Radio Liberty - Programs - Elections

Presenter Mikhail Sokolov

The first round of elections to the legislative assembly of St. Petersburg was a victory for Yabloko; Yuri Boldyrev’s bloc came second. The right-wing bloc "Consent" did not do very well. The failure of the NDR is obvious. Anatoly Chubais sums it up.

Anatoly Chubais:

Among the candidates who made it to the second round, the situation is not very simple. For now, the main thing we can say is who failed. The communists failed, and the bandits failed. Both are absolutely obvious.

Mikhail Sokolov:

Luzhkov's supporters were not visible on the banks of the Neva, although the Moscow mayor's new ruling party, Fatherland, is sweeping across Russia. Former comrades-in-arms of Chernomyrdin are running under the red banner with the patron saint of the capital, George the Victorious.

Democrats are also uniting. An organizing committee of the right-wing democratic coalition has been created. Liberals together - Chubais, Nemtsov, Gaidar, Kiriyenko. Even the satirist Mikhail Zhvanetsky is with them.

Mikhail Zhvanetsky:

Am I right? Well, I’m so right-wing that everyone will follow me, that’s why I’m so right-wing.

Mikhail Sokolov:

Right-wing liberals and democrats are overcoming the political ambitions of the leaders who previously united them. They enter the field, freed by the collapse of the NDR. They emerge under the strict leadership of Anatoly Chubais. We will talk about all this in the “Elections-98” program.

In St. Petersburg, the results of the first round of elections to the city's legislative assembly have been summed up. Six deputies of the previous assembly were immediately re-elected. Among them is the leader of the local Yabloko party, Mikhail Amosov.

According to political scientists, up to forty candidates who made it to the second round are in opposition to Governor Vladimir Yakovlev. About thirty on his side.

The second round included 23 candidates from the Yabloko bloc, 17 from the Yuri Boldyrev bloc, several communists and four candidates from the Harmony - United Democrats bloc, created by the St. Petersburg branch of the Far Eastern Republic.

Why is the result this way? I asked Deputy of the State Duma of Russia Yulia Rybakov to answer this question.

Yuliy Rybakov:

Unfortunately, here, in fact, the entire blame lies with the leadership of the St. Petersburg branch of the DDA, which did not agree to an agreement and alliance with those who were ready to help them, which was interested in remaining the only leading force in that conditionally called “Consent” bloc, which in fact should have been called the “Disagreement” or “Dissent” bloc.

The fact that they were the leading force in this bloc suited them. In fact, we know the end result. Although it was generally obvious.

In many ways, probably, the result of this failure also depended on the fact that the “Consent” bloc had a certain Moscow Foundation for Presidential Programs of Mr. Batanov working as a leading and guiding, organizing force. With their new technologies and wide lifestyle, they did not and could not fit, in fact, into the style of St. Petersburg life and understand and find a common language with the voters of St. Petersburg.

Mikhail Sokolov:

There was a lot of talk about different lists, and it is not really clear what happened to those people who were supported by the Northern Capital association created by Galina Starovoitova. It is believed that none of them made it to the second round.

Yuliy Rybakov:

In fact, this is not true at all. The “Northern Capital” was not created to nominate its own candidates. We initially excluded this option so as not to create unnecessary stress.

Our task was only to help the Democrats unite and help the most experienced and most credible of them to support them in this nomination, which was done.

Shortly before the death of Galina Vasilievna, our council, the council of the “Northern Capital”, which included Oleg Basilashvili, Vasiliev, Oksana Dmitrieva, Illarionov and I, Starovoitova and I reviewed all the lists of all the candidates in the city who were proposed by certain democratic blocs and organizations, that is, “Yabloko”, Boldyreva, “Consent”, independent deputies and Starovoitova’s Far Eastern District.

From these lists, from these two hundred, roughly speaking, people, we selected the most, in our opinion, responsible and decent people and before the elections we published our list of support (only support) in the newspaper published by “Northern Capital” and which went to every mailbox of a resident of our city.

We wrote that we ourselves do not nominate any candidates, this was done by already existing political organizations in the city, but we understand that among the hundreds and hundreds of people who are now offering themselves, there are certainly a lot of decent people, which is quite difficult for the average voter to understand. And it is almost impossible to be sure that this is the person to vote for. Therefore, we have done a lot of work and recommend, from all those lists of Democrats that are in the city today, a group of people who, in our opinion, best meet the task assigned to them.

