Boris Nemtsov, a former deputy prime minister and now co-leader of the People’s Freedom Party (Parnas), used Monday’s unprecedented meeting to read Medvedev a list of resolutions made at a series of massive anti-government protests that have swept through Moscow in the past few months. The resolutions call for various reforms to Russia’s political system.

The oppositionist also gave Medvedev a list of 37 political prisoners and asked for them to be pardoned, particularly noting Taisiya Osipova, Sergei Mokhnatkin, Mikhail Khodorkovsky and Platon Lebedev.

Perhaps surprisingly, Medvedev indicated that he was at least somewhat aware of Osipova’s case.

“If anybody is pardoned, then I’ll consider the meeting with Medvedev not to have been in vain,” Nemtsov said afterwards.

Throughout the meeting, he along with Left Front leader Sergei Udaltsov and Parnas co-leader Vladimir Ryzhkov stressed the importance of free and fair parliamentary and presidential elections.

The oppositionists also made it clear that they were not looking to foment revolution in Russia. In their estimation, Russia has already had more than its fair share of revolutions, but the current government itself is provoking a revolutionary mood within Russian society because of its insistence in remaining in power.

When Nemtsov asked Medvedev to introduce an amendment banning one person from holding presidential office in Russia more than two times, the president answered that he had previously considered this and still may before the end of his term.

Besides Nemtsov, Udaltsov, and Ryzhkov, the meeting was also attended by Konstantin Babkin of the Party of Action, Russian All-National Union representative Sergei Baburin, For Our Homeland co-leader Mikhail Lermontov, Green Party leader Anatoly Panfilov, National Women’s Party leader Galina Khavraeva, and several others prominent oppositionists.

The event, organized by the unregistered People’s Freedom Party (Parnas), was attended by about 1500 people, including representatives of the opposition groups Solidarity, the United Civil Front, the Other Russia party, the Left Front, the Russian People’s Democratic Union, and numerous other civil and political organizations.

Speakers included Parnas leaders Vladimir Ryzhkov, Boris Nemtsov and Mikhail Kasyanov, Other Russia party leader Eduard Limonov, Moscow United Civil Front leader Lolita Tsariya and Solidarity activists Ilya Yashin and Anastasia Rybachenko, as well as rap musician Dino MC.

Speaking as the actual MC, Vladimir Ryzhkov said the rally marked the beginning of a national campaign: “We have five weeks until the elections, and in that time we must achieve some results. We have two tasks. The first is to not give a single vote to United Russia, and the second is to catch anyone falsifying [electoral results].”

According to Ryzhkov, the leading party’s real ratings are much lower than they would like people to think, with the actual figure hovering below 40 percent approval.

In his turn, Eduard Limonov put the blame for the current situation on the Russian intelligentsia. He called on famous writers such as Victor Pelevin, Vladimir Sorokin, and Valentin Rasputin to come out and join the oppositionists in protests on the December 4 election day.

Despite disagreements within the opposition as to what mode of action to take on election day (options include voting against every candidate, voting for candidates from any party other than United Russia or staging a boycott), all speakers present agreed that the most important thing was to stand together against United Russia.

The four leaders of the People’s Freedom Party (known as “Parnas”) – Vladimir Milov, Mikhail Kasyanov, Vladimir Ryzhkov, and Boris Nemtsov – were joined by nearly two thousand demonstrators calling for free and fair elections and an end for the ruling elite.

Without being registered by the Justice Ministry, political parties are unable to appear on the ballot in Russian elections. The official reason for Parnas’s rejection was violations in document preparation; specifically, that several deceased persons were on the list of party members. However, Parnas leaders insist that the rejection was thoroughly politically motivated.

Parnas leaders will decide at a party congress on July 2 whether they plan to file suit against the Justice Ministry.

Party leaders Mikhail Kasyanov, Vladimir Milov, Vladimir Ryzhkov and Boris Nemtsov said it was necessary to hold a large-scale protest to unite opposition forces to fight against the current regime and to undertake a radical change of course. Forces independent from the ruling authorities, they said, could possibly be united by one slogan: “Not one vote to the Party of Swindlers and Thieves, the Front of Swindlers and Thieves, or to the leader of the Swindlers and Thieves or their acolytes,” referring to the ruling United Russia party and its leader, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin.

“Now it’s clear to everyone that the elections are going to be illegitimate, since independent parties are not taking part in them and the “Party of Swindlers and Thieves” and their acolytes are taking part,” said Nemtsov.

