What to do with the constitution? Does Russia need lustration? What fate awaits Vladimir Putin after the collapse of the current government? Dmitry Gudkov, Harry Kasparov, Mikhail Kasyanov, Alexey Navalny and Ilya Yashin answer questions from NT questions.
The New Times magazine invited the seven leaders of the real Russian opposition to answer ten identical questions regarding the changes that should happen in Russia after the departure of Vladimir Putin and his team from the political arena. Unfortunately, while Mikhail Khodorkovsky and Grigory Yavlinsky have not considered it possible to participate in this project. However, our editors hopes that, given the importance of the problems under discussion, they will join it in the future.
Today, April 24, we offer the attention of NT readers of opposition politicians to the third, fourth and fifth questions of the project.
The regime fell. You are at the head of state. Will you initiate amendments to the current Constitution? If so, what are the priority?
Dmitry Gudkov:
Well, I already partially answered this question. The main thing, from my point of view, is the adjustment of the Basic Law should ensure the transition to the parliamentary republic. Of course, judicial reforms are very important. That is, roughly speaking, everything that begins with the 81st article of the Constitution should be changed, and up to the 81st can be left so well written. Well, create mechanisms that would ensure strict adherence to constitutional norms.
Harry Kasparov:
The next question, built on the fact that the transition will be evolutionary. The current constitution showed its inability to ensure the functioning of the legal democratic state. The dictatorial Putin regime and the entire current state structure are metastases of the Constitution of the 93rd year.
The new Russia, in order to survive as a state, will have to completely break not only with the Soviet past, giving an official assessment of the crimes of the CPSU and the KGB, but also to abandon the legal heritage of the Yeltsin constitution. She, along with the shameful constitutional Zorkinsky court, should go to the landfill of history. Anyone who will try to rely on the current constitution in post -Putin Russia will reproduce the old model, which will inevitably lead to the construction of an authoritarian system.
As for the writing and adoption of a new Constitution, this is a question for the Constituent Assembly, which will choose the form of government, the main characteristics of the new state and the system of authorities. In my opinion, the parliamentary republic with the president performing ceremonial functions is the most suitable form of government for Russia.
Mikhail Kasyanov:
Cardinal changes are necessary. First of all, this applies to the redistribution of powers between the president and parliament. And many in our party Parnassus are fundamentally generally for the transition to the Parliamentary Republic. But I think that serious constitutional reform is already the case of the new president and the new parliament, elected in free and honest elections. To ensure the implementation of such elections is just one of the main tasks of the transition government.
Of course, the president must be deprived of the right to make decisions on the resignation of the government. This right should only have a freely chosen State Duma
What we have come to the current constitution today is the usurpation of power by the president and his immediate environment. Therefore, it is necessary to immediately, even before the new elections, conduct a reduction in a number of his powers. Moreover, first of all, those that are not even in the current Constitution, but they are registered in the Law on the Government-this is the right of the president to directly manage the activities of law enforcement ministries and departments through the head of the Prime Minister and the power ministers themselves. This is not in the Constitution. The Constitution determines that the president takes measures to protect sovereignty and state integrity, ensures the interaction of state authorities. But he is not the head of the executive branch. The executive branch in the Russian Federation is exercised by the government. And the law on the government says that the government is delegating the executive powers for the power departments to the president. Of course, this must be removed. And then a certain balance is restored even in the current constitution - the system of two keys. That is, the solution of issues of foreign policy, security and defense goes through the system of two keys, with the consent of both the president and the government. And of course, the president must be deprived of the right to make decisions on the resignation of the government. This right should only have a freely chosen state Duma. Such a perestroika will have to be done quickly, until new elections, until the adoption of a new constitution. And then we will discuss the whole society-we are completely moving to the parliamentary republic or some variations are possible. Constitutional law experts, political scientists and experts will have to give proposals to different structures and take them to the court of the company. All discussions should be held in the Constitutional Assembly, openly. Only after that can you go to a referendum. It is important that citizens are clearly aware of what the difference between the proposed options has the opportunity to make a responsible choice.