Our list, which had only one candidate for each, included representatives of Yabloko, representatives of Boldyrev, representatives of the Harmony bloc and the Far Eastern Democratic Republic. As a result, half of this list is now in the second round. Thus, we completed our task.

Although I am very sorry that disagreements with the leadership of the St. Petersburg DDA and their reluctance to work with the “Northern Capital” led to the fact that the DDA received only four candidates from those who made it to the second round. The result would, of course, be different in that democratic sector, which today can already be considered to have entered the city assembly; there could have been significantly more right-wing democrats than what happened.

Not many candidates were removed in favor of Yabloko. But Yabloko refused to remove anyone, and since their positions were stronger, they were actively working in the city even before the election campaign, before the start of the election campaign, unlike the DDA, naturally, they had more chances.

Mikhail Sokolov:

The success of Boldyrev’s supporters does not mean that such a force led by Yuri Boldyrev may appear at the federal level?

Yuliy Rybakov:

Undoubtedly. This success obviously suggests that all those who today criticize the existing order, regime and economic relations receive the trust of voters. Therefore, this tool will continue to be used.

Mikhail Sokolov:

This was the opinion of Deputy of the State Duma of Russia Yuliy Rybakov.

The situation in St. Petersburg before the second round of elections to the city's legislative assembly, which will take place on December 20, is analyzed by Radio Liberty correspondent Viktor Rezunkov together with political scientists.

Report by Viktor Rezunkov

Victor Rezunkov:

The first round of elections to the legislative assembly of St. Petersburg is over. To discuss the results of the past elections, we invited two political scientists to the studio of the St. Petersburg bureau of Radio Liberty - Deputy General Director of the Politika Foundation Vladimir Zaikin and President of the Humanitarian and Political Science Center "Strategy" Alexander Sungurov.

Alexander Sungurov:

The most important thing is the failure of those sophisticated Jesuitical and borderline technologies that many used and considered St. Petersburg as a testing ground for testing technologies for elections to the State Duma, as a competition between teams of image makers who competed for Luzhkov’s patronage, as has already been said, I think that those teams that competed for Luzhkov’s patronage lost.

And Peter showed that voters can think, analyze and filter out all this psychological noise and subconscious play and so on. I would like to note that the voting results showed a decrease in support for the radical spectrum. This means that, on the one hand, the leaders of the Far Eastern Republic, Sychev, did not pass, and on the other hand, the leader of the United Communists faction. Both of them did not make it to the finalists. This is also quite significant.

Vladimir Zaikin:

Nothing particularly surprised or amazed me about the elections in St. Petersburg. All those conversations about the super-criminalization of the city, about super-dirty election campaigns are largely emotional.

Unfortunately, the campaign went on as it does in many regions of Russia. These dirty technologies, perhaps for the first time, were shown so openly on television and in the media.

They exist, unfortunately, in many regions of Russia. First of all, this is due to the fact that the Central Election Commission and local election commissions simply do not resist the use of these technologies. And for this reason, strictly speaking, elections are often not free.

Plus, it is the passivity of voters that allows them to be used. In this case, the results of these elections are very joyful and very encouraging. St. Petersburg residents did not allow their elections to be unfree largely because they came to vote. This is a conclusion for the whole country.

Victor Rezunkov:

In the second round, in six of the 44 districts, candidates from Yuri Boldyrev’s bloc and the St. Petersburg branch of the united “Yabloko” are pitted against each other. On December 7, immediately after the elections, the Political Council of this association turned to Yuri Boldyrev with a proposal to negotiate the support of certain candidates from the two blocs who made it to the second round. Yuri Boldyrev, in an interview with Radio Liberty, categorically refused to meet Yabloko.

What do political scientists think about this?

Alexander Sungurov:

It would be great, of course, if there was some kind of agreement between Yabloko and Boldyrev’s bloc. As far as I know, Yabloko has already proposed such an agreement to declare support for candidates and some kind of agreement on these six districts, or at least on a civilized solution to problems, so as not to create difficulties for future cooperation in the legislative assembly.

But, as far as I know, unfortunately, while Yuri Boldyrev refused the offer to join the anti-criminal front, since he is above all agreements, he himself knows better what to do, which again raises great doubts about his ability to adequately assess the situation in real work.

But nevertheless, I think that Yabloko will strive for this and thereby gain points, because for St. Petersburg residents this association has a very good sign - those who divide will lose their points. This charisma of Yuri Boldyrev, so to speak, is not eternal, it can settle quite well in this regard.

