie. Well, that's how it goes. The entire campaign took place under the auspices of animals.

For whom, if this is really true, if this is not a manipulation of votes, for... well, I won’t say - young wolves - getting younger, where is the leader of the pack, Anatoly Borisovich Chubais. For the bear that Boris Abramovich Berezovsky has on a leash. I don’t know now how Chubais and Berezovsky will divide Putin, who, naturally, is also influenced by both the Family and the oligarchs. And the people were given the illusion of some kind of independence, an independent, independent politician. Complete hoaxes. And the current Duma is the fruit of an election hoax.

Look, indeed, a certain political menagerie has arisen, which is very far from the people.

I have a lot of respect for Apple. But this, you know, if we put it this way in language, I think to myself that the cat that walks on its own, excuse me, doesn’t want to join one or another flock, so does “Apple.” Zhirinovsky. It could be such a cocky cockerel, or, in general, an affectionate calf that suckles two queens at the same time. Our Communist Party of the Russian Federation reminds me of crayfish that turn red depending on the political temperature, or back away, and so on, and so on.

It's scary. It's scary. The entire campaign was conducted without ideology, without programs. I will never believe that our voters just voted for the cartoonish “Bear.” A quarter of the population voted for an amorphous, incomprehensible, hasty unification? I think very well of our people, so it’s easier for me to think that these elections are the fruit of hoaxes and manipulations than that they are a conscious choice. If it's a conscious choice, it's scary.

Mikhail Sokolov:

Thank you, Ella Aleksandrovna Pamfilova. Well, Gennady Eduardovich Burbulis will complete this circle. But you will have to live, apparently, with what you have. That is, with the virtual Duma, with “Bear”, with Putin... How to live then?

Gennady Burbulis:

In fact, I became convinced that there is an inexhaustible resource for our population, our society, a resource for self-survival...

Mikhail Sokolov:

You're talking about patience, right?

Gennady Burbulis:

A resource of patience and mercy. And I would like to somehow apologize to Ella Alexandrovna for the experiences that she is now carrying within herself.

It seems to me that, despite everything, a normal, very promising attitude towards politics as a profession is being formed. This is completely inevitable when people enter this profession without knowing either their abilities or the requirements that it implies. It is absolutely inevitable when they are seduced by it, as if narcotically, striving for power at any cost. And for me, the elections were another proof that, albeit very slowly, albeit at enormous costs, professional political activity is being formed in our country, and society has the opportunity in the future to not treat politics so nervously and so tensely every day (nrzb).

Mikhail Sokolov:

Gennady Eduardovich, can I still interrupt you?

Gennady Burbulis:

Yes.

Mikhail Sokolov:

But aren’t you embarrassed by the fact that as a result of the elections, the first role in the country will be taken by a person who is not just cynical about both voters and politics (I mean Putin), but a person who easily tells lies to fellow citizens?

Gennady Burbulis:

It seems to me that Putin today works more as such a social psychotherapist. He solves some problem, which is by no means a political-strategic one. He solves a therapeutic-medical problem. If there is at least some reason for the well-being of those millions of people who need certainty today... The biggest problem for society and for the country is long-term uncertainty.

Even if it is utopian, even if artificially created in many ways, this is what rightly outrages Ella Alexandrovna today, but... My dear colleagues, this is the case when, indignant, from a moral, individual point of view, we must recognize some things that are socially necessary here. And I am more inclined to support such a Putin than to once again start a quarrel and a dump around the prime minister, president and Duma seats.

Mikhail Sokolov:

Thank you. We talked with deputies of the second State Duma of Russia Gennady Burbulis, Ella Pamfilova, Alexey Podberezkin and Viktor Sheinis about the future of the third State Duma and the upcoming presidential elections in Russia.

Our next broadcast, January 13, will feature the results of the gubernatorial elections in the Tver, Moscow and Novosibirsk regions.