Alexey Navalny:
I can say completely unequivocally - our constitution is disgusting. This is not a constitution, but just some kind of horror. I know that many reverent in front of her. She was written by some old democrats of the first wave, and they love to explain to us what a good constitution it is. No, this constitution is monstrous! According to this constitution, we have been tormented by 20 years, all the media have taken it off, the governors have been sitting in this constitution for decades, and now these most important positions simply appoint some Putin guards, and do not let everyone else out of all. I am planting me in this constitution, I go with the solutions of the ECHR for this constitution, but they are not implemented. This constitution, of course, should be changed. And we are talking, first of all, about the redistribution of power functions.
It is simply impossible to afford, relying on our difficult experience, compromises neither in the judicial system, nor in the media, nor in matters of the fight against corruption, nor in matters of the powers of parliament. Always, when we once again tell ourselves, okay, some fools are sitting in parliament, and the president, like, is decent, count everything went in a new circle
So far, the president of the country has so many powers, it is simply impossible to talk about any system of checks and counterweights. Even if the most beautiful person becomes president, he still should not have so much power. Parliament needs to give more authority and endow legislators with the functions of real control. Redistribution should go in favor of parliament, government, local self -government. That is, the regions as a whole, but what is more important - mayors of cities. We have Lyuba nonsense is regulated from the Kremlin. The mayor of the city of Yekaterinburg can not do anything, and Putin can do everything in the city - this is wrong, it is impossible. Therefore, of course, the constitution should be changed in such a way that we finally create a system of independent branches of power. And the premiere should be appointed by the parliamentary majority. And if there are only clowns, then people should blame themselves - they chose such. And this is a fundamentally different situation compared to the one now. Because now we have been appointed clowns.
In principle, the constitution is a document that, based on our history, says that we have established a country that will live according to such and such rules. It is simply impossible to afford, relying on our difficult experience, compromises neither in the judicial system, nor in the media, nor in matters of the fight against corruption, nor in matters of the powers of parliament. Always, when we once again say to ourselves, well, okay, some fools are sitting in parliament, and the president, like, is decent, count everything went in a new circle.
Ilya Yashin:
Yes, it seems to me that this is important. The Constitution, unfortunately, is very imperfect in our country and the problems that we encountered in modern times are related to the fact that mistakes were made when adopting the Basic Law. The historical context is understandable why this was then done, but it is obvious that the president was given very great powers, unjustified powers. Due to the conflict of executive branch and parliament in the early 90s, a significant bias of powers in favor of the president was enshrined in the Constitution. The president was actually derived over all branches of power and is, in fact, a separate institution of power. This skew should be eliminated, and the system of checks and counterweights in the Constitution should be much more balanced. Parliament must be endowed with new powers. It is, first of all, about the right to form a government and consolidate such an institution as parliamentary investigations.
As for the redistribution of powers in favor of the parliament, the basis for such changes should be a fundamentally new party system, the matrix of which will be formed in the transition period
In fact, this is a separate conversation. Of course, you need to exclude any double interpretation. For example, a citizen cannot be president more than two times. And in a row - not in a row, this is all from the evil one. Again, a subject for discussion is one presidential term of 7 years or two periods of 4 or 5 years. But be that as it may, there should be no double interpretations. Everything must be built clearly, clear and without opportunities for the maneuver of the head of state, who wants to stay in power in violation of the Constitution, or somehow it perverted.
As for the redistribution of powers in favor of the parliament, the basis for such changes should be a fundamentally new party system, the matrix of which will be formed during the transition period. I think there will be no problems with this, because after a change in the regime some active socio-political life will begin, and, in principle, two years to form the main political parties and to begin their dialogue with society will be quite enough. And two years later, following the results of the first elections, it will become clear which parties are most popular, which seriously claim to lead the country. And by this moment they should receive constitutional guarantees for their socio-political activity.
The regime fell. You are at the head of state. Do you begin the open and vowel revision of the previous reign with possible lustration consequences and trial?
Dmitry Gudkov:
Much will depend on how we come to power. Perhaps you will have to go to some agreements with part of the elites, which, roughly speaking, will agree to peaceful surrender in return for certain guarantees. By the way, I am sure that, most likely, such a scenario will be implemented. It is unlikely that we need to copy the experience of South Africa, but something like Spain is possible. Because, of course, the elites will not give power just like that if any conditions are not provided. But guarantees, probably, should be given to a very limited circle. As for the rest ... an independent judicial system that will make decisions should earn.