Vladimir Zaikin:

Firstly, we can say that, in general, the main task of the elections in St. Petersburg has been solved. The overwhelming majority of candidates from the democratic part of the spectrum made it to the second round. And all the candidates who made it through the first round are also Democrats.

Well, inter-party squabbles among the Democrats are beginning. For God's sake, let them figure out which of them is dearer to voters. This is already easier. I hope that during this struggle everything will be done within the framework of the moral code, which they themselves seemed to support at the first stage. This is the most important thing.

Now a situation has arisen - those who tried to conduct the campaign cleanly won. So now they must remember that they should not waste this credit of trust in the second round, so that voters do not say: well, these are like that too.

Victor Rezunkov:

According to Vladimir Zaikin, judging by the results of the first round of elections to the legislative assembly of St. Petersburg, we can talk about the imperfection of the electoral system as a whole.

This imperfection was especially clearly manifested in the 41st district, where two well-known democrats - Alexander Druzd and Valery Ostrovsky - were opposed by the little-known Sergei Shevchenko (by the way, his name is on the criminal list unofficially distributed by the St. Petersburg prosecutor's office).

Sergei Shevchenko advanced to the second round. Alexander Druzd and Valery Ostrovsky lost.

Vladimir Zaikin:

This is the same example that I spoke about - the Central Election Commission, and everything comes from it. Our election commissions are built on the principle of a ministry-department; it often turns out to be either powerless or seemingly unwilling to notice an obvious violation of the law.

The Election Commission does not take a principled position in relation to violations. Election commissions of all levels. This problem that we have before the 1999 elections is simply, I would say, in full force. Because presidential elections are somehow easier there, because attention is focused on the activities of three or four people. There will also be a huge number of candidates throughout Russia.

There are a significant number of electoral associations in majoritarian districts, and if this continues, the legal chaos will reach the level of the election campaign. And in general, what was the democratic system of building a campaign. This is a very destructive process.

It seems to me that the issue has become urgent in general regarding the reform of election commissions. Yes, in 1993 they were formed exactly like this. There should be more democracy in the introduction of representatives of public organizations into the commissions, including the Central Election Commission, which is being practically formed entirely as an agency.

Now many people seem to understand that the same collection of signatures in support of candidates is just business, and nothing more. It does not at all characterize public support for candidates. This means we need to switch to some other methods. For example, paying a deposit.

Victor Rezunkov:

In St. Petersburg, there have long been rumors about the existence of a certain gubernatorial list of candidates for deputies of the legislative assembly.

Judging by the lists of candidates who made it to the second round, of all the deputies of the legislative assembly of the first convocation from the Patriots of St. Petersburg faction who held a pro-governor position, there are only two left - Viktor Novoselov and Vatanya Gilgya, who made it to the second round.

According to Vladimir Zaikin, there was no trace of any governor’s list.

Vladimir Zaikin:

The concept of a governor's list arose under the influence of the Luzhkov list that was in the elections of the Moscow City Duma. But I must tell you that, generally speaking, he practically did not exist either.

In reality, the mechanism there was like this - there was a list of people in each of the districts, not just one, who were, as it were, not disgusting to Luzhkov. Then only at the last stage, depending on who was going where, a list was already determined, as if from one surname for each district. Everything was much more complicated there. Well, we must take into account the level of authority of the mayor in Moscow and the governor in St. Petersburg. It is different, although Yakovlev’s is also considerable.

Therefore, if we assume that the governor needed pocket legislative power, this problem has not been solved. Quite the opposite. But at the same time, we assume that this is exactly what he needed, and we did not find any clear evidence of this. The list signed by Yakovlev was not published.

Victor Rezunkov:

That is, in your opinion, it cannot be said with certainty that a powerful pro-governor group will not arise in the new legislative assembly.

Vladimir Zaikin:

A purely political science question arises - what is this association called “Yuri Boldyrev Bloc” really like? On the one hand, this is a very bright surname, a bright personality, under which voters voted.

On the other hand, it is absolutely neither politically nor organizationally structured. And what will be the fate of those deputies, and, apparently, quite a significant number of them will enter the legislative assembly, is difficult to predict in the future.

It may well be that they will somehow end up on that notorious governor’s list. Anything can happen, despite the current very harsh statements against it from Boldyrev personally.

On the other hand, of course, we see that the more politically structured the legislative body, the more efficient it is. This means that the legislative assembly will be significantly more productive than the legislative assembly of the previous composition. This is already the result of the current election campaign.

Victor Rezunkov:

So, the forecasts of political scientists. How do they see the legislative assembly of St. Petersburg of the second convocation after the elections on December 20?

