What to expect from power?

Mikhail Khodorkovsky - The New Times

The main contender for the post of future president of the country and the current prime minister in his public statements already made it clear that he did not believe in a wide protest, and people who go to the square have a selfish interest in that. You know well the “collective Putin”: what could be the response of the power clan to the requirements of the opposition? Vladimir Putin considers himself a successful ruler, and his methods are true. His position in relation to the disagreements: either crooks, or hires of Western special services, or city crazy ones. According to Putin (as he stated), the right of power is to crush, the right of society is to resist. In this sense, rallies are resistance - to the extent that they showed the number of disagreements, “enemies”. What are the "enemies" dangerous to Putin? They may interfere with the first round. Why is it important for him to get into the first round? Otherwise, the environment will doubt. If he doubts - he can betray.

As for the concessions from Putin, they are possible, but only personal ones (remove the “block” from the television, to finance someone). Another thing would mean doubt about his success as a ruler and the fidelity of his methods.

Putin VS Square Alexei Kudrin, recently, the Minister of Finance, advocates negotiations between protesters and conditional Putin. Do you think that makes sense? And who can/should speak on behalf of the square in such negotiations? Alexey Kudrin can now represent only Vladimir Putin and only if he wants substantial agreements. As for the “new opposition”, from my point of view, at the current stage, negotiations can only be carried out about permissible methods of struggle (game rules). Putin does not yet belong to the "new opposition" seriously. And those who are not a participant in the current elections can represent it in negotiations with the authorities. For example, Alexey Navalny, Evgenia Chirikova, Sergey Udaltsov and Boris Akunin. But - only together. We must take a closer look at the voter league.

The situation is “New Putin against the Old” - no one needs deja vu. The country needs a new political philosophy of cooperation instead of the archaic "vertical".

Now - about goals. In my opinion, the goal of the “new opposition” is honest power, that is: - honest elections;

• - Honest independent and fair courts;
• - Honest independent media;
• - intolerance to corruption;
• - coalition government (that is, transparent to society due to the presence of the opposition);
• - President with balanced powers.

A new round of worshiping to the leader with unlimited power, “cunning” with the third term - is unacceptable. The leaders - neither old nor new ones - Russia no longer needed.

What you offer as goals is a game for a long time, and in the near future - in the coming weeks that remained until March 4? The Strategy of the New Opposition, in my opinion, is an escalation of non -violent protest, up to the fulfillment of all requirements. As the requirements are fulfilled - the transition to normal political competition and political representation. And the methods are set out in textbooks on non -violent resistance, adjusted to modern information technologies and the agreements reached with the authorities.

The next goal: honest presidential elections in the second round. Therefore: mass control in polling stations, mass shares "For honest elections", mass participation in the vote. Expansion of the ranks of observers. Active interaction between themselves on election day. People must see for themselves and understand themselves the place that they are offered by the authorities. And then - accept it or refuse.
"

Compromise for the sake of the goal that you think is important? I had to, and how many times! This is life. It is important to honestly compare the significance of the goal and consequences of the “deflection”, so that later it is not ashamed

"

About the decency, the question of the measure of compromise, about cooperation with the authorities - a question that sharply faced the thoughtful people in Soviet times and is standing again now? When, in my opinion, is no cooperation with the authorities is unacceptable? In the case of power support of illegitimate violence. What violence is illegitimate? The one that contradicts the Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms - Russia pledged to execute it and obey the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights. The rejection of the principles of the Convention is the basis for the immediate termination of any cooperation with such power.

As for negotiations, they are always acceptable.

Even with those - I'm talking about cooperation - who is indecent to give hands? We are talking about the ordination of power and people in power. In our current conditions, unfortunately, it is difficult to expect moral leadership from people only because they occupy some kind of post, since moral leadership is a quality that should be internally characteristic, given to a person by nature.

This does not mean in any way that the Russian intellectual can afford to contempt with contempt for a person who is morally not different from the average Russian. Otherwise, indeed, you need to look for another country, another people.

The criterion by which I determine for myself the possibility of cooperation with a person (taking into account the fact that I know about him reliably) is quite simple: whether it goes beyond the limits of behavior acceptable to most of my fellow citizens.

I’ll try to illustrate with an example, as I understand it, what I was talking about above: I took the sausage from the plant - thieves, of course, but not a bastard. Stop the same sausage from the bag of the old woman - nits. I won’t give my hands, I won’t sit at the table nearby. The difference is to whom and what damage is directly caused.

Another example, more rigid: killed a person in battle, not unrighteous - bad, you can not forgive, but - accept. He burned a living cat in a furnace - you cannot accept. At the level of sensations - unacceptable. Either a sick, either a stranger, or a moral geek. In any case, it is better not to have things.