According to Milov, there’s a need to “switch to concrete forms of activity that will bring concrete results.” He also noted that although the party won’t be able to participate in State Duma elections this October, it may have time to forward a candidate for the presidential election in March 2012.

“The parliamentary elections are going to be a farce. One could assume the same about the presidential election. There’s no point in participating in a face,” Nemtsov argued.

Commenting on the Justice Ministry’s decision to deny the party registration, Kasyanov stated that he considers the party to be legitimate and fully formed, regardless of the government’s attempts to hinder its growth and the pressure it exerted on party branches in Russia’s regions. Milov also touched on the fact that recent polls give the People’s Freedom Party 9 percent of the overall vote in Moscow – above the 7 percent minimum needed to hold seats in the State Duma.

Kasyanov went on to call the denial “illegal,” as it contradicts Russia’s international agreements – in particular, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which contains a definitive list of singular reasons a government may deny registration to a political party: to prevent threats to national security, to prevent mass rioting, to prevent threats to the health of its citizens, and to defend human rights and freedoms.

Ryzhkov noted that the official reason given by the Justice Ministry as to why the party was denied registration – that the names of 13 deceased persons were on the list of party members – is moot considering that the 46,133 remaining names are still enough to register the party.

Moreover, the party has received word that government officials have been forcing some party members to write letters alleging that they were included in the party without their consent.

The United States and European Union have both expressed disappointment in the Russian government for turning down the party’s registration application.

The four party leaders said they “don’t see the point” in appealing the registration denial in court, but won’t make a final decision until the party conference on July 4.

Vladimir Ryzhkov of the People’s Freedom Party said Biden was interested in Russian media censorship and the problems faced by opposition parties in registering to participate in elections.

Ryzhkov and fellow oppositionists Boris Nemtsov and Garry Kasparov told the vice president that sanctions should be imposed against Russian civil servants who have grossly violated human rights, including the people responsible for the death of Hermitage Capital Management lawyer Sergei Magnitsky and those involved in the prosecution of jailed oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky.

Other oppositionists at the meeting included Yabloko party leader Grigory Yavlinsky, Right Cause leader Leonid Gozman, Communist Party representative Nina Ostanina and A Just Russia representative Oksana Dmitrieva.

In discussing Russia’s domestic political situation, Yavlinsky pointed out that the most fundamental difficulties have been known for a long time – in particular, the lack of important democratic procedures, Yabloko’s press service told Kasparov.ru.

Yavlinsky said it was of upmost importance to solve the problem of how to replace the system created back in the ’90s – a much more far-reaching and difficult task than simply making personnel changes in the government. Moreover, the problem could only be resolved by Russian society, which needs to rely on its own strength more than anything else in this long and difficult effort, he said.

Biden also met with Russian human rights activists at an earlier meeting.

Memorial human rights center head Oleg Orlov told RIA Novosti that “questions about human rights and democratic development in Russia were seriously raised at the meeting.” Prominent rights activists Lev Ponomarev and Lyudmila Alexeyeva, he said, spoke about human rights abuses in Russia’s jails and the problems surrounding the organization of elections in the country.

Civil Assistance committee representative Svetlana Gannushkina “raised the topic of migration, which is a problem for both of our countries, and also talked about the commission represented by [US presidential assistant Michael] McFaul and [Kremlin ideologist Vladislav] Surkov,” Orlov said, referring to the US-Russia Bilateral Presidential Commission.

The group also discussed the importance of observing human rights in the midst of the war on terrorism. “I spoke about human rights violations in the war on terrorism by both of our countries… Biden agreed with all of this,” Orlov went on.

An important signal for the rights advocates, he said, was when Biden said that advancing democracy, observing human rights and organizing free and fair elections were important to the US in regards to Russia’s chances of joining the World Trade Organization.

“[Biden] said that for Russia to enter the WTO, [the US] Congress would have to vote to annul the Jackson-Vanik amendment,” Orlov said. “Congress’s vote is only going to be positive if Russia advances fair elections and the establishment of democracy.”

The vice president also met with Yevgeniya Chirikova, leader of the Movement in Defense of the Khimki Forest. Chirikov explained the problems with the construction of the planned Moscow-St. Petersburg highway, which would cut through the forest, and Biden promised to raise the issue in talks with Prime Minister Vladimir Putin. He also awarded Chirikova with the prestigious International Women of Courage Award, which the US State Department says “recognizes women around the globe who have shown exceptional courage and leadership in advocating for women’s rights and empowerment, often at great personal risk.”