Alexander Sungurov:

I think that in the second round of elections we will get further gains, good results from both blocs. First of all, Yabloko, because it will conduct a competent campaign. The Boldyrev bloc, on the one hand, has Boldyrev himself, on the other hand, there are bright people from former council deputies who, even without Boldyrev’s bloc, would have won completely.

At the same time, on the other hand, here are ten communists who were on the list; I think three or four people will pass from them, maybe five, maximum. Moreover, even in those districts where they are in the lead, there is a chance of forming opposition to them.

In this case, the united faction of communists may even be smaller than it was, and it was five people. There will obviously be fewer supporters, who have already just entered the second round from the obedient pro-governor lobby, that is, it is clear that the parliament will be more independent. This is clear.

Whether Yabloko and the second faction will be able to come to an agreement among themselves if they wish, as I already said, or whether life will lead to a split or splitting of the Boldyrev bloc into pragmatists who will be in agreement, and radicals who will be against any agreements, time will tell.

I see little opportunity for Boldyrev to drift into Yavlinsky’s position, although I hope for the opportunity. Therefore, I more foresee the second option, that Boldyrev will split into two groups, one of which will be ready to cooperate, and the second will be irreconcilable, just as the Yablokoites tried to be irreconcilable in the beginning.

Vladimir Zaikin:

Firstly, it is absolutely clear that the legislative assembly of St. Petersburg will consist of democratically minded people. The second thing is that it will be much more structured than the previous one.

And third, a question arises here, to which I do not yet have an answer - will the elected deputies use this greater structure, greater politicization of the legislative assembly, greater democracy for the benefit of the city residents or, God forbid, will they get drawn into political squabbles in anticipation of the upcoming gubernatorial elections.

I would still like the first tendency to win - that no matter how they treat the governor, no matter how the governor treats them, in the dialogue - sometimes very tough, very uncompromising - the tendency should still win, first of all, everything should be aimed at the benefit of the residents of St. Petersburg, they deserve it. They, by coming to the elections in such numbers, rebuffing all these petty, dirty technologies, they showed that they expect exactly this from the legislative assembly.

Victor Rezunkov:

This is the opinion of two political scientists - Vladimir Zaikin and Alexander Sungurov - who came to the St. Petersburg bureau of Radio Liberty to discuss the results of the first round of elections to the legislative assembly.

Mikhail Sokolov:

The rapid process of party building continues in Russia. It was the ruling party of the NDR of Viktor Chernomyrdin - it was, but it all came out.

Officials fled to the Fatherland movement of Yuri Luzhkov, where at the head of the Fatherland the mayor of the provincial capital is in opposition to the head of the region, where, as in Kemerovo, the regional committee of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, and where the governor himself is, as in Nizhny Novgorod.

Oleg Rodin talks about this.

Report by Oleg Rodin

Oleg Rodin:

The founding meeting of the regional branch of Luzhkov's Fatherland movement was held in a solemn atmosphere in Nizhny Novgorod. The initiator of the creation of the Nizhny Novgorod branch of "Fatherland" was Governor Ivan Sklyarov personally. The first members and co-founders of the branch were heads of district administrations, officials, bankers, entrepreneurs and directors of enterprises who had fairly close contacts with the administration.

According to local analysts, a new party of power is being created to replace Viktor Chernomyrdin’s NDR movement. A well-known person in the city, General Director of JSC Gidromash, Vladimir Luzyanin, assured that this movement meets the interests of the majority of both Nizhny Novgorod residents and Russians.

The initiator of the constituent assembly, Nizhny Novgorod governor Ivan Sklyarov, is convinced that the postulates of the new political movement echo the ideas of many Russian governors.

Political scientist Sergei Kotcherov expressed the opinion that if Luzhkov fails in the presidential elections, the party in power will easily find a new leader.

Mikhail Sokolov:

But in Murmansk, Governor Yuri Evdokimov, who is creating his own “Fatherland,” has competitors. Leonid Apanasov reports.

Report by Leonid Apanasov

Leonid Apanasov:

There are already three initiative groups in Murmansk, one of which is headed by the governor himself, the other is under the patronage of the chairman of the regional trade union council Marina Grinnik, the third is located in the management of the Murmansk Shipping Company, and is led by the general director of the enterprise, Vyacheslav Ruksa.

In other words, government officials, labor movement leaders, and major industrialists are ready to participate in Luzhkov’s movement. And judging by the activity of its leaders, Fatherland is ready to seriously advance both Yabloko and the second most influential party, the Liberal Democratic Party, in the region.