For example, in our party, a stormy discussion unfolds about lustration for parliamentarians. Here-the devil knows him, because they were chosen as well as they were elected
But in principle, society, of course, should find out what has happened here all these years. Only this cannot look like saving accounts. Therefore, the executive branch should not specifically create any revision commissions. Free media will appear, the practice of parliamentary investigations will improve, the courts will again appear before us in a new guise. That is, independent institutions should solve this problem. And according to the results of their work, it will become clear whether the country needs lustration of certain groups. From my point of view, we will first talk about the judges, about the security forces ... This whole political investigation, the centers of “e” ... So these structures will be immediately dissolved in any case ... But this should not take the form of political reprisals, information information. There must be clearly spelled signs.
For example, in our party, a stormy discussion unfolds about lustration for parliamentarians. Here-the devil knows him, because they were chosen as if ... to take the same Communists ... So they went to the Duma with a program for the ban on foreign adoption. And, if you look at the same “Law of the Sercasions”, then the scoundrels are primarily those who understand everything perfectly, and still voted for this monstrous measure. But there are also dinosaurs who are sincerely sure that the Americans eat children. This is what to do with them, I do not know. That is, this is not about a conscious crime, but about a demonstration of a position. This is where this thin line is, - now, as the legislator, I say - which would separate the conditional iron from Pletneva, for example?
Harry Kasparov:
Lustration is mandatory, but it should become only part of the actions necessary to build a new democratic Russian state. As I said repeatedly earlier, Russia must give a clear historical assessment of both the criminal Soviet past and the Yeltsin-Putin period. At the same time, if the assessment of the Soviet era is rather historical, since almost none of the authors and performers of these atrocities are already alive, then the iconic crimes of the Putin era should be investigated and disclosed in detail.
The most important step here is the disclosure of all archives, not only the Cheka-OGPU-NKVD-KGB-FSB and the VKP (b)-the CPSU, but also other key departments, including the presidential administration.
We must know the names of everyone who worked for the Putin regime and Russian special services. And in this matter there can be no compromise - all documents about cooperation should be made public.
You can’t do without total cleansing, the rejection of it will lead to the fact that instead of one dictatorship, we will get another.
Mikhail Kasyanov:
In the legal field, what we just talked about. It is necessary to block those loopholes that generally allowed us to usurp power. This is the first. The second - the constitutional bodies that are engaged in law enforcement must figure out which crimes were committed and who did it. We are talking about the transition period, of course, the issue of reconfiguration of the judicial system will necessarily be posed, but the government of the transition period cannot be an absolute lord and the ruler of the fate.
The whole society should realize the non -alternativeness of lustration for the future of the country. But let people first find out what was happening here ... And most importantly - they will understand why they live so poorly and humiliated, why are their real incomes such low
But in the political space, yes, we will conduct a vowel revision of a deliberate harmful policy and random errors. When we are talking about lustration, I, as a politician, consider this measure necessary. And in the party we had discussions, and decisions were made on this subject. Most members of the Party of People’s Freedom (Parnassus) believe that lustration is absolutely necessary! But only all these procedures should be completely open and publicly, with the involvement of the media. That is, lustration (the introduction of restrictions on the occupation of leading government posts) can be started when the vast majority of the population already aware of what has occurred in our country over the past twenty years. And not so that they took power, and let's chop right and left. Then everyone will think that this is accounting. The whole society should be aware of the non -alternative for the future of the country of this measure. Let people first find out what was happening here ... And most importantly - they will understand why they live so poorly and humiliated, why their real income is so low. And when the overall picture in their heads forms, citizens will see that the entire policy of the bygone regime contradicted the long -term national interests of Russia and did not take into account the vital interests of each individual citizen. This includes such decisions as the annexation of Crimea, and the war in the Donbass, and participation in the war in Syria, and many other different things. In a word, people will see all the initiatives of the Russian leadership that provoked such a negative attitude of the entire civilized world to the regime, and, as a result, to our whole country. But the main thing is not sanctions, and not the attitude of the West towards us, but the fact that the current government, having all resources in order to develop the country, deliberately condemned its citizens to live. This will need to be told in detail and clearly. With existing resources, it was possible to pursue an economic policy that would lead to prosperity and increase the well -being of the population, and made the authorities the other way around. And then citizens will understand where the source of evil will understand what the authorities were guided by, understand why the highest officials of Russia pursued such a policy harmful to the country.
