Grigory Yavlinsky: “I would like Ukraine not to lose its chance”
Not so long ago, the views that Russian political scientists held of Ukraine were often patronizing, demanding, and nearly unanimous, their political leanings notwithstanding. But times have changed. Grigory Yavlinsky, leader of Russia’s Yabloko party, spent all his Christmas vacations in Lviv in order to really relax. Yavlinsky was born in Lviv and completed his schooling here. His parents are buried here. For many years Yavlinsky’s father managed a local reception center and was a friend and surrogate father to many homeless children. He is still fondly remembered by many policemen, who are now dealing with juvenile delinquents. Lviv is home to Grigory’s brother Mykhailo and his family as well as many friends. This is why he is a frequent visitor to this ancient city, which brings back the fondest memories of his youth. So his views of Ukraine are not those of an outsider, who depends for his information on absentminded aides. This is precisely what makes the interview with Grigory Yavlinsky especially interesting. Our first question is about the recent events in Ukraine and how they will affect the post-Soviet space.
“The citizens of Ukraine have managed to unite in the struggle for their human dignity and defend their interests through public protest, which demonstrated their true civic maturity. Without bloodshed or violence they stood up for their rights against the government. The people succeeded in forcing the government to back down. This is a very significant achievement. In general, their civic consciousness rates a very high mark and does credit to Ukraine. I don’t consider it a revolution, though. A revolution is a forceful change of legislation, order, or constitution. Everything happened differently here. The people defended current laws and the existing constitution. That is, they used the paragraph in the constitution, which states that the only source of power is the people. As for how this will exert an impact on the post-Soviet space, I think that conditions differ from country to country, and nothing is done according to the same model. Yet the events in Ukraine have a tremendous positive significance as an example, lesson, or precedent.”
“But the presidents of various CIS countries have said that they won’t permit anything like that.”
“What won’t they permit? The rule of law? Fair elections and unbiased mass media? Independent courts? These are very bizarre statements. Why do you think political regimes in most countries of the former USSR adopted such an aggressive stance? Because the public exposure of election fraud in Ukraine is unacceptable to them. It means that their fraud can also be exposed. This is the root of their fear.”
“How do you picture the future Russian-Ukrainian relationship?”
“Relations are a complex thing. Let’s wait and see what kind of government is formed in Ukraine, how it will be structured, and how it will work. After all, neither you nor we know this yet. I can only say what I hope for. I hope that the Kremlin will adopt a pragmatic, rational, and wise stance. We can disagree with, say, Putin’s policy, but we must acknowledge that politicians work in the Kremlin. And politicians must face up to reality. They cannot behave capriciously. This doesn’t mesh with their job. The reality is that Ukraine has elected a new president, and a new prime minister will be appointed, and Russia will have to cooperate with them because Russia needs to. Russia is objectively interested in a stable, prosperous, modern Ukraine with high European living standards.”
“So you don’t believe that Russia is interested in a somewhat dependent Ukraine?”
“An independent Ukraine is in the interests of 140 million Russian citizens. But there are power-wielding groups that view Ukraine as a kind of business project in political or economic terms. All powerful groups think that way. There is a big difference between us, citizens, and powerful groups. So, in discussing the question of relations, we must always differentiate between the interests of the people and the temporary interests of groups that currently exist in Russia and elsewhere. They may have their own idea of how things should work. But eventually they must start thinking in political terms and face up to reality. The question of Russia’s domestic policy is when and how the citizens will force their government and leadership to behave as the interests of the Russian people require.”
“What do you think of the slogans calling on Ukraine and Russia to go to the European Union hand in hand?”
“Ukraine is different from Russia in that it is already mature and oriented, and geopolitical choice is no longer a question. It is moving toward Europe and wants to be a European country. As for Russia, it has yet to make such a choice. Instead, it is inventing a multipolar world of its own, some kind of oneness, which is slowing down its development. This is the current situation. In fact, when you say that we should be moving toward Europe hand in hand, this is absolutely correct. In 1991 I was developing an economic agreement between Ukraine and Russia for this very purpose, in order to develop joint economic legislation and resolve many problems that we have in common. Notably, all former Soviet nations were expected to take part in this process, but this never became a reality for various political reasons.”
“Today Ukraine is being torn apart by contradictions, and Russia’s role in this process has not been insignificant.”
“Yes, this is an issue for your new president’s policy. He must find out why so many people in the east voted for his opponent, and include everything he can in an action plan and develop a special ‘eastern’ policy. There should be no violence, only calm and confident progress. This means that laws should be observed, that there should be a division of powers, that courts must be independent, much like the mass media. There is a need for public television, like the BBC, for example. What do you think caused the current situation in Russia? There was profound disillusionment after 1991. Under Yeltsin, Russians saw lawlessness, the war in the Caucasus, criminal privatization and schemes, and colossal social stratification. But the people also supported Yeltsin as a democrat. The people also took to the streets and braved tanks. After all, nobody expected that there could be people in Russia who would discard the old system. This was followed by disillusionment, and today there is a conflict between what people are doing every day and where the ruling elite is steering the country. Every day the people are creating a new life, while the Russian corporate power is leading the country along ‘its path,’ which is creating a major collision between society and the people in power. If Ukraine is to avoid similar disillusionment, it must safeguard its civil society, so that it doesn’t end up like this: ‘We brought you to power and now see you around. Now we are going home, and you can do what you like.’ All kinds of governments have the same scenario. If the people do not control those who are in power, no matter how good they may be in the beginning, they will necessarily abuse their power. Now the question is what civic mechanisms will be controlling the new power.”
“What mechanisms would you recommend?”
“I’m not the one to tell you, because you just fought for this in Independence Square. You have to decide for yourselves how acceptable one mechanism or another is for you. Speaking of Russia, we must make an economic and legal assessment, say, of all the criminal privatization that has taken place to date, and approve a general decision to turn the page once and for all: either recognize all owners of this property or revoke all criminal privatizations without exception. Personally, I support a solution whereby they would be recognized as owners and required to pay compensation. But this must be done in a cohesive manner, across the board. It is essential to separate business and government.”
“Do you think something along the lines of the Ukrainian scenario may soon happen in Russia?”
“Not very soon, but sooner or later it will happen. It will be a complex, lengthy, and difficult process in Russia because there are many historical aspects, if you will, connected with political philosophy. Of course, Russia has democratic forces to undertake a large-scale struggle for their rights. But this takes time, because Russia is now in a period of reaction. But it is difficult to make forecasts; after all, even a year ago nobody would have believed that something like this could happen in Ukraine.
“But you have never experienced a ten-year war in the Caucasus or the tragic events of 1993, when tanks fired on parliament. You don’t have that much oil and natural gas, which means that you have significantly fewer opportunities for corruption. Even though you have corruption, it’s not on the Russian scale. You have managed to hold onto independent journalists who haven’t lost their human dignity. Luckily, they have never earned as much as journalists do in Russia. And Ukraine’s economy is not built solely on raw materials. Finally, the large number of civic organizations in Ukraine has played its role. Thus, over the past years you have moved along a different path from Russia. That’s why a civic society has matured in Ukraine and has spoken out. The question is whether it will be able to endure, act, and control the new power, making sure that it is transparent, observing the laws and the constitution. I would like Ukraine not to lose its chance and continue its positive development. Only then will the recent events in Ukraine become not only a precedent, but a whole new historical direction.”