In contrast, Russia’s “non-systemic” opposition consists of an enormous number of political movements, organizations, and coalitions that have either been denied registration and are thus unable to participate in elections, or who don’t bother trying since they know they won’t be allowed to obtain it. Despite representing an extremely wide variety of viewpoints, what all of these groups have in common is that they are true alternatives to the current ruling regime.

In September, a group of four prominent opposition leaders announced the formation of a new coalitional party called “For Russia Without Tyranny or Corruption.” Coalition leaders said they intend to attempt to register the party and participate in upcoming parliamentary and presidential elections. Their party, though coalitional, would not include as wide a variety of opposition viewpoints as, for example, the Other Russia.

One large question that remains about the future of the new coalition is whether or not Solidarity – one of the most prominent non-systemic opposition movements in Russia today – will join it. In this recent op-ed, United Civil Front leader and Solidarity co-leader Garry Kasparov explains why doing so could easily create more problems than it would solve.

A Political Mess: It’s not yet time to create an ideologically narrow coalition
By Garry Kasparov
October 8, 2010
Kasparov.ru

The news about the creation of a new liberal coalition has evoked an extremely positive, if not enthusiastic, response from supporters of the liberal political wing of our country. Liberal-minded journalists are describing its prospects in the most opalescent tones. And there’s a perfectly rational explanation for such euphoria.

The idea of a union of democratic forces is a panacea for all the troubles and misfortunes that our country encounters, which are not new and trace back from the time of the endless history of the unification of the SPS [Union of Right Forces – ed.] and Yabloko. Naturally, as control of the regime was tightened under Putin, discussions about unifying the opposition gained strength. And the common argument that asks how you could trust people to run the country who can’t even agree amongst themselves is as popular as ever among both supporters of the opposition and its opponents. For some reason, most of these discussions refer to the liberal opposition, although discord among the left and national-patriotic opposition forces is no less serious.

The desire of people who generally take no part in politics to speak out with dissatisfaction about the current state of affairs by simply dropping a ballot into a ballot box is perfectly clear. However, the elimination of the choice to vote “against everyone” forces the voter to search for an alternative that’s acceptable to him from the vegetarian political menu proposed by the Kremlin. Therefore, there are periodically public demands for the Russian political kitchen to come up with new ingredients. And the Kremlin chefs, reliable as ever, continue to keep their not particularly demanding clientele on a Lenten fast.

Not long ago, the New Times magazine published an article about the pre-electoral situation in Venezuela. The entire pathos of the article consisted of the idea that the country’s opposition committed a grave error several years ago by boycotting the elections, but now they’ve come to their senses and intend to participate – a type of reproach of Russian oppositionists. But all of this ignores the fact that the opposition in Venezuela is not banned, is officially registered, and can participate in elections, and in Russia, it can’t. As a matter of fact, the apparent success of the opposition in those elections relied on the unification of the most varied political forces, which set aside their differences on social and economic issues for the sake of creating a united anti-Chavez front.

In our Russian reality, playing on the feelings of people who are striving to unite to confront the regime is leading to the creation of a dangerous mythology that enables not the weakening, but, on the contrary, the strengthening of the government.

These concepts become mixed up when, in discussing the current coalition of these four well-known democratic politicians, many liberal-minded people breathe a sigh of relief – this time it’s without Limonov or the leftists. They forget that the idea of various political forces taking cooperative action against the regime, which the United Civil Front proposed be the fundamental activity of the Other Russia, has already become mainstream and no longer surprises anyone. Today, cooperation between coalitions in protests is the main key to the successes of large opposition rallies. In Kaliningrad, the largest such event of the past several years was held under banners of all the colors of the ideological spectrum. It is also worth noting that the leadership of the Communist party – the main party of the systemic opposition – tries with all its might to prevent the efforts of various ideological groups in organizing protests from coming together.

The question of to what extend this kind of cooperation can extend to larger political projects – such as presidential elections – remains, like before, unanswered. It is obvious that breaking apart the regime, or at least forcing it to consider people’s opinions, is only possible by uniting the widest possible ideological spectrum. Alexei Kondaurov and Andrei Piontkovsky recently wrote an excellent article on this point. But unfortunately, many people don’t realize that, for the time being, many basic issues could be resolved if completely different political forces came together. There are examples of successfully realized projects like this in the histories of countries that have stood in opposition to authoritarian and totalitarian regimes. It suffices to remember Chile at the end of the ’80s, when there was unification all across the political spectrum in order to achieve victory in the referendum and bring free elections back to the country. Democratic Russia in 1990-91 was just as wide a coalition, albeit lacking such strikingly outspoken political groups.