A representative delegation is going to leave Murmansk for the founding meeting of the new movement on December 19, which will resolve issues with the registration of the movement and will recruit its new supporters.

Mikhail Sokolov:

Fun competition flourishes. There are either two or three “Fatherlands” in Mari-El. Elena Rogacheva reports from Yoshkar-Ola.

Report by Elena Rogacheva

Elena Rogacheva:

At the end of November, two organizational meetings were held with a short interval. At both, different people announced the creation of a branch of the bloc.

The first initiative group included 24 individuals who were very influential in Mari-El. This team is led by Advisor to the President of the Republic for Culture Konstantin Polishchuk.

The second group included representatives of social movements, including "Derzhava", KRO, the Association of Reserve Officers, and the Cossacks. The chairman of the Derzhava branch, Alexey Gorbunov, was elected head of this group.

Also, with a short interval, the Ministry of Justice of the Republic received two applications from the initiators to register a branch of the Fatherland bloc. Both of them refuse to comment on this turn of events, although they do not exclude the possibility of a compromise.

It cannot be said that various political preferences became the stumbling block; rather, ambitions and the desire to join a real force played a role.

Mikhail Sokolov:

But in Vologda, State Duma deputy Vladimir Lopatin was simply exposed as an impostor. Dmitry Filatov talks about this.

Report by Dmitry Filatov

Dmitry Filatov:

The first founding meeting was held by an initiative group based on a trade union basis. The 45-year-old writer Sergei Alekseev, author of the books “Treasures of the Valkyrie” and “Aliens,” was elected head of the cell. His candidacy was agreed upon in Moscow with the political council of Fatherland, with the leaders of the KRO and the Labor Union, Rogozin and Isaev.

A few days later, State Duma deputy Vladimir Lopatin, elected from the local district, arrived in Vologda from Moscow and started forming his own organization. A meeting of the initiative group was immediately held, at which the regional cell council was elected.

It is curious that the head of the city of Vologda Alexey Yakunichev and the mayor of Veliky Ustyug Vitaly Filimonov, who were not at the meeting, were included in this council. Then both reported through the media that they had nothing to do with this organization.

Vladimir Lopatin stated that he has exclusive rights to create a regional organization "Fatherland". The fact is that Lopatin is Yuri Luzhkov’s deputy on the Russian-Japanese Committee of the 21st Century. One of the local newspapers published an alleged copy of the power of attorney issued to Lopatin by Luzhkov himself.

Last Tuesday in Moscow a meeting of a delegation of Vologda residents took place with the head of the organizing committee of the all-Russian Fatherland movement, Viktor Mishin. The delegation included the leaders of two Vologda initiative groups - writer Alekseev and deputy Lopatin.

During the meeting, Viktor Mishin stated that he supported the legitimacy of the first group of Vologda residents led by Alekseev. This group will be represented at the upcoming founding congress of the movement in Moscow. Vladimir Lopatin was invited to take part in the congress as an ordinary member.

Mikhail Sokolov:

In general, the person responsible for domestic party work, the former first secretary of the Komsomol Central Committee, Viktor Mishin, a week before the congress of the Fatherland movement scheduled for December 19, will not be easy to figure out who is who in the new party in power.

I asked the first vice-speaker of the State Duma, a member of the Political Council of the NDR movement, Vladimir Ryzhkov, to comment on the process of the emergence of the Fatherland movement.

Yuri Luzhkov’s “Fatherland” movement began to actively take shape, and a number of governors have already left the NDR for Yuri Luzhkov. What will happen to the NDR in this process?

Vladimir Ryzhkov:

This, of course, saddens us. Nobody is happy when someone leaves your house. Of course, this upsets us. But it seems to me that Yuri Mikhailovich is making the same mistake that was made three and a half years ago. He forms a movement based on a resource, a personality, a power, and not an idea.

Now no one can formulate what the ideology of “Fatherland” is, even in general terms. That is why people move from one movement to another with such ease, because it is not connected with beliefs and any values ​​that are formed. We will see the exact number of those who transferred, 19, when the congress takes place, then it will become clear what we have lost and what Luzhkov has gained.

As for the prospects for Fatherland, of course they exist, because Luzhkov is a popular person in Russia. He has the reputation of being the mayor of a prosperous capital, which everyone believes he made prosperous. He has the reputation of a rich man, which also attracts many regional leaders to him.

