"Mironov has a difficult choice"

State Duma deputy from Fair Russia Sergey Petrov - The New Times

Sergey Petrov was born in 1954 in Orenburg. A graduate of the Orenburg Higher Military Aviation School of Polbin pilots. In 1987, he received a second higher education at the correspondence Institute of Soviet Trade with a degree in Labor Economics. In 1991, he created a group of companies Rolf. In December 2007, he was elected a deputy of the State Duma from the Just Russia party. Member of the State Duma Committee on Budget and Tax. He speaks German and English. He is fond of skiing and cycling. Married, has two sons.

"Mironov has a difficult choice." “Fair Russia” announced that she was passing into a tough opposition to the current government. The party’s leadership invited the Communists to form the “left -wing alliance” to combat United Russia, and most of the Socialist Revolutionaries spoke out for inclusion in the pre -election list of Parnassus, Vladimir Ryzhkov. What are the prospects of the party without an administrative resource - The New Times asked the State Duma deputy from Just Russia Sergey Petrov
What results do your party count on in December? The Platform "Fair Russia" is social democratic. And Social Democrats, say, in Europe manage most governments. Country, the party is in the internal search: what way are the way to move after the resignation of Sergey Mironov from the post of chairman of the Federation Council. He is actually an oppositionist by nature, but the opposition, who has worked in the power system for a long time. Naturally, this laid out an imprint on his actions. Now there is reason to believe that he will behave more opposition, which the faction has long demanded from him.

Are the way to the opposition you are ready to take a tough position in relation to not only “United Russia”, but also to its leader Vladimir Putin? We occupy - more and more. I just can’t answer for the whole party, I represent her wing, which constantly requires this. There is another wing that resists such strict pressure. Mironov has a difficult choice. No one guarantees us passing into the Duma, and in such conditions any split is bad.

"

To go to a sharp confrontation with the authorities, one must be sure that the masses of voters will support this. So far there is no such confidence

"

You offered the alliance to the Communists. Why don't you join the efforts with the “right business”? In this case, we are likely to lose part of the left electorate that supports us in the regions. The right ones have a steady negative reputation, mainly, of course, artificially spoiled.

The rating of your party today is 4-5%, voters leave you either to the Communists or to United Russia. How are you going to gain passing 7%if you are not an administrative resource? I would not say that someone is leaving for United Russia. To the Communists - perhaps. But the main trend is different: the number of those who have not decided on the choice is growing and will decide who to vote in the last two to three weeks, or even directly on the polling station. For these voters, we can still compete for us, and the chances of winning their voices are good.

But your leader Sergei Mironov still does not criticize either Putin or Medvedev. How are you going to prove your opposition to the voter? Such claims, of course, are easy to make. But none of the leaders of the first persons admitted to the elections of parties. After all, it is obvious that the population agreed to give the entire power resource of one batch, providing them with the constitutional majority in parliament - 315 mandates. What in these conditions do you leave the choice of constructive opposition to? Either start to scold the Kremlin loudly-and be outside the real policy, or to still work and defend their approaches in parliament-and be subjected to reproaches from the liberal press in inconsistency. The presence of the opposition, even in a non -radical form, leaves a chance for political competition. This is its value today. And in order to go to a sharp confrontation with the authorities, one must be sure that the masses of voters will support this. So far there is no such confidence.

Everything for the “front” when people do not see a party that is able to represent their interests in parliament, they go outside. And then it will not seem enough to everyone ... Do not be afraid of this? We are afraid, therefore, we prefer to act in a legal field, using a parliamentary tribune, not a rally. We do not want to bring the matter to revolutions and pogroms - we have seen enough on TV, to which this leads in other countries. However, the trend on the political field is obvious. The weaker the "United Russia" becomes, the more the administrative resource is used. And this will be used until the population somehow says: enough. It can say, by the way, it is not necessary to go out onto the streets, but simply unprecedented to the polls. Now we expect a 30%turnout, but if it makes up, say, 10%, then it will no longer be impossible to pretend that there is a popular support.

The Party of power is all God's dew: they were not shy to draw Valentina Matvienko in the municipal elections of nearly 95% - Turkmenistan and only ... Yes, now there is a team on top: "Everything for the front (popular), everything for victory." And on the ground, the heads of administrations in open text say: "You will not provide" United Russia "60–70%, you will not receive money." Well, then the head of the administration brings this task to directors of schools, hospitals, state -owned enterprises. In a word, local bosses go to all heavy so that the higher do not be angry. Even if then this leads to such shameful results as in the elections of Matvienko. But more-no less: it is unlikely that anyone will be punished for providing 95%. The next time there will be 105%! How much can this continue? For decades, the USSR demonstrated the stability of such a political model.

And how in these conditions your party is going to gain the necessary 7% of the vote? It all depends on how we will spend our campaign. Of course, the chances are not so great because of the position of local authorities. But if the party receives a large enough percentage, it will be very difficult to falsify. Of course, there are different technologies that allow you to raise one batch and lower others. But falsifications have a limited limit: if you gained 20-30% of the vote, it is impossible to write 3% and pretend that you have not passed. The Communists, with all the falsifications, took place and go to the authorities.