Alexey Navalny:
If you do not start lustration, then why is it all? Fortunately, there are two very successful moments that will play into the hands of all of us. The regime fell, and I, or someone else, at the head of state. Russia needs economic and political reforms. Both the other reforms are popular. We still suffer that we have to carry out reforms that society does not support, and a revision of what happened here for twenty Putin years will be popular reforms. Because in the economic part, this, first of all, will affect the analysis of mercenary crimes and illegal enrichment. Only people must first find out all the details and details. It was not for nothing that I spoke all my presidential company about the first three steps. Step number one - free the political prisoners. Step number two - the beginning of the judicial reform. Step number three is a real struggle against corruption, the first paragraph of which is the adoption of the law on the fight against illegal enrichment. This is largely a chandelier tool.
But it will be necessary to lustrate not only for economic reasons, but also for political. Take, say, the "Law of the Schools." Of course, everyone who voted for him must be removed from any political activity
We need lustration, I am a big supporter. But we understand that a stormy discussion in a party will begin. Obviously, a certain number of those you read on Facebook and who wrote how good Sergey Semenovich was, they will not want any lustration. Journalists of Komsomolskaya Pravda will not want any lustration. Officials throughout the country will not want lustration. And all this servant naturally will not evaporate anywhere - these are millions of people, and they will not support any lustration. But this is a great important solution for society, for which I will personally fight. And I am convinced that without lustration we will develop worse. She was in the Czech Republic, and everything happened in the Czech Republic. The most successful countries are those that conducted lustration. But it must be understood that even before the decision to restrict the rights of individual groups of citizens, we will accept such a law: everyone who was officials, everyone who worked in oligarchic structures associated with state orders, oil and gas, everyone who worked on state television - they will have to show us their expenses and income. And to prove that their current wealth is provided by their legal earnings. I want to look at these contracts. We already now analyze how much money Solovyov has - there are no such contracts that would provide these expenses. Let him show. Let Dmitry Kiselev show. Let Neverov and Volodin show. This is either black nal, or - direct bribes, which is most often. Suppose Soloviev comes to me and says: “Here, you know, I had a contract by which Sberbank paid me a billion rubles.” Well, this is the same step number one. Then we ask Sberbank a question: “What did he do to you for a billion rubles? Did you need Solovyov’s services a billion rubles? ” And the same thing with everyone else. Some Vyacheslav Volodin ... Well, yes, he shows a large legal income from some of his oil-fat plants, which allows the entire media service and the stupid part of the liberal intelligentsia to say: "Well, everything is fine on the papers." There are still Shuvalov - the same thing. And what do I need these papers? I will look at them. I can watch the papers. And I will see that Shuvalov’s money took up Usmanov. And from the fact that everything will be documented, it is even better for me, because the new investigative committee will be easier to prove the fact of bribes, illegal enrichment and corruption. That's all. And this will be a majority of what is called lustration. After all, the current ruling regime rules in order to enrich themselves. And there are traces of this enrichment. There will be a separate question of how to pull it all out of Switzerland or from London. Well, we will decide gradually.