In conditions where independent organizations are factually banned from participating in elections, a purely ideological union – even one including some competitors, but ones that are from one part of the spectrum of groups – is a thing in itself.

It was already clear in 2007 that official participation in political life in Russia was only possible with the Kremlin’s consent, and only with the fulfillment of corresponding conditions – taking the oath of fealty. The failure to register [former State Duma Deputy Vladimir] Ryzhkov and [former Russian Prime Minister Mikhail] Kasyanov’s party clearly defined the direction that political life in Russia develops. It’s important to note that this was not a matter of extremist organizations, but of people who themselves came from within the current government. Despite how critical these people are, only in the inflamed imaginations of Kremlin propagandists could they be referred to as radicals or extremists. Therefore, the numerous failures of [National Bolshevik leader Eduard] Limonov’s party are not even worth discussing. The recent attempt to register the Russian United Workers Front, effortlessly rejected by the Justice Ministry, also shows that the Kremlin has not allowed any changes to occur. But projects like this that create unions, which have recently been created among liberals, leftists, and the national-patriots, are undoubtedly a positive force.

From a historical perspective, these sorts of unions could become the nucleus of a future political system. And in this sense, the emergence of Solidarity in 2008 was a gigantic step forward, because, for the first time, a liberal-minded organization that had no connections to the Kremlin was allowed to be formed. The role of such organizations, both right and left, could most of all come down to developing policy positions for the future, working with citizens of the country, educating, constantly applying pressure on the government, and holding street rallies – that is to say, the role is of a tactical nature, not a strategic one. For today’s opposition, which is deprived of the opportunity to assert influence through the mass media and thus fully participate in political life, the possibilities for strategic planning are extremely limited.

All the euphoria surrounding the ongoing process of creating this coalition has the quality of being distracted from reality.

The task of forming a political party seems at least strange, since its fate is probably clear to everyone. An opposition organization cannot obtain any kind of registration under current conditions. When they are denied registration and everything becomes clear to everyone, the discussions that will be repeated like mantras will be reminiscent of the folktale of the white bull, endlessly walking in circles. Or an unreasonably drawn-out speech before a skeptical audience (whether abroad or at home) that needs to hear yet another explanation of the antidemocratic essence of the current regime.

Maybe some members of the coalition are hoping for a drastic change in the situation and the emergence of the “Medvedev majority,” where this structure has a place. But nobody talks to us about this openly. What they say is that, once again, we have to take the path of collecting signatures and submitting documents to the Justice Ministry. Thus, regardless of the pointlessness of this procedure, they are trying to convince us to once again play by the existing rules. If this idea is doomed, then it is entirely unclear what we are proving and to whom. And if somebody thinks that registration is possible, then I’d like to hear where such optimism came from.

A question: what is considered to be a change in the situation? That the Kremlin suddenly considers it necessary to put a liberal force in its pocket, or is, after all, going forward with legislative liberalization? A change in the situation does not signify mercy on the part of the Kremlin, but its consent to change the rules. And that is a fundamental difference. The situation is going to change when the country operates under normal laws, and not when they let somebody [register – ed.] and not somebody else. There is also a purely practical question.

A petition, if it’s not just something to show off – which people who want to register usually resort to – is a distraction of the organizers’ energy.

After [Solidarity co-founder Boris] Nemtsov signed the agreement, Solidarity began to participate in coalition projects, and the main, if not only project of the coalition is to create a party structure. In accordance with the regulations put in place by the Justice Ministry, the founding congress of the new party should happen in December. This means that Solidarity will drag out practically in full force from the congress on December 11 to the congress on December 14. At the same time, the decision hasn’t been made within Solidarity to transform the movement into a party. Respected members of the organization such as [Vladimir] Bukovsky and Piontkovsky are categorically against it. Many of those who did not speak out against such a transformation have always insisted that the formation of plans for a party should not involve the necessary collection of signatures. Solidarity’s planned congress should resolve these issues, and it’s obvious that if the decision is made to launch plans for a party, it won’t be required for those who don’t plan on joining the party structure. Solidarity’s format as a social movement will be preserved. That position remains unchanged.

But today’s story with the coalition, which began long before the congress, puts our organization in a strange position. This kind of divided organization strikes me as extremely dangerous. The idea of creating a party through a coalition seemed to me from the very beginning as hopeless and a threat to the existence of Solidarity as the main opposition force in the liberal wing. It’s interesting that another idea – the advancement of a single candidate for president from among the liberal forces – had no problem being absorbed into party rhetoric.

