—

“Along with happiness, in the exact same way and in perfectly equal proportion, man also needs unhappiness,” Dostoyevsky once said. “When trouble comes, don’t shrink from it,” the [Russian] proverb teaches. But are there any positive effects of the crisis that has seized Russia in the run up to 2009? Boris Nemtsov, Yevgeny Gontmakher, Garry Kasparov, Yevgeny Yasin, Nikita Belykh, and others respond.

Boris Nemtsov, board member of the Solidarity movement:

One point is welcome to everyone: gasoline prices have started to fall. Even though they are falling tenuously for now, they should fall to around 15 rubles [per liter] – and everything still lies ahead. Another good point for everyone is that prices for housing and land have started falling: this is also nice, although few have the money [to buy].

Another good thing is that new people have started coming into the Solidarity movement. Seven young twenty-somethings walked in to the political advisory council at the [Solidarity] conference. The youth understand that the country is headed the wrong way. I consider this a fantastically good moment – not only Roman Dobrokhotov, not only Ilya Yashin, not only Yulia Malysheva, but many other young people from the regions were with us. [Youth] in the country are defining their stances. In my opinion, this is the major positive result of the crisis. It is impossible, after all, to remain in a constant state of oil and gas delirium. The faster we sober up, the better it will be for Russia.

Yevgeny Gontmakher, chair of the Center for Social Politics at the Economics Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences:

A crisis is always a chance to make sense of what has happened, and glean some sort of lessons. For all the past years, we accumulated problems and didn’t solve them. Only a crisis, perhaps, can push us to finally solve these problems, although the situation isn’t the most favorable for this at the moment. But nonetheless, there are positives in this sense.

What positive points can I see for myself personally? I regard life with great interest. I am curious as to what will happen with the country in these new, unorthodox conditions. I want to hope that everything will end well, and that we come out of this crisis in a civilized manner as a democratic country with a market-driven economy. As a country open to the world.

Nikita Belykh, appointed governor of the Kirov oblast:

I will probably not be very original, but will still say that the crisis, despite all of its drastic consequences, the tightening of belts and so forth- is a time of possibilities, a time of rising personal effectiveness and competitiveness. I think that within the frame of the crisis, a new generation of entrepreneurs and businesses will emerge, which will be able to take a dignified role not only in the Russian but in the global economy. [They will succeed] because they will prove their competitive ability in such severe conditions. This also applies to the political system.

From this perspective, I accepted the proposal [to become governor of the Kirov oblast]. I believe that if I can do something positive for the oblast, it will demonstrate my personal competitive edge and at the same time underscore that liberals can effectively administer the regions. I hope very much that from within one region, I will be able to show that we are not simply in a position to speak, criticize, point out flaws, but also to engage in substantive action.

Yevgeny Yasin, Research Director at the Higher School of Economics:

For myself personally, I do not see any positive moments. The only good I see for the country is that the crisis could somehow affect those stagnant developments that have formed in our economy and society. They are connected, first of all, with high oil prices, which paralyze any kind of changes whatsoever in the domestic social structure. Secondly, [they are connected] with the authoritarian rule which has grown from this oil-based economy. This is a fairly difficult, painful adaptation, but it is essential to make our society and economy more healthy, so that they are oriented to work, risk and progress.

Maria Gaidar, politician:

I do not see any positive points, neither for myself nor the country. The restructuring taking place in the commanding elite comes at too high a price. We could somehow sober up without it. Without people being laid off, without falling industrial production. It is a tough time, what good is there? It is a tough, difficult time for everyone: for my friends who are losing their jobs; for the people who ran their business, their small or mid-sized, honest market-based business, and who now have colossal problems; for editorial offices, who are laying off journalists. If housing prices fall sharply – this will be good, but nothing else good can happen. There are no pluses in this. Including political ones.

Dmitry Oreshkin, head of the Merkator research group:

I am feeling a certain satisfaction as an expect, because all of what we long predicted is being realized. Unfortunately, this looks fairly nasty, and will get even nastier. Of course, the personal feelings of an expert have no significance at a time when the situation is becoming worse.

As for the good in this year, the society is apparently starting to recognize itself as separate from the government. The state tries to contrive and invent something, but the people understand that they cannot wait for some benefit from the state, and act independently. This is the number one point, because whatever they are saying at the top, people are acting in their own interests. For instance, rubles are being exchanged for foreign currency, businesses are transferring money abroad– this is a rational policy, but a personal policy, not a government one. This kind of individual behavior naturally leads a person away from the government.

At the end of the 80s, a serious public protest only started when cigarettes ran out in the stalls. People had become accustomed to the fact that there was no food. It was normal that there was never [food in the stores]. Now, since a new class of people formed who are aware of their interests and who are trying somehow defend these interests, the threshold for protest is lower. Which means that things are unlikely to go so far as the Soviet example. People already understand that they cannot expect anything good from the authorities. We are promised that everything will be in order, and we understand perfectly that everything will not be in order, and solve our own problems. As result, this governmental monster ends up sort of isolated from reality. This is very dangerous, but unfortunately, is inescapable with the model of governance built by [Vladimir] Putin. This is precisely why all the unpleasant predictions are justified, regrettably.