But the lustration procedure itself should not be carried out by me. Not the administration. It cannot be entrusted to me. I will pale here. It cannot be entrusted to those who are too motivated by their personal experience. It should be a certain independent body, and the procedure is not administrative, but some quasi
But it will be necessary to lustrate not only for economic reasons, but also for political. Take, say, the "Law of the Schools." Of course, everyone who voted for him must be removed from any political activity. This is my opinion, and I understand that it is not the most popular. I am aware that tomorrow the newly elected parliament will not vote in a hundred percent composition for such a decision. But I will defend him. But the very procedure should not be carried out by me. Not the administration. It cannot be entrusted to me. I will pale here. It cannot be entrusted to those who are too motivated by their personal experience. It should be a certain independent body, and the procedure is not administrative, but some quasi-borial. But I believe that without lustration, a part of which will become an explanation of income, is impossible. These people should be removed from public administration, from participation in the media, and so on. I would send them to the courses. If you do not want to be put you, go to annual courses, report publicly. You were a journalist of Komsomolskaya Pravda, who made reports on how I eat lobsters ... or right yesterday, a splendor, even more or less accepted in a decent society, spreads the video that Yashin kicked the cat. All of them should undergo a annual course to study how the media work, how ashamed to do such things. You know, if you got drunk in America drunk, you will be sent to courses about how you can’t drink while driving. So here. You go to these courses, you are noted, you report, but do not want - please sit in prison. And I repeat - restrictive measures against those who feel complete impunity today will be supported by society after the publication of the entire array of information about what is happening.
Take the same state apparatus or judicial. People with concrete examples will see that behind each unfinished arrest, even for 15 days, there are a lot of papers and a large number of performers-from the judge (some Arthur Karpov, who endures someone else administrative arrest) to an important bump in the Moscow City Court, who called, wrote something, and the FSB officers controlled the result and so on. All these chains must be opened. We must see how all this was carried out and financed. Prigozhinsky newspapers, for example. How are they financed, from which sources? All this has to be published. We must see all this. And when society is aware of the scale of what was happening, it will be shocked. For example, as they, against the background of an absolutely poor country, held some elections in Madagascar or still know where. And how much they actually stole on the construction of all kinds of objects ... I think that the government simply cannot help but carry out lustration - people will not understand, there will be a threat of extrajudicial reprisals.
Ilya Yashin:
Well, in fact, I already partially said about it. First of all, it will be necessary to revise the legislation, but, of course, no one canceled personal responsibility. Lustration is a discussion issue. Another thing is that there is no subject for discussion when it comes to employees of a political investigation. If the issue of lustration of officials, members of United Russia is a question of a fairly wide discussion, and I do not have ready -made answers here, then the issue of lustration and not only lustration, but also criminal liability for employees of the Center for Combating Extremism, the FSB department of the FSB of Russia and other similar structures is absolutely obvious. These are all anti -constitutional structures that are engaged in unlawful activities. Because in Russia a political investigation is unlawful activity. I have no doubt that all employees of these organizations, at least, should be deprived of the right to further work in law enforcement agencies. As for officials and members of United Russia, I do not have a final point of view that has formed. I hear different arguments, and some of them seem intelligent to me, some seem to me stretched, but in general, to one degree or another, it is obvious that the lustration mechanism, of course, will have to be involved, one way or another.
If they voluntarily freely leave and leave the country, then obviously they will have to give them some guarantees. Yes - really thieves, yes - indeed, they have many different crimes, including pure criminals. But sometimes you have to pay a large price so that blood does not spill
It is clear that a certain revision of the adopted political decisions and the assessment of the distribution of economic assets, you can’t get anywhere, should be carried out. But this must be discussed in the context of the transition, transit of power. That is, if this is a tough script and the transition took place through a breakdown of the system, through a brutal confrontation - one story. And the power that is formed as a result of this confrontation is not constrained by any obligations to its predecessors. If the new government is formed as a result of some agreements with a bankrupt, but still quite influential elite-a fundamentally different story. If they voluntarily freely leave and leave the country, then obviously they will have to give them some guarantees. Yes - really thieves, yes - indeed, they have many different crimes, including pure criminals. But sometimes you have to pay a large price so that blood does not spill. This applies, among other things, Putin personally. I understand and close the concept of a thievesal steamer, which was once proposed by Andrei Piontkovsky. A certain transit format: here, friends, you sit on the steamer without clinging to power and without provoking a civil war in the country, take some personal assets with you and float out of here where you want. The main thing is that we just never see you again. I don’t know, to be honest, where they will float. When Piontkovsky offered this formula, there were still some options, now it is already more difficult. But these are their problems. But in principle, this concept seems to me working. It is obviously vulnerable to criticism, and I am sure that there will be radicals that will attack me with exclamations "how so?!". But I believe that a politician is a person who, first of all, should think about minimizing blood.