But I would not rush into the fact that all regional leaders will come to Luzhkov. This is wrong. I believe that this will become obvious at the congress.

Mikhail Sokolov:

Many members of the NDR faction are pushing the leadership of the movement to conclude a strong alliance with the Fatherland movement together with Luzhkov. What actually comes out of this?

Vladimir Ryzhkov:

Nothing works. There was one short meeting between Shokhin and Mayor Luzhkov, and it ended without result. He made it clear that he did not understand the essence of the negotiations and the essence of a possible merger with Fatherland.

It seems to me that, again, these are nervous steps that have no real basis, no theoretical basis. What does a union mean, on what principles is the union, around what policies, on what values ​​will all this be based?

My colleagues, it seems to me, are driven not by the desire for an alliance, but by the desire to get a more successful overlord than Chernomyrdin.

Mikhail Sokolov:

Do you predict that some deputies will leave your NDR faction to form an already official group of the Fatherland movement? Will the same story repeat itself as with Russia's Choice, when it fell apart on the eve of the parliamentary elections?

Vladimir Ryzhkov:

So far this has not happened, the creation of a Proluzhkov group, although several attempts have already been made. In particular, it is known that General Nikolaev tried to create such a group.

This is not happening for one simple reason: Luzhkov has not yet appointed the main one - the one who will officially create this group on his behalf. And the struggle for the place of this chief, as far as I know, is very active among the State Duma deputies. I don’t want to name names; they are well known.

In this case, if such a group is created, some of the deputies will leave the NDR. And I am sure that this will happen. But I firmly predict that at least two thirds will remain in the NDR and will work until the elections.

Mikhail Sokolov:

Will the NDR survive at all as an influential political force?

Vladimir Ryzhkov:

We have not lost, I think, all our resources, both material and power, so they will narrow, but we have not lost them completely. The question is whether it will be an influential force and whether it will be able to claim the 5% barrier and, accordingly, a seat in the Duma.

This will depend on two things - to what extent we will retain the powerful material resource and to what extent we will be able to gain popularity in society, at least with some part of society. Now we are not so popular.

This will depend entirely on the leader of the movement, on us, the deputies of the faction. We have a year. During this year, you can either make a political feat and become popular, or leave the political arena.

Mikhail Sokolov:

Do you think that leader Viktor Stepanovich Chernomyrdin should be preserved, because many are somehow trying to undermine his position?

Vladimir Ryzhkov:

Yes, many people are now discussing on the sidelines and around the possibility of changing the leader. I don’t see any possibility now of introducing any other leader and I think that it would be more correct for us to help Viktor Stepanovich himself gain political courage.

Mikhail Sokolov:

On the left you are pressed by Luzhkov, and on the right by the united coalition of Gaidar, Chubais, Nemtsov, Kiriyenko. How do you see the possibility of cohabiting with them on the right flank?

Vladimir Ryzhkov:

There is theory, and there is practice. Practice shows that if, say, in large cities such as Novosibirsk, Barnaul, Sverdlovsk, Chelyabinsk, Luzhkov, Chernomyrdin, Gaidar and Yavlinsky put up their candidate in the district, a communist will win, despite the fact that 60 percent of voters will vote for Democrats.

Mikhail Sokolov:

I don't agree with you. The experience of St. Petersburg shows that in this case the candidate from Yabloko gets elected.

Vladimir Ryzhkov:

This is an exception. I know the situation in other regions, I can say that, as a rule, the left gets elected, because the left already has one candidate for all 225 constituencies. They have already decided. They have quietly, without scandals and without shouting, already nominated their candidates in all 225 constituencies.

Therefore, there can be only one cohabitation - with Luzhkov, and with Yabloko, and with the Gaidar coalition it will be necessary to try to come to an agreement on single-mandate constituencies. This could really give us 160 votes for centrists and democrats in the next Duma by district. According to the lists, the picture will, of course, be a little different. But at least we need to agree on the districts.

Mikhail Sokolov:

That is, do you think that the NDR cannot have a common list with the right bloc, or does this possibility remain?

Vladimir Ryzhkov:

One percent out of a hundred. This is very difficult to do politically, and even more difficult to do technically. Therefore, most likely there will be a separate list of the right-wing coalition, a separate list of the NDR, a separate list of Fatherland, a separate list of Yabloko, and voters will choose from them.

Mikhail Sokolov:

This was the opinion of Vladimir Ryzhkov, a member of the political council of the NDR movement.