For me personally, a time of freedom has come, and I in no way depend on the government. I have cut all contacts with the state institutions and feel like an independent person.

Garry Kasparov, leader of the United Civil Front:

A crisis is the kind of thing where it’s hard to find any positive points, because it affects everyone. Maybe someone will cash in on it, but I do not belong to that group of people. And if we speak about the political and economic situation, then in Russia, as in America, China and Europe, the crisis is revealing problems in the existing authorities, their mistakes, miscalculations, and willingness, or lack of willingness, to find adequate solutions together with the public.

For Russia, in my opinion, the crisis tallies up the Putin epoch, and demonstrates that the Putinist economic and political models are exhausted. This supports our fight, because many are starting to understand that our warnings and estimations weren’t just conjectures, but were based on a true assessment of the state of affairs.

A crisis is always fraught with risk and possibility. The one who withstands the crisis – in their personal life, in politics, in the economy, on the chess board – comes out stronger, and hence with a better outlook. We need to build plans for the future, understanding that the crisis will not spare anyone.

“This is of professional interest to me,” Belykh told the Ekho Moskvy radio station. “I think that an area like Kirov Region needs efficient management and administration in difficult economic conditions. I think that I can be of use to Kirov Region in this capacity.”

Belykh, who once led the Union of Right Forces (SPS) party, will most likely cut professional ties with other opposition groups. As governor, he said he will remain independent of any political party.

In recent weeks, the politician had been working with a new group, titled “Solidarity,” which was formed to speak out against changes to the Russian constitution.

“I don’t think I will be able to take part in the movement,” Belykh told RIA Novosti after his appointment was made public.

Belykh stepped down from SPS this year, as the party faced increasing financial troubles. Since then, the group was liquidated, then merged with two other parties into a new Kremlin-backed project called Right Cause, which has been called a “marionette” by critics. Belykh has been accused of doing little to stop the integration, but has spoken against it publicly.

Other Russian opposition figures had mixed responses to the appointment.

Garry Kasparov, who heads the United Civil Front and has worked closely with Belykh in the Solidarity movement, told the Kommersant newspaper that he was aware of negotiations between Belykh and the Kremlin.

“We had an agreement with Belykh that political relations were one thing and personal another,” Kasparov said. “We had an agreement that should he accept any such offer, it would put an end to our political contacts.”

“Everyone makes his on choices,” he continued. “If he entertains any doubts concerning what we’ve been doing, then he is welcome to choose the Kirov governorship.”

Boris Nemtsov, a former Deputy Prime Minister who also worked with SPS, told Ekho Moskvy radio that Belykh “has made his choice.”

“Undoubtedly, this is his decision, and he himself determines his fate. Personally for me, cooperation with the authorities is unacceptable.”

“[Belykh] believes that this is an administrative job.” Nemtsov said. “A governor’s job is a political job, all representatives of authorities shoulder responsibility for everything that is done in Moscow, all the more so in the conditions of a rigid chain of power.”

Maria Gaidar, another former SPS leader, was harsher in her criticism, saying that Belykh had “sold out.” Belykh’s acceptance of the appointment would indicate that the process was connected with the Right Cause project, she said Monday.

Vadim Prokhorov, Belykh’s lawyer, defended the politician’s decision as a step in the right direction. The benefit, he told Kommersant, was that one Russian region could now organize opposition meetings, “without the fear that the conference hall or whatever was leased for the purpose will be closed down at the last possible moment for alleged repairs.”

The event was attended by opposition leaders and Kremlin critics including Garry Kasparov, Boris Nemtsov, Ilya Yashin and economist Vladimir Milov.

Kasparov, who heads the United Civil Front, said the conference was “small, but a victory,” and asked participants to analyze the mistakes made by Russian democrats over the past 20 years. In the 1990s, he said, democrats “succumbed to the general euphoria, which then led to the current catastrophic situation.” The major purpose of the new movement, Kasparov said, was to recreate an alternative political space.

“The authorities are afraid,” he said, “when anyone steps out of the frame of the system they have formed. In the imitation of a political space created by the Kremlin, there is no left, no right, no liberals, no nationalists.”

During his presentation, liberal politician Boris Nemtsov countered those skeptical about the new unified movement. “We were told: ‘you will all bicker, you all want to be the leader,’” he said. “But we drew lessons from our mistakes. We will not have leaders, we will have collective leadership.”

Nemtsov said the main goal of the democratic movement was to give the Russian public the right to choose their leaders once again. The Kremlin, he said, was trying to seize and hold power indefinitely. “One needs to understand that all attempts to change the Constitution today are attempts to make our country into something resembling Turkmenistan,” he said.

The new movement will break from past attempts at uniting democratic forces, and will not have a single leader. Former Union of Right Forces chair Nikita Belykh explained that the movement would be decentralized, and would have “working branches” in dozens of Russia’s regions. Belykh said that a political party could eventually emerge from the movement, but that such a step could only come far in the future.

The founding congress of the new movement will take place on December 13th. Representatives from around 40 Russian regions are expected to attend, and will vote on a final name for the movement and formally announce its formation.

—

Read about attempts to interfere with the conference (Rus)
Watch video from the conference (Rus)