Recently, Alexander Babakov, who was called the "party of the party," went to the Popular Front. Are you not afraid to be left without sponsors? As in the song it is sung: "If the bride goes to another, then it is not known who was lucky." Babakov was not a “face of the party”, a man who would be recognized in the regions. As for the sponsors, this is such a constantly changing picture: today someone leaves, tomorrow-someone comes. The party does not depend on the finances of one person.

Money vs principles say one place in the future Duma will cost $ 7 million or more. What do you say? I do not think that such prices exist and someone can guarantee the place of the deputy for money. Perhaps some nimble guys from among deputy assistants are trying to trade seats in the Duma. But I can’t imagine that someone brings a bag of 7 million to a concerned place and comes out with the mandate of the deputy. The issue is not resolved by money alone.

About the principles of your party. Are you ready to defend the idea of ​​the election of governors? Yes, this is now one of our key ideas - to return the election of governors and ensure greater independence to the local authorities. It is possible that this will complicate the process of managing the country. And in the first stages after such democratic changes, we may receive much worst management personnel in quality. But then these people will be responsible to the population of their cities and regions, on the support of which they depend. Over time, society will learn to distinguish populism from real deeds. But for this you need to go a certain path of trial and error. The main thing is that there is something to study on. In other words, have freedom of choice.

Another point of your program is the fight against corruption. This slogan does not raise perhaps the lazy, but even your colleague in the faction, the Ministry of Internal Affairs General Tatyana Moskalkova could not save her nephew when he was planted by corrupt security officers. In order to not be, the law should work. And the law should rely on an independent honest court. And do not say that this is impossible. An honest court appeared in Georgia - and this is recognized as an international community. But Georgia was at one time the most corrupt republic of the Soviet Union

* * About how Georgia managed to defeat corruption, The New Times told the ideologist of the Georgian reforms of Kach Bendukidze in No. 24 of August 8, 2011. But if they were able to cleanse, why can't we?! Our faction has been initiating the ratification of the 20th article of the UN Convention for Combating Corruption (“illegal enrichment”) for a year, which provides for a criminal acting “illegal enrichment” of public servants. But our initiative is regularly failed: the bees do not oppose honey.

Maybe in order to defeat corruption in our country and achieve an honest court, you must first overcome the KGB corporation in power? I do not agree. We will defeat the KGB Corporation, but a new one will arise at its fragments, which will steer the same way, and maybe worse. So far, society does not begin to control its leaders - at the level of the village, cities, countries, all changes in power will be reduced to the fact that one corporation will change the other.

Budget battles your party offers a budget, an alternative to the one represented by the Ministry of Finance and will be considered in the near future. What is the difference between your approach? We have the feeling that the government is increasingly losing control of the growing expenditures of the budget. The ability of the executive branch to fight its appetite is reduced in front of the eyes - as the elections approached. And we consider it our duty to show, due to which there is a meaningless, and often corruption swelling of the budget. First of all, due to the uncontrolled growth of tariffs of monopolies. For several years now, in the Duma, the law prepared by our faction has been lying without movement that tariffs cannot grow faster than inflation. Naturally, he was rejected by United Russia. As a result, electricity tariffs increased in 10 years almost 5.5 times, and the standard of living - only 2 times.

But the trouble is not only in natural monopolies. We have our own small monopoly in each market, which will never go to reduce the price. The consequence of such total monopolism is the colossal increase in costs of all enterprises. Salary of ordinary employees in our state corporations is 2-3 times less than in similar structures in Europe, but at top managers-2-3 times higher. We are injected with colossal money to state corporations: in Rostekhnology - 240 billion rubles, to the Housing and Public Utilities Promotion Fund - another 140 billion. All this is only fanning the budget without bringing any return.

The next factor is a corruption tax. It is approximately 16-18% in the price of each product, in construction, especially Moscow, reaches 40%. In the capital, there is such an unusual price of a square meter, because all kinds of kickbacks and bribes are sitting in it. All these problems grow from one root - the lack of a normal competitive environment.

What budget risks do you consider the most serious? The list is long. For example, we do not have a pension reform. As a result, next year, a third of the budget will go to finance pension needs - 3 trillion rubles. The entire budget cannot work for pensioners. This is a terrible bias that the authorities do not want to notice in any way-apparently, they think that it will somehow resolve.

You are the left party - what do you want to deprive the old people of money? This is not about that. Now 30% will raise salaries to state employees before the end of the year. United Russia unanimously voted for this, apparently to buy voters. But this additional money will spill out onto the market and raise inflation, that's all. And it was possible to give at least half of this money exclusively under the formation of their own pension savings of people. That is, to start pension reform, and do not infringe people, and not to disperse inflation.

It is clear with pensioners. What to do business? Or do you leave him in the care of the "right -hand"? We offer tax holidays as an anti -crisis measure. We must understand that we have business in an extremely unfriendly environment. Our officials are sure that the basis of the state is them, and not those who produce, trade and create jobs. To change the situation, it is necessary to introduce a presumption of innocence for business. Not an entrepreneur must make excuses to the tax, firefighter, sanitary services, but they to prove that the businessman is to blame for something.

If you have such serious complaints about the budget as you will vote? Against. The party always votes against the budget and offers its own. Our budget is accepted, as a rule, by the votes of one “United Russia”.