A regrouping on the right flank took place. On December 10, an organizing committee of the center-right democratic coalition was created in Moscow. Anatoly Chubais, Boris Nemtsov, Yegor Gaidar, Sergei Kiriyenko, Alexander Yakovlev, Boris Fedorov and even satirist Mikhail Zhvanetsky are participating in it.

We are talking with one of the leaders of the right-wing coalition, Boris Nemtsov. At the first meeting of the organizing committee, he announced: the task of the coalition is to win the 1999 parliamentary elections.

Boris Efimovich, betting on victory in the parliamentary elections is not a scam. Do people know who has what rating, who performed well in the last elections?

Boris Nemtsov:

Our way of forming electoral lists is such that we are doomed to victory. The point is not who sits on the podium and who participates in the press conference.

Yes, there are indeed people who cause allergies. We know this as well as you. Yes, indeed, the level of trust in some of the coalition members is low. That is why we decided that the list will be headed by the one who will enjoy the maximum confidence of voters.

If it is Kiriyenko, then he will top the list. If it is Boris Fedorov, then he will top the list. If it is, I don’t know, someone else present, there were a lot of worthy people here, Mikhail Zhvanetsky, for example, then he will head the list. This is not a question for us right now that can even be discussed. Since we are already forming a list so that the optimal combination of leaders wins, then we are doomed to success.

That is why I said that we have every chance to win. There is a basis for a competitive economy. There are 25 percent of businesses that are successful and growing well. I was just in the Kirov region, there I was at the Kalinka fur factory, which was created from scratch, just from scratch, out of the blue, with six people. And this factory was literally recreated by the hands of one person - Andrei Morozov. If it were not for the privatization program, then Andrei Morozov, like hundreds of thousands of other Russian entrepreneurs, simply would not have found a use for themselves and could have left the country.

Mikhail Sokolov:

Do you think these people will give you money for the election campaign, and not, for example, Yavlinsky, who is promoted, has an opposition rating, and can boast that he was not involved in anything that happened in power?

Boris Nemtsov:

You know, it’s already clear what to expect from us. We were already in power, and although we made mistakes, we nevertheless showed what we are capable of. Although I was, say, only a year and a half in the government, this was also enough to close authorized banks, try to bring the monopolies of the oligarchs under control, level the clear rules of the game and create conditions under which corruption is, if not impossible, then at least difficult.

As for Grigory Alekseevich, it is true that he has a program of action close to ours, but his dignity is a continuation of his own shortcomings. And his main drawback is that he did not run the government and was not in power at all. And a natural question arises - if he came to management, would he be able to implement the ideas that he constantly talks about.

Mikhail Sokolov:

But if we talk about your unification, it still feels like you are uniting not for something, but against - against a process that is quite difficult to stop. That is, what is called restoration and so on. Is it generally possible to resist historical patterns or not?

Boris Nemtsov:

I do not believe that the creeping return to such a barracks past of Russia is a historical pattern. I don't believe it. Even the current government, which consists largely of people of communist convictions, has not encroached on the basic, basic values ​​that we are talking about.

I mean freedom of enterprise, freedom of speech, an independent press. They try, but they seem very timid. I mean competition, an open and open system of power, that is, democracy, the election of all government bodies. Even the left government has made no attempts to do this. This is definitely our achievement.

Second point. I believe that the majority of the country’s population adheres to our ideas, but, unfortunately, they are not aware of this because of us. One of the key tasks is explanatory work. If we manage this, I assure you, we will have every chance of winning the majority.

As for YABLOK, I believe that we are simply doomed to cooperation. What form it will take depends on many factors, including the ambitions of the leaders. But personally, I am ready for this cooperation to be the closest and most dense.

Mikhail Sokolov:

Your coalition looks something like this - Chubais, Nemtsov, Gaidar and Kiriyenko, who joined them, because he somehow chose for himself, it seems, a certain special status. Is this true or not?

Boris Nemtsov:

Kiriyenko became a member of the organizing committee and became a member of a very important body - the Coordination Council, which will be the working body of the organizing committee and which will solve the most important political problems, namely, it will develop the bloc’s program, it will develop the rules and procedure for the formation of electoral lists.

He will participate in interaction with those organizations that are not included in our bloc. Thus, Sergei Vladilenovich simply enters the structure of the organizing committee directly and directly, so that he does not join anywhere. We are all aligned with each other.

Mikhail Sokolov:

However, there is a clear tendency, again shown by today's press conference, that there are people who want to join the government, and there are people who are ready to bet on Yuri Luzhkov as the lesser evil on the eve of the presidential elections. What is your attitude towards the government?