Although, it is precisely this idea that has a practical basis. It is obvious that it is the president who holds power in the country, and not the parliament – which, as we know, is not a place for discussion. It is also obvious that a candidate from the non-systemic opposition will not obtain registration. But this kind of idea is more understandable, and opens an opportunity to negotiate with different opposition ideological associations, in order to take in a larger number of people. I’ll return again to the article by Kondaurov and Piontkovsky: They propose holding a general democratic congress and have a good terminological description of how “general democratic” today does not indicate ideological consistency, but the attitude towards procedures of choosing government. Therefore, people other than those with liberal ideological views would be able to take part in such a congress.

Recognizing that the future of Solidarity as an independent organization is at stake, I in no way want to oppose those in the makeup of the coalition who plan to create a party. But, that said, I have no desire to become a part of this project in the form that it is being presented to us. Right now it is extremely important to continue cooperating with all opposition forces in a political field that is independent from the Kremlin. This is the position that the United Civil Front will continue to adhere to.

Translation by theotherrussia.org.

The coalition includes a number of formerly high-ranking politicians who have since joined the Russian opposition, including former Prime Minister Mikhail Kasyanov, former Deputy Prime Minister Boris Nemtsov, former Energy Minister Vladimir Milov, and former longtime State Duma Deputy Vladimir Ryzhkov.

The agreement signed by coalition members states that their goal is to prepare to participate in upcoming parliamentary and presidential elections. Specifically, they plan to choose a single candidate from amongst their ranks to run for president in 2012. Who precisely this is going to be will be decided at a national session of the coalition, members say.

Over the course of the coming year, the coalition plan to collect the 45 thousand signatures necessary to federally register a political party. Without this registration, the party would be unable to participate in any regional or national elections.

Boris Nemtsov said he doesn’t doubt that the required number of signatures will be collected, as “there’s a demand in the regions for a new party.” At the same time, judging by previous experience, the coalition isn’t excluding the possibility that problems hindering registration could arise nevertheless.

“In that case, we’ll go out and stand up for the 13th article of the constitution, which guarantees citizens the right to create a party,” said Nemtsov. “And there’s a 13th date in every month,” he added, referencing the protest movement in defense of the 31st article of the constitution, which is held on the 31st of every month with that date.

Members of the coalition stressed that the creation of For Russia without Tyranny of Corruption was something they were forced to do. Each of the four will remain the heads of separate opposition organizations, as they were before. “We joined together to overcome the barriers [to participating in elections] that come from unjust laws,” said Kasyanov. “But we have to respect even unjust laws.”

A small scandal broke out when the state-owned news agency RIA Novosti suddenly refused to allow the oppositionists to use the agency’s premises to hold Thursday’s press conference. While the agency originally agreed on Tuesday to lend out the space, they unexpectedly cancelled the conference an hour and a half before its scheduled time, citing “technical reasons.”

The oppositionists said the sudden cancellation was politically motivated.

Reporters at Gazeta.ru attempted to contact RIA Novosti to learn precisely what “technical reasons” means, but a press representative from the agency said she didn’t have that information. Editor-in-Chief Svetlana Mironyuk is out of town on a business trip, and press center manager Vladimir Aleksandrov was not reachable for comment.

In the end, opposition leaders invited journalists gathered for the event to Solidarity’s headquarters for the press conference.

Refusing to lend out space to hold meetings of the Russian opposition is a “systematic” problem, said United Civil Front Executive Director Denis Bilunov, “for example, in 2007.” At that time, the main victim of a variety of “technical mishaps” was the Other Russia coalition. For its first conference, organizers had to resort to “renting out the premises from precisely a western firm; we found a hotel that was of western ownership,” Bilunov said. Only then was the issue of being denied space resolved – for the moment. As to why opposition leaders have met with the same kind of problems once again, Bilunov remarked: “Clearly, election time is coming up, and the tendency is returning.”

Aleksandr Averin, member of the executive committee of the coalition, said on Tuesday that a founding congress would be held for the party on July 10. There, participants will adopt a charter and party program, he said. The coalition is confident that enough members can be recruited in the months leading up to the October elections to reach the minimum necessary for the official federal registration required for parties that wish to participate in Russian elections.

Other Russia cofounder and head of the banned National Bolshevik Party, Eduard Limonov, will head the organizational committee, Averin added.