So, our power as a whole has not yet crossed this line. In any case, in those actions that are reliably known to me. Its individual representatives - crossed, but this is another conversation. That is why interaction with the authorities as a whole, as with the institute, today, in my opinion, is permissible. With specific people in power-of course, differently.

Another question - in what form? To what extent can you afford to "bend"?

That's it: where is the line behind which the self-destruction begins? Key, initial question - for what to “bend”?

For the sake of saving the life of the defenseless - I will worship anyone. In general, anyone. If we are talking about our own dignity and about the current government, which we all, to put it mildly, “dislike”, then for me only the rejection of my own beliefs for personal benefit is unacceptable. If words, actions, or simply silence are an awareness of a person who is aware of his life position for the sake of obtaining some benefits for himself-this is unacceptable. Other - acceptable.

Internal motivation here can be of different people, I would not impose my point of view. One considers it unworthy for himself to receive a bonus from “not quite” clean hands, the other will consider the same trophy award that will serve as a matter of further struggle for justice. If a person is honest in front of himself and is not accepted by his own principles and dignity, one and the other is acceptable. Unlike actions internally recognized as dishonest, unworthy. It is terrible when a truly talented person consciously puts his talent for the service of evil, and there are many examples in Russian and world history.

This is my view with which, perhaps, many may disagree.

The price of well -being disgusting the times in which a person is forced to make a choice between his own civil position and well -being, say, relatives. How, sorry for the low genre, do not “mean” in such a situation? You also faced such a choice? You ask about the price of prosperity. About the choice between the well -being of your own family and the idea of ​​what is good and acceptable.

We will agree: we are not talking about life and death, not about hunger or serious illness, but about well -being, that is, about a greater or lesser degree of satisfaction with life outside the minimum necessary in material terms.

Here, of course, the question immediately arises about the criterion of the minimum necessary. For me, one of these criteria from early youth was the opportunity not to count money. Since they were difficult to earn, the possibility of “not counting” was often achieved by restriction of needs. To bring her beloved girl in a cafe, I had to have two weeks not to have breakfast at school and replenish the “savings” saved money. But then in a cafe one could not count a penny.

So it remained in my view to this day: well -being is to live with the minimum for a civilized person with amenities, but to be able to arrange for yourself and your loved ones a holiday from time to time is what you need. The rest is optional excesses, to pay for which moral discomfort, let's say, is inappropriate. For what? To then jam discomfort with a drink? So a glass with a good mood is more pleasant than a burdensome hollow in an attempt to drown out a squeamishness to himself.

Compromise for the sake of the goal that you think is important? I had to, and how many times! This is life. It is important to honestly compare the significance of the goal and consequences of the “deflection”, so that later it is not ashamed.

Now I had to overestimate something. The restoration of industry, the creation of the largest company in its consequences turned out to be, in fact, less important than concessions on the fundamental, although, as it seemed then - very abstract issues of the development of civil society and democratic institutions that had to go for this.

Today, it seems to me, some good people repeat the same mistake. They are silent about what it is impossible to be silent, for the sake of the positions close to power, for the sake of maintaining or obtaining financing of some important projects for them.

Although I admit that finding impeccably accurate scales in order to “weigh” the significance of concession and acquisition, in such cases it is not easy.

It is important to honestly say to myself - I do not care about my well -being, I try not for personal blessings. Then you can live with this. I judge by myself.

When I recall the gigantic acquisition, which has been preserved for Russia, mastered by the most modern methods, revived the Angarsky petrochemical plant, the city of Strezheva, the towns of Kedrov, Poikovsky, joint work with the Tomsk politicalshus, which, due to, including compromises and concessions, is not so bitter from what happened in the country-possibly because of my concessions, and because of my concessions, and because my "deflections". But if they were behind them palaces, yachts and gilded pens of limousines, it would be really disgusting.

However, my past activity and its scale are not such that they really influence the mindset and social activity of most of our citizens. Perhaps if I created was directly used by the authorities in order to suppress young Russian democracy, breaking fate to dozens and hundreds of thousands of people, it would be much harder for me. All the same issue of disadvantage of damage ...

It was a year that you and Platon Lebedev received a new, 13-year term, went on the stage, ended up in the zone, Lebedev was refused conditional release. Two months ago, the situation seemed completely hopeless. But at rallies both at Bolotnaya and Sakharov sounded the requirements of your freedom. Rumors spread throughout Moscow that Putin, in order to satisfy at least some requirements of the protesters, could take such a step. Have you received any signals, proposals, conditions from people of power in recent weeks? And if such conditions are put forward, then what is acceptable to you and what is not? Of course, I did not receive any signals from the current government in connection with the latest changes in society. The deal with conscience is impossible for me. I don’t want to guess about my future.