The regime fell. You are at the head of state. The fate of Vladimir Putin is almost in your hands. How do you manage?
Dmitry Gudkov:
I repeat - a lot will depend on the scenario of transit of power. If the regime fell as a result of a popular uprising, and at the same time stiffly resisted, and was engaged in repression in order to stop protests - this is one situation. And if the direct responsibility of Vladimir Putin for shed blood is established, then - sorry. In any case, this should not be a decision of one person, but still in this situation, if they rest to the last and are ready to go to human victims, I do not think that in the end there will be some good options for Putin. But I will always oppose extrajudicial reprisals. And once again I will say - fair retribution, of course, should be ideally, but if you choose between fair retribution and bloodless changes for the country, I will choose the last. Moreover, these should be some international guarantees. Otherwise, Putin will not agree. He will say: “Guys, you will surrender me later. Even if I trust you, a country with a 2 percent world GDP against 40 percent against you-you cannot do anything, and they will break me off. ” Therefore, I think, there can only be a multilateral agreement with the participation of Western partners, where some specific persons will be withdrawn from the persecution. And all the others - sorry.
The fate of Vladimir Putin is unlikely to be the headache of the government of the transition period, it will be decided even before its creation. But if we assume that the change of power will occur without Putin’s physical elimination by his former associates, then a public court will need him as an international criminal.
Talking about Putin's amnesty means that the amnesty will be declared to all the crimes of the Putin regime. I would like to believe that everyone who campaigns for guarantees of inviolability of the Russian dictator is done from humanity, and do not want to hide something.
I repeat: any form of compromise in this matter will mean that nothing has changed in the country.
Who is Vladimir Putin? Vladimir Putin is a president who was legitimate, not very legitimate, and completely illegitimate. Therefore, there will be questions for him. As in relation to any citizens and in relation to Vladimir Putin, all actions should be absolutely legal in nature. I think the main block of questions will concern the elimination of free elections of all levels and falsifications of their results. And this is a direct bridge to the income of accusations of usurpation of the authorities. I am not a judge, I can’t and do not want to decide the fate of people. I think that the Government of the transition period should not have such powers. Independent jurists will have to find out thoroughly in all this.
I know that this is an unpopular answer, but so far I still adhere to this concept. Everything will depend on the option of their departure. If the regime, as you put it, “fell” as a result of some relatively peaceful transit, and no one died at the same time, one situation. If thousands were killed on the streets, some meat grinder and tanks are different. If peaceful transit, I believe that specifically to Putin and closest members to his family (all kinds of Rotenbergs and Dmitry Medvedev are not included here, I do not consider them, as part of Putin’s family), you can give immunity. He wants to live abroad with his friend Berlusconi or in Gelendzhik - please. And personally, I experience many different feelings regarding Putin, but I am ready to sacrifice them. If only it didn’t climb into politics anymore. Понятно же, что у него сохранится много сторонников. Впрочем, думаю, Путин уже и сам не захочет.
Судьба Владимира Путина опять же зависит от формата транзита власти. Если Владимир Путин до последнего момента цепляется за власть и провоцирует гражданскую конфронтацию, участь его, очевидно, будет незавидной. Если Владимир Путин провоцирует гражданскую войну в стране, он должен нести за это абсолютную ответственность. Если Владимир Путин в какой-то момент понимает, что страна на пороге гражданской конфронтации и принимает какое-то ответственное решение, начинает диалог со своими оппонентами, инициирует обсуждение формата бескровного транзита — это оставляет возможность для амнистии и гарантий его личной безопасности. И тогда можно начинать обсуждение его дальнейшей судьбы. В любом случае — останется он в стране, не останется — опции в любой форме вернуться в политику у него уже не будет. Да он и не захочет, думаю. То есть, отказ от суда над Путиным — тяжелейшая тема, которая, после того, как общество получит всю информацию о том, что здесь происходило в последние двадцать лет, может быть этим самым обществом воспринята крайне критически. Но это цена, которую мы должны быть готовы заплатить за то, чтобы избежать кровавой гражданской войны.
*Ответы лидеров российской оппозиции на следующие вопросы проекта«После Путина»будут опубликованы в четверг, 25 апреля.