Boris Nemtsov:

I can say that what is being done raises very serious doubts about the capacity of the government. It works very slowly. It is poorly organized.

I can say that Evgeniy Maksimovich is certainly an educated, experienced person and a good person, but he does not have a team. This is his problem.

If you look at what the government is doing now, there are emissions, rising prices primarily for food, these are signs of developing inflation. The government is doing a poor job of solving the most important issue of paying wages and pensions, although some theses of the government program are quite worthy of approval - for example, the transition to targeted social support.

Tax decisions are very, very questionable. Firstly, they lead to a further concentration of capital in Moscow and to the draining of money from the provinces. Secondly, they do not truly reduce the tax burden, but simply introduce another tax - a sales tax, and a rather large one - 5 percent for all goods and 10 percent for excisable goods, and in this sense, I believe that this tax innovation is much worse than the draft Tax Code that was adopted in the State Duma in the summer.

Further. There are many things in government that lead to corruption. I mean there are a lot of actions and decisions that the government makes. Firstly, the government resumed mutual offsets. This is banditry. It’s just that those who revolve around these mutual offsets earn a lot of money. These are businessmen and officials.

Mikhail Sokolov:

But Chubais didn’t complain when he received credits for RAO UES?

Boris Nemtsov:

He’s just the head of RAO UES and doesn’t complain. If he were in the government, the first thing he would do would be to ban these mutual offsets. I assure you.

Secondly, this is selective support for banks. This is also a clear step towards corruption. Firstly, it is not clear why one bank is helped, like SBS-AGRO, and another, like Inkombank, is not helped.

Secondly, it is generally unclear on what grounds and what amounts are allocated to certain banks. Why, for example, did Moscow banks, which are close to Yuri Luzhkov, receive support, but provincial banks did not? Это означает только одно - еще большая концентрация капитала в Москве, еще большее обнищание остальной страны.

Вызывает очень большие сомнения тяга ко всякого рода льготам и привилегиям, особенно по импортным пошлинам. Тем не менее, об этом говорится. Вызывает очень большие сомнения то, что гуманитарная помощь, которую позорным образом правительство просит у Запада, дойдет действительно до людей, которые в ней нуждаются.

Mikhail Sokolov:

Вы вот критикуете правительство, а Александр Яковлев его поддерживает?

Boris Nemtsov:

Что же делать. Именно поэтому у нас (я не член его партии), именно поэтому у нас коалиция. В коалиции люди могут иметь разные точки зрения.

Mikhail Sokolov:

А по Лужкову?

Boris Nemtsov:

Я думаю, что по Лужкову тоже разные точки зрения есть. Поэтому у меня есть право говорить от своего имени, что я сейчас и делаю. А если будет решение моих товарищей в отношении того или иного важного политического вопроса, то я буду говорить следующим образом - оргкомитет решил, я точку зрения оргкомитета доношу. Наряду с этим у меня есть своя точка зрения.

Mikhail Sokolov:

Большинству вы подчинитесь, если вам скажут не критиковать Лужкова, идти на союз с Лужковым или идти на союз с Примаковым, не критиковать правительство?

Boris Nemtsov:

В каждой коалиции есть издержки. Если будет такое решение принято, я как законопослушный человек буду ему подчиняться.

Mikhail Sokolov:

В этой коалиции все-таки на самом деле вы можете, как хочет этого Кириенко, ее расширить в сторону НДР, в сторону каких-то отсутствующих персон и организаций?

Boris Nemtsov:

I think this simply needs to be done. Нужно обязательно подключить лидеров местного самоуправления. Нужно подключить женские организации, в первую очередь Комитеты солдатских матерей, организации женщин-предпринимателей. Сейчас по всей стране они уже есть.

Нужно подключить рабочие движения некоммунистической направленности. Нужно правозащитные организации привлечь к нашей работе. Нужно привлечь к нашей работе вообще неполитические организации, например, профсоюзные. Это то, чем мы все обязаны заниматься.

Mikhail Sokolov:

И вы получите больше 5 процентов?

Boris Nemtsov:

Certainly. Сказать сейчас было бы слишком самонадеянно, сколько точно. Если то, что мы сегодня обсудили будет исполняться, то мы можем получить 15-20 процентов.

Mikhail Sokolov:

Мы беседовали с одним из лидеров правоцентристской коалиции демократов Борисом Немцовым.

В следующей нашей передаче 17 декабря - Санкт-Петербург перед вторым туром выборов в законодательное собрание города.