“We are going to demand the abolition of registration for political parties, and also participation in elections for all those who wish to,” Limonov said. He called the electoral campaign the Other Russia’s “second front,” the first being the “Strategy 31” rallies, held routinely in defense of the constitutional right to free assembly.

Limonov added that he expects the government to do everything possible to keep the opposition party out of the October elections.

A variety of Russian opposition groups have recently begun making renewed attempts to create officially registered political parties. The opposition movement Solidarity, lead in part by former Deputy Prime Minister Boris Nemtsov, announced in May that it would be creating its own party to operate side-by-side with the movement. The groups Democratic Choice and the National Patriots have also made similar decisions in the past few months.

The requirement for the federal registration of political parties is widely criticized by Russian opposition groups as a tool used by the government to keep political competition out of the electoral system. Altogether seven parties are officially registered and allowed to participate in elections: the Kremlin-backed United Russia party, the Communist Party, the Liberal Democratic Party, Patriots of Russia, Yabloko, A Just Russia, and Right Cause. This is down from 15 parties in 2008, 19 in 2006, and 35 earlier in 2006. The number decreased following changes in federal registration procedures over the course of those years.

While some opposition parties, such as three Bolshevik-related parties, are banned outright in Russia, many are simply never able to register. Andrei Savelyov, leader of the unregistered Great Russia, told the newspaper Kommersant that his own party has no such chance. That said, he hopes that “the government will come to its senses and allow citizens to exercise political freedoms.”

Vladimir Ryzhkov, representative of the unregistered Republican Party, expressed similar doubts. “Our government, and most of all the president and prime minister, grossly trample on the constitution and deprive a significant part of the political forces and society of the opportunity to participate in elections,” he told Kommersant. “In these conditions, it is the task of the opposition to explain to the population that this is not an election, but a farce.”

Dmitri Badovsky, Deputy Director of the Institute of Social Systems, agreed that it was unlikely that unregistered parties would have any success in either the registration process or, theoretically, the actual elections. “For the survival of the political arena, the Kremlin will enable a sharp activation of the small parties that are already registered, most of all Right Cause,” he explained.

Topics of discussion included the new trial against jailed Yukos oil company bosses Mikhail Khodorkovsky and Platon Lebedev, and the US missile defense system.

During his talk, Garry Kasparov presented Obama with a list of opposition figures who have been persecuted and killed recently, as well as a list of prisoners serving politically-motivated sentences in Russia.  (Download Kasparov’s full statement in PDF format here.)

“The US president is prepared to establish relations, not just between the White House and the Kremlin, but between the American people and the Russian people,” Kasparov said at a press-conference after the meeting.

“In my address, I said that the situation with human rights has become worse since Dmitri Medvedev came to power,” Kasparov went on.  “I turned over a brief list of the Russian opposition figures who have been arrested, assaulted or killed in recent years.”

Boris Nemtsov, who jointly leads the Solidarity democratic movement with Kasparov, gave Obama materials on Russian corruption during the meeting, while attorney Yelena Lukyanova presented a list of Russian judges facing persecution for upholding the law.

Vladimir Ryzhkov, an independent politician and former head of the Russian Republican party, told journalists that the meeting was “absolutely open.”

“The subject of the second case against Khodorkovsky and Lebedev was raised,” Ryzhkov said, going on to name other topics of dicussions like “journalists and freedom of speech, the subject of political prisoners in Russia, beatings and arrests during opposition meetings.”

The fact that the meeting took place at all was also significant, Ryzhkov said.

“The last US president who met not only with authorities, but with the opposition was Bill Clinton.”

Nemtsov named the key players in the new organization: the SPS, the Yabloko party, Mikhail Kasyanov’s People’s Democratic Union, the United Civil Front with leader Garry Kasparov, as well as Vladimir Ryzhkov, an independent politician. Lev Ponomarev, head of the For Human Rights NGO, told Interfax that he may also join the movement, and that he is currently engaged in consultations and negotiations.

“It’s too early to speak of any details,” Ponomarev said. “But I can say that it will be a liberal democratic movement with regional branches.”

Lyudmila Alekseyeva, head of the Moscow-Helsinki Group and another veteran of Russia’s Human Rights movement is not planning to take part. The executive director of the United Civil Front confirmed that party’s participation in negotiations.

On December 10th, 2007, Kasparov and Ryzhkov issued a joint statement where they revealed the idea for a new, broad-based and democratic opposition political party. At the time, Kasparov noted that since the Yabloko and SPS brands aren’t working, the question isn’t about uniting these parties, but about forming a new one.